From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: Scientology and intelligence
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:57:50 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <PqF3TB1w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:

> I never stated that independent research is rare.  Someone assumed
> that.  I stated that it isn't an entirely "routine activity", and
> gave instances as examples.

Ok.  I see little point in becoming bogged down in a discussion about
what is and what isn't "standard" or "routine" in research.  I say
independent verification of results is, you say it isn't.  Let's
leave it at that, and let the readers of this group make up their
own mind about which of us is most familiar with current research
practice.

I would like to back up a little, and get back to the original point
of dispute, which is the article where scientologist John Holifield
described how scientology training at increased his intelligence with
at least 46 IQ points. John presented his experience as an experiment
that could verify scientology as a hard science "for the benefit of
those of you who want something more measurable".  My evaluation was
that the data reported ny Mr. Holifield was worthless for two major
reasons.  1) All testing that showed that IQ-gain had taken place been
conducted by the same organization who had sold him the courses that
was supposed to increase his intelligence.  2) The procedures for
testing IQ, as reported by John Holifield, was non-standard and would
with a high degree of probability lead to an inflated score.

As for 1), I guess we just has to agree to disagree whether
independent testing in this sort of experiment has any merit or not.
I'll be happy to leave it at that.

You've already stated that you agree that the procedures used for the
IQ-testing in this particular experiment, as reported by John
Holifield himself, were "against standard Church practices".  Does
this mean that you also agree with me that repeated tests using the
same test is not the proper way to conduct IQ testing?  If so, would
you also accept that the 46 IQ point gain reported by John Holifield
is invalid for this reason alone?

The reason I'm asking you this, is that I'm somewhat puzzled by your
response.  You write:

> We are talking about spiritualism, and mental health, so let's not
> wander too far from the topic.  If independent testing is routine,
> which company validated the findings of the:
>
>   Catholic Church
>   Mormon Church
>   Buddism
>
> What was the research group responsible for the independent testing
> of the mental health practices like:
>
>   lobotomy
>   ECT
>   Transorbital Leukotomy
>   Freudian Analysis

Why do you write "let's not wander too far from the topic" and then
doing just that?  Because we are _not_ talking about spiritualism and
mental health.  Nor are we talking about assorted world religions or
various mental health practices.

We _are_ talking about the merits of a specific experiment where a guy
with an IQ slightly below average for college students (110) takes a
bunch of expensive courses which, he claims, results in his IQ rising
to "at least 156" (which would make him among the 1% most intelligent
people on the planet according to the statistics maintained by MENSA).

The only thing I am interesting in finding out is: DO THIS PARTICULAR
EXPERIMENT, AS REPORTED BY JOHN HOLIFIELD, HAS ANY MERIT?  I would
appreciate it very much if you, Bill Hardman, could address that
particular question (preferably by answering "yes" or "no").  I don't
think it particularly interesting to venture into a dicussion whether
Scientology is relatively better than "Buddhism" or "Trans- orbital
Leukotomy", or whatever it is you're trying to change the topic into.



>>> The source for this is published in Science of Survival.
>> I've ordered it through our library.  I'll report back when I've
>> read it.  I assume the author is LRH.
> Assuming again Gisle?  Now, Now... :)

I'm sorry, I know I shouldn't make wild assumptions like that.
Now, this what I should have said:

Our library cannot make an inter-library loan request without knowing
at least: 
   - the author
   - the title
and they really like to know the publisher, year and place of
publication as well.

Could you be so kind to provide me with enough publication data regarding
said book to make our librarian happy?  Thanks in advance.

PS: I am of course looking forward to your next attempt to explain
    the application of the PV equation, now that you've learnt about
    the role of units in standard algebra.  Or have you decided to
    to let that subject rest?

--
Meta-disclaimer: A society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
 
- gisle hannemyr  (Norsk Regnesentral)
  OSI:   C=no;PRMD=uninett;O=nr;S=Hannemyr;G=Gisle (X.400 SA format)
         gisle.hannemyr@nr.no                      (RFC-822  format)
  Inet:  gisle@ifi.uio.no
  UUCP:  ...!mcsun!ifi!gisle
------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology