From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology and intelligence
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:11:45 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <Bxu8Gy.IGs@cup.hp.com>, decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes:
> Bill Hardman (hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org) wrote:
> : > 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.
> : 
> : Fair enough.  Do you know why the church uses IQ, personality and
> : the Oxford Capacity Analysis?
> 
> I do.
> 
> First of all, "personality test" and "Oxford Capacity Analysis" are
> both names for the same thing.  The OCA has nothing to do with
> Oxford University, as if they approved of this mismash of ambiguous
> questions littered with British idioms and expressions from the 50's
> incomprehensible to Americans of the 90's.
>

    Dave, this is a very vague generalization.  After reading it over,
I can only find one or two questions that might seem ambiguous to someone.
Also, to say that the test is incomprehensible to Americans of the 90's
is just a tad foolish.  
 
> The Case Supervisor (C/S) uses the OCA and IQ score "data" to determine
> whether processing has been effective and to guess what action to take
> next on the preclear.
> 

    I'm not tech trained, but I think the C/S is more concerned with the
rest of the PC folder (meter reads etc..)  I don't know for sure, but that
is what I got from reading the C/S series.   If you have experience with
a case supervisor "guessing" what to do next, I'm not surprised that you
seem to be somewhat negative about Scn.  This shouldn't happen, and if 
you know where it has happened, please report it.  Keep Scientology Working!

    What you describe in the above paragraph seems to be more the hat
(hat:  a job, duty, or post in a Scientology org) of the Director of
Processing.  
> But mostly, Registrars use the OCA to get people into Scientology by
> "demonstrating flaws" in their personalities,

   I'm trained to do OCA evals.  They are used for registration purposes,
but the people I have done one on have always agreed with the test.  The
point I think you're missing is that the OCA shows what you think about
yourself, not what Scientology has to say about you.  

   I have never done an OCA evaluation on someone where they disagreed
with the test.  I've failed to register the new person many times, but
they were always appreciative of the test, and they feel like they learned
something about themself.  It helped them, and that's good enough for
me.

> 
> The Dianetics "personality test" is always the same everywhere it is
> distributed,

    True.

> so the "retaking the same test" failure also occurs in this
> respect. 

    Not true.  You misunderstand the purpose of the test.  There aren't
any right or wrong answers.  The test just measures how well the person
feels that he/she is doing in different areas of life.  Sure I guess you
could memorize the answers that gave the highest scores, but believe it 
or not, I can evaluate your test and tell if you did that, if you are
lying, etc...

> There is NO written policy in Scientology that any other test
> form should be used (either for this test or for IQ tests).
>

    Actually, the policy does exist.  I don't have a policy index handy,
but I can tell you basically how the testing occurs.  The OCA test is 
always the same, as you said.  This isn't a problem, because OCA tests 
aren't used to proove anything.  There are two versions of the IQ test.
The questions are similar on each test, but the versions are alternated
so that PCs don't memorize the answers.  Come to think of it, the reference
I'm thinking of isn't in Policy, its in Tech Bulletins.  

    I didn't intend for anyone to get the idea that the church uses the
same version of the test over and over.  When I said the church didn't
change the test, I just meant that they don't give the PC a hard test 
first, and then give him an easier version after processing so that he
would be tricked into believing that he had benefited.

    I guess that some of you just haven't understood that Scientology
doesn't tell someone that they have improved.  A Pre Clear has improved
whenever he feels in his own estimation that he has improved.  

    Dave, I'm surprised that you didn't know some of this.  Are you
still involved with Scn?  I would love to know why you seem to be 
against it.  If you have been wronged by Scn, then there are proper
ways to handle the situation.  Natter is not the right way to handle.
From reading what you have to say, I sincerely hope you get that BPC
handled and get moving on the bridge.  You're trained, so you can handle
it.  Most likely, you're better trained than the staff at whatever org
you're ARC broken with, so just handle the sit.  I'd really like to help
you work it out.  Gosh Dave, you and I know that everything in Scn
isn't sweetness and light.  Sometimes I get so mad at SMI I could just
scream and cry.  That doesn't mean that I can just go HE&R about it.
LRH wouldn't have done that, He would have confronted the situation and
made it go right.  You know the tech works, and I know you have a strong
purpose to help on the 3rd and 4th Dynamics or you wouldn't be trained.
All I'm asking of you, is to get the situation straight and handled.  
If something is wrong with Scn, you and I both know it shouldn't be that
way, so lets fix it!

    Dave, I don't know the whole story about why you feel the way you do,
but I'm willing to help you ANY way I can.  Call me collect.  (901)
756-6882.

ARC,
-John Holifield

ps.  Everyone is a Scientologist, some just haven't cognited yet!!!