From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: PV equation
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:38:29 GMT
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

> In article <ZXe5TB3w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.o
> > gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
> 
> >> Just another note on that "scientific" equation from "Dianetics":
> >> 
> >> 		      PV=I*D^x
> >> 
> >>       where:
> >> 	 PV = potential value of an individual or group
> >> 	 I  = intelligence (presumably IQ)
> >> 	 D  = the "Dynamic".  This is a number between 1 and 4
> >> 	      indicating where the individual are within 4 "dynamics".
> >> 	 x  = the magnitude on which the person is surviving on the
> >> 	      dynamic, it is a number between 1 and 10
> >> 
> >> Thanks to Bill Hardman, we now know how to apply it (if we're not too
> >> fussy about things that pesky mathematicans care about, like units).
> >> His instructions are quite simple, viz:
> >> 
> >> >>> Insert the known factors and use standard algebra.
> >> 
> > Two years ago, a 5 year old in South Africa was found
> > to posess the highest IQ in the world.  Some 200+ or something to
> > that effect, as published in the Los Angeles Times.  Since he could
> > not read or write, his effects on his first dynamic would be less
> > than 33% (or 3 for an x value).  He was the effect of his family's
> > actions, putting him in the 33% and below level.  He was in no way
> > involved with his tribes decisions, putting him at 0% on the third
> > dynamic, so D would be 2.  By comparison, B would be a moron
> > compared to this child, but using the equation, you can see that B's
> > PV is substantially higher.
> >
> > It isn't hard to see that if there is more control over a
> > dynamic, there is greater potential value in the individual.  A
> > genius sitting in a room, failing to interact with himself, others,
> > his community, or mankind is worthless.
> 
> Well, I was under the impression that this equation was supposed to
> express the "POTENTIAL VALUE" of an individual or a group, and knowing
> how perilous it is to read past a misunderstood word I had carefully
> looked up the word "potential" in a good dictionary.  It told me
> that:
> 
>     1. po.ten.tial \p*-'ten-ch*l\ \-'tench-(*-)l{e-}\ aj existing
>        in possibility : capable of development into actuality
>     2. potential n : something that can develop or become actual
> 
> etc.
> 
> However, when reading your two specific examples, I cannot understand
> how they relate to the standard meaning of the word "potential".
> 
> Presumably, the 5 year child with a 200+ IQ in a tribal setting would
> not stay 5 years forever?  And with time, isn't it likely that he
> would be able to use his intelligence to aquire literacy skills (if
> those were important skills in his environment) or other relevant
> skills.  As his skills increased, his AV ("actual value" -- if we
> could agree on a metric for that -- perhaps his position in the tribal
> hierarchy?) would increase, but surely the POTENTIAL VALUE should
> remain constant -- or you and I have a very different understanding of
> what is meant by the word "potential".

Except for the fact that you have failed to take into account the
variable "D", and it's "x" factor.

> The same the genious sitting in the room.  It looks like you think
> that the POTENTIAL VALUE of that person would increase if he or she
> walked out of the room and started interacting -- but his potential
> must have been there all the time, that potential just didn't develop
> before he decided to gou out and use it?  I can understand that the
> you might argue that the ACTUAL VALUE of a person may be perceived as
> increasing if that person is interacting with his or her environement
> in a postive way -- but I cannot see how POTENTIAL VALUE of any
> specific person can change over time.

The above statement was not viewer scientifically Gisle.  If he
walked out of the room, and started interacting, wouldn't values in
the equation change?

> So, Bill, this look's messier than ever.  Before you presented your
> two examples I thought that it at least it was pretty unabigious what
> PV was supposed to express (i.e.  "potential value" and the upper
> bound of the "actual value" the person or organization may reach
> during his/her/its lifetime.  Your examples has effectively eradicated
> that interpretation of PV -- so we're back to really basics: Trying to
> figure out what the symbol "PV" is supposed to mean.

Of course you recall that this measures PV in an un-abberated
individual, correct?

Bill Hardman


------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]
                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
                        *A Secret Cult*
If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology