From: achorn@gradient.cis.upenn.edu (Brett Achorn)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Experiment to verify ARC theory
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:05:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct13.203931.3648@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>Here is an experiment that you can do to independently veryify one
>of the most basic principles of Scientology.  I really hoped that you
>would be more interested in using the data to improve conditions,
>but for those who demand proof...
>
>This is about the ARC triangle.  You can and should read up about this
>before you try this experiment.  The data about ARC is found in several
>Scientology books, but Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought is probably
>the one you can find easiest.  Get it from the library if you don't want to
>buy it.
>
>No matter what I say, some of you will refuse to look at the book, so
>allow me to give a basic explantion of the theory that I propose we test.
>
>ARC is a word that we use in Scientology to represent understanding.
>
>The A stands for affinity.  By affinity we mean the degree of likingness
>between people.  It also means the willingness to occupy the same
>space.  In other words, the higher the affinity the smaller the distance
>between the people.

   Sentence three doesn't follow from sentence two.  In fact, sentence
three there is really novel unless you have an entirely new definition
of distance you haven't told me about, because otherwise some people
I know should be on Mars, while others in another state should be right
next to me.
   Lest you consider me too literal, "distance" is in the same context
as "same space", unless you want to redefine space as well.
   And heaven forbid should someone feel affinity for a dead relative.

>
>R is Reality.  What we are talking about is the degree of agreement
>reached between people.

  While it's undoubtedly impressive to use Reality, why not just say
agreement?  Two people may agree that the Cubs will win the World Series,
but that really has no bearing on "reality".

>
>C is Communication.   More specifically its willingness to communicate.

   Lovely recursive definition.
   So communication is defined as willingness to do itself.
   And, in effect, "Communication" may not involve any communication,
just willingness.
   Sound almost like affinity...

>
>We put them together like this.....
>
>   R
>  / \
> A---C
> 
>The reason they are put together is because they are sort of connected.
>If you raise affinity (like someone more), R and C will rise also (they
>will agree with you more and be more willing to communicate)
>
>Also if you disagree with someone (lower R) they will like you less
>(Affinity is lowered) and will be less willing to communicate (C goes down.)
>
>Make a few more examples of your own so that you have the idea and it
>is yours before we actually test the theory.
>
 [deleted text on experiment]

  Evidently Scientology has never heard of the value of honest criticism. 
Amazingly enough, it is possible to value someone for their willingness
to lower your mutual "Reality".  Yes, it is possible to like people who
have differing world views.  In fact, some open minded people actually
seek out individuals of differing views to debate and discuss issues,
with possibly no hope of convincing the other, but simply enjoying the
intellectual exercise.

  One also wonders about the situation of a con artist, who lies 
to increase Affinity and Communication.  Can one say that he is also
increasing "Reality"?  It seems that the definition leaves something
to be desired.

  Of course, the best refutation has alreay been posted, of the individual
who always agrees.  Apparently, Scientology highly values such a person.

  As I've mentioned in previous postings, models and theories are not
the same thing.  Sure, ARC might be a cute exercise in improving relations,
but it certainly isn't true for all cases, and in fact is so poorly 
defined, it really contains no significant meaning.

  Besides, as a finaly refutation, I'm immensely interested in communicating
my disagreement.

>Later...
>John Holifield
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Humor is the ultimate weapon,              achorn@gradient.cis.upenn.edu
   and the government proposes disarmarment.  
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:47:24 GMT
Subject: Please Help
Organization: HP Western Response Center