From: decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology and intelligence
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:05:22 GMT
Organization: Make a Wish Foundation
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

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.

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.

But mostly, Registrars use the OCA to get people into Scientology by
"demonstrating flaws" in their personalities, then the HGC (Hubbard
Guidance Center; essentially, Department of Processing) uses them
to "prove" either that processing has improved the individual's personality
(if the scores go up) or that the person has become aware of previously
suppressed shortcomings (if the scores go down).

: > 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?

: I would have to agree that John's example was a flawed test, but no
: more flawed then your test of the "Contact Assist".
: 
: I won't invalidate John's claim of a 46 point IQ claim, because it
: may have happened, and he could have experienced this increase.  As
: I stated earlier, testing constantly with the same test is not
: standard Church practice, and violates the reason for the IQ testing
: in the first place.

The Dianetics "personality test" is always the same everywhere it is
distributed, so the "retaking the same test" failure also occurs in this
respect.  There is NO written policy in Scientology that any other test
form should be used (either for this test or for IQ tests).

: > >>> 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... :)

..

: - the author     L. Ron Hubbard
: - the title      Science Of Survival
: - the publisher  Bridge Publications
: U.S. Library of Congress No. 51-5566
: Card Index No. RC461.H824
: Classified Under:
:   Medicine
:   Psychotherapy
:   Dianetics

There is no reason to "make fun" of Gisle for a correct surmise, unless of
course the purpose is to make Gisle wrong.

Assumption is a useful reasoning skill and in this case Gisle has applied it
to get the correct result.  Any theory spouted as part of Scientology,
whether it actually came originally from LRH or not, *as a matter
of policy*, must be said to have come from LRH.  Nobody else is allowed
to be the Source of anything technical in Scientology, purely for
egotistical reasons.

Dave Decot
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology