Talk:Oxford Capacity Analysis

message: So I’ve been trying to clean up this article. I took this death out because it leaps out of nowhere. And it seems more like a claim against the abuses of Church of Scientology than of the test itself? Or am I missing something? 69.181.199.238 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Norwegian death

message: Who owns the copyright in the test? I know the CoS/RTC claims it, but I understand it was highly disputed. We need more history - David Gerard 19:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a 1955 copyright by Julia M. Lewis for a test manual: . --Marc Kupper|talk 21:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: I've read through the OCA, and I've taken a whole slew of both personality tests (MMPI being one of the better ones) and IQ tests (Raven tests seem to be quite good for normalizing out cultural and verbal bias), and, having never done a scored OCA, I find it absolutely jaw-dropping that an OCA would even *attempt* to rank IQ. Can we get a source for the phrase "listing your supposed IQ", because the OCA questions don't have *anything* *whatsoever* to do with IQ, or "g". For example, question 3: Browse a train schedule? Well, a person with low g, low IQ, might not realize that memorizing such things might help them in the future, a person with a moderately normal IQ might memorize this info, and a person with even an *higher* IQ could rapidly glance at the schedule, and never ever look at it again, because rather than learn the *times* of a train/route, they have learned the calculations to create the times of a train/route. Same thing with a dictionary. Low g/IQ people generally don't use them, medium and normal g/IQ people memorize them, high g/IQ people just ignore and/or skip them, and learn the rules of the language(s) in use. Can we get some cites on both (a) whether or not the OCA actually gives a (lol) IQ result, as well as (b) any cites on how somebody could claim that such messed-up, irrational, questions, could even produce such a result? Ronabop 08:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I find it absolutely jaw-dropping that an OCA would even *attempt* to rank IQ" Ronabop.  You are correct. The OCA itself doesn't measure the IQ, however the IQ results come from an additional test called the "Novis Mental Ability Test".  This test is often given along with the OCA (its a short 30 minute test) and its results are often added to the the OCA results page.  This probably needs to be clarified in the article.  Vivaldi (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the package deal offered by the Church of Scientology Orange County. Interesting because I thought the PPA was just the rebranded OCA from MasterTech (aka WISE). I believe that it's Novis as in Homo Novis, since the Church of Spiritual Technology seems to own the copyrights to the test forms at least.  AndroidCat 14:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well, my result sheet has three checkbox-lookalikes which are labelled "IQ". And I did only do the OCA, not any other test. --Drahflow (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: IQ silliness

message: Apparently The "package deal" link above requires to allow the instalation of an additional java application! This is not usual. Beware!
206.108.168.141 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  package deal 

message: I do not believe that Chris Owen's self-published written works should be used as the sole source of informaton in an encyclopedia article about anyone or anything other than himself per the guidelines of Reliable Sources and the policies of WP:V.  I believe we should remove any claims sourced to Chris Owens from the article.  Chris is not a notable person, nor a recognized professional journalist or professional researcher.  While I admire Chris for his work and I personally respect his research.  I do not believe that it meets the requirements for wikipedia.  I would like to see others opinions about this. Vivaldi (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than the external link, where is Chris referenced? AndroidCat 18:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date of Vivaldi's comment. The piece was referenced as a source in an earlier version of the article, but not in the current version. -- ChrisO 21:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Owen's study of OCA 

message: Can we perhaps stop using the  templates?  There are a number of reasons not to use them, but I think the biggest and most immediately relevant is that it looks to certain people as if these quotes are being emphasized to push a POV, and it starts a whole arms race of abusing formatting for POV reasons. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of templates? 

message: According to personal experience, they are indeed not invariably negative. I only applied once so far, but most scores were - according to the graph - "acceptable in all conditions" and only a single one was "needing urgend attention", a point on which, surprisingly, the guy talking to me didn't dwell long. Could they have changed the evaluation procedure in the meantime? Hence the word "invariably" should not be used in the article, I propose "most of the time". --Drahflow (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not accept this argument.  Invariably negative, to me, indicates that the bulk of test results have a negative result or aspect, rather than the bulk of categories within the test are negative.  As it has been discovered by numerous organisations, this is indeed the case, and even Drahflow has to accept that his test falls into this category.  Invariably at least one of the results is negative, and Scientology is always recommended to "correct" this.  I argue that the wording should stand. Whisperwolf (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Dissagree with you on that Whisperwolf.  If we examine the word "invariably" it is "not varying."  That is, "always."  It is not a good word to be using in this case Tim.thelion (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Invariably Negative" 

message: "This time the investigation was done for a prosecutor attacking a local branch of Narconon, the church's drug rehab offshoot" - given the potentially-contentious subject matter in question here, the wording "a prosecutor attacking a local branch of..." seems kind of suspect, for reasons I think should be obvious. Attacking has some very specific connotations, especially given that the Church of Scientology's longstanding beliefs about being under attack from various governmental authorities are pretty well established. Even if it was not deliberate, it seems to make the research conducted by Gudmund Smith out to be a targeted hit piece, potentially reducing its apparent credibility. At the same time, from my experiences trying to edit anything other than individual ethnic slurs thrown in the middle of sentences for no reason, I'm a little hesitant to actually change anything myself for fear of receiving five hundred words on why I'm wrong by noon. So I thought I'd just throw this up on the talk page and see if anyone else agrees with my reading of this. Autotechnica (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Language in the Criticism and Controversy Section

message: There is a section titled "Self-Presentation at Recruitment: The "Oxford Capacity Analysis"." in the paper:
* 
   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  18:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another source