ERRORS and Gaps of the Scientology Statistic System

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by erni, Apr 21, 2018.

View Users: View Users
  1. erni

    erni New Member

    I have posted this document before on A.R.S, and now I post it here.

    =======

    At the link below there is a big and very important document I wrote on
    free.it.religioni.scientology that deal with Scientology Statistic System
    (as described in the chapters 4 and 6 of the book INTRODUCTION TO
    SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS) in depth. It contains some graphs.
    ---
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/free.it.religioni.scientology/ciTUE6woKH8
    ---
    Anybody can copy o publish this work or a part of it, only if the author (me)
    is not omitted. Any possible modification must be clearly indicated as such.
    This document is very important to understand the various errors and gaps
    that are inside the Scientology Statistic System and to know why this system
    is UNRELIABLE.
    It should be known from every Scientologist or Indipendent Scientologist
    all over the world.
    The document is in Italian and I ask that somebody translate it in English
    (and possibly in other languages).
    I cannot do it because this translation may take many months (or one year)
    for me, ALSO because I do not know very well English.
    ================
    Anyway, here there are some important points of the document written briefly.

    GAP #1
    It is not specified how to establish, on a graph, the inclination of the line
    that shows the production of a week. It can be done only with sight or with a
    goniometer? The method is uncertain.

    GAP #2
    The Scientology book do not indicate the value of the angle of the lines
    that represent the five ethics conditions.
    I have misured such angles.

    GAP #3 (SERIOUS)
    Is not given the concept of AREA or SECTOR of statistic condition.
    A statistic condition has an area o sector that represents it.

    GAP #4
    Is not given the concept of EDGE OF A SECTOR of a statistic condition.
    Every sector of a statistic condition has two edges: the upper edge and the
    lower edge.

    GAP #5
    It is difficult or impossible determine from Scientology text both edges
    of every statistic condition.
    To know BOTH edges is necessary.

    GAP #6
    It is not specified in which place of the sectors, the lines given in the book representing the five conditions (Non Existence, Danger, Emergency, etc.) are
    situated.

    GAP #7
    It is not specified any method to determine the edges of the sectors of
    the statistic conditions.
    =======
    Now here it is a graph with all the Reference Lines (that represent the
    statistic conditions), the value of the angles, the borderlines
    between sectors, and the External Edges (edges that cannot be passed).
    See the italian documents for more details.
    =======

    [As the editor of ESMB cuts spaces between commas, etc. in the copy/past
    operation, the copy/past of the graph doesn't work.
    So, see the graph in the original post in A.R.S.
    You may see other graphs in the italian post linked above. ]

    =======
    Now it follows the errors contained in the Scientology procedure to determine
    the the values that represent a ghaph (ERROR #1 to #5).
    This procedure calculate:
    1. The lower value of a graph.
    2. The higer value of a graph.
    3. The value of each segment conteined in the y-axis, called "scale" in
    the Scientology text.

    ERROR #1
    It is situad in the step 1 of the Scientology procedure. It is based on a
    PERSONAL ESTIMATE, so it is imprecise.
    Different persons may give different values, and this may produce different
    values of scale.
    Different value of scale may produce different inclinations of the graph
    lines (except for horizontal lines).
    And different inclinations of lines may determine different assignations of
    condition for these lines.

    ERROR #2 and GAP #8
    In the step 1 of the 'correct example' of the Scientology procedure, the
    number of days to examine is imprecise.
    Are examinated the production values of the 'past 6 months'.
    But the period of time 'past 6 months' may vary at least from
    181 to 184 days.
    This may determine a number of production values to examinate not constant,
    depending from wich day of the year it starts the estimation.
    The ERROR is in the phrase 'past 6 months' where the number of days is
    imprecise.
    The GAP is that is not specified from which day of a week start to examine
    the 'past 6 months'.
    This may vary too the number of production values to examinate.
    So, the number of thursdays (days examinated in Scientology) of the
    'past 6 months' may vary from 25 to 27.
    But, as the Scientology procedure, any value examinated may determine the
    lower value of the graph.
    If the lower value of the graph change casually, it may change also casually
    the value of scale.
    And if it change the value of scale, the assignation of the condition may vary
    casually.

    ERROR #3
    In the step 1 of the 'correct example', the value determined is rounded off,
    probably to make the calculations easier.
    But a rounded off value is an altered value, that may alteres the value of
    the 'scala'.
    A changed scala may vary the inclination of the lines (except for the horizontal lines).
    And this may vary the assignation of the conditions.
    The rounding off must be eliminated.

    ERROR #4
    It is similar to error #1.
    The step 2 of the Scientology procedure is based on a PERSONAL ESTIMATE.
    So it has the same problem specified in ERROR #1.

    ERROR #5
    In the Scientology procedure, it is suggested to use "easy values" for the
    'scala' as <<5, 10, 25, 50, 100>>.
    This is a changing of the original value that may cause unknown changing
    of the inclination of the lines of the graph (except for the horizontal lines).
    And a changed inclinations may determine changed assignations of conditions for
    the lines.
    This change must not be done.

    ERROR #6
    There is a rule that says that when a line go out of upper side of the
    graph, it is needed to calculate again the value of the 'scala'.
    This can be correct in same cases ma it is wrong in others.
    It is wrong in the case of an external favourable factor but unusual,
    basically not due to the staff or persons that are producing.
    See italian document for more details.

    ERROR #7
    There is a rule that says, about the x-axis, 'try not to exceed 3 months'.
    The error is that it is allowed to vary the time period represented in the
    graph.
    As the Scientology procedure for the drawing the basic graph, this may
    vary casually the 'scale' and so it may vary casually the assignations
    of conditions of one or more lines.
    See italian document for more details.

    ERROR #8
    The error is that the Scientology Statistic System do not considers the
    changing of the working situation.
    For example, if after having calculated and drawed the initial basic
    graph, the number of persons in the staff increase to 5 to 10, why keep
    the upper and lower value of the graph the same? It is excepted different
    values.
    And different upper and lower values does it means to calculate again
    the value of 'scale'.
    But in Scientology this is not considered.

    ERROR #9
    The condition formulas are fixed and do not work gradually.
    One degree more or less on the line of the graph may determine, in
    some cases, the change of the assignement of the condition and so
    a different execution of a formula.
    Just 1 degree.
    This not gradual change of actions does not make sense.
    The solution is to rewrite the condition formulas in a way to
    work gradually according to the inclination of the line.

    ERROR #10
    The error is in one of the most important principles of the
    Scientology Statistic System:
    to determine the actions (the formula) to improve or keep high
    the production, it must be considered ONLY THE INCLINATION of the
    last line on the graph (excepted for the Power condition).
    The error is that this principle does not consider the USUAL
    PRODUCTION of a job.
    EXAMPLE:
    We have two staff members that hand out leaflets.
    One work with a wrong method and usually hand out 3000 leaflets
    per week.
    The other work with the correct method and usually hand out
    7000 leaflets per week.
    The working conditions are the same for them.
    If the persons with the wrong method hands out one week 2800 leaflets
    and the following week 3400, it may be assigned the condition of
    "Normal" or "Abundance" only because the line is rising.
    If the persons with the correct method hands out one week 7200 leaflets
    and the following week 6700, it may be assigned the condition of
    "Emergency" or lower only because the line is falling.
    So according to the Scientology Statistic System, the staff member
    that produce more is in the worst condition.
    This system does not make sense.
    The usual production of a job must be considered.

    erni.
     
  2. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

    Yes, professional people in economics and investment funds understand and use some of the points made in the above post.

    In CofS, staff performance stats are way overly simplistic.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2018
  3. erni

    erni New Member

    I have realized the image with the graph with all the Reference Lines (that represent the
    statistic conditions), the value of the angles, the borderlines
    between sectors, and the External Edges (edges that cannot be passed).

    See the italian documents for more details (5 big posts).

    Grafico - GIF.GIF
    In the original posts there are other graphs in character style.

    erni.
     
  4. F.Bullbait

    F.Bullbait Oh, a wise guy,eh?

    I don't know if anyone took 'stats' as anything more than a simple-minded attempt to gauge one sort of productivity or another of an individual. You were 'upstat' or 'downstat' and a flat rate of production was discouraged. Stats lacked the necessary rigor to be useful other than that.
     
  5. freethinker

    freethinker Crusader

    you went to a lot of work analyzing formulas that are severely flawed from the outset. Angles, Geometry, space relationships mean very little in the real world as regards changing states of existence. The factors are endless as to what can influence a rise, a level or a decrease. If a guy sells 10 cars one week and only two the next, do you think you can always point to an exact ethics situation that created the danger? I doubt it.

    let's say the guy drank himself silly every night. In the week he sold 10 cars he drank himself silly. In the week he sold 2, he drank himself silly. Other than that, he ate right, got to work ontime, wore clean clothes, used the same dialogue, lived with the same wife, kids weren't sick, no bad news in the mail or on TV, paid his bills, walked his dog, had good relations with employees and boss, paid his taxes, on and on yet he went into danger from an affluence. You will say he has some out ethics situation hidden somewhere and you will find it. Meanwhile, while you struggle with this for 3 days, 15 people in the valley decide to buy a new car and he sell them all to them. Whatever you pointed at at the time that occurred you will say that was it but can you really be sure it was because he stroked his cat against the fur that caused it?

    That's how ridiculous the conditions are. The whole time you work on them life changes anyway and changing life changed that condition, not the formula. This isn't to say that things aren't influenced, it just means you will never truly know what changed or what factor made the difference.
     

Share This Page