Hubbard Talks about Math, Physics, Neural Science.

Gadfly

Crusader
IQ and intelligence have very little correlation to other traits such as kindness, decency, morality or compassion.

As I see it, IQ, as a measure of anything, is largely over-rated.
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate with other good things, but IQ doesn't even correlate all that well with intelligence. IQ is a reasonably accurate measure of how well you do on IQ tests.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
One thing one can rely on as being near his inner truth is or are his Admissions (not sure if that is what they are called), that he wrote just before he created Dianetics. And what a lot of evil and dangerous crazy stuff that is!

But those affirmations are a group of wishes, things that he wanted to be true in real life, and he believed that if he drilled them into his "sub-conscious" then they would have a better chance of becoming so. That is very different to believing that such items are an accurate assessment of things right now.

Paul
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
My cousin’s method of posthumous IQ calculation. <snip>

Thank you very much for describing this, as you said you would.

Hubbard said in 1976 that he had written or taped over 25,000,000 words on Dianetics and Scientology, quite apart from his other stuff. So 25 words would be 1 millionth, 250 words 1/100,000th, and so on.

How many declarative statements did Hubbard make, do you think? Even if he only averaged one every 250 words, that is still 100,000 of them. Did the author's thesis include some way of sampling the work to make the chosen items representative?

It would be interesting to see the original. There must be more to it than what you have described, as even back then the holes in the described-so-far methodology would have been immense. :)

Paul
 

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate with other good things, but IQ doesn't even correlate all that well with intelligence. IQ is a reasonably accurate measure of how well you do on IQ tests.

Yup, some of the smartest folks I know have average IQs, its not so much how much your brain can figure out rather than what you do with the intelligence you have, how to use common sense.

:shrug:
 
1. Hubbard quote: "Truth = Agreement" ...

Dox please. :)

At best I'd say that statement represents an extreme over-simplification, and thereby a clear misrepresentation, of what hubbard actually did say about the nature of agreement. If you wish to present an argument either make it accurately or not at all.


Mark A. Baker
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Originally Posted by Jump
1. Hubbard quote: "Truth = Agreement" ...

Dox please. :)

At best I'd say that statement represents an extreme over-simplification, and thereby a clear misrepresentation, of what hubbard actually did say about the nature of agreement. If you wish to present an argument either make it accurately or not at all.

Mark A. Baker

Dox?

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

Your "dox" are the ten million plus words that Hubbard wrote/spoke about "agreement".

Retrain, Baker, retrain.

Get a clue.
 
Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate with other good things, but IQ doesn't even correlate all that well with intelligence. IQ is a reasonably accurate measure of how well you do on IQ tests.

Actually there is one other thing that iq represents reasonably well. It does a pretty decent job of illustrating the distribution of measurable mental performance characteristics in a broad population. IQ as a measure of individual intelligence is over-rated and easily misunderstood, but for demonstrating performance tendencies among a broad population it is useful.

The pattern it serves to illustrate is that of the "normal" or "gaussian distribution". That in itself is has significance.


Mark A. Baker
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
Shoe size also has a normal distribution. Most things will, given a large enough population. That's the central limit theorem.

Even on a large scale level, IQ is deeply suspect. IQ tests are standardized so that the average score is 100, but they have to be re-standardized every few years. Extensive studies of how the average scores change over time, when the same tests are used without re-standardization, show that IQ is in fact rising, all over the planet. The rate varies, but it's substantial. Not as good as the one point per hour of Scientology auditing, of course, but a few points per decade. That adds up to about one standard deviation every two generations, and implies that our grandparents were a generation of morons.

The steady increase is called the Flynn effect, after the guy who first pointed it out. True believers in psychometrics don't like to talk about it much, though one I've read implied that they took it seriously as a real intelligence gain. Everybody else including me takes it as knock-down proof that IQ is seriously biased by cultural factors, such as education, and even how familiar people are with taking IQ tests. This makes comparisons of IQ distributions between different social groups virtually meaningless.
 
Last edited:
Show size also has a normal distribution. Most things will, given a large enough population. That's the central limit theorem.
...

Absolutely true as are your other remarks about iq. The interesting thing remains however that such characteristics of mental phenomena which can be measured nonetheless demonstrate the normal distribution. The fact is that the normal distribution implies definite characteristics about various qualities and the measurement thereof, and measures of intelligence are no exception.


Mark A. Baker
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
Thank you very much for describing this, as you said you would.

Hubbard said in 1976 that he had written or taped over 25,000,000 words on Dianetics and Scientology, quite apart from his other stuff. So 25 words would be 1 millionth, 250 words 1/100,000th, and so on.

How many declarative statements did Hubbard make, do you think? Even if he only averaged one every 250 words, that is still 100,000 of them. Did the author's thesis include some way of sampling the work to make the chosen items representative?

It would be interesting to see the original. There must be more to it than what you have described, as even back then the holes in the described-so-far methodology would have been immense. :)

Paul
No one said that ALL Hubbard statements should be examined. Following procedure was followed: 1. Approximately 1000 Hubbard statements were collected from his books and articles; there are no rules for the selection of this data except for the ones that I already stated. 2. A table of random numbers was used to select approximately 200 from the initial 1000 statements. 3. Calculation of Hubbard's IQ was based on these 200 statements.
Similar procedures are used to conduct surveys of public opinion with initial group of respondents being in the vicinity of 1000.
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
The method of going through Hubbard's writings and adding up correct and incorrect statements is useless for determining his IQ, I'm afraid.

Consider the case of somebody with quite a high IQ, who nonetheless doesn't know everything, but further nonetheless, likes to think they do. They write a lot of books full of nonsense statements about things they don't, despite their intelligence, understand.

There really are people like that. Too damn many, in fact. In a sense, indeed, they are dumb. But by this method, you'd estimate them to have a very low IQ. You'd be wrong.

On the other hand consider somebody who really isn't all that bright, but knows one or two simple things. They write an awful lot of obvious stuff about those things. Again, there really are too many people like that. Your method would count them as brilliant. They're not.
The selected Hubbard statements do not require high degree of knowledge of a subject. They are of general nature, the material that they cover requires no more than High School Diploma. The same is true for all IQ tests -- their questions do not require deep knowledge of the subjects covered.
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
I would like to address 2 topics:

1. Hubbard allegedly lied when he was making majority of his statements
2. Hubbard was trying to show everyone that he was smart, so he was making statements about things that he had no knowledge of, although he was not a retard.

1. There is a series of books where Hubbard said exactly what he meant, I guarantee that. These books are called The Management Series (The Series consist of HCOBs and Policy Letters). Why would he lie about this material? After all, this material is used to run CoS as a firm. Obviously, he wanted the Scientology enterprise to be successful.

How good The Management Series are? They are an amazing collection of Hubbard shit. Here is a link to the thread that I stared at OCMB:

http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=38448&p=407603&hilit=management+series#p407603

2. Was the author of The Managment Series an expert on economics and management? I do not know about Hubbard being an expert in this fields because he did not have college degrees. But I think that Hubbard studied these topics in depth because he wanted CoS to prosper. Because he could not comprehend the material that he studied, Hubbard came up with the management system that does not work (I wrote what should be done in order to make the Orgs solvent at the aforementioned thread). My suggestions are simple and do not require the knowledge of higher math, physics and chemistry.

In fact, the material presented in the books on economics and management is very simple and does not require a knowledge of higher math. (Economic modeling requires higher math, but it is an academic disciline that is not required to run a company).

Hubbard tried to understand the economics books because their material was very important to him and CoS. But, being a retard, he failed to comprehend basic material.
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
The selected Hubbard statements do not require high degree of knowledge of a subject. They are of general nature, the material that they cover requires no more than High School Diploma. The same is true for all IQ tests -- their questions do not require deep knowledge of the subjects covered.

This is not the point.

The first point is that IQ is not general knowledge. Testing people's knowledge of high-school-level factoids is not testing their IQ.

The second point is that, even ignoring the first issue of whether it's really knowledge rather than intelligence that you're measuring, your methodology confounds your target variable, intelligence, with a second variable, namely the inclination to make statements from ignorance. "Confounds A with B" means that your method doesn't adequately distinguish the effects of A from the effects of B, so your conclusions don't really say anything about A as opposed to B.

If you sit everybody down in front of the same test page, the second variable is controlled, because your subjects don't select the material. But if you instead sample people's own voluntary writings, your results will be hopelessly compromised by the uncontrolled variable of just how much crap they are inclined to write. Your method would make any BS artist come out as a moron, no matter how high their IQ was, and any diligent plodder come out as a genius, no matter how low their IQ was. This is a knock-down proof that what you are measuring is not IQ.

The problems I am describing are not minor quibbles, but a fatal flaws that render your results completely meaningless. Science is hard, I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
Hubbard's management tech worked very well, for him. He raked in a lot of money, without doing a day's honest work. His system wasn't very good for managing a normal business, but it was pretty good for managing a cult.

Cult management is pretty different from managing a real business, you know. A lot of its purposes are diametrically opposite to real business management's. Like, you don't want to recruit, recognize, and promote talented workers. You want to drive out anybody smart enough to see through the con. Building a lot of pointless crap into the system really helps with that. You want to reel in the foolish and vulnerable, and hook them well, to keep them on the treadmill, making you money, for as long as possible, as cheaply as possible. Hubbard did pretty well at that.

Maybe it's not the best possible cult management system. But it worked well enough. Calling Hubbard stupid for not working hard to make a better cult management system, when the system that he had ran well enough (for him) and didn't need any work, is kind of missing the point of cult management. Which is, money comes in, while boss does no work.
 
Following procedure was followed: 1. Approximately 1000 Hubbard statements were collected from his books and articles; there are no rules for the selection of this data except for the ones that I already stated. 2. A table of random numbers was used to select approximately 200 from the initial 1000 statements. 3. Calculation of Hubbard's IQ was based on these 200 statements.
Similar procedures are used to conduct surveys of public opinion with initial group of respondents being in the vicinity of 1000.
What I don't see is the value in random selection of 200 statements. Let us say you took 700 negative statements, and 300 positive statements, Then from them you selected your random 200. If you did that random sampling several times and averaged the results, you would find you had the same ratio as the original test sampling.

So, what is the point of the randomization step? It is a fudge factor that does not lead to accuracy of results.

What should then be the ideal ratio of positive to negative statements in your sample that would not peg the results at a particular IQ? How do you rule out bias by the person selecting the statements that are used to make up the 1000?

You are basing your IQ on a sample of 100 correct answers giving a 100 IQ and we can presume, if you found more that 100 correct in your sample of 200, there exists the possibility of an IQ rating of over 100. Is this rating system the same as is generally used in the testing community?

Now, you are arbitrarily taking statements and deciding which are true and which are not. In your example you stated engrams do not exist. An engram is a moment, or incident containing pain and unconsciousness. Saying that is wrong is an error on the evaluator's part. How then do you adjust for such errors? They would skew your results.

How do you deal with the "Unreliable Narrator" aspect of his writings? If your IQ test is solely based on right and wrong statements, how do you obtain accurate results from his writings, if he willingly ignores the "truth", since he doesn't consider it necessary to running a con?

How does a ratio of correct statements to incorrect statements equate to IQ? I feel you are omitting many factors in determining "actual" IQ.

Mimsey.
 
Last edited:

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hubbard's management tech worked very well, for him. He raked in a lot of money, without doing a day's honest work. His system wasn't very good for managing a normal business, but it was pretty good for managing a cult.

Cult management is pretty different from managing a real business, you know. A lot of its purposes are diametrically opposite to real business management's. Like, you don't want to recruit, recognize, and promote talented workers. You want to drive out anybody smart enough to see through the con. Building a lot of pointless crap into the system really helps with that. You want to reel in the foolish and vulnerable, and hook them well, to keep them on the treadmill, making you money, for as long as possible, as cheaply as possible. Hubbard did pretty well at that.

Maybe it's not the best possible cult management system. But it worked well enough. Calling Hubbard stupid for not working hard to make a better cult management system, when the system that he had ran well enough (for him) and didn't need any work, is kind of missing the point of cult management. Which is, money comes in, while boss does no work.

:thumbsup::yes:

As I, and others, have written about and is to be found and available to be read in the Links on my Shooting Stars Thread, El Ron's Organizational System is a massive and complex Monolithic Command and Control Organization structure somewhat akin to a Military Model, and some of his Management Series stuff, FEBC and Esto Off in particular, are bastardized versions of the US Military's operating model of, "The Sergeants make the Army and the General's use it" and continual state of "Battle Conditions". :coolwink:

Face:)
 
:thumbsup::yes:

As I, and others, have written about and is to be found and available to be read in the Links on my Shooting Stars Thread, El Ron's Organizational System is a massive and complex Monolithic Command and Control Organization structure somewhat akin to a Military Model, and some of his Management Series stuff, FEBC and Esto Off in particular, are bastardized versions of the US Military's operating model of, "The Sergeants make the Army and the General's use it" and continual state of "Battle Conditions". :coolwink:

Face:)

Yup. From what I recall of my dad's old military stuff, much of hubbard's admin material smacks of dod's wwii era administrative procedure. His later creation of the SO is readily seen to be structured as a pseudo-military command hierarchy with himself as CINC and with internal enforcement mechanisms in place throughout.


Mark A. Baker
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
Military organization is again different from normal businesses, because it's ultimately directed at the unusual goal of getting a lot of people to risk their very lives. Some features of military organizations are just stupid inefficiencies, but many are actually efficient for the military's unusual purposes.

My guess is that Scientology orgs are also administered with a certain method in the madness. Auditors seem to be managed reasonably sanely, from what I've heard, presumably because they have to be, since they are what keep the whole thing working. Registrars are also managed sanely, I gather — by the standards of high-pressure marketing. What does everybody else in an Org even do, really? As far as I can see, the rest of the staff are there to maintain the fiction that Scientology is an enormous Bridge to superhuman powers, and not just feeling good because somebody listened to you for a few hours.

That whole Bridge-building enterprise, it seems to me, is where the fraud and the con come in. That seems to be the stuff where the workers have no qualifications of any normal kind, because the work that they do is all fake, and so they are recruited en masse, trained in pointless charades, and paid dirt. It's the management of a Potemkin village, rather than the management of any real business.

Does this make sense, to anyone who actually knows how an Org runs?
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
The problems I am describing are not minor quibbles, but a fatal flaws that render your results completely meaningless. Science is hard, I'm afraid.
I did not say that IQ is used to test general intelligence, at least not in the tests approved by APA (American Psychiatric Association). They use IQ tests to to determine what kind of mental retardation a subject has.

IQ below 40 - severe mental retardation
Between 40 and 55 -- Moderate metal retardation
Between 55 and 70 -- Mild mental retardation
Between 70 and 80 -- A mental disability whose name I forgot (see the chart at the OCMB thread Clay Demos & Hubbard's Dementia).
Above 80 -- Normal development

Nothing on the APA chart says that the IQ is a measure of intelligence in general; it cannot be used to predict person's capabilities. But IQ measurements are very effective in determining person's mental deficiencies.

The ideas behind IQ measurements presented at this thread are NOT mine but they belong to APA psychologists and psychaitrists. You may disagree with their findings, but this is your personal opinion.
 
Top