Hubbard Talks about Math, Physics, Neural Science.

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
The control group were asked to give their own statements about topics such as math, physics, etc. What they thought about Hubbard's ideas is irrelevant, so it does not matter at what time they lived.
All IQ tests, including the one that my cousin designed, are normalized in such way that the average score is 100. The standard deviations are different for these tests, it is impossible to normalize them in such way that they have standard deviation of 15. (standard deviation is non-normalizable).

How large was the control group? How was it chosen? How were the control group IQs determined, independently of your procedure? These are things that someone who understood statistics, let alone psychometrics, would normally have mentioned immediately, because they make all the difference between solid evidence and no evidence at all.

The time period is important because common opinions about things like the link between tobacco and lung diseases have changed. To believe as Hubbard did in his day was not uncommon, whereas today it would be unusual ignorance.

Standard deviation is trivially easy to normalize. Simply multiply the difference between your raw score and its mean by a constant factor. If your raw scores have a standard deviation of 30, for example, then you simply need to rescale all your results (relative to the mean) by a factor of two, so that a raw score of 160 on your test becomes 130. If you don't understand why this works, just do the arithmetic, on any sample you wish. It's not complicated. So I don't know where you got the idea that SD can't be normalized. I'm afraid I'm starting to suspect that you don't understand statistics very well, which would be a serious handicap in psychometric work.

Less trivial ways of normalizing a typical IQ test would include weighting the questions differentially, or choosing a different set of questions. Since lack of control over the questions is one of your method's basic flaws, though, you can't really do those things; but the rescaling will always work. However you normalize your test for standard deviation, it is important. If your standard deviation is not 15, you are not measuring IQ.
 
Last edited:

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
Approximately 5000 stuff members work inside Big Blue, as I was told when I joined Sea Org. Vast majority of the Orgs are insolvent. Here are the Orgs that are solvent, although they sometimes go on the rice-and-beans diet.

ASHO Day -- approximately 20 stuff members
ASHO Foundation -- 30
OT Org -- 100
Celebrity Center -- 50 (its location is outside Big Blue, but close enough).
Sales Org whose members sell Hubbard books, tapes, e-meters -- 50
The auditor Org (I forgot its name) -- 50

On Thursdays ASHO Day and ASHO Foundation were announcing the joint number of course completions, which was varying between 5 and 10. Not much activity there, I must say.

The Management Series, that are the basis of CoS management "science" is completely unworkable.

According to a Wikipedia article, CoS use $10 million to cover their lawsuits. In Los Angeles alone money spent on lawsuits would be $ 3 million, which is outflow of money.
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
By 'correlations' I assume you mean the problem of giving Hubbard multiple credit or penalty when he makes several statements that are really all just immediate consequences of one statement. But choosing a random sub-sample doesn't eliminate this problem. It only reduces it. You can still get some correlated statements into the mix just by chance. What you would really need to do to solve this problem would be to go over your whole sample and eliminate statements that follow logically from each other. Except that this is tantamount to assuming perfect reasoning on Hubbard's part, and testing only his factual knowledge, which is completely orthogonal to IQ testing.

I doubt there is really any good way to solve this problem, actually. It seems to be another fatal flaw in your method of letting the subject's own writing supply your questions.
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
I am well aware that Hubbard's management science sucks by all ordinary business management standards. That doesn't mean he was stupid, though. Not at all. It just means he wasn't trying to run an ordinary business. He was trying to run a cult. He succeeded quite well.

Your argument that Hubbard was retarded because his management tech runs his Orgs into the ground is like saying a con artist must be retarded because he sold the Brooklyn Bridge to a lot of people, but the Brooklyn Bridge was never his to sell. That doesn't show he was stupid. It wasn't that he thought he owned the Bridge, because he was too retarded to understand that he really didn't. No, see: he lied. He lied well enough to sell the Bridge several times. He must have been rather smart to do that.
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
Scientology franchises use correct management and marketing techniques, so they make plenty of money.

When I was moving my ass up the Bridge (I did not get too far) I noticed help wanted ads posted outside ASHO facilities: Class V Auditor -- $20 per hour; Class VIII Auditor -- $40 per hour (I do not remember the rates for other grades).

I met a franchise employee once, she was not a Scientologist, she was working for the marketing department.

Her franchise was not marketing Scientology as a religion, insted it was marketing Dianetics auditing as a form of psychotherapy. The franchise clients were not Scientologists, they were not taking Scientology or Dianetics courses (putting them on the Bridge is too expensive for the franchise because the turnaround is too slow - it takes too much time to complete a level).
Price of auditing varies depending on the geographic area, it depends on the prices set by psychoanalysts working in that area.

In New York City where I live, the Manhattan psychoanalysts charge thier clients $500 per hour. That franchise, if they were to establish a brach in Manhattan, would have charged $400 per hour in order to be competitive.
This is called correct management and marketing that has nothing to do with Hubbard's Management Series.
 
I. That would be Einstein. You and I and my cousin cannot use this method to determine Einstein's IQ because we lack knowledge of the topics required to fully understand his works. Hubbard was nothing of this sort, we all know enough to evaluate his statements. Besides, a lot of things that Einstein predicted require millions of years to verify, so we cannot judge all his statements at the present time .
But my point still stands - if you disallow parts of his writing because it is specialized, or beyond the studies of a HS student, you are skewing the results.

Which brings to mind whether or not, and to what extent, Hubbard did independent study on the subjects he wrote about. This was a big bone of contention with him. In Face's posts about Hubbard making the Power Of Source record, and in the Mission Earth series, and I also believe in various tapes, Hubbard rails against the need to have a degree in order to be a professional.

This hits the point of the con most exactly: He wanted to appear to be a professional on any of the given subjects that he was discoursing on. How much actual knowledge did he need to create that image? Basically, more than a HS graduate would have. He made a point - to evaluate something, you need a datum of comparable magnitude.

So I can not say I have done a lot of study in philosophy, so when he talks about philosophy, he is a datum of incomparable magnitude. I assume he knows what he is talking about. Thus the con works on me. When I read a review of All About Radiation on line when I was first declared, I was shocked. How could a writer pass himself off as knowledgeable when his work was full of so many errors? More bad news when I read about the fallacies of the Purif, and how it is quackery.

He does not stand up to evaluation by a professional on (possibly every) many of the subjects he discusses or presents himself as a pro. But, and this is an important BUT, the target audience is not the pro in these fields. It is someone like myself, of average intelligence, who is logical, gullible, willing to believe without taking the time to bone up to find out if he is BSing or not.

A writer would want what they wrote to appear believable. And so it is with Hubbard. And this is where your test falls apart - perhaps everything he wrote was full of errors because he didn't see the need for it to factual. It only had to sound factual. He only had to provide the nomenclature, drop in a few tidbits of truth here and there to be believed.

It gets back to the "Unreliable Narrator" - you can't test the IQ based on written works from an author who is knowingly not telling the truth. What you are testing is what he wrote, not him, the author. And thus your test fails to deliver accurate results.

Unreliable narrator. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

An unreliable narrator is a narrator, whether in literature, film, or theater, whose credibility has been seriously compromised.[1] The term was coined in 1961 by Wayne C. Booth in The Rhetoric of Fiction.[2] This narrative mode is one that can be developed by an author for a number of reasons, usually to deceive the reader or audience.[1] Unreliable narrators are usually first-person narrators, but third-person narrators can also be unreliable.

The nature of the narrator is sometimes immediately clear. For instance, a story may open with the narrator making a plainly false or delusional claim or admitting to being severely mentally ill, or the story itself may have a frame in which the narrator appears as a character, with clues to his or her unreliability. A more dramatic use of the device delays the revelation until near the story's end. This twist ending forces readers to reconsider their point of view and experience of the story. In some cases the narrator's unreliability is never fully revealed but only hinted at, leaving readers to wonder how much the narrator should be trusted and how the story should be interpreted.

How does your test eliminate this aspect of Hubbard's writing? My belief is: it can't.

Mimsey
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
How large was the control group? How was it chosen? How were the control group IQs determined, independently of your procedure? These are things that someone who understood statistics, let alone psychometrics, would normally have mentioned immediately, because they make all the difference between solid evidence and no evidence at all.

The time period is important because common opinions about things like the link between tobacco and lung diseases have changed. To believe as Hubbard did in his day was not uncommon, whereas today it would be unusual ignorance.

Standard deviation is trivially easy to normalize. Simply multiply the difference between your raw score and its mean by a constant factor. If your raw scores have a standard deviation of 30, for example, then you simply need to rescale all your results (relative to the mean) by a factor of two, so that a raw score of 160 on your test becomes 130. If you don't understand why this works, just do the arithmetic, on any sample you wish. It's not complicated. So I don't know where you got the idea that SD can't be normalized. I'm afraid I'm starting to suspect that you don't understand statistics very well, which would be a serious handicap in psychometric work.

Less trivial ways of normalizing a typical IQ test would include weighting the questions differentially, or choosing a different set of questions. Since lack of control over the questions is one of your method's basic flaws, though, you can't really do those things; but the rescaling will always work. However you normalize your test for standard deviation, it is important. If your standard deviation is not 15, you are not measuring IQ.
I do not know where you got the idea that the standard deviation of empirical data can be normalized the way you described it. Please, provide a reference describing your normalization procedure. Besides, what is the purpose of this normalization? Any statistician would tell you that your normalization is useless because it does not provide additional information.
A form of normalization is used in the tables of statistical data where standard deviation is normalized to 1, but this is not empirical data, it is theoretical data.
Finally you have raised valuable points when you asked about the size of the control group. Its size was 25, which is an average size of a group used in drug trials. Some would say that this size is not big enough to make valuable conclusions, but it is common practice to use the group sizes between 20 and 30 due to the limited financial resources.
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
By 'correlations' I assume you mean the problem of giving Hubbard multiple credit or penalty when he makes several statements that are really all just immediate consequences of one statement. But choosing a random sub-sample doesn't eliminate this problem. It only reduces it. You can still get some correlated statements into the mix just by chance. What you would really need to do to solve this problem would be to go over your whole sample and eliminate statements that follow logically from each other. Except that this is tantamount to assuming perfect reasoning on Hubbard's part, and testing only his factual knowledge, which is completely orthogonal to IQ testing.

I doubt there is really any good way to solve this problem, actually. It seems to be another fatal flaw in your method of letting the subject's own writing supply your questions.
Yes, the problem is reduced but not eliminated, as you said. But any kind of sampling reduces the bias without eliminating it. To eliminate the bais completely you need an infinite sample population, which is impossible to have.
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
I am well aware that Hubbard's management science sucks by all ordinary business management standards. That doesn't mean he was stupid, though. Not at all. It just means he wasn't trying to run an ordinary business. He was trying to run a cult. He succeeded quite well.

Your argument that Hubbard was retarded because his management tech runs his Orgs into the ground is like saying a con artist must be retarded because he sold the Brooklyn Bridge to a lot of people, but the Brooklyn Bridge was never his to sell. That doesn't show he was stupid. It wasn't that he thought he owned the Bridge, because he was too retarded to understand that he really didn't. No, see: he lied. He lied well enough to sell the Bridge several times. He must have been rather smart to do that.
Hubbard was retarded because he did not realize that his management system does not work. He should have hired professional economists to run his enterprise. Pastor Moon was smart enough to do that, but Hubbard was not.
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
But my point still stands - if you disallow parts of his writing because it is specialized, or beyond the studies of a HS student, you are skewing the results.

Which brings to mind whether or not, and to what extent, Hubbard did independent study on the subjects he wrote about. This was a big bone of contention with him. In Face's posts about Hubbard making the Power Of Source record, and in the Mission Earth series, and I also believe in various tapes, Hubbard rails against the need to have a degree in order to be a professional.

This hits the point of the con most exactly: He wanted to appear to be a professional on any of the given subjects that he was discoursing on. How much actual knowledge did he need to create that image? Basically, more than a HS graduate would have. He made a point - to evaluate something, you need a datum of comparable magnitude.

So I can not say I have done a lot of study in philosophy, so when he talks about philosophy, he is a datum of incomparable magnitude. I assume he knows what he is talking about. Thus the con works on me. When I read a review of All About Radiation on line when I was first declared, I was shocked. How could a writer pass himself off as knowledgeable when his work was full of so many errors? More bad news when I read about the fallacies of the Purif, and how it is quackery.

He does not stand up to evaluation by a professional on (possibly every) many of the subjects he discusses or presents himself as a pro. But, and this is an important BUT, the target audience is not the pro in these fields. It is someone like myself, of average intelligence, who is logical, gullible, willing to believe without taking the time to bone up to find out if he is BSing or not.

A writer would want what they wrote to appear believable. And so it is with Hubbard. And this is where your test falls apart - perhaps everything he wrote was full of errors because he didn't see the need for it to factual. It only had to sound factual. He only had to provide the nomenclature, drop in a few tidbits of truth here and there to be believed.

It gets back to the "Unreliable Narrator" - you can't test the IQ based on written works from an author who is knowingly not telling the truth. What you are testing is what he wrote, not him, the author. And thus your test fails to deliver accurate results.



How does your test eliminate this aspect of Hubbard's writing? My belief is: it can't.

Mimsey
The only Hubbard topic that requires knowledge beyond the high school diploma is his Management Series, at least this is how I see it. I might be wrong, though, so I am asking you to provide an example of his writings that requires an undergraduate degree at least.

Hubbard did not invent anything new, he just took an old idea of demonic possessions and turned it into the OT data. His ideas of 7 dymanics were borrowed from other sources along with the engram idea.

He wanted the others to see himself as an expert in many fields, and the Scientologists believed that he is a super-expert. But he also wanted to convince the real scientists that Dianetics works, which he failed to achieve. A lot of his works, including the Dianetics book, are intended for the outside world; in these books he did his best to present what he thought were "valuable ideas". But because of his mental deficiency his "valuable ideas" were garbage.

You could argue that nothing that Hubbard wrote was intended for the world outside Scientology, but I do not believe this was the case.
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
"An intelligence quotient, or IQ, is a score derived from one of several standardized tests designed to assess intelligence. The abbreviation "IQ" comes from the German term Intelligenz-Quotient, originally coined by psychologist William Stern. When modern IQ tests are devised, the mean (average) score within an age group is set to 100 and the standard deviation (SD) almost always to 15, although this was not always so historically. Thus, the intention is that approximately 95% of the population scores within two SDs of the mean, i.e. has an IQ between 70 and 130."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient


"Devised" does not mean "normalized". It is important to use correct terminology.
I did not ask my cousin how her test was devised.

====================

"IQ tests are ordinary scaled"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_measurement#Ordinal_scale

Ordinary scaling is not normalization, as the article shows.


IQ scores reflect an ordinal scale, in which all scores are only meaningful for comparison, rather than an interval scale, in which a given number of IQ "points" corresponds to a unit of intelligence.[3][4][5] Thus it is an error to write that an IQ of 160 is just as different from an IQ of 130 as an IQ of 100 is different from an IQ of 70"
 
Last edited:
Hi DLRH, You keep avoiding the point - how can your test be valid when the writer is disingenuous? You never answer it. Example: Hubbard wrote:
We of the Church believe

That all men of whatever race, color or creed were created with equal rights.

That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance.

That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives.

That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity.

That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense.

That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support their own organizations, churches and governments.

That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.

That all men have inalienable rights to the creation of their own kind...

( section removed to comply with fair use laws)
...To destroy the sanity of another.

To destroy or enslave another’s soul.

To destroy or reduce the survival of one’s companions or one’s group.


And we of the Church believe

That the spirit can be saved.

And that the spirit alone may save or heal the body.
While on the surface, this statement would seem to be true, how ever it contains disingenuous statements - see the lines in red. The church does the opposite of what this creed states. Examples abound of these.

There are many similar statements, such as the grade 0 EP compared to the policies of not talking to SP's, not talking case etc.

How does you method account for these? You enter the grey world of evaluating each statement for it's own veracity, and you skew the results.

Perhaps if you look at Hubbard like a fisherman, and his books are a net. The fish he is after is the Gullible Guppy. Why? Because they are undiscerning and will pay much money for what the believe in. He is not interested in Sharks that would steal his guppies, he is not interested in Critical Carps that denigrate his religion, and dissuade the Gullible Guppies from happily swimming in his net. So he writes his books with falsehoods in them. If the Guppies read the books and believe them despite these errors, he sells them the bridge, he hires them for peanuts to deliver the bridge, etc. If they spot the errors and call him a fraud, he attacks them and gets them to shut up. In other words, his books act as a sieve and sort out the public he wants from the public he doesn't want. Running a test on such writings will give you an inaccurate result.

To then say his IQ is low and he is retarded, without taking that aspect of his writing into account, or any of the other valid considerations mentioned in this thread, is proof that the method is biased, and is presumably purposely so. The test is designed to validate an unwarranted proposition, rather than establish an actual unbiased benchmark of his IQ.

What other conclusion am I supposed to draw from your dogged defense of the method despite the fatal errors discussed in this thread?

Mimsey
 
Last edited:
DLRH, I do want to thank you for starting the thread, despite what I think about the accuracy of the test, it's methods, and what I feel is it's slanted purpose. The board members comments it has elicited, and some cognitions I have had while responding to your various responses have made this an interesting thread.

Mimsey
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
"Devised" does not mean "normalized". It is important to use correct terminology.
I did not ask my cousin how her test was devised.

====================

"IQ tests are ordinary scaled"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_measurement#Ordinal_scale

Ordinary scaling is not normalization, as the article shows.


IQ scores reflect an ordinal scale, in which all scores are only meaningful for comparison, rather than an interval scale, in which a given number of IQ "points" corresponds to a unit of intelligence.[3][4][5] Thus it is an error to write that an IQ of 160 is just as different from an IQ of 130 as an IQ of 100 is different from an IQ of 70"

That is exactly why you need to rescale your scores until your standard deviation is 15. Then, and only then, will the differences between various scores from your procedure correspond to the same differences between IQ scores. This is elementary statistics. If you don't understand this, and if you think the mysterious distinction between 'normalize' and 'devise' makes any difference to this point, then I'm afraid you're really out of your depth in psychometrics.
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
That is exactly why you need to rescale your scores until your standard deviation is 15. Then, and only then, will the differences between various scores from your procedure correspond to the same differences between IQ scores. This is elementary statistics. If you don't understand this, and if you think the mysterious distinction between 'normalize' and 'devise' makes any difference to this point, then I'm afraid you're really out of your depth in psychometrics.
Apparently, you are not familiar with the scientific methodology and terminology. When it is said that the test was deviced in such way that SD=15, it means that the questions were chosed, as the result of iteration process, in such way that SD=15. It takes a lot of attempts to achieve this result -- you have to change questions many times before you reach the desiable SD.
The number, 15, is arbitrary, you could have SD=10 or SD=20, as it was done in the past; this does not mean that those tests were wrong.
I checked the notes that my cousin gave me and found out that in her test SD= 22, which does not mean that anything is wrong with her test.
The procedure that you described is used in some, but not all IQ tests to interpret the results of a test, it has nothing to do with the normalization.
My cousin used several procedures to interpret her results, she found out that the most appropriate one for her test is the one that I described in my post.
I suggest you read some books on mathematical statistics before you jump to umwarranted conclusions; i have several such books on my bookshelf, they all are classics in the field.
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
Hi DLRH, You keep avoiding the point - how can your test be valid when the writer is disingenuous? You never answer it. Example: Hubbard wrote: While on the surface, this statement would seem to be true, how ever it contains disingenuous statements - see the lines in red. The church does the opposite of what this creed states. Examples abound of these.

There are many similar statements, such as the grade 0 EP compared to the policies of not talking to SP's, not talking case etc.

How does you method account for these? You enter the grey world of evaluating each statement for it's own veracity, and you skew the results.

Perhaps if you look at Hubbard like a fisherman, and his books are a net. The fish he is after is the Gullible Guppy. Why? Because they are undiscerning and will pay much money for what the believe in. He is not interested in Sharks that would steal his guppies, he is not interested in Critical Carps that denigrate his religion, and dissuade the Gullible Guppies from happily swimming in his net. So he writes his books with falsehoods in them. If the Guppies read the books and believe them despite these errors, he sells them the bridge, he hires them for peanuts to deliver the bridge, etc. If they spot the errors and call him a fraud, he attacks them and gets them to shut up. In other words, his books act as a sieve and sort out the public he wants from the public he doesn't want. Running a test on such writings will give you an inaccurate result.

To then say his IQ is low and he is retarded, without taking that aspect of his writing into account, or any of the other valid considerations mentioned in this thread, is proof that the method is biased, and is presumably purposely so. The test is designed to validate an unwarranted proposition, rather than establish an actual unbiased benchmark of his IQ.

What other conclusion am I supposed to draw from your dogged defense of the method despite the fatal errors discussed in this thread?

Mimsey
Probably, you are right about statements in the red, I would not argue about that. However, statements like these ones were not included in the test because they are of general nature and they can be taken out of context and interpreted in many ways. To be honest, I am not sure if I can interpret them correctly in the context of Hubbard's works, and neither does my cousin.

Since my cousin knows a lot about the medicine and biology, the list of Hubbard topics that she studied includes these 2 fields. For example, she studied Hubbard's interview about the origins of homosexuality (I included excerpts from his interview in one of my posts). Hubbard's ideas about Newtonian mathematics were also included in her study (they come from the Philadelhia Doctorate Course; she obtained the transcripts of that course).

Her assumption is that Hubbard expressed his true thoughts in the lectures and writings that were selected for her study.

How this assumption could be justified?

1. A lot of ideas, including the ones about the origins of homosexuality, are not Hubbard's original ideas, he borrowed them from other sources. It seems strange that someone would borrow ideas from outside sources knowing that they are false. Apparently, Hubbard could not estimate correctly the validity of those ideas. It does not matter whether these ideas were his or belonged to someone else.

2. These ideas were intended for the outside sources because Hubbard wanted to present himself as a true scientist to the outside world. He needed acceptance from the professionals because he wanted to put Dianetics above all psychological methods of patient treatment.

3. Some Hubbard ideas were so obtuse that they might have caused several Scientologists to leave the cult.
This would have been true in my case, and, perhaps, in yours.
I wish I have read Hubbard statements about Newton's math when I was a Scientologist -- that would have been a reason good for me to leave the cult. No such luck; all Hubbard statements that I had read at that time were extremely boring HCOB's and Policy Letters.

I used to hate clay demos, I thought that I do not need them, they were slowing me down. But I did not know at that time that the clay demos are used to teach people with severe mental retardation to communicate with the outside world (these patients have their IQ below 45). If such information were available to me when I was taking the Bridge courses, I would have left CoS immidiately.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Demented, Why don't you ask your cousin to apply this same IQ test to a sampling of the many inaccurate, misinformed, incorrect and false statements you've made here on ESMB and elsewhere. I can't be the only one looking forward to reading the results.
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
Apparently, you are not familiar with the scientific methodology and terminology. When it is said that the test was deviced in such way that SD=15, it means that the questions were chosed, as the result of iteration process, in such way that SD=15. It takes a lot of attempts to achieve this result -- you have to change questions many times before you reach the desiable SD.
The number, 15, is arbitrary, you could have SD=10 or SD=20, as it was done in the past; this does not mean that those tests were wrong.
I checked the notes that my cousin gave me and found out that in her test SD= 22, which does not mean that anything is wrong with her test.
The procedure that you described is used in some, but not all IQ tests to interpret the results of a test, it has nothing to do with the normalization.
My cousin used several procedures to interpret her results, she found out that the most appropriate one for her test is the one that I described in my post.
I suggest you read some books on mathematical statistics before you jump to umwarranted conclusions; i have several such books on my bookshelf, they all are classics in the field.

I'm fairly familiar with scientific methodology and terminology, thanks, as you would realize from my posts if you were, too. But this is a poor forum for me to teach you basic statistics, and you don't appear to want to learn. I'm giving up on trying to explain why your theories are nonsense. I can only suggest that you read your books.
 
It occurred to me that crafty old Hubbard has pulled the wool over your eyes. First let me give you an example: The purif. It is generally regarded as quackery by medical professionals. The two books about it are Clear Body, Clear Mind and All About Radiation. Both books are chock full of groaners. Like Gamma rays going through concrete walls but not human flesh, and the idea that the oil you take while on the purif is exchanged in the cells for the fat containing drugs.

The person who reads this and believes this is sold the purif, as well as more bridge.

The person who recognizes it as BS either ends up in ethics or doesn't show up in the first place. These false statements weed out the undesirables.

Now, I don't know the specifics of why you are not currently on the bridge, but let me venture to say the inclusion of false statements has worked terrifically in your case. You are over here, preaching to the choir, waving your hands, pointing out Hubbard's errors and declaring you have a test that PROVES Hubbard is a retard. You are not over at the org, wasting the supervisor's time, being word cleared endlessly, in and out of ethics, upsetting other students, getting PTS handling's, asking for refunds etc.

I'd say putting errors in the tech is a marvelous way to weed people like you out.

Mimsey
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
I'm fairly familiar with scientific methodology and terminology, thanks, as you would realize from my posts if you were, too. But this is a poor forum for me to teach you basic statistics, and you don't appear to want to learn. I'm giving up on trying to explain why your theories are nonsense. I can only suggest that you read your books.
I could say the same about your introduction of the SD normalization -- it is pure nonsense, you failed to provide a single reference to an article or a book describing your procedure.
I think that it is time to bring the discussion to an end.:duh: Bye.
 
Top