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!
My cousin’s method of posthumous IQ calculation. <snip>
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.
1. Hubbard quote: "Truth = Agreement" ...
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
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.
Show size also has a normal distribution. Most things will, given a large enough population. That's the central limit theorem.
...
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.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
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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".
Face
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.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.