Is the Scientology Personality Test Scientific?

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser

Victoria

Patron Meritorious
Many years passed before I found out that the running joke about me in the ASHO HGC was "Her G spot is so low, nobody can even find it".

Auditors are saints, aren't they? Lol
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Many years passed before I found out that the running joke about me in the ASHO HGC was "Her G spot is so low, nobody can even find it".

Auditors are saints, aren't they? Lol

In case that joke flew over anyone's head, which is likely, the (non-Graffenburg) G-trait on the OCA is "Responsibility." In scoring these OCA tests, a "perfect score" isn't a straight line at 100 all the way across. Plus it is much easier to score low on the G trait than any other trait by missing a few questions. One might think it had been designed that way to make everyone look bad. Ahem.

See http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology Materials/OCA/OCA Bulletin160469.pdf for example.

Paul
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Yeah - the business that if it was down on one side he was psycho - I don't recall which each side being up or down meant, but I agree, they believed it utterly. Mimsey

At one point - oh 77-78 ish - I heard a very well respected CS say about a PC's OCA " It's low on the left & low on the right - this PC is a SP "
And another - also well respected CS - looked at the OCA & said " SP for sure ".

Why do I remember that so well ? They gave this to me as a PC for " repair " & then a life repair.

And both those *CS's were( at the time ) personal friends.

What a stupid sucker I was back then !

And, I'm pretty damn sure after *some* ( not all, maybe not even everywhere ) OCA's were scored then some answers on the " test " were altered to make some areas lower or some area higher.

So, not only was the OCA a bogus " tool " to begin, the damn thing was jacked with to make it "read" whatever results were desired to show person who took it.



*CS's :One died way to young. At the time, I felt something got turned on NOTS that was outside the boundaries of repair lists.
Now I'd just say far too many people get sick & die after having auditing.

The other CS got declared. Happily lives out life & their marriage survived the shit storms from the Co$.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
In case that joke flew over anyone's head, which is likely, the (non-Graffenburg) G-trait on the OCA is "Responsibility." In scoring these OCA tests, a "perfect score" isn't a straight line at 100 all the way across. Plus it is much easier to score low on the G trait than any other trait by missing a few questions. One might think it had been designed that way to make everyone look bad. Ahem.

See http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology Materials/OCA/OCA Bulletin160469.pdf for example.

Paul

Thanks for data! No doubt Victoria also thanks you.

I do believe that responsibility in the Scn sense would score
low often.

However those doing well here would be the movers and
shakers in the real world.

Its really a truism.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Does anyone else remember the tech film on Testing? I want to say it came out in the early 90s. Had that Scientology public actor guy who looked kind of like Dick Tracy in the comic. (Dark hair, square jaw. Forget his name.)

Anyway, from what I remember, it specifically said in the film that the ONLY reason for the test - whatever the test was, and apparently it could be one of a lot of things - was to get the person to "cognite" that something was ruining his life so that he could be sold Scientology.

Point is, Scientology doesn't CARE about the veracity of the test, as long as it serves the purpose it's supposed to.
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Thanks for data! No doubt Victoria also thanks you.

I do believe that responsibility in the Scn sense would score
low often.

However those doing well here would be the movers and
shakers in the real world.


Its really a truism.

No, it is really slapped together bullshit - as usual - stolen by hubbie.

WTF would a pseudo scientific clap trap determine " who was doing well [ on responsibility ] would be the movers & shaker in the real world " ?



And to top it off, I have seen the score changed so as to make the graph either worse ( to reg ) or better ( to reg for the nect level ! ).

So not only is the damn thing bogus from the gitgo - the results are modified to suit the purpose of the reg.


Believe the cult shit as you prefer, but, bless you heart, how is it not immoral to try to spread that shit to others ?
 

Terril park

Sponsor
No, it is really slapped together bullshit - as usual - stolen by hubbie.

WTF would a pseudo scientific clap trap determine " who was doing well [ on responsibility ] would be the movers & shaker in the real world " ?

Those willing to be cause? Who else?
 

Gib

Crusader
No, it is really slapped together bullshit - as usual - stolen by hubbie.

WTF would a pseudo scientific clap trap determine " who was doing well [ on responsibility ] would be the movers & shaker in the real world " ?



And to top it off, I have seen the score changed so as to make the graph either worse ( to reg ) or better ( to reg for the nect level ! ).

So not only is the damn thing bogus from the gitgo - the results are modified to suit the purpose of the reg.


Believe the cult shit as you prefer, but, bless you heart, how is it not immoral to try to spread that shit to others ?

Speaking of pseudo science, this nifty 8 minute video explains a lot.

"Science disconfirms, pseudoscience confirms"

Your example shows how the cult creator Hubbard uses confirms hidden under science sounding words to make us think scientology was science based.

The whole crash course philsophy 101 is very good if anybody wishes to see them all from the beginning. Each is about 8 minutes long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X8Xfl0JdTQ&index=8&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR
 

Jump

Operating teatime

I'll try to check those later. Karl Popper is a respected author in the philosophy of science. One of his main arguments is 'falsifiability'. That is, if you can say what would make you not believe something, then test for that, then the chances are you have a rational idea.

If there is no way to argue against a proposition then it is probably irrational.

It is similar to 'Bertrand Russell's Tea Pot' where he says (as a kind of joke) there is a teapot in orbit around the moon, we just haven't found it yet. Ockham's razor says - get back to me when you have found the teapot, because there might as well not be one.

 

Gib

Crusader

I'll try to check those later. Karl Popper is a respected author in the philosophy of science. One of his main arguments is 'falsifiability'. That is, if you can say what would make you not believe something, then test for that, then the chances are you have a rational idea.

If there is no way to argue against a proposition then it is probably irrational.

It is similar to 'Bertrand Russell's Tea Pot' where he says (as a kind of joke) there is a teapot in orbit around the moon, we just haven't found it yet. Ockham's razor says - get back to me when you have found the teapot, because there might as well not be one.


IIRC, those in the vids as examples.
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Those willing to be cause? Who else?

Terril, WTF doesn't - to one degree or another - in their own life " willing to be cause " ?

But, the OCA has no fucking way to do anything except be a tool for the reg to close with.

There has NEVER been any independent verification ( welcome to scn ! ) that the OCA accurately indicates anything.

Top that off with the deliberate changing the scores to make the thing show what one wants shown.

So, I ask, in all due respect & bless your heart, Terril do really believe that horse shit or are you just fucking with us for a laugh ?
 

phenomanon

Canyon
For what ?

It is "useful" for regging.
It is useful for "programming" an imaginary "case". ( If it is down on the right blah blah blah, or it is down on the left blah blah blah. Either way, the guy is deemed to be "out of valence" or "psychotic".)
Either way, it is "clear" that scn can help him with it....$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 

George Layton

Silver Meritorious Patron
Thanks for data! No doubt Victoria also thanks you.

I do believe that responsibility in the Scn sense would score
low often.

However those doing well here would be the movers and
shakers in the real world.

Its really a truism.


Oh sheesh! I thought here was part of the real world.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Terril, WTF doesn't - to one degree or another - in their own life " willing to be cause " ?

But, the OCA has no fucking way to do anything except be a tool for the reg to close with.

There has NEVER been any independent verification ( welcome to scn ! ) that the OCA accurately indicates anything.

Top that off with the deliberate changing the scores to make the thing show what one wants shown.

So, I ask, in all due respect & bless your heart, Terril do really believe that horse shit or are you just fucking with us for a laugh ?

I think a test that measures willingness to be cause might be
useful. Accurate? I have no idea.

The OCA was introduced into scientology by two psychologists,
Ken and Julia Salmon. It was it seems an existing psychological
test.

http://exscn.net/content/view/124/105/

In Science of Survival, earlier or earliest edition, results are
given from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the most widely used psychometric test.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_Inventory

I'm no expert in such tests but it seems psychologists take them seriously. Its been documented that the OCA has been altered, and
CO$ is notorious for having an interest in more money rather
than truth. Some in the FZ like to use the OCA but one I know uses
best I know the test pre Scn tampering.
 

hummingbird

Patron with Honors
If it is down on the right blah blah blah, or it is down on the left blah blah blah. Either way, the guy is deemed to be "out of valence" or "psychotic".
Right you are, phen. What always got me about it was if somehow someone scored high, it just meant they weren't truly confronting how messed-up they were, so they were worse off than someone low in an area.

Gotta love it.

And... every time I see this thread I wonder how on earth the OP managed to type the thread title with a straight face. I, myself, can't read it without smiling.
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
I think a test that measures willingness to be cause might be
useful.

Wadafuck :duh: Measuring the willingness to be cause :duh:

How about a test that measures ''willingness'' to be fooled :confused2:
Would be called what it is!

$cientology - the science of testing test to test tested fooled people!

* any C\S , reg and OCA evaluator (I've been) knows those testing are pure bullshit to manipulate people in

1) believing they have something that must be fixed (the starving reg is waiting for you next door...) $$$$$$$$
In the event they score high - they are out of valence and must be fixed....
What a joke!

2) believing they had wins and their personality - being more causative in be-do-have and so they are ''ready'' to move onto next step on the bridge $$$$$$

In the event the OCA is not getting in upper ranges...then there is some other handlings to fix the ''no case gains'' and yes, your good buddy, the starving reg is still waiting for you next door $$$$$$$
 

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Wadafuck :duh: Measuring the willingness to be cause :duh:
I was just about to write exactly the same thing until I saw your post sweets. "Willingness to be cause." What kind of psychobabble is that for fucks sake? The kind of psychobabble someone with his head up L. Ron Hubbard's ass would spout IMO.
 
Top