Gib
Crusader
To whom?
to get somebody hooked onto the promise of clear and then OT. All bullshit.
To whom?
As an aside, psychology is rife with half-baked theories and "instruments", as we call these kinds of tests. One of the most enduring, used by HR at many Fortune 500 companies, has only slightly better predictive and descriptive power than the OCA: the Myers-Briggs Personality Test.
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
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
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.
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 " ?
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 ?
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.
Those willing to be cause? Who else?
For what ?
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.
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 ?
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.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".
I think a test that measures willingness to be cause might be
useful.
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.Wadafuck Measuring the willingness to be cause