Question about the personality test? Id like insight please

Dilettante

Patron Meritorious
Hi Phil,
I have to add, I've seen a vast difference in the ways a person is regged based on age & relation to scn's. Children born in are treated very different from older kids, also, very much subject to who the parents are and their level of involvement. I've heard plenty about newborn infants or even preborn fetuses getting in 'com' about their level of training and who they were in a past life. I have also seen notes about pc's that specify, "OCA does not indicate, education is the button", "failed 2D on abortions and children". These notes were to direct the reg's methods. :ohmy: GROSS. And there is a rampant case of "So and So's kid can only be audited by _______" or certain auditors and c/s's exempt from going near a certain kid. Based on a persons ability to accept a level of "reality" they are treated accordingly. There are some decent folks sucked all in because someone convinced them they were actually ot! Funny how past life 'certs' only mean the price goes up MORE in this life. Get it? GROSS. I have taken several oca's, aptitude and IQ tests. Twice, I was offered the results and showed no interest, or declined going over the results. After that they stopped offering to go over the results and just gave me the scores.
Dil
 

DartSmohen

Silver Meritorious Patron
Background on the OCA Test;

This was originally the Oklahoma Personality Test. Ken & Julis Salmon brought this to Hubbard's attention in the late 1950's.

In order to m ake it sound more British, based Hubbard changed the name to Oxford Capacity Analysis.

The original purpose was to test the effectiveness of processing, but it soon became an intro tool to allow regs to "evaluate" the findings and put the client at effect, thereby making them more likely to sign up for services.

As a randon analysis, scores usually were low on the left ,high min the middle and low on the right, forming an inverted "U".

Hubbard stated that those with low "left" were psychotic and low "right" were out of valence.

Hubbard himself couldn't evaluate the OCA for shit.

Tom (Watson ?) the Div Six Sec from Auckland wrote the definitive book on how to evaluate the graph. He was spot on. I used to do case evaluation based on the trends that Tom had described. We had great success in using this.

However, Hubbard, when he heard about the book ordered it destroyed, after all, here was an effective graph diagnosis which he had not written or claimed ownershop for.

The same goes for Ruth Minchell's book on the Tone Scale. This really rained on Huibbard's parade. He ordered this to be removes from bookstores and forbidden in use by students and auditors.

Amusingly, when we had a graph from a new person which was all along the top, we simply turned the graph upside down and portrayed the person as being in terrible shape, needing lots of processing and training.

Alan Walter developed his own Skills Analysis and Life Analysis questionnaires which are amazingly accurate. Anyone who has had one done will confirm that the findings were highly accurate.

When I was involved with Knowledgism we simply gave the findings to the individual and let them make their own mind up and decide if they wanted to do something to improve the areas highlighted. Most did, some didn't. It was their choice.

Dart
 

Div6

Crusader
Pitching in since this is one of my home grounds, having worked professionally with the test for more than 10 years earlier and done extensive research on it.

First of all, the quote by Robert Vaughn Young contains errors. The same does Mystic's comment.

Basically, the test is a complete rip-off of the Johnson Temperament Analysis, now the Taylor-Johnson Temperament Analysis. Julia Salmen only added a tenth trait (Certain <-> Uncertain). It is a wonder the CoS has not been hit with a court case by the PPI.

Few of the traits on the OCA can reach the full +100 or -100 scores. This is due to statistical reasons and because the scoring of men and women, boys and girls are different. Most traits reach a maximum or minimum of +/- 98/99, but for instance the trait Communication can reach both +100 or -100 for a female adult. Robert's speculation that some skewed scoring is the reason for the scoring being confidential is stupid. The reason is the same as the reason why exam answer sheets are confidential. As with all such tests: it should be protected from manipulation.

My guess for the OP is that the people administering the tests in the org didn't know how to explain certain traits to you. They'd rather push a few buttons on you to make you buy than actually explain the test result.

This is new info for me, and does seem very plausible. For example, see a sample T-JTA graph here: http://psychcorp.pearsonassessments.com/hai/images/pa/pdfs/tjtaindividualprofile.pdf

It seems that "creativity" within the Cult of Scientology was squashed pretty hard, Hubbard wanting it to be a "store and hold" kind of operation, with nothing allowed in the thought pool unless it was over his signature. Kind of the same mentality that is giving us ACTA, software patents, and other kinds of mental shackles. Those that did excel at creative application were tolerated as long as they toed the line, and shunned once they crossed it.

As a "datum of comparable magnitude", this kind of plaigerism plaqued MANY "British Supergroups" of the 70's. Zeppelin appropriated entire songs from others, and declined royalties, ELP directly ripped off the classics (there is a story that Mrs. Bartok called them to task after their first album was released), George Harrison was hit with a lawsuit over "My Sweet Lord" etc. In some circles "Imitation is the highest form of flattery".....given the pesky nature of thetans to obsessively duplicate, it seems a fertile ground for controversy for many years to come. Of course, there were very few "IP Lawyers" back then...now, there is a whole army of them....
 

freethinker

Sponsor
I have taken the full battery of tests and gotten the results and other times didn't. This was at the org.

When I went to Flag, they gave me the personality test but none of the others. The SO guy who graded my test asked me if I hated myself because my scores were so low. I don't remember what I said to that but I know I didn't hate myself. After a conversation about my time on the plane and how much sleep I had he had me take it over the next day.

When I took the test the second time I really conentrated on the questions and gave the answers much thought. I did change a few answers, upgraded them you could say, and the results were better though still not great but I was accepted for auditing.


At this point I will say that on the first to tests I was evaluated not on a column by column or category by category but an overal evauation. I was shown the test graphs side by side each time I took it.


When I completed my program I was given a third personality test. Because i had concentrated so much on the second one, I remembered what I answered as i went through each question. I felt pretty much the same as I did the second time but did change about 10 questions answers from the second to the third, but from the first to the second i changed at least fifty.

The graph from the first to the second was different but not strikingly so. The graph from the second to the third was a dramatic improvement yet I had made minor change from the second.

In conclusion, I believe that the results you get are not from answering the questions and having them graded, I believe they give you what result they want you to have for the given situation. I doubt they even go through your answers very thoroughly if at all. i think the result is purely an evaluation by the staff you talked to before you took it or the result they wanted you to think you had after a course or auditing.

I think you would find a difference on how OCA's are done org to org. I think results are contrived.

The fact that there doesn't seem to be agreement on the OCA's origin kinda confirms that for me.
 

DartSmohen

Silver Meritorious Patron
I think not. Compare the JTA with the OCA and you will see.

Well,

Having known Ken & Julia back in the 1960's and heard their description of how they ( as psychologists from Okalahoma Uni) brought this to Hubbard's attention and how he really got into the idea, I accepted what they had said as being true.

If what I posted is incorrect then I apologise.

Dart
 

Isene

Patron with Honors
Freethinker;

Sorry to break with your notion here, but the tests are indeed scored mechanically. No human intervention as far as I have seen in several thousand scorings.

As some of the answers weigh more than others on a given trait and the resultant raw score on a trait are converted into the range of -100/+100 (or a percentile 0-100 on the modern JTA), one different answer may give as much as 30 points difference (or in a few cases even more).

A fictitious example: Q: "Do you like to beat people?"... I would expect the difference in answer to such a question to have quite an impact on the scoring of any test.
 
Last edited:

Lavalyte

Patron with Honors
The test is a tool.
Like so much of Hubbard's work, the obstensible purpose of the tool is not the actual purpose of the tool.

The obstensible purpose is to evaluate a person's psychological state.

The actual purposes of the tool is to

1. provide an immediate and automatic 'ruin' for potential recruits, to give them a reason to talk about their own percieved deficiencies, to allow them to be recruited more easily, and to

2. give members the false sense that their processing is improving them as they re-take the same test and get better results over time.
 

Isene

Patron with Honors
The test is a tool.
Like so much of Hubbard's work, the obstensible purpose of the tool is not the actual purpose of the tool.

The obstensible purpose is to evaluate a person's psychological state.

The actual purposes of the tool is to

1. provide an immediate and automatic 'ruin' for potential recruits, to give them a reason to talk about their own percieved deficiencies, to allow them to be recruited more easily, and to

2. give members the false sense that their processing is improving them as they re-take the same test and get better results over time.

Re #2: As you state above: "The obstensible purpose is to evaluate a person's psychological state." And quite often such a test is used to determine efficacy of a therapy or counseling. This is one of many valid ways to determine therapy effects. Nothing false about it.
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
If you ever come to your senses, recant, rehab & rejoin Scientology, we have our own theta version of Facebook you should join.

SpaceCaseBook​

Everyone on SpaceCaseBook is winning just the way we used to win when Ron was on the lines.

I really have no idea of what you people are nattering about on this thread because Ron had policies to ensure everyone was winning. If the people (Salmon, Ziff, et al...) were not having wins, they obviously were not following Ron's policies.

Can we knock off the natter already and get back to winning?

Jim Logan is a wuss next you, HH.:thumbsup::coolwink:
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
Re #2: As you state above: "The obstensible purpose is to evaluate a person's psychological state." And quite often such a test is used to determine efficacy of a therapy or counseling. This is one of many valid ways to determine therapy effects. Nothing false about it.

If you believe what you posted then you might want to investigate what some true professionals have to say about the validity of giving the same test over and over to the same person.

Your view ( not unexpectedly ) as expressed in your post does not come anywhere near the real professionals findings.
 

Isene

Patron with Honors
If you believe what you posted then you might want to investigate what some true professionals have to say about the validity of giving the same test over and over to the same person.

Your view ( not unexpectedly ) as expressed in your post does not come anywhere near the real professionals findings.

:) Throwing in an ad hom there.

I will give you but a few in a sea of links... here, here, here and here. Knock yourself out.

I am certainly not advocating retaking tests over and over. All I am saying is that it is frequently done in many areas beside in Scientology - and the purpose is not to induce any false idea of therapy efficacy, although there are obvious issues with retests (it can even show less efficacy than the therapy actually yields).
 
Last edited:

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
hummor.. so being raised in the "ethics" of the group and understanding what was expected of me as a being, would very easily throw the tests.. Ill accept that. that would also easily explain why pc are not shown latter as once they are indoctinated in to ideals and "morals" they to should be able to "tell em what they want to hear"...

yeah no wonder I was not regged alot or easily, most reg I interacted with, like at blow org were rather "freash" and I was cycled on TRs from gawd knows how small so it was always easy to out cycle them... I had some fun with this "advantage" at times.. I enjoyed the TR rooms, Im your tr9 nightmare, things like "I cant, my leg fell off":omg: I had some witty originations that would flunk just about anyone..

do fish fly? the sure as hell do...

Even pigs can fly... given enough thrust.
http://www.tanga.com/products/with-enough-thrust-pigs-fly-just-fine-t-shirt
:biggrin:
 
Top