The Personality Test

DartSmohen

Silver Meritorious Patron
I do not know if this has been written about, but here is some background on it.

In the 1950's, two Psychologists, Ken & Julia Salmon, working on DC staff (I believe) introduced Hubbard to the OKLAHOMA CAPACITY ASSESSMENT. This was a series of questions requiring a yes, maybe or no response.

Hubbard, being based in England at the time, decided that the title needed to be something more substantive, a title that would command respect internationally. He came up with the OXFORD CAPACITY ANALYSIS.

Hubbard quickly realised that this could be a useful tool, both in marketing as well as assessing case progress. The troubl;e was that Hubbard had no real understanding about how to clinically evaluate the findings. He developed a rather hotch-potch way of using the graph, but still did not really know how to use it to gain real insight into the case.

The graph, when answered by the general public formed, what is known in Psychology, as a "Bell Pattern". However, with the way the graphs were drawn it looked more like a Dalek.

The first three points would usually be very low, the middle three high and the last three very low.

Hubbard's general determinism wasthat if the first three were low then you were CRAZY, if the last three were low, then you were OUT OF VALENCE.
This meant that the vast majority of people taking the test were crazy and out of valence. (maybe some truth in that):yes:

There was one person who probably understood the art of graph evaluation better than anyone. That was Tom Morgan, Div 6 Auckland org. He wrote a book on how to evaluate graphs. He was very accurate in interpreting the trends and meanings. The trouble was that it made Hubbard look like a fool and at St Hill, at least, the use of the book was considered "squirrel".

I remember some of the pompous exec prats saying "We only use LRH tech".

Nevertheless, this marketing tool has been used for decades to hook public into buying services.

Whatever the graph displays, the person sitting in front of the Registrar is AT EFFECT. They are being told things that the graph says is wrong with them.
After all, this person must know more about me than I do.

You can say anything you like, just point to the graph and say this or that poing confirms this. I was a big fan of Tom's book and used it to properly evaluate a person's wants and also in case supervision.

I remember being used as a "tag" when the registrars had a "difficult" client, (someone who was not completely ready to hand over all their cash), One person, a Swiss guy had a graph that had a graph which was high in thr first 4 points, very low on the next and again high on the last ones. It was a clear "V". So, in a moment of inspiration, I asked him "Are you a vegetarian"?

Well he almost fell off the chair. "How on earth did you know that"?
I simply said, "Your graph tells us". He signed up for a load of services on the spot, paying thousands of pounds across.

Often the person filling out the questionairre simply answere how they think you want them to answer. In this case, the graph is right along the top. So, how did we evaluate it? We simply turned the graph upside down, implying that all the points were along the bottom and the person was in real need of processing & training.

This personality test has been the mainspring of public and staff recruitment. Whatever the graph shows, there is ALWAYS some way of telling the person that there is something wrong with them and processing & traqining will resolve it.

It is an obsolete procedure, long since superceded by others who have a real understanding of how the mind works.

Unfortunately, the loyal Scn member firmly holds to the belief that they are the only ones who have all the answers and that they are the authority on the mind.

What is this authority based on?

The addled views of a former science fiction writer who had no grounding or training in and scientific methodology within this field.

Hubbard regularly had other psychological and educative materials employed. There were the peg tests, reaction tests, IQ tests, just to name a few. He never gave any acknowledgement to anyone else for their insight or contribution. On the odd occasion, when they did, he might well publically acknowledge them, but afterwards destroy them and declare them.

Even to this day there are drones standing outside orgs trying to get members of the public in to do a personality test. The public are becoming more and more aware of the liability they take on when they walk through that door. Some quickly escape, some don't.
 

lionheart

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks, that is very interesting.

The other day I was thinking how the OCA acts as a selection procedure to find suggestible people and make them more suggestible.

"Would you like to do a free Personality Test?" selects people who are open to information to help them understand themselves (suggestible people)

The OCA questions get the person to intovert and become curious about themselves (more suggestible)

The evaluation makes suggestions about the person's personality which in the suggestible state they will tend to take in as true.

Finding the ruin plants the suggestion that Scn will handle that.

From there Scn services plant more suggestions and expectations and because they have been pre-selected on them being suggestible, they will tend to achieve what is suggested to them that they will achieve.

Modern exponents like Derren Brown do this all the time to sift out the most open-minded or suggestible people for his TV programmes.
 

DartSmohen

Silver Meritorious Patron
Thanks, that is very interesting.

The other day I was thinking how the OCA acts as a selection procedure to find suggestible people and make them more suggestible.

"Would you like to do a free Personality Test?" selects people who are open to information to help them understand themselves (suggestible people)

The OCA questions get the person to intovert and become curious about themselves (more suggestible)

The evaluation makes suggestions about the person's personality which in the suggestible state they will tend to take in as true.

Finding the ruin plants the suggestion that Scn will handle that.


From there Scn services plant more suggestions and expectations and because they have been pre-selected on them being suggestible, they will tend to achieve what is suggested to them that they will achieve.

Modern exponents like Derren Brown do this all the time to sift out the most open-minded or suggestible people for his TV programmes.

Years ago there was a middle-aged Welsh guy, Gym, or Glynn I think his name was. He was not the sharpest rool in the box. On walking past London Org on his way to his regular session with thr hypnotist. "Come in and do a free personality test" "Yes he replied". When they quickly realised he had no money they said "Join staff". " Yes" he replied.

He was shunted off to St Hill where he was assigned to be the cook at the stables. He could not study and was practically unauditable. He spent months there happily poisoning the crew until one day someone decided that he should be offloaded. He was walking up the drive out of St hill and someone asked him where he was going. He replied "To the hypnotist".:unsure:
(True story)
 

Kathy (ImOut)

Gold Meritorious Patron
After doing my first OCA, no one ever gave me my ruin. All these years later, I still have never been told my ruin.:p
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I remember being used as a "tag" when the registrars had a "difficult" client, (someone who was not completely ready to hand over all their cash), One person, a Swiss guy had a graph that had a graph which was high in thr first 4 points, very low on the next and again high on the last ones. It was a clear "V". So, in a moment of inspiration, I asked him "Are you a vegetarian"?

Well he almost fell off the chair. "How on earth did you know that"?
I simply said, "Your graph tells us". He signed up for a load of services on the spot, paying thousands of pounds across.

Naturally, had he answered 'no' you could have said 'You should consider becoming one; it could help you' :)

Tag = Shill

Zinj
 

DartSmohen

Silver Meritorious Patron
After doing my first OCA, no one ever gave me my ruin. All these years later, I still have never been told my ruin.:p

Are they still using the same old out-dated questions for the Personality Test?
I suppose it never occured to them that times change and values change as well. This could have a bearing on the original wording of some of the questions. There again they rely on the "Dynamic dwarf" to be the fount of all knowledge. :confused2:

Well I guess that well is dry. :yes:
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Are they still using the same old out-dated questions for the Personality Test?
I suppose it never occured to them that times change and values change as well. This could have a bearing on the original wording of some of the questions.

Well then, I guess it is up to us to update them. :)

There is a copy (with some typos) online at http://www.xenu.net/archive/oca/

Here is a staff-oriented suggestion for the first quarter....

  1. Do you make thoughtless remarks or accusations which find you in Ethics?
  2. When others are getting rattled by seniors, do you remain merely shaken or stirred?
  3. Do you browse through tape transcripts just for pleasure?
  4. When asked to make a decision, would you be swayed by your fear of Ethics whatever the rights of the matter?
  5. Do you intend none or less children in your family even though your health and income will permit more?
  6. Do you get occasional twitches of your fist, when there is no logical reason for it?
  7. Would you prefer to be in a position where you did not have the repercussions from making lethal decisions?
  8. Are your actions considered completely insane by normal people?
  9. Do you consider some money should be spent on staff pay?
  10. Do non-staff freedoms interest you very much?
  11. Is your messenger oppressively monotonous, rather than varied in bitch?
  12. Do you normally let the other person start the new asshole-tearing?
  13. Are you readily interested in other people's O/W write-ups?
  14. Would the idea of inflicting pain on game, small animals or fish prevent you from being an Ethics Officer?
  15. Are you often impulsive in your evil thoughts?
  16. Do you speak slowly, especially when rabid KR-writers are around?
  17. Are you usually concerned about the need to protect your sanity?
  18. Does an unexpected new program cause your juniors to twitch?
  19. Are you normally unbelievably harsh in your demands on your juniors, fellow staff or students?
  20. Do you consider that you could give a valid 'snap agreement with LRH' ?
  21. Do your past O/Ws that Ethics doesn't know about still worry you?
  22. Do you find yourself being extra-downstat for periods lasting several days without sleep?
  23. Do you resent the efforts of dumbfuck seniors who couldn't do your post in a million years to tell you what to do?
  24. Is it normally hard for you to 'own up and take the blame' yet again when it is management's fault but being made yours?
  25. Do you have a small circle of close maybe-friends, rather than a large number of KR-writing, speaking acquaintances?
  26. Is your life a constant struggle for survival?
  27. Do you often consider killing someone who dares to sing or whistle just for the hell of it?
  28. Are you considered warm-hearted by your friendly registrar?
  29. Would you rather give KRs than receive them?
  30. Do you enjoy telling people the latest scandal from some pc folder?
  31. Could you agree to strict discipline, or are you dilettante public?
  32. Would the idea of blowing staff cause you much concern?
  33. Do you write KRs to get others to be more like you?
  34. Do you find it easy to lie in session?
  35. Do you refrain from complaining when your senior gives you another urgent order to get done before you go home tonight?
  36. Are you sometimes considered by others someone who follows policy?
  37. Do you consider there are people outside management who are definitely unfriendly toward you and work against you?
  38. Would you admit you were wrong just to stay on post?
  39. Do you have only a few people of whom you are really fond?
  40. Are you rarely happy, unless you actually got some sleep last night?
  41. Do you "circulate around" in the few minutes before roll call?
  42. Do you take reasonable precaution to prevent post downstats?
  43. Does the idea of talking in front of your Comm Ev make you nervous?
  44. [Sea Org only] If you saw an article in a shop, would you try to wake up or finish out the dream?
  45. Do you often feel that people are looking at your pc folder or talking about you behind your back?
  46. Are you 'always getting into trouble' even when you're following policy?
  47. Have you any particular hated or feared senior?
  48. Do you prefer to be an onlooker rather than participate in any active face-ripping?
  49. Do you find it easy to be impartial at 3 a.m. when you didn't sleep last night either?
  50. Would you have a definitely set standard of courteous behavior in front of other members of your family if you ever saw them?

Paul
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
DOF, In light of the recent PR disasters, do the OSA/PR types deserve their own sec check?

Sure. Except I don't want to write one. It's hard to be funny about it: the amusement comes from sec-checking against a moral code which one supposes the person to actually subscribe to, and it is different to what one might expect. Such as "Have you ever tried to get put right something the CofS did wrong?" or "Have you ever admitted a CofS executive or staff member was anything short of angelic in behaviour? or "Have you ever agreed with a critic pointing out some actual CofS wrongdoing?"

But I expect others here will find some examples....

Paul
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
Years ago there was a middle-aged Welsh guy, Gym, or Glynn I think his name was. He was not the sharpest rool in the box. On walking past London Org on his way to his regular session with thr hypnotist. "Come in and do a free personality test" "Yes he replied". When they quickly realised he had no money they said "Join staff". " Yes" he replied.

He was shunted off to St Hill where he was assigned to be the cook at the stables. He could not study and was practically unauditable. He spent months there happily poisoning the crew until one day someone decided that he should be offloaded. He was walking up the drive out of St hill and someone asked him where he was going. He replied "To the hypnotist".:unsure:
(True story)

Sounds like Autism

Rd00
 

Div6

Crusader
Sure. Except I don't want to write one. It's hard to be funny about it: the amusement comes from sec-checking against a moral code which one supposes the person to actually subscribe to, and it is different to what one might expect. Such as "Have you ever tried to get put right something the CofS did wrong?" or "Have you ever admitted a CofS executive or staff member was anything short of angelic in behaviour? or "Have you ever agreed with a critic pointing out some actual CofS wrongdoing?"

But I expect others here will find some examples....

Paul

1. Have you ever told the truth in a PR handling?
2. Have you failed to manufacture crimes when none were found?
3. Have you ever allowed yourself to be made wrong when confronting a critic?
4. Have you ever forwarded an enemy line?
5. Used FP as a stop on hiring PI's?



etc
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Well, I'll tell you. Some of the things I've been told after taking OCA tests were spot on. Because they don't just show you the graph. They tell you some things that the tests indicate. Both John and I had some things come up that were so spot on, it was almost spooky.

And we have had times when we were retested after getting some auditing, and the results were different.
 
Top