Home arrow Theory versus Practice arrow The Personality Test  
Saturday, 22 December 2012
The Personality Test PDF Print E-mail

The Personality Test

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)

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.

Original Link

 
< Prev   Next >
Disclaimer: Dianetics and Scientology are trademarks of the Religious Technology Center (RTC.)
These pages and their author are not connected with the Church of Scientology or RTC, or any other organization residing under their corporate umbrella

Copyright 2008 Exscn.net. All rights reserved.