Scientology's Rigged OCA/Personality Test (by RVY)

98 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Vaughn Young

unread,
Aug 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/24/97
to

Scientology has long used a "Personality Test" also known as the OCA or
"Oxford Capacity Analysis," which was a dreamed up name given to it by LRH
so it sounded very academic. (He hated the academics but he loved to
pretend to be one.) It is used on streets as a "free personality test" to
hook people. It is also used on Scientologists to see how they are doing.

The test is 100+ questions that you answer in one of several ways, your
basic yes, maybe/sometimes, no. The answers are put into a grid sheet,
left to right, in several columns. Each of the columns will be one of the
attributes that you will later be told about.

There is a grid to "score" the "test" to give a numerical value to each
column. So an answer might give you a +3 or a -1, as the values vary,
according to the question. This is then put onto a graph so there is a
value to each attitude/characteristic. If one of the graph points is low,
that is something they point out to you that you need to improve and that
is how they use the test to evaluate you and tell you how Scientology can
help you and what books/courses you should buy.

One day, out of curiousity, I used the grid to compose a "perfect" test. I
gave the highest score for each question and scaled it out, just as if
someone had taken the score. I then graphed it out and ... low and behold!
There was no way to reach the top of the scale! The scale goes up to "100"
but there wasn't a single column that was capable of reaching 100! None of
the columns could total 100, even with perfect scores! (The highest
possible score on one column was 98.) Not only that, but "responsiblity"
dipped noticably low! With a perfect score!

So even if a person was "perfect" according to the OCA score, the graph
line wavered across the top, not reaching 100 and dropping on
"responsibility," which of couse gives the "evaluator" a chance to say,
"Well, good scores here but not quite perfect - I see you are wavering
here - and I see your low point is responsibility."

What is especially fraudulent is that this "test" is constantly used on
on people in auditing. It is often taken at the end of a rundown or an
intensive. Thus EVEN INSIDE, WITH SCIENTOLOGY you cannot hit the top, let
alone bring that that "responsibility" column up to where it belongs.

That is why the scoring grid is "confidential." It is a fraud.

Robert Vaughn Young
wri...@eskimo.com

Inducto

unread,
Aug 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/24/97
to

RVY posted:

>>One day, out of curiousity, I used the grid to compose a "perfect" test.
I
gave the highest score for each question and scaled it out, just as if
someone had taken the score. I then graphed it out and ... low and behold!
There was no way to reach the top of the scale! The scale goes up to "100"
but there wasn't a single column that was capable of reaching 100! None of
the columns could total 100, even with perfect scores! (The highest
possible score on one column was 98.) Not only that, but "responsiblity"
dipped noticably low! With a perfect score!<<

The question that came to me recently, is how would a "natural clear"
score on the OCA? Would it even identify one? For that matter, can it
definitively identify who's "clear" or "OT" from people who come in off
the street to take it?

It seems to me that if the above questions can't be answered
satisfactorily, then the test is inadequate even by CoS' own standards.
They might also be fun questions for the curious coming in off the street
to ask the test administrators.


I.

SIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIG

Induct YourSELF into new realities

Avoid highwaymen on the road to personal and spiritual betterment -- beware dead ends and unlit paths


Alec

unread,
Aug 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/24/97
to


Inducto wrote in article
<19970824153...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...

>RVY posted:
>>>One day, out of curiousity, I used the grid to compose a "perfect"
test.
>I
>gave the highest score for each question and scaled it out, just as if
>someone had taken the score. I then graphed it out and ... low and
behold!
>There was no way to reach the top of the scale! The scale goes up to
"100"
>but there wasn't a single column that was capable of reaching 100! None
of
>the columns could total 100, even with perfect scores! (The highest
>possible score on one column was 98.) Not only that, but "responsiblity"
>dipped noticably low! With a perfect score!<<

NOTICE. the following is copyrighted by David Alexander 1997. Extensive
fair use is granted to non-Scientologists for purposes of prosecution and
litigation.

When I was the Test Center I/C, on Hollywood Blvd, I made an in depth
study on my own of the OCA (Oxford Capacity Analysis). I wrote a manual,
complete with sample graphs of each type of social label, and submitted it
to Issue-Authority for acceptance (Imagine me, bold enough to think that
COS was interested in bettering themselves!). I also did this "optimum
answer" experiment--writing in all the optimum answers. The graph went
high across the top--same thing--no columns were "perfect" scores.

This is called a "Theetie Weetie response"--when someone "knows" all the
right answers, and gives answers from that knowledge rather than from
candid responses. In other words if the testor can't lable you as having
a need for Scientology, you are "Theetie Weetie", and "Scientology can
help that!"

Notice that this would be the best that Christ, or Buddha, could do on the
test. Scientology could help these two. [Alec scurrys to set-up lighting
rods.]

At the risk of sounding like an Apologist, I have to say that the test can
be put to good practical use.

Keep in mind that Hubbard was totally incognizant and apathetic regarding
the existence of God. Although he had no real concern for the
spirituality of Mankind, he sought to contrive a business for the purpose
of designing and selling "thought adjustment" so "customers" could improve
themselves and their production capabilities. He came up with "some"
unique and interesting procedures for doing this--although I have doubts
about his originality (there is lots of evidence of plaigerism). I
believe he also contrived much that sounds good but has uncertain
value--his goal was not "to provide salvation" (that was a ruse), but it
was to create a religion for the purpose of generating great wealth (as
evidenced by seven of Hubbard's contemporaries).

This was Hubbard's secret. Scientologists have all bought his line that
he was once Buddha, so they don't have the option to understand that
Scientology is a contrivance.

But Hubbard had some understanding of business competition and private
enterprise, and he showed some diligence in contriving some helpful
disciplines. Hubbard's "Ethics Formulas" can be very effective in
increasing one's production (he uses the term "survival--a measure of
materialistic success". Hubbard never deals with the fact that spirit is
eternal and cannot "unsurvive", so he makes an implicit threat of "danger
of non-survival" as a market influence. His Ethics are not actually aimed
at "survival", but at production. So as a practical discipline, the
Ethics Formulas can be very useful.

He also made reference to and use of many religious pursuits borrowing
from eastern self-improvement (such as yoga, and Buddhist philosophy). In
his dogged determination to have a business success, he overlooked the
impossibility of faking compassion. He also failed to interweave virtues
into his religion--so he contrived the "Way to Happiness" as his virtue
system, representing the concept of virtue as "Washing one's hands after
visiting the bathroom". Scientologists broadly scoff at the idea of
humility and meekness, and other virtues, as being "Christlike" (a degrade
in the eyes of Scientologists).

Regarding the OCA test, it can usefully indicate relative areas of room
for improvement. The area that indicates the most room for improvement
becomes the direction for the "sales effort" by the "minister".

The OCA can dependably indicate whether you are personally stable
(beingness); self-reliant (doingness); socially balanced among others
(havingness); decisive enough to even give qualifiable answers
(certainty); or just too damned educated to give answers that would
betray your imbalances (theetie weetie).

So the OCA does not measure "absolute" self-development, but "relative"
self-development. In the field of Psychiatry their is extensive use of a
similar type of test called the MMPU ("I"?) I think it's something like,
"Minnesota Multi-phasic Inventory". It is a similar questionnaire, taking
stock of relative strengths and weaknesses of personality, and guiding the
psychiatrist to treat accordingly.

So Hubbard devised "courses", or counseling, or even Ethics as an
appropriate self-development action, depending on what indicated most
strongly on the OCA. This was about as "astute" as any other American
business--following the philosopy of "anything to turn a buck".

Hubbard's "overt" is Fraud--he perpetrated this self-help philosophy as a
religion. [Brushing one's teeth is an act of social etiquette and
material longevity practiced by a spiritual individual occupying a
physical body. Insofar as this furthers one's chances for religious
discovery, it is a religious act. BUT it is not an action of
Salvation--the Religous pursuit of a Compassionate "knower" of the nature
of the universe.] This Fraud is prosecutable.

COS's "overt" is the willingness to selectively deny [what they believe to
be] Salvation, as a deterrent to "Trouble" from "customers" (or
"parishioners" as OSA calls them), and as punishment to dissidents and
infidels. This is indicative of the most hideous personality, and I
believe it must be actionable in litigation--particularly where there are
monetary. emotional, familial, and psychological damages--and suicide.

---Alec


Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine

unread,
Aug 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/27/97
to

In article <3402E5...@gramercy.ios.com>,
jbwebb <jbw...@gramercy.ios.com> writes:
>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
>>
>> As usual this twit appologises for the cult of fraud and manslaughter
>> in its attempts to con the chumps out of their money. RVY's analysis
>> is quite accurate, and accords with the observation of professionals
>> in the field of psychometry.
>>
>> From the FOSTER REPORT:
>> ========================================================================>
>> 129. The usual procedure when a potential pre clear first presents
>> himself to the Scientology organisations with a view to enrolment is to
>> encourage him to take a "free personality test" called the "Oxford
>> Capacity Analysis." This test has been investigated by a Working Party
>> of the British Psychological Society, the leading scientific body in
>> this field in the United Kingdom, incorporated by Royal Charter in 1965.
>> The Working Party was composed of a clinical psychologist, a consultant
>> in psychological selection, and a university lecturer in psychology, all
>> members of the Society's Council and distinguished experts in their
>> field. Each of them took the test at one or other of the Scientology
>> shops in London and Edinburgh.
>
>Hey - thanks Dave for the repost. Very enlightening in respect to RVY
>and Bernie. Now, humm, who should I believe? Any clues, Dave?

Yeah, start by checking the speakers professional qualificatins :->
BTW all the government reports are on Chris Owen's site, and I keep
some of them off-line as well.

|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
and<a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"></a>XemuSP4(:)

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages