From: [email protected] (Kristi Wachter) Subject: personality test evaluation script Date: 1998/09/30 Message-ID: <[email protected]> Organization: Racer Records Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology During a recent San Francisco picket (Sept. 19, 1998), a young lady came up to me and said she had something she thought I'd like to see - the script used by her evaluator when she and a friend went in to take a personality test. She offered to send it to me, and I gave her my address. To my surprise, she actually DID send it to me. She told me in her letter: "This is the script that the recruiter at the Scientology office was reading from when evaluating our personality profile. He didn't want me to see it. He said 'This is for our files.' But, I insisted on a copy because it was my 'Personality Profile.' This is an unbelievable document. It MUST be put on the internet on all of the big Scientology sites!" (Do you suppose they'll put it up on www.scientology.org?) The following excerpt from the 4-page document she sent me is presented as a work of commentary, criticism, and scholarship in accordance with Fair Use provisions of US copyright laws. I strongly encourage you to read Chris Owen's excellent page analyzing $cientology's personality test; my analysis below makes several references to that page. The personality test is also known as the stress test and the Oxford Capacity Analysis, or OCA. I will refer to the script sent to me by this young lady as the "SF Script," since she was tested and evaluated in San Francisco. All the available evidence indicates that testing scripts are identical throughout $cientology worldwide. First of all, the document itself is titled "Automatic Evaluation Script". It is apparently generated from a computer program designed to do just this: spit out scripts based on the results of $cientology's bogus personality tests. How does it work? I'm guessing here, but I imagine the subject's answers are entered into the computer. The program then assigns a "score" of 1, 2, 3, or 4 (1 is best, 4 is worst) for each of the 10 categories the test supposedly evaluates. It then prints out the standard paragraph for each of the 10 scores. (Can anyone who's scored/evaluated personality tests recently confirm this?) The SF Script says that it's taken from the Scientometric Testing Manual, which, I would guess, contains all 40 standard paragraphs. >From here on down, everything NOT in square brackets is excerpted from the original SF Script, and everything that IS in square brackets is my commentary. To : TEST EVALUATOR Date: **-Aug-1997 From : OCA7 TESTING COMPUTER SYSTEM AUTOMATIC EVALUATION SCRIPT Name:***** ******* Address:********** SAN FRANCISCO, California [I've edited out the name and address.] .....This evaluation script is based on the Scientometric Testing Manual. [I'm guessing here, but I imagine the manual contains info on using Tone-40, finding the subject's ruin, and impinging on the subject, along with all 40 of the possible score paragraphs. I'd be curious to know whether it includes any of the history of the OCA, and if so, how factual it is, since there were some copyright issues with the OCA long ago, and of course the name itself is meant to be misleading - the "Oxford" Capacity Analysis has never had anything to do with Oxford.] "Good Afternoon/Evening (give person's name). My name is (give it). I am a Scientologist TM'. Please sit down." [I find the phrase 'Scientologist TM' fascinating. I wonder if the evaluator is supposed to SAY that? "I am a Scientologist-trademark." Although the last page of the SF Script mentions that OCA, HCO, Scientologist and Scientology are trademarks and service marks owned by RTC, there is no copyright notice anywhere on this document. Also, HCO isn't mentioned anywhere, so that trademark notice is unnecessary.] "Now, Mr. (Mrs. Miss) let us have a look at your tests." [According to other $cientology documents on testing, if a "meter check" or an IQ test had been done by this subject, this the time when those results would be discussed - first meter check, then IQ test, then OCA/personality test results. The SF Script doesn't cover meter checks or IQ tests. I assume the testee in this case didn't do either of those tests, but I don't know for sure.] "Now let's look at your personality. This is what you've told us about youself. Understand that this is not our opinion of you, but is a factual scientific analysis taken from your answers. It is your opinion of you." [This is fraud. This is NOT a "factual scientific analysis". This statement is bullshit. It's hurtful bullshit, and it makes me mad.] [The next 7 paragraphs are, word for word, the same as the ones on Chris Owen's page, starting with "The Evaluation is given with excellent TR-1. Almost Tone 40. The idea is to impinge on the person." and ending with "Don't bother much with the high points. ..." Note that the computer program (or printer) apparently can't deal with typeface styles - none of the words in the SF Script are underlined, bold-face, or italicized, even though they ARE in the HCO PLs that originally covered this stuff. For example, in HCO PL 15 Feb 1961, "Evaluation Script," in the last sentence quoted above ("It is your opinion of you."), "your" and "you" are italicized. I wonder if losing these stylistic nuances is considered a degradation of the tech.] A3. "You have an unstable character. You have a lot of difficulty concentrating your attention on concerns at hand, as your mind disperses to other subjects or is fixed on some unrelated subject. Your decisions are unreliable and your judgement poor. ... That can be helped with Scientology." [As shown on Chris's page, this section purports to measure whether the individual is "stable." Needless to say, this is a horrible thing to say to someone. It's also poorly worded. Hubbard couldn't use a normal phrase, like "your mind wanders" - instead he uses "disperses", a verb which is more often used transitively and is rarely if ever used with "mind" as the subject. Like so much of Hubbard's writing, the forgiving reader can force it to make sense, but it shows once again that Hubbard's use of language was either sloppy or deliberately convoluted.] B4. "You are extremely dejected, depressed and unhappy. You look to the future with complete pessimism and lack of hope. You are difficult for your friends and family to be with because you blame other people, situations and things for your melancholy outlook. You see no real reasons to live as your life is full of problems and difficulties and that your despondent attitude prevents you from solving. Scientology can change that." [This score purports to measure whether the subject is "happy." Whereas the previous response was a 3, merely in the "bad" range, here we have a score of 4 - as bad as it gets. Again, this is a horrible thing to say to a person, especially someone who is vulnerable: "Not only are you unhappy, you also bring others down. People don't like being with you." This statement may be deliberately calculated to make the individual feel both isolated and guilty. On a grammatical note, "difficulties and that" should read "difficulties that." Is it considered squirrelling to correct Hubbard's grammatical errors?] C2. "You are generally calm and composed. However, sudden occurences in your environment do upset your tranquility. More often than not you are even tempered. You do have bouts of nervousness but are able to regain your self-possession. You tend at times to be impatient and intolerant which makes it difficult for your family and friends." [This score supposedly measures whether the testee is "composed." A score of 2 indicates that she did fairly well. Note that, for a supposedly good score, we get three positive statements and three negative statements - the last one fairly damning for someone who is "generally calm and composed." Once again, she's accused of being a burden on her family and friends. Interestingly, the SF Script doesn't direct the evaluator to claim that $cientology can improve her life in the areas where she scored a 2. Other scripts explicitly direct the evaluator to claim that $cientology can improve the testee's life even in the areas where s/he scored well.] D2. "You can be dependably realistic about yourself but have some difficulty being so. Your understanding of yourself could be a lot better. As you are not too certain of what your abilities and disabilities are you have a tendency to waiver in your subjective realities. ..." [This score supposedly measures certainty. It comes across as the sort of vague, playing-both-sides-of-the-street pronouncement you might expect from a carnival fortune teller: "You are a good friend, but sometimes you hurt people. You're good with money, but you sometimes waste it. You're strong and decisive, but sometimes you have trouble making up your mind. You will soon meet an interesting stranger." My favorite part, though, is the "tendency to waiver in your subjective realities." I just word-cleared "subjective" and confirmed that it means "lacking in reality or substance." Is this an indication that $cientology tries to make people more certain of unreal realities?] [I have no comments to make on the score for E, which supposedly measures how "active" the testee is, so I'll skip that one.] F2. "You are capable and overt as a person but probably not to a degree that you should be or would like to be. ... Part of your difficulty is that you are not too capable in handling people openly and giving them necessary orders and directions required." [F supposedly measures how "aggressive" the individual is. Note the interesting use of the word "overt," which, according to the dictionary, means "open to view." I wonder how many people, upon hearing this from an evaluator, ask what s/he means. This statement is contradicted a moment later, when the testee is told she is "not too capable in handling people openly." I would associate an inability to give people orders and directions to indicate a lack of assertiveness, not aggression.] G4. "You are completely irresponsible. You accuse others of having ruled your life and made it what it is but this is actually your own fault as you at no time have really accepted your share of responsibility. You frequently feel sorry for yourself and feel that life has victimized you. Scientology would help you with that." [The trait supposedly measured here is whether the individual is "responsible (causative)". Once again, I am appalled that anyone would say this to a testee. Misrepresenting this sort of unwarranted, extremely negative statement as a scientific evaluation of someone's personality is completely irresponsible.] H4. "You are an extremely critical person. You lash out verbally or mentally at those about you and the environment, making you a person almost impossible to be around. You may consider that you are being constructively critical or realistic. However, you are being basically malicious and mean. Because you see little good in people or life your opinions are of little value. Scientology can improve this." [This response and the next are the nastiest of the bunch. Here the OCA is supposedly measuring "correct estimation." Once again, the testee is told that she's a burden to her loved ones. She's discouraged from being critical and is told that, in fact - scientifically speaking - she's being malicious. Her own opinions are discounted again in the next sentence, when she's told they're "of little value." Is this a deliberate attempt to shut off her critical thinking abilities?] I4. "You are quite cold blooded and heartless. Your complete inability to project yourself into another persons place or situation and thus better understand that person causes a great deal of difficulty for you in your associations with people in your life. You place too much importance on yourself and opinions to be able to be considerate to others. Scientology can improve this." [I've read through this whole document several times now and I am STILL stunned by the vicious language. Once again, her relationships with her friends and family are denigrated, and her own opinions are described negatively. Supposedly, this score measures whether the subject is "appreciative."] J4. "You are badly withdrawn. This could be as a result of the fact that you are either shy or you dislike people or both. Also the fact that you are so out of communication with people reveals there are certain things about yourself that you prefer others not to know and which you wish to hide. Your inability to communicate freely is a very great hindrance to you in life. Scientology can help this." [This score purports to measure the testee's "comm level," a trait that is notably absent from most psychological literature. Yet again, her personal relationships are maligned. She is accused of having something to hide, which is likely to make her feel more vulnerable and may strengthen the suspicion that the test reveals "the truth" about her personality. Of course, EVERYONE has things they'd prefer others not know; $cientology deliberate exploits both our desire to be accepted in spite of our past failings and our fear of being found out.] [From here on down, I am no longer enclosing my comments in brackets.] The remainder of the script is mostly of interest for what has been omitted. (Are the omissions noted below another example of squirrelling?) The model script given in HCO PL 15 Feb 1961, "Evaluation Script," includes a "meter check," an IQ test, and an OCA. It seems likely that the following section was skipped because (I assume) this particular subject did not do a "meter check," but if that's the case, I wonder why she didn't. According to this HCO PL, the meter check starts with the evaluator establishing a "non-significant or lie reaction," then asking questions apparently designed to both gain the subject's trust and to find her ruin, including "Do you have many problems?" "Have you had much change forced upon you?" "Are you ever/often ill?" and "Do you have difficulty handling money?" According to this HCO PL, after interpreting the OCA scores as described above, the evaluator picks up the meter check sheet and says: "Well, that tells us how you are and how you have been in the past. Now, let us look at your future. "You have had ..... and you inevitably will again. ... "With these low points on your personality graph, you are going to ------" (Here, you use what you know of Scientology and assess this) "Not a very bright prospect is it? Unless you care to change it." I assume that the testee's "ruins" are inserted here, and the evaluator states that the subject's past problems will "inevitably" recur. For example, "You have had trouble in your marriage, and you inevitably will again. You have had difficulty handling money, and you inevitably will again." These predictions are made in accordance with HCO PL 28 Oct 1960, "New Testing Promotion Section," in which Hubbard says: "Test evaluation is modern, scientific fortune telling. ... We can erase the fate of the past and alter utterly anyone's future. So it does not matter how hard one leans on the person. ... We will take full advantage of the superstitions of people at the level of prediction. ... We can factually estimate future from meters and graphs without any pretence ... Without stepping beyond a person's past, which will certainly happen to him again without processing, we can change his fate. We are the only people on Earth who can accurately estimate it or improve it and make it stay improved." I would like to know why the "prediction" portion of the evaluation was not included in this script. I wonder whether it has been dropped from testing altogether, or whether it's dropped only in certain cases. Now we come to the part where the evaluator "leans back" and lets the testee - who is by now probably very worried and distressed - ask for help. Another interesting omission occurs at this point in the SF Script. As quoted on Chris's site, in the script spelled out in HCO PL 15 Feb 1961, the evaluator mentions other possible sources of help ("psychology, psycho- analysis, Dale Carnegie, Confidence Courses, Mental Exercises") for the purpose of discounting them ("these things had a very limited application and you could get yourself terribly involved in mysteries, expenses and wasted time, before you found any solutions to your difficulties.") A similar paragraph in HCO PL 22 Oct 1960 starts out almost identically ("The Evaluator now leans back ..."), but contains this interesting section: "Don't spend money foolishly until you know what you're spending it for. Psychiatrists and so forth could cost you thousands. You'd buy anything they said because you know little about the mind. So why don't you take an Anatomy Course and learn something about the mind." In the script used in August 1997 at the San Francisco org, NEITHER OF THESE SECTIONS CAN BE FOUND. No mention of other options is made, even to discount them. Is this because mentioning the cost of the alternatives would prompt the testee to ask about the cost of $cientology services, or perhaps because $cientology can't compete against real personal improvement programs and so now leaves them out of the discussion? The following paragraph describes the "hook", the manipulative tactic used to route the subject to the registrar, as it appears in the SF Script. The "***" marks the point where, in earlier scripts, alternative sources of help (psychiatry, confidence courses, etc.) were mentioned and derided. The Evaluator now leans back and says "That's it." Incomer is hanging on ropes. If incomer says anything like "What can I do about it?" Evaluator says "That is very commendable. A good point in your favour, wanting to do something about it. Look, I'm technical staff here. I don't have anything to do with sales or courses, but if you'd like a confidential tip, *** there are all sorts of courses and services going on here all the time. Your best bet would be to take one of the beginning services and discover what Scientology can offer you. This will save you from getting involved. Go and see that lady over there and tell her you only want one of the beginning services so you can find out what Scientology is all about." As is clear from the HCO PLs, this technique is intended to get the testee to pay for a course or a service. The subject is routed to the registrar. The line "This will save you from getting involved" is clearly deceptive. Other $cientology policy letters make it clear that new recruits are expected to become deeply involved in $cientology from the beginning: HCO PL 5/7/69, POLICIES ON "SOURCES OF TROUBLE", lists several categories of people as "trouble sources," including (f) Persons who "want to be processed to see if Scientology works" as their only reason for being audited have never been known to make gains as they do not participate. News reporters fall into this category. They should not be audited. (h) Persons who "have an open mind" but no personal hopes or desires for auditing or knowingness should be ignored, as they really don't have an open mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about things and are seldom found to be very responsible and waste anyone's efforts "to convince them". This policy letter says that people who fall into these categories should not get auditing or training. In addition, HCO PL 7-Feb-1965 "Keeping Scientology Working" includes the following chilling lines: When somebody enrols, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe - never permit an "open-minded" approach. If they're going to quit let them quit fast. If they enrolled, they're aboard, and if they're aboard, they're here on the same terms as the rest of us - win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists. ... "We'd rather have you dead than incapable." So, how did this particular young lady do? Chris Owens calculated the chance of "passing" each section: Section: Chance of passing: This testee: Stable / Unstable 40% F (3) Happy / Depressed 23% F (4) Composed / Nervous 35% P (2) Personable / Undependable 51% P (2) Active / Reactively Retarded 67% P (2) Capable / Inhibited 74% P (2) Responsible / Irresponsible 26% F (4) Logical Reasoning (Appreciation) / 20% F (4) Capacity for Error (Hypercritical) Appreciative / Lack of Accord 35% F (4) Comm[unication] Level / Withdrawn 28% F (4) As Chris points out, the test is rigged to produce negative results, and this young lady's scores were no exception. She got 4 "passing" results and 6 "failing" scores; but none of the passing scores were especially high (judging by the evaluation paragraphs quoted above), and 5 of the 6 "failing" scores were extremely low. Two additional points come to mind: First, HCO PL 15 Feb 1961 ("Evaluation Script") states that the script "must be studied and learned by heart by PE Evaluators." If the evaluator in this case had followed the tech and learned the evaluation script by heart, we might not have this document available to us for examination. Second, the testee's own behavior demonstrates that the evaluator's statements are false. While the test results purport to show that she is "not too capable in handling people openly and giving them necessary orders and directions" (section F), she clearly managed to handle the evaluator well, successfully directing him to give her a copy of her test results. Despite $cientology's claim that her "inability to communicate freely is a very great hindrance" to her (section J), she clearly was able to communicate both that she wanted to keep her test results and that she did not want to sign up for services. Although a brief meeting on the street is not a reliable gauge of someone's personality, I must add that I was immediately struck by this young lady's confident and warm demeanor. To quote from the 1971 Foster report (excerpted in greater length at Chris Owens' site): No reputable psychologist would accept the procedure of pulling people off the street with a leaflet, giving them a 'personality test' and reporting back in terms that show the people to be 'inadequate', 'unacceptable' or in need of 'urgent' attention. In a clinical setting a therapist would only discuss a patient's inadequacies with him with the greatest of circumspection and support, and even then only after sufficient contact for the therapist-patient relationship to have been built up. To report back a man's inadequacies to him in an automatic, impersonal fashion is unthinkable in responsible professional practice. To do so is potentially harmful. It is especially likely to be harmful to the nervous introspective people who would be attracted by the leaflet in the first place. The prime aim of the procedure seems to be to convince these people of their need for the corrective courses run by the Scientology organisations." I wholeheartedly agree. I think the SF Script demonstrates that $cientology's personality test is the basest kind of fraud. I'm grateful to the young lady who donated a copy of this script so we can examine these vicious lies for ourselves. Kristi