ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



ERRORS and gaps of the Scientology Statistic System - Ver.2

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by erni, Jun 9, 2019.

View Users: View Users
  1. erni

    erni Patron

    At the link below there is a big and very important document I wrote on
    free.it.religioni.scientology that deal with Scientology Statistic System
    (as described in the chapters 4 and 6 of the book INTRODUCTION TO
    SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS) in depth. It contains some graphs.
    ---
    https://groups.google.com/d/topic/free.it.religioni.scientology/ciTUE6woKH8/discussion
    ---
    Anybody can copy o publish this work or a part of it, only if the author (me)
    is not omitted. Any possible modification must be clearly indicated as such.
    This document is very important to understand the various errors and gaps
    that are inside the Scientology Statistic System and to know why this system
    is UNRELIABLE.
    It should be known from every Scientologist or Indipendent Scientologist
    all over the world.
    The document is in Italian and I ask that somebody translate it in English
    (and possibly in other languages).
    I cannot do it because this translation may take many months (or one year)
    for me, ALSO because I do not know very well English.
    ================
    Anyway, here there are some important points of the document written briefly.

    GAP #1
    It is not specified how to establish, on a graph, the inclination of the line
    that shows the production of a week. It can be done only with sight or with a
    goniometer? The method is uncertain.

    GAP #2
    The Scientology book do not indicate the value of the angle of the lines
    that represent the five ethics conditions.
    I have misured such angles.

    GAP #3 (SERIOUS)
    Is not given the concept of AREA or SECTOR of statistic condition.
    A statistic condition has an area o sector that represents it.

    ========
    Here it is a graph that shows the concept:

    Upper and lower edge Danger condition.GIF

    ========

    GAP #4
    Is not given the concept of EDGE OF A SECTOR of a statistic condition.
    Every sector of a statistic condition has two edges: the upper edge and the
    lower edge.

    GAP #5
    It is difficult or impossible determine from Scientology text both edges
    of every statistic condition.
    To know BOTH edges is necessary.

    GAP #6
    It is not specified in which place of the sectors, the lines given in the book representing the five conditions (Non Existence, Danger, Emergency, etc.) are
    situated.

    GAP #7
    It is not specified any method to determine the edges of the sectors of
    the statistic conditions.
    =======
    Now here it is a graph with all the Reference Lines (that represent the
    statistic conditions), the value of the angles, the borderlines
    between sectors, and the External Edges (edges that cannot be passed).
    See the italian documents for more details.
    Grafico - GIF.GIF


    =======
    Now it follows the errors contained in the Scientology procedure to determine
    the the values that represent a ghaph (ERROR #1 to #5).
    This procedure calculate:
    1. The lower value of a graph.
    2. The higer value of a graph.
    3. The value of each segment conteined in the y-axis, called "scale" in
    the Scientology text.

    ERROR #1
    It is situad in the step 1 of the Scientology procedure. It is based on a
    PERSONAL ESTIMATE, so it is imprecise.
    Different persons may give different values, and this may produce different
    values of scale.
    Different value of scale may produce different inclinations of the graph
    lines (except for horizontal lines).
    And different inclinations of lines may determine different assignations of
    condition for these lines.

    ERROR #2 and GAP #8
    In the step 1 of the 'correct example' of the Scientology procedure, the
    number of days to examine is imprecise.
    Are examinated the production values of the 'past 6 months'.
    But the period of time 'past 6 months' may vary at least from
    181 to 184 days.
    This may determine a number of production values to examinate not constant,
    depending from wich day of the year it starts the estimation.
    The ERROR is in the phrase 'past 6 months' where the number of days is
    imprecise.
    The GAP is that is not specified from which day of a week start to examine
    the 'past 6 months'.
    This may vary too the number of production values to examinate.
    So, the number of thursdays (days examinated in Scientology) of the
    'past 6 months' may vary from 25 to 27.
    But, as the Scientology procedure, any value examinated may determine the
    lower value of the graph.
    If the lower value of the graph change casually, it may change also casually
    the value of scale.
    And if it change the value of scale, the assignation of the condition may vary
    casually.

    ERROR #3
    In the step 1 of the 'correct example', the value determined is rounded off,
    probably to make the calculations easier.
    But a rounded off value is an altered value, that may alteres the value of
    the 'scala'.
    A changed scala may vary the inclination of the lines (except for the horizontal lines).
    And this may vary the assignation of the conditions.
    The rounding off must be eliminated.

    ERROR #4
    It is similar to error #1.
    The step 2 of the Scientology procedure is based on a PERSONAL ESTIMATE.
    So it has the same problem specified in ERROR #1.

    ERROR #5
    In the Scientology procedure, it is suggested to use "easy values" for the
    'scala' as <<5, 10, 25, 50, 100>>.
    This is a changing of the original value that may cause unknown changing
    of the inclination of the lines of the graph (except for the horizontal lines).
    And a changed inclinations may determine changed assignations of conditions for
    the lines.
    This change must not be done.

    ERROR #6
    There is a rule that says that when a line go out of upper side of the
    graph, it is needed to calculate again the value of the 'scala'.
    This can be correct in same cases ma it is wrong in others.
    It is wrong in the case of an external favourable factor but unusual,
    basically not due to the staff or persons that are producing.
    See italian document for more details.

    ERROR #7
    There is a rule that says, about the x-axis, 'try not to exceed 3 months'.
    The error is that it is allowed to vary the time period represented in the
    graph.
    As the Scientology procedure for the drawing the basic graph, this may
    vary casually the 'scale' and so it may vary casually the assignations
    of conditions of one or more lines.
    See italian document for more details.

    ERROR #8
    The error is that the Scientology Statistic System do not considers the
    changing of the working situation.
    For example, if after having calculated and drawed the initial basic
    graph, the number of persons in the staff increase to 5 to 10, why keep
    the upper and lower value of the graph the same? It is excepted different
    values.
    And different upper and lower values does it means to calculate again
    the value of 'scale'.
    But in Scientology this is not considered.

    ERROR #9
    The condition formulas are fixed and do not work gradually.
    One degree more or less on the line of the graph may determine, in
    some cases, the change of the assignement of the condition and so
    a different execution of a formula.
    Just 1 degree.
    This not gradual change of actions does not make sense.
    The solution is to rewrite the condition formulas in a way to
    work gradually according to the inclination of the line.

    ERROR #10
    The error is in one of the most important principles of the
    Scientology Statistic System:
    to determine the actions (the formula) to improve or keep high
    the production, it must be considered ONLY THE INCLINATION of the
    last line on the graph (excepted for the Power condition).
    The error is that this principle does not consider the USUAL
    PRODUCTION of a job.
    EXAMPLE:
    We have two staff members that hand out leaflets.
    One work with a wrong method and usually hand out 3000 leaflets
    per week.
    The other work with the correct method and usually hand out
    7000 leaflets per week.
    The working conditions are the same for them.
    If the persons with the wrong method hands out one week 2800 leaflets
    and the following week 3400, it may be assigned the condition of
    "Normal" or "Abundance" only because the line is rising.
    If the persons with the correct method hands out one week 7200 leaflets
    and the following week 6700, it may be assigned the condition of
    "Emergency" or lower only because the line is falling.
    So according to the Scientology Statistic System, the staff member
    that produce more is in the worst condition.
    This system does not make sense.
    The usual production of a job must be considered.

    erni.
     
  2. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    tl;dr

    If somebody could kindly clarify in a few short sentences what the above post is supposed to be about I'd be eternally grateful.
     
    Clay Pigeon likes this.
  3. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    It looks like someone has found errors in the Scn stats system. And here we all were thinking it was perfect as-is. Oh well.

    erni: I think you're on the wrong message board. Nobody here (who posts regularly) really gives a fuck, as far as I know.

    Paul
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2019
  4. PirateAndBum

    PirateAndBum Gold Meritorious Patron

    That's really all you needed to say. All this stuff about the angle of lines is useless. Admin tech is proven to be shit by decades of failing orgs.
     
    JustSheila, Irayam and Bill like this.
  5. screamer2

    screamer2 Idiot Bastardson

    Yep. As Paul says, itsa "perfect as-is"
     
  6. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    The purpose of the stat system was to allow management to do as they please to their juniors, and pretend they were being objective.
     
  7. Dotey OT

    Dotey OT Cyclops Duck of the North - BEWARE

    Here's what I will say. After years of being involved in a variety of businesses while being in the cult, (Btw, I'm no fan of hubbard anything), reminding businesses to promote, (why you should have to, I'm uncertain) is always a good thing. I think that some good accidental benefit comes if people do this. Of course, you could have probably picked up thousands of business books and found that same datum, in a less dangerous and less expensive way.

    Actually, after years of working with businesses around the tech, you can fly thru the holes of inconsistency, missing data, etc. with 747's.

    A well done cost analysis, like a break even analysis, will do wonders for any business, if they just do it and work it. Tons of businesses in the world doing nicely that you, without the fucking "Admin Tech", for gods sake.

    Fuck a bunch of mathematics, of curve study, or finite element, or anything.

    Besides, you show me an HCOB that says "Push", I'll find you one that says "Pull". It's that fucked up.
     
    strativarius and Enthetan like this.
  8. Wilbur

    Wilbur Patron Meritorious

    Like many things in Scientology, there is a germ of a good idea in the conditions formulas. But I always found the formulas themselves useless.

    The idea that a business (or area of your life) can be in a particular condition, and that you can do something to improve the condition, is, in my opinion, a good one. But its implementation in Scientology often left me scratching my head. If I had to guess, I would say that someone around Hubbard had the bright idea that there could be Conditions, and then Hubbard turned it into a rigid set of 'laws of the universe', with a semi-mystical set of formulas to go with it.

    When I was in Scientology, I took on board the idea that there may be a scale of conditions (in fact, a moment's thought tells you that it's OBVIOUS), and that you could work into a higher condition. But I think I subconsciously discarded the conditions formulas pretty quickly. I especially found the implementation of the lower conditions a bit ridiculous, though I have to admit that I think there is a nugget of truth somewhere in the ideas behind them.

    The idea that your graph has to go up every week (or whatever time interval) is, I think, based on the idea that a thetan can make anything go right. But trying to make your graph go up every week can be counter-productive, if what you want is long-term, durable success. I saw the effects of this many time in Scn orgs, where inordinate amounts of energy would be expended on, say, trying to persuade a person to buy a book before Thursday 2pm, and pretty much destroying the org's reputation in that person's mind in the process. If the person had been worked on steadily, without being pushed beyond their willingness to participate, they would in many cases have bought that book or enrolled on that course. But it HAD to be before Thursday 2pm, and that often made the person withdraw from Scientology.

    I also saw it in the lack of planning that the Thursday 2pm routine engendered. Often actions could have been taken to boost the org's long-term survival, but those actions would never find it onto a staff member's "Battle Plan", because they did not result in a stat for this week. Sometimes in business, it's necessary to let short-term stats slip in order to work on long-term building of the business, maybe because you realise that your run-of-the-mill actions have reached a dead-end, and so you need to retrain on another skill, or research a new area. The same would be true of personal stats, I think. For example, if you are feeling run-down, then perhaps the best course of action is to take some time off and rest. But in Scientology terms, that would lead to a stat-crash into Non-Existence or below.

    I think anybody who works with the Scientology stat system quickly realises that, at the very least, one has to adapt it and be willing to ignore aspects of it, in order to have a viable life. Working on staff in an org, this becomes impossible, because it's regarded as 'squirrelling'. I think that, as with anything else in Scientology, you have to be willing to take from it what is the essence of a good idea, and be willing to throw the rest away. Which you can only really do AWAY FROM the orgs.

    Perhaps that's why some of us feel we got something useful out of parts of Scientology, because we were not all that fanatical and basically just plucked the good ideas out, and left the rest behind. I did that with the study tech, for example. I found the idea of using a dictionary, and ensuring you did not go past misunderstood words, to be really useful (it's not as obvious as it sounds - prior to Scientology, I did not bother to clear words when I was reading a book, mostly out of laziness. The study tech system forces you to get into that habit). But fiddling around with paper clips and blocks of wood, to 'demo' a concept and gain 'mass'? Nah, I found that too ridiculous, and it was just an enforced ritual for me when I was on course in the org.

    I think it's the same with a lot of Scientology. Even the disconnection ideas in the PTS/SP tech have a nugget of truth in them. I used the disconnection 'tech' to good advantage, getting rid of dead-wood friends who were not contributing to my well-being and happiness, and in that context disconnection was a useful thing. One could debate whether PTSness makes a person sick. But it's certainly true that being around deadbeats who try to drag you down can reduce your feeling of overall wellbeing. Also, it's an entirely different matter when OTHERS are telling you who you have to disconnect from!

    I think one of the things that kept me in Scientology for longer than was healthy was the fact that, in much of the Scientology tech, I could see good ideas that could cause improvement in your life if used 'properly'. The trouble was that MY idea of 'properly' made me a squirrel, so that Scientology itself wasn't really the workable tech that it claimed to be - it just had workable ideas strewn throughout it that Hubbard and the church had managed to turn into less workable (and sometimes destructive) ideas.

    For example, Hubbard managed to formulate in a fairly coherent way what every top-flight professional or businessperson must surely know about 'making things go right' against all odds. By linking it to the concept of an immortal thetan whose "considerations are senior to mechanics", and having similar precepts like "intention is cause" and "a thetan only gets what he postulates", you get a powerful way of galvanising a person into action on achieving their goals. But then that gets turned into a system for persuading a person to do things against their will, such as get credit card loans to buy their Bridge, on the basis that "you can simply make it go right to pay back the loan". There's nothing wrong with the basic principle of "making it go right": it's how it's used in practice that makes the difference.

    I also think that someone who had gotten into Scientology and joined the Sea Org with the idea that "I'll do this for a year, and then jettison the Church completely" could have gotten something very valuable from that. Spending a year working under pressure, long hours, "making it go right" could be a very good training for investment banking or running a business. But link it with the idea that "your eternity depends on this organisation", and you have an excuse for degrading treatment of SO members, and the mental/spiritual slavery that goes along with being 'owned' by Scientology.

    Oops, this has turned into a tl;dr screed.
     
    PirateAndBum likes this.
  9. PirateAndBum

    PirateAndBum Gold Meritorious Patron

    You too can make it go wrong by making it go right! Sign up today! Your eternity is waiting! On this planet!!!
     
    strativarius likes this.
  10. Voodoo

    Voodoo Free Your Mind And Your Ass Will Follow

    Given the developmental history of Scientology, I suspect the original observations about different levels of operating conditions was made by someone other than Hubbard. It's plainly obvious that people and projects move back and forth through higher and lower conditions of existence.

    The problem is with the associated formulas for 'moving up' through the conditions. Many of the steps make perfect sense, while others are non-intuitive, or don't lead to an immediate advance into the next higher operating condition.
     
    Enthetan and Wilbur like this.
  11. F.Bullbait

    F.Bullbait Oh, a wise guy,eh?

    Let's make a thorough analysis of this...

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Xenu Xenu Xenu

    Xenu Xenu Xenu Patron Meritorious

    Graphs. It is all bullshit, just like the above quote. That is probably the first thing everyone reads when they are introduced to Scientology and it is the first of many lies, distractions, and cons.

    First of all, the mark usually already assumes that there is something worth learning from this book. Wrong assumption. You haven't read the book yet. For all you know it could be a lie.

    Important Note

    Why is that important? Because Hubbard said so? And so you tell yourself it is ''important''. You are already on the way to accepting more lies.

    In reading this book, be very certain you never go past a word you do not fully understand.

    And so you obey that ''advice'' because you want to learn even though there is nothing to learn there. Hubbard now has you doing just what he wants you to do. He's got you performing the first trick like a trained dog. It probably never occurred to you that you should question even this, but you should. Critical thinking demands it.

    The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was not understood.

    And now you remember all the times you read something and had a hard time learning. Now it all makes sense! Of course this is the reason why you sometimes had trouble in school or elsewhere! Of course this is why you sometimes felt stupid!

    It doesn't occur to you that this isn't a FACT. Hubbard makes it look that way only because he says it is a fact but you never even stopped to think about that.

    It doesn't even occur to you that everybody has felt stupid at one time or another and that this is nothing strange.

    By the time you are reading about graphs, you have already bought into the nonsense.

    Reading the oh so ''Important Note'' was my first mistake.

    Graphs, stats, ethics, Scientology. It is all an expensive crock of shit that will ultimately cost you your limited time in this world if you buy into it.
     
    strativarius likes this.
  13. Irayam

    Irayam Patron with Honors

    You’re totally right. Thanks God, they’re making lots of error!

    Irayam
     
    Wilbur and Enthetan like this.
  14. erni

    erni Patron

    So, nobody want translate it?
     
  15. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Yep. Nobody want translate it.
     
  16. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    I'll translate it into Marcabian if you like ... :biggrin:
     
  17. screamer2

    screamer2 Idiot Bastardson

    I'd say keep trying. Don't give up. There may be someone out here who would want to translate it for you.

    After strat is done you might find someone who would want to translate it from Marcabian into English. Or Russian. Or Klingon even. Yeah, don't give up.

    And keep us posted on progress.
     
  18. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    Actually screamer there's nothing for me to do, the Marcabians actually communicated via thought-transference and had no written or spoken language as it happens - a little known but important fact when dealing with this civilisation. :coolwink:
     
  19. JustSheila

    JustSheila Crusader

    Oh the friggin stats and graphs and conditions formulas. Who cares. All l Ron did was change the sequence of steps around in the conditions. Should I promote first or hold things the same? Should I make changes? Absolutely moronic. :duh: if it’s working, keep doing it, if not change. Don’t have to write a book about something that’s obvious to anyone who isn’t a moron.

    Welcome to the Board. Shorter posts on forums work better.
     
  20. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    The significant problem with your analysis and list of "errors" in Hubbard's "Management tech" is the implication that, if these errors were corrected, it would work.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. Hubbard's "Management tech" would never work. It is just plain bad management, built in from the beginning.

    Hubbard's "Management tech" is moronic. "Get number from staff member; Chart graph; Force staff to apply formula." "Up, good! Not up, bad!"

    No quality tracked in the system. No understanding of customers, seasons, market, product, manufacture, staff, no understanding about problems, no eye to the future. It's management by moron.

    In Hubbard's "Management tech" there are no excuses for a down statistic. Period. No planning for problems. No understanding of the processes. If all you ask for is "Up!", "Up!" quality will fall, customers will revolt, staff will go criminal.

    Hubbard's "Management tech" == total failure guaranteed. No list of "errors" can ever fix it.
     
    JustSheila likes this.