|
It was a warm summer evening when my friend Darrick and I strolled into
Salt Lake's
Scientology
Center. We were on a walk hoping to relieve job stress when we spotted
a large red and white sidewalk sign that read: Free Personality Tests.
With my sparkling personality and his dry-wit charm, what did we have to
lose? Plus it was probably the most stimulating entertainment we were going
to find on a weekday in Salt Lake City.
We signed up. A very pregnant blond woman sat us down in a room with
walls stacked with books by L. Ron Hubbard, the science fiction author
who started the religion back in the 1950s. For a complete psychoanalysis,
we had to take an IQ test and a personality test.
I did the IQ test first and whizzed right through it. The simple
math and logic questions didn't cause me much pain.
Next came the personality test: 200 questions that would dissect my psychological
makeup into 10 personality traits. I was getting overly confident
because the IQ test was so easy. But they hit me with some rough
ones: "Are you a slow eater?" and "Do you throw things away only to discover
that you need them later?"
Yes, I bit my nails; no, I wouldn't admit I was wrong just to "keep the
peace." The test went on and on.
"Do children irritate you?" it continued. Of course, I responded.
Don't they irritate everyone? "Do you ever feel ill at ease in the
company of children?" Again, I marked the "yes" box. I knew
these answers would bring down my evaluation a few notches, so I tried
to pick up my score on some others.
"If you were invading another country, would you feel sympathetic toward
conscientious objectors in this country?" Certainly, I thought to
myself and marked "yes" on the form. What about "corporal punishment?"
Would I use it on a 10-year-old if he refused to obey? No, I decided; they
may annoy me, but I wasn't going to make them pay for it with physical
pain.
Finally all 200 boxes were checked. Now, I knew I wasn't perfect
when I handed over the test--I'm just your typical angsty American trying
to survive the 21st century. But considering the circumstances,
I figured I was getting through life pretty well. So, I wasn't expecting
the dismal evaluation that came next.
The evaluator, we'll call her Gale, assured me my IQ score was fine; I
could be an executive or and executive's assistant. Yes, my hopes
and dreams were soaring now. An executive?!?!¼
I really have something to look forward to, I thought to myself sarcastically.
But she had started me out with the GOOD news. It was all downhill
from here.
Next Gale pulled out several sheets of green paper, one with my personality
charted neatly on a graph and another with a brief narrative of my evaluation.
She looked me straight in the eyes and said, "This is going to be harsh,
but I'm just going to be really honest about this," she started.
I nodded uncertainly.
"You are irresponsible in your life and work. You blame your own
irresponsibility on others. Although you feel others are controlling
you, you really are incapable of accepting control yourself."
It went on like this paragraph after paragraph-- I was "extremely critical,"
I "lashed out verbally" and made it "impossible for people to be around
me." Then came the real kicker, "You are quite cold blooded and heartless.
You place too much importance on yourself and opinions to be able to be
considerate to others."
Those damn kid question did not help me out, but weren't there any points
for honesty? Apparently not. Also, sympathy towards conscientious
objectors is NOT a positive trait in Scientologists' eyes. Despite
my undying compassion for these guys, Gale told me my "complete inability
to project yourself into another persons (sic) place or situation and thus
better understand that person causes a great deal of difficulty for you
in your associations."
All the way through the laundry list of my personality defects, she peppered
the conversation with words of encouragement, "Scientology can help you
with this" and "I have seen scores improve just after a few sessions of
Scientology."
I wasn't about to shell out any money to people who believed I was morally,
psychologically and emotionally depraved. So, I left without signing
up.
Darrick's evaluation was equally dismal. We discovered we were both
"cold blooded and heartless;"¼
finally I understood our friendship's common thread. We walked back
home, laughing and comparing notes. Neither of us was about to buy
into the sales pitch that had so obviously been made, so we had to accept
the fact we would remain losers in Scientologists' eyes. Other than
a strangely amusing way to fill an evening, I doubt I would have given
my experience further thought.
But when I returned home, I flipped through my evaluation once more before
sending it to the paper-recycling box, and something caught my eye.
The evaluation's last page seemed strangely out of place. As
I scanned the text I realized it was something I was never supposed to
see.
What I found was not more insight into my black personality, but rather
a generic script instructing evaluators on how to close the interview.
It was a page Gale had intended to rip out, but somehow missed and it ended
up in my "cold blooded and heartless" little hands.
In the end, I realized Scientology and I were kindred spirits; they were
just as mean-spirited as I was. The script encouraged evaluators
to coerce an emotionally weak person into taking a Scientology class. The
prepared guidelines read, "The Evaluator now leans back and says, 'That's
it.' Incomer is hanging on ropes." Merriam Webster dictionary
defines "on the ropes" as "in a defensive and often helpless position."
The instructions continued, "If incomer says anything like, 'what can I
do about it?'" Evaluator says, 'That is very commendable. A
good point in your favour.¼"
And the script suggested, "...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 courses and discover what
Scientology can offer you. Go see that lady over there."
But I never asked if I could change my Daughter of Satan soul, so I didn't
hear this positive and encouraging part of the interview. Nor did
I get the "confidential" tip that seems to be neither confidential nor
a tip.
Science Matters
Curious about the validity of the test and whether I really was the Princess
of Darkness, I contacted a clinical psychologist at the University of Utah
to examine the test. Christina Rodriguez, Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology,
said she was unable to determine too much about the test because three
elements need to be determined before a test's accuracy can be determined.
If any one of these elements is faulty, inconsistent or nonexistent, then
the test cannot be trusted as scientific or legitimate.
First you have to know whom the test is comparing you to. To make
a scientifically accurate test the questions must first be given to a sample
population. Then based on the results, the test writers can determine
what is an average response. Without knowing the characteristics
of the initial sample, it is impossible to determine if the analysis is
accurate.
"In order for you to (score) high on something, there has to be an average,
so they had to have collected a bunch of information from a group of people
saying something is average. Maybe their average person is a psychopath.
Maybe their average is someone who is so far apart from what your life
is like that of course you would look different," Rodriguez explained.
She said she would never give a test unless she knew whom the test was
based on and most tests have an accompanying handbook to explain to evaluators
how to interpret the test.
Secondly, the test must be reliable; in other words it must be consistent
over time. Lastly, the test has to be valid meaning it accurately
performs what it set out to do; in this case, does it accurately determine
a person's personality?
Although she couldn't determine if the test was scientific, Rodriguez said
she found a glaring problem with the statements proclaiming, "Scientology
can help you with this." She said, if she, for example, replaced
the word Scientology with "Christina Rodriguez" can help you with this,
she would lose her job, her licenses and could even be charged with fraud.
For her, these statements constitute coercion. In her field, it is
highly unethical to give a personality test as a public service and then
attempt to sell a product or a process to help improve those test scores.
"It would be unethical for me because I'm accountable to a higher authority.
It might be unethical for them, but if they're not accountable to be ethical
then it doesn't translate to anything. You can't force someone to
be ethical, if they choose not to be," said Rodriguez.
Even with the little information Rodriguez had, she was able to determine
several flaws with the Scientologist's trademarked test.
"It's never this extreme especially with a lot of judgmental words.
It's overly harsh especially when it ends with Scientology can help you
with this," Rodriguez said.
Matter of Perspective
I returned to the Scientologists to ask them about the test and the evaluator's
instructions. I took the test again. The graph looked about the same,
my personality traits described with a Horoscope-like accuracy were equally
dismal.
I asked Gale if she knew if the test was scientific. She didn't.
If they couldn't prove this, then, in my mind, the test was no more than
a scientifically unreliable recruiting tool. She said she never questioned
it because it usually "rings so true for people." She said the "Oxford
Capacity Analysis" was written in the 1950s. The lofty title didn't
impress me too much. I could write a test and call it the Princeton
Psychological Analyzer, but that doesn't mean Princeton University had
anything to do with it.
She got sick of my questions and told me to call the head of public relations.
I called Lora Mengucci, the director of special affairs for the Utah Church
of Scientology. No, she didn't know anything about the test, but
she would start looking. She had never heard of the generic script
instructions.
Less than a week later, we spoke again. This time she said she had
looked over the evaluator's instructions and had a different take on it.
"It is just if the person is undecided. Some people say, 'Great sign
me up', others don't. 'Hanging on ropes' is just a phrase, if they're
undecided," said Mengucci.
Merriam Webster may beg to differ, but it seemed simple enough, so why
didn't they just say that? Then she shot down my theory that everyone
scores as poorly as Darrick and I did. She said many people, including
herself, scored very high when she took the test the first time.
So, maybe just my friends and I suffer from these unbearable traits.
She said she was still searching for the research on the test. A
week after I first talked to her, she couldn't find any answers to the
few simple criteria needed prove the test had ANY scientific merit.
I presume she is still looking. But for all my irresponsibility,
I couldn't wait because I had a deadline to meet.
If any Scientologists are reading this, they're probably thinking I wrote
this article because I can't handle the truth. They can't prove to
me their test is anything but Scientologist psychobabble and I'm certainly
not going to prove that I'm anything different than what their test results
claim.
So it's a stalemate, I guess--we're all dysfunctional. In our own
way. |
|
