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

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

To : TEST EVALUATOR                             Date: **-Aug-1997

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

[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

[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

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

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

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.