Not the M Scale

 This is something I wrote about ten years ago responding to a guy called Joe Hinman (aka Metacrock), who uses Hood's "M Scale" to prove mystic experience come from God. I think I posted in on a forum blog, probably at CARM. I am reproducing it here for (my own) historical interest.

The point here is that the M scale seeks to quantify mystical experiences, but does not in any way lead to the conclusion that God actually exists.

Here then is the post...

The C Scale

I want to introduce the C Scale. The C Scale is something I have invented to measure people's experiences of commuting. This is, of course, a parody of the M Scale, but if you can see the flaws in my argument about the C Scale, you will see the flaws in Metacrock's argument too.

If you cannot spot the flaws, you will have to accept that everyone works at the same place!

Claim: We All Work At The Same Place

That may surprise you, but it can be shown to true. Prof T. Raffic did some research and found these commonalities:

1. People set off, often in the morning, to get to work

2. It takes some time

3. They use a variety of transportation methods

3. Then they arrive at their destination.

It is, of course, telling that these commuting experiences are the same the world over. Therefore they must be the same. And we can prove that using the C Scale.

The C scale was developed by Prof Holdup to confirm the finds of Raffic. It involves asking respondents - most of whom were employed - a number of questions. Here are some example questions (there are 32 altogether):

1. I find travel to work to be pretty straightforward (N)

2. My journey to work takes a long time

3. I use my journey to do something constructive, such as read the paper (N)

4. Traffic conditions often have a detrimental effect on my journey

5. My journey takes me through a large city

6. My journey is mostly rural (N)

7. My journey is mostly urban

8. My journey does not take me through a large city (N)

Respondents rate each question from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree). If the question is negative (noted with an "N" above), the figure is reversed, and either way 3 is added to it, so each question ranges from 1 to 5, and over the 32 questions, it ranges from 32 to 160.

Thousands of people have done the questionnaire, and there is an average score of 120.2 for women and 122.3 for men. So clearly a lot of people are having the same experience.

A factoring analysis has been performed. That is a statistical analysis that attempts to find a correlation by going through every combination of weightings for each question. I decided I wanted two factors, so that is what I looked for. When the computer had done the analysis, I looked at what questions had a high weighting for each factor, and gave an ad hoc name based on that. The first factor is correlated to journey time, and the second factor to city population, I decided.

The C scale has the most validation of any study in the field. A bunch of studies getting the same result in countries from Sweden to India. Not that I am going to reveal how that validation is actually done or what it actually means. I will just say it has been validated and leave you to conclude that my claim is therefore fully supported.

The important thing is the empirical studies demonstrate the findings that corroborate Raffic's theory of commuter experience. This demonstrates the basis for a body of work confirming the common core theory: the idea that everyone commutes to the same place, minus the details of individual journeys. That is a good indication that the same basic reality stands behind all of these experiences regardless of the geographic location.

And that proves everyone commutes to the same place.

Then Again...

Okay, some people might have spotted a couple of issues with the theory...

Points of commonality: These are very general and one of them actually states there is variety, rather than similarity. No way can these be said to show the commuting experience is the same for all.

C scale: The C scale is a way to quantify the commuting experience. Its mere existence certainly cannot tell us anything about commuting.

Figures: The C scale assigns the entire world to one of 129 pigeon holes (32 to 160). It is already presupposing that commuting experiences around the world can be forced into one of those pigeon holes, and it does that by keeping the questions general, and limited in their number and responses.

Application: The C scale is really designed to determine how bad your commute is. That is built into it, and you can see that because some questions are negative and some positive [i]on that basis[/i].

Factoring: Given the C scale was designed to measure how bad your commute is, is it any surprise a statistical analysis indicates a correlation with how bad your commute is?

Measurement: The C scale measures; how can we conclude everything is therefore the same? On the contrary, the results show people range from 32 to 160, therefore they have a range of commuting experiences. When you look at the factors, people range on two different axes. That proves the experiences are [i]different[/i], not the same.

Validation: The validation has show that those two factors work across the world. That does not prove that everyone's commute is the same, it proves that how bad your commute is depends on city size and duration wherever you are in the world.

Validation BS: Oh, and merely asserting it has been validated, without stating what that means indicates you are clueless about it or being deceitful.

And then The M Scale...

The M scale is not the same as the C scale, but most of the same problems apply, as we shall see.

In a nut shell: they scale is a questionnaire patterned around the theory of W.T. Stace that mystical experiences are the same the world over and that they are beyond word, thought or image. The scale measures experiences to see if they stack up to Stace. It get's more complex than that because Stace also theorized that the same experiencing can be described in many different ways. Let's bracket that for the moment so we can keep it simple. People answer the questions in the way that shows their experiences agree with Stace then Stace's theory is validated because it means people are having the experiences Stace talked about.

Metacrock is trying to pull the wool over our eyes here, by pretending that "mystical experiences are the same the word over". The reality is that there is some commonality, but there are plenty of differences too.

In post #5, he said (quoting Lukoff):

1. Ecstatic mood, which he identified as the most common feature;

2. Sense of newly gained knowledge, which includes a belief that the mysteries of life have been revealed;

3. Perceptual alterations, which range from "heightened sensations to auditory and visual hallucinations (p. 167)";

4. Delusions (if present) have themes related to mythology, which includes an incredible range diversity and range;

5. No conceptual disorganization, unlike psychotic persons those with mystical experiences do NOT suffer from disturbances in language and speech.

Look at that list. If mystical experiences were the same the world over, then everyone experiencing them would gain the same knowledge. Curiously, Lukoff does not say they do. Perceptual alterations "range from..." That means there is a variety of perceptual alterations. How can that be if these experiences are all the same? Delusion "if present" tells me that some experiences include delusions and some do not. Yet Metacrock would have us believe that "mystical experiences are the same the word over". When they are present, the diversity is "incredible". Not the similarity, but the diversity.

Just like with the C scale, the so-called similarities are vague and generic, and designed to hide the fact that these experiences vary wildly (to be fair, it is doubtful Lukoff was even claiming they are all the same).

To me, this is all based on subjective opinion. Metacrock asserts "The m scale is the best validated standard there is." I previously ask Metacrock to explain how it was validated, and to talk us through how it supports his claims.

One of the things that has been charged by way of criticism is that they could just accidentally answer in a way that agrees with Stace. The point is that with 32 questions the odds of them doing that are extremely remote. Some have argued that they could lie. That assumes they know what to lie about. The odds of them lying for malevolent or prideful reasons and accidentally validating Stace are ludicrously small. They have to accidentally get 32 items right. You can't lie your way into it. I actually did an experiment on the board making my own study of seven questions. I told them please try to lie your way into validating Underhill. not one of them could do it even though they claimed to know what a mystic would want to hear.

Mind you, Hood's validating studies were done around the world. They did peasants in Iran and India, rice farmers in Japan. These guys are not going to know about Stace and they are not going to know about the common core they can't lie in such a way purposely so as to validate Stace.

The M scale has the most validation of any study in the field. A bunch of studies re doing the data and getting teh same result in countries from Sweden to India.

Several different versions of the M scale were made, and they were designed to reflect cross-cultural validation. Rather than just measuring two factors, they measured three factors or “general categories” that more closely mirrored Stace’s reading of mystical accounts and experiences. The important thing is the empirical studies demonstrate the findings that corroborate Staces’s theory of mystical experience. This demonstrates the basis for a body of work confirming the common core theory: the idea that mystical experiences are the same, minus the details of individual traditions. That is a good indication that the same basic reality stands behind all of these experiences regardless of the religious tradition. The tailored the questions to treat the overall ontological structure of a belief system. So “God” is treated not as a specific personality but as the transcendental signifier (although Hood does not use that term). This means atheist mystics who sense a void and Christian mystics who sense Christ are talking the same things, because weather they call it “a void” or “Jesus” the void or Jesus function the same way in the over all economy of an ontological system. That means that mystics the world over is probably experiencing the same thing, but they load that into different cultural constructs in order to explain it.

I specifically asked Metacrock how validation was done, and he has ducked the question, choosing to merely assert it was done, dressing it up with some fancy words.

I do not know how it was done, but I will take a guess. This involved showing a correlation between the two factors. The finding is that people put themselves on two axes. A person will perhaps rate himself highly on one axis, and somewhere in the middle on another. A second person might be low on the first axis, and high on the second. The claim is that each individual will be consistent in where he goes on each axis.

The validation involves showing this consistency is present across cultures.

The point is that such a validation does nothing to prove Metacrock's case, because people are ranged across both those axis. Metacrock wants us to believe there is consistency across all experiences, but that is not the consistency that has been validated.

Little wonder, then, that he chose not to explain how validation was done.

To give another analogy, this is like claiming all cars are the same because their fuel consumption and top speed can be measured, and the methodology for measuring them has been validated. Just because these things can be measured and the measurement is validated we cannot conclude that all cars must necessarily be similar. Quite the contrary! These things are measured so we have a way to compare very different cars to each other.

So it is with the M scale. Metacrock would have us believe it supports his claim that "mystical experiences are the same the word over". The reality is that it was developed as a tool to compared very different experiences.