Sociopathic behavior

I originally intended this blog entry as a quickie, a simple prediction of how the Church would react to Marty Rathbun’s latest blog entry, the sociopath next door (a review of a book of that title, by the way, and not just another assessment of Church leader David Miscavige). Easy prediction: This Church-run site will accuse Marty of not only using non-LRH tech, but relying on a source written by – *gasp* – a psychiatrist. (Author Martha Stout is actually a psychologist, but to most Scientologists, it’s all the same.)

Understand that in Scientology, this is a Huge Deal – equivalent to a devout Christian saying that it might have been better if Jesus loosened up and got himself laid now and then.

Besides what I expected from the article – Marty saying that Dr. Stout’s findings validate the writings of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, which they don’t quite, and I’ll talk about that in a minute – Marty does make an interesting point that is useful for protesters.

He talks about the period of “decompression,” when people have just left Scientology, and how he says it’s common to turn away from Scientology altogether – something, I was surprised to learn, that even he did — although his reasons came back to Church management rather than LRH:

“During my own decompression period I did not want to read or hear anything about Scientology. That included reading Hubbard books or listening to his lectures. While I never doubted any gains I had achieved and used my training in living life, delving back into the subject brought about depressing emotions with the recognition that the entity that ‘owned’ the technology was for all intents and purposes destroying it. I have found that many people shared that resistance during their decompressions.”

Interesting. Other Scientologists have talked about this “waking up” period, although I don’t know if the idea that the frustration has to do with current management is universal – perhaps it’s Marty just trying to plant a seed in the minds of potential customers. Or perhaps that’s really how he felt. Regardless, it’s an interesting insight into the mindset of someone leaving the Church – and something we can all keep in mind as we talk to people who are leaving, or thinking of leaving.

Thanks for the data, Marty.

Let’s talk about Marty’s conclusions about Stout’s book and Scientology “tech.” We’re used to hearing Scientologists say that some modern-day work validates the findings of L. Ron Hubbard (although few would dare to say that about the writings of an “evil psych”). Marty writes:

“Her observations are remarkably parallel to Hubbard’s description of the Suppressive Person. Note, modern accepted characteristics of the sociopath very closely align with Hubbard’s descriptions of the emotional tone level of Covert Hostility and of the Suppressive Person. This is so much the case that I have taken to using the terms ‘suppressive person’ and ‘sociopath’ interchangeably.

“But, Stout’s first and foremost marker for the sociopath is more complementary of Hubbard’s work than it is duplicative. Per Stout, the sociopath first and foremost lacks conscience. It is a very useful and workable observation she shares.”

Interesting, and I’m impressed that Marty differentiates between “complimentary” and “duplicative”. But Marty did leave out one huge, glaring fact.

A sociopath is generally defined by the “Wog world” as someone who has no conscience, no concerns about right and wrong, and feels no remorse. It is considered a form of antisocial personality disorder.

Hubbard used several definitions for Supressive Person, and many of them conformed to the definitions used by mental health experts; he even used the term “anti-social personality” as a synonym. (No, the mental health experts did not get this from Hubbard; according to Webster’s dictionary, the term “sociopath” was first coined in 1930.)

But among his long list of definitions, Hubbard has this one: “[O]ne that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scn or a Scientologist by suppressive acts.” (Source: Technical Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology.)

And what are suppressive acts? “1. acts calculated to impede or destroy Scn or a Scientologist. 2. actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce or impede Scn or Scientologists” (ibid).

So, you see, according to Hubbard, one could be a sociopath by displaying conscience-free antisocial behavior…or by speaking out against Scientology. (So, per Hubbard’s definition, I am a sociopath, and if you’re reading this, chances are you are, too.)

More significant and ominous is the implication that impeding Scientology is just as bad as acting with no conscience or remorse.

And let’s face it, to die-hard Scientologists – from Rathbun to Miscavige – that’s true. (Eternal spiritual freedom, dontcha know.)

Of course, Marty seems unwilling to accept Dr. Stout’s conclusions that don’t jibe with Hubbard’s:

“…the last 1/3 or so of Stout’s book meanders down a sometimes painful path of speculations about possible genetic sources for sociopathy… I was able to recognize that despite Stout’s wonderful contributions (and clearly unintended validation of Hubbard’s work) modern mental health practitioners, regardless of their evolutionary progress over the past four decades, are still shackled by their inability to perceive or unwillingness to credit the spirit or soul.”

Translation: Hubbard: 1, Mental Heath Profession: 0.

The ironic thing is that I have read opinions that L. Ron Hubbard may well have been a sociopath, as demonstrated by his willingness to lie to all and sundry, behavior that indicated he felt he was exempt from consequences, and his alleged lack of remorse after tragic events like the jailing of his wife and the suicide of his son Quentin. (Hubbard’s alleged response: “That stupid fucking kid! Look what he’s done to me!”)

We’ll wait to see if the Churchies condemn Marty’s latest as I expect they will. And I think Marty’s article is an excellent illustration of how Scientology affects one’s perception of the outside world. Scientologists are trained to recognize information that parallels Hubbard’s writings and give him credit, and reject anything that doesn’t agree with Hubbard (“what’s true for you is true”).

Question for Marty: If you think I’m wrong about that, would you be willing to say that Hubbard was wrong about labeling people who were antagonistic towards Scientology as sociopaths?

The comments section is open, Marty – remember, around here, dissenting viewpoints are never censored.

You can find Marty’s original blog entry here.


6 responses to “Sociopathic behavior

  1. As I read it, a big part of the definition of an SP is that they can’t bear to see others succeed and will naturally attack anything good or helpful.

    This is clearly meant to underpin the claim that any attacks on Scientology (which is inherently good and helpful, right?) are characteristics of an SP or an SP-influence.

    However, this is not at all a characteristic of a sociopath. Sociopaths have a complete lack of empathy so other people essentially don’t matter to them and can therefore be manipulated, lied to, hurt, etc. A sociopath in a relationship will likely seek to prevent the other person from getting help but they aren’t going to have an inherent inclination to attack “helpful” people and organizations.

  2. The only thing a sociopath has in common with a SP is that both doesn’t respond to treatment, and have no remorse or feeling of guilt for anti-social acts they have done. The Sp doesn’t exist, because it is only Hubbard’s pipedream. Eric is a real sociopath and I have made summation of his profile and his recommendation to the public how to deal with sociopaths. Read it and you will see that a SP is something else!

  3. Sociopath = SP just shows the height of loony Hubbard reached, when anyone critical of Scientology could be labeled as such, even those critical of Hubbard’s behavior.

    Thanks for reading Marty’s blog. It makes my head hurt.

  4. I find it amusing that if one reads Marty’s blog, and then reads the ‘church’ equivalent, if you swap Marty’s name for DM, in each one, they read almost identical!!! The brainwashing is complete. They all use the same terms, evil SP’s, trying to destroy the ‘church’ etc…the same person could be writing both of them! SOME DAY they might all come to their senses, but probably not in the foreseeable future.

    • Although I don’t read a lot of the ecclesiastical blog on Marty, that is probably very true. For all the rambling Hubbard did, the basic principles are a straight jacket on reality. The finger pointing at each other — “No, you’re the SP…you’re the one with the non-standard tech” — meanwhile the wogs are thinking WTF — what a bunch of nutz.

      If the Evil Psychs were in league with Xenu and the tax collectors 75 million years ago, then I’m with Caliwog, Marty is clearly in league with that group. So, I guess DM is the REAL Scilon after all.

      Marty, take me to your leader, Xenu the evil galactic overlord.

  5. What Marty also leaves out is the fact that the Scientology Tech – LRH, explains that an SP, and this is paraphrased, is stuck in a past incident on the whole-track fighting an enemy, and so in present time perceives those around them to be the enemies they’re still fighting in the past.

    Regardless of all the characteristics and traits that an SP is supposed to have, the above explanation is the bottom line for every SP and why they behave the way they do. In other words, “Scientology can help them with that” because there is a “Scientological explanation” for why they are the way they are. They are simply “stuck in an incident.” Regardless, Hubbard felt that no Scientology-time should be wasted on SPs at all. That they are NCG’s “No Case Gain” cases. However, from the point of view of an Auditor, or a Scientologist who wants to help “Clear the Planet” you would think that it would be of utmost importance to get SP cases sorted out. I mean wouldn’t the planet be a safer place if these SPs were relieved from fighting these past battles? Still, LRH felt that these types of cases were better suited for the Mental Health industry to deal with and sort out because “Scientology is for the ABLE to become more able.”

    There is no scientific explanation, research or method that was used to establish the above “facts” yet Hubbard and Scientologists will continue to rail on the field of Mental Health and their practitioners who are there dealing with the folks who Scientology won’t dare touch.

    Marty says, “…regardless of their evolutionary progress over the past four decades, are still shackled by their inability to perceive or unwillingness to credit the spirit or soul.”

    Well, Marty, the reverse could be said as well, “…regardless of Scientology’s inability to evolve or progress over the past few decades, they are still shackled by their inability to perceive or unwillingness to smell bullshit when they’ve stepped in it.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s