The Anti-Social Personality and The Social Personality

minks · Post by **minks** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:11 am

Interesting, here I thought I was "anti-social" but obviously not by those terms.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:20 am

The following is taken from the booklet "Cause of Suppression" and I will now list below the characteristics of the anti-social and social personality traits. In order to spot an anti-social characteristic in a person, you must check both traits, if the person is more anti-social than social, you know that you may have a suppressive in your vicinity.

Warning this is a bit long, I will post the social personality traits in the next post.

That was a clever.

cinamin · Post by **cinamin** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:50 am

I thought that you weren't allowed to alter or repeat any of LRH's writings. Wouldn't you get in "ethics" trouble for posting what you just wrote?

BTW, I've read this many times, and think back on it sometimes when I come into contact with certain types of personalities. I think somewhere I also read that only 2% of the population is anti-social.

It seems very much to me, that the persons who seem insane are only this way because of being connected to or related to suppressives.

cinamin · Post by **cinamin** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:24 pm

helefra;593557 wrote: To the first highlighted point, that is true but I did put a copyright symbol on it, unfortunately my keyboard doesn't have a copyright symbol so I had to do this (c) instead. However, what has been typed up here is only an excerpt and not the whole subject.

To the second highlighted point, actually 20% are suppressive and 2.5% are psychotic. It is the 2.5% that actually make our lives hell the 20% are just dramatising the suppressive characteristics. This is only further explained in the PTS (Potential Trouble Source)/SP (Suppressive Person) course.

To the third highlighted point, correct, people who are connected to SPs start to become insane because of the SP's nature to suppress the person. You have to view whether a person is good or bad by their actions, ask yourself "Is the person injuries or constructive with help?" and this will probably give you the answer.

Yah, I used to listen to his tapes. I remember something about the suppressive personality. He said something about suppressives having some little kind of idiosyncracies (may have misspelled that) in their personalities. Like some little quirk such as a funny habit or ....what did it say? I found it very interesting. Can you remember? Another thing about suppressives is that they are in the background (paraphrased). They sit behind the scenes and are kind of like quiet and calculating, while they are pretty much the ones doing the bad deads and making those who work around them do what they want. What did it say.....a "polyannish smile"? And they also have people surrounding them who are very.......what is a good word.....?.................poor or not doing very well. When one is in contact or associated with an sp, it is hard to put your finger on it. IT's hard to see who the sp is. Because of all the people the sp has around them to hide behind and use.

The ED of the org where I worked was declared and sp and her husband and lots of people she had around her were declared pts including me. And then years after I left I found that she had then declared me an sp for not coming back to her org. I found this very weird.:-5

I recently left a man who almost drove me to suicide. I think I left in order to keep my sanity and life. I have been wondering since then if he isn't an sp. He fits a lot of those qualitiies.

cinamin · Post by **cinamin** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:17 pm

helefra;594761 wrote: Well, I know that if you did the course, the saying about the criminal is "The guilty accuses others of that which he himself is already doing". I wouldn't worry about it if I were you, she's been kicked out of the place and that's the main issue here. The problem with new staff members is that they are not told what to do should they wish to leave. So, I'm assuming from what happened here, you walked away from the church due to the suppressive influences it had back then. Well, you can, if you want to, seek an amnesty for your reason to withdraw and I'm certain that it will be accepted. You did the right thing here, you tried to handle but then disconnected.

If anyone did join staff but wanted to leave, my recommendation is for that person to see someone in HCO (Hubbard Communications Office), normally it would be the Ethics Officer and tell that person that he/she wishes to leave. That way, it is done efficiently and therefore doesn't create upset for everyone else. However, if a person has left before they did their Staff Status I and Staff Status II, then they couldn't be declared as the staff member had not even read the Ethics book which covers why a person should see HCO if they wish to leave staff. This would therefore overturn the actual ruling of being declared and an amnesty could be sought.

I don't know how anyone can get declared PTS, I only saw in the Ethics book that a person can be declared as suppressive. However, if the other staff members are in communication with the ED (actual suppressive) and have been told to disconnect, then there is a possibility that they can be disallowed any training or counselling until they disconnect from the suppressive. This is only done if after handling the suppressive doesn't work, then disconnection is used.
I did go back over the the org in the county in live in, back in March last year. That is when I was told in HCO that I'd been declared. So.......I'd been declared many years ago and never even knew it. I was shown the declare and it was so many years ago that I barely remembered it. And I just said to the woman "this is weird, because I've been in here 3 or 4 times since this, and not once have any of you told me about this declare." And the woman in HCO looked very very nervous. That I remember clearly. So I just said "thank you" and I got up and walked out. So it seems to me that there is a lot of bullcrap that goes on in orgs everywhere. Oh and I remember her saying "we can't help you". As if I went in there for help.

Nevertheless, LRH's tapes and writings were interesting, especially the info in Qual I could read.

Jamesblonde · Post by **Jamesblonde** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:53 am

1. He or she speaks only in very broad generalities

So whoever wrote this is obviously quite anti-social given that they are trying to divide us all into two categories defined by percieved and not proven characteristics.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:30 pm

To be honest with you the above posts sound like something out of a "Star Trek" type of program or "1984". Well trained robots???? Big Brother is watching you????

Shalom

Ted:-6

jugglingmuggles · Post by **jugglingmuggles** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:19 am

Right Ted.

But anything can sound a bit strange which includes terms you're not familiar with.

jugglingmuggles · Post by **jugglingmuggles** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:54 am

I'm not sure what a sicopath is and given that I can't find a definition on the internet I estimate it's not a widely used word.

Maybe you're thinking of a sociopath?

Anyway the important definition is the one given of the anti-social personality in this thread.

In Scientology there is a course you can do so that you become proficient at spotting these people (most of them are very covert), and learn how to deal with them so that you don't get affected by them. Funnily enough as a result you will almost never be ill.

Mia · Post by **Mia** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:54 am

I have not heard of this condition,could someone please tell me is it the same as what is known as a sicopath? The traits seem very similar.I used to have a friend like this....please note I managed to escape,as I was dragged down by it all.

Mia

jugglingmuggles · Post by **jugglingmuggles** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:55 am

Mia;640775 wrote: I have not heard of this condition,could someone please tell me is it the same as what is known as a sicopath? The traits seem very similar.I used to have a friend like this....please note I managed to escape,as I was dragged down by it all.

Mia

How about that Mia - my response was so fast it came before your original post in this thread!

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:56 am

jugglingmuggles;640774 wrote: I'm not sure what a sicopath is and given that I can't find a definition on the internet I estimate it's not a widely used word.

Maybe you're thinking of a sociopath?

Anyway the important definition is the one given of the anti-social personality in this thread.

In Scientology there is a course you can do so that you become proficient at spotting these people (most of them are very covert), and learn how to deal with them so that you don't get affected by them. Funnily enough as a result you will almost never be ill.

Might have been:

sycophant

sycÂ·oÂ·phant /ˈsɪkəfənt, -ˌfÃ¦nt, ˈsaɪkə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sik-uh-fuhnt, -fant, sahy-kuh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

â€“noun a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.

jugglingmuggles · Post by **jugglingmuggles** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:19 am

Indeed. Sychophants generally fall under the definition of the Anti-Social Personality.

Mia · Post by **Mia** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:27 am

jugglingmuggles;640777 wrote: How about that Mia - my response was so fast it came before your original post in this thread!

LOL i thought I had put the reply in the wrong place,I am not use to the site yet.:-:-3

jugglingmuggles · Post by **jugglingmuggles** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:23 am

I'm sure you will.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:03 pm

juggling:)

It is not the terms that bother me but the whole issue. I would not support a move to "1984" in any way shape or form.

Shalom

Ted:)

jugglingmuggles · Post by **jugglingmuggles** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:49 pm

Good - that's about the worst thing that could happen.

Shame governments are trying to push in that direction under the guise of fighting terrorism!

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:16 pm

juggling:-6

You are certainly correct about terrorism being used as an excuse to take away freedoms.

Shalom

Ted:-6

jugglingmuggles · Post by **jugglingmuggles** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:57 pm

Glad you realise that too Ted!