Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
One of the many good features of this board and of the ex and critical scene in general is the kicking around and evaluation of Scn concepts. I always find that to be a lot of fun. Reminds me of late nights where people have wine or coffee and are enthusiastically debating this or that in a friendly mentally stimulating kind of way.
I was thinking of the PTS/SP thing, particularly PTSness. I think there's merit to some of it, that Hubbard based some of it on plain old observation. Of course, he also included his own anger at enemies (many of whom were either imaginary or were people he provoked in the first place) and some other things that were opinions and imagination. And, as we know, the PTS/SP "tech" have been used to oppress and keep CofS members in line the whole time. And this is why people are so very critical of those theories. Their implementation has caused a lot of heartbreak and fragmentations of families and there are innate problems and untruths in the concepts themselves.
While I don't think that every situation that causes someone to "go effect " or experience the kind of stress that makes them liable to get in accidents or become ill or terrified or anything like that is the result of a sociopath lurking in the woodpile or someone whose actions remind the person of such, I do think that some of the phenomena and symptoms described are often true.
But then again, how can I call it PTSness when the acronym means "Potential Trouble Source". Meaning, the sufferer, the person who's under that stress, is a potential or actual problem to others. Of course someone who's terrified or stressed to the max can make bad decisions that harm others, but people who aren't experiencing that can also make bad decisions from lack of information, irrational thoughts, illogic, etc. But the very phrase and acronym are classic Hubbardite blaming the victim. How could anyone look to them for help with something when, right out of the gate, the person needing help and succor is considered to be wrong and a problem?
Hubbard had a worldview of sociopaths who were out to get others and who were relatively numerous (2.5% of the population which would be millions of people, worldwide) and that those connected to them would then cause problems. (The 20% who were "PTS"). Evidently, an "SP"'s reach is considered to be roughly a fifth of the population around him.
For one thing, I don't think that there are that many sociopaths or SPs or whatever one wants to call them. Of course I think that people can affect others. But people can put a lot of pressure on others and be hard on them without being an out and out antisocial personality. And there are people and goals that should be suppressed by others because they are destructive. DM comes to mind. Dictators, etc.
As I once mentioned, my husband used to work in a maximum security federal prison. When we were in CofS, and were first married, I said to him "I bet you met a lot of SPs, huh?" and he said that he thought that most of them were "just PTS" and that he didn't consider the majority to be suppressive. I thought that was interesting and that was the beginning of my changing my thinking away from seeing SPs as the hidden answer to every problem.
I do think that if someone is, for any reason, in a bad and ongoing situation, that they will not have the best reasoning. I always thought it was a lot like being in a deep well that's too slippery to climb out of by yourself, but if someone lowered down a good sturdy rope ladder, then escape becomes doable. And maybe someone lowers a ladder but it's so dark that you can't see it. Talking to people who are in bad situations like that where you suggest possible solutions to them can be challenging. The solutions don't always resonate with them even if you manage to make a pretty good sensible suggestion.
So although I think some of the phenomena and mechanisms of PTSness described by Hubbard are probably correct, still, this is a concept that is riddled with half truths and misconceptions.
I'll just end this with one really great example of what would be a "PTS sit". Being staff at CofS and experiencing the constant hassling every day. Staffers are suppressed constantly, every day as long as they are there. The organization is extremely "suppressive". Even those who really try to do everything they are told to do 100% of the time never have it work out for them.
I was thinking of the PTS/SP thing, particularly PTSness. I think there's merit to some of it, that Hubbard based some of it on plain old observation. Of course, he also included his own anger at enemies (many of whom were either imaginary or were people he provoked in the first place) and some other things that were opinions and imagination. And, as we know, the PTS/SP "tech" have been used to oppress and keep CofS members in line the whole time. And this is why people are so very critical of those theories. Their implementation has caused a lot of heartbreak and fragmentations of families and there are innate problems and untruths in the concepts themselves.
While I don't think that every situation that causes someone to "go effect " or experience the kind of stress that makes them liable to get in accidents or become ill or terrified or anything like that is the result of a sociopath lurking in the woodpile or someone whose actions remind the person of such, I do think that some of the phenomena and symptoms described are often true.
But then again, how can I call it PTSness when the acronym means "Potential Trouble Source". Meaning, the sufferer, the person who's under that stress, is a potential or actual problem to others. Of course someone who's terrified or stressed to the max can make bad decisions that harm others, but people who aren't experiencing that can also make bad decisions from lack of information, irrational thoughts, illogic, etc. But the very phrase and acronym are classic Hubbardite blaming the victim. How could anyone look to them for help with something when, right out of the gate, the person needing help and succor is considered to be wrong and a problem?
Hubbard had a worldview of sociopaths who were out to get others and who were relatively numerous (2.5% of the population which would be millions of people, worldwide) and that those connected to them would then cause problems. (The 20% who were "PTS"). Evidently, an "SP"'s reach is considered to be roughly a fifth of the population around him.
For one thing, I don't think that there are that many sociopaths or SPs or whatever one wants to call them. Of course I think that people can affect others. But people can put a lot of pressure on others and be hard on them without being an out and out antisocial personality. And there are people and goals that should be suppressed by others because they are destructive. DM comes to mind. Dictators, etc.
As I once mentioned, my husband used to work in a maximum security federal prison. When we were in CofS, and were first married, I said to him "I bet you met a lot of SPs, huh?" and he said that he thought that most of them were "just PTS" and that he didn't consider the majority to be suppressive. I thought that was interesting and that was the beginning of my changing my thinking away from seeing SPs as the hidden answer to every problem.
I do think that if someone is, for any reason, in a bad and ongoing situation, that they will not have the best reasoning. I always thought it was a lot like being in a deep well that's too slippery to climb out of by yourself, but if someone lowered down a good sturdy rope ladder, then escape becomes doable. And maybe someone lowers a ladder but it's so dark that you can't see it. Talking to people who are in bad situations like that where you suggest possible solutions to them can be challenging. The solutions don't always resonate with them even if you manage to make a pretty good sensible suggestion.
So although I think some of the phenomena and mechanisms of PTSness described by Hubbard are probably correct, still, this is a concept that is riddled with half truths and misconceptions.
I'll just end this with one really great example of what would be a "PTS sit". Being staff at CofS and experiencing the constant hassling every day. Staffers are suppressed constantly, every day as long as they are there. The organization is extremely "suppressive". Even those who really try to do everything they are told to do 100% of the time never have it work out for them.