the Scociopath Next Door & LRH

JustSheila

Crusader
Yes. And what you said in your earlier post, Lurker5. That was terrific. :thumbsup:

Between you, Apple, Blanky and the others, you all got me thinking in a different direction. Each idea is creating another which creates another for all of us.

Socrates would have approved! :biggrin:
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
"Life is a game"

knowing-cause.jpg


Martha Stout said:
Without our primordial attachments to others, what would we be?

Evidently, we would be the players of a game, one that resembled a giant chess match, with our fellow human beings as the rooks, the knights, and the pawns. For this is the essence of sociopathic behavior and desire. The only thing [the sociopath] really wants—the only thing left—is to win. —Martha Stout , Ph.D. The Sociopath Next Door

I assembled some more related material on an archived blog: https://web.archive.org/web/2012050...&task=category&sectionid=14&id=105&Itemid=187
 

JustSheila

Crusader
Thank you, Caroline.

I'm wondering if you have the "Below Body Death" tone scale handy?

I've never had any use for it before and don't even remember it very well, but now I'm wondering if this is actually Hub's way of describing his own self-loathing and maybe schizophrenic break?
 

Intentionally Blank

Scientology Widow
I think actually identifying someone as a sociopath is very hard. I might suspect such, but until they do something just horrendous, I can't really wrap my mind around it, that the person is one. Even then, after some sociopathic act, I have a hard time believing it . . . . And really it is the end product of everything, not just one act, that is the real 'tell'.

When you personally get targeted and burned, and you see that smirk, as he/she stares you down - because they want you to know it was them - that is when you really know . . . And even then, it is hard to wrap your head around, even though you KNEW the person was capable of such actions . . . .
And if you watch, from a good distance, the person move through life, you will see the 'tells' all over the place, the job hopping, the sexual promiscuity and broken relationships, the abused spouse/partner, the family breaks and problems caused by this person - and the hatred this person will have for own family - these are just a tiny sprinkling of the trail of crumbs left by a sociopath - there is usually drugs/alcohol, and criminality too, sometimes white collar, definitely no integrity or ethics or honor or courage. They are cowards. Snakes. Oh but they are charming and disarming. They move through life burning people and opportunities, because people - the fresh meat anyway - like and trust - the person, right off.
:sadsigh:

I think organizations/corporations/governments can be sociopathic, if run by such - like soc$/scno. I believe that anyone - any person - can sometimes behave in a sociopathic fashion, especially if being controlled by and organization/corporation/government - is brainwashed, in a cult, etc - or extrememly angry, in a rage. I don't think this makes a person a sociopath.

I am not as educated or up on all the mental illnesses and symptoms as Sheila, but I think lrh was a sociopath. I have been around mentally ill people, but not to the extent that Sheila has, nor at her level of involvement. Sooo - I am taking into consideration what Sheila is saying, and will look into her 'diagnosis' - I mean, I like to keep my mind open, even when it is closed, :lol:. And the lid on the lrh as sociopath is almost closed down in my mind. But as I said, it is very hard to actually believe a human being can have such hatred and contempt for other human beings - and do such horrendous things.

But we are seeing it in the news every day now . . . . :unsure: . . . . . Not going there . . . . :no::no::no: I can't wrap my head around the things being done, in name of religion . . . . . Where have all the flowers gone - When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn . . . . Gone to grave yards, every one . . . Where have all the grave yards gone, gone to flowers, every one, When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn ?

Humans are capable of the most horrendous and heinous acts.

I couldn't agree more.

I like to call what you describe as "the wake of destruction". But even that doesn't necessarily mean the person is a sociopath. You'll see it with garden variety addicts, narcissists, borderlines, and other personality disorders.

I've had the great fortune to know several people with the tell tale wake of destruction. Two, I believe are socio/psychopaths. One was a young man I worked with professionally who told me all about how he killed a cat to see if it would come back to life. No emotion whatsoever - just complete matter of fact coldness. The other was the attorney for my former business partner. Yes, I know everyone says that about the lawyer for the opposing side -but this guy was not protecting his client's interests he was exploiting her fears and weaknesses to drag out the case, make everyone miserable, and make more money. Golly that was a fun time in my life o_O

Blanky
 

Lurker5

Gold Meritorious Patron
I only speak from personal experience. After years of flattening my reactions by doing TR's, I do not respond like others who have never done scientology. Especially if there is a death from someone that is close. I do not like my reaction or my visible non reaction. Added to the TR's were the usual almost callous sayings, "oh its just a body". Well no its not just a body its much more, its a life.
The other observation is I have seen people fresh to Scientology who were normal decent people, then after some time in scientology especially if they were on staff they have changed so much into someone that they were not. Maybe Hubbard like. So I ask myself does Scientology change people into Sociopaths or give them some of those characteristics.

I think flattened reactions are more PTSD than anything else. :hug: :console: I think it can last for a lifetime.

But you are AWARE of your reactions being flattened - so you have an understanding and empathy - just don't know how to express it. It is stuck. Lots of folks are in that same boat, ex scnos - or for some other reason. I think it is your awareness of it that is most important.

I myself have a 1000 yard stare, have had it for decades and decades, I guess, and it has nothing to do with scno/co$. I didn't even know I had it until some ass criticized me rather nastily for it - like it was some horrible trait. So I started looking for it - and yes, I can catch it once in awhile, when I look in the mirror, without thinking. :mirror: And yep, there it is. :unsure:

I practice, when I see that, I practice 'coming back' into my 'eyes'. I have a tendency to go 'away' when I am concentrating, thinking deeply on something - when I am focused. My focus is just way the heck 'out there'. Maybe it is just a highly intelligent introvert's personality, or maybe it stems from some early trauma - I don't know. But when I become aware of it, I can make it go away in an instant. I see it in photos sometimes - and then I also see me totally 'there' in photos too - personality shining.

I wouldn't be too worried about how others view or see your reactions. If you say the right words - or better - write a note/card. That gives you time to come to it. And privacy. Write the right things. Your intent is what matters. And your heart. And people do understand a flat reaction. We see it all the time in real life, and mostly don't even notice. And even if do, if they know you, they are going to accept it - as you. No one really attaches too much to it, ya know.

:hug:
 

JustSheila

Crusader
^^^ and you think I'm the smart one?

You're awesome. Great post. I would never have thought of that and you're right, nobody really notices. You're such a sweetheart, Lurker! :bighug: You have a heart of gold.

Now back to bed with me, I woke up with an idea and had to write it down but fortunately, that doesn't happen often in the middle of the night. G'night!
 

Lurker5

Gold Meritorious Patron
I couldn't agree more.

I like to call what you describe as "the wake of destruction". But even that doesn't necessarily mean the person is a sociopath. You'll see it with garden variety addicts, narcissists, borderlines, and other personality disorders.

I've had the great fortune to know several people with the tell tale wake of destruction. Two, I believe are socio/psychopaths. One was a young man I worked with professionally who told me all about how he killed a cat to see if it would come back to life. No emotion whatsoever - just complete matter of fact coldness. The other was the attorney for my former business partner. Yes, I know everyone says that about the lawyer for the opposing side -but this guy was not protecting his client's interests he was exploiting her fears and weaknesses to drag out the case, make everyone miserable, and make more money. Golly that was a fun time in my life o_O

Blanky

:yes: - I suspect a sociopath's wake of destruction (love that) victimizes others, rather than self. And there is intent. The other mental illnesses and personality disorders may victimize others indirectly, or out of some dementia or anger, but usually their behavior is self destructive, rather than intended to hurt others. I don't think they consciously identify with wanting to destroy another, or even themselves. They are reacting to a brain imbalance/chemistry, or some kind of trauma or addiction issue that has not been addressed.

And I too have bumped into professionals who are probably sociopaths, and they skate the law, don't break it.

It is a totality of 'other' destruction (and the indirect self-destruction of the not so intelligent ones), I think, that is a 'tell' of sociopathic behavior. That doesn't make a sociopath either - Well, I am not comfortable calling someone that - until I just KNOW - and that is usually something personal - done to me. I have learned to avoid anyone I suspect of being a sociopath, because truly, if they know you suspect them, they will come for you - and get great pleasure in not only burning you behind your back, but in letting you know it was them.

And the things they do are just un-f'g-believable . . . . :omg::nervous: Be afraid, be very afraid . . .

Normal people are ashamed when they do something awful to someone. Normal people seek some kind of absolution - they do something to make up for bad behavior, because they feel bad about it. And doing something about it, to make up for it, makes them feel better. THAT is HUMAN.

Not so a sociopath.
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
"Life is a game"

Thank you, Caroline.

I'm wondering if you have the "Below Body Death" tone scale handy?

I've never had any use for it before and don't even remember it very well, but now I'm wondering if this is actually Hub's way of describing his own self-loathing and maybe schizophrenic break?

The https://www.google.ca/search?q=expanded+tone+scale is fairly easy to find, including here on ESMB. Although the malignant aspect of Hubbard's narcissism would probably be relevant, as it relates to his behaviors and the sociopathic features of the applied philosophy Scientology sells and delivers, Hubbard's alleged "self-loathing" and whatever mental illness would be more or less off topic.

Here's how Hubbard's "Life is a game" philosophy gets marketed:

bro-life-is-game-2000-1.jpg


Hubbard said:
One of the greatest breakthroughs of Scientology was the discovery of what life really is—a game. It's a game that everybody on the planet is playing—even if they've forgotten they're playing it! This one discovery alone puts a being at cause over life since he now knows exactly what he's engaged in.

—Brochure for Hubbard's Lecture Series The Game of Life
©2001 Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization
 

Little David

Gold Meritorious Patron
This looks like fun. One diagnosis doesn't rule out another so I'm going to give LRH three: Paranoid Schizophrenic, Sociopath and Dementia Praecox.
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
"Winning"

I'm not a mental health professional, but coming to a better understanding Hubbard's personality certainly seems like a therapeutic exercise. It has been for me, anyway.

Martha Stout commented on a related Hubbard fundamental: "winning."

Martha Stout said:
The methods sociopaths dream up to control others—the schemes contrived to ensure "wins"—are quite various, and only a few of them have to do with physical violence. After all, violence is conspicuous, and unless performed against the utterly powerless, such as children or animals, it is likely to get the perpetrator caught.

In any case, though they are horrifying when they occur, brutal murders are not the likeliest result of consciencelessness. Rather, the game is the thing. The prize to be won can run the gamut from world domination to a free lunch, but it is always the same game-controlling, making others jump, "winning." Evidently, winning in this fashion is all that remains of interpersonal meaning when attachment and conscience are absent. When the value of relationships has been reduced to nearly nothing, dominance is sometimes asserted by murdering people. But more often, it is accomplished by killing frogs, or racking up sexual conquests, or seducing and using friends, or exploiting the copper in Chile, or stealing some postage stamps just to see people scramble.

— Martha Stout, Ph.D.
The Sociopath Next Door
 

Intentionally Blank

Scientology Widow
Usually if an addict can get clean and sober, the sociopathic behaviors disappear - and they are just like the rest of us, basically nice folks.

I like to say if an addict can get clean, sober, AND heal their faulty core beliefs about themselves and others, they begin to interact with the rest of the world in an ethically positive way - the way the rest of us do about 80 - 90% of the time.

For you and me and most people who are not addicts we see the problem as the times when they are acting out: drinking, abusing drugs, binge eating, promiscuous sex, etc. In reality - the behavior is not the addiction, it is the symptom of a very damaged and painful view of self and the rest of the world. The behavior allows the addict a brief moment of release from pain. So we might see: walks the dog, goes to work, pays bills, takes kids to sports activities ... all the usual, "normal" things we all do and then BOOM some kind of acting out. For us the acting out spikes look like the addiction. But in reality the addiction is like a program constantly running in the background that warps (think of a fun house full of wavy mirrors) how the addict perceives the world.

If all they do is stop the behavior the underlying paranoia, grandiosity, deslusions, etc. are still there. At one time we called that a "dry drunk". For those people the rate of crossover addictions is astronomically high. There was a study a few years back about women who had gastric bypass surgery to lose weight. When their ability to use food to self medicate was removed the crossover addiction to alcohol of shopping was huge.


Blanky << way behind in reading this wonderful thread and off on a derail tangent :biggrin:
 

Lurker5

Gold Meritorious Patron
I like to say if an addict can get clean, sober, AND heal their faulty core beliefs about themselves and others, they begin to interact with the rest of the world in an ethically positive way - the way the rest of us do about 80 - 90% of the time.

For you and me and most people who are not addicts we see the problem as the times when they are acting out: drinking, abusing drugs, binge eating, promiscuous sex, etc. In reality - the behavior is not the addiction, it is the symptom of a very damaged and painful view of self and the rest of the world. The behavior allows the addict a brief moment of release from pain. So we might see: walks the dog, goes to work, pays bills, takes kids to sports activities ... all the usual, "normal" things we all do and then BOOM some kind of acting out. For us the acting out spikes look like the addiction. But in reality the addiction is like a program constantly running in the background that warps (think of a fun house full of wavy mirrors) how the addict perceives the world.

If all they do is stop the behavior the underlying paranoia, grandiosity, deslusions, etc. are still there. At one time we called that a "dry drunk". For those people the rate of crossover addictions is astronomically high. There was a study a few years back about women who had gastric bypass surgery to lose weight. When their ability to use food to self medicate was removed the crossover addiction to alcohol of shopping was huge.


Blanky << way behind in reading this wonderful thread and off on a derail tangent :biggrin:

:yes: And recovering addicts need human connection - with people who either share in the pain and suffering of emotional disconnection/addiction, and/or understand it, don't judge it. I don't think an addict quite trusts people who have not shared in an addiction, or isn't in recovery and/or a trained/experienced rehab specialist (like Bob Forrest and Dr Drew). It is a long journey - hard journey. And I think everyone of us knows some one who is in this kind of pain and suffering, feeling disconnected, and alone, damaged, not worthy of love - :hug: They need help, professional help. Sometimes an addict rejects that . . . :sadsigh: :sadangel:
 
Last edited:

JustSheila

Crusader
Re: "Winning"

I'm not a mental health professional, but coming to a better understanding Hubbard's personality certainly seems like a therapeutic exercise. It has been for me, anyway.

Martha Stout commented on a related Hubbard fundamental: "winning."

Nor am I, Caroline, and I also think it is a very therapeutic exercise.

It's probably not a big point to many of us here whether Hubbard was born a psychopath or acted like one due to schizophrenia. It may seem like splitting hairs. It's not actually a big deal to me either way, because the personality and effects on us were pretty much the same. My interest is how he got that way.

Hubbard wove his insanity throughout Scientology. Scientology mirrors Hub's crazy.
 

Little David

Gold Meritorious Patron
This looks like fun. One diagnosis doesn't rule out another so I'm going to give LRH three: Paranoid Schizophrenic, Sociopath and Dementia Praecox.
Although this is fun I want to make it clear that I am serious about the first 2 of my amateur diagnosis and agree with the third which was made by a psychiatrist friend of mine. It has fascinated me for 25 years that someone as mentally ill as LRH could become wealthy from the followers of his insane scam.

[h=3][/h]
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
Although this is fun I want to make it clear that I am serious about the first 2 of my amateur diagnosis and agree with the third which was made by a psychiatrist friend of mine. It has fascinated me for 25 years that someone as mentally ill as LRH could become wealthy from the followers of his insane scam.

[h=3][/h]

dementia praecox = old term for schizophrenia.

So I guess your 3 items should be just 2 items? :confused2:

Also, 20/20 hindsight is so easy to do.

(I am not disagreeing much... just my 2 cents comment.)
 
Last edited:

Little David

Gold Meritorious Patron
dementia praecox = old term for schizophrenia.

So I guess your 3 items should be just 2 items? :confused2:

Also, 20/20 hindsight is so easy to do.

(I am not disagreeing much... just my 2 cents comment.)
My friend for reasons I will have to ask him likes the older term and thinks Eugen Bleuler who is credited with introducing the word schizophrenia, differentiated between the two. Neither term by itself is the same as paranoid schizophrenic.
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
My friend for reasons I will have to ask him likes the older term and thinks Eugen Bleuler who is credited with introducing the word schizophrenia, differentiated between the two. Neither term by itself is the same as paranoid schizophrenic.

Yeah, just outta curiousity I'd like to know why he likes the older term.
(The term "schizophrenia" is supposed to cover the various types of it.)
 

JustSheila

Crusader
Although this is fun I want to make it clear that I am serious about the first 2 of my amateur diagnosis and agree with the third which was made by a psychiatrist friend of mine. It has fascinated me for 25 years that someone as mentally ill as LRH could become wealthy from the followers of his insane scam.

My friend for reasons I will have to ask him likes the older term and thinks Eugen Bleuler who is credited with introducing the word schizophrenia, differentiated between the two. Neither term by itself is the same as paranoid schizophrenic.

Yeah, just outta curiousity I'd like to know why he likes the older term.
(The term "schizophrenia" is supposed to cover the various types of it.)

That's fascinating, Little David. Until programmer guy, brought it up, I just assumed they were covered under schizophrenia, but the two terms are clearly different. This is from Wikipedia:

Kraepelin, regarding the major psychoses as naturally occurring disease entities, reduced the complex psychiatric taxonomies of the nineteenth century by dividing them into two classes: manic depressive psychosis or dementia praecox. This division is commonly referred to as the Kraepelinian dichotomy and it has had a significant and fundamental impact on twentieth-century psychiatry, though it has also been questioned.

The primary disturbance in dementia praecox was said to be not one of mood, but of thinking or cognition. Cognitive disintegration refers to a disruption in cognitive or mental functioning such as in attention, memory, and goal-directed behavior. Kraepelin contrasted this with manic-depressive psychosis, in which he included not just what would be termed bipolar disorder today but also other forms of mood disorder, including major depressive disorder. However, Kraepelin himself noted cases in between and eventually accepted that it was not possible to distinguish his categories on the basis of cross-sectional symptoms.[SUP][4][/SUP] Indeed, a mixed diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder has also developed.

From the outset, dementia praecox was viewed by Kraepelin as a progressively deteriorating disease from which no one recovered. The three terms that Kraepelin used to refer to the end state of the disease were Verblödung(deterioration), Schwachsinn (mental weakness) or Defekt (defect). Although "dementia" is part of the name of the disease, Kraepelin did not intend it to be similar to senile dementia and rarely used this term to refer to the end state of the disease. However, by 1913, and more explicitly by 1920, Kraepelin admitted that although there seemed to be a residual cognitive defect in most cases, the prognosis was not as uniformly dire as he had stated in the 1890s. Still, he regarded it as a specific disease concept that implied incurable, inexplicable madness.

Do you still speak with your psychiatrist friend, Little David? He really knows his stuff, doesn't he? Based on your comment, I tried to research the differences between the modern definition of schizophrenia and Blueler's Dementia Praecox, but it's not easy to do without fully reading Blueler's and others' works. They are some major differences though, and Blueler sounds like he really had his finger on something that has been lost in translation since then. I did find this article and included a good excerpt:

Eugen Bleuler and the Schizophrenias: 100 Years After


the authors come to the conclusions that Bleuler’s concept of schizophrenia is closely linked to historical and contemporary concepts of dissociation, that Bleuler’s concept of loosening of associations refers broadly to a core organically based psychological deficit that underlies the other symptoms of schizophrenia, that the 4 A’s rule* is a misnomer that marginalize the central role of splitting, and that Bleuler’s ideas were more powerfully influenced by Pierre Janet than by Sigmund Freud. The last conclusion, however, sharply contrast with that of other authors10 that have underlined the marked influence of Freud ideas on Bleuler’s conception of schizophrenia.
http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/6/1118.full

*4 As rule: that Bleuler’s teaching on schizophrenia can be adequately summarized by the 4 A’s—association, affectivity, ambivalence, and autism


It seems Bleuler's work was unfairly dismissed, but that he was well onto the idea of dissociation, that he made a connection between autism and schizophrenia, and that some of his ideas were not Freudian-based. Note that this connection to autism was supported by other psychiatrists, but is not very prevalent in the literature since Bleuler.

In this same article:

Josef Parnas16 (in this issue) remind us that the “trivial” question of what is schizophrenia? is not the question of a pathognomonic symptom but rather of a characteristic Gestalt. According to the author, there exists a core Gestalt of schizophrenia, which manifests itself through the fundamental symptoms, a structural change of subjectivity, and the “praecox feeling”. Parnas considers that Bleuler’s fundamental symptoms overlap each other and that autism, the prime fundamental symptom, contains aspects of affect, association, and ambivalence. The author develops a fine and original approach to autism integrating several dimension of the construct such as withdrawal to fantasy life, the subjective dimension, and a crisis of common sense. In summary, the clinical core of schizophrenia manifests itself as a Gestalt emerging across a manifold of symptoms and signs, which may occur in all domains of mental life and are only partially captured by the operational definitions of schizophrenia.

Wow. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

Intentionally Blank

Scientology Widow
I was going to come back to this yesterday and got sidetracked by the addiction component and then that little thing called my-boss-thinks-I-should-be-working. Someone, I think it was JustSheila, mentioned schizzophrenia as the same or similar to manic-depression, now called bi-polar disorder. I am curious about that as it's not been my understanding of those diagnoses.

Here's what I found about bi-polar disorder (manic-depressive illness)
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/bipolar-disorder/index.shtml

[h=2]What Is Bipolar Disorder?[/h]Bipolar disorder, also known as manic-depressive illness, is a brain disorder that causes unusual shifts in mood, energy, activity levels, and the ability to carry out day-to-day tasks. Symptoms of bipolar disorder are severe. They are different from the normal ups and downs that everyone goes through from time to time. Bipolar disorder symptoms can result in damaged relationships, poor job or school performance, and even suicide. But bipolar disorder can be treated, and people with this illness can lead full and productive lives.

From the same site, schizophrenia This is what our son has and we're pretty sure an elderly aunt did as well (she died sometime in the 80's). They're both classic cases of hearing voices, paranoia, and delusional beliefs. And, now that I think about it, I have another relative who is professionally diagnosed as bi-polar. He does quite well on meds.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/index.shtml

Both pages have info on current thoughts on cause and treatment.

[h=2]What Is Schizophrenia?[/h]Schizophrenia is a chronic, severe, and disabling brain disorder that has affected people throughout history.
People with the disorder may hear voices other people don't hear. They may believe other people are reading their minds, controlling their thoughts, or plotting to harm them. This can terrify people with the illness and make them withdrawn or extremely agitated.
People with schizophrenia may not make sense when they talk. They may sit for hours without moving or talking. Sometimes people with schizophrenia seem perfectly fine until they talk about what they are really thinking.

This page, a blog on the NIMH site, discusses the history of how we observe, diagnose, and treat schizophrenia with a discussion of concept of dementia praecox and the evolution of our understanding of the disease. Lots of food for thought at all these pages.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/bio/publications/rethinking-schizophrenia.shtml

[h=3]One-hundred years of schizophrenia[/h]The history of schizophrenia says more in many ways about the perspectives of the observer than the observed. In the late nineteenth century, Kraepelin defined “dementia praecox” or premature dementia as distinct from the insanity of tertiary syphilis or the cyclic, non-deteriorating psychosis of manic depressive illness6 . Bleuler, who coined the term schizophrenia in the early twentieth century, was less convinced of its deteriorating course but emphasized the notion of a fundamental disorder of thought and feeling, which every psychiatrist for decades learned as the four ‘a’s—disturbances of associations, affect, ambivalence and autistic isolation7 . These early formulations emerging before the split between neurology and psychiatry were consistent with the notion of a mental disorder rooted in brain pathology. Yet for much of the twentieth century, with the predominance of psychoanalytic theory, the study of the mind ignored the brain. Schizophrenia was a psychotic reaction, a fragmented ego due to a rejecting or ambivalent mother and treatments included re-mothering to build a stable ego8 .
In the second half of the twentieth century, with the emergence of neuroleptic drugs, the pendulum swung in the other direction—a focus on brain chemistry deemphasized the mind. Schizophrenia was considered a ‘dopamine disorder’ based on the psychosis-inducing effects of dopamine-releasing drugs, such as amphetamine, and the anti-psychotic efficacy of a score of drugs that blocked the dopamine D2 receptor9 . This neurochemical view of schizophrenia yielded medications that transformed the treatment of psychosis, allowing patients to be treated outside of hospitals and, in some cases, resulting in remission of the major symptoms of the illness.

[And, omigosh, reading this I see why Mr/s Blanky got all in a huff when I talked about the role of dopamine - lol. And I only meant in terms novelty boosts dopamine/feel good so painting the kitchen is an excellent idea. Bahahaha]


On a personal note, someone also suggested yesterday I should mention Sandra Brown's work on brain structure to Mr/s Blanky. When I got home last evening there was (another) tearful message from the much younger sister who is in crisis again with a boyfriend who is angry and controlling. It's been a repeating pattern for a number of years, she hops from bad boyfriend to bad job and back again. Mr/s Blanky is meeting with her over the weekend. Thanks to whoever suggested it here yesterday I pulled out my copy of Brown's work on pathological relationships, which includes descriptions of personality disorders and brain structures, and had a heart to heart with the Mr/s about sis, her history, and that maybe we should offer her some material that Ive seen work for others in similar situations. I'm not saying Mr/s Blanky was super enthusiastic but s/he's got the book tucked away to offer sis.

(FU KSW :smoochy:)


Blanky
 
I have been reading a book Mike Rinder recommended - the Sociopath next Door. Very very interesting book. I'm about half way through, and so far, she's discussed three different sociopaths, starting with the cruel Skip, manipulative Doreen and moocher Luke. Prior to this book I had little insight into the world of the sociopath - and prior to ESMB I can't really recall hearing the word, especially around the org.

At first I was reluctant to read books by shrinks - a hold over from the constant hammering against them by Hubbard et all. But this is changing.

Some of the points the author brings up are the lack of conscience sociopaths have, the lack of emotion they have for others, how life is a game to them, how they have no remorse, or guilt, how they seek pity. She refers to some research that was done having to do with mental electrical response to various words - in the bulk of the population words like love, feeling etc that are charged emotionally have a measurable electronic response in me and thee, but in the sociopath they have the same lack of response as stapler, boat etc.

The sociopath doesn't have an emotional connection to the people around him. Look at Hubbard - where does he talk about love? He breaks emotion down into a mechanical scale. Does it show anything about feeling? And what end does he use it for? To manipulate people by imitating the tone above or below the one they are at.

They view life as a game - they are actors, pretending to be human to get their way. Look at this quote from the viewpoint of being a sociopath:

LRH-Quote-18-days.jpg


Hubbard was known for his cruelty on the ship. He said: I can make Captain Bligh look like a Sunday-school teacher. Granted, this is taken out of context, but still - there's the cruelty. The chain locker, the overboards, the child abuse.

There was a recent interview on Tony's site by Jim Dincalis (http://tonyortega.org/2015/02/16/th...is-1997-secret-lives-tv-interview/#more-20388) who was Hubbard's MLO while he was in Queens licking his wounds he said Hubbard was telling stories, and it seemed to me he enjoyed the experience, and all the while Hubbard was planning the Snow White operation and the destruction of Paulette Cooper, the famous Miss Loveley.

Anyway, get the book - it's a fascinating read.

Mimsey

http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Nex...words=the+sociopath+next+door+by+martha+stout



5106V842oaL.jpg

The sociopath next door, who ruined so many years of my life and the lives of so many was L. Ron Hubbard. He was in Scieno-speak the 1.1 character, the covert hostility personality, mentally ill beyond any hope of healing. He was a master swindler, an expert of misdirection and without doubt a very good hypnotist. He sold a piece of sky to many and managed to create a fortune many gangsters would dream of, he created his own private army where mercenaries were needless since his happy slaves signed 2 billion year contracts in exchange for the privilege to serve him. I think Hitler must be somewhere in the reeking pits of hell signing up for a communication course with him! Hubbard was Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde from the beginning. Great propaganda in the window of the shop and blood sweat and tears in the back yard. What is the reward for so much crime? The divine Marquis de Sade would have loved it: tax free status and protection by the US State Department abroad!
 
Top