Page last updated:
Now that Hubbard implemented a subversive form of processing undermining people’s ability to make independent evaluations of others and themselves (see: Overt-Motivator Sequence and Withholds), he then provided his followers with “mental filters” which they could use to evaluate themselves and others in place of direct awareness and evaluations of their own – enter the PTS/SP Technology (Potential Trouble Source / Supressive Person).
Under this subject, Hubbard essentially framed people into two basic categories – Social and Anti-Social (or Suppressive) – and established a supposed relationship between the two that he claimed as some natural law or mechanism. To make his message more clear, he equated Anti-Social Personality with Anti-Scientologist so any person having some negative disposition toward Scientology would be viewed as a “suppressive person” or someone who was under the influence of a “suppressive person” – a potential trouble source (PTS).
Hubbard somehow came up with 12 “distinct” characteristics which people can watch out for in evaluating whether someone was an Anti-Social Personality or a Social Personality.
This is again presented to the public on this official website:
… as well as in this YouTube clip:
The subject of Merchants of Chaos also relates to this – another form of vilification of someone “out there” trying to ruin your day.
DECONSTRUCTING THE “12 CHARACTERISTICS”
It is not very clear how Hubbard came up with the 12 characteristics, but what is clear, once you really look at it, is how the Social and Anti-Social paradigm formulated by Hubbard can be used effectively to suppress dissent and unwanted thoughts and reactions toward Scientology itself while providing a “blue print” for the “right” form of behavior. Let’s take a look and evaluate some of Hubbard’s ideas in this area and how they can influence the formation of someone’s perception.
The main reference for these characteristics is: HCOB 27 Sept. 1966 The Antisocial Personality The Anti-Scientologist.
Before Hubbard even begins to describe the characteristics, he begins the reference with a following sentence:
There are certain characteristics and mental attitudes which cause about 20 percent of a race to oppose violently any betterment activity or group.
Since Scientology promotes itself as a betterment activity and a group, the very first sentence in the reference implies that it is about those who oppose Scientology specifically, even though it does not state so directly. The title “THE ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY THE ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST” also gives it away.
In addition to “opposition” Hubbard also links FAILURE as being caused by “antisocial personality hard at work.”
When we trace the cause of a failing business, we will inevitably discover somewhere in its ranks the antisocial personality hard at work.
In families which are breaking up, we commonly find one or the other of the persons involved to have such a personality.
Where life has become rough and is failing, a careful review of the area by a trained observer will detect one or more such personalities at work.
Failing business?! How about not enough demand or other economic factors? There are so many potential factors behind something failing, yet, within the logic in this reference, it all comes down to “antisocial personality” as some hidden cause of all that is wrong in the world.
FAILURE IS A PART OF NATURE (and what is and isn’t a “failure” is subject to perception and considerations). No form of manifested reality can exist forever especially when we speak of realities related to human existence. Existence requires continuous effort (energy) to maintain creation. Don’t feed the body and with the right foods, and it “fails.” Don’t make correct business decision or do nothing, and business seizes to exist. Same with relationships – if partners in a relationship do nothing to continue creating it, it “fails” – no “antisocial personality hard at work” required. Yes, someone working to undermine some form of reality (for whatever reason) can be a factor, but it is only ONE OF MANY potential causes – each situation needs to be properly evaluated to determine what the true causes are behind the apparent failures.
A good way to evaluate the true causes behind failure or success is to use Hubbard’s own description of Cycle of Action:
(September 1956) The Fundamentals of Thought, Chapter 2 “Basic Principles”:
THE ACTUAL CYCLE OF ACTION is as follows: create, create-create-create, create-counter-create, no creation, nothingness.
CREATE = make, manufacture, construct, postulate, bring into beingness = CREATE.
CREATE-CREATE-CREATE = create again continuously one moment after the next = SURVIVAL.
CREATE-COUNTER-CREATE = to create something against a creation = to create one thing and then create some thing else against it = DESTROY.
NO CREATION = an absence of any creation = no creative activity.
Someone working to undermine an activity would fall under COUNTER-CREATION, but there can be so many possible reasons including CONFLICTING POSTULATES.
A staff member in Hubbard’s totalitarian organization may be working on a postulate of “saving the planet” or “helping people” and so constructively contributing to the organization, but the same staff member may also struggle with conflicting postulates of wanting more freedom to pursue one’s own goals that don’t align with that of the organization. Such postulates could prompt the person to not be as productive or even start taking actions to undermine one’s position and the reality of working at Hubbard’s organization if postulates for an alternative reality for one’s own life begin to gain in power. This would be completely understandable… In the same wise, a relationship can also “fail” because the involved parties can simply grow in desire to move in different directions.
Hubbard ends off the introduction by setting up a clear US vs THEM paradigm:
As there are 80 percent of us trying to get along and only 20 percent trying to prevent us, our lives would be much easier to live were we well informed as to the exact manifestations of such a personality. Thus, we could detect it and save ourselves much failure and heartbreak.
It is important then to examine and list the attributes of the antisocial personality. Influencing as it does the daily lives of so many, it well behooves decent people to become better informed on this subject.
Who exactly is Hubbard aggregating under his concept of “us?” There are so many different people and groups in the world with different cultures, world views, and attitudes that do not always align with each other and can in themselves result in conflicts. Conflict itself is a part of the natural world where livings forms compete with each other for resources, areas of control, procreation opportunities and so on. To say that anybody that doesn’t fall under “antisocial” category must fit into a narrowly defined “social” band and not take into account multitudes of other factors that determine human behavior is guaranteed to result in false expectations and some real lack of understanding of how people, especially in groups, actually operate.
CHARACTERISTIC 1: Making Generalizations
|1. He or she speaks only in very broad generalities. “They say…” “Everybody thinks…” “Everyone knows…” and such expressions are in continual use, particularly when imparting rumor. When asked, “Who is everybody…” it normally turns out to be one source and from this source the antisocial person has manufactured what he or she pretends is the whole opinion of the whole society. This is natural to them since to them all society is a large hostile generality, against the antisocial in particular.||1. The social personality is specific in relating circumstances. “Joe Jones said . . .” “The Star Newspaper reported. ” and gives sources of data where important or possible. He may use the generality of “they” or “people” but seldom in connection with attributing statements or opinions of an alarming nature.|
Because of this characteristic #1, Scientologists become very sensitive to both making and hearing GENERALIZATIONS. This implied prohibition against generalizations can in itself become a suppressive factor toward reaching and communicating potentially negative CONCLUSIONS about the group at large. Someone who had lived through Scientology abuses or has read or heard about it somewhere can say things like: “They lie to people…” “Stay away from Scientology, they’ll take all your money…” “They’ll lock you up and brainwash you…” which would be immediately filed under suppressive generalizations for someone indoctrinated into Hubbard’s “anti-social” characteristics. That’s why these are presented as early as possible when someone first enters Scientology.
Even Hubbard himself said that “people tend to generalize,” and indeed an ability to generalize is an important ANALYTICAL SKILL.
AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE ABLE TO BOTH GENERALIZE AS WELL AS DIG INTO DETAILS. Being stuck in one or the other is “an aberration” as Hubbard would say. If someone cannot actually look into details, their generalizations may be off and unfounded. If someone always looks at details and never generalizes, they won’t be able to see the big picture or arrive at a general conclusion about something. This is one of the contributing factors that keeps people psychologically entrapped in the grip of Scientology – inability to reach conclusions about the movement at large but instead forced to look at specific incidents in line with “social” characteristic.
As an example: If someone stayed, say, in three different locations of the same hotel chain where service was bad, it is a perfectly normal function of the mind to generate a conclusion about the entire hotel chain having bad service even though it may have hundreds of other locations. Sometimes, even ONE incident is enough for a conclusion to emerge that will rightfully keep an individual from repeating the experience. Yet Scientologists can go through incident after incident that “screams of red flags” (troubling observations) for years and be unable to form generalized conclusions because of an idea that making generalizations is a “suppressive characteristic” – on one side – while bombarded by direct suppression of bad thoughts and criticism on another (under Overt-Motivator theory and practice).
CHARACTERISTICS 2 & 3: Passing communication, bad news, and criticism
|2. Such a person deals mainly in bad news, critical or hostile remarks, invalidation and general suppression.
“Gossip” or “harbinger of evil tidings” or “rumormonger” once described such persons.
It is notable that there is no good news or complimentary remark passed on by such a person.
|2. The social personality is eager to relay good news and reluctant to relay bad.
He may not even bother to pass along criticism when it doesn’t matter.
He is more interested in making another feel liked or wanted than disliked by others and tends to err toward reassurance rather than toward criticism.
|3. The antisocial personality alters, to worsen, communication when he or she relays a message or news. Good news is stopped and only bad news, often embellished, is passed along.|| 3. A social personality passes communication without much alteration and if deleting anything tends to delete injurious matters.
He does not like to hurt people’s feelings. He sometimes errs in holding back bad news or orders which seem critical or harsh.
Here we go again. If someone starts to communicate about something that is seen to be negative – “bad news,” criticism, contradictions to Scientology’s claims (invalidation) – there it goes under “anti-social characteristics.” It is worth noting that it is one of Scientology’s tactics to flood or invalidate any criticism or “bad news” about itself with an overwhelming amount of “success stories,” (as well as attacks toward the source of criticism) and if someone says: “But wait… what about all these stories of harm…?” etc. – it will be filed under “Such a person deals mainly in bad news.” It can also be framed under another one of Scientology’s suppressive concepts: “spreading entheta” (enturbulating information) or “forwarding enemy lines,” or being a “merchant of chaos.”
It should be noted that it is a form of BIOLOGICAL PROGRAMMING of the mind to pay bigger attention to alarming information and stimuli that could present a threat to survival than something that does not. Having “bad news” on the mind is natural because it is a form of information that can prevent an organism from getting into a potentially non-survival situation. Also, someone who “deals mainly in bad news” about Scientology itself could actually be a very SOCIAL personality that tries to go out of one’s way to warn others about the dangers of Scientology.
CHARACTERISTIC 4: Response to corrective measures
|4. A characteristic, and one of the sad things about an antisocial personality, is that it does not respond to treatment or reform or psychotherapy.||4. Treatment, reform and psychotherapy particularly of a mild nature work very well on the social personality.
Whereas antisocial people sometimes promise to reform, they do not. Only the social personality can change or improve easily.
It is often enough to point out unwanted conduct to a social personality to completely alter it for the better.
Criminal codes and violent punishment are not needed to regulate social personalities.
It is a matter of Hubbard’s policy that if someone does not seem to respond to Scientology’s “betterment techniques” – such a person can be filed under a “no gain case” meaning a suppressive person. Scientology does have some authentic betterment techniques, but many of its techniques are also directed at reconditioning a subject’s behavior, making a person believe that certain freedoms such as being able to communicate with whoever one chooses, research information of one’s choice, or communicate on matters of concern to others or the public at large are re-evaluated in Scientology as being out-ethics or committing suppressive acts or crimes (within Scientology’s own justice system). If someone, say, refused to be reconditioned and submit to or be effected by Scientology’s behavior reconditioning techniques – such a person of actually strong will and determination could and most likely would be labeled as a “suppressive person.”
CHARACTERISTIC 5: The state of surrounding people
|5. Surrounding such a personality we find cowed or ill associates or friends who, when not driven actually insane, are yet behaving in a crippled manner in life, failing, not succeeding.
Such people make trouble for others.
When treated or educated, the near associate of the antisocial personality has no stability of gain but promptly relapses or loses his advantages of knowledge, being under the suppressive influence of the other.
Physically treated, such associates commonly do not recover in the expected time but worsen and have poor convalescences.
It is quite useless to treat or help or train such persons so long as they remain under the influence of the antisocial connection.
The largest number of insane are insane because of such antisocial connections and do not recover easily for the same reason.
Unjustly we seldom see the antisocial personality actually in an institution.
Only his “friends” and family are there.
|5. The friends and associates of a social personality tend to be well, happy and of good morale.
A truly social personality quite often produces betterment in health or fortune by his mere presence on the scene.
At the very least he does not reduce the existing levels of health or morale in his associates.
When ill, the social personality heals or recovers in an expected manner, and is found open to successful treatment.
Here is another very misleading evaluation point. Those in high end organized crime networks or a sphere of corrupt politics or corporations can live a very abundant life if they continue to “follow along with the program” or not get caught and overpowered by some greater forces such as law enforcement, while often time it is the otherwise social personalities driven by false convictions can become quite oppressive to their friends and family members. The history is replete with examples where the “good doer wannabe’s” committed some of the greatest atrocities under influence of false convictions either from religious dogma or some utopian political system. Under Christian dogma for example, some parents could want to be so “good” and “righteous” that they could actually oppress their children’s self-expression to result in all sorts of miserable conditions for them, while someone who was not specifically a “good doer” and didn’t give a heck (for the lack of a better term) could be more permissive and tolerant of the natural forces within his or her child or other persons.
CHARACTERISTICS 6 & 7: Determining causative factors and finishing cycles of action
|6. The antisocial personality habitually selects the wrong target.
If a tire is flat from driving over nails, he or she curses a companion or a noncausative source of the trouble. If the radio next door is too loud, he or she kicks the cat.
If A is the obvious cause, the antisocial personality inevitably blames B, or C or D.
|6. The social personality tends to select correct targets for correction.
He fixes the tire that is flat rather than attack the windscreen.
In the mechanical arts he can therefore repair things and make them work.
|7. The antisocial cannot finish a cycle of action.
Such become surrounded with incomplete projects.
|7. Cycles of action begun are ordinarily completed by the social personality, if possible.|
Really?! If such was the case, then no criminal network or system of political corruption would be able to develop and flourish for an extended period of time – some are so well planned out and executed that they can literary last for generations.
Also, according to Hubbard’s own definitions, a cycle of action consists of “start, change and stop” and would include any form of action such as going to a grocery store or driving a car. Someone would have to be mentally incapacitated to be unable to finish a cycle of action (as a general ability) such as someone with short memory loss who kept forgetting what he was trying to do in the middle of a cycle and so unable to finish it.
It is interesting that Hubbard cited such people as Napoleon, Hitler and Dillinger as examples of anti-social personalities, yet Napoleon and Hitler completed many successful cycles of action to conquer much of the world before they were stopped by other forces, while John Dillinger managed to rob 24 banks, 4 police stations!, and escape from jail twice! before he was eventually apprehended and killed by law enforcement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dillinger) – these just do not seem like men who could not finish cycles of action or skilfully analyze a situation to determine causative factors (i.e. selecting right targets to accomplish their aims).
CHARACTERISTIC 8: Confession and guilt
|8. Many antisocial persons will freely confess to the most alarming crimes when forced to do so, but will have no faintest sense of responsibility for them.
Their actions have little or nothing to do with their own volition. Things “just happened.”
They have no sense of correct causation and particularly cannot feel any sense of remorse or shame therefore.
|8. The social personality is ashamed of his misdeeds and reluctant to confess them. He takes responsibility for his errors.|
Starting with the early 1960’s Scientology itself became all about confessions and guilt induction over its participants for even thinking “bad thoughts” or criticism about Scientology. Guilt is effectively used by all kinds of manipulators to subdue people into compliance with their wishes, that’s why it is actually a matter of spiritual development to be able to overcome feelings of guilt and process it out of one’s system. If someone learns to look at actions and events in “raw format” as a fact of past occurrence, as something that “just happened” that could stem from many different factors, such a person yet again would fall under an “anti-social characteristic.” Finger pointing and guilt tripping is a big part of Scientology’s manipulative system where the concept of “taking responsibility” takes a grand stand.
Again, what is considered a “misdeed” is subject to considerations, and shame is a feeling that is most directly associated with a group culture that one is in that can evaluate one’s actions as either good or bad. Even such a passive event as having some portion of a body exposed could be subject of “shame” in one group setting while a matter of fashion in another.
Also, it could be a very much false and misleading claim to state that an anti-social personality will not be connecting one’s actions with own volition or “have no sense of correct causation.” Quite on the contrary, those that steal, kill, or commit other crimes can often times plan their activity in advance and with great precision. Not feeling a sense of remorse has to do with a lack of empathy or whatever faculty in one’s mind that causes one to feel the suffering of others. It has little if anything to do with a sense of “correct causation,” and in fact those that are in the business of inflicting suffering usually very clearly understand what they are doing and use the fact of their “causative ability” for further intimidation and achievement of their aims.
CHARACTERISTICS 9, 10, 11: Attitude toward constructive and destructive groups and actions
|9. The antisocial personality supports only destructive groups and rages against and attacks any constructive or betterment group.
10. This type of personality approves only of destructive actions and fights against constructive or helpful actions or activities.
11. Helping others is an activity which drives the antisocial personality nearly berserk. Activities, however, which destroy in the name of help are closely supported.
|9. The social personality supports constructive groups and tends to protest or resist destructive groups.
10. Destructive actions are protested by the social personality. He assists constructive or helpful actions.
11. The social personality helps others and actively resists acts which harm others.
Of course, Scientology goes to great lengths to advertise and propagandize itself as a “constructive group” that helps others and wants to better the entire human race in its drive toward a New Civilization. Though in some sense these characteristics may hold true of truly antisocial and social personalities, they are used in Scientology to identify and label Scientology critics (many of whom are ex-Scientologists) as suppressive persons.
CHARACTERISTIC 12: Attitude toward private property.
|12. The antisocial personality has a bad sense of property and conceives that the idea that anyone owns anything is a pretense, made up to fool people. Nothing is ever really owned.||12. Property is property of someone to the social personality and its theft or misuse is prevented or frowned upon|
This is absurd! Someone would have to be seriously mentally incapacitated in order to not understand the notion of private property. A more likely explanation why a true psychopath would have no trouble robbing people of their possessions is desire (for possession) combined with ill-intent and lack of empathy preventing the psychopath from feeling the loss and suffering of another person.
|The basic reason the antisocial personality behaves as he or she does lies in a hidden terror of others.
To such a person every other being is an enemy, an enemy to be covertly or overtly destroyed.
The fixation is that survival itself depends on keeping others down” or “keeping people ignorant.”
If anyone were to promise to make others stronger or brighter, the antisocial personality suffers the utmost agony of personal danger.
They reason that if they are in this much trouble with people around them weak or stupid, they would perish should anyone become strong or bright….
|The social personality naturally operates on the basis of the greatest good.
He is not haunted by imagined enemies but he does recognize real enemies when they exist.
The social personality wants to survive and wants others to survive, whereas the antisocial personality really and covertly wants others to succumb.
Basically, the social personality wants others to be happy and do well, whereas the antisocial personality is very clever in making others do very badly indeed.
A basic clue to the social personality is not really his successes but his motivations.
The social personality when successful is often a target for the antisocial and by this reason he may fail. But his intentions included others in his success, whereas the antisocial only appreciate the doom of others….
Okay… So According to Hubbard, Hitler or Dillinger had a “hidden terror of others” since he cited these individuals as prime examples of antisocial personalities. According to Hubbard’s own Tone Scale well described in his book “Science of Survival,” TERROR (or FEAR in its milder form) is a very low emotional state with POOR PERCEPTION and POOR COMMUNICATION ABILITIES. John Dillinger robbed banks, police stations, and escaped from jail more than once – does it really seem like a person who was terrified of others? Adolf Hitler worked himself up to essentially become a dictator of Germany for over TEN YEARS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler) and managed to rile up the entire nation into a global war – this just doesn’t seem like a person who was terrified and who had poor perception and communication skills.
On the other hand, Hubbard’s description of the “social personality” resembles that of a superman who “naturally operates on the basis of the greatest good,” fights against evil, can recall and relay specific details (does not generalize), determine correct causes, and has a high sense of ethics to struggle with shame and guilt over one’s own misdeeds. This is supposed to be 80% of the world population? How many people on the planet actually if only just give a thought to such a concept as “the greatest good?” Beyond “changing a tire” or recalling some basic details, most people need professional education and training to be able to operate with competence in more complex areas of life.
Tech Vol 5: 2 Apr. 1964 Two Types of People (HCO Info. Ltr.)
Tech Vol 6: HCOB 28 Jan. 1966 Search and Discovery Data-How a Suppressive Becomes One
Hubbard did not just stop at defining a new term of “suppressive personality,” he also moved on to misdefine a well known psychiatric term “psychosis” and connect it to his made up notions of SP and PTS.
In the reference below, Hubbard describes a “psychotic” in very much the same terms as he described a “suppressive personality”:
In the next bulletin, Hubbard states that:
About 15 percent to 20 percent of the human race apparently is insane or certainly a much higher percent than was estimated.
In this reference he also links psychosis to the same symptoms as for a PTS Condition as well as to continuous destructive actions and departures which unwittingly brings the theme of Overt-Motivator Sequence and Withholds into the mix. In here, Hubbard also brings up the concept of insanity and effectively ruins it by limiting it to a very narrow definition:
INSANITY IS THE OVERT OR COVERT BUT ALWAYS COMPLEX AND CONTINUOUS DETERMINATION TO HARM OR DESTROY.
In a later reference, Hubbard further misrepresents and discredits psychiatric understanding of psychosis and arbitarily links it to an evil, destructive purpose which leads to destructive activity.
Get this, according to Hubbard in the above reference as many as 25% of humanity may be psychotic – that is, according to Hubbard’s definition of the term – harboring evil purposes and engaging in destructive activities. That’s 1 in 4 persons. This sounds quite insane (within a more proper definition of the term).
When everything is said and done, Hubbard actually occludes a true understanding of insanity and conditions like psychosis and psychopathy and instead groups everything into one pile in order to stigmatize and vilify anyone with a hostile disposition toward Scientology itself.
Hubbard slips up in one place where he states that “The progress of psychosis then begins with a belief something is evil.” which points to a (faulty) PERCEPTION as being the ultimate cause behind the formation of intention and resulting actions. Hence, using PERCEPTION as a reference point, a much simpler, clearer and ultimately more correct understanding of INSANITY and various conditions such as PSYCHOSIS can be developed – as being linked to the quality of someone’s thinking and perception. See following pages for further analysis:
The mechanics behind the PTS/SP phenomena, according to Hubbard, are based on his definition of a problem on one side and Overt-Motivator Sequence on the other.
Hubbard’s view of a problem and its relationship to PTS/SP is best described in the lecture below.
[14 OCTOBER 1965] 6510C14 SHSBC-431 Briefing of Review Auditors (selection 15:38 – 32:16 min) [Download]
PTS – potential trouble source; SP – suppressive person
Grade I – a level of Scientology processing that addresses Problems and is said to result in an “ability to recognize the source of problems and make them vanish.”
HGC – Hubbard Guidance Center – a department for auditing
ACC – Advanced Clinical Course – a series of courses Hubbard organized for auditors especially after releasing new discoveries.
Overrun – continuing to run some action such as an auditing process in Scientology beyond the point of a successful completion (in Scientology indicated by a “floating needle” on an e-meter and/or VGI’s – very good indicators – preclear happy and having cognitions). Overrun often results in a worsening condition.
High TA – a type of a read on an e-meter that indicates a certain state of preclear’s mind – in this case Hubbard says it indicates an overrun. TA stands for Tone Arm (on a dial of an e-meter).
Note: a part of this lecture was later turned into HCOB 14 Oct. 65 Potential Trouble Source, Mechanics Of
The following reference relates PTS/SP to the Overt-Motivator sequence.
HCOB 10 SEPT 1983 PTSNESS AND DISCONNECTION
a. To be PTS in the first place, the PTS must have committed overts against the antagonistic source; and
b. When one has committed overts, his confront and responsibility drop.
The reference was issued in 1983 so it may have not been written by Hubbard, but something similar is stated in the following reference from 1978:
HCOB 29 DEC 1978 THE SUPPRESSED PERSON RUNDOWN
This is how it works. The PC, due to some act or acts previously committed, has gone the effect of the antagonistic terminal. The terminal then attempts to suppress the PC. The PC, already the effect of the terminal, becomes the effect of the suppression. So the PC’s own postulate to improve himself and his conditions is countered by the suppressive terminal’s counter-postulate, and he is thus given a present time problem of sufficient magnitude to prevent case gain, as only a present time problem will halt the progress of a case. To the present time problem are added ARC breaks with the antagonistic terminal, and as only ARC breaks will worsen a case, the result is no gain or deterioration of a case by reason of the suppressive connection in the environment.
In HCOB 05 FEB 1966 S AND D WARNING there is also an indication of manipulation of preclear’s perception by a suppressive person to create an impression of a dangerous environment:
Remember that the real Suppressive Person (SP) was the one that wove a dangerous environment around the pc. To find that person is to open up the pc’s present time perception or space. It’s like pulling a wrapping of wool off the pc. The SP persuaded or caused the pc to believe the environment was dangerous and that it was always dangerous and so made the pc pull in and occupy less space and reach less.
When the SP is really located and indicated the pc feels this impulse not to reach diminish and so his space opens up.
The difference between a safe environment and a dangerous environment is only that a person is willing to reach and expand in a safe environment and reaches less and contracts in a dangerous environment.
An SP wants the other person to reach less. Sometimes this is done by forcing the person to reach into danger and get hurt so that the person will thereafter reach less. The SP wants smaller, less powerful beings. The SP thinks that if another became powerful that one would attack the SP.
The SP is totally insecure and is battling constantly in covert ways to make others less powerful and less able.
Then there is a “can’t have / must have” mechanics:
HCO PL 12 MAY 72R PTS PERSONNEL AND FINANCE
A person who is connected to a suppressive person, group or thing will dramatize a “can’t-have” or an “enforced overt-have” on an org or staff members.
A “can’t-have” means just that – a depriving of substance or action or things.
An “enforced overt-have” means forcing upon another a substance, action or thing not wanted or refused by the other.
The technical fact is that a PTS person got that way because the suppressive was suppressive by depriving the other or enforcing unwanted things upon the person.
The PTS person will dramatize this characteristic in reaction to the suppression.
HCOB 8 DEC 1978 PTS RUNDOWN, FINAL STEP
Clear “can’t have,” “couldn’t have” as DENIAL OF SOMETHING TO SOMEONE ELSE. Clear “enforced have” as MAKING SOMEONE ACCEPT WHAT THEY DIDN’T WANT.
The theory is that SPs are SPs because they deny Have and enforce unwanted Have. They also deny do and enforce unwanted do. They also deny be and enforce unwanted be.
Scientology Technical Dictionary states something that is closer to what would be commonly understood by suppression:
Suppression is “a harmful intention or action against which one cannot fight back.” Thus when one can do anything about it, it is less suppressive. (HCO PL 26 Dec 66)
SEARCH AND DISCOVERY AND RELATED RUNDOWNS
Tech Vol 6: HCOB 24 Nov. 1965 Search and Discovery
Tech Vol 6: HCOB 21 Jan. 1966 Search and Discovery (Ethics Type Cases, PTSs)-S & D Errors
Tech Vol 6: HCOB 05 Feb. 1966 S and D Warning
Tech Vol 8: HCOB 10 Aug. 1973 PTS Handling
Tech Vol 11: HCOB 20 Oct. 1976 PTS DATA [indicates PTS/SP Checksheet: BPL 31 May 71RF Re-Revised 4 Mar 77 / 1976 version PDF]
Tech Vol 11: HCOB 20 Oct. 1976 PTS HANDLING
Tech Vol 8: HCOB 21 Oct. 1974 PTS Rundown (revision of 9 Dec. 1971)
Tech Vol 12: HCOB 8 Dec. 1978 PTS Rundown, Audited (re-revision of HCOB 9 Dec. 1971) [auditing focus: includes ARC breaks, problems, overts and withholds, can’t have / must have, and other]
Tech Vol 12: HCOB 8 Dec. 1978 PTS RD Addition (revision of HCOB 20 Jan. 1972) [C/S errors and remedies]
Tech Vol 12: HCOB 8 Dec. 1978 PTS Rundown, Final Step (re-revision of HCOB 3 June 1972) [auditing focus: can’t have / must have]
Tech Vol 12: HCOB 29 Dec. 1978 The Suppressed Person Rundown
Tech Vol 12: HCOB 6 Jan. 1979 Suppressed Person Rundown Problems Processes
(revision of HCOB 30 Dec. 1978)
Tech Vol 12: HCOB 31 Dec. 1978 Outline of PTS Handling
Tech Vol 12: HCOB 31 Dec. 1978 Educating the Potential Trouble Source, The First Step Toward Handling: PTS C/S-1
SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSIVE PERSON DECLARE, AND SUPPRESSIVE PERSON TREATMENT
PROBLEMS WITH PTS/SP TECHNOLOGY
As with some other areas in Scientology, the PTS/SP tech ultimately creates more problems then it solves. The benefits of some useful indicators and processes that may help someone identify problem individuals and address potentially bad influences is overwhelmed by a number of very serious problems that this area of Scientology introduced.
As is noted on page ROBOTISM in Scientology, authoritarian and limiting style of delivery of material in Scientology (by claiming that something is the only explanation or the only solution) traps the followers’ minds to think only in terms of Scientology data at the exclusion of other possibilities and evaluation criteria which in turn results in a form of conditioned perception which may actually be incorrect (divorced from the reality of what is being perceived) or incomplete (not covering other forms of reality that may exist).
This can be seen quite clearly in Hubbard’s limiting and in some way unrealistic division of people into “anti-social” and “social” categories.
What Hubbard described as “antisocial” or “suppressive” is actually something that may more closely resemble a PARANOID individual – hidden fear of others, lack of differentiation of people (generalizing), lack of trust, and fixating on the negative which basically what paranoia is about. Lowered ability to complete projects is also likely to be found among those suffering with paranoia since they are not in good control of their minds to begin with and irrational fears of others could prevent them from working toward finished results they can share with others. These can also deal in “alarming generalizations” since this is actually a manifestation of their own perception of people. Someone who was afraid of others and saw some evil in them could also be worried if they were helped or made more powerful, and so a truly paranoid individual (or group) could very well try to protest some form of a “betterment activity.” Unfortunately, Hubbard did not cite any specific and detailed cases that anyone else could look at and confirm to back up his claims so it’s hard to say what he based his reasoning on to arrive at the “12 distinct characteristics” and his basic logic to begin with.
Perhaps, Hubbard’s description could have been more plausible if he used the word paranoia instead of “antisocial personality” which is a term taken from psychiatry and is most often associated with Psychopathy or Sociopathy which for the most part do NOT align with Hubbard’s version of “antisocial characteristics.” Scientologists fixated on characteristics described by Hubbard may be able to recognize someone who is paranoid, but utterly fail to recognize a psychopath or a sociopath – types of personality that could be far more dangerous than someone who is paranoid (and is therefore not very capable). For a more correct and expansive view on various conditions to look out for see page Psychopathy and Induced Psychosis.
To a false or misleading view of a “suppressive person” is then added conditioned perception of self or others in “connection” to “suppression” as “PTS” – a Potential Trouble Source. Someone who is deemed to be “connected” to “suppressive action or person” is labeled as a PTS – which is yet another identity label in Scientology. Being “PTS” means that someone is likely to cause “trouble,” experience “Roller Coaster” (getting worse after getting better), will not be able to have steady gains, will make mistakes, be chronically sick or having a difficult time at recovering from sickness, and experience general failure. Those who have been labeled PTS, per policy, are prohibited from training and processing (receiving auditing) until their “PTS condition” is handled.
This is done in Scientology in a seemingly complete disregard for one of its own primary axioms that reality is a “product of agreed upon considerations.” In common terms, “PTS condition” can manifest due to the belief in such a condition to begin with. Someone assumes a consideration (or more correctly a “vision”) that they are PTS which then comes with a set of other considerations about failing, being sick, making mistakes and so on. Such a person may actually then manifest failure after having success, if they believe themselves to be PTS and start envisioning a “down turn” on a “Roller Coaster” as an inevitable manifestation of being PTS. In other words, could the very act of envisioning oneself as being “PTS” manifest in the suggested manifestations of such a condition, especially when the reality of such manifestations is also projected onto the person by other members within a group?
Doesn’t the belief, in itself, that experiencing some form of suppression can result in so many problems for the target individual make the suppression seem that much more powerful and effective?
There may be attempts at suppression of something about the target individual (or group), but they can simply be viewed as a from of action toward the target individual that may or may not be effective depending of the STATE of the individual with respect to such actions. Yes. The mechanics described by Hubbard (such as struggling with chronic sickness, making mistakes, or experiencing periodic failures) may in reality take place due to persistent suppression, but once the individual became educated on the subject, became more aware and generated a state of power to become proof to a form of suppression that may have overwhelmed him or her beforehand – none of these “mechanics” would any longer apply to such a person… yet that individual would continue to be “locked in” the visions of reality connected to the PTS/SP tech since the “labels” are based on evaluations by an outside observer (such as Scientology Ethics Officer) of someone being an SP and a member being PTS due to being “connected,” and not on the STATE of the individual considered PTS with respect to an individual viewed as an SP. In this case, it is actually the Scientology group that would act as a suppressive influence moving forward.
This brings us to the subject of suppression itself. What is SUPPRESSION? According to Hubbard, the basis of suppression is basically a conflicting opinion (counter-postulate) to one’s own which makes it obvious that even the very notion of “suppression” was not clearly identified and understood in Scientology as it can actually exist in its various forms. See page UNDERSTANDING SUPPRESSION.
Loss of Responsibility with respect to realities linked to “suppression”
Let’s consider yet another problem by starting with the following quote:
DIANETICS 55! CHAPTER: ACCENT ON ABILITY
It is the resistance alone which brings about the dwindling spiral, the descent into less ability. Life does not will this descent into less ability unless Life is cognizant of the principles involved. Life resists itself into this less-ability. There is a primary rule working here: that which one fears, one becomes. When one refuses to duplicate something, and yet remains in its environment, his very resistance to the thing he refuses to duplicate will cause him eventually to become possessed of so many energy pictures of that thing which he refuses to duplicate that he will, to have any mass at all, find himself in possession of those energy pictures, and without actually noticing when it happened, is very likely to accept, at their level, those things which he refused to duplicate earlier.
One wonders why all the nurses and doctors in contagious wards do not immediately pick up the illness, and here we have another factor which is the same factor as understanding, but couched in a different way. People do not acquire obsessively those things which they do not fear. An individual has to resist something, has to be afraid of something, has to be afraid of the consequences of something before it could have any adverse obsessive effect upon him. At any time he could have a self-determined duplication of it, but this, not being obsessive, not being against his will, would not produce any ill symptom beyond the length of time he determined it.
Obviously, Scientologists indoctrinated into the visions of a Social Personality vs Anti-Social (or Suppressive) Personality get an idea that they want to be (or should be) a Social Personality and NOT BE (or not create) anything having to do with an Anti-Social Personality or “suppression.” This is where one steps into yet another trap in Scientology universe, where we have a group of people actively creating and yet at the same time resisting VISIONS of suppression and suppressive persons (as they are defined in Scientology). There is perception of what someone may be doing, or saying or thinking (such as “counter-postulates”) and then there is an additional (created) perception of those action as being “suppression” and the person creating such thoughts or actions as being a “suppressive person.”
It is consciousness that creates any form of perception; therefore an individual, as a form of consciousness, must be creating (visions of) everything that he or she perceives in another. When we protest or resist something that we see about another, we end up in a position of seeing (or experiencing) a form of reality while taking no responsibility for actually creating the visions (experiences) of such reality since within the action of resisting, there is also an idea that only the other person is creating that form of reality (action or thought; some form of attitude or behavior) that we are trying to resist. Through this mechanism, an individual can ultimately empower the visions of resisted realities to such an extend that (s)he will actually start dramatizing these envisioned realities. So it is not uncommon to see people who, for example, have been resisting (fighting, protesting) negative thoughts or hate or intolerance to actually dramatize these things quite strongly while being seemingly unaware of actually doing so. Since they are unwilling to take responsibility for the creation of realities that they resist (such as some form of thinking or behavior); they also become unable to recognize the creation of such realities in themselves.
In this way, through creating visions of suppression and suppressive persons and then resisting them, Scientologists actually end up dramatizing whatever it is they envision to be suppression and being a suppressive person.
When someone tries to be “good” someone and yet resists against what (s)he envisions to be “bad” or “evil,” the more of it that person could end up dramatizing in the end. There are plenty of examples of this principle in action in Scientology and throughout other areas of human endeavor.
It is of course necessary to be able to recognize and confront whatever it is that someone may deem to be bad, evil, or “suppressive” but the next step up from there is transcendence of that reality – increased responsibility – so one ends up occupying MORE space… not negation or some form of avoidance of that reality (i.e. disconnection) so one ends up occupying LESS space.
So in the end, even though addressing the general subject of “suppression” could initially result in some improvement by increasing an individual’s awareness of the potentially bad influences he or she may not have been aware of before, the way this area has been framed and resolved in Scientology (through “disconnection” and its own attempts at suppressing suppression) lead to the creation of the very problems that it sought to resolve – becoming a victim on one side and actually perpetrating suppression on the other.
A concerned parent complaining about Scientology having taken control over his or her children, through the application of PTS/SP tech among Scientologists, can “magically” become (be perceived as) an evil “suppressive person” (an SP) bent on destroying Scientology and undermining “the only hope of mankind”… or someone who is being influenced by a suppressive person or group – a PTS). In this sense, Scientology’s PTS/SP technology is in fact a cleverly disguised form of brainwashing* which makes Scientologists incapable of perceiving actual realities of other people and the true causes behind their potential criticism or upset with Scientology. This so called “technology” works especially well in combination with an earlier technology of Overt-Motivator Sequence and Withholds that targets individual’s “critical thoughts” and the development of one’s own perception of other people and their actions.
*Brainwash: make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure. [Oxford Dictionary]
Brainwashing, as a term, could be understood as a forceful programming of human thinking and perception. The force factor in a given brainwashing methodology does not have to be apparent; in fact, brainwashing is usually more effective when the forceful nature of its methodology is cleverly disguised such as being for the benefit of the recipient.
The PTS/SP technology in Scientology is seen as being “absolute” and is enforced with no room for disagreement.
The subject of programmed perception is further discussed on pages covering conditioned psychosis and suppressive manipulation:
Psychopathy and Conditioned Psychosis
Mechanics of Abuse and Suppressive Manipulation