How is it that Scientologists who supposedly “have the tech on the suppressive person” missed David Miscavige for so long, the most flagrant suppressive person in the history of Scientology, a gleaming classic SP in every way?

The great liability of knowing you "have the tech" is assuming it is complete when it isn’t. And for the Church it was a fatal flaw.

There is an incredible HCO PL in OEC Vol 0. Few Scientologists know about it, but it is called TECH. It’s purpose is not to provide background theory, but effective tools you were intended to apply.

As LRH explains, any tech has its product. But the only way to know if a particular technology is correct is by looking at the product. If the end result is confusion he says, then you have incorrect or incomplete tech. Incorrect tech would include false data.

Now consider the PTS/SP tech. The state of the Church, tells us something important. DM even pushes people to study the PTS/SP tech. But still they don’t spot him.  

So the question arises, if LRH’s PTS/SP tech was complete wouldn’t the Charlatan of the Board, David Miscavige, have been detected earlier?

Thankfully a brilliant individual — has filled in some missing blanks and brought to a finer point the vital work that LRH pioneered on the detection of the SP. She wrote a book. I’m slightly frustrated to say it was published in 2005 — frustrated, because I wish I read it years ago.

How important is this book? If we could all read only one book in our lives, this one would get my vote. It ought to be read to first graders and re-read every year until a person is 100 years old. I think more than any other book I’ve read, it could do more to help people deal with the real problems of life than any other. I will explain why in a moment.

But first, let me say this book will empower you against the true sources of friction and betrayal that confront us. LRH said it was 2.5% of the population. She, in many ways, defines the SP even more accurately than LRH did and her studies indicate that their percentage in the population varies by culture. In the US and western Europe the actual number is at 4% (and rising). In China and Japan the count is much lower — ranging from 0.03% to 0.14%.

But what is so amazing is her definition of the sociopath, and her breakthrough on how to detect them.

One further nail in the coffin for the Church is who wrote this book. A psychologist; a psychologist who is indeed worthy of the name. She has done what probably no one else could do — journeyed into the heart of darkness and returned with the holy grail. For when one considers the bumps in the road of life, those bumps are not caused by the sane 96%. These sociopaths are inevitably the source of disasters and catastrophes in life.

The book is called The Sociopath Next Door and its author is Martha Stout. (Kindle version)

You will laugh to see what she says about the suppressive person because what she says syncs so well with what LRH discovered. But she doesn’t just repeat his observations. She goes further and in a way, deeper. You will blow charge and major shifts will occur in your world. LRH stated it is therapeutic to get educated on the subject of SPs — it nullifies their destructive influence to a great extent.

Now, she doesn’t know everything LRH discovered. Her book does not replace what LRH wrote. The two bodies of work complete each other like two halves of a jigsaw puzzle.

Having read her book it is easy to see in LRH’s writings when he had encountered the sociopath or “suppressive person” because he starts to describe the personality several times. You see bits and pieces showing up here and there early on.

LRH described some traits of the sociopath when talking about people in the tone level of covert hostility. And certainly a sociopath can be 1.1. But his victims can also be in that tone band. Tone level is not a dependable indicator.

When you read her description, you are going to laugh also because everything she says is so perfectly a description of David Miscavige, from cradle to present time, along with other sociopaths you have known. They aren’t all driven to be movers and shakers, but some are. She explores all their various types and really gives you a FULL education on the subject so you can detect and get them out of your life.


Scientology alone does not give the clearest picture of the sociopathic, antisocial or suppressive personality. LRH basically discovered there were indeed two distinct personality types. But then he and others engaged in labeling people as “antisocial personalities” if they violated certain justice codes. What that did (theoretically, anyway) is create a vast number of new criteria for determining who and what constitutes an “antisocial personality.”

For example, did you know that at one point LRH wrote in an HCO PL anyone who blows from course should be declared an SP? In other words, there are the 12 characteristics of an antisocial personality plus 12 characteristics of a social personality which together was at one time, “The Test.” Then later, there came a list of high crimes which apparently if you violated them, rendered the test irrelevant.  

I found myself blown from a course once in about 1981. The Tech Sec, Austin Day Org, Vicky White, simply called me up and asked me what my MU was and like a neon light the word “that” appeared in front of me. After I cleared up the definitions, I wanted to go right back on course and I did. Well, per that Policy Letter, I could have been declared instead.

Calling someone a squirrel or an antisocial personality when they are not is a falsehood and possibly a control method that produced CONFUSION and opened the door to the present disaster. That's a theory.

LRH made a monumental discovery — there were two types of personalities — as different as night and day. And then he failed to stick by his own definitions, a huge mistake.

The problem with an unclear definition is that it can then be abused — and it has been. How stupid is it to let an SP inside the church drive all the good people out, and then as each one goes, he or she is labeled an “SP” by the actual SP who is driving them out?

Even if a person committed one of Scientology's "High Crimes" (which is really a moral code, not "ethics"), that only proves he has committed a High Crime. It does not prove he is in fact an “antisocial personality.”  Read the book and you will know why.

So this book will take us to a place where anyone can clearly discern a genuine sociopath for what they are.

Martha Stout has greatly contributed to the work that LRH began — she has identified the SP using criteria that are truly original. Sociopaths (SPs) currently number 4% in the US as I mentioned, which puts social personalities at 96%.

No doubt there are professions and positions that attract such personality types. Its not the profession that is the target, it is the individual sociopaths who victimize people.

Among social personalities, however, there are also several problem personality types who are sources of trouble. These now become far easier to understand because between LRH and Martha Stout you have enough essential stable data that you can avoid confusion.

So all in all, what Martha Stout’s book is, and what it means for civilization, is truly landmark. This book is a game changer, not just for us, but for the world. I hope others read it. I think if enough Indies read this book, what’s left of DM’s world will crumple in on him.

Marty put this book on his essential reading list. Yes, yes, yes! If everyone in the Church was gotten to read this book, many would spot DM. For those who have left, it is definitely a critical route to closure.

Per LRH, and he was the pioneer on the subject, the handling for the SP is in three stages: detection, routing and handling. Scientologists have been unable to detect the sociopathic personality because they didn't fully understand what it was — the definition was confused. So the handling steps bugged at detection.

With what we know in Scientology about the SP, The Sociopath Next Door is going to complete the job of making you unassailable. Like Scientology itself, it contains a discovery people have been searching for across millennia. It IS the holy grail.

We say in Dianetics that the problem is the reactive mind. Then later LRH discovered the core of the reactive mind was the R6 bank — a super complex pattern of opposed goals and masses implanted eons ago, which is audited out on the Clearing Course or New Era Dianetics. Who was responsible for creating that implant? Sociopaths.

So when I say if you had only one book to read in your lifetime, this might be the most beneficial of them all — I’m not kidding.

I'm so excited to think about what will happen when you read this book. It is going to empower you like nothing else. It is that amazing.

— Thoughtful


+3 # Ian 2014-08-29 13:40
I find it very interesting that with the Western world pegged at 4+% (as it is still rising) and with the Eastern world between 0.03 - 0.14% the WORLD WIDE average still comes out to 2 - 2.5%
(4-5% + 0.03-0.14% / 2) by"adjusting for [sociopathic] inflation"!

These figures only show Hubbard was right after all, even if his detecting methodology was somewhat flawed he was still on the right track way back then without a formal degree in psychology... I am still amazed at how ahead of his time he was considering he did his own independent research.
# Robert 2018-01-13 17:23
What research did Lafayette do? Have you seen any of his field notes? Any statistical collections of data? Any research proposals including his hypothesis, methods, and failed or accepted conclusions?

And your math is wrong, you just assumed the eastern and western world (what ever they are defined as) both had the same population so you divided by two, and hagiographic praise of Lafayette followed.
# Thoughtful 2018-01-14 12:47
The commenter wrote that post three years ago. Likely, he may have changed his views since then based on the further understanding of who and what Hubbard was. The purpose of this website is to enable people who were indoctrinated into the cult mindset, start the process of freeing up their senses. My advice is don't expect too much of people right off the bat. Let them shake out their ideas without too much censorship or criticism. Or in other words, try to apply the Golden Rule. Thanks for your comment and your effort to point out some obvious discrepancies.
+1 # Ian 2018-09-12 22:06
Thank you for trying to be civil, Thoughtful.

My math was not accurate, but it was a guesstimate, but since we are discussing population let's use these. I welcome any statisticians who are reading to further investigate:


Robert, I'm curious why you are so willing to attack Hubbard and yet do not apply the same criteria to Stout who also provided no studies or collections in her work. Maybe you should look at your own biases before criticizing others.

And yes, there were some early studies done in the 1950s, one called Dianetic Processing by the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation and another called Creative Learning: A Scientological Experiment in Schools. There are others, but seeing as how you clearly didn't bother to read either Stout's or Hubbard's work as betrayed by own comment, I doubt you would read any.

In fact, I happened to revisit this post as I encountered some data which in fact does back up Hubbard's and Stout's claims which is from April 2018 per a 3 1/3 year study - According to a research project at Stanford University, just one percent of Redditors are responsible for 74 percent of all conflicts on the site. Presumably, the same could be said across all social media sites or commenters:


"Conflicts are initiated by active community members but are carried out by less active users [3rd party law]. It is usually highly active users that post hyperlinks to target communities, but it is more peripheral users who actually follow these links and participate in conflicts [PTS]."

Full study in slides - cs.stanford.edu/.../...

Full PDF study - arxiv.org/pdf/1803.03697.pdf

Not sure where the other 26% are from but then again whether 2.5% or 4% (since it was a study of the west essentially) that so that could be the remaining 1.5-3% difference. I'd not be surprised if we start to see more of similar studies.
+3 # Ian 2014-09-17 13:53
I just finished reading this yesterday and it is fantastic! Chilling at times but an excellent read.

Agreed that the sociopath is not an SP exactly as described by Hubbard, but there is a lot of overlap albeit Stout has a lot more data omitted by Hubbard. (I marked her points below with an ** taken from the 12 points listed in the "Anti-Social Personality" test by Hubbard).

The traits of the sociopathic/antisocial personality per Stout:

1) They are charming & seductive - they seem almost otherworldly in this regard, and this is the most common factor.

2) They make a play on others' sympathy and pity - this is probably THE most common thing besides charm.

3) They lack any ability to experience genuine emotion (i.e. cannot feel love, compassion, empathy, sadness, guilt, joy). They are excellent at pretending though and make it seem convincing.

4) They DO experience anger and frustration at not getting what they want though, and are described as quick to become irritable and aggressive in their pursuits.

5) They are often bored and marked by a sense of ennui and "emptiness". Even when they do get what they wanted (in terms of external pursuits) they don't even feel good about it, rather they move on to the next target or try to maintain appearances.

6) Thus, drug and alcohol addiction is very common for many.

7) In fact, most have a history of drugs and crime in their youth (starting around age 14 on average).

**8) When they commit crimes and harm others, they do not experience any remorse nor sense of internal conflict/conscience whatsoever.

**9) After all, they are always using others as a means to an end to "win" - as if people were merely replaceable pawns in a game.

**10) If they are caught or called out, they are insincere when and pretend to "feel sorry" about things in order to both get pity and avoid external penalties and thus usually remain hidden (after all, they have no conscience and are excellent at pretending).

**11) They are also unable to acknowledge ANY responsibility for their actions.

**12) They do not care about the consequences nor impact of their actions on others or society and are irresponsible and impulsive.

**13) They are unable to conform to social norms (i.e. thrive on social destructiveness and damaging stability - different than most artists and politicians who "fight the system" as there is a goal of true betterment of society, not merely domination and winning which becomes apparent fairly quickly).

**14) They are deceitful and manipulative.

**15) They are impulsive and fail to plan, which includes brief intense enthusiasms that never go anywhere (i.e. begin hobbies or "passions" that end abruptly within a few months)

**16) Those whom they attack/affect are often sick or feel like they are going crazy and are unaware of the cause (referred to as "gas lighting") and others usually doubt them because the sociopath hides tracks well.

**17) In any case the work/home/social environment is always made worse around them but they hide evidence of their work so that it is difficult to track.

**18) They routinely fail to honor financial obligations.

19) They usually have inconsistent work.

20) They are not monogamous/promiscuous.

**21) They usually do not want nor go to therapy or reform programs for their behavior (unless court ordered)

A few other interesting notes and parallels on this book:

Hubbard explains that about 20 percent of people oppose violently to any betterment or group (i.e. SPs + PTS types), and Stout shows that in the criminal prison system only about 20 percent of inmates are sociopaths.

And this quote on p. 185 jumped out at me big time:
"Since we began to record wars, occupations, and projects of genocide, historians have often remarked that a certain type of catastrophic, amoral villain seems to be born over and over into the human race. No sooner are we rid of one than another appears somewhere else on the planet. [...] And since we do not understand these people, since their psychology is so alien to most of us, we often do not recognize or stop them until after they have damaged humanity in unfathomable ways."

Also, the dynamics come into play as the exact reason in Stout's book is unknown (genes, society, culture, something else??). Hubbard explains that they are truly afraid of others and caught in a past incident, this may or may not be true without further investigation but the two seem to fill in the other's gaps.

The good news is that people are mainly good and those of us with "extreme conscience" have:
1) Certainty (clarity in life, goals, and duty of being right & acting on those beliefs, etc)
2) Positivity (perspective is positive as is life approach)
3) Unity of Self and Moral Goals (integrity of identity with moral stance)

Also there are ways to fight back (also which have a lot of parallels to Hubbard's observations):

1) Accept that some people have no conscience.
2) Go with your instincts vs. accepting the role of the sociopath, be it teacher, doctor, leader, animal lover, parent, humanist etc.
3) When considering a new relationship, use "the rule of threes" - if they lie about, break a promise, or neglect a responsibility three + times then you are dealing with a liar and likely sociopath.
4) Question authority.
5) Suspect flattery.
6) If needed, redefine your concept of respect.
**7) Don't join their game.
**8) Avoid any contact or communication with the sociopath.
9) Question your tendency to pity too easily.
**10) Don't try to redeem the unredeemable.
11) Never agree to help a sociopath conceal his true character.
12) Defend your psyche and belief in humanity.
**13) Living well is the best revenge.

Definitely worth a read and a big eye opener!
+1 # Bruce 2015-04-16 19:39
These are great points. I love to read but highlighting of others helps me to focus on some of the points. Just ordered the book on line.

Thanks for your comments ahead of time.
# Bruce 2015-04-16 19:10
WOW, this is soooo cooool. I have been fascinated but didn't really know if I was spotting people right and here is an added piece.

There is another book, by a psychiatrist, M Scott Peck, People of the Lie and it is fascinating about this same subject.

# Thoughtful 2015-04-16 19:41
You are welcomed. Another great book is "Snakes in Suites." I will check out M Scott Peck.

You have no rights to post comments

This Week

Easy ShareThis

iScientology blog


Where independent Scientologists can meet, share ideas and make friends. If Scientology worked for you, send articles, stories or successes to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Help Support Us

Making Auditors


Standard Tech is alive, and ready to take you to greatness.

Learn More

Training in iScn


A note on training from the man who was there with LRH.

Learn More

Operating Thetan


Training's role in removing the counter-effort from living.

Learn More

FREE Checksheets


LRH Checksheets that made 1000s of successful auditors.

Download Yours