There’s a line being pushed in the Field that Suppressive Persons are equivalent to sociopaths. I’m not going to try to dispute that assertion by digging up some sociologist’s definition of a sociopath and then comparing characteristics to what LRH defines as a Suppressive Person. I frankly have better things to do. I want to point out the flaw in trying to make such a comparison in the first place.
The definition of “sociopath” comes from sociologists observing the behavior of certain deviants in society and noting down what they consider characteristics which deviate from a supposedly “normal” person. This is one of the primary activities of sociologists. They observe and tabulate. Occasionally they theorize. Sociologists neither know how a sociopath becomes that way, nor what to do about him. That isn’t their mission. They are much like modern biologists who have spent the last century categorizing and cataloging, but contributing little else to the understanding of plant and animal life.
And that in itself is why we can say that a sociopath is not the same as an SP. Contrary to the sociologist, we know not only the characteristics of an SP, we know what makes him that way and what can and should be done about him. This understanding is far deeper than anything the sociologist will ever achieve as regards to the sociopath.
I’m not saying that SPs don’t share characteristics with sociopaths. They do. But the definition of the sociopath is purely a set of characteristics without any real understanding. If you want to communicate what an SP is to a sociologist, you can perhaps trot out the term “sociopath” as a way of sort of approximating what an SP is. But you as a Scientologist should understand that this is an approximation, not an equivalence. Similar perhaps, but not identical.
This is what happens when you try to mash up things like Scientology and psychology or sociology. You get a lot of fuzzy thinking which involves making a lot of things which are really similar (or even completely different) into identities.
For the most part, Ron was quite precise about the definitions of words. Much research and technology was tied up in getting words properly defined conceptually and clarifying underlying language concepts (study tech, Key To Life). Not only that, but Ron fully described the origin and treatment of most phenomena we have definitions for in Scientology. The same cannot be said for psychology and sociology. In fact, by virtue of the lack of basic understanding of the nature of life itself, psychology and sociology will never achieve better than a crude categorization of the phenomena they study. The sociologists will attempt to catalog it, and the psychologists will attempt to control it.
All this should be well understood by any Scientologist who attempts to make a study of psychology and/or sociology. The modern social and mental “sciences” aren’t really sciences at all, and cannot and will never fully understand that which they study. And a large part of why is because understanding is not really part of their missions.
And you as a Scientologist should recognize that, as arrogant as it may sound to you or the public at large, you have a far greater understanding of the phenomena of the mind and life than any other practitioner of any “-ology”. will ever have. There truly is no comparison between Scientology and any other “-ology”.