The Pity Play

Apropos of current events, I offer for contemplation a passage from the book The Sociopath Next Door, by Martha Stout. Ironically, after I introduced this book on my blog in 2010, some of its most fervent subsequent promoters turned out to be described to a tee within it. The answer to that paradox is in the book, even within the following passage.

From chapter 6 – how to recognize the remorseless

After listening for almost twenty-five years to the stories my patients tell me about sociopaths who have invaded and injured their lives, when I am asked, “How can I tell whom not to trust?” the answer I give usually surprises people. The natural expectation is that I will describe some sinister-sounding detail of behavior or snippet of body language or threatening use of language that is the subtle give-away. Instead, I take people aback by assuring them that the tip-off is none of these things, for none of these things are reliably present. Rather, the best clue is, of all things, the pity play. The most reliable sign, the most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is not directed, as one might imagine, at our fearfulness. It is, perversely, an appeal to our sympathy.

I first learned this when I was still a graduate student in psychology and had the opportunity to   interview a court-referred patient the system had already identified as a “psychopath.” He was not violent, preferring instead to swindle people out of their money with elaborate investment scams. Intrigued by this individual and what could possibly motivate him – I was young enough to think he was a rare sort of person – I asked, “What is important to you in your life? What do you want more than anything else?” I thought he might say “getting money”, or “staying out of jail”, which were the activities to which he devoted most of his time. Instead, without a moment’s hesitation, he replied, “Oh, that’s easy. What I like better than anything else is when people feel sorry for me. The thing I really want more than anything else out of life is people’s pity.”

I was astonished, and more than a little put off. I think I would have liked him better if he had said “staying out of jail”, or even “getting money.” Also, I was mystified. Why would this man – why would anyone – wish to be pitied, let alone wish to be pitied above all other ambitions? I could not imagine. But now, after twenty-five years of listening to victims, I realize there is an excellent reason for the sociopathic fondness for pity. As obvious as the nose on one’s face, and just as difficult to see without  the help of a mirror, the explanation is that good people will let pathetic individuals get by with murder, so to speak, and therefore any sociopath wishing to continue with his game, whatever it happens to be, should play repeatedly for none other than pity.

More than admiration – more even than fear – pity from good people is carte blanche. When we pity, we are, at least for the moment, defenseless, and like so many of the other essentially positive human characteristics that bind us together in groups – social and professional roles, sexual bonds, regard for the compassionate and the creative, respect for our leaders – our emotional vulnerability when we pity is used against us by those who have no conscience. Most of us would agree that giving special dispensation to someone who is incapable of feeling guilt is a bad idea, but often, when an individual presents himself as pathetic, we do so nonetheless…

…When deciding whom to trust, bear in mind that the combination of consistently bad or egregiously inadequate behavior with frequent plays for your pity is as close to a warning mark on a conscienceless person’s forehead as you will ever be given. A person whose behavior includes both of these features is not necessarily a mass murder, or even violent at all, but is still probably not someone you should closely befriend, take on as your business partner, ask to take care of your children, or marry.

121 responses to “The Pity Play

  1. Wayne Borean aka The Mad Hatter

    Sounds like an excellent description of the Church of Scientology.

    “Woe is me,” cries the church. “People are being mean to us because of our religious beliefs,” when the real reason that so many people oppose the church is because of its actions.

  2. Excellent! Very thought-provoking! I have always thought that people who try to make you pity them have some ulterior motive, but I never really considered that the was the motivation for sociopaths. Makes sense.

  3. Marty,

    Your blog, in principle, is in breach of axiom 138.

    Axiom 138: Aberration is the degree of residual plus or minus randomity accumulated by compelling, inhibiting, or unwarranted assisting of efforts on the part of other organisms or the (material) universe.

    Aberration is caused by what is done to the individual, not what the individual does, plus his self determination about what has been done to him.

    This clearly means that all of our problems are due to failed parenting.
    Or in other words all of our problems are due to what our parents did to us or for us that they should not have not done to us or for us,
    and what our parents did not do to us or for us that they should of done to us or for us. Overts by commission and overts by omission.

    We are all products of genetics, a conception, a gestation, a birth and an upbringing. If you have a problem with the product, you have to check with the factory for the cause of the problem.

    That clearly means that we are not responsible for causing our case.

    We are all only as good as we have been bred and brought up.

    And I would add,…… is also in breach of the Hubbard chart of human evaluation.

    Pity is in the contents of an engram and could be easily audited out, if the person was up to auditing and some life improvement courses (life repair), etc. .

    Dio

    • Dio, you quoted the following: “Aberration is caused by what is done to the individual, not what the individual does, plus his self determination about what has been done to him.”

      That last part – “plus his self-determination about what has been done to him” – is our salvation. Without that, we are just the effect of forces beyond our control, as in the philosophies of determinism and materialism.

      Furthermore, Hubbard later discovered that what the individual does to others is also a factor, an even bigger one.

      • Marildi,

        Quoting you:

        1. That last part – “plus his self-determination about what has been done to him” – is our salvation. Without that, we are just the effect of forces beyond our control, as in the philosophies of determinism and materialism.

        2. Furthermore, Hubbard later discovered that what the individual does to others is also a factor, an even bigger one.

        “2” is included or covered in “1”“plus his self-determination about what has been done to him”

        What this means is: how a person tangles (screws) himself up, as a result of trying to resolve his problems (engrams and case) or trying to function and survive in spite of his problems (engrams and case). (Trying to get out of his case.)

        Below a certain point (abreaking point) on the tone scale, theta scale and ability scale, a person goes down the downward spiral, through life.

        Above this “breaking point” a person can usually or often recover sufficiently and function “normally” in society, or use his aberrations to not only “survive”, but to “succeed”, …..excessively succeed.

        This is very common amongst many very “successful” people.

        It is often referred to: when you get knocked down, get up, dust yourself off, put on your best face and carry on.

        Or when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.

        And other similar popular says.

        They use their case, their aberrations to their advantage.

        This subject is very complex, highly subjective and variable.
        Every situation has to be evaluated on it’s own merits.

        For example: Donald Trump, developed a winning valence (as a megalomaniac) as a result of his child abuse.

        (Much of what Trump says is “bank” talking.)

        If his parents did not have enough money to send him to the best military college (reform school), and instead went harder on him, they would of likely “broke” him below his breaking point, where he would not be able to “bounce back”, (made a mental cripple of him) and he would of developed (or acquired) a losing valence.

        And could well of become a “disability” case, and spent his life on disability pension (become a welfare case or just a loser or bum, scoundrel, criminal ) or something like that.

        It is all a matter of type of case (aberration) and degree of case (aberration).

        Winning valence and losing valence are two sides of the same coin.

        Donald could of also became a sociopath or a psychopath, or something else.
        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

        What people do to others is “a result of what has been done to him: “Basic – basic”.

        A child would never do anything “bad” or rebel, if the parent did not do something wrong to the child first.)

        What he does to others is the result of the engram(s) he was given and the “false and limiting data” that has been programed, “implanted” into him, often pounded into him, ……. him becoming effect of aberrees in his dependent, vulnerable and developing yrs. .

        Due a thetan being basically good, everyone does the best they could with the hand they have been given.

        You cannot hold a good man, (an unbroken man) down. If you put him in “chains” “he will break the chains”.

        Anyone who does not clearly understand this, does not understand how case is formed, and does not understand auditing, and does not know how to audit, and does not understand scientology.

        When you are looking at a sociopath or psychopath or a terrorist, or a criminal or a loser, a welfare case, any aberree, you are looking at “case”.

        The whole goal or purpose of dianetics and scn is to know and understand this, and remove the case, and rehabilitate the thetan by whatever educational means is necessary.

        But you can only help those who are reaching,….. those who have enough useful theta units left, that they are looking for help.

        Hubbard was wrong when he said/ discovered that what the individual does to others is also a factor, an even bigger one. (Meaning that he is responsible for causing his case.)

        It is true that it is a bigger one (bigger problem, bigger case, more difficult case) to deal with, but it is still not the person’s “fault”. He is not responsible for causing his case.

        This “part” of the case is the result of his self-determination about what has been DONE to him” in his formative years.

        Dio

        • Dio, there may be a lot of truth to what you are saying, but to assert that it is the whole truth is the same as saying an individual is nothing more than effect in life. I see it as a deterministic point of view and a way of saying there is no such thing as free will.

          • Miraldi,

            If you walked in his shoes, you would be exactly the same.

            Free will only applies to those who are not broken beyond their breaking point.

            If a person is not broken beyond his breaking point, than free will applies, relatively.

            If he is broken beyond his breaking point there is no free will.

            Free will is relative.

            If it was not relative, there would not be any need for scientology, or auditing.

            If free will was not relative, anyone would be able to untangle his own case and go clear and OT on his own.

            Many people, actually the majority,….. if the case is not too bad, they construct valences on top of their case and live their lives that way to the end.

            If you fully understood the tone scale and Hubbard’s chart of human evaluation, (and the science of survival) you could easily read every person you see and meet.

            That is why you see all kinds of aberrees in business and the normal workplace, not only in institutions and the homeless.

            Everyone does the best they can with what they have.

            No exception.

            Dio

            • I would agree that free will is a relative thing. However, in your first comment above you wrote that “all of our problems are due to failed parenting.” That doesn’t take into account that the being has evolved in past lives in a different way than how others have evolved, and thus would have a different response to the same parents. Besides, there’s mujch more to a person’s environment than the home and parents. You may be over-emphasizing that one factor because of personal experience. Just a thought for you.

              • Yes, Marildi,

                “all of our problems are due to failed parenting.”

                Everything is based on, relative to “basic-basic.

                Everything the individual is in adult life, is based on, relative to the contents (is affected by the contents) of the type of aberration and the degree of that aberration.

                No exception.

                Axiom 138 is absolute. The variables are practically infinite.

                Each situation has to be evaluated on it’s own merits.

                In order to properly be able to evaluate, you have to have an extensive understanding of the basic innate nature of the being, the laws and principles of theta units, the laws and principles of conception, gestation, birth and upbringing, how case is formed (constructed), the mechanics of case, and how to take a case apart.

                There is a right way and a wrong way to do almost everything.

                Very few people know it, and very few people know how to do it right.

                I don’t think, Hubbard knew it all.

                His statement: I have blazed a trail, now go a build a better bridge, is correct.

                But you have to apply the data in “How to science”, to the fullest degree.

                Dio

                ________________________________

          • Marildi,

            I was just researching a 1947 book, called “The Engrammes of Psychiatry”

            (According to records, Hubbard stole the word engram from German, English and American psychiatric researchers, who appear to have first used the word.

            I found it very interesting that what I was trying to explain to you, was actually written in that book on page 47:

            Book link:
            https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b658975;view=1up;seq=5

            Open the book link and use the page finder and go to page 47 and read the first paragraph. .

            page 47 – 5 matching terms

            …st as engrammes, fundamentally in the diencephalon but also to some extent in the cortex. These engrammes are so funda- mental in determining one’s instinctive drives that, in spite of all education, and in spite of all the judgment a man may develop, he nevertheless cannot set aside the fundamental…
            …ed as engrammes in his brain. By means of engrammes in his frontal lobes he forms a judgment of the entire situation and by this judgment he attempts to evaluate future results on the basis of past experience. With all this cerebration he draws a conclusion of what to do. The crystalliza- tion of th…
            …ty of engrammes in the diencephalon, and, by the ramifications of the vegetative nervous system, also of activity throughout the body. By means of cortical activity the individual’s feeling tone and his sentiments in the situation at hand are deter- mined. He gathers all the information which is sto…

            Dio

            • Dio: “I found it very interesting that what I was trying to explain to you, was actually written in that book on page 47…”

              Yes, it was interesting. I actually got from you already that this was the idea you were trying to explain.

              I read the whole chapter (only 3 pages – from p. 47 to p. 49), titled “The Will.” The last paragraph gives the following summary (emphasis in caps is mine).

              “The will is a crystallization of a conclusion concerning behavior. If the mental process lacks consideration and thought, the resultant behavior is impulsive and not willed. BUT IF CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO AN ACT, THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL VARIES DIRECTLY WITH THE USE OF THE INTELLECT AND JUDGMENT. Though not completely in any case, the emotional bias influences every judgment to some to degree.”

              The above is basically what I was trying to explain to you.

              • Marildi,

                Again you miss my point or refuse to see it.

                The key phrase is:
                “Though not completely in any case”

                it corresponds to or makes the same or similar point as:

                “plus his self-determination about what has been done to him” .

                The statements are relative or conditional to other limiting and supporting (negative and positive) (or disabling or enabling) factors.

                You should be aware that the tone scale and theta scale are relative sliding scales.

                The top is very high and can only be arbitrarily quantified or scaled, and the bottom end which is death and possibly more arbitrarily quantified or specified and scaled below death.

                Everything is variable, everything is relative and sliding.

                There is a point on the scale where which if an individual falls below, (which is specific to each individual and each case has to evaluated on it’s own merits and factors) there is insufficient tone and theta units left, where the individual can recover, or use to his advantage, to rise above his condition and in spite of his case, or condition and succeed.

                This point is called a breaking point.

                Above this point, the person can recover or bounce back up.

                Below this point, the person cannot recover or bounce back.

                But according to your reasoning and logic or argument, …..that relative sliding scale is not true.

                According to you, a person should be able to recover and rise from the dead?

                And if he can’t rise from the dead, he is not trying hard enough, or is not using his will?

                Is that correct?

                Dio

                • No, that wasn’t what I meant. Actually, I think you are probably right that below a certain point, the person cannot recover or bounce back – at least not until the next lifetime. 😉

                  Here’s another interesting thought, coming from a different angle:

                  “It is only generally true that an individual is responsible for everything that happens to him. When an individual, wishing to cause many interesting effects, chooses to go into many universes [such as the valances of others] or traps, he can become confused about what he is doing, where he is or what it is all about.” (Hubbard – Fundamentals of Thought)

                  • Marildi,

                    I very much disagree with the quote you make from
                    “The Fundamentals of Thought”.

                    An individual does not “choose” to cause many interesting effects such as to go into other universes, such as the valences of others. That is ridiculous.

                    Such actions are enforced by force, by overwhelm, (extreme abuse, or extreme and prolonged suppression, or beatings and pain) and taken as no other option.

                    The present time of those incidents are too painful, too traumatic, to remain in the native or innate or proper state. So the individual has only two options, either to succumb (go into catatonia or and cataplexia) , or assume another valence. Or both.

                    Like consent (for example sexual consent) cannot be coerced or enforced, neither can choice or decisions can be coerced or enforced.

                    That is one of the many false and limiting data, that is laced into or embedded into scn.

                    Dio

                    • Okay, got what you’re saying.

                      If I remember right, you commented one time that you yourself had parents who mistreated you as a child. If that’s true, wouldn’t you say that you were able to break free of their influence on you, at least to some degree?

              • Marildi,

                Here is a blog by Arthur Janov, that runs on a close corollary to my point.

                It has two blog articles.

                The second one “previous Advice” is the more pertinent one.

                http://www.arthurjanov.com/

                Dio

        • Hi Dio,
          I do not in any way support Dianetics, Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard or Donald Trump, but I feel the need to clarify a minor point in your post.

          “If his parents did not have enough money to send him to the best military college (reform school), and instead went harder on him, they would of likely “broke” him below his breaking point, where he would not be able to “bounce back”, (made a mental cripple of him) and he would of developed (or acquired) a losing valence.

          Donald Trump attended a military high school (New York Military Academy) from 1958 until 1964. It was not a college. It was expensive, but not out of reach to the upper middle class in those days. To call it a reform school is a misnomer since the reform schools of the day were quite brutal especially in Florida. The Trump family’s wealth was out of proportion to the average class member. His father, Fred, served on the “Parents Auxilliary” which was a volunteer group. While it was common knowledge that Fred was very hard on Donald, Fred was actually very protective. In fact, he used his wealth to secure some special observations and priviledges by a few staff members for Donald.
          The school was founded in 1889 and it had a main principle of education through discipline. The staff members were very compassionate. Donald did very well at the academy managing to even achieve a high class rank. In the spring of 1964 close to graduation, Donald started to show his independence in a variety of ways. This almost resulted in disciplinary actions against him.
          You may be right on this point. If Donald had not been sent to this high school, Fred would have been very hard on him and Donald might have “caved in”. In any event, it was not a college. Donald went to Fordham University and then to Wharton.
          May all beings be well and happy!

          • George,

            Thanks for the correction.

            But it still say it served as a “reform school”.
            A prestigious one.
            Reform school would not look good on his resume now.

            🙂

            Dio

  4. Great post, Marty.

  5. I basically agree, but I might add…… Since these unscrupulous, psychopathic people generally fail in life, love, money, etc… they do blame their failure on those around them and appeal to our sympathy. Pity me, etc…

    But, until a wealthy SP utterly fails (Hitler, Stalin and other people that torture their fellow man with the power bestowed upon them by some external force, as they are parasitic and cannot create their own force) they will only appeal for sympathy to their close cadre, not to the world at large. To the world at large they will rip out the hearts of their fellow man with abandon all the while complaining to their close cadre that he/she is the only one doing all the work to save the cult or Scientology or whatever.

  6. A good observation and good insight indeed. Best regards, Kurt Hubbard-beale

  7. Thanks for posting this valuable data.

    I missed at first that it is a combination of two things.

    “…the combination of consistently bad or egregiously inadequate behavior with frequent plays for your pity is as close to a warning mark on a conscienceless person’s forehead as you will ever be given.”

  8. “Most of us would agree that giving special dispensation to someone who is incapable of feeling guilt is a bad idea, but often, when an individual presents himself as pathetic, we do so nonetheless…”

    I saw this pattern over the summer. When my neighbor died about ten years ago, his grandson was a cute little boy of about eleven. When he turned twenty, he got himself into a lot of trouble – drug dealing, possession of firearms without a permit, fighting, violent threats, theft. When there was a Warrant for his arrest, the police came looking for him. Since I knew his grandfather was a very good person and I owed him a favor, I decided to talk to the young man when he presented himself on my property. I was surprised that he wanted to talk only about the breakup of his parents’ marriage. He told me horror story after horror story wanting me to pity him. It was all his father’s fault. Now this was a wealthy family. His grandfather was a very succesful farmer. They live in a huge modern house on 2 and 1/2 acres. He left 10 million in land to his wife. He was proud of the fact that he always provided a new Cadillac for his wife to drive wvery two years. The grandson wanted pity.

  9. What are the appropo of current events you are referring to?

    • And who are you labeling sociopaths?

      • Clinging to past identities to bring order is certainly a human habit.

        Reverting to past “successful” identities when life gets crazy and tough only delays the lessons.

        It is a temporary stability that soon withers with the inevitable changability when human beings are not rooted in Dharma. Those that are friends now will always betray in this sort of environment. Beyond a doubt.

        Making up the damage done (some may call it heroic revelation of abuse) by now turning the big guns on those (now the enemy) who were once considered friends is a familiar Scientological mind set: us vs them.

        The habit of fighting enemies be they DM or ASC or FBI or SPs or IRS or Marcabs or Journalists or Space stations of torture……………….

        is ingrained and imprinted by the Scientology doctrine.

        Fighting enemies gives a sense of purpose, a value to self. It is also an externalization of self evolution, a projection of the work that needs to get done within but is not done because it is assigned to other people.

        The real war, the real battle is on the field of our own cognitive faculties.

        The desire to save the world is a smoke screen for lack of self realization.

        “The world is as you are”

        Ramana Maharshi

        Think about it.

        • The great Martin Luther King

          • And a meditation on love. This is my Hail Mary pass. Some will get it and some will be repulsed by it.

          • Hi Bro!
            MLK makes a great point here which Scientology missed. I do not, however, recall any substantive comments by Hubbard about MLK. Hubbard did not seem to have any connection to Christian love at all. It makes me think of Hubbard’s fundamental error with Einstein. The Hub could not ever really imagine a universe that curves in upon itself. Too much pantheism in his morning coffee, perhaps.

            • Hey George!!

              Here is as far as the Hubbster got regarding Christian love. It’s one of his top ten all time looney toons.

              Speaking of the great Christ, Mr. Lucifer ala Prince of Darkness says:

              “In addition to being a lover of young boys and men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of temper and hatred that belied the general message of love, understanding and other typical Marcab PR.”

              So…….. love and understanding is Marcab PR.

              There is a lower world vibe to Ron sometimes.

              What kind of mind would interpret love and understanding as this drivel?

              What’s your take George? What level of sentient being, what category of entity would default to this interpretation of a great liberated saint?

          • This is almost a reverse Godwin

            • Cat Daddy, now you are showing great cultural literacy. Yet you sometimes can’t spell simple words.

              I like the game of Cat Daddy. I love mysteries. ;-)))

              Yes, it could be reverse Godwin’s law. In a way

      • I have the same questions as Brian. Without some detail and context, someone could almost read the latest post as a call for sympathy by you (in response to alleged attacks against you by Tony Ortega? By Monique’s former lawyers? By the Church of Scientology?).

        I have read the book on sociopaths before and it has good insights. What you quoted is valuable information. Best wishes.

  10. Good article, surprised the key answer was pity.

  11. Attempts to label people as SPs, Sociopaths, Psychopaths and Witches are all attempts at trying to know what goes on in another person’s mind.

    It is not possible to use a label to do that.

    Alanzo

    • But Al, language of any kind is an attempt to express what we know. The criticsim of using a single word or single label seems to imply that we should put our observation into more than one or two words, and that seems completely arbitrary.

      • Marildi,

        You have to look and see what is “really” there, “actually” there, (as – is) not what Hubbard or anyone else said is there.

        Read and apply the data in “How to study a science”.

        Dio

    • I agree Alanzo

    • I can think of some examples where it might be possible. For instance, if a person has a history of being a serial killer, do you want everyone to keep “hush hush” about it, and God forbid, not “label” him? Why burden him with a label just because he has strangled twenty women? Other women might want to know about this, before they head out on a picnic with him. People that have a history of crime, are called criminals as a sort of warning flag to others. A, “Buyer beware” kind of thing. Sociopaths exist as they are described in this social science, which I see as valuable information. I have had some damage because of them. I needn’t know what is going on in others people’s minds, I do need to know if they are planning to pull the rug out from under me because “others do not matter” in their social intercourse. That said, sociopaths are not excluded from the Scientology culture. There is no policy about sociopaths being excluded from staff, or any part of that culture. Their victims are the ones excluded. And that explains a lot to me. Every person on this planet is a potential trouble source, so that means nothing to me. What is labeled as “suppression” there, is not always suppression either. Just because labels were misused there as wrong items and wrong indications, does not mean they are misused everywhere. I don’t want a guy working in my back yard that a history of strangling women. I am enjoying reading your blog!

    • Wayne Borean aka The Mad Hatter

      That is incorrect. It is an attempt to evaluate a person based on their actions. Take Pierre Eliot Trudeau – many of his actions are on the public record, and evaluating his personality based on his actions was a reasonable way to try to understand him.

    • Can you please explain, why it is then acceptable for many here, including the blogger, to throw the ASC label around?

      Isn’t that “using a label to try to know what goes on in another person’s mind”?

      Or literally thousands of people’s minds?

      Marty, thanks in advance for not publishing this comment.

      • Longtime Lurker

        The ASC (Anti-Scientology Cult) label is an invention or coined acronym presented by Marty, as far as I know. It refers, not to all people against Scientology, but only to people who did Scientology, read Marty’s website and are now collectively voicing too negative of an opinion of their experiences.. It’s like everyone has “ganged up” on Miscavige and Scientology and thus formed a negative cult of sorts… ASC. As Marty posted on October 5, 2016 refering to ASC: ” I have watched it (ASC) degenerate from even that: from a blame-filled pity party into a hate-driven trolling fest.”

    • I agree Alonzo.

    • It is more about what the person puts out into the environment.
      And it’s more about approximation than about labeling.
      How much pity on your lines are you willing to accept before you recognize that something is off?

  12. You have insinuated a situation and left it non specific. Then implied that certain unknown people are sociopaths.

    Can you be clear so that what you are trying to communicate makes sense to us.

  13. I have a better way to judge other people than through the use of labels in order to try to understand what they are thinking inside their own hearts.

    The Fundamental Attribution Error is a great tool to use to try to figure out other people.

    Here’s a real quick video on it:

    It feels satisfying to have a denigrating label for someone you are upset with.

    But it doesn’t work.

    Alanzo

    • You observe for a while and have a record.
      That’s what the mind is good for.

    • It works for me if I label things correctly. If I label a container holding salt as sugar, then it becomes a problem. Noticing conditions, and human conditions is not a handicap, I don’t care how politically incorrect it seems. If you are organizing information in your head and it is not born from attitudes, but from being able to see what is in front of you and know about it, this is not a handicap. Knowing, is not a dysfunction. There are people out here putting out wrong items, wrong whys, wrong whos, wrong whats. Straw men, shadow men, people that lurk in alleys while putting others on the front lines. It is easy for injustice to occur under these conditions and a lot of people bank on that. You can not know what is going on in a person’s mind by a putting a label on it, but you can know by looking, and then you can say exactly what it is and know for yourself. And yes, it is possible to know. And yes, you can be shamed for knowing. But the shame you will have to live with for not knowing, that is a bigger burden than most people can bear.

      • Just don’t forget the environmental and situational factors in a person’s life in your evaluation of him, as well as the problems he has to solve every day in order for him to survive.

        There can certainly be sociopathic behavior, but labeling the person as a sociopath is far less than half of what you need to know to have understanding of why a person does what he does.

        In fact, labeling does not provide any understanding at all of another person. True, sometimes you don’t need to understand why a person is acting in a way that you see as sociopathic – you just need to get away from them.

        But don’t then pretend that you actually understand that other person, and why they act the way they do, just because you have labeled them a “sociopath”.

        We all know that soldiers engaged in battle during wartime become incredibly psychopathic and sociopathic. We can all understand that. And we can understand that working for David Miscavige in L Ron Hubbard’s Scientology Int Base Skinner Box created many “sociopaths”.

        It doesn’t mean that in a new environment, with different sets of problems, this person will act pathologically and is therefore, intrinsically, a “sociopath”.

        The social science perspective is that a person is not just himself, but he is also the environment that he has to deal with every day. I believe that this perspective leads to much greater understanding of the people around you.

        That greater understanding can lead to forgiveness, and eventually, to redemption.

        Couldn’t we all use a little of that after Scientology?

        Alanzo

        • Here’s another social scientist – Phillip Zimbardo, the creator of the Stanford Prison Experiment – with another take on this view of environment + self = person.

          One of the most important things to graduate from after Scientology is the simplistic use of labeling people in order to try to understand them. Just because there are psychologists like Martha Stout who are doing it outside Scientology, too, is no reason to fall back into that.

          Alanzo

          • Not sure why he is telling people “God created Hell” . Did you know there is no mention of Hell or of Satan in the King James Bible or the Old Testament? That is all fresh editing. Also did not know “many sociopaths” were created by working in close proximity, with Miscavige. Or even one. But I do not use simplistic terms to label people, and I do not think Marty does either. Neither have we “fallen back” into anything. I know for a fact what Marty is saying, and what other experts in social science are saying, is true. Because I have had two sociopaths cross my path in the last five years, they prefer to create damage when doing something civilized and decent is even easier. And the entire time they are trying to burn down what you have created, they are begging for sympathy. This means nothing except this is what happened and this is what I saw. And upon investigating, I found out this was their history with others as well. None of this means I have run amuck with labeling people. And I did not do that when I was involved in Scientology.

  14. Pity parties convened, with the purpose of bringing out the malevolence in others, causing them to become enemy like in nature, initiating witch hunts and heaping injustice on people that have done them no harm, is a subtle form of spiritual abuse that goes over a lot of heads. You create new victims, while complaining of the old ones. It is a form of low magic.

    • Free the Sheeple!

      Speaking in vague generalities about certain dark acts, committed by unnamed folks against unnamed victims for unspecified purposes seems to be contagious round here!

      Both you and Marty are being purposefully vague here while, it appears, that you both know exactly to whom you are referring. Why not just come right out and make your allegations instead of serving up this kind of mystery sandwich?

      Brian has already made, then reiterated, this obvious point, so how ’bout you two putting your cards on the table or just folding your hand? All this bluffing, vague innuendo and mystery sandwich-making is growing tiresome and annoying. Be straight with us here: Who, what, where, when and why?

      • You want me to target people. I’ll pass. This blog had never been devoted to sadism. More than anyone I know, I love the moments when, “I didn’t see it coming”. Nothing knocks me on my ass faster, than an act of kindness I did not see coming. But to pretend there are not malevolent beings, and ill willed people….. that isn’t even playing the game. That is being an Alfred Hitchcock fan.

      • Also, implying that “Mary and I” are in some close conspiracy, is a wrong item. You suspect this, why, I have no idea. A person can talk about current events and forces and conditions, without having a target in mind. If you have no idea what we could be talking about, because a whipping target hasn’t been arranged, it is not on me to fill in the “mysteries” you seem to have. I’m not posting as Santa Clause. You are posting here under “Free the Sheeple” and complaining about putting others in mystery. Laughter!

      • Marty posts here under his own name. And he has not accused anyone of creating mysteries. It seems to be your item, than his.

        If I may inquire, what is it, you are not telling me?

      • Accusing me of being “purposefully vague” is hysterical! That is really fresh! Yours, qualifies as one of the most creative, for announcing wrong items, wrong whos, wrong whys, wrong purpose, wrong conditions. I mean, you just whipped up a piece of salami from fruit salad. And laid it out for everyone to eat. All the while putting in a list of “evil” declares. I think you probably have a road of dead Sheeple behind you twenty two miles wide and forty miles long. Nothing vague about that. If there is a threat upon the Sheeple, it is the folk like you they don’t see coming. I just want to come right and make my allegations. Put my cards right on the table. The only person posting here between the three of us, you, me and Marty, that is being spooky, is you. The only person edging this social intercourse into an Alfred Hitchcock medium, is you. I think you could probably read evil into a buttered piece piece of toast. But for all the Alfred Hitchcock fans that want to pretend you can not see malevolence when it stand before you, I leave this.

  15. NO SNIVELING!

  16. Great post. On point.

  17. Me, when my need for pity exceeds what I am able to garner in my daily waking life, I go on Twitter at night to decry the baseless shabby treatment I have receive that day from various public figures who have so caustically or derisively commented upon me.
    Oh, maybe that’s not fair…

  18. The concept of living in a Matrix is that ones life is based on a lie.
    When I look at the wall in front of me, that wall appears to be real. The important point here is not if that wall is real or not. The really important point here is, if my thoughts are based on reality or not. Not only my memory of my past. Also the minute to minute think think I do all day and night.
    Example: I walk down the street. Have to pass by a homeless person living on the street. Now I fear (think think) that he can rob my money or even kill me with no reason at all. Is that thought base on observation? Is that fear based on some telepathic view into the future or into the mind of the person what he is up to? Or is that think think based on no real facts? Which would qualify it as Matrix think.
    I observed, especially as kid, that I was caught in matrix think all day. Walking down the street, see some older kid, full of fear that he does some harm to me, changing the side of the street to be save.
    Matrix think.
    As kid thus I would qualify as not sane. Later I got it under control.
    Someone that is living in a think matrix, see those simple examples above, is for sure not sane. But it does not look like that way when the person can cover his fears. By being superior to others, by going into thy gym and building muscles like mad, by being a high rank of whatever group, that no one can bother him anymore. Or whatever strategy he might think giving him some comfort in life. At least for some minutes, that he has not to be in fear of his environment. One strategy is the pity play.

  19. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    Dear Marty

    I was asking myself why there are no post from you about about current events…and here it is….spot on.
    It is funny to observe how people are wondering about what you’re talking about…
    It is not easy to become oneself again when having been in Scientology for 30 or forty years, letting go, understand that one was supporting and helping a criminal organization and one is as guilty as any other. From the beginning on there were enough warnings and one didn’t react.
    If one Looks at it in a very rational sense, one could say that 95% of the People in or out are at the same time the victims and the offenders, whatever stories they have…
    In all Blogs, reports, stories etc., I’m missing the stories of the offender side, mostly one reads about the victim side….

  20. “Ultimately, Ronson causes the reader to consider that while there is a tremendous, accurate compilation of information that helps us detect sociopathy, can any one of us be trusted with the power to judge and sentence anyone else against that information? Are any of us worthy of the God-like power to condemn another to a life of quarantine and isolation? Do we, in wielding such a powerful tool of knowledge, tend to take on the characteristics of the sociopath when we sit in judgment?”

    Somehow your words above seem to contradict the pity party bashing.

    • However, near the end of the blog post you quoted from, he says this:

      “Ultimately, though, L. Ron Hubbard said that the only guarantee that one would not wind up on the receiving end of a sociopath’s club was to understand how to identify one in the first place. And that conclusion was echoed by Martha Stout. The founder of Scientology and his long-time nemeses in the field of mental health ended up agreeing on one unifying principle: When it comes to the havoc others can wreak upon one’s life, the best protection is the truth – know it, and it shall set you free.”

  21. I have a hard time believing this author’s story about her pity interview. Sociopaths rarely have real insight into their behavior and even if one did I can’t believe they would be brutally honest with a psychologist in a first time interview. Seems a true sociopath would tell a psychologist exactly what they want to hear/what will benefit them the most. Maybe he knew she wanted some insightful answer that fit her latest theory, maybe he knew pity was the answer she was fishing for.

    I’ve known sociopaths, they want power over people and for people to do what they want to get what they want. Pity can certainly be a weapon in that arsenal, but will only be used if it’s an effective one.

    Pity is often used by lonely, depressed and or narcissistic people far more often than sociopaths. Sociopaths use whatever emotional or psychological manipulation will work.

  22. There have been periods over the last four years when the amount of self-pity was incredible and I would cry or attack or scream or just watch non-stop netflix (especially during the long winter months).

    I found that the well of self-pity never ever fills up. Especially if I fuel this self-pity with the stories of my life. Which certainly hasn’t been rosy, with huge deep crevasses of pain.

    OH — and a decent mix of Sea Org horror stories, public scion stories, top level management, middle management and service org staff.

    Then comes the years of out-of-the-sea-org, as “public” but still very connected to the tech. All the way up to OTVIII (second wave at the freewinds — OTVIII number under 500)

    A very painful divorce (husband #3) then death of an old friend (once my husband (husband #2) long long ago). Now (re) connected to old friends, acquaintances and people I’ve never known but sharing a similar but NOT THE same experiences due to the various blogs, watching the evolution of understanding … and yet — the most INTERESTING is the self-pity on the blogs relating to each HORROR story.

    One almost worse that the other. And those stories get LOTS and LOTS of comments especially if laced with celebrity stories. There are books, documentaries, TV shows and those that make the best news (talk show appearances, media picking up the story etc) ALWAYS have celebrities connected to them. Check the count of sold or watched.

    AND YET — I can think of people whose stories IN the SEA ORG were horribly sad and painful. Worse that those many we hear about. Who left quietly and have never been part of this VERY ENDLESS vat of self-pity and flagellation of the sources of their pain.

    What startles me the most, I think, are some who comment on this or other blogs, have (seemingly) never turned the MIRROR to themselves and seen the lack of honesty, integrity, sobriety (of consciousness at least) — who are fast in saying —

    “YO Marty, Mark (whatev) – you make no sense, man. Just tell us EXACTLY what you are saying’ …

    (Hello? He has been, since the beginning)

    —————————————-

    So happy to see this new blog entry.

    Life is so complex and yet so simple.

    It’s been my experience that ONLY by stepping outside of my self-created box of self-pity that can turn to arrogance, that can turn to self-hatred, that can turn to hatred of others (you see the pattern, I hope) do I have any hope of living a life consciously, appreciating the life I’ve lived and those who have come into and out of my life.

    With as 360 a view as possible.

    Windhorse

  23. AND believe me I am well aware of my own “holier than thou” attitude – which I work on, all the time.

    I tend towards being “preachy” because I feel “entitled” having “suffered” throughout my life with various pretty mind-f**ing things. Therefore I am always checking others stories – ‘hmmm, not so bad COMPARED to mine’ and then trying to get others to GET IT or GET A GRIP. Which ends up being very boring, ultimately.

    My only “saving grace” from this arrogance is that I try to come back with some genuine FEELING for the pain of another.

    Windhorse

  24. I just came across this article as a point of side interest as to handling:

    http://180rule.com/the-gray-rock-method-of-dealing-with-psychopaths/

  25. Sociopath is a psychobabble term coined and used by people looking for credibility, authority and power. The basic definition/translation is an anti-social person. Two hundred years ago before psychiatry people could surely recognize an anti-social person. Suppressive Person is just as accurate and is self descriptive. It even has a hypothesis of why it occurs.

    I realize that the topic shows only a short passage from a book, but as stated in the passage the hypothesis about pity comes from a supposed verbatim statement by one person, whom even the author admits was “misdiagnosed”.

    “The Sociopath Next Door” is a catchy title and probably sold a lot of books. They are also in the supermarket, the laundromat, the elevator, etc. etc. – laughter

    • The study of the social role of “The Victim” is well developed in Transactional Analysis.” The Victim: The Victim’s stance is “Poor me!” The Victim feels victimized, oppressed, helpless, hopeless, powerless, ashamed, and seems unable to make decisions, solve problems, take pleasure in life, or achieve insight. The Victim, if not being persecuted, will seek out a Persecutor and also a Rescuer who will save the day but also perpetuate the Victim’s negative feelings.”
      It is one of the roles in what is called the Karpman Dtama Triangle. Here is a good synopsis of the whole concept:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle

    • Just to continue being grumpy and play devil’s advocate, Stout may be yet another psychologist looking for a new twist or angle to make a name for herself and sell a book with a paranoid and sensational title. I’m currently identifying and disconnecting from the communists, fundamentalists and witches next door (it’s a large house). I’ll get to the sociopaths later.

  26. “Apropos of current events ” puzzled me…elections drama? The displaced refugees in Europe? Yes, most definitely could be. “Scientology and it’s Aftermath”? Hmm, now that is an interesting viewpoint – one that opened up a more personal window for me. How many times have I spoken to others about my suffering of the appalling conditions, ill treatment and downright theft at the hands of the Church, knowing that it would create in another, a certain shock effect and in return I would be pitied? I admit, way too often! Now I seldom speak of it to others as I know the pity I will evoke with my “pitiful” stories and frankly it has become embarrassing. I feel my higher self squirming in the chair if I speak now to others of my personal experiences in Scientology, just as I internally squirmed watching the first 2 episodes of “Scientology and it’s Aftermath”. I know those who have suffered, have truly suffered at the hands of the Church and I’m sure Leah Remini’s tears are real and that she really does pity the people and stories she is hearing from Scientology’s victims. There is enough pity to go around for everyone, including the Church in its sanctimonious bid for a piece of pity pie. But it makes me squirm, for some reason, as I face myself in the mirror.

    • Very good comment.

      I would just say that with regard to the “Scientology and the Aftermath” TV series, the element of pity has a different purpose than that of a sociopath. The intention is to expose more broadly what is going on in the CoS, with the hope that something will be done about it.

    • Sometimes squirming is a sign of mental health.

    • I know what you mean beautiful rivers , if pity is what you saw in people’s eyes when you told your stories.
      I do not see pity when the story teller doesn’t present him/herself as a victim, I see understanding for the raw pain of losing freedom and loved ones , respect for the strength of those who speak out in the hope of bringing about change or keep others from having to experience the pain.
      The narcissist wants pity , wants to draw attention , and it is a non productive storytelling , the kind that goes plop at the feet of the victim , not showing the bigger picture.
      “The aftermath” shows the big picture and the strength of the people involved. Nothing to do with wanting pity . As a matter of fact I think it is the last thing they want as they are strong enough to recognize the demeaning aspect of pity.

    • That’s an eloquent statement, Beautiful Rivers. I walked away from scn with no significant damage. I think the public will always be split on “look what scn did to those poor people” as opposed to “look at what they got themselves into”.

  27. In scn the only reason accepted for ANY accident or illness is being connected to an SP. If you couldn’t find a “real SP” you needed to make one up to get back in session – lol. The SP doctrine is a vital and crucial part of scn indoctrination and programming. If someone wishes to substitute “modern psychology terminology” for that and snipe hunt for Sociopaths affecting their life, go ahead.

    • “In scn the only reason accepted for ANY accident or illness is being connected to an SP.”

      No, Richard, that isn’t the only reason for accidents and illness. Others are included on the bulletin that describes “false PTSness.”

      • I wasn’t aware of that loophole. A couple of times when I had a cold or sprained an ankle or whatever, I’d come up with “the guy who sneered at me in the elevator” or something, just to get the hell out of ethics and back to business. 🙂

        • Here’s a reference for you:

          “…PTSness must be watched for as unhattedness, ignorance of Scientology basics for handling life, past bad auditing uncorrected as well as unhandled bad intentions and personal out-ethics can be mistaken for PTSness and won’t resolve as PTSness.” (HCOB 20 Oct 76 II)

          • I could have called them exceptions rather than loopholes. I was busting chops a bit – I must need more work on my bad intentions. (joke) 🙂 Actually, I’m of the opinion after considering this topic that an ex scn-ist would have a pretty good grip on the subject of sociopaths from the pts/sp data.

    • None of us are in Scientology any more.

      • True, but the programming which was accepted for years might carry forward. It did for me to some extent, a bit of a sense of being invulnerable since “I’m not pts” (which ain’t bad – lol). As with many other parts of scn, there is some or even much truth in the doctrine. Being actively surpressed could certainly lead to misfortune.

        Suppressive Person is a good King’s English description. Too bad Hubbard trashed it by applying it to anyone and everyone who opposed him or scn.

        • Another aspect would be looking at someone in a cast and thinking “He must have been PTS”. – lol

        • I hear you. If we mocked up a board game called. “Scientology Suppressive Person’s” how would we be able to determine a winner?

        • You don’t realize how crazy the current scene with Scientology is, until you think of the things you would have to write on playing cards to make the game. You know, cards you would draw with instructions?

          “All certs cancelled under GAOT, go back to square one or be declared”.

          “Buy new emeter now or do not give sessions”.

          “Burn all books, buy new ones.”

          “Lost all friends and family with declare, move on to next life.”

          “Give your wife to Miscavige, kicked from Sea Org”.

          “Forfeit home, move children to car. You have just been fair gamed on ESMB and Underground Bunker.”

          “Drop back 20 paces, Squirrel Busters on your lawn.”

          “Move forward 20 spaces, Tommy Davies just left the Sea Org.”

          “Back ten, your wife just wrote a K.R. On you.”

  28. With regard to Leah’s series & the accounts of people on it: while I wouldn’t want to grant acceptance to anyone wanting to use it as a further excuse to hurt others, I strongly feel that ex scientologists who’ve gone through these negative experiences need to tell their stories & we need to hear them.
    When bad abuses occur they need to be known by all. By this series I hope these people can get through this difficult part of their lives.
    And I hope as well the exposure will force the church to change.
    I hope people who have held on to their pain will find the courage to express it. I for one will listen.

  29. Here come those Santa Anna winds again….

  30. Have only seen the first episode of Leah’s show — last two weren’t available via youtube. I don’t have A&E — however, from blog posts and other sources I wish to add that the whistleblowing regarding disconnection and the coercion to get those who WISH to leave, to stay or face declare is a great thing.

    With this caveat — it is the unintended consequences of any action that catches us off guard.

    It’s painful to see former sea org members who then left, created lives away from all things scientology so that their children would not be exposed ONLY TO have their children, join the church, for example and disconnect from them.

    LRH didn’t make up — what you resist, you become. or what you resist, persists — it’s kinda a “law” — of this physical universe.

    My personal greatest wish is that people enjoy and appreciate their lives, their families and their friends because it’s THE ONLY LIFE you are going to have that is familiar to you and yours.

    IF you have future lives or past lives — they do not or will not look the same as this one.

    No way Jose

    Love,
    Windhorse

  31. I think there may also be an aspect to it of “fame”. If you’re on TV, people are talking about you and want to interview you that means you are important. People get a taste of that and want it to last longer than 15 minutes.
    Despite the claims I don’t think the intention of some people is really to help.

    • I think it depends on how they will be featured, whether they will be interviewed for national television. The questions are tailored to send a specific message. Leah Remini knew about the RPF and disconnection for more than thirty years, before it became a problem for her. Her husband had to disconnect from his Ex wife. And they had kids together. But nobody goes there. It would disrupt the message being sent. Confusing people with the whole truth does not work on national television. If they do not know who to target, harm, attack and suppress, at the end of sixty minutes, you have wasted valuable air time. Having worked in television productions (not in any major or even important capacity), it is amazing that Leah filmed impromptu testimony that she did not see coming, and was driven to tears. Especially after make up. But she did get a product. Miscavige has owned his own television studio for longer than it took Leah to put her special together, and I haven’t seen any product coming from him. And all he is complaining about is Leah making a dollar. While he has sponged off the Scientology community for everything he has ever had since the age of fifteen? Tommy Davies pulled the “rank” card with the wrong person. Her rank was over two million viewers. Now television viewers all across America have to deal with the aftermath of who had the highest rank, at a celebrity wedding. While most of them are trying to figure out how to get through Christmas for their kids. At the end of the day, David Miscavige did not have enough sense to show up at a major wedding with his own wife, but a borrowed one from someone else.

      • And why Leah arrived at the wedding, as the “spouse police”, with a spouse she herself appropriated from someone else, is just part of the circus. On a truer viewing level, it is comedy.

  32. Smart move having a wife unrelated to the church. It sucks that you’ve waited that long to reveal the machinery, but you did do it in the end. I respect you for that particular thing. It’ hard for you ever since, we get that.You do deserve some part of it but if you trully mean well now,things will resolve themselves. Otherwise you’ll start considering ways to get back in the church. One day you might be referred to as instrumental in preventing a social catastrophy or as an example of how effective the church’ mental manipulation ‘technology’ is.

  33. I don’t care how politically incorrect it seems. If you are organizing information in your head and it is not born from attitudes, but from being able to see what is in front of you and know about it, this is not a handicap. Knowing, is not a dysfunction

  34. The way you treat other people is I think a much better indicator on whether you are a sociopath. For example, one of my friends will spend a good deal of time talking about her depression but it’s because she needs to talk about it. She’s not cruel. On the other hand, I know a guy who would never admit to personal weakness, but he’s always finding fault with others.

  35. https://datingasociopath.com/2014/04/18/different-types-of-sociopaths/

    http://www.ehow.co.uk/about_5371687_types-sociopaths.html

    The common sociopath

    Common sociopaths make up the majority of sociopathic personality disorders. The rarely use their conscious when making decisions that can affect other people. They seem in a constant state of travelling either as a runaway or living in shelters. Many are prideful about their anti-authoritative nature. Generally, these people are satisfied with their lives and shirking any responsibility for their actions.

    Alienated type

    Alienated sociopaths have problems empathising with other individuals. They are unable to feel emotional intimacy or connections to others in the world. Some causes may be inheritance through genetics or an unloving environment during youth. Many cannot contain violent urges and conduct in criminal behaviour. Numerous individuals show more feelings towards a pet or object than to a human. Common symptoms of this type are manipulation, irresponsibility, refusal to conform to societal norms and exaggerated sexuality. This group is further broken down into Disaffiliated Type, Hostile Type, Disempathetic Type and Cheated Type.

    Disaffiliated type

    Inability to connect to others affect the person in every aspect of life. All of the relationships in this person’s life are wrought with complete lack of intimacy. David Thoreson Lykken, author of “The Antisocial Personality,” contends that this type of sociopath lacked nurturing from a caregiver, which contributed to the sociopath’s underdevelopment of love and attachment.

    Hostile type

    The hostile type of sociopath is consistently angry, violent and aggressive. They feel completely rejected by society. These types prevent themselves from feeling sad and depressed by heavily relying on their anger as a sort of survival mechanism.

    Disempathetic type

    The disempathetic type is able to feel an emotional connection to a restricted group of people. This group may include friends, pets or family members. The sociopath regards people outside of the group as objects. Typically, people have a wide circle of empathy for others; however, many people may feel no compassion for certain people like murderers or criminals. The sociopath differs from normal people by having a tiny group of people whom they seemingly care about.

    The cheated and aggressive sociopaths

    The cheated sociopath feels disadvantaged by an uncontrollable circumstance in life. They may feel cheated by a physical disability or what they consider an unattractive physical appearance. These types refuse to follow rules set by society because they feel like they have been cheated out of having a good life. Aggressive sociopaths use violence, intimidation and dominating behaviour to get their way. Having control over their victims and experiencing the rush of power through their violence seems to be the only gratification that they get from life.

    The dysocial sociopath

    The dysocial sociopath is psychologically normal, yet aligns himself with a group that regularly breaks social norms and is violent. Militia groups, organised crime and guerrilla solders are parts of this group. These people have a circle of friends or co-conspirators for whom they feel genuine affection; however, they disregard the feelings of people outside this group.

    I guess it sounds confusing? I wanted to publish this, as i think it is important. While sociopaths can share similar traits, not all are the same. Some are more dangerous than others. Some are more toxic than others. Some…. are quite simply laughable.

    It really depends. Remember, always what is most important, is

    It doesn’t matter so much who THEY are…. what is important, is how you feel about YOURSELF when you are with that person! How does being with that person make you feel about YOU?

    What are your thoughts?

  36. Marty Rathbun, the Pity play is indeed one of many.

  37. Marty, here’s a pretty good mini-hat that you might want to add to your new blog post.

  38. VERY INTERESTING DATA! Thank you Marty!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s