Karl,
I can answer that with an “SP koan”:
“What is the olfactory intensity and resonant frequency peak(audio) of a permanently undulating and self-replacating Intergalactic Hubbardian Fart?”
Easy peasey!
Yours in Utterly Serious Cult-Think Disassembly,
Marko😎

Aldeboni: time for an intense, thorough regimen of enemas…
Or: a culty turd is a turd.
Free your mind of Hubbardian shit!
ML,
A Being

Here’s an excerpt.

Scientology has lots of numbers Ron Hubbard presented that depict various percentages of people as suppressive or low-toned or antisocial or degraded brings and as you get deeper and deeper into Scientology you progress through these various numbers in references that start with two and a half percent as suppressive with seventeen and a half percent PTS, to his statement that the ratio of big beings to degraded brings is eighteen to one. The Sea Org even has internal promotional materials that state for every Sea Org member making it go right there are a million people who don’t even know what right is.

In leaving Scientology there seems to be no lack of ideas on who is what kind of person, be it narcissist or sociopath or psychopath. There are also the categories of people who cooperate with authority and even categories based on how we work with each other at jobs or in personal relationships.

I wanted to share some ideas from outside Scientology to show a lot of people have done a lot of work to figure this stuff out.

“10 percent of any population is cruel, no matter what, and 10 percent is merciful, no matter what, and the remaining 80 percent can be moved in either direction.”

― Susan Sontag

Werner Twertzog ( a parody of Werner Herzog) said: “Dear America: You are waking up as Germany once did, to the awareness that 1/3 of your people would kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches.”

“A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority.”
― Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door

“Asked about our sense that we are not safe in our own world, Albert Einstein once said, “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”
― Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door

From the website Lemonade by Team Lemonade

According to Adam Grant, author of Give and Take, there are three different types of reciprocity types: givers, takers, and matchers.
Givers, takers, and matchers
What’s the difference between these types?
Takers are self-focused and put their own interests ahead of others’ needs. They try to gain as much as possible from their interactions while contributing as little as they can in return.
Matchers like to preserve an equal balance of giving and taking. Their mindset is: “If you take from me, I’ll take from you. If you give to me, I’ll give to you.”
Givers are others-focused, and tend to provide support to others with no strings attached. They ask themselves, “How can I add value for this person? What can I contribute?”
Types of Reciprocity – Lemonade Blog
So what type are you? Turns out most people hover in the middle, and behave as matchers, answering option B above (I’ll introduce you to my college friend, but I need help from you).
Humans have an innate tendency to be reciprocal, and givers and takers represent two extremes.

But while givers are the most generous in our society, matchers play an important role. They make sure what goes around, comes around. They reward givers for their generous behavior, and seek revenge when they, or others, are being mistreated. End excerpt from Lemonade

Adam Grant in his book Give and Take described the three reciprocity styles in detail. He described the breakdown of percentages from thousands of people studied as Givers 25% Matchers 56%, Takers 19%.

I usually cheat and think of Givers 20%, Takers 60% and Matchers 60%. That is pretty close and I can picture five people and say if his descriptions and hypothesis are accurate one of these five on average is a taker, one on average is a giver and three out of five on average are matchers.

That is easy to remember, one is out for themselves (only), one is looking out for others first and three out of five are looking to be fair but not taken advantage of, three out of five want an even exchange of favors, compensation, and so on.

From

https://mbnest.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-good-bad-and-ugly.html?m=0

There’s a wealth of information on the topic and I can recommend a lot of good books.

In fact I have written blog posts on several and can tell you a bit about them.

The Empathy Trap Book is a very good reference that uses a model that has empaths, highly empathic people, and apaths most people who are not especially empathic or especially lacking in empathy, and sociopaths who are human predators in this context.

It describes the various roles and their interactions in n depth.

https://mbnest.blogspot.com/2020/06/examining-empathy-trap-1.html

We also have Give and Take by Adam Grant.

He describes a model that has givers (empaths) who say what can I do to help others? each day, takers (sociopaths) who say what can I take? each day and matchers (apaths) who are willing to work but do not want to work more or harder than others and are particularly sensitive to getting cheated or getting less than others.

Grant describes this as roughly one in five are takers, looking out exclusively or almost exclusively for themselves, givers, putting others first quite often as one in five, and matchers, who go along to get along and go with the flow, unless they are getting a bad deal or someone else is getting a better deal as three in five people.

As an interesting note in the Milgram obedience to authority experiments that had people believe they were electrocuting an innocent stranger (possibly to death) sixty percent or three in five people carried out the electrocution to the highest level.

So, there may be some truth to the idea that about sixty percent of people never make up their minds to be particularly good or bad and they are molded in the moment quite often by impulse and social pressures.

We may have the other twenty percent or one in five who are empathic and strive to do the right thing most if the time instictively and the final twenty percent or one in five who are human predators who lack compassion and empathy and are at best indifferent to others and at worst monstrously evil.

so true. Hubbard’s “big beings” writing(s) make it clear Hubbard agrees with what you said.

“Master” class.

“Simon Bolivar” policy pretty much lists out the Hubbard narcissism, it’s the Hubbard writing called, “The Responsibilities of Leaders.” Hubbard’s advice for the movement leaders.

Then in the ultimate Hubbard narcism writing, “Keeping Scientology Working” that’s the writing worth reading to hear Hubbard’s ultimate ultimate putting himself on the never to be vacated pedestal at the “Founder” of Scientology level. The “Source” biggest being.

Hubbard’s megalomania is a theme easily proven laying out and letting the public read his most extreme self placement in the role Hubbard thought of himself above everyone.

————————-

For me, reading Kima Douglas’ thoughts on Hubbard were critical to cutting the great Hubbard down to normal human asshole size!

“Source” reigns over his myriad institutionalized “flying monkey” organization!

I means Hubbard’s myriad jobs, all permenently listed out on the “Org Board” all are just flying monkeys to “Source” Hubbard the chief narcissist/megalomaniac.

“Little Megalomaniacs” all, to “Source”

I mean the Hubbard actual imprinted rules bound setup are just themselves this very “flying monkeys” for Hubbard/”Source”

One very very prominent ex, felt like a Hubbard “slave.”

A really “top” of the line narcissist, Hubbard, has “Loyal Officers”, has “Commodore’s Messengers”, and if you come to dissect the “source” rules and regulations for the “beingningss” of all of the positions which Hubbard outlined in all of Hubbard’s administrative guidelines writings, Hubbard laid out truly a megalomaniac’s dream world.

“Keeping Scientology Working” could also be seen as “keeping a megalomaniac’s dream/horror-world “working””. (“Working” for the narcissist megalomaniac!)

……rather, realize life is long and keep hunting for one’s professional advisor match. Even if only through others’ books, that is an easy approach to replace past indoctrination. It might take years. In any case, keep inputting, keep self educating oneself. Definitely start and continue to replace the Hubbardisms in your head.

One hundred percent, Hubbard was the “Source” narcissist role model to every follower’s detriment.