Interesting distinction. There are so many shades of disorder in human psychology aren't there?
--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sociopaths are far and few inbetween. Superficially > people who are narcissistic appear to be sociopathic > to the untrained eye. > > --- curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > I think a lot of the points against the book are > > valid. The book > > still rocks. It is popular psychology for the > > layman. It is her > > clinical opinion from her experience with this small > > group of our > > population. If you have interacted with only one of > > these people in > > your life, it is one too many. I know that this > > entire field has a > > lot of room to grow. I am just glad she gave me the > > conceptual tools > > to begin to unravel this phenomenon. It is > > important. > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], new.morning > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > The book looks intersting. In amazon, there are > > mnay positive reviews. > > > In addition to those, I like to look at the > > negative ones. At times, > > > they can be quite insightful as to possible > > shortcomings -- > > > particualry ones the positive reviewers are > > oblivious to. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unbelievably Shoddy, November 3, 2005 > > > Reviewer: English Setter "Winifred" (Chasing Birds > > in Vermont) - See > > > all my reviews > > > Pay attention to the negative reviews here. Each > > makes a different, > > > but valid point or two. What needs to be added is > > that this book is > > > unfocussed and factually unreliable. It gets > > nearly every study it > > > quotes half wrong. It misquotes the Robert Hare > > studies and the PET > > > studies and the studies on heredity. > > > > > > It combines three different definitions of the > > sociopath--the Cleckley > > > sociopath, the Robert Hare sociopath, and the DSM > > sociopath. > > > You don't have to be some kind of mental health > > professional to see > > > that the definitions are different. To say that 4% > > of the population > > > is sociopathic (and to repeat it 21 times) is > > meaningless unless the > > > term is carefully defined. Stout seems to be > > basing this on a Canadian > > > study that was based on a self-assessing > > questionaire that looked at > > > "conduct disorder". It didn't match Stout's > > definition of these people > > > as soul-less monsters. > > > > > > By adding a veneer of respectability to our > > tendencies to moral > > > exclusion, this book encourages our paranoia. It > > is, therefore, > > > somewhat dangerous. > > > > > > Combining atrocious writing and thematic > > incoherence, this book never > > > should have made it into print. There are so many > > errors of different > > > kinds that it's hard to know where to begin. > > > > > > The study of sociopaths has nothing to do with the > > study of > > > terrorists. Fanatics and sociopaths are different > > animals. > > > > > > I'm amazed to have to agree with the conservatives > > here. But this book > > > is not what it claims to be--psychology based on > > science. The reviewer > > > here who called this book "well, sociopathic" was > > dead on. > > > > > > Was this review helpful to you? YesNo (Report > > this) > > > > > > > > > > > > Occasionally informative, often mundane, September > > 6, 2005 > > > Reviewer: C. Douglas "cmd1" (Austin, TX United > > States) - See all my > > > reviews > > > (REAL NAME) > > > For one completely unfamiliar with sociopathy, Dr. > > Stout's anecdotal > > > tales and often less-than-rigorous examinations of > > the pathology of > > > the psychopath might be illuminating. For those at > > all familiar with > > > the condition--even laymen--there's not much > > substance here. Also, Dr. > > > Stout has inexplicable difficulty managing to > > insulate her analyses > > > from her personal political views (which > > admittedly appear generally > > > as subtext, though suprisingly often, and with a > > predictably leftist > > > bent)--and politics, left, right or center, simply > > do not belong here. > > > Perhaps a hint of such Deepak Choprahism adds > > appeal for the Oprah > > > crowd, but it certainly distracts from the > > credibility of the > > > work--not only due to its general > > unprofessionalism, but because the > > > very subject matter of incurable psychological > > evil, frankly, renders > > > such feel-good pop-think more than a little silly. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not about Sociopaths Next Door, August 31, > > 2005 > > > Reviewer: ak1982 (Boston, MA) - See all my reviews > > > I've read quite a few books on Sociopaths. This > > book was not one of > > > them. The majority of this book was about how > > difficult it is for one > > > WITH a conscience to fathom a person NOT having > > one. It's not > > > difficult - really - especially if you've come in > > contact with them. A > > > very small portion of the book deals with a couple > > made up characters > > > and talks about how they are sociopaths without > > being killers. She > > > herself can't differentiate between someone doing > > something because of > > > their conscience or someone doing something > > because of external > > > influences. And if the person IS doing something > > because of an > > > external influence (how it will make them look, > > what people will > > > think, how they will feel about themselves), you > > still can't conclude > > > that they DON'T have a conscience. She said one > > true thing about > > > sociopaths -- they very VERY rarely form any > > emotional bonds or > > > attachments to humans, pets, or anything else. > > > > > > A lot of the book discussed common and well-known > > sociological and > > > psychological theories (Stanley Milgrams > > experiment, the Heinz > > > Dilemma) without really saying how they relate to > > sociopathy. Milgram > > > proved that the majority of people would ignore > > their "conscience" > > > under certain cirumstances... so what? This book > > is supposed to be > > > about people who have no conscience to ignore. The > > same goes for the > > > Heinz Dilemma. Your actions quiet obviously depend > > on your > > > circumstances. What does that have to do with a > > sociopath? This whole > > > mostly wrote about what a socipath IS NOT and left > > you wondering what > > > a sociopath IS. I definitely do NOT recommend it. > > It is all "filler" > > > and "fluff" and no real substance. > > > > > > > > > > > > A poor start to learning about sociopathy - the > > author has serious > > > credibility problems, October 12, 2005 > > > Reviewer: George Kimball "Curmudgeonly George" > > (Los Angeles) - See all > > > my reviews > > > This book is marginal as a kind of primer on > > sociopathic behavior; > > > maybe the book's real function is more to spread > > awareness than to > > > provide solid, academically accepted information. > > Unfortunately, her > > > lack of credibility seriously taints what might > > have been a useful book. > > > > > > Why, for example, is there no mention of Ann Rule, > > who has written > > > numerous books that are case studies of real-life > > sociopaths? While > > > those books aren't 'academic' either, they are > > detailed, > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
