There are. When you study them without the clinical experience they can seem very similar, but they are quite different in direct experience. Personality disorders are just extreme extensions of normal personality traits. By the way, I thought New Mornings post refering to various posters as having certain traits consistent with antisocial personality disorder was a little too much. You really can't diagnose over the internet!
--- curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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, > === 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/
