--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
I know! the bastard! Do you think someone can take a list of attributes and as an exercise see if they manifest in posts? It doesn't seem to be rocket science. Perhaps you are mixed up the notion of a learning exercise and a clinical diagnosis. The former, I hold, is relevant for those seeking to understand sociopathic behavior -- and its wide range of apparent definitions. It is far different from the latter. On one hand we have a regularly published professor at harvard medical school telling us 4% of the population are sociopaths. On the other, we have an unpublished lecturer at a community college, and practicing psychoanlyst,saying that sociopaths are rare. One way to sort that large discrepency out is to look at the three sets of standard definitions and do a reality check -- how frquently do they appear to apply to people you interact with. That was what I was attempting to. Sorry if it overstepped your sense of boundaries of appropriatenss. Doing such an exercise of mapping characteristics to known personalities is not a diagnosis nor definitive by any means. But it is at no lower level of rigorousness than the discussion on this list -- and the book in question -- from what I gathered from reading 70+ reviews. >You really can't diagnose over > the internet! I know! Thats why I have asked you why you feel that, in the past, you have felt qualified to do so. > --- curtisdeltablues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Interesting distinction. There are so many shades > > of disorder in > > human psychology aren't there? > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Peter > > <drpetersutphen@> wrote: > > > > > > Sociopaths are far and few inbetween. > > Superficially > > > people who are narcissistic appear to be > > sociopathic > > > to the untrained eye. > > > > > > --- curtisdeltablues <curtisdeltablues@> > > > 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/
