--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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we have an unpublished lecturer at a community college, and practicing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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> > 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/
 


Reply via email to