--- 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. >
There's also the issue that these defintions are of people so pathological that they come to the attention of the DSM-IV committee (or whatever it's called). I know people whose behavior, *at times*, fits virtually every definition given. OTOH, I've seen those same people apparently having honest feelings, being dedicated to animals and people, etc. Does this mean they're not sociopathic, or only that their sociopathy isn't their ONLY mode of existence? I'm enclined to believe the latter since these people *definitely* have a bad rep and well-deserved. > --- 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/
