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, factual, and
full of real-life examples of sociopaths and their tactics. This book
is none of those. Worse, it is written in the usual mushy, verbose
non-quantitative style of a therapist.
As another reviewer rightly notes, the description of military
personalities is nonsense, probably just speculation by the author.
The single most obvious characteristic of a fighting unit is the
emotional bonds between the men. Those bonds are what allow a man to
put his life in the hands of others, and are what drive soldiers to
acts of heroism (or even death) to protect his buddies in the squad.
Unfeeling? Hardly.
It is interesting that the author and all the reviewers have missed
completely the most visible sociopath of the last two decades, if not
more. This person exhibits every single trait of a sociopath, and does
so obviously; has a work history of power seeking, numerous broken
people on his back trail, is charming, cunning, and manipulative; is
noted by all around him, including supporters to have an extraordinary
ability to compartmentalize his emotions; lies constantly; uses people
and exposes them to danger for his own needs (and then abandons them),
responds to people and events in a purely objective and manipulative
way. His name is Bill Clinton, and his exclusion from the author's
thoughts is both obvious and telling.
Does this woman really have a ph.d?, June 9, 2005
Reviewer: Tricia Lopez "Bookgirl" (Okinawa, Japan) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I can sum this book up in just one word: sappy. With sentences like
"After all the devil is evolving, too" and "I vote for the people with
conscience, for the ones who are loving and committed, for the
generous and gentle souls". Since when is being a sociopath a choice?
What good is voting for crying out loud!
Overall this book begins mushy with a few good points in the middle
and ends with a slushy, let's-all-cling-together-group-hug ending.
Avoid this book if you're looking for facts. But by all means, read it
if you're looking for quotes from "the Dalai Lama himself".
Well-written, engrossing, but also flawed, June 9, 2005
Reviewer: Concerned - See all my reviews
The title is viscerally alarming - it practically leapt off the shelf
and into my hands. The book's premise that sociopaths constitute some
04% of the population is gripping and persuasive. Who among us hasn't
had at least one social interaction that left them concerned or even
outraged at the interaction's outcome, and suspicious of one or more
of the people involved? Stout's fictional and fictionalized vignettes
are as detailed as they are chilling, out-Ripleying Highsmith. Some of
the advice seems well-reasoned and thought out.
I wanted to like this book. I really did.
However, Stout's attempt to contextualize active sociopaths as a
predominantly Western phenomenon is horrifyingly ham-fisted for
someone of Dr. Stout's educational attainments and presumed quality of
thought. She cites "credible evidence that some cultures contain fewer
sociopaths than do other cultures" (p.136), and goes on to claim that,
based on no more than four credited studies, "sociopathy would appear
to be relatively rare in certain East Asian countries, notably Japan
and China," (ibid). Ultimately these are pillars used for the
construction of an anti-Western polemic "(the incidence)... is
impressively less than the Western world's approximate average of 4
percent" (ibid). Altogether that's a lot of credibility to bestow on a
single statistic gleaned from a study conducted in Taiwan. Taiwan is
predominantly Chinese, but has any number of anthropological and
cultural wrinkles associated with the island that differentiate it
from its northern neighbors. To use a study conducted in Taiwan and
apply it to the whole of East Asia is to make an absurd generalization.
Stout's slipshod scholarship conveniently ignores such documented
events as Japan's numerous atrocities perpetuated against the Chinese
before and during World War 2, and Japan's exploitation of "comfort
women" from occupied countries (including Korea) during that same
period. In China, modern historical instances of sociopathy include
the state-enforced starvation of millions of rural Chinese during the
Great Leap Forward, and the persecution and killings of thousands of
politically suspect individuals during the Cultural Revolution. The
historical and anecdotal literature from 1960s-1970s China is rife
with accounts of the sociopathic abuse of political privilege at local
levels. Many, many people particpated in these fundamentally
sociopathic acts.
In terms of culture, such a pronuncement seems blissfully ignorant of
such reform-oriented writers as Lu Xun, who characterized Chinese
culture as essentially cannibalistic ("Kuang ren riji"). In Japan,
she's missed Yukio Mishima, whose novels ("The Sailor Who Fell From
Grace With The Sea") frequently described in deep detail the very
sociopaths Stout is concerned with. Both China and Japan have popular
film and cinema genres that are at root concerned with, if not
glorifications of, sociopaths ("Yakuza" movies in Japan, and gangster
films from China). On a societal level, Japan has had an infamous
public problem with violent student harassment and bullying for decades.
Yet these are all conveniently glossed over in Stout's discussion! We
are left instead with the deeply flawed conclusion that a sociopath,
"born into a strongly Buddhist culture, or Shinto... might refrain
from (a sociopathic act)" because "all the people around him would
have maintained that respect for life was necessary" (p.138), and
unanimously(!) at that. At worst this postulates a certain homogeneity
of thought that is essentially stereotypical rather than real - that
has more to do with antiquated Western conceptions of East Asia than
with its realities. To be fair, further in she mentions Cambodia's Pol
Pot (SE Asia) and Genghis Khan (Central Asia) as examples of sociopaths.
Another discussion is entered into that extensively quotes Miller and
Bersoff on comparative constructs for moral judgement (p.177-178),
where "Hindu Indian" interdependent conceptions of the self" promote
"the value of permanent ties to other people and of subordinating
one's personal ambitions to the goals of the group." This is
contrasted with American predispositions to "autonomy and
individuality" in which "social expectations and personal wishes" are
almost always in opposition to each other. This discussion, so cited
and framed, comes disturbingly close to positing India's moral
judgement construct set as a desirable alternative to that of the
West. Yet India has had numerous and nearly continual religious
conflicts since its emergence as a nation, and was cited in The
Economist as having two of the world's ten most heavily militarized
borders (with former possessions Pakistan and Bangladesh). Continuing
conflict is generally not a manifestation of cooperative social
behavior. Neither, for that matter, is the treatment accorded certain
groups of people under the Indian caste system. Again, this discussion
ascribes homogeneity of thought to cultural groups that may internally
be quite diverse, and further ascribes characteristics to Indians that
have more to do with old Western conceptions of Asians generally.
Finally, readers of this book will apply the 'red flags' described in
their evaluations of and relations to others. Yet several of the
characteristics cited from the DSM-IV, and others elsewhere in Stout's
book certainly apply to other conditions and situations. "Failure to
conform to social norms," may simply mean that someone is poor and
homeless. "Disregard for the safety of self" is also characteristic of
heroism. A perceived "willingness to live off others" is
characteristic of many younger people who graduate into an unwelcoming
economy, or adult children living in areas where housing costs are
stratospheric. It seems very likely, in short, that the sociopath
label will be applied to people who are not in fact sociopaths. It may
even be used as an excuse to manifest sociopathic behaviors to those
that exhibit one or more sociopathy indicators.
It is certainly a very popular book. But in summary Stout's lack of
critical acumen in her comparative consideration of East Asia really
damages her argument, and her West- and America-bashing throughout
detracts from a book that could have better provided a necessary service.
Some useful info but shallow, March 31, 2005
Reviewer: G. Davis (Austin, TX United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
If you are looking for a serious discussion of sociopathic personality
disorder you probably want to look elsewhere. The author spends more
time talking about how wonderful it is to have a conscience than
giving us very many useful details about the dangerous people out
there who don't have one. And what about the people psychologists call
"part psychopaths"? Don't we have to deal with many of them for every
"pure" sociopath we encounter? She never even mentions them.
This is not a book for the intellectually inclined, March 26, 2005
Reviewer: Bookish Betty (San Francisco, Calif.) - See all my reviews
This book is intolerably bad. The author brings us not genuine case
studies, but "composites" of sociopaths. We get Skip, the corporate
sociopath. Successful, handsome, but who sometimes gets a weird look
in his eyes. No details groud Skip in the real world. It might as well
be badly written fiction, and very well could be--how would we know
otherwise. Very bad writing, not to mention boring and, because it is
not based on real people, not an informative reading experience. The
word irresponsible comes to mind. I'm selling my copy, barely read.
Overblown claims, March 17, 2005
Reviewer: KP's two cents "KP's two cents" (Texas) - See all my reviews
The author overpathologizes. By Stout's definition, most of the
British poluation could be considered sociopathic - they're reserved,
place high value on wit and charm, cringe at too much sentimentality.
Stout's touchy-feely American values ring through this book. She
measures sociopathy not behaviorally as in the DSM-IV (violating the
basic rights of others), but intrapsychically. We all have bad
thoughts, we don't care for everyone who crosses our paths, but as
long as we are not killing or seriously hurting others, our thoughts
are really pretty normal. To deny this seems itself pathological.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One of the best books I have read this year is called "The Sociopath
> Next Door" by Martha Stout. The condition is far more common than I
> had realized, 1 in 25. Only a tiny percentage of them are criminals.
> Most just operate in society without a conscience. Wherever they are
> they take delight in tormenting people. Operating without any sense
> of the reciprocity that binds the rest of us, their contempt for
> others leaks out even as they try to fit in and hide their agenda. It
> was such a wake-up call for me and an important understanding when
> dealing with people with this disorder. It cannot be cured. She has
> a great test to help spot this disorder in others in the book. Once
> you lean to recognize it, so many mysteries about certain difficult
> people in your life clear up. We have all interacted with people with
> this disorder without realizing it. ...
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/
