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 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/
