The Sociopath Next Door
by Martha Stout
|
List Price: Our Price: $8.50 You Save: $6.45 (43%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $6.99 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The Sociopath Next Door
Book Review: Who is the Sociopath next door who traumtised us on 9/11?
Summary: 3 Stars
Dr Stout's book is interesting, there's no doubt about that. However there are a number of other works on Evil, Ponerology and Sociopathy/Psychopathy which I think I'd recommend over this one which is really too highly personalized. It reads more like a story, or series of stories rather than a dispassionate exposition. I would recommend Evil Inside Human Violence and Cruelty by Roy F. Baumeister and Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski as starting points and scientific discourses on the subjects of sociopathy, evil and power manipulation to the ends of sociopathy.
I also found at least one mistake on page 124. Dr Stout describes psychopathy/personality as being not dependent on a single gene but goes on to say "...complex characteristics are unlikely to be determined by a single gene, but are most certainly *oligogenic*, meaning caused by multiple genes...."
The term she wanted to use was "polygenic" not "oligogenic". So does this prove I read the book? Am I now a pedant? Possibly even a Narcissist or Schizoid? Well you will not find out by reading this book because it's wholly concentrated on Sociopathy, and to that end it fails in my view because the reader might walk away thinking that all evil in the world is purely a sociopathic phenomenon. There is also a dangerous few pages of text concerning pity, and again an uninformed reader may walk away thinking that to have pity, sympathy or offer charity is to be manipulated by a sociopath.
My personal interpretation is that Dr Stout herself was undergoing considerable challenges and a particularly traumatic period in her life when she wrote this book. I think that Dr Stout, like many other people of conscience, was profoundly affected by the events of September 11th 2001. The index itself contains 5 references to the September 11th 2001 attacks, as this event becomes the dominant political and sociological myth of the 21st centaury just as Philip Zelikow had been specifically set out to produce and the neo-cons intended it to be.
Dr Stout references on more than one occasion September 11th or 9/11, as some kind of example of conscienceless/sociopathic happening, events carried out by sociopaths. I agree with her, and feel her pain concerning the cataclysmic New Pearl Harbor which was September 11th 2001; it was the epitome and ultimate expression of sociopathy.
Could they have been the creation of the "Sociopath Next Door"? I'm not talking about some cave-dwelling ex-CIA operative from Afghanistan (and definitely not some moustached dictator who had been propped up by the CIA in Iraq), but how about right next door, like in Langley or D.C.? I think scholars need to be wary of accepting dogma and myth, for fear of being manipulated themselves by falsehoods and lies. Dr Stout needs to look again, as do 70% of Americans as to what actually happened on 9/11 and not what you were spoon fed by the great myth machine of your mythological "Judeo-Christian" civilisation. I think a good starting point for psychologists are two papers written by psychologist Laurie Manwell titled:
Faulty Towers of Belief: Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11 Truth
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/FaultyTowersofBeliefPart_I.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/ManwellFaultyTowersofBeliefPartII.pdf
Maybe Dr Stout sees herself as a moral exemplar as she describes in the book, or strives towards beings such. Maybe we should all exhibit some and wish to exhibit more of the traits of 1. "certainty" 2. "positivity" and 3. "unity of self and moral goals" in combination aiming towards being more of a moral exemplar.
Evil is more than sociopathy, and many reading your book might come away with misinterpretations and misrepresentation of what evil is. I for one don't think it's a case of 4-6 in 100. I also think that like all biological variables sociopathy can be represented by a Gaussian distribution interacting with other personality traits. Certainly there are other personality disorders which are high functioning, highly prevalent and they are "day to day" more "evil" and "upsetting" than sociopathy.
Finally Dr Stout also makes more than one passing reference to Judeo-Christian civilisation a popular Newspeak term & evolving mythology in the United States. This term/myth developed on the post 9/11 world, when all that was good was considered Judeo-Christian and all that was bad was simply "other" say, Eastern or specifically anything Islamic.
Sadly, there is no such thing as Christian, Jewish; Buddhist or Islamic civilisation, there is civilisation, which has evolved over millennia, by people who practised various faiths or none at all. The religion wasn't central to those who invented electricity for example.
However, civilisation developed much more rapidly post-industrial revolution, an event that happened in the North of England in the 17-1800's. These facts are sad and very unfortunate for those with a given agenda and Newspeak to promote, possibly from the very pages of Edward Bernays' book Propaganda.
Book Review: When running next door for Sugar means packing a Gat!
Summary: 1 Stars
Welcome to my World!
Yep, many have called me a sociopath in my day. Only one of them, however, got to say something after that, and that was only because the gun jammed.
Ha! Ha! Kidding. Martha Stout has put together this slender little tome, packed with pop science and plenty of white desert-like margins, that sets out to let you know that:
1)Four percent of the population exhibits sociopathic qualities. For the mathematically challenged---that is, pretty much 96% of the population---that means 1 out of 25.
Think about that statistic for a minute.Take an office with 25 people, and chances are Herbie the Courier Guy or Roald (you know, Roald, the guy with glasses and the shaky sweaty hands, the Quiet One. Roald. Sheesh) has invested in some XP-142 Night Vision goggles and a serrated knife, and, um, a GPS device that might lead him to your front door.
At 2 in the morning. Just so we're clear.
2) These sociopath guys, like the Wu-Tang Clan, ain't nothing to mess with. No sir. They can't love. They don't feel emotion. They're Republican. They're corporate chieftains. They ride in the Lear, the Limo, the Maybach. They invented War. They smear cats with napalm, then duct tape them to the underside of your car, right by the rear exhaust, with a tricked-out bic lighter just waiting for ignition.
Sorry, I made that last one up. But you get the general gist of the book.
"Sociopath Next Door" is simply not scholarly, and verges on dangerous. Sociopath is a pop-term, like psycho, like axe-murderer, like boogeyman, El Diablo, or Janet Reno, with about the same level of erudition & exactness. It's jarring to see the term used so callously. Isn't it dangerous to fling terms and profiles, particularly ones as crudely formed and ill-defined as this, in what is essentially piece of pulp pop-science?
"Sociopath" even tries to put together a home-made psycho alarm for the Gentle Reader, the better to ferret out whether weird Mr. Fishbein, the crazy coot who lies next door, lies awake on his bed at nights dressed only in a giant plastic baggy whispering to his AK-47 and plotting your demise. Guess what should set off alarm bells & unleash the hounds?
That's right: someone who asks for pity. For mercy. For clemency. A pity-junky, according to this book, is a ravening sociopath probably plotting to get you fired, pour acid on your car, and eat your firstborn child with some fava beans and a fine chianti.
"Sociopath" also spends some time talking about the supposed human superstition against killing: according to her, people really kill only when supervised by (you guessed it!) a drooling sociopath. The irony here: the author indicates one means by which men make their subjects kill is by de-humanizing the Other: using language to demonize, to turn the Outsider, the Pariah, the Unclean (usually some target ethnic or religious group), into an "It".
It's a fair point. But skim her book, and simply replace sociopath with any ethnic epithet and take a look at how it reads. Avoid the devilish sociopaths. They don't feel. They're not human. They have cold blood. They're killers. Four percent of the planet is responsible for all the rape, the killing, the torture, and the endless popularity of David Hasselhoff.
Hasn't this book demonized sociopaths as brutally, as unfairly, as unjustly, as anything any Monster of History did with their fave victim class? Where's the Love for the American Psycho? Are we not also Human? Cut* us, do we not bleed? Cut us twice, do we not make you bleed more?
But what "Sociopath" edges away from is the really interesting question here: what if sociopathy is not a malady? What if it's evolution? What if the guy who doesn't get all weepy over "Beaches" is really Humanity New New Thing, the silver-suited astropath who will transcend this miserable mortal coil and help us defeat the Ichthyoid Nasties from Betelgeuse 14?
In the meantime, using the book's 'method' for spotting psychos is about as useful as playing spin the bottle. Intuition, instinct, and your own experience probably cuts the mustard, and you don't have to waste your money on this one-way ticket to Paranoia. Granted, instinct isn't perfect.
But it sure beats fretting over whether your trip next door to borrow the lawnmower should include a can of mace, a sawed-off 12 gauge, and kevlar body armor.
JSG
Book Review: ...how about the sociopath in the next office?
Summary: 5 Stars
Having just been fired by a sociopath and her manager - also a sociopath - this book hit me squarely between the eyes. Ouch!
I skimmed this book quickly. The first part of the book on conscience was rather lengthy, in my opinion, although I'm sure some will find it very enlightening. The conscience discussion at the end of the book was more practical...for me.
One of the best parts of the book - for me - is the Thirteen Rules for Dealing with Sociopaths in Everyday Life. As with Borderline Personality Disordered people, the best thing we can do for ourselves is to refuse to allow these people to have any influence in our lives whatsoever. Set boundaries that exclude them...without them knowing that we are purposefully doing so...read the book to see why. My supervisor was cunning, baffling, and very, very powerful...after all, she fired me.
Her superiors who should have known better...Human Resources, her Manager, the CFO and CEO...allowed her to slide right on through to a homerun because she is such a master manipulator. The way I see it is: CEO's and HR Departments have an obligation to guarantee a safe work environment for their employees. My work environment wasn't safe, for many reasons. The CEO failed, the HR Department failed. No surprise, they have failed many to date.
I especially benefitted from the more concrete Rules portion because it was like Sociopathy 101 and how to deal with them. The last rule: Living Well is the Best Revenge really hits home for me. The only way to get this slimey stuff out of your system is to give all that negative slime over to a Higher Power. Then, let go and let God...and be determined to live a wonderful life, and be humbly thankful that this person is no longer in your life.
I admit that, several years earlier, I had some reservations about her and her husband, and the way that I saw them shame their little boy in my presence. He has Attention Deficit Disorder, and at the time, it was an ongoing problem for him at school. The dad shamed him arrogantly and mercilessly, over and over. I was mortified by his lack of sensitivity. The little boy looked so downtrodden and ashamed. There was no need for this...except, possibly his dad is also a sociopath? Of course, both of them would be oblivious to any feelings that their son might have. The book validates my experience on this one.
I see that their little boy seems to fit into the chapter on the (painful) boredom experienced by sociopaths when they are unable to keep stirring the pot to create the extra stimulation they crave. Imagine how "valuable" a 'problem' child can be for the sociopathically challenged! If you have a 'problem child' you can continue to berate him daily, and savor the sad look on his face while you do it. Add a little dash of physical violence. It provides the stimulating domination that sociopaths crave. According to the book, a situation like this creates a sort of high...like an addiction. And, if a sociopath isn't able to create a crisis or chaos on an ongoing basis, she has a sort of meltdown, which is very painful for them. Like an anxious vampire always on the lookout for the next victim.
I could sense this in my supervisor over the past 6 months. She was getting very restless and began testing the waters to see what she could get away with, doing it a little more agressively each time. Sure enough, the book validates this.
The book claims that sociopaths do not have a conscience. It discusses 'conscience' as a component of love. Without love, all we humans are capable of is to 'possess' or dominate, rather than to love. It explains how we need to strive to always be raising our conscience to the next level.
It gives the example of a diverse group of people who have purposefully developed their conscience, how this has contributed to the level of increased satisfaction in their lives. These people are more focused on the welfare of their fellow human beings. (Mother Theresa comes to mind for me) This is so beautiful! This portion of the book made me think about the quality of my own life...in a positive, enlightening way. This feels right on target to me. Thanks, Martha.
This book helped me sort through the circumstances. My perceptions had been accurate with what I had observed and felt intuitively about these people and their very bad behavior.
Book Review: Dirty white coat...
Summary: 3 Stars
The book does talk about the sociopathic mind, but doesn't really give any new information that a critical thinker wouldn't have already figured out.
The arrogance of the author reeks unashamedly throughout the book. For example at the beginning of chapter four, in her description of a 34 yr. old woman, she clearly portrays hard-working, blue-collar, country people as being inferior to 'sophisticated', highly educated, highly paid, city lovers.
Ms. Stout touts a liberal feminist ideology, but can't see her own hypocrisy when writing words like, "Luckily, her body is excellent." Is she blind to seeing how such thoughts go contrary to the National Organization for Women (in 1971) launching a full frontal assault on Barbie, condemning Mattel, as well as several other companies, for sexist advertising?
I'm not criticizing this book because Ms. Stout's perception of life isn't in full agreement with mine. I'm disturbed because of knowing that as people read her information in chapter three about Stanley Milgram's experiment, most of them will not even realize that their consciences are being tranquilized by Martha's words because of perceiving her to be the higher (or highest?) authority (i.e., the white coat wearer) due to her being 'trained' at the 'famous' McLean psychiatric hospital and being an employee in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.
Judging consciences based on what is seen or what someone says about someone provides an open door to power for the one who has authorized credentials. Before adding more light upon Stout's performance, I must say her book is an interesting read and can offer much for readers to think about.
I've noticed flaws in her diagnosing, but since I'm not a licensed mental health practitioner, it seems wise for me to keep my mouth shut about what I've observed in regard to relevant factors she seems to either have ignored or maybe knows nothing about. I agree that some sociopaths will use the 'pity me' card, but for her to say that the best clue for recognizing a sociopath, of all things, is the pity play? It can be a clue, but if you're going to depend on that for spotting one, you will put yourself at risk for being played the fool. There are many sociopaths who are too smart and/or proud to employ that tactic.
The conscience has nothing to do with determining what is right and what is wrong. To determine what is right and what is wrong one uses one's "judgment." The conscience commends us when we do what our "judgment" tells us is right; and it condemns us when we do what our "judgment" tells us is wrong.
The conscience is a safe guide in determining whether our conduct is in harmony with our "judgment." But the problem is our "judgment" gets molded by whatever or whoever we worship. If we worship those who make judgments based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, then our foundation is unstable since this statistical manual is always mutating (e.g., their definition of homosexuality went from mental illness to alternate lifestyle). Language changes, societies change, but truth never changes.
Conscience is not intended to serve as a standard of right and wrong; it is possible to defile the conscience, and it is possible to "sear" the conscience. Whether a person has a pure conscience, weak one, or defiled one, each type of individual will justify themselves according to what they want to believe. When it comes to someone making a living by this profession, it's easy for that person to manipulate those who don't know what a pure conscience looks like.
Enjoy Stout's book, but compare its spirit with what's portrayed of the Godly men in the bible.
Book Review: decent brief introduction, but little substance
Summary: 3 Stars
For the reader who has only a little knowledge of the sociopath, this book provides a reasonable introduction to this personality type. It will also help them get a feeling for when and where someone like this may be at large.
However, the book contains little substance. Stout uses only a handful of examples (each character is fictionally created from her 25 years experience of dealing with sociopaths, and according to her, the concoctions effectively depict real people while at the same time keeping her patients identities secret) - these serve to show us some of the varied forms that sociopaths can take.
Another issue I have with the book is that it offers little advice on how to interface with such people. Stouts advice is, in essence, run for the hills. Too bad if the sociopath you know is your son, your sister, or even your spouse - where running away may not be an option (or at least it is not the best option).
The author also spends too much time extolling the virtues of good over evil, and the book feels like it is preaching religion at us. Yes, the 96% of us already know we wish to do good, we don't need pages and pages reassuring us that this is the right path.
I also have a problem with the "binary" nature claimed of this affliction. According to Stout, you either have a conscience or you don't. If you can draw a parallel with say someone who is deaf (c.f. no conscience) - we should then be able to appreciate that there are people who are only "partially" deaf, and so there must be some people who fall somewhere in between when it comes to conscience. This should be addressed somewhat like McKinsey does when categorizing degrees of homosexuality.
The author makes a grandiose claim that 4% of the US population has this incurable characteristic. The book does not properly go into the science behind this. If it were true, and assuming there are on the average 10 people in your life that are so close to you that you don't have the capability to escape easily (your parents, your spouse, children, a sibling, your boss, a coworker, your main teacher and your main physician) ... then applying some elementary statistics we can deduce there is a 34% chance that at least one of these people that will be close to you during a lifetime is a sociopath. That's a big number -- 1 in 3 of us all will have to endure a personally influential sociopath. This does not even include the effects of secondary teachers, close friends, your neighbours, etc, etc.
Finally, Stout treats sociopaths as the enemy, and they are doomed to eventually fail. She offers no advice to sociopaths on how to live with this handicap. Although a sociopath may not have a conscience, they do behave in socially acceptable ways most of the time ... even if only because of the risk of being "caught out". This begs the question that if the sociopath responds to selfish logic rather than anything heartfelt, then this person has the capacity to logically accept that winning could involve avoidance of morally corrupt behaviour (i.e. as seen by others, even though they don't feel it .. in the same way a deaf person does not hear but can infer what others are hearing from other cues).
Stout fails to acknowledge that society actually benefits from having a small number of such types (eg the police sniper who doesn't need to think twice before pulling the trigger, the surgeon who unflinchingly slices through flesh, the leader who needs to make a difficult decision), and that we need to learn to live with this type of person ... as opposed to blindly banishing them or simply running away.