Posted on 12/28/2006 6:11:56 PM PST by Valin
The Sociopath Next Door
by Martha Stout Broadway, 2005 Review by James Pratt on Dec 26th 2006 Volume: 10, Number: 52
If the statistics are correct, one person in twenty-five can be classified as a sociopath. That means that almost all of us have met at least one such person (assuming you are not one yourself). It is on the basis of this chilling fact that Martha Stout has written The Sociopath Next Door. If all of us know at least one such person, then many of us may need the advice she offers on how to handle the sociopath you know, and how to protect yourself from that person.
For those who are unfamiliar with the concept, a sociopath is a person who lacks the capacity to feel sympathy or compassion for others. They are often described as people who know the difference between right and wrong but don't care. Insofar as they make the distinction between right and wrong, they do so at a purely intellectual level. Otherwise, the only thing that constrains the behavior of sociopaths is the fear of adverse consequences to themselves. In short, they lack what we call a conscience. If there is such a thing as an evil person, the sociopath is the prime candidate for the role. They are charming and ingratiating, but also predatory and utterly ruthless. Thankfully, they have a tendency towards laziness: once confronted they give up easily and move on to the next victim. Once spotted, it's usually fairly easy to get rid of them. Thus, Stout offers what is in essence a "spotter's guide".
First, a terminological point: the words "sociopath" and "psychopath" are for the most parts synonymous. If there is a distinction to be made, it is based mainly on one's theoretical commitments with regard to the etiology of the disorder. Those who describe it as sociopathy tend to believe that its causes are social or cultural, while those who describe it as psychopathy tend to believe in a biological basis for it. Stout seems to fall into the former category, and not only on the basis of her book's title. She leans towards a cultural origin of sociopathy. For example, she contends that although other cultures have such a thing as sociopathic personalities (including the Inuit, who supposedly describe them as kunlangeta, and who traditionally would invite them out hunting and discretely dispose of them), the prevalence of sociopathy in American society seems to be on the increase. However, Stout seems fairly non-committal on this point, and gives due attention to other possible explanations, including biological and developmental ones. Whatever its cause, like most other experts, Stout views sociopathy as an incurable personality disorder.
I suppose Hitler was just a little misunderstood, but GWB on the other hand...../sarcasm
Your=You're.
I hate it when I do that.
How about them being both sociopaths and socialistpaths?
Get two birds (vultures) with one word.
Can't you just picture Bill as a preening Dove or Peacock (that word has a lot of Freudian possibilities re Bill) while Hillary would look like a vulture searching for a carcass for lunch?
As they say, "Birds of a feather crap on everyone".
I'm not a sociopath, I just don't like humans.
Hey did Cheney see this?
That was my exact response. But it hardly seems a coincidence. My guess is that a whole lot of other readers were reminded of Clinton also.
Maybe if more folks were anything other than unthinking sheep, I could find some common ground with them.
For sake of convenience, more than psychological nit-picking, it is best to distinguish sociopaths as "environmentally non-empathetic", and psychopath as being "organically non-empathetic."
For example, psychologists have proven that many people can be "trained" to perform sociopathic behavior; such as with the experiment where subjects were ordered to give increasing electrical shocks even though they apparently caused severe distress, and even death, to the phony test subject.
Entire nations were "trained" to be sociopathic towards "the enemy" nation during times of war, dehumanizing "the enemy" until their suffering and dying meant nothing.
However, this should be distinguished from psychopathic behavior, in which at no time in their lives can the psychopath experience appropriate emotions with relation to others. They are blind to what others are feeling, and can only function in an intellectual capacity in response to others emotions, faking their own emotions as if on cue, like Bill Clinton. False laughter one second and tears the next. Rage manufactured solely for tactical gain.
Blindness is a good comparison, because no matter how you might try and describe something to a lifelong blind person, for them it will remain an abstract, known only by their other senses. Bill Clinton cannot feel anyone's pain. Ever.
Importantly, this is an extreme of psychopathological dysfunction. Like many other things, psychopathology fits onto a bell curve of the degree or extent of the dysfunction. That is, very few people are total psychopaths, a larger number have some psychopathology in their makeup, and very few again may have none at all.
And interestingly, people who have no psychopathological tendencies at all may be just as dysfunctional as a full psychopath. They over empathize with people so much that they become terribly uncomfortable with any discomfort felt by others, or even when they think that others *might* be uncomfortable.
Such people might become agoraphobic, wishing to avoid human contact so as not to feel their pain; or they wish that the government radically oppose violent and unpleasant things, everything, from guns, to winning and losing in children's games.
Ironically, psychopaths can make superb leaders, because they have no hesitation in leading in any direction, to success or failure, ignoring the feelings of their followers. Their decisions are objective, and it is much like working for a machine--there are no emotions to get in the way, and you always know where you stand.
Psychopaths can also perform tasks made onerous by sensitivity to others. They can be effective healers who can inflict great pain necessary for healing. They can nurse addicts who are suffering horribly. They can be the bringers of bad news.
And they can also be dangerous troublemakers and criminals. It varies.
I like it.
Yes...it was an article written by a classmate of Skilling's at HGSB. Think it was in NR or WSJ. In one of the case studies a notional company discovers that one of it's proprietary production processes is highly carcinogenic. Using secondary non-carcinogenic process is expnsive to license and the company would no longer be the lowest cost producer. As CEO what are your thical responsibnilities.
Skilling's solution was stark and ruthless.
1. Move the carcinogenic process off
shore to a third world producer where the liability exposure is minimal or subject to " marginal financial inducement"
2. Do not reveal the nature of the problem to the current or prior workforce to limit liability exposure.
3. Use diluted insurance underwriters to cover company medical insurance issues and anticpated pension issues.
I forget the rest...
His student colleague was stunned by Skilling's near absolute moral opacity and ruthlessness.
LOL.
Scott Peterson is a sociopath. There are many lurking all over the place.
Agreed.
Wrong thread. Play again...
You left out "Cankles"!
I read "The Sociopath Next Door" maybe six months ago.
A book every person should read.
It does give you some tips on how to avoid these predators.
(But beware...some of the typical sociopathic behaviour even had me
give some pause if I'd acted so badly on a few occassions.)
It also does an update on the current state of "nuture v. nature" in
making sociopaths.
And some tips on spotting the tendencies in children; at least giving
parents/teachers/coaches a chance to put them onto a more positive path.
Stout sounds like probably the sanest psychologist at Harvard (maybe
in all the Ivy League)
What shocked me was the arrival of the TV series on The Discovery Channel
"Most Evil" soon after I read this book.
It's an amazing, disturbing series. But should watched by the average
Joe or Josephine so they might have at least a prayer of recognizing
and evading sociopaths (no matter where they fall along the spectrum of
evil/badness).
The Sociopath Next Door
by Martha Stout, PhD
http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Ph-D-Martha-Stout/dp/0739456741/sr=1-3/qid=1167361197/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/105-8440387-6390849?ie=UTF8&s=books
I know I can't give an objective opinion, but after reading Stout's book,
I FELT (can't give a metric) that the few folks I've met with sociopathic
behaviour were...well, I'd call them liberals drenched in situational ethics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.