The Sociopath Next Door

ClovenHoof

Anybody read this book? I can't recommend it enough. I read the Robert Hare PHD book 'Without Conscience' last year and found it terribly interesting. Although he tended to concentrate on violent or criminal sociopaths/psychopaths in US jails and he also ignored the huge issue of female sociopaths.

Well the Marth Stout's book The Sociopath Next Door covers all this and at times is very disturbing to see just how common these socialise psychopaths are in all our societies. Made me realise that so many of the people in my life who suddenly changed did not have MPD as I used to think, but were in fact sociopaths changing from one obsolete fake persona to the next persona to manipulate and exploit someone else.

Until last year I thought Sociopaths/Psychopaths were all serial killers like Ian Brady and Ted Bundy, but the majority of them are not. They are your everyday cheating spouse who walks out on his family without a care in the world, the sadistic bully at work, the double talking politician. They lack anykind of empathy, remorse and our entire emotional landscape is a complete mystery to them and they learn to fake our emotions from an early age.

One impression I am left with after reading both these books is that Sociopathy/Psychoaphy are huge issues in our society and yet these conditons get little or no public awareness. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that the lunatics are running the asylum. Both the Hare and Stout books allude to the same, that authority is riddeled with socipaths and they have a vested interest in keeping the issue as low key as possible.

p.pete

interesting first post on boards...

Kooli

Going by the cover it seems like a very balanced, well researched and not at all hysterical piece of work!

Excuse my sarcasm, but "Who is the devil you know?"??
Come on!

Latchy

I dont think you'll find to many not agreeing with that statement OP .Your discriptions fit sombody , people we all know who's main purpose in life is self intrest above all else . You could use the catholic church /abuse scandal as fitting into ' people who have a vested interest in keeping the issue as low key as possible ' ...until now that is

ClovenHoof

Kooli wrote: »

Going by the cover it seems like a very balanced, well researched and not at all hysterical piece of work!

Excuse my sarcasm, but "Who is the devil you know?"??
Come on!

In an Irish context Liam Lawlor would be fairly obvious. Many other politicians of course, he just had many of the physical traits like the sneer instead of a smile, dead eyes and refering to himself as "Liam Lawlor" and not "I".

But if you look around you they are everywhere. Some of us were even in relationships with them. They are brilliant manipulators - it is almost as if they become a mirror of you as they study intensely your every trait and mannerism.

Most female sociopaths (90%) have high levels of testosterone so you see their adams apples. There are other physical traits too. Such as migranes and increased sex drive.

djk1000

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Most female sociopaths (90%) have high levels of testosterone so you see their adams apples. There are other physical traits too. Such as migranes and increased sex drive.

Well, that rules out my missus.:D

ClovenHoof

Dr. Hare's Checklist (Sociopathic Traits)

1. GLIB and SUPERFICIAL CHARM -- the tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile. Sociopathic charm is not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything. A sociopath never gets tongue-tied. They have freed themselves from the social conventions about taking turns in talking, for example.

2. GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart. Sociopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human beings.

3. NEED FOR STIMULATION or PRONENESS TO BOREDOM -- an excessive need for novel, thrilling, and exciting stimulation; taking chances and doing things that are risky. Sociopaths often have low self-discipline in carrying tasks through to completion because they get bored easily. They fail to work at the same job for any length of time, for example, or to finish tasks that they consider dull or routine.

4. PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.

5. CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS- the use of deceit and deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain; distinguished from Item #4 in the degree to which exploitation and callous ruthlessness is present, as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of one's victims.

6. LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT -- a lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, coldhearted, and un empathic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.

7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness.

8. CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY -- a lack of feelings toward people in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.

9. PARASITIC LIFESTYLE -- an intentional, manipulative, selfish, and exploitative financial dependence on others as reflected in a lack of motivation, low self-discipline, and inability to begin or complete responsibilities.

10. POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS -- expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper; acting hastily.

11. PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR -- a variety of brief, superficial relations, numerous affairs, and an indiscriminate selection of sexual partners; the maintenance of several relationships at the same time; a history of attempts to sexually coerce others into sexual activity or taking great pride at discussing sexual exploits or conquests.

12. EARLY BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS -- a variety of behaviors prior to age 13, including lying, theft, cheating, vandalism, bullying, sexual activity, fire-setting, glue-sniffing, alcohol use, and running away from home.

13. LACK OF REALISTIC, LONG-TERM GOALS -- an inability or persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals; a nomadic existence, aimless, lacking direction in life.

14. IMPULSIVITY -- the occurrence of behaviors that are unpremeditated and lack reflection or planning; inability to resist temptation, frustrations, and urges; a lack of deliberation without considering the consequences; foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic, and reckless.

15. IRRESPONSIBILITY -- repeated failure to fulfill or honor obligations and commitments; such as not paying bills, defaulting on loans, performing sloppy work, being absent or late to work, failing to honor contractual agreements.

16. FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS -- a failure to accept responsibility for one's actions reflected in low conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.

17. MANY SHORT-TERM MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS -- a lack of commitment to a long-term relationship reflected in inconsistent, undependable, and unreliable commitments in life, including marital.

18. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY -- behavior problems between the ages of 13-18; mostly behaviors that are crimes or clearly involve aspects of antagonism, exploitation, aggression, manipulation, or a callous, ruthless tough-mindedness.

19. REVOCATION OF CONDITION RELEASE -- a revocation of probation or other conditional release due to technical violations, such as carelessness, low deliberation, or failing to appear.

20. CRIMINAL VERSATILITY -- a diversity of types of criminal offenses, regardless if the person has been arrested or convicted for them; taking great pride at getting away with crimes.

ClovenHoof

Testosterone which is elevated in many male sociopaths is also elevated in female sociopaths. Studies of non-disordered women indicate that higher testosterone levels are associated with increased sex drive, increased sexual activity and sexual attractiveness to men. High testosterone makes both male and female sociopaths sexually appealing. Testosterone may also be related to the lack of parenting behavior seen in sociopath women. Women with higher testosterone have been found to be less interested in motherhood.

Typical Female Sociopathic Traits:

* Unexpected Sexual Arousal
* Large Clitoris
* Pronounced Adams Apple (by female standards)
* Waking up in pools of sweat even in cool weather
* Falling asleep and waking up instantly. Sleep and waking is instantaneous with all Sociopaths.
* Unexpected swing from idealization of male partners to almost instant cold rejection leaving one feeling shattered, confused and with symptoms similar to Post Traumatic Stress disorder which can last from months to years
* If you are a nice guy you are more of a target - they will often remark how kind and nice you are. This makes you easy prey.

Secondary Traits (also common in male sociopaths):

# Migraine or cluster-headaches with visual ‘auras’
# Speech impediments caused by a chaotic way of storing information in the brain
# Low blood-pressure (hypotension)
# Bradycardia (low heart rate)
# Pseudoneurolepsy (falling asleep suddenly)
# Sleepwalking (somnambulism)
# Lethargy OR wild excitement


refs: http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.mealey.html

Another trait which has also been noticed among female sociopaths in their late 30's early 40's is a lack of wrinkles around the eyes (crow's feet). The reason for this is their eyes do not "smile". They do not need plastic surgery to remove them as they never develop them till they are over 50. Another factor is related to not forming a consistent identity. Wrinkles are caused by repetitive expressions (not emotions - we 'express' many things, not just feelings). A sociopath lacks a consistent identity and therefore might not develop identifying emotional expressions that are consistent in their life. They often have different personalities for different people/situations and are less likely to have distinguishing, repetitive mannerisms/expressions that over time cause wrinkles to form. It doesn't stop the process but it certainly seems to slow it.

You can see this in photos of Sharon Collins:

Thoie

Huh, turns out I'm a sociopath. Or coming down with a cold.

Valmont

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stout

Christ of almighty, how can someone who has actually trained as a psychologist come out with such nonsense?

I don't even know what to say. What a load of ****.

Valmont

Latchy wrote: »

I dont think you'll find to many not agreeing with that statement OP .Your discriptions fit sombody , people we all know who's main purpose in life is self intrest above all else . You could use the catholic church /abuse scandal as fitting into ' people who have a vested interest in keeping the issue as low key as possible ' ...until now that is

And whether or not that is a good or a bad thing is another debate entirely.

Latchy

Valmont wrote: »

And whether or not that is a good or a bad thing is another debate entirely.

Yes I understand . I was thinking more along the lines of some people whom OP described ie,sociopaths changing from one obsolete fake persona to the next persona to manipulate and exploit someone else.

Not so much the many creative individuals who have ambition and goals to achieve in Life .

ClovenHoof

Valmont wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stout

Christ of almighty, how can someone who has actually trained as a psychologist come out with such nonsense?

I don't even know what to say. What a load of ****.

Explain.

Valmont

Explain? Where do I start? First of all I would like to propose the use of reason and rationality in dealing with fanciful notions such as Dr.Stout's assertion that 1 in 25 Americans "have no conscience and can do anything without feeling guilty".

How on earth did Dr.Stout establish that 1 in 25 Americans have no conscience? What is her definition of a conscience and how does one measure whether it is or is not present in any given individual? Are there psychometric tests to establish this?

I would guess not and look forward to you providing empirical evidence from peer reviewed journals to support this and the other facts that you mentioned.

This book is clearly not based on any reliable scientific studies and as such can be regarded as low brow, pop bull****. To put it mildly.

Thoie

I was only semi-serious earlier - I don't think I'm a sociopath (but I might be coming down with a cold). But it led me to wonder if sociopaths know that they're different.

If someone's never felt guilty, would they recognise that fact? Or, if they have a strong sense of superiority, and recognise that they never felt guilty, would they just put it down to the fact that they're superior and therefore never had anything to feel guilty about?

Similarly with some of the symptoms such as lack of empathy - would you miss it if you never had it?

ClovenHoof

Valmont wrote: »

Explain? Where do I start? First of all I would like to propose the use of reason and rationality in dealing with fanciful notions such as Dr.Stout's assertion that 1 in 25 Americans "have no conscience and can do anything without feeling guilty".

How on earth did Dr.Stout establish that 1 in 25 Americans have no conscience? What is her definition of a conscience and how does one measure whether it is or is not present in any given individual? Are there psychometric tests to establish this?

I would guess not and look forward to you providing empirical evidence from peer reviewed journals to support this and the other facts that you mentioned.

This book is clearly not based on any reliable scientific studies and as such can be regarded as low brow, pop bull****. To put it mildly.

So other than your arm-waving hysterics based on not having read the book, you have a greater degree of insight into the subject of everyday sociopathy than a Harvard trained psychologist?

If I am incorrect, explain.

Valmont

I apologise for my previous rash comment; in retrospect it was impetuous and not very conducive to civil discussion.

I do have several substantial issues with your posts on sociopathy however. Sociopathy or Anti-social personality disorder seems to be a lot less glamorous and risque as you would have us believe.

ClovenHoof wrote: »

So other than your arm-waving hysterics based on not having read the book rational skepticism, you have a greater degree of insight into the subject of everyday sociopathy than a Harvard trained psychologist?

If I am incorrect, explain.

Firstly, I will point you to this and then reiterate some of my previous points. You should judge the issue on its actual merits as a plausible argument and not nod along agreeably simply because you read the word "Harvard".

Valmont wrote:

How on earth did Dr.Stout establish that 1 in 25 Americans have no conscience? What is her definition of a conscience and how does one measure whether it is or is not present in any given individual? Are there psychometric tests to establish this?

Considering psychology is a science, you or Dr.Stout should be able to provide a working definition of a conscience, construct validity evidence (what exactly does a conscience encompass, how can we know for sure what factors are included?)and some statistical evidence suggesting that, indeed, 123,252,800 million Americans actually have no conscience. Putting it like that makes it sound all the more ridiculous.

My main issue is with your flippant application of Dr. Stout's thesis to your everyday life

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Made me realise that so many of the people in my life who suddenly changed did not have MPD as I used to think, but were in fact sociopaths changing from one obsolete fake persona to the next persona to manipulate and exploit someone else.

So all of a sudden, someone simply changing means they are a sociopath? What criterion are you using? It takes the skills of a professional psychologist (or psychiatrist) to accurately diagnose someone with ASPD. Now that you've read the book, of course it's easy to see that all these people you know were actually sociopaths all along- hindsight is a fine thing. And, sure, it's exciting to think that 4% of the town are closet sociopaths.

It's also convenient that you seem so certain that people can inhabit an obsolete fake persona; do you really condescend so much to assume you can just tell "yep he's leaving his fake persona and is off into the new one to rip some old person off with a scam". Hyperbolic, I know, but that's the implication of your insight here.

ClovenHoof wrote: »

They are your everyday cheating spouse who walks out on his family without a care in the world, the sadistic bully at work, the double talking politician. They lack anykind of empathy, remorse and our entire emotional landscape is a complete mystery to them and they learn to fake our emotions from an early age.

You don't really know that do you? How can you know, with any certainty, what motivates any person to do something superficially sociopathic in any given situation? The antecedent factors of any human's behaviour are complex and only in the rarest of circumstances can we actually elucidate all of them with confidence- so to say that X did Y because he is a sociopath is simply ignoring the complexity of the issue and substituting in a single causal factor that is not supported by the available evidence.

ClovenHoof wrote: »

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that the lunatics are running the asylum. Both the Hare and Stout books allude to the same, that authority is riddeled with socipaths and they have a vested interest in keeping the issue as low key as possible.

Perfect, a conspiracy theory!

Kooli

I can't believe this thread is still being given honest and serious attention.

Beware the large clitoris, a sociopath or 'devil' awaits you!

Phil D

Do you have to have all the "traits of a sociopath" to be a sociopath? Now that I know there are so many sociopaths out there I'm glad I feel no guilt for charming people into short term relationships for my own gain.

ClovenHoof

Kooli wrote: »

I can't believe this thread is still being given honest and serious attention.

Beware the large clitoris, a sociopath or 'devil' awaits you!

Sorry but you really are being well out of order here. No one is implying that a large clitoris in female sociopaths due to high testosterone is something to do with the devil. So grow up.

Secondly, all the information listed above come from readily availalble peer review papers if you look. I did not just whip them up off the top of my head.

Thirdly, I would suggest many people who are reading this thread find it very interesting. Your backseat moderation of the thread is obnoxious and censorship by snideness and offers nothing constructive to the thread.

I started this thread having read these two books. I did not take them as being Pop Psychology at all. You make it sound like they were written by Anthony Robbins or some other tit. But I am still learning and looking for people's sincere and respectful input. Is this a problem for you?

Cheer Valmont for your interesting and respectful reply. My apology for the arm waving remark.

ClovenHoof

Phil D wrote: »

Do you have to have all the "traits of a sociopath" to be a sociopath? Now that I know there are so many sociopaths out there I'm glad I feel no guilt for charming people into short term relationships for my own gain.

You do not have to have all the traits. Very few people do. There is a clinical evaluation which can be undertaken which can evaulate you being a sociopath or not.

But I do not think you are just from you showing concern. A sociopath percieves there is nothing wrong with them. You seem to at least recognise that you exploit people for personal gain with no guilt. You have a level of self-awareness of your behaviour most sociopaths do not have. There could be other factors here from insecuity to Narcisscism which is about 75% of being a sociopath. But this is a condition (N's) which can be treated. Sociopathy/Psychopathy on the other hand there is no treatment. In fact, several stiudies have determined it only makes the condition worse as the Sociopaths only learn to manipulate people more effectively.

Can I ask you if it is not too personal. Do you get a "rush" when you know you have hurt somebody? This is the benchmark emotional response all sociopaths gain from their "wins" - but it is fleeting. Which is one of the many reason why being a sociopath is a miserable life. Do you relive the pain you caused others? - if a person you emotionally devastated was pouring their heart out on a Facebook or Twitter account in anguish would you enjoy reading this?

If you are really serious about finding out a CAT Scan might be a good idea. The brain of a sociopath stores learning information in a random, chaotic way instead of in the usual designated places within the cerebral cortex. Part of this involves lack of crucial neurotransmitters. Information is scattered all over both brain hemispheres, it takes too long for the brain to retrieve and process information. Since the entire cerebral cortex of a sociopath is almost never at a normal level of alertness (their waking brain waves resemble the waves of a normal person in a light sleep, alpha waves). Some of the basic mental and emotional skills the rest of the world takes so for granted never develop, and crucial among these is the thing called conscience. That one never develops at all. Sociopaths do not need it.

p.pete

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Can I ask you if it is not too personal. Do you get a "rush" when you know you have hurt somebody?

As per the forum charter, if this thread slips anywhere near diagnosis it will find itself closed - which would be a shame.

Torakx

interesting topic. i have alot of interest in learning how anyones malfunction works and how it is fixed.
i might add alot of this book seems to be more about scaring the reader into accusing everyone of being a "psycho" or just causing general fear of strange people.
i would probably first try searching for freud and jung books before i went near an i dont know author like that.at least till i knew the basics of the condition and its treatments.

alot of the symptoms look similar to dyspraxia and other nuero malfunctions that are alot more harmless.

ClovenHoof

p.pete wrote: »

As per the forum charter, if this thread slips anywhere near diagnosis it will find itself closed - which would be a shame.

Fair enough. Point taken.

ClovenHoof

Torakx wrote: »

interesting topic. i have alot of interest in learning how anyones malfunction works and how it is fixed.
i might add alot of this book seems to be more about scaring the reader into accusing everyone of being a "psycho" or just causing general fear of strange people.
i would probably first try searching for freud and jung books before i went near an i dont know author like that.at least till i knew the basics of the condition and its treatments.

alot of the symptoms look similar to dyspraxia and other nuero malfunctions that are alot more harmless.

The book is not a scare mongering tome by any means. It ends up by reinforcing that 97% of humans are not sociopaths. - I think the general message of these two books and this thread (from my input) is that we are conditioned to think of sociopaths/psychopaths as axe murderers and this by default allows the overwhelming majority of the sociopaths (office bully, cheating, emontionally shallow lover, con man, politicians, control freak, manipulators) to get off the hook. These types also kill, but they get YOU to do it. eg: murder by suicide, subtance abuse, social reclusiveness.

I truly believe we need to get this info out there. And it never ceases to facinate me how a certain type of individual comes barging into threads on this topic demanding the thread be closed down or tries to belittle the information regardless of the source...

We are not talking about Supernatural stuff, this is all real and once you start to looking into it, you realise you have been in contact with at least one sociopath in your life. If you knew this information prior to encountering them you may have been less damaged by the situation or have recovered faster. Which in my case having been in a sociopathic relationship would have Godsend to have found out what I was dealing with and there was no hope of reforming them and running away from the sociopath was the only realistic option.

Anyone who has ever been a victim of a sociopath will testify that the posts I have made hit the nail on the head outlining what it is like to deal with these "monsters". (please do not take this literally!)

ClovenHoof

sorry I do not have the URL for this email (I think it was in a Law Enforcement journal) but it is still interesting:

from:
The Trick of the Psychopath's Trade: Make Us Believe that Evil Comes from Others

Popular culture sees psychopaths as characters such as Hannibal Lector from Silence of the Lambs, that is, as serial killers. However, while a certain number of psychopaths are criminals and have had run-ins with the law and some are, in fact, serial killers, there are a great number of them that never fall afoul of the law. These are the smarter ones, and they are the ones that are the most dangerous because they have found ways of working the system to their advantage.

There are a number of traits that we find in psychopaths: An obvious trait is the complete lack of conscience. They lack any sense of remorse or empathy with others. They can be extremely charming and are experts at using talk to charm and hypnotize their prey. They are also irresponsible. Nothing is ever their fault; someone else or the world at large is always to blame for all of their 'problems' or their mistakes. Martha Stout, in her book The Sociopath Next Door, identifies what she calls the pity ploy. Psychopaths use pity to manipulate. They convince you to give them one more chance, and to not tell anyone about what they have done. So another trait - and a very important one - is their ability to control the flow of information.

They are also incapable of deep emotions. In fact, when Hare, a Canadian psychologist who spent his career studying psychopathy, did brain scans on psychopaths while showing them two sets of words, one set of neutral words with no emotional associations and a second set with emotionally charged words, while different areas of the brain lit up in the non-psychopathic control group, in the psychopaths, both sets were processed in the same area of the brain, the area that deals with language. They did not have an immediate emotional reaction.

Our whole emotional life is a mystery to them, while at the same time providing a tremendous tool for them to manipulate us. Think of those moments when we are strongly affected by our emotions and how our ability to think is impaired. Now imagine that you were able to feign such emotion, remaining cool and calculating, while the person you were exchanging with was really trapped in an emotional cauldron. You could use tears or shouting to get what you wanted, while your victim was driven to despair by the emotions they were living.

They also seem to have no real conception of past or future, living entirely for their immediate needs and desires. Because of the barren quality of their inner life, they are often seeking new thrills, anything from feeling the power of manipulating others to engaging in illegal activities simply for the rush of adrenaline.

Another trait of the psychopath is what Łobaczewski calls their "special psychological knowledge" of normal people. They have studied us. They know us better than we know ourselves. They are experts in knowing how to push our buttons, to use our emotions against us. But beyond that, they even seem to have some sort of hypnotic power over us. When we begin to get caught up in the web of the psychopath, our ability to think deteriorates, gets muddied. They seem to cast some sort of spell over us. It is only later when we are no longer in their presence, out of their spell, that the clarity of thought returns and we find ourselves wondering how it was that we were unable to respond or counter what they were doing.

Torakx

thanks for explaining. it just seemed at first you were a little naive and that the book was biased.but after explaining i see the point you were making.
i also think myself there are a great number of sick/malfunctional people who do not get treatment or help but are labeled as bullies and aggrevators instead.

ClovenHoof

Torakx wrote: »

thanks for explaining. it just seemed at first you were a little naive and that the book was biased.but after explaining i see the point you were making.
i also think myself there are a great number of sick/malfunctional people who do not get treatment or help but are labeled as bullies and aggrevators instead.

Spot on. We should also look into developing public policy to deal with this issue concerning an aging society. In the USA were there is a vast elderly and highly dependent population with large financial assets, they are preyed upon by sociopaths posing as carers and the like. They weed their way into these people's homes as live-in nurses rent free and eventually defraud them out of the life savings and homes while neglecting or abusing the elderly person dependent on them. This is just one example of the real horror which sociopaths cause in society.

Kooli

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Sorry but you really are being well out of order here. No one is implying that a large clitoris in female sociopaths due to high testosterone is something to do with the devil. So grow up.

Secondly, all the information listed above come from readily availalble peer review papers if you look. I did not just whip them up off the top of my head.

Thirdly, I would suggest many people who are reading this thread find it very interesting. Your backseat moderation of the thread is obnoxious and censorship by snideness and offers nothing constructive to the thread.

I started this thread having read these two books. I did not take them as being Pop Psychology at all. You make it sound like they were written by Anthony Robbins or some other tit. But I am still learning and looking for people's sincere and respectful input. Is this a problem for you?

Cheer Valmont for your interesting and respectful reply. My apology for the arm waving remark.

Don't take it so personally, seriously.

The cover refers to the 'devil', that's what I'm referring to.

And I don't see why it's OK for you to call Anthony Robbins a tit (I'm sure some people find him brilliant) but I must have full respect for a book you really like.
I haven't read it, so I can only comment on the cover and what you have put in this thread. But I don't see how you can say that a book with those taglines on the cover is not pop psychology and is a genuine contribution to the field.

And if reading the book has made you believe that you have encountered 'so many sociopaths' in your life, then that makes me dubious too.

If she has misrepresented the content of the book by the cover, then apologies.

Lemondrop kid

Glad this thread has settled and clarity achieved, (for the most part.)
Will actually take a look at this book next year.

Vaguely remember a researcher hoping to study human 'evil' - the definition of evil being vey akin to the list given by CH.

Shall watch this thread with interest.:)

Valmont

Lemondrop kid wrote: »

Glad this thread has settled and clarity achieved, (for the most part.)
Will actually take a look at this book next year.

Vaguely remember a researcher hoping to study human 'evil' - the definition of evil being vey akin to the list given by CH.

Shall watch this thread with interest.:)

My problem would be that the word "evil" itself would be very hard to pin down and define for research purposes.

Lemondrop kid

Valmont wrote: »

My problem would be that the word "evil" itself would be very hard to pin down and define for research purposes.

That's one of the 'challenges'.
Even large swathes of the list posted can apply to a variety of conditions.
Still, I like the idea of quantifying or defining parameters for evil. Could be pretty useful in a num of situations (legal, social, philosophical etc)

p.pete

Lemondrop kid wrote: »

That's one of the 'challenges'.

Not just one of the challenges - the first challenge - how can things proceed without covering that one?

Valmont

I think that finding some sort of consensus as to what should define (for research purposes) being evil would be close to impossible.

pablomakaveli

Lemondrop kid wrote: »

That's one of the 'challenges'.
Even large swathes of the list posted can apply to a variety of conditions.
Still, I like the idea of quantifying or defining parameters for evil. Could be pretty useful in a num of situations (legal, social, philosophical etc)

Theres a program thats sometimes on Discovery called "Most Evil". A psychiatrist called Michael Stone has devised a scale of evil which is a scale of 1-22. In the program he looks at famous murder and serial killer cases and looks at the background of the killer as well as the murders they commited. Depending on factors like mental conditions of the killer, whether the murders were planned or spur of the moment, if the murderer tortured their victim etc he will rate them on the scale of evil.

Here's a wikipedia entry for the program-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil


In relation to the book it seems fairly sensationalist. I'm sure most people would have several traits from the list while not being what could be considered a sociopath.

Pat Mustard

The whole 1 in 25 stat seems a little unrealistic. Check out this link. This guy, Hare, thinks it's 1/100. http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html

Maybe the author has lowered the standard to take in a certain degree of 'asshole-ish' behaviour'?

I do remember reading a book called 'Frozen Blood' about serial killers in Ireland. The estimate was that 1 in 1000 was a psychopath and that 1 in 1000 psychopaths was a serial killer (1 in a 1000,000 of general population).

I keep forgetting the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath, except there isn't a hell of lot between them, as far as I know.

Outta curiosity, might give the book a quick look though.

Genevieve

Zimbardo, P (2007), The Lucifer Effect: How good people turn evil: London Ridler

You probably all read this at one point in your undergrad but it is very interesting!

A journal that is very interesting in relation to psychopaths though is

www.psychiatrictimes.com/p960239.html

Spartan09

I have a few difficulties with the term "evil" because of the religious connotations that it brings up. Calling someone "evil" helps people to distance the person and the henious act that they committed from themselves. Looking at people as good or evil helps people to make sense of the acts of others and makes them feel better about themselves. For me each act and behaviour has a distinct function, be that for material gain, sexual release etc. To ascribe behaviour as being the work of "evil" is too simplistic and ignores the multitude of societal, genetic, behavioural and experiental which contribute to all behaviour, good or bad.

Genevieve

Do you think that Zimbardo simplifies evil?

I agree with what you said above, there has to be an integration of many aspects in order to understand behaviour.

Many human beings make an awful habit of categorising others into 'boxes' in order to understand oneself or/and to make oneself feel better. On that note though it seems to be a societal norm and now all I can think of is social control and Michel Foucault's "Discipline and Punish" which is really interesting!

guderian

There are two types of psychopath: violent psychopaths, who are often incarcerated, so can come to the attention of people like Professor Hare, and

social psychopaths, or sociopaths, who do not commit violent crimes and generally keep under society's radar.

I have met four of these chilling individuals. I have learnt to recognise them for my own sanity.

I think it is very foolish to dismiss phenomena like this. Social psychopaths are dangerous predators. You will rue the day you met one, believe me.

Their main characteristics are:

glib charm,
manipulation,
lying,
bullying one-on-one, so no one will believe the nice person is actually vicious.

They will make false allegations against you and your word will not be believed.

They have no remorse for the harm they cause. They enjoy hurting people psychologically and are masters at it - they have had a lot of practice.

All I can say is, they exist, and probably the best site is www.bullyonline.org . Both Martha Stout's and Hare's books are good, but because they use composite characters (presumably for fear of libel) they don't quite catch how remorselessly brutal a social psychopath will be when they ensnare someone; if you realise what they are, particularly if you tell other people to warn them, this makes you target number one.

Social psychopaths are untreatable. The least dangerous of the four I have met I suggested therapy to, and her facade of control broke down completely and I was subjected to a massive verbal attack of narcissistic rage.

eth0_

guderian wrote: »

I have met four of these chilling individuals. I have learnt to recognise them for my own sanity.

Unless you are a psychiatrist, psychologist or similar, I find it very hard to believe you have met FOUR psychopaths. And I presume you knew them for a reasonable amount of time, otherwise you wouldn't be able to label them as such...

p.pete

guderian, I don't believe you set up an account here for this to be your first post on boards. I think this thread's been discussed enough, but if you feel this unfair feel free to send me a PM, thanks,
p.pete