The Sociopath Next Door

[Aggie]

Just finished reading "The Sociopath Next Door" by Martha Stout, Ph.D.  It's suggesting that as many as 4% of the population* are sociopaths (i.e. have antisocial personality disorder) and that these people literally have no conscience.  Scary!  and it explains a lot about the way the world works, and about the motivations of a few very negative people I know of. 

It's worth reading the following review, as it's pretty close to my opinion of the book:
http://www.bookslut.com/scarlet_woman_of_selfhelp/2005_03_004676.php


Does anyone know more about antisocial personality disorder, or has anyone read this book?  Not sure why, but I'm looking for an excuse to debunk it, probably because I wish it was not true.  And probably because I like my non-fiction books thick and written like a textbook; this one is quite short (~200 pg) and easy reading.

For the most part, The Sociopath Next Door is so tastefully informative, well-written, and kindly, that you feel like you're having a cup of tea with a brilliant friend who studies the varieties of sociopathy the way one might memorize every breed of rose.

http://www.popmatters.com/books/reviews/s/sociopath-next-door.shtml  (another good review)

If I can't debunk it, it's an essential read.


_{*Western countries, and specifically America; incidence is much lower in some cultures according to the book.}

[anthrobabe]

I would tend to lean towards true. 4%-- yes I would say very probably.

I am personally related to a sociopath(APD) (a full brother)-- and he does not care about another living being on the planet,
but what is truly scary,
they can pretend to care very effectively!
My brother has been married twice and has 5 children- he has walked away from the all and does not care if they have a home, food, anything-- his goal is pardon my french "a free f*** from anyone or anything" but also the power he could/can have over a wife and children gets him off as well(and yes that kind of getting off as well as the sick brain getting off). If he can inflict pain (prefers physical, but will settle for emotional) all the better. I very nearly had to kill him once to get him off of me-it did not bother him a bit- not even the police showing up to arrest him bothered him, except for the fact that it kept him from doing what he wanted to do- beat on me for whatever reason- that's when I had to move to Tucson with my dad as his mother (my mother) is deluded about what he really is.
Some can hide it for years and until they actually go homicidal spree killer- most are under the radar except for many many arrests and convictions. Like many when he goes to jail his goal is ONLY getting out asap because he in fact did nothing wrong and this is slowing him down--whatever game needs to be played to get out is played-and it is a game, trust me it is a game- he usually gets religion big time in jail.
I have always refused to bail him out, he does not like me because of this, his eyes are dead and I will not be alone in a room/place with him--he has learned that he can not charm me so he does not waste it on me.... but the next innocent girl friend/child/my deluded mother/someone else- is a different story. My daughters were never left with him-- the oldest is learning, the youngest is still deluded and therefor in danger. I do not think as of yet has has turned to actual child sexual predation- I do believe the potential is there-he is a thing in a human body. He is not the only one and they can hide it very well-it is part of the game.

I also wish it were not true-- but I think it is, I think some cultures possibly 'foster'(not the right word) it a bit more than others-- not sure of the mechanism but we do seem to have our share here in the USA--now that would be a really great long term sociological/anthopological study. Unfortunately most of us do have a sociopath next door. I do not think it is 'curable' or ever truly treatable.

[Aggie]

I also wish it were not true-- but I think it is, I think some cultures possibly 'foster'(not the right word) it a bit more than others-- not sure of the mechanism but we do seem to have our share here in the USA--now that would be a really great long term sociological/anthopological study. Unfortunately most of us do have a sociopath next door. I do not think it is 'curable' or ever truly treatable.

The book mentions that traditionally Buddhist or group-oriented cultures that put  the family or group ahead of the individual and/or emphasize the interconnectedness of all living things show much lower rates  -  the author hypothesizes that these type of belief systems may dampen the 'me first' mentality that makes sociopaths a problem (i.e. there may be just as many people pre-disposed to the condition, but cultural conditioning prevents the expression of it).  North America OTOH seems to be the perfect culture of individualism to make not giving a sh%t about anyone except yourself a successful strategy.

Yon book also indicates that there is no treatment or method of coping except trying to recognize and avoid these people.

(total anecdotal backup AB - thanks.  Maybe you should send your mother a copy - don't make the connection with your bro, just tell her it's essential reading.    Definitely see if your library can get it and have a read, it would also be of benefit to your daughters or any other young people trying to make their way through the social jungle - wish I'd had it earlier!)

[Opsa]

Posted with Aggie's reply- please excuse redundancies!

I think that there is a kind of absolute selfishness that is unfortunately common that could easily be described as sociopathic. I think that part of it is society's fault- this Me First sort of thinking that seems to be so popular in our culture. I think we have perhaps neglected to teach our kids the importance of remembering that other people exist in our world and they count, too. Some of this may be because our economy is so out of whack that often both parents are working just to scrape by and they are both too pooped to look after the kids. The thought that this attitude could become even more prevelent is frightening.

How can we help other people to understand that it is not "weak" to be compassionate?

Last night I heard that the final "GrandTheft Auto" game is coming out and I didn't know whether to be relieved or not. Kids see these games as fun, but if they're not understanding that this behavior is unacceptible in the real world, what are they being taught?

I don't know about a cure, but maybe there is a prevention.

How can we reinforce that caring about other people and being responsible are marks of strong, mature people?

[Aggie]

Ops, don't read the book - it will bleaken your perpspective on humanity.   
(wish I could put a  there instead, but really....  )

I don't know about a cure, but maybe there is a prevention.

How can we reinforce that caring about other people and being responsible are marks of strong, mature people?

Hopefully that's part of what the Toadfish are about (& I'd personally expand it to include caring for the environment).  Not sure how we are going to expand the message... it needs to come in at a cultural level.  Start chipping away locally I suppose.



I am reading far too many depressing books lately - also recommended to avoid are "When Smoke Ran Like Water" and "The Secret History of the War on Cancer" both by Devra Davis (very good - am only halfway through either).  This morning I learned that the main reason public transit is so terrible in the US (as we were discussing elsewhere) is that the decent, well-utilized electric transit systems in the 20's were actively bought out and dismantled by the automobile and oil industries because they were a threat to the respective businesses - it was so blatant that the government (can't recall which branch offhand & am paraphrasing a bit here) actually took about 10 companies to court for conspiracy to monopolize transit and won - they were fined $5000.    Oh, and that tetraethyl lead (leaded gas) was invented because it was cheap to produce, did not displace gasoline and patentable - as opposed to ethanol, which was know to work very well as an anti-knock agent instead but would need to displace 10% of the gasoline used by volume (loss of sales), and wasn't patentable (loss of monopoly).  They knew this stuff was toxic in the 20's (although evidence for how polluting it was came later) and it was opposed by many state health departments *cue public relations campaign*.

The book on cancer is even worse.... 

Also watched "Sicko" recently, and despite the usual caveats with Michael Moore films (sensationalized & willfully blind about the negative aspects of non-US societies - I have insider info on the UK's health systems ) AND pre-knowledge of the US system - holy skite. 

I thought I was cynical.  Not enough by half.  The Offspring were right.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

According to wikipedia:

David Korten also reports research that shows a high proportion of these traits amongst CEOs of major corporations

I wonder how many politicians fit the bill.

Also it mentions a prevalence of 3% in males and 1% in females, so the book numbers may be close. Makes me wonder if 2-4% is what it takes to make the world as it is.

[Aggie]

It might be enough, given political and business climates that make lack of a conscience a near requirement.  It's certainly enough to account for most of the news headlines (the case in Amstetten comes to mind at the moment).

[Swatopluk]

Well disguised antisocial behaviour has been the way up since times immemorial. Just the level of sophistication has changed (an evolution if there ever was one). Precisely judging what one can get way with is a powerful tool of survival. Lack of this judgement is what fills history books. The only thing I can think of to minimize this is to school people in detecting this sort of behaviour better and increasing he negative reaction towards it (so the sociapaths will be less eager to thake the risks).

Look at Unseen University of Ankh-Morpork: Before Ridcully it was institutionalized backstabbing (literally going up by murdering those above while defending against those below). The coming of Ridcully stopped all that because he refused to be murdered and the sociopaths below him (they still fit that description to a degree*) had to learn to live with that (and the students found other ways to spend their time ).

*especially the Dean who has several run-ins with Ridcully about that.

[beagle]

Well disguised antisocial behaviour has been the way up since times immemorial.

Long live King Richard! 

[Griffin NoName]

he does not care about another living being on the planet, but what is truly scary, they can pretend to care very effectively!

I also have first hand experience.

You are so right about how scary the pretence is. It really makes me cringe. Almost literally. I feel my whole body curling up. And throw up on occasion.

The longer term effect is just as bad. Listening to those who praise to the skies, utterly taken in. Makes me weep.

I have no idea of the stats. And in terms of debunking, I would challenge on the "damage" aspect. I would think many techinical sociopath's who score on the scale, don't do that much damage, and a lesser percetage do more damage. A follow up of the "effect" of sociopaths would be interesting.

[Aggie]

I have no idea of the stats. And in terms of debunking, I would challenge on the "damage" aspect. I would think many techinical sociopath's who score on the scale, don't do that much damage, and a lesser percetage do more damage. A follow up of the "effect" of sociopaths would be interesting.

The book is in agreeance with that, but what I'm skeptical of is the black/white notion of either having or not having a conscience that the book presents.  Might be true from a clinical perspective, but I'm not so sure - I do know that people with consciences can be very good at suppressing them (also in the book), but is there such thing as a half-sociopath?

[Griffin NoName]

A few comments on that.

These types of books sell on appealing to the search for the sensational. The absolute clinical as opposed to anacdotal is dull. Look at the way marketing affects authors end products !

Suppressed conscience leads to huge costs for the individual doing the supressing. Supressing conscience is a survival technique and a bad one at that. They must have a conscience or they couldn't supress it !

To be a half-sociopath seems meaningless to mean. I suspect clinicians would describe it as "with sociopathic tendencies". ie. their survival instinct affects their behaviour, not actually having a reall lack of conscience.

I think a true sociopath does lack conscience. So in that sense it can be black and white. I haven't read the book, but I suspect that the shades of grey are to do with how much of a conscience the rest of the population has. Leading me back to sociopathic tendencies.

There's also the problem of people who have conscientious feelings in some areas and absolutely none in others.

[Aggie]

These types of books sell on appealing to the search for the sensational. The absolute clinical as opposed to anacdotal is dull. Look at the way marketing affects authors end products !

Despite the sensationalist title & cover art, it's a fairly straight-written book.  This is why I'm having issues swallowing it I think - if it was obvious malarky or absolutely clinically boring, I'd have no problems making a decision about it, but it's more like a sheep in wolves' clothing and has me muddled (although I think this thread is helping sort it out between anecdotal & educated opinions).

The book itself uses constructed, fictionalized case studies to illustrate points, rather than lurid anecdotal details.

[Griffin NoName]

From snippets, it doesn't sound all that "straight" written to me. ""Don't even borrow milk from the "sociopath" next door...." etc. ?

The book itself uses constructed, fictionalized case studies to illustrate points, rather than lurid anecdotal details

Constructed = to fit
Fictionalised = fairy tales

I think I might find lurid anecdotals more convincing

Now if it was serious professional case studies............ from the therapist's couch....... that might be interesting.

I'm sorry, I probably shouldn't be making all these comments without reading the book, but I've just spent (wasted) precious time and money on two other similarish books which I thought would help my studies......... and am feeling jaundiced. Which isn't to say there are not excellent ones of that ilk, just that I suspect the concscience of some writers and publishers

[Aggie]

.....and is exactly why I need someone with a better working knowledge of the subject to debunk it or validate it for me. 

I will ship it to you if you promise to ship it back to the library by May 14th! 

(oh, and agreed on the interpretation of constructed, I think the fictionalized in this case may mean 'composite' and 'protecting one's ass form being sued by the subject' but you never know....  certainly the three cases in the book have fairy-tale endings where the sociopath ends up losing all)

[Griffin NoName]

Have a look at the review headed Opinionated and misleading. 

Also What is the Difference Between a Psychopath and a Sociopath?.

Also, giving you the benefit of some of my studies..... for a diagnosis of "Psychopath" there is a minimum 10 point scale (sometimes a 14 point scale is used) and a further 10 point scale which can differentiate the type of "Psychopath".  It is not simply having no conscience. Neither is it a diagnostic within 3 points as I remember reading is claimed in the book somewhere. Oh hang on, I have the diagnostic link somewhere........... er um....... yep it's Robert Hare PCL-R and Hare is THE recommended expert on Psychopathology.....  (as the reviewer mentioned above remarks).  Also, (lots of alsos) each of the points on the PCL-R would not be lightly diagnosed... and assigning these traits to anyone on the basis of social acquaintance is foolhardy. Even psychiatrists/psychologists need specialist training to diagnose. Somewhere I have a link to how to use the 10 point scale - it's not just a straigtforward tick box and the score needs to be much higher than three- but I can't find it at present.

edit.... forgot to mention, no fairy tale ending here, my "psychopath" ended up with everything - always suspect happy endings is my motto

edit edit : Dr Hare is at the Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia !

also, through his webiste I have found Aftermath: surviving-psychopathy discussion forum which looks like it might be helpfull.

Edit Edit Edit:  after a good deal of further reading, I am beginning to think the book which set off this topic is actually quite irresponsible.

[Aggie]

Requested Dr. Hare's book, as re-recommended in many of the poor reviews.

Heh - as per Michael Moore, the fact that the book got a dialogue going may be an indicator of it's worth, whether it's 100% accurate or not.

[anthrobabe]

Zono brought up a good thought/had a good thought.
higher percentage seems to be in males, many are in 'upper management'-- is it an evolutionary biological thing that is not useful in 'modern society'? Or if 'properly controlled' and can there be such a thing is it still useful in certain situations?

seems I read something about this once upon a time-- I must remember to ask the anth listserv if they know more or can recommend reading on it.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Interesting, from Griffin's link:

Of the more distinguishing traits, some argue the sociopath to be less organized in his or her demeanor, nervous and easily agitated – someone likely living on the fringes of society, without solid or consistent economic support. A sociopath is more likely to spontaneously act out in inappropriate ways without thinking through the consequences.

Conversely, the psychopath tends to be extremely organized, secretive and manipulative. The outer personality is often charismatic and charming, hiding the real person beneath. Though psychopaths do not feel for others, they can mimic behaviors that make them appear normal. Upon meeting, one would have more of a tendency to trust a psychopath than a sociopath.

So the difference lies in intelligence and mental structure, hence the CEOs aren't sociopaths but psychopaths.

[Edited for grammar.]

[anthrobabe]

and it seems that these subtle differences well make all the difference

serial killer
CEO

so there is apparently a difference

[pieces o nine]

Interesting, from Griffin's link:

Of the more distinguishing traits, some argue the sociopath to be less organized in his or her demeanor, nervous and easily agitated – someone likely living on the fringes of society, without solid or consistent economic support. A sociopath is more likely to spontaneously act out in inappropriate ways without thinking through the consequences.

Conversely, the psychopath tends to be extremely organized, secretive and manipulative. The outer personality is often charismatic and charming, hiding the real person beneath. Though psychopaths do not feel for others, they can mimic behaviors that make them appear normal. Upon meeting, one would have more of a tendency to trust a psychopath than a sociopath.

So the difference lies in intelligence and mental structure, hence the CEOs aren't sociopaths but psychopaths.

[Edited for grammar.]

Another conclusion that seems too true to be good...

(Consider the most recent news bit on smirkin' CEOs who *still* make obscenely high salaries, bonuses, stocks, pensions even after losing money hand-over-fist for the investors, bankrupting employee benefits, driving their companies into the ground, or seriously impacting the national economy.)

[Griffin NoName]

.........so CEO gets added to the DSM code list

[anthrobabe]

.........so CEO gets added to the DSM code list

well we could with sharpies-- just go at everyone we see
(DSM's --not CEO's)
adding it to the DSM

[pieces o nine]

.........so CEO gets added to the DSM code list

Yes!
But what is the indicated treatment?

[anthrobabe]

.........so CEO gets added to the DSM code list

Yes!
But what is the indicated treatment?

well for starters force them to actually live like one of their employees--- like a factory employee and not the exectutives--for an entire year, force it, don't allow them cheats (like access to their accounts,family accounts, extended family goodies they've received, health coverage, stocks, etc). same housing, same pay, same benefits, make them work the job----- make their families live like this as well.
that's a good starting treatment

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK there is no cure for psychopathy. That people is dangerous no matter where they are and should be locked in a maximum security prison.

[Griffin NoName]

No cure although some say ten years of "talking" therapy. However, most psychopaths can out-talk the therapist IMO.

Can only lock them up if proved in court they have committed crime in the UK. Since they are clever and forward plan this is difficult.

[beagle]

No cure although some say ten years of "talking" therapy. However, most psychopaths can out-talk the therapist IMO.

If you've ever seen the film "The Young Poisoner's Handbook" (based on the St. Albans Poisoner), there's a lovely bit where the psychiatrist sees on TV news just how well he cured the patient.

[anthrobabe]

in reality I think no cure, and 10 years talk therapy-- what fun, let's see if I can play the game for 10 years
it's a game to them
be fooled and you will loose

[Griffin NoName]

If you've ever seen the film "The Young Poisoner's Handbook" (based on the St. Albans Poisoner), there's a lovely bit where the psychiatrist sees on TV news just how well he cured the patient.

Not seen. Another one for my list?  (I still have The History Boys unopened awaiting the end of Diploma treat time).

Meanwhile, I had a look at Aftermath Surviving Psychopathy Forum. It's unmoderated and quite devoid of information about who or what is behind it. Ultimately it left me wondering if it has been set up by a psychopath. S C A R E Y !!!!

[Griffin NoName]

If you've ever seen the film "The Young Poisoner's Handbook" (based on the St. Albans Poisoner), there's a lovely bit where the psychiatrist sees on TV news just how well he cured the patient.

Not seen. Another one for my list? 

The DVD is £59 plus and only available in US format - there are videos 2nd hand  at £7 - is it worth it?

(it seems it turns up occasionally on channel 4 but is otherwise virtually unknown).

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

If the person can be proved beyond a doubt to be a sociopath or a psychopath?

Permanent lockup does no one any good-- unless it's solitary, they are potential contaminating influences wherever they end up.

And, there's no such thing as real solitary-- there's the guards to consider.

Nope.  You  don't 'reform' a cockroach-- you kill it.  Without mercy, but without needless cruelty, either.  No fuss, you do it, because it is the correct thing to do from the perspective of your society.

If there were such a thing as true Coventry-- that would be better.  True expulsion.  But, the globe is shrinking, and can we in good conscience foist our 'cockroaches' into someone else's backyard?  No.

A responsible person will put down a rabid animal as quickly and painlessly as possible.   Both as an honor to himself, and as a duty and honor to what the animal was (or in the case of 'paths, an honor to their being born, at least, into the human clan).

Fuzzy feelings are fine-- but if there is no cure, no fix?  A clean death is better for all.

Lockup is just needless cruelty.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

If the person can be proved beyond a doubt to be a sociopath or a psychopath?

That's the crux of the issue: beyond any doubt. Even locking them up, have you heard those tales of people being declared 'mentally insane' who weren't? Most interestingly the cases when the removal of the individual in question brought benefits to some 'friend' of the psychiatrist making the diagnosis? While I heard anecdotal evidence I believe it was quite prevalent in the 1800s and the 1st half of the 1900s.

As much as I would understand the reasoning behind psychopath executions I would fear the witch hunt that would follow.

[pieces o nine]

Rumble.

How to write such laws with enough safeguards to prevent them being used to get rid of the merely inconvenient or nonconformist, without so many codicils and loopholes to prevent them being implemented properly with those who truly fit the psychopathic profile?

[beagle]

The DVD is £59 plus and only available in US format - there are videos 2nd hand  at £7 - is it worth it?
(it seems it turns up occasionally on channel 4 but is otherwise virtually unknown).

It's a quite amusing and very black "comedy". Wouldn't pay serious money for it but well worth catching when C4 show it next.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I've been thinking a bit on this subject (socio/psychopaths) and my inner conspiracy theorist has been suggesting that the genetic component of psychopathy would explain the concept of 'nobility'/blue/royal blood:

The beginners of dynasties were usually ruthless conquerors and/or Machiavellian generals/politicians who took the opportunity to claim power for themselves. Later, their descendants would be willing to murder parents, siblings and relatives. What better way to keep the 'royal' blood than marrying the son or daughter of another psychopath? Only those who have proven the intelligence and ruthlessness would be 'nobles' hence preserving the genetic factors that define psychopathy. The same would apply to those famous dynasties of politicians that show up over and over as rulers of a 'democratic' country.

(why do I have the feeling that beagle and goat are going to bite into this argument?  )