The Sociopath Next Door

Today I started reading the book The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout Ph.D. As a successful (never being caught) selfprescribed APD, I am amazed at the profound uselessness of this book and I'm only on page 35. For those of you who believe that APDs have destroyed your life (poor me syndrome) you will love the book. For the rest of you whom have character, self-strength, and a mind of your own I don't advise wasting the money. I will make notes about the book as a progress so that you can get an idea of what ridiculousness this is about. I will probably end up giving the book way to much attention and thereby promoting it but this is not my intention.

Introduction - pgs. 1-17 - A decent explanation of APD, aka Sociopath, Psychopath. A little exaggerated for reading purposes but decent. Breaks down different behaviors dependent upon APDs social status. Whereas the APD within "high-society" will present one set of traits while the "lowerclass" another set.

Chapter 1 - pgs 19-35 - Trying to describe "morals" or a "conscience". This chapter starts with a story of a man who because of minor emergency in the middle of the night forgets to feed his dog before he has to be at work at 8:00am for an important meeting then has a flight at 10:15am. As he's rushing to work he remembers the dog and pulls over calls work letting them know he wont make the appt. Author describes this as "conscience" because its described he loves his dog who cant make due for itself and is left without food and maybe water. The author fails miserably trying to show this as conscience. The question never asked ... "Do you hold the lives of multiple individuals over your dog". What if your co-workers relationships, standard of living, ability to pay their next bill, marriage, or events unknown to you depended upon your choice to attend this scheduled meeting. The author is completely incompetent in trying to get her point across or is so self-centered that her mind does not realize the misery "Tom" causes others.

Wait so is it bad to go back to feed the dog and use that as a "moral" you retain?

Is it more moral to go back to work and forget the dog?

Chapter Two - pgs 36-51 - In contrast to Chapter one the author briefly summarizes a childs life. Labelling the child as a sociopath she describes how he kills frogs as a youth while waiting for his rich parents to die. He then becomes a successful executive who marries the daughter of a billionaire (for the money). And as he becomes CEO of the company while fighting off allegations of sexual assualt and fraud. I dont see the authors link on how a couple of bad noted incidents in a persons life makes them a sociopath but feeding your dog one day, while screwing your co-workers is considered moral and good, call me APD. I enjoyed her quote about sociopaths,

Rather, the game is the thing.

She describes a "sociopath" she calls stampman. Who steals stamps from the Post Office. Hes just an imbocile, no more mention.

Chapter Three - pgs 52-69 - I must admit an interesting chapter. The author describes normally moral people and when their "normal conscience sleeps". The author talks about when she goes to a festival on the fourth of July and sees a bonfire. She fantasizes about people in the fire. She thinks of everyday people and how it would be wrong, and about witch burning, and Osama Bin Laden. She sees that people can isolate their conscience and project OBL as ok to burn. Or how witches were ok to burn during the witchhunts. Peculiar that she celebrates the fourth of July which pronounces the War of Independce since she is so moral.
Another interesting part is on Professor Stanley Milgrims experiements were 62.5% of people would do the unthinkable in the name of authority. LINK - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment showing that even the morally conscience are not.

Guderian wrote:Wait so is it bad to go back to feed the dog and use that as a "moral" you retain?

Is it more moral to go back to work and forget the dog?

As an APD I'm having difficulty understanding your question. In my opinion it is neither good nor bad. If you moral values put your dog ahead of your co-workers fine, thats your choice. If you put your life and your co-workers lives ahead of your dog, fine. Thats your choice. My morals are not necessarily your morals. As an APD my "morals" are that I come first. Yours may be different. Isn't liberty great?

Marquis, you are getting a bit defensive. The book has helped me understand ASPD a lot better, and that's what I think it was intended to do--give non-ASPDs an understanding of what it means to be a sociopath. She gives examples and repeats herself ad nauseum b/c we non's have a tendency to try and convince ourselves that you are "just misunderstood." We have a verydifficult time understanding what it is to stand in your shoes b/c as Stout states, we use our conscience all the time--even for tiny decisions. To be without it is nearly unfathomable.

Marquis wrote:This chapter starts with a story of a man who because of minor emergency in the middle of the night forgets to feed his dog before he has to be at work at 8:00am for an important meeting then has a flight at 10:15am. As he's rushing to work he remembers the dog and pulls over calls work letting them know he wont make the appt. Author describes this as "conscience" because its described he loves his dog who cant make due for itself and is left without food and maybe water.

It seems that Stout goes to great lengths to show that this isn't necessarily conscience--I think she is trying to tell us that conscientious behavior doesn't prove he has a conscience. On pg. 23, she suggests alternative explanations: maybe Joe doesn't want a dead dog to dispose of when he gets back from his business trip, or what will the neighbors think if they find out what he's done, or maybe Joe wants to see himself as a good guy and dog lover so he plays the part. She continues on pg. 24 to give some examples of behaviors that we non-ASPDs would see as conscience although that isn't necessarily the case. Walking and quacking like a duck does NOT make you a duck.

She goes on to say (pg. 25) that her psychological evaluation of Joe would probably be that he acted out of conscience b/c certain details of the story show that Joe "is emotionally attached to his dog." This is the crux of the explanation. I will quote the second sentence of the last paragraph on pg. 25:

Stout wrote:Psychologically speaking, conscience is a sense of obligation ultimately based in an emotional attachment to another living creature (often but not always a human being), or to a group of human beings, or even in some cases to humanity as a whole.

This quote clearly defines conscience. Although this story is a bit rambling, she gets her points across in an accessible fashion which is crucial for those of us who do not understand your kind.

Marquis wrote:The question never asked ... "Do you hold the lives of multiple individuals over your dog". What if your co-workers relationships, standard of living, ability to pay their next bill, marriage, or events unknown to you depended upon your choice to attend this scheduled meeting. The author is completely incompetent in trying to get her point across or is so self-centered that her mind does not realize the misery "Tom" causes others.

No parable is perfect, and this is no exception. HOWEVER, please remember that the hierarchy of empathy and guilt is something for which you have no real understanding--no offense. That's why you pick out the inconvenience to his coworkers as an important point.

It's all about triage when it comes to acting with a conscience. There are little judgment calls we non-ASPDs make on a continual basis. Some are no-brainers (this was an almost no-brainer since the death of his dog was far more important than a business meeting--they can almost always be rescheduled despite the inconvenience, but dogs can't be resuscitated after several hours or days). Some conscience-driven judgment calls are VERY difficult (like do I grant my dying mother's plea to euthanize her as she struggles through immense pain in the last throes of bone cancer when I know that as a healthy, lucid woman she believed it to be a damnable sin?). These conscience-driven decisions must be made daily, hourly, and often moment-to-moment.

In conclusion, I don't think you are the intended audience, and Stout must be granted some slack because this is a VERY difficult disorder for the rest of us to wrap our brains around. She tries very hard to hammer home the point that sociopaths have no conscience because non-ASPDs don't have a concept of what that really means--it is a completely foreign concept to us.

I think that's why she is so derogatory toward ASPDs--she knows there are no tears you will cry upon being badmouthed b/c you cannot have hurt feelings. You will only be indignant and resentful but not sad or hurt. Plus, she counsels people who have been badly hurt by ASPDs--those of us you describe as having "poor me syndrome." I have to chuckle a bit at this--we are so foreign to each other, aren't we? You disparage those of us who don't have your disorder b/c we are hurting, but you're a member of the group of people who does the hurting.

chickadee wrote: The book has helped me understand ASPD a lot better, and that's what I think it was intended to do--give non-ASPDs an understanding of what it means to be a sociopath.

I praise your statement if it is true. Your statement is what one should hear about a book from a doctor. Although throughout the book she injects her personal opinions. To list opinion as fact without stating that it is opinion is dangerous and counter-productive to the education that it could provide. To label somebody as evil is incorrect. Different does not mean bad.

Stout wrote:Psychologically speaking, conscience is a sense of obligation ultimately based in an emotional attachment to another living creature (often but not always a human being), or to a group of human beings, or even in some cases to humanity as a whole.

Obligation to humanity, interesting concept. What obligation should/does one have to humanity? Does this obligation include morals? If so what of differing morals amongst different people? If this obligation applies not only to humans but to animals as well is there a line drawn to include/exclude certain animals? What of other life such as insects/microscopic life? What of semi-living creatures such as sperm or viruses? Is there some universal rule that everbody with conscience obeys without exception?
If conscience is measurable within 96% of the population how is it measured? Seeing as how according to the Milgrim experiements at any given time any person will act without any conscience over 60% of the time under the guise of apparent authority. In the experiment none of the subjects (save possibly one since he knew the effects of electricity) stopped inducing shocks to the "learner" until 300V while the 60% went all the way to 400V. FYI your standard electrical outlet in the US is 115V. To say that having a conscience is the norm is interesting given that at any moment more than half the people are acting without.

chickadee wrote:In conclusion, I don't think you are the intended audience

I have to agree with you. But..

SunTzu wrote:If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

To label somebody as evil is incorrect. Different does not mean bad.

That depends on your definition of evil. People fear what they cannot understand and ASPD is perhaps the hardest thing the rest of us will ever try to understand (quantum theory aside, although it makes me jittery, too).

What the experts DO understand is that without conscience there are no social norms, no social controls, no penalties or hesitancy or morality. That is scary as f***, and the people who are best known for not having a conscience happen to be the Bundys of the world. Be that as it may, people like you populate the Capitol Building and Hollywood soundstages. I'm finding that to be an even scarier revelation, and I can't seem to get un-scared.

Obligation to humanity, interesting concept. What obligation should/does one have to humanity?

I'm not her, but perhaps she means that if I were Hitler's right-hand-man I'd be responsible to humankind to kill that MF.

Or, have you ever read about the way Einstein felt about the Manhattan Project? About half of the scientists working on it had a serious attack of the conscience when it came to the question, "will this atomic reaction keep going and wipe out the entire world's population, or even eradicate the universe?" He had a responsibility to humankind (and to every creature on the planet) to think this over.

Is there some universal rule that everbody with conscience obeys without exception?

Anthropologists found that there is only one universal taboo--incest (for obvious genetic reasons). However, different societies have different definitions--some are looser or more firm than ours.

Having a conscience doesn't mean your outward behaviors will follow a specific pattern, at least not over all of humankind. I think you will generally follow the norms of your society if you have one, though. But, as Stout says, some tightly-knit socities can tone down sociopathic actions if there's a direct, socially-mandated penalty for them.

If conscience is measurable within 96% of the population how is it measured?

Because even the "covering up" behaviors cannot always hide that they do not feel remorse, empathy, etc. I am curious where this number comes from, though--is that what you mean, Marquis? Does anyone know what study shows this?

I think I know the Milgrim experiments--it's a good example of how power corrupts. Actually, I think Stout mentions this at the end of the "Joe and his dog" chapter--that sometimes people who DO have consciences act like they don't. We all do bad things, it's just that some of us feel guilty or remorseful about it if we can't rationalize our actions. And hopefully, this "thing" in our brain can stop us from doing the things that our society, whichever one we live in, considers especially heinous.

Your Sun Tzu quote applies to the very reason I am reading this book. My ex is obviously the enemy as he had proven himself to be. I need to know what he is so that I "need not fear." If you look at my "signature," you'll see that I understand the other half, too.

Am I, as a nonASPD, your enemy?

My definition of evil is - a construct created to attempt to inject personal beliefs upon another person that personify a person or object to be useless, repelling, repugnant or different.
In case my definition is not clear. There are 3 people. Person 1 states to person 2 that person 3 is evil. Since there is no standard for what is consciencously correct except for incest as you stated.

Anthropologists found that there is only one universal taboo--incest (for obvious genetic reasons). However, different societies have different definitions--some are looser or more firm than ours.

And knowing that people deem another person evil while they are not incestuous, leads me to the conclusion that evil is just a way to demoralize another. Labelling a person as evil seems very self-empowering and anti-social.
Being fairly educated on Einsteins beliefs and theories. You are correct when they were worried about a chain-reaction that could have unknown consequences. Most of this though is media hype. I will run through the highlights it takes more energy to split an atom than the energy it produces. This is why a chain-reaction was needed. When something explodes their is a blast of air leaving the site of the explosion. This creates a vacuum which is void of matter so that the chain reaction will stop. Also not normally known is that Einsteins letters to President Roosevelt started the arms race against Germany who were in the process of creating their own atomic bombs. Even if Einstein had been a sociopath (I dont believe he was) a sociopaths self interest does not include suicide unless they determine that the game can not continue. No historians left to write down your great actions, no body to remember what you did, no great fame in winning, no ability to continue the game. We're sociopaths not idiots . Like chess there are small battles, big battles, some won, some lost, but it doesnt mean the game is over. If you play it smart even a king and a pawn can have a dramatic effect.
To a non-aspd. Most of the time your public socializing is done at work, with clients or co-workers or general people on the street. Your at home socializing is limited to family and close friends and rarely meet new people, except as neighbours change. You are socializing with people under the direction of an authority as are most people during that time of day. Knowing that for every 25 new people you meet

1 person is a sociopath.
1 person dislikes you for your position, authority or whatever reason
1 person has no intention of doing harm to you.
13 people( add socio and dislike to equal 60%) would have you suffer extreme pain if told to.
And the rest would stop hurting you once they reached their moral limit.

Periodically the socio (charmer type) is nice to you and the person that means you know harm just doesnt let their good nature be known to you. How do you go through life only allowing the good people in and then consider that some of these good people are actually socios in nons clothing? Seems pretty dreary existence to me.
A focused sense of distrust towards one group of people who just really dont care and content for those whos morals can adjust quickly to love you sometimes and hate you others is very confusing. Remeber you can tell a socio "Goodbye, you are not wanted anymore, get out of my life" and it doesnt offend us. We will probably even leave.
I do not to focus my discontent upon a group or groups of people. I cant stand any of them equally.

If I understand your question correctly 4% of the people have no conscience. Which means that 96% do. If lack of conscience can be measured then obviously conscience can be measured to some degree. Based on studies from

Conduct Disorder and Antisocial Personality in Adult Primary Care Patensts," Journal of Family Practice 45(1997):151-158
R.Bland, S. Newman and H.Orn, "Lifetime Prevalence of Psychiatic Disorders in Edmonton," Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 77 (1988): 24-32
J. Samuels et al., DSM-III Personality Disorders in the Community," American Journal of Psychiatry 151 (1994): 1055-1062
US Dept of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Statistical Sourcebook (1991)

Are you my enemy? No. Actually I respect you for inputting your stance in a cognative fashion and not just complaining. As a recently self-aware APD my current quest is for knowledge. I am a collage of the characters you read about in the book. Some of my traits productive, and some non or counter-productive. Since we dont comprehend conscience we cant always act in the correct way to the situation. Or like me who are more vocal about our views which pushes others away.
Is Dr. Stout my enemy? No. If I had a chance to silence her and her opiniated views I probably would. I expect doctors and psychiatrists to retain a bit more restraint on personal aspects, the same as I would expect a judge to follow the law and not their feelings. Her usefullness to me has been expended.
I have no enemies just resources.

Chapter Four pgs 70-85 - This is a story about Doreen who uses her ability to manipulate both patients and staff at a psychological hospital, ulitmately she ends up being relieved of duty after ordering that a "healing" patient that he must stay at the ward. I will take for granted that everything the "author" says about what Doreen is thinking is true and that Doreen is obviously the sociopath even though its obvious this is a story from a "hurt by an APD" and not from the view of the APD as portrayed. Another failed attempt at looking at the facts by the author I could list discrepancies all day long but I dont have the time. The author states that Doreen falsified her credentials, but the adminstrators failed to do a background check. Lazy administrators. Doreen was probably having relations with the administration. Since the administration was so secret about it, they must have been doing something immoral or unlawful. Double standards. The administration just wants Doreen out of their hair and speculate she is elsewhere doing the same thing. Nice fix(sarcastic) people putting their problems on somebody else to deal with. Take a look at those who were hurt, were they not to blame as well? But why not isolate a scapegoat and blame everything on them. They sound socio just as much as Doreen is.

Pathetic story overall. No sense of reasoning by the author, just assumptive and fictional. The author is starting to show herself as an educated idiot. But I will continue, because Ive already paid for the book.

Why don't we see what the dictionary says about evil, shall we? This is the best way to keep our feelings or opinions (depending on our ASPD or nonASPD status) out of it, doncha think?

e·vil ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

n.
The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
An evil force, power, or personification.
Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

I don't consider myself a terribly judgmental person, but ASPDs seem to fit a lot of this criteria (I am basing this on my ex's behavior, comments made in this forum, and infamous ASPDs).
However, I recognize that nonASPDs sometimes do these things as well. How can a person who has a conscience end up there? Simple--we all make mistakes, errors in judgment, or we ignore that voice.
ASPDs know right from wrong, after all. Ignorance isn't to blame for their detrimental or "evil" actions--it's when they decide that their wants outweigh the demands of their society, but the consequences do not. I think we all have the capacity to do evil, maybe it's just that ASPDs are a lot more likely b/c they don't care about other people. Doing a lot more evil things makes you more evil? Makes sense to me...

My definition of evil is - a construct created to attempt to inject personal beliefs upon another person that personify a person or object to be useless, repelling, repugnant or different.
In case my definition is not clear.

I call that either gossip, which is another form of evil (please reference the above definition regarding spite), or simply being honest. I think it's all about the motivation. However, if I know that a child molester lives next door to my best friend, her husband, and their 6-year-old, I'm going to tell her. NOT b/c my intent is to do something hurtful to him, but b/c I love my friend (and by extension, her child) and I don't want her kid to get molested.

Since there is no standard for what is consciencously correct except for incest as you stated.

Let me split a hair here... there is no singular action that is universally considered wrong other than incest, but there are certain standards of behavior in every society. If one disregards these standards continuously while showing no true remorse, that is a lack of conscience. If someone has a conscience, he will abide by the rules for the most part and feel remorse when he breaks them.

Labelling a person as evil seems very self-empowering and anti-social.

Maybe some find it so, but I personally find it difficult. That's why I don't really use that term to identify a person--their actions, certainly, but not them as a person. I think, rather, that it is a bit of hyperbole used by people who have a need to classify someone. We all pigeon-hole the people we see every day--it helps us deal with the world around us.

You, if I am to believe what you wrote about your cell-phone-licking experience, are a hypocrite (terrorizing a lady for using her cellphone, then answering yours). Don't point the finger, Marquis. You categorized those of us who are your victims, remember?

Marquis wrote: pathetic little runny-nosed freak

Do you recall that message? What's good for the goose...

We're sociopaths not idiots . Like chess there are small battles, big battles, some won, some lost, but it doesnt mean the game is over. If you play it smart even a king and a pawn can have a dramatic effect.

So all the world's a stage, and you're the puppeteer? By the way, were you a born ASPD or a created one?

How do you go through life only allowing the good people in and then consider that some of these good people are actually socios in nons clothing? Seems pretty dreary existence to me.

It IS f***ing dreary. No, I take it back---for me, in light of the discovery of my ex's true nature--it downright terrifying. It makes me think that EVERYONE new I meet has ASPD. The more I learn, the more I want to close up shop and not meet ANYONE new. But, I can't choose to stop learning--ignorance isn't the answer. So, I keep reading and watching this forum and asking questions in hopes that I'll learn to see the fakeness and the pretending in the future. It's the only thread that I can grasp.

A focused sense of distrust towards one group of people who just really dont care and content for those whos morals can adjust quickly to love you sometimes and hate you others is very confusing.

Although I doubt you're religious, you've probably heard a few Bible quotes, yes? Remember the one about being God preferring the hot or cold, but that he will spit the lukewarm out of his mouth? Hate is NOT the opposite of love--there's a very subtle difference between the two. Indifference is the opposite of both, and that's the ASPDs view on everyone--even once he knows them intimately, isn't that what you said?
People who love tend to continue loving or at least liking, and when they turn to hate, we know it. Indifference in someone who's only priority is himself is very threatening. You manipulate simply because YOU CAN, isn't that true? So how can you say you're nothing to fear? Plus, Milgrim didn't use couples or family members for his experiments, if I'm not mistaken. They were strangers, so there was no love or hate--only indifference.

I expect doctors and psychiatrists to retain a bit more restraint on personal aspects, the same as I would expect a judge to follow the law and not their feelings.

I understand you are offended by Stout, but this is the type of book completely intended for layman's use--it is NOT intended for students, teachers, or practicioners. Therefore, everything is very accessible and easy to understand. However, it accounts for the generalizations and her disparagement of ASPDs--she is out to protect the victims! This is NOT the type of book intended for you to learn about your disorder--perhaps you should try something else. Here's a few that are geared more toward research:

Fatal Flaws: An Introduction to Disorders of Personality and Character by Stuart C. Yudofsky
Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal, and Violent Behavior by Theodore Millon (Editor), Roger Davis (Editor), Erik Simonsen (Editor), Morten Birket-Smith (Editor)
Antisocial Personality Disorder - a Medical Dictionary, Bibliography, and Annotated Research Guide to Internet References by Health Publica Icon Health Publications
Mark of Cain: Psychoanalytic Insight and the Psychopath by J. Reid Meloy (Editor)

I don't know if they're what you're looking for, but it's a start. I have considered what you're after is just something to pick apart in lofty derision, but that's up to you. I hope you want to learn.