Bookworm - The Sociopath Next Door

 

 

 

 

  

  

I am currently reading The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout, Ph.D.

  

Martha is a clinical psychologist who has, among other things, treated the victims of sociopaths.  

 

Her book talks about how we encounter sociopaths in every day life - not the serial killers and rapists, but the person who we fall in love with and marry, only to find that they have no real emotional attachment to us; instead they are enjoying a free ticket to not have to work and enjoying our nice big house, thank you very much.

  

I completely agree with the author that any psychological disorder/disease/condition exists on a sliding scale.  What we see in the media and portrayed by Hollywood is the most extreme example of the sociopath phenomenon, but there are many people who function - to some greater or lesser degree of efficacy - in society with schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder or paranoia or OCD or whatever.  Just like Aspergers lies somewhere on the scale to autism.  We just haven't given the half way house for the other disorders their own names.

  

But here is where I fundamentally differ from her position. 

Sociopaths are not, as she portrays them, all villains.  They are simply a type of person and, after all, they can't help it.  Condemning sociopaths for what they are is the same as condemning a gay person, or even a black person.

 

Sociopaths evolved, like the rest of us, for a very good reason.  They are hunters and warriors.  

 

 

 

Predators

 

I figured this out because we watched the movie Predators last night.  

 

In it, the character played by Adrian Brody shows all the characteristics of a classic sociopath.  For example, he deliberately leads the rag tag group of people into a place where the Predators will attack them, so that he can see what they are up against.  One of the group is killed but, from that, Brody learns that the hunters have a cloaking device, that they use laser based weapons, etc.  The others in the group are shocked and horrified that he led them into danger this way, and that he has little remorse that one of their number got killed, but Brody has acted in a strategic way.  He has done what he needed to do for survival.  He has learned more about his enemy.  Perhaps he was thinking only of his own survival but, at the end of the day, his actions benefit the whole group.

     

Thinking this way is necessary - in fact, it's essential - to survival in combat and hunting situations.  Back when we were tribes, the hunters would go out for days on missions to catch prey.  In that time they were in dangers from large cats, boars, bears, whatever.  I am sure that a sociopath led the group, and led them through a successful hunt.

    

The same is true of war.  From tribes fighting each other in Africa centuries ago to NATO troops chasing an insurgent through the streets of Fallujah, an absence of affect and an ability to think and behave completely strategically is the difference between life and death.

  

The problem is that, outside of a war situation, sociopaths are anachronisms.  It is when they try to fit into polite society, where hunting has been replaced by a trip to Safeway, and combat is now a boardroom war of words, that they become outcasts.    

 

They have a certain way of thinking, of operating, and it's different to how most of us do.  But the same is true of the deaf, the blind, the schizophrenic.  

  

Surely we should find some place for psycho/sociopaths in society?  Aspergers kids get all sorts of therapy and care, why shouldn't they?

 

 

 

The love issue

  

Dr Stout says that sociopaths are dangerous because have no emotional affect and claims this is the prerequisite for being able to love.

 

I have two issues with this.

   

First, what is love?

  

Do you know what it is, because I sure as fuck don't.  It has been mapped as activity that takes place in a certain part of the brain, but I highly doubt that we all experience it in the same way.  

  

Stout says that 1 in 25 Americans is a sociopath, yet she describes them as wreaking havoc on the lives of other wherever they roam.  Seeing as there are that many of them, somewhere out there, there has to be a person who would be diagnosed as a sociopath who is functioning as best they can, protecting those in their lives.  

  

If a psycho/sociopath functions in society and does the best that he can to look after his family, is that love?

  

Second, shouldn't we feel sorry for sociopaths?

 

Imagine living in a world where almost every song, every movie, every poem is about something you don't understand?  Everywhere you go people are laughing, connecting, bonding, and you can't feel what they feel.  

 

Wouldn't that be awful?

 

 

 

We need to change our approach

 

Dr Stout makes the point that sociopaths who grow up in Eastern societies, where the good of all and the interconnectedness of all things is emphasized in the culture, are able to function better.  Although they don't feel connections, they learn that connections exist and therefore how to act accordingly.  

 

Can't we turn this into some kind of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for sociopaths?

 

And why isn't someone working on a drug?

 

We are ignoring an opportunity to treat people and not only mitigate against them potentially becoming a problem in society (and, by the way, a cost, if they have to be incarcerated) but also help them to feel more a part of our world?

 

Wouldn't that be the ethical thing to do?

 

 

 

The one line review

 

Dr Stout's book was informative but, mostly, it's one-dimensionality just pissed me off.