Letters

Has Martha Stout been watching too much "Buffy"? Salon readers sound off about speed and sociopaths.

Read more: Life Features, Women, Parenting, Letters to the Editor, Motherhood, Salon Mothers Who Think, Life

March 28, 2005 | [Read "The Devil Wore J. Crew," by Sara Eckel.]

As a professor of psychology, I could not help but respond to Sara Eckel's interview with Martha Stout. Principally, I was disappointed by Stout's argument regarding the prevalence of "sociopathy."

In the interview, Stout acknowledges that there is little clear evidence regarding the prevalence of sociopathy in the general population. Nevertheless, she argues for a prevalence of "approximately 4 percent." In the absence of reliable data, she bases this approximation on her own conclusions (which are based on assumptions regarding the equivalence of sociopathy across gender that are not necessarily supported by existing data) and on the "off the record" observations of her colleagues.

I do not wish to argue the 4 percent statistic here -- it may very well be accurate. Instead, it is the method by which Stout arrives at this statistic that must be criticized. By making her argument in the way that she has, Stout conveys to her readers the message that in the absence of reliable data, it is appropriate for psychologists to draw conclusions based on their own intuitions and on the anecdotal evidence of their friends. This is not good science and, therefore, it is not good psychology.

One of the great challenges facing teachers of psychology is helping people to understand that what they might believe is true of human behavior based on their own impressions and on the anecdotes of others may not be so. Far from helping to dispel this notion, Stout instead carelessly undermines it in just a few sentences. As such, she does a disservice to her field and to her readers.

-- Jennifer Vitale

I enjoyed reading "The Devil Wore J. Crew" until I got to Stout's bizarre blanket assessment that "East Asian countries" generally have fewer sociopaths because "individual winning is not considered the appropriate goal" in the "East." While the idea that "my people" in general suffer fewer sociopaths is a charming one, I hate it when I read things like this in the American press. I grew up in an East Asian country (though I'm Korean, and maybe Koreans are more sociopathic than Chinese or Japanese in Stout's opinion) and came to the U.S. for college. It irks me that people here just posit whatever they want about that morass of people "over there" in the "East." Stout specifies "China and Japan, in particular" as though she's actually considered Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan ... Please.

Throughout my 18 years growing up in a Korean home in Korea, life for many of us was all about individual winning. Just as a brief example: Every time we took a test, the teacher would post the top 10 grades by name and score. Everyone knew who the top scorers at school were. Students never shared notes, and never studied together, nor worked on projects together. Moreover, I am sure that there are many, many environments in the U.S. where families and whole communities emphasize group well-being over fighting for the top seat or prize. Stout needs to be more sensitive to her tendency to overgeneralize about cultures she has not studied or lived in. I hope she doesn't have patients of East Asian descent.

-- Sukyong Suh

I thought this article was fascinating. I've long thought that we worship sociopaths and sociopathic behavior in the West. We tend to admire people who can take without blinking. Until now, we've been reluctant to survey the damage wrought privately by these people, however. If we did, we might have to give up our cheap stuff. I've also thought that politics and the Republican Party specifically (at this point in time) have been safe harbors for sociopaths (paging Wolfie, Dick, Rummy and, most especially, Dubya). Perhaps one day, our society will recognize these sick people for who and what they are.

-- K.E.

What Martha Stout appears to be suggesting is that the sociopath is defined by his or her acts, and can be most often identified by some form of malevolency. This doesn't address the question of whether sociopathy might not exist independently of overt markers -- it assumes that sociopaths not only are morally featureless but are inclined to act out in some fashion.

I've often wondered whether there might just as easily exist any number of variations on that particular personality trait that might never manifest, or only in situations of duress, where a certain kind of high-level practicality might be needed. In other words, Ed Gein, Audie Murphy and Bartleby the Sociopath might be neighbors in her J. Crew world. In this light, sociopathy of one form or another might be far more common than Stout suggests, and it might make greater sense to create a gradation scale of some sort that helps future investigators decide what in fact actually distinguishes those with a conscience from those without, and perhaps serves to better define both.

-- Henry C. Beck

So, this author published her first book about recovered memories, dissociative disorders and multiple personalities -- all debunked, often in Salon, as iatrogenic hysteria. And now she wants us to believe that 25 out of every 100 people are clinically sociopathic, lacking any capacity for remorse or human pity? Please. People are so much more complicated than that. We may not contain multiple personalities, but we do contain multitudes, and the true motivation for abuse may be much more complex and elusive than a catch-all diagnosis. When Stout diagnoses abusive people as "sociopathic" or asks us to believe that upward of 4 percent of humanity are sociopaths, I just think she has been watching too much "Buffy."

-- Sara Rosenbaum

I concur with the author's findings. I would go so far as to state that perhaps the figure is as high as 6 percent.

I dated a sociopath. The "nicest" man you ever met -- goes out of his way to make people feel comfortable -- and the most manipulative, amoral, deceitful bastard you can imagine. He would lie without a qualm, look at you, in your eye, and lie.

Seemingly has no conscience, no compassion, and any good thing he does for anyone has a personal benefit tied in. Worse yet, he used people as props. Little figures on a chessboard that he would move around as he pleased.

It seems hereditary. The family is Republican, wealthy, with good old "conservative" Christian values -- yet they all seem to share a fundamental lack of compassion, or ability to empathize. It's so weird.

We were engaged for four years and lived together for three. Although there was never anything overt, my health declined, my mind seemed feeble, and my social network vanished. When I woke up and took a look at the detritus of my life, I was flummoxed. I ended the relationship and cut off all contact.

Yet for some reason, I reached him on a level that no one else did, because without giving him the slightest encouragement, he needed to please me. Perhaps because I saw through him to an extent that no one else ever has.

Now I'm better than ever. As will happen in the aftermath of trauma, being aware of what you have been through, facing it and making a conscious decision to grow from it, yields tremendous gains. My health has rebounded, my creativity and sense of humor are sharper, yet more nuanced, as is my profound appreciation for all my blessings. Realizing that what he did was not about me was the key.

Please withhold my name as I am writing a book about him.

-- Name withheld by request

Next page: Many of our leaders seem to fit that diagnosis, especially George W. Bush