Confessions of a Sociopath: A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight

This is a very interesting read, though it requires the reader to see through the author's own self-manipulation.This author epitomizes the child abuse victim’s narrative. Her father was violent and abusive to her and his other children, and her mother was a self-absorbed, dysfunctional enabler, and both of them sometimes provided adequately for their children and sometimes did not. She describes in the book a few violent episodes and painful dysfunction, such as her father beating her and how he left punching marks on the doors and walls of the house, and yet says point blank that she was never abused. This author swears to the tune of so much repitition it appears she is trying to convince herself more than others of the following two things: 1) that her parents were amazing, did a wonderful job, and loved their children truly, and 2) that she herself was born defective, a sociopath, not normal. This is the stereotypical, worldwide and extremely common child abuse victim’s narrative: idolize the abusers, blame yourself. The child abuse victim will blame herself and happily create a story that she was herself to blame for the mistreatment, claiming to herself and to others that she was “born bad” or “born wrong” – all to protect her image of her parents as wonderful and loving. All children in abusive homes do this, and many carry the story throughout their adulthoods too. They must do this to enable bonding with their abusers at their young age, and as a result of needing to bond with their abusers, they develop a certain set of skills – particularly, they develop a lack of empathy, an inability to connect with others, and manipulation, having to effectively shut down parts of their humanity to tolerate the abuse and to form trauma bonds to their attackers despite it.Yet this author is clearly entirely unaware of how she has herself mentally bought the age-old and tired child abuse story. She is oblivious to how common and normal her self-story is; indeed, I fully believe that she fully believes her own story – a story built throughout her life and strengthened, first to protect her image of her parents in her child’s mind, and then to avoid dealing with her painful past in her adult mind.Critical reviewers here have rightfully doubted that this adult victim of child mistreatment is truly a sociopath, hypothesizing instead that she is narcissistic. This is also what I perceived as well. Narcissistic Personality Disordered (NPD) people are hungry for attention, low in empathy, manipulative and malicious, and enjoy feelings of immense superiority to others. Naturally, with so many people being diagnosed with NPD (a disorder known to often result from child abuse/neglect as a coping mechanism) a diagnosis or a self-concept of NPD no longer offers one the special attention or feelings of superiority any longer. So it makes sense that this woman has labeled herself a sociopath – and then sought out a professional with the explicit goal to be diagnosed as a sociopath after having spent years studying up on the disorder herself first – to provide herself with a stronger self-story that would reinforce the child abuse victim’s narrative of “I was born defective, like this, and my parents are loving and wonderful to have so carefully raised little defective me.”Indeed, this story insulates her from having to face the harsher reality that is much more likely and far less rare than being born a sociopath: that her family’s abuse, violence, and dysfunction directly caused her to develop narcissistic traits in order to first cope with the abuse, and then to avoid dealing with the painful aftermath. Even brain scans have shown that child abuse produces many of the same neurological effects one sees in a psychopath’s brain, whether or not those abused do show psychopathic traits/acquire a diagnosis of the disorder. For this reason, brain scans do not at all answer the question of the chicken or the egg.But this author does not – and will not – realize any of this. Because to realize this would defeat the purpose of her self-story in the first place.Some people judged this book as boring. I think they took the words of a traumatized and admittedly mentally disordered person in obvious denial (“my father beat me" and "I was never abused") at face value, and failed to exercise any of their own analytical or critical thinking skills in the process of reading. I found this book fascinating. It is thought-provoking in many ways.Many of the critical reviewers on this page intuitively saw that this woman was deceiving herself, but I think they misguessed at the motives and reasons for her own mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance. The author prides herself on her self-proclaimed talents for manipulating others, but this author is most adept and skilled at self-manipulation.Fascinating read. The only reason I gave it four stars instead of five, is because this woman intends to procreate child victims for herself. She idolizes her abusive and dysfunctional parents and the way they “raised” her. Conveniently, she has self-diagnosed and decieved a professional into diagnosing her with an untreatable problem; now she is off the hook for being accountable to deal with her symptoms, just as any Narcissistic Personality Disordered person would most prefer in her life. It is her future child victims for whom I have sympathy.

Confessions of a Sociopath is both an extraordinary memoir and a contribution to many fields (psychology, sociology, ethics and law to name a few). It may also transpire to be a landmark text for years to come. For one thing, it is surely rare for a sociopath to seek out the appropriateness of that diagnosis in their own case. It is even rarer for that diagnosis, once confirmed, to be not only personally embraced but publicly advertised (that the author was at time of writing a high-functioning law professor with ostensibly a lot to lose from this disclosure further underlines the point). Autobiographical odyssey and academic research are melded in an always engaging and accessible style. The latter is itself unsettling in light of the subject matter, and provides the icing (in Australia we don’t say `frosting’!) on a very substantial cake.Thomas blithely validates the widespread perception that `[s]ociopaths don’t include elements of guilt or moral responsibility in their mental stories, only self-interest and self-preservation’ (pp.15-16). She does not, she says, `assign moral values to [her] choices, just cost-benefit’ (p.16). The impacts of this mode of operating can be devastating for others, and many casualties are revealed as she conveys the disturbing details. Avowed relish in `ruining’ people (to which topic a chapter is devoted) relates the `fine art’ this involves. We are not only told but have clearly spelt out the extent to which `[m]anipulation was [her] default mode of relating with people’ (p.152) and the picture she paints is in no way pretty. That `delight’ can be derived not only from the downfall of others but from the knowledge of responsibility for bringing it about is chilling in ways which are consistently reinforced throughout the text. Weirdly and ironically, this is that rare book which is simultaneously both highly readable and extremely hard to read.To the extent that the author was propelled to clarify her own psychological status, however, there are also indications that it is sometimes hard to be herself. This is notwithstanding high intelligence, a kind of charisma (how else is the sociopath trusted so readily?) and the outward trappings of success (another unsettling assertion is that `there are a lot of careers for which the skill set of a sociopath is particularly well-tailored’; p.178). Thomas confirms a genetic component to her condition but `nature and nurture’ can intersect in surprising and often confounding ways. As a therapist (but in any case) I was interested in the detail she provided of her early years and influences. Which rocked my world. Her first reference to her family of origin is to dispel assumptions that she is `bad because [she] was treated badly or raised badly’ (a misconception, she says, that is `somewhat disappointing to people…When people ask me whether I had a bad childhood, I tell them that it was relatively unremarkable’ (p.43).But emphasis should be on the word `relatively’ rather than `unremarkable’ (when neither word is revealed to be accurate). In the very next chapter she self-describes as the middle child of `a violent and shaming father and an indifferent, sometimes hysterical mother’ (p.64). The related occasions of indifference are as disturbing as those of violence; being left in a park as a child with her brother is palpably painful even to read (`The moment when you stop running after your parents’ car is the moment that you lose hope’; p.62). Thomas speaks of recurring dreams of loathing for her father in which she would be `killing him with [her] bare hands’ (p.67).Yet towards the end of her extraordinary memoir (and `[w]ith the benefit of adult hindsight’) she pays tribute to her parents’ `remarkable’ ability to `strike a proper balance’ for her; contending that while she has `hated them sometimes’, she has also `loved them the way one loves the sky or the ocean or home’ (p.286). If the latter line emerges as deeply anomalous in light of the content and character of the disorienting tale she tells, it also evokes pathos in attesting to the drive to attachment which compels children to their care-givers (even, and sometimes especially, when the nature of the affective bond between them has been suboptimal - to use psychology speak - to say the least).Perhaps most disorienting of all, however, is Thomas’s claim – which in this case has the ring of authenticity – that while sociopaths are indeed disturbingly different from the `norm’, there are senses in which the norm and the `variant’ also overlap - `Recently I have been thinking that the real problem is not in getting `normal’ people to believe that we’re better than they think, but in getting them to see that the `normal’ ones are actually worse than they believe themselves to be’ (p.294). Should Confessions of a Sociopath be recommended – even required – reading for Psychology 101? My vote is yes.

Having read Martha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door and Robert D.Hare's Without Conscience I was hoping to find the golden triangle of enlightenment for the psycho/sociopathic disorder, alas this fell well short and I barely learn't anything from this self proclaimed insiders point of view. Three hundred and two pages of dull repetitive self aggrandising prose rendered me listless and thoroughly bored, probably much the same way a sociopath would feel most of the time. Page two hundred and nineteen really sums it up 'I wish I could tell more stories of ruining people, but they're the stories most likely to get me sued' This from an author who chooses to remain anonymous, if so then why not use anonymous characters ? I can highly recommend the first two books, and if you feel the need to consume more sociopathic information then give this a go, but I doubt you'll be any the more wiser for it.

I got this after seeing it promoted in an airport, what a mistake! I made it 42% of the way through before giving up.The author likes to tell you they are intelligent, good looking and charming, and perhaps in person they are, but that doesn't translate to an interesting book. It's dull, bounces all over the place and is just the ramblings of someone who has had a tragic upbringing.

If you didn’t already know it....Everybody needs to wake up to the fact that we aren’t all alike and that while some of us lie awake wondering how we can do better and be better and help the world...others lie awake wondering how they can make other people’s lives as hellish and tortuous as possible, and getting deep pleasure when they achieve it. This was a revelation to me, as I truly used to believe everyone was essentially “good”.....Now I realise that some people can’t be helped (and don’t want to be) so it’s best just to get as far away as possible from these people. If you can’t do that, there’s other ways to cut them out, by communicating as little as possible and sharing nothing of yourself to them, or making sure you’re with somebody else for support if you HAVE to be around them etc. This book should be on the curriculum!

Contradictory, manipulative and glib. The hallmarks of a sociopath/psychopath/antisocial personality disordered individual.Gave me the creeps when about a quarter of the way through I realised I was being manipulated. (Not sure why I would ever have thought the author was capable of being sincere!) Stopped reading.I would recommend reading about this disorder by an expert such as Robert Hare rather than a sufferer.

Very interesting book, though can't really be sure if the author is an actual sociopath, just a narcissist (which she is), emotionally damaged from childhood, or a sociopath wannabe.After watching her on Dr Phil - one of the very rare interviews she did- she seemed to be trying to hide her unease with his questions under a bit of a façade, as if trying to convince him and herself that she is truly a sociopath.From the book she describes sociopaths as cold-hearted, but then in the last chapters she makes an effort to explain that the love (she is strangely able to feel), is one of the few things that kept her from being worse than she could have been justifying her ability to love as that sociopaths just love differently. I have come across sociopaths before and though this is still a subject that requires a lot of development and research, sociopaths do not love, really. If she is, then I would say she might be part of the lighter shade of sociopathy, which her very surprised close friend commenting on Dr Phil about not knowing this side of the author at all, convinced me of.The book is really easy to read, it's well written and the author has done a lot of research on the sociopath subject.It sort of glorifies sociopathy, the author does mention some bad things she had to face due to her alleged sociopathy maybe she really has done worse and she doesn't mention them for legal reasons... but it really felt more narcissistic description of herself than sociopathic. I would say she was emotionally damaged at childhood and convinced herself it was better not to feel anything and grow self-centred and selfish... Since I don't know the author, can't really confirm my suspicion.Overall some of the traits she describes exist in many non-sociopathic people, as people can be selfish, self-centred, manipulative, not feel sorry for killing a hamster like creature, have a certain degree of dishonesty, be rational and still have some degree of empathy, or feeling (love).It's still worth a read for those interested in this subject, even to just figure out/debate whether this author really is as sociopathic as she claims.__________________At the moment of writing this review I hadn't yet finished the book- so after I finished I got to say that I was annoyed with lots of fallacies she wrote, as in associations of the sort -so and so said that geniuses are misunderstood people, sociopaths are misunderstood, therefore all sociopaths are misunderstood genius... - What???!! That really put me off. I understand she can be manipulative, but that made me question her intelligence which at least until those parts I really thought she had.“ “How Do You Raise a Prodigy?” Andrew Solomon speaks of a prodigy as” a monster that violates the natural order” (…)”“Perhaps if we treat sociopathic children more like prodigies and less like monsters, they might direct their unique talents (…)” And there are plenty more examples like that. She picks lines of researchers and studies that say something she wants to attribute to sociopaths and have no relationship whatsoever and then simply puts them together surreptitiously as if they were intrinsically linked!! That made no sense to me, which really is a shame since I actually liked the book and it would have been good to be able to take her somewhat seriously, instead of suspecting she might be a bit delusional, self- aggrandisement apart.The other thing was that in the last chapter she seems to try to stimulate empathy from the readers, for the sociopaths as "we are not as bad as the world makes us, so be nice to us" type of speech. I always thought sociopaths didn't/don't care for/require empathy of any sort. And I'm yet to meet sociopaths who don't take pleasure in being destructive to others around, to make me feel any empathy for them regardless of any factuality in them being the “spawn of the devil” which I doubt they are - unless they are a fiction character which she also talks about.It's almost like a rattlesnake asking to be treated nicely for not being able to be nothing but poisonous and bite anyone that comes closer. Difference is rattlesnakes don't have free will.A harmless sociopath? - perhaps that's what they call “high functioning”, but never met one except in fiction which was a bit my posture with reading this book.Still doubt she is what she claims, she sounds more a narcissist than sociopath, but enjoyed reading it for the most part.