The Sociopath and the blame game

A review of Martha Stout’s 'The Sociopath Next Door' 

We think of sociopaths as violent, although most are quite ordinary with disorders undetected. I realised her lack of conscience is deflected and masked quite well with a mastery of the blame game.

Masters of this game tend to be quite calm and composed when they contend with equally equipped opponents, but ironically, they are flustered and irritated when they contend with non-masters or those who do not understand how the game is played.

She strutted into a meeting without the ingredients and was battered, admonished, and embarrassed in front of her peers. Her brashness was stripped, and her ego was dented.

A phone call subsequently indicated the game was imminent, and twenty-four hours later, it is in full swing, but with a non-master. Thirty-four hours into the event, she is all flustered and irritated.

My question is, does she hone her skills when playing the game with a master or non-master!

Martha offers clues to arm against the sociopath, suspect flattery, and recognise pity play. Above all, she explains how to recognise and deal with the aberration when the sociopath beckons. 

But has Ms Stout dealt with a deviation infused with a religious command? 

Take, for example, a politically positioned and patient Muslim lass who gets with an economically positioned non-Muslim to bring his assets home to Baithulmal. When money does not have the sort of divine omnipotence we attribute to commerce, we are looking at secular vocabulary that is sordid but has divine implications in the doctrine, not to mention that it would baffle even the psychologist in Stout. 

I am saying that with her influence, she could cut a deal with the religious authorities with a view to a portion of the proceeds for reeling the man in, and she would be good to go economically with a ‘place up there’ to boot. To quote someone somewhere, “the long loneliness comes to an end within time and beyond time." 

I am saying that I am on the girls' side, all four of them, and if the Muslim lass's program goes forward towards her "logical conclusion," I saw it coming, and she will have me bearing on her. She will!

Words, Tommy Peters

Post rant: When the split occurred last year, W asked me if the staff knew the details of C's departure. Speaking for myself, I replied that I did not have the data but got the sense that the partners, on the whole, were collectively driving the ship with a single voice that was behind the decisions made. He asked for my take on his elevation to MP. I paraphrased Malcolm X on the US Presidential, who said, “The only way people would run towards a fox is when you show them a wolf.” He asked if I was implying that he (W) is the ‘fox’ in the equation. I said yes. He said I am right about one thing. I do not have the data.

On another occasion, we discussed Reagan’s antelope-chipmunk style of leadership (analogised by Gingrich), which I said is more or less C’s modus. He hunts antelopes and zebras while delegating the chipmunks' downline. For Reagan, his antelopes were big issues. Break up the Soviet Union, enrich America, and renew American culture. His vice president was tasked with dividing the chipmunks, overseeing the administration and ensuring it was funded. I told W that C is a lion focusing on larger issues. If he hunts chipmunks, he will starve. He had to hunt antelopes and zebras to build up the operation, and the proposed merger was a zebra. Hunting big prey is akin to fine-tuning the brand, marketing, and building a clientele. 

On tech, W said the new iPhone I held was a daft design compared to his Nokia because it did not have a keyboard. Another partner (N) said it was as slippery as a soap bar, and he would not be caught dead with it. Yet another (R) said that although the emails were readable, the attachments were not (similar to the Blackberrys he held, by the way). I told W, N and R that they would drop like ten-pins and crave the iPhone, and when they did, I promised that I would not laugh or erupt into an 'I told you so' firestorm. 

On the firm, I told W that it is the fusion of two forces: Brilliance and Power, where sharp minds and sharp elbows are joined at the hip. Sharp minds attract resources through intellectual acumen, while sharp elbows secure and sustain the firm's position of influence. This symbiotic relationship enables Brilliance to bolster Power, and conversely, Power maintains the firm's privileged standing, creating a space where Brilliance attracts resources and continues to flow. This fusion elevates the firm to a unique echelon in the legal landscape, working even with the Malaysian government, which relies on its expertise to refine and create progressive legal frameworks. I asked W which of the two forces he belonged to.