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 realized her lack of conscience is deflected and masked quite well with a mastery of the blame game.

Masters of this game come out quite calm and composed when they contend with those equally equipped, but ironically they are flustered and irritated when they contend with non-masters or those who do not have a clue of how the game is played.

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

A phone call subsequently indicated the game is 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 the game is played with a master or with a non-master!

Martha offers clues to arm against the sociopath, suspect flattery and recognise pity play. Above all, she explains when the sociopath beckons, how to recognise and deal with the aberration 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 with a view to bringing his assets home to Baithulmal. Thing is, 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. 

What I’m saying is that with her influence she could cut a deal with the religious authorities with a view towards a portion the proceeds for reeling the man in and she is 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." 

What I'm saying is that I'm on the side of the girls and if her program erupts to its 'logical conclusion" I saw it coming. 

Words, Tommy Peters

Post rant: When the split occurred last year W asked me if the staff were aware of the details of C's departure. Speaking for myself I replied that I don't have the data but get the sense that the partners on the whole were collectively driving the ship with a single voice that is behind the decisions made. He asked of 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'm right about one thing. I don't 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, renew American culture. His vice president was tasked with dividing up the chipmunks, for example, overseeing the administration and ensuring they were funded. I put it to W that C is a lion who focuses on the larger issues. If he hunts chipmunks, he will starve. He must 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 up clientele. 

On computers, W said the new iPhone I was holding was daft design compared to his Nokia because it did not have a keyboard.