A lot of mixed stuff in here. Misused terminology. Purposeful vilifying of 'sociopathy'. Basically a witch hunt.
Liars are not necessarily sociopaths. And sociopaths are not necessarily liars, at least perceived ones. Besides... Anyone, want to be a fighter pilot? Traders? Politicians? Bankers? Brain surgeons? Autopsists, anyone? There is a very good chance, according to some researchers that people of high-pressure professions would share a number of traits common to what is listed here as classical sociopaths' sympthoms. And a lot more of sympthoms unlisted here. There is no need to paint the world in black and white. There's plenty of grey around. And almost no one is the designated saint.
Very bland and biased account about perceived sosiopaths. Actually, I have my doubts as to the veracity of the author's diagnoses in many of the cases. There are conmen and criminals who don't have all the socipathical trappings. And criminal disorders and sociopathy are not synonimical.
Another thing that I didn't like is that there is no whatsoever consideration of why and how people become that way. Are they born so? Does something need to happen to them along the way? Does one have to have all the listed sympthoms to be a sociopath? Or can one, for instance, be deficient in expressing their emotions but still not a conman? I would guess they definitely could. People have the tendency to do the unespected stuff all the time.
I'm not sure what kind of doubts I should entertain after reading this book: either ones on psychological capabilities of the author (which seem extremely lopsided not to say deficient) or on whether the author night be an undercover sociopath herself?
The stories in the book seem so convoluted, which makes one think either of Asperger's or of unprofessional editing. Or of their maybe, just maybe being a bit untruthful. You know, as they say, liars love to embellish their stories with all sorts of detail. Of course I'm kidding at this point, but sitll there may be found a grain of truth in a joke.