Top critical review
Seems rather manipulative himself!
on 22 September 2017
Entertaining but poor if you want to seriously study the topic of psychopaths. Ironically the book seems rather psychopathic itself, and is essentially shallow, manipulative, and very unscrupulous in many ways as I somehow get the impression that the author is himself.
With a quick google search you can read Robert Hare himself expressing doubt about Jon Ronson's journalistic integrity and honesty, and also expressing doubt as to the accuracy of other things he wrote as well. I couldn't help getting the feeling that he plays up to a kind of naive and nonthreatening nice guy persona (like Louie Theroux he disarms people with his apparent innocence) when at the end of the day he is a rather ruthless and dishonest journalist.
The entire premise of the mission to root out psychopaths in the highest positions in society is bizarre as he goes around reading to people character traits from the psychopathy check list and asking people to just tell him verbally, point blank, if they possess these particular traits, in some instances for example saying ‘how would you feel if you saw a picture of a face blown apart’ then basing his assumptions as to whether the man in question is a psychopath on the interviewees answers. Although it seems as if hes building towards a climax at which the whole case will be blown wide open its very halfhearted, and fizzles out, certainly not a serious attempt to research the subject of psychopathy, and will be interesting only to those -like the author himself apparently- who have never properly studied the subject before.
The 911 truth thing was strange, as I am not sure what it had to do with psychopaths (though much of the book has nothing to do with psychopaths) but as he talks about the 911 truth movement’s lack of empathy I couldn’t help feeling like he was somehow attempting to subliminally conflate the 911 truth movement and its members with psychopathy!
Whether you believe 911 was an inside job or not, in true fox news style he chooses to focus on the biggest loon and nutcase he can find and attempts to associate the entire 911 truth movement and their arguments with that one man, and some other anti-Zionists on an internet forum while completely ignoring the actual evidence and thousands of qualified architects and engineers who speak out rationally against the official story.
Like I say rightly or wrongly whether you agree or not with 911 truth, a good journalist should not simply cherry pick the information that suits him and should present a balanced perspective of both opposing points of view.
I would suggest everyone do their own research with regards to AE911 truth and make your own mind up, but it’s truly bizarre how much of AE911 truths arguments he chooses to omit and utterly ignore.
Many people have gone after the 911 truth movement but they at least seem to actually willing to engage with the opposing sides argument. His behavior would suggest he knowingly and purposefully avoids engaging with the actual issues and instead just resorts to ad hominem attack tactics, basically dismissing the entire movement as a bunch of loons, while focusing on debunking the craziest theories that the extremist elements of the movement have to offer.
I dont think the man is anywhere near as ignorant or naive as he portrays himself either on the subject of psychopaths or AE911 truth.