Skip to main content

Funny serious psychopathy

During the panel session at our Guardian masterclass on science writing, the excellent author M. G. Harris recommended Jon Ronson's The Psychopath Test. I had already read and enjoyed The Men who Stared at Goats (even though Professor Brian Josephson assures me I gave too much attention to the 'staring at goats' issue in my book Extra Sensory), so had no hesitation on buying this book on M. G.'s recommendation - and it is even better.

The book starts with a mystery - a strange, expensively produced book that is being sent to a number of academics. No one knows what it means, or who has written it. Ronson solves this mystery, which leads him to taking the plunge into what he describes as the 'madness industry'. It might seem this is a subject that couldn't produce much humour, but what Ronson does so well is brings out the essential human funny bits, while not holding back on some of the surprising and sometimes horrific realities.

Whether he is dealing with a man who apparently is in a secure unit because he pretended to be mentally ill to avoid a jail sentence and now can't get out, to the mind-boggling possibility that over a million US children are being medicated for a mental condition that most of the rest of the world doesn't think exists, the book is a wonderful set of revelations, all tied together in an effortless, page-turner style.

Like Louis Theroux on TV, you sometimes get the feeling that the author is being a touch manipulative, telling us just a bit too much of his own anxieties and feelings to get us engaged - but you can forgive Ronson, because these are just such good stories, so well told.

Is it all true? You could almost say some of this stuff is so weird you couldn't make it up. I think it probably is, even if coloured a little to make the story tell well. Take the plunge and you will meet some fascinating and scary people, understand a lot more about why mental health issues are so difficult to deal with (anything that is diagnosed by the percentage score on a checklist is, at least, worrying) and realise that whether you love or hate psychiatry, there were some prejudices you had that were wrong. Oh, and there are even Scientologists. (Who really hate psychiatry.) What's not to love. Great holiday reading.

Find out more at or
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you  


Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope