I found myself surprisingly disappointed with this book. Like them or not, psychopaths are fascinating people, and so understandably, I was expecting to be fascinated . I think what threw me of was the title, especially the use of the word whisperer. We are all familiar with the terms horse whisperer and dog whisperer. Now I don't mean to equate humans with animals but I was expecting a book on a man able to probe deep into the psychopathic mind and find a way to, if not cure them, at least improve their lives. Sadly that wasn't the case. The author stated almost right from the start that psychopaths are virtually incurable. A pretty frightening statement considering he tells us that there are over 29,000,000 psychopaths worldwide ! Almost the entire book was spent on the many many ways the author has gone about on how to label whether or not some is actually a psychopath. And I don't mean to be overly critical, but he did it a manner that I just found so incredibly self absorbed. The most used words in this book are probably Me, I, and mine. He just went on and on stating his own accomplishments. It wasn't till nearly the very end of the book that he briefly mentions a group in Wisconsin that might have actually come up with a way to treat and even cure psychopaths. Frankly, I couldn't wait to finish this book. ( )

One of the more chilling books on Psychopathy I read. The writer did a pretty good job in writing cohesive subject-level profiles that SO concisely describe my experiences being around psychopaths and their ways of relating to the world (and they will deny it). The action language is so decoupled from the emotion that carries it forward. The author talks about Guiteau's vanity:

Guiteau felt that menial work was beneath him. His former wife reported that he looked down upon people who did such work. He believed he should be a published author, but he failed to put in the time and effort in his writing, instead plagiarizing text from others. As an orator, he enjoyed the crowd’s attention but copied his religious speeches from others. He dreamed of marrying rich, traveling the world, and living the high life, even though he had no reasonable plans to acquire such wealth. His former wife noted that:

"He was always anxious to live so far beyond his means. It was always “Nothing but the best,” the best place and among the very best first-class people, prominent people, people well known, so far as position and wealth were concerned. That was his great object—always to be among them and to live at the most expensive places and to have the best accommodations; he was not satisfied to live in plain style anywhere." (pp. 85–86)

A note found in his pocket when he was arrested for shooting President Garfield provides additional evidence of this trait:

"To the White House,

The President’s tragic death was a sad necessity, but it will unite the Republican Party and save the Republic. Life is a flimsy dream, and it matters little when one goes. A human life is of small value. During the war thousands of brave boys went down without a tear. I presume the President was a Christian and that he will be happier in Paradise than here. It will be no worse for Mrs. Garfield, dear soul, to part with her husband this way than by natural death. He is liable to go at any time any way. I had no ill will toward the President. His death was a political necessity. I am a lawyer, a theologian, and a politician. I am a Stalward of the Stalwarts. I was with General Grant and the rest of our men in New-York during the canvass. I have some papers for the press, which I shall leave with Byron Andrews and his co-journalists at No. 1,420 New-York Avenue, where the reporters can see them. I am going to jail. CHARLES GUITEAU."

A morbid follower offered to pay $1,000 for Guiteau’s body following his execution. Guiteau replied, “I think I ought to bring more than that.… Perhaps some other fellow will offer $2000, then I can pay my debts, and if I get a new trial, that miserable Corkhill can’t bring on a lot of fellows just to swear how much I owe them.” The prosecutor, Corkhill, had subpoenaed numerous individuals who testified that Guiteau owed them money.

During his time in jail, Guiteau dictated his autobiography. The man who took the notes in shorthand referred to Guiteau’s vanity as “literally nauseating.” ( )

Easy to read. Details the authors years spent studying psychopaths in prison.,using MRI results. Shows his passion for finding ways to try to diagnose and treat psychopaths . ( )

I was hoping to learn more about the science behind psychopathy, but this is a hagiography by and about a very pompous man. I had to skip through so many self-congratulatory pages about high salaries and famous connections in order to find anything interesting. ( )

In this fascinating scientific exploration into the biological differences between psychopaths and non-psychopathic people, Kiehl discusses his own dealings with psycopaths in prisons. Kiehl is known as the first person to use an MRI in a prison to study the differences between psychopaths and non-psychopathic prisoners.

Kiehl would determine psycopathy by interviewing prisoners and then rating them 1-3 on a list of 20 attributes. A score of 30 indicates a psychopath. Approximately 20% of inmates were psychopaths. A balanced number of people who rate high and low on the psychopathy scale would be chosen for the experiments.

Once the study subjects were put in the MRI, they would be shown pictures of three types: a morally neutral photo (perhaps an ice cream cone), a morally ambiguous photo (perhaps a wrestling match), and a immoral act (perhaps someone placing a bomb in a car). The prisoners would then rate one a 1-5 scale how immoral the picture was. When a person who scores low on the psychopathy scale sees an immoral picture, his limbic system lights up; but a psychopath's limbic system remains eerily dark.

In his book, Kiehl also discusses findings other people have made about psychopaths - like the fact that they have no startle reflex. This mixture of scientific, psychological, and personal narrative make for a fantastic book.

I enjoyed this book quite a bit - especially the ethical implications of whether a psychopath deserves an insanity plea because their brains function differently than "normal" people and they are unable to physiologically respond the "right" way to the thought of immoral activity. Kiehl himself longs for a day when psychopathy will be caught earlier in childhood, so that they can receive treatment rather than incarceration. But the issue is quite an ethical dilemma. Where do you draw the line on the insanity plea? ( )