I was more than a bit surprised at the glowing reviews for this book. The awkward writing will tip you off that this is a translated book. And the absence of references or a bibliography reveals a lack of scholarly rigor. I was first struck by a statement on page 68, made with a degree of certainty that is neither warranted nor substantiated by research. Citing the work of Manfred Bleuler, he writes "They do not become psychopaths because their mothers reject them but the other way around." This `they were born defective' theory appears to be derived from his ex post facto observations done at the Burghölzli asylum in Zurich. It is significant to note that his theory dovetails nicely with the work of his father, Eugen Bleuler, a proponent of eugenics in Nazi Germany. (see International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, 4 (1993) 133-148)
Contrast this with the results of several psychological studies ("Becoming Attached", Robert Karen, pg 60)
[...] Levy writing about adopted children who were deceitful and eerily detached; Bender reporting on psychopathic-like children who had been in a series of foster care and adoptive homes; Bakwin, Goldfarb, and Spitz warning about the psychiatric damage done to institutionalized babies [...] they unanimously found the same symptoms in children deprived of their mothers
I did find some value in the later chapters, where Guggenbuhl-Craig details the symptoms and includes references to the "compensated psychopath." It was in the final chapters, though, where he discusses the Jungian concept of the "shadow" and how there is a bit of psychopath in all of us, that I found most compelling.
Finally, I would caution that certainty in the field of psychological research will only come about when we can know the *complete* experience of a human being. Right now, most research (necessarily) relies heavily on the hearsay of caretakers. To claim objectivity from this group ignores the vested interest that they have in portraying themselves as loving and blameless.