Enabling? or promoting understanding?

From a reader:

Your book's been a beacon I've given up searching for. It's really fascinating, to finally have the words to identify these abstract ideas I've had about myself for so, so many years. It's helped me organize certain behavioral traits which allowed me to organize my thoughts and my behavior more efficiently. There's a story behind all of this, but I would ultimately want you to know that your work and the numerous sources you've referenced have helped me understand myself. It was liberating. The fact that I can recognize my sociopathic traits has allowed me to release these limits I've placed upon myself in order to prevent any damage that may have gotten me noticed in a way that wouldn't suit my interests. 

Perhaps what your work has done most to impact my understanding of this condition is that I'm not the monster that the media has brainwashed people into thinking. And even if I am; that isn't all I have the capacity to be. I'm so much more.

So for all of what I've mentioned, you have my thanks.

Patrick O.

M.E.: I wonder, how would you respond to critics who might say that the book is bad because it empowers sociopathic individuals to embrace their evil behavior rather than fighting it?

The reader's response:

To answer your question,
This book isn't meant to treat or cure anything. What it does is it promotes a degree of self-awareness and provides information that enables the reader to make an informed decision of how to address this particular condition. Knowledge is power and by that idea alone, may correlate to how the book may empower an individual. However; to say it will certainly strengthen the evil and malicious intent of the individual is completely false. Sociopaths are people who simply view the world differently due to their psychological make-up. To me, it seems like such a dark declaration would translate to antagonizing a sociopathic individual for understanding why they have a harder time crying at a funeral than others. It's preposterous. I've done volunteer work at a hospital of my own accord without any incentives, donated to charities, and engaged in what many people I associate with (the majority empaths) would recognize as random acts of kindness. Whether or not I express humility or feel closer to being a saint won't change the fact that my actions were altruistic and ultimately benefited the lives of many others around me. That being said, some may be callous, others may be assertive, but that does not render the sociopathic individual incapable of having integrity and possessing the qualities needed to live in a much more empathetic world. The book did not make me a sinister individual or upset whatever spiritual balance of good and evil emotionally attuned people would be receptive to. It helped me recognize certain characteristics I possessed that damaged relationships that I made a conscious decision to return to and successfully repair. Finally, sociopaths have just as much of a choice to do good as empaths. So reading a book can do as much good to the individual as that person will allow.

Personal Note:
From my understanding of your question, I believe it stems from those numerous studies of sociopaths in the prison system that critics may have gone through before approaching your book. I believe what you're doing through it is a necessary step despite whatever condemnation your work may face. You're very wise to have chosen an alias for yourself considering how steep this uphill journey you're progressing through is; so I commend your foresight. It's a real shame that it may be quite quite some time until your interpretation of socipathy is accepted in the general populace, but until then, it seems assimilation will still be the ideal method of living in this world. You have a good day M.E.