I don't think he should've used the word sociopath. It already has a popularly accepted definition, and the concept that he's trying to represent doesn't fit well with it. If you want to read about real sociopaths, go somewhere else.
My first impression is that the author is on treacherous philosophical ground. He seems distrustful of "group morality" (incidentally, I would argue that morality is inherently a function of groups) yet claims more sociopaths is a "good" thing. But in what sense does he mean "good"? As defined by the group morality he finds questionable elsewhere?<p>This sort of argument leads to a sort of self contradiction similar to "everything is relative" (in what frame do you evaluate "everything is relative"? Surely not a global, objective one.) If, more charitably, we assume it's not morality, per se, that he questions so much as a sheeplike adherence to it, that's fine, but it's also a bit of a false dichotomy (you're either slavish and unthinking, or a sociopath).<p>Further, the notion that sociopaths "take responsibility" for their subjective morality seems dubious. It seems just as likely to me that the moral thought of this group is mostly limited to post hoc rationalization.
he's taking the terminology from this cartoon:<p><a href="http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/" rel="nofollow">http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/</a><p>so his choice of labels has a touch of irony and is a bit harsh. Basically, he's saying you can use more euphemistic labels -- self-actualizing; process-oriented; outward-focused/idealist, etc. -- but his labels represent the unvarnished truth, with a touch of bitchiness.
Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to read this whole thing right now. Some parts of it are looking rather good. I kind of wish he weren't using "losers" as one of his classifications, but perhaps if I knew more of the background, that would make more sense to me. We have to have words to sum up concepts and a lot of the meaning depends on how those words are used (kind of like some conversation I recall from elsewhere where someone asked "Is 'special' the new 'retard'?"). But, so far, I especially like this point:<p><i>So yes, this entire edifice I am constructing is a determinedly amoral one. Hitler would count as a sociopath in this sense, but so would Gandhi and Martin Luther King.</i>
tldr; herd mentality will ebb and flow, but there will always be some sheep on the edges with their own moral compass. some good, some bad. but the herd perceives them all the same.