It is clear to me that a great many literary figures are sociopaths, from Star Trek's Khan to Sherlock Holmes and Dracula.
Thomas makes the case that sociopaths are useful to society and may be no more harmful than empathetic people, and she makes some good points. However, given her descriptions of her own needs and desires, I get the feeling that this may be partly a con. She tells us that she does nothing except in her own interests unless it is an impulse (sociopaths are impulsive). So how does the book serve her interests?
Nevertheless, I'm very glad to have read the book. It was fascinating, and in the end I had empathy for an author who has none herself.