Talk:Antisocial personality disorder

Archives (These Archives are still very relevant but the page was so long it was getting hard to open!)--Zeraeph 14:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Archive 1 Archive 2

Bedwetting

What the heck does bedwetting have to do with sociopathy, anyway? Is it because of a complete lack of control? Ratso 22:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, might relate to a lot of things, for example lack of inhibition or rebellion agaiunst what must surely be the primary social directive...or maybe a mineral deficiency that contributes to congenital Psychopathy/Sociopathy or results from environmentaly induced ASPD? What we DO know is that it is a consistently high statistical correlation between these conditions. Thoughts? Or better still, RESEARCH PAPERS?--Zeraeph 22:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bedwetting as a child has been observed time and again in case studies of people who are sociopaths, psychopaths, and those who have antisocial personality disorder. The reason for this is currently unknown; what is known is that the correlation between individuals who exhibit these disorders and individuals who have abnormally long periods of wetting their beds as children is statistically very high. Research of the cause is still ongoing. 72.186.143.34 20:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but WHERE are these research papers? --Zeraeph 23:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Statistically, and anecdotally, there does seem to be a significant correlation, however, just because everybody with measles has spots, doesn't mean everybody with spots has measles. --Zeraeph 14:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I worked for a guy who blamed his issues on a parent whom, he claimed, abused him because he wet the bed as a teenager - as told to me by a previous employer. With time, I was targeted, and long after resignation identified the guy's impressive ways and his subtle and highly abusive behaviors as symptomatic of primary psychopathy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.106.239 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because a child wets the bed does not mean they are a sociopath ( a very small percentage of bed wetters are sociopaths). but a sociopath will very likely wet the bed as a child (as in almost all of them do). Bedwetting caused by sociopathy is due to completely different problems in the brain than is general bedwetting. --User:Dr. Lecter M.D.

Potential warning signs

I'm editing out some unsourced and inaccurate statements that are potentially dangerous. I've made a similar edit before, but it was reversed. As an example, "Generally two-out-of-three indicates a very strong tendency towards sociopathy". This has not been shown in any research that I am aware of, and certainly none that was cited in the wikipedia article. In fact, there have been no studies that were capable of determining this. In fact, this sort of estimation is strongly cautioned against by researchers (with the exception of Hellman & Blackman (1966)), and it is very problematic to make predictions like this about a child without sufficient empirical evidence to back them up.

The crux of the issue is that all the current studies have looked at the histories of offenders. While it is true that it is common for offenders to have had these behaviours in childhood, that does not necessarily imply that one can predict who will have APD or become violent against persons based on them, any more than their childhood histories of breathing air indicate that air causes violence. There are large numbers of children who show all three symptoms (particularly in abused populations) who do not go on to develop APD.

Varsil 10:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are 100% right there Varsil, but I have no problem with the section as it now stands, with additional reference to these signs being cited in DSM. --Zeraeph 12:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Better differentiate between sociopathy and apd.

Why does it redirect to apd from sociopath, and yet sociopathy redirects to psychopathy? My friend is a sociopath, and I'm having trouble deciding whether this article would classify him as apd or as a psychopath.

I just know psychologists refuse to see him because he, like other sociopaths, manipulate psychologists. He says if he seems to care about somebody, it's either fake or he's just worried about the repercussions that will affect him. So on and so forth. 4.234.51.126 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You just spotted a redundant error there from a time when a lot of online misinformation crept in here and there was no seperate psychopathy article. I just plain fixed it now.

"Sociopath" was, in fact, a term devised to replace "Psychopath" because "psychopath" and "psychopathy" originally meant "general mental illness" and in some contexts and countries still does, to avoid, potentially disasterous confusion. These days some academic sources have slightly different meanings for the two terms, but they pretty much mean the same. Antisocial Personality Disorder was a failed attempt to replace psychopathy in the DSM IV that wound up generalising so much, begging so many questions and avoiding so many issues a lot of people would argue that it doesn't mean much at all, let alone psychopathy or sociopathy. --Zeraeph 19:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think some of you are confusing psycopath with sociopath, and they are not the same thing. A person with antisocial personality disorder IS referred to as a sociopath...A psychopath is a person who suffers from a psychotic disorder (like schizophrenia), although psychopath is not such a politically correct term. A sociopath is likely to be arrested and dealt with through the legal (forensic) system, whereas a person who suffers from psychosis will be treated in the mental health system most of the time. Psychosis symptoms are hallucinations and delusions. A sociopath can cotrol their behavior - but don't want to (refuse to take responsibility for their actions). That is why they end up in jail. A person with a psychotic disorder can not control their actions. The two are also totally different types of diagnosis. However people can have both at the same time. Psychosis is a chemical problem in the brain that can be treated by medication sometimes...Antisocial personality disorder is a set of learned behaviors and can not be treated effectively with medication.Annas7324 (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

He is clearly not confusing psychopath with sociopath. I think you should be required to quote sources in discussion. Psychopath is a term formerly used to describe sociopaths. http://www.springerlink.com/content/x0307m53u283640h/fulltext.pdf?page=1 While they are differentiated by some psychologists, it's not correct to say sociopaths and psychopaths are the same thing. They are both incurable and have unknown etiology. While they could be different, they present with the same set of symptoms. A schizophrenic disorder would not be consider a psychopaths because of the schizophrenia, it may be a comorbid psychological disorder. You should look up more reliable sources for your information. 02:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Schnarr 02:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Page problems

---

This page groups antisocial personality disorder and sociopaths together, which is a highly inaccurate generalization. Also, the article about psychopathy directs from a link about sociopathy (sociopathism) directly to this page. Now, not long ago there was a page about the distinction between the two. What happened to it? What gives? _{Added by BAM User:4.156.87.36 at 02:35, 2 December 2007}

Some professionals treat them as separate terms. Many treat them as synonymous. They're words. People make words up. They mean whatever people officially decide they mean. Doczilla 07:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

APD is a diagnosis. If someone meets the criteria of APS, then they have antisocial personality disorder. A psychopath is a personality type, usually with antisocial personality disorder. Unless a person has repeated violations with the law, and is irresponsible or deceitful, I wouldn't diagnosis them with APD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.3.202 (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is off topic....but your FRIEND is a SOCIOPATH?? that doesn't make sense. A sociopath is by definition incapable of being your friend in any real sense because he cannot establish any emotional connection with you in his mind. Also, if he thinks he is a sociopath, he most likely is not. It has been my experience that sociopaths almost always resist that diagnoses because it would risk exposure of the fact that they are completely soulless, which would alienate them from society, they also do not thin, there is anything wrong with them, but, conversely we are all weak creatures who succumb to our pathetic feelings. Your friend is more likely a narcissist probably high on the spectrum of such since he can even say that he does not care about others. It is very unlikely that a sociopath would share such a sentiment because they do not want others to know, they also do not confide in others. Narcissists, however, frequently have inner conflicts about their inability to care for others and will sometimes relate this sentiment out of an inner moral conflict about such lack of empathy. Basically, they still have a conscience left to them, however fractured or dampened it may be, which could lead them to have "friends" who they confide in that they THINK they are sociopaths. Again this is from my experience, I am not an authority or a psychologist by any means(yet). But my father is a diagnosed sociopath and most of my siblings are diagnosed narcissists. I myself am pretty normal though i do have some antisocial tendencies, and some narcissistic tendencies...but everyone has "tendencies".

If your friend is a narcissist, help him out, let him know he is not a sociopath and see if you can get him to go to a psychologist and work out his problems. He can care about people just like everyone else and his problem comes from a faulty perspective on life.

If your friend is a sociopath then you should remove him as much as would be possible from your life ASAP. Disregard your feelings for him as there is no reciprocity in your relationship, you are friends with a social vampire. At the first opportunity of gain for him he will destroy you. It sounds heartless, but I had to experience my fathers betrayal before i realized this, and i knew beforehand that he was a diagnosed sociopath and that he had destroyed the lives of others in my family. Don't let it happen to you.

sorry everyone for turning wikipedia into an advice column but there are few things with as much potential for harm as sociopaths who are "friends" or relatives. Dr. Lecter M.D.

may i suggest that for the public, we relate to popular movies and examples such as Jason, Halloween, Scream provide examples of sociopaths, whereas The Soloist shows an example of schizophrenia to contrast with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.95.84 (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts as the original poster. Admittedly I've never studied the topic, however, my understanding is that psychopathy was when someone lacked a sense of empathy with others etc but does not understand that there is something wrong with them. I thought that sociopathy was when someone suffered psychopathic lack of emotion but understood that there was something wrong with them. They continue to manipulate people for their own game because they enjoy it. If this definition or similar is correct, then sociopathy and psychopathy are different conditions, neither matching the definition for ASPD and they should therefore have their own articles. Psycopathy has its own article so I think that Sociopathy should be its own article and shouldn't be a redirect to ASPD. This seems logical to me seeeing as how the whole ASPD article seems to be about how poorly it defines both Psychopathy and Sociopathy. --Spuzzdawg (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Unable to be diagnosed before age 18.

My friend is age 15 like me, and he is diagnosed as a sociopath. Does this merely reflect an unofficial, yet possibly accurate, diagnosis? I don't know if this should be elaborated on in the article, or if this is just one specific question that only I would have so possibly just an answer here would do justice. 4.234.51.126 15:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Normally before the age of 18 the diagnosis given would be conduct disorder if it's accurate.Annas7324 (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is very serious and although you certainly can be sociopathic you cannot ethically be diagnosed before age 18 anyway (some cynical people say that's because ALL teenagers are roaring sociopaths anyway...but they grow out of it.

I don't really know what to say, but I think I do know someone who did. This is not somebody I would usually regard as a reliable source (a lot of his writing is wildly inaccurate, to put it politely), but, in this case, I really think he says everything I want to say to you friend, but better, and with more feeling, so would you print this out and give it to your friend? Because I think it is the best advice I can offer right now. Psychiatry as a Means of Social Control - Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) --Zeraeph 19:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think every mental "illness" or personality "disorder" is a bunch of bullshit made to control humans so in the long run we become more effectively efficient at producing and consuming. And guess who benefits the most from having billions of people do this?--PoidLover 09:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the brain is a perfect machine, incapable of malfunction or defect and impervious to damage? 63.196.84.93 21:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)David

I think he is. Poid, mental illnesses are very real. If you think that schizophrenia, OCD, and autism are fictitious constructs designed by 'the man' to promote consumerism I can't help you. Your best bet is to stay far away from any wikipedia articles pertaining to psychology. Better yet, approach someone with catatonic schizophrenia and try convincing them that their brain operates in the same way as everyone else's and that catatonic schizophrenia is adaptive to capitalistic interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.36.46 (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more PoidLover (though less so with your choice of words, but you have the right). In the past many disorders and mental illnesses didn't exist, most believed they were personality types; then many were created to account for human actions (and to line the pockets of those who "treat" them). Some examples: once, people were merely energetic and loud, now they have ADHD. Once, people were just shy, now they have Social Anxiety disorder. Once, children just rebelled against autority that they didn't agree with, now they have Oppositional Defiant Disorder (see above). (If Martin Luther King and other social activists were alive, they probably would be dignosed with something similar to this.) One, which I supposedly "have" is Attention Deficit Disorder, which means you have difficulty paying attention, usually, in class is where they seem to focus on this. Of course I had difficulty paying attention, they weren't teaching anything I was interested in, or even, for the most part, very likely to use in my life!!

Mental illnesses, on the other hand, seem to be more real, as they have been classified as such for much longer, but are still personality types in truth. Granted, they are dangerous, (to both the sufferer and others) and undesirable, but still are result of personality changes to adapt (poorly or well, depending on the illness) to certain situations. Control, as PoidLover said, seems to be the main purpose behind these disorders. If a behavior is undesirable to the mainstream public, as is the case with Oppositional Defiant Disorder, it is typical of doctors to label it as a disorder and attempt to be rid of it. I believe this practice infringes upon free will, to the point of doctors becoming legalized brainwashers.24.118.227.213 09:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally you do not get the diagnosis of sociopath unless you are violent and/or repeatedly break the law in which case you are being dealt with or controlled through the legal system (thankfully). I don't feel bad about putting a lable on a person who consistently breaks the law and has a blatant disregard for the people around them. Often these people are murderers, rapists, wife beaters and child molesters who are diagnosed with this disorder. Anyone who has it for real would never notice the symptoms in themselves - and if they did they would lie about it to make you trust them. Then when they got all they wanted or thought they could get out of you - they will dump you like yesterday's trash. They are people who do not care about anyone but themselves, and think they are above the law. These are people that generally hurt others, take advantage of others (lie, steel, cheat, con) and have no remorse. If you think it is wrong to label them - you obviously don't know one of them, or have not been victimized by one. I sincerely hope that we continue to identify people who are like this - because it keeps them behind bars so that we (the normal people) can be safe!Annas7324 (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The criteria used to diagnose mental disorders is just a way to classify symptoms so that the proper treatment or rehabilitation can be given. I work with many disabled children (autism, ADHD, ODD, etc.). It helps us to know the diagnosis because then we will know what the possible behaviors or traits are. We use that information to design unique educational programs based on the student's individual needs - so that the child will have the opportunity to get a good education just like their typically developing peers. ADHD and ODD kids used to be considered bad kids. We did not help them and many were often expelled or frequently suspended. Many of them became drop out statistics...and subsequently adult failures and burdens on society. Now that we can identify that they have a disability we can keep that from happening. So a label can be a good thing when it insures that a student will have academic success!Annas7324 (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The criteria regarding ADHD involves more than simply being "loud" or "energetic". It needs to occur in a manner that consistently causes detriment to a person's social/physical/academic development. Regardless of whether or not it is 'real' in that it is possible to quantify it, people who'se hyperactivity results in reduced performance in their life can benefit greatly from a diagnosis that pushes them in the right direction to treat the problem. Psychologists are well aware of the malliability of psychological traits/disorders - this is why the diagnostic criteria are constantly being revised and restructured. Again, I would suggest you attempt to convince a schizophrenic man that his experiences are a result of his "personality type" and that he can simply stop being schizophrenic if he really wanted to. Moreover, these diagnosis have little impact upon free will. Not only do most people with antisocials disorders neglect to even seek treatment, if they are, it's entirely confidential (provided you have an at least somewhat competent psychologist). It's not like these things are put on a government record that permits us to monitor every person with 'disorder x'. Sociopaths are pretty much free to keep their disorder and do as they please provided they don't actually break any laws. --66.253.36.46 (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the question is much more difficult than that. Sociopaths, or the personality traits they exhibit are thought to be caused by 50% genetics, and 50% cultural envoronment. NOT FAMILIAL ENVIRONMENT, CULTURAL (in humanity 4% of people are born with the potential to become sociopaths, in america almost all 4% will become sociopaths because of our self oriented culture which glorifies sociopathic tendencies. In India, however, only like .3 percent of people will become sociopaths because they have a very community oriented culture). THey also have typically solidified their sociopathic leanings by the age of 8 and are very diagnosable of themselves, the only problem with this is that pretty much all children exhibit a lot of very selfish tendencies (particularly in america) that they grow out of and could easily be mistaked for something they are not, this iit is generally considered unethical to attempt diagnosis before age 18, despite the fact that sociopathy is solidified into a persons psyche before they hit 3rd grade.

It is thought to be possible to become a sociopath after adolescence. You can develop sever narcissistic or antisocial personality traits, but not full blown sociopathy. Your friend could very well be a sociopath, and there are VERY clear ways of knowing well before he is 18, but by the time those signs were apparent to you in your life, he probably would either be in prison, or if he is one of the brilliant types have screwed you over personally and you would still probably not suspect him.

Oppositional defiance is very rare and is unfortunately used to describe what is more probably natural, though inconvenient, tendencies in young, willful children. ADHD is guilty of the same thing. Martin Luther King Jr. would not be classified as a oppositional defiant by todays standards. He was rebelling against a REAL civil rights violation. Oppositional Defiance, by defenition, is the tendency to be defiant against JUST laws from a JUST authority, which decidedly before MLKJr. the United States Government was not (and in many ways still is not and may never be) and their rules regarding black people certainly were not.

Mental disorders and personality disorders are completely different, but both very real and not used to control people in cases where these things really are the problem ((conversely, many OPD and ADHD and OCD diagnoses ARE frequently misdiagnosed out of an attempt to gain greater order and control over children who are just trying to find their place in life, to the benefit of the parents of these children, they generally are ignorant, however, the heads of schools and the teachers that push these diagnoses should be thrown in the worst prisons we can find and the proffesionals that diagnose (almost ALWAYS psychiatrists) should be thrust down to the 8th circle of hell)). Mental illness is much less damaging, and depending on the specific illness can onset at any or various time(s) in life and are far easier to treat in most cases and is generally caused by a physical malfunction in the way the body (generally the nervous system) works. like for instance in Schizophrenia there is too much dopamine being sent through the synaptic gap to the dendrites, conversely parkinsons is caused by too little dopamine. Or in the case of alzheimers it has been found that in patients with Alzheimer's the hippocampus is being dissolved by too much of a certain chemical that is naturally produced by the brain and generally considered beneficial. (that is pretty new stuff and i cant remember the exact reference, but the book "i cant remember what i forgot" is a great source with links to tons of studies on this) Personality disorders on the other hand are very difficult, and in some cases impossible to treat, and psychologists are frequently required to see other psychologists themselves while giving treatment to individuals with personality disorders. Also, unlike mental illnesses, personality traits almost ALWAYS manifest before a person hits the age of 18. Personality disorders are things that all of us have proclivities for but are only considered as such when a persons conduct comes to keep them from being a productive member of society EVEN THOUGH they are trying their best. (mental illness is also only considered such when a person is significantly hampered...but everyone does not have tendencies of mental illnesses..they either have them, or they do not generally speaking.) Personality disorders are by and large spectrum disorders, in that one can have a little of one, or a lot. Some personality disorders (one only actually) are black and white, you have it or you dont type things.(that "one" would be sociopathy and it is completely untreatable) Personality disorders also are not easily treated (it might actually be more accurate to say effectively) treated with medication in most cases as there is nothing medically wrong with them(other than possibly in the genes they have that govern personality). medicines can only be effectively used to temporarily dampen the symptoms of the disorder until the persons mind can be sorted out with the help of a psychologist.) Despite this, medecine is frequently necessary just to get the person to a place where they are able to accept help (especially with Bipolar I Disorder) There are a lot of other differences but i think ive said enough.

I work with children in schools, and I can say with confidence and certainty that when I think a child needs help I will do whatever I can to help that child to be successful. My intentions are pure and always aimed at what is in the best interest of the child. However - in order to give the help (because of state laws and regulations) the child has to have a label. The information is confidential - and I have never seen the information leave the school and leak out to where it caused a problem for anyone. Many student with disabilities are able to go on to college because they got help with their learning difficulties when it was imperative. I love what I do and have a great sense of satisfaction and pride that I help many children learn to adapt and cope with mental health issues so that they can grow up to be successful adults every day.Annas7324 (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Mental and personality disorders are not bullshit. please educate yourself before attempting to contribute to an encylopedia. Dr. Lecter M.D.

Note to user Annas7324: I sincerely hope you have not been involved in the creation and/or editing of this article as you are CLEARLY biased about APD "They are people who do not care about anyone but themselves, and think they are above the law. These are people that generally hurt others, take advantage of others (lie, steel, cheat, con) and have no remorse. If you think it is wrong to label them - you obviously don't know one of them, or have not been victimized by one. I sincerely hope that we continue to identify people who are like this - because it keeps them behind bars so that we (the normal people) can be safe!" Truly awful. 212.183.140.6 (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Root Cause of ASPD

Doesn't labeling people by castes or religions breed ASPD? Known 12:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maaparty (talk • contribs)

Wouldn't surprise me one little bit, but can we find some verifiable SOURCES for that to put it in the article? --Zeraeph 15:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I found this quote from New Scientist.

"Rejection defeats the purpose of this, and people become impulsive and self-destructive. You have to use self-control to analyse a problem in an IQ test, for example - and instead, you behave impulsively."

Hope this helps.Known 20:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maaparty (talk • contribs)

It suggests the right direction but is not directly relevant. --Zeraeph 12:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How would you distinguish causality? Does religion breed ASPD or does religion give someone with ASPD an excuse for exhibiting symptoms? 63.196.84.93 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)David

Solution?

What is the treatment for ASPD?.Known 20:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maaparty (talk • contribs)

There is some research, but no significant success as far as I know. --Zeraeph 12:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Antisocial personality disorder can be treatable if the patient shows remorse for his or her behavior and experiences anxiety, guilt, or depression. The lack of negative affect more common in the severe primary psychopath indicates poor prognosis. (See Meloy, J. Reid. Section 11.82: Antisocial Personality Disorder. Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders (3d ed.). 2001. American Psychiatric Press, Inc.). I think cognitive-behavioral therapy is used, systematically rewarding the patient for prosocial behavior and developing greater self-control. The cognitive aspects involves examining and challenging the antisocial patient's cognitive distortions ("Do unto others before they do unto you," "I have to look out for #1," "Why worry about the future when you can live in the now?" etc.).--NeantHumain 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In some cases, SHOULD apd it be treated? I know that people with violent and destuctive behavior should probably be dealt with, but some are simply apathetic and manipulative. One could argue that they merely concerned only with their own needs, wants, and survival and getting these things with greatest efficency. To such a person, compassion, kindness, mercy, etc. would be weaknesses. In such cases apd could be an adaptive measure, effective in ensuring one's own safety, above that of everyone else's. Friends would likely be in short supply, but someone who needs friends for health and mental stability would be weak and pathetic should they find themselves having to handle something on their own.

An apd person, on the other hand, would thrive in such conditions, as they are designed for finding solutions to problems on their own without any moral or emotional constraints. For example: In a plane crash in the wilderness with only one surivior, many people would be disgusted at the thought of having to eat the other dead passengers as one of the options to survive, especially if it was one of their friends; as such, would choose to forage for food, and likely die from starvation, food poisoning, or would be eaten by wildlife. The apd person, however, would feast on human flesh easily, even on their friends, with little or no hesitation, as it is more efficient and safer. The apd person, therefore, has an effective survival instinct. I could give as many examples as I want to, but I believe I've made my point.24.118.227.213 07:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Confused with Solution comment

Antisocial personality disorder can be treatable if the patient shows remorse for his or her behavior and experiences anxiety, guilt, or depression. The lack of negative affect more common in the severe primary psychopath indicates poor prognosis. (See Meloy, J. Reid. Section 11.82: Antisocial Personality Disorder. Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders (3d ed.). 2001. American Psychiatric Press, Inc.). I think cognitive-behavioral therapy is used, systematically rewarding the patient for prosocial behavior and developing greater self-control. The cognitive aspects involves examining and challenging the antisocial patient's cognitive distortions ("Do unto others before they do unto you," "I have to look out for #1," "Why worry about the future when you can live in the now?" etc.).--NeantHumain 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It says it can treatable if the patient shows remorse but the ICD says that people with ASPD are incapabale of doing so. HUH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thousand5alpha (talk • contribs)

There is a lot of confusion over what AsPD is and is not. However, the ICD 10 only lists a similar construct which they call Dissocial Personality Disorder. Also, it lists "an incapacity" for remorse, which while it is a thin line, is not quite the same, finate statement as "incapable of remorse". --Zeraeph 11:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"HUH?" Huh? The DSM-IV-TR lists seven criteria in Section A, only one of them being lack of remorse; the diagnostic threshold requires a patient to meet only three of these seven criteria. The ICD-10 is similar with its diagnosis of dissocial personality disorder: Only three of six criteria listed under Section B need be met. Most descriptions of psychopaths and persons with an antisocial personality disorder describe a prototypical case rather than a real individual, with all the nuance and ambiguity that comes with it. Antisocial personality disorder is a heterogeneous diagnosis: It includes bums and drifters, spouse abusers, violent felons, swindlers, and thrill seekers; it also may exclude certain white-collar criminals.--NeantHumain 02:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Antisocial personality disorder can be treatable if the patient shows remorse for his or her behavior and experiences anxiety, guilt, or depression". ----- How convenient, huh? The treatment for this (in my opinion, fake, like all mental "disorders") disorder is to trade it with another, like anxiety and depression. Don't you foolish idiots see that all this mental ailment bulshit is just a way to control us? Anyone who believes that mental illnesses are real are selfish closed minded assholes who don't listen to what people really have to say.--PoidLover 09:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd go halfway with what you are saying. There are real mental illnesses, but a lot of the time the treatments DO seem, to consist in replacing one illness with another. There are also real personality disorders, but too often they seem to be used as labels to slap over bad behavior. --Zeraeph 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, from the treating staff's point of view (and society's), a depressed, remorseful antisocial is better than a callous, brazen antisocial. Depression is unpleasant, and with insight, the antisocial patient can be motivated to make change that would alleviate both the depression and the personality disorder. The kinds of psychopaths who experience no guilt or depression are considered untreatable and are pretty much locked away as long as legally possible; doing otherwise would simply mean putting a lot of people in danger.--NeantHumain 04:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

---

What do we call a doctor who treats ASPD? for eg endocrinologist treats diabetes --God and religion are distinct. 12:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatry is the branch of medicine that treats mental and behavioral health disorders (which antisocial personality disorder is one of). Forensic psychologists are more likely to run into antisocials and outright psychopaths than psychologists in other specialties. Really, it's the courts and jails that most often "treat" antisocial personality disorder.--NeantHumain 00:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I'm a bit confused by the statement that three quarters of people in prison have antisocial personality disorder. That sounds like a very controversial statement, and there's no citation. I superficially checked the closest line (at the end of the paragraph), but it didn't seem to address the above issue at all. If someone can provide a source, it would be nice, but otherwise it should be removed. --Hisownspace 03:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right. There is massive confusion by combining at least three different theories for this personality type (antisocial, dissocial, psychopathic) and trying to make them fit as one. It does not work because the theories make different assumptions and are derived different ways. Mattisse —Preceding comment was added at 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it's good if there's a part about Antisocial Personality disorder in Pop culture?

Apparently it's popular as a character/personality in media.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.83.8.239 (talk • contribs)

Yes, and it's also popular in society, just as popular as Coca-Cola, or cocaine for that matter.--PoidLover 09:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well lets look into it...any references? --Zeraeph 14:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Psychopathy is certainly pop culture. Cleckley was a pop culture read. Most lay person's conception of a psychopath is along Cleckley's lines, as he was writing in the 1940's, before diagnostic systems. What was that movie, American Killer or something similar? Mattisse 23:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)a

american psycho. portrayed a murderous psychopath blending into a corporate environment

The "psychos" portrayed in media are often heavily exaggerated and probably more akin to "psychotic" people than "psychopaths". --82.31.164.172 (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No way! That is not the way to baldly drag to light a topic mired in confusion! Prejudice is a big issue affecting people with psychotic (out-of-touch-with-reality) symptoms -eg delusions, hallucinations, voices- And, importantly, psychotic symptoms do not usually lead to violence. We need to be clear. Hollywood portrayals tend to emphasize delusions because 'other-worldly' is easy to evoke in soliloquy, yet scary and interesting to evoke; but people who see the world as you do but don't care are less evocative but scarier and 'darker' as a villain and ignorance plays a role too. Further complications in the understanding of labels exist! 'Psycho' is used in different way to the psychiatric sense of psychopath and related to relentless threat in the Bates-directed original, figuratively. Noteworthy too - but sorry unreferenced - that 'Psycho' as popular negative label is closely related to 'bunny-boiler' from Fatal Attraction. We need an article for language psychiatry culture and Hollywood! Is there one? As another aside, I liked the 'Buttons, buttons! Too many buttons!' riff and the slightly hopeful spin on an inside to Angelina Jolie's generally more accurate sociopathic character in Girl Interrupted; but that's another thing. It is certain to my mind that Wikipedia articles and talkpages even need to be as clear as possible on distinguishing profiles attached to psychiatric terminology and related popular culture with specific reference to the etymology. That has two purposes: dignified accurate encyclopaedic content and also responsibility to not help drive confusion bad-information self-doubt and fear of prejudice, fear of potential dire consequences of falsely being perceived as a threat which easily hinders recovery of people. Kathybramley (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Antisocial Personality Disorder

Is it really so blatently like this? With symptoms such as problems with authority figures. What about those who prefer solidarity but do not have anytrouble with anything? Is that really a disorder or a personality? (one can also argue if a personality can have a disorder.) - Thero —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

You are confounding the lay usage of the word antisocial (meaning withdrawn or introverted) with its psychiatric and sociological use (meaning actively to the detriment of greater society). And yes, since these are the criteria to diagnose someone with antisocial personality disorder, they are more or less "blantantly like this."--NeantHumain 00:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I rarely see case-studies of Co-Dependent Psychopathy (a far cry from complementary psychopathy), wherein Primary Psychopaths ("passive") thrive upon eliciting reactive behavior directed toward the primary target by manipulating intermediary Secondary Psychopaths ("aggressive"), who might otherwise be more constrained.

I appreciate the difficulty of treating psychopathy or persons with APD. The conditions are not problematic unless they are associated with the abuse of a target. Considerably more attention needs to be placed upon constructively defining the conditions' destructive traits and behaviors in workplace and legal situations to the extent that targets can be protected and workplaces and courts can have concrete measures to use in solving problems and defining precedents.

Too much energy is being spent upon trying to distinguish the conditions of psychopathy, APD, and DPD when concentration upon their common features may be more productive in the social arena. A new term for "psychopaths" and "sufferers of APD and DPD" needs to be derived which is based upon commonality of effect rather than cause. In addition, "Psychopath" is an overused term and "APD sufferer" is a bit too unwieldy.Datacruncher 23:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

im confused

ok...i've read that psychopaths don't suffer from anxiety, depression etc. however it says here and elsewhere that ppl with this (which i thought was the same thing) are at risk from these things as well as suicide? surely if psychopaths have no feelings they wouldn't commit suicide or be anxious, or is this a different illness? XYaAsehShalomX 18:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that someone with ASPD would commit suicide for reasons other than anxiety or depression - in particular, as part of some grand gesture, like one that starts by shooting some people they were very angry at. 63.196.84.93 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)David

The diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder is heterogeneous; it includes everything from bums and drifters who live from day to day to violent, hot-tempered spouse-beaters to serial rapists. The highly reactive type of antisocial outnumbers the cold, calculating sort, so by the law of averages, people with antisocial personality disorder are said generally to be tense, cynical, suspicious, and irritable. Psychopathy is not the same thing exactly. Primary psychopaths tend to be emotionally cold and highly manipulative; secondary psychopaths are highly reactive and short sighted (more closely resembling antisocial personality disorder).--NeantHumain 00:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok right. Cool :) If you're interested btw, i'm writing a book where the main character has ASPD. She isn't a bad person, she just has no conscience and feels no remorse or regret over anything, and does horrible things and is a bit callous, but alot of the story is about how her character develops and how she changes. :) XYaAsehShalomX 23:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, this character sounds like a bad person; if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. By the way, characters with antisocial personalities who somehow grow and make amends for their errant ways are common in cinema and literature—if considerably less common in real life. Our culture is, for whatever reason, fascinated with characters who achieve their goals in unconventional ways. Usually the diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy are not directly mentioned, however. Blood Diamond, and Casino Royale (James Bond) are just two examples where the protagonist has identifiable psychopathic tendencies.--NeantHumain 23:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in the story this girl doesn't really ever go out of her way to be horrible, or nice. She falls in love and basically a whole lot of other stuff happens, and her psychopathic tendencies actually come in useful to the plot, lol XYaAsehShalomX 10:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, psychopaths have an attitude that puts themselves and their needs so far ahead of everyone else's that it would be disingenuous to say they are not intentionally doing horrible things. Psychopaths see their needs, and then they see what they can do to make others fulfill those needs. Psychopaths are cynical and untrusting—almost to the point of paranoia at times. They will read hostile intent into almost anything and will see kind gestures as some sort of imposition upon their freedom. Their relationships with others tend to be exploitative or sadomasochistic. They will do bad things because it gives them a sense of meaning or fulfillment that others would get through work, religion, creative pursuit, leisure, and friends. They also tend to have poor judgment even from a wholly self-interested point of view. If you've never known a psychopath personally, they're about the craziest people you'll meet who aren't babbling psychotics downtown. Oh, by the way, none of the aforementioned precludes their having friends (who will rationalize away the psychopath's follies), a job (they can be very flattering when they want to be), or an education.--NeantHumain 16:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• People with antisocial personality disorder can suffer anxiety, depression, etc. If so, those are separate diagnoses. They aren't defining qualities of the personality disorder. Doczilla 17:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Doczilla, anxiety, depression, etc. may not be mentioned directly in the DSM-IV-TR or ICD-10 diagnostic criteria, but psychologists do research studies (basically handing subjects a bunch of personality inventories) and find, for instance, that the impulsivity traits of antisocial personality disorder are positively correlated with trait anxiety and other indicators of negative affect. The anxiety measured in these studies does not necessarily imply a secondary anxiety disorder; personality psychologists measure personality traits, not generally psychiatric diagnoses. On the other hand, psychopathic personality traits like "callousness/lack of empathy" and "lack of guilt or remorse" may negatively correlate with the fearfulness scale on the MMPI-2.--NeantHumain 16:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Those correlations are irrelevant to what I'm saying. Correlates are not requisites. Problems that correlate with this condition are not in and of themselves defining diagnostic criteria for the personality disorder. Doczilla 07:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That goes without saying Doc, or rather it SHOULD, I am not even sure there is a particular correlate there...to be honest it sounds more contraindicative to me, particularly when you consider that a disorder like AsPD is considered to develop specifically to deflect, repress and genuinely derail feelings like anxiety and depression.

As for the description given of a Psychopath (why IS that being discussed here when it has it's own article?), if any of them are like that, I have never met them. In my experience psychopaths are almost ULTRA sane, and coldbloodedly utilitarian, without sufficient effective grasp of right and wrong to clearly identify a "bad thing" LET ALONE enough to "get off on" opting to do it or derive "fulfilment" thereby!

If they have a "good" quality is it that they are usually so totally self absorbed and indifferent to others as to be devoid of the malice, or even sadism, than can drive more normal folk. They tend to assume everybody is the same as they are (it IS only human nature to assume that what you are is "normal" and identify everybody else with who you are), which thinking would rather rule out the "concept "trust" altogether, and would be more inclined to regard kindness as either a weakness to be exploited of a ploy to be thwarted than anything else. Their reduced affectiveness makes them almost immune to fear, let alone paranoia.

The greatest drive in a psychopath is the boredom that is an inevitable by-product of reduced affectiveness. If a psychopath steal your car, it is not for greed, or even to gloat over his "badness", cartoon style...it is very simply because the possibility of a potentially deadly car chase makes him feel alive, perhaps for the first time all week, or longer.--Zeraeph 13:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I base my description on an experience with a female with definite psychopathic traits (probably with traits of other personality disorders mixed in). Her distrust was not the outright paranoia of a schizophrenic but rather a manifest distrust of even my motives and a perpetual holding of grudges over anything (aspects of paranoid personality disorder). Sadism, insidiously developing, was present as well: attempts to humiliate, cause emotional pain, etc. I would definitely not consider her behavior to be "ultra-sane." She told nonstop lies, many of which were outright ridiculous. She might give an almost hysterical reaction around friends or family (to manipulate their perception) but then respond with indifference or emotional detachment when they were not around. Her behavior often seemed to be motivated by absurdly extreme pettiness. Now can all this chaotic behavior be explained by boredom? Perhaps, but she also seemed to enjoy such things as lying.--NeantHumain 17:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds more like either BPD (though on the left hand path) or a royal b*tch to me! It's a really, REALLY bad idea to base your perception of a PD on one person (even yourself, as I am told some do, at length :o/ ). Truth is, even if you are a consultant shrink you aren't allowed to go round diagnosing people you have a personal relationship with, for the very reason that there are too many subjective factors at play. Diagnosis is about checking to see whether the diagnosis fits the person, not redefining the diagnosis to fit them, which is, in effect, what you have done here. Anyway, from your description of this woman the only correct diagnosis for you to make is "BAD NEWS" and the only appropriate treatment is to aviod like the plague! --Zeraeph 18:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt she has some borderline personality traits (conspicuously missing is any fear of abandonment I've noticed other than that she had a way to draw me back when I first got to know her), but if one goes down a list and sees traits like callousness/lack of empathy, shallow affect, manipulativeness, pathological lying, grandiose sense of self-worth, impulsivity, and so forth before you realize that if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck (or in this case a subclinical psychopath). Just about the only thing missing is criminality and financial irresponsibility/job instability, but outright criminality is less common in female psychopaths.

Generally, the personality traits that make a psychopath "ultra-sane" are the Factor 1 traits (exploitative interpersonal style and deficient emotional experience). The Factor 2 traits (of the two-factor model) generally detract from that "ultra-sane" demeanor. The balance of these traits (plus intelligence) determines whether the particular psychopath will appear "ultra-sane" or conspicuously unbalanced. And, of course, the callous/unemotional traits can lead psychopaths to make grossly inappropriate choices when the emotional sphere comes to play such that they seem less and less normal as you get to know them better.

And this girl may have been "BAD NEWS" for most people, but she managed to catch my interest with her unusual behavior, and I remained unperturbed. We are apart today because of her inability to move beyond her assumptions and biases and not because of her mistakes; if she were willing to move beyond them, I would have no trouble accepting her; I hold nothing against her.--NeantHumain 21:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

When I type "antisocial personality" into search two articles appear: "Antisocial personality disorder" and "Antisocial Personality Disorder." They are the same article with different capitalization in the title. 69.37.158.75 20:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Antisocial Personality Disorder" simply redirects to "Antisocial personality disorder". Doczilla 23:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Mnemonics

I sort of "recuse" myself from this issue because whenever I see a mnemonic in a psych article it sets my teeth on edge and I am not sure how objective and encyclopaedic that reaction actually is? BUT...I would like to say that I recently came across somebody fervently misdiagnosing themself based on one of these psych mnemonics and it DID make me think seriously about the appropriateness of retaining them in Wikipedia Articles with all the endorsement I hope that implies. --Zeraeph 17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

DashaKat, et al.: A narrow consensus on this issue has already been reached, discussed in Archive 2. Personally, I have never gotten much utility from mnemonics, but apparently at least some people get some utility out of it, so I see no harm in keeping it. After all, this article isn't exactly dying of bloat. If I am not mistaken, the aforementioned discussion includes attributions for the mnemonic, so we just need to add that in.--NeantHumain 01:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit of vision

Unfortunately, I no longer have easy access to a university's library of research journals, but I am aware of some of the research on antisocial personality disorder and would like to make some suggestions for any Wikipedians looking for ways to contribute to this article:

Sex differences

Antisocial personality disorder is more commonly diagnosed in men than women, and there is much controversy surrounding this. First are the biological predispositions of the sexes (e.g., men having more testosterone generally). Then there are the psycho-social biases of the diagnosticians themselves (a study has shown that psychiatrists will be more likely to label women with histrionic personality disorder than antisocial personality disorder given the same narrative with gender of pronouns changed). Some have even suggested the diagnoses of personality disorders themselves have a gender bias (i.e., the APD criteria represent how our culture encourages males to express the same underlying phenotype as females with, say, histrionic personality disorder or borderline personality disorder, with the criteria reflecting this).

You're right. Labeling women with APD would allow people to easily discriminate against women. I mean, a label is such a powerful thing in the medical world. For instance, women don't plan ahead. They don't have much remorse. They have lots of sexual activity. And a lot of these things happen in their 20s. They become progressively manipulative as they learn their life choices brought them no where. They are competitive and use coniving ways to hurt others. They can also be bad drivers. Yep. I say a lot of women have APD. You can't call her a whore when she dresses like a tramp, because she will complain and yell: She thinks she deserves entitlement. I guess society doesn't want to take away from the TV image that women are nice and kind. Maybe it's a past result of the most successful, sociopathic man being able to manipulate a woman into having a baby. Thus, the women turn out like psychopaths. I think feminists should truly pursue this further. I rarely see anything self-destructive by the wanna-be utopians. --Cyberman (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Link to alcohol and substance abuse

The link to alcoholism and substance abuse is well researched and documented. This can be covered in greater depth.

Treatment =

How are patients with APD treated or contained? What psychopharmaceuticals are tried? (Examples: SSRIs, lithium salts, anticonvulsants, atypical antipsychotics to treat impulsivity and aggressiveness)

Neurology and neurochemistry =

Discuss how different areas of the brain have been implicated in impulsivity (frontal lobe), fearlessness (hippocampus), and pathological lying (ratio of white matter to gray matter). Discuss the role of serotonin (low serotonin syndrome), dopamine, and other neurotransmitters theorized to play a role in the antisocial's impulsivity.

Sociological and evolutionary psychological explanations of etiology

There are theories linking crime with youth and social competition that makes a social cheating (i.e., antisocial) strategy more adaptive in attracting mates; antisocial personality disorder is sometimes explained as a specific case of this. Meloy's application of game theory to sociopathy plays a role here.

Developmental pathways

From childhood conduct disorder and other behavioral problems through adolescence into adulthood. Prognosis for different sets (e.g., those with callous-unemotional traits vs. emotionally reactive; childhood onset vs. adolescent onset; socialized vs. unsocialized conduct disorders and their adulthood outcomes).

---

This subject is wide enough and researched enough to cover an encyclopedia in its own right. This article could really be more!--NeantHumain 01:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Social Behavior

redirects here, which I don't think is fitting. I think that should be a sep. article. Miserlou 21:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Outdated Sources?

Though there are a few references from the 90s, there have been several texts to come out within the past decade that elaborate on the varying scales of sociopathy and psychopathy, including the tendency of "successful sociopaths", which, correlating to IQ level, manage to either avoid committing violent, destructive or illegal activity - or manage to avoid caught! There is some interesting research that I will post when I'm feeling up to transcripting it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.151.139 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, but I think you will find those texts more appropriate to Psychopathy --Zeraeph 20:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

APD/Dissocial/Sociopathy/Psychopathy

As the Psychopathy article correctly states, current researchers disagree on the level of overlap between these disorders. Some hold them to be the same disorder. Others hold that sociopathy and psychopathy are synonyms and the APD is not a disorder at all (but rather an imcomplete description of sociopathy/psychopathy.) Still others hold that sociopathy and psychopathy are distinct.

For this reason, shouldn't these articles contain a clear statement of that fact, similar on each article, with links to one another? I think Psychopathy has the best treatment so far. Certainly the "relationship to other disorders" section of this article isn't enough, nor is it prominently placed. --joeOnSunset 04:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

These disorders sound, for the most part, like more of a personality type than a mental illness.24.118.227.213 04:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why it's an Axis II disorder instead of an Axis I disorder. (See Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders#Multi-axial_system.) Doczilla 16:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The definitions are in the diagnostic manuals. We don't have to argue over them. --Mattisse 21:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Psychopathy is defined as a psychological construct, a personality type. In the DSM, psychopathy as a diagnosis falls under the antisocial personality disorder diagnosis. APD is purely a diagnosis, not a personality type. The two can be used interchangeably, but shouldn't because they each refer to a seperate entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.3.202 (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Psychopathy is not currently a formal diagnosis in a recognized diagnostic manual. Antisocial personality disorder is a diagnosis of a specific personality disorder in DSM. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

I noticed that many people use the term "antisocial" to describe someone who is shy or uncomfortable in social situations which are different conditions entirely, should it be mentioned in the article that these two terms are often confused with APD? Goalminor530000 23:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes myself. Goalminor530000 23:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This point is good regarding people's usage of the word. However, before this type of information is added to the article, there should be clearness about where in the world people are using a word differently and whether or not that place's relevant social factors are important enough to be included. The same applies to the information in the article that refers to 1994. Unsure of whether or not this specifically means the United States, it should be clearer considering that America's 1994 was immensely different to other English speaking countries in all sorts of social aspects. Evsjordan (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In penitentiaries, the percentage is estimated to be as high as 75%

I don't see a citation for this line. Does the seventh source cover the bulk of the paragraph this sentence is in (including this statement)? If not, can someone find a link that contains this information? I've been searching, but I've found nothing. Damn internet and the difficulty in finding specific information... Nobody47710 12:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole concept of antisocial personality is a bit moot, and that the article itself pretty much proofs this with a confusing list of dubious symptoms. What i think is the matter is that an inheritance of terminology stemming from about 1930 , plus the apreciable fact that several forms of behaviour (stealing without feeling guilt eg.) can indeed be diagnosed as uncurable (pretty much logically in many cases) and symptomatically "anti-social". However that diagnoses is to the effect of the form of behaviour and not the person performing it.77.251.188.67 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

merge Psychopathy in

As someone said above, the Psychopathy page is more detailed than this one. However, the Sociopathy page has already been merged into Psychopathy. Psychopathy should be merged into here, as this article can easily discuss the difference between the two concepts, because:- (from the psychopathy article-you can see the refs there)

Comparing psychopathy to antisocial personality disorder is a continuing source of debate within the psychological community. The official stance of the American Psychiatric Association as presented in the DSM-IV-TR is that psychopathy and sociopathy are obsolete synonyms for antisocial personality disorder (APD).[verification needed] The World Health Organization takes a similar stance in its ICD-10 by referring to psychopathy, sociopathy, antisocial personality, asocial personality, and amoral personality as synonyms for dissocial personality disorder. (my bold)

Hare and others take the stance that psychopathy as a syndrome should be considered distinct from the DSM-IV's antisocial personality disorder construct,[51] even though APD and psychopathy were intended to be equivalent in the DSM-IV. However, those who created the DSM-IV felt that there was too much room for subjectivity on the part of clinicians when identifying things like remorse and guilt; therefore, the DSM-IV panel decided to stick to observable behaviour, namely socially deviant behaviours. As a result, the diagnosis of APD is something that the "majority of criminals easily meet."[52] Hare goes further to say that the percentage of incarcerated criminals that meet the requirements of APD is somewhere between 80 to 85 percent, whereas only about 20% of these criminals would qualify for a diagnosis of psychopath. This twenty percent, according to Hare, accounts for 50 percent of all the most serious crimes committed, including half of all serial and repeat rapists. According to FBI reports, 44 percent of all police officer murders in 1992 were committed by psychopaths.[53]"

This is about the only alleged difference between the two terms, it can easily be put in one article (I mean the writing will be a bit of work, but still). What I am going to do is write a merged version at User:Merkinsmum/APD. Then you can all comment on it and see if it looks O.K. It'll be good, I promise:)Merkinsmum 13:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at this again. The Psychopathy page is now called Hare's theory of psychopathy because that's what it's about. Anything that's about his theory can be kept there, and anything that's about APD, merged in here. Then no-one has to argue (hopefully lol) I have to go out soon so please ignore my userpage version as it stands, because it needs more work and I won't have time till later this evening.Merkinsmum 16:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The page content is much more congruent with the article name. The rest of it will be much easier to fix now. Mattisse 18:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Antisocial Personality Disorder article should concentrate on its formal diagnostic aspects, IMO, as it belongs to a mandated system of diagnosis for the United States at least - DSM-IV. Hypothetical theorizing and research about psychopathy and other issues belong in different articles -- that is research psychology versus clinical. Mattisse 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of these antisocial disorders

As we all know, various terms have been used to describe antisocial behavior, each one varies in what is included in the disorder. It is good that there is an article now devoted to Hare, as he has had a major investment in his point of view, along with the various research scales he has devised. He has his adherents and they do research focusing on his theories. All the problems etc. with using cluster/factor statistical analyses on a small subject pool can be discussed in his article.

For me, Antisocial Personality Disorder is the disorder as defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders because in the United States mental health professionals are required to use these diagnostic categories for insurance reimbursement, to admit a client to a hospital, and in legal settings if a diagnosis is required. Therefore, IMO, an article on Antisocial Personality Disorder should reflect the standards of this diagnosis because these standards are very clear. Similar disorders, IMO, should not be conflated into this one.There is no conflict over what an Antisocial Personality Disorder is. There may be dissatisfaction over what is included or not included in the criteria. There may be dissatisfaction over how the criteria for the disorder were derived. But the definition of the disorder is clear.

Perhaps there should be a separate article for Dissocial personality disorder and/or the ICD-10 Antisocial Personality Disorder. Just looking at ICD-10 Criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder', my impression is that the method of deriving those standards was quite different. Therefore, it would be hard, IMO, to combine the two, since how the criteria were determined is fundamental to understanding what is meant by the terms.

Perhaps three articles describing the ICD-10, the AMA's Antisocial Personality Disorder and psychopathy (or Hare's psychopathy) are in order. Each could include not only the standards or criteria for inclusion, but the method for arriving at those standards. It also could include stated dissatisfactions with the criteria as it is applied in clinical practice (or research practice as in the case of psychopathy.

Perhaps another article could compare and contrast these various definitions of the disorder. The Antisocial Personality Disorder as defined by the AMA has nothing to do with sex offenders.

Also, reliable, unbiased, third party sources should be used where possible. Raw research findings do not qualify as a reference source in this type of article. They are pertinent to an article directed at a summary of research findings rather than clinical use of the term.

I would appreciate hearing other editors views on this subject. Regards, Mattisse 22:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have enough info on 'dissocial personality disorder' (the ICD-10's words I think, to really need a separate article, it could have a paragraph in here. A lot of sites seem to refer to these two as the same, even thought they're not quite. We could just list all Dissocial P'D's criteria here to avoid WP:OR- unless we can find a source comparing the two.Merkinsmum 03:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography of articles

In reading a bibliography of articles Hare (among others) wrote, none of them are focused on the sex offender as antisocial personality disorder, or psychopath: Psychopathy in Psychiatry and Philosophy: An Annotated Bibliography Mattisse 23:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Treatment

There's depressingly no treatment section.

Are any medications sometimes prescribed, such as for managing anger, aggression etc? I know personality disorders are supposed to be hard to cure, but some of the more extreme manifestations could perhaps be treated with a major tranquilizer? Is any group therapy used or anything like that? Such as perhaps therapy training them to imagine themselves in another person's position and how they would feel if they were hit etc? I mean I know they're supposed to be lacking in feelings but maybe they could learn from that a bit, and they have affect, even if it's shallow.Merkinsmum 03:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really. In a jail setting, if they are acting out they may be given a low dose of an antipsychotic to calm them down, or an antihistamine, like Atarax, for short-term sleep problems. But since this type of person is manipulative and often drug-seeking, it is best not to get involved in medicating them. One might consider evaluating them for the presence of a Bipolar Disorder if the person is really out of control as some of the anti-seizure medications, in addition to antidepressants and antipsychotics, would work if they have a bipolar disorder. In prison settings, inmates without a major mental disorder are not medicated with psychiatric medications, in the United States for the most part. In fact, most incarcerated inmates are not interested in taking psychiatric medications. There is no treatment for Antisocial Personality Disorder. Mattisse 13:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge with moral insanity

The moral insanity article does not present enough information to stand on its own. As it is believed to be the predecessor concept to antisocial personality disorder, it would make sense to merge moral insanity into antisocial personality disorder by creating a section about the history of APD diagnosis.

Neelix (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Moral insanity should definitely not be merged with this article, as people with antisocial personality disorder are perfectly sane, albeit somewhat deranged. They almost always are conscious of their moral choices or know that what they're doing is wrong. This differs from moral insanity, as these people do not realize this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.14.138.2 (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that people with ASPD are perfectly sane? --82.31.164.172 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is a formal DSM-IV diagnostic category. Moral insanity is an outdated Victorian term that is not part of diagnostic terminology today. Therefore, I am against any merging of the articles. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The term "moral insanity" is not something that wikipedia should list at all in my opinion, as "moral" is NOT a constant. Morals and Ethics alike, are things that everyone has, but define differently and is completely individual. So, the term "moral insanity" should not be a part of a wikipedia as it is not a term that is neither accurate nor accepted in the psychological community. Dekket (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether an article warrants inclusion in Wikipedia is not discriminated based on whether a word in the article's subject is constant. That is ridiculous. Based on your view, we should delete any article on morality, beauty, or other things that are subjective. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Moral insanity is a distinct category now of only historical importance. It should be listed as it has importance - although made clear that it is an historical term. It is not commensurate with antisocial personality disorder anymore than dementia praecox - be it a "precursor" term or not - is commensurate with schizophrenia. To merge the two terms would be deeply anachronistic. It is pointless to retrospectively accumulate historical terms used to understand mental illness to present day conceptual systems. There are fundamental differences between 19th and 20th century understandings of mental illness.Freekra (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Just to add the person above who said moral is not a constant is right: in 19th century terms moral meant something else than it does today and was especially a reference to what today might be psychological faculties. Hence the phrase "moral treatment".Freekra (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Self-awareness

Is it at all possible for a patient to be self-aware to the fact that they have antisocial personality disorder? Would there be some form of denial or similar activity that would prevent them from being able to admit to it? wavefront_talk 20:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the editing of the article. It's not a forum to discuss the nature of antisocial personality disorder. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

i think there should be something about self awarness in the article88.97.6.98 (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Löl, if you´d have a list of famous people with sociopathy it would make a pretty long list, or cause the site to get v& —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.66.254 (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

People with ASPD or something similar to ASPD eventually realize that they are different from normal people, and with that realization they potentially learn, through research or diagnosis, that they may have ASPD or something similar to ASPD. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Merging Dissocial personality disorder

It should be quite simple to merge Dissocial personality disorder into here by expanding the ICD-10 section. Much of the other material in Dissocial personality disorder also applies to Antisocial personality disorder. Anankastic personality disorder had already been merged into obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.--Penbat (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont think this is controversial. Unless somebody screams i will do the merge in a few days time. --Penbat (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You know; if you ask me I think half of the people have ASPD. I do not see any concern or regard for anyone out there. Everyone is just preoccupied with slandering you or being deceitful to you or just not caring about anything about you. I don't see any regard for me or my children or my family members. All people care about is exploiting me, hurting me or getting rid of me. There is no communication, no commerodity only finger pointing and insinuating I'm some worthless devil. I think also that if you're not some gang member then your a loner. Basically there is no one you can trust and in the same breath no one really trusts you. It's just all misconceptions. The poor say the rich are a bunch of cheats and on the other hand the rich say the poor are a bunch of brain dead drug addicts. Carl Kravis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.128.43 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

ASPD- vampires of life force

How are these conditions applied to the schizoid who needs to prove that the voices are really talking to them, only to mash them down, destroy them, or want to take possession of the soul of them-emulate to humiliate, with extreme fear of being discovered unless they can find approval for being destructive. Recluse- with a spiritual void which draws malitiously from the immeadiate environment in a socially unacceptable manner. Blaming others for their own shortcomings. A passion for using the "eyes of", stealing the memories of, or manipulating the "visions of" unsuspecting victims of their environment. Propagating fear, to get high off of, victims' emotional state of being. "Hippocampiods" whose presence causes their environment to exibit POST TRAUMATIC STRESS. Refusal to accept adult responsibility for behavior hiding in a childhood emotional response; adults who call themselves "KIDS" to escape responsibility for their Identity and state of being. ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.112.2 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 87.194.154.56, 13 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

This page has been vandalised - and correction has been attempted, but the name "Pam Dorr" still remains within the article. This should be deleted. I think that is the only correction required.

87.194.154.56 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

NPD vs ASPD/Psychopathy/Sociopathy

There has some debate on the differences between NPD and ASPD. Indeed, at first glance the disorders can appear quite similar. I think it might not be a bad idea to include some content in this article distinguishing NPD from ASPD (and two subcategories of ASPD: psychopathy and sociopathy) in order to emphasize the differences. From my understanding, people with NPD and people with ASPD share a few key symptoms such as interpersonal exploitation and lack of empathy, but people with NPD [and not ASPD] are relatively more narcissistic - albeit less crime-oriented and sadistic - than people with ASPD [but not NPD]. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sociopathy/Psychopathy confusion

Problem 1:

• Sociopath redirects Antisocial personality disorder.
• Sociopathy redirects to Psychopathy

Problem 2:

I think this could be more clearly worded, from the intro:

Antisocial personality disorder is sometimes known as sociopathic personality disorder. It is also sometimes referred to as psychopathy or sociopathy. However, the two are not to be used interchangably.

The idea that A can be called B or C, but B cannot be called C or vice versa, doesn't quite add up. It got me confused, and I wondered whether the "two" referred to were maybe sociopathic personality disorder and one of the others. (I can see that's not true - just explaining how it can be confusing.) --Chriswaterguy talk 16:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The discrepancy doesn't make sense to me either. 'Sociopathy' is simply the behavioral pattern exhibited by a 'sociopath'. They should redirect to the same page: either an article on sociopathy (a subset of ASPD) or the article on ASPD itself. Furthermore, psychopathy and sociopathy are separate subsets of ASPD, so 'sociopathy' should not redirect to 'psychopathy'. I have resolved the issue by redirecting 'sociopathy' to 'Antisocial personality disorder'. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Outdated/Inactive Citations

Citation #3 goes to a dead page http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/antisocial.html I'm not really sure how to properly fix it so I am merely noting it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.125.66 (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

merge proposal

I propose that whatever is salvageable from the essay-like Sociopaths in Society should be merged here and the latter article converted into a redirect here. Beware however, that article needs careful checking, as some statements are sourced by publications that do not state anything like what they are supposed to source... --Crusio (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: Sociopathy is related to psychopathy and not (as Hare points out) ASPD.--Penbat (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: "Sociopaths in Society" is always going to be more about sociological conjecture than medical facts anyway. --Penbat (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• The very lead of this article says "psychopathy and sociopathy are generally considered subsets of ASPD". And as discussed a few sections highe, sociopath and sociopathy both redirect here. --Crusio (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

comment trying to figure out the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath isnt very easy, if youre using wikipedia. as i understand it, a sociopath requires a victim, but that doesnt seems to be reflected in the article. -badmachine 10:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose: Because of the changing definitions in the DSM, some of the material in Sociopaths in Society may be dated and no longer correct nor relevant to this article as it seems to relate primarily to criminal behavior, and an example of how cobbling stuff together makes things worse (i.e. more confusing) rather than better. Also, it would make this article too long. It belongs as a link in "See Also" or as a subtitle link. It should be updated rather than "salvaged" depending on how current literature relates to that subject. I don't have the time or inclination for that level of research on that subject at this time. Suggest a "this article needs updating" header to Sociopaths in Society instead. Nodekeeper (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Umm well im drunk right now so this may be a misreading but the Criticism section seems to be ridden with opinionated text. Please correct me if im wrong but yeah it seems like some doctor got pissed and went and rewrote the section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.29.237 (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sociopaths and ASPDs' are a Part of the Same Continuum (with some variations on the theme) Rather Than Being Totally Separate syndromes

Here is a good source, "The Sociopath Next Door", by Martha Stout, although there are many other sources that attest to it as well. There are differences, but they are differences of degree, not total differences.

173.246.35.178 (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• In the future, please avoid spamming the edit history and copying text verbatim from published works. Further, if you must use material directly from a book, please reword it in an original and (more importantly) WP:NPOV form. While Dr. Stout's book may be an informative or otherwise entertaining read for those who feel they may be or have been "victimized" by sociopaths, her prose is distinctly lacking in clinical tone. If it suits you to replace any of the information I removed, it might be of use to use the fairly extensive reference section in the back of The Sociopath Next Door to provide more relevant references for future readers, and to avoid the issues of pop medicine. Thank you very much, NihilistDandy (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Too Technical: Banner Added

Wikipedia is for everybody not just scientists and clinical researchers. The article lacks language that the average non-scientist/non-clinical reader can understand.

Wikipedia is not a club for scientists and clinicians, it is a public-use encyclopedia and writing should be readable by the general public, not just insiders to the fields of psychology or psychiatry etc...

Technical banner added (calls for adding non-technical language and descriptions to make the article more accessible and understandable to all).

75.71.193.232 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• If you think the text is too technical, then make it simpler (although this is not the "simple English" WP), but don't add pop medicine stuff, this is a serious encyclopedia. --Crusio (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't strike me as being too technical at this time. If you feel there are sections that could be made more reader-friendly but aren't certain how to rephrase them yourself, perhaps you could include examples of text that concerns you here so that we could discuss how it can be clarified? Doniago (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, wait a minute, what is going on here? There is a spate of editing going on here. I don't see any need to add any tags and I gather that this part of some dispute? Let's work this out. I haven't gone into this detail, but -- User 75.71.193.232, you have added a bunch of material hre, let's slow down and vet the references.

Books are very seldom a good source. This is because book publishers do not employ fact checkers, so we are thrown back almost entirely on the reputation of the author. So we need to look into Martha Stout -- that she has a Ph. D. and has published a book is fine, but only the beginning of what we need to know about her - we need to look at her published corpus, where she teaches, recognition in the field, and so forth. As to Psychology Today, I'm not too familiar with them but offhand I wouldn't say they are a good source, I don't think they have a high reputation in the scholarly sense, they are more a popular magazine I think. To be continued... Herostratus (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. This may expose some ASPDs and so you can bet they won't want this list posted here. 205.169.70.175 (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh OK, Martha Stout has an article... she trained at McLean and taught at Harvard Med School for a long time, and you really can't ask for better credentials than that... Herostratus (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes her credentials are impeccable and she is a clinical psychologist. She is an authority on the subject and so reverting many of her citations at a time is wholesale vandalism. 75.71.193.232 (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of making this article more understandable and accessible to all, I suggest adding a section titled Cultural Depictions. (See, e.g., the section in Narcissistic Personality Disorder.) Contents should include names of movies and novels, the character in each who can be identified as having APD, and a brief description of how the character fits the diagnosis. 66.87.7.235 (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure this has been discussed and discarded at other medical articles (here, for instance). Among other things you would of course need to provide sourcing to establish that the specific depiction was somehow significant. We don't need a laundry list. Doniago (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Serious subject, descriptions for Lay-readers (regular folks) is critical: This is a serious subject that has a public safety component. Keeping the language technical and very brief will not allow the general reading public to get much use from the article. Having descriptions that most people can understand is important as per WP policy and also is important for the general public.

It's good there is a list of easily-accessible descriptions and not just clinical lingo.

205.169.70.175 (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I still think it would be helpful if editors who are concerned that the text is too technical would provide specific examples. Doniago (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, the IPs position is mainly motivated by his desire to keep the pop-med section entitled "More Identifying Features". It's the kind of self-help stuff that Wikipedia is not... Note that similar sections are conspicuously absent from other mental-disorder articles (see, for example, schizophrenia). I think it should be deleted wholesale, but the IP keeps restoring it. I'd be interested to hear what you think about this. --Crusio (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Seconded. If the IP user(s) feel so passionately, perhaps they'd deign to humanize themselves with names, that we might consider the issue with more identifiable sides. Further, the material at issue seems to be lifted directly from Stout's book. Remarks like "not all ASPDs are violent, more prefer social aggression, although violence is significantly more common among ASPDs than for the normal population" also seem speculative, prejudicial, and dehumanizing, unless there is some supplemental citation supporting them. NihilistDandy (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The article is not overtly technical. The opening alone explains the concept in a perfectly serviceable way. The DSM and ICD definitions supplement this and fully define the clinically recognized aspects of the condition. When the DSM-V comes out, of course, this whole thing will need to be reimagined, but until that day, it's fine. If there are specific sections you contend are too technical, kindly simplify them or ask for assistance. NihilistDandy (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Copy-pasting a single person's opinion over and over again does not improve the article. It's just fluff. They are not "Identifying Features" because they are mostly subjective and only may be encountered in those with ASPD. They would be identifying if they occurred only (or even mostly) in such persons, and if there were some objective measure for such traits. As it stands now, it reads like sensationalist pop psychology and doesn't contribute to the article in a serious manner. NihilistDandy (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Finally, I will be removing the "Identifying Features" section until consensus can be reached. If further edit warring occurs, we will have to consider a request for protected status until the war dies down, or IP blocks. I'll personally warn anyone who breaks the WP:3RR, IP or otherwise. NihilistDandy (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be very leery of any material the motivation for which is to aid readers in performing any specific actions or behavior. We are for research and information and very much not equipped to handle anything in the pro-tips or self-help area because we can't guarantee that we'll get it right. On the other hand, Martha Stout looks to be a pretty well-credentialed person and absent some claim that there's a problem with her work I would think her a reasonable source for some material.

As far as the tags, there's nothing here so dense that it requires the "technical" tag and I don't see a crying need for the "cleanup" tag either so I've removed them. If there's a dispute or a claim of POV there are separate tags for that. Herostratus (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Some material, certainly. But if that section is to return, it will be in a significantly condensed and more neutral form. Stout's opinion is hardly neutral, and she openly admits in the book that parts of her work are speculative, or at least on shaky factual ground. While this is a positive for a pop psychology book, it is less than reassuring for its inclusion in an encyclopedic article. I am certainly not questioning her credentials, which appear impeccable, just her content. A GBooks preview for skimming. I would not be averse to a reference to her book, as it is related, but without fairly serious vetting it will be difficult to use the content therein. NihilistDandy (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. As pointed out above,this is an important subject with public safety implications. And books are basically never AAA-level refs, because general book publishers do not employ fact checkers. If Martha Stout makes a statement of fact - say that X percent of the population has ASPD - we have to keep in mind that if we use this we are entirely taking her word for it. Should we? That depends on the author, and one important area to look at is motivation. On the one hand, she presumably has an academic reputation that she would want to protect by being truthful, and she wouldn't have been kept on at the Med School if she's in a lifelong habit of egregiously falsifying date. On the other hand, if it's true that she's "hardly neutral" and has a point of view to advance, that's a negative motivator for veracity. If her main source of income is now book sales, that's a negative motivator for veracity, as books sales benefit from sensational claims. I'm not saying any of this applies to her, I'm just pointing this out. It is for these reasons that I do not like to use books, ever, as sources for contetious material, especially books by people whose main income does not depend on their academic career. Reviews of her books by other academics would help us get a handle on her reputation, I think. Herostratus (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • ASPD is no more a public safety issue than any other personality disorder. Further, I would say unequivocally that drunk drivers cause more damage yearly than any supposed sociopaths. Does that require the addition of "More Identifying Characteristics" of drunk drivers? No. The effects are perfectly well described by the medical information about intoxication. In the same way, it is essentially unnecessary for ASPD. Some subset of the information under dispute seems quite reasonable, but those data must be considered separately and be properly verifiable. Stout's book has a fairly extensive reference section at the end... this would be fertile ground for vetting. NihilistDandy (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • As for Martha Stout herself: From what little I've been able to find about her, she's not currently teaching anywhere, but is in private practice. What reflection this has on her primary source of income or desire to protect an academic reputation is, as yet, unclear. My comment on her neutrality (or lack thereof) is primarily a commentary on the alarmist tone of her book. It preys on the paranoia of the pop-psych/self-help crowd, conjuring images of lurking bugbears around every corner. While this is not strictly untrue if the statistics are to be believed, it adds a level of hyperbole which robs claims of neutrality of some credence. No luck finding anyone in the field reviewing her work, so far. NihilistDandy (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Epidemiology

"Epidemiology A major study by the McLean Hospital puts the occurrence of antisocial personality disorder in the general population at 1 out of every 25 males and 1 out of every 30 females"

McLean Hospital?? Is this proper to put this result above in the epidemaiology section of ASPD?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.105.192.186 (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Their website. Also, [here]. Is there some question as to their reputation? NihilistDandy (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Nope, just that this talks about "a" study (without exact reference, only an indirect one), whereas the rest of that section concerns accumulated data from many different studies and is sourced to a secondary source. --Crusio (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Good enough explanation for me. NihilistDandy (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)