Talk:Psychopathy

The term Antisocial didn't start with DSM-III

The term Antisocial didn't start with DSM-III, as stated here:

However the publication of DSM-III changed the name of this mental disorder to Antisocial Personality Disorder and also broadened the diagnostic criteria considerably by shifting from clinical inferences to behavioral diagnostic criteria.

In fact, DSM-II included APD as follows (p. 43):

301.7 Antisocial personality This term is reserved for individuals who are basically unsocialized and whose behavior pattern brings them repeatedly into conflict with society. They are incapable of significant loyalty to individuals, groups, or social values. They are grossly selfish, callous, irresponsible, impulsive, and unable to feel guilt or to learn from experience and punishment. Frustration tolerance is low. They tend to blame others or offer plausible rationalizations for their behavior. A mere history of repeated legal or social offenses is not sufficient to justify this diagnosis. Group delinquent reaction of childhood (or adolescence) (q.v.), and Social maladjustment without manifest psychiatric disorder (q.v.) should be ruled out before making this diagnosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katsesama (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Psychopathy is not a personality disorder

I do not think the DSM / APA list psychopathy as a personality disorder. Does anybody else have a say on this?

Read the article. It is also known as or as a type of antisocial personality. Antisocial personality is in the DSM. Special:Contributions/98.127.155.132|98.127.155.132]] (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"estimated that one percent of the general population are psychopaths"

This statement cites sources that do not contain any equivalent phrase to "one percent of the general population are estimated to be psychopaths". Also, the special ability of psychopaths to blend in to the normal population would make any legal method of gathering this statistic highly unreliable. So even if this statement was backed up by a source, it is a very questionable piece of data. 70.112.62.68 (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have seen such figures as 1%, 3%, 3-5%, 5%, etc. ExistentialBliss (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have changed this by adding: "Hare estimates that" Lova Falk talk 12:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A great article

Thanks to all for the work on this excellent article. This article provides important understanding to Wikipedia readers whose lives have been turned upside down by these people.

Writers who have dealt with, or have been targeted by a psychopath, have an essential understanding of the skill and subtlety of these people that others, not having had such experiences, lack. Actual observation of these people in action is crucial.

Well said:

"Whether psychopathy is a product of genetics, neurobiology, or childrearing practices or whether it represents a moral defect in character or is an expression of "evil," we must agree with William Reid, who states in chapter 7, with more passion than science, that for the greater good of society, "We must stop identifying with the chronic criminal and stop allowing him to manipulate our misplaced guilt about treating him as he is: qualitatively 'different' from the rest of us."

KnowYouNow (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

RE cure & treatment

A quote from the article: "There is neither a cure nor any effective treatment for psychopathy;..." - how about an AR-15??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.189.27 (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Psychopaths are distracted, not cold-blooded" (or unable to generalize fear?)

I came across an interesting article with information that I think should be incorporated into this article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427304.000-psychopaths-are-distracted-not-coldblooded.html But I don't think newscientist chose the right words. It may be more accurate to say psychopaths are unable to generalize fear (or maybe any emotions to varying degrees?). AndreasBWagner (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Answer: Actually, they can. They develope a field of human emotions that protect their true psychopathic emotions, however, it partially depends on the I.Q of the individual really. If they have an abnormal I.Q (35 or below) then they may not be able to develope the emotion.

You do have a point with the distraction thing, but what exactly is the cause?

Suicide happens because of words unsaid, and I think that things unspoken can result in low self esteem, which traces to becomming a misanthropist (one who hates mankind) and some psychopathy has outta be involved in it. -S.J Schwabenbauer. 16:37, 4 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.130.81 (talk)

An IQ under 35 on all modern scales reflects a profoundly mentally retarded individual. With an IQ so low, possible psychopathy is moot. The person is basically non-functioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.115.165 (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Primary/secondary psychopaths controversy

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#The_Primary.E2.80.93Secondary_distinction

The stuff about psychopaths never committing suicide is rubbish and also uncited. It also conflicts with my cited information further down saying that psychopaths can get depressed and commit suicide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Differential_diagnosis:_associated_and_overlapping_conditions

Also I can think of several imprisoned psychopaths who commited suicide. --Penbat (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Kantor comments

Comments about Martin Kantor as being just a self-help author are outrageous. He is a long standing psychiatrist and clinical professor. He has written about 15 books on various aspects of psychiatry. I have his book on The Psychopathy Of Everyday Life in front of me. The book has loads of academic citations to gurus like Cleckley, Hare and Millon. What he does do is cover an interesting perspective on psychopaths relating to how they manifest themselves in everyday life. There is almost nothing in the book that can be considered "self help" or advice and I havent mentioned anything in Wikipedia that can be considered self help or advice. I have however included a list of vulnerabilities in the victim exploited by psychopaths which are important in understanding how the psychopaths mind works. It also ties in with Vulnerability Nearly all of Kantors books are theoretical and observational and certainly not self help. And the concept of Enabling is important as is overlapping psychiatric conditions. --Penbat (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Cause for concern

This article has somewhat damaged my image of wikipedia as a valid source of information. First of all, its length is extraordinary. Secondly, the various sections have very little to do with each other and often contradict one another. Particularly at fault are the sections that simply contain incoherent, meaningless lists. I think we can all agree that psychopathy is not a term that is easy to define, and there is no true, widely held proscriptive basis for defining individuals as such. Thus, the 'enablers' section must be considered subjective editorializing. This section is also laughable in its complete lack of worthwhile information. Several of the other sections are very similar. Ultimately, this entire thing needs to be flagged, re-organized, and re-written. It is one of the worst wikipedia articles I have ever seen. The debate above, if anything, evidences the need for this whole article to be plowed under and re-planted. Semprini —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.204.17 (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it needs a lot of work. Any suggestions on how to do this right the first time? Perhaps WP:MEDMOS is the place to go. Alamanth (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Length is extrordinary? The length of an article can easily be shown in relation to another by comparing the scroll bars on the side of the screen. The smaller the bar the bigger the article if you want to see a big article, see Japan orHuman. Psycopathy is a hugely complicated mater. If anything this article is to small. Not to mention that about two thirds of the article is reference and link content.69.226.111.151 (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Major revision per MEDMOS

I have performed a major revision of this article, using the layout guidelines set forth in WP:MEDMOS as a guide. My edits consist mainly of reorganizing existing material; very little was added. I did not include all existing material; what was not included is pasted, below. Feedback on this edit series is welcome. Alamanth (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome, visitors from Wikiprojects Medicine and Psychology

Thank you for coming to improve the Psychopathy article. Users who are editing this article may be interested to read the discussion at Wikiproject Medicine, as it develops. Alamanth (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sociopathy =/= Psychopathy

So why does "sociopath" lead to this article?--69.203.143.103 (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

They're used interchangeably. Psychopathy#Psychopathy_vs._sociopathy acknowledges a slight difference, but they're both essentially variations of the same disorder: antisocial personality disorder (or dissocial personality disorder). Psychopathy and sociopathy aren't recognized as actual disorders today. MichaelExe (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If they're just variations of the same disorder, and moreover aren't recognized as actual disorders today, then why not redirect both "psychopathy" and "sociopathy" to "antisocial personality disorder", with perhaps sections within that article discussing psychopathy and/or sociopathy if these variations are significant enough to warrant such inclusion? --69.203.143.103 (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I came here via the Sociopath redirect and was confused to find nothing in the lede about Sociopathy. I think a sentence or two would be a good idea. Rees11 (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

MichaelExe is incorrect to say that psychopathy isn't actually recognized today since it's still being actively diagnosed, but it is not specified in the DSM-IV-TR (see antisocial personality disorder) or ICD-10 (see dissocial personality disorder). Psychopathy measures some personality characteristics not qualified in the DSM or ICD, so it's not exactly the same. Psychopathy now has standard interviews and questionnaires to measure it. Sociopathy is just a term some theorists use to distinguish the cause of antisocial behavior.--NeantHumain (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought the general consensus was that the main characteristic of both psychopaths and sociopaths is a lack of empathy, but that psychopaths are relatively more manipulative, whereas sociopaths are not necessarily manipulative but are typically rasher/colder in their antisocial thoughts and/or behavior (e.g. "I would like to see everyone die in an orgy of hydrogen bombs"). Of course, there's much more to the psychopath and sociopath than what I just mentioned, but the point is that SOCIOPATHY IS NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS PSYCHOPATHY, and so "sociopath"/"sociopathy" should not redirect to "psychopath"/"psychopathy" but instead have its own article. Thus, I vote in favor of getting rid of this redirect, and in favor of creating a new article for "sociopath"/"sociopathy". Or, at least, like someone else said, acknowledge the differences within the "antisocial personality disorder" article, where "psychopath" and "sociopath" could act as sub-topics. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? Yes? --82.31.164.172 (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

Revert this pointlessness back immediately.

A sociopath, regardless of the apparently "interchangeable term", is NOT equal to psychopathy. Various philosophies encompass sociopathic belief systems...yet they are not called "psychopathic".

It's terribly POV. Especially given the long history, and continued history, of psychopathy's view in relation to mental health and social stigma. A sociopath is not a psychopath, that they slightly differ does NOT mean they should simply be merged. As they vary enough to be either considered separate articles, or as the case was before, a short descriptive article that redirects to things associated with sociopathy. 202.124.88.169 (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Ref user Alamanth

User:Alamanth was blocked on 13th November 09 as a sock puppet of banned user User:Zeraeph. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zeraeph

On that basis I leave it to you guys to decide whether to retain her changes or remove them. --Penbat (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sooooooo many edits. I think that most of her edits were improvements, though. before and after. MichaelExe (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just use your judgment on each one. --Penbat (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the Robert Hare hero worship is inappropriate for the lede. Rees11 (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are there source citations inside the Hare quote? Either he said these things or he didn't, and if he did then the Hare source applies to the entire quote. Rees11 (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

One small problem User:Alamanth had nothing, whatsoever to do with me, and this is the first I have heard of him/her, check the actual pathways and I feel sure you will find that out. I have no sockpuppets. I also REALLY think it is time someone put a stop to User:Penbat's more abstract capacity for equal misinformation, he is filling up psyhology articles with left of field nonsense, most of which is, at best, a considerable distortion of any source he cites, and, at worse simply made up off the top of his head. signed - The REAL Zeraeph --109.79.193.159 (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Overselective attention

Could someone define or operationalize the term "overselective attention" as used in the Characteristics>Stroop tasks subsection? I was unable to locate a definition elsewhere myself. --Crusher1 (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Society and culture

Wondering if it might want to be converted to pop culture references. Seems appropriate.

Either way, someone might want to add a ref to a specific episode of the TV show House, in which psychopathy was the main resolution of the patient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remorse_%28House%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.177.115 (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of term "abnormally immoral"

This term appears to have been added to the opening sentence the other day in the midst of a huge spate of editing. I tagged it with a citation request at the time because it struck me as somewhat opaque. I've subsequently searched for examples of it it being used in a similar context to the way it appears in the article. So far, in what I've found, "abnormally immoral" appears to be an expression used from roughly the 1880's to the late 1920's in a number of ways, none of appearing to match it's exact use in this article. Could someone else please take a look at this as well and offer an opinion? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't supposed to be some kind of definitive definition but, along with the rest of the sentence, a lead summary of what the article says. The previous definition of "lack of empathy" was clearly not sufficient to distinguish from other conditions or to do justice to the mixture of interpersonal, psychological, behavioral and moral issues involved. But more importantly, see next section. Tweak279 (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And btw in regard to this, the article has been woefully lacking in any kind of constructive critique of the concept. I've added a few points of balance in there but there needs to be more like e.g. "The category of psychopathy is one of the more controversial within psychiatry"[3], which is saying something. And "The review demonstrates that studies are fragmented and no clear consensus seems to emerge concerning any of the discussion areas or even the construct of psychopathy itself"[4] Tweak279 (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Appallingly formatted lead

Before I started editing, this is what was in the first paragraph. I do'nt know how long it's been here but I mean, a load of quotes strung together as if they're one giant quote (or was it one quote from one of the sources, originally??), appearing to be from Hare at different times but actually different parts of it attributed to several different sources and authors, WTF? The second paragraph wasn't much better, and also seemed to be stating Hare et al's POV as fact, but at least I've balanced it out now (and corrected the fact that one of the sources, from Scientific American, did not state the figure it was supposedly sourcing, and yet did directly contradict what was said in the prior sentence about treatment!!). But I'm at a loss as to how to sort out the unclear quoting and sourcing of the intro.

"Researcher Robert Hare, whose Hare Psychopathy Checklist is widely used, describes psychopaths as "intraspecies predators who use charisma, manipulation, intimidation, sexual intercourse and violence to control others and to satisfy their own needs. Lacking in conscience and empathy, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse". "What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony."

Tweak279 (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I'm suggesting it is wrong and un-encyclopedic to have the bulk of the first paragraph in the form of quotes anyway, especially these sorts of sensationalist generalizations. Tweak279 (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed sensational and reads like a horror movie review; and for that reason is probably inaccurate, though "academically sound." ExistentialBliss (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Conversation with Hare

This is the podcast of a Radio National discussion moderated by Philip Adams. A fairly easy intro to the subject. Would it be appropriate under External links?Anthony (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Antisocial disorder vs psychopathy

this intro says that in place of psychopathy in manuals is antisocial disorder. this could imply they are interchanged. the following is from the antisocial disorder page.

"People having antisocial personality disorder are sometimes mistakenly referred to as "sociopaths" and "psychopaths". However, an abundance of research has shown that antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy, and sociopathy are distinctly different personality disorders." 99.150.6.168 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Asperger is 'Psychopathy'?

I do not know why 'Autistic Psychopathy' redirects to Asperger's Syndrome. Psychopathy strikes me as a propensity to gross violence that may be as exceptional in people with Autism spectrum disorders as anyone else. I would like explanation for this insinuation that there is a deep relationship between these disabilities. It strikes me as defamatory. 24.184.234.24 (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)LeucineZipper You may think it's legit, but I would say such a redirect is like redirecting 'Joe Bloggs is a Loser' to 'Joe Bloggs' 24.184.234.24 (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)LeucineZipper

Autistic psychopathy used to be used as a term for Asperger's syndrome but given the obvious negative connotations, they changed the name. Contrary to popular belief, psychopaths have no propensity to gross violence (unlike sociopaths), they're just more indifferent towards it than the average person. --194.81.33.10 (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed this because I have Asperger's and I consider it to be EXTREMELY offensive. Wikipedia is a place for learning, not creating hateful feelings against people with Asperger's. Please keep it from getting back on the page. It's very hurtful. Pokefan098 (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I heard that, in German, "Psychopathie" has, or had, a different meaning from the current meaning of "psychopathy" in English. Notice that psychopathology, contrary to what etymology suggests, is the study of mental disorders in general, not only of psychopathy. See also Talk:Psychopathy/Archive_1#Other_meaning_of_.22psychopathy.22. Apokrif (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

as well as Kathrin Hippler and Christian Klicpera, retrospective analysis of the clinical case records of ‘autistic psychopaths’ diagnosed by Hans Asperger and his team at the University Children’s Hospital, Vienna : "In the German language,‘psychopathy’ did not quite have the negative connotation it now has in English. It was merely a term for describing personality disorders and did not seek to stress the patients’ proneness to criminality." But see also "Asperger's Disorder and Criminal Behavior: Forensic-Psychiatric Considerations". Apokrif (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove something because you find it hurtful if it's true. Wikipedia is about truth not catering to your emotions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.238.207 (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

By the modern definition of the terms Aspergers and Psychopathy in English Asperger Syndrome is not Psychopathy at all (for example, Psychopaths tens to have high cognitive empathy but low affective empathty, while the opposite is true for Aspergers). There is no connection, and the term "Autistic Psycopathy" is historic and is being used outside of context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.222.137.195 (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This article, to me, as a layman...

... Looks like "What Robert Hare thinks about people with ASPD". Hare says this, Hare says that. All citations seem to be picked to support Hare's view, when the mainstream idea is that psychopathy equals ASPD. Maybe this article could be integrated into ASPD, and another article called something like "controversies regarding distinction between ASPD and psychopathy"? Just my notion upon seeing this article. 90.227.230.219 (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with this. On it seems crazy to have a separate page for psychopathy and for anti-social personality disorder when the two terms are used interchangeably. One page with a section on any debate about using the two terms interchangeably would be appropriate - and a lot less confusing for the casual reader. --Dakinijones (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

:Actually... I went and read some Hare and I take that back. What's needed here is a clarification about the current usage of the term being outside the DSM and the IC-10. From what I gather, Hare and others are retaining the term for usage in the most extreme cases on the ASPD continuum. As he said, all psychopaths are ASPD but not all ASPD are psychopaths.  A page on psychopathy that is clear about its usage would actually clarify the meaning of ASPD... but we could do with some coherence between the two articles.

I have never heard such garbage. Hare says that both ASPD and Histrionic Personality Disorder together are both roughly equivalent to psychopathy. ASPD is the DSMs wholly inadequate attempt to classify psychopathy by concentrating on criminal violent psychopathy, and glossing over most psychopathy which is more subtle (sometimes called sociopathy). That is why Hare produced his own psychopathy checklist as the ASPD definition is totally inadequate as a complete representation of psychopathy.--Penbat (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like someone has recognized that there was too much focus on Hare and has reduced that focus a bit. The intro is much better now with its extended general explanation of psychopathy and removal of excessive Hare references. Cheers to whoever did that. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Psychopathy in pop culture

There should be a section in the article about psychopathy in popular culture, literature, film, music, etc. Mentioning "Silence of the Lamb", etc. --173.75.181.248 (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

We have Fictional portrayals of psychopaths already.--Penbat (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And now you have a link to that page from this page so that casual readers like the person above can find it... I put it under see also --Dakinijones (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Add http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=inside-the-mind-of-a-psychopathfrom Scientific American Mind September 2010

Inside the Mind of a Psychopath: Neuroscientists are discovering that some of the most cold-blooded killers aren't bad. They suffer from a brain abnormality that sets them adrift in an emotionless world by Kent A. Kiehl and Joshua W. Buckholtz, from Scientific American Mind September 2010 99.37.85.40 (talk) 22:22, 6 September 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)

Presence of delusions and nervousness

The article stated that psychopaths have 1. Presence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking 2. Presence of nervousness or psychoneurotic manifestations, however in the book Mask of sanity it clearly reads that psychopaths manifest the absence of both, not the presence. Here's a link to the book if you want to check it [5]. I undid the edit about the precence of delusions and nervousness, if someone disagrees we can talk it here. Cheers --84.251.222.22 (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Add Jon Ronson's book The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry (ISBN 978-1594488016) ?

Add Jon Ronson's book The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry (ISBN 978-1594488016) ? 99.181.128.80 (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this really scientific?

The article describes people suffering from this mental disorder as highly-manipulative, cold-blooded potential murderers who use intimidation and sex to control others. Really now, I'm not an expert but this sounds like a description taken from a Hollywood horror rather than a scientific diagnosis. But then again, psychopathy is not even a actual diagnosis anymore which makes me wonder why this article even exists in the first place. And it's like five times longer than the article about antisocial personality disorder. Besides, Robert Hare is mentioned at list 44 times in this one. --Carlminez (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is generally scaled down to be understandable to the population at large, from what I understand, a scientific definition isn't necessarily required. Sempre30 (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite being currently unused in diagnostic manuals, psychopathy and related terms such as psychopath are still widely used by mental health professionals and laymen alike, and for this reason and others an article on psychopathy is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It's also worth noting that the DSM-V working party is recommending a revision of antisocial personality disorder to include "Antisocial/Psychopathic Type", with the diagnostic criteria having a greater emphasis on character than on behavior. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Digit Ratio and Psychopathy

Finger length (or digit ratio) is a rough estimate to determine the level of testosterone and estrogen level one was exposed to in the womb. The index finger has estrogen receptors, the ring finger has testosterone receptors, the length of these two are thought to be determined by prenatal hormone exposure. This phenomenon is more pronounced on the right hand. Typically, a male will have a shorter index finger and a longer ring finger. A women will either have even index and ring fingers, or a slightly longer index finger (than ring finger). You can see a picture of a typical male and female ring/index finger length

This this new studysuggests that psychopaths have a longer index finger (an atypical male pattern), indicating abnormal prenatal estrogen exposure. On some level this makes sense, because larger doses of prenatal testosterone, according to this study is thought to enhance connections in the prefrontal cortex, so estrogen may have the opposite effect.

Below are some casual right hand pics of (allegedly) psychopaths, and I have found the study to be anecdotally true (one must look closely):

Dominique Strauss Kahn

Eric Harris. (of Columbine) Has bizarrely long index finger.

Ted Bundy. At first I thought Ted had an even ratio, but when I printed out the picture, and measured the length, the index finger was slightly longer. (one has to cock their head to the right for the best view of hand)

The abnormal estrogen exposure, may also account for the psychopaths above aveage verbal skills according to this study.. Sempre30 (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That's quite an interesting theory actually. It might also explain why females are generally more psychologically manipulative. :P --82.31.164.172 (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Prenatal Precursors

Sorry about all the edits in the artcle, took awhile to get it straight, and will still try to clean it up a bit and add better sources in a couple days time. Sempre30 (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A term until the 80's, and 'changed' the name?

Idk about you folks, but I and the majority of the world are completely unaware that 'psychopathy' has had it's name changed. I'd hazard given it's notable use ... uh, everywhere, that it's still used. I concur that the DSM-III or whatever it is may have changed IT'S definition, as may have the entire medical field for all I care, but you cannot change a definition that is still in contemporary use much more so than body dysmorphic conjugation or whatever random batshit drivel it's been renamed to. Psychopath and psychopathy will and always has been used to define someone who suffers psychotic illness relating to lack of empathy, guilt or conscience. Not a single encyclopedia (you know, the kind that come out in print too by reputed publishers) use weasel wording and claim it's been renamed.

The first paragraph reads that way, weasel word laden apologetica nonsense. I'll leave it to a wikipedian to iron this out if you guys ever do do away with such nonsense that is, otherwise I'll go back to reaffirming why wiki is a bad academic resource. :) 121.218.42.123 (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the above person makes a good point, considering that Hare, the godfather of Psychopathy recognition, came out with his book in 1999, titled: Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us.....apparently Hare didn't hear about the name change either, not to mention, the opening lede is ambiguous as hell........I think an edit is due.Sempre30 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Celtic people?

Are celtic people more likely to have psychopathy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.144.156 (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems doubtful, and it's sort of hard to say just what a Celt is beyond the context of history, and any statistic showing an increase in any ethnic group could be misleading due to differences in population size, socio-economic factors, ect. --67.58.72.182 (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Prenatal precursor section

First, it contains a copyrighted image. The claim of of "dimorphic features" are unsourced and dubious. Should be removed.

Second, see no particular reason to mention this hormone theory in a separate section in favor of the other hormone theories in the "Neurotransmitters and hormones" section. Therefore, I suggest that this material be moved to that section.Miradre (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not and will continue to revert any vandalism by you Witch Hazzel (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright is a serious matter. Click on the image and see the warnings stated there. It is likely only appropriate on the article about the person itself. Second, you need a source for claiming "dimorphic features". Do you have one? Miradre (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You have still not responded regarding copyright which is a very serious matter in Wikipedia. Click on the image an see the warnings fro the image. "Baby faced" is not the same as "dimorphic features".Miradre (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The second and third studies do not mention psychopathy. The third study is about testosterone.Miradre (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to explain it to you. It's all sourced. Will continue to revert your vandalism Witch Hazzel (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at all the sources. The only one mentioning psychopathy and estrogen is the first one. None of the other studies mention psychopathy. Stringing together unrelated studies to claim something new is WP:OR and not allowed in Wikipedia. The image should be removed from the article for copyright reason as well as not having a source for "dimorphic features" or that this is related to psychopathy.Miradre (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the sources too. [Reference #47 (ttp://pierprofessional.metapress.com/content/72574736125m483k/] mentioned DES and oestrogen according to Google Scholar but the article is locked. But I have to say, the dearth of sources discussing both DES and psychopathy -- in both PubMed and Google Scholar -- doesn't support including the section. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is the only source mentioning psychopathy and oestrogen. None of the other mentions psychopathy so trying to claim something regarding psychopathy from them is WP:OR. As is the image, not even sure what the text is claiming? How can a person have "dimorphic features"? Is it an attempt to say "androgynous features"? Regardless, completely unsourced. As for the only source, I see no reason for having a separate section for that. A paragraph in the "Neurotransmitter and hormones" section would be appropriate.Miradre (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Section talks about all the complimentary effects of in-utero estrogen exposure that would enhance psychopathy.....like higher verbal skills. (linked study). No original research noted, except for opposing effects of testosterone on development of prefrontal cortex. Testosteron article removed. Tagg Removed.

Loeb photo came from wikimedia commons, not certain who tagged it as copyrighted, but was provided by the chicago historic society and is clearly stated as being in the public domain for educational purposes.....the pic stays. Sempre30 (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your linked study does not mention estrogen and psychopathy. Stringing together studies and making a new conclusion that is not in the original studies is WP:OR and not allowed. For example, no one of the studies claims that psychopaths have "dimorphic" or even androgynous features. So that is a new, OR claim which is not allowed.Miradre (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Another OR claim is that Diethylstilbestrol and estrogen must have the same effects. They may or may not.Miradre (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Make the changes you want, just as long as the estrogen/psychopathy (Blanchard A, Lyons M) article is integrated into the "Neurotransmitters and hormones" section. Witch Hazzel (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard Loeb did have a a facial assessment: Phrenologist's interpretation of Loeb Witch Hazzel (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Phrenology is a pseudoscience and I see no mention there of him having overall "dimorphic" or androgynous features.Miradre (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Difference Between Sociopathy and Psychopathy

Sociopathy

A sociopath is a person who is severely limited in capacity for positive emotion, and would not recognize any emotion within themselves. failure to emote results in poor social skills, and an inability to empathise. The effect of which is a perceived air of ego-centrism, that is likely not the case most of the time. Sociopaths can function quite well in society because they are able to mimic responses when there is a logical cause-effect relationship. However, internal struggles of others are impossible to forsee which causes awkwardness and loss of expected response, when confronted with sudden emotional change. In other words, their emotions are more robotic in nature, in that they can be encoded into their behavior with repetition in a kind of if-this-then-that manner but when a never-before-realized pattern emerges there is no precedent to fall back on.

Contrary to popular opinion, most sociopathic individuals are not criminals. However, when other factors come into the equation, some do become criminals. In this case they can be ruthless because they are not bound by the constraints of emotion.

Psychopathy

Psychopathy is characterised by an internal logic structure that negatively differs from what is considered normal, to an extensive degree. PPs are very much able to feel emotion, even having families and crying if their child dies etc. But such emotion is only 'allowed' for certain situations, and for certain individuals. The relationship between a psychopathic person and other persons is extremely important in their behaviors towards them, respectively. Rigid and scarcely defined rules govern their responses and actions. For example, a psychopath may decide that he can only show affection for someone if the person is not wearing a blue shirt. this is an extreme example but it effectively demonstrates the principle.

Though it seems difficult to understand it is, in fact, quite simple. Imagine you are playing a James Bond Style video game in which you have just finished a level on top of a dam in russia; you've just killed 70 virtual enemies, yet you feel little or no guilt. Why? because you logically deduce that it is only a game and the individuals did not exist. Since the psychopath has an altered logical basis for his actions, it's possible that his logic system would allow him to complete the same in real life and also feel little or no guilt.

Since they are governed by vastly different rules of behavior, they almost always fail to connect with others which is why this syndrome is classified as an antisocial behavior disorder. PPs should not automatically be considered hostile, because the underlying cause likely did not arise from a desire to avoid interaction with people, though it has this effect in the end. Also, idiosyncratic behaviors do not qualify as a basis for psychopathic diagnoses unless the acts would shock the conscience of a significant percentage of the populus.

The difference

Sociopaths are deficient in the ability to process and feel emotion, creating a pathology of social impairment, whereas psychopaths by extension of altered behavioral rules, are oblivious to social acceptance for when to feel emotion, what emotion to feel, and especially when to feel guilt, with a pathology of social incompatibility. Though they are different, sociopaths do have a sharp increase in susceptibility to psychopathology.

Unfortunately the terms are used interchangeably, I think it's time that they are similarly seperated in their definitions, many sociopaths find the label psychopath to be a bit unfitting with how it's presented. --LaughingBlades (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the correct psychological term is "psychopath", and that "sociopath" is falling out of favor since they are talking about the same condition, just using different names. The upcoming DSM-V will use Antisocial/Psychopathic Personality Disorder, and Sociopathic won't be in it. For that reason I believe that there should not be a separate listing for "sociopath", but rather under "Psychopathy" there should be an explanation of the naming confusion.QuizzicalBee (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there are distinctions to be made, at least there are people born with a severely diminished capacity to experience normal human emotions (guilt, love, emotional empathy) who don't fit the psychopathic and antisocial labels, plus self aware sociopaths seem to prefer the term.--67.58.72.182 (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No Conscience?

Though some cases exist where conscience cannot readily be perceived by external individuals, there are no scientifically verified cases of absence of conscience; it is likely not possible for this to happen, from a human standpoint.

I would ask the obvious. What exactly is a conscience? Is it simply a reactionary feeling that someone gets? Is conscience predicated on understanding and philosophy, or on hormonal reactions to stimuli? Can there be conscience without emotion? If conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong then can one be said to lack a conscience simply because one does not feel remorse or pity? --LaughingBlades (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A conscience is that which impels us to do the right thing even in circumstances when no one else will find out what we've done.QuizzicalBee (talk) 07:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that the right thing can be clearly defined, under this definition a psychopath or sociopath is capable of a conscience, particularly if guided by ethics and philosophy. Dr Hare's research is based on prisoners so it's slanted towards criminals, but we're talking about intelligent beings here, and self aware psychopaths and sociopaths may adopt ethical guidelines for a variety of reasons. --67.58.72.182 (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Remorselessness Error

Under the section "Remorselessness" there is the following quote:

"I loved her so deeply. I miss her so much. What happened was a tragedy. I lost my best lover and my best friend.... Why doesn't anybody understand what I've been going through?

—Peter Maas after murdering his wife"

Peter Maas never murdered his wife. He wrote a book about Kenneth Taylor who killed his wife and Kenneth Taylor said the quote. I don't know how to edit Wikipedia and would appreciate if someone would kindly correct the misquote. Here is a source with the specific quote already highlighted.

google books

FIXED... thank you very much for bringing this error to the attention of other editors... making sure there are no serious violations of policies regarding Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP is very important! -- bonze blayk (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Autistic Psychopathy"

I believe autistic psychopathy should be removed from the "See also" section. It is already is the "Not to be confused with" section, and Autistic Psychopathy, which is Asperger's name for the syndrome which now bears his name, has absolutely nothing in common with Psychopathy (some even consider them to be opposites), and placing it in the see also section instead of just the "not to be confused with section" is misleading as it can cause people to believe that autism/aspergers can cause psychopathy or that they are related, which is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.222.137.195 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed autistic psychopathy from "see also" because the two topics are not related. Leaving it in "not to be confused with" is probably fair though seeing as they are two very different concepts that may cause confusion.Watermelon mang (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

External Link

I have added an outside link to a self test checking for traits of psychopathic, narcissistic and histrionic personality disorders based on ICD-10 and DSM-IV that could be of help for persons who are not sure which disorder (if any) they are actually suffering from. It got deleted by 'OhNoitsJamie' @ 15:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC) by a mouseclick right away - a mouseclick by which she even removed a factual error in the article about histrionic disorder I corrected and that took me some time to dig up a credible source for. I can understand that contributions of 'new' users are checked carefully, but this treatment feels very awkward. Here is the link to the test: http://www.counseling-office.com/surveys/test_psychopathy.phtml , please check yourself if it may damage the reputation of Wikipedia as 'OhNoitsJamie' claimed... Can anyone please give feedback on whether anyone sees a problem with adding it for the readers who look for orientation. Thanks! Sys2007 (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't meet our WP:EL or WP:Reliable sources policies. Continued spamming of commercial links will result on blacklisting of said links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Characteristics

Most of these subsections seem to be basically advancing and following the points of views of Hare in one of his books for general reader (not itself specifically sourced), mixed in with personal descriptions and the odd other source. I think it should be boiled down to at least half the length and number of subections, and attributed as a summary of Hare's characterization of the psychopath. I'll start doing that unless any other view. Eversync (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably gonna keep on editing away at the article, unless any concerns or feedback on the direction or any issues etc... Eversync (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC) (incl. re the length of article or any sections... Eversync (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC))