Talk:Psychopathy/Archive 4

The MacDonald Triad

I've noticed that the MacDonald triad has been blended with mention of some symptoms of conduct disorder in the Symptoms and Potential warning signs section. The MacDonald Triad is prolonged bedwetting, repeated firesetting, and cruelty to animals; MacDonald developped this idea in relation to serial killers and not psychopaths.--24.217.183.224 17:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Very important, thank you, I will correct it later, though it is also taken to be an indicator of a psychopath these days--Zeraeph 17:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Link to "Mask of Sanity" Download

[I have added this under the sincere impression that the book is now out of copyright, and the download available http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/sanity_1.PdF (which has been openly available for a couple of years) is perfectly legal. If I am in any way wrong in my assumptions please correct my error! --82.195.137.125 03:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)]

In the United States at least, it is not. The copyright date of the fifth edition is 1988, and the PDF version is made available for "private printing for non-profit educational use." It is still under copyright, but I do not know if the copyright holder(s) have legally made it available on the Internet in the form it currently is.--24.217.183.224 03:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the copyright holders have presumably given permission for the "non profit educational use", that PDF is perfectly legal (I'm not a lawyer). However that is irrelevant to Wikipedia. We can reference the link if we want, but we can't host that PDF ourselves (as a Wikisource or whatever) as their terms of distribution are incompatible with the GFDL --Bk0 (Talk) 03:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[Thanks both, shall we let it sit for now? I know I was personally surprised and delighted to be able to download this work at least two years ago, I am sure others will be too --Zeraeph (the artist formerly known as 82.195.137.125, I got hooked, I made an account, so sue me ;o) ) 03:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]

Factor Models of Psychopathy

The current edition of the PCL-R officially lists four factors (1.a, 1.b, 2.a, and 2.b), but different researchers have come up with differing numbers of factors depending on their statistical analysis methods and data sample. I have seen research on a five-factor model, a four-factor model, a three-factor model, and the classical two-factor model. Since psychopathy is really not defined by factor models, this probably should be removed from the introduction. Also, it should not be forgotten that, although Robert D. Hare is currently the foremost expert on the psychopathic personality, he is not solely responsible for the definition of this personality disorder; nor are his psychopathy measurement instruments the only basis of the concept of psychopathy. An article on psychopathy should not be confused with an article on the PCL-R, PCL:SV, and other measures of personality and personality dysfunction.--24.217.183.224 01:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[I have to say I'm not too comfortable with the four factor model as introduction myself, it's not exactly the most significant or defining aspect of psychopathy. The "four factor model" is far better defined later in the article so I have just given the introduction the, provisional, "chop", but now the article needs a new introduction. It seems to me that, so far we are saying a lot about how a Psychopath is measured and portrayed, but nothing about what a psychopath IS. Perhaps the introduction should define that? Also, perhaps the introduction should be a little "sexier" as at present the article is a little dry? I've put in a "trial intro" but it's not final, it "will do for now". The more interesting, concise and informative the intro can be the better and I feel certain it CAN be better. You are also right to say that we really do need to interject a little Cleckley (often considered "The Father of Psychopathy, after all) and others. Towards this end I have removed the "mergeto" suggestion (I hope I am allowed to do that, because if not some poor soul will have to get up at dawn to shoot me) in the hope that a more permanent, postive feel to the article will encourage more balanced and lively contributions --82.195.137.125 03:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)]

I think there needs to be a little more emphasis on the destructive apsect to psychopathy/sociapathy (etc) because many of the signs and behavious are common in normal people at various times, and some also work to long term positive effect. Otherwise people are going to start practicing amatuer psychology on their friends and diagnosing them as psychopaths with little idea as to the extremely dangerous and serious condition it is.Abunyip 02:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What about sociopathy?

I am interested in hearing opinions about whether a separate article should be written about sociopathy. The DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10, of course, do not consider etiology in their diagnostic criteria, but many theorists do speculate that a certain personality type defined by emotional callousness and criminality is the end result of improper socialization, especially David T. Lykken, who believes that proper psychopaths are rare (with an incidence rate of about 1%) whereas sociopaths are quite common (with an incidence rate of between 3% and 5%). He emphasizes this distinction because he believes treatment and prevention may be quite different for the two. Psychopaths are at an especially high risk of developping criminal and other antisocial behavioral tendencies because of their inherent lack of empathy and temperamental fearlessness; sociopaths constitute a much wider phenotype and are the result of harsh, inconsistent, or absent parenting; poverty and lack of educational opportunity; and socializarion into crime.

Psychopathy (or whatever you want to call it) is one of the more controversial personality disorders in this respect. Few articles are written about the importance of distinguishing subtle variations from genotype or other etiology in obsessive-compulsive personality disorder or schizoid personality disorder. Should people who develop a propensity to a rigid sense of morality, an obsession with doing things perfectly, and a compulsion to hoard everything be called anal retentive if they developped this personality disorder as a result of psychological difficulty during toilet training and anankastic or perfectionistic if they simply had a genetic or neurological predisposition to a preoccupation with details and exactitude? The DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 do not make such a distinction, and I am aware of no complaints. Then again, their personality disorder is not nearly the burden on society that antisocial personality disorder and its theoretical cousins are. --24.217.183.224 13:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[I'd dispute your definition of "sociopath" myself, as "sociopath" is widely considered to be an exact synomym for "psychopath". "In 1930, G.E. Partridge proposed that the title of psychopath be changed to sociopath, for he viewed this illness as a social problem instead of just a mental illness. In 1952, the American Psychiatric Association acted on this suggestion by officially replacing the term psychopath with the term sociopath." - Rebecca Horton 1999 --82.195.137.125 18:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)]

• That's exactly the problem. Many experts consider psychopathy, sociopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and dissocial personality disorder to be synonymous; but many experts use their own definitions, creating endless confusion on what exactly is meant. At least in the case of psychopathy, Robert Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised provides some underlying consensus on the personality traits exhibited if not etiology. Antisocial Personality, Sociopathy, and Psychopathy culls some of Lykken's theory about sociopathy. It lists four types of sociopath: the common sociopath, the alienated sociopath, the aggressive sociopath, and the dyssocial sociopath.--24.217.183.224 01:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Robert D. Hare the expert of psychopaths does not use sociopath and wants to get rid of that term. Moomot 00:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[This really IS a superb article, and for me, makes the case for opening sociopathy as a seperate article beyond question. --82.195.137.125 01:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)]

Although mine is a non-expert opinion I was under the impression that a sociopath was a purely violent but not by definition emotionless personality. Symmetric Chaos 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Added material from Antisocial personality disorder

I added much of the material from the APD article that is at least as applicable to this one.--24.217.183.224 03:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

---

[I have restored the last article that apppeared on this page (not mine), with only one small spelling correction on the grounds that follow (quoted from AntiSocial Personality Disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder ):

Criticism of the DSM-IV criteria

The DSM-IV confound: some argue that an important distinction has been lost by including both sociopathy and psychopathy together under APD. As Hare et al write in their abstract, "The Axis II Work Group of the Task Force on DSM-IV has expressed concern that antisocial personality disorder (APD) criteria are too long and cumbersome and that they focus on antisocial behaviors rather than personality traits central to traditional conceptions", concluding, "... conceptual and empirical arguments exist for evaluating alternative approaches to the assessment of psychopathy .… our hope is that the information presented here will stimulate further research on the comparative validity of diagnostic criteria for psychopathy; although too late to influence DSM-IV". [1]

As well as my own feeling that this topic should be defined, and will be sought out, as seperate issue to AntiSocial Personality Disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder.

It is my hope that I will not be left to define this topic alone --82.195.137.125 17:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)]

(Speaker #2) Sociopath should not redirect to Psychopath.

[Now that's an interesting thought, not agreeing and not disagreeing. I'd need to see the differences laid out before I could decide where I came down on that. There are differences, the trouble is it depends on your source which difference goes where. For instance, broadly, in the US "Sociopath" is more commonly judicial terminology whereas in the UK "Psychopath" is more commonly the judicial term, in fact until a new Mental Health Act a couple of years ago in British Law "Psychopath" was a broad term that covered any mental illness - which I should probably cook up into something good enough to be part of the article --82.195.137.125 02:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)]

Merge with Antisocial personality disorder

Much of this article is a cut-and-paste from APD, however the parent article is more comprehensive and mature. Any additional content in this article should be merged into APD (the proper clinical name for the condition) with Psychopathy as a redirect.

Please indicate your thoughts on this with either Support or Oppose, followed by optional comments explaining why.

• Support, as above. --Bk0 (Talk) 04:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support: they're the same thing, and APD is the right place for the merged article. -- Karada 04:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose ASPD and Psychopathy are not the same disorder. Hare himself remarked that while all psychopaths have ASPD, only a very small proportion of ASPDs are psychopaths What is more ASPD is no more the recognized diagnostic term for Psychopathy than "infectious disease" is for Malaria. The PCL-R refers only to psychopathy, NOT ASPD, (hence the acronym P-psychopathy C-check L-list http://www.hare.org/pclr/index.html ).

The psychopathy article is only thin (which it is at present) because all the good information in it was transferred to ASPD where a great deal of it is not entirely relevant. I believe that all the information specific to psychopathy (including the PCL-R) should be removed from ASPD as well as replaced here. When I restored that article I did not feel it right to replace that, or add to the article myself without further discussion so I just restored the "last known version".

Beyond that again, psychopathy, as a term, has an whole legal, medical, judicial and literary history with connotations unrelated to ASPD. Remember this is NOT supposed to be a medical encyclopaedia, but a general one, thus the legal, judicial and literary connotations of a topic should have equal weight with the medical ones. --82.195.137.125 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you referring to legal definitions of psychopath, sexual psychopath, and sexual predator used in legal statutes to define certain individuals whose release from prison or other institutionalization is considered to be too dangerous for society? Example legal code: Chapter 71.06 RCW: Sexual psychopaths--24.217.183.224 21:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[No I wasn't specifically referring to that, but I would have been if I had been aware of it, thanks! AS far as I know there are examples all over the place, the only one I have read in detail is the former British Mental Health Act that I had to study, for other reasons, a couple of years ago...I don't seem to be able to find it on line right now, but if I do I'll post it here are a couple of interesting links to the definition of a psychopth in the NEW UK Mental Health Act:

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5016-ii/5016ii09.htm

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm41/4194/ash-gls.htm

--82.195.137.125 21:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)]

I see nothing in your objection that can't be addressed with a section in APD, in fact you seem to be saying that the word "psychopath" should be interpreted literally: general psychological pathology. By that definition depression, OCD, borderline disorder, schizophrenia and any other DSM-IV condition qualifies a patient as a "psychopath". I seriously doubt that is a generally accepted medical or diagnostic use of the word. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[No, that wasn't my point at all, though as a matter of fact, I think, until as late as the 40s or 50s (and in British Mental Health Law, which would not relate to DSM at all until about 2001) that IS exactly what psychopath meant: "general psychological pathology". The current meaning came later. All I am saying is that as it stands today it has a seperate and quite different meaning to ASPD, and a seperate and different set of legal, judicial and literary connotations and history, in short it is quite a different topic to ASPD, and should be treated as one. After all Ford and Chevrolet are not subsections of Automobile --82.195.137.125 05:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)]

Perhaps a section on the evolving terminology for antisocial personality disorder should be included as a section of that article. The word psychopathy once also carried the sense that psychopathology does today. In my opinion, that does not imply the necessity of an article on psychopathy. Psychopathy today refers to antisocial personality disorder, or at least some variant of it. That should be the primary focus of an article on psychopathy, if indeed such an article should persist.--24.217.183.224 04:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[Sorry, but experts, including Robert Hare, insist that it is, essentially, a totally different disorder to ASPD, and until that is (hopefully) resolved in DSM V both terms should surely stay as the separate categories they are? --82.195.137.125 11:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)]

And yet, if the disorders are so different, why was the article you created a cut and paste between APD and Psychopathy, including diagnostic criteria! A section in APD explaining that some dispute the DSM lumping psychopathy in with it is more than sufficient. --Bk0 (Talk) 14:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[Understand, I did NOT "cut and paste" from anywhere, I simply restored the last version of the article that appeared here, verbatum, with one spelling error corrected. I believed this was the fairest and most just point from which to begin to develop a full article with proper discussion and concensus as to the form of the article and the information it should contain.

However, regarding the diagnostic criteria, it would be my understanding that Hare's PCL-R test is not intended for the diagnosis of ASPD at all, but only for the diagnosis of Psychopathy (by Hare's own account) and should not actually appear as part of the ASPD article at all. However I had no intention of deleting a single word of any article without full discussion and concensus.

I do not quite understand the resistance to retaining the psychopathy article, after all, these are psychiatric (and, at times judicial) definitions that can only gain by being more precisely identified and defined, they are not artistes in a knockout competition like "American Idol"! ;o) --82.195.137.125 23:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)]

• Oppose They are not the same. Psychopaths have no capacity for empathy (towards others or themselves), are manipulative, feel no guilt, disregard society... People with ASPD do have empathy (big difference) and do care about society (they may fight it, but they care about it). And, this from personal experince (I'm a psych student): there's no point in common between a psychopath and an ASPD when you meet both: you look at a psychopath, and his look is utterly cold and fixed. I think they are two completely different things. Raystorm 16:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Whether ultimately they are the same or not, enough controversy exists on the question to merit keeping them separate. --68.202.66.211 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose as per above. Well said, it is simply not the same disorder, this article can be cleaned up but it is an entirely different thing. Moomot 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition problem?

If there is as much a problem with defining "psychopath" as we can see in the article and here on the talk page, shouldn't that be stated more openly in the introduction? I.e., if the DSM4 subsumes it under a differently-named "official" category, shouldn't there be some acknowledgement that it's more a common-speech term than a scientific term?

As it stands, I'd call the first half of this article very non-NPOV. E.g.: it says "psychopaths are", while it seems it should be stated as "a psychopath is defined variously as", since there's quite obviously no agreement or scientific definition beyond a couple personality tests.

And what about "In real terms, the psychopath is just as likely to sit on a Board of Directors as behind bars": can someone quote statistics? I.e., have there been psychopathy tests performed on the non-offending population that back this up? If so, wouldn't it be informative to show such stats in this article?

Also, re: Phineas Gage: from what I remember being taught, he simply became childishly impulsive. However, he also developed a strong affinity for animals: is that also a sign of psychopathy?

Also, why don't we fix up this article's grammar? You know, maybe clean up the incomplete sentences, point-form speech, and so on? It does get better after the first half of the article, which seems a lot more amateurish than the second half. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.93.131 (talk • contribs)

Goodness, no, there is no definition problem: Cleckley and Hare identified and defined the concept of psychopathy AND have demonstrated with repeated experimental data from MANY different fields that a significant portion of the population MEET the definition CONSISTENTLY and ACCURATELY. The only "definition problem" is the confusion of people who for some reason or other prefer the horoscopes called "personality disorders" in the DSM just because they have the backing of "important people". Just see for example the "Oppose" paragraph by Raystorm in the "Merge with APD" section: APD is basically useless but psychopathy is clear. This confusion is sad because it is resulting in the punishment of basically decent people and leaving us all at the mercy of very harmful individuals. Hence, this article is so vital as to be life-saving, and should never be removed/merged nor its focus on the Hare definition changed. (As an aside, it truly blows my mind how the constructs in the DSM are taken as if given by God, when they were created by somebody after watching people in summer camp (source: All Things Considered daily program from National Public Radio, USA). Though some attempts at validating and redefining them have been made, they are after-the fact ones setting out to prove hypotheses rather than finding the truth, and nowhere near as thorough and multidsciplinary as those by Hare and colleagues who have validated psychopathy through many forms of measurement from startle reflex through EEG, from word recognition to brain imaging. How can some half-baked ideas from the DSM be more believed AND used for real effects on people's lives than solid science is truly beyond me.) --209.129.16.122 02:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes, basically, go get your bucket and a broom...PLEASE...the more spit and polish the better. Though I took the stuff about Phineas Gage straight from "The Psychopath's Brain" there are other examples, but they don't have the same GOSH factor somehow. Perhaps you would like to contribute a piece on the controversy around defining psychopathy? Pop it in, maybe before, after or mixed up with definition? --Zeraeph 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)]

Phineas Gage developped what is sometimes called pseudopsychopathic personality disorder, frontal lobe disorder, or organic personality disorder. Some of his personality changes bear a strong resemblance to psychopathy (e.g., poor behavioral controls, irritability and quick temper, impulsivity, and irresponsibility), but there are notable differences between acquired psychopathy (i.e., through brain injury) and developmental psychopathy (e.g., moral reasoning does not show the same lack of distinction between convention/rules and empathetic morality in acquired cases and also basic regulation of emotions is usually intact in normal psychopaths who do not have labile emotions). The quote about being as likely to be on the board of directors as behind bars is hyperbole from Hare et al. who wish to warn the public about so-called subclinical psychopaths (i.e., those who remain undiagnosed and functioning uninstitionalized in society while still causing grievous harm). The presence of psychopathy and antisocial personality traits in the broader population is inferred from personality surveys, but I do not know the exact estimated figure from the studies off the top of my head. Obviously, there are many more incarcerated criminals in the U.S. than Fortune 1000 CEOs and directors, but that doesn't mean a jailer (yes, the people watching the psychopaths in jail can very well be psychopaths, too, or at least sadists), confidence men, Don Juan types, demanding yet irresponsible bosses, school coaches with rumors buzzing around their heads, etc.--NeantHumain 09:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to see the pseudopsychopathic personality disorder bits in main article (where I will soon put them) with an article redirect (who knows, one day someone may dig enough to make a full article?) from the term.

I'm not sure how I feel (because I have to think it out) about your take on the differences between aquired and developmental psychopathy (Define developmental please? Also where would you put congenital psychopathy in this? I feel we may have three hypotheses to make the distinction between here if they can all be verified).

There is no hyperbole (or even necessarily "subclinical") about the controlled psychopath. What do you think Ted Bundy was? Most of them simply don't get caught because their hobbies and interests do not include violent murder or other blatant lawbreaking, and the distinction IS that cold. Though people with ANYTHING "buzzing around in their heads" are unlikely to be psychopathic, because of the reduced affectiveness psychopath don't generally GET that bugged

I wish you had discussed some of the changes you did make first. I don't know if you realise, but some (not all, the parts about psychopathy in children were perfect and vital) of the changes you made to the main article amounted to reverting hyperbole that had long been simplified out as affecting, not only the concise impact, but also the accuracy of the article, yet some of the points you are raising here belong in the main article and even suggest whole subsections and new articles and I hope we get to explore them further--Zeraeph 12:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any direct comparisons between prevalence rates within prison populations compared to non-prison populations as of yet. Though studies using the PPI-R (psychopathic personality inventory - revised, Lilienfeld & Widows, 2006), a well-validated self-report measure of the interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy, have indicated that non-criminal populations display score distributions not dissimilar from those seen in criminal populations. Another source of evidence on this is the work of Babiak (e.g. Snakes in suits, Babiak & Hare, 2006) an organisational psychologist who did several case studies on 'corporate psychopaths' and found a number of individuals who not only scored around or over the cut-off for psychopathy on the PCL-R (despite not having technically committed any crimes) but who, when he did a follow-up several years later, were all still working for the same companies and had often been promoted. However, there is still a considerable lack of research in this area and a lot of it is still theoretical supposition.

The definition of psychopathy is still somewhat debated, though this is predominently focused on whether criminality and anti-social behaviour is central to the concept or if it is merely a possible, and most common, behavioural manifestation of the personality and affective deficits of the disorder (see pretty much any research by Cooke and Michie or Scott Lilienfeld). A debate which is anything moves it away from Anti-social Personality Disorder (ASPD), since the criminal factors are the principle source of overlap. ASPD both over-diagnoses and under-diagnoses psychopathy since it captures many offenders who lack the personality traits of the disorder and misses those who may not necessarily commit crimes whilst still displaying relevant deficits. 144.32.162.127 14:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

language

The flowery language in the intro is cute, but doesn't really seem to fit the encyclopedia style. I think the article could really benefit from a more solid introduction and firm definitions. The intro there now is really weak. --DanielCD 02:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I removed that silly satan picture. I don't recommend replacing it. --DanielCD 02:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree about "that silly satan picture" it just adds a little visual interest IHMO He stays. I am also unsure as to what is so very wrong with making an intro interesting?--Zeraeph 02:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Satan picture isn't really appropriate for this article. It introduces theological considerations that just aren't appropriate for an article discussing a psychiatric and legal concept. Also, it furthers the popular misunderstanding that psychopathy is psychiatry's name for evil. Hervey Cleckley himself said that psychopaths seem unable to maintain any particular goals for very long—whether for good or for bad. If any picture is appropriate, it would be a picture of an actual diagnosed psychopath, preferrably an infamous one, although this again may confound the concept with the crime.--NeantHumain 22:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, sorry but Psychopathy DOESN'T refer to dissocial PD either, it is a seperate term that has no satisfactory equivalent in DSM IV OR ICD 10, so I am afraid that part had to go too --Zeraeph 02:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. But that just underscores (perhaps twice) the fact that it needs better definition. I just couldn't even tell what was going on.

A lot of this is just my opinion; it's not written in stone - feel free to change it. I'll have to do some reading before I try to do any more editing, as I don't want to make any more mistakes. --DanielCD 02:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've turned intro upside down (not the satan picture! ) a bit, maybe you like that a little better? Not sure the controversy of definition SHOULD be the actual intro though it does need to be put there, I just haven't had the time past couple of days. I WOULD like a more relvant picture, but I think SOME kind of picture makes any of the articles more readable, the question is finding one, "Satan" was the best I could do for now, and he does IMHO HAVE something. I know it's just your opinion, but I happen to VALUE your opinion (hence why I hustle for it!), so that when I get it, I take a serious look at it even when I disagree, I will surely find something I agree with that will improve things, as I keep saying, this is still FAR TOO THIN needs all the help it can get --Zeraeph 03:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In the intro, I was just referring to the fact that I was getting the definition confused with dissocial PD. I didn't even know there was a controversy over the definition. I really just mean, like with the Narciss. PD intro, making a solid definition so that when you move into the article, you have a good base to work from. We'll whip it into shape. --DanielCD 03:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading the intro, the first question that comes to mind is "Is this a formal scientific/medical diagnosis?" I guess that's why I said what I said about the flowery language and the pic, because they kind of threw me off. I think that we need to know that this is (or isn't?) an accepted medical term. There are other terms, such as neurosis, that are not really used anymore. Is that the case here? Hopefully these questions will let you see how I am seeing things. --DanielCD 03:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Your questions are good, because they are putting a shape on the problem, "Psychopath" was a generic medical term that became a specific medical term and a specific judicial term and that has also slipped into common parlance where it has a specific and distinct meaning too. Somehow the Intro needs to convey that. So it is more complex than NPD as a concept, as in truth it is not just a medical term. What I have as intro at present is just a definition that could slide back further down the page as soon as there is something better to put there. --Zeraeph 03:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"it is a seperate term that has no satisfactory equivalent in DSM IV OR ICD 10, so I am afraid that part had to go too" This is a rather extreme example of a WP:NPOV polciy violation. And absolute nonsense to boot. You can by all means quote someone saying that, but to say that in the article itself is to be advancing an agenda for a position that is certainly not the mainstream expert opinion by any stretch of the imagination. 172.137.200.82 10:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So prove it. --Zeraeph 11:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking better. With a solid definition, the picture loses some of its silliness. (Some of it anyway...lol). --DanielCD 15:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

intro and pic

I gave this a simple topic sentence and added a caveat about confusion between psychosis and psycopathy. Anyway we can drop this rather silly pic of the devil? --Marskell 19:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Scratch last question--I'm going to remove it. Marskell 19:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. I figured it would get snipped sooner or later. --DanielCD 20:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm conceding the devil as such, but could we find something better? A picture at that point breaks up the article, makes it visually more interesting and leads the reader into it.--Zeraeph 02:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps a pic of one of the big serial killers? Gacy, Dahmer, etc? --DanielCD 17:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We do need a pic I'd say but let's be careful of not feeding the psychopathy/sociopathy = serial killer business. I'll assume a majority of true serial killers are broadly psychopathic but a vast majority of psycopaths are not serial killers or even necessarily violent. Actually, that could be the image description right there, which would alleviate this concern. The curious can read [2] on Dahmer. Psychopathy at its finest (worst). Marskell 17:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

But which one? It's disputed whether Dahmer was psychopathic...there is one Gacy photo on file (thus clear for copyright) but it's weird (in the wrong way IMHO, as in, he looks like Ronald McDonald), there's one of Charles Manson on file but he looks like a starving bum. It needs to be an atmospheric pic I think? Bundy just looks like a male model...it occured to me that a still of Roddy McDowel in Hitchcocks "Psycho" might be better? More symbolic? I'll keep searching. --Zeraeph 18:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah ha, but wait again! Is "Psycho" a movie about psychopathy or psychosis? The latter I'd say. Part of the problem is when people encounter life stories that are "so fucked up" (pardon the lingo) the immediate assumption is "must be a psycho," even if the actual definition is unclear in their mind. You can be a necrophile and a cannibal and not be a psychopath, for instance, but can you kill 20 odd-men as Dahmer did and not be one? Anyhow, I'm digressing. He is indeed rather blandishly good-looking, but Bundy may be the obvious choice for the pic (does anyone dispute the definition in this case?). There's always Bill Clinton who I've read earnestly described as a psychopath--don't know how that would fly... Marskell 18:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha, yes, and several senators. I don't think that was Roddy McDowel in Psycho, I think that was Anthony Perkins. --DanielCD 18:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Bill Clinton ain't the only one I ever heard earnestly described as a psychopath! Trouble with Bundy is that he just looks like a generic male model/afternoon soap star and isn't so very recogniseable as anyone in particular. (Sorry, I know it wasn't Roddy Mc Dowall in psycho really, I was just testing ;o/ ) --Zeraeph 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

My Abnormal Textbook (Davison, Neale, Blankstein and Flett 2002) uses a pic of Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal in Silence of the Lambs, not perfect but perhaps better than nothing. He's definitely creepy, and most people would get the idea.Moomot 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just one TEENY problem...if you read up on "Hannibal" you will discover that the good Dr Lecter (MY HERO) is almost certainly misdiagnosed, and about as far from the "pure psychopath" asserted as it gets! In fact, the character of Dr Lecter always seems fatally flawed to me in the sense that the psychopathology is not a very good fit with the finished product. Regardless, he is closer to a cerebral ASPD (his pathology being presented as environmental in origin) with a shedload of "other issues" than any kind of psychopath. So that his picture would be just TOO misleading on too many levels...Ted Bundy is ruled out by his tendency to be percieved as a soap opera hero that you can't quite put a name to (though there IS a striking resemblence to Bobby Ewing from Dallas to my mind). Mengele might be ok...strikes me that he was far closer to a "pure psychopath" than most fictional characters, but is he recogniseable? --Zeraeph 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know all that, it discusses these issues in the textbook actually. But, Hannibal is identified as a psychopath by many people, and he is better than that Satan/Gnome-thing that was up there before. We could always correct people in the caption. Besides he may not be a "pure psychopath," but not nearly "as far away as it gets" either; that would be Ned Flanders. Anyway, I say a picture is better than no picture, as per Wiki suggestions. Bundy may be pretty, but that has its benefits as well as drawbacks, because you can't tell a psychopath by looking at them, so I say go with Bundy. There's a child murderer in Canada named Clifford Olsen, who would also qualify. He once said "Hannibal Lecter is fiction, I'm real." Moomot 21:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am really not convinced that reinforcing popular misconceptions through the use of inappropriate illustrations is the way to go here. --Zeraeph 02:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• You're the boss Moomot 03:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That other pic!

Vandelisum Alert-

Homer's lips has found that a rude picture of male genitalia, entiteled "F***ing retarded bastards!", came up when I opened the page at 01.40 U.T.C. on December the 4th, 2006. My computer is now requesting to shut doen due to a 'rapid loss of vertial memory' and is giong very slow. We don't need this sort of negativaty on the Wikipedia!

--Homer slips. 01:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate introduction

Through various updates, I would opine that the introduction has become worse rather than better. Psychopathy is certainly not "extreme anti-social behaviour." If it were, the whole concept would be tautological and useless for predicting criminal recidivism and violent crime. It also doesn't accurately reflect the more subtle but still damaging "relationships" have with other people that don't involve outright crime or cruelty. I am going to try to do a rewrite that captures the essence of the psychopathic personality disorder and its relationship with other terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.183.224 (talk • contribs)

If you can improve it, be my guest. We've been working on it, perhaps you can add something we've overlooked. --DanielCD 21:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. The added sentence was essentially stylistic because there was no topic sentence. It definitely reads better now. I know they're lengthy, but for the uninformed should we not actually give the full name of the medical texts? Marskell 21:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Great new info, mostly, but WHO tortured the syntax? (ok, it's late and I'm snappy! ;o) ) I have had a go at polishing it up and removing the duplications, no sense in saying anything more than once --Zeraeph 02:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, as a matter of basic stylistics we need a topic sentence here so I have re-added what anon crafted even if that risks a touch of redundancy. "Though in widespread, current, use..." as the lead is much too in medias res. Marskell 06:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm PR trained, so sue me ;o) That seems to be ok now, I totally get your point, I'm just not quite comfortable with the syntax and repetition and not sure how accurate the defintion is for an opening line, I'll tinker with it --Zeraeph 10:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Who keeps putting "dissocial disorder" in there? The ICD-10 calls it dissocial PERSONALITY disorder. The psychopathic trait of arrogance or grandiose sense of self-worth is, in my opinion, probably one of the most characteristic features of the psychopathic personality besides lack of empathy/remorse, impulsivity/rashness, and lying/manipulation. Also, I used the phrasing "additional comorbidity" (yes, it's technical terminology), but it's more accurate than "secondary diagnosis." In the case of the serial killer, sexual sadism or a sadistic personality structure may be as important or more important in gaining insight than the construct of psychopathy alone. Also, I think it's best to describe psychopathy (PCL-R psychopathy) as correlated with APD and dissocial PD from the diagnostic manuals, which shows a strong statistical similarity while avoiding the debate on whether they should be considered to be measures of the same underlying disordered thought processes. I admit to being very anal about the precision of each word used in the introduction, but that's because it summarizes and leads the reader into the rest of the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeantHumain (talk • contribs)

Firstly "The psychopathic trait of arrogance or grandiose sense of self-worth is, in my opinion, probably one of the most characteristic features of the psychopathic personality besides lack of empathy/remorse, impulsivity/rashness, and lying/manipulation." is more about NPD than psychopathy (the link between grandiosity and psychopathy has never been truly, formally established ,for example, and "your opinion" is "original research" that doesn't belong here and conflicts uncomfortably with my own anally retentive need for precision ;o) ) apart from being overly wordy. "lack of empathy or conscience, poor impulse control and manipulative behaviors" takes out the subjective element and is just more concise for a short intro.

It's hardly original research. It's right there in the PCL-R. Probably the best way to define psychopathy is to list some items from the PCL-R, but twenty is too many for an intro, so we need to include those that give the clearest picture most concisely. "Grandiose sense of self-worth" is just another way of saying arrogance. Again, I feel the introduction should define what psychopathy is (basically a lack of empathy/remorse, impulsivity/rashness, lying/manipulation, and arrogance), what psychopathy isn't (psychosis), and what the relevancy of the concept is (prediction and understanding of criminal and other self-motivated antisocial behavior). Latter sections of the article can clarify these in further detail. Oh, if you doubt the arrogance, try meeting one sometime; it's fun! ;-) --NeantHumain 09:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but "Grandiose sense of self-worth" gives the clearest picture of Narcissistic personality disorder (a disorder in it's own right considered a common dual diagnosis with psychopathy). Psychopathy is typified more by lack of empathy, conscience and consequence --Zeraeph 10:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I WISH YOU WOULD EXPAND THESE MORE COMPLEX HYPOTHESES FULLY FURTHER DOWN THE ARTICLE...rather than trying to compact them into the first few sentences. You know SO MUCH, in SUCH detail, and it all gets lost and fragmented by being tangled into the intro.

Random facts tend to stick in my mind, but I rarely remember the sources, so fleshing out these ideas would require a fair bit of reresearching psychopathy (and I tend to become bored by research and fact collecting too easily to persist for too long when I'm not in the right mood) to get the sources for the right facts. I tend to work in bursts, so I can't really say when I'll be making major contributions to this article again, but I acknowledge it needs all the help it can get.--NeantHumain 09:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well sadly we really will have to wait for those times when you are in the humor to research and validate the snippets you remember because no article can afford inaccuracies and unverified information, particularly not in the intro and first paragraphs --Zeraeph 10:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Additional Comorbidity", is not a very sensible phrase at all. as "comorbidity" means "co-existing sickness", so "additional comorbidity" means "additional co-existing sickness" which is frankly OTT, and would tend to refer (as a technical term) more to the physical and even (arguably) degenerative...which "leads the reader up the garden path and around the fishpond" IMHO.

You're right. It should be "additional morbidity" or just plain comorbidity (which might be more confusing to the layperson). This is also most definitely the term used in psychiatry, which is a branch of medicine. However, I still disagree with calling the disorders that affect rapists and serial killers "secondary." It's simply additional.--NeantHumain 09:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I figured "additional diagnosis" is a neat and scrupulously accurate, because even the greatest of experts admits that they haven't got much certainty about anything that goes on inside a psychopath therefore "diagnosis" (aka "medical opinion") is far more accurate than "morbidity" (aka "medical fact"), alternative --Zeraeph 10:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right about Dissocial Personality Disorder, somebody called it dissocial disorder at some time and it stuck, best to have it corrected and STAY corrected I think?

I think, until DSM gets it's act together, it is best to be as open (and polite) about the diagnostic anomally as possible. It is a bigger deal than just psychopathy and something of a padlock upon a pandora's box of the balance of nature and nurture, and treatability in mental illness and personality disorders.

Also I feel it is best to keep all the the "psychopath not= psychosis" statements in the same paragraph in the intro, and to keep such subjective concepts as "crime and Misery" till last? --Zeraeph 15:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The correlation with crime and social misery is probably most important. This is the whole reason theorists discuss the concept of psychopathy, and clinicians measure and diagnose it. It's hardly subjective. You can look at statistics for criminal recidivism rates for psychopathic and nonpsychopathic offenders, frequency of violent offenses, etc.--NeantHumain 09:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Misery" is certainly very, overly, subjective, opinion not fact, as for crime, it is recently being acknowledged that the vast majority of psychopaths either never commit any, or never get caught. It seems to me that the word "predators" has both concepts covered quite well enough for an intro.

Moving Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) to it's own page

It seems to me that, while extremelly valid and detailed (it DESERVES it's own page already IMHO), the PCL-R data clutters the article and makes it unwieldy and daunting. So I have set up Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Can we delete it from this page and just cross-reference? --Zeraeph 13:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It needs to stay here as well though Moomot 14:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Other meaning of "psychopathy"

According to the etymology, this word should mean something like "mental disorder in general". So perhaps in the introductory sentence we could say "The current psychiatric definition..." Apokrif 06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You caught a very important omission there, all fixed (I hope) --Zeraeph 07:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I raised this problem because of Asperger's syndrome: "She named the syndrome after Hans Asperger, an Austrian psychiatrist and pediatrician who himself had used the term autistic psychopathy". So it seems that (at least in literature translated from other languages like German) there was a time when psychopathy referred to any form of mental illness. How is the semantic shift explained? Apokrif 15:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Now THERE'S a question. Truth is that I know the semantic shift happened (not always recently, until 2001-2 sections of the British Mental Health act still used "Psychopath" to denote any mentally ill person) I honestly have no idea how or when.

Must check it out--Zeraeph 03:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like they have a different definition in Germany: "Der Pschyrembel bezeichnet Psychopathie als eine Persönlichkeitsstörung, bei der die Anpassungsschwierigkeit an die Umwelt im Vordergrund steht, wodurch der Betroffene oder die Gesellschaft leidet." (de:Psychopathie) Apokrif

Same problem for words "paranoia" and "mania". Apokrif 18:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a lovely chapter on this in Herve and Yuille (2007) The Psychopath, but I'll try and summarise it here. The term psychopathy was first used in the 1880s by a German Koch to describe disorders of the personality, which he saw as have a biological cause, hence the use of the term. Kraepelin (1907) and later Schneider (1950) then sub-divided the term into several categories (many of which are obvious precusors to the current personality disorder sub-types), including a sub-type (or in Schneider's case, 3) bearing distinct ressmeblance to current psychopathy, and in turn inspired by earlier work by Prichard's moral insanity and Pinel's Manie sans delire. Unfortunatly around this time, psychopathy was basically being used as a wastebasket term for variety of both clincal and personality disorders and had been used to define pretty much anything that wasn't straight out schizophrenia. It was ironically Partridge who first refined psychopathy to a definition relatively similar to what we define it as now, and he advocated replacing it entierly with sociopathy, both due to the wastebasket effect and the fact he viewed it as being soically not biologically determined. Other clinicians such as Henderson (1947), Karpman (1946), Arieti (1963) and McCord & McCord (1964) similarly advocated refining it, and though the exact definitions varied, as did the causes put forth (being from different theoretical viewpoints), there was a general consensus that they were emotional deficient, grandiose, superficial and manipulative. Now how the term made the jump from describing personality disorders to specifically this personality disorder I have no idea.144.32.162.127 15:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re "literally meaning mental illness," I'd just point out that an early or original denotation for a word is not it's "literal" meaning. We might have two sentences on the etymology in general and deploy it later in the intro. Marskell 11:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You are, of course, right and I have made a small beginning on this, hampered by a temporarily defective connection --Zeraeph 23:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Apokrif, I must point out that Dr. Asberger may have used the term Autistic Psychopathy because he percieved a more extreme social withdrawl and tendency toward violent behavior. It could easily have been an honest mistake on the good doctor's part or a classification based on the belief that his subjects were both autistic and psychopathic. Symmetric Chaos 12:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

At the time and place Hans Asperger wrote his treatise on autistic psychopathy, the word psychopathy referred to a broad set of psychological maladaptations, especially personality disturbances, which is what Asperger considered autistic psychopathy to be, rather than a psychosis or psychoneurosis. In contemporary usage among professionals and laypersons, however, the word psychopath almost exclusively refers to a person with a violent or otherwise predatorial and exploitative personality disorder rather than a personality disorder or psychopathology in general.--NeantHumain 15:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Have to agree with Neanthumain. I think the first use of "psychopathy" in English in it's current context was about 1931, and changes take a long time to filter between languages (especially during world wars). It is interesting to note that though Hans Asperger wrote his treatise in Austria in 1944 and the Syndrome was widely recognised in the Germanic speaking world ever since, it was barely known at all in the English speaking world until the '80s. If it took so long for "Asperger's Syndrome" to filter through into the English language it is hardly surprising that the current meaning of "psychopathy" has not made it fully into German yet, let alone in 1944 --Zeraeph 16:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright then there seems to be sufficient proof of a shift in the meaning of psychopathy to merit some mention of what Dr. Asberger may truly have meant by autistic psychopathy in order to prevent confusion. Symmetric Chaos 02:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It gives also the meaning that a person with psychopathy has a missing or only a very small super ego. So the conscience often is not here. Also they are persons, by which the society is suffering. --Fackel 16:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Blackadder

"It is this last feature which is probably most at odds with the typical real-life psychopath: a psychopath is much more likely to be impulsive, disorganised and short-tempered rather than the smooth-talking, self-disciplined characters portrayed by ... Rowan Atkinson (Edmund Blackadder in the Blackadder television series"

I do not understand what makes Blackadder into a psychopath.He does not kill anyone, as far as I remember. Can someone explain this to me?--64.228.148.231

Well, you don't have to kill anyone to be a psychopath y'know, it's not compulsory (or desireable)!

To put it as simply as possible, a psychopath does exactly what he feels like doing without the slightest concern for anyone else, or for the consequences. That doesn't sound like such a big deal, until you examine all the things YOU feel like doing, even in a day, that you do not do out of concern for others or consequences.

A psychopath doesn't kill unless he feels like it, and if he never feels like it, he never kills...or he finds ways to kill (perhaps indirectly?) that cannot be traced back to him.

Although psychopaths are notoriously impulsive, they do have some level of self-control even if it isn't much. Almost everyone has, at some time or other, been so angry at someone or so frustrated with their lot in life that they have felt like lashing out or brutally attacking the source of their woes. Most psychopaths can apparently keep at least these most deadly impulses in check because there are far more psychopaths in the world than there are murderers. I would assume the psychopath would sublimate his anger in much the same way many nonpsychopaths do: by consuming violent art or playing violent computer games for catharsis, displacing their aggression onto a more vulnerable target in a more controlled form, or exacting revenge in secret.--NeantHumain 21:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Though I suspect the character of "Blackadder" (who is always having people "bumped off" if I recall correctly?) believes he is "smooth-talking, self-disciplined" rather than actually accomplishes it...like many real life psychopaths. Entertaining though he is, he really IS a marvellous, aand accurate, charicature of the type in many ways --Zeraeph 14:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is such a thing...

... as a psychopath, that is conceptually different from a sociopath, then this is probably what it is like:

A sociopath is someone who early on learned the strategy of getting love/affection through the manipulation of others. It is normally learned behavior in an unusual environment.

The main thing that makes me consider the definition of the psychopath as anything but mythical thinking, is the description of the inability of learning from punishment. Even if one has discarded all but selfish/carnal emotions for oneself, why get in conflict with the law, why lightheartedly risking the safety of self and other sources of pleasure? The behaviour is moody and short-tempered in a barely restrained way, not cold and cunning.

So if there is such a thing, i think the core of it is not the lack of emotions. If one were to lack any emotions, why do anything at all, why seek stimulation? Rather, I believe, a psychopath lacks of the human process of associating emotions with memories or mental objects. When we do something wrong, and get beaten for it every time, we sooner or later start seeing the action itself as bad. When we touch a flame and it hurts, we get afraid of the flame. In sumation, we become the person that we feel is gonna be loved. Not so the psychopath. He sees that he gets beaten for something, and he will know that he'll probably get hurt again for doing it, but the action itself does not through that get any emotional quality. Avoiding situations that have bad results thus is a conscious and learned process, not natural behavior. He has no appreciation for harmonious social environment or identity, because those are exactly kinds the emotional extrapolations that the psychopath is incapable of.

When we speak any mental condition psychologically, we usually see when things go wrong - because that's what the therapist is confronted with. We see perfectionism when it crumbles, surpression when it doesn't work, and psychopathy when it results in criminal behavior. What I imagine happens, when a psychopath is able to "get a hold of himself", is that he will start to analyze what it is that usually gives him pleasure and which strategies work in achieving that goal. 'Power' is one likely result. In a way he is overadapting - he selects a strategy for the society he is confronted with, independently from usual archetypes. Instead of being a compromise of human nature, societal values and practical considerations, he takes the rules of society at face value - understands them worse and at the same time better than everyone else.

For this to explain the lack of empathy, one has to assume that we start out having postive reactons not to the happiness of people itself, but to the expressions of happiness. "Laughter is addictive". We then develop empathy to predict those reactions, and from that develop strategies to provoke them from our social environment. Then, with the mechanism the psychopath is lacking, the happiness itself is associated with good, and sadness itself considered as bad. This also explains why empathy is developed to different extent depending on the how the family behaves. If punishment and reward are related not so much to one's own actions, but to the mood of other family members, a child will develop a strong understanding of others in order to soothe them. Of course, the ability to do so is also a factor.

Two anonymous quotes provide the vast emperical basis for my theory: ;)

"I am a psychopath so I guess the difference is I have to think about not hurting people, as opposed to just knowing what is bad. Personally, I can't see that as a bad thing because all I see with you normal people is y'all hurting one another all the time because you don't think." -- A sane loonie.

• http://lorry.org/quotes.html

"someone opened the door as I was taking a pee. I just finished up, zipped up my pants, washed my hands. The I walked out, and when the bully said something I hit him in the throat about 1/4th the stength as I could. He dropped to the floor, and gasped for air. I laughed as he could not breath and turned white as a ghost, and then finally was able to breath, but not very well. I told him that next time it would be full force and would crush his windpipe. He never did it again. It was capital punishment, which you bleeding hearts say we should not do. Yet it worked.

But then, I am a psychopath, and I feel no pain or embarrassment, I just get even for those who have wronged me."

• http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/6/30/0614/82298

-Ados 13:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly it is actually AntiSocial Personality Disorder that is considered to be a "learned behavior". "Sociopath" was a term created decades ago as a synonym and sustitute for "Psychopath" to avoid the inevitable confusions in meaning with terms such as psychopathology. Apart from that, what you are saying is very thought provoking and makes a lot of sense.

The first professional who ever described a psychopath to me stressed the most important distinguishing quality as "a lack of a sense of consequence" rather than lack of empathy. I think you have described that same concept very well.

Such a pity we cannot put any of this in the article, because it is "original reasearch". --Zeraeph 14:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree: His theory is quite interesting. However, he seems to be under the impression that psychiatrists believe psychopaths lack all emotion; this is certainly not the case. Their emotions are egocentric; their physiological startle reflex is virtually absent when they see negative emotional stimuli unless it is a threatening stimulus directed against them (e.g., a picture of a gun pointed right at them rather than just a picture of someone being shot). Also, it makes sense that some people would not learn to inhibit behavior merely from punishment. Not everyone associates being punished with having done wrong. If they believe they were right in the first place, they will only resent being punished and nothing more. Some people are also overwhelmingly drawn to reward even at great risk. Also, as for hedonistic sensation seeking versus calculated antisocial behavior, the difference lies between primary and secondary psychopathy.--NeantHumain 19:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, a good example of a psychiatric disorder involving a near complete lack of all emotion is schizoid personality disorder rather than psychopathy. As Ados posited about a void of emotion, schizoids don't really do much of anything because they lack motivation, sexual desire, ability to feel pleasure, etc. They display little if any emotion.--NeantHumain 19:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think many people would agree with that! Schizoids mostly avoid people and intimacy, that's not the same thing as having no emotion. --Zeraeph 19:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

People with schizoid personality disorder tend to avoid people and intimacy because they get nothing out of it as typical hypersocial extraverts do. In general, they experience little if any sex drive, little pleasure in any activity, a general paucity of motivation, and a tendency to introspection and fantasizing (eventually, even the fantasizing may subside). On the other hand, people with avoidant personality disorder avoid people and intimacy out of intense fear of being seen as inadequate and so rejected. They are emotionally overwhelmed and hypersensitive.--NeantHumain 19:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't put too much faith in this artical until it is replicated else where. But here is a partial genetic explanation.NIMHalso reported in the New Scientist Mag: [3]--Aspro 20:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

/* comment inserted in wrong place - I think - moved further down to be within a proper chronology */ 205.188.116.6 00:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)TD R-Turner

Almost ready for GA nomination

This article seems almost ready for Good article nomination. The writing is clear. The discussion is interesting. I reorganized the sections a bit with GA nomination in mind.

I'm not quite ready to nominate this, as the article could benefit from:

• references for some of the generalizations about the disorder, such as in the childhood development section and definition section part about not learning.
• more work in the article to contextualize the lack of consensus about this disorder
• perhaps a review by a specialist with comments about point above
• a better closing passage

--Vir 17:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This article needs some SERIOUS work

"Though in widespread use as a psychiatric term, psychopathy has no true equivalent in either DSM-IV-TR's, where it is most strongly correlated with antisocial personality disorder and the ICD-10 dissocial disorder. It is hoped that the projected DSM V will begin to address this anomaly."

This is a huge, huge, HUGE statement of someone's personal point of view, and thus violates the WP:NPOV policy. The entire article seems to be based upon making this claim, when, at least as far as the APA is concerned, it is completely false. And, need it be mentioned here that the APA is THE expert, professional body on the topic?

The suggestion above to merge with APD is a far better solution than allowing this article to be used primarily by a side opposed to the standard expert opinion on the matter. From the comments above from people supporting different use of the term, it is clear that they are getting their information from Dr. Hare's particular bias (I mean, come on, his whole thing is that he wants people to buy copies of his psychopathy checklist diagnosis criteria and consider himself to be the only authority on the topic). The article needs to be balanced and fall in line with more standard professional opinion on the matter. 172.137.200.82 10:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

'as far as the APA is concerned, it is completely false. And, need it be mentioned here that the APA is THE expert, professional body on the topic?' -can you give a source for this statement? As far as I know the APA hasn't committed itself one way or the other. Lots of recognised mental conditions were omitted from DSM IV. --83.71.1.219 15:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you are completely neglecting the various, judicial specific, definitions of psychopath as well as the common useage, and the former generic useage, none of which even correlate slightly to AsPD...and into which, I suspect, Robert Hare had very little output...not least because many of them predate him.

Also note that the introduction to the article specifies that Psychopathy is a condition commonly diagnosed using Hare's PCL-R. Where it is not even claimed as an equivalent to AsPD. I have tweaked a couple of words to really nail this down hard, and removed the hope that DSM V will address the anomaly (on reflection that is as POV as it gets and, I am afraid, Mea Culpa!) but, beyond that, I suggest you log in properly (so that we know who we are talking to) show some *suitably qualified* expert sources to demonstrate that:

• The archaic useage of "Psychopath" is equivalent to AsPD or Dissocial Disorder
• The judicial useage of "Psychopath" is equivalent to AsPD or Dissocial Disorder
• The common useage of "Psychopath" is equivalent to AsPD or Dissocial Disorder
• The PCL-R diagnostic useage of "Psychopath" is equivalent to AsPD or Dissocial Disorder
• Cleckley, McCord, Meloy et al were chopped liver

--Zeraeph 11:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. Mind you, I WILL take this as a wake up call to get the citations in proper format...incidentally if you DO have a reputably sourced case to make for Psychopathy, in any useage, as an equivalent of AsPD why not add it to the existing article? Because if there is such a case it DEFINATELY should be here too, and now I have thought of that, if you don't do it I'll have to. :o(

• Fact: Psychopathy exists in several useages as a seperate term from AsPD
• Fact: Some people see them as synonymous
• Fact: A wikipedia article should contain as many, relevant, objective, reputably sourced, facts as possible.

--Zeraeph 11:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, gotta admit it, there WERE some nasty, subjective and inaccurate turns of phrase in there once I looked closely...not that any of them were MINE you understand. Because I WOULDN'T DO that...;o)

Just goes to prove you can never re-examine or improve and article too often!

Hoping 172.137.200.82 is going to make good on claims and come up with some reputable sources for the view that AsPD is exactly equivalent to Psychopathy. Psychopathy's relationship with other mental health disorders touches it oh-so-lightly but nowhere near enough. --Zeraeph 13:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just added an external link. It is an article dealing with papers presented and interviews done at the first annual meeting of a professional society devoted to the scientifice study of psychopathy.

I see above that someone thinks the article needs work and maybe this will help someone with a Master's or PhD in psychology correctly update this article to take more of the subjective and non-verifiable, non-scientific material out of an important issue. I am not qualified to write an article as I have only a Bachelor's in Psychology.

I would suggest that valuable appropriate external links are most valuable to the average reader who comes here looking for answers.

This is the first time I have ever added anything to an article - or left a comment, for that matter. Hope this is allowed as it seemed an good way to draw immediate attention to the new link. 205.188.116.6 00:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)TD R-Turner

It's not a matter of qualification as long as you can find reputable sources WP:Cite sources to cite that can be verified. Curently the article is very well sourced indeed and I honestly don't see any "subjective and non-verifiable, non-scientific material" at all now (there were a few comments that didn't belong, but they are gone now), so I can't help wondering if you have actually read it yet?

No matter, your link was something of a borderline case really, regardless of how well qualified the writer and subject, it's a blog, and a subjective opinion piece (weren't you critical of subjectivity?), though personally I would have left it stand, someone else deleted it already.

It would seem that 172.137.200.82 isn't ever going to come up with reputable sources for her assertions after all. --Zeraeph 02:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[The diagnosis of psychopathy (using the PCL-R and related instruments) and the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder or dissocial personality disorder come from related but different disciplines within psychology. Forensic psychologists and courts of law are well acquainted with the psychopathic personality, but psychiatry in general and clinical psychology tend to rely on the DSM's diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder or the ICD's diagnosis of dissocial personality disorder. The APA's intention was for antisocial personality disorder to be an operationalization of the Cleckley psychopath, but established researchers and clinicians did not take well to its behavioral diagnosis that did not consider personality traits like arrogance, impulsivity, and lack of remorse.

I actually have approximately a metric ton of research papers on the psychopathic personality, many of them published in the last few years, saved on my hard drive as PDFs. They tend to use the PCL-R and derived instruments (like self-report measuring instruments shown to correlate with the PCL-R) and not the diagnostic criteria for APD listed in the DSM-IV-TR. Most of the research on APD tends to be on DSM personality disorders in general (such as occurrence in normal, inpatient, and outpatient populations).]--NeantHumain 05:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it is interesting to note that the character Carl Denham from Peter Jackson's 2005 remake of King Kong appears to be a psychopath even though most viewers would not perceive him as "evil." --NeantHumain 06:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Symptoms

What if someone has some, but not all of these symptoms? Someone might be callous toward others but still concerned about being caught and all that? I admit that I have some of those symptoms but I am scared to death of getting caught in the act of one of these "crimes". I'm not all that callous, although personally I don't extend much sympathy toward those who cry over every silly little thing. Is there a seperate disorder associated with different combinations of these symptoms? 66.52.223.2 21:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Very probably there is, but as a rough (but honest) guide, if, quietly, within yourself, you are afraid of being a psychopath you probably aren't, because a true psychopath couldn't care less (though he might care about being found out, or confronted, which is quite different). --Zeraeph 22:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Almost everyone has a trait or two of the psychopathic personality syndrome; it's whether they have an overwhelming preponderance of these behaviors and deficits consistently over time that matters. If a person didn't have even one single trait of psychopathy, I think they would have very different issues (like crippling fear and panic) and not be normal, mentally healthy people.--NeantHumain 20:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Reorganization

I see someone made an inaccurate revision to the introduction, saying psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder were the same thing instead of closely correlated constructs. They also seemed to be saying that antisocial personality disorder = psychopathy + impulsivity/irresponsibility. This is not so. Psychopathy already includes such features in the concept. Psychopathy adds emotional deficit and interpersonal exploitativeness/deceit not really in the APD construct.

Now, as for the reorganization, I have higher career and academic priorities, but I (and anyone else who wishes to contribute) would like to reorganize and expand this article:

• Introduction
• Overview/description of defining features of this personality disorder
• History of the concept/etymology; comparison with antisocial personality disorder and dissocial personality disorder
• Legal status of psychopathy in contrast with mental illness (i.e., as an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one); sexual psychopath laws and psychopathic offender laws (which may have their own definitions of psychopathy)
• Diagnosistic tools; diagnostic process
• Relation to other psychiatric disorders (e.g., the Cluster B personality disorders, substance-abuse disorders)
• Role in etiology of extreme criminal deviance (e.g., serial murder, serial rape, pedophilia, sexual sadism)
• Psychopathy in terms of normal personality (i.e., Big Five) and subclinical manifestations of psychopathic personality traits
• Discussion of research on neurological/neuropsychological/EEG differences
• Philosophical ramifications of this personality disorder (vis-à-vis moral responsibility, punishment)

I know for a fact that peer-reviewed articles and research exist for each of these points, so if this outline is followed, we should have an informative, state-of-the-science article on the topic.--NeantHumain 21:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi - I am no Psychiatrist but have known two people I believe to be psychopaths, one of whom is my father, the other person, someone who I lived with briefly in very unusual circumstances. This is why I am keen to research the phenomenon and take a great interest in the maintenance of this page.

There's no mention in this page of the physical cause of psychopathy - I've seen mentioned in other websites that there's a part of the brain relating to empathy that develops in most people at the age of three or four but not in psychopaths. There are lots of tests that have been done that define psychopaths and show how their brain functions differently than others that should be discussed on this page too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2943160.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3116662.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4057771.stm

Violence - from personal experience with psychopaths: there are people who have a violent predisposition but this has nothing to do with psychopathy - if they are psychopaths AND violent then you've got a dangerous situation on your hands but the two psychopaths I knew, both were extremely talented manipulators and successful control freaks. Neither of them were particularly violent. One of them used the threat of violence and aggression as part of his manipulative tools but when it came to the crunch, both of them were surprisingly cowardly when it came to physical confrontation. "His bark's louder than his bite" was the catchphrase people used to describe the latter.

Hope this is of some interest !

Psychology Wikiproject rating

Well I think I may have done too much editing on this one to be entitled to express an opinion on the quality (though I seriously don't think it rates more than a "b" at present), but I definately think the topic meets criteria for high importance thus:

Subject contributes a depth of knowledge to the field of psychology. Most experts in psychology will be familiar with the topic. The subject can be found in most academic studies of psychology, and a significant amount of published research exists for it. Example: Schizophrenia.

Any more comments? --Zeraeph 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

B-class, high-importance sounds good to me. I really don't think it should get a quality rating higher than "B" until it's gone through a good article or featured article assessment. —Cswrye 17:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems about right to me, and I don't think it's quite ready for GA yet (let alone FA!). --Zeraeph 18:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Gender bias

Is there a gender bias to sociopathy? Somegeek 00:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Does this article already have the statistic that psychopathy is diagnosed at a rate of 5 men for every one woman diagnosed? There was a study that showed psychiatrists were more likely to diagnose a case writeup with histrionic personality disorder than antisocial personality disorder if the patient were made female instead of male. The inverse was true to a lesser extent as well.--NeantHumain 23:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you got a reference, or even any other details to go with that study? Sounds interesting, as though it should be included if we can cite it.

The gender bias isn't mentioned in the article at present. --Zeraeph 00:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's cited in my abnormal psychology textbook: Ford, M.R., & Widiger, T.A. (1989). Sex bias in the diagnosis of histrionic and antisocial personality disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 301-305. The antisocial personality case was rated as APD about 43% of the time and HPD about 7% of the time in males, and for females the APD case was assessed as APD about 15% of the time and HPD 45% of the time. For the histrionic personality case, in men it was assessed as APD 35% of the time and as HPD 43% of the time; in females, the HPD case was assessed as APD 10% of the time and HPD about 78% of the time. I am going by the graph in the textbook and not an actual copy of the article.--NeantHumain 00:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant! Only thing is...how do you feel about whether this information belongs here or in the Antisocial personality disorder article? Personally I'd be more inclined to go for the latter to keep the distinction between the two conditions clear? --Zeraeph 00:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Psychopathy or sociopathy?

I have seen so many myths perpetuated on the Internet and elsewhere about the differences between psychopathy, sociopathy, and antisocial personality disorder; so I think it's relevant to have an article clearly defining the terms as the experts use them (and where they disagree). It should also present some common folk definitions. I am calling it Psychopathy or sociopathy.--NeantHumain 04:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to have a more formal title like Disambiguation: Psychopathy, Sociopathy and ASPD?

I don't think there is a precedent for such an article but go for it...seems valid to me. --Zeraeph 04:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this has been addressed in the current version Moomot 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That measly paragraph really fails to do justice to the debate. Many experts (most notably David T. Lykken) actually distinguish between psychopathy and sociopathy. Lykken and those of his ilk believe psychopaths are born with a fearless or impulsive temperament that makes normal socialization especially difficult; this psychological profile is distinct from the sociopath, who takes up antisocial behavior more from upbringing and sociological pressures than innate temperament. A sociopath is basically a common criminal whereas a psychopath represents a stable baseline of crime in any society. A sociopath may not show the same emotional deficiencies as a psychopath either.

I created the Psychopathy or sociopathy article to clear confusion, but this paragraph mostly only states Robert Hare's opinion.--NeantHumain 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, nowhere in the world is a sociopath clinically or academically defined as a "common criminal" the term was created to be an exact synonym for psychopath and avoid confusion with the older use of psychopath for any mental illness. It is, in fact, Antisocial Personality Disorder that is usually regarded as environmental in origin.

Having said that, if you check, you will find that most of your psychopath and sociopathy article has been incorporated throughout the article into places where the text duplicates or expands on existing concepts.

There has been a lot of over enthusiastic editing in the past few days and some areas of the articles are far from optimum at preset. I am guilty myself of putting the Lyyken section itno the wrong subsection by accident. I have now corrected this. --Zeraeph 22:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I frequently mention David Thoreson Lykken because he happens to have written quite extensively on both psychopathy and sociopathy in, for example, his book The Antisocial Personalities (1995, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.), so he is first to come to mind when describing the differences between psychopathy and sociopathy. If you go to Amazon.com: The Antisocial Personalities and click on "Search Inside" and choose the table of contents, you will see right on page vi he has titled Chapter 14 of his book "The Sociopath or Common Criminal." In this book, Lykken also writes at length on the differences between primary and secondary psychopathy. So I really don't know why you were so confident in your declaration, "Actually, nowhere in the world is a sociopath clinically or academically defined as a 'common criminal.'"

Here's another Lykken quote to clarify the issue:

As used by the media, "psychopath" conveys an impression of danger and implacable evil. This is mistaken, however, as Cleckley made very clear. Like the unsocialized sociopath, the psychopath is characterized by a lack of the restraining effect of conscience and of empathic concem for other people. Unlike the ordinary sociopath, the primary psychopath has failed to develop conscience and empathic feelings, not because of a lack of socializing experience but rather because of some inherent psychological peculiarity that makes him especially difficult to socialize. An additional consequence of this innate peculiarity is that the psychopath behaves in a way that suggests that he is relatively indifferent to the probability of punishment. This essential peculiarity of the psychopath is not in itself evil or vicious, but combined with perverse appetites or with an unusually hostile and aggressive temperament, the lack of these normal constraints can result in an explosive and dangerous package.

(Lykken, "Psychopathy, Sociopathy, and Crime." p. 30, Society, November/December 1996.)

There are more than just theoretical etiological differences between sociopathy and psychopathy, in other words. Their behavior is different, too.--NeantHumain 04:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

helped

this page really helped me in my research report. thanks to whoever had anything to do with the posting and making of this page. ♥

Thanks again.

Pseudopsychopathic personality disorder

If you read the article from beginning to end, this section is out of place. It should become its own article with perhaps a one-line mention here. There is no link to psychopathy. Gage is a case-study; a single subject that does little for advancing our knowledge of this disorder. In fact this paragraph confuses matters. If there is a link to psychopathy it should be made clear; however, I don't think that there is. I personally don't know how to do what I propose (making it a separate article) yet. Moomot 14:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that "It has been suggested that people can suffer apparently psychopathic personality changes from lesions or damage of the brain's frontal lobe." makes the link to psychopathy as clear as can be, and there is no reason, or sense in cutting the paragraph.

HOWEVER, I do agree that it is a subject that could use it's own article too, it is just that nobody has ever got round to writing one. If you want to start writing an article on the topic click here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudopsychopathic_personality_disorder&action=edit to post it, after deleting the redirect tag. --Zeraeph 17:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ahem...yeah, that's pretty clear. I guess I focused on the case and missed that. I'll put that article on my to-do list.Moomot 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes please :o)) --Zeraeph 18:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The confusion is mainly due to this organic personality disorder being more commonly known as frontal lobe syndrome. Discussions of psychopathy almost always mention it and the case of Phineas Gage because this form of brain damage exhibits some similarities with the psychopathic personality, mainly having to do with irresponsibility and impulsivity, and thus leading researchers to look into the frontal lobe in relation to innate psychopathic personality. It should be noted that affective dysregulation is one major area of difference between the pseudopsychopathic personality and actual psychopathy; frontal-lobe-damaged patients sometimes exhibit uncontrollable outbursts of tears, laughter, or rage entirely unrelated to their internal feelings.--NeantHumain 00:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But wouldn't it be more accurate to say that frontal lobe syndrome sometimes manifests as Pseudopsychopathic Personality Disorder? Rather than to define then as synonymous? --Zeraeph 10:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What if the average person is merely pretending to have a conscience?

Note that I'm not saying this should be included in the article, it's just a thought since there is no "criticism" section.

I (for background) am a 23 year-old white American male and I don't really have a conscience, per se, but I don't believe that I'm a psychopath or sociopath. I possess above-average intelligence (not a genius or anything, but I know my classics and can debate most anything), I'm engaged and have friends, etc. However, I've never felt regret or remorse (beyond anxiety over being caught & punished), I don't really care about most people (or humanity/earth/animals and nature in general), and, if necessary, I could probably kill someone who was threatening me or in my way, then sit down and eat a baguette.

My point is, how do we know most people aren't like this deep down? The idea of a "conscience" seems at odd with human evolution (we didn't get to the top through lovingkindess & self-sacrifice) and the necessities of survival. When soldiers go to war and kill dozens or hundreds of the enemy without remorse or pity, we understandably note that this was necessary. But doesn't the fact that military personnel (who come from all strata of society) are capable of merciless, coldblooded killing tell us something about the rest of humanity? Besides the propensity for violence, aren't all people greedy and self-centered when you cut to the quick? What if the idea of conscience, morality, and "goodness" are all part of a mask most people wear (and traits they fool themselves into believing they possess) so modern civilization can continue?

I don't follow psychiatry, but have any bright lights in the field written about the possibility that virtually *all* humans could be psychopaths/sociopaths who've convinced themselves they're not, and people whom feel guilt or remorse and engage in selfless behavior are the ones who're mentally abnormal (or unusual, to be less judgemental)? If there is professional work to this effect, it should be considered for balance.

P.S.- I forgot to log in when I edited my post for clarity, so here it is again. Sorry for the confusion. Roland Deschain 12:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No biggie...I thought that was possible and hoped that you would say so if it was the case. :o) --Zeraeph 13:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a truly fascinating philosophical argument and I do believe that, provided verifiable and reputable objective sources can be found for it's inclusion it would contribute much to the quality and neutrality of the article. --Zeraeph 11:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Given sufficient motivation there is little doubt most people are capable of truly nasty behavior. Pendragon39 00:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ted Bundy Pic

Well my objection to illustrating this article with Bundy has always been that his pictures always wind up either looking like "that-afternoon-soap-opera-actor-you-can't-quite-put-a-name-to", which sets the wrong tone, somehow, or very, graphically (and unsuitably, IMHO), dead...but I think you came up with one that has more sinister and evocative overtones, as well as a pulse. Suite me fine. :o) --Zeraeph 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This argument all but states that psychopaths must look "sinister" which is a dangerous message. Bundy is good for just the opposite reason. Moomot 04:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is his date of birth and stuff underneath it? It makes it look like this page is his biography or something. I tried removing it and I got messaged telling me to "stop vandalising the page". It's ridiculous- why is the picture there are at all? It adds nothing. Please someone second me on this.80.177.170.112 22:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, 80.177.170.112. The picture seems amateurish and detracts from the fact that this article is meant to be a serious account of the psychopathic personality rather than a something a "fun facts" sheet a junior high teacher might hand out to students for Halloween. Putting one individual's face to this article may create too close a link between psychopathy the concept and Ted Bundy the person in many readers' minds; it also reinforces the popular misconception that all psychopaths are sly killers.--NeantHumain 03:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree. Articles are more interesting with pictures, they do not take away from the "seriousness" of the work. If this articles is to move into GA status then pictures will be required. Moomot 04:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That particular picture looked amateurish however, especially with the infobox around it. In addition to this the other articles on personality disorders do not have pictures, and I think it's important to maintain a sense of continuity between them. 80.177.170.112 20:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But IS the Psychopathy article strictly a "personality disorder" as the others are defined? And personally, I had the feeling the picture MIGHT have looked better of edited down to a "close up" (quite possible, considering the actual size of the pic in Wikipedia commons)--Zeraeph 20:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Types of Psychopaths

Trying to fill in the missing citations on these new subsections I discover that they aren't very accurate. For instance most sources now divide psychopathy into 4 subtypes, not two, however not always the same 4.

The descriptions of primary and secondary need sourcing properly, and if needs be, re-writing in accorrd with those sources. --Zeraeph 12:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry: I've got an abundance of sources on my hard drive; digging through them to get the citations is the hard part. I was going to add the sources later (I have a good memory for facts but not with accompanying sources). When you're referring to "4 subtypes," you are referring to at least four statistical factors of the PCL-R and related devices. This is not the same thing as the breakdown of psychopaths themselves into two subtypes.

When psychopathy is measured against other instruments (MMPI-2, NEO-PI-R, WAS, etc.), two quite distinct patterns emerge, and they correlate quite well with either of the two factors of the two-factor analyis of the PCL-R.

I am surprised you haven't run into more frequent mention of primary and secondary psychopathy in your research. It's a very common and necessary distinction.--NeantHumain 17:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well pardon me, but if your sources are on your hard drive and you haven't found them yet, I really cannot see how your edits could be based on anything but a sketchy memory of them that might well be flawed and innaccurate (as my own brief dig for sources suggests it is). Add in my sketchy memories of references to primary and secondary psychopathy (along with my sketchy memories of a lot of primary and secondary conditions) and you just double the opportunity for flaws and inaccuracy. So let's have some verifiable citations to get this accurate.

Your assertion When psychopathy is measured against other instruments (MMPI-2, NEO-PI-R, WAS, etc.), two quite distinct patterns emerge, and they correlate quite well with either of the two factors of the two-factor analyis of the PCL-R. is, as it stands, without citations, nothing more than your own opinion and original research.

The two factor analysis of the PCL-R does not actually use the terms primary and secondary psychopathy anyway (as you are, in effect asserting) but refers to them as "Factor 1" and "Factor 2" in totally different terms and context to the one you have expressed. --Zeraeph 18:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did my very best but you seem to have mixed up Cleckley and Mealey's two subtypes, with a later model that divides psychopaths into four subtypes, and then again with Hare's description of a two factor model of psychopathy that that attributes two aspects to all psychopathy. The result is very misleading indeed, and uncited. I have removed it (remember this is a medical article and must be subject to stringent standards), but I hope I can pop back and use some of it if I can find good enough sources for the four subtype model.--Zeraeph 09:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added some additional citations and detail; for the stuff I do not have references ready for, I have removed them for the time being. I have roughly 90-100 PDFs relating to psychology on my hard drive (many of them not available on the public Internet but only through a university library's electronic subscription services) with a majority of these relating to psychopathy, personality disorders, or personality in general. Since I contribute to Wikipedia sporadically instead of regularly, you might find these PDFs more useful.--NeantHumain 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still muddled, even at the brief glance I could give it, in a lot of ways you are putting in valid cited information while making invalid connections, regardless, the valid cited information is worth it's weight in gold, I'll go over it when I have more time, but for now, best to avoid weasel words like "some researchers" where there is an exact, verifiable specific available instead. I would truly love to have the pdfs if you want to mail me through the interface to send them on? --Zeraeph 23:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Mask of Sanity"

Under 'History', Cleckleys book is noted as being published in 1976. I'm sure this is wrong. My own book says 1950, and i believe the first edition was published even earlier (1941?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaaardvark (talk • contribs) 08:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

You are, of course, right, and knowing that as well as my own birthday I cannot believe I let it slip so long. Thanks --Zeraeph 09:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Newman, Too Damned Lib'ral?

So according to Joseph Newman, psychopaths aren't these monstrous bad guys but people with a learning disorder who need a little sympathy. He thinks we can teach them to focus on cues of other people's distress and to build empathy. Is this bollocks or what? Everything I've read from the Hare "marketing department" has made out psychopaths to be incurable and completely devoid of all human feeling.

Does Newman's hypothesis of psychopaths having a sort of attention deficit (too much attention focused on their immediate goal) make more sense than Lykken's fearlessness hypothesis, Hare's cortical immaturity hypothesis, or the underarousal hypothesis?

Are people going to start calling focused, determined people closet psychopaths now?

To me, Hare represents the conservative end (not sympathetic towards criminals, wanting to punish them or lock them away) while Newman represents the liberal end (sympathetic towards criminals, wanting to rehabilitate them).--NeantHumain 23:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not really relevant is it? Because here all POV must be evenly presented. (And I think perhaps you should read a little more of Newman, I believe you may have misunderstood him to an extent.) --Zeraeph 00:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand my intent. I'm not being 100% serious. I'm more interested in stimulating some conversation about the concepts behind psychopathy which may lead to a more refined article. I've only read one article about Newman's theories, which appears on many websites. I am not in college right now, so I no longer have access to new PDFs.

Compare Hare's (or the marketing types who write the blurbs for his books) sensationalist description of psychopaths to Hervey Cleckley's tone in The Mask of Sanity. When reading The Mask of Sanity, I never got the impression that he was talking about the very people who represent some of the most hardened criminals and repulsive personalities. He brings up their character flaws in a way that makes it seem as if they can't help themselves and we just need to find an effective treatment. He briefly mentioned that aggressive tendencies or sadism when combined with psychopathy make for a highly dangerous combination, but he did not spend much time on this idea.--NeantHumain 05:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure Wikipedia is the right place for stimulating discussion of our personal opinions of the various verifiable POV on any topic, let alone Psychopathy. But, for what it is worth, I think you are being way too subjective in stating psychopathy to be a synonym for "most hardened criminal" and "repulsive personality", as well as not very accurate. --Zeraeph 08:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychopathy as "taxon"

I just came across some mention on the Internet that it has been looked at whether psychopathy can possibly be a "taxon." Perhaps this could be interesting to mention in the article, anyway I just wanted to mention it. 62.16.172.136 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A taxon simply means it's a distinct category, but it has been shown that psychopathy can be measured on several dimensions of normal personality (thus making it extremes on a few of those dimensions). This is part of the old taxon vs. dimension debate that's gone on about personality disorders for some time now.--NeantHumain 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Do you think this could be a good topic to include in the article? By the way, I think "dimensions" like you say, was something I read about in one of the articles I briefly looked at, and my impression is it said that psychopaths have unusual "sub-traits" in the extremes of these dimensions. That is, behavior that were unexpected as opposed to simply being unusually extreme. So I guess my impression is it said that psychopaths are a taxon because they behave in a distinct, unusual way, within the dimensions. But I do not really have knowledge about this topic, I just thought it seemed very interesting ("psychopathy as taxon" I mean.) 62.16.175.96 15:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think sociopathy is caused by low intelligence.

The article states this. I have a friend who's a sociopath, and he's known to be highly intelligent, and just talking to him, I can easily subjectively view that he's an intellectual (much like myself, as we enjoy many intellectual discussions together). Yet this article claims that, among other environmental causes, low intelligence is a cause of sociopathy. Would anybody care to elaborate? 4.234.51.126 15:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Where on earth in the article does it say that? Because offhand, I think that is another error, and, as such, it has to be checked out with a view to removal. --Zeraeph 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

David T. Lykken listed low intelligence as one possible socio-economic factor in the genesis of sociopathy (persons of lower intelligence are more likely to turn to crime). Although psychopaths (and sociopaths) show a whole normal distribution of intelligence, the average IQ (something like 94 or 98) of psychopaths is somewhat below the average for the general population. Psychopaths also tend to score a higher performance IQ than verbal IQ (I think Hans Eysenck found this one).--NeantHumain 04:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And where, precisely, did Lykken say this? Bearing in mind that "turning to crime" and "sociopathy" are academincally recognised two separate and independent concepts. What is your source for the average IQ of Psychopaths? Because there is generally not found to be any significant co-relation between psychopathy and IQ, though Cleckley regarded a "good intelligence" as a criteria for diagnosis. --Zeraeph 06:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You really need to adjust your tone. For the Lykken, check the current Lykken cite for his thoughts on sociopathy and psychopathy (although by his criteria, I would think intelligence would go with psychopathy rather than sociopathy unless he means the socio-economic effects of low intelligence). I don't know if this was the source I read for the IQ fact, but Psychopathy in Youth and Intelligence: An Investigation of Cleckley's Hypothesis is one piece of research about psychopaths and IQ. Another one is Psychopathy and Intelligence: A Second Look.--NeantHumain 05:30, 6 February 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 15:56, 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)

Antisocial personality disorder isn't useless or a "failed attempt." Clinical psychologists and psychiatrists may diagnose it if a court refers a patient to them. It (depending on severity) has a different prognosis from psychopathy. It has a different clinical presentation from psychopathy (an antisocial patient may seem tense and restless rather than calm and confident). It is, however, very broad and can cover bums and drifters, career criminals, patients with capacity to change, and dangerous patients with low probability of change (the most psychopathic subset of antisocial patients).--NeantHumain 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, but hardly very accurate...and thus not very helpful to the questioner. --Zeraeph 06:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy is based on more than your subjective conceptualization of an idea. Take a look at Meloy, J. Reid. Section 11.82: Antisocial Personality Disorder. Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders (3d ed.). 2001. American Psychiatric Press, Inc.

This source discusses the administration of the PCL–R to assess the severity of antisocial personality disorder (and thus to determine appropriate treatment or containment) among other things. I suggest in the future, before you condemn something as wrong or impossible, consider that you have not read the entirety of the literature on the subjects you are discussing. This makes discussing and co-editing more bearable for all involved.--NeantHumain 06:17, 6 February 2007 (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 15:58, 30 January 2007 (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)

Maybe he was just diagnosed with conduct disorder, which can be seen as a childhood precursor to antisocial personality disorder.--NeantHumain 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

severity

"Malignant narcissism is considered part of the spectrum of pathological narcissism, which ranges from the Cleckley's antisocial character (today's psychopath) at the high end of severity, to malignant narcissism, to NPD at the low end." I found this in the malignant narcissism article. How does it fit into this article? --Gbleem 05:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple, it doesn't, in fact it shouldn't have been anywhere. Not just because it is uncited, it's also too inaccurate, not least because Cleckley's Psychopath became "today's psychopath)". He not only used the term Psychopath himself, he also pretty much began the definition we use today, and the term "Malignant Narcissism" was primarily used by Kernberg who made a clear distinction between Psychopathy and Malignant Narcissism.

I am also fairly sure that "NPD" isn't the "low end" of any spectrum, let alone Malignant Narcissism which isn't a Spectrum at all. Malignant Narcissism is usually regarded as being seperate and at a tangent to Narcissistic Personality Disorder rather than being a more severe form of it. Regardless, it wouldn't really belong here anyway. --Zeraeph 12:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Malignant narcissism is a sort of intersection point between antisocial personality traits and narcissistic personality traits. I've mostly read about it in reference to serial killers (a sense of entitlement combined with a desire to assert power). Millon has a website with theoretical descriptions of several DSM-IV-TR (as well as research/appendix) personality disorders and the subtypes from their overlap if you're interested. The exact names used for the subtypes varies by author.--NeantHumain 06:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cultural differences

Is it desirable to address popular misconceptions or usage in the popular press or fictional license with the various (medical, legal, judicial) definitions? Lexein 11:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Legal Definitions: More (brief) examples needed?

• examples from other nations? China? Russia? European Union? Africa?
• example of a legal definition at odds with medical definition?
• example of a judicial decision going against a legal definition (bad law and/or active judiciary)?
• example of a law including medical definition, requiring medical evaluation?Lexein 11:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that, as with a lot of terminology, you have some serious language differences there. As far as I know the only other language that uses the word "psychopath" is German, and they use it to mean simply "mentally ill", ie the old useage. --Zeraeph 16:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the word is used in a lot of languages since scientific and technical language tends to get exported. In French the word is psychopathe, and in Italian it is psicopatico. The PCL–R has been translated into many languages as have other literature on psychopathy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NeantHumain (talk • contribs) 06:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Article written by victims?

It appears as though the victims of psychopaths have created this article as a means of catharsis. A while back I indicated that psychopaths CAN experience a form of love, since the meaning of love is relative. But apparently victims don't think so. It has been erased. They assume that psychopaths have the same effect on every person they encounter. So they think "psychopaths cannnot experience any type of meaningful love" because someone's feelings were hurt by a psychopath. Lets be realistic here: many psychopaths and serial killers have families who they just "happened" to not screw over like they did their victims. Perhaps this is because they cared enough NOT to harm certain people. Who gets to define the end all definition of love? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.172.65 (talk • contribs)

Well I certainly didn't pull it. If you have a citation (Joseph Newman, maybe?), pop it back in. It's a tricky one because, as a concept "love" is SO subjective and variable. This does NOT meet WP:RS even by the broadest stretch of the imagination, so don't cite it, but you might find it interesting? [4] --Zeraeph 20:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing is a psychopath more often feigns love for material gain since they place little value on emotional attachment and intimacy. If their love isn't consciously exploitative, what they label as love is something more egocentric than more mature forms of love; it's closer to the dependency of a child upon a mother. They might like how they have someone to take care of the mundane chores for them or who can keep them entertained; they might like the sex. At the same time, they can treat these people very poorly because they're unable to take the other's perspective and contemplate the other's needs as a means in itself; it's simply that the thought never occurs to them, and if someone suggests it to them, the idea seems alien. Their emotional bonds are also such that they could kill (not to be sensationalist) the person they once "loved" the very next day and just move on as if nothing happened. If you want to find out more about love and psychopathy, search for object relations or psychodynamics and psychopathy.

Cleckley actually does discuss this in The Mask of Sanity, and I think his descriptions were a bit more forgiving than most current ones (which equate the psychopath's egocentric brand of love with exploitativeness and callousness).

Don't forget that many psychopaths feel cheated about love and get some kind of kick out of ruining love for others. They're actively hostile to love.

Also, I assure you this article is not written by hyperemotional victims. I've seen such places on the Internet, and they're a wasteland of group-reinforced hysteria.--NeantHumain 03:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with that, and also draw attention to the fact that comment demonstrates how impossible it is to even talk ABOUT love without subjeectivity creeping in. Which make love, per se, a tricky subject for any article --Zeraeph 04:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Equation of empathy with conscience

Empathy is emotional and specifically refers to one's emotional reaction to another person's emotional state, or at least what one imagines another's emotional state may be. Conscience refers to the mental capacity to reflect upon moral dilemmas and make a decision as to the rightness or wrongness of a particular course of action or to pass moral judgment upon another. Therefore conscience relies on abstract principles as much as it does on emotions. A person whose conception of right and wrong was premised exclusively on a visceral feeling of sympathy would have great difficulty functioning in the world; such a person would be easily manipulated and tramped upon. An example is the occasional need for "tough love" when parenting; sometimes a good parent just has to say no. The other extreme is an elegant and consistent moral framework that is nevertheless harsh and uncompromising—and too rigid to take the frailties and changibility of human nature into account.

This dichonomy is quite visible within the realm of moral philosophy. Kant's deontology relies on categorical imperatives (his universal moral principles). Some feminist philosophers emphasize what they call an ethics of caring based more on love, empathy, and the nurturing instinct than an orderly, rational set of imperatives.

My opinion is that these two sides of conscience, or moral responsibility, correlate directly with two factors in the five-factor model of personality: morality as principle with conscientiousness and morality as empathy with agreeableness. However, psychopaths are notoriously deficient in both traits.

I'll fix this confoundment in the introduction later, but, editers, keep in mind that conscience ≠ empathy or guilt-proneness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NeantHumain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

As a matter of fact it is lack of certain types of empathy, rather than lack of conscience (as a matter of fact, the absence of conscience, rather than empathy, in a psychopath is very often considered to be the main difference between a psychopath and an Aspie) that has been questioned, so please do not edit the intro away from fact again, also, it might be nice if you finally graced us with the promised citations on primary psychopathy that have been missing for months now? I do not honestly think the article should have to "take your word for it" indefinately. --Zeraeph 15:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the definition of empathy one uses. People with Asperger's syndrome more specifically lack (or have a less well-developed) theory of mind than a lack of empathy per se. If you define empathy as an emotional response to another's emotion, psychopaths lack empathy whereas aspies have it.

The citation is already there. It comes from the same article as the the citation I put in at the bottom of the section. The citation applied to all paragraphs between the headline and the next headline. Now I understand we come from different backgrounds as editors here. Wikipedia is something I occasionally do for fun; I have a job, a life, and other interests. Making corrections joe-random editors deems necessary isn't Priority No. 1 for me. Now I know you have psychological issues you're working on, and I laud you for recognizing your deficiencies. I know your personality grates on people and has left you feeling unfulfilled, but that's cool; you are who you are. What you have to realize, though, is that you're annoying, and people aren't want to accomodate nuisances but rather to get them out of their way.--NeantHumain 01:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to provide some citations to substantiate your most peculiar, uninformed, and (if I didn't have a sense of humor anyway), perhaps uncivil assertions about me? ;o) --Zeraeph 01:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

PS The Newman reference at the bottom of the section does not seem even slightly related to the uncited sections, nor does the Sellbom section before it. While I applaud you for having "a job", "a life" and "other interests" I really do not see that as sufficient reason for taking your word for block of uncited text. --Zeraeph 02:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What? Spin? In this article?

The manipulative skills of some of the others are valued for providing audacious leadership [9]. Some have argued that psychopathy is adaptive in a highly competitive environment, because it gets results for both the individual and the corporations [10] they represent [11]. (found in the intro)

The citations are of Babiak and Mealey respectively, but I would say this is putting a significantly more positive spin on psychopathy than the referenced sources intend. I would have expected this on the O'Reilley Factor or some other political talkshow, but on Wikipedia? In an article about psychopaths? Never (certainly this isn't something an errant psychopath would ever conceive of doing!). I'll fix this later, but let's all keep in mind that we're writing a serious article here and should maintain a neutral point of view. We should avoid making either positive or negative judgments about the subject in the article except to indicate varying perceptions for encyclopedic completeness, and these perceptions should have accurate cites (rather than a gross reinterpretation of the material to force a certain POV).--NeantHumain 04:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that a neutral point of view involves presenting all points of view, not just the ones that suit you. I think you will also find that any attempt to remove two sentences with three valid citations in them could be construed as vandalism. ... --Zeraeph 05:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Having read much of Babiak's work, I think NeantHumain has a point. I have added a sentence, referenced to Babiak's most recent research, which I believe offers a balance. Research into 'corporate psychopaths' has indicated that though they are often perceived as being effective and having leadership potential, and will often do very well in a corporate environment, they do also cause a lot of damage. In particular they tend destroy company cohesion, manipulating people against each other, can damage people's careers through lying and spreading rumours, and will often commit fraudulant acts or embezzlement (see either the refernce I added, or for a lighter view see the great Snakes in Suits by Hare and Babiak). Gemnoire 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why I deleted ADhD as a subcategory of conduct disorder

The conduct disorder article calls conduct disorder, "a pattern of repetitive behavior where the rights of others or the social norms are violated." ADhD stands for Attention Deficit (hyperactive) Disorder, and is not related to conduct disorder.SteveSims 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just stunned it was there at all. --Zeraeph 00:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The DSM-IV-TR currently classifies attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder as a a "disruptive behavior disorder" along with conduct disorder, oppositional-defiant disorder, and disruptive behavior disorder not otherwise specified. Also, research has found so-called hyperactive-impulsive-attention problem traits (i.e., ADHD, combined type) and conduct problems are strongly correlated with psychopathy in adulthood link. Some of the items in the PCL–R outright overlap with symptoms of ADHD (e.g., impulsivity, proneness to boredom/need for external stimulation). A diagnosis of ADHD+CD is pretty typical for children who grow up to be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy as adults.--NeantHumain 03:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even the synopsis you posted a link to actually says that those children who suffered combined hyperactivity, impulsivity, and attention problems (HIA) and concurrent conduct problems (CP) were more likely to develop into psychopaths than those with either HIA or CP alone....which means something QUITE different to "so-called hyperactive-impulsive-attention problem traits (i.e., ADHD, combined type) and conduct problems are strongly correlated with psychopathy in adulthood". Furthermore, the synopsis, even in the way it is expressed. clearly states that the two are seperate and distinct conditions. You will see here that the actual DSM criteria for Conduct Disorder clearly make no mention whatsoever of ADHD http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/cndctd.htm --Zeraeph 05:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly the case that CD and ADHD are distinct disorders, but there is considerable comorbidity. Also, you misinterpret my sentence; when I wrote "HIA and CP are strongly correlated," I meant the two together. Personally, I've met more children/adolescents with ADHD/CD than with CD alone. ADHD without a comorbid conduct or oppositional-defiant disorder is, of course, more common.--NeantHumain 00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

ADHD and CD are strongly correlated with psychopathy in adulthood but only Factor 2, or more to the point with the PCL-R items that overlap with Antisocial Personality Disorder, there is little to no correlation with Factor 1 (McBurnett and Pfiffner, 1998). It's the presence of callous-unemotional traits, effectively the Factor 1 items, in childhood which has been found to be a significant precursor to psychopathy. However, there have, as of yet, been no studies following children from childhood into adolescence and then adulthood looking at the stability of these, so all we've got is retrospective research and correlational data (better references will be added shortly once I have time to track them down) Gemnoire 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This may be relevant (I think it was the article I was thinking of earlier but couldn't find when I wrote my previous comment): "Callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems in the prediction of conduct problem severity, aggression, and self-report of delinquency".--NeantHumain 02:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The date of "The Mask of Sanity is clearly wrong but I do not know what it is to correct it. JoWex 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Found the correct date and corrected it JoWex 22:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Types of psychopathy - yes again

Taking a break from writing up the parts of my thesis actually dealing with the structure of psychopathy, I think this section does need a distinct revision. The primary/secondary typology is debatable given the current literature, and realistically may be better conceptualised as the Psychopathy vs Anti-social personality disorder distinction, since those only high on Factor 2 (which is generally seen as the definition of secondary psychopathy) do share large amounts of items with the Anti-social personality disorder definition from the DSM-IV. Though certainly there is a very strong distinction between Factor 1 and Factor 2 elements, which should be emphasised, to call this primary v secondary is debatable, especially since they are so highly correlated. Also, by focusing on the factor structure, consideration could be given to the current debate going on between the 3-factor model (Cooke & Michie, 2001) and the 4-factor model (Hare, 2003), since the basic 2 factor model has predominently been rejected on the basis it was statistically unsound. Gemnoire 13:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I am having great trouble understanding why you are explaining this here and not in the article? If the sources exist it seems a very good idea to explain this first then revise later? :o)--Zeraeph 14:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons, firstly, because earlier on in the discussion there seemed distinct resistance to changing this section, so I felt allowing a level of debate before I changed it was more likely to ensure it didn't get changed straight back. Secondly, because it takes time to construct a decent referenced entry, and I don't have time for it right now, so I thought I'd stimulate debate whilst I write up and effective entry, which I am actually working on as we speak.Gemnoire 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is that...personally I was never happy with that section because it always seemed to have been begun and then dropped in mid stream. Of course, I am always happy to stand over anything with proper citations.--Zeraeph 16:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy are not merely synonyms for Factor 1 and Factor 2 respectively of the PCL–R; they imply difference in etiology. For example, take a look at this excerpt from "Psychopathy Subtypes" (pp. 176-177) in the Psychopathy Handbook (ed. Patrick, Christopher J.). A good portion of the article reiterates over the research on primary vs. secondary psychopathy I have included in the Wikipedia article here: BAS vs. BIS, high anxiety vs. low anxiety, and their correlations with the factors of the PCL–R. David T. Lykken's book The Antisocial Personalities spends considerable time classifying various subtypes of both psychopathy and sociopathy (he lists two possible causes of secondary psychopathy as hypersexuality and a dystempered, or choleric, personality; for primary psychopathy, Lykken favors his fearlessness hypothesis but mentions others). The psychopathy–antisocial personality disorder distinction is spurious because the two diagnoses come from two different systems (one the DSM, the other a self-standing psychological tool and separate body of research).--NeantHumain 00:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Psychopathy/APD distinction is far from spurious when you consider that Factor 2 criteria from the PCL-R and APD diagnosis share a significant number of diagnostic criteria. I have read the particular chapter you point to, in fact I have read most of the Patrick book. Based on my personal reviews of the research, I do consider that the primary-secondary distinction, though often cited theoretically has little actual evidence supporting it. However, that's my personal conclusion, it is an oft-cited theory and thus should probably be mentioned. What worries me more is that this article appears to focus considerably on Lykken's theories and neglect the discussion of the factor 1-factor 2 distinction which is a focus of significantly more research. The only mentions are in relation to the primary-secondary distinctions, which as you have said, may not be synonyms, though many theorists do consider them as such (including Hare). Furthermore a lot of recent research has focused on the possibilities of three and four factor models. Damn, I'm actually going to have to sit down and write up a decent revision aren't I? Gemnoire (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a bit in about the factor structure, all well referenced. I did cut down a little on the primary/secondary section, mostly because a lot of the evidence that was presented for each type was based on the assumption that primary=factor 1 and secondary=factor 2, which isn't really valid. Gemnoire (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From an evolutionary perspective

Is there a reason, from an evolutionary perspective, why some humans are predisposed to psychopathy? Pendragon39 23:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hellz f*cking yeah! (I felt like throwing all credibility away.) Check out Linda Mealey's The Sociobiology of Sociopathy: An Integrated Evolutionary Model. Note where she says primary sociopath, this matches primary psychopath in the Wikipedia article, and her "secondary sociopath" better matches Hare's or Lykken's conception of sociopathy or the DSM-IV-TR's antisocial personality disorder.--NeantHumain 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) The article explains why psychopathy can be an advantageous strategy for individuals so predisposed or for individuals lacking in comparable skills. I'm interested in learning about the reproductive success rate of psychopaths (primary and secondary) when compared to the general population. In other words, are psychopaths more likely to pass on their genes by following this strategy? Are they able to raise children as effectively as non-psychopaths? In evolution, an adaptation is usually defined as a solution to a problem that will increase the fitness of an individual and increase its reproductive success. Pendragon39 01:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Psychopaths are, in general, risk taking, impulsive, and sexually promiscuous. Male psychopaths are likely to impregnate several women but not stay to raise their progeny. Both male and female psychopaths are highly likely to make negligent parents. In other words, for psychopaths, reproductive success is a matter of quantity over quality. Since a single-parent household is more likely to be poor and unstable, these sociological factors plus the genetic predisposition mean a psychopath's offspring are doubly in danger of becoming psychopathic themselves. I have no data about their relative reproductive success, but it seems to me our culture actually values moderately psychopathic qualities (or at least mass culture and commercial interests seem incensed with with instilling the values of immediate gratification, vapid celebrity worship, self-aggrandizement, a farewell to thought, and impulsivity as a "fun-loving" personality; much of academia does no better, proffering postmodern analyses that say nothing in so many words, literature's fascination with antiheroes who are thought to have more depth than other types, and purported art that shows nothing more than the artist's contempt for the audience, where the "art" is really in their ability to dupe collectors and museums into exhibiting used toilet paper).--NeantHumain 01:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a tendency to glamorize anything that is outside the average, or the mundane. I hope info relating to evolutionary theory can be added to the article someday Pendragon39 22:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I invite you to use this source (and others you may find) to contribute. We've only had two persistent contributors to this article over time (Zeraeph and me), and frankly we could use more points of view in the editing process. I am a casual editor: I edit haphazardly when I have a source (I've always had a bit of "ADHD" when it comes to research papers). This article could definitely improve, but it'll take contributors, and it'll take collaboration.--NeantHumain 16:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I will be happy to report on what I find and hopefully it will not be original research. Please bear in mind that these hypotheses are controversial - for example, Evolutionary_psychology_controversy has its own page. Pendragon39 05:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

XAlleyCatX's Comment

I'm almost positive that Cleckley did not put forward the primary/ secondary distinction, but I can't be bothered to wade through the whole of The Mask of Sanity to check. If he did, perhaps you could insert a chapter reference or something? XAlleyCatX 08:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see it in my edition, and actually the primary/secondary distinction predates his work if I am not mistaken. However, the edition of The Mask of Sanity cited may be different from mine (the one available for download over the Internet, which I believe is the Fifth Edition), so I had been reluctant to remove the reference, but now that this is seconded, I'll go ahead and remove it.--NeantHumain 22:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleckley didn't make the distinction at all. The first real distinction of primary and secondary psychopathy as would recognisable to modern theorists was by Karpman, in 1941. So, it was published concurrently with Cleckley's Mask of Sanity. 144.32.162.127 (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Philosophical starting point

We really need to add a philosophical (specifically moral philosophy) ramifications section to this article. I'm "bookmarking" one reference here for now, but the existence of the psychopath poses various problems for moral philosophy (justice and responsibility, will, etc.). http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/PGreenspan/Res/rp.html--NeantHumain 03:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

Seems like just an excuse to go on and on about an outdated term that has no specific diagnositic meaning currently in psychiatry or psychology. At this point, it is a lay term. People can go on and on about its past history, which is what is happening in this article. That leaves a wide landscape as the term has been used and abused for a long time by the general public and even some professionals. --Mattisse 21:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trolling. This is a widely researched, notable subject, and there is large enough a body of current research distinct from antisocial personality disorder and dissocial personality disorder (actually the research on psychopathy probably outnumbers the research on the DSM-IV and ICD-10 correlates). Given your user page says you are a profesional psychologist, I assume you know this.

There's no need to debate psychopathy vs. sociopathy vs. antisocial/dissocial personality disorder to death again.--NeantHumain 00:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DOES A PSYCHOPATH CARE ABOUT THEMSELF???

Well in short they have little remorse so can I ask do they care about themselves if they get in trouble or anything?????????

zac 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

i dont think so they do, they probaly get other people in trouble when they get in shit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.170.7 (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

up to 50 per cent of business managers could have psychopathic

• 50pc of managers could be psychopaths: research ABC News, 12 January 2007
• Do you have a toxic boss? Daily Mail 11 January 2007

British Psychological Society by Psychology Professor Adrian Furnham

“Beware of the following individual, the good looking, educated, articulate and very bold and self confident leader,” Psychology Professor Adrian Furnham said. “If somebody says to you ‘I can take this company to the next level’ beware, it might be a manifestation of narcissism rather than ability.” The professor states that such manipulative psychopathic behavior is actually rewarded in the business world.

Travb (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The key is tendencies. I've also read that obsessive-compulsive, narcissistic, and histrionic personality traits are not uncommon. I don't think it's unusual to find at least a slightly elevated presence of psychopathic personality traits in persons seeking positions of power. The most common psychopathic or psychopathic-like personality traits to be found in effective managers are probably a level of emotional detachment/objectivity, an ability to strategize and orchestrate people (by sharing information as needed but not relying on deception or holding information "hostage"/keeping others in the dark as a means to power), a sense of self-confidence (but not arrogance and boastfulness), extraversion (ability to be around and deal with others), ability to handle change and multiple commitments without becoming frazzled, and seeking positions of higher authority. As you can tell, it's mostly the antisocial-lifestyle elements of psychopathy that are incompatible with effective management (I cannot see a manager constantly acting on a lark or getting into various kinds of trouble as being effective). It would only be more pathological, exploitative, and self-serving degrees of the deficient emotional experience and interpersonal style of psychopathy that would lead to severe difficulties (as I can only imagine a constantly scheming and deceptive manager who consistently disregards others as breeding quite a lot of resentment very fast).--NeantHumain 23:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleckley's criteria

I've noticed someone has some kind of obsession with the first criterion of Hervey Cleckley's psychopathy criteria from The Mask of Sanity. It should read, "Superficial charm and good 'intelligence'" and nothing besides. All edits changing this to read something like, "Superficial charm and average 'intelligence'" or "Superficial charm and bad intelligence'" or somesuch variation should be construed as an act of vandalism. Cleckley makes it abundantly clear what he means by "good 'intelligence'" and why he uses irony quotes around the word intelligence. If anyone has a different point of view (I know I have seen research testing Cleckley's hypothesis and showing that psychopaths on average have slightly lower-than-average intelligence), it doesn't matter because we are quoting a historical reference material and not necessarily making a statement of current scholarly consensus.--NeantHumain 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleckley was arguing that psychopaths give the impression of good intelligence. The relation of psychopathy to IQ is somewhat debatable. Generally for the research I've reviewed it appears the PCL-R factor 1 traits are either independent of intelligence or, more often, display a small positive correlation with IQ. Factor 2 traits however are negatively correlated, hence why you will get a slight negative correlation when you use total scores. 144.32.162.127 (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Type's of Sociopathy

I looked at some website about sociopathy and it said there are 4 types. Common, Alienated, Aggresive and Dyssocial. Is this right? (jimfrench) 16:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

These findings are for research purposes only and are not used in court rooms to diagnosis real people. The number of existing "types" is speculative only, and depends on which research hypothesis you are using. Mattisse 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Commented out citations do not mention psychopathy -- please do no restore

The citations commented out did not use the word "psychopathy" and also referred to juvenile studies -- the American Psychiatric Society does not diagnose persons under 16 years old with this or any other related disorder. It is unethical to do so. The citations to the Washington Legislative enactments are not supported by the references. Further, legislative enactments are irrelevant to medical diagnoses. This article is seriously mixed up. Hare was a research psychologist and not a clinician. So the references that pertain to the United States are incorrect. If all that stuff is true in the U.K., then fine but make that clear. Cleckley and Hare were Americans and were not talking about the U.K. in their work. Mattisse 17:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I was prepared to take your word on the Washington State Legislature, until google scholar threw it up AGAIN when I found an alternate source...of course it is, BEYOND DISPUTE a citation FOR the Washington State legislature and there is no reason ON EARTH to even suggest remarking it out.--Zeraeph (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I was prepared to take your word on the Washington State Legislature, until google scholar threw it up AGAIN when I found an alternate source...of course it is, BEYOND DISPUTE a citation FOR the Washington State legislature and there is no reason ON EARTH to even suggest remarking it out.--Zeraeph (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I do understand *exactly* why you are so concerned about this article, but, be warned, there are a lot of things I would like to see removed myself. Be careful with the citations, most of them were put in fighting tooth and nail to retain text, and have already been gone over with fine tooth combs. Most of them weren't even put in by me. --Zeraeph (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Article needs to distinguish legal from medical -- forensic psychologists/psychiatrists do not go by legal definitions

In fact, by law in the United States, they are forbidden to do so. Please see ultimate issue. The Washington Legislature does not overrule the U.S. Supreme Court. Mattisse 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally,(in the original form it did make a very clear distinction) but both seperate types of definition have to be included, though seperately...and frankly, a seperate section, clearly tagged "Legal definitions" is as seperate as it gets...and quite sufficient --Zeraeph (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag

Make a factual case that involves actual POV please before you replace the tag.--Zeraeph (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)