Talk:Psychopathy/Archive 4
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.
![]() | Psychology NA‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
|
Types 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)
- People do not get diagnosed in court rooms on my planet. :o) --Zeraeph (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is the page you found: Antisocial Personality, Sociopathy and Psychopathy. I don't totally agree with the page though, if you wanted to categorize all psychopaths/sociopaths you'd have to have a million different categories, just like "normal" people, everyone's different and shares traits.
- Oziriz (talk) 19:29, 12 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 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)
- What the Supreme Court overrules it utterly irrelevant to the cited existance of the definition. --Zeraeph (talk) 17:38, 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)
- There is no legal definition. If Washington State has one, I can only speculate that they use it for the civil commitment of Sexual Preditors -- which is a totally different issue. Refer me to a court case where that definition was used. Mattisse 17:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have to, check the citations, it is a formally declared definition made by Washington State Legislature, doesn't MATTER WHY they made it, just THAT they made it.--Zeraeph (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have reviewed many Washington State cases and have never seen "psychopathy" used. Nor has it ever come up for discussion. It may be used in the civil commitment of Sexual Predators as I would not know about that. You do need references. The article makes the term seem clinically relevant, so show me how and where it is clinically relevant. Besides, what Washington State does or does not do hardly has much to do with the rest of the world. Write an article on Washington State, but do not make it sound that this use of the term is universal or commonly accepted in general professional circles, other than some that are purely research oriented. Mattisse 17:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
POV Tag
Make a factual case that involves actual POV please before you replace the tag. I really must insist on this because you have such a clearly expressed POV yourself [1] That, unless handled with scruplulous integrity would sail very close to WP:COI. I would like to ensure we avoid that. --Zeraeph (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Replacing POV tag
I will not engage in a revert war so if you remove it I will address the situation some other way. The references on empathy, for example, do not mention "psychopathy" and are referring in incarcerated juvenile offenders. There is apparently a huge difference in the way the U.K. and the United States address the issue of psychopathy and this needs to be clearly distinguished in the article. Neither Hare nor Cleckley were clinicians. They worked with research hypotheses only. The field has vastly changed since these individuals were in vogue in a clinically relevant sense, in the U.S. at least. This article could be interesting from a historical perspective but please make it clear that it has nothing to do with current courtroom or incarceration practices in the U.S. If you want to continue in this vein, consult with Theodore Millon who is at least current and a clinician -- although on the losing side of the terminology question. Mattisse 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Which specific reference on empathy do you mean? The second reference mentions Psychopathy in the TITLE for heaven's sake. Either way, the fact that a reference does not mention psychopathy is NOT even related to POV, it is just an invalid reference. The rest of what you are saying is not valid information, it is just your own POV...and wildly inaccurate. Hare last revised the PCL-R (frequently used currently in the US for medical and judicial purposes) in about 2003 --Zeraeph (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, Cleckley was an MD Psychiatrist who based "The Mask of Sanity" on patients he had regularly treated, and it doesn't GET more "Clinician" than that. Hare has worked with the UK Home Office, and works with The FBI on CASMIRC which is as USA as it gets--Zeraeph (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- We are talking the 1940's. Cleckley wrote more of a novel that a scientific treatise, as you know if you read it. Hare is not a clinican. He is a researcher. He based his research on Cleckley's novel. But in any event, Hare is just one person. And his bibiolgraphy shows no preoccupation with sex offenders, unlike this article on psychopathy. Mattisse 23:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You removed the POV tag without fixing the problem -- the first two references are 503 messages
I do not know why you have such an investment in being inaccurate. Why not write an accurate article about an interesting subject. Your inaccuracies and the confusion between practices in different countries and between the purely theoretical and the clinical render the article meaningless IMO. Mattisse 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- The only person with an investment in being inaccurate here is you, and some of the statements you are making are totally incompatible with easily verifiable facts. --Zeraeph (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- That is you objective and collaborative working opinion? Do you think that will help our working relationship? Mattisse 23:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Linking adult psychopathy with childhood hyperactivity-impulsivity-attention problems and conduct problems through retrospective self-reports.
This reference (footnote 3) is one study linking (supposedly) hyperactivity-impulsively-attention and conduct problems. How does this relate to the definition of "psychopathy"? This is one study and a retrospective self-report at that. If anything, this reference supports that the preferred term is "conduct problems" which the editor putting the reference in is assuming is the same as psychopathy. How is that so? Mattisse 17:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- They don't HAVE to mention psychopathy in the title, it just that some of the refs you claim do not mention it do. --Zeraeph (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Psychopathic is a loose term for lay people. The important issue is what diagnostic system is the researcher using? And sex offenders are not particularly related to antisocial personality disorders, unlike most of the references in this article. Mattisse 23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Seeking Assistance from WP:AN/I
Sorry Mattisse, I don't think you mean badly but I do feel you are editing disruptively here, so I have no choice but post to WP:AN/I for assistance.--Zeraeph (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not use misleading edit summaries
- it is not "disruptive editing" to remove a link to another diagnosis, misrepresenting it as a link to this one
Please be accurate in your edit summaries. In making an argument that this article is not the same as antisocial personality disorder, it is not right to then link this article to the ICD 9 diagnosis for antisocial personality disorder. Mattisse 18:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mattisse, your editing is purely disruptive, you are not making points at this stage you are inventing them.--Zeraeph (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Request that editor remove the misleading link from this article to ICD-9 diagnosis for Antisocial personality disorder
Please remove the link, as it is misleading. There is already an article on Antisocial personality disorder that links to that ICD-9 diagnosis. It is confusing to the reader that links from completely separate articles link to that same ICD-9 diagnosis. It is in everyone's interest that the reader not be misled. I'm sure you agree. Mattisse 18:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not I do not agree and neither does the standard used in other psychology related articles.--Zeraeph (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- You cannot revert just because you do not agree. You act as if you WP:OWN article. Mattisse 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looking through the codes 301.9 seems more appropriate, it actually mentions "Psychopathic" in the description there. --Salix alba (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's a clear winner then isn't it? I'll pop it in instead...thanks...--Zeraeph (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should keep in min that ICD-9 is out of date and is no longer used. So using it for this purpose is misleading. Mattisse 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Collect removed material here so I will not have to rewrite it - factor/cluster analysis + citation
However, empirical research has provided little support that personality disorders and other syndromes can be clearly separated by studies as described above. Research studies tend to use both factor analysis and cluster analysis to try to define clearly separated disorders. The clinical utility of the findings from these studies has been seriously questioned. The findings are often a result of the statistical characteristics that define different clusters, factors, or categories rather than based on the raw data itself. According to Theodore Millon, the use of categories (clusters or factors) are evidence of a primitive science:
The view that mental disorders are composed of distinct entities may reflect our level of scientific development more than a characteristic intrinsic to psychopathological phenomena.[1]
________
- Children showing strong psychopathic precursors often appear immune to punishment; nothing seems to modify their undesirable behavior. Consequently parents usually give up, and the behavior worsens, according to a popular psychology article written for Court TV.[1]
- Psychopathy is not normally diagnosed in children or adolescents, and some jurisddictions, including the United States, explicitly forbid diagnosing antisocial personality disorders under the age of sixteen. Psychopathic tendencies can sometimes be recognized in childhood or early adolescence and, if recognised, are diagnosed as conduct disorder[citation needed]. (remove the following at next opportunity -- It must be stressed that not all children diagnosed with conduct disorder grow up to be psychopaths, or even disordered at all, but these childhood signs are found in significantly higher proportions in psychopaths than in the general population. Conduct disorder, as well as its subcategory Oppositional Defiance Disorder, can sometimes develop into adult psychopathy. However, conduct disorder "fails to capture the emotional, cognitive and interpersonality traits - egocentricity, lack of remorse, empathy or guilt - that are so important in the diagnosis of psychopathy." (actually, this is crap and needs to be removed from article - embarassing :) )[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattisse (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Mattisse 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- That cannot be included without valid and verifiable medical or academic citations for all claims in accord with WP:RS --Zeraeph (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Remember to note that there is no such thing as a "psychopath". Mattisse 21:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- That cannot be included without a valid and verifiable medical or academic citation in accord with WP:RS
Please discuss the content with me rather than just revert. - please, please, please
I am asking you to discuss what you removed. Why did you remove the referenced material? Please discuss this. Mattisse 20:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Because it had no relevance or connection to the topic or content of the article. --Zeraeph (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Storage
In current clinical use, psychopathy is most commonly diagnosed using the checklist devised by Emeritus Professor Robert Hare for research purposes. He describes psychopaths as "intraspecies predators[3][4] who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence[5][6][7] to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse".[8] "What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony."[9]
- ^ Ramsland, Katherine, The Childhood Psychopath: Bad Seed or Bad Parents?
- ^ Hare, Robert D. Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of Psychopaths Among Us, (New York: Pocket Books, 1993) pg 159.
- ^ Ochberg FM, Brantley AC, Hare RD; et al. (2003). "Lethal predators: psychopathic, sadistic, and sane". International journal of emergency mental health. 5 (3): 121–36. PMID 14608825.
{{cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=
(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Simon, R. I. Psychopaths, the predators among us. In R. I. Simon (Ed.) Bad Men Do What Good Men Dream (pp. 21-46). Washington: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.1996
- ^ D. J. Cooke, A. E. Forth, & R. D. Hare (Eds.), Psychopathy: Theory, research, and implications for society Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
- ^ Heilbrun, K. Violence risk: From prediction to management. In D. Carson & R. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of psychology in legal contexts, 2nd edition (pp. 127-142). New York: Wiley 2003
- ^ Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Lalumiére, M. Criminal violence: The roles of psychopathy, neurodevelopmental insults, and antisocial parenting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(4), 402-426 2001.
- ^ Hare, Robert D, Psychopaths: New Trends in Research. The Harvard Mental Health Letter, September 1995
- ^ Hare, Robert D. Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of Psychopaths Among Us, (New York: Pocket Books, 1993) pg 2.
K. Heilbrun would be very upset if he knew his article were cited for this purpose. Mattisse 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting claim but WP:OR --Zeraeph (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Remember to remove the dissocial piping to antisocial personality disorder -- fraud. Mattisse 21:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not possible, that is a standard DiseaseDisorder infobox template used on all disorders linking to ICD equivalents. It is not idea but it is standard practice. (see WP:MEDMOS#Infoboxes) --Zeraeph (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:MEDMOS before making further changes
Please insure that any proposed changes adhere to the guidelines therein --Zeraeph (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- You have retired! Mattisse 22:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- WP:MEDMOS has not. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding infoboxes -- I am quite sure that false and misleading information is not supposed to reside therein, regardless. Mattisse 22:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is considered the closest equivalent, ICD 10 file Psychopathy as a dissocial disorder, as a psychologist you should know that.--Zeraeph (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Having FA experience means that I know what a "guideline" is. Mattisse 22:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Then you will have no trouble adhering to it when you have read it.--Zeraeph (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also, please learn what "layman" means in terminology per WP:MEDMOS. It is fraudulent, when the terminology has been formally changed, to use a piped link to disguise the link to the new updated terminology (representing it as the same thing), as well as to use an ICD - 9 link to the new term which does NOT mean psychopathy. Why do you think the name was changed? Mattisse 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- My opinion of why the name has changed would be WP:OR and is not relevant. If you can get User:SandyGeorgia (who has considerable experience in the area of infoboxes) to delete the infobox I will cease to contest it's deletion. (WPMEDMOS does not mention the term "layman") --Zeraeph (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry! That was a "duh" type question, as the reason for the name change is quite well documented, as I am sure you know. Mattisse 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it? Can you give me actual citations for that please? --Zeraeph (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) - copied from WP:MEDMOS
The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name rather than the lay term[1] or a historical eponym that has been superseded.[2] These alternative names may be specified in the lead. Create redirects to the article to help those searching with alternative names. For example, heart attack redirects to myocardial infarction.
- I would say the international prevalence of the PCL-R (2003) and the various current, and concurrent legal and clinical usages of the term "Psychopathy" cover that more that adequately and insure it against any claim of being a "lay term". But you can always try for an AFD? --Zeraeph (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, no it does not. Seriously, I would recommend that you change the title to something like "History of the term psychopathy" or some better wording. Clearly WP:MEDMOS states it should be a #REDIRECT to Antisocial personality disorder. But the history of the term is interesting, as is the reason why they were compelled to change it -- namely to get rid of all the excess baggage the term carries, as your article points out. As far as proof, I was entering that into the article, e.g. the Theodore Millon reference, which you removed. Read the book referenced, Millon, Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV and Beyond for a very through exploration of the whole issue. And actually, Millon is (or was) on the side of keeping the term because he liked the connotations that went with it. But he is right (in the part you removed from the Psychopathy article), when you have cluster/factor analyzes on an N of 16 on retrospective, self-report data, then you are off the ethical map as far as use of scientific data goes. Maybe the term is used in the U.K. I have no idea. If the term is used there, and you make the article clear that it only pertains to there, then fine. But make that very, very clear. And both Hare and Cleckley are Americans. Hare was purely a research psychologist and not a clinician. And all the research based on personality factors such as the 16 PF etc. are zero as far as the United States clinical and legal terminology goes, regardless of what the state of Washington does. Mattisse 23:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, there are far too many citations in the article that establish Psychopathy as a current Medical term, so that is how it must stay. You have yet to produce one citation to suggest otherwise. --Zeraeph (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Please distinguish between clinical diagnoses and research terminology
They are not the same thing. A researcher can call syndromes (or whatever) anything he wants, or invent terms if need be. This is not true of clinical diagnoses which must abide by diagnostic manual rules. And, as you are aware, legal terminology is a separate issue entirely. Mattisse 22:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you have further, fully cited (in accord with WP:MEDMOS) distinctions to be made between clinical diagnoses, research terminology and legal terminology they must, of course be included. Please list them with citations.--Zeraeph (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- copied from WP:MEDMOS
The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name rather than the lay term[1] or a historical eponym that has been superseded.[3] These alternative names may be specified in the lead. Create redirects to the article to help those searching with alternative names. For example, heart attack redirects to myocardial infarction.
- ^ a b Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#The_naming_issue
- ^ Arguments for and against eponyms, plus background information, can be read at the List of eponymous diseases.
- ^ Arguments for and against eponyms, plus background information, can be read at the List of eponymous diseases.
Mattisse 22:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest you find verifiable academic citations, in accord with WP:MEDMOS that establish that Psychopathy is never currently used as a medical term. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- How can I prove a negative? The ICD-9 link goes to Antisocial personality disorder. In DSM-IV etc. there is no such term. Get links that go to diagnostic manuals that describe Psychopathy as a classification of mental illness and you will be fine. I guarantee (in the United States, at least) if you try to bill an insurance company or hospitalize a person with the diagnosis of Psychopathy you will get no where. It is not a term that is used in a clinical way. Researchers can call things any name they want. They have no legal constraints. Mattisse 23:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you can't prove it, you can't introduce it into the article. There are already plenty of citations to show that Psychopathy is currently used as a medical term. --Zeraeph (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- You needs some links that proof it is true. Not links that go to Antisocial Personality Disorder, or disguised piped links that go to Antisocial Personality Disorder. You removed my references, for gods sake! You say "never currently". I will not say never, I will say not currently, nor after 1968. Right now I am looking at DSM-II (1968) p.43 published by the American Psychiatric Association. It has "Antisocial personality".
- If you can't prove it, you can't introduce it into the article. There are already plenty of citations to show that Psychopathy is currently used as a medical term. --Zeraeph (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This term is reserved for individuals who are basically unsocialized and whose behavior pattern brings them repeatedly into conflict with society. They are incapable of significant loyalty to individuals, groups, or social values. They aree grossly selfish, callout, irresponsible, impulsive, and unable to feel guilt or to learn from experience and punishment. Frustration tolerance is low. They tend to blame others or offer plausible rationalizations for their behavior. A mere history of repeatd legal or social offenses is not sufficient to justify this diagnosis. Group delinquent reaction of childhood (or adolescence) (q.v.), and Social maladjustment without manifes psychiatric disorder (q.v.) should be ruled out before making this diagnosis.
Mattisse 23:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- The PCL-R is specifically a tool intended and used, internationally, for diagnosis of psychopathy in a clinical context, it was last revised in 2003. That is current, medical and specifies that it is a separate condition with far different and more precise criteria than ASPD. --Zeraeph (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Remember, you removed my reference citations & you also removed "citations needed" tags without providing reference citations - the burden is on the editor to provide unbiased reference citations
Much in that article is not justified by multiple, unbiased, reliable sources. Remember, per WP:V and WP:RS etc. the [burden is on the editor to prove it is true, not visa versa. Mattisse 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The only citation I removed had no connection or relevance to the text of the article at all [2]. --Zeraeph (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That is your first reference: "The purpose of the present study was to compare the responses of 27 incarcerated rapists and 27 incarcerated nonsexual offenders using the Rapist Empathy Measure (targeting victim specific empathy deficits) and to examine the relationship between empathy with self-esteem and psychopathy for both groups....." This is your proof? Mattisse 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The reference is not my own, but it is simply intended to support the statement about lack empathy it accompanies, and it does swo very well...Please read WP:CITE for a better understanding of how citations work.--Zeraeph (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not set commentary as a Heading
Thank You. --Zeraeph (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The reference citation you removed was specifically directed at the article & at the unfitness of the type of references you are providing as proof - scores on the Rapist Empathy Measure are irrelevant
I can only speculate that you know nothing about cluster/factor analysis upon which all the date you cite is based. Sorry, that is great for a speculative research article but NOT for a clinical diagnosis. Take the links out of the article that refer to Antisocial Personality Disorder, including the piped, disguised ones, and link to articles that show that Psychopathy is a diagnostic category. How someone scores on Rapist Empathy Measure is irrelevant. Mattisse 00:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was generic and made no specific, direct reference to them at all. --Zeraeph (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Then they are fluff and useless and you have proved nothing whatsoever. Mattisse 00:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You misunderstood me, I said that your only citation was generic and made no specific, direct reference to them at all, so it proved nothing.--Zeraeph (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please add links that show Psychopathy is a diagnostic category - you have not shown it is a diagnostic category currently in use.
- It is not a diagnostic category, it is a medical term in current use for clinic diagnosis for which all the proof required is the PCL-R (though there is more). --Zeraeph (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Remove the ones that are hidden links to Antisocial Personality Disorder. Mattisse 00:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are not making any sense now, are you unwell? --Zeraeph (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You should follow the advice you asked for
You asked User talk:LessHeard vanU[3] for advice. Now follow it. Mattisse 00:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Your second reference:
The purpose of the present study was to compare the responses of 27 incarcerated rapists and 27 incarcerated nonsexual offenders using the Rapist Empathy Measure (targeting vict
This is your second reference (right next to the first). Does not seem any better. Mattisse 00:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is relevant to the text it supports which specifically refers to lack of empathy as a symptom of psychopathy. You do not seem to understand the purpose of citation, please read WP:CITE --Zeraeph (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This is your 3rd reference:The purpose of the present study was to test whether adult criminals with psychopathy diagnoses, more than those without, have histories of hyperactivity-impulsivity-attenti
The purpose of the present study was to test whether adult criminals with psychopathy diagnoses, more than those without, have histories of hyperactivity-impulsivity-attention problems (HIA) and conduct problems (CP). Still not relevant. And still refuted by the Millon reference you removed. Mattisse 00:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is relevant to the text it supports which specifically refers to poor impulse control as a symptom of psychopathy. The Million reference had no relevance or connection to it. I don't think you understand the purpose of citation, please read WP:CITE --Zeraeph (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- And from Sweden! What is the word for psychopathy in Swedish? Mattisse 00:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Psykopati --Zeraeph (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Fourth reference is a 503 error
So that is not much good. Mattisse 00:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- "The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later." I do not think that is a problem. --Zeraeph (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Fifth reference - Psychopathic manipulation in organizations: Pawns, patrons, and patsies - no relevant references yet
Does not sound very clinical to me. Mattisse 00:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The British Psychological Society who published it might disagree --Zeraeph (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Does that mean we can take everything American or United States referenced out of the article? I would be happy with that - plus some truth in labeling -- no disguised links that go to Antisocial Personality Disorder. Mattisse 00:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely not, there is no justification for doing anything of the kind. What on earth do you mean by "disguised links"? --Zeraeph (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
6th reference - Penguin Dictionary of Psychology - Humm - not very scientific - one might say "lay term" - but at least it is in English
Not good to use a dictionary, Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, for this reference. But at least it is in English. But one wonders why you have to resort to a dictionary on this topic. Mattisse 00:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You have not yet produced one relevant, connected, reference from anywhere. Please see WP:CIVIL--Zeraeph (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is relevant to ask you to supply relevant reference citations. In your head it is civil to revert any attempts to improve the article, even when the person you asked for advice,User talk:LessHeard vanU, suggested that you do? And somehow my requesting undisguised links and proper referencing is worse? Mattisse 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are not making any sense, are you unwell? --Zeraeph (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Add back the reference you removed. Mattisse 00:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it was not relevant or connected to the article.--Zeraeph (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
disguised links are the ones that are piped to go to dissocial personality disorder or pretend to go to Psychopathy dx but actually go to Antisocial Personality Disorder
Disguised links are the ones that are piped to go to "dissocial personality disorder" or pretend to go to Psychopathy as a diagnosis but actually go to Antisocial Personality Disorder. That is called unethical. Mattisse 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are not making any sense, are you unwell? --Zeraeph (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it was not relevant or connected to the article - that is your reply to wanting my reference citation in the article - how come you get to decide with no consultation - it is WP:OWN in spades
Please read what User talk:LessHeard vanU wrote to you: [4] Mattisse 00:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please read what User talk:LessHeard vanU replied to you.
[5] Mattisse 01:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Sex offenders vs. Antisocial Personality Disorders
I have never seen any evidence that most sex offenders are antisocial personality disorders. I believe that there is quite a bit of evidence that sex offenders are not the same as the average criminal offender. Sex offenders tend to have higher educational and economic levels that most offenders. Also, most sex offenders have not been arrested for other crimes, which rule them out of the Antisocial Personality Disorder category. For most, it is their first offense and they tend not to have further criminal histories, compared to the average offender. I question why so many of the studies with small subject pools referenced in this article are of sex offenders. Sex offenders are not typical Antisocial Personality Disorders. Mattisse 02:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Question why so much reliance on Hare
Hare is just one individual who since the 1970's has been researching psychopathy. He has a large investment, research-wise, in the term. I believe this article would be more balanced if a wider array of sources were utilized, especially if the concentration on sex offenders, which in my opinion is unwarranted, is reduced. Mattisse 02:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally, much of the material in the article appears to come from [6] which was written in 1996, the same year that DSM-IV came out. I don't know if we can take Hare's word that the the shift from dubious reliability and construct validity to dubious construct validity and good reliability is the unforeseen result of "construct drift" as Hare says in the article. Mattisse 02:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Questioning the sources
The first reference in the article is to childhood disorder. In my 1968 copy of DSM-II it already is very careful about not applying the Antisocial Personality to other than adults, as I quoted about. The second reference is to Sex Offenders. There is no evidence that sex offenders have a higher rate of Antisocial Personality Disorders than average, and there is evidence that they have a lower incidence that the average criminal offender, again for some of the reasons listed above. There is no evidence that the Rapist Empathy Measure scale supports any position in the article. I do not think it is a widely used measure and it certainly is not a clinical measure. It is a purely research measure.
I have been told over the last day that there is a very good reason why no Psychology article has ever reached FA status -- namely because they are so poor in quality. I was even suggested to me to make a project of bringing this one to FA status. But it is so riff with inaccuracies and misunderstandings and unethical statements, that I see no hope.
Even though, Zeraeph has been given a 28 day block, I have be warned by other users to stay away from any article she is involved with, as it is never worth the trouble and agony involved. I am inclined to take this route on this article. It is hopeless as currently constituted. Mattisse 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I am also wondering why broken links are allowed to remain in article
What is the purpose of allowing broken links? I don't get it. Mattisse 16:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've not looked at the links yet but feel free to remove them if they're still not working.Merkinsmum 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Dec. 12, 2007, Move Discussion
Since Merkinsmum moved this article from Psychopathy without any discussion whatsoever, I suggest we move this article back to its proper location as soon as possible.
- The concept of psychopathy has a history predating the work of Robert Hare.
- Psychopathy, as it is currently formulized, is the product of numerous experts (Hare, Kykken, Newman, et al.)
- The concept is best known as simply Psychopathy
- There was no prior discussion of the move and thus no consensus reached