Talk:Psychopathy/Archive 4

Threatened with exposure, psychopaths edit the Wikipedia Psychopathy page

Here, you cannot assume good faith! Intelligent and cunning, they may delete accurate, descriptive material for small reasons without offering better, and discredit those who oppose them. My qualifications include being subordinate to a highly socialized, primary psychopath for several years; yes, Hare and Cleckley most certainly do know their material!

Also, remember your audience includes the abused, who may turn to this page grasping for any straw of understanding. DanB (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

The UK also has a legal definition of psychopathy (psychopathic disorder to be precise), so it is not unique to Washington State. However, the legal definitions, as a rule, have very very little to do with the psychological definition of the disorder, and I agree that the section does need revising to make this clear. Many legal definitions of psychopathy emerge from older usage of the word, often applying to more general personality disorders. I would take issue that psychopathy is purely restricted to research. It may not be accepted in psychiatric circles, but Forensic Psychologists in the prison service (certainly in this country, but also in many parts of Europe and I believe areas of the US and Canada) do use and accept the term, as do professional bodies such as the BPS's Division of Forensic Psychology. To dismiss it as merely a research term is factually inaccurate (although I accept it is not used by the APA or in psychiatric diagnosis). Gemnoire (talk) 09:59, 14 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)

Research into psychopathy ranges far further than just Hare or Cleckley, and has as such been applied to a wide range of offender samples, including, but not exclusively sex offenders. Quite frankly I find your argument that such a reference is invalid entirely because one primary researcher doesn't look at this population to be somewhat spurious, although it is true too much of the research cited uses these populations, it has been repeated in none-sex offender samples, and I shall hunt down the links when I have time. Hare was a clinician, he worked, I believe, as a forensic psychologist in the (Canadian) prison service for a number of years before developing the PCL-R, which he based both on prisoner's he'd come into contact with as well as Cleckley's theories. I do find your argument that sources must be 'clinical' to be valid somewhat baffling to say the least. Researchers are in the habit of developing hypothesis, based on theory which are then tested scientifically and empirically to develope evidence for or against their validity. Psychopathy has a lot of evidence indicating it's validity (and indeed clinical use) in a large variety of populations, over different age groups (although true, you should not diagnose the disorder in juveniles, psychopathic traits do not suddenly appear when someone hits 18) and across different cultures. There is strong evidence indicating a neurological basis to the disorder, relating to both the amygdala and the prefrontal cortext, and it has been identified as one of the best tools for measuring risk of reoffending. Gemnoire (talk) 10:12, 14 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)

I just checked the ICD-10, yes, there's still a reference to "Psychopathic" in there, under F60.2, the reference should be updated. Although this definition doesn't capture the concept of psychopathy as described in this articleGemnoire (talk) 10:17, 14 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.

________

• 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.
• 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. (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 :) ) —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 who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence 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". "What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony."

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 or a historical eponym that has been superseded. 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 or a historical eponym that has been superseded. 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.

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".

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)

The research in question was carried out by a qualified organizational psychologist in a series of US Companies and presented at an international conference. It has been published in several places as it is a well known study in the area. Babiak, P. (2000). Psychopathic manipulation at work. In C. B. Gacono (Ed.), The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy (pp. 287-311). NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. May be a better reference. In fact the whole book (published only 7 years ago I might add) does nicely support psychopathy as a clinical concept. Gemnoire (talk) 10:39, 14 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.

1. The concept of psychopathy has a history predating the work of Robert Hare.
2. Psychopathy, as it is currently formulized, is the product of numerous experts (Hare, Lykken, Newman, et al.)
3. The concept is best known as simply Psychopathy
4. There was no prior discussion of the move and thus no consensus reached

--NeantHumain (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is it's proper location? I am confused. Mattisse 01:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I think I understand. (Correct me if I am wrong.) This article should be moved back to Psychopathy. Once moved it should encompass the concept of Psychopathy from it's origination (way before Hare). Then include several researchers and their differing formulations of Psychopathy.

I would like this suggestion if the clinical diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder be left as a separate article, since in the United States the AMA DSM-IV etc. diagnoses are mandated. You could include a discussion of Antisocial Personality Disorder as a section or part of the article on Psychopathy, but be clear these are differing concepts that were derived differently and are used for different purposes. If the tendency to conflate them into one diagnosis is resisted, then an interesting article on the concept of psychopathology, its history and applications could result, without adhering to any one formulation of the concept. What do you think? Mattisse 02:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not been too active in the more recent edits to Psychopathy, but the article on Psychopathy was always intended to be a separate from the article on antisocial personality disorder while clarifying the overlap where it exists (and there is indeed a strong correlation). The subject of psychopathy spans the work of Cleckley (and earlier!), Lykken, Hare, Newman, and many more. We really do not need to muddle Wikipedia with unnecessarily lengthy titles like "Hare's theory of psychopathy," and I frown upon circumvention of consensus (i.e., making discussion needed for a move back when no discussion for the original move was made). I encourage any admin reading this to move this article back to Psychopathy pending results of this discussion.--NeantHumain (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, Psychopathy is a very distinct concept from Anti-Social Personality and should remain as such. Psychopathy is not a psychiatric term, however it is a well support psychological term, especially in forensic and research settings. Gemnoire (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I support moving the article back to Psychopathy. Curious Blue (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Support move back to Psychopathy. The use of the term Psychopathy predates Hare and many other authors has used the term in several fields. It seems that it is quite a contensious term for clinical diagnosis so it seems wise to treat clinical aspects in other articles, with this one focussing on historical, legal and philosophical aspects. I'm also a little concerned about Sociopathy and whether is is really a synonym. --Salix alba (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsure/perhaps no/don't mind lol. My reason for the move was Neutral Point Of View, and preventing the article being a POV fork of the APD article. This is not the main view of psychopathy, which I would say most people see as a synonym for APD. But I honestly don't mind as long as you keep the article NPOV. Moving just seemed the easiest way to stop the article being misleading. But if it has a disambiguation in italics in the top of the page saying this is not the view of the subject of the APA, which is located at Antisocial personality disorder, then it will be ok I suppose, as long as the tone is kept NPOV.Merkinsmum 14:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Psychopathy and related articles

First of all, I'd like to say I'm not into the edit wars and zealous guardianship of articles (mainly, I just don't have the time); however, I am 'well versed on some subjects (like psychopathy) and contribute when I can. There is considerable confusion about the terms psychopathy, sociopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and dissocial personality disorder. Unfortunately, not even the recognized experts are in consensus (please see Reification). Luckily, we have a few clear facts that make the dispute more manageable for us Wikipedia editors:

• Antisocial personality disorder is a disorder listed in the most recent editions of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
• Dissocial personality disorder is a disorder listed under Chapter V (Mental and behavioral health disorders) of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases.
• Psychopathy is assessed in adult forensic and clinical populations using the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL–R). Related psychological instruments exist to measure psychopathy in children and business associates and to measure subclinical psychopathic personality traits through self-report.
• An extensive set of research on psychopathy exists independent of work on antisocial personality disorder.
• The DSM-IV task force cooperated with the authors of the ICD-10 to create a good degree of compatibility between their respective diagnostic systems although there are some notable differences.

The difficult question is in how different are these related concepts from each other? Given the separate body of research on psychopathy, it is clear at least two articles are needed. Given the relative sparsity of research on ICD-10 dissocial personality disorder, my opinion is that it is best to leave that as a section of the Antisocial personality disorder article. I think of dissocial PD as just another set of criteria for essentially the same concept as APD (just as would be the DSM-III-R or DSM-III criteria for APD, which differ quite a bit more from DSM-IV APD than ICD-10 dissocial PD does).

If you ask how does sociopathy differ from psychopathy, the answer varies greatly by expert; fortunately, no current diagnostic or measurement system uses the term. If one goes back to the DSM-I, ones finds sociopathic personality was an umbrella term that encompassed an antisocial type (perceived as in-born and defined by such characteristics as selfishness, immaturity, callousness, and impulsivity) and a dyssocial type (the result of socialization into a gang or neglectful parenting); alcoholism, substance addictions, and impulse-control disorders (kleptomania and pyromania) were also classified under sociopathic personality in this edition.

Hare distinguishes the terms psychopathy and sociopathy in the same way this early edition of the DSM distinguished antisocial and dyssocial types of sociopathic personality (however, other quotes suggest Hare sees the two as more or less the same). Lykken takes this distinction and refines it, suggesting various subtypes of both psychopathy and sociopathy. He was a proponent (but not the originator) of the distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy. He suggested secondary psychopathy may be the result of something like a choleric (irritable, impulsive) temperament or hypersexuality whereas primary psychopathy results from an innate deficit in fearfulness. Joseph Newman has tested this hypothesis of Lykken's and even come up with his own explanation of primary psychopathy (a sort of attentional deficit).

The reason many experts presently emphasize a distinction between APD and psychopathy is that they find the APD criteria inadequate for clinical, forensic, and research purposes. Psychopathy, for example, has a stronger correlation with criminal recidivism (particularly violent recidivism). APD's looser criteria muddle different motivations and etymologies. Researchers have found that certain physiological responses are correlated only with the deficient emotional experience factor of the PCL–R (and similar factors of related instruments). Prosecuting attorneys especially love the term because this diagnosis dehumanizes the defendant in the eyes of the jury (even if they are instructed to treat the information rationally rather than emotionally, let's be honest). For this reason alone, I'm sure many researchers and clinicians would happily go to the less emotional term antisocial personality disorder if the criteria were sufficient for their needs.

I could go on...

Anyway now for a more personal note: Please remember to assume good faith from your fellow editors and avoid making rash accusations by calling someone's actions "unethical," "disguised," "mislead," etc. Zeraeph did not add the dissocial personality disorder information to the APD article; I did. A calm, clear-headed frame of mind is always helpful when editing Wikipedia. Truth and facts are really not a matter of consensus, but our approach to editing Wikipedia, by and large, is since otherwise everyone could claim to know the truth on their pet interest better than anyone else and resort to browbeating their perspective into everyone else's face.

I strongly encourage both you and Zeraeph to take a cooling-off period before making further edits to these articles.--NeantHumain (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say, as I have written in the talk sections of the articles. I suggested perhaps three articles and clearly define the terms. Please read what I wrote, as you are repeating much of what I said. I am not editing the Psychopathy article. However, I think it is in very bad shape. I am trying to clean up the Antisocial Personality Disorder article. As someone said, recently, there is a very good reason why hardly any Psychology articles can even reach GA status. I have resisted editing this articles as this is my profession. I mainly write forensic articles, as I am a forensic psychologist. But this confusion over terms and the mess these articles are in is a travesty. I would like to work with you to fix them up. It is an embarrassment the way they are now. The other person, the one fixated on sex offenders being Antisocial Personality Disorders, has been blocked for 28 days. But the article is such a mess, it ruins the concept for me -- and psychopathy was my Life Work! I hope you will help. Regards, Mattisse 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I know the blocked person meant well, but she was blocked because she WP:OWN the article. Because she has a history of such behavior, I am told, she was blocked for 28 days. She received a community ban but appealed personally to Jimbo and it was reversed. But she is on thin ice. If you are her friend, I would advise you to help her become more understanding. She is near receiving another community ban, I am told by the banning admin, who is trying to work with her. So please help her if you can to be more open to critical information and more responsible about referencing. If you are her friend you will help her. Mattisse 02:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have personally encountered the excesses of Zeraeph's zeal, but I would not suggest she is 100% misguided (as stubborn as she may be sometimes), and I do disagree with some of her edit choices but do not have the time available to make editing a daily thing or to play cyber-politics (I've had more than my fill of games from my ex). By the way, the professional body that publishes the DSM is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and not the American Medical Association (AMA), Doctor. ;) --NeantHumain (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As I suggested, you can always feel free to fix a typo on your own rather than take the trouble of notifying me of every one I make -- which is many. Thanks. Mattisse 03:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, perhaps in your professional life you are free to use loose terminology on your clients so you can ruminate about it. I am not as I am bound by the DSM. Please consider the needs of those of us who cannot afford to conflated terms as you are able to do. Thanks, Mattisse 03:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Are these last personal comments really appropriate here? Shouldn't you be posting personal responses on the user's talk page rather than the article talk page? Curious Blue (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I just wanted to get rid of the whole mess, as it was most unwelcome, especially as I have been posting on the article pages, where he could have answered. I do not like article talk page material on my personal talk page. I wanted to get rid of all of it. Perhaps I should have just deleted it, but I thought that was not allowed. In any case, I hope it provides the incentive to stop the posting on my personal page. Regards, Mattisse 03:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

neant/ article is the same but with a neutral point of view

(sorry I didn't answer earlier I only just came back online, I'm in the UK) Nothing about this article has really changed, except that it's less misleading. The problem is that laypersons, because it is a word they would use, would enter 'psychopath' in the search bar and end up on this article. They need to know that this is not the 'official' mainstream view, for instance of the APA, who call it Antisocial personality disorder. Before the name change, people would have been led to believe that this was the only or main theory of it. Which would be misleading. Hence phrases such as 'those using this theory believe' and so on should be used, because otherwise it is not written in a Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV. These researchers/followers of this theory are even using a different tool- the PCL-R- which other researchers tend not to use. So we need to make it clear that ok, maybe some people, or even a lot of people, are using this theory/tool, but it is not the view of psychopathy which is the most mainstream at the moment or followed by the most professionals. That is not to criticise this theory of Hare etc'- it's just reality. And to reflect this the article needs to make it clear throughout that this is a belief/theory/research technique which some researchers might choose to use.Merkinsmum 13:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

'psychopathy' should redirect to Antisocial personality disorder'

I didn't want to do that because you seemed to want it so much, but APD is the mainstream view of the subject, and so when a layperson types in 'Psychopath' they should be taken to what is the main view of the subject. Not to what at first appeared to be what is called in wikipedia a 'POV fork'- a page set up to mislead that one point of view is the majority or best viewpoint. At the moment it avoids being a POV fork as long as it keeps reminding readers of the context of

I have created that redirect- I didn't want to, but I had to to explain the need for it as you had attempted to speedy the page.

Now you are welcome to link to Hare's theory page in the Antisocial personality disorder article- I'll do so now.

So in conclusion:- moving this page to psychopathy- no I don't think so, or not without ensuring that this page remains NPOV and sets this theory in context next to APD. I suppose if it continued to do that, I wouldn't have a problem. My only concern is NPOV.Merkinsmum 13:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

i didn't create the page psychopathy, so I can remove the speedy tag

So please no-one say (as someone claimed on my talk page) I have removed a speedy from a page I created myself- because I haven't- I've only made a few edits to it and it's been there a while.

However as I said above- I don't really mind what you call this article- as long as it is kept NPOV and not misleading. Hence I won't remove it again.

But don't accuse me of doing things I didn't do- thanks.Merkinsmum 14:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when you move a page, the whole history is moved with the page and a new redirect is created. In the page history of the redirect, you were listed as the editor who created it and as the only editor who modified it prior to my placing the speedy tag. Clearly you didn't understand that this is the way the process works, but by moving the page, you necessarily create a new redirect. Curious Blue (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Earlier, the deletion of the redirect was controversial, obviously, as we were still discussing it here. As such it was not just housekeeping, the redirects otherwise have to go to Wikipedia:redirects for discussion, not speedy, as the page on speedy deletes clearly explains. Anyway, we have all sort of agreed here on this front now, at that point it is ok to go ahead and speedy as housekeeping. If reverting people, claiming they are wrong when it should not have been listed as speedy earlier as we had all not agreed, or propounding this theory is what gives people fun and happiness on wiki, I do not mind as I personally do not have overwhelming feelings over this article except that it must not mislead the reader about the status of this theory, and must conform with WP:NPOV. For instance, why would the disambig must say that the other view is that held by the APA, which is vital for the reader to know if they're not going to read on with a mistaken impression of the status of the other theory.Merkinsmum 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about the focus of this article

Is this article about the history, evolution etc. of the term "psychopathy" or is it about Hare's use of the term? If it is the former, then IMHO then history, evolution, general use, etc. should be explained before launching into Hare's view. As the article stands now, the first para gives a very general overview. Then the second para immediately describes Hare's political views of DSM-IV:

"Psychologist Robert Hare and followers of his theory want the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to list psychopathy as a unique disorder, saying that psychopathy has no precise equivalent...."

Also, do you not think Hare's theory should be fully explained before his political debates over it are described?

Do people think that this is the gist of the article? If so, then it makes sense that the second para of the intro starts right in on the political debate. But there should be more background given first, I think. The novice reader may just want to know the various meanings of the term and may not be able to follow the politics immediately, or even know who "psychologist Hare" is. An average person does not know about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, never mind the political debates raging therein.

Also, I thought this article was supposed to be more general than a debate over the merits of a United States diagnostic manual. Or is the article a discussion of Hare and Cleckley's view versus DSM-IV? Do you not think ICD-10, since it is linked, should be given equal space to DSM-IV and sons?

Further, I believe current research should be at the end of the article, not at the beginning, before the term has been explained. It is very confusing to have references go to the Rape Empathy Scale in the first sentence. Then, with no background, launch into Hare's view of DSM-IV in the second para. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you that the article should be about the historical development of pyschopathy and that writing in chronological order would greatly improve the article. Curious Blue (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The history is important, this is true and should be included. Similarly a very clear distinction should be made between Psychopathy and both Anti-social personality disorder and Dysocial personality disorder and with clear reference that the former is a forensic and research term but not officially accepted by the main psychiatric ruling bodies. However, to consign the term psychopathy to being merely historical or only relating to Hare is factually incorrect. Although this may not be the case in the US, I can assure you in Europe, psychopathy generally, and the PCL-R specifically, are commonly used tools as part of both risk assement and treatment management. Yes, there may be issues with the validity of the exact assessment tools, and debate remains, but considerably research from a wide variety of authors (Lykken, Cooke, Michie, Forth, Lillienfeld, Newman, Blair, Skeem, ... to name but a few) indicates it is still a current and valid construct and deserving of a page dealing with it in it's own right. Gemnoire (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and there is an article on the PCL-R which could possibly contain some of that too, as the researches you mention were researching using that. The thing is if these people are using the PCL-R, they are using Hare's tool. And there's already an article about it. I would love to read other views on 'psychopathy' by professionals who aren't following Hare's theories/using this tool. I'm just wondering if anyone has another approach, or do those who do call it APD or Dissocial.PD? The best bits to me in this article are where the researchers are looking at psychopath's response to facial features and stuff like that, studies which are not using the PCL-R so much. The problem with the PCL-R is Hare says 'psychopathy' is separate from APD, he defines a different subject group, as such the research may not be usable to those following the APD model (though it probably is.) Also if you go in with a specific tool to find psychopaths, you will find 'psychopaths', Hare sort of admits that himself in the article.I loved him, Merlin! 12:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It is true that much of the research does focus on psychopathy as defined by the PCL-R, being considered by many as a 'gold standard', but a number of researchers have started using other tools. One that I personally find to be promissing is the Psychopathic Personality Inventory by Lilienfeld, which was a self-report psychopathy measure developed based on a number of theoretical sources included, but not exclusively, Hare's work. I have also heard that Cooke may be working a new tool to improve on the PCL-R by focusing more on the central affective and personality measures of psychopathy rather than anti-social behaviour, a view of the disorder which a lot of the neurological work supports. A lot of the work dealing with neurological basis do use the PCL-R, although they often both focus on factor 1 (the affective/personality elements) and combine it with a measure of anxiety to compensate for one of the major holes in the PCL-R assessment. With regards to the difference between APD and psychopathy, they are distinctly different, and I would disagree with anyone who used APD research to draw conclusions on psychopathy or vice versa (which is possibly one of issues with the current article as there still appears to be some confusion). APD is predominently behaviour based assessment, with a minimal number of personality variables included, focusing on specific criminal and anti-social behaviours. Psychopathy has a very important personality component, and is predominantly defined in these terms, though there is currently a lot of debate over whether anti-social behaviour should also be included in the definition (making it in essence a sub-category of APD really). Researchers like Cooke and Michie and Lilienfeld are currently arguing that anti-social behaviour is just one of many consequences of the disorder, and that it should be defined in terms of specific emotional and personality deficits (in simplistic terms, most of the factor 1 traits), which appears to be supported by neurological studies. The psychopathy literature is rich and constantly evolving, which unfortunately makes it incredibly difficult to summarise for a wiki page (or even a thesis which is what I'm currently trying to do). Gemnoire (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is is true, or am I mistaken, you are discussing psychopathy primarily as a research topic with associated methodology, measures, etc.? If so, I would add that there is a long, fascinating history of the use of the term "psychopathy" that I would like to see described somewhere. It appears to be clear, unless I misunderstanding, that we agree that there is a distinction between the clinical use and research use of the term. It also appears that we agree that the three terms under consideration (Psychopathy, Antisocial Personality Disorder, and Dissocial Personality Disorder) are not one and the same. Do we agree on this? Mattisse 15:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not what the APA would say, is it, necessarily? I would say in terms of psychiatry psychopathy is an anachronistic (not meaning that in any bad sense) word for Antisocial personality disorder, which happens to have continued to be used by Hare and those using the PCL-R. A bit more about the history of APD could be put in the APD article. Dissocial P.D sounds a bit more like this Hare's psychopathy concept than APD does, however I think DisPD could just be mentioned at the end of the APD article, as it's usually written about as the same (although it isn't quite) and we probably don't have much to say about it.  ::::::Gemnoire- a wiki page is never 'finished' so you can always write up any new research as it comes out in WP:RS - as long as you keep the article concise.:) Merkinsmum 00:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, the essence from DSM-II going forward is a focus on observable behaviors. It makes no statements about the individual's internal dynamics or about causation. For example: #7 is "lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another". The following is a quote from Preparation for Licensing and Board Certification examinations in Psychology: The Professional, Legal, and Ethical Components (2nd Ed.) pp 132-133

... early editions of the DSM used the term sociopathic personality to emphasize the environmental factors that allegedly generated the disorder. The DSM-II substitued the label antisocial personality disorder to shift the emphasis to patterns of observable, definable behavior, and this term is retained in subsequent DSM's, including DSM-IV.

DSM-IV has added the two axes, Axis I and Axis II. Research psychologists and others who are working in settings where formal diagnosis is not required often retain the older term because it encompasses more. Researchers and theorists are more likely to be interested in Hare's PCL-R and therefore use the term for that reason also. They want to explore all those factors that DSM will not allow. Mattisse 02:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Except a diagnosis of psychopathy (not antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy) is still sometimes given by experts in court. For example: "Forensic psychologists are expected to be experts at mens rea, or the guiltiness of various states of mind. This is a big challenge, but no more demanding that what forensic psychologists are often called upon to do at the back end of the justice system, which in reality is to make an assessment of the "redeemability" or rehabilitation potential for a defendant who most likely faces the death penalty because some characterization of them as a "psychopath" or the like has evidenced itself among the aggravating factors at their sentencing hearing. As Bartol & Bartol (2004) put it, a diagnosis of psychopathy is the "kiss of death" at capital sentencing." [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeantHumain (talk • contribs) 21:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we have a problem here with different countries having different practices. In the United States there is no formal diagnosis of psychopathy. A mental health professional must use diagnoses from DSM-IV. Further, although a forensic psychologist needs to understand the elements of a crime, etc., because of the ultimate issue problems, experts would not make a statement about mens rea. Also, there is rarely a reason to diagnose someone with an Antisocial Personality Disorder, because personality disorders are not considered a mental illness in American courts, so why not go with Personality Disorder, NOS giving you more flexibility. That website you referenced, I cannot tell where that is coming from or when it was written. Are you able to tell?

The website's domain name is a dead giveaway; it's some campus of the University of North Carolina. Anyway I've seen an article on crimelibrary.com that addresses the evidence of a diagnosis of psychopathy in the trial of an adolescent or young adult who killed his parents (I think it was his parents). Usually it's the prosecution that will be claiming a defendant is a psychopath; obviously no sane defense attorney will want his or her client described as psychopathic. A diagnosis of psychopathy is not the same as describing a person's actual state of mind during commission of a crime. It's usually used to make any punishment harsher (on the assumption a psychopath is likely to commit more crimes if released).--NeantHumain (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Right now I am writing an article The Mask of Sanity, so I have piles of books around me. From what (little) I can tell about dissocial personality disorder, you are right—it is more like the ICD-10. This is a quote from Millon (1996): "The ICD-10 reverts to an earlier term as the label for DSM's antisocial personality, entitling it the "dissocial personality." The following features are summarized in their criteria listing:" (then a long list is given) "Noted as associated features are the presence of persistent irritability, and childhood or adolescent conduct disorders. We should be mindful that this characterization includes features that are normally associated with aggressive/sadistic personality styles. These features have been fused into the dissocial personality disorder criteria owing to the failure to include the sadistic personality pattern in the ICD taxonomy."

I have also seen statements (that I can't find to reference right now) that ICD-10 retains a psychodynamic focus and therefore tries to infer causation. DSM is going in the opposite direction, becoming trait-oriented and places the primary emphasis on the following. Interpersonal conduct: failure to conform to social norms, disinclination to engage in lawful behaviors; signs of consistent irresponsibility in one's dealings with others; deceitfulness and the conning of others for personal profit or pleasure; indifference to the welfare of others, as evident in a lack of remorse or the rationalization of why one has hurt of mistreated others. There is a single criterion in the Behavioral area: a reckless disregard for one's own safety as well as those of others. Partially behavioral but also cognitive is another single criterion: a failure to plan ahead, resulting in behavioral impulsively etc.

Millon says the same thing Cleckley does— that the term "antisocial" gives undue prominence to the delinquent or criminal expression of the personality by designating it as antisocial. This formulation fails to recognize that the same fundamental personality structure, with its characteristic pattern of ruthless and vindictive behavior, is often displayed in ways that are not socially disreputable, irresponsible, or illegal. Using personal repugnance and conventional morals as a basis for diagnostic syndromes runs contrary to contemporary efforts to expunge social judgments as clinical entities (e.g. the reevaluation of the concept of homosexuality as a syndrome). The label "antisocial" continues a struggle to resolve issues associated with earlier value-laden concepts. Mattisse 21:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should be discussing this on the APD talk page but I was wondering why the ICD use dissocial -it's not a commonly used word and they wrote it after APD was invented. May be they meant to convey that the behaviour of someone with DisPD is motivated by disregard of others rather than hatred/dislike as 'antisocial' implies?Merkinsmum 02:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think ICD does used dissocial, as it merely mentions it in a list of alternative names, perhaps for historical reasons so the persons familiar with the term "dissocial" will know where it fits into the current scheme. Mattisse 18:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your information from, Doc; UC Berkeley must do things differently. I've got digital copies of Chapter V of both the ICD-10 green book and the ICD-10 blue book, and it uses the term "dissocial personality disorder," listing antisocial personality, sociopathy, and Cleckley psychopath as synonyms or subtypes.

I admit I do not know anything about ICD-10. But here is a quote from Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony Vol II by Jay Ziskin which is a book for attorneys to shoot down psychiatric testimony in the United States.

One should note whether the report contains a formal diagnosis......Those that do not are weakened......One can usually spot a formal diagnosis by the presence of a code number, usually a three-digit number, sometimes with additional digits ... although in some cases, psychiatrists will state what turns out to be a formal diagnosis without using the code numbers. Where there is a formal diagnosis, one should check to see if it is one of those listed in the diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM-III). .......the lawyer ... should check the manual for the elements required for making that diagnosis and then check to see if the report describes those elements.....If there is a diagnosis, but it is not from DSM-III, this is a matter to be questioned as there is only one official diagnositic classification system and it is DSM-III.

Regards, Mattisse 21:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit that's likely to need changing/or am I thick?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not sure if this bit is quite right:-

"Another study using the PCL-R to examine the relationship between antisocial behaviour and suicide found that suicide history was strongly correlated to PCL-R Factor 2 (reflecting antisocial deviance) and was not correlated to PCL-R factor 1 (reflecting affective functioning). Given that APD relates to Factor 2, whereas psychopathy relates to both factors, this would confirm Hervey Cleckley's assertion that psychopaths are relatively immune to suicide. People with APD, on the other hand, have a relatively high suicide rate."[8]

The sentence that this validates Clerckley violates WP:NOR unless the source mentions it, and ideally that everyone can read that it does. This is not the conclusion summarised in the source's abstract, and they would have mentioned if that was the conclusion they drew from their work; it says something else entirely.

The argument also doesn't necessarily follow at all, anyway, does it? Confused lol:)

It's late here- very- but I'll look at this tomorrow unless one of you gets the urge to go for it first.:)Merkinsmum 04:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Another study using the PCL-R to examine the relationship between antisocial behaviour and suicide, found that suicide history was strongly correlated to PCL-R Factor 2 (reflecting antisocial deviance) and was not correlated to PCL-R factor 1 (reflecting affective functioning). Although Hervey Cleckley's assertion that psychopaths are relatively immune to suicide is not the case, this study found that it is the antisocial behaviour they share with people with APD which has a correlation with increased suicide risk, (perhaps due to an impulsive temperament and negative emotionality). The psychopathic personality and view of others is not in and of itself linked to suicide."

What do you think- long-winded eh? lol.:)Merkinsmum 13:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to think. Off hand, it doesn't appear to make sense as Antisocial personality disorder people do not have a high rate of completed suicides. I have to understand more what those two factors measure. Also, I don't understand the preoccupation with suicide, as in my experience (which I know doesn't count) but also in the literature I have looked through so far, psychopathic persons committing suicide does not seem to be a concern. Mattisse 18:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Attempted suicide rarely completed" was one of Cleckley's original criteria, which is why I think it was mentioned. But other than further evidence supporting the distinct between the various factors of the PCL-R, I'd say it has little relevance to the actual construct. Gemnoire (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for removal of two references

First reference was on 25 boys between the ages of 8 to 12 with disruptive behavior, measuring their empathy by their reaction to vignettes and by a self-report measure.

Second reference was to study that compared the responses of 27 incarcerated rapists and 27 incarcerated nonsexual offenders using the Rapist Empathy Measure. Rapists had more empathy for victims and for women in general than nonrapist. Using a variety of measures, including semi-structure interviews, review of instituational files and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, no differences were found between the rapists and nonsexual offenders in terms of self-esteem and psychopathy, and neither self-esteem nor psychopathy significantly predicted empathy for either group.

Neither of these references in the lead are appropriate, IMO, as references to general statements about psychopathy. Mattisse 18:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing third reference as not appropriate for lead definition

This is the content of the 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-attention problems (HIA) and conduct problems (CP). We compared psychopathic and nonpsychopathic violent criminal offenders on retrospective reports of conduct problems before the age of 15 and hyperactivity-impulsivity-attention problems before the age of 10. We used a sample of 186 adult men sentenced to prison in Sweden for 4 years or more for violent, nonsexual crimes. The mean age was 30.7( SD = 9.4). The results showed that a combination of childhood HIA problems and CP was typical for adult psychopathic offenders. They were four times more likely than chance to have had a combination of HIA problems and CP during childhood and only one-fifth as likely than chance to have had neither problem. Nonpsychopathic offenders, on the other hand, were five times more likely than chance to have had neither problem and only one-quarter as likely than chance to have had both problems.

PMID: 15899723 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Mattisse 19:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggest letting Zeraph write article but make clear it does not refer to US usage of term

The use of the term in the United States appears to be radically different than that in Britain. Further, raw research findings are not considered to prove anything definitive. If you want to quote research findings, you must find articles that collect a variety of research studies and compare and contrast methodologies, including sample selection, methods of diagnoses, statistical designs, among other considerations that affect results. A single research article can prove anything the researcher wants it to. If you are adamantly opposed to using approved citation to compare and contrast articles, then I suggest confining this article into one that Zeraph writes, leaving out all US applications. We can remove Cleckley, since he was American and is still the backbone the DSM-IV etc. Mattisse 19:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, so far I have never seen any evidence to support your claim above. So I cannot consider it valid. Cleckley wrote about Psychopathy and therefore is relevant to any article on psychopathy and cannot be removed. While you mention the subject, perhaps if you would be so kind as to be more careful not to use single articles by specific people to support general claims? Thank you.

You so obviously want to present the Anti-psychopathy POV which is only a POV at the end of the day, and not one that I personally subscribe to, so that I suggest we use that conflict of ideas constructively to present a properly balanced NPOV article on psychopathy. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Matisse left a note on my talk page asking me to look at this. The problem here for me is that I'm not aware of the background. Matisse or Zeraeph, could one of you give me one example (with a diff) of the issues under dispute? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the most obvious [9] if you look above you will see that the Washington State issue was addressed over and over again so that surely User:Mattisse could not have been the person who made such a deliberately misleading edit? As it stood it was simply untrue so I fixed it. More to come.--Zeraeph (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The only piece I removed was this [10] then [11] as the UK Mental Health Act 1959 still defined Psychopathy as "any mental illness" until 2001, so that the statement was meaningless in the context of the article and unlikely to be accurate. It was my intention to dig up the act later and see what it actually DID say and then decide where the statement belonged and exactly how it should be worded.

I think we'd need to see evidence that the 1959 Act in the UK defined psychopathy as any mental illness. The Mental Health Act 1983 says: "Psychopathic disorder is defined as a "persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including significant impairment of intelligence) resulting in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct." This would be interesting as a history of the word, but not really relevant to how the word is used today. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Now, believe it or not, you have just (apparently) FALLEN over a quote from the '83 act that I couldn't find if my life depended on it a few months ago. :o) Such is life...that certainly would be the defintion that stood until 2001 and shocked me, however, as far as I recall the '83 act is just a heavy revision of the '59 act (it is in other respects) certainly the '83 definition needs mentioning! Ignore that, it's a euro 3:20 mind slip, I DID find it and put it in article AGES ago, it's the ruddy '59 that eludes me. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Google books provided tantalising snippets that suggest an identical definition to '83 in the '59 act...which tranlates, loosely as "mentally ill and misbehavin'" to my mind...but can't assume...I track it somehow...just not immediately. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved a lot of sections around as some of them seemed to have only limited relevance to the sections they were in such as [12] and [13] to sections where they were wholly relevant and I tidied some POV statements such as [14] and [15]

Basically, as far as I can tell User:Mattisse wishes to use the article to establish that Psychopathy does not exist as a medical term, and intention that seems, in itself, POV, as well as in contradiction of the facts. Unfortunately some of the claims she makes towards this end are not in accord with sources or facts. She claims above that Psychopathy is not in use in USA yet Robert Hare himself sits on the Research Board of the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Murder Investigative Resources Center (CASMIRC) and has received the American Academy of Forensic Psychology's award for "Distinguished Contributions to Psychology and Law," And the American Psychiatric Association's Isaac Ray Award for "Outstanding Contributions to Forensic Psychiatry and Psychiatric Jurisprudence." for his work on the subject, and most US states have legal definitions of Psychopathy. --Zeraeph (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that psychopathy, sociopathy, psychopathic personality disorder, and antisocial personality disorder are used more or less interchangeably in the UK and the U.S. -- though some writers do make distinctions, as a brief Google search shows. I think it's also true that in the U.S. they tend to use antisocial personality disorder more than any other term. But the thing to do is simply to note who uses the term in which way, and to make clear that there are slight disagreements about use and definition. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

They aren't entirely interchangeable terms, there are some very significant difference the use, and meaning of the terms indeed (though Sociopathy was essentially created as a synonym for Psychopathy to avoid confusion with the older useage denoting "any mental illness").

To put it very briefly, all Psychopaths class as having antisocial personality disorder, but not everybody with antisocial personality disorder is a Psychopath. A psychopath is incurable, hardwired, and far more specific, antisocial personality disorder is not necessarily incurable, which is why behaviorists, insurance companies and diagnostician prefer to use the term, which leave thing more open. But that structural preference does not, in any way, invalidate Psychopathy as an established concept in it's own right, which is what this article is about.

Any difference between English Speaking Europe and Australasia and the USA results from the USA preference for the DSM-IV TR which uses antisocial personality disorder as a category, whereas English Speaking Europe and Australasia are more likely to use ICD-10 where antisocial personality disorder does not exist and is covered by either Dissocial PD, or PD not otherwise specified, depending on how you look at it.

I was hoping that Mattisse could settle down and present the side of that controversy she is so passionate about in a valid, neutral way, with real evidence to support it. If a case is worth making, surely it can be made in that way, not by POV conjectures or distorting facts? --Zeraeph (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that there is extensive comment regarding this and related matters at my talkpage and also related comment at User talk:Mattisse and User talk:Zeraeph for background and more. For parties not interested in pursuing resolution there seems to be considerable effort being spent in "establishing" poor behaviour by various interests. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the background information, which I'm currently making my way through. I agree that there's too much focus on behavior. If we can get the content dispute settled, the behavior stuff will hopefully matter less.

Matisse, if you're around, do you want to respond to the points Zeraeph has raised? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My view (massive edit conflict)

(edit conflict - so here goes, as I am not going to do the whole thing over.)

Suggest letting Zeraph write article but make clear it does not refer to US usage of term

The use of the term in the United States appears to be radically different than that in Britain. Further, raw research findings are not considered to prove anything definitive. If you want to quote research findings, you must find articles that collect a variety of research studies and compare and contrast methodologies, including sample selection, methods of diagnoses, statistical designs, among other considerations that affect results. A single research article can prove anything the researcher wants it to. If you are adamantly opposed to using approved citation to compare and contrast articles, then I suggest confining this article into one that Zeraph writes, leaving out all US applications. We can remove Cleckley, since he was American and is still the backbone the DSM-IV etc. Mattisse 19:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, so far I have never seen any evidence to support your claim above.(You removed it from the article. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)) So I cannot consider it valid. Cleckley wrote about Psychopathy and therefore is relevant to any article on psychopathy and cannot be removed. (Cleckley, whose article I wrote, The Mask of Sanity was using the word very differently than does Hare, and further Cleckley's view evolved over time.) While you mention the subject, perhaps if you would be so kind as to be more careful not to use single articles by specific people to support general claims? Thank you. (Yes, I agree and wish you would stop. However, when I reference a well known source, used as textbooks in graduate and post-graduate programs, I do not consider them on the same level as "one reference" as you do your one "research article" with a small subject pool, questionable measures, and questionable use of statistics) because the books I cite are a synthesis of many points of view and many authors and cover a large area in the field. The authors are well known also, and provide clinical training in the US for psychologists, psychiatrists, and forensic psychologists and psychiatrists. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)}

Whenever you do use such sources, presented accurately, as they are, in their context, with NPOV, I will not only support but applaud them. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And here is something fascinating for you to look into (found while running to ground the 1959 act) [16]

Look for "Howells 1982". --Zeraeph (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You so obviously want to present the Anti-psychopathy POV which is only a POV at the end of the day, and not one that I personally subscribe to, so that I suggest we use that conflict of ideas constructively to present a properly balanced NPOV article on psychopathy. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (I do not care what the term is called, I just want it to be accurate. I do no know what grounds you are accusing me of POV - because POV is not a factor in clinical terminology. A professional uses the terminology that is required. Period. That is not a political issue. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

I think the repeated use of unsupported terminology like "the followers of Robert Hare" is POV. I also think spinning the presentation of sources to the point of inaccuracy is POV. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Matisse left a note on my talk page asking me to look at this. The problem here for me is that I'm not aware of the background. Matisse or Zeraeph, could one of you give me one example (with a diff) of the issues under dispute? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the most obvious [17] if you look above you will see that the Washington State issue was addressed over and over again so that surely User:Mattisse could not have been the person who made such a deliberately misleading edit? As it stood it was simply untrue so I fixed it. More to come.--Zeraeph (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC) (This link goes to a wikipedia link and not to an outside source. One article Z quoted on the Washington legislation was a law passed in 1948, and presented as the current thinking. Not so. I write many articles on US Supreme Court case decisions, especially on mental health law, and in the US we must abide by those decisions. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

My corrected section links to the current Washington State Legislature and their current definition of Psychopathy which you had mistakenly claimed did not exist. That is a very simple obvious change that had to be made urgently to avoid misleading readers.--Zeraeph (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The only piece I removed was this [18] then [19] as the UK Mental Health Act 1959 still defined Psychopathy as "any mental illness" until 2001, so that the statement was meaningless in the context of the article and unlikely to be accurate. It was my intention to dig up the act later and see what it actually DID say and then decide where the statement belonged and exactly how it should be worded. (I am not going to bother to see what those diffs refer to. I am concerned with misinformation provided to US readers or those interested in mental health terminology in the United States. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

With respect, unless you can tell me differently, it was your reference to the UK Mental Health act in the first place, not mine? --Zeraeph (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved a lot of sections around as some of them seemed to have only limited relevance to the sections they were in such as [20] and [21] to sections where they were wholly relevant and I tidied some POV statements such as [22] and [23] (Again I am not going to bother to look up those diffs -- in any case, the point is that Z decides unilaterally what is right and wrong without discussion or consensus and with derogatory edit summaries. Mattisse)

They did not describe the sections they were placed in, but did describe other sections, so I moved them. This should be obvious and not a big issue at all. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically, as far as I can tell User:Mattisse wishes to use the article to establish that Psychopathy does not exist as a medical term, and intention that seems, in itself, POV, as well as in contradiction of the facts. Unfortunately some of the claims she makes towards this end are not in accord with sources or facts. She claims above that Psychopathy is not in use in USA yet Robert Hare himself sits on the Research Board of the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Murder Investigative Resources Center (CASMIRC) and has received the American Academy of Forensic Psychology's award for "Distinguished Contributions to Psychology and Law," And the American Psychiatric Association's Isaac Ray Award for "Outstanding Contributions to Forensic Psychiatry and Psychiatric Jurisprudence." for his work on the subject, and most US states have legal definitions of Psychopathy. --Zeraeph (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC) (Again, what law enforcement agencies do and the terminology they use, is up to them and is criminology, not clinical psychology or psychiatry, so is irrelevant to any article purporting to be clinical in nature. Mattisse)

The American Psychiatric Association is nlot generally considered to be a "law enforcement agency". --Zeraeph (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My statement

The fact is Zeraeph did massive reverting with no talk page discussion and no concensus. This despite postings left on her page by User:LessHeard vanU to the contrary. She ignored him completely. Her edit summaries were considered person attacks and was, in addition to the reverting, the reason she was blocked. Zeraeph fails to see that what the FBI does, or any legal agency, has nothing to do with the medical terminology in the US. In a statement with reference that Z removed from the article, it is clear that in the US, Antisocial Personality Disorder is the only diagnosis used, and that psychopathy is an outdated medical term that is popular in mass culture and used loosely in research circles, as researchers are not bound legally to use certain terminology. Psychopathy is not a diagnosis in the US that a mental health professional can use in the court room, in medical setting, in diagnosing for insurance reimbursement etc. Z. has removed my references sourcing that. I am not going to bother to get them again. Anyone who has three citations in the lead sentence (as Z did originally) to raw research results, not citing articles that consider experimental design, methodology, statistical analyzes (Z. removed my references pointing out the importance of these issues) is not a valid reference in the lead. She removed my references to the problems of using cluster/factor analyses on a small subject pool and for the goal of diagnosing real people in clinical settings. Maybe in a section entitled "Further research" that would be appropriate. However because a small number of boys had conduct disorders when young (as measured by retrospective self report data) is not "proving" anything. That is just one research result, and clearly researchers often get the results they are looking for. These kind of citations are inappropriate, especially in the lead. That most sources in the article are of these raw research reports is just one major fault of the article. As another editor said, this article should be called Hare's Theory because it relies so much on Hare, who is just one researcher and who is not a clinician. This article is not a clinical article. It is pushing one view, Hare's view, which in the US is used by some for research purposes. The DSM-IV, the mandatory diagnostic manual in the United States, does not use the word "psychopathy" (and has not since 1968) and does not depend on Hare for its diagnostic criteria. All this has been removed, some in the 19 edits in two hours made today. No thanks. I will not be protected from personal attacks here. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

proof of reverting 19 times in 2 hours

These are the edits Z made today, removing or changing the meaning of my edits. Unfortunately I "malformed" the request, and not knowing what that means or how to correct it, I am helpless. One more reason I will not remain in this morase where I can obtain help without going through an insane amount of work to proof all the work undone by Z. I am not going to do that work again. Mattisse 03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

---User:Zeraeph reported by User:Mattisse (Result: no action, malformed report)---

• Three-revert rule violation on

Psychopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zeraeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [24] (I am not sure what version this means)

(I tried to understand DIFFTIME but I do not understand what I am supposed to be doing. Please help -- is time started: 17:27, 28 December 2007 - time of Zeraeph's first edit on Psychopathy today?

• first revert [25]
• second revert [26]
• third revert [27]
• fourth revert [28]
• fifth revert [29]
• sixth revert [30]
• seventh revert [31]
• eighth refert [32]
• ninth revert [33]

• 10th revert [34]
• 11th revert [35]
• 12th revert [36]
• 13th revert [37]
• 14 revert [38]
• 15 revert [39]
• 16th revert [40]
• 17th revert [41]
• 16th revert [42]
• 17th revert [43]
• 18th revert [44]
• 19th revert [45]

• Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

User:Zeraeph received a 28 day block which she served and it was lifted today, a few hours ago.

User:Zeraeph's 28 day block was for this same behavior on the same article Psychopathy, at least in part. Her answer to my article page post was in the same vein as before -- she is right, I am wrong and she does not have to discuss or compromise or come to consensus on changes. She is concentrating on my edits without consulting or trying to compromise or explain to me. She has moved and rearranged reference citations I put there, as well as misrepresented their meanings. Although she has rearranged and removed my citations and and changed or removed my wording, she will not discuss anything related to the content of the articlefwith me, other to state in edit summary that I was wrong, or other disparaging remarks about my edits in the edit summaries. I was warned the last time this happened by User:Viriditas not to contact Zeraeph on her talk page. Mattisse 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Declined Malformed request. No 3RR violation immediately apparent from history. Please see the other reports on this page as examples on how to provide a correct report. Sandstein (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I followed the instructions as best I could and asked questions where I did not understand. So, no more 3-RRR reporting for me.

Mattisse 03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Another massive edit conflice -- so here goes -- I'm not doing it over

• (edit conflict)

• (edit conflict)

Threatened with exposure, psychopaths edit the Wikipedia Psychopathy page

Here, you cannot assume good faith! Intelligent and cunning, they may delete accurate, descriptive material for small reasons without offering better, and discredit those who oppose them. My qualifications include being subordinate to a highly socialized, primary psychopath for several years; yes, Hare and Cleckley most certainly do know their material!

Also, remember your audience includes the abused, who may turn to this page grasping for any straw of understanding. DanB (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Even if the Washington State citation were true and correctly cited, it is irrelevant to the article. It is not important (except to show that U.S. states use confusing terminology and do no adhere to standard medical terminology). It is a good reference if put under a heading such as History of the term and used to point out the confusion over the term, starting with your first Washington citation in the previous version which referred to a statute passed in 1946. It is not good to present it in such a way that it sounds like current practice. Information should be put in historical context. Why hunt around for obscure references when there are plenty of main stream ones? What Washington state does is simply not important in this case, except as an oddity. Mattisse 13:49, 31 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)

The UK also has a legal definition of psychopathy (psychopathic disorder to be precise), so it is not unique to Washington State. However, the legal definitions, as a rule, have very very little to do with the psychological definition of the disorder, and I agree that the section does need revising to make this clear. Many legal definitions of psychopathy emerge from older usage of the word, often applying to more general personality disorders. I would take issue that psychopathy is purely restricted to research. It may not be accepted in psychiatric circles, but Forensic Psychologists in the prison service (certainly in this country, but also in many parts of Europe and I believe areas of the US and Canada) do use and accept the term, as do professional bodies such as the BPS's Division of Forensic Psychology. To dismiss it as merely a research term is factually inaccurate (although I accept it is not used by the APA or in psychiatric diagnosis). Gemnoire (talk) 09:59, 14 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 [46] 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)

Research into psychopathy ranges far further than just Hare or Cleckley, and has as such been applied to a wide range of offender samples, including, but not exclusively sex offenders. Quite frankly I find your argument that such a reference is invalid entirely because one primary researcher doesn't look at this population to be somewhat spurious, although it is true too much of the research cited uses these populations, it has been repeated in none-sex offender samples, and I shall hunt down the links when I have time. Hare was a clinician, he worked, I believe, as a forensic psychologist in the (Canadian) prison service for a number of years before developing the PCL-R, which he based both on prisoner's he'd come into contact with as well as Cleckley's theories. I do find your argument that sources must be 'clinical' to be valid somewhat baffling to say the least. Researchers are in the habit of developing hypothesis, based on theory which are then tested scientifically and empirically to develope evidence for or against their validity. Psychopathy has a lot of evidence indicating it's validity (and indeed clinical use) in a large variety of populations, over different age groups (although true, you should not diagnose the disorder in juveniles, psychopathic traits do not suddenly appear when someone hits 18) and across different cultures. There is strong evidence indicating a neurological basis to the disorder, relating to both the amygdala and the prefrontal cortext, and it has been identified as one of the best tools for measuring risk of reoffending. Gemnoire (talk) 10:12, 14 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)

I just checked the ICD-10, yes, there's still a reference to "Psychopathic" in there, under F60.2, the reference should be updated. Although this definition doesn't capture the concept of psychopathy as described in this articleGemnoire (talk) 10:17, 14 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.

________

• 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.
• 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. (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 :) ) —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 who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence 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". "What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony."

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 or a historical eponym that has been superseded. 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 or a historical eponym that has been superseded. 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.

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".

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 [47]. --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[48] 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)

The research in question was carried out by a qualified organizational psychologist in a series of US Companies and presented at an international conference. It has been published in several places as it is a well known study in the area. Babiak, P. (2000). Psychopathic manipulation at work. In C. B. Gacono (Ed.), The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy (pp. 287-311). NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. May be a better reference. In fact the whole book (published only 7 years ago I might add) does nicely support psychopathy as a clinical concept. Gemnoire (talk) 10:39, 14 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: [49] Mattisse 00:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read what User talk:LessHeard vanU replied to you.

[50] 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 [51] 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.

1. The concept of psychopathy has a history predating the work of Robert Hare.
2. Psychopathy, as it is currently formulized, is the product of numerous experts (Hare, Lykken, Newman, et al.)
3. The concept is best known as simply Psychopathy
4. There was no prior discussion of the move and thus no consensus reached

--NeantHumain (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is it's proper location? I am confused. Mattisse 01:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I think I understand. (Correct me if I am wrong.) This article should be moved back to Psychopathy. Once moved it should encompass the concept of Psychopathy from it's origination (way before Hare). Then include several researchers and their differing formulations of Psychopathy.

I would like this suggestion if the clinical diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder be left as a separate article, since in the United States the AMA DSM-IV etc. diagnoses are mandated. You could include a discussion of Antisocial Personality Disorder as a section or part of the article on Psychopathy, but be clear these are differing concepts that were derived differently and are used for different purposes. If the tendency to conflate them into one diagnosis is resisted, then an interesting article on the concept of psychopathology, its history and applications could result, without adhering to any one formulation of the concept. What do you think? Mattisse 02:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not been too active in the more recent edits to Psychopathy, but the article on Psychopathy was always intended to be a separate from the article on antisocial personality disorder while clarifying the overlap where it exists (and there is indeed a strong correlation). The subject of psychopathy spans the work of Cleckley (and earlier!), Lykken, Hare, Newman, and many more. We really do not need to muddle Wikipedia with unnecessarily lengthy titles like "Hare's theory of psychopathy," and I frown upon circumvention of consensus (i.e., making discussion needed for a move back when no discussion for the original move was made). I encourage any admin reading this to move this article back to Psychopathy pending results of this discussion.--NeantHumain (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, Psychopathy is a very distinct concept from Anti-Social Personality and should remain as such. Psychopathy is not a psychiatric term, however it is a well support psychological term, especially in forensic and research settings. Gemnoire (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I support moving the article back to Psychopathy. Curious Blue (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Support move back to Psychopathy. The use of the term Psychopathy predates Hare and many other authors has used the term in several fields. It seems that it is quite a contensious term for clinical diagnosis so it seems wise to treat clinical aspects in other articles, with this one focussing on historical, legal and philosophical aspects. I'm also a little concerned about Sociopathy and whether is is really a synonym. --Salix alba (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsure/perhaps no/don't mind lol. My reason for the move was Neutral Point Of View, and preventing the article being a POV fork of the APD article. This is not the main view of psychopathy, which I would say most people see as a synonym for APD. But I honestly don't mind as long as you keep the article NPOV. Moving just seemed the easiest way to stop the article being misleading. But if it has a disambiguation in italics in the top of the page saying this is not the view of the subject of the APA, which is located at Antisocial personality disorder, then it will be ok I suppose, as long as the tone is kept NPOV.Merkinsmum 14:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Psychopathy and related articles

First of all, I'd like to say I'm not into the edit wars and zealous guardianship of articles (mainly, I just don't have the time); however, I am 'well versed on some subjects (like psychopathy) and contribute when I can. There is considerable confusion about the terms psychopathy, sociopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and dissocial personality disorder. Unfortunately, not even the recognized experts are in consensus (please see Reification). Luckily, we have a few clear facts that make the dispute more manageable for us Wikipedia editors:

• Antisocial personality disorder is a disorder listed in the most recent editions of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
• Dissocial personality disorder is a disorder listed under Chapter V (Mental and behavioral health disorders) of the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases.
• Psychopathy is assessed in adult forensic and clinical populations using the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL–R). Related psychological instruments exist to measure psychopathy in children and business associates and to measure subclinical psychopathic personality traits through self-report.
• An extensive set of research on psychopathy exists independent of work on antisocial personality disorder.
• The DSM-IV task force cooperated with the authors of the ICD-10 to create a good degree of compatibility between their respective diagnostic systems although there are some notable differences.

The difficult question is in how different are these related concepts from each other? Given the separate body of research on psychopathy, it is clear at least two articles are needed. Given the relative sparsity of research on ICD-10 dissocial personality disorder, my opinion is that it is best to leave that as a section of the Antisocial personality disorder article. I think of dissocial PD as just another set of criteria for essentially the same concept as APD (just as would be the DSM-III-R or DSM-III criteria for APD, which differ quite a bit more from DSM-IV APD than ICD-10 dissocial PD does).

If you ask how does sociopathy differ from psychopathy, the answer varies greatly by expert; fortunately, no current diagnostic or measurement system uses the term. If one goes back to the DSM-I, ones finds sociopathic personality was an umbrella term that encompassed an antisocial type (perceived as in-born and defined by such characteristics as selfishness, immaturity, callousness, and impulsivity) and a dyssocial type (the result of socialization into a gang or neglectful parenting); alcoholism, substance addictions, and impulse-control disorders (kleptomania and pyromania) were also classified under sociopathic personality in this edition.

Hare distinguishes the terms psychopathy and sociopathy in the same way this early edition of the DSM distinguished antisocial and dyssocial types of sociopathic personality (however, other quotes suggest Hare sees the two as more or less the same). Lykken takes this distinction and refines it, suggesting various subtypes of both psychopathy and sociopathy. He was a proponent (but not the originator) of the distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy. He suggested secondary psychopathy may be the result of something like a choleric (irritable, impulsive) temperament or hypersexuality whereas primary psychopathy results from an innate deficit in fearfulness. Joseph Newman has tested this hypothesis of Lykken's and even come up with his own explanation of primary psychopathy (a sort of attentional deficit).

The reason many experts presently emphasize a distinction between APD and psychopathy is that they find the APD criteria inadequate for clinical, forensic, and research purposes. Psychopathy, for example, has a stronger correlation with criminal recidivism (particularly violent recidivism). APD's looser criteria muddle different motivations and etymologies. Researchers have found that certain physiological responses are correlated only with the deficient emotional experience factor of the PCL–R (and similar factors of related instruments). Prosecuting attorneys especially love the term because this diagnosis dehumanizes the defendant in the eyes of the jury (even if they are instructed to treat the information rationally rather than emotionally, let's be honest). For this reason alone, I'm sure many researchers and clinicians would happily go to the less emotional term antisocial personality disorder if the criteria were sufficient for their needs.

I could go on...

Anyway now for a more personal note: Please remember to assume good faith from your fellow editors and avoid making rash accusations by calling someone's actions "unethical," "disguised," "mislead," etc. Zeraeph did not add the dissocial personality disorder information to the APD article; I did. A calm, clear-headed frame of mind is always helpful when editing Wikipedia. Truth and facts are really not a matter of consensus, but our approach to editing Wikipedia, by and large, is since otherwise everyone could claim to know the truth on their pet interest better than anyone else and resort to browbeating their perspective into everyone else's face.

I strongly encourage both you and Zeraeph to take a cooling-off period before making further edits to these articles.--NeantHumain (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say, as I have written in the talk sections of the articles. I suggested perhaps three articles and clearly define the terms. Please read what I wrote, as you are repeating much of what I said. I am not editing the Psychopathy article. However, I think it is in very bad shape. I am trying to clean up the Antisocial Personality Disorder article. As someone said, recently, there is a very good reason why hardly any Psychology articles can even reach GA status. I have resisted editing this articles as this is my profession. I mainly write forensic articles, as I am a forensic psychologist. But this confusion over terms and the mess these articles are in is a travesty. I would like to work with you to fix them up. It is an embarrassment the way they are now. The other person, the one fixated on sex offenders being Antisocial Personality Disorders, has been blocked for 28 days. But the article is such a mess, it ruins the concept for me -- and psychopathy was my Life Work! I hope you will help. Regards, Mattisse 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I know the blocked person meant well, but she was blocked because she WP:OWN the article. Because she has a history of such behavior, I am told, she was blocked for 28 days. She received a community ban but appealed personally to Jimbo and it was reversed. But she is on thin ice. If you are her friend, I would advise you to help her become more understanding. She is near receiving another community ban, I am told by the banning admin, who is trying to work with her. So please help her if you can to be more open to critical information and more responsible about referencing. If you are her friend you will help her. Mattisse 02:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have personally encountered the excesses of Zeraeph's zeal, but I would not suggest she is 100% misguided (as stubborn as she may be sometimes), and I do disagree with some of her edit choices but do not have the time available to make editing a daily thing or to play cyber-politics (I've had more than my fill of games from my ex). By the way, the professional body that publishes the DSM is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and not the American Medical Association (AMA), Doctor. ;) --NeantHumain (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As I suggested, you can always feel free to fix a typo on your own rather than take the trouble of notifying me of every one I make -- which is many. Thanks. Mattisse 03:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, perhaps in your professional life you are free to use loose terminology on your clients so you can ruminate about it. I am not as I am bound by the DSM. Please consider the needs of those of us who cannot afford to conflated terms as you are able to do. Thanks, Mattisse 03:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Are these last personal comments really appropriate here? Shouldn't you be posting personal responses on the user's talk page rather than the article talk page? Curious Blue (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I just wanted to get rid of the whole mess, as it was most unwelcome, especially as I have been posting on the article pages, where he could have answered. I do not like article talk page material on my personal talk page. I wanted to get rid of all of it. Perhaps I should have just deleted it, but I thought that was not allowed. In any case, I hope it provides the incentive to stop the posting on my personal page. Regards, Mattisse 03:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

neant/ article is the same but with a neutral point of view

(sorry I didn't answer earlier I only just came back online, I'm in the UK) Nothing about this article has really changed, except that it's less misleading. The problem is that laypersons, because it is a word they would use, would enter 'psychopath' in the search bar and end up on this article. They need to know that this is not the 'official' mainstream view, for instance of the APA, who call it Antisocial personality disorder. Before the name change, people would have been led to believe that this was the only or main theory of it. Which would be misleading. Hence phrases such as 'those using this theory believe' and so on should be used, because otherwise it is not written in a Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV. These researchers/followers of this theory are even using a different tool- the PCL-R- which other researchers tend not to use. So we need to make it clear that ok, maybe some people, or even a lot of people, are using this theory/tool, but it is not the view of psychopathy which is the most mainstream at the moment or followed by the most professionals. That is not to criticise this theory of Hare etc'- it's just reality. And to reflect this the article needs to make it clear throughout that this is a belief/theory/research technique which some researchers might choose to use.Merkinsmum 13:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

'psychopathy' should redirect to Antisocial personality disorder'

I didn't want to do that because you seemed to want it so much, but APD is the mainstream view of the subject, and so when a layperson types in 'Psychopath' they should be taken to what is the main view of the subject. Not to what at first appeared to be what is called in wikipedia a 'POV fork'- a page set up to mislead that one point of view is the majority or best viewpoint. At the moment it avoids being a POV fork as long as it keeps reminding readers of the context of

I have created that redirect- I didn't want to, but I had to to explain the need for it as you had attempted to speedy the page.

Now you are welcome to link to Hare's theory page in the Antisocial personality disorder article- I'll do so now.

So in conclusion:- moving this page to psychopathy- no I don't think so, or not without ensuring that this page remains NPOV and sets this theory in context next to APD. I suppose if it continued to do that, I wouldn't have a problem. My only concern is NPOV.Merkinsmum 13:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

i didn't create the page psychopathy, so I can remove the speedy tag

So please no-one say (as someone claimed on my talk page) I have removed a speedy from a page I created myself- because I haven't- I've only made a few edits to it and it's been there a while.

However as I said above- I don't really mind what you call this article- as long as it is kept NPOV and not misleading. Hence I won't remove it again.

But don't accuse me of doing things I didn't do- thanks.Merkinsmum 14:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when you move a page, the whole history is moved with the page and a new redirect is created. In the page history of the redirect, you were listed as the editor who created it and as the only editor who modified it prior to my placing the speedy tag. Clearly you didn't understand that this is the way the process works, but by moving the page, you necessarily create a new redirect. Curious Blue (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Earlier, the deletion of the redirect was controversial, obviously, as we were still discussing it here. As such it was not just housekeeping, the redirects otherwise have to go to Wikipedia:redirects for discussion, not speedy, as the page on speedy deletes clearly explains. Anyway, we have all sort of agreed here on this front now, at that point it is ok to go ahead and speedy as housekeeping. If reverting people, claiming they are wrong when it should not have been listed as speedy earlier as we had all not agreed, or propounding this theory is what gives people fun and happiness on wiki, I do not mind as I personally do not have overwhelming feelings over this article except that it must not mislead the reader about the status of this theory, and must conform with WP:NPOV. For instance, why would the disambig must say that the other view is that held by the APA, which is vital for the reader to know if they're not going to read on with a mistaken impression of the status of the other theory.Merkinsmum 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about the focus of this article

Is this article about the history, evolution etc. of the term "psychopathy" or is it about Hare's use of the term? If it is the former, then IMHO then history, evolution, general use, etc. should be explained before launching into Hare's view. As the article stands now, the first para gives a very general overview. Then the second para immediately describes Hare's political views of DSM-IV:

"Psychologist Robert Hare and followers of his theory want the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to list psychopathy as a unique disorder, saying that psychopathy has no precise equivalent...."

Also, do you not think Hare's theory should be fully explained before his political debates over it are described?

Do people think that this is the gist of the article? If so, then it makes sense that the second para of the intro starts right in on the political debate. But there should be more background given first, I think. The novice reader may just want to know the various meanings of the term and may not be able to follow the politics immediately, or even know who "psychologist Hare" is. An average person does not know about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, never mind the political debates raging therein.

Also, I thought this article was supposed to be more general than a debate over the merits of a United States diagnostic manual. Or is the article a discussion of Hare and Cleckley's view versus DSM-IV? Do you not think ICD-10, since it is linked, should be given equal space to DSM-IV and sons?

Further, I believe current research should be at the end of the article, not at the beginning, before the term has been explained. It is very confusing to have references go to the Rape Empathy Scale in the first sentence. Then, with no background, launch into Hare's view of DSM-IV in the second para. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you that the article should be about the historical development of pyschopathy and that writing in chronological order would greatly improve the article. Curious Blue (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The history is important, this is true and should be included. Similarly a very clear distinction should be made between Psychopathy and both Anti-social personality disorder and Dysocial personality disorder and with clear reference that the former is a forensic and research term but not officially accepted by the main psychiatric ruling bodies. However, to consign the term psychopathy to being merely historical or only relating to Hare is factually incorrect. Although this may not be the case in the US, I can assure you in Europe, psychopathy generally, and the PCL-R specifically, are commonly used tools as part of both risk assement and treatment management. Yes, there may be issues with the validity of the exact assessment tools, and debate remains, but considerably research from a wide variety of authors (Lykken, Cooke, Michie, Forth, Lillienfeld, Newman, Blair, Skeem, ... to name but a few) indicates it is still a current and valid construct and deserving of a page dealing with it in it's own right. Gemnoire (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and there is an article on the PCL-R which could possibly contain some of that too, as the researches you mention were researching using that. The thing is if these people are using the PCL-R, they are using Hare's tool. And there's already an article about it. I would love to read other views on 'psychopathy' by professionals who aren't following Hare's theories/using this tool. I'm just wondering if anyone has another approach, or do those who do call it APD or Dissocial.PD? The best bits to me in this article are where the researchers are looking at psychopath's response to facial features and stuff like that, studies which are not using the PCL-R so much. The problem with the PCL-R is Hare says 'psychopathy' is separate from APD, he defines a different subject group, as such the research may not be usable to those following the APD model (though it probably is.) Also if you go in with a specific tool to find psychopaths, you will find 'psychopaths', Hare sort of admits that himself in the article.I loved him, Merlin! 12:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It is true that much of the research does focus on psychopathy as defined by the PCL-R, being considered by many as a 'gold standard', but a number of researchers have started using other tools. One that I personally find to be promissing is the Psychopathic Personality Inventory by Lilienfeld, which was a self-report psychopathy measure developed based on a number of theoretical sources included, but not exclusively, Hare's work. I have also heard that Cooke may be working a new tool to improve on the PCL-R by focusing more on the central affective and personality measures of psychopathy rather than anti-social behaviour, a view of the disorder which a lot of the neurological work supports. A lot of the work dealing with neurological basis do use the PCL-R, although they often both focus on factor 1 (the affective/personality elements) and combine it with a measure of anxiety to compensate for one of the major holes in the PCL-R assessment. With regards to the difference between APD and psychopathy, they are distinctly different, and I would disagree with anyone who used APD research to draw conclusions on psychopathy or vice versa (which is possibly one of issues with the current article as there still appears to be some confusion). APD is predominently behaviour based assessment, with a minimal number of personality variables included, focusing on specific criminal and anti-social behaviours. Psychopathy has a very important personality component, and is predominantly defined in these terms, though there is currently a lot of debate over whether anti-social behaviour should also be included in the definition (making it in essence a sub-category of APD really). Researchers like Cooke and Michie and Lilienfeld are currently arguing that anti-social behaviour is just one of many consequences of the disorder, and that it should be defined in terms of specific emotional and personality deficits (in simplistic terms, most of the factor 1 traits), which appears to be supported by neurological studies. The psychopathy literature is rich and constantly evolving, which unfortunately makes it incredibly difficult to summarise for a wiki page (or even a thesis which is what I'm currently trying to do). Gemnoire (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is is true, or am I mistaken, you are discussing psychopathy primarily as a research topic with associated methodology, measures, etc.? If so, I would add that there is a long, fascinating history of the use of the term "psychopathy" that I would like to see described somewhere. It appears to be clear, unless I misunderstanding, that we agree that there is a distinction between the clinical use and research use of the term. It also appears that we agree that the three terms under consideration (Psychopathy, Antisocial Personality Disorder, and Dissocial Personality Disorder) are not one and the same. Do we agree on this? Mattisse 15:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not what the APA would say, is it, necessarily? I would say in terms of psychiatry psychopathy is an anachronistic (not meaning that in any bad sense) word for Antisocial personality disorder, which happens to have continued to be used by Hare and those using the PCL-R. A bit more about the history of APD could be put in the APD article. Dissocial P.D sounds a bit more like this Hare's psychopathy concept than APD does, however I think DisPD could just be mentioned at the end of the APD article, as it's usually written about as the same (although it isn't quite) and we probably don't have much to say about it.  ::::::Gemnoire- a wiki page is never 'finished' so you can always write up any new research as it comes out in WP:RS - as long as you keep the article concise.:) Merkinsmum 00:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, the essence from DSM-II going forward is a focus on observable behaviors. It makes no statements about the individual's internal dynamics or about causation. For example: #7 is "lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another". The following is a quote from Preparation for Licensing and Board Certification examinations in Psychology: The Professional, Legal, and Ethical Components (2nd Ed.) pp 132-133

... early editions of the DSM used the term sociopathic personality to emphasize the environmental factors that allegedly generated the disorder. The DSM-II substitued the label antisocial personality disorder to shift the emphasis to patterns of observable, definable behavior, and this term is retained in subsequent DSM's, including DSM-IV.

DSM-IV has added the two axes, Axis I and Axis II. Research psychologists and others who are working in settings where formal diagnosis is not required often retain the older term because it encompasses more. Researchers and theorists are more likely to be interested in Hare's PCL-R and therefore use the term for that reason also. They want to explore all those factors that DSM will not allow. Mattisse 02:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Except a diagnosis of psychopathy (not antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy) is still sometimes given by experts in court. For example: "Forensic psychologists are expected to be experts at mens rea, or the guiltiness of various states of mind. This is a big challenge, but no more demanding that what forensic psychologists are often called upon to do at the back end of the justice system, which in reality is to make an assessment of the "redeemability" or rehabilitation potential for a defendant who most likely faces the death penalty because some characterization of them as a "psychopath" or the like has evidenced itself among the aggravating factors at their sentencing hearing. As Bartol & Bartol (2004) put it, a diagnosis of psychopathy is the "kiss of death" at capital sentencing." [52] —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeantHumain (talk • contribs) 21:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we have a problem here with different countries having different practices. In the United States there is no formal diagnosis of psychopathy. A mental health professional must use diagnoses from DSM-IV. Further, although a forensic psychologist needs to understand the elements of a crime, etc., because of the ultimate issue problems, experts would not make a statement about mens rea. Also, there is rarely a reason to diagnose someone with an Antisocial Personality Disorder, because personality disorders are not considered a mental illness in American courts, so why not go with Personality Disorder, NOS giving you more flexibility. That website you referenced, I cannot tell where that is coming from or when it was written. Are you able to tell?

The website's domain name is a dead giveaway; it's some campus of the University of North Carolina. Anyway I've seen an article on crimelibrary.com that addresses the evidence of a diagnosis of psychopathy in the trial of an adolescent or young adult who killed his parents (I think it was his parents). Usually it's the prosecution that will be claiming a defendant is a psychopath; obviously no sane defense attorney will want his or her client described as psychopathic. A diagnosis of psychopathy is not the same as describing a person's actual state of mind during commission of a crime. It's usually used to make any punishment harsher (on the assumption a psychopath is likely to commit more crimes if released).--NeantHumain (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Right now I am writing an article The Mask of Sanity, so I have piles of books around me. From what (little) I can tell about dissocial personality disorder, you are right—it is more like the ICD-10. This is a quote from Millon (1996): "The ICD-10 reverts to an earlier term as the label for DSM's antisocial personality, entitling it the "dissocial personality." The following features are summarized in their criteria listing:" (then a long list is given) "Noted as associated features are the presence of persistent irritability, and childhood or adolescent conduct disorders. We should be mindful that this characterization includes features that are normally associated with aggressive/sadistic personality styles. These features have been fused into the dissocial personality disorder criteria owing to the failure to include the sadistic personality pattern in the ICD taxonomy."

I have also seen statements (that I can't find to reference right now) that ICD-10 retains a psychodynamic focus and therefore tries to infer causation. DSM is going in the opposite direction, becoming trait-oriented and places the primary emphasis on the following. Interpersonal conduct: failure to conform to social norms, disinclination to engage in lawful behaviors; signs of consistent irresponsibility in one's dealings with others; deceitfulness and the conning of others for personal profit or pleasure; indifference to the welfare of others, as evident in a lack of remorse or the rationalization of why one has hurt of mistreated others. There is a single criterion in the Behavioral area: a reckless disregard for one's own safety as well as those of others. Partially behavioral but also cognitive is another single criterion: a failure to plan ahead, resulting in behavioral impulsively etc.

Millon says the same thing Cleckley does— that the term "antisocial" gives undue prominence to the delinquent or criminal expression of the personality by designating it as antisocial. This formulation fails to recognize that the same fundamental personality structure, with its characteristic pattern of ruthless and vindictive behavior, is often displayed in ways that are not socially disreputable, irresponsible, or illegal. Using personal repugnance and conventional morals as a basis for diagnostic syndromes runs contrary to contemporary efforts to expunge social judgments as clinical entities (e.g. the reevaluation of the concept of homosexuality as a syndrome). The label "antisocial" continues a struggle to resolve issues associated with earlier value-laden concepts. Mattisse 21:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should be discussing this on the APD talk page but I was wondering why the ICD use dissocial -it's not a commonly used word and they wrote it after APD was invented. May be they meant to convey that the behaviour of someone with DisPD is motivated by disregard of others rather than hatred/dislike as 'antisocial' implies?Merkinsmum 02:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think ICD does used dissocial, as it merely mentions it in a list of alternative names, perhaps for historical reasons so the persons familiar with the term "dissocial" will know where it fits into the current scheme. Mattisse 18:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your information from, Doc; UC Berkeley must do things differently. I've got digital copies of Chapter V of both the ICD-10 green book and the ICD-10 blue book, and it uses the term "dissocial personality disorder," listing antisocial personality, sociopathy, and Cleckley psychopath as synonyms or subtypes.

I admit I do not know anything about ICD-10. But here is a quote from Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony Vol II by Jay Ziskin which is a book for attorneys to shoot down psychiatric testimony in the United States.

One should note whether the report contains a formal diagnosis......Those that do not are weakened......One can usually spot a formal diagnosis by the presence of a code number, usually a three-digit number, sometimes with additional digits ... although in some cases, psychiatrists will state what turns out to be a formal diagnosis without using the code numbers. Where there is a formal diagnosis, one should check to see if it is one of those listed in the diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM-III). .......the lawyer ... should check the manual for the elements required for making that diagnosis and then check to see if the report describes those elements.....If there is a diagnosis, but it is not from DSM-III, this is a matter to be questioned as there is only one official diagnositic classification system and it is DSM-III.

Regards, Mattisse 21:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit that's likely to need changing/or am I thick?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not sure if this bit is quite right:-

"Another study using the PCL-R to examine the relationship between antisocial behaviour and suicide found that suicide history was strongly correlated to PCL-R Factor 2 (reflecting antisocial deviance) and was not correlated to PCL-R factor 1 (reflecting affective functioning). Given that APD relates to Factor 2, whereas psychopathy relates to both factors, this would confirm Hervey Cleckley's assertion that psychopaths are relatively immune to suicide. People with APD, on the other hand, have a relatively high suicide rate."[53]

The sentence that this validates Clerckley violates WP:NOR unless the source mentions it, and ideally that everyone can read that it does. This is not the conclusion summarised in the source's abstract, and they would have mentioned if that was the conclusion they drew from their work; it says something else entirely.

The argument also doesn't necessarily follow at all, anyway, does it? Confused lol:)

It's late here- very- but I'll look at this tomorrow unless one of you gets the urge to go for it first.:)Merkinsmum 04:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Another study using the PCL-R to examine the relationship between antisocial behaviour and suicide, found that suicide history was strongly correlated to PCL-R Factor 2 (reflecting antisocial deviance) and was not correlated to PCL-R factor 1 (reflecting affective functioning). Although Hervey Cleckley's assertion that psychopaths are relatively immune to suicide is not the case, this study found that it is the antisocial behaviour they share with people with APD which has a correlation with increased suicide risk, (perhaps due to an impulsive temperament and negative emotionality). The psychopathic personality and view of others is not in and of itself linked to suicide."

What do you think- long-winded eh? lol.:)Merkinsmum 13:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to think. Off hand, it doesn't appear to make sense as Antisocial personality disorder people do not have a high rate of completed suicides. I have to understand more what those two factors measure. Also, I don't understand the preoccupation with suicide, as in my experience (which I know doesn't count) but also in the literature I have looked through so far, psychopathic persons committing suicide does not seem to be a concern. Mattisse 18:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Attempted suicide rarely completed" was one of Cleckley's original criteria, which is why I think it was mentioned. But other than further evidence supporting the distinct between the various factors of the PCL-R, I'd say it has little relevance to the actual construct. Gemnoire (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for removal of two references

First reference was on 25 boys between the ages of 8 to 12 with disruptive behavior, measuring their empathy by their reaction to vignettes and by a self-report measure.

Second reference was to study that compared the responses of 27 incarcerated rapists and 27 incarcerated nonsexual offenders using the Rapist Empathy Measure. Rapists had more empathy for victims and for women in general than nonrapist. Using a variety of measures, including semi-structure interviews, review of instituational files and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, no differences were found between the rapists and nonsexual offenders in terms of self-esteem and psychopathy, and neither self-esteem nor psychopathy significantly predicted empathy for either group.

Neither of these references in the lead are appropriate, IMO, as references to general statements about psychopathy. Mattisse 18:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing third reference as not appropriate for lead definition

This is the content of the 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-attention problems (HIA) and conduct problems (CP). We compared psychopathic and nonpsychopathic violent criminal offenders on retrospective reports of conduct problems before the age of 15 and hyperactivity-impulsivity-attention problems before the age of 10. We used a sample of 186 adult men sentenced to prison in Sweden for 4 years or more for violent, nonsexual crimes. The mean age was 30.7( SD = 9.4). The results showed that a combination of childhood HIA problems and CP was typical for adult psychopathic offenders. They were four times more likely than chance to have had a combination of HIA problems and CP during childhood and only one-fifth as likely than chance to have had neither problem. Nonpsychopathic offenders, on the other hand, were five times more likely than chance to have had neither problem and only one-quarter as likely than chance to have had both problems.

PMID: 15899723 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Mattisse 19:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggest letting Zeraph write article but make clear it does not refer to US usage of term

The use of the term in the United States appears to be radically different than that in Britain. Further, raw research findings are not considered to prove anything definitive. If you want to quote research findings, you must find articles that collect a variety of research studies and compare and contrast methodologies, including sample selection, methods of diagnoses, statistical designs, among other considerations that affect results. A single research article can prove anything the researcher wants it to. If you are adamantly opposed to using approved citation to compare and contrast articles, then I suggest confining this article into one that Zeraph writes, leaving out all US applications. We can remove Cleckley, since he was American and is still the backbone the DSM-IV etc. Mattisse 19:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, so far I have never seen any evidence to support your claim above. So I cannot consider it valid. Cleckley wrote about Psychopathy and therefore is relevant to any article on psychopathy and cannot be removed. While you mention the subject, perhaps if you would be so kind as to be more careful not to use single articles by specific people to support general claims? Thank you.

You so obviously want to present the Anti-psychopathy POV which is only a POV at the end of the day, and not one that I personally subscribe to, so that I suggest we use that conflict of ideas constructively to present a properly balanced NPOV article on psychopathy. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Matisse left a note on my talk page asking me to look at this. The problem here for me is that I'm not aware of the background. Matisse or Zeraeph, could one of you give me one example (with a diff) of the issues under dispute? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the most obvious [54] if you look above you will see that the Washington State issue was addressed over and over again so that surely User:Mattisse could not have been the person who made such a deliberately misleading edit? As it stood it was simply untrue so I fixed it. More to come.--Zeraeph (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The only piece I removed was this [55] then [56] as the UK Mental Health Act 1959 still defined Psychopathy as "any mental illness" until 2001, so that the statement was meaningless in the context of the article and unlikely to be accurate. It was my intention to dig up the act later and see what it actually DID say and then decide where the statement belonged and exactly how it should be worded.

I think we'd need to see evidence that the 1959 Act in the UK defined psychopathy as any mental illness. The Mental Health Act 1983 says: "Psychopathic disorder is defined as a "persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including significant impairment of intelligence) resulting in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct." This would be interesting as a history of the word, but not really relevant to how the word is used today. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Now, believe it or not, you have just (apparently) FALLEN over a quote from the '83 act that I couldn't find if my life depended on it a few months ago. :o) Such is life...that certainly would be the defintion that stood until 2001 and shocked me, however, as far as I recall the '83 act is just a heavy revision of the '59 act (it is in other respects) certainly the '83 definition needs mentioning! Ignore that, it's a euro 3:20 mind slip, I DID find it and put it in article AGES ago, it's the ruddy '59 that eludes me. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved a lot of sections around as some of them seemed to have only limited relevance to the sections they were in such as [57] and [58] to sections where they were wholly relevant and I tidied some POV statements such as [59] and [60]

Basically, as far as I can tell User:Mattisse wishes to use the article to establish that Psychopathy does not exist as a medical term, and intention that seems, in itself, POV, as well as in contradiction of the facts. Unfortunately some of the claims she makes towards this end are not in accord with sources or facts. She claims above that Psychopathy is not in use in USA yet Robert Hare himself sits on the Research Board of the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Murder Investigative Resources Center (CASMIRC) and has received the American Academy of Forensic Psychology's award for "Distinguished Contributions to Psychology and Law," And the American Psychiatric Association's Isaac Ray Award for "Outstanding Contributions to Forensic Psychiatry and Psychiatric Jurisprudence." for his work on the subject, and most US states have legal definitions of Psychopathy. --Zeraeph (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that psychopathy, sociopathy, psychopathic personality disorder, and antisocial personality disorder are used more or less interchangeably in the UK and the U.S. -- though some writers do make distinctions, as a brief Google search shows. I think it's also true that in the U.S. they tend to use antisocial personality disorder more than any other term. But the thing to do is simply to note who uses the term in which way, and to make clear that there are slight disagreements about use and definition. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

They aren't entirely interchangeable terms, there are some very significant difference the use, and meaning of the terms indeed (though Sociopathy was essentially created as a synonym for Psychopathy to avoid confusion with the older useage denoting "any mental illness").

To put it very briefly, all Psychopaths class as having antisocial personality disorder, but not everybody with antisocial personality disorder is a Psychopath. A psychopath is incurable, hardwired, and far more specific, antisocial personality disorder is not necessarily incurable, which is why behaviorists, insurance companies and diagnostician prefer to use the term, which leave thing more open. But that structural preference does not, in any way, invalidate Psychopathy as an established concept in it's own right, which is what this article is about.

Any difference between English Speaking Europe and Australasia and the USA results from the USA preference for the DSM-IV TR which uses antisocial personality disorder as a category, whereas English Speaking Europe and Australasia are more likely to use ICD-10 where antisocial personality disorder does not exist and is covered by either Dissocial PD, or PD not otherwise specified, depending on how you look at it.

I was hoping that Mattisse could settle down and present the side of that controversy she is so passionate about in a valid, neutral way, with real evidence to support it. If a case is worth making, surely it can be made in that way, not by POV conjectures or distorting facts? --Zeraeph (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that there is extensive comment regarding this and related matters at my talkpage and also related comment at User talk:Mattisse and User talk:Zeraeph for background and more. For parties not interested in pursuing resolution there seems to be considerable effort being spent in "establishing" poor behaviour by various interests. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the background information, which I'm currently making my way through. I agree that there's too much focus on behavior. If we can get the content dispute settled, the behavior stuff will hopefully matter less.

Matisse, if you're around, do you want to respond to the points Zeraeph has raised? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My view (massive edit conflict)

(edit conflict - so here goes, as I am not going to do the whole thing over.)

Suggest letting Zeraph write article but make clear it does not refer to US usage of term

The use of the term in the United States appears to be radically different than that in Britain. Further, raw research findings are not considered to prove anything definitive. If you want to quote research findings, you must find articles that collect a variety of research studies and compare and contrast methodologies, including sample selection, methods of diagnoses, statistical designs, among other considerations that affect results. A single research article can prove anything the researcher wants it to. If you are adamantly opposed to using approved citation to compare and contrast articles, then I suggest confining this article into one that Zeraph writes, leaving out all US applications. We can remove Cleckley, since he was American and is still the backbone the DSM-IV etc. Mattisse 19:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, so far I have never seen any evidence to support your claim above.(You removed it from the article. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)) So I cannot consider it valid. Cleckley wrote about Psychopathy and therefore is relevant to any article on psychopathy and cannot be removed. (Cleckley, whose article I wrote, The Mask of Sanity was using the word very differently than does Hare, and further Cleckley's view evolved over time.) While you mention the subject, perhaps if you would be so kind as to be more careful not to use single articles by specific people to support general claims? Thank you. (Yes, I agree and wish you would stop. However, when I reference a well known source, used as textbooks in graduate and post-graduate programs, I do not consider them on the same level as "one reference" as you do your one "research article" with a small subject pool, questionable measures, and questionable use of statistics) because the books I cite are a synthesis of many points of view and many authors and cover a large area in the field. The authors are well known also, and provide clinical training in the US for psychologists, psychiatrists, and forensic psychologists and psychiatrists. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)}

Whenever you do use such sources, presented accurately, as they are, in their context, with NPOV, I will not only support but applaud them. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And here is something fascinating for you to look into (found while running to ground the 1959 act) [61]

Look for "Howells 1982". --Zeraeph (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You so obviously want to present the Anti-psychopathy POV which is only a POV at the end of the day, and not one that I personally subscribe to, so that I suggest we use that conflict of ideas constructively to present a properly balanced NPOV article on psychopathy. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (I do not care what the term is called, I just want it to be accurate. I do no know what grounds you are accusing me of POV - because POV is not a factor in clinical terminology. A professional uses the terminology that is required. Period. That is not a political issue. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

I think the repeated use of unsupported terminology like "the followers of Robert Hare" is POV. I also think spinning the presentation of sources to the point of inaccuracy is POV. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Matisse left a note on my talk page asking me to look at this. The problem here for me is that I'm not aware of the background. Matisse or Zeraeph, could one of you give me one example (with a diff) of the issues under dispute? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the most obvious [62] if you look above you will see that the Washington State issue was addressed over and over again so that surely User:Mattisse could not have been the person who made such a deliberately misleading edit? As it stood it was simply untrue so I fixed it. More to come.--Zeraeph (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC) (This link goes to a wikipedia link and not to an outside source. One article Z quoted on the Washington legislation was a law passed in 1948, and presented as the current thinking. Not so. I write many articles on US Supreme Court case decisions, especially on mental health law, and in the US we must abide by those decisions. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

My corrected section links to the current Washington State Legislature and their current definition of Psychopathy which you had mistakenly claimed did not exist. That is a very simple obvious change that had to be made urgently to avoid misleading readers.--Zeraeph (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The only piece I removed was this [63] then [64] as the UK Mental Health Act 1959 still defined Psychopathy as "any mental illness" until 2001, so that the statement was meaningless in the context of the article and unlikely to be accurate. It was my intention to dig up the act later and see what it actually DID say and then decide where the statement belonged and exactly how it should be worded. (I am not going to bother to see what those diffs refer to. I am concerned with misinformation provided to US readers or those interested in mental health terminology in the United States. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

With respect, unless you can tell me differently, it was your reference to the UK Mental Health act in the first place, not mine? --Zeraeph (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved a lot of sections around as some of them seemed to have only limited relevance to the sections they were in such as [65] and [66] to sections where they were wholly relevant and I tidied some POV statements such as [67] and [68] (Again I am not going to bother to look up those diffs -- in any case, the point is that Z decides unilaterally what is right and wrong without discussion or consensus and with derogatory edit summaries. Mattisse)

They did not describe the sections they were placed in, but did describe other sections, so I moved them. This should be obvious and not a big issue at all. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically, as far as I can tell User:Mattisse wishes to use the article to establish that Psychopathy does not exist as a medical term, and intention that seems, in itself, POV, as well as in contradiction of the facts. Unfortunately some of the claims she makes towards this end are not in accord with sources or facts. She claims above that Psychopathy is not in use in USA yet Robert Hare himself sits on the Research Board of the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Murder Investigative Resources Center (CASMIRC) and has received the American Academy of Forensic Psychology's award for "Distinguished Contributions to Psychology and Law," And the American Psychiatric Association's Isaac Ray Award for "Outstanding Contributions to Forensic Psychiatry and Psychiatric Jurisprudence." for his work on the subject, and most US states have legal definitions of Psychopathy. --Zeraeph (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC) (Again, what law enforcement agencies do and the terminology they use, is up to them and is criminology, not clinical psychology or psychiatry, so is irrelevant to any article purporting to be clinical in nature. Mattisse)

The American Psychiatric Association is nlot generally considered to be a "law enforcement agency". --Zeraeph (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My statement

The fact is Zeraeph did massive reverting with no talk page discussion and no concensus. This despite postings left on her page by User:LessHeard vanU to the contrary. She ignored him completely. Her edit summaries were considered person attacks and was, in addition to the reverting, the reason she was blocked. Zeraeph fails to see that what the FBI does, or any legal agency, has nothing to do with the medical terminology in the US. In a statement with reference that Z removed from the article, it is clear that in the US, Antisocial Personality Disorder is the only diagnosis used, and that psychopathy is an outdated medical term that is popular in mass culture and used loosely in research circles, as researchers are not bound legally to use certain terminology. Psychopathy is not a diagnosis in the US that a mental health professional can use in the court room, in medical setting, in diagnosing for insurance reimbursement etc. Z. has removed my references sourcing that. I am not going to bother to get them again. Anyone who has three citations in the lead sentence (as Z did originally) to raw research results, not citing articles that consider experimental design, methodology, statistical analyzes (Z. removed my references pointing out the importance of these issues) is not a valid reference in the lead. She removed my references to the problems of using cluster/factor analyses on a small subject pool and for the goal of diagnosing real people in clinical settings. Maybe in a section entitled "Further research" that would be appropriate. However because a small number of boys had conduct disorders when young (as measured by retrospective self report data) is not "proving" anything. That is just one research result, and clearly researchers often get the results they are looking for. These kind of citations are inappropriate, especially in the lead. That most sources in the article are of these raw research reports is just one major fault of the article. As another editor said, this article should be called Hare's Theory because it relies so much on Hare, who is just one researcher and who is not a clinician. This article is not a clinical article. It is pushing one view, Hare's view, which in the US is used by some for research purposes. The DSM-IV, the mandatory diagnostic manual in the United States, does not use the word "psychopathy" (and has not since 1968) and does not depend on Hare for its diagnostic criteria. All this has been removed, some in the 19 edits in two hours made today. No thanks. I will not be protected from personal attacks here. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

proof of reverting 19 times in 2 hours

These are the edits Z made today, removing or changing the meaning of my edits. Unfortunately I "malformed" the request, and not knowing what that means or how to correct it, I am helpless. One more reason I will not remain in this morase where I can obtain help without going through an insane amount of work to proof all the work undone by Z. I am not going to do that work again. Mattisse 03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

---User:Zeraeph reported by User:Mattisse (Result: no action, malformed report)---

• Three-revert rule violation on

Psychopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zeraeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: [69] (I am not sure what version this means)

(I tried to understand DIFFTIME but I do not understand what I am supposed to be doing. Please help -- is time started: 17:27, 28 December 2007 - time of Zeraeph's first edit on Psychopathy today?

• first revert [70]
• second revert [71]
• third revert [72]
• fourth revert [73]
• fifth revert [74]
• sixth revert [75]
• seventh revert [76]
• eighth refert [77]
• ninth revert [78]

• 10th revert [79]
• 11th revert [80]
• 12th revert [81]
• 13th revert [82]
• 14 revert [83]
• 15 revert [84]
• 16th revert [85]
• 17th revert [86]
• 16th revert [87]
• 17th revert [88]
• 18th revert [89]
• 19th revert [90]

• Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

User:Zeraeph received a 28 day block which she served and it was lifted today, a few hours ago.

User:Zeraeph's 28 day block was for this same behavior on the same article Psychopathy, at least in part. Her answer to my article page post was in the same vein as before -- she is right, I am wrong and she does not have to discuss or compromise or come to consensus on changes. She is concentrating on my edits without consulting or trying to compromise or explain to me. She has moved and rearranged reference citations I put there, as well as misrepresented their meanings. Although she has rearranged and removed my citations and and changed or removed my wording, she will not discuss anything related to the content of the articlefwith me, other to state in edit summary that I was wrong, or other disparaging remarks about my edits in the edit summaries. I was warned the last time this happened by User:Viriditas not to contact Zeraeph on her talk page. Mattisse 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Declined Malformed request. No 3RR violation immediately apparent from history. Please see the other reports on this page as examples on how to provide a correct report. Sandstein (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I followed the instructions as best I could and asked questions where I did not understand. So, no more 3-RRR reporting for me.

Mattisse 03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Mattisse 03:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Those 19 edits are not all reverts, as they are mostly consecutive for one thing. They don't look at all disruptive, tendentious, or unsupported to me, either, but perhaps that is because I didn't look far enough back in the article's history or something. I'm completely unfamiliar with this situation, but doing a diff on the first and last of those edits looks fine to me. MilesAgain (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• User:MilesAgain, I have been told (and blocked for) four (4) consecutive edits in a similar editing situation. So what you are saying is not true (or not true for others than Z.) Also, her "consecutive edits were systematically removing my edits or rearranging them in a misleading way, starting within minutes of being unblocked for doing the same thing. Mattisse 13:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have lost so many edits in edit conflicts -- I'm done!

I'm done. Can't get my points in! It is clearly Z's article. Good luck. The best to all of you who are helping her with it, Slim Virgin and others. Mattisse 03:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

lead sentence

I made what I hope is a non-controversial edit to the lead sentence. My main intention was to cut down the number of words. I also clarified that some (i.e. not all) classify psychopathy as a personality disorder, this should be non'controversial since DSM-IV and ICD-10 do not list it as a personality disorder thus, not everyone considers it a personality disorder. I think the result complies with NPOV and is accurate. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems perfectly fine to me, I cannot imagine any reason why anyone would object to it, my main "issue" there was just that I could not, for the life of me, understand how the derivation from the Greek got moved to another part of the article --Zeraeph (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) That is a fine lead sentence. Good work! Regards, Mattisse 18:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Psychopathy and handedness

In a separate study, A. R. Mayer and D. S. Kosson investigated the hand preferences of 420 adult male inmates in a county jail. "Psychopaths reported reduced right-hand dominance," they report, "which cannot be accounted for by differences in age, intelligence, or race." They conclude that their data suggest "anomalous cerebral asymmetry" in psychopathic offenders

n one of the new studies, A. F. Bogaert analyzed a database of more than 8,000 men compiled by the Kinsey Institute, and found that criminals in general and sex offenders in particular showed a significantly higher rate of left-handedness or ambidexterity than did non-offenders. While there was some evidence that handedness was linked to poor school performance in the criminal group, Bogaert says, "education was unrelated to the handedness/pedophilia relationship."

The criminal mentally disturbed (including psychopaths) and quite a number of other .reported .. left-handedness, robust physique, precocious sexual development, ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.93.250 (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

is this actually true do psychopathy's report reduce right hand dominace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.93.250 (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, whether it is true or not is beside the point. We lefties are indeed sinister but only just so. It is my firm conviction that psychopaths are by and large right handed (as are any other unsavory deviant group). Therefore I move we suppress this article and its distorted depiction of "the truth."--NeantHumain (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Conduct Disorder

The antisocial persinality disorder say there must be a diagnosis of a conduct disorder before the age of 15 but psychopathy does'nt need a conduct disorder. Carlpanzram666 (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Conduct disorder per se isn't a requirement for psychopathy, but the PCL–R contains 'early behavioral problems' and juvenile delinquency as two items. Psychopathic attitudes and antisocial behavior don't come out of the blue when a person becomes an adult (unless they had some brain injury).--NeantHumain (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Explaining why mental illnesses are so difficult to diagnose precisely

Carl, the deal is this -- the prior DSM (III) described psychopaths to match what has been described in the past (Clerkley) and currently (Hare, et al)... AsPD is not a description of typical traits and behaviors like the other PDs do - it is an artificial construct based upon statistical analyses of incarcerated (imprisoned) populations --- and so you have lower IQs, the 'juvenile delinquency', overt criminal behaviors that got them arrested and sent to prison. It TOTALLY overlooks and eliminates the Snakes in Suits, the intelligent psychopaths that have no empathy (are neurologically INCAPABLE of empathy - are minus human inhibitory wiring/firing), who treat people as things, objects and who are only out for themselves).

Some people (the typical layman) think that the DSM-IV is some sort of damned bible - a uniquely objective 'last on the subject, universally accepted as the Holy Grail of wisdom'... and it ISN'T. The DSM is 15 years out of date. It was hammered together by a group of psychiatrists who TRIED to toss out things that were no longer PA (politically correct - like homosexuality and PDs considered anti-female and under attack by feminists), tossed out a few more like masochistic & sadistic PDs.

The 'CURRENT' PD has been promised as on the brink of publication for at least 6 years now, but is only now in the second year of being exposed to a larger group of non-primary editors for THEIR feedback and input. The DSM is and always has been 'a work in progress' and THIS, the 'DSM V' has, as one of its problems, the fact that so much research concerning the actual brain differences that are the same and/or different from other disorders - research that HAS to be considered. And this is a big part of the reason for the continual putting off of the projected release date.

In the past, all psychiatrists had was lists of behaviors and traits that were tossed into various piles of 'what usually are found together' or 'are OFTEN found together' and labels were put on those piles. Those piles were so vague and random, that anyone can notice that out of 10-15 'traits and behaviors', that generally as few as 5-7 are considered 'necessary' for the 'diagnosis' to apply to a particular person -- which is why two persons having 'NPD' are so different as to be totally impossible to identify as being 'identical'.

Psychiatry has slowly been climbing out of the depths of the hole of 'we have nothing but psycho-dynamic theories to explain human differences' into the steady climb of brain studies that detect different levels of electrical activity, different quantities of blood flow, differing thicknesses of gray matter, more rapid head circumference growth in early childhood, reduced size/activity (and recovery of size and activity) of the frontal lobes, the hipposcampus, the amygdala, thalamus and other vital structures and activities of the limbic system. The brain is like the ocean - we are still totally ignorant of most of it.

So don't get all twisted up in the DSM and focus on HARD SCIENCE. We don't understand everything and the DSM-VI is going to be different because psychiatry is an evolving science - much as the science of the creation and nature of the universe is an evolving science. The DSM is interesting as history, but not to be elevated into prominence and 'the be all and end all' except for the insurance companies who decide how WHICH 'diagnoses' are just 'in the mind' and therefore not worthy of being treated (in the sense of being paid for), not to mention many psychiatric diagnoses are not considered 'real illnesses' and thus are severely limited as to how many patient visits are allowed within a given 12 month period.

You see, the DSM began as a way of psychiatrists and psychologists to kinda recognize enough vague similiarities to generally diagnose a patient (ie, toss him in one pile or another), but which is still so confusing and increasingly disregarded that a given patient can go to 3-4 or more mental health workers and walk out with 3-4 or more completely different diagnoses, either a single one or a multiple thereof.

And since diagoses are SUPPOSED to dictate treatment, we have evolved into where treatment OUTCOMES are more likely to eventually help mental health professionals get a somewhat stronger grasp of what the patient really has in terms of biochemistry, electroactivity and structural differences within their skull. Treatment results are also not hard science, but they do help.

Psychiatric diagnoses are not currently like diabetes, liver cancer, renal failure or 98% (okay, that's a guess) of human illnesses. For that matter, when the DSM-IV came out, it was not even recognized for that dogs and monkeys, and horses are subject to anxiety, depression and various other neuroses, anxiety disorders, et al. But for another matter, it has been recognized for CENTURIES that behaviors and personality traits ARE INHERITED by those who bred them. But since we don't consider human beings subject to selective breeding, it will probably be a few more decades before genetic inheritance of DNA is a vital component that will help explain why people reared under seemingly identical conditions will turn out completely differently - some of them 'normal' and some of them diagnosed with mental illnesses that are provably related to childhood abuse. Spotted Owl (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

psychopaths brain

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=oaTfdKYbudk

Provides an mri of pschopaths a shocking thrush about psychopaths brain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.93.250 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet more subtypes of psychopath

I've been reading up some more on psychopathy, and I've stumbled upon even more subtypes than the classic primary/secondary distinction. Hervé distinguishes four subtypes based on relative prominence of psychopathic traits as measured in the Three-Factor Model of the PCL–R: prototypical, or classic, psychopaths (high on all three factors), explosive psychopaths (high on deficient affective experience and impulsivity/antisocial lifestyle), manipulative psychopaths (high on deficient affective experience and arrogant and exploitative interpersonal style), and pseudopsychopaths (or sociopaths), who are high on the impulsive/antisocial lifestyle and possibly the arrogant and exploitative interpersonal style but lacking the emotional deficits of the true psychopath. Theodore Millon subclassifies psychopaths based on their comorbidity with other personality disorders. We need to explore these theories more.--NeantHumain (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That could be a good idea and get editors/readers thinking critically. Discussing the term and it varying subclasses proposed by different researchers could reduce that tendency in the article to reify the term. It is just a word after all. This article, to my understanding, is meant to explain its differing uses over time and by different professions/professionals as well as popular uses. Looking at subclasses or secondary characteristics/distinctions might help readers understand that we are dealing with concepts here that are to some degree arbitrarily defined, and that no medical/psychiatric term does other than attempt to be a way of understanding human pathology, and is not a stand-in for the condition itself. Mattisse 13:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Explaining why mental illnesses are so difficult to diagnose precisely

Carl, the deal is this -- the prior DSM (III) described psychopaths to match what has been described in the past (Clerkley) and currently (Hare, et al)... AsPD is not a description of typical traits and behaviors like the other PDs do - it is an artificial construct based upon statistical analyses of incarcerated (imprisoned) populations --- and so you have lower IQs, the 'juvenile delinquency', overt criminal behaviors that got them arrested and sent to prison. It TOTALLY overlooks and eliminates the Snakes in Suits, the intelligent psychopaths that have no empathy (are neurologically INCAPABLE of empathy - are minus human inhibitory wiring/firing), who treat people as things, objects and who are only out for themselves).

Some people (the typical layman) think that the DSM-IV is some sort of damned bible - a uniquely objective 'last on the subject, universally accepted as the Holy Grail of wisdom'... and it ISN'T. The DSM is 15 years out of date. It was hammered together by a group of psychiatrists who TRIED to toss out things that were no longer PA (politically correct - like homosexuality and PDs considered anti-female and under attack by feminists), tossed out a few more like masochistic & sadistic PDs.

The 'CURRENT' PD has been promised as on the brink of publication for at least 6 years now, but is only now in the second year of being exposed to a larger group of non-primary editors for THEIR feedback and input. The DSM is and always has been 'a work in progress' and THIS, the 'DSM V' has, as one of its problems, the fact that so much research concerning the actual brain differences that are the same and/or different from other disorders - research that HAS to be considered. And this is a big part of the reason for the continual putting off of the projected release date.

In the past, all psychiatrists had was lists of behaviors and traits that were tossed into various piles of 'what usually are found together' or 'are OFTEN found together' and labels were put on those piles. Those piles were so vague and random, that anyone can notice that out of 10-15 'traits and behaviors', that generally as few as 5-7 are considered 'necessary' for the 'diagnosis' to apply to a particular person -- which is why two persons having 'NPD' are so different as to be totally impossible to identify as being 'identical'.

Psychiatry has slowly been climbing out of the depths of the hole of 'we have nothing but psycho-dynamic theories to explain human differences' into the steady climb of brain studies that detect different levels of electrical activity, different quantities of blood flow, differing thicknesses of gray matter, more rapid head circumference growth in early childhood, reduced size/activity (and recovery of size and activity) of the frontal lobes, the hipposcampus, the amygdala, thalamus and other vital structures and activities of the limbic system. The brain is like the ocean - we are still totally ignorant of most of it.

So don't get all twisted up in the DSM and focus on HARD SCIENCE. We don't understand everything and the DSM-VI is going to be different because psychiatry is an evolving science - much as the science of the creation and nature of the universe is an evolving science. The DSM is interesting as history, but not to be elevated into prominence and 'the be all and end all' except for the insurance companies who decide how WHICH 'diagnoses' are just 'in the mind' and therefore not worthy of being treated (in the sense of being paid for), not to mention many psychiatric diagnoses are not considered 'real illnesses' and thus are severely limited as to how many patient visits are allowed within a given 12 month period.

You see, the DSM began as a way of psychiatrists and psychologists to kinda recognize enough vague similiarities to generally diagnose a patient (ie, toss him in one pile or another), but which is still so confusing and increasingly disregarded that a given patient can go to 3-4 or more mental health workers and walk out with 3-4 or more completely different diagnoses, either a single one or a multiple thereof.

And since diagoses are SUPPOSED to dictate treatment, we have evolved into where treatment OUTCOMES are more likely to eventually help mental health professionals get a somewhat stronger grasp of what the patient really has in terms of biochemistry, electroactivity and structural differences within their skull. Treatment results are also not hard science, but they do help.

Psychiatric diagnoses are not currently like diabetes, liver cancer, renal failure or 98% (okay, that's a guess) of human illnesses. For that matter, when the DSM-IV came out, it was not even recognized for that dogs and monkeys, and horses are subject to anxiety, depression and various other neuroses, anxiety disorders, et al. But for another matter, it has been recognized for CENTURIES that behaviors and personality traits ARE INHERITED by those who bred them. But since we don't consider human beings subject to selective breeding, it will probably be a few more decades before genetic inheritance of DNA is a vital component that will help explain why people reared under seemingly identical conditions will turn out completely differently - some of them 'normal' and some of them diagnosed with mental illnesses that are provably related to childhood abuse. Spotted Owl (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but why is this general rail against the DSM and the contemporary state of psychiatry here? By the way, the DSM-III and DSM-III-R versions of antisocial personality disorder were even less similar to Cleckley's conceptualization of psychopathy than is the DSM-IV-TR version. The old DSM-III-R version was simply a very long list of criminal and antisocial behaviors (similar to the DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of conduct disorder). Babiak's industrial psychopaths, would probably qualify for a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder, not antisocial personality disorder, in the DSM system.

Also, I hardly see only psychopaths as the only ones who are, "INCAPABLE of empathy - [people who] are minus human inhibitory wiring/firing), who treat people as things, objects and who are only out for themselves." This could describe the typical person in many deindividuated situations: the rush-hour commute, a large and unruly mob, a fearful populace goaded to war, a person just doing their job (could be telemarketing, a health insurance agent denying an elderly person coverage, etc.). The psychopath merely takes this disregard a couple of orders of magnitude higher.--NeantHumain (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)