Talk:Psychopathy

Psychopathy is not a personality disorder

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

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

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

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

A great article

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

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

Well said:

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

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

RE cure & treatment

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Primary/secondary psychopaths controversy

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

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

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

Kantor comments

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

NPOV concerns

Extended content

I don't suppose anyone else has noticed how absurdly prejudiced the entire psychopathy article is? I wouldn't consider myself up to the task of a full rewrite since I have my own biases to consider (generally leaning in the opposite direction), but it definitely does need a complete overhaul. The article seems to have been written from a strongly sociophilic angle, displaying excessive concern with moral condemnation of socially abnormal life-choices throughout. Much of this could well be down to the long lists all drawn from this delusional "Martin Kantor" fellow, but there is more than just that. Either way, avoidance of reliance on said person's book would be advisable in any future rewrites as it is strongly misleading. In any case, I am hoping someone of greater objectivity might be able to take this task in hand at some point. And I apologise that I cannot do it myself, but I doubt anyone would appreciate my more misanthropic take on the subject. ~ SotiCoto (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC) All of that was added recently by Penbat, who reverted my one attempt to remove it. I don't like getting involved in edit wars. I started a thread about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Weird stuff from Martin Kantor at Psychopathy, but nobody has responded (except Penbat). -- BenRG (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Comments about Martin Kantor as being just a self-help author are outrageous. He is a long standing psychiatrist and clinical professor. He has written about 15 books on various aspects of psychiatry. I have his book "THE PSYCHOPATHY OF EVERYDAY LIFE: HOW ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER AFFECTS ALL OF US" in front of me. The book has loads of academic citations to gurus like Cleckley, Hare and Millon. What he does do is cover an interesting perspective on psychopaths relating to how they manifest themselves in everyday life. There is almost nothing in the book that can be considered "self help" or advice and I havent mentioned anything in Wikipedia that can be considered self help or advice. I have however included a list of vulnerabilities in the victim exploited by psychopaths which are important in understanding how the psychopaths mind works. It also ties in with Vulnerability And the concept of Enabling is important as is overlapping psychiatric conditions. Where Kantor does cover treatment in his books it is generally at the level of psychiatric professionals. A link to all his books is here: [1] I dont think i have made many changes to the rest of the psychopathy article except I deleted 2 paragraphs of what i considered to be some long winded waffle, I moved some text out to the separate PCL-R article and i deleted an unfounded and uncited paragraph. In all cases I explained my reasoning.--Penbat (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC) You have the cheek to blank out extremely valuable sections such as "Differential diagnosis: associated and overlapping conditions" (which is also in all the individual personality disorder articles as well) and "the Thought Processes of psychopaths" and two other sections because you think two lines in particular are nonsense: "too many teachers blur the distinction between teaching and proselytizing" and that people who download copyrighted files from peer-to-peer networks are "enabling psychopaths". You yourself admit that you dont know much about the subject while I have been studying the subject for years. It says a lot about your misunderstanding of psychopaths (which i suspect is probably based on various mythologies). I totally resent criticism of Kantors credibility as an expert in his field. I can easily explain the two lines you picked out except i would be in danger of giving you a lecture in psychopathy. It baffles me how you can possibly not understand it. Psychopathy is a diverse concept. Much of Kantors book covers mild psychopaths, not the axe wielding mass murderer types. Kantor bravely explains how psychopaths have a pernicious effect on every day life in all fields of human activity. It has nothing to do with moral judgements, simply to describe dysfunctional behavior where it occurs which he considers to inspired by psychopathic motives and helped by unwitting enablers. For example he criticises governments, individuals and even psychiatrists themselves. He doesnt have a particular agenda as such against any one group or another. Your complaint seems to display your own prejudices and sensitivities. You dismiss the work of an expert in his field for over 20 years as "obvious nonsense" while you prefer your view and you have already admitted you dont know much about the subject.) --Penbat (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC) I also strongly resent the smear and attack on my integrity that I am trying to promote Kantor. I have been doing tons of other work in psychology articles which have no relevance to Kantor at all. His book is just one of many by various authors i have in my personal library.--Penbat (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC) I saw this in wikipedia project psychology. I agree with SotiCoto and BenRG. Martin Kantor's claims are totally outrageous, and completely inappropriate for a wikipedia article on psychopathy. From what I see in this article, Martin Kantor is not concerned with anything about actual psychopaths, but is instead using the "psychopathy" label as a literary device to advance his bizare morality. Giving to beggars enables psychopaths? As does a lawyer who defends potentially guilty criminals? Clearly, Kantor is identifying people who he disagrees with morally, even when those people wouldn't remotely qualify as psycopaths by the diagnostic criteria. He does not deserve to be taken seriously, and I am removing the sections that are based on his work. Neramesh (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC) It is absolutely disgusting that you have the cheek to do this - deleting extremely valuable material including the "Differential diagnosis: associated and overlapping conditions" section which appears in all the other PDs. He only has a moral stance against what he sees as psychopathy or psychopathic traits and the point he is making is that they manifest themselves in EVERY walk of life. What precisely do you mean by "bizarre morality" ? Do you have the book in front of you ? I have. He is an expert in his field. That is not to say he is 100% perfect - no one individual is perfect. Freud for example is considered by some high profile psychologists to be a waste of time. No matter what, Kantor covers some interesting ground such as enablers of psychopaths which is an important concept, overlapping diagnoses, the thought procsses of psychopaths (defense mechanisms such as Splitting and Rationalisation etc). If you had the book in front of you you would see that much of the book is a dry academic analysis of psychopathy with reference to many citations to psychology gurus, Millon, Hare and Cleckley. He also covers "mild psychopathy" rather than just the mythological axe wielding mass murdering psychopath which so many of the public cling to. It sounded like you saw this article and instantly thought "bizarre" without thinking about it more deeply and getting past common mythologies. The only prejudices around here are from people must have only a tiny fraction of the knowledge of psychopathy to Kantor and are more influenced by the psychopath mythology. How would you get on if you sat in a room with Kantor and argued your disagreements with him ? You wouldnt stand a chance. Regarding "Giving to beggars" and "a lawyer who defends potentially guilty criminals?", I am paraphrasing Kantors words in a brief summary and it is not easy to do justice to Kantors text. As i obviously havnt managed to convey what Kantor meant about beggars i am deleting the beggar bit. Regarding lawyers i think that Kantor has a good point but i condensed about a page of text on lawyers to a sentence so obviously i was not able to do justice to the book. --Penbat (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC) See comments on book (and "Look Inside") on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Psychopathy-Everyday-Life-Antisocial-Personality/dp/0275987981/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256994055&sr=8-3 and info on Kantors other books http://www.martinkantor.com/books.html --Penbat (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Some of the book can be read in Google Books http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Zi0mnlkRf8AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=martin+kantor&ei=ZFHsSri2BKfgyASGxrFg&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=&f=false --Penbat (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Well I don't know about the US but here in the UK there is something called the "cab rank" rule whereby you take the clients you are sent in criminal law. Without commenting on whether Kantor is an appropriate source at all, surely it would be better to attempt to summarise his view on "psychopaths" in everyday life rather than listing every profession accompanied by frankly bizarre insults. If it's impossible to summarise what he actually means in relation to each profession in a few words - don't do it. Fainites barleyscribs 23:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Why not just have a separate section with some title such as "Kantor's views" or something and then describe this person's work? Abdul Faisel (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC) As with other editors, since I know very little about the subject I have been reluctant to wade in. Nevertheless I am concerned that the article does not currently convey a neutral point of view, and may be giving undue weight to this author, Kantor. Sections on Kantor's views (as opposed to sections which are arguably using his book as a reference), currently represent >10% of the article length. Is this on the same order of magnitude to his contribution to the sum of knowledge of psychopathy? It seems to me how many authors cite Kantor's work or share his views rather than how many authors Kantor cites or how much Martin Kantor knows, would help us to decide how strongly to represent his views in the text. Maybe I used the wrong method, but I couldn't find a single peer reviewed article on psychopathy by Kantor in Medline, or google scholar. Although there are lots of books, which do not appear to be well cited. I guess he could be published in a journal that is not covered by these - does anyone know how well regarded his view is in science or medicine? or can anyone point to peer reviewed articles, and citations thereof? Incidentally, Martin Kantor's own view on his own books might also be of interest [2]. As an alternative to reverting again (I was tempted), I thought I'd share some observations and suggestions for moving forward. I hope these are helpful, but recognise my limited knowledge of the area... Psychopathy#Enablers of psychopaths : I think this section should go. I find it hard to see how any of it could be reworded, beyond perhaps a single sentence somewhere early in the article. I have had a couple of goes at formulating such a sentence, but my prejudices would probably come across too strongly in the other direction. Psychopathy#Differential diagnosis: associated and overlapping conditions : seems sensible to have a section on comorbidity. Assuming Kantor has an WP:NPOV it also seems reasonable to cite him as a source for verifying these facts (which are not Kantor's views). This is an example of where who Kantor cites may be relevant, so I'd remove the "according to" part; probably also put a warning in about relying too much on one source. At some later date, it would be good to cross-check against another source to confirm this section and perhaps rework to give more prevalence to those conditions most likely to co-occur. Such a cross-check might reveal that some items need to be removed or added. Psychopathy#Psychopathic fields of study : Kantor's book appears to suggest that many individuals who have not received a diagnosis may still exhibit psychopathic traits, as suggested in discrete vs. continuous section. This is a theme that also occurs elsewhere e.g. Schizotypy. I would suggest deleting Psychopathy#Psychopathic fields of activity instead summarising to a sentence in discrete vs. continuous section along the lines of : "According to one view, traits typical of antisocial personality disorder are prevalent in many people without a clinical diagnosis, in all walks of life, accounting for lower level everday anti-social behaviour[Kantor]". Psychopathy#The thought processes of psychopaths I have no concrete suggestions, as a non-expert it is difficult to comment. However, it feels like there is an overlap with Psychopathy#Hare's items. Perhaps mark with an "over-reliance on one source" box, and wait for another expert to come along. I would welcome suggestions from experts on these points... Finally, can anyone recommend a good up-to-date textbook which might serve as reliable second source to this subject, covering most points of view?Finereach (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Hare is considered the expert on this topic. Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us , R. Hare, 1999, Guilford. Other references to consider are: Handbook of Psychopathy by C. Patrick, Guilford Press, 2007 Psychopathy, Perversion, and Lust Homicide: Recognizing the Mental Disorders That Power Serial Killers by D. Dobbert, Praeger, 2009 The Psychopath: Emotion and the Brain edited by James Blair, Derek Mitchell, and Karina Blair, 2005, Wiley-Blackwell Abdul Faisel (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Thank you.Finereach (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Like others, I did a google scholar search on Martin Kantor. As far as I can tell, he has only published a single peer-reviewed article. It was published in 1978 with him as second author, and it has not been cited often. His books receive even fewer citations. To me, it is clear that Martin Kantor has had no influence on the field. His work certainly does not merit entire sections, and I doubt that it merits inclusion in this article in any form. Now, if Martin Kantor cites people are influential in the field (Penbat has mentioned Millon, Hare and Cleckley), then those researchers should be cited rather than him. I'd also like to call attention to a quote from The Psychopathy of Everyday Life (via the google book link, Ch 2, p.11): "Though the psychopaths of everyday life are everywhere ... they generally escape the notice of the extant scientific literature." In this quote, he suggests that the main argument in his book is not based on scientific research. To include that argument here clearly violates NPOV. In my opinion, his arguments are also fringe and not noteworthy. Neramesh (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC) For the reasons stated above, I have changed Psychopathy#Differential diagnosis: associated and overlapping conditions - as I said, it seems sensible to have some discussion of co-morbidity with other disorders. It seemed me that this fitted in better along with the other research findings, e.g. Psychopathy#childhood precursors. I used one of the books cited above as a second source.Finereach (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC) I have tagged the three unedited Kantor sections. I thought I might have addressed the WP:NPOV concerns on the first, Psychopathy#Differential diagnosis: associated and overlapping conditions section, however happy for someone else to tag that too if the feeling is that it is still under dispute. I hope to add some more material (references) to the Psychopathy#Differential diagnosis: associated and overlapping conditions section in the coming days. It seems to me that there is now a consensus on the other sections ... Finereach (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC) I have completely undone all of Penbat's edits by taking the last pre-Penbat version and selectively re-introducing later changes, mainly Alamanth's. I didn't re-add Finereach's rewrite of the diagnosis section that didn't exist before Penbat added it, but I probably should have. -- BenRG (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC) ... in that case, I have added back a revised and more extensively sourced version of the Psychopathy#Differential diagnosis: associated and overlapping conditions. I have tried to cite multiple sources to keep the section WP:NPOV. As a non-expert in this area, I'd welcome any feedback, I don't want to make the article worse. Incidentally, I considered whether the PCL-R factor analysis section covered similar material, but this seems to be covering a different angle.Finereach (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Cause for concern

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

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

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

Major revision per MEDMOS

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

Unused material

Extended content

Description (lv.2) Lack of a conscience in conjunction with a weak ability to defer gratification and/or control aggressive desires, often leads to antisocial acts. Psychopaths (and others on the pathological narcissism scale) low in social cognition are more prone to violence, occupational failure, and problems maintaining relationships. Psychopaths differ in their impulse control abilities and overall desires. Those high in the pathological narcissism scale are more equipped to succeed, but pathological narcissism does not in any way guarantee success. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) (lv.2) In contemporary research, psychopathy has been most frequently operationalized by Dr. Robert D. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). The checklist assesses both interpersonal and affective components as well as lifestyle and antisocial deficits. However, the research results cannot be easily extrapolated to the clinical diagnoses of dissocial personality disorder or antisocial personality disorder. A sample research finding is that between 50 percent and 80 percent of prisoners in England and Wales meet the diagnostic criteria of dissocial personality disorder, but only 15 percent would be predicted to be psychopathic as measured by the PCL-R. Therefore, the findings drawn from psychopathy research have not yet been shown to be relevant as an aid to diagnosis and treatment of dissocial or antisocial personality disorders. Both organizations view the terms as synonymous. But only a minority of what Hare and his followers would diagnose as psychopaths who are in institutions are violent offenders. The manipulative skills of some of the others are valued for providing audacious leadership. It is argued psychopathy is adaptive in a highly competitive environment, because it gets results for both the individual and the corporations or, often small political sects they represent. However, these individuals will often cause long-term harm, both to their co-workers and the organization as a whole, due to their manipulative, deceitful, abusive, and often fraudulent behaviour. PCL-R Factors (lv.3) Early factor analysis of the PCL-R indicated it consisted of two factors. Factor 1 captures traits dealing with the interpersonal and affective deficits of psychopathy (e.g. shallow affect, superficial charm, manipulativeness, lack of empathy) whereas Factor 2 dealt with symptoms relating to antisocial behaviour (e.g. criminal versatility, impulsiveness, irresponsibility, poor behaviour controls, juvenile delinquency). The two factors have been found by those following this theory to display different correlates. Factor 1 has been correlated with narcissistic personality disorder, low anxiety, low empathy, low stress reaction and low suicide risk but high scores on scales of achievement and well-being. In contrast, Factor 2 was found to be related to antisocial personality disorder, social deviance, sensation seeking, low socio-economic status and high risk of suicide. The two factors are nonetheless highly correlated and there are strong indications they do result from a single underlying disorder. However, research has failed to replicate the two-factor model in female samples. In the most recent edition of the PCL-R, Hare adds a fourth antisocial behaviour factor, consisting of those Factor 2 items excluded in the previous model. Again, these models are presumed to be hierarchical with a single unified psychopathy disorder underlying the distinct but correlated factors. New evidence, across a range of samples and diverse measures, now supports a four-factor model of the psychopathy construct,which represents the Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and overt Antisocial features of the personality disorder. Relationship to other terms (lv.2) Relationship to antisocial personality disorder (lv.3) The criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder were derived from the Research Diagnositic Criteria developed by Spitzer, Endicott and Robbins (1978). There was concern in the development of DSM-IV there was too much emphasis on research data and not enough on the more traditional psychopathic traits such as a lack of empathy, superficial charm, and inflated self appraisal. Field trial data indicated some of these traits of psychopathy derived from the Psychopathy Checklist developed by Hare et al., 1992, were difficult to assess reliably and thus were not included. Lack of remorse is an example. The antisocial person may express genuine or false guilt or remorse and/or offer excuses and rationalizations. However, a history of criminal acts in itself suggests little remorse or guilt. The American Psychiatric Association removed the word "psychopathy" or "psychopathic", and started using the term "Antisocial Personality" to cover the disorder in DSM-II. The World Health Organization's stance in its ICD-10 refers to psychopathy, sociopathy, antisocial personality, asocial personality, and amoral personality as synonyms for dissocial personality disorder. Further, the DSM was meant as a diagnostic guide, and the term psychopath best fit the criteria met for antisocial personality disorder. Research findings (lv.2) This extends into their pathological lying and willingness to con and manipulate others for personal gain or amusement. The prototypical psychopath's emotions are described as a shallow affect, meaning their overall way of relating is characterized by mere displays of friendliness and other emotion for personal gain; the displayed emotion need not correlate with felt emotion, in other words. Most research studies of psychopaths have taken place among prison populations. This remains a limitation on its applicability to a general population. Psychopaths may often be successful in the military, as they will more readily participate in combat than most soldiers. Discrete vs. continuous dimension (lv.3) In contrast, the PCL–R sets a score of 30 out of 40 for North American male inmates as its cut-off point for a diagnosis of psychopathy. However, this is an arbitrary cut-off and should not be taken to reflect any sort of underlying structure for the disorder.

Welcome, visitors from Wikiprojects Medicine and Psychology

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

Sociopathy =/= Psychopathy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is ridiculous

Revert this pointlessness back immediately.

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

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

Ref user Alamanth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overselective attention

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

Society and culture

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

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

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

Use of term "abnormally immoral"

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

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

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

Appallingly formatted lead

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

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

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

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

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

Conversation with Hare

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

Antisocial disorder vs psychopathy

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

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

Asperger is 'Psychopathy'?

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