Talk:Psychopathy Checklist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine / Psychiatry (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force.
 

Primary/secondary subtypes of psychopath[edit]

The distinction between primary and secondary subtypes of psychopath relates to the concept of psychopathy itself rather than to the PCL–R. It well predates the PCL and the PCL–R and indeed requires concepts not directly referenced within the PCL–R to be understood.--NeantHumain (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

These are distinct and each notable subjects on their own. I also agree they should not be merged. There is another editor who commented on the merge over at psychopathy. That user also agrees that the merge shouldn't happen. Since thats three of us and its been several months since the tag has been put up, I'm removing the tag. Chupper (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge suggestion with psychopathy banner[edit]

The article is tagged for a merge. This one is a a test, the psychopathy article is about a concept. There is merit in both, but someone looking for the PCL might find separate articles more reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fremte (talkcontribs) 18:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Many short-term marital relationships[edit]

I don't understand how the above can be both part of Factor 2 and uncorrelated with either factor. It seems it should only be in one, otherwise some explanation would probably be in order. GAdam (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Ana 13:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I came to the talk page to post an identical objection. It doesn't look as though anybody has taken the time to address this issue for several months, so I propose to remedy the problem immediately. I'm not an expert. However, based on this source, it seems the right thing to do may be to remove "Many short-term marital relationships" from the Factor 2 list. Rangergordon (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Google searches include both cunning/manipulative and conning/manipulative[edit]

Why am I not surprised? Which is correct?Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If you check out the checklist itself you'll see that it's cunning. Regards, Alcmaeonid (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The list on the article says conning. Okmjuhb (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I've got Cooke and Michie in front of me and it uses "conning".Anthony (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"APD"?[edit]

The article mentions APD without further explaination: "A psychopath will score high on both factors, whereas someone with APD will score high only on Factor 2".

Please clarify what APD refers to: it could be antisocial personality disorder or avoidant personality disorder. 2.97.210.205 (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

APD shouldn't be used as an abbreviation because of its ambiguity: ASPD and AvPD are massively different.

"Talk"[edit]

This Checklist is the personal invention of a psychologist (a Dr Hare or someone) and is subject of critisicm from many other studies. This fact is not mentioned anywhere in this article. It is written as if it is similar to the law of gravity in hard physical science. The population under test are meager and not checked against unbiased environments. These are not mentioned anywhere. It differentiate between humans in their birth. These are not mentioned anywhere. A Google search about PCL-R at the top of the search does show this link. This meet the wikepaedia criteria of an equal weighted observation. This is not mentioned here. This article is biased towards glorifying Hare's as a universal law of nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.234.49 (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The article does not "glorify" anyone. Your use of this word raises red flags immediately. The PCL-R is not merely a "personal invention" but is the product of a peer review process that included its being published in established scientific journals. The populations it is used on does not figure in. This is about the test and the cited fact remains it is "the psycho-diagnostic tool most commonly used to assess psychopathy".
Please do not add tags to articles without at least attempting to rectify the situation. I invite you to find some reliable sources and add in whatever balance you think the article needs. The website you linked to does not qualify. It is an individual person's site and a person, I might add, advancing a polemical agenda. In the meantime I am removing the tags. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Alcmaeonid:

You said,

"The article does not "glorify" anyone. Your use of this word raises red flags (my emphasize) immediately. The PCL-R is not merely a "personal invention" but is the product of a peer review process that included its being published in established scientific journals. The populations it is used on does not figure in. This is about the test and the cited fact remains it is "the psycho-diagnostic tool most commonly used to assess psychopathy". Please do not add tags to articles without at least attempting to rectify the situation. I invite you to find some reliable sources and add in whatever balance you think the article needs. The website you linked to does not qualify. It is an individual person's site and a person, I might add, advancing a polemical agenda. In the meantime I am removing the tags."

Here I quote one of the Wikipedia's common tags,

"This article improperly uses one or more texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view."

The one person you eliminated, Dr. Bob Johnson (wwwDOTtruthtrustconsentDOTcom) is as one person similar to Mr. Hare himself. He is not one person; he is part of a larger organization and is more reliable than Mr. Hare. Mr. Hare is an academic (in parenthesis, himself much in persuasion of fame, prestige and wealth). The criticizing person has been a practitioner spending all his life time in charge of the most infamous super secure prisons in an advanced industrial scientific country, United Kingdom. His works also have been peer reviewed and published equally to Mr. Hare. Please put your red flag next to other cliché templates of Wikipedia for sabotage of lay people and with your killer nom de plume introduce a criticizing section in this inhumane method of life-time ontological imprisonment of humans. Encyclopedias are written by established paid dedicated experts in subject not by pedestrians.

Skeem and Cooke[edit]

Psychological Assessment 2010 Volume 22, Issue 2 (Jun) [1]

  • Is criminal behavior a central component of psychopathy? Conceptual directions for resolving the debate. Pages 433-445 Skeem, Jennifer L.; Cooke, David J.
  • The role of antisociality in the psychopathy construct: Comment on Skeem and Cooke (2010). Pages 446-454 Hare, Robert D.; Neumann, Craig S.
  • One measure does not a construct make: Directions toward reinvigorating psychopathy research—reply to Hare and Neumann (2010). Pages 455-459 Skeem, Jennifer L.; Cooke, David J.

This is apparently a significant dispute related to the topic of the article. If anyone has access to the journal and could summarize the various points that would be helpful. I could add something from the NYT, but I'm sure it'd give an incomplete view of the issues.   Will Beback  talk  18:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The "a"'s and "b"'s?[edit]

According to the article, "PCL-R officially lists four factors (1.a, 1.b, 2.a, and 2.b)". Yet "The two factors" only lists Factors 1 and 2 without dividing them into 1.a, 1.b and 2.a, 2.b. Is this a deliberate omission or a slip? -Uusijani (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The article even says that there are only THREE factors (1a,b and 2a), then it explains FOUR factors (1a,b and 2a,b) and then it lists TWO factors in the table. Forodin (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Factor 1 correlations[edit]

The section on correlates of the two factors stated that F1 was correlated with achievement and well-being. I checked the reference and it actually states that F1 is correlated with the PEM (positive emotionality) scales of achievement and social potency, but the correlation with the well-being scale is non-significant (see Table 1 on p. 466). I have amended the article accordingly. --Smcg8374 (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of PCL-R and successful psychopaths[edit]

ive seen evidence that psychopaths are actively sought in some executive positions so that being a certified psychopath secures the job. This would be an abuse of the PCL-R - using it back to front. I dont have good enough sources at present to include in article but may get some.--Penbat (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

looks like the abuse of the pcl-r in general would be worth a section https://sites.google.com/site/forpsychadvice/home/anns/hareworriedaboutmisuseofpcl-r --Penbat (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a good idea to recruit a psychopath do any legitimate job. Although some aspects of psychopathy are used to the psychopath's advantage, they are a nightmare to everyone who has the misfortune to work with them. They are extremely selfish and habitually dishonest, with no conscientiousness or diligence. Hence they cannot be relied upon. They don't care about anyone but themselves, and they're usually not good at looking after their own long-term future. Psychopaths' high rate of criminal convictions and imprisonment make it unlikely that many of them would be recruited to high-status jobs. They don't feel many of the emotions that most people feel easily, such as guilt, regret, fear. Hence they've no motive not to victimize. Narcissistic personality disorder is much better suited to high levels of business, hence why the rate of NPD is much higher in the financial world than in the general population. Jim Michael (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Have you not heard of The Wisdom of Psychopaths by Kevin Dutton (an academic psychologist)? --Penbat (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

External link[edit]

Since the PCL-R contents have been removed for copyright reasons you might like to link to this article, co-authored by Hare, that lists all the PCL-R factos:

https://leb.fbi.gov/2012/july/psychopathy-an-important-forensic-concept-for-the-21st-century 78.145.172.27 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The wording "most commonly used to assess the presence of psychopathy in individuals"[edit]

Thread hatted, User:Humorideas has since been blocked as a sockpuppet.

Humorideas, I thought about asking this weeks ago, but I'll ask it now: Why would you remove the "most commonly" aspect? I'm not aware of another tool that is just as commonly used for assessing the presence of psychopathy in individuals. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I removed it because I thought 'most commonly' implied the PCL-R is used to assess other diagnoses as well. However I can see now that it may have been used in the manner you referred to. There might be a better way to reword it to avoid this confusion for the reader who doesn't know anything about the checklist but I guess it shouldn't cause too many issues the way it was anyway. --Humorideas (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2016‎ (UTC)
I considered that you may have removed it because of the flow of the wording, not because you disagree that it is the tool most commonly used for assessing the presence of psychopathy in individuals. Thanks for commenting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Psychopathy Checklist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Re. Skeem and Cooke and other issues[edit]

http://cda.psych.uiuc.edu/multivariate_fall_2010/hare.pdf

Title: The Role of Antisociality in the Psychopathy Construct: Comment on Skeem and Cooke (2010) This gives a detailed rebuttal and summary of the academic dispute (by Hare and Neumann) that's referenced in the page section headlined 'Criticism'. In short, Skeem and Cooke allege Hare and Neumann thinks criminality is part of the psychopathy construct - Hare and Neumann respond that they misrepresented their use of the term 'antisocial', which can mean conning, deceptive, callous ...

A quote further down in that section saying that Hare receives a certain amount of money from the use of the PCL-R is totally irrelevant to the issue.

At the beginning of the page is the following quote 'The current edition of the PCL-R officially lists three factors (1.a, 1.b, and 2.a)'

Further down the page is the following, which appears to contradict this: 'In the most recent edition of the PCL-R, Hare adds a fourth antisocial behavior factor, consisting of those factor-2 items excluded in the previous model.'

The wider issue: it's very important to note that psychopaths use disinformation, subtly distort facts and spread smears about those they wish to discredit. This is why I pointed out that the issue of Hare's fees is irrelevant. On public forums where self-identified psychopaths answer questions they try and paint Hare as an 'empire builder' and 'only in it for the money'. They also suggest that the PCL-R can only be used on criminals, that high-functioning psychopaths are somehow 'different' and that the legal battle was all about trying to suppress those who wanted to point out that the PCL-R could only be used on criminals. This sort of disinformation easily fools some people. A Wikipedia article that highlights Hare's royalties, doesn't dig into the real issues behind the legal dispute and doesn't mention the use of the PCL-R use in non-forensic settings is unhelpful. The PCL-R was used in the writing of 'Snakes in Suits' and in the research 'Corporate psychopathy: talking the walk' (it can be found online) which revealed that nearly 4% of top corporate personnel are psychopaths.

In non-forensic settings where the PCL-R is used a couple of questions are dropped and the score is then proportionately adjusted, as described in 'Corporate psychopathy: talking the walk'

The PL-R was used in the writing of 'Snakes in Suits' as per this quote from the book: 'Based on all our observations... some highly motivated individuals with psychopathic personalities (as assessed by the Hare PCL-R or PCL: SV) were able to enter an organization....'

Would you care to sign your post? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. Jennifer Skeem probably deserves a mention and a link in this article?