Talk:Psychopath

	This Psychology related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Proposal to rename this article

"Psychopathy" isn't in the DSM. ASPD is. Vee (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

But 'psychopath' and eg 'You psycho' are common colloquial usages (not to forget this) to describe someone perceived as actually 'mad, bad and dangerous to know.' Anna Livia (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I guess it is missional. Wouldn't a redirect work just as well, however? (That is what I had in mind after all.) Vee (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

There are two 'broad usages' - the 'technical' (ie ASPD) and the 'broader/more colloquial usage' (which is within the RW remit) - which is where the issue is. Anna Livia (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC) (edited for clarity)

RW is not an encyclopedia, but perhaps an article on ASPD proper is within the purview of missionality. Perhaps this article should be split into two: one for the "broader usage" and one for the "technical usage," because as it currently stands this article covers both. Vee (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I am using 'technical' (or could be 'formal') to avoid discussions over the 'scientific nature of psychology and related subjects.' Not everybody labelled 'colloquial usage psycho' would fit into 'technical usage ASPD, but they probably are 'some sort of wrong'un.' Anna Livia (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I was not trying to start a discussion on how scientific the social sciences are. I meant coverage of the "formal" (as you put it) aspects of psychopathy, or misinterpretations of the formal aspect of psychopathy, could be missional. Vee (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

'Es ist mir egal' whether there are two pages or one divided into two distinct parts - and my comment was addressed at 'quibblers in general and anti-social-sciences arguers in particular.' Anna Livia (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

A mostly discarded medical term that isn't in the DSM, but is everywhere in pop psychology, and a few academic revivals, is ripe for an encyclopedia about fringe scienceMargaret 003 (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

At the same time, a separate article on ASPD could be warranted, as the nosology and academic literature on that is way more conflicting than the literature on psychopathy. Which would make the claim ASPD labeling is anything more than (well meaning) social control dubious. Specifically social control under a sometimes dubious guise of medicine and pathology Margaret 003 (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I think what sort of annoys me about the diagnostic criteria is the "persistent pattern of acting in the violation of the rights of others" which is so broad it can conclude someone growing up in poverty who regularly steals food since that is a violation of someone's property rights to someone who is a serial rapist. Meeting someone who has been diagnosed with ASPD, you don't know if you are just dealing with someone who simply had a rough childhood or someone who may be willing to kill your mother. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC).

If this page has to be renamed, it'd make more sense to rename it to 'psychopathy' as that term is more descriptive and would be less easily manipulated to be a page about subjective, identity politics storytelling. Margaret 003 (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Given the plethora of contradictory definitions...

Read dozens of academic paper on psychopathy and the best one seems to be a history of the term by Stephen Dinwiddie. Given his paper is comprehensive history, his definition probably gets closer to a historical average of the term definition than any. It doesn't seem to make sense to use DSM-4/DSM-5 era psychiatry to define psychopathy, as even modern academic attempts to resurrect the term in psychiatry are again redefining the term, and then also not incorporating their redefinition into any of their official texts ("triarchic boldness" etc). Pop psychology definitions are also another attempt to revive the term, but these are mostly storytelling beyond their initial modern neuroscience anchor. The 1970s redefinition, PCL-R, is also way too long to flesh out in lede. Margaret 003 (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Some pop psychological definitions

Are in-the-moment attempts to reconcile historical differences in the psychopathy definition. However, this, like much of anything to do with psychiatry, is trying to extract objective truth about alleged biological disease from a mess of social construction from the 20th century. It would make more sense for those trying to identify a scientifically-provable moral-monster-type-figure to establish a new term, and not appropriate the history of irretrievably messy, established terms. Margaret 003 (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Socialism and psychopathy

There's such a thing as authoritarian socialism, and no shortage of examples, but is there a full link to the article text? I can't find it on sci-hub Margaret 003 (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Also the capitalism section is almost entirely unsourced outside Jungian psychology and opinion books. It's a good rundown of media narratives about psychopathy/CEOs, but statistics on PCL-R among corporate CEOs would be better Margaret 003 (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, disregarding the suspect motives of Boxaritoro (limit engagement with them), I think the capitalism section is suspect too. Without further explanation it speculation that I'm not fully on board with. I understand that a mental health disorder can have components helpful for success (after all people with adhd are overrepresented in the programming field if I am correct) but it's a complex situation and it stereotypes people with psychopathy. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The capitalism section was removed by Datu Hulyo, which I'm torn about. On estimates of how many are psychopaths in the corporate world, there's a wide range of ideas, and concerning executives different proposals of from 1% to 21%+. The most sensational takes also seem worth covering with a bit of skepticism.

An estimate of roughly 21% of executives being psychopaths seems to be based on self-report scales including PPI-R. After searching for something less vague than a bunch of old media articles about it, which just mentioned a 2016 study with 261 individuals without any details, I found a more generally focused thesis which mentions a few technical details, and may otherwise be interesting.[1] It also compares PCL-R to other measures of psychopathy, and hints at possible downsides to how central PCL-R has become to the modern idea of psychopathy. I've only read small pieces of it, though. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Difference between psychopathy and sociopathy

The article should discuss the difference between psychopathy (Brain dysfunction) and sociopathy which is believed to be caused by someone's social environment (Parenting, culture, etc.). Discover Magazine has the article The Neurological Differences Between Psychopaths and Sociopaths. Datu Hulyo (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

As explained above, both terms are considered disparaged by professional psychiatrists. Vee (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

To explain it a bit more, sociopathy was in the DSM-1 then it was taken out. "Psychopathy" was agnostic to nature vs nurture claims, and contrary to some accounts, has been that way since definition. Academia isn't at all consistent in its separation from sociopathy. Distinctions btw sociopathy and psychopathy as if both are separately defined 'disorders' with clear-cut boundaries is a modern pop psychology thing promoted by a few individual professionals but hasn't found consensus in any field of academic study. If it ever does find consensus, it'd be yet another redefinition of 'psychopathy' and this time to exclude nurture. Margaret 003 (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Antisocial personality disorder is in the DSM[2] and I don't see an appreciable difference between it and the term sociopathy. Psychology isn't a very reliable social science[3] or very effective.[4][5]

There is a British best-selling and prolific true crime author by the name of Christopher Berry-Dee who interviewed a lot of serial killers. He wrote the book Talking With Serial Killers: World's Most Evil - Journey Deeper Into The Darkest of Minds. I listened to an interview of Berry-Dee about that particular book and the two big takeaways I got from the interview is that serial killers are very manipulative and very evil (Underdeveloped morality). Those seem to be core traits of the worst antisocial people. Fortunately, the number of serial killers has gone way down due to forensic science improving so their murderous behavior is caught much earlier. Datu Hulyo (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The Mayo Clinic, which is one of the most respected medical institutions, indicates: "Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental disorder in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder tend to antagonize, manipulate or treat others harshly or with callous indifference. They show no guilt or remorse for their behavior." Datu Hulyo (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, ASPD is in the current DSM, the article talks about ASPD. The DSM-1 definition of sociopathy is materially different from the DSM-5 definition of ASPD. Yes, psychology and psychiatry have a poor track record of study reproducibility and all sort of things. Berry-Dee's portrayal of serial killers as manipulative seems accurate. "underdeveloped morality" as a cause of serial killings is a very vague claim that would need to be fleshed out with a good source. You could also say trauma or natal exposure to certain chemicals, there's all sorts of proposed explanations of serial killers. As you've hinted at, there's growing evidence in neuroscience to suggest many serial killers have a deficiency (perhaps genetic) in empathy. Lack of empathy is not the sole component of PCL-R psychopathy, nor even apart of the original definitions of psychopathy. It is simply used as a scientific anchor to reintroduce psychopathy into the DSM (so far unsuccessful). If you want to claim that serial killers rank higher in PCL-R than average, I would assume almost any criminal would. If there's something interesting about that and brain scans or whatever, feel free to add that to the PCL-R section. But keep in mind, just because a brain scan shows something, that usually means correlation, not causation. Plenty of other people could have the same brain scans but not jump to murdering people or even have psychopathy. To ascribe a medical pathology (x/y-pathy) to be a cause of serial killers would require the pathology to have sufficient evidence to show exclusivity and causation of serial killings. Even better would be for the pathology to be in nosology, which sociopathy and pscyhopathy are not. It would make more sense to reference ASPD in relation to serial killers when making medical claims, given that is a medical diagnosis. I can link you further studies which describe why the terms sociopathy and psychopathy are no longer used in nosology if you wish. About the Mayo Clinic, the lede makes clear these terms have multiple definitions and are at times used interchangeably and other times not. As far as your desire to include the latest pop psychology definition of sociopathy vs psychopathy, I just included it as a note in the article, here. Margaret 003 (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I think labels are wonderful meaningful things which would really tell us things if we understood their deeper meanings. (or maybe not.)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a large portion of the medical/psychology communities that is uncomfortable with the notions of evil and free will. But evil and free will both exist. The poor efficacy of psychology is partly explained by psychologists' lack of recognition of these core characteristics of human nature/behavior. I suspect many psychologists felt uncomfortable with the term sociopathy because it has the connotation of evil and so it was dropped from the DSM.

I also read this: "So, now we fast forward to the DSM-V and psychopathy. Robert Hare went toe to toe with a sociologist Lee Robins. Robins contended that that empathy was not something that could be quantified by a doctor. That it was too subjective and that sticking to the overt traits that had been decided on for the ASPD definition was what should be all that is offered. The editing team agreed with Robins, and psychopathy was therefore lumped under the ASPD diagnosis, much to Robert Hare’s enraged chagrin." Things like empathy, love, good, evil and free will are all real things, but they are not amenable to quantification and reductionism. Datu Hulyo (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean "evil" as a noun? An actual "thing" as opposed to an adjective which describes an action?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Yea, as I mentioned earlier, there was an unsuccessful attempt to reintroduce psychopathy into DSM-V. Contrary to that paragraph however, the label wasn't "lumped in with" ASPD. "Psychopathy" is not once mentioned in the full text of the DSM-V. It's possible certain traits of PCL-R were, but not the whole kit-and-caboodle Margaret 003 (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

At present, the closest DSM-V diagnosis to psychopathy is a youth diagnosis of conduct disorder with the addition of so-called “callous unemotional” (CU) traits, which manifest as a lack of guilt and remorse, a callous lack of empathy, a lack of concern about one’s performance on important activities, and a general lack of emotional expression —Louisiana State University psychologist Paul Frick, PhD, a member of the DSM-V work group

Margaret 003 (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Added the following to the article

According to a member of the DSM-V working group, the closest diagnosis to popular notions of "psychopathy" in DSM-V, is F91.1 or F91.2, a youth conduct disorder with "callous unemotional traits" and "limited prosocial emotions" subtype. This diagnosis is not a subtype of ASPD, or F60.2. —

Margaret 003 (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I saw a self-described psychopath and doctor-described psychopath murderer who said in a video that he felt no empathy and him and his doctor both blamed his condition/situation on his brain based on a brain scan. I thought they both were making a lame excuse for his behavior.

And there is a professor of neuroscience/psychiatry by the name of Dr. James Fallon with that same "classic psychopath brain" based on a brain scan (he's looked at a lot of murderers' brains) and there is nothing wrong with his behavior in terms of killer type behavior and he appears to be very amiable.[6][7] So free will (volition) and moral character appears to be far more important. Datu Hulyo (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)