Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Well my objection to illustrating this article with Bundy has always been that his pictures always wind up either looking like "that-afternoon-soap-opera-actor-you-can't-quite-put-a-name-to", which sets the wrong tone, somehow, or very, graphically (and unsuitably, IMHO), dead...but I think you came up with one that has more sinister and evocative overtones, as well as a pulse. Suite me fine. :o) --Zeraeph 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This argument all but states that psychopaths must look "sinister" which is a dangerous message. Bundy is good for just the opposite reason. Moomot 04:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is his date of birth and stuff underneath it? It makes it look like this page is his biography or something. I tried removing it and I got messaged telling me to "stop vandalising the page". It's ridiculous- why is the picture there are at all? It adds nothing. Please someone second me on this. 80.177.170.112 22:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, 80.177.170.112. The picture seems amateurish and detracts from the fact that this article is meant to be a serious account of the psychopathic personality rather than a something a "fun facts" sheet a junior high teacher might hand out to students for Halloween. Putting one individual's face to this article may create too close a link between psychopathy the concept and Ted Bundy the person in many readers' minds; it also reinforces the popular misconception that all psychopaths are sly killers. --NeantHumain 03:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree. Articles are more interesting with pictures, they do not take away from the "seriousness" of the work. If this articles is to move into GA status then pictures will be required. Moomot 04:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That particular picture looked amateurish however, especially with the infobox around it. In addition to this the other articles on personality disorders do not have pictures, and I think it's important to maintain a sense of continuity between them. 80.177.170.112 20:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But IS the Psychopathy article strictly a "personality disorder" as the others are defined? And personally, I had the feeling the picture MIGHT have looked better of edited down to a "close up" (quite possible, considering the actual size of the pic in Wikipedia commons)--Zeraeph 20:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to fill in the missing citations on these new subsections I discover that they aren't very accurate. For instance most sources now divide psychopathy into 4 subtypes, not two, however not always the same 4.

The descriptions of primary and secondary need sourcing properly, and if needs be, re-writing in accorrd with those sources. --Zeraeph 12:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry: I've got an abundance of sources on my hard drive; digging through them to get the citations is the hard part. I was going to add the sources later (I have a good memory for facts but not with accompanying sources). When you're referring to "4 subtypes," you are referring to at least four statistical factors of the PCL-R and related devices. This is not the same thing as the breakdown of psychopaths themselves into two subtypes.

When psychopathy is measured against other instruments (MMPI-2, NEO-PI-R, WAS, etc.), two quite distinct patterns emerge, and they correlate quite well with either of the two factors of the two-factor analyis of the PCL-R.

I am surprised you haven't run into more frequent mention of primary and secondary psychopathy in your research. It's a very common and necessary distinction. --NeantHumain 17:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well pardon me, but if your sources are on your hard drive and you haven't found them yet, I really cannot see how your edits could be based on anything but a sketchy memory of them that might well be flawed and innaccurate (as my own brief dig for sources suggests it is). Add in my sketchy memories of references to primary and secondary psychopathy (along with my sketchy memories of a lot of primary and secondary conditions) and you just double the opportunity for flaws and inaccuracy. So let's have some verifiable citations to get this accurate.

Your assertion When psychopathy is measured against other instruments (MMPI-2, NEO-PI-R, WAS, etc.), two quite distinct patterns emerge, and they correlate quite well with either of the two factors of the two-factor analyis of the PCL-R. is, as it stands, without citations, nothing more than your own opinion and original research.

The two factor analysis of the PCL-R does not actually use the terms primary and secondary psychopathy anyway (as you are, in effect asserting) but refers to them as "Factor 1" and "Factor 2" in totally different terms and context to the one you have expressed. --Zeraeph 18:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did my very best but you seem to have mixed up Cleckley and Mealey's two subtypes, with a later model that divides psychopaths into four subtypes, and then again with Hare's description of a two factor model of psychopathy that that attributes two aspects to all psychopathy. The result is very misleading indeed, and uncited. I have removed it (remember this is a medical article and must be subject to stringent standards), but I hope I can pop back and use some of it if I can find good enough sources for the four subtype model.--Zeraeph 09:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added some additional citations and detail; for the stuff I do not have references ready for, I have removed them for the time being. I have roughly 90-100 PDFs relating to psychology on my hard drive (many of them not available on the public Internet but only through a university library's electronic subscription services) with a majority of these relating to psychopathy, personality disorders, or personality in general. Since I contribute to Wikipedia sporadically instead of regularly, you might find these PDFs more useful.--NeantHumain 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still muddled, even at the brief glance I could give it, in a lot of ways you are putting in valid cited information while making invalid connections, regardless, the valid cited information is worth it's weight in gold, I'll go over it when I have more time, but for now, best to avoid weasel words like "some researchers" where there is an exact, verifiable specific available instead. I would truly love to have the pdfs if you want to mail me through the interface to send them on? --Zeraeph 23:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Under 'History', Cleckleys book is noted as being published in 1976. I'm sure this is wrong. My own book says 1950, and i believe the first edition was published even earlier (1941?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaardvark (talk • contribs) 08:16-08:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You are, of course, right, and knowing that as well as my own birthday I cannot believe I let it slip so long. Thanks --Zeraeph 09:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The date of "The Mask of Sanity is clearly wrong but I do not know what it is to correct it. JoWex 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Found the correct date and corrected it. JoWex 22:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So according to Joseph Newman, psychopaths aren't these monstrous bad guys but people with a learning disorder who need a little sympathy. He thinks we can teach them to focus on cues of other people's distress and to build empathy. Is this bollocks or what? Everything I've read from the Hare "marketing department" has made out psychopaths to be incurable and completely devoid of all human feeling.

Does Newman's hypothesis of psychopaths having a sort of attention deficit (too much attention focused on their immediate goal) make more sense than Lykken's fearlessness hypothesis, Hare's cortical immaturity hypothesis, or the underarousal hypothesis?

Are people going to start calling focused, determined people closet psychopaths now?

To me, Hare represents the conservative end (not sympathetic towards criminals, wanting to punish them or lock them away) while Newman represents the liberal end (sympathetic towards criminals, wanting to rehabilitate them). --NeantHumain 23:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not really relevant is it? Because here all POV must be evenly presented. (And I think perhaps you should read a little more of Newman, I believe you may have misunderstood him to an extent.) --Zeraeph 00:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand my intent. I'm not being 100% serious. I'm more interested in stimulating some conversation about the concepts behind psychopathy which may lead to a more refined article. I've only read one article about Newman's theories, which appears on many websites. I am not in college right now, so I no longer have access to new PDFs.

Compare Hare's (or the marketing types who write the blurbs for his books) sensationalist description of psychopaths to Hervey Cleckley's tone in The Mask of Sanity. When reading The Mask of Sanity, I never got the impression that he was talking about the very people who represent some of the most hardened criminals and repulsive personalities. He brings up their character flaws in a way that makes it seem as if they can't help themselves and we just need to find an effective treatment. He briefly mentioned that aggressive tendencies or sadism when combined with psychopathy make for a highly dangerous combination, but he did not spend much time on this idea. --NeantHumain 05:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure Wikipedia is the right place for stimulating discussion of our personal opinions of the various verifiable POV on any topic, let alone Psychopathy. But, for what it is worth, I think you are being way too subjective in stating psychopathy to be a synonym for "most hardened criminal" and "repulsive personality", as well as not very accurate. --Zeraeph 08:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I just came across some mention on the Internet that it has been looked at whether psychopathy can possibly be a "taxon." Perhaps this could be interesting to mention in the article, anyway I just wanted to mention it. 62.16.172.136 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A taxon simply means it's a distinct category, but it has been shown that psychopathy can be measured on several dimensions of normal personality (thus making it extremes on a few of those dimensions). This is part of the old taxon vs. dimension debate that's gone on about personality disorders for some time now. --NeantHumain 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Do you think this could be a good topic to include in the article? By the way, I think "dimensions" like you say, was something I read about in one of the articles I briefly looked at, and my impression is it said that psychopaths have unusual "sub-traits" in the extremes of these dimensions. That is, behavior that were unexpected as opposed to simply being unusually extreme. So I guess my impression is it said that psychopaths are a taxon because they behave in a distinct, unusual way, within the dimensions. But I do not really have knowledge about this topic, I just thought it seemed very interesting ("psychopathy as taxon" I mean.) 62.16.175.96 15:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The article states this. I have a friend who's a sociopath, and he's known to be highly intelligent, and just talking to him, I can easily subjectively view that he's an intellectual (much like myself, as we enjoy many intellectual discussions together). Yet this article claims that, among other environmental causes, low intelligence is a cause of sociopathy. Would anybody care to elaborate? 4.234.51.126 15:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Where on earth in the article does it say that? Because offhand, I think that is another error, and, as such, it has to be checked out with a view to removal. --Zeraeph 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

David T. Lykken listed low intelligence as one possible socio-economic factor in the genesis of sociopathy (persons of lower intelligence are more likely to turn to crime). Although psychopaths (and sociopaths) show a whole normal distribution of intelligence, the average IQ (something like 94 or 98) of psychopaths is somewhat below the average for the general population. Psychopaths also tend to score a higher performance IQ than verbal IQ (I think Hans Eysenck found this one). --NeantHumain 04:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And where, precisely, did Lykken say this? Bearing in mind that "turning to crime" and "sociopathy" are academincally recognised two separate and independent concepts. What is your source for the average IQ of Psychopaths? Because there is generally not found to be any significant co-relation between psychopathy and IQ, though Cleckley regarded a "good intelligence" as a criteria for diagnosis. --Zeraeph 06:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You really need to adjust your tone. For the Lykken, check the current Lykken cite for his thoughts on sociopathy and psychopathy (although by his criteria, I would think intelligence would go with psychopathy rather than sociopathy unless he means the socio-economic effects of low intelligence). I don't know if this was the source I read for the IQ fact, but Psychopathy in Youth and Intelligence: An Investigation of Cleckley's Hypothesis is one piece of research about psychopaths and IQ. Another one is Psychopathy and Intelligence: A Second Look. --NeantHumain 05:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does it redirect to apd from sociopath, and yet sociopathy redirects to psychopathy? My friend is a sociopath, and I'm having trouble deciding whether this article would classify him as apd or as a psychopath.

I just know psychologists refuse to see him because he, like other sociopaths, manipulate psychologists. He says if he seems to care about somebody, it's either fake or he's just worried about the repercussions that will affect him. So on and so forth. 4.234.51.126 15:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You just spotted a redundant error there from a time when a lot of online misinformation crept in here and there was no seperate psychopathy article. I just plain fixed it now.

"Sociopath" was, in fact, a term devised to replace "Psychopath" because "psychopath" and "psychopathy" originally meant "general mental illness" and in some contexts and countries still does, to avoid, potentially disasterous confusion. These days some academic sources have slightly different meanings for the two terms, but they pretty much mean the same. Antisocial Personality Disorder was a failed attempt to replace psychopathy in the DSM IV that wound up generalising so much, begging so many questions and avoiding so many issues a lot of people would argue that it doesn't mean much at all, let alone psychopathy or sociopathy. --Zeraeph 19:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Antisocial personality disorder isn't useless or a "failed attempt." Clinical psychologists and psychiatrists may diagnose it if a court refers a patient to them. It (depending on severity) has a different prognosis from psychopathy. It has a different clinical presentation from psychopathy (an antisocial patient may seem tense and restless rather than calm and confident). It is, however, very broad and can cover bums and drifters, career criminals, patients with capacity to change, and dangerous patients with low probability of change (the most psychopathic subset of antisocial patients).--NeantHumain 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, but hardly very accurate...and thus not very helpful to the questioner. --Zeraeph 06:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy is based on more than your subjective conceptualization of an idea. Take a look at Meloy, J. Reid. Section 11.82: Antisocial Personality Disorder. Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders (3d ed.). 2001. American Psychiatric Press, Inc.

This source discusses the administration of the PCL–R to assess the severity of antisocial personality disorder (and thus to determine appropriate treatment or containment) among other things. I suggest in the future, before you condemn something as wrong or impossible, consider that you have not read the entirety of the literature on the subjects you are discussing. This makes discussing and co-editing more bearable for all involved. --NeantHumain 06:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My friend is age 15 like me, and he is diagnosed as a sociopath. Does this merely reflect an unofficial, yet possibly accurate, diagnosis? I don't know if this should be elaborated on in the article, or if this is just one specific question that only I would have so possibly just an answer here would do justice. 4.234.51.126 15:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is very serious and although you certainly can be sociopathic you cannot ethically be diagnosed before age 18 anyway (some cynical people say that's because ALL teenagers are roaring sociopaths anyway...but they grow out of it.

I don't really know what to say, but I think I do know someone who did. This is not somebody I would usually regard as a reliable source (a lot of his writing is wildly inaccurate, to put it politely), but, in this case, I really think he says everything I want to say to you friend, but better, and with more feeling, so would you print this out and give it to your friend? Because I think it is the best advice I can offer right now. Psychiatry as a Means of Social Control - Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) --Zeraeph 19:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he was just diagnosed with conduct disorder, which can be seen as a childhood precursor to antisocial personality disorder.--NeantHumain 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Malignant narcissism is considered part of the spectrum of pathological narcissism, which ranges from the Cleckley's antisocial character (today's psychopath) at the high end of severity, to malignant narcissism, to NPD at the low end." I found this in the malignant narcissism article. How does it fit into this article? --Gbleem 05:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple, it doesn't, in fact it shouldn't have been anywhere. Not just because it is uncited, it's also too inaccurate, not least because Cleckley's Psychopath became "today's psychopath)". He not only used the term Psychopath himself, he also pretty much began the definition we use today, and the term "Malignant Narcissism" was primarily used by Kernberg who made a clear distinction between Psychopathy and Malignant Narcissism.

I am also fairly sure that "NPD" isn't the "low end" of any spectrum, let alone Malignant Narcissism which isn't a Spectrum at all. Malignant Narcissism is usually regarded as being seperate and at a tangent to Narcissistic Personality Disorder rather than being a more severe form of it. Regardless, it wouldn't really belong here anyway. --Zeraeph 12:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Malignant narcissism is a sort of intersection point between antisocial personality traits and narcissistic personality traits. I've mostly read about it in reference to serial killers (a sense of entitlement combined with a desire to assert power). Millon has a website with theoretical descriptions of several DSM-IV-TR (as well as research/appendix) personality disorders and the subtypes from their overlap if you're interested. The exact names used for the subtypes varies by author.--NeantHumain 06:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible to add some text clarifying the contrast between the legal, judicial, medical definitions and popular misconceptions or usage in the popular press or fictional license taken? Lexein 11:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• examples from other nations? China? Russia? European Union? Africa?
• example of a legal definition at odds with medical definition?
• example of a judicial decision going against a legal definition (bad law and/or active judiciary)?
• example of a law including medical definition, requiring medical evaluation? Lexein 11:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that, as with a lot of terminology, you have some serious language differences there. As far as I know the only other language that uses the word "psychopath" is German, and they use it to mean simply "mentally ill", ie the old useage. --Zeraeph 16:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the word is used in a lot of languages since scientific and technical language tends to get exported. In French the word is psychopathe, and in Italian it is psicopatico. The PCL–R has been translated into many languages as have other literature on psychopathy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NeantHumain (talk • contribs) 06:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

It appears as though the victims of psychopaths have created this article as a means of catharsis. A while back I indicated that psychopaths CAN experience a form of love, since the meaning of love is relative. But apparently victims don't think so. It has been erased. They assume that psychopaths have the same effect on every person they encounter. So they think "psychopaths cannnot experience any type of meaningful love" because someone's feelings were hurt by a psychopath. Lets be realistic here: many psychopaths and serial killers have families who they just "happened" to not screw over like they did their victims. Perhaps this is because they cared enough NOT to harm certain people. Who gets to define the end all definition of love? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.172.65 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I certainly didn't pull it. If you have a citation (Joseph Newman, maybe?), pop it back in. It's a tricky one because, as a concept "love" is SO subjective and variable. This does NOT meet WP:RS even by the broadest stretch of the imagination, so don't cite it, but you might find it interesting? [1] --Zeraeph 20:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing is a psychopath more often feigns love for material gain since they place little value on emotional attachment and intimacy. If their love isn't consciously exploitative, what they label as love is something more egocentric than more mature forms of love; it's closer to the dependency of a child upon a mother. They might like how they have someone to take care of the mundane chores for them or who can keep them entertained; they might like the sex. At the same time, they can treat these people very poorly because they're unable to take the other's perspective and contemplate the other's needs as a means in itself; it's simply that the thought never occurs to them, and if someone suggests it to them, the idea seems alien. Their emotional bonds are also such that they could kill (not to be sensationalist) the person they once "loved" the very next day and just move on as if nothing happened. If you want to find out more about love and psychopathy, search for object relations or psychodynamics and psychopathy.

Cleckley actually does discuss this in The Mask of Sanity, and I think his descriptions were a bit more forgiving than most current ones (which equate the psychopath's egocentric brand of love with exploitativeness and callousness).

Don't forget that many psychopaths feel cheated about love and get some kind of kick out of ruining love for others. They're actively hostile to love.

Also, I assure you this article is not written by hyperemotional victims. I've seen such places on the Internet, and they're a wasteland of group-reinforced hysteria. --NeantHumain 03:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with that, and also draw attention to the fact that comment demonstrates how impossible it is to even talk ABOUT love without subjeectivity creeping in. Which make love, per se, a tricky subject for any article --Zeraeph 04:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Empathy is emotional and specifically refers to one's emotional reaction to another person's emotional state, or at least what one imagines another's emotional state may be. Conscience refers to the mental capacity to reflect upon moral dilemmas and make a decision as to the rightness or wrongness of a particular course of action or to pass moral judgment upon another. Therefore conscience relies on abstract principles as much as it does on emotions. A person whose conception of right and wrong was premised exclusively on a visceral feeling of sympathy would have great difficulty functioning in the world; such a person would be easily manipulated and tramped upon. An example is the occasional need for "tough love" when parenting; sometimes a good parent just has to say no. The other extreme is an elegant and consistent moral framework that is nevertheless harsh and uncompromising—and too rigid to take the frailties and changibility of human nature into account.

This dichonomy is quite visible within the realm of moral philosophy. Kant's deontology relies on categorical imperatives (his universal moral principles). Some feminist philosophers emphasize what they call an ethics of caring based more on love, empathy, and the nurturing instinct than an orderly, rational set of imperatives.

My opinion is that these two sides of conscience, or moral responsibility, correlate directly with two factors in the five-factor model of personality: morality as principle with conscientiousness and morality as empathy with agreeableness. However, psychopaths are notoriously deficient in both traits.

I'll fix this confoundment in the introduction later, but, editors, keep in mind that conscience ≠ empathy or guilt-proneness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NeantHumain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

As a matter of fact it is lack of certain types of empathy, rather than lack of conscience (as a matter of fact, the absence of conscience, rather than empathy, in a psychopath is very often considered to be the main difference between a psychopath and an Aspie) that has been questioned, so please do not edit the intro away from fact again, also, it might be nice if you finally graced us with the promised citations on primary psychopathy that have been missing for months now? I do not honestly think the article should have to "take your word for it" indefinately. --Zeraeph 15:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the definition of empathy one uses. People with Asperger's syndrome more specifically lack (or have a less well-developed) theory of mind than a lack of empathy per se. If you define empathy as an emotional response to another's emotion, psychopaths lack empathy whereas aspies have it.

The citation is already there. It comes from the same article as the the citation I put in at the bottom of the section. The citation applied to all paragraphs between the headline and the next headline. Now I understand we come from different backgrounds as editors here. Wikipedia is something I occasionally do for fun; I have a job, a life, and other interests. Making corrections joe-random editors deems necessary isn't Priority No. 1 for me. Now I know you have psychological issues you're working on, and I laud you for recognizing your deficiencies. I know your personality grates on people and has left you feeling unfulfilled, but that's cool; you are who you are. What you have to realize, though, is that you're annoying, and people aren't want to accomodate nuisances but rather to get them out of their way. --NeantHumain 01:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to provide some citations to substantiate your most peculiar, uninformed, and (if I didn't have a sense of humor anyway), perhaps uncivil assertions about me? ;o) --Zeraeph 01:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

PS The Newman reference at the bottom of the section does not seem even slightly related to the uncited sections, nor does the Sellbom section before it. While I applaud you for having "a job", "a life" and "other interests" I really do not see that as sufficient reason for taking your word for block of uncited text. --Zeraeph 02:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"The manipulative skills of some of the others are valued for providing audacious leadership [9]. Some have argued that psychopathy is adaptive in a highly competitive environment, because it gets results for both the individual and the corporations [10] they represent [11]." (found in the intro)

The citations are of Babiak and Mealey respectively, but I would say this is putting a significantly more positive spin on psychopathy than the referenced sources intend. I would have expected this on the O'Reilley Factor or some other political talkshow, but on Wikipedia? In an article about psychopaths? Never (certainly this isn't something an errant psychopath would ever conceive of doing!). I'll fix this later, but let's all keep in mind that we're writing a serious article here and should maintain a neutral point of view. We should avoid making either positive or negative judgments about the subject in the article except to indicate varying perceptions for encyclopedic completeness, and these perceptions should have accurate cites (rather than a gross reinterpretation of the material to force a certain POV). --NeantHumain 04:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that a neutral point of view involves presenting all points of view, not just the ones that suit you. I think you will also find that any attempt to remove two sentences with three valid citations in them could be construed as vandalism. ... --Zeraeph 05:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Having read much of Babiak's work, I think NeantHumain has a point. I have added a sentence, referenced to Babiak's most recent research, which I believe offers a balance. Research into 'corporate psychopaths' has indicated that though they are often perceived as being effective and having leadership potential, and will often do very well in a corporate environment, they do also cause a lot of damage. In particular they tend destroy company cohesion, manipulating people against each other, can damage people's careers through lying and spreading rumours, and will often commit fraudulant acts or embezzlement (see either the refernce I added, or for a lighter view see the great Snakes in Suits by Hare and Babiak). Gemnoire 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The conduct disorder article calls conduct disorder, "a pattern of repetitive behavior where the rights of others or the social norms are violated." ADhD stands for Attention Deficit (hyperactive) Disorder, and is not related to conduct disorder. SteveSims 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just stunned it was there at all. --Zeraeph 00:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The DSM-IV-TR currently classifies attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder as a "disruptive behavior disorder" along with conduct disorder, oppositional-defiant disorder, and disruptive behavior disorder not otherwise specified. Also, research has found so-called hyperactive-impulsive-attention problem traits (i.e., ADHD, combined type) and conduct problems are strongly correlated with psychopathy in adulthood link. Some of the items in the PCL–R outright overlap with symptoms of ADHD (e.g., impulsivity, proneness to boredom/need for external stimulation). A diagnosis of ADHD+CD is pretty typical for children who grow up to be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy as adults. --NeantHumain 20:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even the synopsis you posted a link to actually says that those children who suffered combined hyperactivity, impulsivity, and attention problems (HIA) and concurrent conduct problems (CP) were more likely to develop into psychopaths than those with either HIA or CP alone....which means something QUITE different to "so-called hyperactive-impulsive-attention problem traits (i.e., ADHD, combined type) and conduct problems are strongly correlated with psychopathy in adulthood". Furthermore, the synopsis, even in the way it is expressed. clearly states that the two are seperate and distinct conditions. You will see here that the actual DSM criteria for Conduct Disorder clearly make no mention whatsoever of ADHD [2] --Zeraeph 05:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly the case that CD and ADHD are distinct disorders, but there is considerable comorbidity. Also, you misinterpret my sentence; when I wrote "HIA and CP are strongly correlated," I meant the two together. Personally, I've met more children/adolescents with ADHD/CD than with CD alone. ADHD without a comorbid conduct or oppositional-defiant disorder is, of course, more common. --NeantHumain 00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

ADHD and CD are strongly correlated with psychopathy in adulthood but only Factor 2, or more to the point with the PCL-R items that overlap with Antisocial Personality Disorder, there is little to no correlation with Factor 1 (McBurnett and Pfiffner, 1998). It's the presence of callous-unemotional traits, effectively the Factor 1 items, in childhood which has been found to be a significant precursor to psychopathy. However, there have, as of yet, been no studies following children from childhood into adolescence and then adulthood looking at the stability of these, so all we've got is retrospective research and correlational data (better references will be added shortly once I have time to track them down) Gemnoire 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This may be relevant (I think it was the article I was thinking of earlier but couldn't find when I wrote my previous comment): "Callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems in the prediction of conduct problem severity, aggression, and self-report of delinquency". --NeantHumain 02:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking a break from writing up the parts of my thesis actually dealing with the structure of psychopathy, I think this section does need a distinct revision. The primary/secondary typology is debatable given the current literature, and realistically may be better conceptualised as the Psychopathy vs Anti-social personality disorder distinction, since those only high on Factor 2 (which is generally seen as the definition of secondary psychopathy) do share large amounts of items with the Anti-social personality disorder definition from the DSM-IV. Though certainly there is a very strong distinction between Factor 1 and Factor 2 elements, which should be emphasised, to call this primary v secondary is debatable, especially since they are so highly correlated. Also, by focusing on the factor structure, consideration could be given to the current debate going on between the 3-factor model (Cooke & Michie, 2001) and the 4-factor model (Hare, 2003), since the basic 2 factor model has predominently been rejected on the basis it was statistically unsound. Gemnoire 13:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I am having great trouble understanding why you are explaining this here and not in the article? If the sources exist it seems a very good idea to explain this first then revise later? :o) --Zeraeph 14:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons, firstly, because earlier on in the discussion there seemed distinct resistance to changing this section, so I felt allowing a level of debate before I changed it was more likely to ensure it didn't get changed straight back. Secondly, because it takes time to construct a decent referenced entry, and I don't have time for it right now, so I thought I'd stimulate debate whilst I write up and effective entry, which I am actually working on as we speak. Gemnoire 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is that...personally I was never happy with that section because it always seemed to have been begun and then dropped in mid stream. Of course, I am always happy to stand over anything with proper citations. --Zeraeph 16:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy are not merely synonyms for Factor 1 and Factor 2 respectively of the PCL–R; they imply difference in etiology. For example, take a look at this excerpt from "Psychopathy Subtypes" (pp. 176-177) in the Psychopathy Handbook (ed. Patrick, Christopher J.). A good portion of the article reiterates over the research on primary vs. secondary psychopathy I have included in the Wikipedia article here: BAS vs. BIS, high anxiety vs. low anxiety, and their correlations with the factors of the PCL–R. David T. Lykken's book The Antisocial Personalities spends considerable time classifying various subtypes of both psychopathy and sociopathy (he lists two possible causes of secondary psychopathy as hypersexuality and a dystempered, or choleric, personality; for primary psychopathy, Lykken favors his fearlessness hypothesis but mentions others). The psychopathy–antisocial personality disorder distinction is spurious because the two diagnoses come from two different systems (one the DSM, the other a self-standing psychological tool and separate body of research). --NeantHumain 00:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Psychopathy/APD distinction is far from spurious when you consider that Factor 2 criteria from the PCL-R and APD diagnosis share a significant number of diagnostic criteria. I have read the particular chapter you point to, in fact I have read most of the Patrick book. Based on my personal reviews of the research, I do consider that the primary-secondary distinction, though often cited theoretically has little actual evidence supporting it. However, that's my personal conclusion, it is an oft-cited theory and thus should probably be mentioned. What worries me more is that this article appears to focus considerably on Lykken's theories and neglect the discussion of the factor 1-factor 2 distinction which is a focus of significantly more research. The only mentions are in relation to the primary-secondary distinctions, which as you have said, may not be synonyms, though many theorists do consider them as such (including Hare). Furthermore a lot of recent research has focused on the possibilities of three and four factor models. Damn, I'm actually going to have to sit down and write up a decent revision aren't I? Gemnoire (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a bit in about the factor structure, all well referenced. I did cut down a little on the primary/secondary section, mostly because a lot of the evidence that was presented for each type was based on the assumption that primary=factor 1 and secondary=factor 2, which isn't really valid. Gemnoire (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason, from an evolutionary perspective, why some humans are predisposed to psychopathy? Pendragon39 23:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hellz f*cking yeah! (I felt like throwing all credibility away.) Check out Linda Mealey's The Sociobiology of Sociopathy: An Integrated Evolutionary Model. Note where she says primary sociopath, this matches primary psychopath in the Wikipedia article, and her "secondary sociopath" better matches Hare's or Lykken's conception of sociopathy or the DSM-IV-TR's antisocial personality disorder. --NeantHumain 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) The article explains why psychopathy can be an advantageous strategy for individuals so predisposed or for individuals lacking in comparable skills. I'm interested in learning about the reproductive success rate of psychopaths (primary and secondary) when compared to the general population. In other words, are psychopaths more likely to pass on their genes by following this strategy? Are they able to raise children as effectively as non-psychopaths? In evolution, an adaptation is usually defined as a solution to a problem that will increase the fitness of an individual and increase its reproductive success. Pendragon39 01:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Psychopaths are, in general, risk taking, impulsive, and sexually promiscuous. Male psychopaths are likely to impregnate several women but not stay to raise their progeny. Both male and female psychopaths are highly likely to make negligent parents. In other words, for psychopaths, reproductive success is a matter of quantity over quality. Since a single-parent household is more likely to be poor and unstable, these sociological factors plus the genetic predisposition mean a psychopath's offspring are doubly in danger of becoming psychopathic themselves. I have no data about their relative reproductive success, but it seems to me our culture actually values moderately psychopathic qualities (or at least mass culture and commercial interests seem incensed with instilling the values of immediate gratification, vapid celebrity worship, self-aggrandizement, a farewell to thought, and impulsivity as a "fun-loving" personality; much of academia does no better, proffering postmodern analyses that say nothing in so many words, literature's fascination with antiheroes who are thought to have more depth than other types, and purported art that shows nothing more than the artist's contempt for the audience, where the "art" is really in their ability to dupe collectors and museums into exhibiting used toilet paper). --NeantHumain 01:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a tendency to glamorize anything that is outside the average, or the mundane. I hope info relating to evolutionary theory can be added to the article someday Pendragon39 22:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I invite you to use this source (and others you may find) to contribute. We've only had two persistent contributors to this article over time (Zeraeph and me), and frankly we could use more points of view in the editing process. I am a casual editor: I edit haphazardly when I have a source (I've always had a bit of "ADHD" when it comes to research papers). This article could definitely improve, but it'll take contributors, and it'll take collaboration. --NeantHumain 16:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I will be happy to report on what I find and hopefully it will not be original research. Please bear in mind that these hypotheses are controversial - for example, Evolutionary psychology controversy has its own page. Pendragon39 05:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost positive that Cleckley did not put forward the primary/ secondary distinction, but I can't be bothered to wade through the whole of The Mask of Sanity to check. If he did, perhaps you could insert a chapter reference or something? XAlleyCatX 08:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see it in my edition, and actually the primary/secondary distinction predates his work if I am not mistaken. However, the edition of The Mask of Sanity cited may be different from mine (the one available for download over the Internet, which I believe is the Fifth Edition), so I had been reluctant to remove the reference, but now that this is seconded, I'll go ahead and remove it. --NeantHumain 22:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleckley didn't make the distinction at all. The first real distinction of primary and secondary psychopathy as would recognisable to modern theorists was by Karpman, in 1941. So, it was published concurrently with Cleckley's Mask of Sanity. 144.32.162.127 (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We really need to add a philosophical (specifically moral philosophy) ramifications section to this article. I'm "bookmarking" one reference here for now, but the existence of the psychopath poses various problems for moral philosophy (justice and responsibility, will, etc.). [3] [4] --NeantHumain 03:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like just an excuse to go on and on about an outdated term that has no specific diagnositic meaning currently in psychiatry or psychology. At this point, it is a lay term. People can go on and on about its past history, which is what is happening in this article. That leaves a wide landscape as the term has been used and abused for a long time by the general public and even some professionals. --Mattisse 21:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trolling. This is a widely researched, notable subject, and there is large enough a body of current research distinct from antisocial personality disorder and dissocial personality disorder (actually the research on psychopathy probably outnumbers the research on the DSM-IV and ICD-10 correlates). Given your user page says you are a profesional psychologist, I assume you know this.

There's no need to debate psychopathy vs. sociopathy vs. antisocial/dissocial personality disorder to death again. --NeantHumain 00:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well in short they have little remorse so can I ask do they care about themselves if they get in trouble or anything? zac 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

i dont think so they do, they probaly get other people in trouble when they get in shit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.170.7 (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• 50pc of managers could be psychopaths: research ABC News, 12 January 2007
• Do you have a toxic boss? Daily Mail 11 January 2007

British Psychological Society by Psychology Professor Adrian Furnham: “Beware of the following individual, the good looking, educated, articulate and very bold and self confident leader,” Psychology Professor Adrian Furnham said. “If somebody says to you ‘I can take this company to the next level’ beware, it might be a manifestation of narcissism rather than ability.” The professor states that such manipulative psychopathic behavior is actually rewarded in the business world.

Travb (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The key is tendencies. I've also read that obsessive-compulsive, narcissistic, and histrionic personality traits are not uncommon. I don't think it's unusual to find at least a slightly elevated presence of psychopathic personality traits in persons seeking positions of power. The most common psychopathic or psychopathic-like personality traits to be found in effective managers are probably a level of emotional detachment/objectivity, an ability to strategize and orchestrate people (by sharing information as needed but not relying on deception or holding information "hostage"/keeping others in the dark as a means to power), a sense of self-confidence (but not arrogance and boastfulness), extraversion (ability to be around and deal with others), ability to handle change and multiple commitments without becoming frazzled, and seeking positions of higher authority. As you can tell, it's mostly the antisocial-lifestyle elements of psychopathy that are incompatible with effective management (I cannot see a manager constantly acting on a lark or getting into various kinds of trouble as being effective). It would only be more pathological, exploitative, and self-serving degrees of the deficient emotional experience and interpersonal style of psychopathy that would lead to severe difficulties (as I can only imagine a constantly scheming and deceptive manager who consistently disregards others as breeding quite a lot of resentment very fast). --NeantHumain 23:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed someone has some kind of obsession with the first criterion of Hervey Cleckley's psychopathy criteria from The Mask of Sanity. It should read, "Superficial charm and good 'intelligence'" and nothing besides. All edits changing this to read something like, "Superficial charm and average 'intelligence'" or "Superficial charm and bad intelligence'" or somesuch variation should be construed as an act of vandalism. Cleckley makes it abundantly clear what he means by "good 'intelligence'" and why he uses irony quotes around the word intelligence. If anyone has a different point of view (I know I have seen research testing Cleckley's hypothesis and showing that psychopaths on average have slightly lower-than-average intelligence), it doesn't matter because we are quoting a historical reference material and not necessarily making a statement of current scholarly consensus. --NeantHumain 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleckley was arguing that psychopaths give the impression of good intelligence. The relation of psychopathy to IQ is somewhat debatable. Generally for the research I've reviewed it appears the PCL-R factor 1 traits are either independent of intelligence or, more often, display a small positive correlation with IQ. Factor 2 traits however are negatively correlated, hence why you will get a slight negative correlation when you use total scores. 144.32.162.127 (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 [5] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

However, empirical research has provided little support that personality disorders and other syndromes can be clearly separated by studies as described above. Research studies tend to use both factor analysis and cluster analysis to try to define clearly separated disorders. The clinical utility of the findings from these studies has been seriously questioned. The findings are often a result of the statistical characteristics that define different clusters, factors, or categories rather than based on the raw data itself. According to Theodore Millon, the use of categories (clusters or factors) are evidence of a primitive science:

The view that mental disorders are composed of distinct entities may reflect our level of scientific development more than a characteristic intrinsic to psychopathological phenomena.^[1]

________

• Children showing strong psychopathic precursors often appear immune to punishment; nothing seems to modify their undesirable behavior. Consequently parents usually give up, and the behavior worsens, according to a popular psychology article written for Court TV.^[1]
• Psychopathy is not normally diagnosed in children or adolescents, and some jurisddictions, including the United States, explicitly forbid diagnosing antisocial personality disorders under the age of sixteen. Psychopathic tendencies can sometimes be recognized in childhood or early adolescence and, if recognised, are diagnosed as conduct disorder^{[citation needed]}. (remove the following at next opportunity -- It must be stressed that not all children diagnosed with conduct disorder grow up to be psychopaths, or even disordered at all, but these childhood signs are found in significantly higher proportions in psychopaths than in the general population. Conduct disorder, as well as its subcategory Oppositional Defiance Disorder, can sometimes develop into adult psychopathy. However, conduct disorder "fails to capture the emotional, cognitive and interpersonality traits - egocentricity, lack of remorse, empathy or guilt - that are so important in the diagnosis of psychopathy." (actually, this is crap and needs to be removed from article - embarassing :) )^[2]

[Interjected] 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 --Zeraeph (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

In current clinical use, psychopathy is most commonly diagnosed using the checklist devised by Emeritus Professor Robert Hare for research purposes. He describes psychopaths as "intraspecies predators^[3][4] who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence^[5][6][7] to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse".^[8] "What is missing, in other words, are the very qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony."^[9]

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 insure that any proposed changes adhere to the guidelines therein --Zeraeph (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You have retired! Mattisse 22:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS has not. --Zeraeph (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding infoboxes -- I am quite sure that false and misleading information is not supposed to reside therein, regardless. Mattisse 22:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It is considered the closest equivalent, ICD 10 file Psychopathy as a dissocial disorder, as a psychologist you should know that.--Zeraeph (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Having FA experience means that I know what a "guideline" is. Mattisse 22:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Then you will have no trouble adhering to it when you have read it.--Zeraeph (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, please learn what "layman" means in terminology per WP:MEDMOS. It is fraudulent, when the terminology has been formally changed, to use a piped link to disguise the link to the new updated terminology (representing it as the same thing), as well as to use an ICD - 9 link to the new term which does NOT mean psychopathy. Why do you think the name was changed? Mattisse 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion of why the name has changed would be WP:OR and is not relevant. If you can get User:SandyGeorgia (who has considerable experience in the area of infoboxes) to delete the infobox I will cease to contest it's deletion. (WPMEDMOS does not mention the term "layman") --Zeraeph (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! That was a "duh" type question, as the reason for the name change is quite well documented, as I am sure you know. Mattisse 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it? Can you give me actual citations for that please? --Zeraeph (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) - copied from WP:MEDMOS

The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name rather than the lay term^[1] or a historical eponym that has been superseded.^[2] These alternative names may be specified in the lead. Create redirects to the article to help those searching with alternative names. For example, heart attack redirects to myocardial infarction.

I would say the international prevalence of the PCL-R (2003) and the various current, and concurrent legal and clinical usages of the term "Psychopathy" cover that more that adequately and insure it against any claim of being a "lay term". But you can always try for an AFD? --Zeraeph (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no it does not. Seriously, I would recommend that you change the title to something like "History of the term psychopathy" or some better wording. Clearly WP:MEDMOS states it should be a #REDIRECT to Antisocial personality disorder. But the history of the term is interesting, as is the reason why they were compelled to change it -- namely to get rid of all the excess baggage the term carries, as your article points out. As far as proof, I was entering that into the article, e.g. the Theodore Millon reference, which you removed. Read the book referenced, Millon, Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV and Beyond for a very through exploration of the whole issue. And actually, Millon is (or was) on the side of keeping the term because he liked the connotations that went with it. But he is right (in the part you removed from the Psychopathy article), when you have cluster/factor analyzes on an N of 16 on retrospective, self-report data, then you are off the ethical map as far as use of scientific data goes. Maybe the term is used in the U.K. I have no idea. If the term is used there, and you make the article clear that it only pertains to there, then fine. But make that very, very clear. And both Hare and Cleckley are Americans. Hare was purely a research psychologist and not a clinician. And all the research based on personality factors such as the 16 PF etc. are zero as far as the United States clinical and legal terminology goes, regardless of what the state of Washington does. Mattisse 23:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, there are far too many citations in the article that establish Psychopathy as a current Medical term, so that is how it must stay. You have yet to produce one citation to suggest otherwise. --Zeraeph (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

They are not the same thing. A researcher can call syndromes (or whatever) anything he wants, or invent terms if need be. This is not true of clinical diagnoses which must abide by diagnostic manual rules. And, as you are aware, legal terminology is a separate issue entirely. Mattisse 22:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have further, fully cited (in accord with WP:MEDMOS) distinctions to be made between clinical diagnoses, research terminology and legal terminology they must, of course be included. Please list them with citations.--Zeraeph (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

- copied from WP:MEDMOS

The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name rather than the lay term^[1] or a historical eponym that has been superseded.^[3] These alternative names may be specified in the lead. Create redirects to the article to help those searching with alternative names. For example, heart attack redirects to myocardial infarction.

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 [6]. --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)

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)

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)

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)

You asked User talk:LessHeard vanU[7] for advice. Now follow it. Mattisse 00:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

Please read what User talk:LessHeard vanU wrote to you: [8] Mattisse 00:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[9] Mattisse 01:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 [10] 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)

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)

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)