Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

(for discussion)

But everything in that list is selfish - excepting violence. And violence, while primal and certainly not as simple as "selfish" - can certainly be due to selfishness as well, especially in context.

No references in this article suggest anything scientific - such as how the mind works. The whole article is flatulating groundless characterizations pointing everything to be known as "possibly negative" to a "particular disorder": which points out an obviously flawed thesis.

It should be obvious, other than selfishness, the meantioned disorders do NOT fit all under one umbrella. Infact - it serves more to defame persons who have legitimate problems as "have all such problems if they have one".

A person can certainly choose what to think and do: we see that even in the most selfish - their selfishness is chosen (as opposed to primal, such as a need of food). Selfish people choose the easy way and choose what is for themselves (so much so it can end up to their own disadvantage when caught).

Recent UK studies indicated that some prone to suicide (psychotic) prove to be less violent than any other group: including the group of people with NO known disorders. Tying "suicidal tendancy" to violence is simply slipshod blogging: that isn't science and it's provenly, in part, opposite of reality.

Selfishness in the US? That is why ethics and law ought to be better taught to children. Sponge bob as a teacher? That is why some countries don't allow bad influencing cartoons within their borders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.219.179 (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

To characterize psychopathy (ASPD) as an unsavory deviant group is insensitive and ignorant considering all of the contemporary findings and research on the matter.

Aempirei (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lack of empathy also is a trademark of Narcissistic personality disorder, I think. Mattisse 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What I am saying, though, is that lack of empathy is pretty much the norm for non-personality disordered individuals outside the context of family and friends. This is why rude or careless behavior is so commonplace. Narcissists extend this lack of empathy to even those who should be close to them, and psychopaths extend the generalized rudeness and carelessness that pervade our society to the point of active aggression and exploitation.--NeantHumain (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on that. Wikipedia is somewhat like that, but not real life. I don't find generalized rudeness and carelessness pervading day-to-day living. Mattisse 00:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been suggested that "Psychopathy" and "Hare Psychopathy Checklist" be merged. This would would not be a positive edit to these pages. At the core, the two pages cover different subjects. One covers a psychiatric disorder, while the other covers assessment and testing. The current setup (a link to Hare in the psychopathy article) is adequate. It addressed the topic and provides a link to further information if desired.

If it is insisted upon merger, then the "Hare Psychopathy Checklist" should be merged into the "Psychopathy" article. There are other measures on testing personality (e.g., NEO PI-R, MMPI-2, PAI, CPI, etc.) that can assess psychopathy to a certain degree, although none as well as the HCL. If "Psychopathy" is merged into "Hare...," then there is an inherent inversion of scope of coverage. "Psychopathy" covers a broader scope of coverage than "Hare...," and as such, it does not make sense to merge the greater coverage into the narrower coverage. It should be the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smit8678 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been suggested that Psychopathy be merged into the Hare checklist. The Hare checklist is a tool used to diagnose psychopathy, it should be the Hare checklist article which is to be merged with Psychopathy and not the other way round.

I notice that there is already a request for merging with Psychopathy on the Hare checklist page. Two pages cannot be 'merged into each other', only A merges into B, or B merges into A, but not both. As such, I believe that the current merger tag on this article is redundant and can be removed. Correct me if you disagree with this. Overmage (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence in the article on that said that psychopaths overrepresent as business leaders. I deleted this due to the lack of real scientific evidence regarding the matter(good luck getting a group of these people together with a control group to do a personality profile). What we have instead is pure speculation, based off of the general observations of business leaders by their employees. This is not real evidence. I will give my explanation to why it is doubtful that many psychopaths will become succesful in the upper echelons of business. It is true that many succesful business owners and corporate leaders share certain traits with psychopaths, including high risk taking personality (probably due to a degree of impulsiveness) and a short temper (see source below). However, these traits are also found in people with ADHD and bipolar disorder, which many people suspect are the more likely canidates for overrepresentation in business leaders.

The reason why I find the relationship between psychopaths and business doubtful, is because two of the common traits associated with psychopaths, 1) poor, lazy workers 2) lack of forward thinking or long-term goals, make it impossible to be succesful business owner or high ranking corporate manager. As a business major myself, I know that most succesful business owners and corporate managers are notorious workaholics (even though we don't like to think so), and have a well developed sense forward thinking and planning for the future (something that most psychopaths lack). My personal experience with psychopaths (I was unfortunate to have known some) is that all the ones I've met have had finacial problems. They can't even manage their own finances, can we really expect these people to manage the finances of a business or multi-billion dollar corporation? In addition, while they might think of themselves as visionaries and hard workers, most are quite lazy and horrible planners. I definitely don't picture many of them running a succesful business or moving their way up in the company. To be succesful in business you also have to have a creative mind, at least in a business sense. High creativity is already proven in people with bipolar and is speculated with people with ADHD, but is not really associated with psychopaths. While it is true that many people with ADHD and Bipolar are poor workers, most improve with therapy or medication and become productive members of the work force, the same can't be said with psychopaths.

I don't doubt for a second that there are psychopaths working as high ranking officials in business. But lets not jump the gun and assume that they overrepresent because they share 2 or 3 common traits. Lets also not let our personal biases automatically tag certain groups of people as likely to be psychopaths. I have a feeling that futhur research will prove there are psychopaths in positions of power, but I have a feeling they will be the exception rather then the norm.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2004-04-20-ceos-heart-attacks_x.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

- Healthy narcissism is overrepresented in business, whereas psychopathy and narcissism are closely related (or frequently comorbid). The only true statement I would make about psychopathy is that they are overrepresented in prison populations (whereas I believe they should fall mainly under the guilty or not-guilty by reason of insanity).

Although, it is also safe to say that many highly successful individuals show particular traits of psychopathy. Ted Bundy (a good example of a psychopath) was a law school student before being convicted of his crimes. If Bundy (a pure psychopath) can make it that far, then there is almost certainly psychopaths in a position of power. But I also agree that it is unlikely that they are overrepresented in such endeavors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.3.202 (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

- I disagree with the above. The main difference between psychopaths and non-psychopaths is that psychopaths do not have the ability to feel empathy, guilt, etc. This does not preclude them from being workaholics or forward-thinking individuals. Some psychopaths may become unstable, but other psychopaths can become successful. The lack of restraint and conscience actually helps them to get into positions of power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.177.53 (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The case is strongly made in the book "Snakes in Suits" by psychopath guru Robert Hare and Babiak that psychopaths are frequent in company boardrooms. Yes while there is little solid research in this area it does not disprove the case.

We have

"In 2005, psychologists Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon at the University of Surrey, UK, interviewed and gave personality tests to high-level British executives and compared their profiles with those of criminal psychiatric patients at Broadmoor Hospital in the UK. They found that three out of eleven personality disorders were actually more common in managers than in the disturbed criminals, they were:

Histrionic personality disorder: including superficial charm, insincerity, egocentricity and manipulation

Narcissistic personality disorder: including grandiosity, self-focused lack of empathy for others, exploitativeness and independence.

Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder: including perfectionism, excessive devotion to work, rigidity, stubbornness and dictatorial tendencies.

They described the business people as successful psychopaths and the criminals as unsuccessful psychopaths."

It is self evident that many psychopaths are highly organised, industrious and intelligent for example Mgabe, Hitler, Himmler, Sdddma Hussein. It is just that they have no conscience and are power crazy. Also you only have to look at the number of dysfunctional financial companies such as Enron and all the credit crunch mayhem to find evidence of psychopathy in high places. Also we have the film "The Corporation" that suggests that companies frequently take on characterstics of psychopaths The_Corporation --Penbat (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, studies show that the average psychopath is less intelligent, espcially in the spatial realm (I'll have to dig up the study but it was found in crime times). 2nd, your study only says, "these are more common then in criminals". Well, what does that mean? Just because they are more common doesn't mean that the majority have those disorders. 2nd, disturbed criminals doesn't neccesarily relate to the rest of the criminal population much less the normal population. Why didn't they just relate execs to the average person? Its almost as bad as a study relating the personality differences between execs and dolphins. I really wish the UK study just gave a percentage of executives that were normal vs ones that don't. It seems they are equivocating, manipluating, by hiding the complete details of that statistical data. 3rd, all of those more common personality traits do not fit the complete criteria of full-blown psychopathy, and one of them, obseesive-compulsive disorder, is completely unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason why psychopaths are thought to be less intelligent is obvious. There has been far, far more research on criminal psychopaths (less intelligent especially those that got caught) than corporate pychopaths (more intelligent). I am not aware of any solid evidence suggesting that psychopaths are generally unintelligent --Penbat (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Also you may be confusing the fact that the part of the brain specifically resposible for psychopathic behaviour is primitive and irrational. --Penbat (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition, eithier you or Hare gave an mostly inaccurate and incomplete definition of Histronic personality disorder. Histronic personality disorder is correlated with extreme self-consciousness and a strong desire for approval and attention, something that most Psychopaths lack. --Jtd00123 (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont have means to check out your statement at present but i am sure Hare who has studies psychopaths for anout 30 years cant possiby be that stupid (or Babiak who co authored). If you check out Millon etc you will find out that there several subtypes of Hystrionic and it is not simply always about just attention seeking. --Penbat (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And last, narcissism. Well a grandiose sense of self can be many times seen as annoying, it alone is not psychopathy. While narcissism can have a minor relation to psychopathy on the essense a lack of empathy (also seen it disorders we paint as victims, such as aspergers, ADHD, autism, bipolar, etc.) there is a main difference. While narcissists be less empathetic than their normal counterparts, the main difference is that psychopaths are incapable of empathy, while narcissists are capable of it. Thus, this UK study Hare is so desperately trying to link as "psychopathy", is extremely lacking. Besides, we all knew that people that make it up the social ladder tend to have bloated self-esteems anyway, this is old information. (but again, that alone hardly proves psychopathy) http://www.livescience.com/culture/081007-narcissist-leaders.html --Jtd00123 (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring malignant narcissism which is vey common. Many narcissistic managers have control freak tendancies and use underhand manipulation and deceit for self promotion at the companies expense. You are wrongly conflating the UK study with Hare - they are completely unrelated although he does mention it in about two sentences in his Snakes In Suits book. --Penbat (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

First off, it is bad etiqutte to reedit in the middle of someone's edit. This is not an internet forum, use quotes instead if you want to single out paragraphs for commenting. Perhaps I am wrongly conflating the UK study with Hare because you brought up the study in the first place. 2nd, I am ignoring malignant narcissism because the study you cited does not specify which form of narcissism overrepresents in CEOs in comparison to mentally ill criminals (note your study never once says that these disorders make up the majority of CEOs)

3rd, I wouldn't take Hare's comments as true without support of a randomized group sample with quantifiable data. (not case studies which Hare is fond of using) Why? Because he has made incorrect assertions that people now take as Bible. For example, his most famous assertion, "psychopaths have no ability to feel, even for loved ones and family members" In fact, many studes show that psychopaths indeed feel emotion and guilt in the death of a loved one. http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2003/psychopaths.htm And last, Hare cites no study to show that psychopaths overrepresent in the business world, he just says that they are there, which I never denied. --Jtd00123 (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, if 'many studies show that 'psychopaths' feel emotions and guilt....' doesn't this undermine the foundation of the concept?Keith-264 (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. You can take a gander at my link if you like, it cites half a dozen sources on the matter. I think the distinction is that some that fit the profile of a psychopath have an emotional reaction to extremely close loved ones, usually at a tragic event. Perhaps psychopaths have trouble processing emotion so they choose to ignore it (I think they cite that here), but in the wake of something traumatic many seem to 'feel'. --Jtd00123 (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I do find that this idea of the qualitatively different person (the 'psychopath') becomes ever more recondite as attempts are made to find support for it in reality rather than on the tops of pin heads. Isn't the 'profile' an example of tautology? I really think this article needs a bucket of cold water pouring over itKeith-264 (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding to a comment near the top of this section: apologies if indentation is incorrect. According to my copy of the Oxford Companion To The Mind, the classification of the "creative psychopath" was "identified" in 1939, but has not seen much attention as, for example, aggressive psychopaths, because creative psychopaths don't perform so many crimes, and an encounter with the law is the most likely time a psychopath is diagnosed. (However, this volume was written in 1987 before the internet gave everyone a voice: IMHO I could name a good example of a creative psychopath on LiveJournal if I didn't mind having my entire ISP banned from Wikipedia!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.188.51 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It could be that some corporate bureaucracies reward behavior of executives that might seem sociopathic to subordinates: basically, treating others badly. Such could manifest itself in stealing the ideas of subordinates without giving credit, firing people without cause other than to reduce headcounts, squeezing people for contributions to political campaigns, attempts to circumvent government regulations, and histrionic declamations of employees. Sociopaths could fit in well in such an environment as bosses, if not as subordinates.

The rewards for being a brutal boss are so high that they might keep a sociopath from doing something unscrupulous toward his bosses and opinion-shapers. Nothing says that a sociopath can't stay clean around those who have the power to end the relationship. But let's remember that the harshest bosses of our time are not so much a marginal entrepreneur like a Simon Legree who operates on the edge of bankruptcy (the character is not well-defined as a sociopath) but instead someone paid very well to treat others badly. It could be that ascending some bureaucratic ladders implies that one must perform acts that seem sociopathic even if the motivation is something other than the standard definition.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted the changes by 212.219.203.141, and hopefully I didn't mess things up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan Jensen (talk • contribs) 11:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

the article seems to indicate that bedwetting, etc. are precursors of childhood psychopathy, but in the following paragraph says "Though the relevance of these indicators to serial murder etiology has since been called into question, they are considered irrelevant to psychopathy.". i suspect the word irrelevant is a typo? otherwise the section is quite odd. Agoodspellr (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph apparently about crazy old cat ladies seems to be truly irrelevant to psychopathy and also to have nothing to do with childhood. I am far from an expert in the field or I would remove it. Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I will take up the challenge.

--Tex (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I know this isn't necessarily concerning the article, but what if O read the Hare's checklist and can pretty much put a tick next to every point of "Factor 1"? I mean, I'm a little worried about this myself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.123.49 (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would you worry about something like that? It isn't so bad *being* a phychopath, it's mostly harmful for the people around them. And you whouldn't give a rat's ass about them if you were a true psychopath. Maxim K (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I'm close to an O, and I know it. I'm certain I have antisocial personality disorder, and have made numerous changes to this page. Pure psychopaths lack personal insight from what I understand, so it would be difficult for them to accept that they are an actual psychopath (they would more likely deny or rationalize such an idea). Also, read the "Sociopath Next Door" (which is more of a merger of APD, psychopathy, and sociopathy). Also, lastly, psychopaths are (in my opinion) more of a personality type, whereas APD is a behavioral diagnosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.3.202 (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

the History section starts with a statement, "Interest in the psychopathic personality pattern goes back to colonial times." I'm guessing this is a reference to the period when the future United States was British colonies, though that is not clear as the link goes to a general article on colonies. Anyway, if wikipedia is meant to be a worldwide resources I think this reference to the history of one country is more likely to confuse than to help people especially given the next sentence "It also goes back to Theophrastus", which links to Theophrastus who is decribed as living 371-287 BC, well before the 13 colonies were founded in North America. Can someone come more general wording to say that the subject has a long history then give the examples with dates.

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "hare2" :
  • Hare, Robert D, Psychopaths: New Trends in Research. The Harvard Mental Health Letter, September 1995
  • Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. N. (2006). The PCL-R Assessment of Psychopathy: Development, Structural Properties, and New Directions. In C. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of Psychopathy (pp. 58-88). New York: Guilford.
• "hare1" :
  • Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
  • Hare, R. D. [http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=192300193 Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder: A Case of Diagnostic Confusion, Psychiatric Times, February 1996, XIII, Issue 2] Accessed [[June 26]], [[2006]]

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry personally. If you were a psychopath you wouldn't be bothered in the slightest if someone told you you were a psychopath because psychopaths have no sense of morality and think they're perfect. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just reading an interview [1] in which Greg Miller explains that psychopaths commit an inordinate percentage of crimes, and suggests that some kind of brain scan test might someday determine who is a psychopath. I feel as if this is a parlor trick, and I wonder if people can expand on the 'causal' relationship and whether there is real evidence for it.

The problem is that as explained in this article, being a psychopath is determined by factors including "early behavior problems, juvenile delinquency, revocation of conditional release" (i.e. committing crimes in the past), "criminal versatility, cunning/manipulative, shallow affect, glibness/charm" (i.e. being good at being a criminal), and various adaptations to criminal life like "callousness, lack of remorse, and parasitic lifestyle". So it seems to me, just on the face of things, that the "psychopath" label merely marks (partially) the habitual criminal, and of course an habitual criminal will be more likely to commit a crime in the future, even if he is serving the same sentence.

My feeling is that this hocus-pocus risks grave injustices, because instead of asking outright if someone is a habitual criminal, legal authorities would instead ask possibly irrelevant questions like whether he shows "promiscuous sexual behavior", which might vary between cultural groups or sexual orientations in some way unrelated to criminal behavior. And I feel as if a brain scan might introduce more injustices in a similar way. Suppose your fMRI shows that a person handling a crowbar is thinking about hitting someone over the head with it - does that mean he is a street fighter or only that he used to play Half-Life? Wnt (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Are there any authorities who dispute the existence of 'psychopathology'? The concept does seem to have attracted people like a cult. Historians for example might be minded to compare it with credulities like witchcraft and sociologists might be minded to draw attention to the benefits a concept of qualitative human difference may offer to rulers who want to return to a colonial social structure (Reagan, Thatcher and their successors)?Keith-264 (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, anyone?Keith-264 (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There are none reputable that I know of, although I suppose if you dig hard enough in the neo-liberal literature you are bound to find one.

More to the point, Robert Hare issues this warning to those engaged in field-related brain scan research (PET & fMRI): '“Some claim, in a sense, this is the new phrenology,” Hare said, referring to the discredited nineteenth-century practice of reading the bumps on people’s heads, “only this time the bumps are on the inside.”' He supports this research but advises steady-as-you-go caution. Extreme care must be taken with potentially explosive, life-altering diagnoses such as "psychopath." Yet the fact remains that psychopathy is "as old as Cain." ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

'Old as Cain'? So is witchcraft. Why would scepticism be 'neo-liberal', surely fascists would love the opportunity to deprive people of their right to equality before the law? If there is objective evidence of these qualitatively different people, why aren't they defined by their behaviour? Why aren't there analyses of occupations where they come in handy? Isn't it really the case that 'psychopathology' is a return to the 'miscellaneous' diagnosis so that mental health services can compile the necessary quota of 'untreatables' which allow them to function within a politically determined financial structure and politicians can pose to electorates as ruthless law enforcers as they preside over autos-da-fe? Keith-264 (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to take a look at: WP:SOAP. And then do some reading here. If you have something to discuss that pertains specifically to editing the article I'd be glad to oblige. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Physician heal thyself! I an a little concerned that the article accepts a concept as a fact, that's SOAPY isn't it? Would it not be better to include contrary opinion? The discussion above does contain the 'difficulty of mental health diagnosis' and 'Yet more subtypes' after all. Perhaps a link to the page on pseudoscience would help?Keith-264 (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed and reworded the worse of the inaccuracies, but it is still really peculiar. Some, obviously very enthusiatic, person seems to have opted for a "free association" approach to introducing the article.

Psychopathy is a curious thing. Subjectively, after 20 years in practice, I might be inclined to concur with innovative perception of psychopathy as a kind of "social and moral orientation" but as the medical and academic communities would not agree at this time it probably shouldn't be in the article? WB --90.216.176.11 (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The intro isn't merely appalling... it's ludicrous. The following definition is given: "The psychopath is defined by a psychological gratification in criminal, sexual, or aggressive impulses and the inability to learn from past mistakes." Reading the "or" as a true disjunction, this means that achieving psychological gratification from sexual impulses (that would be nearly all sexually mature adults!) is, along with the inability to learn from past mistakes, one of the key indicators of psychopathy. Surely people who DON'T obtain gratification from their sexual impulses are more deserving of a pathological label... or at least counseling on how to have a better sex life. The verbiage of this definition needs serious revision. Ross Fraser (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, this article needs a big dose of scepticism.Keith-264 (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject "psychopath" per se doesn't need a big dose of skepticism; what DOES need a big dose of skepticism (and thereby correction) is some of the content in this article. Most of it seems on track, but there is some contradictory information here and there. Psychopathy does exist. --71.246.97.48 (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Throughout the article I have found many, often totally irrelevant, superfluous, statements that seem to a biased towards arguing some kind of case concerning how the term should be used. That doesn't seem appropriate to me. WB--90.216.176.11 (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It is inappropriate and I applaud the work you've been doing to bring this article more in line with WP:NPOV. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

...Seriously? Why are all the "definitions" based on dictionaries for common usage of the word and not medical usage of the word? Why isn't there any actual medical sources for our definitions? American Heritage? Merriam Webster? Tell me, which one of these is a medical institution?? I mean, based on some of the other sources I read, it seems that those statements could be true, but the definition seems debated and these sources are not helping. I think we should replace them with better ones. Repku (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Do psycopathic women still feel like they need to have a children? Do they still have maternal instincts? ---

Previous question wasn't mine, but wasn't signed (just to clarify). I do have a question as well about female psychopaths. I read the whole article, I think, but can't find anything about how psychopathy is affecting men and women in percentages. I would say from what I've read about psychopaths, and from the fact that many psychopaths are already in prison, and most prisoners are men, that there is a much higher percentage of men being psychopaths. Are there any numbers? Thanks. Majesteit (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 23:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Gregory Hilliard is quoted in the article lead as saying "This definition has been met with criticism from Gregory Hilliard stating that these characteristics are present in all human life under a specific set of circumstances, even in the absence of any physical difference in biological brain makeup". This is an interesting and possibly valid statement. But also original research opposed to WP:NOR, unless anyone knows who the man is. Yabti (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is psychopathy even an interesting term (except from a historical perspective)? For example, the ICD-10 does not consider psychopathy at all, neither does standard textbooks in psychiatry such as Kaplan & Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiathry (eight edition). Should the article just refer to more appropriate terminology such as antisocial personality disorder and discuss the use of the term psychopathy in popular culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.1.21 (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Psychopathy can be considered an interesting term even if it currently does not have much discussion in the sources you mentioned. ANY term can potentially be considered interesting even if it currently does not have much discussion in many of the more authoritative sources. The reason that it may not currently be considered interesting by the aforementioned sources may be due to a combination of lack of knowledge/expertise in the condition, and lack of certainty over the details of it as a medical or mental condition. As for psychopathy vs. APD -- I personally know of someone who is a psychopath, and there are noticeable characteristics that differentiate him/her from the typical APD. I don't think it would do the term justice to have the article only discuss its term in popular culture, as I am certain the condition exists and is significant enough to warrant its own article and character description, whether or not the majority realizes it yet. --71.246.97.48 (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Psychopaths may often be successful in the military, as they will more readily participate in combat than most soldiers."

I don't completely believe this. It could also be the case that psychopaths will try to reduce the chance that they are harmed (which would most likely entail a lower amount of combat), since they tend to have a higher opinion of themselves than others (on average) and would desire less to put themselves in harm's way. As someone else noted, the source seems unreliable. --71.246.104.83 (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

First, sociopaths would make horrible officers. Consider the honor codes of the Service academies (they differ in wording, but in simplest terms they agree on the general principle:

"Do not lie, cheat, or steal; do not tolerate lying, cheating, or stealing by others"

That is a tougher standard than it looks on the surface, but it is clear that liars, cheaters, and thieves put people at undue risk of getting killed or maimed in combat. Sociopathy would manifest itself in lying, cheating, and theft because sociopathy implies taking advantage of others and of organizations; sociopaths would probably find fellow liars, cheaters, and thieves precisely the people most suitable to serving their ends. The Service Academies have good cause for putting integrity above much else -- like courage, diligence, loyalty, blind obedience, and technical competence.

Sociopaths might cherish combat as the antithesis of boredom, but they would easily become glory-seeking adventurers who put far too much at risk in combat. They would also try to grab the glory that others have earned. They would sacrifice anyone and any resources for their own glory -- even a medal. They could easily treat defeated captives with inappropriate brutality, and they could easily commit war crimes through overkill or attacks on civilians. They might loot at or near a battlefield, and they are exactly the sorts that I would most expect to commit rapes or robberies.

If I were a military officer I would want sociopaths as far away from the battlefield as possible -- ideally in a stockade or a mental ward. Combat is harsh enough without the cruelty that comes from evil people. Sociopathic aggression may have some value in combat, but it comes at an exorbitant price to fellow soldiers and to the integrity of a military campaign. Good people can be motivated to fight out of esprit de corps. Sociopaths are out for themselves above all else.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Lack of a conscience in conjunction with a weak ability to defer gratification and/or control aggressive desires, often leads to antisocial behaviors. Psychopathy does not necessarily lead itself to criminal and violent behavior. Instead, psychopaths high in social cognition may be able to redirect their antisocial desires in a different, non-criminal manner.^{[citation needed]}" --71.246.102.136 (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This word, psychopathy, comes from the ancient greek word Ψυχή (pronounced psyche) meaning soul, and the Greek word Πάθος (pronounced pathos), harm. That could be worked into the intro very easily-is there a reason it's not already there? -Panther (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It used to be, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary; Wiktionary is. An encyclopedia article should be more about the concept than the word that happens to describe it unless the word's history is important to understanding the concept.--NeantHumain (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

i was thinking a section of Psychopaths in popular culture or examples in history should be added Saturn star (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A problem: all sorts of hated people could easily be labeled sociopaths. I wouldn't have a problem with someone identifying Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Hermann Goering, or Saddam Hussein as sociopaths or psychopaths, or so identifying a fictional character as Norman Bates or Hannibal Lecter. But use of the words sociopath, psychopath, antisocial, and their derivatives suggests evil. Evil has other sources than sociopathy: poor judgment, bigotry, insanity, moral underdevelopment, delusion, desperation, fear, envy, perverse systems of reward and punishment, and misguided loyalty, among other causes. The sociopath as a rule is capable of fostering trust in intended victims only to betray it badly with exploitative or destructive behavior. Sociopathy would seem to indicate that a person who has honorable alternatives invariably chooses to abuse, exploit, or destroy others.

I can see how tempting the use of sociopath, psychopath, antisocial, and their derivatives to make a point in a political argument. Some might argue that George W. Bush is a sociopath and some might argue that Barack Obama is one, too. Surely segregationists (if they were prone to using the language of psychology and psychiatry) would have been quick to describe Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a sociopath without consulting DMS-10. It is best that the words and their derivatives be limited to a certain tendency of character -- those associated with the psychological definition. Not all evil results from sociopathic personalities, and that related words not be cheapened when the word evil better fits.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: what some consider evil, others consider benign or desirable, and vice-versa. I figure that the Inquisitors considered themselves the ultimate benefactors of the people that they terrorized and threatened with burning at the stake; after all, the Inquisitor offered the heretic or non-believer the (as the Inquisitor saw it) the only one way to save his own soul. Although such a crook as Billy the Kid or John Dillinger had no question that he was an outlaw (but apparently had no other means of survival after a certain point even if he sought to go "straight") even the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge thought themselves "good" as would-be achievers of what they believed a better world. It is necessary that sociopathy be separated from pure madness (perhaps Nero, Henry VIII, and Idi Amin fit that pattern) from the pattern associated with the pathology of a sociopath -- someone who seems superficially normal, yet does horrific things. The words sociopath, psychopath, and antisocial as well as their derivatives fir a certain type of person and not simply someone who either

(1) is thoroughly rotten and doesn't pretend to be something else

(2) is delusional about what constitutes right and wrong, as through political or religious fanaticism or loyalty to a rotten system

(3) is under the domination of others and has lost the ability to discern right from wrong except through the "screen" that some leader offers as a guide (the leader could be a sociopath, like Charles Manson)

(4) makes one catastrophic misjudgment of morals, as in sudden anger.

(5) acts in misguided loyalty to a figure of authority (spouse, lover, boss, clergy, etc.)

Sociopathy entails someone trying to present oneself as normal -- even as a potential benefactor to or a loyal servant to a victim. It is not a one-time evil act that makes one a sociopath but instead a pattern of exploitative and destructive behavior. Was John Wilkes Booth a sociopath? Maybe not -- even if he committed one of the most infamous crimes in history. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There used to be such a section in this article, but I guess it was excised (a lot of it was original research). Some examples from fiction and history might help lay readers understand the concept. Psychopathic or sociopathic characters are quite common in fiction (usually as villains). If we really want to get technical, would we want to separate antisocials by theoretical differences: primary psychopaths, secondary psychopaths, various shades of sociopath, and those with a neurosis involving antisocial acting out?--NeantHumain (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

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

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

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

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