Talk:Psychopathy/Archive 4

message: (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)
thread_title:  Selfishness 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Psychopathy and handedness 

message: ::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)
thread_title: Explaining why mental illnesses are so difficult to diagnose precisely

message: 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)
thread_title:  psychopaths brain 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Yet more subtypes of psychopath 

message: 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)
thread_title:  no merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reverted vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ok, bit of an odd question 

message: 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. 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: I was just reading an interview  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)
thread_title:  Does psychopathy predict criminal behavior? (more than criminal behavior) 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Arguing a case

message: ...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)
thread_title:  Using regular dictionaries as sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Women who are psychopaths 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Who is Gregory Hilliard? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terminology problem? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Psychopaths' military success 

message: "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." --71.246.102.136 (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This passage seems contradictory with the rest of the article! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Etymology. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  new section idea 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Primary/secondary psychopaths controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kantor comments