Talk:Psychopathy/Archive 1

message: Sociopath should not redirect to Psychopath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.79.228 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: [Now that's an interesting thought, not agreeing and not disagreeing. I'd need to see the differences laid out before I could decide where I came down on that. There are differences, the trouble is it depends on your source which difference goes where. For instance, broadly, in the US "Sociopath" is more commonly judicial terminology whereas in the UK "Psychopath" is more commonly the judicial term, in fact until a new Mental Health Act a couple of years ago in British Law "Psychopath" was a broad term that covered any mental illness - which I should probably cook up into something good enough to be part of the article --82.195.137.125 02:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Should not redirect

message: I am interested in hearing opinions about whether a separate article should be written about sociopathy. The DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10, of course, do not consider etiology in their diagnostic criteria, but many theorists do speculate that a certain personality type defined by emotional callousness and criminality is the end result of improper socialization, especially David T. Lykken, who believes that proper psychopaths are rare (with an incidence rate of about 1%) whereas sociopaths are quite common (with an incidence rate of between 3% and 5%). He emphasizes this distinction because he believes treatment and prevention may be quite different for the two. Psychopaths are at an especially high risk of developping criminal and other antisocial behavioral tendencies because of their inherent lack of empathy and temperamental fearlessness; sociopaths constitute a much wider phenotype and are the result of harsh, inconsistent, or absent parenting; poverty and lack of educational opportunity; and socializarion into crime.
Psychopathy (or whatever you want to call it) is one of the more controversial personality disorders in this respect. Few articles are written about the importance of distinguishing subtle variations from genotype or other etiology in obsessive-compulsive personality disorder or schizoid personality disorder. Should people who develop a propensity to a rigid sense of morality, an obsession with doing things perfectly, and a compulsion to hoard everything be called anal retentive if they developped this personality disorder as a result of psychological difficulty during toilet training and anankastic or perfectionistic if they simply had a genetic or neurological predisposition to a preoccupation with details and exactitude? The DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 do not make such a distinction, and I am aware of no complaints. Then again, their personality disorder is not nearly the burden on society that antisocial personality disorder and its theoretical cousins are. --24.217.183.224 13:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [I'd dispute your definition of "sociopath" myself, as "sociopath" is widely considered to be an exact synomym for "psychopath". "In 1930, G.E. Partridge proposed that the title of psychopath be changed to sociopath, for he viewed this illness as a social problem instead of just a mental illness. In 1952, the American Psychiatric Association acted on this suggestion by officially replacing the term psychopath with the term sociopath." - Rebecca Horton 1999 --82.195.137.125 18:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's exactly the problem. Many experts consider psychopathy, sociopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and dissocial personality disorder to be synonymous; but many experts use their own definitions, creating endless confusion on what exactly is meant. At least in the case of psychopathy, Robert Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised provides some underlying consensus on the personality traits exhibited if not etiology. Antisocial Personality, Sociopathy, and Psychopathy culls some of Lykken's theory about sociopathy. It lists four types of sociopath: the common sociopath, the alienated sociopath, the aggressive sociopath, and the dyssocial sociopath. --24.217.183.224 01:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: * Robert D. Hare the expert of psychopaths does not use sociopath and wants to get rid of that term. Moomot 00:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  [This really IS a superb article, and for me, makes the case for opening sociopathy as a seperate article beyond question. --82.195.137.125 01:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although mine is a non-expert opinion I was under the impression that a sociopath was a purely violent but not by definition emotionless personality. Symmetric Chaos 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What about sociopathy?

message: The current edition of the PCL-R officially lists four factors (1.a, 1.b, 2.a, and 2.b), but different researchers have come up with differing numbers of factors depending on their statistical analysis methods and data sample. I have seen research on a five-factor model, a four-factor model, a three-factor model, and the classical two-factor model. Since psychopathy is really not defined by factor models, this probably should be removed from the introduction. Also, it should not be forgotten that, although Robert D. Hare is currently the foremost expert on the psychopathic personality, he is not solely responsible for the definition of this personality disorder; nor are his psychopathy measurement instruments the only basis of the concept of psychopathy. An article on psychopathy should not be confused with an article on the PCL-R, PCL:SV, and other measures of personality and personality dysfunction. --24.217.183.224 01:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [I have to say I'm not too comfortable with the four factor model as introduction myself, it's not exactly the most significant or defining aspect of psychopathy. The "four factor model" is far better defined later in the article so I have just given the introduction the, provisional, "chop", but now the article needs a new introduction. It seems to me that, so far we are saying a lot about how a Psychopath is measured and portrayed, but nothing about what a psychopath IS. Perhaps the introduction should define that? Also, perhaps the introduction should be a little "sexier" as at present the article is a little dry? I've put in a "trial intro" but it's not final, it "will do for now". The more interesting, concise and informative the intro can be the better and I feel certain it CAN be better. You are also right to say that we really do need to interject a little Cleckley (often considered "The Father of Psychopathy, after all) and others. Towards this end I have removed the "merge to" suggestion (I hope I am allowed to do that, because if not some poor soul will have to get up at dawn to shoot me) in the hope that a more permanent, postive feel to the article will encourage more balanced and lively contributions --82.195.137.125 03:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there needs to be a little more emphasis on the destructive apsect to psychopathy/sociapathy (etc) because many of the signs and behavious are common in normal people at various times, and some also work to long term positive effect. Otherwise people are going to start practicing amatuer psychology on their friends and diagnosing them as psychopaths with little idea as to the extremely dangerous and serious condition it is. Abunyip 02:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factor Models of Psychopathy

message: [I have added this under the sincere impression that the book is now out of copyright, and the download available http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/sanity_1.PdF (which has been openly available for a couple of years) is perfectly legal. If I am in any way wrong in my assumptions please correct my error! --82.195.137.125 03:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the United States at least, it is not. The copyright date of the fifth edition is 1988, and the PDF version is made available for "private printing for non-profit educational use." It is still under copyright, but I do not know if the copyright holder(s) have legally made it available on the Internet in the form it currently is.--24.217.183.224 03:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the copyright holders have presumably given permission for the "non profit educational use", that PDF is perfectly legal (I'm not a lawyer). However that is irrelevant to Wikipedia. We can reference the link if we want, but we can't host that PDF ourselves (as a Wikisource or whatever) as their terms of distribution are incompatible with the GFDL --Bk0 (Talk) 03:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  [Thanks both, shall we let it sit for now? I know I was personally surprised and delighted to be able to download this work at least two years ago, I am sure others will be too --Zeraeph (the artist formerly known as 82.195.137.125, I got hooked, I made an account, so sue me ;o) ) 03:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to "Mask of Sanity" Download

message: I've noticed that the MacDonald triad has been blended with mention of some symptoms of conduct disorder in the Symptoms and Potential warning signs section. The MacDonald Triad is prolonged bedwetting, repeated firesetting, and cruelty to animals; MacDonald developped this idea in relation to serial killers and not psychopaths.--24.217.183.224 17:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very important, thank you, I will correct it later, though it is also taken to be an indicator of a psychopath these days--Zeraeph 17:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The MacDonald Triad

message: I gave this a simple topic sentence and added a caveat about confusion between psychosis and psycopathy. Anyway we can drop this rather silly pic of the devil? --Marskell 19:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch last question--I'm going to remove it. Marskell 19:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have a problem with it. I figured it would get snipped sooner or later. --DanielCD 20:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm conceding the devil as such, but could we find something better? A picture at that point breaks up the article, makes it visually more interesting and leads the reader into it.--Zeraeph 02:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, perhaps a pic of one of the big serial killers? Gacy, Dahmer, etc? --DanielCD 17:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: But which one? It's disputed whether Dahmer was psychopathic...there is one Gacy photo on file (thus clear for copyright) but it's weird (in the wrong way IMHO, as in, he looks like Ronald McDonald), there's one of Charles Manson on file but he looks like a starving bum. It needs to be an atmospheric pic I think? Bundy just looks like a male model...it occured to me that a still of Roddy McDowel in Hitchcocks "Psycho" might be better? More symbolic? I'll keep searching. --Zeraeph 18:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah ha, but wait again! Is "Psycho" a movie about psychopathy or psychosis? The latter I'd say. Part of the problem is when people encounter life stories that are "so fucked up" (pardon the lingo) the immediate assumption is "must be a psycho," even if the actual definition is unclear in their mind. You can be a necrophile and a cannibal and not be a psychopath, for instance, but can you kill 20 odd-men as Dahmer did and not be one? Anyhow, I'm digressing. He is indeed rather blandishly good-looking, but Bundy may be the obvious choice for the pic (does anyone dispute the definition in this case?). There's always Bill Clinton who I've read earnestly described as a psychopath--don't know how that would fly... Marskell 18:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ha, yes, and several senators. I don't think that was Roddy McDowel in Psycho, I think that was Anthony Perkins. --DanielCD 18:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bill Clinton ain't the only one I ever heard earnestly described as a psychopath! Trouble with Bundy is that he just looks like a generic male model/afternoon soap star and isn't so very recogniseable as anyone in particular. (Sorry, I know it wasn't Roddy Mc Dowall in psycho really, I was just testing ;o/ ) --Zeraeph 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Just one TEENY problem...if you read up on "Hannibal" you will discover that the good Dr Lecter (MY HERO) is almost certainly misdiagnosed, and about as far from the "pure psychopath" asserted as it gets! In fact, the character of Dr Lecter always seems fatally flawed to me in the sense that the psychopathology is not a very good fit with the finished product. Regardless, he is closer to a cerebral ASPD (his pathology being presented as environmental in origin) with a shedload of "other issues" than any kind of psychopath. So that his picture would be just TOO misleading on too many levels...Ted Bundy is ruled out by his tendency to be percieved as a soap opera hero that you can't quite put a name to (though there IS a striking resemblence to Bobby Ewing from Dallas to my mind). Mengele might be ok...strikes me that he was far closer to a "pure psychopath" than most fictional characters, but is he recogniseable? --Zeraeph 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I know all that, it discusses these issues in the textbook actually. But, Hannibal is identified as a psychopath by many people, and he is better than that Satan/Gnome-thing that was up there before. We could always correct people in the caption. Besides he may not be a "pure psychopath," but not nearly "as far away as it gets" either; that would be Ned Flanders. Anyway, I say a picture is better than no picture, as per Wiki suggestions. Bundy may be pretty, but that has its benefits as well as drawbacks, because you can't tell a psychopath by looking at them, so I say go with Bundy. There's a child murderer in Canada named Clifford Olsen, who would also qualify. He once said "Hannibal Lecter is fiction, I'm real." Moomot 21:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am really not convinced that reinforcing popular misconceptions through the use of inappropriate illustrations is the way to go here. --Zeraeph 02:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And yet you wanted the Satan picture? Moomot 03:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  You're the boss Moomot 03:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro and pic

message: It seems to me that, while extremelly valid and detailed (it DESERVES it's own page already IMHO), the PCL-R data clutters the article and makes it unwieldy and daunting. So I have set up Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Can we delete it from this page and just cross-reference? --Zeraeph 13:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to stay here as well though Moomot 14:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) to it's own page

message: This article seems almost ready for  Good article nomination. The writing is clear. The discussion is interesting. I reorganized the sections a bit with GA nomination in mind.
I'm not quite ready to nominate this, as the article could benefit from:
*references for some of the generalizations about the disorder, such as in the childhood development section and definition section part about not learning.
*more work in the article to contextualize the lack of consensus about this disorder
*perhaps a review by a specialist with comments about point above
*a better closing passage
--Vir 17:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost ready for GA nomination 

message: What if someone has some, but not all of these symptoms? Someone might be callous toward others but still concerned about being caught and all that? I admit that I have some of those symptoms but I am scared to death of getting caught in the act of one of these "crimes". I'm not all that callous, although personally I don't extend much sympathy toward those who cry over every silly little thing. Is there a seperate disorder associated with different combinations of these symptoms? 66.52.223.2 21:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very probably there is, but as a rough (but honest) guide, if, quietly, within yourself, you are afraid of being a psychopath you probably aren't, because a true psychopath couldn't care less (though he might care about being found out, or confronted, which is quite different). --Zeraeph 22:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Almost everyone has a trait or two of the psychopathic personality syndrome; it's whether they have an overwhelming preponderance of these behaviors and deficits consistently over time that matters. If a person didn't have even one single trait of psychopathy, I think they would have very different issues (like crippling fear and panic) and not be normal, mentally healthy people.--NeantHumain 20:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symptoms 

message: I see someone made an inaccurate revision to the introduction, saying psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder were the same thing instead of closely correlated constructs. They also seemed to be saying that antisocial personality disorder = psychopathy + impulsivity/irresponsibility. This is not so. Psychopathy already includes such features in the concept. Psychopathy adds emotional deficit and interpersonal exploitativeness/deceit not really in the APD construct.
Now, as for the reorganization, I have higher career and academic priorities, but I (and anyone else who wishes to contribute) would like to reorganize and expand this article:
* Introduction
* Overview/description of defining features of this personality disorder
* History of the concept/etymology; comparison with antisocial personality disorder and dissocial personality disorder
* Legal status of psychopathy in contrast with mental illness (i.e., as an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one); sexual psychopath laws and psychopathic offender laws (which may have their own definitions of psychopathy)
* Diagnosistic tools; diagnostic process
* Relation to other psychiatric disorders (e.g., the Cluster B personality disorders, substance-abuse disorders)
* Role in etiology of extreme criminal deviance (e.g., serial murder, serial rape, pedophilia, sexual sadism)
* Psychopathy in terms of normal personality (i.e., Big Five) and subclinical manifestations of psychopathic personality traits
* Discussion of research on neurological/neuropsychological/EEG differences
* Philosophical ramifications of this personality disorder (vis-à-vis moral responsibility, punishment)
I know for a fact that peer-reviewed articles and research exist for each of these points, so if this outline is followed, we should have an informative, state-of-the-science article on the topic. --NeantHumain 21:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Reorganization 

message: Hi - I am no Psychiatrist but have known two people I believe to be psychopaths, one of whom is my father, the other person, someone who I lived with briefly in very unusual circumstances. This is why I am keen to research the phenomenon and take a great interest in the maintenance of this page.
There's no mention in this page of the physical cause of psychopathy - I've seen mentioned in other websites that there's a part of the brain relating to empathy that develops in most people at the age of three or four but not in psychopaths. There are lots of tests that have been done that define psychopaths and show how their brain functions differently than others that should be discussed on this page too:
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2943160.stm
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3116662.stm
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4057771.stm
Violence - from personal experience with psychopaths: there are people who have a violent predisposition but this has nothing to do with psychopathy - if they are psychopaths AND violent then you've got a dangerous situation on your hands but the two psychopaths I knew, both were extremely talented manipulators and successful control freaks. Neither of them were particularly violent. One of them used the threat of violence and aggression as part of his manipulative tools but when it came to the crunch, both of them were surprisingly cowardly when it came to physical confrontation. "His bark's louder than his bite" was the catchphrase people used to describe the latter.
Hope this is of some interest! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.177.159 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Physical cause

message: Well I think I may have done too much editing on this one to be entitled to express an opinion on the quality (though I seriously don't think it rates more than a "b" at present), but I definately think the topic meets criteria for high importance thus:
Subject contributes a depth of knowledge to the field of psychology. Most experts in psychology will be familiar with the topic. The subject can be found in most academic studies of psychology, and a significant amount of published research exists for it. Example: Schizophrenia.
Any more comments? --Zeraeph 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: B-class, high-importance sounds good to me. I really don't think it should get a quality rating higher than "B" until it's gone through a good article or featured article assessment. —Cswrye 17:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That seems about right to me, and I don't think it's quite ready for GA yet (let alone FA!). --Zeraeph 18:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychology Wikiproject rating

message: this page really helped me in my research report. thanks to whoever had anything to do with the posting and making of this page. ♥ 
Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetkissesx72 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  helped 

message: Vandelisum Alert-  Homer's lips has found that a rude picture of male genitalia, entiteled "F***ing retarded bastards!", came up when I opened the page at 01.40 U.T.C. on December the 4th, 2006. My computer is now requesting to shut doen due to a 'rapid loss of vertial memory' and is giong very slow. We don't need this sort of negativaty on the Wikipedia!  --Homer slips. 01:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That other pic! 

message: Note that I'm not saying this should be included in the article, it's just a thought since there is no "criticism" section.
I (for background) am a 23 year-old white American male and I don't really have a conscience, per se, but I don't believe that I'm a psychopath or sociopath. I possess above-average intelligence (not a genius or anything, but I know my classics and can debate most anything), I'm engaged and have friends, etc. However, I've never felt regret or remorse (beyond anxiety over being caught & punished), I don't really care about most people (or humanity/earth/animals and nature in general), and, if necessary, I could probably kill someone who was threatening me or in my way, then sit down and eat a baguette.
My point is, how do we know most people aren't like this deep down? The idea of a "conscience" seems at odd with human evolution (we didn't get to the top through lovingkindess & self-sacrifice) and the necessities of survival. When soldiers go to war and kill dozens or hundreds of the enemy without remorse or pity, we understandably note that this was necessary. But doesn't the fact that military personnel (who come from all strata of society) are capable of merciless, coldblooded killing tell us something about the rest of humanity? Besides violence, aren't all people greedy and self-centered when you cut to the quick? What if the idea of conscience, morality, and "goodness" are all part of a mask most people wear (and traits they fool themselves into believing they possess) so modern civilization can continue?
I don't follow psychiatry, but have any bright lights in the field written about the possibility that virtually *all* humans could be psychopaths/sociopaths who've convinced themselves they're not, and people whom feel guilt or remorse and engage in selfless behavior are the ones who're mentally abnormal? If there is professional work to this effect, it should be considered for balance. Roland Deschain 07:36-12:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a truly fascinating philosophical argument and I do believe that, provided verifiable and reputable objective sources can be found for it's inclusion it would contribute much to the quality and neutrality of the article. --Zeraeph 11:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if the average person is merely pretending to have a conscience?