Talk:Dexter Morgan

message: I haven't the forth book yet, but no where in the tv series or the first 3 books does it say Dexter is infertile, yet the page says he is. In season 3 Rita gets pregnant, clearly making Dexter fertile, someone should probably remove the infertile section, i'd do it myself but i'm not hugely familiar with Wikipedia editing.--TimMcJones (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Infertility?

message: Whoever said that there is a recognized difference between these two disorders in the DSM-IV is incorrect.  Both conditions are correlated to Antisocial Personality Disorder, for which the standard term is Sociopath.  This is listed in Wikipedia's own articles on the subject.  Therefore I see no harm in listing Dexter as a sociopath.On Thermonuclear War 03:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to respectfully disagree. Psychopathy and sociopathy are not synonmous nor are they the same condition. Sociopathy is antisocial personality disorder. We call people who have AsPD "sociopaths", much like we call those with narcissistic PD, "narcissists" and those with borderline PD, "borderlines". Today, research is moving in the direction of psychopathy as an umbrella label that has its own subtypes. Not all psychopaths are the same, this is a fact. But why? Research is pointing at three Cluster B PD's as being three distinct subtypes or three distinct manifestations of psychopathy. These three conditions are antisocial PD, borderline PD, and narcissistic PD. Many now consider these three conditions as distinct subtypes of psychopathy, meaning that the three personality structures are psychopathic, but manifest in different ways. This is why not all psychopaths behave alike, but there is very limited diversity in their ways of relating to other people, their range of emotions (some are as cool as a cucumber, likely those with narcissistic/antisocial psychopathy) and others are hostage to intense negative emotions like anger, rage, anxiety and depression, likely those with borderline psychopathy. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 21:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: One last note on sociopathy vs. psychopathy

message: How about we put in a list of speculated psychosis, and references to the series to support (or discredit) each 'illness'.
But keep it encyclopedic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qforvendetta (talk • contribs) 21:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychology compromise

message: I think that "the dark passenger" should not be an alter-ego of Dexter, he's described as a different character, one who "takes over."  More along the lines of Multiple Personality Disorder, but still quite different.  Seeing as different people can have a "dark passenger" of their own (Cody and Agent Doakes), it seems that it would be less of an an alias and more of... well, a mysterious personality flaw.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trocisp (talk • contribs) 05:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the third book makes it pretty clear that the Dark Passenger is a completely separate entity. Even before reading it, I felt that, as it seemed to Dexter that other people had "passengers" of their own, it would be much more likely that (in a fictional setting) it would be some sort of supernatural being rather than the product of a broken mind. Gazok (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: the dark passenger

message: While such qualities do certainly make a person a sociopath, that's not the issue here He is listed as both a sociopath  and a psychopath, which is not possible. The terms sociopath and psychopath are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same thing. They are two separate (if very similar) psychological conditions; why else do you think that antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy each have their own distinct entry in this very encyclopedia? Oh, and it also stands to reason that a serial killer is a murderer, so why list a character as both?
Treybien 19:42 15 October 2006 (UTC)
:He actually said in the book something along the lines of "I'm a sociopath but not a psychopath". So if anything would have to be removed, it would be the latter. And all serial killers are murderers, but not all murderers are serial killers. While it may seem redundant to have similar categories, they are important for people for searching through the categories.--CyberGhostface 10:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: I inserted the words (contains spoilers) to the "Character history" header because the fact that Dexter Morgan has a brother was not revealed until the climax of "Darkly Dreaming Dexter" and would spoil the ending for both readers and viewers of the television series as of this writing. For this same reason I woud not recommend adding the names of Brian or Dexter's biological father ("Driscoll?") to the family list
:Wikipedia contains spoilers. And in the future you should add the proper spoiler template.--CyberGhostface 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph of "Character history" should be removed. It is a big fat spoiler for the complete first season of Dexter. Something like "Kevin Spacey – Roger "Verbal" Kint/Keyser Söze". I suggest replacing the paragraph with a shorter, non-spoiling introduction about early childhood. Fuzzy 14:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a bit late to the party on this but if anybody gets such ideas again, stop and read WP:SPOILER before you do, would you please? --Streaky (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: spoilers

message: There's a List of Episodes which looks like there's room for another column in which we could list "Dexter's Victims" for each episode.  That would put all of the victims in the TV series in one place, so we wouldn't need to have a list here as well.  Likewise there could be a list of victims in each book on the page for that book.  Sound like a good way to handle the differences?  24.13.222.219 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it could be like List_of_deaths_in_The_Sopranos_series. I still don't think they're relevant enough for their own page but I guess that would be a way to handle the differences of opinion.--CyberGhostface 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The victims could be listed with the episode like House's illnesses are listed at List of House episodes. --Boycool42 (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victims List = Episode List 

message: Why can't there be a title like this somewhere in the article?  I'm not into all the psychology as the people above,  but this show is extremely popular with everybody I talked to who has seen it. And the character is doing the right thing too. If he just wanted to kill he could get a job in a slaughterhouse. - VGI  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.141.8 (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree (to a certain extent, although this isn't the place) but it counts as original research unless have you have a source. Try finding a published review, I'm positive someone else has brought up a similar agenda.--CyberGhostface 17:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  America's hero 

message: Under "psychopathy and sociopathy," it says that Dexter's Dark Passenger is "an independent agent inhabiting Dexter, instead of a deviant psychological construction. It is revealed that the Dark Passenger is the offspring of Moloch, a god who has been worshiped since biblical times." I don't think that Lindsay meant for all the mystical talk in Book 3 to be taken literally. Some cultists claimed that the Dark Passenger was a child of Moloch but, since they're crazy cultists, I don't think we should take their claims too seriously. Lindsay often described the Passenger with supernatural language to emphasize Dexter's insanity. I think this part should be re-worded or removed. -IGlowInTheDark 5:41, 20 October 2007(UTC)
:Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).--CyberGhostface 17:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly disagree... He clearly talks about "IT" separately, in a factual manner. He repeatedly mentions the fact that the cultists all have their own "passengers," and the first Watcher is able to terrify Dexter's passenger into fleeing by "reaching out" to it (it makes mention to some sort of feeler, but I can't remember the exact wording). Also, at the end it says "IT" is watching and waiting for a day when it can return. Gazok (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  People talk about their penises in the third person (and some even name them) so just because he refers to the dark passenger in the third person doesn't make it an actual seperate entity. Not only that but it's clearly not the point. It's not like you need to have a phd in the subject to understand what he means. --86.159.124.14 (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Moloch and the Dark Passenger

message: No, I don't want to argue the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy. Because neither one applies to Dexter.
I know that the books use the term "sociopath," and Lindsay has refered to Antisocial Personality Disorder in interviews. But Lindsay is wrong. (Or maybe Lindsay is right about Dexter being wrong?) Dexter is a paradigm "secret schizoid" (that is, someone suffering from Schizoid Personality Disorder who hides it very well). 
ASPD is about inability to conform, manipulation, and impulsive aggression; SPD is about coldness, detachment, and complete lack of interest in normal human interaction. Which one sounds like Dexter? If you look at the DSM criteria, he's not even close to ASPD, but he matches all criteria for SPD (except, arguably, lack of schizophrenia or other psychosis).
The problem is, (non-psychotic) serial killers are almost always antisocial, and never schizoid. But then Dexter isn't a typical serial killer. At first he may look like a Bundy/Gacy type, but he's not. There are no sex or power urges, he doesn't care at all about media coverage, and he always just grabs his victims instead of luring or deceiving them first (playing on their sympathy, asking them on dates, hiring them as prostitutes, etc.). Those are all clear signs of ASPD, and common traits of Bundy-style serial killers, and not at all Dexter. So, how do you explain Dexter? Well, you don't; the mystery is supposed to be still unresolved--otherwise, what was the point of the third book?
TV Dexter is completely different. In the first few episodes, he was novel Dexter, but he became less schizoid with each episode, and by the end of the season, no psychiatrist would even consider the diagnosis. The need to kill is not an externalized "Dark Passenger," but a craving and preoccupation of Dexter's own self--in other words, an addiction. In fact, TV Dexter fits the DSM criteria for drug addiction perfectly, except of course that it's not drugs that he's addicted to. They play with this concept openly in the series with the whole NA plot.
But neither Dexter is a sociopath. --76.200.100.185 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguing that Dexter's mental diagnosis is different than what the official consensus is is original research. If you find a published source making your arguments about Dexter (not just about sociopaths in general: that would be Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position) you can add it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sociopathy, again 

message: In the TV series, Dexter's sister Deb is not a detective, but only a police officer working in the homicide division. This is evidenced when the Captain says "If you keep up the hard work I see a Detective's shield in your future" as well as the fact that she is never referred to as Detective, and takes orders from the detectives. --Xander756 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Debra's Ranking

message: "It is implied that Brian murdered Driscoll with an injection of insulin to mimic a heart attack, as it is revealed that Driscoll had been visited by a cable repair man prior to his death, and an elderly neighbor recognizes Brian as the repairman. However, the body is cremated before Dexter can obtain proof."
Implies that Dex is trying to prove that Brian killed Driscoll, whereas he was just trying to generally prove that Driscoll had been murdered.  I'm not sure how, but it needs to be reworded. Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last two sentences. 

message: When talking about his "work" in the TV series he explains the code as, "My intention was never to save lives, but save lives I did."[citation needed]
It is true that a citation is needed for this quotation. Whilst it probably accurately describes his psychology, I not only do not know whether he ever said this, but also do not know whether he in fact would say it, as it seems to make his character darker than it appears in the episodes that I have seen. If somebody does not provide at least an episode number for this quotation, I think it should be deleted. --Susurrus (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious quotation 

message: I believe Dexter was born in August/September 1974, does anybody have verification of this? Slaja (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth 

message: Just reading the section on Dexter's development throughout the literary series.
The section for the novel Darkly Dreaming Dexter states that Dexter received a large wound in his abdomen, necessitating a blood transfusion, finding out that Dexter is type AB-, and that Harry Morgan was forced to go to Dexter's biological father for a blood donation.
This is not true. The book makes no mention of Dexter's biological father, who is only named in the first TV season. Dexter's blood type is never revealed, and the scant physical descriptions of Dexter in the book do not mention a large scar nor its cause. The TV show clearly depicts it, however. I am guessing that the TV series and the book are being mixed up here. Thoughts? Needs cleaning up and re-checking against the books? LudBob (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dex Book Development 

message: I am in complete agreement with the idea of having a kill list within the Dexter article, but there is hardly any chance of finding references to how many people these people have killed and can only be gotten via original research. Perhaps this section of the table should be deleted? It is unsustainable. That Cheesy dude, Talk to the hand, or my user talk page...
Greate Idea having the kill list but another small problem.
The definition of Self-Defence is up for discussion.  I just finished watching Episode 11 Season 5. I would rather say it was Self Preservation as Stan Liddy did not want to harm Dexter but rather hand him over to the police. Dexter kicked him in the Face first trying to escape then killed him in the scuffle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.10.190 (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: List of kills of the killers

message: The image :File:Dexter episode 412 screenshot.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      File:Dexter the big one.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Dexter episode 412 screenshot.jpg

message: It was his left arm that was amputated, not his right, in the second Dexter Book.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.224.190 (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chutsky's Arm 

message: Oscar Prado is listed as not fitting the code but he most certainly does. Here is a quote from earlier in this very article "Prado deviates from The Code to murder a rival defense attorney."
If this doesn't fit "the code" then I don't know what does. Also, although I'm not sure it's an actual part of the code, Prado is virtually certain to kill again given his temper and the enthusiasm with which he took to Dexter's methods.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.3.212 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That quote is referring to Miguel Prado, Oscar is his brother, the one he kills at the very start of season 3, he had not killed anyone (to our and his knowledge), so he does not fit the code. Thanks. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 18:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the list of victims 

message: Questions like the one in the section above show that the whole list is created by plot observations done by viewers. Nothing is supported by reliable third-party sources. The problems comes again an again. Watching a film and making conclusions, even if they look 100% accurate, is original research. The writers can mislead the audience just to make plot twists. TV series like Lost (TV series prove that this is not uncommon. Information based on a fictional character's "research" like scrapbooks, photos on a wall, etc. that viewers watch on episodes can't be a reliable source. Sources must come from real world and it would be better that they were by third parties and not by the channel or the production company that releases the series. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no conclusions here, just reiterating what is clearly seen on the screen. The original research police needs to take a refresher course, I'm afraid... Moreover, assuming that scrapbooks are intentionally misleading for plot twist purposes is original research. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Lack of verifiability with the use of third party sources is original research. Someone comes and claims that these are facts from the TV series. How can I verify? By watching the whole series? What would happen if someone was claiming that the number of stars visible on the sky are that many? I would have to count them to verify it? This is not how it goes. We need an article by a journalist or someone expert to prove what it written here. It's of course clear that Dexter's kills are the main plot device that as long ad there are not covered by public media, critics, etc. this section has no more notability than "Dexter's trousers". -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with this list's removal, I was the one who initially added it in the first place (when I was just starting out on Wikipedia and was slightly less informed on its policies) and now I do recognize that it is completely original research, there is no call for the usage of primary sources to substantiate miscellany. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 23:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I did some google search hoping that someone has written an article on Dexter's kill but I was unable to find something. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

text: No Magioladitis, you don't have to watch the whole series – every victim has an episode number next to it. As for "fits the code", Dexter usually says it about the victims who don't, and also explains why. This is all found in the series itself. Nothing here fits the definition of WP:OR. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  From the article you just linked: "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material." That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 03:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Except it's not my personal experience, it's as simple as see and tell – just like a plot section. The primary source of the information is each individual episode that is referenced in the table. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That type of source is only applicable to plots, not for miscellany in character articles (which already should be kept to an utter minumum). That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 18:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

text: To the best of my knowledge, this kind of restriction does not apply in any official WP policy... unless you can point me to the appropriate one please, specifically saying that what is applied in plot sections cannot be applied anywhere else. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't link you to a non-existence of a policy and I've already quoted a sentence out of WP:OR that stops this list from being part of the article. It is obviously personal experience because you are viewing it and then writing what you experienced, the only exception to this is a plotsum, which this is not. Your edit warring is frustrating and I see that you've been blocked multiple times because of it, perhaps you should adhere more strictly to policy and try not to just make up your own. I am going to restore Magioladitis's edit and if you think that this is a mistake, don't revert. Stick to the talk page, default is non-inclusion in questionable content. Thank you. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 14:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Digging through my trash? One of those, huh... and you're either seriously missing the point or trying to wear me out. "Personal experience" means that an editor saw or heard something either by hirself or in the presence of a few witnesses. Watching an episode that is broadcast over a major TV network is akin to reading an article. How can Wikipedia "become" a primary source for that info if all Dexter viewers already saw it coming from the series itself? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, let me explain this to you clearly then. When you write a plot summary, you view the episode and write down what you've seen or what you are seeing as you watch it, this is a primary source because it comes straight from the source of the program, a link to an imdb page on the article Imdb would be a primary source because it came from that page (it would generally be sustainable because it is needed in place of other more reliable sources). Viewing the episode and writing like this is from personal experience, put simply, you are personally viewing (experiencing) the show and documenting what you saw. Wikipedia has a rule that this is allowed in plot summaries, which is why both Magioladitis and I have left the entire sections above it alone, because they are allowed to be there, but there is no rule allowing miscellany or lists to be substantiated by primary sources when unneeded because this is considered to be original research. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 15:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

text: There is no difference between watching the episode or reading an article that contains nothing but information from that episode. There are no conclusions, no deductions, no personal opinions. You forget that not everything is original research, quote: "compiling related facts[...]is part of writing an encyclopedia." This is not an analysis, merely a table presenting a list of facts that can be seen/heard on screen. WP:PRIMARY does not apply for the same reason – quote: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source"; there are no interpretive claims, no analyses, and certainly not synthetic claims. This is just a bunch of information bits, except that it's nicely organized. What I watched can be verified by millions of viewers that watched that same episode (which can also be viewed on demand); it's different from writing, say, about a yeti sighting in my back yard. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  No conclusions? Number of kills. No deductions? Reason for being targeted. No personal opinions? Fits the code? It really is an analysis. No interpretative claims? What about whether or not the target fits the code? We need to interpret whether or not Dexter thinks that they fit the code. Analysis, this whole thing is an analysis. A passage from the Works of Fiction section in NOTOR clearly nullifies your linking the article with this: "This would include direct quotes or non interpretative summaries..." That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 15:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Not unless Dexter clearly states each and every time the kill does not fit the code, and otherwise states that all the others do – by portraying himself as clearly adhering to the code, unless he specifies otherwise, which he does each and every time. Number of kills? See and tell. We don't need to interpret anything, "fits code" is what Dexter tells us, and "number of kills" is what can be seen/heard in the episode! Reason for being targeted? All in the plot. Where is the "personal deduction" here? Oh, for cryin' out loud... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is ridiculous... will you not see any form of sense at all? Writers generally deal in obscurantism... you know what actually no... I give up. Perhaps someone else will want to come along and tell you that you really are wrong, or Magioladitis will want to back up his points... but I find it ridiculous that I can't remove something that I wrote myself and is counter-Wikipedia policy. Perhaps this was the start of my discontent or disillusionment with Wikipedia itself. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 16:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

text: OK then – as every deduction has more than one outcome, please give me an example of a different conclusion that could be drawn as legitimately for any point in the table. Yes, you wrote it, and now I am trying hard to preserve your own work (wow, speaking of ridiculous...) by reminding you that behind every rule there is a human that wrote it, with their reasons for the existence of that rule and all exceptions to it, which most editors here seem to overlook to begin with. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List is original research 

message: "Dexter can only kill people after finding evidence that they are guilty of murder, and he must dispose of all evidence so he never gets caught." Unfortunately that is not true. Dexter killed at least two people he didn't know much about (I'm just referring to sesion 5): 1. He killed a man in the bathroom because he insulted Rita (episode: My Bad) 2. He killed the ex-cop played by Peter Weller (episode 12). There he didn't follow his code - unless you would say that he destroyed evidence but that wouldn't work as it would interfer with his first rule: kill only murderers. Therefore it has to be argued if he really follows a code. In fact, following the code Dexter would have to kill himself for his actions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.196.176 (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Code 

message: I understand how Boyd fits the code, but, how to Dan and Cole? Yes, they did rape several women, but Boyd was the only one who actually did any killing. So, wouldn't they technically be violations of the code? Le Rusecue (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Group members fit the Code? 

message: Hey everyone, sorry if I'm just missing something but I read the summary at the beginning and it said "A seventh novel is expected in late 2012." As of today's date, it's 2/3/13; either that line needs to be updated or this article may need some overall updating perhaps? Until I read this article I never knew there were novels so I can't comment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.138.49 (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has this been updated lately? 

message: Yes Dexters AB- Blood is rare However people with blood type AB- can recieve Blood from people with A- B- O- or AB- Blood this is a mistake by the Writer But i feal that this need to be pointed out in the Artical any one who feals the same way please coment back  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.236.67 (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood type 

message: Despite the fact that it was implied in the show that Dexter was a "psychopath", he clearly was not. Psychopathy is a cluster of traits and behaviours that are tied to Cluster B personality disorders. Antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder are three PD's which, in some schools of thought, are considered to be three different subtypes, three different breeds, or three different manifestations of psychopathy. In a nutshell, all three of those personality disorders are considered to be psychopathic. If you go by the other school of thought - that psychopathy is a PD in its own right, then you'd quickly come to realize that comorbidity is highest with BPD, AsPD, and NPD. Dexter is neither a narcissist, a sociopath (antisocial), or a borderline. Dexter Morgan is a textbook case of a schizoid personality disorder with avoidant and possibly obsessive-compulsive personality disorder features, aswell. He seems to be free of any serious or noticeable Cluster B traits. Another, but less likely possibility, is that he may have Aspergers syndrome. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 20:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dexter's diagnosis revisited 

message: Is there any way to fit into this article that Dexter is the opposite of Sinister?   The IMDB Trivia section says the name was chosen on purpose. Faolin42 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dexter/Sinister 

message: Looking at the history of the talk page a decision was previously made to remove this section. However the current article appears to have had this added back in. As per previous discussions this would appear to be pure fancruft and unsuitable for Wikipedia, equally it appears to be incomplete and contains numerous entries of unknown. Can we confirm if there is consensus to remove the section again.Bath1865 (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Victims