Talk:Psychopathy/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

psychopathy is sociopathy is anti social personality disorder

there is a nice, well cited article here about psychopathy and it fits what the science of psychology believes about psychopathy. I'm mentioning this because this article is littered with a societal perspective on psychopathy which should be superseded by scientific research.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Psychopath

I do not understand how the [[1]] article on psychopathy is well cited or scientific; it barely contains anything of either. While psychopathy is widely considered a developmental disorder (like e.g. autism, intellectual disability, ADHD), scientists are not sure as to what extent antisocial personality disorder without psychopathic traits is caused by genetic or environmental factors as the article explains; genes have been discovered that can significantly predispose one to ASPD, and not everyone who is abused in childhood develops the same psychopathologies. However the brief definitions provided on the article are accurate (though "sociopathy" is such an ill defined term that many prefer to use "secondary psychopathy" in lieu of it). As of "psychopathy is sociopathy is ASPD" even in the article it differentiates between the terms. As of the sociological perspective on psychopathy, I do not see any significant sociological discourse other that the very poorly written Psychopathy#In the workplace section, and a sociological discussion is necessary to explore the history of this disorder.

--118.103.136.62 (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There may not be much analysis of psychopathy at the sociological level in which case there isnt much that can be done. You cant just write stuff - you need to find reliable sources.--Penbat (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Creating a "Society" Section

I propose creating a section titled Society, in which the current section "In the workplace", which talks about the prevalence and influence of psychopathic personalities in a working setting, will be moved under this proposed section. This proposed section will in general discuss the impact and putative cost of antisocial actions perpetrated by the psychopathic population and their prevalence in the general prison population, before delving into the impact of psychopathy in a workplace environment. I welcome any critique or suggestions for anything additional to include or move under this proposed section.

--Ireadandcheck (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I created psychopathy in the workplace which is a fairly well defined distinct area of study with book and academic papers devoted to that subject. I am not convinced that psychopaths in society is a meaningful area of study. What exactly is and is not society ? Give me examples of books and academic papers devoted to this area ? I had thought of writing something on psychopathic parents but I Have not found any relevant research. It looks to me like your idea is an original research construct.--Penbat (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Psychopathy is extensively studied from a forensic perspective. One of the main interests of studying psychopathy is its correlation with chronic criminality; psychopathy is massively overrepresented in the american prison population (an estimated 20% of the incarcerated population would qualify for a diagnosis of psychopathy based on the PCL-R), and may be even more prevalent in the prison population in other countries because of their lesser prisoners per capita (just my speculation). While crime and violence is discussed as a characteristic of psychopathy in the "Signs and symptoms" section, there is no section on psychopathic crime from a social perspective.

Psychopathy in the workplace is just one area of society that psychopathy impacts. You can also discuss psychopathy in politics, psychopathy the family dynamic (though research in these areas is poor) etc. I want to include "In the workplace" under the more general section of "Society" because psychopathy's impact on society extends beyond the workplace. Crime is a core issue that has an extensive impact on society, and is the most visible and well studied expression of this condition. I believe that it would be more suitable to place "In the workplace" as a subsection of of the more general section of "Society", which discusses psychopathy's impact in other areas of society, like crime..--Ireadandcheck (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Family dynamic link didnt work for me and the politics link gave me one cite. If you look at the narcissism coverage you will see that there are quite a few diverse articles on different aspects of narcissism eg narcissistic parent and narcissistic leadership. We already have toxic leader which is in a similar theme but a psychopathic leadership article (whether in politics or anything else) seems viable to me. I would like to do psychopathic parent if I could. Basic problem is that there just isnt that much research around for social aspects of psychopathy. --Penbat (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I am suggesting that "In the workplace" be placed under the more general section of "Society". This fits better with the style of this article, and allows a more general category to discuss the other social impacts of psychopathy. Even if there isn't anything else to add, I thing that "Society" works better as a primary level section.

The specific aspect of social impact I am proposing to include under this proposed section is how crime committed by offenders with psychopathy impacts society. Criminal psychopathy is the main focus of most of the research going into it, and reducing crime is a central goal of treating psychopathy. One estimate of the monetary cost of psychopathy to the American justice system is $460 billion annually in property damage and police, legal, and incarceration costs alone (Kiehl, 2011, The Criminal Psychopath: History, Neuroscience, Treatment, and Economics) based on the proportion of psychopathic criminals in the general prison population. Psychopathy is also related to increased reoffending rates in violent criminals (Laurell, 2005, Recidivism is related to psychopathy (PCL-R) in a group of men convicted of homicide)

An example of the structure I am proposing:

Society

Psychopathy imposes an enormous burden on society. Psychopathic criminals alone make up a significant proportion of... ...etc.

Psychopathy in the workplace

Although psychopaths in the workplace typically represent only a small percentage of the staff, they are most common at higher levels...

(Anything else related to psychopathy's impact on society e.g. Psychopathy in leadership)

etc...

--Ireadandcheck (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Power & control

It is often said that psychopaths crave power & control. But almost nothing is said in this article about this. This should be fixed. Some manifestations of power & control by psychopaths are covered here - power and control in abusive relationships, but not an explanation of why psychopaths want power & control.--Penbat (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Fearless-dominance, or Boldness, a core trait of psychopathy related to the personality dimension of extraversion, encompasses their relative immunity to distress and social dominance. Coldheartedness, or Meanness, encompasses their lack of concern for others or the harm their actions do unto others, and belies the tendency for their relationships to be exploitative. As of why psychopaths "want" power and control, that delves too much into psychoanalytic speculation; like many other mental disorders, they may just be.--Ireadandcheck (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Do we want to keep the Table of Contents restriction to 2 levels ?

I don't - I don't see the point. I can't think of a single other Wikipedia article which has the same restriction.--Penbat (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Relaxing the level restriction will seriously elongate an already quite lengthy Table of Contents; the article has many level 3 headings, and placing them too on the Table will clutter it. I think the Table should be kept as it is. --Ireadandcheck (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Subsuming the Interrogation subsection into the subsection Legal?

Should this subsection be incorporated into the [Psychopathy#Legal|Legal] subsection? It largely discusses interrogation practice recommendations for dealing with suspects thought to have psychopathy, and it may be justified to move it under Legal as this is associated with crime & investigation. Also, I do not think that so much text should be devoted to explaining these practices in detail for being quite trivial and the entire subsection being supported by only one source. --Ireadandcheck (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Should this subsection even be kept at all (for the reasons explained above)? --Ireadandcheck (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed the subsection, and added a sentence referring to interrogation under legal. --Ireadandcheck (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"Signs and symptoms" section is excessively long

I think that this section is too long and filled with many unnecessary details. The section should discuss psychopathy's symptomatology without going so far into the science behind it (that belongs in the Mechanisms section) or the specifics of individual studies, and the Offending subsection needs to be trimmed. I've added the appropriate note to the section.

--Ireadandcheck (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It will be quite difficult to shorten this section, as the specific characteristics of psychopathy and what it has and doesn't have is still not well defined: most of the research studying psychopathy's characteristics is still cutting edge and there aren't many scientific reviews on this. It may be necessary to go into the neuroscience to discuss this. However, I think that the Offending subsection really needs to be condensed.

--Ireadandcheck (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Moving the Biochemical subsection currently under the Causes section to the Mechanisms section?

It is my opinion that the paragraphs under Biochemical, which goes through the various hormonal and neurochemical associations found in psychopathic subjects, are more relevant under the Mechanisms section, which discusses the underlying physiological substrates in general. While altered hormonal and neurochemical balances are believed to contribute to the emotional and behavioral deficits in psychopathy, they haven't been explored from a developmental perspective.

--118.103.136.62 (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The suggested change was applied. --Ireadandcheck (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Where to put the In the workplace section?

The section, which discusses the various conjectures of how psychopathy impacts the organisational environment, was recently edited to improve its neutrality and tone (Work still needs to be done in my opinion, but it is an improvement). However, I am at odds with its placement in the article structure. Putting it under a section would allow the article to better reflect the general layout of medical articles. I have discussed before of subsuming the section into a broader "Society" section, as I believe that it would be more suitable to accommodate it as a subsection under a broader section on its social impact. I am still looking at the possibility of placing it under a section titled "Society and Culture" along with with a subsection of the impact of crime and a stub link subsection for the Fictional portrayals of psychopaths article, but would it fit better under Epidemiology, a section that goes about prevalence of the disorder in the general population? --Ireadandcheck (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the section needs to be relocated and would benefit from further editing. The content there is pretty much a duplicate of the second paragraph under Signs and symptoms -> Other offending, and can definitely be better placed. I had previously tried subsuming any new content from the workplace section into that subsection, with a more neutral tone, but the creator of the main workplace article (which is still rife with neutrality/etc issues) believed the topic was too significant to be left as a minor subsection, so the edits were reverted. However, what's different now is that more editors have expressed being in favor of making changes to that section. Regarding your suggestions, I think it would be more appropriate to place the content in a "Society [and Culture]" section instead of the Epidemiology section, since prevalence is only one aspect of the subject, and it would improve consistency with similar articles as well as allow for other developments like the ones you mentioned. Either way should be an improvement to how it is now. Thanks for your recent edits and looking into how this article can be improved further. --Humorideas (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I also believe that the nature of the sources that form the basis of this section (popular works and social studies) makes this section more suitable as part of a section that is ascribed to sociology. I think that the content under Other offending should be kept under Signs and Symptoms, so perhaps the "In the workplace" section could be differentiated by including the specified theorised impacts suggested by these popular sources. I will implement the suggested reorganising. --Ireadandcheck (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Subsection heading "Psychosocial" a misnomer?

I believe that this subsection is wrongly labeled. Psychosocial refers to the influence of the social environment in psychological development and social functioning. The subsection, however, discusses the various low-level cognitive and affective dysfunctions and idiosyncrasies displayed in psychopathy such as the impaired aversive conditioning and avoidance, as well as the autonomic nervous system associations with these dysfunctions, but discusses none of its social aspects. The equivalent subsection in the article Schizophrenia is named "Psychological", which may me more appropriate for the subsection.

--Ireadandcheck (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Title of subsection changed to Psychological. --Ireadandcheck (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"probably"

The word "probably" should not appear in the second paragraph of the first subheading of an article that purports to be on the topic of a serious psychological disorder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.162.242 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Personality disorder

I took "personality disorder" out of the first sentence, because it wasn't supported by the source and if this article is going to present psychopathy as synonymous with "antisocial personality disorder" (which is arguable), then they should be merged. If this article is about a separate topic, then it can't be described as a clinical term, i.e., personality disorder. —PermStrump(talk) 23:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The "also known as sociopathy" wording

Humorideas, regarding this, isn't it best to maintain the "though sometimes differentiated from sociopathy" wording since they are indeed sometimes differentiated and since there has been ample debate in the past over the lead stating that psychopathy and sociopathy are the same thing? Per WP:Lead, we should at least clearly note the "sometimes distinguished" factor in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason I left that out is they're more often used as synonyms than differentiated, and more importantly, as far as I'm aware there is generally no clinical distinction between the terms. The only sources I have found suggesting a distinction appear to be pop science articles without medical attribution. Therefore as this is a medical article I thought that the differentiation sometimes noted among the public would be best left to the sociopathy subsection instead of the lead, which was quite cluttered. But anyone, please feel free to prove me wrong.--Humorideas (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Although that section calls the Snakes in Suits book a "popular science book," Robert D. Hare is a prominent scholar (arguably the most prominent) in the field of psychopathy and he notes that while sociopathy and psychopathy are often used interchangeably, "in some cases the term sociopathy is preferred because it is less likely than is psychopathy to be confused with psychosis, whereas in other cases the two terms may be used with different meanings that reflect the user's views on the origins and determinants of the disorder."

I've seen that be the case in some texts I've read over the years. As you know, the section also states, "Hare contended that the term sociopathy is preferred by those that see the causes as due to social factors and early environment, and the term psychopathy preferred by those who believe that there are psychological, biological, and genetic factors involved in addition to environmental factors. Hare also provides his own definitions: he describes psychopathy as not having a sense of empathy or morality, but sociopathy as only differing in sense of right and wrong from the average person."

All that stated, I suppose this is a matter of WP:Due weight. Going solely by what Hare has stated about the terminological dispute can be considered undue weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference?page=2 and http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference?page=1 --Espoo (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Espoo, do you mind clarifying why you linked to those two articles? I mean, will you state here whether you support or object to Humorideas's rewording? And why?

Also, going by this edit by Qazmatt (talk · contribs) and this edit by Jauerback, the dispute is back. I knew it wouldn't be long before it was, and this is why I suggested that we retain the "though sometimes differentiated from sociopathy" piece. If we are going to keep the current wording, it should at least be changed to "sometimes known as sociopathy." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have no dog in this fight. I know nothing about the subject. I was just restoring what I believed to be consensus wording based on the hidden text. That's it. Good luck. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I concluded that, Jauerback. Thanks for commenting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Study: Psychopaths Feel Fear, But Not Danger

A new Danish study just published gives this conclusion: "...we show there is evidence that psychopathic individuals have deficits in threat detection and responsivity, but that the evidence for reduced subjective experience of fear in psychopathy is far less compelling." I don't quite know where to slot this into the article, so I'll just drop the reference here. Forensic Magazine article Journal paper TimothyPilgrim (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for this to be a part of WikiProject Psychology?

As the introduction notes, "no psychiatric or psychological organization has sanctioned a diagnosis titled 'psychopathy'". But there is a Personality Disorders infobox displayed at top and infobox for "Classification and external resources" that links not to psychopathy, but to Unspecified Personality Disorder (ICD-9), Dissocial Personality Disorder (ICD-10), and to Antisocial Personality disorder (MedLine & MeSH). The first eight sections present this topic as an ordinary topic in Project Psychology, including an epidemiology section.

The PCL-R (called a "gold standard" in quotes in the article) is currently referenced at least 61 times and the PPI 21 times in the article, yet there is no mention of the criticisms of these tests in the article. Whereas the specific pages for these two tests feature criticism sections that comprise significant chunks of those articles.

Furthermore, there is frequent confusion on the page itself between the non-clinical term psychopath and the clinic term Anti-Social Personality Disorder, which is mentioned around 30 times including several sentences that suggest a close correlation between the two. Looking at this talk page indicates there is significant reader confusion on the difference between the terms, including several editors who seem to regard the former is a clinical term.

I don't want to name names, but for example there are many non-clinical topics, including controversially non-clinical ones, that are not a part of WikiProject Medicine. I think this article needs to be rewritten almost from the ground up, so I'm reluctant to start making edits without community input. 76.14.230.138 (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Article very long

Using Dr pda/prosesize:

File size: 513 kB

Prose size (including all HTML code): 126 kB

References (including all HTML code): 14 kB

Wiki text: 163 kB

Prose size (text only): 81 kB (12082 words) "readable prose size"

References (text only): 1510 B

Please refer to article size guidelines. I have added an article template addressing the length. Thanks. --Humorideas (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Article to long?

I find some long articles good. There is a lot of ground to cover, multiple aspects. In my view this is good, keep it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.182.90.22 (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Too dense, long

This is just my impression on the article: it feels less like an encyclopedia entry and more like a CIA factbook entry or something...people have complained it is long. I don't have a problem with very long articles, but I think in this case a lot of the statistics (under things like 2.1 Offending) and a lot of the correlation statistics...it's just too dense, not fun to read. This is stuff that should be a reference, not in the main body. I'd go ahead and work on it, but it would be quite a large change and I wanna ask what you guys think first...I'd be glad to help. Mercster (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with you going ahead and making drastic changes to the article. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to be fun to read. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Your comment also comes after Humorideas (talk · contribs), who was also focused on the size of this article, was blocked as a WP:Sock. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Chinese (.zh) page and links

I was surprized not to find a link to the Chinese page. I find it difficult to believe that it does not exist. If someone can find one, please link. If not, is someone reading this inspired to create such page? As best as I can find, the Chinese for "psychopath" or "sociopath" is 「精神變態者」 or 「精神变态者」, however, these pages are currently red-linked, surely we can do better than that, much better I hope.
Enquire (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutral POV

This article seems quite excessive for a fringe concept....pscyhopathy is not even a sanctioned diagnosis, and most of this is just going off of Hares stuff. It needs to really be made more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petergstrom (talk • contribs)

Psychopathy is not a fringe concept; it doesn't come close to falling under WP:FRINGE. Additionally, I think you are neglecting the antisocial personality disorder and dissocial personality disorder aspects. I also suggest you study WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV on Wikipedia means giving most of our weight to what the vast majority of sources state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

And in the future, remember to sign your posts. I signed for you above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Flyer22 Reborn. The idea that psychopathy is WP:FRINGE is very POV. While this article may be over long and some intelligent pruning may be in order, I am tempted to revert your radical deletions until you can persuade us here that your thinking behind the deletions makes sense.--Penbat (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree, too. In my opinion, maybe it may not seem like a sanctioned diagnosis in so far that the DSM is just so wacky (see Psychopathy and the DSM—IV). As Characterizing psychopathy using DSM-5 personality traits' abstract opens: "Despite its importance historically and contemporarily, psychopathy is not recognized in the current [DSM-4]." (Italics are my emphasis) Still, the DSMseses be damned, as a concept, it hardly seems to be in the realm of fringe. El_C 23:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychopathy&diff=756349089&oldid=756321732

Psychopathy is recognised in law by various legislatures. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychopathy&diff=756349089&oldid=756321732. ASPD is closely based on it - although there is quite a lot of criticism of it particularly of DSM in general which is often considered as science by committee. Hare is still by far the biggest name in this area (psychopathy or ASPD). His PCL-R is still widely used by professionals as the best test available in this area (psychopathy or ASPD). Psychopathy has deep historical roots unlike ASPD which is an arguable fairly recent DSM construct. Although DSM does have the weight to make it an "official" mental condition.--Penbat (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

There are still a huge number of academic studies into psychopathy to the current day: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_ylo=2012&q=psychopathy&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 --Penbat (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Most of this psychopathy garbage is pretty fringe stuff. There is no standardized list of symptoms, and everyone relies on Hares very debatable garbage, which as is stated on the Psychopathy checklist page has overlapping symptoms with many other diseases. Psychopathy is also non-falsafiable. The reason ASPD was created in the DSM was to get over all this bullcrap, that is all listed in mosts studies methodological flaws discussion. It IS an alternative diagnosis, as it is not recognized by any psychiatric organization. It may be well researched but so is multiple chemical sensitivity, non celiac related gluten sensitivity, and gulf-war syndrome and Petergstrom (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I've alerted WP:Med to this issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Petergstrom, psychopathy is mentioned in at least 10,834 peer reviewed publications so the odds of it being FRINGE is nil. The vast majority of researchers have found no evidence to support the existence of multiple chemical sensitivity but this is not the case with psychopathy, so there is no comparison. Psychopathy can be identified in certain brain scans and the behaviour is well established. The real truth is that your claims Petergstrom are FRINGE. Your claim ASPD was created to deal with bullcrap, that most studies are methodologically flawed, that Hare's check list is fringe etc are just your POV and your very own original research. These are all your claims and it is you who is promoting FRINGE ideas on this talk page. For something to be FRINGE only a tiny minority of researchers would hold a certain viewpoint. To claim only a tiny minority of researchers believe in the existence of psychopathy is ridiculous.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like we are heading for a consensus here with 3 to 1 against Petergstrom's view at present. One decision that needs to be made is whether to revert all of Petergstrom's 55 edits (mainly deletions). This article is long and some intelligent pruning might have been a good idea but maybe its safest to revert all of Petergstrom's edits. Your view on this Literaturegeek and Flyer22 Reborn ? Similar controversies involving Petergstrom's views on other articles can be found at User talk:Petergstrom--Penbat (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I have just reverted back to 22:45, 5 December 2016 which is just before Petergstrom's 1st edt - many edits seemed to be unwarranted butchery & deletion of well cited material. Anybody disagree ?--Penbat (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Those edits are totally justified, as an oversized article should not focus so heavily on small unimportant things, like pretty much duplicating the mechanism section under sighns and symptomsPetergstrom (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed a lot (but not all) of your edits that were reversed. Some of your edits appear to have been helpful improvements and some appear to have been unhelpful/biased. This is my opinion which you are welcome to disagree with.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Literaturegeek, thanks for weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm weighing in, too. Psychopathy is fringe psychology, frankly. Yes, there are plenty of research papers on it. Yes, there are legal jurisdictions that recognize it. Yes, advocates actively conflate it with non-fringe psychology, such as ASPD. But yes, there are plenty of research papers on psychic powers. But yes, there are legal jurisdictions that recognize astrology and homeopathy. But yes, ASPD is a recognized disorder by numerous authorities, but yes, X is X, not Y.

This page has lost objectivity in many ways, beginning with the decision to make this page part of Project:Psychology. The article is overly reliant on sources that have a financial incentive to advocate for psychopathy as a recognized disorder, but who have consistently failed to achieve the latter while raking in the former. The article repeatedly conflates an unrecognized clinical term, "psychopathy", with a recognized disorder, "ASPD." The "Classification and external resources" infobox is particularly glaring in this regard.

We should recognize that there is a natural selection process in the editors for this page that gives an immediate apparent bias in favor of those who want psychopathy treated as a psychological disorder on par with anything else in the DSM\ICD. People who want psychopathy recognized are interested in it and will congregate here. Just as with homeopathy, the people who strongly advocate against it are few in number, because the majority is the disinterested middle. Wikipedia should not be taking sides, especially if the best argument we can come up with is three out of four editors, who happened to be the only commenters in the space of a few days and who quickly declared the discussion a priori moot, agree that the consensus opinion of psychologists and psychiatrists is, in fact, the fringe belief, not Wikipedia's.209.180.174.141 (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I wonder why I recognize your IP address range and why I'm certain that you are not a passerby. No matter. We are supposed to follow the literature with WP:Due weight. That is the side Wikipedia takes. And comparing psychopathy to homeopathy is silly. Not on the same level at all. One is most definitely fringe and is deemed pseudoscience...while the other is not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

So....cry sockpuppet if people have a similar opinion...Well that doesnt matter anyway because wikipedia isnt about opinion, and no secondary sources talk about psychopathy as fringe. So we gotta treat it the same way as the sources treat it, regardless of how stupid it seems.Petergstrom (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I know who the above IP is. Plain and simple. And I made it clear because I felt like making it clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

What a weird and vague accusation. I have posted under the IP 76.14.230.138 above (Is it appropriate...), which garnered no response. Perhaps that is a 100% consensus that psychopathy should not be a party of WikiProject Psychology?

As for the idea that there is a lack of sources on the extremely controversial nature of psychopathy as proposed by Hare and others (with financial motives to propagate the idea), have some sources courtesy of Google. By all means salvage this page with some real science, but I think this page needs to be rewritten from the ground up due to lack of neutral PoV, lack of due weight (Hare is a prominent adherent of a minority opinion that has consistently failed to gain approval by any psychiatric of psychological association or authority, but here he is portrayed as the foremost expert of a mainstream science), and overemphasis of fringe opinion by interested editors who have a history of stifling dissent and reverting improvements without adequate discussion:

https://books.google.com/books?id=xq_oCQAAQBAJ&dq=psychopathy+as+fringe

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/pseudoscience-psychopathy/

http://www.antoniocasella.eu/archipsy/edens_2006.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0272735894900469

If the article can't be approved, I move we add a Fringe Theories and Unbalanced tag to the page to warn readers. Regarding the latter, the criticisms of psychopathy sections have been removed without comment before. If we're not going to add the Unbalanced tag, we need to get approval to ban certain editors from making additional changes to protect a neutral PoV.209.180.174.141 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Not weird at all (you know that), and it's intentionally vague. As for the rest, your proposals are not supported by any of our policies or guidelines. As shown by numerous psychology sources, psychopathy should remain under the WikiProject Psychology scope. The vast majority of the literature on psychopathy does not support the "it is fringe" argument. Read WP:Due weight. And as the article makes clear, "Canadian psychologist Robert D. Hare later repopularized the construct of psychopathy in criminology with his Psychopathy Checklist." That checklist is significant when it comes to assessing whether or not someone is a psychopath. So of course he is going to be mentioned at some parts in this article. I'm not going to continue discussing this topic with you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article needs significant improvement, though. When it comes to the vast majority of what is in this article, I have not edited it. I mainly watch the article and revert problematic edits made to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, new account Soli58 (talk · contribs) suddenly popped up to start editing the Criticism section. I'm not sure if that editor is you, but I would hope that the editor edits responsibly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If I have to up the protection level, I will. El_C 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Most american psychologists are psychopaths

The reason why psychologists omitted psychopath personality from the DSM is because they know a majority of people in the world are psychopaths. Most psychologists themselves are psychopaths and therefore do not want there to exist a scientific test for psychopathy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.218.151.218 (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Criticism section

I may have been too bold today but I've removed the entire criticism section. I would suggest the entire criticism section was based on irrelevant, or very circuitously relevant, sources, many pop psych and many entire books. Much of it was gobbledygook and impossible to parse the meaning or relevance to psychopathy. Vrie0006 (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Improvements down the road

This article seems to have undergone many improvements in the last several years (slowly but surely). I think a few years ago there was no way this article would have received a B rating, so a pat on the back to all who have contributed positively. However it could be improved further and possibly even be made a good article with a bit more work. Might be helpful to map out possible improvements. Some suggestions I and others have had:

Improve the selection of sources available. Eliminate pop science and primary studies, etc. Also, one source in particular (ref title "gap") seems quite overused - might help to have some additional sources to support any claim where currently only "gap" is cited.

The article is overlong - approaching 100kb of readable prose, meaning it's coming to that point where it should almost certainly should be divided or trimmed. Compare good/featured articles on other major personality/mental disorders, which are fairly compact and concise. I think the article goes into a little too much detail at points and the material could safely be deleted or allocated to a sub-topic article. For one, the recently added 'Criticism' section seems a little too theoretical and detailed for what should essentially be a straightforward medical article. Also keep in mind that since the concept of psychopathy is largely debated in many areas including definition, symptoms, diagnosis, etc, it may be easy to go off into lengthy tangents discussing the different viewpoints - it's important to summarise only the key viewpoints and leave the remainder to sub-topic articles if appropriate.

In terms of scope, I think overall it probably covers most or all of the important topics. Maybe some sections need to be trimmed or expanded in consideration of the article's status as a medical article.

Any other suggestions welcome.--Humorideas (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed the Criticism section. Any criticisms should be incorporated into the relevant existing section and only if notable enough for a general medical article on this disorder (i.e. no long-winded thoeretical discussions please; this isn't an academic paper). Humorideas (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This is the Criticism section that Humorideas removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm provisionally reverting this on the grounds of new talk section below ("Is it appropriate..."), that currently the article does not seem to be the subject matter of a WikiProject Psychology page. A criticism section at least gives the appearance of a neutral POV, if we decide this should remain as part of WP Psychology. 76.14.230.138 (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Also note that Humorideas has since been blocked for sockpuppetry. --McGeddon (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Also note that Humorideas just keeps coming back to this and similar articles under different accounts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Many issues

I'm somewhat familiar with psychopathy. I've started editing this page but I'm finding that it's hard to know where to begin. Almost the entire page is filled with information that's unsourced (usually there's a long list of citations at the end of every paragraph, and it's impossible to know which reference sources which statements), extremely technical (I know what PCL-R Factor 1 is, but does anyone else who reads this page?), and based largely on primary sources. Anyone have advice on where to even begin? I'm somewhat of a wikipedia noob. Vrie0006 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Be careful with cutting and overuse of tags. You shouldn't be drastically cutting material that is properly sourced. The way that some of the material is sourced likely has to do with not wanting citation overkill. If you aren't sure if the material is sourced, try to check the sources or see if other sources support the material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Vrie0006, regarding this, it's best that we do not simply remove chunks of material with no intention of replacing it if it can be replaced with better sources. See WP:Preserve. In the previous edit, you stated, "I suggest sticking to secondary/tertiary sources." Book sources are often WP:Tertiary. If a WP:Notable scholar has studied the topic and has given an opinion on the matter and this opinion is reported on well enough in the literature, I see no reason not to include it unless it's a WP:Fringe view. But even a WP:Fringe view can be included, if widely reported on, and if presented as a minority view. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. In these particular cases the amount of text devoted to explaining the results of single studies was, IMO, particularly egregious. I don't think that text can be replaced with anything approaching a consensus view, even of a minority, and the page benefits from it being removed. If all the one-off studies on psychopathy are candidates for inclusion on this page, then the page becomes useless. Vrie0006 (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC) --- Of course I'm delighted to be wrong on this! I'm not exactly a content expert here. Vrie0006 (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm certainly not arguing that "all the one-off studies on psychopathy are candidates for inclusion on this page." But I do think that WP:Notable scholars, such as Jean Decety, commenting on the matter are worth some looking into. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Distinction with psychosis

Formerly, the following information was included in the lead: "While the term is often employed in common usage along with the related but distinct "crazy", "insane" and "mentally ill", Canadian criminal psychology researcher Robert D. Hare stresses that a clear distinction is known among clinicians and researchers between psychopathic and psychotic individuals: "Psychopaths are not disoriented or out of touch with reality, nor do they experience the delusions, hallucinations, or intense subjective distress that characterize most other mental disorders. Unlike psychotic individuals, psychopaths are rational and aware of what they are doing and why. Their behavior is the result of choice, freely exercised."

There is currently no real effort in the lead to distinguish the two. There's only the briefest mention of psychosis being different at the very end, but with no further explanation and with arguably very little effect. The two are too often confused, as Scott Barry Kaufman pointed out. It also looks a bit too much like it's only used in criminal justice (where it does arguably matter the most), when general psychologists are also more than familiar with the term. It just isn't a real diagnosis by itself. The British National Health Service also has something about it on their site: "The terms "psychosis" and "psychopath" shouldn't be confused. Someone with psychosis has a short-term (acute) condition that, if treated, can often lead to a full recovery. A psychopath is someone with an anti-social personality disorder ... People with an anti-social personality can sometimes pose a threat to others because they can be violent. Most people with psychosis are more likely to harm themselves than others." Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

References

"Lazy Diagnosis"

In reading Kaplan and Sadocks Comprehensive textbook of Psychiatry, I came across an author who wrote

"The concept and subsequent reification of the diagnosis “psychopathy” has, to this author’s mind, hampered the understanding of criminality and violence. The practice of using the term "psychopath” was spearheaded by Robert Hare, who in 1970 created a checklist of behaviors (based in part on Hervey Cleckley’s book, The Mask of Sanity) combinations of which Hare believed characterized a psychopath. He subsequently revised and updated the list. The list includes such items as “grandiose sense of self worth,” “need for stimulation,” “promiscuous sexual behavior,” “impulsivity” and “many short-term marital relations” as well as “early behavior problems,” “shallow affect,” “juvenile delinquency,” “revocation of custodial release,” “lack of realistic long-term goals,” and “criminal versatility.” Grandiosity and shallow affect just do not fit together. Shallow grandiosity is an oxymoron. Then come a series of clinically subjective criteria (e.g., “callous lack of empathy,” “cunning manipulation,” “failure to accept responsibility for one’s own actions,” “lack of remorse or guilt,” and “irresponsibility”) some of which come under the rubric of “pleading not guilty.” How does one define much less ascertain “cunning?” How about the adjective “callous?” Then there is the group of characteristics that is recognized in so many offenders with frontal lobe dysfunction, “poor behavioral controls,” “impulsivity,” “irresponsibility,” and “shallow affect.” Clearly the items above, and their combinations, cover a multiplicity of different disorders. According to Hare, in many cases one need not even meet the patient. Just rummage through his records to determine what items seemed to fit. Nonsense. To this writer’s mind, psychopathy and its synonyms (e.g., sociopathy and antisocial personality) are lazy diagnoses. Over the years the authors’ team has seen scores of offenders who, prior to evaluation by the authors, were dismissed as psychopaths or the like. Detailed, comprehensive psychiatric, neurological, and neuropsychological evaluations have uncovered a multitude of signs, symptoms, and behaviors indicative of such disorders as bipolar mood disorder, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, complex partial seizures, dissociative identity disorder, parasomnia, and, of course, brain damage/ dysfunction." -Sadock, Benjamin J.; Sadock, Virginia A.; Ruiz, Pedro. Kaplan and Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry (Kaplan and Sadocks Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry)

How might this be integrated into the article?Petergstrom (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Candidate gene studies

The sections describing candidate gene effects in psychopathy are very heavy on primary source articles to support those statements. The stuff on the serotonin transporter is highly controversial at best, and false at worst. I've removed it (and the MAO-A material as well for the same reasons) unless there is significant disagreement here. I feel bad b/c someone clearly put a lot of work into these sections, but I don't think they represent anything approaching settled knowledge, nor is the psychopathy page the place to discuss controversies related to candidate gene studies of behavioral traits.

Here is the section on SLC6A4:

"Associations between a variation of the 5-HTTLPR region of the gene that encodes the serotonin transporter and psychopathic traits have been found, and the gene has been suggested to be a significant factor in psychopathy's aetiology. 5-HTTLPR regulates the expression of the serotonin transporter on neuron synapses, and is one of the most studied genetic polymorphisms, researched for its association with various mental disorders. The high activity "long" (L) allele of 5-HTTLPR, which increases the expression of the serotonin transporter relative to the "short" (S), were found to be associated with PCL-R Factor 1 scores, or the interpersonal-affective traits of psychopathy, which describes its core character disturbances (self-centeredness, cold-heartedness). The L allele is known to be associated with emotional resilience, reduced emotional response to evocative situations, and a reduced risk of mood disorders. A study on youths found that the L homozygous allele correlated with psychopathic traits among those of a low socioeconomic background, indicating a possible environmental influence on the expression of psychopathy. Another study replicated the association of the L homozygous allele and the interpersonal-affective psychopathic traits in men in a correctional setting, but didn't find a connection between a history of abuse in childhood and such traits. It is theorized that reduced emotional and stress response that the L allele promotes may interact in a synergistic manner with other gene variations that promote a reduced emotional response and a low sensitivity to distress to predispose an individual to psychopathy."

The MAO-A section is here:

"Candidate gene studies have suggested a connection between the impulsive, aggressive and violent behavior associated with antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy and a low-activity variant of the monoamine oxidase A (MAO-A) gene (dubbed the "warrior gene"), encoding for the MAO-A enzyme that regulates neurotransmitter activity by breaking down the neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine. The polymorphism associated with behavioral traits consists of 30 bases repeated between 2 and 5 times upstream of the MAO-A gene, and produces comparatively less MAO-A enzyme. The 2R and 3R variants (linked to low MAO-A activity) were found to vary widely in demographic prevalence among different ethnic groups. 5.5% of black men and 0.1% of Caucasian men carry the 2R allele, whereas 59% of African-American men, 56% of Maori men, 54% of Asian men, and 34% of Caucasian men carry the 3R variant. Low MAO-A activity is associated with a significantly increased risk of aggressive and antisocial behavior."

References

Vrie0006 (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Those entries came from numerous sources and are well cited, I am putting them back into the article. I am not sure what you mean by "they are false". Dou you just disagree with them or do you have research articles that actually contradict them? Also it is unclear what Vrie0006 means by "settled research". Given that most sections start in the terms of "Some laboratory research demonstrate correlations between psychology and... " it is entirely unclear why the genetic section should be singled out and removed. Indeed, there is no such thing as "settled science", the scientific method demands theories be modified if new experiments prove them incorrect. - Penorhaxs (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ST719.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:Undue weight

Petergstrom, do try to refrain from adding WP:Undue weight sections such as this to the article. And, yes, an entire section based on a quote from Dorothy Otnow Lewis is WP:Undue weight. If the section were a paragraph including criticism from others, and not just one person, that would be different. And if you plan to expand the section, especially per my statement, you need to make sure that the section is not a huge pile of WP:Undue. Per this discussion involving you, Penbat, Literaturegeek, and me, that you have a significant bias when it comes to this topic is established. Do what you can to keep your bias out of your editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I have three more sources that I am integrating

• http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/32/4/408.full.pdf
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15070462
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18693491

.Petergstrom (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Psychopathy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130708224943/http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/head.html to http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/head.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160511091445/http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/DSW14.pdf to http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/DSW14.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211144219/http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/antisocialpd.htm to http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/antisocialpd.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The photo in criminality is not related enough

The photo was originally meant to highlight the slanted racial makeup in US prisons. It is just a random photo of a prison yard and has nothing to do with psychopathy specifically. You might as well add many other photos of prison or none at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullmetalass (talk • contribs) 10:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

50.39.115.127 (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

i want to type on here plzzzzzzzzz i want to

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 11:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Potential point of view and scope issues?

For a hotly debated diagnoses, with wiki articles existing for antisocial personality disorder and dissocial whatever, I think more of this article should focus on the debate and potential issues with the diagnoses that can be cited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8000:3A84:1927:780D:4A17:647A (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This statement 'It is sometimes considered synonymous with sociopathy.' is just plain wrong. In ENGLISH, ie the language of ENGLAND, psychopathy and sociaopathy are direct opposites. A Sociaopath is a shy person who avoids crowds, the opposite of the life and soul of the party, which is much more a psychopath trait. Psychopaths attract attention, are often a 'personality', a leader. They are also seriel killers and politicians. Sociopaths are the total opposite; avoid attention, embarrass easily, and are empathetically normal.

The problem is American English frequently changes meanings of English words, though why anyone would swap a perfectly good word for another is unclear. Some seem to think they mean the same. In psychiatry psychopath is an accepted clinical tyerm, sociopath is not, it is a common usage term. PetePassword (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

We go by what WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

wikidata statement "said to be the same as: antisocial personality disorder"

With this edit I added a reference to the statement that psychopathy (Q366886) is said to be the same as (P460) antisocial personality disorder (Q118418). What do you think about this edit? Ελλίντερεστ (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)