Talk:Psychopathy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dec. 12, 2007, Move Discussion

Since Merkinsmum moved this article from Psychopathy without any discussion whatsoever, I suggest we move this article back to its proper location as soon as possible.

  1. The concept of psychopathy has a history predating the work of Robert Hare.
  2. Psychopathy, as it is currently formulized, is the product of numerous experts (Hare, Lykken, Newman, et al.)
  3. The concept is best known as simply Psychopathy
  4. There was no prior discussion of the move and thus no consensus reached

--NeantHumain (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is it's proper location? I am confused. Mattisse 01:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
O.K. I think I understand. (Correct me if I am wrong.) This article should be moved back to Psychopathy. Once moved it should encompass the concept of Psychopathy from it's origination (way before Hare). Then include several researchers and their differing formulations of Psychopathy.
I would like this suggestion if the clinical diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder be left as a separate article, since in the United States the AMA DSM-IV etc. diagnoses are mandated. You could include a discussion of Antisocial Personality Disorder as a section or part of the article on Psychopathy, but be clear these are differing concepts that were derived differently and are used for different purposes. If the tendency to conflate them into one diagnosis is resisted, then an interesting article on the concept of psychopathology, its history and applications could result, without adhering to any one formulation of the concept. What do you think? Mattisse 02:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have not been too active in the more recent edits to Psychopathy, but the article on Psychopathy was always intended to be a separate from the article on antisocial personality disorder while clarifying the overlap where it exists (and there is indeed a strong correlation). The subject of psychopathy spans the work of Cleckley (and earlier!), Lykken, Hare, Newman, and many more. We really do not need to muddle Wikipedia with unnecessarily lengthy titles like "Hare's theory of psychopathy," and I frown upon circumvention of consensus (i.e., making discussion needed for a move back when no discussion for the original move was made). I encourage any admin reading this to move this article back to Psychopathy pending results of this discussion.--NeantHumain (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[Interjected] I agree with this, Psychopathy is a very distinct concept from Anti-Social Personality and should remain as such. Psychopathy is not a psychiatric term, however it is a well support psychological term, especially in forensic and research settings. Gemnoire (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I support moving the article back to Psychopathy. Curious Blue (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Support move back to Psychopathy. The use of the term Psychopathy predates Hare and many other authors has used the term in several fields. It seems that it is quite a contensious term for clinical diagnosis so it seems wise to treat clinical aspects in other articles, with this one focussing on historical, legal and philosophical aspects. I'm also a little concerned about Sociopathy and whether is is really a synonym. --Salix alba (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Unsure/perhaps no/don't mind lol. My reason for the move was Neutral Point Of View, and preventing the article being a POV fork of the APD article. This is not the main view of psychopathy, which I would say most people see as a synonym for APD. But I honestly don't mind as long as you keep the article NPOV. Moving just seemed the easiest way to stop the article being misleading. But if it has a disambiguation in italics in the top of the page saying this is not the view of the subject of the APA, which is located at Antisocial personality disorder, then it will be ok I suppose, as long as the tone is kept NPOV.Merkinsmum 14:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Psychopathy and related articles

First of all, I'd like to say I'm not into the edit wars and zealous guardianship of articles (mainly, I just don't have the time); however, I am 'well versed on some subjects (like psychopathy) and contribute when I can. There is considerable confusion about the terms psychopathy, sociopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and dissocial personality disorder. Unfortunately, not even the recognized experts are in consensus (please see Reification). Luckily, we have a few clear facts that make the dispute more manageable for us Wikipedia editors:

The difficult question is in how different are these related concepts from each other? Given the separate body of research on psychopathy, it is clear at least two articles are needed. Given the relative sparsity of research on ICD-10 dissocial personality disorder, my opinion is that it is best to leave that as a section of the Antisocial personality disorder article. I think of dissocial PD as just another set of criteria for essentially the same concept as APD (just as would be the DSM-III-R or DSM-III criteria for APD, which differ quite a bit more from DSM-IV APD than ICD-10 dissocial PD does).

If you ask how does sociopathy differ from psychopathy, the answer varies greatly by expert; fortunately, no current diagnostic or measurement system uses the term. If one goes back to the DSM-I, ones finds sociopathic personality was an umbrella term that encompassed an antisocial type (perceived as in-born and defined by such characteristics as selfishness, immaturity, callousness, and impulsivity) and a dyssocial type (the result of socialization into a gang or neglectful parenting); alcoholism, substance addictions, and impulse-control disorders (kleptomania and pyromania) were also classified under sociopathic personality in this edition.

Hare distinguishes the terms psychopathy and sociopathy in the same way this early edition of the DSM distinguished antisocial and dyssocial types of sociopathic personality (however, other quotes suggest Hare sees the two as more or less the same). Lykken takes this distinction and refines it, suggesting various subtypes of both psychopathy and sociopathy. He was a proponent (but not the originator) of the distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy. He suggested secondary psychopathy may be the result of something like a choleric (irritable, impulsive) temperament or hypersexuality whereas primary psychopathy results from an innate deficit in fearfulness. Joseph Newman has tested this hypothesis of Lykken's and even come up with his own explanation of primary psychopathy (a sort of attentional deficit).

The reason many experts presently emphasize a distinction between APD and psychopathy is that they find the APD criteria inadequate for clinical, forensic, and research purposes. Psychopathy, for example, has a stronger correlation with criminal recidivism (particularly violent recidivism). APD's looser criteria muddle different motivations and etymologies. Researchers have found that certain physiological responses are correlated only with the deficient emotional experience factor of the PCL–R (and similar factors of related instruments). Prosecuting attorneys especially love the term because this diagnosis dehumanizes the defendant in the eyes of the jury (even if they are instructed to treat the information rationally rather than emotionally, let's be honest). For this reason alone, I'm sure many researchers and clinicians would happily go to the less emotional term antisocial personality disorder if the criteria were sufficient for their needs.

I could go on...

Anyway now for a more personal note: Please remember to assume good faith from your fellow editors and avoid making rash accusations by calling someone's actions "unethical," "disguised," "mislead," etc. Zeraeph did not add the dissocial personality disorder information to the APD article; I did. A calm, clear-headed frame of mind is always helpful when editing Wikipedia. Truth and facts are really not a matter of consensus, but our approach to editing Wikipedia, by and large, is since otherwise everyone could claim to know the truth on their pet interest better than anyone else and resort to browbeating their perspective into everyone else's face.

I strongly encourage both you and Zeraeph to take a cooling-off period before making further edits to these articles. --NeantHumain (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say, as I have written in the talk sections of the articles. I suggested perhaps three articles and clearly define the terms. Please read what I wrote, as you are repeating much of what I said. I am not editing the Psychopathy article. However, I think it is in very bad shape. I am trying to clean up the Antisocial Personality Disorder article. As someone said, recently, there is a very good reason why hardly any Psychology articles can even reach GA status. I have resisted editing this articles as this is my profession. I mainly write forensic articles, as I am a forensic psychologist. But this confusion over terms and the mess these articles are in is a travesty. I would like to work with you to fix them up. It is an embarrassment the way they are now. The other person, the one fixated on sex offenders being Antisocial Personality Disorders, has been blocked for 28 days. But the article is such a mess, it ruins the concept for me -- and psychopathy was my Life Work! I hope you will help. Regards, Mattisse 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I know the blocked person meant well, but she was blocked because she WP:OWN the article. Because she has a history of such behavior, I am told, she was blocked for 28 days. She received a community ban but appealed personally to Jimbo and it was reversed. But she is on thin ice. If you are her friend, I would advise you to help her become more understanding. She is near receiving another community ban, I am told by the banning admin, who is trying to work with her. So please help her if you can to be more open to critical information and more responsible about referencing. If you are her friend you will help her. Mattisse 02:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have personally encountered the excesses of Zeraeph's zeal, but I would not suggest she is 100% misguided (as stubborn as she may be sometimes), and I do disagree with some of her edit choices but do not have the time available to make editing a daily thing or to play cyber-politics (I've had more than my fill of games from my ex). By the way, the professional body that publishes the DSM is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and not the American Medical Association (AMA), Doctor. ;) --NeantHumain (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
As I suggested, you can always feel free to fix a typo on your own rather than take the trouble of notifying me of every one I make -- which is many. Thanks. Mattisse 03:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, perhaps in your professional life you are free to use loose terminology on your clients so you can ruminate about it. I am not as I am bound by the DSM. Please consider the needs of those of us who cannot afford to conflated terms as you are able to do. Thanks, Mattisse 03:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Are these last personal comments really appropriate here? Shouldn't you be posting personal responses on the user's talk page rather than the article talk page? Curious Blue (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I just wanted to get rid of the whole mess, as it was most unwelcome, especially as I have been posting on the article pages, where he could have answered. I do not like article talk page material on my personal talk page. I wanted to get rid of all of it. Perhaps I should have just deleted it, but I thought that was not allowed. In any case, I hope it provides the incentive to stop the posting on my personal page. Regards, Mattisse 03:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

neant/ article is the same but with a neutral point of view

(sorry I didn't answer earlier I only just came back online, I'm in the UK) Nothing about this article has really changed, except that it's less misleading. The problem is that laypersons, because it is a word they would use, would enter 'psychopath' in the search bar and end up on this article. They need to know that this is not the 'official' mainstream view, for instance of the APA, who call it Antisocial personality disorder. Before the name change, people would have been led to believe that this was the only or main theory of it. Which would be misleading. Hence phrases such as 'those using this theory believe' and so on should be used, because otherwise it is not written in a Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV. These researchers/followers of this theory are even using a different tool- the PCL-R- which other researchers tend not to use. So we need to make it clear that ok, maybe some people, or even a lot of people, are using this theory/tool, but it is not the view of psychopathy which is the most mainstream at the moment or followed by the most professionals. That is not to criticise this theory of Hare etc'- it's just reality. And to reflect this the article needs to make it clear throughout that this is a belief/theory/research technique which some researchers might choose to use.Merkinsmum 13:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

'psychopathy' should redirect to Antisocial personality disorder'

I didn't want to do that because you seemed to want it so much, but APD is the mainstream view of the subject, and so when a layperson types in 'Psychopath' they should be taken to what is the main view of the subject. Not to what at first appeared to be what is called in wikipedia a 'POV fork'- a page set up to mislead that one point of view is the majority or best viewpoint. At the moment it avoids being a POV fork as long as it keeps reminding readers of the context of

I have created that redirect- I didn't want to, but I had to to explain the need for it as you had attempted to speedy the page.

Now you are welcome to link to Hare's theory page in the Antisocial personality disorder article- I'll do so now.

So in conclusion:- moving this page to psychopathy- no I don't think so, or not without ensuring that this page remains NPOV and sets this theory in context next to APD. I suppose if it continued to do that, I wouldn't have a problem. My only concern is NPOV.Merkinsmum 13:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

i didn't create the page psychopathy, so I can remove the speedy tag

So please no-one say (as someone claimed on my talk page) I have removed a speedy from a page I created myself- because I haven't- I've only made a few edits to it and it's been there a while.

However as I said above- I don't really mind what you call this article- as long as it is kept NPOV and not misleading. Hence I won't remove it again.

But don't accuse me of doing things I didn't do- thanks.Merkinsmum 14:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when you move a page, the whole history is moved with the page and a new redirect is created. In the page history of the redirect, you were listed as the editor who created it and as the only editor who modified it prior to my placing the speedy tag. Clearly you didn't understand that this is the way the process works, but by moving the page, you necessarily create a new redirect. Curious Blue (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Earlier, the deletion of the redirect was controversial, obviously, as we were still discussing it here. As such it was not just housekeeping, the redirects otherwise have to go to Wikipedia:redirects for discussion, not speedy, as the page on speedy deletes clearly explains. Anyway, we have all sort of agreed here on this front now, at that point it is ok to go ahead and speedy as housekeeping. If reverting people, claiming they are wrong when it should not have been listed as speedy earlier as we had all not agreed, or propounding this theory is what gives people fun and happiness on wiki, I do not mind as I personally do not have overwhelming feelings over this article except that it must not mislead the reader about the status of this theory, and must conform with WP:NPOV. For instance, why would the disambig must say that the other view is that held by the APA, which is vital for the reader to know if they're not going to read on with a mistaken impression of the status of the other theory.Merkinsmum 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about the focus of this article

Is this article about the history, evolution etc. of the term "psychopathy" or is it about Hare's use of the term? If it is the former, then IMHO then history, evolution, general use, etc. should be explained before launching into Hare's view. As the article stands now, the first para gives a very general overview. Then the second para immediately describes Hare's political views of DSM-IV:

"Psychologist Robert Hare and followers of his theory want the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to list psychopathy as a unique disorder, saying that psychopathy has no precise equivalent...."

Also, do you not think Hare's theory should be fully explained before his political debates over it are described?

Do people think that this is the gist of the article? If so, then it makes sense that the second para of the intro starts right in on the political debate. But there should be more background given first, I think. The novice reader may just want to know the various meanings of the term and may not be able to follow the politics immediately, or even know who "psychologist Hare" is. An average person does not know about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, never mind the political debates raging therein.

Also, I thought this article was supposed to be more general than a debate over the merits of a United States diagnostic manual. Or is the article a discussion of Hare and Cleckley's view versus DSM-IV? Do you not think ICD-10, since it is linked, should be given equal space to DSM-IV and sons?

Further, I believe current research should be at the end of the article, not at the beginning, before the term has been explained. It is very confusing to have references go to the Rape Empathy Scale in the first sentence. Then, with no background, launch into Hare's view of DSM-IV in the second para. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you that the article should be about the historical development of pyschopathy and that writing in chronological order would greatly improve the article. Curious Blue (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The history is important, this is true and should be included. Similarly a very clear distinction should be made between Psychopathy and both Anti-social personality disorder and Dysocial personality disorder and with clear reference that the former is a forensic and research term but not officially accepted by the main psychiatric ruling bodies. However, to consign the term psychopathy to being merely historical or only relating to Hare is factually incorrect. Although this may not be the case in the US, I can assure you in Europe, psychopathy generally, and the PCL-R specifically, are commonly used tools as part of both risk assement and treatment management. Yes, there may be issues with the validity of the exact assessment tools, and debate remains, but considerably research from a wide variety of authors (Lykken, Cooke, Michie, Forth, Lillienfeld, Newman, Blair, Skeem, ... to name but a few) indicates it is still a current and valid construct and deserving of a page dealing with it in it's own right. Gemnoire (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and there is an article on the PCL-R which could possibly contain some of that too, as the researches you mention were researching using that. The thing is if these people are using the PCL-R, they are using Hare's tool. And there's already an article about it. I would love to read other views on 'psychopathy' by professionals who aren't following Hare's theories/using this tool. I'm just wondering if anyone has another approach, or do those who do call it APD or Dissocial.PD? The best bits to me in this article are where the researchers are looking at psychopath's response to facial features and stuff like that, studies which are not using the PCL-R so much. The problem with the PCL-R is Hare says 'psychopathy' is separate from APD, he defines a different subject group, as such the research may not be usable to those following the APD model (though it probably is.) Also if you go in with a specific tool to find psychopaths, you will find 'psychopaths', Hare sort of admits that himself in the article.I loved him, Merlin! 12:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It is true that much of the research does focus on psychopathy as defined by the PCL-R, being considered by many as a 'gold standard', but a number of researchers have started using other tools. One that I personally find to be promissing is the Psychopathic Personality Inventory by Lilienfeld, which was a self-report psychopathy measure developed based on a number of theoretical sources included, but not exclusively, Hare's work. I have also heard that Cooke may be working a new tool to improve on the PCL-R by focusing more on the central affective and personality measures of psychopathy rather than anti-social behaviour, a view of the disorder which a lot of the neurological work supports. A lot of the work dealing with neurological basis do use the PCL-R, although they often both focus on factor 1 (the affective/personality elements) and combine it with a measure of anxiety to compensate for one of the major holes in the PCL-R assessment. With regards to the difference between APD and psychopathy, they are distinctly different, and I would disagree with anyone who used APD research to draw conclusions on psychopathy or vice versa (which is possibly one of issues with the current article as there still appears to be some confusion). APD is predominently behaviour based assessment, with a minimal number of personality variables included, focusing on specific criminal and anti-social behaviours. Psychopathy has a very important personality component, and is predominantly defined in these terms, though there is currently a lot of debate over whether anti-social behaviour should also be included in the definition (making it in essence a sub-category of APD really). Researchers like Cooke and Michie and Lilienfeld are currently arguing that anti-social behaviour is just one of many consequences of the disorder, and that it should be defined in terms of specific emotional and personality deficits (in simplistic terms, most of the factor 1 traits), which appears to be supported by neurological studies. The psychopathy literature is rich and constantly evolving, which unfortunately makes it incredibly difficult to summarise for a wiki page (or even a thesis which is what I'm currently trying to do). Gemnoire (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Is is true, or am I mistaken, you are discussing psychopathy primarily as a research topic with associated methodology, measures, etc.? If so, I would add that there is a long, fascinating history of the use of the term "psychopathy" that I would like to see described somewhere. It appears to be clear, unless I misunderstanding, that we agree that there is a distinction between the clinical use and research use of the term. It also appears that we agree that the three terms under consideration (Psychopathy, Antisocial Personality Disorder, and Dissocial Personality Disorder) are not one and the same. Do we agree on this? Mattisse 15:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That is not what the APA would say, is it, necessarily? I would say in terms of psychiatry psychopathy is an anachronistic (not meaning that in any bad sense) word for Antisocial personality disorder, which happens to have continued to be used by Hare and those using the PCL-R. A bit more about the history of APD could be put in the APD article. Dissocial P.D sounds a bit more like this Hare's psychopathy concept than APD does, however I think DisPD could just be mentioned at the end of the APD article, as it's usually written about as the same (although it isn't quite) and we probably don't have much to say about it.
Gemnoire- a wiki page is never 'finished' so you can always write up any new research as it comes out in WP:RS - as long as you keep the article concise.:) Merkinsmum 00:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, the essence from DSM-II going forward is a focus on observable behaviors. It makes no statements about the individual's internal dynamics or about causation. For example: #7 is "lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another". The following is a quote from Preparation for Licensing and Board Certification examinations in Psychology: The Professional, Legal, and Ethical Components (2nd Ed.) pp 132-133

... early editions of the DSM used the term sociopathic personality to emphasize the environmental factors that allegedly generated the disorder. The DSM-II substitued the label antisocial personality disorder to shift the emphasis to patterns of observable, definable behavior, and this term is retained in subsequent DSM's, including DSM-IV.

DSM-IV has added the two axes, Axis I and Axis II. Research psychologists and others who are working in settings where formal diagnosis is not required often retain the older term because it encompasses more. Researchers and theorists are more likely to be interested in Hare's PCL-R and therefore use the term for that reason also. They want to explore all those factors that DSM will not allow. Mattisse 02:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Except a diagnosis of psychopathy (not antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy) is still sometimes given by experts in court. For example: "Forensic psychologists are expected to be experts at mens rea, or the guiltiness of various states of mind. This is a big challenge, but no more demanding that what forensic psychologists are often called upon to do at the back end of the justice system, which in reality is to make an assessment of the "redeemability" or rehabilitation potential for a defendant who most likely faces the death penalty because some characterization of them as a "psychopath" or the like has evidenced itself among the aggravating factors at their sentencing hearing. As Bartol & Bartol (2004) put it, a diagnosis of psychopathy is the "kiss of death" at capital sentencing." [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeantHumain (talk • contribs) 21:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we have a problem here with different countries having different practices. In the United States there is no formal diagnosis of psychopathy. A mental health professional must use diagnoses from DSM-IV. Further, although a forensic psychologist needs to understand the elements of a crime, etc., because of the ultimate issue problems, experts would not make a statement about mens rea. Also, there is rarely a reason to diagnose someone with an Antisocial Personality Disorder, because personality disorders are not considered a mental illness in American courts, so why not go with Personality Disorder, NOS giving you more flexibility. That website you referenced, I cannot tell where that is coming from or when it was written. Are you able to tell?
[Interjected] The website's domain name is a dead giveaway; it's some campus of the University of North Carolina. Anyway I've seen an article on crimelibrary.com that addresses the evidence of a diagnosis of psychopathy in the trial of an adolescent or young adult who killed his parents (I think it was his parents). Usually it's the prosecution that will be claiming a defendant is a psychopath; obviously no sane defense attorney will want his or her client described as psychopathic. A diagnosis of psychopathy is not the same as describing a person's actual state of mind during commission of a crime. It's usually used to make any punishment harsher (on the assumption a psychopath is likely to commit more crimes if released). --NeantHumain (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Right now I am writing an article The Mask of Sanity, so I have piles of books around me. From what (little) I can tell about dissocial personality disorder, you are right—it is more like the ICD-10. This is a quote from Millon (1996): "The ICD-10 reverts to an earlier term as the label for DSM's antisocial personality, entitling it the "dissocial personality." The following features are summarized in their criteria listing:" (then a long list is given) "Noted as associated features are the presence of persistent irritability, and childhood or adolescent conduct disorders. We should be mindful that this characterization includes features that are normally associated with aggressive/sadistic personality styles. These features have been fused into the dissocial personality disorder criteria owing to the failure to include the sadistic personality pattern in the ICD taxonomy."
I have also seen statements (that I can't find to reference right now) that ICD-10 retains a psychodynamic focus and therefore tries to infer causation. DSM is going in the opposite direction, becoming trait-oriented and places the primary emphasis on the following. Interpersonal conduct: failure to conform to social norms, disinclination to engage in lawful behaviors; signs of consistent irresponsibility in one's dealings with others; deceitfulness and the conning of others for personal profit or pleasure; indifference to the welfare of others, as evident in a lack of remorse or the rationalization of why one has hurt of mistreated others. There is a single criterion in the Behavioral area: a reckless disregard for one's own safety as well as those of others. Partially behavioral but also cognitive is another single criterion: a failure to plan ahead, resulting in behavioral impulsively etc.
Millon says the same thing Cleckley does— that the term "antisocial" gives undue prominence to the delinquent or criminal expression of the personality by designating it as antisocial. This formulation fails to recognize that the same fundamental personality structure, with its characteristic pattern of ruthless and vindictive behavior, is often displayed in ways that are not socially disreputable, irresponsible, or illegal. Using personal repugnance and conventional morals as a basis for diagnostic syndromes runs contrary to contemporary efforts to expunge social judgments as clinical entities (e.g. the reevaluation of the concept of homosexuality as a syndrome). The label "antisocial" continues a struggle to resolve issues associated with earlier value-laden concepts. Mattisse 21:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I should be discussing this on the APD talk page but I was wondering why the ICD use dissocial -it's not a commonly used word and they wrote it after APD was invented. May be they meant to convey that the behaviour of someone with DisPD is motivated by disregard of others rather than hatred/dislike as 'antisocial' implies?Merkinsmum 02:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think ICD does used dissocial, as it merely mentions it in a list of alternative names, perhaps for historical reasons so the persons familiar with the term "dissocial" will know where it fits into the current scheme. Mattisse 18:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where you get your information from, Doc; UC Berkeley must do things differently. I've got digital copies of Chapter V of both the ICD-10 green book and the ICD-10 blue book, and it uses the term "dissocial personality disorder," listing antisocial personality, sociopathy, and Cleckley psychopath as synonyms or subtypes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeantHumain (talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I admit I do not know anything about ICD-10. But here is a quote from Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony Vol II by Jay Ziskin which is a book for attorneys to shoot down psychiatric testimony in the United States:

One should note whether the report contains a formal diagnosis......Those that do not are weakened......One can usually spot a formal diagnosis by the presence of a code number, usually a three-digit number, sometimes with additional digits ... although in some cases, psychiatrists will state what turns out to be a formal diagnosis without using the code numbers. Where there is a formal diagnosis, one should check to see if it is one of those listed in the diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM-III). .......the lawyer ... should check the manual for the elements required for making that diagnosis and then check to see if the report describes those elements.....If there is a diagnosis, but it is not from DSM-III, this is a matter to be questioned as there is only one official diagnositic classification system and it is DSM-III.

Regards, Mattisse 21:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit that's likely to need changing/or am I thick?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not sure if this bit is quite right:-

"Another study using the PCL-R to examine the relationship between antisocial behaviour and suicide found that suicide history was strongly correlated to PCL-R Factor 2 (reflecting antisocial deviance) and was not correlated to PCL-R factor 1 (reflecting affective functioning). Given that APD relates to Factor 2, whereas psychopathy relates to both factors, this would confirm Hervey Cleckley's assertion that psychopaths are relatively immune to suicide. People with APD, on the other hand, have a relatively high suicide rate."[2]

The sentence that this validates Clerckley violates WP:NOR unless the source mentions it, and ideally that everyone can read that it does. This is not the conclusion summarised in the source's abstract, and they would have mentioned if that was the conclusion they drew from their work; it says something else entirely.

The argument also doesn't necessarily follow at all, anyway, does it? Confused lol:)

It's late here- very- but I'll look at this tomorrow unless one of you gets the urge to go for it first.:)Merkinsmum 04:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Another study using the PCL-R to examine the relationship between antisocial behaviour and suicide, found that suicide history was strongly correlated to PCL-R Factor 2 (reflecting antisocial deviance) and was not correlated to PCL-R factor 1 (reflecting affective functioning). Although Hervey Cleckley's assertion that psychopaths are relatively immune to suicide is not the case, this study found that it is the antisocial behaviour they share with people with APD which has a correlation with increased suicide risk, (perhaps due to an impulsive temperament and negative emotionality). The psychopathic personality and view of others is not in and of itself linked to suicide."

What do you think- long-winded eh? lol.:) Merkinsmum 13:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to think. Off hand, it doesn't appear to make sense as Antisocial personality disorder people do not have a high rate of completed suicides. I have to understand more what those two factors measure. Also, I don't understand the preoccupation with suicide, as in my experience (which I know doesn't count) but also in the literature I have looked through so far, psychopathic persons committing suicide does not seem to be a concern. Mattisse 18:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
"Attempted suicide rarely completed" was one of Cleckley's original criteria, which is why I think it was mentioned. But other than further evidence supporting the distinct between the various factors of the PCL-R, I'd say it has little relevance to the actual construct. Gemnoire (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for removal of two references

First reference was on 25 boys between the ages of 8 to 12 with disruptive behavior, measuring their empathy by their reaction to vignettes and by a self-report measure.

Second reference was to study that compared the responses of 27 incarcerated rapists and 27 incarcerated nonsexual offenders using the Rapist Empathy Measure. Rapists had more empathy for victims and for women in general than nonrapist. Using a variety of measures, including semi-structure interviews, review of instituational files and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, no differences were found between the rapists and nonsexual offenders in terms of self-esteem and psychopathy, and neither self-esteem nor psychopathy significantly predicted empathy for either group.

Neither of these references in the lead are appropriate, IMO, as references to general statements about psychopathy. Mattisse 18:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing third reference as not appropriate for lead definition

This is the content of the reference:

The purpose of the present study was to test whether adult criminals with psychopathy diagnoses, more than those without, have histories of hyperactivity-impulsivity-attention problems (HIA) and conduct problems (CP). We compared psychopathic and nonpsychopathic violent criminal offenders on retrospective reports of conduct problems before the age of 15 and hyperactivity-impulsivity-attention problems before the age of 10. We used a sample of 186 adult men sentenced to prison in Sweden for 4 years or more for violent, nonsexual crimes. The mean age was 30.7( SD = 9.4). The results showed that a combination of childhood HIA problems and CP was typical for adult psychopathic offenders. They were four times more likely than chance to have had a combination of HIA problems and CP during childhood and only one-fifth as likely than chance to have had neither problem. Nonpsychopathic offenders, on the other hand, were five times more likely than chance to have had neither problem and only one-quarter as likely than chance to have had both problems.

PMID: 15899723 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Mattisse 19:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Threatened with exposure, psychopaths edit the Wikipedia Psychopathy page

Here, you cannot assume good faith! Intelligent and cunning, they may delete accurate, descriptive material for small reasons without offering better, and discredit those who oppose them. My qualifications include being subordinate to a highly socialized, primary psychopath for several years; yes, Hare and Cleckley most certainly do know their material!

Also, remember your audience includes the abused, who may turn to this page grasping for any straw of understanding. DanB (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggest letting Zeraph write article but make clear it does not refer to US usage of term

The use of the term in the United States appears to be radically different than that in Britain. Further, raw research findings are not considered to prove anything definitive. If you want to quote research findings, you must find articles that collect a variety of research studies and compare and contrast methodologies, including sample selection, methods of diagnoses, statistical designs, among other considerations that affect results. A single research article can prove anything the researcher wants it to. If you are adamantly opposed to using approved citation to compare and contrast articles, then I suggest confining this article into one that Zeraph writes, leaving out all US applications. We can remove Cleckley, since he was American and is still the backbone the DSM-IV etc. Mattisse 19:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, so far I have never seen any evidence to support your claim above. So I cannot consider it valid. Cleckley wrote about Psychopathy and therefore is relevant to any article on psychopathy and cannot be removed. While you mention the subject, perhaps if you would be so kind as to be more careful not to use single articles by specific people to support general claims? Thank you.
You so obviously want to present the Anti-psychopathy POV which is only a POV at the end of the day, and not one that I personally subscribe to, so that I suggest we use that conflict of ideas constructively to present a properly balanced NPOV article on psychopathy. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Matisse left a note on my talk page asking me to look at this. The problem here for me is that I'm not aware of the background. Matisse or Zeraeph, could one of you give me one example (with a diff) of the issues under dispute? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the most obvious [3] if you look above you will see that the Washington State issue was addressed over and over again so that surely User:Mattisse could not have been the person who made such a deliberately misleading edit? As it stood it was simply untrue so I fixed it. More to come.--Zeraeph (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The only piece I removed was this [4] then [5] as the UK Mental Health Act 1959 still defined Psychopathy as "any mental illness" until 2001, so that the statement was meaningless in the context of the article and unlikely to be accurate. It was my intention to dig up the act later and see what it actually DID say and then decide where the statement belonged and exactly how it should be worded.
[Interjected] I think we'd need to see evidence that the 1959 Act in the UK defined psychopathy as any mental illness. The Mental Health Act 1983 says: "Psychopathic disorder is defined as a "persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including significant impairment of intelligence) resulting in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct." This would be interesting as a history of the word, but not really relevant to how the word is used today. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Now, believe it or not, you have just (apparently) FALLEN over a quote from the '83 act that I couldn't find if my life depended on it a few months ago. :o) Such is life...that certainly would be the defintion that stood until 2001 and shocked me, however, as far as I recall the '83 act is just a heavy revision of the '59 act (it is in other respects) certainly the '83 definition needs mentioning! Ignore that, it's a euro 3:20 mind slip, I DID find it and put it in article AGES ago, it's the ruddy '59 that eludes me. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Google books provided tantalising snippets that suggest an identical definition to '83 in the '59 act...which tranlates, loosely as "mentally ill and misbehavin'" to my mind...but can't assume...I track it somehow...just not immediately. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I moved a lot of sections around as some of them seemed to have only limited relevance to the sections they were in such as [6] and [7] to sections where they were wholly relevant and I tidied some POV statements such as [8] and [9]
Basically, as far as I can tell User:Mattisse wishes to use the article to establish that Psychopathy does not exist as a medical term, and intention that seems, in itself, POV, as well as in contradiction of the facts. Unfortunately some of the claims she makes towards this end are not in accord with sources or facts. She claims above that Psychopathy is not in use in USA yet Robert Hare himself sits on the Research Board of the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Murder Investigative Resources Center (CASMIRC) and has received the American Academy of Forensic Psychology's award for "Distinguished Contributions to Psychology and Law," And the American Psychiatric Association's Isaac Ray Award for "Outstanding Contributions to Forensic Psychiatry and Psychiatric Jurisprudence." for his work on the subject, and most US states have legal definitions of Psychopathy. --Zeraeph (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that psychopathy, sociopathy, psychopathic personality disorder, and antisocial personality disorder are used more or less interchangeably in the UK and the U.S. -- though some writers do make distinctions, as a brief Google search shows. I think it's also true that in the U.S. they tend to use antisocial personality disorder more than any other term. But the thing to do is simply to note who uses the term in which way, and to make clear that there are slight disagreements about use and definition. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
They aren't entirely interchangeable terms, there are some very significant difference the use, and meaning of the terms indeed (though Sociopathy was essentially created as a synonym for Psychopathy to avoid confusion with the older useage denoting "any mental illness").
To put it very briefly, all Psychopaths class as having antisocial personality disorder, but not everybody with antisocial personality disorder is a Psychopath. A psychopath is incurable, hardwired, and far more specific, antisocial personality disorder is not necessarily incurable, which is why behaviorists, insurance companies and diagnostician prefer to use the term, which leave thing more open. But that structural preference does not, in any way, invalidate Psychopathy as an established concept in it's own right, which is what this article is about.
Any difference between English Speaking Europe and Australasia and the USA results from the USA preference for the DSM-IV TR which uses antisocial personality disorder as a category, whereas English Speaking Europe and Australasia are more likely to use ICD-10 where antisocial personality disorder does not exist and is covered by either Dissocial PD, or PD not otherwise specified, depending on how you look at it.
I was hoping that Mattisse could settle down and present the side of that controversy she is so passionate about in a valid, neutral way, with real evidence to support it. If a case is worth making, surely it can be made in that way, not by POV conjectures or distorting facts? --Zeraeph (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note that there is extensive comment regarding this and related matters at my talkpage and also related comment at User talk:Mattisse and User talk:Zeraeph for background and more. For parties not interested in pursuing resolution there seems to be considerable effort being spent in "establishing" poor behaviour by various interests. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the background information, which I'm currently making my way through. I agree that there's too much focus on behavior. If we can get the content dispute settled, the behavior stuff will hopefully matter less.
Matisse, if you're around, do you want to respond to the points Zeraeph has raised? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My view (massive edit conflict)

(edit conflict - so here goes, as I am not going to do the whole thing over.)

Suggest letting Zeraph write article but make clear it does not refer to US usage of term

The use of the term in the United States appears to be radically different than that in Britain. Further, raw research findings are not considered to prove anything definitive. If you want to quote research findings, you must find articles that collect a variety of research studies and compare and contrast methodologies, including sample selection, methods of diagnoses, statistical designs, among other considerations that affect results. A single research article can prove anything the researcher wants it to. If you are adamantly opposed to using approved citation to compare and contrast articles, then I suggest confining this article into one that Zeraph writes, leaving out all US applications. We can remove Cleckley, since he was American and is still the backbone the DSM-IV etc. Mattisse 19:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, so far I have never seen any evidence to support your claim above.(You removed it from the article. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)) So I cannot consider it valid. Cleckley wrote about Psychopathy and therefore is relevant to any article on psychopathy and cannot be removed. (Cleckley, whose article I wrote, The Mask of Sanity was using the word very differently than does Hare, and further Cleckley's view evolved over time.) While you mention the subject, perhaps if you would be so kind as to be more careful not to use single articles by specific people to support general claims? Thank you. (Yes, I agree and wish you would stop. However, when I reference a well known source, used as textbooks in graduate and post-graduate programs, I do not consider them on the same level as "one reference" as you do your one "research article" with a small subject pool, questionable measures, and questionable use of statistics) because the books I cite are a synthesis of many points of view and many authors and cover a large area in the field. The authors are well known also, and provide clinical training in the US for psychologists, psychiatrists, and forensic psychologists and psychiatrists. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)}
Whenever you do use such sources, presented accurately, as they are, in their context, with NPOV, I will not only support but applaud them. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
And here is something fascinating for you to look into (found while running to ground the 1959 act) [10]
Look for "Howells 1982". --Zeraeph (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You so obviously want to present the Anti-psychopathy POV which is only a POV at the end of the day, and not one that I personally subscribe to, so that I suggest we use that conflict of ideas constructively to present a properly balanced NPOV article on psychopathy. --Zeraeph (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (I do not care what the term is called, I just want it to be accurate. I do no know what grounds you are accusing me of POV - because POV is not a factor in clinical terminology. A professional uses the terminology that is required. Period. That is not a political issue. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC))
I think the repeated use of unsupported terminology like "the followers of Robert Hare" is POV. I also think spinning the presentation of sources to the point of inaccuracy is POV. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Matisse left a note on my talk page asking me to look at this. The problem here for me is that I'm not aware of the background. Matisse or Zeraeph, could one of you give me one example (with a diff) of the issues under dispute? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the most obvious [11] if you look above you will see that the Washington State issue was addressed over and over again so that surely User:Mattisse could not have been the person who made such a deliberately misleading edit? As it stood it was simply untrue so I fixed it. More to come.--Zeraeph (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC) (This link goes to a wikipedia link and not to an outside source. One article Z quoted on the Washington legislation was a law passed in 1948, and presented as the current thinking. Not so. I write many articles on US Supreme Court case decisions, especially on mental health law, and in the US we must abide by those decisions. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC))
My corrected section links to the current Washington State Legislature and their current definition of Psychopathy which you had mistakenly claimed did not exist. That is a very simple obvious change that had to be made urgently to avoid misleading readers.--Zeraeph (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The only piece I removed was this [12] then [13] as the UK Mental Health Act 1959 still defined Psychopathy as "any mental illness" until 2001, so that the statement was meaningless in the context of the article and unlikely to be accurate. It was my intention to dig up the act later and see what it actually DID say and then decide where the statement belonged and exactly how it should be worded. (I am not going to bother to see what those diffs refer to. I am concerned with misinformation provided to US readers or those interested in mental health terminology in the United States. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC))
With respect, unless you can tell me differently, it was your reference to the UK Mental Health act in the first place, not mine? --Zeraeph (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I moved a lot of sections around as some of them seemed to have only limited relevance to the sections they were in such as [14] and [15] to sections where they were wholly relevant and I tidied some POV statements such as [16] and [17] (Again I am not going to bother to look up those diffs -- in any case, the point is that Z decides unilaterally what is right and wrong without discussion or consensus and with derogatory edit summaries. Mattisse)
They did not describe the sections they were placed in, but did describe other sections, so I moved them. This should be obvious and not a big issue at all. --Zeraeph (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Basically, as far as I can tell User:Mattisse wishes to use the article to establish that Psychopathy does not exist as a medical term, and intention that seems, in itself, POV, as well as in contradiction of the facts. Unfortunately some of the claims she makes towards this end are not in accord with sources or facts. She claims above that Psychopathy is not in use in USA yet Robert Hare himself sits on the Research Board of the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Murder Investigative Resources Center (CASMIRC) and has received the American Academy of Forensic Psychology's award for "Distinguished Contributions to Psychology and Law," And the American Psychiatric Association's Isaac Ray Award for "Outstanding Contributions to Forensic Psychiatry and Psychiatric Jurisprudence." for his work on the subject, and most US states have legal definitions of Psychopathy. --Zeraeph (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC) (Again, what law enforcement agencies do and the terminology they use, is up to them and is criminology, not clinical psychology or psychiatry, so is irrelevant to any article purporting to be clinical in nature. Mattisse)
The American Psychiatric Association is nlot generally considered to be a "law enforcement agency". --Zeraeph (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My statement

The fact is Zeraeph did massive reverting with no talk page discussion and no concensus. This despite postings left on her page by User:LessHeard vanU to the contrary. She ignored him completely. Her edit summaries were considered person attacks and was, in addition to the reverting, the reason she was blocked. Zeraeph fails to see that what the FBI does, or any legal agency, has nothing to do with the medical terminology in the US. In a statement with reference that Z removed from the article, it is clear that in the US, Antisocial Personality Disorder is the only diagnosis used, and that psychopathy is an outdated medical term that is popular in mass culture and used loosely in research circles, as researchers are not bound legally to use certain terminology. Psychopathy is not a diagnosis in the US that a mental health professional can use in the court room, in medical setting, in diagnosing for insurance reimbursement etc. Z. has removed my references sourcing that. I am not going to bother to get them again. Anyone who has three citations in the lead sentence (as Z did originally) to raw research results, not citing articles that consider experimental design, methodology, statistical analyzes (Z. removed my references pointing out the importance of these issues) is not a valid reference in the lead. She removed my references to the problems of using cluster/factor analyses on a small subject pool and for the goal of diagnosing real people in clinical settings. Maybe in a section entitled "Further research" that would be appropriate. However because a small number of boys had conduct disorders when young (as measured by retrospective self report data) is not "proving" anything. That is just one research result, and clearly researchers often get the results they are looking for. These kind of citations are inappropriate, especially in the lead. That most sources in the article are of these raw research reports is just one major fault of the article. As another editor said, this article should be called Hare's Theory because it relies so much on Hare, who is just one researcher and who is not a clinician. This article is not a clinical article. It is pushing one view, Hare's view, which in the US is used by some for research purposes. The DSM-IV, the mandatory diagnostic manual in the United States, does not use the word "psychopathy" (and has not since 1968) and does not depend on Hare for its diagnostic criteria. All this has been removed, some in the 19 edits in two hours made today. No thanks. I will not be protected from personal attacks here. Mattisse 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

proof of reverting 19 times in 2 hours

These are the edits Z made today, removing or changing the meaning of my edits. Unfortunately I "malformed" the request, and not knowing what that means or how to correct it, I am helpless. One more reason I will not remain in this morase where I can obtain help without going through an insane amount of work to proof all the work undone by Z. I am not going to do that work again. Mattisse 03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

---User:Zeraeph reported by User:Mattisse (Result: no action, malformed report)---

Psychopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zeraeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [18] (I am not sure what version this means)

(I tried to understand DIFFTIME but I do not understand what I am supposed to be doing. Please help -- is time started: 17:27, 28 December 2007 - time of Zeraeph's first edit on Psychopathy today?

  • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

User:Zeraeph received a 28 day block which she served and it was lifted today, a few hours ago.

User:Zeraeph's 28 day block was for this same behavior on the same article Psychopathy, at least in part.

Her answer to my article page post was in the same vein as before -- she is right, I am wrong and she does not have to discuss or compromise or come to consensus on changes. She is concentrating on my edits without consulting or trying to compromise or explain to me. She has moved and rearranged reference citations I put there, as well as misrepresented their meanings. Although she has rearranged and removed my citations and and changed or removed my wording, she will not discuss anything related to the content of the articlefwith me, other to state in edit summary that I was wrong, or other disparaging remarks about my edits in the edit summaries. I was warned the last time this happened by User:Viriditas not to contact Zeraeph on her talk page. Mattisse 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Declined Malformed request. No 3RR violation immediately apparent from history. Please see the other reports on this page as examples on how to provide a correct report. Sandstein (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I followed the instructions as best I could and asked questions where I did not understand. So, no more 3-RRR reporting for me. Mattisse 03:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Those 19 edits are not all reverts, as they are mostly consecutive for one thing. They don't look at all disruptive, tendentious, or unsupported to me, either, but perhaps that is because I didn't look far enough back in the article's history or something. I'm completely unfamiliar with this situation, but doing a diff on the first and last of those edits looks fine to me. MilesAgain (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • User:MilesAgain, I have been told (and blocked for) four (4) consecutive edits in a similar editing situation. So what you are saying is not true (or not true for others than Z.) Also, her "consecutive edits were systematically removing my edits or rearranging them in a misleading way, starting within minutes of being unblocked for doing the same thing. Mattisse 13:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have lost so many edits in edit conflicts -- I'm done!

I'm done. Can't get my points in! It is clearly Z's article. Good luck. The best to all of you who are helping her with it, Slim Virgin and others. Mattisse 03:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

lead sentence

I made what I hope is a non-controversial edit to the lead sentence. My main intention was to cut down the number of words. I also clarified that some (i.e. not all) classify psychopathy as a personality disorder, this should be non'controversial since DSM-IV and ICD-10 do not list it as a personality disorder thus, not everyone considers it a personality disorder. I think the result complies with NPOV and is accurate. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems perfectly fine to me, I cannot imagine any reason why anyone would object to it, my main "issue" there was just that I could not, for the life of me, understand how the derivation from the Greek got moved to another part of the article --Zeraeph (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
That is a fine lead sentence. Good work! Regards, Mattisse 18:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psychopathy/Archive_3&oldid=1136238614"