Talk:Psychopathy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Celtic people?

Are celtic people more likely to have psychopathy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.144.156 (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems doubtful, and it's sort of hard to say just what a Celt is beyond the context of history, and any statistic showing an increase in any ethnic group could be misleading due to differences in population size, socio-economic factors, ect. --67.58.72.182 (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

External Link

I have added an outside link to a self test checking for traits of psychopathic, narcissistic and histrionic personality disorders based on ICD-10 and DSM-IV that could be of help for persons who are not sure which disorder (if any) they are actually suffering from. It got deleted by 'OhNoitsJamie' @ 15:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC) by a mouseclick right away - a mouseclick by which she even removed a factual error in the article about histrionic disorder I corrected and that took me some time to dig up a credible source for. I can understand that contributions of 'new' users are checked carefully, but this treatment feels very awkward. Here is the link to the test: http://www.counseling-office.com/surveys/test_psychopathy.phtml , please check yourself if it may damage the reputation of Wikipedia as 'OhNoitsJamie' claimed... Can anyone please give feedback on whether anyone sees a problem with adding it for the readers who look for orientation. Thanks! Sys2007 (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't meet our WP:EL or WP:Reliable sources policies. Continued spamming of commercial links will result on blacklisting of said links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Autistic Psychopathy"

I believe autistic psychopathy should be removed from the "See also" section. It is already is the "Not to be confused with" section, and Autistic Psychopathy, which is Asperger's name for the syndrome which now bears his name, has absolutely nothing in common with Psychopathy (some even consider them to be opposites), and placing it in the see also section instead of just the "not to be confused with section" is misleading as it can cause people to believe that autism/aspergers can cause psychopathy or that they are related, which is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.222.137.195 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed autistic psychopathy from "see also" because the two topics are not related. Leaving it in "not to be confused with" is probably fair though seeing as they are two very different concepts that may cause confusion.Watermelon mang (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Characteristics

Most of these subsections seem to be basically advancing and following the points of views of Hare in one of his books for general reader (not itself specifically sourced), mixed in with personal descriptions and the odd other source. I think it should be boiled down to at least half the length and number of subections, and attributed as a summary of Hare's characterization of the psychopath. I'll start doing that unless any other view. Eversync (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably gonna keep on editing away at the article, unless any concerns or feedback on the direction or any issues etc... Eversync (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC) (incl. re the length of article or any sections... Eversync (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC))

As I understand, Hare is respected as the world's formost expert on psychopathy, and quoting him is appropriate considering this article generally follows his (and Cleckley's) concept.Kurzon (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sociopathy =/= Psychopathy

So why does "sociopath" lead to this article?--69.203.143.103 (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sociopaths and psychopaths are the same thing. The term psychopath got changed to sociopaths by psychologists, when the media made them look like rapists and murderers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desbest (talk • contribs) 02:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

They're used interchangeably. Psychopathy#Psychopathy_vs._sociopathy acknowledges a slight difference, but they're both essentially variations of the same disorder: antisocial personality disorder (or dissocial personality disorder). Psychopathy and sociopathy aren't recognized as actual disorders today. MichaelExe (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If they're just variations of the same disorder, and moreover aren't recognized as actual disorders today, then why not redirect both "psychopathy" and "sociopathy" to "antisocial personality disorder", with perhaps sections within that article discussing psychopathy and/or sociopathy if these variations are significant enough to warrant such inclusion? --69.203.143.103 (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I came here via the Sociopath redirect and was confused to find nothing in the lede about Sociopathy. I think a sentence or two would be a good idea. Rees11 (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

MichaelExe is incorrect to say that psychopathy isn't actually recognized today since it's still being actively diagnosed, but it is not specified in the DSM-IV-TR (see antisocial personality disorder) or ICD-10 (see dissocial personality disorder). Psychopathy measures some personality characteristics not qualified in the DSM or ICD, so it's not exactly the same. Psychopathy now has standard interviews and questionnaires to measure it. Sociopathy is just a term some theorists use to distinguish the cause of antisocial behavior.--NeantHumain (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought the general consensus was that the main characteristic of both psychopaths and sociopaths is a lack of empathy, but that psychopaths are relatively more manipulative, whereas sociopaths are not necessarily manipulative but are typically rasher/colder in their antisocial thoughts and/or behavior (e.g. "I would like to see everyone die in an orgy of hydrogen bombs"). Of course, there's much more to the psychopath and sociopath than what I just mentioned, but the point is that SOCIOPATHY IS NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS PSYCHOPATHY, and so "sociopath"/"sociopathy" should not redirect to "psychopath"/"psychopathy" but instead have its own article. Thus, I vote in favor of getting rid of this redirect, and in favor of creating a new article for "sociopath"/"sociopathy". Or, at least, like someone else said, acknowledge the differences within the "antisocial personality disorder" article, where "psychopath" and "sociopath" could act as sub-topics. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? Yes? --82.31.164.172 (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence

That psychopaths are extremely intelligent is a common misconception. Thus we should point out that this is wrong. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"That psychopaths are extremely intelligent is a common misconception." says who, any sources? --Aleksd (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

See the section "Psychopathy and intelligence". Academica Orientalis (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw it. There may be a debate over where this intelligence stem, is it education or etc. but I don't think it is a misconception, the passage only points to that debate. --Aleksd (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The source states what is stated in the section. There is no evidence that they have high intelligence which therefore should not be stated in the lead. Academica Orientalis (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact studies and cases of childhood representation of psychopathy trails shows very early (not due to education) and highly intelligent ways of manipulation. Otherwise I am agreeable with this passage but it should be pointed that this is a sort of debate. --Aleksd (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have any sources, then please add them. Being manipulative at an early age is not necessarily evidence of high intelligence but may simply reflect lack of empathy. Academica Orientalis (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Lack of empathy may only result in lack of tears for example, it does not mean manipulation. It is the ability of deception that is highly skilled here. --Aleksd (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to present sources for your claims. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources and not on unsourced opinions by anonymous editors. Academica Orientalis (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a recent one [1] (Donald Lynam, a psychologist at Purdue University). I dont understand how you could call misconception something that is widely accepted (by psychologists) as true. --Aleksd (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That is newspaper. Hare is the leading expert on psychopaths and he states what is stated in the section in an academic review paper. If there is a disagreement then it should not be stated as undisputed in the lead.Academica Orientalis (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

CTRL + F gives you an idea how to search in a text. If you could not do that, probably should abstain from editing Wikipedia. Theory is based on cases, the intelligence mentioned as topic there is not on the mere case but in comparison of it to majority of cases in relation to intelligence. I hope I am good enough for your intelligence to explain that. --Aleksd (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is disagreement then it should not be stated as undisputed in the lead. Hare is the leading expert on psychopaths and he states what is stated in the section in an academic review paper unlike the newspaper you cite. No, single cases proves nothing, one needs statistics for any scientific evidence.Academica Orientalis (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

As I see you are a recent user of Wikipedia and you don't very well understand the netiquette here (for example not to re-revert someone's revert endlessly and initiating 'editing war' or something). Would you like first to read some guidelines about it before continuing our discussion? --Aleksd (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not new. You should not remove a disputed template while there is an ongoing dispute. Resolve the dispute first. Academica Orientalis (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

So after you are not new, you should know that initiating editing wars is not a good and acceptable thing. There is no template on the page, right? Look at the page again and see if there is a template, no there isn't. After you started a discussion on talk page, keep it here, not on issue grounds. And by the way I am really interested on how you keep so emotionless and stubborn on your edits and discussions here. You seem very determinate. Is there a specific reason for it? --Aleksd (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There is not a template because you removed it despite there being an ongoing dispute. Furthermore, you have deleted sourced views regarding the relationship between intelligence and psychopathy stated in a peer-reviewed academic review paper by the leading researcher on psychopathy. Please explain. Academica Orientalis (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There you go with lies again no template --Aleksd (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I wil further not discuss with you, will keep on insisting of article being locked. --Aleksd (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can see that you removed the disputed template so I do not see why you try to deny it: [2]. Also, you have already reverted four times today so I would urge you to self-revert rather than being blocked. Academica Orientalis (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And you reverted probably over 10 times. But I have an idea for a compromise view:

"It is not scientifically connected and related to IQ but is related to high level of intelligence in manipulations" - you can word it better if you want. --Aleksd (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

But I still think IQ cannot measure all types of intelligence. This is merely a test. To say there is no evidence of high IQ of psychopaths... is there an evidence of them being on evarage or below average? no. --Aleksd (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

How about "Despite this, psychopaths are often superficially charming and can be highly adept at manipulation. There is at most only a weak association between pschyopathy and high IQ". Academica Orientalis (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, still better. --Aleksd (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"There is at most only a weak association between psychopathy and high IQ."

I found this sentence to not fit into the first paragraph, and I also think it should be followed by a couple of other sentences to introduce it and inform about the topic properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.93.176 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes

I am not agreeable on recent changes on this article. Either untrue ("pathos - passion" explanation, it is obvious that here it is not passion but rather pathology) or manipulating material has been added in a way to shadow the impact of this personality disorder. Changes made are significant and consistent. Sourced material has been removed. I am afraid that this issue is of general interest not only to public, those suffering from meeting psychopaths, psychologists, relatives but also those diagnosed with it. The article was of good quality before and I am not agreeable with its whole rewriting. In fact, I think Wikipedia should be more on adding material, not on rewriting, and rewriting should be used only in small scale when needed in low quality material that this article was not. I believe this article should be reverted to much earlier content and locked for any type of editing. --Aleksd (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what changes are you disagreeing with and why? Academica Orientalis (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was written above: 1 example, wrong etymology. 2 - deletion. Am I clear now? --Aleksd (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Disagreeing with the etymology does not invalidate the rest of the article. Exactly what material have been deleted that you consider should be in the article? Academica Orientalis (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think confusing passion for pathology could mean only 2 things:

1. serious misunderstanding of the subject
2. manipulation

As I said above, I will further not discuss with you as I see it pointless. --Aleksd (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That you disagree regarding the etymology obviously does not mean that all other changes are incorrect. Please state exactly what other changes you disagree with and why. Academica Orientalis (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe those editing recently the article should have noticed it [3] as it is on top of article. --Aleksd (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have already stated that you disagree with the etymology but this does not explain why you disagree with all other changes. Academica Orientalis (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Still very obstinate, I said I don't like deletions made on article and the new text in all, I can argue on each passage, but I see we cannot understand each other on 2 of them, what to say discussing even more. --Aleksd (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

On the topic of recent changes, I'm not sure what happened but the article was fine before a slew of unsubstantiated pseudoscientific conjecture was added. That kind of stuff doesn't belong in an article about a relatively well-documented personality disorder, especially where authoritative diagnostic criteria (e.g. DSM) are present. The article was also way too long for something that is mostly considered a subset of ASPD, so in addition to the removal of the aforementioned pseudoscience, I've removed some relatively unimportant or repeated bits. State the notable, substantiated bits and move on. --Xagg (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I've traced back the recent changes to August 2011. Based on revision comparisons it seems that a great quantity if not a majority of the revisions by a few users were completely unsubstantiated (no sources - whatsoever), and appeared to be opinions that were added to the article without any consultation to authoritative sources or referencing of such. Please keep an eye on the article and revert any unsubstantiated claims. --Xagg (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Much can be said about recent changes to this article but you are mass deleting very well-sourced material such the relationship between psychopathy and IQ as described in a peer-reviewed review article by Hare. Better sources are not available. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That portion was presented in a manner and in particular sections (e.g. the lead, and the defining Characteristics section), such that it seemed to suggest that any relationship between psychopaths and IQ was a notable if not defining association, when in fact it is not even mentioned in any referenced authoritative criteria on psychopathy - not to mention, there is barely anything about it yet (just a note about a weak association!). I have added the portion about IQ back in, but to a more relevant section. Thanks for noting. --Xagg (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hare did not say what you state about white matter in the given review source so that is incorrectly cited. You also only added back some of the intelligence material. IQ should not be under "Neuroanatomy". Cannot say that you current version which seems to be simply a mass revert to a very old version is particularly accurate. For example, you deleted the well-sourced evolutionary psychology material for no reason. You have also mass deleted much other well-sourced material without explanation. I propose restoring the earlier version. If you want to remove something, then please do so carefully and explain why you do so. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The comment about white matter was derived from the previous statements in the section, which were appropriately cited and based on scientifically valid studies. If you wish to add or return some material, fine, but make sure it's APPROPRIATELY SOURCED and NOTABLE enough (relative to the subject) to be included. Furthermore, place it in a section where it would belong depending on its notability with respect to the subject. Be wary, however: most the recent additions to the 'Characteristics' section were completely unsubstantiated and not notable, and as that comprised a huge chunk of the recent additions, it might just be easier to add in the appropriate bits than to mass-revert and hack and slash. Either way, most of the recent additions (like those in the 'Characteristics' section as previously mentioned) will need to be deleted. --Xagg (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As for the location of the psychopathy vs. IQ material, where would you propose putting it? For reasons previously stated, any such relationship is not a defining characteristic, so I'm not so sure it would belong under 'Characteristics'. And due to that reason and the fact that there's minimal information on it, it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. --Xagg (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not how citations works. When you use a given source you can only include statements from that source. Otherwise you are inventing things which the author of the source has not stated. If you only disagreed with the material in the characteristics sections you should only have deleted that, after due explanation preferably here on the talk page, and not mass deleted well-sourced material in the rest of the article without explanation. A characteristics section can certainly mention what are not characteristics but commonly thought to be so. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Due to sufficient sources, I've returned the portion on intelligence and psychopathy I believe that you're referring to, placing it in a new section under Characteristics. I've also returned the portion on an evolutionary standpoint of psychopathy, as that seemed sufficiently substantiated as well. I'm sorry for the mass revert, but to be honest there was just too much junk in the recent additions to warrant using that. However, it's easy to find good material to return by looking in the History, so that's encouraged. (Btw, according to Wikipedia regarding statements and citations, not always, and it's a matter of editorial judgement, but anyway, I've deleted the bit about white matter in that sentence, so there shouldn't be an issue there any more.) --Xagg (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what are you disagreeing with except for the characteristics section? If that is your only complaint you should not have mass reverted to the whole article to a several years old version but simply removed that section (and certainly explained this edit on talk). Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I returned content from Aug 2011, not several years ago. I explained the reasons above - see the preceding Talk discussion starting from 14:57, 3 June 2012. But I admit that some notable content may have been lost in the revert that I made. You're invited to revert it back to the chaotic state if you wish, but I expect that it would take much more work to clean that up compared to just adding the notable bits back into the article as it stands. Either way, the eventual end result should be the same - a well-written article - so be my guest! --Xagg (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The article was reverted to the one with the huge Characteristics section, etc., but since it may have some significant developments since the former revisions, it makes sense to work with it. I've noted where in the article citations need to be added, and have resolved some of the fringe theory stuff going on. I've also added a note about the article size. --Xagg (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"Characteristics" and "Diagnosis" sections

The article should first describe the scientifically validated and scientifically used measure instruments. Then there may also possibly be some descriptions of the more impressionistic characteristics mentioned in the various popular books on the topic. These rather unscientific claims should not be mentioned first. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Looks like you've helped to fix it up. Well done. --Xagg (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Other argued characteristics section

Is mainly unsourced and the sources are largely old popular books on psychopathy. This problematic since there have been much recent research. Furthermore, the text describes the PCL-R and the popular books' view as the only correct and many characteristics as absolutely certain while the views in the literature are considerably more nuanced with many unresolved issues. As such I propose removing most of this section, keeping material with better sources. The argued PCL-R characteristics could be described in greater detail in the Hare Psychopathy Checklist article although better sources should preferably be used. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Size

This article is currently around 134k in size. According to Wikipedia:Splitting#Size_split, any article that has over 60k of readable prose 'probably should be divided', and any article that has over 100k of readable prose 'almost certainly should be divided'. And moreover, for the subject, it's huge. Take a look at a related article, Antisocial Personality Disorder, which is only 40k in size, although it is far more recognized clinically. I think that some waffling on the Psychopathy article needs to be removed, repeated info erased, and/or content moved to another article.

With regards to the article size issue, I'm thinking that the 'Characteristics' and 'History' sections could be major contributors.

Most of the substantiated info that is explained in the 'Characteristics' section is already presented in a few concise sentences in the 'Diagnosis' section, while much of the other stuff in the 'Characteristics' section is fringe theory. Although I've tried to resolve some of that, there's still a slew of unsubstantiated pseudotheory there.

As for the other section - 'History' - there seems to be a lot of info there that has already been stated elsewhere in the article, e.g. clinical concepts of psychopathy, Hare's work, notable DSM developments, etc. Given the subject of the article, I don't think that such a long history section is warranted, so it should be trimmed or else split into another article.

Input? --Xagg (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Subarticles are appropriate if the article gets too long such as possibly "Characteristics of psychopathy" or "History of psychopathy" and material moved there. But poorly sourced material should be deleted. Academica Orientalis (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Note however that source at the end of a paragraph usually indicates that the source is applied to the whole paragraph. No need to give a source after every sentence. Academica Orientalis (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Much of the article needs to be completely rewritten using appropriate review sources which should likely reduce article size significantly. Academica Orientalis (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the characteristics and diagnosis sections needs to be combined for coherency and comprehensiveness. Academica Orientalis (talk) 09:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Created subarticle for the history material. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the article is a much healthier size now. Props. --Xagg (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

abuse of PCL-R and sucessful psychopaths

ive seen evidence that psychopaths are actively sought in some executive positions so that being a certified psychopath secures the job. This would be an abuse of the PCL-R - using it back to front. I dont have good enough sources at present to include in article but may get some.--Penbat (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems extremely unlikely, but feel free to post any notable sources to be examined. --Xagg (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see the attraction, a psychopath may come up with an audacious ruthless Machiavellian scheme to rip off customers to boost company profits - a non-psychopath would most likely have too much of a conscience to do this. Also a psychopath may be a ruthless hirer and firer to boost profits.--Penbat (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Notable sources would be needed for such statements on a Wikipedia article. --Xagg (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

looks like the abuse of the pcl-r in general would be worth a section https://sites.google.com/site/forpsychadvice/home/anns/hareworriedaboutmisuseofpcl-r --Penbat (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

RE cure & treatment

A quote from the article: "There is neither a cure nor any effective treatment for psychopathy;..." - how about an AR-15??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.189.27 (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Does this have a place on Wikipedia? Is there discussion on the Autism page about how Autistics should be shot? Please keep your murderous urges to yourself.SaikoGuy (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A great article

Thanks to all for the work on this excellent article. This article provides important understanding to Wikipedia readers whose lives have been turned upside down by these people.

Writers who have dealt with, or have been targeted by a psychopath, have an essential understanding of the skill and subtlety of these people that others, not having had such experiences, lack. Actual observation of these people in action is crucial.

- Actually, I'm pretty sure that'd constitute Original Research, and have no place on Wikipedia. Also very unlikely to yield a NPOV. SaikoGuy (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well said:

"Whether psychopathy is a product of genetics, neurobiology, or childrearing practices or whether it represents a moral defect in character or is an expression of "evil," we must agree with William Reid, who states in chapter 7, with more passion than science, that for the greater good of society, "We must stop identifying with the chronic criminal and stop allowing him to manipulate our misplaced guilt about treating him as he is: qualitatively 'different' from the rest of us."

KnowYouNow (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Asperger is 'Psychopathy'?

I do not know why 'Autistic Psychopathy' redirects to Asperger's Syndrome. Psychopathy strikes me as a propensity to gross violence that may be as exceptional in people with Autism spectrum disorders as anyone else. I would like explanation for this insinuation that there is a deep relationship between these disabilities. It strikes me as defamatory.

I could say that it strikes me as defamatory to psychopaths that you think that being associated with psychopaths is defamatory. But the fact is, it's not Wikipedia's place to make subjective value judgements. I am a psychopath. You, presumably, are an aspie. How would it be if I were to say "Don't associate me with aspies; that's defamatory"? Instead, let's appeal to academic rigor instead of bigotry. SaikoGuy (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

24.184.234.24 (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)LeucineZipper You may think it's legit, but I would say such a redirect is like redirecting 'Joe Bloggs is a Loser' to 'Joe Bloggs' 24.184.234.24 (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)LeucineZipper

Autistic psychopathy used to be used as a term for Asperger's syndrome but given the obvious negative connotations, they changed the name. Contrary to popular belief, psychopaths have no propensity to gross violence (unlike sociopaths), they're just more indifferent towards it than the average person. --194.81.33.10 (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed this because I have Asperger's and I consider it to be EXTREMELY offensive. Wikipedia is a place for learning, not creating hateful feelings against people with Asperger's. Please keep it from getting back on the page. It's very hurtful. Pokefan098 (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

For it to be offensive and hurtful for Asperger's to be associated with psychopathy, first one would have to make a negative subjective value judgement about psychopathy (ie, psychopaths are terrible people). That's not Wikipedia's job. It's rude and bigoted to suggest that it's a given that psychopaths are terrible people, and being associated with us is offensive. SaikoGuy (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I heard that, in German, "Psychopathie" has, or had, a different meaning from the current meaning of "psychopathy" in English. Notice that psychopathology, contrary to what etymology suggests, is the study of mental disorders in general, not only of psychopathy. See also Talk:Psychopathy/Archive_1#Other_meaning_of_.22psychopathy.22. Apokrif (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

as well as Kathrin Hippler and Christian Klicpera, retrospective analysis of the clinical case records of ‘autistic psychopaths’ diagnosed by Hans Asperger and his team at the University Children’s Hospital, Vienna : "In the German language,‘psychopathy’ did not quite have the negative connotation it now has in English. It was merely a term for describing personality disorders and did not seek to stress the patients’ proneness to criminality." But see also "Asperger's Disorder and Criminal Behavior: Forensic-Psychiatric Considerations". Apokrif (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove something because you find it hurtful if it's true. Wikipedia is about truth not catering to your emotions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.238.207 (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

By the modern definition of the terms Aspergers and Psychopathy in English Asperger Syndrome is not Psychopathy at all (for example, Psychopaths tens to have high cognitive empathy but low affective empathty, while the opposite is true for Aspergers). There is no connection, and the term "Autistic Psycopathy" is historic and is being used outside of context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.222.137.195 (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this really scientific?

The article describes people suffering from this mental disorder as highly-manipulative, cold-blooded potential murderers who use intimidation and sex to control others. Really now, I'm not an expert but this sounds like a description taken from a Hollywood horror rather than a scientific diagnosis. But then again, psychopathy is not even a actual diagnosis anymore which makes me wonder why this article even exists in the first place. And it's like five times longer than the article about antisocial personality disorder. Besides, Robert Hare is mentioned at list 44 times in this one. --Carlminez (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is generally scaled down to be understandable to the population at large, from what I understand, a scientific definition isn't necessarily required. Sempre30 (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Despite being currently unused in diagnostic manuals, psychopathy and related terms such as psychopath are still widely used by mental health professionals and laymen alike, and for this reason and others an article on psychopathy is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It's also worth noting that the DSM-V working party is recommending a revision of antisocial personality disorder to include "Antisocial/Psychopathic Type", with the diagnostic criteria having a greater emphasis on character than on behavior. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

On that note, it's rather poor that New Scientist and Scientific American are amongst the sources for this, these being pop-science magazines, with articles based around what sells well, not necessarily academic rigor. So they should be fine for quotations, but not as sources for "Facts". SaikoGuy (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Hitler was probably a psychopath."

Although Hitler being a total psycho is likely, to put a statement such as "probably" in an encyclopedia article doesn't seem appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.85.255 (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the issue here is that "psychopathy" is a specific psychological condition. There are plenty of people who engage in criminal and antisocial behaviour who do not meet the specific criteria for psychopathy. Just being evil is not in itself proof of psychopathy. --Smcg8374 (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

interesting material on benefits of psychopathy in professions

by psychology professor Kevin Dutton

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NSCWW_xRrI
• http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Wisdom+of+Psychopaths+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

--Penbat (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Chinese 77% MAOA Gene Mistake

It has come to my attention over at the Monoamine oxidase A page that there was an uncorrected error in the original reference regarding 77% of Chinese having this gene, the correct percent is 54%. Raquel_Baranow (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Prevention

I think it is of public health interest to write something about prevention. Anybody knows about the subject?Gcastellanos (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Psychopathy is not a personality disorder

I do not think the DSM / APA list psychopathy as a personality disorder. Does anybody else have a say on this?

Read the article. It is also known as or as a type of antisocial personality. Antisocial personality is in the DSM. Special:Contributions/98.127.155.132|98.127.155.132]] (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

-Psychopathy is not listed anywhere in the DSM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.10.6 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

- Psychopathy is listed in the DSM-IV-TR as being synonymous with Antisocial Personality Disorder. But as the wikipedia text correctly indicates, psychopathy, as assess by the most commonly used instrument (Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised) is not the same as ASPD. To those of us in the field, psychopathy is most commonly, and accurately assessed using the Hare PCL-R. Drkiehl (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC) signed Kent A. KIehl, Ph.D.

Error in Sentence?

Quote: although psychopathy is associated with and in some cases is defined by conduct problems, criminality or violence, many psychopaths are not violent, and psychopaths areItalic text, despite the similar names, rarely psychotic

Should there be "many are not violent", or was there another term for the violent and non violent maybe psychotics are not? Anyway I do not see any difference in spelling or the point of this sentence. Something is missing or miss written. thanks for the correction. I am really new to this so if I am posting wrong forgive me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marketdriven (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 December 2012‎ Hi Marketdriven and welcome! You're not doing anything wrong, except that I don't understand your question. To me the sentence makes perfect sense, so could you please explain? Lova Falk talk 15:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"Psychos"

the usage of Psychos is under discussion, see talk:Psychos (TV series) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, dissocial personality disorder, sociopathy

Based on various sources, including the DSM, ICD, and page 61 at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OuNdrmHcJlgC:

ASPD vs. DPD: may be similar but are technically different. ASPD is defined by the DSM, DPD by the ICD, and there are some differences in the criteria.

ASPD vs. Psychopathy: the DSM based ASPD on psychopathy and the DSM-IV states that ASPD is also known as psychopathy, although notable critics argue that they are different.

Psychopathy vs. DPD: are technically different as a result of the above.

Sociopathy: is used as an informal term to describe any condition that is conceptually similar to or synonymous with any of the above.

I updated the article to clarify the relationship between psychopathy, ASPD, and DPD. Sociopathy, as far as I'm aware, is not a formal term and is thus not mentioned much here. --Humorideas (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you looked at but in fact the ICD-10 online Dissocial PD lists Sociopathy as another term in exactly the same way as Psychopathy (and various others such as Amoral).

The DSM-IV-TR does too for Antisocial PD: "This pattern has also been referred to as psychopathy, sociopathy, or dyssocial personality disorder." NOTE: Contrary to the second sentence of this article now, that wording is NOT the same as the DSM saying that psychopathy is the DSM's own other name for ASPD (and in fact in early DSM it was referred to as sociopathic). COMPARE to the diagnosis of "Social Phobia which has Social Anxiety Disorder in brackets immediately after. Anyone know how ASPD is worded in the DSM-5?

I also note that the ICD lists alternative names for F84.5 Aspergers syndrome (autistic psychopathy) and F94.2 Disinhibited attachment disorder of childhood (Affectionless psychopathy)

Finally it's not quite a question of 'critics' arguing the official criteria are different to (some essentialist concept of) psychopathy, it's acknowledged fact they are different to the criteria of Cleckley or Hare. Sighola2 (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Nb: Humorideas' comment was cross-posted on Antisocial Personality Disorder and I have added my reply there, as well as noting: "I've since found a partial online source on the new DSM-5, The Pocket Guide to the DSM-5 Diagnostic Exam, cf Pg 236 "Antisocial (Dissocial) Personality Disorder" (with optional specifier for "psychopathic features")" Sighola2 (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the ICD and DSM recognize sociopathy as an alternative term for DPD and ASPD. But I haven't found a source claiming that sociopathy is or ever was a formal term for either. Maybe it is or was, but a reliable source is needed to back the statement up. Have you found one?

Regarding the DSM's comparison between ASPD and psychopathy, here are examples of statements suggesting that the DSM effectively equates psychopathy and ASPD (all corresponding with in-line citations in the article):

Page 61 here: "DSM-IV states that antisocial personality disorder is also known as psychopathy, effectively equating two different constructs"

Robert D. Hare here: "In 1980 this tradition was broken with the publication of DSM-III. Psychopathy- renamed antisocial personality disorder- was now defined by persistent violations of social norms, including lying, stealing, truancy, inconsistent work behavior and traffic arrests."

Those same sources also critique the DSM's apparent equality of the two. Example:

Page 61 here: "About this unfortunate and untenable position, Rogers, Salekin, Sewell, and Cruise (2000) had this to say: "As noted by Hare (1998), DSM-IV does considerable disservice to diagnostic clarity in its equating of APD to psychopathy" (pp. 236-237). Extensive discussions of psychopathy and APD are available elsewhere (e.g., Hare, 1996; Hare & Hart, 1995; Rogers, Dion, & Lynett 1992; Rogers et al., 2000; Widiger et al., 1996)."

So the notion that psychopathy and ASPD are different doesn't appear to be a universally acknowledged fact. You, I, and other editors might believe that psychopathy and ASPD are different, because to us it certainly looks that way, but going by the sources, it appears that it's not an uncontested distinction.

To put forth the view that they are in fact different without presenting a balanced argument based on what sources actually say would be counter to presenting a neutral point of view. Furthermore, if sources aren't included in the article to back statements up, it brings up questions about original research, regardless of whether the statements are true or not. Add to the article what you want, but make sure it's balanced and sourced. --Humorideas (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Something that may help you both on this matter is this discussion (now archived) that was recently had at WP:MED about the DSM-5, and how much WP:Weight to give the DSM and ICD-10 (especially with regard to naming articles). Flyer22 (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Flyer22. --Humorideas (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid Humorideas you are missing the point; what's an uncontested fact is that the DSM-IV criteria are different to the Cleckley/Hare criteria - it changed in 1980. That's what this article can simply state. Thanks for the link to discussion Flyer22. Sighola2 (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, the criteria are different, and I haven't found any source arguing against that. I never disagreed with that; what I was contesting was the notion that there is no disagreement over the distinction between the broader concepts of ASPD and psychopathy. Thanks for clarifying. --Humorideas (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Sighola2 (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Checklist, specifically revocation

Is revocation of conditional release really a medical condition? I don't think the query needs much explanation. 213.94.234.37 (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Important point. Shows that the forensic psychopathy construct is subjective to whatever criminal justice system is in place over the person. I suppose revocation is theoretically an indicator which, if other indicators are also present, can possibly signify a possible condition. Which seems to generally not be considered medical enough when it comes to still convicting of crimes and if anything sentencing for longer, but apparently considered medical enough when used to psychiatrically detain people for longer or differently. Sighola2 (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing about a sense of humour

A persons sense of humour is not mentioned anywhere in the article that I can find. It makes me wonder who the psychopath is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.243.254.224 (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

DSM-5

I was able to get a copy of the DSM-5 which I purchased for $17 on Google Play. The reference on page 765 (as written on the page) is accurate and has been verified by me. --Beneficii (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's where you can get it. It's still $16.19 (in my case I had to pay sales tax on top of that):

https://play.google.com/store/books/details/American_Psychiatric_Association_DSM_5?id=1dsnAgAAQBAJ

Either way, I have verified this source by looking at it directly. If you do not trust my verification, then please either get this book yourself (and it is the full copy of the DSM-5) or go to WP:RX to have another person look at it.

--Beneficii (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to add this:According to John Ronson what makes a suitably qualifies and experienced clinician is someone who is trained to administer the PCL-R checklist. It can be misused especially if the clinician is a different race than the client and there are different cultural norms that are misinterpreted. To the section where it talks about Hare Psychopath checklist. Right after it mentions:Because scores may have important consequences for an individual's future, the potential for harm if the test is used or administered incorrectly is considerable. The test can only be considered valid if administered by a suitably qualified and experienced clinician under controlled conditions.[9][13]. What are your thoughts and opinions? Natg8rgirl (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What I would like to add to This page.

I would like to add this:According to John Ronson what makes a suitably qualifies and experienced clinician is someone who is trained to administer the PCL-R checklist. It can be misused especially if the clinician is a different race than the client and there are different cultural norms that are misinterpreted. In the section where it discusses the Hare psychopath checklist right next to: Because scores may have important consequences for an individual's future, the potential for harm if the test is used or administered incorrectly is considerable. The test can only be considered valid if administered by a suitably qualified and experienced clinician under controlled conditions.[9][13]. This will better explain what a suitably qualified clinician is. What do you think? Natg8rgirl (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Psychopathic parent

Can I interest someone in doing a psychopathic parent article (as a sister to the narcissistic parent article) covering the impact of psychopath parenting on their offspring ? --Penbat (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Workplace

There is potential for creating a psychopathy in the workplace article like narcissism in the workplace.--Penbat (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Penbat. There is a lot on this topic. At a pop psych level, "corporate psychopathy" obviously has a lot of published material. I would like to get this article up and running actually. Effects at both the organizational and interpersonal level are pronounced. Interestingly corporate psychopaths can be quite effective as managers in specific work environments. Would be interested in other editor's comments?Mrm7171 (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That would be great. It would be nice just to get the ball rolling with a small article with just half a dozen or so refs. Hare and Babiak's "Snakes in Suits" would be a start. Yes Kevin Dutton's "The Wisdom of Psychopaths" says that psychopaths can be effective in certain professional situations - but the requirement is that they dont have too much of certain psychopathic traits as that may lead them to secretly work to their own agenda not the organizations.--Penbat (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool, I'll work on this. I trust your skills in getting the actual template up and running Penbat and we can start adding some structure and references? I'm positive their is a good article there, much needed too.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"Causes" versus "mechanisms".

I don't understand why these are separate sections. Usually, we would talk about the mechanisms that cause psychopathy (or whatever). Shouldn't these subsections be part of the same section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcaboy2 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 October 2014

A protected redirect, Sociopath, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this...

#REDIRECT [[Psychopathy#Sociopathy]] {{R from noun}}

• to this...

#REDIRECT [[Psychopathy#Sociopathy]]

{{Redr|from related word|from noun|to section|printworthy}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE MIDDLE LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

Template Redr is an alias for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. No protection rcat is needed, and if {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the This is a redirect template will detect protection level(s) and include them automatically. Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Redrose64! – Paine  20:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Who is looking for sources to improve this article?

I see that some editors working on this article recently have expressed concern, correctly, that the article needs to be much better sourced and should be sourced according to the Wikipedia content guideline on sourcing articles related to medical topics. I'm happy to look for sources through the resources I have via the Wikipedia Library collaborations. Who else has sources to suggest? This is an important topic, and it would be an excellent idea to bring this article up to a higher level of quality. I've recently had the pleasant experience of watching the high-page-view, formerly much edit-warred article English language become a Wikipedia good article for the first time ever, and it would be great to see this article improve that much too. What helps an article improve the most is several editors looking at reliable sources together to check the article content as edits proceed. Who is interested in joining in on that effort? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, good, the archive bot has removed talk page comments from years ago so that we can all communicate more effectively here. Who would like to turn this high-importance, B-class article into a good article? I've been looking for sources, and I'll post a list of those in this talk page section in a while. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hitler

The Hiter citation is wrong. The word psychopath isn't used until the 1972 version of the publication. See this note. I'll quote it in case that citation gets edited:

In The Mask of Sanity - 5th edition, 1988, Page 326, psychiatrist Hervey Cleckley notes that Langer's use of the term 'psychopath' (as with other psychiatric terms) was probably in a different and much broader sense than later usage. He cites "Langer, Walter: The mind of Adolph Hitler, New York, 1972, Basic Books, Inc." from which he also quotes "he was not insane but was emotionally sick and lacked normal inhibitions against antisocial behavior" - but these words do not appear on search of the 1972 Google book or the scan of the original 1943/44 report.

73.223.190.249 (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Narcissism

I'm a new editor, so I wanted to run this by the talk page before making an actual edit, but I would like to add narcissism to the list of characteristics in the lead paragraph of the article. Narcissism has often been linked as a defining characteristic of psychopathy, and Hare's own Psychopathy Checklist - Revised associates it with the interpersonal aspect of psychopathy. Thoughts?

Hare R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Mhartsoe (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that narcissism is a core characteristic. While psychopathic persons are extremely selfish, selfishness isn't synonymous with narcissism. The way psychopathy is characterised in the public consciousness often differs from its accepted conceptualisation in the formal scientific field. The dark triad traits also separates narcissism from its psychopathic trait component. While Hare's Psychopathy Checklist includes a "grandiose sense of self-worth' as a core character trait, this may just reflect their pathological lack of self doubt and unconcern for themselves and how others perceive them. These are just my thoughts on the matter; I am certainly not an authority in this field.

--118.103.136.62 (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Follow up to above post - Narcissism seems to be related to a hypersensitivity to insults to their ego, which seems to contrast it from the psychopathic grandiose sense of self worth, which is looks like is marked by a lack of concern of negative perceptions by others (e.g. a psychopathic person may be willing to grovel or otherwise soil their image to get what they want, but would not feel ashamed of their actions).

--118.103.136.62 (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Physical attractiveness

This is totally pop psychology, but has there ever been a study into physical attractiveness and psychopathy

I'm only saying this, as I read about famous psychopaths occasionally, and I notice that they're all quite physically attractive people. Most of them have the classic good looks society likes. Yes, many of the pictures of them are post arrest, at their lowest, but you really could picture them all being very popular with the opposite sex.

A good example, off the top of my head is Hitler. For the times, he was viewed as an incredibly good looking man. He looks like a 1930s film star.

Will the author of this section please see Godwin's Law and then take a moment to reflect. This is incredibly irrelevant, since Hitler is only 1 person in history, and he is the only example given herein, other than the supposed friend who's supposedly a psychopath (a more interesting topic would be to find out the ratio of people who think they know somebody that is a psychopath to those who actually know somebody who was clinically diagnosed as a psychopath). I hope this the right way of adding this. I wasn't sure if there was a "discussion of discussion" (i.e., Meta).

Surely there must be studies into this. As psychopathy is obviously based, to an extent, on arrogance. Maybe the arrogance comes from attention they receive, from the opposite sex?

80.254.158.4 (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This looks more like confirmation bias to me. Only the attractive psychopaths can actually become famous, so all psychopaths you've heard about are attractive.

I personally know a psychopath, and she's far from being attractive. Though, anecdotal evidence is no true evidence.

188.230.176.192 (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of at least one study that found a positive correlation between psychopathic personality traits in men (but not women) and ratings of their physical attractiveness by independent judges who were unaware of their personality ratings. Here is the reference: Visser, B. A., Pozzebon, J. A., Bogaert, A. F., & Ashton, M. C. (2010). Psychopathy, sexual behavior, and esteem: It’s different for girls. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(7), 833-838. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcg8374 (talk • contribs)

Hitler was "viewed as an incredibly good looking man"? Anyway, I expected you to mention Ted Bundy, since there has been significant commentary about women finding him physically attractive and charming. Flyer22 (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

By contrast, I don't think that many women found David Berkowitz physically attractive. There are a number of famous, or rather infamous, psychopaths who would not be considered physically attractive to the general public. Flyer22 (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a psychopath and I don't think its all about physical attractivness

Yassine120 (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the perception of psychopathy being related to physical attractiveness is perception bias possibly influenced by the charisma they are very well known to possess, rather than any real objective association between psychopathy and physical attractiveness. As of Hitler having a psychopathic personality, there is little indication in biographical evidence that he was highly psychopathic; this is discussed in this very article (Psychopathy#20th_century). He formed genuine friendships with those in his inner circle, had a romantic relationship without indication of sexual promiscuity or infidelity, and had a deep fondness for his dog. Even being responsible for a war that resulted in millions of deaths and a proponent and executor of a genocidal policy that killed millions more does not make one a psychopath; one who by definition cannot forge deep relationships. Throughout history there has been examples of entire cultures who persecuted entire groups of people to the extreme of genocide, and who viewed their victims as less than human and therefore undeserving of compassion. Obviously entire cultures could not have been entirely comprised of psychopathic persons.

--118.103.136.62 (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)