Talk:Antisocial personality disorder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
 Archives (These Archives are still very relevant but the page was so long it was getting hard to open!)--Zeraeph 14:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC) |
|---|
[edit] ASPD in Fiction
[I have been really bold tonight and added a section on ASPD in fiction. I have tried to chose characters closer to the definition of ASPD as it stands, and is most correctly used today. Obviously many more characters could be added and the definition could be enlarged and improved upon (it's far from perfect), it's just a beginning. So read and give thought before knotting a rope and hanging it from a tree in preparation for lynching me. I believe this whole article needs to veer away from information specific to the psychopath, and, in the strictest sense, inapplicable to ASPD, and into a fuller definition of ASPD as it stands. ASPD is NOT Psychopathy, but it IS an important, lamentably widespead, psychiatric and sociological phenomenon in it's own right, worth far better definition than it is currently getting here. So, what say you? Can we replace the psychopath specific information with more relevant equivalents? A bit at a time, so as to leave no "bald patches"? --Zeraeph 05:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]
[edit] Necessity of this article?
Since someone has gone ahead and recreated the article Psychopathy, this article barely serves a function. The grand majority of it discusses psychopathy rather than the DSM-specific nosological category of antisocial personality disorder since most research uses Hare's PCL-R and assessment tools based off it rather than the DSM-IV-TR criteria for APD. If most of the information about psychopathy were trimmed off, this article would have little left besides the DSM criteria. (unsigned comment by 24.217.183.224)
- I agree, the two articles are redundant. Since APD is the more comprehensive, mature article I think Psychopathy should probably be merged with it. APD should remain as the title (with Psychopathy as a redirect) as it is the recognized diagnostic term for the condition. --Bk0 (Talk) 04:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
[One tiny problem, ASPD and Psychopathy are not the same disorder. Hare himself remarked that while all psychopaths have ASPD, only a very small proportion of ASPDs are psychopaths What is more ASPD is no more the recognized diagnostic term for Psychopathy than "infectious disease" is for Malaria. The PCL-R refers only to psychopathy, NOT ASPD, (hence the acronym P-psychopathy C-check L-list http://www.hare.org/pclr/index.html ).
The psychopathy article is only thin (which it is) because all the good information in it was transferred to ASPD where a great deal of it is not entirely relevant. I believe that all the information specific to psychopathy (including the PCL-R) should be removed from ASPD and replaced here. When that is done you won't be left with any more than a link to DSM-IV criteria because of the unreasonableness of the APA (see here for why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive57#DSM-IV-TR_Copyright_question ). When I restored that article I did not feel it right to replace that, or add to the article myself without further discussion so I just restored the "last known version"
Beyond that again, psychopathy, as a term, has an whole legal, medical, judicial and literary history with connotations unrelated to ASPD. Remember this is NOT supposed to be a medical encyclopaedia, but a general one, thus the legal, judicial and literary connotations of a topic should have equal weight with the medical ones. --82.195.137.125 16:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)]
-
-
- The necessity of this article is obvious: As long as there is any doubt whatsoever in scientific circles about the synonymity of ASPD and psychopathy, Wikipedia cannot decide on any position without compromising its neutrality. Psychopathy as an article is required, to make sure no kind of judgment is made. As it is, this article is lacking in the extreme, but it is still a necessary part of wikipedia if all sides of an open discussion (i.e. a challenged theory) are supposed to be shown. Since neither constitutes as a fact, and psychopathy is quite differently defined from ASPD after all, I would include a notice of it being an as-of-yet-unproven hypothesis, but that's it. Its not like any of the articles on philosophy are in the essence very different, yet still they are not deleted. --Stephan, 30 December 2005 19:30PM
-
[edit] On Hare's criticism of APD criteria
Certainly you are referring to Hare, Robert D., Hart, Stephen D., Harpur, Timothy J. "Psychopathy and the DSM-IV Criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder." Journal of Abnormal Psychology 100.3 (1991): 391-398. First of all, this article was written while the DSM-IV criteria for APD were under development. His criticism of the APD criteria was in response to the DSM-III-R criteria, which were a large list of antisocial behaviors similar to the conduct disorder of the DSM-IV-TR. "The DSM—III—R approach to the diagnosis of APD is based on the assumption that personality traits are difficult to measure reliably and that it is easier to agree on the behaviors that typify a disorder than on the reasons why they occur."
- Although the result has been a diagnostic category with good reliability, concerns have been expressed about its content- and construct-related validity, in particular, about its relation to clinical conceptions of psychopathy, in which inferences about affective and interpersonal processes have long played an important role. This is the second major criticism of the current DSM—III—R criteria for APD: They represent a rather radical break with clinical tradition, with clinical practice, with earlier versions of the DSM, and with international diagnostic nomenclature. Specifically, the DSM—III—R criteria exclude, or at least do not explicitly include, such characteristics as selfishness, egocentricity, callousness, manipulativeness, lack of empathy, and so forth.
- The lack of congruence between the DSM—III—R criteria for APD and other well-established conceptions of psychopathy does not appear to have been intentional. Rather, this construct drift seems to have been the unforeseen result of reliance on a fixed set of behavioral indicators in the DSM—III and the DSM—III—R. That is, the behavioral indicators do not provide adequate coverage of the construct they were designed to measure. [...]Paradoxically, the criteria for APD appear to define a diagnostic category that is at once too broad, encompassing criminals and antisocial persons who are psychologically heterogeneous, and too narrow, excluding those who have the personality structure of the psychopath but who have not exhibited some of the specific antisocial behaviors listed for APD.
Hare et al. then go on to propose the DSM-IV use a set of criteria closely approximating the traits listed on his Psychopathy Checklist-Revised.
- Factor 1 [of the PCL-R] clearly reflects a set of interpersonal and affective characteristics, such as egocentricity, lack of remorse, callousness, and so forth, considered fundamental to clinical conceptions of psychopathy. [...] Evidence presented elsewhere indicates that Factor 1 is positively correlated with clinical ratings of psychopathy, with prototypicality ratings of narcissistic and histrionic personality disorder, and with self-report measures of machiavellianism and narcissism. It is also negatively correlated with measures of empathy and anxiety.
- Factor 2 reflects those aspects of psychopathy related to an impulsive, antisocial, and unstable lifestyle. It is positively correlated with diagnoses of APD, criminal behaviors, socioeconomic background, and self-report measures of socialization and antisocial behavior.
Hare et al. then go on to discuss the usefulness of PCL and PCL-R measures of psychopathy in predicting criminal recidivism and its concordance with certain other measures of psychopathy and related traits (like sensation seeking). They describe how the construct of psychopathy has been used in research on their affective processes (rather than DSM-III or DSM-III-R APD). Hare et al. propose a set of criteria for the DSM-IV version of APD that better conforms to the clinical tradition of psychopathy: "Encouraged by these results, we used the PCL—R and the PCL:SV as the basis for development of the 10-item criteria set for psychopathic personality disorder (PPD)." These criteria are as follows:
- Glib and superficial
- Inflated and arrogant self-appraisal
- Lacks remorse
- Lacks empathy
- Deceitful and manipulatice
- Early behavior problems
- Adult antisocial behavior
- Impulsive
- Poor behavioral controls
- Irresponsible
The PPD, used in DSM-IV field trials along with the ICD-10 dissocial personality disorder and DSM-III-R criteria for APD, is a shortened version of the PCL-R, essentially. Ultimately, the DSM-IV criteria for antisocial personality disorder were a compromise. Psychopathy is not a subtype of antisocial personality disorder. They are simply two separate attempts to measure the same concept.--24.217.183.224 01:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
[How curious, because Robert Hare seems to be under the impression that he has also criticised the DSM-IV criteria for ASPD as being completely inadequate and distinct from Psychopathy http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p960239.html --82.195.137.125 05:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)]
-
-
- The necessity of this article is obvious: As long as there is any doubt whatsoever in scientific circles about the synonymity of ASPD and psychopathy, Wikipedia cannot decide on any position without compromising its neutrality. Psychopathy as an article is required, to make sure no kind of judgment is made. As it is, this article is lacking in the extreme, but it is still a necessary part of wikipedia if all sides of an open discussion (i.e. a challenged theory) are supposed to be shown. Since neither constitutes as a fact, and psychopathy is quite differently defined from ASPD after all, I would include a notice of it being an as-of-yet-unproven hypothesis, but that's it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.134.90.101 (talk • contribs) .
-
[edit] Removed the mention of malapropism as a diagnostic criterion
In The Mask of Sanity, Hervey Cleckley did mention the phenomenon of psychopaths sometimes using an inappropriate word (I believe the example he provided was, "I am deftly afraid of needles"), but he did not rigorously inquire into this observation, which may merely be the result of pre-existing expectations. Psychopaths are considered unemotional, so he expects to see misuse of emotional words; whether psychopaths misuse emotional words significantly more frequently than nonpsychopaths, I do not know (although I do know their brains process them differently).
[edit] Seconded the need to revise the list of fictional criminals
I don't recall whether Dr. Hannibal Lecter is called a sociopath in the movie, but I do know his diagnosis is discussed in the books, and he does not meet the criteria for a sociopath. At one point Clarice Starling says, in a discussion with him, "I'm still waiting for the shallowness of affect." He's also very aware of social rules and expectations, and tends to kill "the rude." A sociopath wouldn't even notice those things, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dseilhan (talk • contribs).
- Probably not - an interesting component of those with APD is the flexibility of their "morals". As an example, they might view stealing or infidelity as a particularly eggregious offense - one worth killing over. They key is to remember that those with APD have a fundamental dysfunctionality when perceiving the concept of morality. That is to say, they are not immoral, just a-moral. Make sense? As a pop-culture example, see Patrick Bateman in American Psycho: he killed people who randomly irritated him or were offensive in some fashion. Thanks - Aaron 6.21.2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.196.129.7 (talk • contribs).
-
- Patrick Bateman is more of a true psychopath, he kills as a hobby with no actual perception of what conscience or morality might actually consist of and why he should have them.
-
- As a character Hannibal Lecter is psychopathologically flawed in that the background in "Hannibal" is not a true match for his pathology (others eat the most precious thing in the world to you so you grow up with a compulsion to eat anything that sets your teeth on edge? I don't THINK so! ;o) ) BUT, allowing for that, Hannibal's sociopathic tendencies are environmental in origin which would rule out psychopath and sociopath (incidenatally, in the book, and the movie, he is referred to as a "pure psychopath" NOT a sociopath), so is he truly AsPD? See the criteria:
- failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
- deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
- impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
- irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
- reckless disregard for safety of self or others
- consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
- lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
-
- Seems to me he fits 1 and 7 to an extent (though not thoroughly, for one thing, I cannot conceive of him behaving unlawfully outside of the dictates of survival or his compulsion, for another, he kills and eats, it is not my impression he would be too pleased with himself if he took up hurting, mistreating and theft), but it you have to fit 3 criteria for a diagnosis. --Zeraeph 19:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Well if someone is molested as a kid they don't like it but they might grow up to do the same thing.
[edit] I don't think that psychopathy should be merged to APD.
Please don't merge psychopathy with APD - they are in fact different (though similar and overlapping) disorders- while all psychopaths are APDs, not all APDs are psychopaths.
Psychopaths have some kind of brain damage while non-psychopath APDs are generally merely "badly brought up". This is a very important difference as there is more hope of reform or cure for APDs. Also you would be committing the same error Sam Vaknin makes- of conflating psychopathy with other personality disorders.
Thank you.
- I agree. jengod 00:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Psychopaths have some kind of brain damage while non-psychopath APDs are generally merely "badly brought up".
- What? Do you even have the slightest bit of evidence to support that extremely broad generalization? You'll have to do better than that. --Bk0 (Talk) 02:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Accuracy of this speculation?
- Risk-seeking behavior and substance abuse may be attempts to escape feeling empty or emotionally void. The rage exhibited by psychopaths and the anxiety associated with certain types of antisocial personality disorder may represent the limit of emotion experienced, or there may be physiological responses without analogy to emotion experienced by others.
I have read various speculative accounts that psychopaths' and antisocial personality disordered individuals' emotional experience extends beyond boredom, transient rage, and occasionally even anxiety to other unwholesome emotions as well: envy, jealousy, greed, lust, arrogance, wrath, contempt, and self-pity. The thing is their emotional states (especially in primary psychopaths) are superficial—transient and not deeply felt, often even feigned just to manipulate or intimidate. Their capacity for the social emotions (love, empathy, guilt and remorse, and shame) is not altogether nonexistent but so weak as to be meaningless when compared to what most people mean when they say, for instance, love.
Beyond measuring physiological signs of certain emotions, it is difficult to know the thoughts and feelings of what a psychopath is going through, and their accounts are subject to dramatization and bragging.
[edit] On Petronix and Sociopathic.net
Petronix is a pseudonym used for some guy's fan site about his fascination with sociopaths. His so-called Sociopathic Bible constitutes his own original research (occasionally even in disagreement with expert consensus) and is unsuitable as a reference in a Wikipedia article. If I recall correctly, I removed the link from this article (or perhaps from Psychopathy) before, but it's back. Antisocial personality disorder and Psychopathy are both serious articles about established psychiatric and legal constructs that should not be tainted with this guy's infotainment.--NeantHumain 19:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3% of men and 1% of women...
Just a small thing, the figure of 3% of men and 1% of woman is an estimated figure for the US only. It's lower in other parts of the world. (And possibly higher in other parts still). Could you please specify. Thanks.
Hi there - just wanted to point out that the stats seem to have changed. It now reads (Dec 16,2006) 4% of men and 7% of women are thought to have some form of antisocial personality disorder ... and I'm sure the stats will change again sometime. However as they currently stand it contradicts a later statement that "APD is diagnosed much more frequently in men than in women" (yeah, when you are diagnosed with it, you are thought to have it). Could someone please look into this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.177.180.228 (talk • contribs).
- Can't find a citation for specific statistics yet but I did find one for the prevalence being far greater in men than women, so I have changed it.
- I suspect somebody has been amusing themself at the expense of the article.--Zeraeph 03:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What is the point of such a concept?
It is funny that people are labeled such things in complete ignorance of how the mind really works and what really drives people's behavior. This entire concept seems to assume that many behaviors exhibited by those they would label "sociopaths" are not driven by beliefs superior to those the people making such labels hold.
In my opinion, any concept such as this is nothing more than ignorant unless it is made by those people who would hold such a label. As only they can truly gauge how their behavior might be driven by their beliefs and past experiences, which is necessary to understand their behavior in addition to any physical biological evidence. Or perhaps even to explain any observed biological differences as it is possible that they are actually the cause and the physical differences are the effect.
If someone comes from a culture that is extremely militaristic, or has a strong emphasis on lack of fear of death we might attribute their behavior to their culture or the enviornment they live in. But if someone seeks and/or gains such "wisdom" on their own and succeeds resulting in a lack of fear of death and lack of empathy for the suffering of people which they might consider learning experiences etc, they are labeled a sociopath. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.7.137 (talk • contribs).
You are oversimplifying the disorder.
It seems to me that you are grandstanding from a Humanist perspective where the individual is measured against the expectations of a society and is thusly assigned into a general category of public acceptance based on social judgment. (It also appears as if you've personally encountered acceptance issues based on your particular belief system. That's all well and good, but you should attempt to avoid injecting personal bias into your argument.) I agree that one is unable to completely understand the nuances of a disorder unless directly affected by it (..and then the difficulty moves into fuzzy, confirmation bias scenarios); yet it is necessary to assess and measure illnesses (using other platforms of diagnosis than what you've mentioned) based on popular experience with the disorder in question. That way, we can begin to understand and help the affected individual.
Criticism is all well and good, but unless you can offer legitimate, empirically-sound alternatives to the existing scientific methods for classifying this biochemically-based disorder outside the generalized parameters of your broad argument, then take a number and wait in line with all of the other empty-handed skeptics.
Not to be a jerk, but its tiring listening to arguments that are ignorant, yet trumpet for sweeping change based on their limited observations.
Thanks, Aaron. 12, July 2005.
Who in the world jammed in the part about Freud's theories? They are functionally useless; this seems like a pointless inclusion. - May 26, 2006
[edit] "Characteristics/symptoms"
Am I the only one to realize that the so-called "characteristics/symptoms" section has almost zero information on either of these two topics, and is rather a "Myth/Fact" session? Someone needs to do some serious work. While the "common misconceptions" section certainly wouldn't be out of place, it serves no purpose to stick it at the top of the page before the topic you're discussing has even been defined.209.169.114.213 18:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mnemonic
The mnemonic is not 'politically correct'. It is not particularly sensitive or tasteful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Splendour (talk • contribs).
- I have to say that, though I appreciate the sincerity of the spirit in which it was posted, I don't like it myself. It's a jarring note, unencyclopaedic and amateurish. I would also question it's accuracy or value as a mnenonic, it a bit obscure. --Zeraeph 12:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- ditto. I think a mnemonic is a specific tool for those who are learning about ASPD, say, for their job or exams, and hence would be studying textbooks or whatever. If people feel the need for the mnemonic to be here then it should be at the bottom of the page and away from the DSM IV criteria.Cas Liber 22:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Mnemonics are common in the medical literature. So, I think they ought to be apart of Wikipedia-- they make things more memorable and can bring structure to something that seems disjointed.
Examples of mnemonics from PubMed -- that is the medical literature:
- Pinkofsky HB. Mnemonics for DSM-IV personality disorders. Psychiatr Serv. 1997 Sep;48(9):1197-8. PMID 9285984.
- International Myeloma Working Group. Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the International Myeloma Working Group. Br J Haematol 2003;121:749-57. PMID 12780789. See article on multiple myeloma -- mnemonic CRAB.
- Nakamura T, Higashi SI, Tomoda K, Tsukano M, Sugi K. Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC)-CREST overlap syndrome with coexistence of Sjogren's syndrome and thyroid dysfunction. Clin Rheumatol. 2006 Feb 22; PMID 16496080. See article on CREST syndrome.
- Thapliyal N, Shukla PK, Kumar B, Upadhyay S, Jain G. TORCH infection in women with bad obstetric history--a pilot study in Kumaon region. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2005 Oct;48(4):551-3. PMID 16366124. See article on TORCH infections.
- Cobb WM. Facial mimetics as cranial nerve mnemonics. J Natl Med Assoc. 1972 Sep;64(5):385-96. PMID 5077620. See article on Cranial nerves.
As for the points above:
- The mnemonic is accurate; the parts are easy to match to the DSM-IV criteria.
- Amateurish? It was published in a peer-reviewed journal that is catalogued by PubMed.
- Politically correctness - I think it is hard to make that case. The definition of corrupt[1] isn't far from the mark if you look at the criteria of ASPD. Currupt is a label and I think it fits in this case.
- Unencyclopaedic? The mnemonic is informative and accurate. Many other Wikipedia articles have mnemonics.
- "[A] mnemonic is a specific tool for those who are learning about ASPD, say, for their job or exams..." - Why not make the article useful for people that are learning about ASPD and use this in their jobs? These people are more likely to know the nuances of ASPD and may be persuaded to fix a little error here or there and may add valuable insights.
I don't think the mnemonic should be removed and I think it is appropriately placed with the criteria. Nephron T|C 00:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I do think it is of value and I wasn't advocating for removal off the page. However, whether or not 'Corrupt' is accurate it is still a perjorative term. I work in mental health; while we may use mnemonics in learning we don't generally stick them in notes as part of a diagnosis. The mnemonic is to help people in the area remember the criteria, not to actually use in diagnosis per se. (that is why they are not in DSM IV criteria). People with Personality Disorder often marginalised in psychiatric treatment. There is already enough controversy about the diagnoses. Cas Liber 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The mnemonic is demonizing. Straight up. (Emily Rathwaedht, UnimportantHero@yahoo.com)
[edit] Question about terminology in article
What is "impersonalized loss"? Rich 22:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Good question, I am personally clueless, though I would IMAGINE it refers to losses such as bankrupcy, having your car stolen, etc...
-
- You have also highlighted the fact that if a person had a chronic allergy to citations, this article might be a good place for them to hang out...--Zeraeph 23:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Social theories
"One route to doing so is by exploring evolutionarily stable strategies; that is, strategies that being successful will tend to be passed on to the next generation, thus becoming more common in the gene pool."
That is the definition of a good strategy, not an evolutionarily stable one. I've attempted to hint at a more accurate description, and to give the theory better context within the article in the same breath. However, I'm just a layman to all the disciplines involved, so it may need polishing or perhaps redoing entirely. At the least, the error is now highlighted. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 03:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Just noticed the deconstructionist intro
I have been focusing on the Psychopathy article ever since it was resplit from this one, so I just noticed the very deconstructionist-sounding introduction:
- "Antisocial personality disorder (APD or ASPD) is a psychiatric diagnosis that interprets antisocial and impulsive behaviors as symptoms of a personality disorder. Psychiatry defines only pathological antisocial behavior; it does not address potential benefits of positive antisocial behavior or define the meaning of 'social' in contrast to 'antisocial'."
Do we really need this metaphysical discussion about what the word antisocial really means in the introduction? In my opinion, this prime real estate should be more descriptive than quasi-philosophical because the typical reader unfamiliar with the subject will simply want to know what the term means in the first paragraph. The word interprets also adds a highly deconstructionist tone to the introduction.
By the way, antisocial is typically defined in contrast to prosocial and not just plain social. Antisocial behaviors and attitudes are simply those that reduce interpersonal trust, create conflict, seed ill will between people, result in exploitation, or result in violence. Prosocial behaviors and attitudes engender the opposite: increased compassion and trust, friendship, cooperation, and community. Sociologists frequently use both terms, and some psychologists will use both terms (such as encouraging prosocial behavior in at-risk children).
I'm going to go ahead and change it, by the way.--NeantHumain 06:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good change...that was BAD...like a whole nest of "weasel words". --Zeraeph 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Psychopathy or sociopathy?
I have seen so many myths perpetuated on the Internet and elsewhere about the differences between psychopathy, sociopathy, and antisocial personality disorder; so I think it's relevant to have an article clearly defining the terms as the experts use them (and where they disagree). It should also present some common folk definitions. I am calling it Psychopathy or sociopathy.--NeantHumain 04:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Wouldn't it be better to have a more formal title like Disambiguation: Psychopathy, Sociopathy and ASPD?
-
- I don't think there is a precedent for such an article but go for it...seems valid to me.--Zeraeph 04:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology
Seems to me that this one is between mid and high importance...maybe tipping the balance to "mid" simply because of the current "catch all" ambiguity of the diagnosis, ie nobody seems to sure where ASPD begins and ends and come DSM V, ASPD as we currently know it may very well no longer exist. Quality seems to me no more than "mid" but there is no law against interested parties choosing to work it up. --Zeraeph 23:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quality of reference links
I just deleted this link: http://www.nlp-plus.com/articles/PersonalityDisorders.asp. It is all a person's amateur observation mixed with highly biased speculation about political and religious beliefs. The author describes borderline personality disorder as being "Very common amongst strippers and Playboy™ category women" as well as "political liberal extremists" and people with narcissistic personality disorder as being "Not sensitive to criticism" in direct contradiction to what many established experts on narcissism have said.
I have often seen a link to sociopathic.net pop up in the references—another amateur website.
If anyone wants to add external links, that's fine, but please make sure they are encyclopedic quality: fact and substantiated thoery rather than opinion, speculation, and ranting.--NeantHumain 00:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bedwetting
What the heck does bedwetting have to do with sociopathy, anyway? Is it because of a complete lack of control? Ratso 22:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's an interesting question, might relate to a lot of things, for example lack of inhibition or rebellion agaiunst what must surely be the primary social directive...or maybe a mineral deficiency that contributes to congenital Psychopathy/Sociopathy or results from environmentaly induced ASPD? What we DO know is that it is a consistently high statistical correlation between these conditions. Thoughts? Or better still, RESEARCH PAPERS?--Zeraeph 22:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Bedwetting as a child has been observed time and again in case studies of people who are sociopaths, psychopaths, and those who have antisocial personality disorder. The reason for this is currently unknown; what is known is that the correlation between individuals who exhibit these disorders and individuals who have abnormally long periods of wetting their beds as children is statistically very high. Research of the cause is still ongoing. 72.186.143.34 20:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Fair enough, but WHERE are these research papers? --Zeraeph 23:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- What the fuck does bedwetting have to do with sociopathy, lack of control or inhibition, rebellion, or any mental "disorder" or "illness"? I was a bedwetter as a kid, and the last time I did it may have been 10 or even 12 or 13. This happens in your sleep, unline rebellion, which is something you chose to do while you're awake. There's NOTHING that can be done about it, and thinking that this has anything to do with anything except dealing with cleaning the sheets is complete and utter bullshit nonense. --PoidLover 09:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)PoidLover
-
-
Statistically, and anecdotally, there does seem to be a significant correlation, however, just because everybody with measles has spots, doesn't mean everybody with spots has measles. --Zeraeph 14:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Prognosis, Treatment, Social implications
ASPD has huge social implications because its sufferers inflict so much harm on those around them. It is my understanding that this disorder is "baked-in" by the way a person is treated during adolescence, and that it cannot be treated or cured. This has profound implications for the treatment of adult ASPD sufferers convicted of serious crimes, and thier propensity to re-offend. I would like to see those with the needed knowledge treat these issues in the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.185.55.76 (talk • contribs).
- So would I. --Zeraeph 22:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Additions to Diagnostic Criteria
I don't have a copy of DSM and I am not authoritative but I think the following entry has to be somebody's joke or personal reference rather than a pull from DSM-IV:
8. vandalism of stolen bicycles that have been reclaimed by original owner —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jchesley (talk • contribs) 18:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Socipathic.net Link
Setting this subtopic up to assist the person who posts the link to come here and discuss their reasoning. --Zeraeph 08:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Potential warning signs
I'm editing out some unsourced and inaccurate statements that are potentially dangerous. I've made a similar edit before, but it was reversed. As an example, "Generally two-out-of-three indicates a very strong tendency towards sociopathy". This has not been shown in any research that I am aware of, and certainly none that was cited in the wikipedia article. In fact, there have been no studies that were capable of determining this. In fact, this sort of estimation is strongly cautioned against by researchers (with the exception of Hellman & Blackman (1966)), and it is very problematic to make predictions like this about a child without sufficient empirical evidence to back them up.
The crux of the issue is that all the current studies have looked at the histories of offenders. While it is true that it is common for offenders to have had these behaviours in childhood, that does not necessarily imply that one can predict who will have APD or become violent against persons based on them, any more than their childhood histories of breathing air indicate that air causes violence. There are large numbers of children who show all three symptoms (particularly in abused populations) who do not go on to develop APD.
Varsil 10:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you are 100% right there Varsil, but I have no problem with the section as it now stands, with additional reference to these signs being cited in DSM. --Zeraeph 12:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Better differentiate between sociopathy and apd.
Why does it redirect to apd from sociopath, and yet sociopathy redirects to psychopathy? My friend is a sociopath, and I'm having trouble deciding whether this article would classify him as apd or as a psychopath.
I just know psychologists refuse to see him because he, like other sociopaths, manipulate psychologists. He says if he seems to care about somebody, it's either fake or he's just worried about the repercussions that will affect him. So on and so forth. 4.234.51.126 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- You just spotted a redundant error there from a time when a lot of online misinformation crept in here and there was no seperate psychopathy article. I just plain fixed it now.
- "Sociopath" was, in fact, a term devised to replace "Psychopath" because "psychopath" and "psychopathy" originally meant "general mental illness" and in some contexts and countries still does, to avoid, potentially disasterous confusion. These days some academic sources have slightly different meanings for the two terms, but they pretty much mean the same. Antisocial Personality Disorder was a failed attempt to replace psychopathy in the DSM IV that wound up generalising so much, begging so many questions and avoiding so many issues a lot of people would argue that it doesn't mean much at all, let alone psychopathy or sociopathy. --Zeraeph 19:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unable to be diagnosed before age 18.
My friend is age 15 like me, and he is diagnosed as a sociopath. Does this merely reflect an unofficial, yet possibly accurate, diagnosis? I don't know if this should be elaborated on in the article, or if this is just one specific question that only I would have so possibly just an answer here would do justice. 4.234.51.126 15:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is very serious and although you certainly can be sociopathic you cannot ethically be diagnosed before age 18 anyway (some cynical people say that's because ALL teenagers are roaring sociopaths anyway...but they grow out of it.
- I don't really know what to say, but I think I do know someone who did. This is not somebody I would usually regard as a reliable source (a lot of his writing is wildly inaccurate, to put it politely), but, in this case, I really think he says everything I want to say to you friend, but better, and with more feeling, so would you print this out and give it to your friend? Because I think it is the best advice I can offer right now. Psychiatry as a Means of Social Control - Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) --Zeraeph 19:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think every mental "illness" or personality "disorder" is a bunch of bullshit made to control humans so in the long run we become more effectively efficient at producing and consuming. And guess who benefits the most from having billions of people do this?--PoidLover 09:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Root Cause of ASPD
Doesn't labeling people by castes or religions breed ASPD? Known 12:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maaparty (talk • contribs).
- Wouldn't surprise me one little bit, but can we find some verifiable SOURCES for that to put it in the article? --Zeraeph 15:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I found this quote from New Scientist.
- "Rejection defeats the purpose of this, and people become impulsive and self-destructive. You have to use self-control to analyse a problem in an IQ test, for example - and instead, you behave impulsively."
- Hope this helps.Known 20:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maaparty (talk • contribs).
-
- It suggests the right direction but is not directly relevant. --Zeraeph 12:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Solution?
What is the treatment for ASPD?.Known 20:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maaparty (talk • contribs).
- There is some research, but no significant success as far as I know. --Zeraeph 12:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Antisocial personality disorder can be treatable if the patient shows remorse for his or her behavior and experiences anxiety, guilt, or depression. The lack of negative affect more common in the severe primary psychopath indicates poor prognosis. (See Meloy, J. Reid. Section 11.82: Antisocial Personality Disorder. Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders (3d ed.). 2001. American Psychiatric Press, Inc.). I think cognitive-behavioral therapy is used, systematically rewarding the patient for prosocial behavior and developing greater self-control. The cognitive aspects involves examining and challenging the antisocial patient's cognitive distortions ("Do unto others before they do unto you," "I have to look out for #1," "Why worry about the future when you can live in the now?" etc.).--NeantHumain 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Confused with Solution comment
Antisocial personality disorder can be treatable if the patient shows remorse for his or her behavior and experiences anxiety, guilt, or depression. The lack of negative affect more common in the severe primary psychopath indicates poor prognosis. (See Meloy, J. Reid. Section 11.82: Antisocial Personality Disorder. Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders (3d ed.). 2001. American Psychiatric Press, Inc.). I think cognitive-behavioral therapy is used, systematically rewarding the patient for prosocial behavior and developing greater self-control. The cognitive aspects involves examining and challenging the antisocial patient's cognitive distortions ("Do unto others before they do unto you," "I have to look out for #1," "Why worry about the future when you can live in the now?" etc.).--NeantHumain 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- It says it can treatable if the patient shows remorse but the ICD says that people with ASPD are incapabale of doing so. HUH? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thousand5alpha (talk • contribs).
-
- There is a lot of confusion over what AsPD is and is not. However, the ICD 10 only lists a similar construct which they call Dissocial Personality Disorder. Also, it lists "an incapacity" for remorse, which while it is a thin line, is not quite the same, finate statement as "incapable of remorse". --Zeraeph 11:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- "HUH?" Huh? The DSM-IV-TR lists seven criteria in Section A, only one of them being lack of remorse; the diagnostic threshold requires a patient to meet only three of these seven criteria. The ICD-10 is similar with its diagnosis of dissocial personality disorder: Only three of six criteria listed under Section B need be met. Most descriptions of psychopaths and persons with an antisocial personality disorder describe a prototypical case rather than a real individual, with all the nuance and ambiguity that comes with it. Antisocial personality disorder is a heterogeneous diagnosis: It includes bums and drifters, spouse abusers, violent felons, swindlers, and thrill seekers; it also may exclude certain white-collar criminals.--NeantHumain 02:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- "Antisocial personality disorder can be treatable if the patient shows remorse for his or her behavior and experiences anxiety, guilt, or depression". ----- How convenient, huh? The treatment for this (in my opinion, fake, like all mental "disorders") disorder is to trade it with another, like anxiety and depression. Don't you foolish idiots see that all this mental ailment bulshit is just a way to control us? Anyone who believes that mental illnesses are real are selfish closed minded assholes who don't listen to what people really have to say.--PoidLover 09:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I'd go halfway with what you are saying. There are real mental illnesses, but a lot of the time the treatments DO seem, to consist in replacing one illness with another. There are also real personality disorders, but too often they seem to be used as labels to slap over bad behavior. --Zeraeph 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes, from the treating staff's point of view (and society's), a depressed, remorseful antisocial is better than a callous, brazen antisocial. Depression is unpleasant, and with insight, the antisocial patient can be motivated to make change that would alleviate both the depression and the personality disorder. The kinds of psychopaths who experience no guilt or depression are considered untreatable and are pretty much locked away as long as legally possible; doing otherwise would simply mean putting a lot of people in danger.--NeantHumain 04:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
What do we call a doctor who treats ASPD? for eg endocrinologist treats diabetes --God and religion are distinct. 12:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Do you think it's good if there's a part about Antisocial Personality disorder in Pop culture?
Apparently it's popular as a character/personality in media.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.83.8.239 (talk • contribs).
- Yes, and it's also popular in society, just as popular as Coca-Cola, or cocaine for that matter.--PoidLover 09:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well lets look into it...any references? --Zeraeph 14:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
