1 in 25 people is a sociopath?

[Mobiboros]

Don't use a Wiki article on psychology to determine the diagnostic criteria for things.

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disor ... cialpd.htm

The above is a link to the actual DSM-IV-TR criteria (the APA sandard book of criteria) for Antisocial Disorder.

Part of being able to be diagnosed as Anti-social is you actually DO need to consistently disregard and violate the rights of others. So while technically you don't need to be a violent raving serial killer, you do need to evidence a pattern of behavior wherein you do violate the law. Either through harming others or engaging in recklessly illegal activities.

One of the most misunderstood things about psychology is the diagnostic criteria and basis. Psychology is concerned with how functional a person is. Diagnosis are made based on very specific criteria after an alalysis of patterns of behavior and thought process. Quite often there can be MRI's or CAT scans done as well and certain disorders can be chemically treated.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/bo ... &cset=true

The above link is an article from the Baltimore Sun on the book. Looks like one of the article is written by one of the authors of the paper the book sites. He basically says the book is completely wrong.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I'm not that suprised; it dosen't take much thought to realize that this trait, namely being willing to survive/breed at the expense of your fellow humans, is at least somewhat evolutionarily favorable (at least for a segment of the population- not for the population as a whole).

[Darth Wong]

Part of being able to be diagnosed as Anti-social is you actually DO need to consistently disregard and violate the rights of others. So while technically you don't need to be a violent raving serial killer, you do need to evidence a pattern of behavior wherein you do violate the law. Either through harming others or engaging in recklessly illegal activities.

Hence the usefulness of fraud and reckless driving as examples. I would expect a sociopaths to violate the law, but in a low-level fashion that is not likely to result in their arrest and prosecution.

Mind you, fraudulent misrepresentation is such a low-level criminal offense that it is not really prosecuted, but it's still not supposed to happen.

[Crown]

Perhaps 1 in 25 is actually a serious underestimate.

I really have no problem believing that, I meet people all the time who just behave in social stupid (one could go so far to say disfunctional and destructive) manners, where it just makes no rational sense.

[Mr. Coffee]

Having been diagnosed as anti-social, I really don't find it suprising at all. In fact, I'd say 1 out of 20 is an underestimate. Thankfully I was diagnosed and started recieving treatment when I was still a teen. I still have a tendancy towards some of the more asshole like behaviors that Mr. Wong and others have mentioned, but thanks to a combination of meds, a good head shrink, and a very understanding and loving girlfriend, I've managed to keep myself in check. A lot of the problem with anti-social/sociopath people is getting them to understand what exactly is wrong with them. For years I didn't see anything "wrong" with my behavior, and to a certain extent I still have trouble seeing the difference between "good" and "bad" behavior. Mostly I just ask myself "Is what I am about to do going to get me arrested, hurt, or get someone else hurt"?

Not sure if that contributed anything to the conversation at all. Pardon the interruption.

[Enforcer Talen]

yeah, my inner monologue always starts with, is it legal?

[Ravengrim]

So where do you draw the line between sociopath and just really selfish. To me a true sociopathy is selfishness taken to an extreme level, but that may not fit the accepted definition. In fact true evil could be reduced to extreme selfishness, I guess. It just depends on where you place the cut-off.

[Mobiboros]

Hence the usefulness of fraud and reckless driving as examples. I would expect a sociopaths to violate the law, but in a low-level fashion that is not likely to result in their arrest and prosecution.

Mind you, fraudulent misrepresentation is such a low-level criminal offense that it is not really prosecuted, but it's still not supposed to happen.

That's true. however, this must also be coupled with a known pattern (prior to eighteen years of age) of Conduct Disorder http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/cndctd.htm.

One could make the argument that comiting fraud AND reckless driving AND disregard for financial responsibilities (as another non-violent is the basis for investigating Antisocial Disorder, but then they'd also need to evidence a history of Conduct Disorder prior to 18 years of age as well.

The 1 in 25 is very high. The author of the study the book is based on even notes that the conclusions were not 4% of the populace but 1.4%. In fact the author of the book did not do research on her own, nor does she provide any research of her own. She bases her entire book on misinterpretations of various other people's studies.

[Mr. Coffee]

Ravengrim, it's not really selfishness at all. It's that people with this disorder have a very hard time distinguishing between "right" and "wrong" behavior. Evil isn't really even part of the equasion at all. I don't consider myself to be evil, my friends don't consider me to be evil, and my shrink doesn't think I'm evil. They and myself think that at times I can be a very inconsiderate asshole. I have a very hard time with appologizing for my action because I really don't see what is wrong with anything I've done. That's the entire problem. The ability to be able to tell right from wrong or actually caring about if your actions are right or wrong.


Talon, that's pretty much how things go for me. If it's something that will get me arrested, chances are I try not to do it.

[General Zod]

So where do you draw the line between sociopath and just really selfish. To me a true sociopathy is selfishness taken to an extreme level, but that may not fit the accepted definition. In fact true evil could be reduced to extreme selfishness, I guess. It just depends on where you place the cut-off.

given that the definition of 'evil' tends to be purely subjective, it's not even applicable with determining whether someone is sociopathic or not.

[Darth Servo]

I've often thought that I fit the definition of an Alienated Sociopath.

Well of course you're a sociopath. You're the leader of the evil Decepticons.

What about someone who voluntarily watched hundreds of hours of bad movies?

[Mr. Coffee]

One could make the argument that comiting fraud AND reckless driving AND disregard for financial responsibilities (as another non-violent is the basis for investigating Antisocial Disorder, but then they'd also need to evidence a history of Conduct Disorder prior to 18 years of age as well.

The 1 in 25 is very high. The author of the study the book is based on even notes that the conclusions were not 4% of the populace but 1.4%. In fact the author of the book did not do research on her own, nor does she provide any research of her own. She bases her entire book on misinterpretations of various other people's studies.

One in 25 is very low from my own observations. That the person that did the report in the book Mr. Wong has brought up used research outside of her own is irrelevant. She used preceding researchy to prove a point. Why should this person go through the trouble of conducting the same experiments tothat prove their idea? She collected data from multiple sources and came to a conclusion.

I happen to agree with the 1-25 people are sciopaths arguement except that I personnaly view that it's a lot more then 1 out 25.

[Keevan_Colton]

Mobiboros, I have trouble taking anything endorsed by the APA with anything but a massive grain of salt...they are after all the people to continue endorsing roarsch tests despite double blind tests showing they're on par with tea leaf reading...

[Admiral Valdemar]

The APA is trying to correct the many mistakes they made in the past (or so I hear) to help psychology get respect as a science, a soft one, but a science all the same.

[Mobiboros]

One in 25 is very low from my own observations. That the person that did the report in the book Mr. Wong has brought up used research outside of her own is irrelevant. She used preceding researchy to prove a point. Why should this person go through the trouble of conducting the same experiments tothat prove their idea? She collected data from multiple sources and came to a conclusion.

Because she is misinterpreting the data. The Author of the study she is working from even stated that she is misinterpreting the data and provides no other real data to support her premise. It's not that she used outside research, but that she wrongly stated the conclusions then only used anecdotal evidence to back it up.

I happen to agree with the 1-25 people are sciopaths arguement except that I personnaly view that it's a lot more then 1 out 25.

Thats fine. And you can. And unless you tell me you've conducted actual studies, can provide hard data, or have done extensive research into the area. I'm not going to accept your point of view. I've done psychology research (My bachelors degree is in psychology.) and I can tell you that like any other science, anecdotal evidence is not really evidence. Psych data is based on tested and retested data.

Mobiboros, I have trouble taking anything endorsed by the APA with anything but a massive grain of salt...they are after all the people to continue endorsing roarsch tests despite double blind tests showing they're on par with tea leaf reading...

Why would you perform a Rorschach test as a double-blind? They aren't meant as a comparative sample set test. They are meant to provide a psychologist insight into a specific persons views. It's another form of word association basically and is used mainly to determine individual fixations (as Dissociative Disorders often evidence a fixation).

That said. Since they are the American organization that determines the definitions of disorders, disregarding the definitions they set really nulls the entire point. It's like saying "Yeah, we /could/ listen to biologists when they define what it means to evolve. But I'd rather listen to the mass media."

[Keevan_Colton]

That said. Since they are the American organization that determines the definitions of disorders, disregarding the definitions they set really nulls the entire point. It's like saying "Yeah, we /could/ listen to biologists when they define what it means to evolve. But I'd rather listen to the mass media."

If biologists had a history of being unable to tell the difference between what they just observed and what they just pulled out of their ass, a popular defenition of a word might well be more useful...

The fact is that Roarsch tests are endorsed by the APA yet are entirely subjective (read: bloody useless) and often cited in expert testimony in criminal proceedings despite the fact that the "results" can show anything at all.

The APA starts to get respect once it gets it's fucking act together and draws a line between subjective bullshit nonsense and quantifiable results.

[Mobiboros]

If biologists had a history of being unable to tell the difference between what they just observed and what they just pulled out of their ass, a popular defenition of a word might well be more useful...

And your evidence that Clinical Research Psychologists do this is?

And no. It's not more useful. Having a clear definition as it applies to the science in question is preferable to the loose interpretations of the popular media.

The fact is that Roarsch tests are endorsed by the APA yet are entirely subjective (read: bloody useless) and often cited in expert testimony in criminal proceedings despite the fact that the "results" can show anything at all.

In psychology Subjective =/= bloody useless. The fact that you think so shows you know 0 about psychology. Psychology is all about the individuals problems. Tests need to be able to see what the individual thinks because the reason person A evidences symptoms X,Y and Z may be completely different from why person B evidences them.

I already noted why the tests are used. They have a very specific use that you seem to be ignoring in favour of some preconceived idea of a field you obviously know little to nothing about.

The APA starts to get respect once it gets it's fucking act together and draws a line between subjective bullshit nonsense and quantifiable results.

And again. Shows you know 0 about how psych research is conducted. You have yet to show what 'subjective bullshit nonsense' they are suppossedly confusing with quantifiable data. I've been both subject to and actually done psych research (It's mandated to get the degree where I went to school). I can tell you that the results must be retestable. Often go on for decades to draw conclusions based over time.

[Galvatron]

I...am not...insane!!! Aaarrrgghh!!!

[Ravengrim]

So then maybe I dont truly understand the disorder. If you know that you have a hard time distinguishing whether or not an action is 'right' or 'wrong', why cant you simply ask yourself if your actions would cause hurt or discomfort to yourself were the tables turned? I dont beleive in absolute good or evil, either. But hurting another on purpose, knowingly, for your gain (be it money, pleasure, whatever) is selfish enough that I feel it would be considered bad regardless of the motivation. Im not saying that anyone involved in this discussion acts that way, that was merely my (lame) attempt to define evil.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Ravengrim, it's not really selfishness at all. It's that people with this disorder have a very hard time distinguishing between "right" and "wrong" behavior. Evil isn't really even part of the equasion at all. I don't consider myself to be evil, my friends don't consider me to be evil, and my shrink doesn't think I'm evil. They and myself think that at times I can be a very inconsiderate asshole. I have a very hard time with appologizing for my action because I really don't see what is wrong with anything I've done. That's the entire problem. The ability to be able to tell right from wrong or actually caring about if your actions are right or wrong.


Talon, that's pretty much how things go for me. If it's something that will get me arrested, chances are I try not to do it.

I have a friend who is JUST like that. He was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, but it's his complete lack of conscience (in certain situations) that really bothers us. For instance, he seems to feel good about himself if he can get away with not paying back his debts to his friends or if he can use his mother's credit card without her knowledge. He's been getting better at it through counselling and medication, but he seems to relapse into total sociopath mode every now and then.
It's really frustrating to deal with him. Is there anything you can recommend that will help him?

[Darth Wong]

If biologists had a history of being unable to tell the difference between what they just observed and what they just pulled out of their ass, a popular defenition of a word might well be more useful...

And your evidence that Clinical Research Psychologists do this is?

The fact that the APA continues to endorse the totally discredited Rorschach test, for one thing. But more to the point, you're still full of shit; the definition of "antisocial personality disorder" is not necessarily the same thing as the popular term "sociopath", and the clinical diagnostic criteria you cite are deliberately restrictive, presumably because the diagnosis can have legal ramifications. For example, the definition you cited states that you cannot diagnose APD in a minor, yet it would be an utterly absurd statement to say that it's impossible for a 17 year old to be a sociopath.

[Lone_Prodigy]

So then maybe I dont truly understand the disorder. If you know that you have a hard time distinguishing whether or not an action is 'right' or 'wrong', why cant you simply ask yourself if your actions would cause hurt or discomfort to yourself were the tables turned? I dont beleive in absolute good or evil, either. But hurting another on purpose, knowingly, for your gain (be it money, pleasure, whatever) is selfish enough that I feel it would be considered bad regardless of the motivation. Im not saying that anyone involved in this discussion acts that way, that was merely my (lame) attempt to define evil.

The problem is not that they cannot distinguish the line, it's rather that they don't care that it exists. They know that it is wrong, but they don't care.

[Keevan_Colton]

Why would you perform a Rorschach test as a double-blind? They aren't meant as a comparative sample set test. They are meant to provide a psychologist insight into a specific persons views. It's another form of word association basically and is used mainly to determine individual fixations (as Dissociative Disorders often evidence a fixation).

To test the validity of THE TEST ITSELF...you do realize that a test which is used in a diagnosis, but which can actually diagnose anyone with something depending on the whim (or preconceptions if you prefer) of the person administering it is COMPLETELY FUCKING USELESS and is EXACTLY the SUBJECTIVE BULLSHIT NONSENSE that I am complaining about.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I have a friend who is JUST like that. He was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, but it's his complete lack of conscience (in certain situations) that really bothers us. For instance, he seems to feel good about himself if he can get away with not paying back his debts to his friends or if he can use his mother's credit card without her knowledge. He's been getting better at it through counselling and medication, but he seems to relapse into total sociopath mode every now and then.
It's really frustrating to deal with him. Is there anything you can recommend that will help him?

That's an odd diagnosis. As someone who has Asperger's (an autism-spectrum disorder), I can certainly see the parallels. However, the deficiencies in Asperger's are (as one might expect of autism) in the emotional and social arenas, not moral. I think I would die of guilt if I tried to use my father's credit cards for something without permission.

[Mobiboros]

The fact that the APA continues to endorse the totally discredited Rorschach test, for one thing.

And I already explained in what instances the test is still utilized and endorsed. You don't go into a therapist and have them give you a Rorschach test. If you are taking the test the chances are you've already been diagnosed and they are using it as a subjective measure of YOUR SPECIFIC fixations, which associative tests will provide some clarity into.

But more to the point, you're still full of shit; the definition of "antisocial personality disorder" is not necessarily the same thing as the popular term "sociopath", and the clinical diagnostic criteria you cite are deliberately restrictive, presumably because the diagnosis can have legal ramifications.

It has both legal and medical ramifications for treatment courses and is 'restrictive' insofar as they provide a criteria to diagnose the problem. DO you go to the doctor and tell him you find his definition of the flu "too restrictive"? I already noted that the psychological definition of a Sociopath and the colloquial definition are different. Kind of like how people seem fond of noting the scientific and colloquial definitions of the word "Theory". The author of the book in question incorrectly cites actual psychological research data. This would implyshe is using "Sociopath" in the psychological diagnostic sense and not the colloquial sense.

For example, the definition you cited states that you cannot diagnose APD in a minor, yet it would be an utterly absurd statement to say that it's impossible for a 17 year old to be a sociopath.

No, you can't. Prior to 18 they are diagnosed with "Conduct Disorder". The diagnostic criteria recognizes that people going through adolescence have a very different body chemistry from adults and that many of the symptoms of 'conduct disorder' can onften be adolescent rebelliousness. If the symptoms persist after the age of 18 then they are diagnosed as Antisocial.

To test the validity of THE TEST ITSELF...you do realize that a test which is used in a diagnosis, but which can actually diagnose anyone with something depending on the whim (or preconceptions if you prefer) of the person administering it is COMPLETELY FUCKING USELESS and is EXACTLY the SUBJECTIVE BULLSHIT NONSENSE that I am complaining about.

Ok, let me back up a bit and ask you this: In what capacity does the APA endorse the test? DO you know? Have you actually looked at the guidelines for the use of the test? Probably not since you think they endorse it as a blanket diagnostic test.

To clarify, it's endorsed as an aid in assessing personality, but they note strongly that it is not applicable in all situations. It also should never be used as the only measure, only an aid in allowing for possible hypothesis on an individual.

I will also note that psychology is basically a medical science. Any diagnosis made by any health professional is based on their own interpretations of symptoms. However, these are also people who've gone through a minimum 8 years of secondary education (to practice psychology you have to have a PhD), and psychiatrists additionally hold an MD. So their 'whims' are not so much 'whims' as 'educated assessments based on availabe evidence'.