Talk:Antisocial personality disorder/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Confusion

I noticed that many people use the term "antisocial" to describe someone who is shy or uncomfortable in social situations which are different conditions entirely, should it be mentioned in the article that these two terms are often confused with APD? Goalminor530000 23:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes myself. Goalminor530000 23:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This point is good regarding people's usage of the word. However, before this type of information is added to the article, there should be clearness about where in the world people are using a word differently and whether or not that place's relevant social factors are important enough to be included. The same applies to the information in the article that refers to 1994. Unsure of whether or not this specifically means the United States, it should be clearer considering that America's 1994 was immensely different to other English speaking countries in all sorts of social aspects. Evsjordan (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In penitentiaries, the percentage is estimated to be as high as 75%

I don't see a citation for this line. Does the seventh source cover the bulk of the paragraph this sentence is in (including this statement)? If not, can someone find a link that contains this information? I've been searching, but I've found nothing. Damn internet and the difficulty in finding specific information... Nobody47710 12:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole concept of antisocial personality is a bit moot, and that the article itself pretty much proofs this with a confusing list of dubious symptoms. What i think is the matter is that an inheritance of terminology stemming from about 1930 , plus the apreciable fact that several forms of behaviour (stealing without feeling guilt eg.) can indeed be diagnosed as uncurable (pretty much logically in many cases) and symptomatically "anti-social". However that diagnoses is to the effect of the form of behaviour and not the person performing it.77.251.188.67 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge Psychopathy in

As someone said above, the Psychopathy page is more detailed than this one. However, the Sociopathy page has already been merged into Psychopathy. Psychopathy should be merged into here, as this article can easily discuss the difference between the two concepts, because:- (from the psychopathy article-you can see the refs there)

Comparing psychopathy to antisocial personality disorder is a continuing source of debate within the psychological community. The official stance of the American Psychiatric Association as presented in the DSM-IV-TR is that psychopathy and sociopathy are obsolete synonyms for antisocial personality disorder (APD).[verification needed] The World Health Organization takes a similar stance in its ICD-10 by referring to psychopathy, sociopathy, antisocial personality, asocial personality, and amoral personality as synonyms for dissocial personality disorder. (my bold)

Hare and others take the stance that psychopathy as a syndrome should be considered distinct from the DSM-IV's antisocial personality disorder construct,[51] even though APD and psychopathy were intended to be equivalent in the DSM-IV. However, those who created the DSM-IV felt that there was too much room for subjectivity on the part of clinicians when identifying things like remorse and guilt; therefore, the DSM-IV panel decided to stick to observable behaviour, namely socially deviant behaviours. As a result, the diagnosis of APD is something that the "majority of criminals easily meet."[52] Hare goes further to say that the percentage of incarcerated criminals that meet the requirements of APD is somewhere between 80 to 85 percent, whereas only about 20% of these criminals would qualify for a diagnosis of psychopath. This twenty percent, according to Hare, accounts for 50 percent of all the most serious crimes committed, including half of all serial and repeat rapists. According to FBI reports, 44 percent of all police officer murders in 1992 were committed by psychopaths.[53]"

This is about the only alleged difference between the two terms, it can easily be put in one article (I mean the writing will be a bit of work, but still). What I am going to do is write a merged version at User:Merkinsmum/APD. Then you can all comment on it and see if it looks O.K. It'll be good, I promise:)Merkinsmum 13:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at this again. The Psychopathy page is now called Hare's theory of psychopathy because that's what it's about. Anything that's about his theory can be kept there, and anything that's about APD, merged in here. Then no-one has to argue (hopefully lol) I have to go out soon so please ignore my userpage version as it stands, because it needs more work and I won't have time till later this evening.Merkinsmum 16:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The page content is much more congruent with the article name. The rest of it will be much easier to fix now. Mattisse 18:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Antisocial Personality Disorder article should concentrate on its formal diagnostic aspects, IMO, as it belongs to a mandated system of diagnosis for the United States at least - DSM-IV. Hypothetical theorizing and research about psychopathy and other issues belong in different articles -- that is research psychology versus clinical. Mattisse 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of these antisocial disorders

As we all know, various terms have been used to describe antisocial behavior, each one varies in what is included in the disorder. It is good that there is an article now devoted to Hare, as he has had a major investment in his point of view, along with the various research scales he has devised. He has his adherents and they do research focusing on his theories. All the problems etc. with using cluster/factor statistical analyses on a small subject pool can be discussed in his article.

For me, Antisocial Personality Disorder is the disorder as defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders because in the United States mental health professionals are required to use these diagnostic categories for insurance reimbursement, to admit a client to a hospital, and in legal settings if a diagnosis is required. Therefore, IMO, an article on Antisocial Personality Disorder should reflect the standards of this diagnosis because these standards are very clear. Similar disorders, IMO, should not be conflated into this one.There is no conflict over what an Antisocial Personality Disorder is. There may be dissatisfaction over what is included or not included in the criteria. There may be dissatisfaction over how the criteria for the disorder were derived. But the definition of the disorder is clear.

Perhaps there should be a separate article for Dissocial personality disorder and/or the ICD-10 Antisocial Personality Disorder. Just looking at ICD-10 Criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder', my impression is that the method of deriving those standards was quite different. Therefore, it would be hard, IMO, to combine the two, since how the criteria were determined is fundamental to understanding what is meant by the terms.

Perhaps three articles describing the ICD-10, the AMA's Antisocial Personality Disorder and psychopathy (or Hare's psychopathy) are in order. Each could include not only the standards or criteria for inclusion, but the method for arriving at those standards. It also could include stated dissatisfactions with the criteria as it is applied in clinical practice (or research practice as in the case of psychopathy.

Perhaps another article could compare and contrast these various definitions of the disorder. The Antisocial Personality Disorder as defined by the AMA has nothing to do with sex offenders.

Also, reliable, unbiased, third party sources should be used where possible. Raw research findings do not qualify as a reference source in this type of article. They are pertinent to an article directed at a summary of research findings rather than clinical use of the term.

I would appreciate hearing other editors views on this subject. Regards, Mattisse 22:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have enough info on 'dissocial personality disorder' (the ICD-10's words I think, to really need a separate article, it could have a paragraph in here. A lot of sites seem to refer to these two as the same, even thought they're not quite. We could just list all Dissocial P'D's criteria here to avoid WP:OR- unless we can find a source comparing the two.Merkinsmum 03:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography of articles

In reading a bibliography of articles Hare (among others) wrote, none of them are focused on the sex offender as antisocial personality disorder, or psychopath: Psychopathy in Psychiatry and Philosophy: An Annotated Bibliography Mattisse 23:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Treatment

There's depressingly no treatment section.

Are any medications sometimes prescribed, such as for managing anger, aggression etc? I know personality disorders are supposed to be hard to cure, but some of the more extreme manifestations could perhaps be treated with a major tranquilizer? Is any group therapy used or anything like that? Such as perhaps therapy training them to imagine themselves in another person's position and how they would feel if they were hit etc? I mean I know they're supposed to be lacking in feelings but maybe they could learn from that a bit, and they have affect, even if it's shallow.Merkinsmum 03:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really. In a jail setting, if they are acting out they may be given a low dose of an antipsychotic to calm them down, or an antihistamine, like Atarax, for short-term sleep problems. But since this type of person is manipulative and often drug-seeking, it is best not to get involved in medicating them. One might consider evaluating them for the presence of a Bipolar Disorder if the person is really out of control as some of the anti-seizure medications, in addition to antidepressants and antipsychotics, would work if they have a bipolar disorder. In prison settings, inmates without a major mental disorder are not medicated with psychiatric medications, in the United States for the most part. In fact, most incarcerated inmates are not interested in taking psychiatric medications. There is no treatment for Antisocial Personality Disorder. Mattisse 13:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge with moral insanity

The moral insanity article does not present enough information to stand on its own. As it is believed to be the predecessor concept to antisocial personality disorder, it would make sense to merge moral insanity into antisocial personality disorder by creating a section about the history of APD diagnosis. Neelix (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Moral insanity should definitely not be merged with this article, as people with antisocial personality disorder are perfectly sane, albeit somewhat deranged. They almost always are conscious of their moral choices or know that what they're doing is wrong. This differs from moral insanity, as these people do not realize this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.14.138.2 (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that people with ASPD are perfectly sane? --82.31.164.172 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is a formal DSM-IV diagnostic category. Moral insanity is an outdated Victorian term that is not part of diagnostic terminology today. Therefore, I am against any merging of the articles. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The term "moral insanity" is not something that wikipedia should list at all in my opinion, as "moral" is NOT a constant. Morals and Ethics alike, are things that everyone has, but define differently and is completely individual. So, the term "moral insanity" should not be a part of a wikipedia as it is not a term that is neither accurate nor accepted in the psychological community. Dekket (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether an article warrants inclusion in Wikipedia is not discriminated based on whether a word in the article's subject is constant. That is ridiculous. Based on your view, we should delete any article on morality, beauty, or other things that are subjective. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Moral insanity is a distinct category now of only historical importance. It should be listed as it has importance - although made clear that it is an historical term. It is not commensurate with antisocial personality disorder anymore than dementia praecox - be it a "precursor" term or not - is commensurate with schizophrenia. To merge the two terms would be deeply anachronistic. It is pointless to retrospectively accumulate historical terms used to understand mental illness to present day conceptual systems. There are fundamental differences between 19th and 20th century understandings of mental illness.Freekra (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Just to add the person above who said moral is not a constant is right: in 19th century terms moral meant something else than it does today and was especially a reference to what today might be psychological faculties. Hence the phrase "moral treatment".Freekra (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Self-awareness

Is it at all possible for a patient to be self-aware to the fact that they have antisocial personality disorder? Would there be some form of denial or similar activity that would prevent them from being able to admit to it? wavefront_talk 20:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the editing of the article. It's not a forum to discuss the nature of antisocial personality disorder. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

i think there should be something about self awarness in the article88.97.6.98 (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Löl, if you´d have a list of famous people with sociopathy it would make a pretty long list, or cause the site to get v& —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.66.254 (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

People with ASPD or something similar to ASPD eventually realize that they are different from normal people, and with that realization they potentially learn, through research or diagnosis, that they may have ASPD or something similar to ASPD. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Merging Dissocial personality disorder

It should be quite simple to merge Dissocial personality disorder into here by expanding the ICD-10 section. Much of the other material in Dissocial personality disorder also applies to Antisocial personality disorder. Anankastic personality disorder had already been merged into obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.--Penbat (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont think this is controversial. Unless somebody screams i will do the merge in a few days time. --Penbat (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You know; if you ask me I think half of the people have ASPD. I do not see any concern or regard for anyone out there. Everyone is just preoccupied with slandering you or being deceitful to you or just not caring about anything about you. I don't see any regard for me or my children or my family members. All people care about is exploiting me, hurting me or getting rid of me. There is no communication, no commerodity only finger pointing and insinuating I'm some worthless devil. I think also that if you're not some gang member then your a loner. Basically there is no one you can trust and in the same breath no one really trusts you. It's just all misconceptions. The poor say the rich are a bunch of cheats and on the other hand the rich say the poor are a bunch of brain dead drug addicts. Carl Kravis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.128.43 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

ASPD- vampires of life force

How are these conditions applied to the schizoid who needs to prove that the voices are really talking to them, only to mash them down, destroy them, or want to take possession of the soul of them-emulate to humiliate, with extreme fear of being discovered unless they can find approval for being destructive. Recluse- with a spiritual void which draws malitiously from the immeadiate environment in a socially unacceptable manner. Blaming others for their own shortcomings. A passion for using the "eyes of", stealing the memories of, or manipulating the "visions of" unsuspecting victims of their environment. Propagating fear, to get high off of, victims' emotional state of being. "Hippocampiods" whose presence causes their environment to exibit POST TRAUMATIC STRESS. Refusal to accept adult responsibility for behavior hiding in a childhood emotional response; adults who call themselves "KIDS" to escape responsibility for their Identity and state of being. ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.112.2 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 87.194.154.56, 13 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

This page has been vandalised - and correction has been attempted, but the name "Pam Dorr" still remains within the article. This should be deleted. I think that is the only correction required.

87.194.154.56 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

NPD vs ASPD/psychopathy/sociopathy

There has some debate on the differences between NPD and ASPD. Indeed, at first glance the disorders can appear quite similar. I think it might not be a bad idea to include some content in this article distinguishing NPD from ASPD (and two subcategories of ASPD: psychopathy and sociopathy) in order to emphasize the differences. From my understanding, people with NPD and people with ASPD share a few key symptoms such as interpersonal exploitation and lack of empathy, but people with NPD [and not ASPD] are relatively more narcissistic - albeit less crime-oriented and sadistic - than people with ASPD [but not NPD]. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sociopathy/psychopathy confusion

Problem 1:

• Sociopath redirects Antisocial personality disorder.
• Sociopathy redirects to Psychopathy

Problem 2:

I think this could be more clearly worded, from the intro:

Antisocial personality disorder is sometimes known as sociopathic personality disorder. It is also sometimes referred to as psychopathy or sociopathy. However, the two are not to be used interchangably.

The idea that A can be called B or C, but B cannot be called C or vice versa, doesn't quite add up. It got me confused, and I wondered whether the "two" referred to were maybe sociopathic personality disorder and one of the others. (I can see that's not true - just explaining how it can be confusing.) --Chriswaterguy talk 16:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The discrepancy doesn't make sense to me either. 'Sociopathy' is simply the behavioral pattern exhibited by a 'sociopath'. They should redirect to the same page: either an article on sociopathy (a subset of ASPD) or the article on ASPD itself. Furthermore, psychopathy and sociopathy are separate subsets of ASPD, so 'sociopathy' should not redirect to 'psychopathy'. I have resolved the issue by redirecting 'sociopathy' to 'Antisocial personality disorder'. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Outdated/inactive citations

Citation #3 goes to a dead page http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/antisocial.html I'm not really sure how to properly fix it so I am merely noting it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.125.66 (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that whatever is salvageable from the essay-like Sociopaths in Society should be merged here and the latter article converted into a redirect here. Beware however, that article needs careful checking, as some statements are sourced by publications that do not state anything like what they are supposed to source... --Crusio (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: Sociopathy is related to psychopathy and not (as Hare points out) ASPD.--Penbat (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: "Sociopaths in Society" is always going to be more about sociological conjecture than medical facts anyway. --Penbat (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• The very lead of this article says "psychopathy and sociopathy are generally considered subsets of ASPD". And as discussed a few sections highe, sociopath and sociopathy both redirect here. --Crusio (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

comment trying to figure out the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath isnt very easy, if youre using wikipedia. as i understand it, a sociopath requires a victim, but that doesnt seems to be reflected in the article. -badmachine 10:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose: Because of the changing definitions in the DSM, some of the material in Sociopaths in Society may be dated and no longer correct nor relevant to this article as it seems to relate primarily to criminal behavior, and an example of how cobbling stuff together makes things worse (i.e. more confusing) rather than better. Also, it would make this article too long. It belongs as a link in "See Also" or as a subtitle link. It should be updated rather than "salvaged" depending on how current literature relates to that subject. I don't have the time or inclination for that level of research on that subject at this time. Suggest a "this article needs updating" header to Sociopaths in Society instead. Nodekeeper (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Umm well im drunk right now so this may be a misreading but the Criticism section seems to be ridden with opinionated text. Please correct me if im wrong but yeah it seems like some doctor got pissed and went and rewrote the section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.29.237 (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sociopaths and ASPDs are a part of the same continuum (with some variations on the theme) rather than being totally separate syndromes

Here is a good source, "The Sociopath Next Door", by Martha Stout, although there are many other sources that attest to it as well. There are differences, but they are differences of degree, not total differences. 173.246.35.178 (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• In the future, please avoid spamming the edit history and copying text verbatim from published works. Further, if you must use material directly from a book, please reword it in an original and (more importantly) WP:NPOV form. While Dr. Stout's book may be an informative or otherwise entertaining read for those who feel they may be or have been "victimized" by sociopaths, her prose is distinctly lacking in clinical tone. If it suits you to replace any of the information I removed, it might be of use to use the fairly extensive reference section in the back of The Sociopath Next Door to provide more relevant references for future readers, and to avoid the issues of pop medicine. Thank you very much, NihilistDandy (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the APA sociopathy, psychopathy and ASPD are exactly the same, with APSD being the now official diagnosis and the others being older terms for the same condition. In actual usage people generally assumed different severity levels when different terms were used based upon how harsh each term sounded, but that was just unofficially out of convenience. The idea that they are totally separate things is both historically and diagnostically incorrect. I don't think even Dr. Hare proposes complete separation. DreamGuy (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Article too technical: banner added

Wikipedia is for everybody not just scientists and clinical researchers. The article lacks language that the average non-scientist/non-clinical reader can understand.

Wikipedia is not a club for scientists and clinicians, it is a public-use encyclopedia and writing should be readable by the general public, not just insiders to the fields of psychology or psychiatry etc...

Technical banner added (calls for adding non-technical language and descriptions to make the article more accessible and understandable to all). 75.71.193.232 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• If you think the text is too technical, then make it simpler (although this is not the "simple English" WP), but don't add pop medicine stuff, this is a serious encyclopedia. --Crusio (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't strike me as being too technical at this time. If you feel there are sections that could be made more reader-friendly but aren't certain how to rephrase them yourself, perhaps you could include examples of text that concerns you here so that we could discuss how it can be clarified? Doniago (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, wait a minute, what is going on here? There is a spate of editing going on here. I don't see any need to add any tags and I gather that this part of some dispute? Let's work this out. I haven't gone into this detail, but -- User 75.71.193.232, you have added a bunch of material hre, let's slow down and vet the references.

Books are very seldom a good source. This is because book publishers do not employ fact checkers, so we are thrown back almost entirely on the reputation of the author. So we need to look into Martha Stout -- that she has a Ph. D. and has published a book is fine, but only the beginning of what we need to know about her - we need to look at her published corpus, where she teaches, recognition in the field, and so forth. As to Psychology Today, I'm not too familiar with them but offhand I wouldn't say they are a good source, I don't think they have a high reputation in the scholarly sense, they are more a popular magazine I think. To be continued... Herostratus (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. This may expose some ASPDs and so you can bet they won't want this list posted here. 205.169.70.175 (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh OK, Martha Stout has an article... she trained at McLean and taught at Harvard Med School for a long time, and you really can't ask for better credentials than that... Herostratus (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes her credentials are impeccable and she is a clinical psychologist. She is an authority on the subject and so reverting many of her citations at a time is wholesale vandalism. 75.71.193.232 (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of making this article more understandable and accessible to all, I suggest adding a section titled Cultural Depictions. (See, e.g., the section in Narcissistic Personality Disorder.) Contents should include names of movies and novels, the character in each who can be identified as having APD, and a brief description of how the character fits the diagnosis. 66.87.7.235 (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure this has been discussed and discarded at other medical articles (here, for instance). Among other things you would of course need to provide sourcing to establish that the specific depiction was somehow significant. We don't need a laundry list. Doniago (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Serious subject, descriptions for Lay-readers (regular folks) is critical: This is a serious subject that has a public safety component. Keeping the language technical and very brief will not allow the general reading public to get much use from the article. Having descriptions that most people can understand is important as per WP policy and also is important for the general public.

It's good there is a list of easily-accessible descriptions and not just clinical lingo.

205.169.70.175 (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I still think it would be helpful if editors who are concerned that the text is too technical would provide specific examples. Doniago (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, the IPs position is mainly motivated by his desire to keep the pop-med section entitled "More Identifying Features". It's the kind of self-help stuff that Wikipedia is not... Note that similar sections are conspicuously absent from other mental-disorder articles (see, for example, schizophrenia). I think it should be deleted wholesale, but the IP keeps restoring it. I'd be interested to hear what you think about this. --Crusio (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Seconded. If the IP user(s) feel so passionately, perhaps they'd deign to humanize themselves with names, that we might consider the issue with more identifiable sides. Further, the material at issue seems to be lifted directly from Stout's book. Remarks like "not all ASPDs are violent, more prefer social aggression, although violence is significantly more common among ASPDs than for the normal population" also seem speculative, prejudicial, and dehumanizing, unless there is some supplemental citation supporting them. NihilistDandy (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The article is not overtly technical. The opening alone explains the concept in a perfectly serviceable way. The DSM and ICD definitions supplement this and fully define the clinically recognized aspects of the condition. When the DSM-V comes out, of course, this whole thing will need to be reimagined, but until that day, it's fine. If there are specific sections you contend are too technical, kindly simplify them or ask for assistance. NihilistDandy (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Copy-pasting a single person's opinion over and over again does not improve the article. It's just fluff. They are not "Identifying Features" because they are mostly subjective and only may be encountered in those with ASPD. They would be identifying if they occurred only (or even mostly) in such persons, and if there were some objective measure for such traits. As it stands now, it reads like sensationalist pop psychology and doesn't contribute to the article in a serious manner. NihilistDandy (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Finally, I will be removing the "Identifying Features" section until consensus can be reached. If further edit warring occurs, we will have to consider a request for protected status until the war dies down, or IP blocks. I'll personally warn anyone who breaks the WP:3RR, IP or otherwise. NihilistDandy (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be very leery of any material the motivation for which is to aid readers in performing any specific actions or behavior. We are for research and information and very much not equipped to handle anything in the pro-tips or self-help area because we can't guarantee that we'll get it right. On the other hand, Martha Stout looks to be a pretty well-credentialed person and absent some claim that there's a problem with her work I would think her a reasonable source for some material.

As far as the tags, there's nothing here so dense that it requires the "technical" tag and I don't see a crying need for the "cleanup" tag either so I've removed them. If there's a dispute or a claim of POV there are separate tags for that. Herostratus (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Some material, certainly. But if that section is to return, it will be in a significantly condensed and more neutral form. Stout's opinion is hardly neutral, and she openly admits in the book that parts of her work are speculative, or at least on shaky factual ground. While this is a positive for a pop psychology book, it is less than reassuring for its inclusion in an encyclopedic article. I am certainly not questioning her credentials, which appear impeccable, just her content. A GBooks preview for skimming. I would not be averse to a reference to her book, as it is related, but without fairly serious vetting it will be difficult to use the content therein. NihilistDandy (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. As pointed out above,this is an important subject with public safety implications. And books are basically never AAA-level refs, because general book publishers do not employ fact checkers. If Martha Stout makes a statement of fact - say that X percent of the population has ASPD - we have to keep in mind that if we use this we are entirely taking her word for it. Should we? That depends on the author, and one important area to look at is motivation. On the one hand, she presumably has an academic reputation that she would want to protect by being truthful, and she wouldn't have been kept on at the Med School if she's in a lifelong habit of egregiously falsifying date. On the other hand, if it's true that she's "hardly neutral" and has a point of view to advance, that's a negative motivator for veracity. If her main source of income is now book sales, that's a negative motivator for veracity, as books sales benefit from sensational claims. I'm not saying any of this applies to her, I'm just pointing this out. It is for these reasons that I do not like to use books, ever, as sources for contetious material, especially books by people whose main income does not depend on their academic career. Reviews of her books by other academics would help us get a handle on her reputation, I think. Herostratus (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • ASPD is no more a public safety issue than any other personality disorder. Further, I would say unequivocally that drunk drivers cause more damage yearly than any supposed sociopaths. Does that require the addition of "More Identifying Characteristics" of drunk drivers? No. The effects are perfectly well described by the medical information about intoxication. In the same way, it is essentially unnecessary for ASPD. Some subset of the information under dispute seems quite reasonable, but those data must be considered separately and be properly verifiable. Stout's book has a fairly extensive reference section at the end... this would be fertile ground for vetting. NihilistDandy (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • As for Martha Stout herself: From what little I've been able to find about her, she's not currently teaching anywhere, but is in private practice. What reflection this has on her primary source of income or desire to protect an academic reputation is, as yet, unclear. My comment on her neutrality (or lack thereof) is primarily a commentary on the alarmist tone of her book. It preys on the paranoia of the pop-psych/self-help crowd, conjuring images of lurking bugbears around every corner. While this is not strictly untrue if the statistics are to be believed, it adds a level of hyperbole which robs claims of neutrality of some credence. No luck finding anyone in the field reviewing her work, so far. NihilistDandy (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

ASPD is much more of a public safety issue than other PDs. For example, people who have avoidant personality disorder don't victimise, whereas antisocials victimise habitually. Drunk drivers don't cause more harm than antisocials, and a high proportion of antisocials are drink-drivers. Heavy drinking, addiction and recklessness are very common in antisocials. Jim Michael (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Epidemiology

"Epidemiology A major study by the McLean Hospital puts the occurrence of antisocial personality disorder in the general population at 1 out of every 25 males and 1 out of every 30 females"

McLean Hospital?? Is this proper to put this result above in the epidemaiology section of ASPD?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.105.192.186 (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Their website. Also, [here]. Is there some question as to their reputation? NihilistDandy (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Nope, just that this talks about "a" study (without exact reference, only an indirect one), whereas the rest of that section concerns accumulated data from many different studies and is sourced to a secondary source. --Crusio (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Good enough explanation for me. NihilistDandy (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in article

The article claims this to be distinct from sociopathy, yet sociopathy redirects here? If this is not the same thing, then it shouldn't redirect here. Additonally, WHY is it unethical to diagnose a minor with socioathy/ASPD/etc? If they have such a mind, they have such a mind, it's not a death sentance, and and if you are, for all practical purposes, a horrible person, then you are a horrible person, and age is rather irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.65.114 (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

1. I agree with you that the article is rather unclear about the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy. However, in this article, the term sociopathy is discussed, so that is why there is a redirect. If you disagree, please feel free to create the article sociopathy.
2. Where in the article did you read that it is unethical to diagnose a minor with socioathy/ASPD/etc?
3. It is not us Wikipedia editors who have any viewpoints on the age of diagnosis, we just write what is in the DSM. (However, I can personally tell you that some of the criteria are normal parts of ordinary childhood. For instance, there is nothing wrong with a three year-old who shows "impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead".) Lova Falk talk 11:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The ASPD criteria state that under 18s cannot be diagnosed with ASPD and that anyone under 18 who otherwise fits the criteria has [[conduct disorder. Jim Michael (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Needs a history section

I came to this article hoping to find a history section. I hoped to find out when the term came in to use, who suggested it, how the definition (diagnosis criteria) has changed over time, etc. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)