Koolaid wrote:
@Elisabeth thanks for the source, I'll check it out.

Claire wrote:
What do you see as the distinction between the two? Which experts are you referring to? I base what I say on the evidence before me and I will change my stance if I am shown science which proves the contrary.

I don't claim to be an expert, but this is my field of study and I am very passionate about it. 
 
I didn't say the disorder is being erased, as far as I know it's really been renamed. Keep in mind also the concept of comorbidity. Lots of folks don't have just ONE diagnosis, lots of folks have two or three comorbid disorders. The traits which separate some people with ASPD from others can be easily explained by other commonly comorbid disorders.

And again, a diagnosis does not define a person. A diagnosis is just a tool we use to help us find the best method of treatment and so we can tell the insurance companies what we are doing. It's a culture label for 'abnormal' behavior. Not everyone with a particular disorder will behave in one specific way. These are really only rough guidelines. What we call disorders are just a words made by humans to classify and explain 'abnormal' behaviors and those words change all the time. Hysteria is not a diagnosis anymore. Autism did not used to be a spectrum.  The words we use to describe these behaviors change, that doesn't erase the disorder, it's just a change in classification.

Claire wrote:
This all might only apply to America, but there is movement away from the term 'psychopathy' here in so a person who would have had a diagnosis of 'psychopathy' a decade ago would most likely get a diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder.

A doctor might use the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, (PCL-R) but they cannot use that to bill the insurance company, they have to use a code from the DSM in order to receive payment, and the closest one would be ASPD. No DSM diagnosis, no payment from insurance.

I don't know anything about forensic psychiatry, you might know more about that than I do! My focus is on information that will be important to me as a clinical therapist one day.

Of course, these names for these disorders are all just cultural labels for behaviors that are outside of the "norm" so different cultures will use different names for similar things, and mental illness varies between cultures. Depression for example has different symptoms in different cultures and some cultures have mental illnesses that other cultures don't even have! 

As a therapist, I plan to treat my patients on an individual humanistic basis, knowing their diagnosis will be only a small part of how I assist my future clients. The more important purpose that the DSM holds, in my personal opinion, is the ability to classify and bill insurance companies based on the classifications. What we call our 'disorders' doesn't define us. It's just a tool to help estimate and guide us.

Koolaid wrote:
❤️️❤️️❤️️

Claire wrote:
Girl, YOU keep up the good work. I'm glad you wrote this article and that's for talking with me about it! <3 World needs more people like you.

BloomCissi wrote:
I usually don't read articles by either the NewsTeam or the BloggerTeam, but when I saw the title in the shouts I just had to read it. I can just say, it didn't disappoint me. Thanks for writing this article, it was really interesting!

Koolaid wrote:
The honor is mine really. I truly hope that with small steps, we can eradicate the stigma against mental illnesses and work towards improvement instead of antagonization.

Koolaid wrote:
@Claire Ah thanks for clarifying. I think it's a great job you guys are doing, I hope they will find out more about mentall illnesses, so people can start taking it seriously. I hope someday they'll treat mental illnesses with the same respect and importance as physical illness. Keep up the good work 👍

Brithanna wrote:
Thanks, I have psychology's matriculation examination next week so this is
related to the topic 

Claire wrote:
Some people see a distinction between psychopathy and sociopathy, but I think it's really just using two different words to mean mostly the same thing.

Some say that psychopathy is something you're born with and sociopathy is environmental, but we don't actually have any science to back up either of those claims as far as I am aware. In fact, we don't have much scientific evidence for ANY mental disorder of whether it's caused by genes or environment. We're still searching for causes, we're better at treating the symptoms than finding the roots with just about any mental disorder or illness. Like, take my depression for example. We don't really know what causes depression, but we know that therapy and anti-depressants can alleviate the symptoms.

The official APA DSM 5 that psychologists use to diagnose people uses neither psychopathy or sociopathy, only calling the disorder antisocial personality disorder. Of course, the APA is made up of humans, so it's all just cultural labels that we put on behaviors that don't match the "norm" and everything will change again when they write the DSM 6. I think it was still called psychopathy in the DSM 4, which was only replaced about four-ish years ago.

Koolaid wrote:
@Claire I am tagging you instead of quoting the comment so things remain orderly, but thank you very much for your imput!

I was convinced that psychopathy and sociopathy were subcategories of ASPD. Doesn't the make-up of sociopaths have different roots than psychopaths? I also agree that we should abandon the word 'psychopath', just like the term retard in the past, it has very negative connotations. These connotations work counterproductive when actually treating/helping people with ASPD-tendencies.

I'll definitely watch the TEDtalk sometime.

Aaand, you're welcome! 

Claire wrote:
Not a bad article at all! One critique I have though, we don't really use the term "psychopath" anymore. We usually call this disorder "sociopathy". The true name of the disorder is "anti-social personality disorder" as stated in the APA's DSM 5~ this is the disorder that we are usually talking about when we say 'psychopathy'. I don't really see the term 'pscyhopath' in much of the literature that I read on the subject these days, I think there's movement away from using this word due to the misunderstandings of it in popular culture and the associated stigmas. I think many have given up on trying to destigmatize 'psychopathy' and are instead moving to different language.

On the subject of point number four~ here's an interesting TED Talk on CEOs and psychopathy~ 


This is a disorder that, if managed properly, can actually be beneficial to society if the person afflicted finds their proper place in the world, possibly as a leader of a large company!

I'm in school for psychology right now with the goal of becoming an art therapist someday, it's nice to see an article about one of my passions on VP! Keep up the good work!

Djinn wrote:
Pop culture and mass media have definitely glued a strong stereotype to this. 

Koolaid wrote:
????? thanks ??? 

BloggerTeam wrote: