Psychopathy is not an outdated term, it’s a current medical term with a specific meaning that is not the same as the meaning of sociopathy. It is true that there is a correlation between so-called “dark triad” traits (which include psychopathy but not sociopathy) and being rich on account of the fact that even shitty people are sometimes “held back” from the greatest degree of corporate success by a sense of empathy that psychopaths, who can be either shitty or decent people like anyone else, don’t have, but the majority of people with both conditions are not bourgeois and never will be.
It’s so easy to just look things up even for the most cursory knowledge about them before making proclamations about them. It also should probably raise a little alarm bell in your head to say that any biological marker is really worth mentioning for explaining someone being bourgeois.
Psychopathy is not an outdated term, it’s a current medical term with a specific meaning that is not the same as the meaning of sociopathy.
What I mean by that is afaik there is no formal “psychopath disorder”, nor admittedly is there a “sociopath disorder” in the DSM5, only ASPD.
that any biological marker is really worth mentioning for explaining someone being bourgeois
You’re figuratively putting words in my mouth. Im saying that there are possible differences in brain structure that if not given the proper support can lead to very antisocial behaviour like the one shown in the video, *as a causal factor in addition to being bourgeois (economic position leading to harmful behaviours).
Psychopathy exists even in the DSM, it’s just not its own disorder. One can still talk about someone prominently featuring psychopathic traits and meaningfully say that someone is a “psychopath” under this criteria (because not everyone with ASPD substantially features psychopathic traits), it just isn’t viewed as being a self-contained condition, which is different from it not existing or not being a meaningful, useful term. There are also many other respected sources of more modest scope than the DSM that use psychopathy as part of personality inventories and such.
You’re figuratively putting words in my mouth. Im saying that there are possible differences in brain structure that if not given the proper support can lead to very antisocial behaviour like the one shown in the video, *as a causal factor in addition to being bourgeois (economic position leading to harmful behaviours).
You have literally no evidence that this person has ASPD besides that they did something pointlessly mean (can you see why some people might take umbrage with that?), and if anything it more resembled sociopathic behavior if you insist on putting things in those boxes, but statistically he probably is not any type of ASPD because they are rare in the overall population and the “dark triad” bias, though statistically significant, is not overwhelming (and also includes other elements). There is nothing useful or epistemically sound about saying, in a way that you took pains to clarify was literal by saying “biological” this and “brain structure” that, that this person actually has a specific personality disorder.
it just isn’t viewed as being a self-contained condition
Yeah that’s what I was trying to say. I apologize for not being sufficiently clear.
You have literally no evidence that this person has ASPD
Yeah I don’t think I need further “evidence” to informally label someone a sociopath for hoarding wealth and behaving like a monster towards children. I never claimed to be a psychologist qualified to diagnose people nor that my comment acts as a formal medical diagnosis in any way. Stop acting like the bastards defamation lawyer.
in a way that you took pains to clarify was literal by saying “biological” this and “brain structure” that
Ok this is cope and the least charitable interpretation of what I wrote.
So, to re iterate, the dbzero person said the kid isn’t a victim.
I replied saying that no it isn’t about the kid, it’s more about the millionaire’s abhorrent behaviour that can be possibly explained by both “psychopathy”, which has a biological cause (never stated that it’s the only cause because that’s wrong) and the guys class position.
Again this isn’t me formally, medically, diagnosing the millionaire on any authority, that would be wrong and stupid, you are absolutely correct. I am using the label “psychopath”/“sociopath” as a shorthand for demonstrating really fucked up, damaging behaviour to the extent that it’s reasonable to assume the person may have an inherent condition partly caused by biological factors.
On one hand, I apologize for not being sufficiently clear and hedging my statements enough to demonstrate that I am not offering any form of formal, serious, medical diagnosis.
On the other hand, I thought it was reasonable to assume the latter statement about randoms shit posting about how millionaires are bad.
can you see why some people might take umbrage with that?
Because they are experts in the field and are frustrated by flippant use of their subject area’s terminology? Other than that I genuinely have no idea other than that they have been formally diagnosed with ASPD and take offense.
Psychopathy is not an outdated term, it’s a current medical term with a specific meaning that is not the same as the meaning of sociopathy. It is true that there is a correlation between so-called “dark triad” traits (which include psychopathy but not sociopathy) and being rich on account of the fact that even shitty people are sometimes “held back” from the greatest degree of corporate success by a sense of empathy that psychopaths, who can be either shitty or decent people like anyone else, don’t have, but the majority of people with both conditions are not bourgeois and never will be.
It’s so easy to just look things up even for the most cursory knowledge about them before making proclamations about them. It also should probably raise a little alarm bell in your head to say that any biological marker is really worth mentioning for explaining someone being bourgeois.
What I mean by that is afaik there is no formal “psychopath disorder”, nor admittedly is there a “sociopath disorder” in the DSM5, only ASPD.
You’re figuratively putting words in my mouth. Im saying that there are possible differences in brain structure that if not given the proper support can lead to very antisocial behaviour like the one shown in the video, *as a causal factor in addition to being bourgeois (economic position leading to harmful behaviours).
This is a slightly misleading distinction:
Psychopathy exists even in the DSM, it’s just not its own disorder. One can still talk about someone prominently featuring psychopathic traits and meaningfully say that someone is a “psychopath” under this criteria (because not everyone with ASPD substantially features psychopathic traits), it just isn’t viewed as being a self-contained condition, which is different from it not existing or not being a meaningful, useful term. There are also many other respected sources of more modest scope than the DSM that use psychopathy as part of personality inventories and such.
You have literally no evidence that this person has ASPD besides that they did something pointlessly mean (can you see why some people might take umbrage with that?), and if anything it more resembled sociopathic behavior if you insist on putting things in those boxes, but statistically he probably is not any type of ASPD because they are rare in the overall population and the “dark triad” bias, though statistically significant, is not overwhelming (and also includes other elements). There is nothing useful or epistemically sound about saying, in a way that you took pains to clarify was literal by saying “biological” this and “brain structure” that, that this person actually has a specific personality disorder.
Yeah that’s what I was trying to say. I apologize for not being sufficiently clear.
Yeah I don’t think I need further “evidence” to informally label someone a sociopath for hoarding wealth and behaving like a monster towards children. I never claimed to be a psychologist qualified to diagnose people nor that my comment acts as a formal medical diagnosis in any way. Stop acting like the bastards defamation lawyer.
Ok this is cope and the least charitable interpretation of what I wrote.
So, to re iterate, the dbzero person said the kid isn’t a victim.
I replied saying that no it isn’t about the kid, it’s more about the millionaire’s abhorrent behaviour that can be possibly explained by both “psychopathy”, which has a biological cause (never stated that it’s the only cause because that’s wrong) and the guys class position.
Again this isn’t me formally, medically, diagnosing the millionaire on any authority, that would be wrong and stupid, you are absolutely correct. I am using the label “psychopath”/“sociopath” as a shorthand for demonstrating really fucked up, damaging behaviour to the extent that it’s reasonable to assume the person may have an inherent condition partly caused by biological factors.
On one hand, I apologize for not being sufficiently clear and hedging my statements enough to demonstrate that I am not offering any form of formal, serious, medical diagnosis.
On the other hand, I thought it was reasonable to assume the latter statement about randoms shit posting about how millionaires are bad.
Because they are experts in the field and are frustrated by flippant use of their subject area’s terminology? Other than that I genuinely have no idea other than that they have been formally diagnosed with ASPD and take offense.
deleted by creator