im a sociopath

[Chinaski]

Someone scoring full marks on those criteria would be charming and manipulative to the point where they could live a genuinely promiscuous lifestyle with multiple partners, even to a predatory degree, have committed many and various crimes of different types, and never learns a lesson when punished. That's a handy potted sketch, but that's the "type" of psychopath who would score fully on those criteria. You would not.

Saying "I'd be promiscuous if l could" doesn't count, to score full marks you'd have the charm to acquire a promiscuous lifestyle in a predatory manner. It's like the difference between fantasizing about committing a violent act on an enemy and going around and killing strangers for kicks. It's a different level of nastiness required to score the full 40 points.

(This doesn't mean I'm saying you're not a psychopath btw, you might be, might not be. Just saying you definitely do not meet all criteria, and this is the problem with self diagnosis)

 

[okyeah]

Someone scoring full marks on those criteria would be charming and manipulative to the point where they could live a genuinely promiscuous lifestyle with multiple partners, even to a predatory degree, have committed many and various crimes of different types, and never learns a lesson when punished. That's a handy potted sketch, but that's the "type" of psychopath who would score fully on those criteria. You would not.

Saying "I'd be promiscuous if l could" doesn't count, to score full marks you'd have the charm to acquire a promiscuous lifestyle in a predatory manner. It's like the difference between fantasizing about committing a violent act on an enemy and going around and killing strangers for kicks. It's a different level of nastiness required to score the full 40 points.

well my looks hold me back a lot from promiscuity. I also have high standards tbh. The whole sexual aspect is not as applicable for me due to numerous factors. But i see what you're saying. I think i'm incapable of love as you guys might see it. i've never really felt genuine attraction beyond sexual.

 

[okyeah]

i also do not love my parents and i never have unfortunately.

 

[Chinaski]

What's sociopathy and what's not a sociopathy (or psychopathy) is an entirely subjective notion.

Except it isn't really, it's very clearly clinically defined, despite the fact the word is overused to describe everyone from the President of the USA down to your average thief who uses menace.

Bringing our own personal definition of psychopathy to a discussion is not helpful. I personally wonder a great deal about the type of person who enthusiastically joins the army during peace time, but by the same token l wouldn't hesitate to use aggression or violence if l feel physically threatened or attacked. We all have our different red lines.

 

[Rollo]

Except it isn't really, it's very clearly clinically defined, despite the fact the word is overused to describe everyone from the President of the USA down to your average thief who uses menace.

Bringing our own personal definition of psychopathy to a discussion is not helpful. I personally wonder a great deal about the type of person who enthusiastically joins the army during peace time, but by the same token l wouldn't hesitate to use aggression or violence if l feel physically threatened or attacked. We all have our different red lines.

It's nowhere close to being clearly defined. You can bring this clinical definition and I will show it to you.

And the thing is whatever the clinical definition is I don't really care much about it. All I know is people use it as another word for evil.

 

[JustAboutDone]

i also do not love my parents and i never have unfortunately.

Lots of people don't love their parents. It's not sociopathic. I think it's a sign of maturity when you can accept your parents are just people with good and bad traits the same as everyone else. You can then get to know them as adult to adult or choose not to.

Life is all choices.

 

[JustAboutDone]

well my looks hold me back a lot from promiscuity. I also have high standards tbh. The whole sexual aspect is not as applicable for me due to numerous factors. But i see what you're saying. I think i'm incapable of love as you guys might see it. i've never really felt genuine attraction beyond sexual.

Hmmmm...
My, possibly completely misguided? idea of a psycho/sociopath would surely think they were God's own gift to women and sleep with whoever, whenever. Not say, "my looks hold me back"

Also, just because you've never fallen in love doesn't mean it won't ever happen.

 

[okyeah]

Hmmmm...
My, possibly completely misguided? idea of a psycho/sociopath would surely think they were God's own gift to women and sleep with whoever, whenever. Not say, "my looks hold me back"

Also, just because you've never fallen in love doesn't mean it won't ever happen.

well i have a miserable life so it has been hard to con my way into having sex. I know too much about how women think and what they value to know i genuinely have a chance with any right now.

 

[Chinaski]

It's nowhere close to being clearly defined. You can bring this clinical definition and I will show it to you.

And the thing is whatever the clinical definition is I don't really care much about it. All I know is people use it as another word for evil.

That's partly my point. There is the word psychopath, used colloquially and inaccurately by pretty much anyone when describing any form of wickedness. Then there is the clinical term "psychopathy", defined within the criteria of the psychopathy check list, which is how one reaches a diagnosis. If you don't care for the latter and prefer to discuss the word as a generic pejorative that's fine, but it does make me wonder why you're so active in a thread discussing whether someone fits the clearly defined criteria for a diagnosis.

 

[Chinaski]

Hmmmm...
My, possibly completely misguided? idea of a psycho/sociopath would surely think they were God's own gift to women and sleep with whoever, whenever. Not say, "my looks hold me back"

That's one type of psychopath, for sure. There are many psychopaths out there without good looks, superficial charm, whatever. This is the point l made earlier, that psychopathy isn't binary and is different in literally every single case; it's ridiculous to state that psychopaths always get laid, just as it's ridiculous to state that okyeah, or anyone, fits literally every criteria for psychopathy.

 

[ReadyasEver]

Everyone I have ever known could check off a few or several of the criteria at certain times. For me, the term comes from the definitive nature of the person. Do they exhibit a multitude of criteria consistently over long periods of time ( many years ). One person comes to mind definitively, Charles Manson, along with several psychological terms I probably can not even pronounce.

 

[Chinaski]

I know too much about how women think

Priceless.

 

[ReadyasEver]

" I know too much about women "

This probably could be one of the most dangerous statements I have ever seen uttered on this website. Tread lightly young man, you might not have to CTB, one of these ladies around here might do it for you. You are on your own.

 

[Chinaski]

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/there-is-no-unconditional-love.9813/

Okyeah: there is no such thing as unconditional love, they're all basically prostitutes, women should love me unconditionally.

Also okyeah: I'm incapable of loving anyone, and btw l have very high standards.

 

[sif]

well my looks hold me back a lot from promiscuity. I also have high standards tbh. The whole sexual aspect is not as applicable for me due to numerous factors. But i see what you're saying. I think i'm incapable of love as you guys might see it. i've never really felt genuine attraction beyond sexual.

I used to think I was incapable of love, and that it's easy to get dragged into false but intense feelings and they tend to diminish or become something unhealthy over time, but now I think most of us are capable of love like 99% of us it's just that we very rarely are in a circumstance or around a person where we feel it like we should. Maybe like we expect it in the wrong place?

 

[Rollo]

That's partly my point. There is the word psychopath, used colloquially and inaccurately by pretty much anyone when describing any form of wickedness. Then there is the clinical term "psychopathy", defined within the criteria of the psychopathy check list, which is how one reaches a diagnosis. If you don't care for the latter and prefer to discuss the word as a generic pejorative that's fine, but it does make me wonder why you're so active in a thread discussing whether someone fits the clearly defined criteria for a diagnosis.

I'm not in a thread discussing whether someone fits the clearly defined criteria for a diagnosis. I'm in a thread discussing whether someone fits very loosely defined criteria for a diagnosis. This criteria basically says that if somebody rapes his children and randomly kills people for fun BUT makes long-term plans and is always cautious about his safety and about not getting caught - then he's not a sociopath. But if he doesn't 'consider his own safety' - he's sociopath. And what is considered as 'not considering your own safety' is anyone's guess and is entirely subjective.

Even if clinical definition is narrower that the common one - so what? What exclusive right do they alone have to designate one form of wickedness as healthy, and another one as unhealthy? Apart from their own subjective feelings?

 

[Smilla]

Didn't a bunch of US shrinks get together and diagnose Trump with full blown Narcissism, then went on to write an editorial to the NYTimes belaboring their diagnosis?

The DSM-V is a basically load of crap IMO.

 

[Chinaski]

I'm not in a thread discussing whether someone fits the clearly defined criteria for a diagnosis. I'm in a thread discussing whether someone fits very loosely defined criteria for a diagnosis. This criteria basically says that if somebody rapes his children and randomly kills people for fun BUT makes long-term plans and is always cautious about his safety and about not getting caught - then he's not a sociopath. But if he doesn't 'consider his own safety' - he's sociopath. And what is considered as 'not considering your own safety' is anyone's guess and is entirely subjective.

Even if clinical definition is narrower that the common one - so what? What right do they have to designate one form of wickedness as healthy, and another one as unhealthy? Apart from their own subjective feelings?

This is an incorrect judgement of the diagnostic tool and shows you basically don't understand how it is scored.

20 criteria, each scoring 0, 1, or 2.

Somebody who rapes children, or randomly kills people, will likely as not score 2 points for most criteria. Example:

Lack of remorse
Shallow affect
Callousness
Poor behavioural controls
Irresponsibility
Failure to take responsibility for own actions

That's already 12 points from 6. Throw in promiscuity, which usually factors in abnormal sexual behaviour, and you've 14 points from 7. These would be generally applied for the rape/murder alone, before you even begin with the rest of the life story.

It's not scored in a way to ensure someone who can't commit to a stable relationship , or fails to pay the rent on time, is more of a psychopath than a multiple killer. That's absurd. To score 2 points for any criteria requires the behaviours within that criteria to be very severe indeed.

It's absolutely fair enough btw to disagree with how psychopathy is diagnosed imo, fwiw l disagree with much of it also, and strongly object to the way in which it is used, often in a way which seeks to curtail civil liberties and condemn an individual to a label which can only have a negative impact with no real positive outcome. In the UK such assessments are wilfully misused, and often for political purposes which would take too long to describe.

Having said this, l really don't agree with people deciding their own definition of the word "psychopath" is the definitive one, and that it's quite alright to allow such flexibility to a very powerful label. I'm not comfortable with the idea that any layperson can simply point at something and call it "psychopathic", which is very much a clinical term, in much the same way I'm not at all comfortable with the DSM fetishists l mentioned earlier.

 

[Chinaski]

Didn't a bunch of US shrinks get together and diagnose Trump with full blown Narcissism, then went on to write an editorial to the NYTimes belaboring their diagnosis?

The DSM-V is a basically load of crap IMO.

Innit.

I despise Trump as much as the next right-thinking person but I'm fucking sick of the liberal centre who, when not replying to his latest tweet with MR PRESIDENT SIR I BESEECH YOU SIR, HAVE YOU NO DECORUM SIR, are scrambling around for the DSM to explain in some detail why he gave Emmanuel Macron a visibly limp handshake in front of the world's media. It's as if the USA have never had a dreadful piece of despicable shit as a president before.

 

[Rollo]

This is an incorrect judgement of the diagnostic tool and shows you basically don't understand how it is scored.

20 criteria, each scoring 0, 1, or 2.

Somebody who rapes children, or randomly kills people, will likely as not score 2 points for most criteria. Example:

Lack of remorse
Shallow affect
Callousness
Poor behavioural controls
Irresponsibility
Failure to take responsibility for own actions

That's already 12 points from 6. Throw in promiscuity, which usually factors in abnormal sexual behaviour, and you've 14 points from 7. These would be generally applied for the rape/murder alone, before you even begin with the rest of the life story.

It's not scored in a way to ensure someone who can't commit to a stable relationship , or fails to pay the rent on time, is more of a psychopath than a multiple killer. That's absurd. To score 2 points for any criteria requires the behaviours within that criteria to be very severe indeed.

It's absolutely fair enough btw to disagree with how psychopathy is diagnosed imo, fwiw l disagree with much of it also, and strongly object to the way in which it is used, often in a way which seeks to curtail civil liberties and condemn an individual to a label which can only have a negative impact with no real positive outcome. In the UK such assessments are wilfully misused, and often for political purposes which would take too long to describe.

Having said this, l really don't agree with people deciding their own definition of the word "psychopath" is the definitive one, and that it's quite alright to allow such flexibility to a very powerful label. I'm not comfortable with the idea that any layperson can simply point at something and call it "psychopathic", which is very much a clinical term, in much the same way I'm not at all comfortable with the DSM fetishists l mentioned earlier.

Oh so you're saying you can fit every single criteria in OP's list and still not be considered sociopath? Cause some behaviours are not 'severe enough'? Or not fit some and still be considered sociopath cause others are 'severe enough'? Now that's some new subjective stuff right there and this still leaves subjective assesment whether one is reckless or not. Our guy may score 0 on 3 and 5 (OP's list) - he may be very cautious with long term plans. Is he still sociopath? Why it even matters whether he's cautious or not?

As far as your list goes - you exclude 'personal safety' stuff but include 'promiscuity'. Is it clinical list or your own list? Do you personally believe being promiscuous is kinda sorta psychopathic? Why would it be relevant whether somebody who kills people for fun and rapes children was promiscuous or not?

 

[Chinaski]

As far as your list goes - you exclude 'personal safety' stuff but include 'promiscuity'. Is it clinical list or your own list? Do you personally believe being promiscuous is kinda sorta psychopathic? Why would it be relevant whether somebody who kills people for fun and rapes children was promiscuous or not?

Yeah, again you've just established that you just...well, don't know anything about the clinical criteria. Google PCLR. Promiscuous behaviour is a criteria. If your only problem in life is that you can't stop having extra marital affairs, you will score a meagre 2 on the PCLR. So literally nobody is saying promiscuity is, in itself and in isolation, psychopathic.

I've mentioned several times in this thread that psychopathy alone is very rarely a diagnosis in itself. It often carries two or three other serious disorders with it. So naturally there will be variations on how one gets to the final score. Some may have never committed a single crime and score 20. Others may have killed another person and still only score, say, 12. Not all killers are psychopaths, and not all psychopaths are killers.

Do l believe it's relevant if a child killer is promiscuous? Nobody does. A judge when sentencing such a man doesn't care if he's a virgin or a sex addict. But when assessing his personality as a whole, if assessed for psychopathy, this is a criteria. Similarly, some psychopaths will be virgins. There is no hard and fast symptom to identify as psychopathy; it's not diabetes.

You're also challenging me to kind of defend the diagnostic criteria when, as stated, I've very strong opinions in opposition to it and, specifically, how it's used, which to go into would derail the thread further. I'm not advocating on behalf of the PCLR here, just trying to outline what it actually is. And fwiw, as much as l disagree with it, I'd take their definition over your sweeping scattergun approach to a clinical diagnosis, any day of the week.

 

[JustAboutDone]

sweeping scattergun approach to a clinical diagnosis

Much as I hate plagiarism, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery so may I steal your phrase here for use with my upcoming appointment with my charming psychiatrist. It's so good.

 

[Rollo]

Yeah, again you've just established that you just...well, don't know anything about the clinical criteria. Google PCLR. Promiscuous behaviour is a criteria. If your only problem in life is that you can't stop having extra marital affairs, you will score a meagre 2 on the PCLR. So literally nobody is saying promiscuity is, in itself and in isolation, psychopathic.

I've mentioned several times in this thread that psychopathy alone is very rarely a diagnosis in itself. It often carries two or three other serious disorders with it. So naturally there will be variations on how one gets to the final score. Some may have never committed a single crime and score 20. Others may have killed another person and still only score, say, 12. Not all killers are psychopaths, and not all psychopaths are killers.

Do l believe it's relevant if a child killer is promiscuous? Nobody does. A judge when sentencing such a man doesn't care if he's a virgin or a sex addict. But when assessing his personality as a whole, if assessed for psychopathy, this is a criteria. Similarly, some psychopaths will be virgins. There is no hard and fast symptom to identify as psychopathy; it's not diabetes.

You're also challenging me to kind of defend the diagnostic criteria when, as stated, I've very strong opinions in opposition to it and, specifically, how it's used, which to go into would derail the thread further. I'm not advocating on behalf of the PCLR here, just trying to outline what it actually is. And fwiw, as much as l disagree with it, I'd take their definition over your sweeping scattergun approach to a clinical diagnosis, any day of the week.

But you said something about clear criteria. And now it seems 'there's no hard and fast symptom' and it's no diabetes.

I don't know anything about clinical criteria that's true. I explicitly said I don't care about it for reasons mentioned. Yet you do seem to care despite saying you disagree with it. Which to me looks like a direct contradiction. So answer a simple question - is psycopath what PCLR says he is or you have another criteria/definition?

So if somebody is a child killer, it's still relevant whether he's promiscuous or not to say whether he's psychopath or not? If he's not - maybe no psychopath after all. Correct? Mind you promiscuity and spousal infidelity are different things.

 

[Chinaski]

Much as I hate plagiarism, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery so may I steal your phrase here for use with my upcoming appointment with my charming psychiatrist. It's so good.

By all means, just beware that any challenge to the authority of a psychiatrist is very dicey and barbed remarks may up your PCLR score.

But you said something about clear criteria though.

I don't know anything about clinical criteria that's true. I explicitly said I don't care about it for reasons mentioned. Yet you do seem to care despite saying you disagree with it. Which to me looks like a direct contradiction. So answer a simple question - is psycopath what PCLR says he is or you have another definition?

So if somebody is a child killer, it's still relevant whether he's promiscuous or not to say whether he's psychopath or not? If he's not - maybe no psychopath after all. Correct?

First point: l expect the PCLR was devised with essentially good intentions and, like the DSM tbf, morphed into something else. The author of the test, Bob Hare, is notoriously trigger happy with his diagnoses and has little sympathy for PD sufferers who may be classed as dangerous, but even he has voiced serious concerns about how the test is used, or misused. I too have very strong views on how it's used, and agree that at surface level a lot of the content looks flimsy; but as a layperson l see it in the same way as an lQ test. Not a perfect measure, certainly not one by which someone can be measured in their entirety, significant margin for error, but at the same time would agree that one can tell the difference between someone with a supposed lQ of 150 and someone with a supposed lQ of 85. Similarly, if you met someone with a PCLR score of 5, you'd quickly distinguish them from the person with a score of 35. How it's used, by whom, in whose interests and why, is a much bigger issue here imo. Sorry the answer couldn't be shorter btw. I'm a long winded article.

Point 2: Promiscuity is a relevant criteria, but also defines the type of psychopath. It's feasible that a child killer is a psychopath who scores 0 on promiscuity. He may be non psychopathic and score 2 on promiscuity. Psychopathy is non-binary, it's a broad continuum upon which we all fit somewhere.

You may disagree with the above, but it appears your preferred approach is to define psychopathy by specific criminal deed and nothing else. This is non-clinical, and far more open to interpretation and subjective contribution from the assessor than the PCLR and its strict guidance, however dismissive you may be of its content.

 

[Rollo]

By all means, just beware that any challenge to the authority of a psychiatrist is very dicey and barbed remarks may up your PCLR score.



First point: l expect the PCLR was devised with essentially good intentions and, like the DSM tbf, morphed into something else. The author of the test, Bob Hare, is notoriously trigger happy with his diagnoses and has little sympathy for PD sufferers who may be classed as dangerous, but even he has voiced serious concerns about how the test is used, or misused. I too have very strong views on how it's used, and agree that at surface level a lot of the content looks flimsy; but as a layperson l see it in the same way as an lQ test. Not a perfect measure, certainly not one by which someone can be measured in their entirety, significant margin for error, but at the same time would agree that one can tell the difference between someone with a supposed lQ of 150 and someone with a supposed lQ of 85. Similarly, if you met someone with a PCLR score of 5, you'd quickly distinguish them from the person with a score of 35. How it's used, by whom, in whose interests and why, is a much bigger issue here imo. Sorry the answer couldn't be shorter btw. I'm a long winded article.

Point 2: Promiscuity is a relevant criteria, but also defines the type of psychopath. It's feasible that a child killer is a psychopath who scores 0 on promiscuity. He may be non psychopathic and score 2 on promiscuity. Psychopathy is non-binary, it's a broad continuum upon which we all fit somewhere.

You may disagree with the above, but it appears your preferred approach is to define psychopathy by specific criminal deed and nothing else. This is non-clinical, and far more open to interpretation and subjective contribution from the assessor than the PCLR and its strict guidance, however dismissive you may be of its content.

Your first point is you describing perfectly what loosely defined and more importantly subjective criteria is.

I'm asking is it feasible that child killer is non-psychopath because he scores 0 on promiscuity? And what other stuff may qualify him as non-psychopath if you say he can be non-psychopath even with 2 on promiscuity? And once again - do you have any idea why promiscuity is even relevant? So that some guys decided if you have many casual partners you score on their 'psychopath check list'?

How can me defining psychopathy by one specific deed may be more open to interpretation than PCLR definition with a whole bunch of loose poorly written criteria ('irresponsibility' and 'failure to take responsibility for own actions' is the same thing), who's very relevance is subjective? I never said what my definition is but there's certainly no 'promiscuity' or 'lack of personal safety' in there.

 

[Chinaski]

Your first point is you describing perfectly what loosely defined and more importantly subjective criteria is.

I'm asking is it feasible that child killer is non-psychopath because he scores 0 on promiscuity? And what other stuff may qualify him as non-psychopath if you say he can be psychopath even with 2 on promiscuity? And once again - do you have any idea why promiscuity is even relevant? So that some guys decided if you have many casual partners you score on their 'psychopath check list'?

How can me defining psychopathy by one specific deed may be more open to interpretation than PCLR definition with a whole bunch of loose poorly written criteria ('irresponsibility' and 'failure to take responsibility for own actions' is the same thing), who's very relevance is subjective? I never said what my definition is but there's certainly no 'promiscuity' or 'lack of personal safety' in there.

I've really made myself more than clear in previous posts and if you can't even be arsed to look up PCLR on Wikipedia then I'm not sure how much more l can help you.

The first point is describing a checklist with twenty criteria and a strict scoring system based on several lengthy interviews, associated paperwork, history, the works. It's clearly not the case that soneone in a white coat asks how many partners you've slept with and then locks you up if the answer is to their distaste.

You're banging on about promiscuity. For the final time, a little bit louder for those who weren't paying attention:

There are 20 (twenty) criterions upon which you are scored 0, 1 or 2. To be diagnosed as psychopathic requires a total of 30 points from the maximum 40. It is therefore perfectly feasible that someone can score 0 for promiscuity and still hit 30. It's equally feasible for someone to score 2 for promiscuity and only score 8. Nobody is assessing child killers for promiscuity alone.

Look at the entire criteria. They are given titles for easy use, but a title is all it is. There is much, much more depth to each criteria than simply "promiscuity" or "irresponsibility", which are shorthand phrases acting as placeholders for ease of use.

As l said earlier, promiscuity alone is not psychopathic. You could have 5 one night stands a week and still score less than 5 on the PCLR. Honestly, what are you misunderstanding here?

 

[killing me softly]

Your first point is you describing perfectly what loosely defined and more importantly subjective criteria is.

I'm asking is it feasible that child killer is non-psychopath because he scores 0 on promiscuity? And what other stuff may qualify him as non-psychopath if you say he can be non-psychopath even with 2 on promiscuity? And once again - do you have any idea why promiscuity is even relevant? So that some guys decided if you have many casual partners you score on their 'psychopath check list'?

How can me defining psychopathy by one specific deed may be more open to interpretation than PCLR definition with a whole bunch of loose poorly written criteria ('irresponsibility' and 'failure to take responsibility for own actions' is the same thing), who's very relevance is subjective? I never said what my definition is but there's certainly no 'promiscuity' or 'lack of personal safety' in there.

i think @Chinaski's made his argument clear (forgive me @Chinaski if i'm incorrect in interpreting you) - that the "professional" criteria is imperfect but it generally does the job in identifying/classifying someone with the disorder. additionally, as he has stated before, he does not say that scoring 0 on promiscuity automatically disqualifies the person from being classified as a psychopath. rather, it is a scale and some score higher and some score lower. i'm not sure what is difficult to understand about this take.

further, why is chinaski's diagnosis on your child killer so important to you? he has never claimed to be an expert in the field. he has simply stated his view. just as you're entitled to your view, so is he. don't you think it's time to just accept the two differ and move on?

 

[Rollo]

I've really made myself more than clear in previous posts and if you can't even be arsed to look up PCLR on Wikipedia then I'm not sure how much more l can help you.

The first point is describing a checklist with twenty criteria and a strict scoring system based on several lengthy interviews, associated paperwork, history, the works. It's clearly not the case that soneone in a white coat asks how many partners you've slept with and then locks you up if the answer is to their distaste.

You're banging on about promiscuity. For the final time, a little bit louder for those who weren't paying attention:

There are 20 (twenty) criterions upon which you are scored 0, 1 or 2. To be diagnosed as psychopathic requires a total of 30 points from the maximum 40. It is therefore perfectly feasible that someone can score 0 for promiscuity and still hit 30. It's equally feasible for someone to score 2 for promiscuity and only score 8. Nobody is assessing child killers for promiscuity alone.

Look at the entire criteria. They are given titles for easy use, but a title is all it is. There is much, much more depth to each criteria than simply "promiscuity" or "irresponsibility", which are shorthand phrases acting as placeholders for ease of use.

As l said earlier, promiscuity alone is not psychopathic. You could have 5 one night stands a week and still score less than 5 on the PCLR. Honestly, what are you misunderstanding here?

But it's you who's not paying attention. So for the final time you - I don't care what PCLR definition of psychopath is any more than I care what my neighbours definition of psychopath is. It's a heavily subjective notion. It's you who brought PCLR up. Why? Do you agree with it? What 'promiscuity' have to do with anything? What 'personal safety' (OP's list) have to do with anything?

See no matter how many criteria they have, since they included 'promiscuity' it means that promiscuous child killer can be considered 'psychopath' while if he's not promiscuous he would score 28 and voila - no psychopath. And then you say there's other stuff too. So I'm asking YOU - what kind of stuff? What kind of stuff can make child killer non-psychopath besides not being promiscuous? And why being promiscuous makes him into bigger psychopath? I'm not going to look at their criteria, I don't care about it. But if you do and think it's good definition of 'psychopath' - just tell me.

I never said you or PCLR claim being promiscuous alone is enough to define you as psychopath. That's just a strawman you built and keep poking decisive holes in instead of addressing my actual points.

 

[killing me softly]

But it's you who's not paying attention. So for the final time you - I don't care what PCLR definition of psychopath is any more than I care what my neighbours definition of psychopath is. It's a heavily subjective notion. It's you who brought PCLR up. Why? Do you agree with it? What 'promiscuity' have to do with anything? What 'personal safety' (OP's list) have to do with anything?

See no matter how many criteria they have, since they included 'promiscuity' it means that promiscuous child killer can be considered 'psychopath' while if he's not promiscuous he would score 28 and voila - no psychopath. And then you say there's other stuff too. So I'm asking YOU - what kind of stuff? What kind of stuff can make child killer non-psychopath besides not being promiscuous? And why being promiscuous makes him into bigger psychopath? I'm not going to look at their criteria, I don't care about it. But if you do and think it's good definition of 'psychopath' - just tell me.

I never said you or PCLR claim being promiscuous alone is enough to define you as psychopath. That's just a strawman you built and keep poking decisive holes in instead of addressing my actual points.

please, please, please for the love of g-d let it go.

 

[Chinaski]

But it's you who's not paying attention. So for the final time you - I don't care what PCLR definition of psychopath is any more than I care what my neighbours definition of psychopath is. It's a heavily subjective notion. It's you who brought PCLR up. Why? Do you agree with it? What 'promiscuity' have to do with anything? What 'personal safety' (OP's list) have to do with anything?

See no matter how many criteria they have, since they included 'promiscuity' it means that promiscuous child killer can be considered 'psychopath' while if he's not promiscuous he would score 28 and voila - no psychopath. And then you say there's other stuff too. So I'm asking YOU - what kind of stuff? What kind of stuff can make child killer non-psychopath besides not being promiscuous? And why being promiscuous makes him into bigger psychopath? I'm not going to look at their criteria, I don't care about it. But if you do and think it's good definition of 'psychopath' - just tell me.

I never said you or PCLR claim being promiscuous alone is enough to define you as psychopath. That's just a strawman you built and keep poking decisive holes in instead of addressing my actual points.

"IT'S A STRAWMAN!" says the guy who has spent all evening confusing the OP, which outlines the key traits for ASPD, with the PCLR and only realised this error two posts back. Drop me out, eh?