Hsd User Rates & Charges: Fill & Download for Free

A huge percentage of users have agreed to pay more for improved customer experience. 50% of businesses are diverting their funds towards cx improvement. With so much clamor, cx has emerged as the key differentiator among brands beating price and products.With so much riding on cx, any enterprise that ignores it will suffer huge losses. 68% of cudtomers are likely to never again engage with a brand just after one bad experience.In order to improve customer experience, one must first messure it. Customer experience can be measured through varied metrics. NPS, CSAT, CHURN RATE are some of the common ways of measuring cx.NPS tells us the percentage of customers who are likely to bring in more business. Csat tells us the exact percentage of users who are happy with our services.Churn rate tells us the number of users who left us. While all tje number tells us about the customers eho are either staying or leaving, they also tell us how to retain them.All these metrics also allows us to understand how cx can be improved to get more customers bring their friends and help users have a satisfying experience.NPS can be calculated by subtracting percentage of detractors from the percentage of promoters.Csat is a mathemt classification of users who were satisfied with the product or service.Churn rate can be calculated by subtracting the total amoint of user lost from the total number of users we hsd in the beginning and then dividing it by hundred.

Realistically? You can lay this at the feet of a few issues.The DSM. For some reason people in the field of psychology did not get the memo that it is in fact not a diagnostic bible, but rather it is an insurance repayment manual. If something isn’t in it, that does not mean that it doesn’t exist. Many psychologists dismiss psychopathy out of hand because of the lack of mention in the DSM, even though the most recent iteration has a subsection of ASPD titled “with psychopathic features”. This is nonsense, but I will get to that in a moment.Robert Hare. This man has single handedly defined psychopathy and has done everything in his power to maintain his stranglehold over the definition that he has arrived at. It is demonstrably incorrect, and his so-called “gold standard” PCL checklist system is fundamentally flawed, but that doesn’t prevent him from suing anyone that challenges him, and his precious income that he makes from his system… that he stole from someone else… and made worse.Psychologists being poorly educated on the subject. You have no idea how many psychologists, that should indeed know better, spread completely incorrect information about psychopathy all of the time. I have had conversations with some of these people, and it is like talking to a wall. There is no room to consider anything other than their narrow worldview, regardless of how asinine it is, or how much information proving their beliefs to be incorrect is provided. It is a nonstarter. It seems to be that they believe that they have a degree, therefore they need no further information.There is a difference between those that research things like psychopathy, and those that sit in an office and listen to your problems. A vast difference in fact. The former has specialized training and on the ground experience, the latter often has little to know educational experience past a single day in their schooling that addresses things like abnormal psychology.The people researching psychopathy and making the most progress are not psychologists, they are neuroscientists. This is how it should be, as psychopathy is not a psychological problem, it is a neurological difference.ASPD exists as an entity that ANYONE gives a moment of credence to. This might seem to be a quite lofty proclamation, but if you consider what ASPD is, it is a description of behavior. That’s it, nothing more. It doesn’t speak to causation, it doesn’t speak to reasoning, it doesn’t speak to anything other than observable behavior. Uncomfortable as it may be, that behavior can exist in anyone. Literally anyone. Consider how valuable that is in terms of a diagnosis. You can behave in X way, therefore you qualify for Y diagnosis. To have a real works and working understanding of what that translates to in terms of validity, see here;As currently construed, the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder grossly over-identifies people, particularly those with offence histories, as meeting the criteria for the diagnosis. For example, research shows that between 50% and 80% of prisoners meet the criteria for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, yet only approximately 15% of prisoners would be expected to be psychopathic, as assessed by the PCL-R. As such, the characteristics and research findings drawn from the psychopathy research may not be relevant for those with antisocial or dissocial personality disorder.Now to get into these points a little more in depth, and hopefully explain the minefield that is the current researchscape of psychopathyFirst the DSM. This was best spoken about by another Quoran, Elvin Keeling;The DSM (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is just terrible, and any mental health professional who thinks the DSM is "good science" should be considered with skepticism.The primary purpose of the DSM is to provide numerical codes that doctors can write on receipts so that medical insurance can reimburse them. However, the DSM also needs to include rules for who qualifies for each numerical code. This is a fine purpose and the DSM serves this purpose as well as can be expected.The DSM is not what researchers use to diagnose patients for inclusion in (or exclusion from) a clinical trial. Researchers have their own sets of criteria, and they evolve faster than the DSM, and with more scientific input.The DSM-5 dropped the diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome, but the number of research papers about Asperger's syndrome has only declined partially. You can't write it on a medical bill, but you can still write a scientific paper about it.It is best to ignore the DSM, unless you are writing a bill and you want to get the bill reimbursed.In fact, many doctors who write DSM-5 codes on their bills do not use the criteria from the DSM-5 when making their diagnosis. They use other criteria, hopefully better criteria, but maybe worse.However, the fact that it isn’t meant to be used as a diagnostic bible is ignored by plenty of psychologists. You have no idea how many times I get the alphabet soup types that will tell me that because it isn’t in the DSM, it doesn’t exist. Nope, not how it works, this is your profession, and you should know better. If you don’t know this, and you are a practicing psychologist, you do now, so stop using this as a reason to dismiss someone out of hand. It isn’t only psychopathy that this happens with.Let’s add to this how things get a place in the DSM to begin with shall we?The DSM is actually compiled by a group of clinicians that meet and discuss what will and won’t be included in the next edition. One person isn’t the deciding factor, they haven’t that kind of power. And in fact, the main person that might be considered as the factor of discluding psychopathy would be Lee Robins, a sociologist.Why have these things all been lumped together? Well, there is an interesting history lesson to be had in the creation of the DSM. This was well described in the book by Jon Ronson, The Psychopath Test.In it he talks about the original DSM only being sixty five pages. A small drop in the bucket compared to the 947 page monster the DSM-V has become. The original was used for state hospital statistical reporting reasoning, not as an important research tool.Psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, who was responsible for the lobbying against, and subsequent removal of homosexuality as a mental condition from the DSM gave him the opportunity to be on the editing team for the DSM-III. Spitzer was irritated the overall handling of psychiatry. He found the diagnostic process to be inefficient, and respected people like Robert Hare, who had taken Hervey Cleckley’s psychopathy checklist, edited it slightly, and rebranded it as his own. Spitzer thought that it was a far better choice to be have checklists that psychiatrists could go through and know if a patient had a disorder.For the next six years over a collection of meetings with the rest of the editing team the DSM-III took form. This was done in way that then appeared to be rather pragmatic, and now appears to be rather cavalier. The group of clinicians would throw out names of proposed conditions, like PTSD, ADD BPD and then the traits that in their minds defined these conditions. The reasoning for this was that this would eradicate the guesswork. A clinician could pick up this bible of disorders, find the proper checklist and help the patient sitting before them. Sounds wonderfully scientific. At least it did to them at the time.This is also how nearly every single mental condition that most people that know of was decided on, the overt traits that define it, and the treatment plans that ended up arising out of it.So, now we fast forward to the DSM-V and psychopathy. Robert Hare went toe to toe with a sociologist Lee Robins. Robins contended that empathy was not something that could be quantified by a doctor. That it was too subjective and that sticking to the overt traits that had been decided on for the ASPD definition was what should be all that is offered. The editing team agreed with Robins, and psychopathy was therefore lumped under the ASPD diagnosis, much to Robert Hare’s enraged chagrin.So, it is because of an arbitrary assignment of traits that a group of people decided on themselves in a room that turns into the mental disorders that we all know so well. If your symptoms do not match, you are out of luck, it’s not on the list. I often think of people that have conditions that don’t precisely fit the checklists to be standing outside the very hot nightclub wanting to go in and get the privileges that those that do fit get, like treatment, financial help, validation. You can’t get any of those things because the DSM is the bouncer, and you’re not on the list. Sorry.That is not very scientific. It’s pretty slapdash if you ask me, but this is how things get laid out and decided on. If that doesn’t explain to you a great deal of why things are a mess, this next bit should do the trick. The supposed godfather of psychopathy, Robert Hare, and his “gold standard” checklist of doom. This one is super long, but if you want to know why it’s a mess, it is crucial that you know about it. If you have read it already, just skip to where the block quotes end, and regular text resumes.Athena Walker's answer to What do you think of the PCL-R test for determining psychopathy?Absolutely garbage.That is the kindest way I can possibly say it. It is useless both in construction, and in application. It was created by a person that should not have anything to do with the diagnosis of psychopathy, let alone be the defining feature of it. Let’s start with the patron saint of psychopathy, Robert Hare, shall we?He hates psychopaths.Why you might ask? Because people that he thought were psychopaths played him like a fool. Back when he was first interviewing criminals, some of the interviewees figured out that if they told Hare what he wanted to hear, he would literally bring them treats.Well, this is not a hard thing to crack. They’re in prison, they want stuff that makes things more interesting for them, and they have a pathway that makes that possible. Human nature says that pretty much anyone is taking that deal. Hare however wasn’t smart enough to figure that out. He felt betrayed. Apparently criminals are supposed to be nice and not dicks. Go figure he was wrong.So Hare found out that he was being played for a fool and he decided that psychopaths are just awful terrible people that can never ever be trusted. We are all out to ruin the world and steal all its spoils. This was the mindset that he went into his investigation of psychopathy with.So, how did that play out?He found an unoccupied niche that he stepped into at the right time. He also stood on the shoulders of a man that came before him that did the brunt of fleshing out Hare’s vision of psychopathy back in the 1940’s. So, he stole the work, subtracted from it by adding to it a great deal of antisocial traits and criminality, and went forth to copyright the ideas about psychopathy that weren’t his. From there he pushed forward to be the loudest voice in the field of psychopathy research.Not the guy you want being looked to for advice about anything, let alone be the one that writes the checklist for it. Good news however!He didn’t write the list, he stole it.It is almost entirely stolen from a previous checklist that was developed in the 1940s. The original psychopathy checklist was developed by Hervey Cleckley when he was studying psychopathy back in the forties. It was a good list for its time, but Hare changed it only very slightly when he came out with the PCL-R. The problem that this brings about is that a great deal more is understood about psychopathy, yet the list remains stagnant. If this were the case with any other scientific measurement, people would laugh because the premise is absurd. When you have more and better information, you have better tools. Yet with the PCL-R it has gone the opposite direction as some of the things that Hare edited out of the original Cleckley checklist were relevant, and things added in are not necessarily useful.Hm… not cool Hare. It’s got to have some value though, right? Nope. Not even a little as it’s turning out. You can complain about that if you are in forensic research, but if you dare write a paper about it, decrying the failures of the PCL-R, Hare will sue you for defamation.If the PCL-R was treated like a scientific tool it would be open to challenging. Hare would welcome it because proper scientific method is about disproving what you think is accurate, not vehemently defending your ideas when valid criticism arises regarding it.https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org...Fear Review: Critique of Forensic Psychopathy Scale Delayed 3 Years by Threat of LawsuitWell, you can’t do that. Hare was super smart in that lawsuit, and surely put down any and all disagreement with his masterwork then, right? Oh… that would be a big nope once again;“There’s a lot of stuff that looks like it’s junk and should be filtered out by the courts, but it’s not being filtered out,” said Arizona State University psychology professor Tess Neal, the lead author of the study.One controversial psychological test, the Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL–R), came under fire in the American Psychological Association’s journal, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. In a joint statement first published on-line on January 30, 2020, thirteen expert psychiatrists and psychologists wrote that while the test may have general usefulness in measuring psychopathy “as a construct,” it is “inappropriate [to use] the PCL–R to draw conclusions about an individual’s risk for committing serious violence in high-security custodial facilities.” Such conclusions are often critical in capital sentencing determinations in states such as Texas in which finding that a defendant poses a continuing threat to society is a prerequisite to imposing a death sentence.The experts criticize the PCL–R as plagued by adversarial allegiance — mental health witnesses called by the prosecution will rate a defendant’s level of psychopathy higher than defense experts will during “evaluations of the same person, made around the same time, and even when made on the same information base.” They also say that “the association between PCL–R scores and serious institutional violence is negligible,” making the test unreliable as an indicator of whether a defendant will actually commit violence in prison. The PCL–R “cannot make predictions that an individual will engage in serious institutional violence with any reasonable degree of precision or accuracy,” they say, “and should not be used for this purpose in capital sentencing evaluations.”and;*Finally, the PCL-R has been described by prominent psychopathy investigators as the “gold standard” for the assessment of psychopathy in adulthood (Lynam & Gudonis, 2005, p. 383), and was referred to in the 16th Mental Measurements Yearbook as “the gold standard for the assessment of psychopathy” (Acheson, 2005).*The PCL-R is regarded as the ‘gold standard’ (Wikipedia 2013) in scoring psychopathy. However concerns have been raises against the PCL-R as a method for scoring psychopathy because of it’s divergence from Cleckley’s original construct, as well as concerns of systematic measurement error, research on underpowered sample sizes, and frequent inappropriate application.That’s pretty messy for an apparently unbiased and totally scientific tool, right? But… that doesn’t translate to actual real world consequences, right? If the checklist is so problematic, it’s just used as a minor screening tool, but doesn’t have any major implications, right?After 26 years in prison, he was due for a parole hearing. In California, before a "lifer" like Dixon appears before the parole board, a state psychologist must first evaluate whether he poses a risk of further violence if released. To do that, the psychologist administers a test — the PCL-R, or Psychopathy Checklist-Revised — designed to measure whether that inmate is a psychopath.This test has incredible power in the American criminal justice system. It's used to make decisions such as what kind of sentence a criminal gets and whether an inmate is released on parole. It has even been used to help decide whether someone should be put to death.Ooo, ouch. That’s not great. If you are wondering how this cycle perpetuates, let me educate you;Robert Hare has a copyright on the PCL-R. Not only that, it brings him over thirty thousand dollars in royalties annually. Being the proprietor of the PCL-R also gives Hare the distinguished position of being the recognized expert in psychopathy, and puts him in a unique position to be the gatekeeper of the perception of psychopathy. He capitalizes on this by conducting seminars, also called psychopath-spotting weekends. These not only generate a tremendous amount of income for him, but they also go against the ethics of assigning diagnoses by a layperson to people that they may meet. It flies in the face of professional ethics to be “instructing” people without training that they are in a position to be making these assessments.It is overreaching when it comes to the antisocial part of it. This has been a large bone of contention with researchers. A paper was published regarding this, and Robert Hare sued the researchers to stop the paper claiming defamation of character. It delayed the paper for three years, but it was published in the end.It successfully describes criminals, and it is only used in a prison or forensic hospital. This in and of itself can create confirmation bias and I spoke about that previously. First regarding the landscape that it is used in;Many criminals receive psychiatric evaluations prior to trial.Many clinicians are not actually trained to assess psychopathy but do so anyway.Even Hare admits that this is a crucial failure of the PCL-R. It doesn’t change it’s prevalence of use however. So you have untrained people that think, this person might be a psychopath, administering a checklist that they have no business administering. This causes a multitude of problems.The person might now receive more time on their sentence due to being “diagnosed” a psychopath.This perpetuates the criminal archetype of psychopathyIt makes psychopathy appear more prevalent than it is.It stalls research into actual psychopathyIt drives the myths of psychopathyIt reinforces the “usefulness” of the checklist, thus making it be used more often.This starts the cycle over again.You have a man that is driven by his ego. If you think I am being overly judgemental about Hare, you might want to consider this about him as well;This extends to people that write about him favorably, but not how he prefers. There was a book written about Hare and “his” list written by Jon Ronson called “The Psychopath Test”;The book was written about Hare and his stolen test. That is not addressed in the book, most disappointingly. However, Mr. Ronson writes about Hare with respect. He even seemed to like him. Perhaps this is just his methodology of writing, but he seemed to find him, at the very least, affable. However, what he describes Hare’s behavior to be is very illuminating to Hare as a man.What makes this very interesting is that Ronson seemed to miss all the ways that Hare was an ass to him. He writes about it in a way that doesn’t seem to grasp how absolutely demanding and dick-ish it was. Take the very start—he goes to one of Hare’s “psychopath spotting weekends.” This is a way that Hare rakes in the cash while indoctrinating young people into his cult of personality. Not his personality, but the one he created in his mind for us and now sells at $1238.66 a person for the weekend. Ronson negotiated a discount down to $515.40.This is the first hint at who Hare is. The book is being written to memorialize what he considered his test. Yet, he can’t be bothered to let go of his $500 bucks to let the author in to gather his research. It seems obvious that his priorities are financial.Next, Jon meets Hare in a hotel lobby and has a interaction with the hotel concierge that was unpleasant. He mentions this to Hare, and Hare immediately pronounces the concierge to be a psychopath with some explanation about us wanting to be gatekeepers. That is a power trip. I did actually laugh at this assertion. Hare is supposed to be a trained clinician that KNOWS that you cannot assess psychopathy in a person without there being an extensive workup. Yet, without even speaking to the man, he’s a psychopath. Does this speak to Hare being really, really good at what he does? No. It speaks to a man drunk on his ego. He thinks he can psychically determine psychopathy.Next, he needs a ride to catch a train so he could get to the airport, and of course, he’s in a hurry. Instead of calling a cab, he calls Jon. Seems appropriate.He basically treats Mr. Ronson like a lackey that should be at his beck and call. His behavior in the book to me is very telling. However, it is the behavior after the book that tells the most of all.He trashed it.You can read for yourself his rebuttal to the book that ran Mr. Ronson through hell’s half-acres to write. Not only did he trash it; he wrote ten pages to do so. It’s the last link, but ask yourself: What kind of a person behaves as he did in the book and then trashes it while simultaneously promoting his own? You know my opinion.http://www.psychopathysociety.org/images/hare%20commentary%20on%20ronson%20april%2017%202012.pdfThe PCL-R is worth the paper that a verbal agreement is written on. It should be walked away from and the idea of psychopathy diagnostics should be overhauled entirely. This should be a hard sciences approach instead of one that is looking at a checklist to make diagnosis “easier”. When you are talking about the potential death penalty, the agreement with the state to take someone’s life, you need to have all your ducks in a row. If the PCL-R is a part of that process, not only are they not in a row, they are off playing by the side of the highway without their mother.Just to clarify, the PCL-R is NOT used outside of prisons and forensic hospitals. I see a lot of supposed psychopaths claiming this super high score, 38/40, 40/40/ 35/40, not realizing this is the case. If they scored that high on the PCL-R, it is unlikely that they are getting out of prison anytime soon. They keep that sort locked up, and use the PCL-R to justify it, regardless of whether or not it is reasonable or ethical. You are not going to find a person that is high scoring on the PCL-R just wandering around.There is a PCL checklist for use outside of these very particular institutions, but the scoring is different, and the top of the scale is not as high. There is also one for juveniles, but that is nonsense.It also has a very different scoring system as well. If the top end of the claimed checklist given is 40, the person is claiming the PCL-R. That means that almost certainly they self tested. It could mean that they have the most incompetent psychologist alive, and there is a slim chance that they were actually tested in prison or a forensic hospital. That just circles back to the value of the checklist, so there we go there.Robert Hare has pretty well single handedly created a quagmire in terms of psychopathy through his own dislike and greed. When people try to challenge that narrative they are laughed at. The PCL-R has become synonymous with psychopathy because Hare pushed it to be so. All training surrounding psychopathy in the psychological field are based in Hare’s teachings.The PCL-R is considered the “gold standard” of diagnostics. It proliferates on search engines as more and more clickbait article writers challenge people to see if “Are you or someone you know a psychopath? Take the test!”, and people do. They assume that the PCL-R is a good checklist when it is fatally flawed. People assume those traits mean psychopathy, when in reality they are more indicative of someone that is antisocial.It feeds the media, and the word “psychopath” becomes the defining word for anyone that does something wrong. When something terrible happens, the perpetrator will invariably will be incorrectly labeled as such. It’s a mess, and can largely be traced back to Robert Hare. I would say that Hare hasn’t done much for psychopathy, but a great deal for his wallet and ego. It’s unfortunate, but such is human nature.Psychologists are poorly educated on the matter, and yet spread incredible misinformation. This is pretty evident even here on Quora. The claims I have seen credentialed psychologists make about psychopaths are egregious to say the least. Not all of course, there are those educated in it and have a fair and balanced view, but those that aren’t often not only are they entrenched in their beliefs about it, they are also wildly inaccurate. I have seen people with the alphabet soup after their name make claims like;“psychopaths wouldn’t bother writing on Quora, because they are too busy having sex with animals”.Literal animals. Others that I have seen;“I am not without some pity for such creatures, but neither do I pretend that they are something other than what they are. And the rest of us would be safer if they were not among us. You just never know when some charismatic corporal might get a chance to murder millions . . . instead of just terrorizing a few score.”“No one uses the term psychopath except in movies and amateurs. No diagnosis addresses cause you should know that. Psychology has no etiology like medicine. ASPD is genetic with triggers in the environment. Your understanding is unprofessional.”“The correct term is anti social personality disorder. There is no longer any term like psychopathy. You can see the criteria in the DSM 5. There is no cure or effective treatment.”There is little evidence that makes a difference when dealing with someone this hardlined on their belief system. It tend to be a rather large waste of time.Next, the difference between someone that understands psychopathy from the point of view of psychology, Hare, and the DSM, versus a neuroscientist. This part addresses both points four and five.Psychology, hereby identified as Psych, and neuroscientist hereby identified as Neuro.Psych;“how is psychopathy a neurological disorder? Where is the evidence of this? MRIs show that they have a reduced reaction to fear and disgust. But that would not cause someone to lie, and manipulate and use people without compunction. Those are behaviors.”Neuro;“Psychopathy is a neurological disorder in that psychopaths have reduced reaction to graphically violent imagery, and to facial indicators of fear and disgust in others, via low functioning mirror neurons, specifically in the frontal cortex. Many psychopaths also have reduced or aberrant amygdalar function.Psychopathy and the mirror neuron system: preliminary findings from a non-psychiatric sample.Affective resonance in response to others' emotional faces varies with affective ratings and psychopathic traits in amygdala and anterior insula.Functional Neuroimaging in Psychopathy.However, it is a mistake to assume that psychopathy necessitates lying, manipulation, and violence. Neuroplasticity is a thing, and given the right learning environment, most psychopaths can learn stable, prosocial behaviors. In fact, prosocial psychopaths can be very beneficial to a community because they can behave calmly and rationally during extremely stressful circumstances, where neurotypical people might be debilitated by their emotional responses. Unsurprisingly, prosocial psychopaths make good leaders, surgeons, scientists, and clergy.Conversely, neurotypical people are equally capable of lying, manipulating, and violent behaviors, and are more likely to lash out with antisocial behaviors when in the throes of an emotional reaction to stress.Psych;What on Earth are you talking about? “Prosocial psychopaths”???? Where is this nonsense coming from? The diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder describes some of the behaviors which must be present in order to diagnose someone with APD (antisocial personality disorder is the actual diagnosis of someone the public calls a psychopath):Lack of concern for the feelings of others, lack of remorse for hurting others, exploitation as a primary means of relating to others, manipulativeness, callousness, deceitfulness and hostility, among others.How in the world is such a person going to be prosocial?I wish to hell people who are not in the mental health field would stop talking about things they know nothing about.Psych;I’m uncertain which is more insulting - your insults, or your obvious lack of interest in self-education. While your profile claims to have “Studied at Psychology”, you are lacking academic rigor.I was extremely helpful, I answered the questions you asked, and I cited my sources. I won’t, however, engage in a childish fight with you about who is (and who is not) qualified to discuss neuroscience.Psych;My point is that we are not discussing neuroscience. We are discussing psychopathy. And my question stands - how can you call a psychopath prosocial? The diagnosis itself is antisocial personality disorder. By definition they cannot be prosocial and antisocial. And if they do not have antisocial personality disorder they are not a psychopath.Neuro;You didn’t anticipate discussing neuroscience when you asked a question tagged with “neuroscience”, “neurological disorders”, “neurology”, and “psychopaths and psychopathy”?Psychopathy is a difference in neurological function, not a diagnosis of mental illness. Antisocial personality disorder is a diagnosis of mental illness, and often people with antisocial personalities exhibit many psychopathic traits. But as you pointed out, psychopathy is not listed in the DSM-V. This is because it is a neurological disorder and not a mental illness, similar to how Huntington’s Disease is not listed, although the mild cognitive impairment due to HSD is.Prosocial psychopaths are individuals with psychopathic neurological characteristics, but are definitively NOT antisocial, as they have learned to behave in a way that conforms with (most) social norms. Given the right learning environment, it’s not actually a difficult task.UserThe definition of the word “psychopath” is: a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.So, apparently you’re making up a new meaning of the word psychopath. If you’re going to apply your own meanings to words, it is going to make discussion almost impossible.I’m also curious why you find the classification of psychopathy as a mental disorder so objectionable. It is a mental disorder which is treatable. If it’s purely neurological, is this not a life sentence?Nothing that the person educated in how the brain actually functions had any impact on the person that claims a psychological education. Instead of considering what is said, or reading the research material, they responded with anger and derision. This is not uncommon unfortunately.ASPD as a construct is a mess, and should be left behind due to its utmost laziness in its definition.Athena Walker's answer to Do you think that ASPD and psychopathy should be considered to be different things?It really doesn’t mean anything. So long as you fit the behavioral points that define ASPD, you have ASPD. Does it matter that you are autistic, psychopathic, neurotypical, are a drug addict, or had head injuries? Nope, not at all. If you fit the bill, you get the diagnosis.Most psychopaths don’t have ASPD, only about ten to thirteen percent of psychopaths are criminal in nature. However, ASPD can be applied to the vast majority of criminals in prison. Explain to me how that makes a bit of sense.We don’t define groups of people in any other sense by their smallest numbers, nor should we do so. We wouldn’t offer up the prison population to visiting beings from another world as a cross section of what humanity is, that would be ridiculous, however that is exactly how psychopathy is thought of. It is defined by the smallest percentage of those with it, the criminals, and anyone challenging that narrative is laughed at by psychology as a whole.Several researchers, Dutton, Tamatea, Fallon, have all faced extreme criticism for making even the suggestion that psychopaths are not to be defined by those in the prison system. They are the minority of voices however. More often than not it is people like this;“You don’t want to have these people in positions where they can cause a lot of harm,” said Wallisch. “We need a tool to identify them without their cooperation or consent.”“The beauty of this idea is you can use it as a screening test without consent, cooperation or maybe even the knowledge of the people involved,” Wallisch said. “The ethics of this are very hairy, but so is having a psychopath as a boss, and so is having a psychopath in any position of power.” Fortunately for ethicists, the possibility is some way off yet. “This work is very preliminary,” Wallisch added. “This is not the end of an investigation, it is the very beginning.”Is this someone that is another writer on Quora? Nope, he is;Pascal Wallisch Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychologyhttps://www.psych.nyu.edu/wallisch/The difference between a field tainted b Robert Hare’s hatred of psychopathy coupled with his defining of it, versus a field doing hard science looking at the actual structure and functionality of the brain. One seems to be almost irredeemable. I say almost because there are definitely psychologists that are critical thinkers and not sucked into the uniform beliefs surrounding psychopathy, and understands that those in prison should be the exception, not the rule.How does this divide get bridged?Hare needs to lose his influence over the thinking surrounding psychopathy.It needs to be studied in the real world and prisoners should be the rarity, not the norm.Neuroscience needs to be more heavily invested in, and scans of everyday people that have psychopathy so there is a baseline of what the brains of noncriminal psychopaths look like.Critical thinking needs to be more expected out of people. The more narrow of a scope that something is viewed through, the less understanding that thing will have. An excellent example of this would be the “study” that came out claiming that psychopaths (and by that they actually were studying ASPD, not psychopathy) are less intelligent on average than most.Guess who they studied? If you guessed criminals, go get yourself a cookie, you were paying attention. Well done. Chances are that it doesn’t matter what cohort you are studying, if you are sampling from a prison, those sampled probably are there for a reason, and lack of intelligence might have been a factor. Seems reasonable, right? Not when it comes to studying psychopathy. It is studied in prisons or hospitals, and whatever comes out of those prisons or forensic hospitals should be applied broadly.It’s a mess and not universally agreed on because of a lot of factors, a great deal due to ego, and also because of solidified worldview that is apparently difficult to challenge.Psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder conundrum - PubMedElvin Keeling's answer to Why is Dr. Kupfer allowed to be the Task Force Chair of the DSM-5, refusing new research, and blocking the official recognition of psychopathy?Athena Walker's answer to Why has Dr Kupfer lumped both sociopathy and psychopathy together in the DSM-5?Athena Walker's answer to How has Robert Hare contributed to confusion or a poor understanding of psychopathy?STUDIES—Junk Psychological Science Continues to Infect Death-Penalty DeterminationsPCL-R: The Gold Standard of PsychopathyCan A Test Really Tell Who's A Psychopath?Playlist of the Lambs: psychopaths may have distinct musical preferences