Psychopaths

[Spdskatr]

EDIT: My backstory: A 3yo kid who likes roasting people and making very bad jokes. Currently has a PhD in Abrasive.

I like you already.  If I ever somehow identify you and you're of age, I owe you a beer.

And you damn near owed me a keyboard -.-' .  People around here drink soda, dammit! lol

Best post ever

[Thyme]

The problem with multiple definitions is often they are not discussed. This is why one of my favorite questions is "define x" where x is the word in question.

This can lead to too many problems, like arguments, whos only origin is 2 people having different definitions.
[...]

You guys are just having this "define x argument". Just saying =)
I personally agree with OP, the trait should be called Sociopath. But like already said several times, most people can relate to Psychopath (like the guy from Dexter, which is another sociopath x)) because that's something they know.

[PolecatEZ]

Probably my biggest pet peeve when it comes to pop-psychology and common usage is using "anti-social" to describe "asocial" (introverted) people.  They are two entirely different things.

Just throwing that in there...I did a long stint as a mental health nurse, and I've dealt with a few sociopaths and psychopaths.  I was also in corporate land for a while, where I met far more sociopaths than in clinical work.

Violence is rare with sociopaths from what I've known.  They really treat manipulating people around them as a game, and even professionals can be fooled quite often and well.  You simply don't expect to be lied to in situations where people normally wouldn't, or it gets tiring and it wears down your guard to the point where you let it slide.  This makes them nearly impossible to diagnose as well, unless given an objective personal history (usually coming to you through the CJS). 

More importantly, they have the same "goal-seeking" spectrum as normal people, and less motivated sociopaths are content to create interpersonal chaos for absolutely no reason other than to play games.  Chances are quite high that you know at least one "casual sociopath" in your life somewhere.

[Rock5]

I think it's important to mention something that no ones seems to have mentioned. A few of you have mentioned theoretical conversions. I think it's important to note that this game is a published work not a conversation. Any inaccuracies will propagate misunderstandings.

So if you are talking with someone and you use the incorrect term that can be ok as long as you understand each other, ie. you understand the same meaning to the word. But if you are publishing something that you don't know how the consumer will understand it you must use the correct meaning or you will just increase confusion.

So in this case I think the correct term should be used.

[Bozobub]

a) You haven't actually shown the term is incorrect.  In fact, many sources imply that it's the right choice, in this case (example).  In particular, the total lack of any conscience is a trait of psychopathy, NOT sociopathy.  Furthermore, neither "psychopathy" nor "sociopathy" is particularly well-defined by the mental health field, in the first place.

b) Emulating MANY RimWorld actions in real life will get you locked up and/or executed.  Eating your neighbors, then making fashionable evening wear from their pelts, is strongly frowned upon, for example.  You're hung up on "psychopath", FFS..?!

Concern troll is concerned, we get it.

[Thyme]

My field is phy.sick, that's why I won't any more opinions and suggest OP makes use of his MSc and brings scientific evidence!

[MattiP]

The most correct term would probably be antisocial personality disorder but then most people wouldn't know what's it all about so it's easier to just say psychopath. Add ASPD in a mouse over to keep everyone calm.

[Cimm0]

I was also in corporate land for a while, where I met far more sociopaths than in clinical work.

This fact is sad and scary at the same time.

[JesterHell]

This game has no psychopaths. What!? I know, I know. The trait, it says "psychopath." The trait is wrong.

First some back story. I am currently a grad student for my Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology and already have my B.S. and Masters.

Simply replace every word "psychopath" with "sociopath" and all will be good. What's the difference you ask? Two men.

One walks into a bank, shoots 2 people, robs it, holds some other hostage, eats one, so and so forth. He is incapable of assimilating into society. They are always the black sheep and stick out as weird.

The second one is all those stories of serial killers and cannibals who live next door to you for years and you never knew. A sociopath is capable of assimilating flawlessly* into society so as not to be noticeable. They're actions are equally horrible and disjointed.

A "real" psychopath in this game, would do nothing but kill people. They would almost never work, haul, clean, hell even agree to join short of trying to trick you to get a nice shiny assault rifle to kill you with.

Psychopath is not a clinical diagnosis so I'm doubtful that you are what you say you are.

The DSM and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) subsequently introduced the diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and dissocial personality disorder respectively, stating that these diagnoses have been referred to (or include what is referred to) as psychopathy or sociopathy

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), released by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013, lists both sociopathy and psychopathy under the heading of Antisocial Personality Disorders (ASPD)

Modern diagnostic systems consider ASPD to include two related but not identical conditions: A "psychopath" is someone whose hurtful actions toward others tend to reflect calculation, manipulation and cunning; they also tend not to feel emotion and mimic (rather than experience) empathy for others. They can be deceptively charismatic and charming. By contrast, "sociopaths" are somewhat more able to form attachments to others but still disregard social rules; they tend to be more impulsive, haphazard, and easily agitated than people with psychopathy. ASPD is uncommon, affecting just 0.6% of the population.

Essentially, the term is not even recognized by the medical and psychological community in their "diagnostic Bible" the DSM. "The term 'psychopath' has been dropped and some of the previously psychopathic traits are now included under 'Anti-social Personality Disorder."

Despite its importance historically and contemporarily, psychopathy is not recognized in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revised (DSM-IV-TR). Its closest counterpart, antisocial personality disorder, includes strong representation of behavioral deviance symptoms but weak representation of affective-interpersonal features considered central to psychopathy.

It took me a total of 12 minutes to find 5 source that state that psychopathy is not a recognize diagnosis and that its traits fall under antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), so if you where truly concerned about the correct terminology then you'd have said that the correct trait name is antisocial personality disorder.

[mumblemumble]

The dsm is kinda a pain in the ass... It constantly renames things for various reasons which doesn't REALLY make sense. It also arbitrarily adds / removes things over its additions for dubious reasons.

What we should really look at is "what does x word mean" and then use its definition very strictly speaking.

The DSM does NOT stand for dictionary standard manifest, its not a dictionary, and so shouldn't be used as one.

[Thyme]

Wasn't it the DSM that grew in size like a germ dough? Not sure about translation tho, didn't find anything ^^
The amount of prescribed psychopharmaceuticals in the US followed that trend. A scary amout of people are under medication now.

[mumblemumble]

yes, medications are a nasty part of the problem.

quite simply, id say 98% of mental health problems can be solved without ever TOUCHING a drug. Most things can be resolved with talk therapy, and changing the minds programming through that. Not to say its SWIFT, far from it, but it can be done.

However, drugs can provide their OWN problem, which is why we have such an epidemic in the united states, because people take pills for x, but the pills give them y, take pills for y, take pills for y, pills give them z, ect... The SIDE EFFECTS of pills can often cause large problems, and end up being much larger than before pills ever happened.

This is one of the reasons I'm interested in the industry, I'd prefer to actually HELP people, not sell drugs. If I wanted to do that id sell cra- er, flake, on the stree- er...caravan visits.

As for the dsm GROWING, I'm not entirely against this (as apposed to SHRINKING) because as society changes and alters, as does mental illnesses that can be caused... or at least, the rates of them can.

for instance, PTSD goes UP in war time, for an example...this doesn't mean PTSD in times of peace ceases to exist.

[MattiP]

yes, medications are a nasty part of the problem.

quite simply, id say 98% of mental health problems can be solved without ever TOUCHING a drug. Most things can be resolved with talk therapy, and changing the minds programming through that. Not to say its SWIFT, far from it, but it can be done.

Weeeell... the problem with therapy is that it takes quite some time. Learn a man to fish, but you still need to feed him while he's learning how to do it. Meds are there for the patient to have a semi-normal life until the therapy has breakthrough(s). But, I agree we're doing it wrong when we think all that is needed is a couple of pills every day and you're back to work. If we try to live up to that we're soon medicating side-effects.

[mumblemumble]

to be honest, whenever you CAN go without pills, you should...

and your fishing comparison is not the best fit..one can fish, and not starve, but still suck at it compared to an angler. if someone can stay afloat, even just barely, medicine should be avoided, since the side effects may make everything worse.

So yes, for extreme cases, I can understand, but for minor cases, its an extremely harmful idea...

PLUS, and heres a big part, you cannot PROPERLY fix mental issues when someone is intoxicated. Just like you cannot teach someone to cope with pain using pain killers...its not coping, its relying upon. This is ALSO a big issue, is people cope when on meds, but never learn how WITHOUT them...which is also a huge aspect of chemical dependency.

....this provides an interesting idea...what if drugs could be used to circumvent "incapable of"s? like yayo enabled violence, mining, firefighting ect, smokeleaf enables social, animals, ect, wake up allows crafting, cooking, research..... could be interesting, and would make "medicating" far more dynamic too

[Thyme]

I think the overboarding size of the DSM is a result of modern medicine, the wish to define every aspect, which is futile, given the complexity of our mind.

[...]what if drugs could be used to circumvent "incapable of"s? like yayo enabled violence, mining, firefighting ect [...]

At first I thought that is actually the case! "What, Yayo can do that? Why don't I know that?! Ahh!" There's a thread where someone suggested to remove incapabilities and give huge penalties instead (I'm against that), but this idea has spice!