3 ms·
> the pop science understanding of psychopathy the reference I gave is not pop science. Your debunking and pooh-pooh'ing is unpersuasive. This is a profession
by AlbertCory 4y ago
> the pop science understanding of psychopathy
the reference I gave is not pop science.
Your debunking and pooh-pooh'ing is unpersuasive. This is a professional association publishing that, and they do have shrinks in prison.
"About 1.2% of U.S. adult men and 0.3% to 0.7% of U.S. adult women are considered to have clinically significant levels of psychopathic traits. Those numbers rise exponentially in prison, where 15% to 25% of inmates show these characteristics (Burton, B., & Saleh, F. M., Psychiatric Times, Vol. 37, No. 10, 2020). "
- strken 4y agoI'm not debunking anything, I'm asking how meaningful manifesting traits to a "clinically significant" level actually is. If I shoot my neighbour's dog in broad daylight then show no remorse it's probably manifesting psychopathic traits to a clinically significant degree, but it doesn't mean it would be totally worthless to send me to a psychiatrist. It may not even mean that I meet the threshold to be diagnosed as an actual psychopath, under whatever contorted DSM-V diagnosis it currently sits. Your reference has no bearing on the answer to that question and in fact notes that 30% of the population display some traits of psychopathy, which is the entire point here. If you squint hard enough, you can label 30% of the population as psychopaths; if you're also convinced it's useless to send them to therapy, you can use the label to deny them mental health care and stick them in prison. I'm worried that a broad and underspecified definition of psychopathy combines with an overstated inability to treat them, in a way that is morally bankrupt and tantamount to just giving up.