Furthermore, the DSM-5 introduced a dimensional model, called the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) in Section III,[210] titled Emerging Measures and Models, which contains tools and measures for clinicians as well as novel diagnoses and criteria.[211] The AMPD diagnosis of antisocial PD includes a specifier – "With psychopathic features" – for manifestations of antisocial PD with psychopathic traits.[212][213] According to the DSM, psychopathy is not a standalone diagnosis, but the authors attempted to measure "psychopathic traits" via a specifier.

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.

[–] SuperNovaCouchGuy2@hexbear.net 0 points 1 week ago

it's just not its own 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.