Article: "First of all, psychopaths and sociopaths are the exact same thing. There is no difference. Whatsoever."
Incorrect. Sociopathy is believed to be due to environmental factors which may/may not trigger a predisposition. Psychopathy is believed up be genetically ingrained and would be present regardless of environment. As a result sociopathy might have some chance of lessening, but basically no hope with psychopathy (according to Hare). (Although you might get them to realize that it may be in their best interests to curb some if their behaviors to avoid bouncing in and out of jail for instance). Both are subtypes of anti-social personality disorder.
So a sociopath may have damaged conscience in there someone but psychopaths appear not to have them at all due to genetics.
Not sure about that, Dougster. I was married two decades to a psychologist, who insisted that sociopath was an obsolete term and that psychopathy was more inclusive. Or the preferred term
Did you check Hare's video I posted a link to? Hare is widely regarded as the number one authority in the world on the subject and he says the terms are different in the way I mentioned. You can also read his book _Without_Conscience_ for more.
Irrespective of the difference, if any, in the definitions of the words, the salient point is that Holmes, at least as portrayed by Cumberbatch, is *not* one. :) I read Doyle's stories so long ago that I honestly don't remember whether the original Holmes is, but this one is not.
And it was *not* posted in reference to Alucard, either, at least not consciously. However, my subconscious and I don't get along too well, and he's a sneaky bastard besides, so he might have been poking me.
7 comments