• 💖 [Donate To Keep MyPTSD Online] 💖 Every contribution, no matter how small, fuels our mission and helps us continue to provide peer-to-peer services. Your generosity keeps us independent and available freely to the world. MyPTSD closes if we can't reach our annual goal.

Other What is a sociopath? personality disorders general

Status
Not open for further replies.

anthony

Founder
I have watched this occur for quite a while now, and it is only getting worse and worse. Members are calling their abusers, ex's, pretty much any and every abuers who acts inappropriate, nasty, spiteful, hateful, vengeful, is abusive, violent and even a sexual predator, a sociopath, narcissist and labelling with other personality disorders. You can take this and near apply it to all personality disorders, because these are the diagnostic rules that you do not see in the symptom checklist.

Symptom Application

Diagnostic symptoms are not tick and flick, ie. yep, he does that, check. That is not how a diagnosis works, especially a personality disorder diagnosis. You cannot Google a personality disorder diagnosis, obtain the list of symptoms, then start checking them of down the list.

Take that same list, give it to someone else who knows you well, then let them do the same thing. I guarantee you that you have some qualities within that list if you apply a tick and flick approach.

If you're really honest with yourself, you could even apply it to yourself and if you have done that in your life, being what you are basically doing in a tick and flick approach on past abusers and such, you will astound yourself just how many of those traits you have done in your life, even do now or are a part of you. That does not constitute a personality disorder though.

Again, diagnosis is not a running diatribe over a period of time for your personal assessment based on how much a guy has hurt you, abused you and so forth.

That makes him an abuser, an arsehole, and many other choice words. It does not make him a sociopath, narcissist or other personality disorder name you want to readily apply.

The Written Rules Applied To Personality Disorder Diagnosis

You won't find these rules that must also be applied to a person for a personality disorder diagnosis within the symptom checklist, which so many people readily take for application and labelling purposes. These are the required factors before a physician can even review a person for a personality disorder diagnosis:
  1. The traits of the personality disorder/s began in childhood / adolescence.
  2. The traits affect the thoughts, emotions, behaviours, impulses and relationships.
  3. The traits of all personality disorders are inflexible and difficult to change.
  4. The personality disorder is impeding functioning within your life, work, school, family life, friendships and relationships.
  5. The traits and habits of a personality disorder cannot be acknowledged or confused with the traits and habits of your societal cultural background.
  6. If problems are caused by more specific medical or mental health problems that affect the behaviour, such as drugs, alcohol, anxiety, depression, etc, then a personality disorder is not correct diagnosis.
The above six factors must all be correctly processed in order for a person to even continue towards actual diagnostic assessment for a personality disorder.

Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) (Sociopath)

I want to now outline some key elements that many people still more than likely are not aware of with the diagnosis of APD, again, still before you get near a diagnosis.

The person will display as a pervasive pattern within their life, not just a relationship, but their actual life:
  • violence
  • impatience
  • self-centered
  • easily agitated
  • little regret when hurting others
  • little attention to rules of law (usually lots of police issues)
  • frequently thinks others aren't as smart as they are, thus they deserve to be manipulated
  • seldom has any close friends
  • seldom will be capable of any romantic relationship
You must be an adult (18+) to be diagnosed with APD.

You must have a history or harming, disrespecting or violating the rights of others since the age of 15. (In other words, if that occurs later in life, not APD)

In addition, you must have engaged in similar rebellious behaviours earlier in life, prior to 15, demonstrating a history for a personality disorder to actually form.

The most profound aspect of an APD diagnosis is that the person is breaking the law and causing legal ramifications within their life.

Diagnostic Evaluation

I am hoping by now, those with the quick mouth to label people with a personality disorder are starting to rethink their emotional attachment to a person versus the broader context in which a personality disorder can be diagnosed.

Here is the International standard for assessing a personality disorder, which you can quickly see is vastly different than trying to review the 7 diagnostic aspects of APD and fit a person within it. To actually meet just one of those criteria, it takes 10+ questions to ascertain validity on whether a person meets that criterion or not. Again, not a simple tick and flick broad brush approach that many females here seem to be adopting by labelling ex's and abusers with a personality disorder themselves.

The IPDE measures personality disorders according to the DSM-IV. DSM-IV includes ten disorders classified in three clusters and a remaining category. Cluster A comprises the paranoid, schizoid and schizotypal disorder, cluster B the antisocial, borderline, histrionic and narcissistic disorder. Cluster C finally comprises the obsessive-compulsive, avoidant and dependent disorder

The IPDE consists of 99 criteria that are examined by means of interview questions. Each criterion is assessed and given a score of 0, 1 or 2. The assessment of the score is worked out in the interview book. A score of 2 means the criterion is confirmed. A score of 1 usually means that only a part of the criteria is confirmed, and a score of 0 indicates that the answer is negative. It is also mentioned if a criterion started before or after the 25th year. This is because the DSM IV dates the commencement of the first manifestations of a personality disorder at the latest in adolescence or early adulthood.

In other words, from the 99 criteria required to be tested by a psychiatrist, and then calculating global averages, a requirement is defined whether a person meets a personality disorder or not. They don't just ask the specifics listed in diagnostic criterion.

There are other measurement scales one can use as well, though they are just as detailed.

Conclusion

As you can see, I have included information that most people normally don't even know about. This is more doctrine information for those who diagnose mental health disorders, as the public have no real need for such underlying information. There are further factors a psychiatrist uses for assessment that are not listed here, as well as a durational assessment period.

Google can be your friend, it can be your worst enemy. I have read what I can only describe as a band of women who formed together as a hate site, they even categorised their own disorder and called it Sociopathic Personality Disorder, then wrote the site and included a forum of complete misinformation about what a sociopath is, then dumped all their abusive ex's into the pot. This site comes up on the first page of Google for sociopath, so it is disturbing the misinformation out there.

The wikipedia is no better. A freely open site of pages editable by anyone who visits the page, to include any misinformation they desire, as long as they cite a reliable source, ie. journal, study, text publication. There are plenty of misguided studies and books in this world, which do not denote mental health doctrine.

There is no dual application as people attempt to put the use of the word towards. That is an excuse to justify piss poor reasoning to yourself.

Unless you're a psychiatrist and have evaluated the specific person, or the person has been evaluated with a personality disorder, then there is no requirement to apply such labels to any person.

The simple fact that you're in a relationship with a person over a duration, probably says straight away the person is just an arsehole, abuser, etc, male genetics even, which does not make a person a sociopath. There is no other context for the term.

There is no confusion in the above with the word psychopath either, another completely different terminology for more destructive behaviour as antisocial personality.
 
My bad... I wrote that last sentence incorrectly. That teaches me for rushing it. Fixed now.

The ICD 10 does cover a more diverse spectrum of naming conventions under their heading, Dissocial Personality Disorder, which covers:
  • amoral
  • antisocial
  • asocial
  • psychopathic
  • sociopathic
For example, you would be diagnosed with "Dissocial Personality Disorder - Sociopathic"

You can view a brief synopsis at:

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/F60.2

The DSV IV does not, however; the DSM V has been challenged to differentiate due to psychopathy is typically more destructive in nature than sociopathy, so the calls for change have been noted with the APA.

Reading the current updates on the DSM V site, they have culled personality disorders back a little, expanded their sub-categorisation and included vastly new, more descriptive criterion followed by a new level of functioning personality scale.

If you read the below, you will find they're introducing a new personality disorder called: Personality Disorder Trait Specified (PDTS), which allows psychiatrists to specify the trait, similar to that of what the ICD does under DPD. So a psychopath could be diagnosed, PDTS - Psychopathic, a sociopath PDTS - Sociopathic, etc.

www.mycombatptsd.com (contains excellent updates on the changes)

www.mycombatptsd.com (note the vast differences between DSM IV and the revision... nothing alike.

www.mycombatptsd.com (New scale)
 
As you can see from the above, the new categorisation coming vastly enhances lumping sociopaths into the antisocial category, which can depict milder personality traits by itself, where sociopaths are more destructive and psychopaths are usually extremely violent, in terms of generic naming conventions.

Yet right now, the naming conventions don't allow specificity, though they will very soon, as the DSM is the primary diagnostic text used, not the ICD.
 
I think this needed to be written. Most people here suffer with a mental illness and many are aware of the lack of understanding and stigma that surrounds mental illness.

And personality disorders are another aspect of mental health.

Its a sad irony, and perhaps something that is difficult to reconcile, that PTSD is sometimes caused by the actions of others who are mentally ill. The man who attacked me had suffered from mental illness since childhood, but I don't know what he was diagnosed with. But I've experienced abuse off people for different reasons too.

But I feel quite strongly that all people should use labels that are invented for medically diagnosed conditions only for the appropriate condition. Because they are given that label so that the person can recieve appropriate support to minimise the risk to themselves or others.

But I do feel a need to say that although 95% of members might be women, it is still a very small minority of us who have used this term in this way. Whilst men may use a different labels, the same derogatory implication and misdiagnoses are made. I think if you didn't address it to a particular gender, then individuals could read the points you have made and consider whether they can take something from them. I can't see a valid reason to genderise the post.
 
I've wondered the same thing when flicking through sites that are supposedly for "victims of sociopaths", and it's really hard to tell from the stories given whether the guy is just an arsehole or has a disorder, and the women just found a place to vent and it just got blown out of proportion.

I've freaked myself out before admitting that many of the characteristics named on google sites I could actually apply to my own behavior at certain times...and it's made me wonder if I'm the one disordered, so I think you are right that we can all display certain things that may be similar to someone with a serious disorder...but that doesn't mean we have it. The behavior has to be much more regular than just the one off attack of assoholism that we are all prone to now and then.

I've called my father a narcissist plenty of time...here even, but I really don't know that he is in fact a true narcissist...he just behaves very much like someone who is described in the books I've read on personality disorders...so it is important to not play 'amateur psychologist', though that is a role anyone with an analytical mind will take to quite easily.

Thankyou Anthony for pointing this out. I've said it to others online myself, but I've also found myself labelling people I know without the right credentials to do so, so it is important. Peoples lives can be ruined when someone just decides to call someone a whatever.

I saw it happen on facebook when someone went on and warned people about a certain person who was 'a paedophile'. The person didn't realise that there were 6 people in the world with that exact name (it was an unusual name) and those people had all lost friends and face in their respective country of origin in just a matter of hours, without even knowing why people had suddenly shunned them.
 
I found this document helpful as it puts some of the criterion side by side.

http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Diagnostic Criteria for Personality Disorder (Comparison of DSM-IV DSM-5 old DSM-5 new.pdf

Yes, you have to be careful about labeling people, but no one here on this forum is participating in character defamation. Character defamation is explained as naming a person and then falsely accusing them of something. The majority of postings around these topic have been about looking for information on conditions. Knowledge is important and finding answers for why this happened is a normal process.

What worries me is that sometimes, those that quote DSM, seem to have more empathy for a purp if they have a mental illness than that purps victim who now has a mental illness because of the purp. That seems a bit illogical to me.

Let me tell you a true story (and a recent one).

There was this woman living in an area. She had been in trouble with the law for minor things, nothing that would send her to jail. She had done a spell in a psychiatric hospital where she received the care of psychiatrists and a diagnosis of 'a personality disorder'. She had a social worker who visited her every week. Her behavior when she moved to the area was very concerning to many of the residents, and the residents often made complaints about her behavior around the area. The police often said to these people, oh don't worry she is just being 'verbally abusive', oh don't worry she is 'mentally unwell and she does that sometimes', or she is just being 'antisocial', - anti social in the police world is a minor offense like noise complaint type things, or being a bit rowdy in a crowd when drunk.

A teenage girl went out with her friends to do some shopping, have a coffee and just hang out. On the way back, before her bus arrived, she decided to take a walk in the public park in the same area. She was from a neighboring area and was unaware of the residents and their cautious behavior around this 'known woman with problems'. What do you think happened to that teenage girl? She was stabbed to death my the woman with a known 'personality disorder'. She died before the parras could get to her.

Why did that have to happen for action from the police? Why didn't anyone act before she murdered that young lady, they knew she was not a very nice character? Are those residents who were cautious about such personality types safer? Or was the girl who knew nothing of this woman safer? What should the family/ parents of that girl think about this woman? Should they sit around discussing the semantics of diagnostic criteria and give her MORE sympathy for having ' a personality disorder' and a screwed up past OR talk openly about traits and preventative measures that could have saved that innocent VICTIMS life?

A modern philosopher once said, that only those who have endured immorality of others up-close and personal, can determine when something is truly immoral (paraphrasing of course).

Life experiences do count for something - because knowledge comes from 1) training; and 2) experience. Not all of us are diagnosing, most of us are questioning how the hell could this happen, and how the hell could people with such a crap personality exist undetected in society today? Why are they the way they are, which is completely different to a normal functioning person in society that would not intentionally harm someone else? How can we survive and protect ourselves, because those we expect to do this for us, have in fact failed us and others, the majority of the time? People who have these 'personality types' may not seek psychiatric diagnosis of their own condition...sometimes a diagnosis for these types of personality disorders is only given IF they end up in jail, because it would benefit them then to do so. I also imagine they would know all about the DSM and which particular traits to emulate - at least for a PD - psychopathy.

I am going to be clear here so that there is no question. I respect the DSM and believe in seeking the knowledge (training and experience) from those most qualified is number one, particularly when it is you seeking for yourself. There is no question that it has been and will continue to be modified and revised --- for as long as it exists, and if replaced, then what replaces it will be modified and revised, for as long as that exists. The DSM does mention sliding scales of disorder 'likeliness' - but is always careful to use this criteria as 'likely' which is not definitive, so we should apply the same idea of 'likeliness' to traits, including our own diagnosis. That is what I personally take from this information.

I respect your opinion Anthony and I thank you for the knowledge and links to even more knowledge. Wonderful!

Gathering knowledge is a powerful tool. But, we cannot rely solely on one source of knowledge through a criteria to judge what is best for our own situation. We also need to understand that sometimes our own reactions to others stories can have us respond in an emotional way if triggered, so we can't always rely on that either (mine included).

However, the 'victims of crimes', and our experiences need to be respected as much as the DSM. We do have the benefit of proximity, as did the residents in that community, who were cautious around the woman with a 'personality disorder'.

Maybe if the DSM had clairvoyant powers to predict that this woman with 'a personality disorder' was going to kill, then maybe that teenage girl would be alive today.

And, maybe if the police criteria for 'antisocial' disturbances predicted that this woman was going to kill, then they would have been less empathetic to the woman with 'a personality disorder' and that girl would be alive today.

Maybe if that teenage girl had known, what those resident knew and had seen through experience of proximity to the situation, she may have put distance between herself and that stranger like the residents did, and maybe she would be alive today.

Yes, getting a diagnosis from a qualified professional is important. However, a 'label' does not save the lives of disturbed individuals victims. Gathering knowledge about personality traits that concern us, whether that is becuase these traits have harmed us in the past or not, and practicing caution around these types, can save lives - knowledge saves lives, a 'label' does not.
 
Maybe it can all be resolved if people state that "this person behaved like a sociopath"...and leave it at that?

I don't like the way it starts to seem that the perpetrators are given more credence than the victims either, and it's easy to see how support groups start when enough people come forward describing experiences where they are treated like shit by someone else, and someone else sees that and it validates their own experience, and it is so hard to understand why some people...so many people behave so terribly to others...really really hard. Putting a label to it can feel so easy and righteous to others, to be able to contain all that awfulness in just a single word...so I can understand why people do tend to jump the gun.

I've been labelled a sociopath before, online, by someone who didn't know me at all...and even though I could front and say that it didn't bother me because I know I'm a good person, and I don't know that person and it doesn't matter what they think...it still wasn't pleasant that someone was deliberately trying to demonize and turn others against me...for some reason that wasn't even made known to me.

If I hurt someone with words and didn't realize it, it is up to that person to tell me that they are hurt, and then I can process that and apologize if it's called for. Most of the time I don't think when people do something that hurts someone else, they may not even realize what they've done, and won't until it is pointed out to them.

I know with some personalities it doesn't matter how many times you try and tell them you are hurt, they will not admit they did anything, or validate your feelings...and that is bad...but that doesn't necessarily mean they are a sociopath...just a coward.
 
Good points to make Philippa.

I will, however, add some thoughts to your comments:

- someone can talk about their lifetime of experiences to gain empathy, that does not mean there is or is not reciprocal empathy for others.

- someone may apologize for behavior time and time again, that does not mean they do or do not feel any empathy towards those they harm.

- just because you empathize, does not mean that there is or is not reciprocal empathy.

- just because you have the ability to empathize does not mean someone does or does not deserve empathy.

- some may never apologize and turn it back on you, that does not mean that they do or do not, empathize with you.

Falsely labeling someone 'just a coward' or 'just an abuser' if they cannot genuinely apologize when they cause harm to others is as dangerous a label, as falsely labeling someone a 'sociopath'. That is the point of my very long winded post and the summary of the news story.

The women in the news story had several complains against her for verbal abuse, and she may or may not have apologized for that behavior. So, by some people's account she was 'just a coward' - then she murdered a 13 year old girl. But I guess that makes no real difference, and even less difference if she survived, because her behavior can minimized through 'labeling'. Minimizing behaviors is AS dangerous as maximizing it.

No one, DSM expert or not, can, in fact, read someones mind to find out if they 'actually', 'factually', 'definitively', feel any empathy or remorse...ANY label, even if it is not considered as 'severe' as another label, can cause harm. And, if that label is wrong, (if the subject is innocent or not innocent) it can cause harm. Minimizing physical and psychological violence to 'just abuse' is a label, and if wrong, also dangerous. I assure you, it is not a lesser crime, it harms and even kills (aka battery and/or suicide).

Do we need to wait for forensic evidence for a 'label' to be proven wrong or right before it is referred to as a reference point to discuss a collection of behaviors? Which is exactly how DSM is created, a group of people, with politics and motivations and all, discussing and trying to categorize behaviors, that they themselves may or may not have ever really experienced in 'real life'.

Any label is dangerous, NOT talking about concerning behavior IS dangerous. Minimizing indicators of behavior by use of a 'lesser criterion' because of ones own belief system, can ALSO be dangerous. Using a criterion that is a GUIDE and CANNOT predict what is really going on in someones head or the outcome of what is in someones head is JUST as dangerous. A supposed 'lesser' crime (when people minimize they usually prefaced with use word 'just' before), is AS dangerous.

I think I have made my point, so will get off my little 'talk box' now.
 
Ok so not quite off my talk box... think of it in terms of...how OTHERS would feel about 'lesser' labeling in that news story...

- if you where that woman's psychiatrist and you gave a 'lesser' label how would you feel now?

- if you were that woman's family member and gave her the 'lesser' label of 'just crazy' how would you feel now?

- if you were the police officer who gave the 'lesser' label of she's 'just abusive' how would you feel now?

- if you were the parent of that teenage girl who died at that woman's hand, how would you feel about the 'lesser' label now?

- if you were a resident in that area and took your kids to that park regularily, how would you feel now about that 'lesser' label?

I would feel pretty darn angry with myself if I was one of those people who gave a 'lesser' label. The labeling issue goes both ways, and responsibility for using the DSM to label goes both ways.

Reality check complete.
 
My heart goes out the this girl and her family.

But for me, the point of understanding medical labelling clearly, is to be aware and look at the situation as logically as I can. Its not about minimising an illness or minimising abuse, its about understanding how that persons mind works.

I get concerned because I think there is a fine line between seeking understanding and using mental health to demonise a person.To some people a general ignorance of conditions makes anybody with a psychological illness a 'psycho', including people with PTSD.

If abuse has taken place, then the person is an abusive person. If we know the person, we might be able to say more about the way they behave. Doing it that way keeps to the facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top