[xx101010]

Nobody who actually uses psychology seriously takes, lol, "psychopathy" as a serious label. Even the name is obvious to them "ill mental". Not exactly byzatine etymology, lol... I use the term sometimes, and have approved of some others of using it sometimes. As a brief epitaph that quickly describes some assholes disposition, lol. But, besides it not being in the DSM, and nevermind the fact the DSM is its' self sketchy in many ways... lol... (I could list some of the newer ones they have come up with which are absurd, though I do not discount the value of the book)... the book, its' self, warns against taking these labels strictly. It works great for helping to consolidate observations and experiments, for medicating well understood and common conditions or treating them otherwise... but it the authors were never so stupid so as to even begin to suggest the book should be an encyclopedia of labels 'written in stone'. Not, anyway, since I have been looking at it, since, like 82. :/ FYI, it also starts right off citing a recent - and important - study showing the traditional classification of "psychopath" is inaccurate and they could get traditionally defined sociopaths shown as having the capacity of empathy. Just they are turning it off at the wrong times, and probably too much. Getting adrenaline to kick in with them is something besides the 'lack of empathy' aspect, and I bet such studies would show it is pretty trivial to get adrenaline to kick in even in the most hardened "psychopaths"...