[xx101010]

Thinking on 'why people do this', I have come to the conclusion that they are attempting to solidify a belief of theirs. Posting about it helps them to do this, because any suggestion (belief) is likely to die after being born if it can not stand future adversity.

And came up with this, for clarification purposes, albeit, it is specifically designed to be more about asking questions then providing answers. Less about the illusion of logic, and more about the reality is questions that do not want to be asked...

This article on [a consensus derogatory label] is invalid because [it goes against how I want to operate consciously]. There are no valid reasons for it, because [it does not offer any evidence, even if it cites a study, I will ignore the existence of that study]. It is also not the consensus opinion of the experts who, I admit, know more then me [even if that consensus opinion is actually explicitly and loudly argued in the argument to be contrary].

Say, a bunch of scientists you admire create an encyclopedia of definitions, of say, living beings. You won't find bigfoot there. You won't find Yeti there. Likewise, "sociopath" and "psychopath" are not in the DSM. And so, by definition, then, the meat of the article actually simply attempts to merely point this out.

If the article was "Bigfoot is a myth", it might be a little less heated. Because critics who disbelieve the bigfoot myth are less likely to be called bigfoot for doing so.

Everyone has their own language. Maybe they are not aware of the underlying etymology of the words "sociopath" or "psychopath". These words, by etymology are extremely generic. One is sick in their dealings with society. Or one is sick in their own mind. So, one could say every definition in the DSM is, actually, both sociopathic and psychopathic.

Is there sickness in their mind? Are there social angles to that sickness? It would be hard to find a single definition in the entire DSM which did not meet one or both of those criteria.

So, saying "sociopathy" or the equivalent people use "psychopathy" is "a myth", is just plain wrong.

Further, it is [not backed by my own standards which exclude the consensus book entirely] and it [does not help me pretend to understand others individually when I need a more generic, all inclusive term to understand them for my own reasons of depersonalizing them].

If you are of [a belief system most contrary to my own], or if you [state a belief I find not most useful to my own conscious purposes to believe], then you are wrong. And I will [attempt to produce a complex enough justification for that judgment to fool my own self and others]. And this is [exactly why I post, to try and create consensus opinion to come to a model I can use in the future and today which is less likely to be decimated by anyone else's model].

And [the problem with this sort of critical post] is that [even though it is obscure I get a strong sense it declothes me], so I will [feel a strong need to actually try and cut it apart].