Talk:Fictional portrayals of psychopaths

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Lecter

I dont get it, Hannibal lecter is not a psychopath, he's a sociopathic sadist. I recommend removing the part 'bout Lecter.--Triple-Quadruple 04:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You do realise that sociopath and psychopath are exact synonyms? Also, how is Lecter a sadist? He kills to devour, after selecting a victim to punish in accord with his perception of how the world should be, (his compulsion) or to survive/escape, he doesn't kill specifically IN ORDER to cause pain or fear. --Zeraeph 12:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sociopaths are less social than psychopaths, more common, and less threatining. He enjoys the pain of others, esp. Clarice.--Triple-Quadruple 20:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Not true, in fact "sociopath" was created (I think in the 1940 or 50s?) as a new word for "psychopath", because "psychopath" was too confusing as it originally just meant literally "mentally ill" and still did in some parts of the word (like Germany) or in some pieces of legislation (like the UK mental health act until 2001).
I think he enjoys PUNISHING others, when he feels they deserve it (and he tends to be probably right about that). If he kills an innocent it is as swift and merciful as possible and only aimed at self preservation (though the "Red Dragon" shows a potential depature from this pattern, Lecter was only a relatively minor character and unformed). He is very simply stalking Clarice, with, apparently, his own idea of "honorable intent", as becomes apparent at the end of "Hannibal". --Zeraeph 20:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WOW!

Well I shifted this stuff over here, because it was making the psychopathy page unmanageable and yet was important in terms of illustrating the concept. I honestly cannot BELIEVE the remarkable article you have turned this list into.

Tried to post a message to you and couldn't, so I wanted to be sure you saw this...don't worry, I didn't change a thing. It took an AGE to find something that could be construed by some as a minor error in punctuation to change and catch your attention, which is a mark of how good this article is.

Any chance of providing citations (AND sitting on your hands through the politic of FA :o( ) to get this ramped up to featured article status? Because it is a shining example of what an educated enthusiast can do with something that would, otherwise, be very mediocre. Or would you rather be left in peace to go on polishing?

Either way I am permanently impressed. --Zeraeph 12:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False Entries (you don't have to be a psychopath to be a scumbag, you know)

If the list keeps growing at this rate, it will soon be completely synonymous with the "List of Fictitious Villains" page, in that it will contain the name of every villain in every work of fiction ever made. I feel it should be noted that in the case of many of these characters, it is not made clear in the actual work of fiction whether or not the character is supposed to be a "psychopath" or have a completely different mental disorder, or have no mental disorder at all but rather just be a garden-variety scumbag (there is such a thing as an evil person who is not a psychopath). Reverend Harry Powell (from Night of the Hunter) is not a psychopath, he is a delusional psychotic. Harry Lime (in The Third Man) shows no evidence of psychopathy, other than that he shows no qualms about killing (a trait that is found in non-psychopaths as well, unfortunately). Must every on-screen murderer automatically be labelled a "fictional psychopath?" --Sylocat 07:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I completly agree with you. Al Pacino in Scarface is clearly not a psychopath. At many points throughout the movie he shows quite a bit of emotion and morality. When the four men in the car and about to detonate the charge under the South-American journalist's car, Tony Montana intervenes and instead kills the assasin next to him because the man's wife and kids were in the car with him. That action alone proves he has some morality and therefor not a psychopath which is why i am removing him from the list.

[edit] Fictional psychopaths and the clinical definition

I am not suggesting that all of the characters listed as fictional psychopaths necessarily meet the exact clinical definition of an actual psychopath. I have merely compiled a list in aid of a comprehensive discussion of the various different "types" of stock psychopaths (i.e., stereotypes) commonly found in fiction (movies, books, plays, etc.).

Whether or not the Reverand Harry Powell is a psychopath or a delusional psychotic is a matter of argument. Psychopaths certainly live by corrupt and distorted belief systems but are not manifestly delusional in the clinical sense. Hence, Rev. Powell may in fact be a "mixed" or "ambiguous" psychopath, since in many clinical studies, a person diagnosed with a particular psychiatric condition often presents overlapping, comorbid traits from other diagnostic categories as well. Also note that the section of the article which you are referring to states: "Perhaps more accurate portrayals of psychopaths are...." "Perhaps" means precisely that; it doesn't mean that all of the characters listed are necessarily realistic psychopaths, simply that they do present traits and behaviors which make them prime candidates for such a distinction.

My criterion for a fictional psychopath is not simply a character who commits murder. Some characters I have mentioned (J.J. Hunsecker in Sweet Smell of Success, Gordon Gekko in Wall Street, Francis Begbie in Trainspotting, Randle Patrick McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Martin Taylor in Brimstone and Treacle, the Marquise in Les Liaisons Dangereuses, Claggart in Billy Budd, and the protagonist of The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner) are not murderers but are mentioned as possible fictional psychopaths.

It is true that psychopaths are usually stereotyped in fiction as serial killers and remorseless assassins and malefactors of some kind or another. A majority of serial killers do present many psychopathic traits. However, by the same token, I have also pointed out why Jack Torrance in The Shining and Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment would not qualify as psychopaths. Psychopathic automatons, as I call them, are not even human (or, at least, not wholly human) characters; the behavior of such characters is merely presented in fiction as a reflection of psychopathy from a human perspective.

According to the criteria laid out at the beginning of this article, Harry Lime presents as a classic example of the stereotypical "smooth psychopath" of Hollywood cinema. Whether or not a licensed forensic psychiatrist would agree that Lime really is a psychopath according to the accepted clinical definition is beside the point. --Jaiwills 19 August 2006

Well, it's not that I don't see your point, but with all due respect, that argument is something for a movie forum, not an encyclopedia. You make some good points for your case, but in the process you're taking this into personal opinion and research territory, and that's exactly what Wikipedia is not (see WP:NOT), especially since it's virtually impossible to cite reliable sources on this topic. As is, this article reads more like a movie critic's essay than an encyclopedia article. We should at least follow Ireneshusband's suggested guidelines below, where we should only include characters if they are explicitly mentioned in the relevant work, or a documented, reliable essay or release on the topic by a noteworthy analyst (something we can link to and read). Sylocat 03:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add "Xenosaga's" Wilhelm? "Pretty Persuasion's" Kimberly Joyce?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_%28Xenosaga%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Persuasion

[edit] The flags; Personal research

Hardly any sources are cited here. The article is very interesting, but it clearly involves a significant amount of personal opinion and personal research, which unfortunately is not appropriate for wikipedia.

Quite apart from anything else, personal opinion is likely to lead to errors. One clear example of this is the treatment of Rutger Hauer's character in Bladerunner. Contrary to what the article says at the moment, he did not show warmth towards a human during his last moments. The reason he chose to spare Harrison Ford's character was because Ford's character had just succeeded in saving himself by a superhuman feat of strength, thus revealing that he was not the human he still believed himself to be. I'm sure a lot could still be said about this, but wikipedia is not the place to do it, at least not until someone says it somewhere else first.

I propose that successful candidates for inclusion (retention) in this list should in future have met one of the following criteria:

  1. They are called psychopaths in the book/play/movie (or a recognised equivalent term).
  2. They are described as psychopaths in a respected scholarly work (such as a psychological or film studies paper).
  3. They are commonly described as psychopaths within popular culture.

Ireneshusband 20:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. This page needs some major cleaning up, it reads more like a movie critic's essay than an encyclopedia article. Sylocat 03:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant to Request for Comment

[edit] Content removal (created prior to RFC but very relevant)

Although it seems someone has taken quite a bit of trouble to produce an essay for this entry, it is not appropriate material for Wikipedia, plain and simple. I encourage the writer to publish this on a website of his or her own, however. The divisions into "psychopathic automatons," "burlesque psychopaths," "postmodern psychopaths," "comedic psychopaths," et al. has no apparent basis in literary analysis or psychological theory and appears to constitute original research.

Ireneshusband's three criteria for inclusion of a fictional character in this article seems sound to me. I have included Hannibal Lecter and Norman Bates only since those are the only two I know meet the criteria off the top of my head. I encourage people interested in the subject to include other characters who meet Ireneshusband's criteria for inclusion. It may also be helpful to mention whether the character displays the characteristics of clinical psychopathy or is merely a malevolent or deranged character referred to as a psychopath (or the colloquial psycho) within the work.--NeantHumain 03:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I really do not think that blanking so much content was the right thing to do here. As for the two examples you left, it seems widely agreed that the label title of the movie Psycho, as applied to the character of Norman Bates, is intended to refer to "Psychotic" (a very distinct and different condition) not "Psychopathic", and if you have actually read the novel "Hannibal" you will see that, if the character meets the criteria for any specific diagnosis at all (which is questionable) it is probably trauma induced and environmental in origin and could be considered a remarkably controlled and cerebral variant on Antisocial personality disorder, not Psychopathy.--Zeraeph 10:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I acknowledge my decision was bold, but it is better than having reams of unverified original research passing for encyclopedic content. The taxonomy previously shown on this page has no basis in literary or psychological consensus, and phrases like "burlesque psychopath" and "psychopathic automaton" are not used in everyday speech, so they have no place here as some quasi-official categorization scheme.
Zeraeph, I am glad you caught my mistake about Norman Bates. I meant Patrick Bateman of American Psych, who is rather psychopathic in his personality.
I consider Hannibal Lecter a fictional psychopath by Criterion 3 of Ireneshusband's criteria: "They are commonly described as psychopaths within popular culture." Hannibal Lecter has more of the PCL-R Factor 1 traits of psychopathy (lying, manipulativeness, callousness/lack of empathy, lack of guilt or remorse, grandiose sense of self-worth) than the Factor 2 antisocial/impulsive traits common in street criminals and incarcerated psychopaths (which may make a subclinical psychopath, technically). Whether Lecter's personality disorder is largely inherited (psychopath) or mostly environmental (sociopath) is irrelevant in the context of this article. This list should include psychopaths and sociopaths alike.--NeantHumain 04:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
This is going a bit far now, User:Craverguy does not approve of blanking this article, and neither do I, I just have too much respect for you as an editor to get into an editwar lightly.
Apart from the excellence of the article, I would contend that any movies or books mentioned in this article, are, in fact self referencing. Can we agree to take this for RFC consensually and see if we can arrive at concensus through a wider spectrum of opinion? Or do you have a better suggestion? --Zeraeph 23:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ireneshusband and Sylocat agree that amount of personal research in the article was too much; I merely took action. Although I would agree with you that many of the films and books are self-referencing (one character calls another a psychopath|sociopath|psycho), this is definitely not true of all of them. Unfortunately, Jaiwills does not appear to have used self-reference as his criterion for inclusion in his list and taxonomy; he picked characters that best exemplified each of his categories. Jaiwills wrote: "I am not suggesting that all of the characters listed as fictional psychopaths necessarily meet the exact clinical definition of an actual psychopath. I have merely compiled a list in aid of a comprehensive discussion of the various different 'types' of stock psychopaths (i.e., stereotypes) commonly found in fiction (movies, books, plays, etc.)."
Jaiwills may have written a lengthy, interesting article, but that is not what is at stake. Frankly, Fictional portrayals of psychopaths isn't the most important article in Wikipedia, but if we relax standards at the fringes, we might as well let anything go in the more important, more widely read articles too. Wikipedia is not Jaiwill's personal printing press.
As a compromise, we can re-include the full list of characters but without the original research categorization scheme. The characters should be checked to see if they are referred to as psychopaths (or sociopaths) within the work itself or meet Ireneshusband's criteria.--NeantHumain 05:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
They didn't exactly say "blank the whole lot" though did they? Also, as a matter of fact, Ireneshusband and User:Jaiwills seem to have completely misunderstood Rutger Hauer's character in "Bladerunner", because it seems to me he shows nothing BUT humanity all through the movie, even his rage is human rage, which is somewhat the point of the movie. Can't remember why (or even if, seems more the other way round to me) he spares Decker but I have the video here and can check. But I didn't want to dispute the text until I had checked. Because it seems to me that though, perhaps, the only actual psychopath in the movie is, in fact the android's creator, it is a movie largely about psychopathy and humanity. (Though not meeting Ireneshusband's criteria at all which he seems to have missed).
As for the "categorisation scheme", aka subheadings. If you are going to call that "original research" then you are going to have to call half the subheaders on Wikipedia original research. A subheading is always, of it's nature, subjective. I think Jaiwills disclaimer was only sensible. The article is, after all, supposed to be about fictional psychopaths not clinical psychopaths, and some, like Lecter, are wildly, clinically inaccurate, and yet called "psychopaths" regularly.
User:Ireneshusband proposed not one but THREE criteria, any one of which which could be met for a character's inclusion, and I would add a fourth of my own:
  1. They are called psychopaths in the book/play/movie (or a recognised equivalent term).
  2. They are described as psychopaths in a respected scholarly work (such as a psychological or film studies paper).
  3. They are commonly described as psychopaths within popular culture.
  4. They can be shown to display the traits ascribed to a psychopath as clinically defined.
I would have no objection to the characters listed being checked properly against those criteria and removed if they do not meet one of them. --Zeraeph 10:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the bulk of the movies/books/plays these characters come from, so I cannot comment on their psychopathy status. Ireneshusband's original three criteria are perfectly fine (note that this means fictional characters who wouldn't meet the clinical definition of psychopath may be included). The fourth one, though, is too subjective and encourages original research (the opinion of an editor). In my opinion, for example, the character Carl Denham the 2005 remake of King Kongis the perfect example of a psychopath who does not appear to be evil yet shows many of the classic traits (he is even on the lam when setting sail for Skull Island). However, this is my original research.
Psychopaths are very common in movies; most of the "bad guys" have it or at least a plurality of psychopathic traits; sometimes even the "good guys" show more than a few psychopathic traits. In the movie Firewall, the leader of the crime ring who holds Harrison Ford's character's family hostage, Bill Cox, is a definite psychopath although that is never said (or maybe he was called "psycho"). His henchmen also show definite psychopathic attitudes; one tells a family member that it isn't that he wants to hurt them but that he just doesn't care.
This list could potentially go on forever.
The subheadings used in this article are quite a bit different from those used to describe a historical event, a chemical element, and so forth.
I attempted to broker a compromise that seemed to acknowledge Wikipedia's policies while keeping the majority of the list. That compromise was rejected, so I am going to revert this article to keep it in line with Wikipedia's policies on original research and verifiability. Zeraeph, I would like to avoid any undue difficulty, so let's work this out by the book. I know you've gotten banned for edit wars before, and I'd very much like to keep that from happening this time around, especially for an article as trivial as this one.--NeantHumain 23:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Fictional portrayals of psychopaths

For the past few days, one editor blanks most of this article (with rationale explained in the subsection above) and another editor restores the article without participating in talk.

I have personally objected to the arbitrary blanking (as above), and restored the article once prior to requesting this RFC. I feel that while the article may need a little tidying and checking it should, essentially, be preserved in it's long form.

I also feel that there needs to be discussion, and valid consensus, on what the criteria for inclusion should be, but I feel that this discussion ideally needs fresh eyes and thinking to arrive at the best possible resolution. Not just two editors discussing and a third reverting, as at present. --Zeraeph 23:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it's been over a week without a single "outsider" commenting on the content. I still think the original research categorization scheme and exposition at the very least need to go. As much information as this article contains (much of it a single editor's opinion), that doesn't automatically make it Wikipedia appropriate.--NeantHumain 01:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it needs to go, and neither does Craverguy (apparently). I wouldn't object to a little revision to the "commentary" style in which some of it is expressed. But I think we need to do that slowly and discuss it every step of the way. --Zeraeph 13:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that two people's opinion does not make Wikipedia's policies vanish. There's still Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought:
Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
Again, there is the policy on original research:
Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position
Now compare these policies to the various categorizations and the exposition accompanying them:
In the past fifteen to twenty years, psychopaths, comedic or otherwise, have increasingly been portrayed in popular movies as caricatured exemplars of a kind of aggressively "hip", permanently jaded, ironic, postmodern sensibility of cool.
This is just one small sample of the opinion and analysis with absolutely no citations that pervades the entire article. This is a literary essay with lists thrown in to exemplify the assertions, not an encyclopedia article. The pompous tone used is also nearly unbearable.
I know you want to keep this content because you believe deleting it would be a loss, but it remains content not appropriate to Wikipedia. This is why "blanking," as you have chosen to describe it, most of the article is necessary.--NeantHumain 23:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
"Blanking" any of the article would just be vandalism, if you feel the article should be deleted request an AFD. The movies are not only self referencing, but, of themselves, provide citations for the commentary which symbiotically provides criteria for listing in each subsection. If you feel any of the commentary is inaccurate I suggest trying to alter it to make it more accurate not just blindly destroying it, as hitherto. --Zeraeph 00:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The list itself is fine (as long as they do, in fact, self-reference psychopathy) and with appropriate commentary would be fine, but none of this essay material belongs here, which makes it suitable for removal (trying to make minor adjustments to a host of unverified opinion is ridiculous).--NeantHumain 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Much of Wikipedia consists in making "minor adjustments to a host of unverified opinion". Vandalism is not an acceptable alternative. --Zeraeph 10:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Bond, Psychopath?

I've got three references for James Bond in the 2006 remake of Casino Royale being a psychopath, coinciding with my hunch after having seen the movie: Casino Royale - Radford Reviews, pangloss's comment to "Recent Movie Roundup 3", and Hyperion Court/jesse's review. They made a few exceptions to the psychopathic structure of his personality: his loyalty to the British Intelligence Ministry and his falling in love with and then trying to save Vespa. Otherwise, it appears one of the screenwriters must have gotten a hold of the PCL–R and did everything to make Bond a psychopath without using the word (but using "heartless bastard," "no soul," etc.).--NeantHumain 20:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I can certainly tell you, here and now, that the character of James Bond was definately WRITTEN as a psychopath by Ian Fleming (far more "pure psychopath" than Hannibal Lecter) even if he never used the word. Go to the books themselves some day and you will see that. "Casino Royale" apparently humanises him just a little but...have you read Joseph Newman on the topic? The new Bond DEFINATELY seems to be a pure psychopath as written by Joseph Newman. Let's have him and be damned if needs be. --Zeraeph 23:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wholly ridiculous (factual accuracy)

The assertations made in the "Fictional portrayals of psychopaths" section are absolutely ridiculous. First and foremost, how can there truly be an objective standard for "realistic" psychopaths when "psychopath" isn't even a term in the DSM-IV? If we're going to celebrate archaic, old-fashioned definitions, we might as well have "realistic morons" and "realistic idiots". Next, in order to state that "all are altogether incapable of establishing and maintaining 'normal' social and emotional relationships", first it is necessary to define what a "normal" socio-emotional relationship is - and if you can do that, congratulations, you're decades ahead of the leading psychiatrists. Maybe you should get a page on BraveHost and create your own Wikipedia article :-D Now, perhaps you can subsitute "healthy" for "normal", but even so, what constitutes "healthy" is oftimes disputed, and I think anyone who claims they "know" what a "healthy" or "normal" socio-emotional relationship is is out of their fucking mind. --Action Jackson IV 20:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Psychopath" is such an "archaic, old-fashioned definition" that an entire diagnostic system for the condition (Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)) is in use since 1991 that went into it's second edition as recently as 2003, three years after the last text Revision of the DSM-IV-TR.--Zeraeph 07:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your brilliant insight, ActionJackson

If there is no such thing as "normal" or "healthy" interpersonal relationships (as opposed to your reductive quasi-Marxist terminology, "socioeconomic relationships"), then I guess there is no basis or point to psychiatry, cognitive-behavior therapy, medical science (or any other kind of science), constituted laws and applied ethics, art and culture, or interpersonal relationships and civilization in general. Psychiatrists use terms like "normal" as a practical way of describing healthy social functioning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metal ships are falling (talk • contribs).

WP:AGF, WP:NPA to you. And it would probably help if you actually read until you understood the words I was using, as opposed to just getting a rough picture of the way the letters looked - "socio-emotional", not "socio-economic". And I would like to see just where you see a psychiatrist using the term "normal", complete with context. The DSM-IV, to my knowledge, does not have a definition of "normal". --Action Jackson IV 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, there are no absolute "norms", unless you subscribe to a particular religion or metaphysical belief system which holds otherwise. This article is not about debating the merits of psychiatry, psychiatric definitions in the DSM-IV, or the whole epistemological issue of what constitutes "normal" and "healthy" in individual human behavior or in society at large. You seem to have your own ideas about what "normal" and "healthy" is, as evidenced by your rather cavalier use of the phrase "out of their fucking mind". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metal ships are falling (talk • contribs).

figure of speech. --Action Jackson IV 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, this article is not about catering to, or promulgating, the ideas and opinions of Thomas Szasz, Michel Foucault, R. D. Laing, L. Ron Hubbard or Tom Cruise or any other loudmouthed paragon of anti-psychiatry -- all of whom are smugly dismissive the definitions contained in the DSM-IV, and of the science of psychiatry in general. The underlying premise of this article is that traditionally accepted psychiatric definitions such as "psychopath", and overlapping terms like "sociopath" and "anti-social", are valid and scientifically sound. The point of the article is to discuss fictional portrayals of psychopaths in relation to the accepted clinical definitions, and to what degree they are similar or dissimilar.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metal ships are falling (talk • contribs).

Can you actually show me one of these accepted clinical definitions? Because as it stands, by pretending there's such a thing as a "realistic" psychopath, I believe the article is more about anti-psychiatry than my own position. An article about Realistic Widgetfoos would stand on the assumption that there is actually such a thing as a Widgetfoo, or in this case, an academically established way of determining the line between a [Widgetfoo]] and Widgetgoop. --Action Jackson IV 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, it is called Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), for a full definition I suggesdt actually reading the 2003 edition. --Zeraeph 07:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Psychopath" is still a clinically used term, although the term "sociopath" is more commonly used nowadays to avoid the popular confusion of "psychopathy" with "psychosis" -- the latter term, of course, describes an entirely different condition altogether. The use of the term "sociopath" is also preferred by some in the psychiatric community because it emphasizes the nature of the pathology as being identified by pervasive anti-social traits. The confusion of these two clinical conditions is typically carried in the epithet, "psycho". "Anti-social personality disorder" is another overlapping term which the DSM-IV uses to describe psychopathic traits.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metal ships are falling (talk • contribs).

I really can't tell what you're getting at here. --Action Jackson IV 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, idiot and moron have also been clinically used terms for describing degrees of mental retardation, despite the common abuse of their actual denotative meanings in everyday parlance which has led to their being abandoned. The words may have changed, but the clinical condition which they describe hasn't. "Psychopath" is not an archaic, corrupted term to the same degree that "idiot" and "moron" are -- ergo, your argument is utter gibberish.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metal ships are falling (talk • contribs).

If you wish to see it as such. You seem to be dodging my rationale here. Psychopath is, as you even state, an archaic and corrupted term, and therefore "realistic psychopath" makes no more sense than "realistic idiot". As such, this section of the article is blatant WP:OR. --Action Jackson IV 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting...but I still beg to differ.

I didn't start this article nor did I choose to use the word "psychopath" in place of "sociopath" or "anti-social personality disorder", which are all basically synonomous, overlapping terms anyway that describe roughly the same condition. I'm not going to get into a redundant, tedious debate of clinical semantics with you, nor do I see the point of engaging in a literal-minded reading of everything that is contained in the DSM-IV, which is a work in progress based on continuing research in the field.

Explain to me how clinical terms like "psychopath", and relative terms like "normal" and "healthy", are corrupt when treating and diagnosing the mentally ill? Without an accepted standard of health and normal functioning, psychiatry and medical science have no basis upon which to operate. I know many licensed psychiatrists who use such words in their practice.

Also, remember that a lot of the examples contained in this article predate the DSM-IV and the definitions contained therein. Some of them are indicative of past ideas about mental illness which are now outdated. Similarly, since this article is concerned with "fictional portrayals", many of them reflect corrupted popular notions of psychopathy or sociopathy or whatever you or the DSM-IV wishes to call it nowadays. If you prefer, change the title to the article and its sections to "Fictional portrayals of sociopathic and anti-social personality traits".

"Realistic" portrayals only refers to fictional portrayals which are meant to be taken seriously in a "realistic" fictional context which may be based upon real-life persons or events. The notion of what contitutes "realism" in fiction is similarly relative, and has been known to change along with the accepted clinical definitions contained within the each subsequent updated version of the DSM within the psychiatric community. One's interpretaion of what may or may not constitute a "realistic" or artful (i.e., burlesque, comedic) portrayal of a psychopath/sociopath and anti-social personality traits and behaviors is likewise relative to time and cultural milieu, and hence you can complain about "weasel words" all you want but it really seems quite pointless to do so when discussing cultural representations of clinical conditions.

If you so wish, you can expand on and clarify some of the definitions used in this article rather than wantonly trash the whole thing.

My bad about misreading "socioemotional" as "socioeconomic" though.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metal ships are falling (talk • contribs) 06:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/i/c/Talk%7EFictional_portrayals_of_psychopaths_7e88.html"