I have a question about sociopathy. Is it an “all or nothing” sort of thing (either you are one or you aren’t), or are there varying degrees of sociopathy?
By the way, I know that I am not one; I’m just curious!
Sociopathy is a loosely-defined term that can really refer to several things, and people often use sociopathy and psychopathy interchangeably when that really isn’t the case. Psychopathy is a psychiatric diagnosis, while sociopathy (according to Wikipedia) can refer to psychopathy, anti-social personality disorder, or dissocial personality disorder.
The diagnosis of psychopathy (which is what people most often mean when they say sociopathy) is a long, complex thing that requires a one-on-one semi-structured interview. This means that there are a set of questions that must be asked by the interviewer, but that the interviewer is still allowed to probe for loose ends (for instance, the interviewer may be required to ask specifically “Have you ever harmed an animal for fun?” but is allowed to ask follow-up questions as well that aren’t explicitly stated – a fully structured interview means you can only ask the questions specifically laid out for you). Just for the sake of a more complete answer, the name of the test administered in the interview is called the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, or the PCL-R.
The PCL-R is scored with a 0, 1, or 2 for each item on the index. A zero means that the indicated item is not exhibited (to follow the earlier example, the subject has never harmed an animal for fun), a one means it’s semi-present (perhaps the subject harmed an animal once for fun, but didn’t like it and never did it again, or did so under extenuating circumstances), and a two means it’s definitely present (the subject habitually harms animals as a source of recreation). The responses are then totaled, and if the score is over a certain mark (generally in the population at large this mark is about 30, while in prisons – where the research on psychopaths generally occurs – it’s around 28 or 29). A score at or above the mark means you qualify for the diagnosis.
You can score significantly above the cutoff or right on the button and no distinction is made – it’s still called psychopathy, diagnostically speaking. Practically, extreme psychopaths are generally the less successful (read: more likely to be incarcerated) folks, while (usually undiagnosed) psychopaths close to the cutoff are more likely to be what psychologists term “successful psychopaths,” or psychopaths who are able to function in normal society without being jailed.
I know this answer focused on psychopathy instead of sociopathy, but I hope it helped nonetheless. If you’re interested in the common layman’s definition of sociopath as a cold, callous, narcissistic offender, then you’re probably actually thinking psychopath.
Cite for all this: Bartol and Bartol, Criminal Behavior: A Psychosocial Approach (8th Edition), Wikipedia, and crap I remembered from my Criminal Psychology class.
There is a minimum amount of characteristics a person must have to qualify for a psychopathic disorder. To earn the clinical label of “psychopathic”, a person is evaluated on the PCL-R scale. A person might score very high or just high enough. They would both be considered as having psychopathic characteristics, but the higher scorer would be considered at higher risk.
The APA shies away from words like “psychopath” and “sociopath”, however, and prefers good ol’ antisocial personality disorder. It, too, has a minimum amount of requirements for a clinical diagnosis, but if a person fails to meet all the criteria for diagnosis, that doesn’t mean she or he is perfectly healthy.
For instance, you may not have PTSD, but there may be a traumatic event in your life that you need to talk through to fully move past. Similarly, you can have certain traits that are shared by those with antisocial personality disorder while not yourself being classified with them.
Nothing about human psychology is “all or nothing.” Everything operates on a continuum.
Missed the edit window: the “commas, commas, commas” subject should be in my “Reason for Editing” line, not the message subject. My apologies.
A really good read on the subject: Millon & Everly, “Personality and Its Disorders.”
Don’t have a copy handy so I’ll probably get this a little wrong, but:
They classify personalities on a 2x4. 2=Active vs. Passive, how you seek reinforcement from the environment 4=Independent, Dependent, Ambivalent, and Detached, the source of reinforcement (internal, external, mixed, or not interested, to clarify).
Active/Independent is along the lines of the forceful personality, which is a normal personality type. But if stressors pull the person down, it becomes stronger and turns into an antisocial personality disorder and then can degrade still further to what people probably mean by an all-out psychopath.
BTW Active/Dependent is more along the lines of narcissism. So for example if you know someone who is really pushy and seems to be in love with herself, you can see the connection. But let’s not talk about my ex-.
People approach different situtations differently and sort of wander among the 8 basic types. Hopefully we don’t get a bad set of events in our lives that push us down to disorders.
Millon and Everly said that the brain is physically (chemically) changed by experiences, which is why people who are depressed tend to remain so, etc.
I found this article very interesting.
I’m not a psychologist at all, but I think a layman’s view of the subject might be helpful.
It seems (in terms of public perception) that the term “sociopath” appeared somewhere around the late 1980’s or early 90’s, specifically because the public perceived psychopaths as being cold, callous, narcissistic jerks. Sociopathy has since picked up those same connotations, so terms like “anti-social personality disorder” have appeared. It’s basically the euphemism treadmill.
It’s not just a euphemism, it’s more specific. “Sociopath”, as you acknowledged, has a wide, wide number of connotations and so isn’t very specific. It can apply to a number of psychological problems that are distinct from one another. Instead, psychologists prefer specific diagnoses like “antisocial personality disorder” because such terminology falls in line with standardized nomenclature.
It’s like when the FDA changed its metric for people who don’t always have something to eat from “hunger” to “food security.” The new word might be a bit euphemistic, and you know that hunger is implicated in low food security, but “hunger” can’t be measured while “food security” can.