E-Issue3_Finallydonep

Psychopathy
Alexa Battler
Minds Matter Magazine Volume II Issue I Arts & Media
work, and social life), and a relatively structured
interview with the patient—though,
in the PCL-R, a diagnosis of psychopathy can
also be achieved without the latter. Patients
are then given a score out of 40. A clinical
diagnosis of psychopathy is issued at a score
of 30 or more. People who do not have criminal
backgrounds normally score around
five, while many non-psychopathic criminal
offenders often score around 22. Hare also
asserted that results of the checklist are only
reliable if the testing has been conducted by
a properly licensed clinician, and in a properly
licensed and regulated environment. It is the
PCL-R that is used in courts and institutions in
order to test for psychopathy, likelihood of
recidivism, and necessity of treatment; it also
aids in determining the type and extent of
criminal sentencing.
And yet, true to history, there are still
many that denounce and challenge Cleckley,
and the PCL-R. The PCL-R has been criticized
for having too great a focus on criminality,
and for being too tailored for a typical prison
demographic, instead of for the general public.[5]
Questions have also been raised over
the feasibility of clinicians conducting the
checklist to accurately identify these traits. [5]
To rectify these perceived faults, Dr.
Scott O. Lilienfeld, an American psychologist
and psychology professor, created another
test now among the most frequently used
self-report measures of psychopathy, [6] the
Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised
(PPI-R), in 2005 (revised from the original
edition in 1996). The PPI-R is instead self-administered,
and has 154 traits divided into
two categories: fearless dominance and
self-centered impulsivity. In turn, there have
been disputes over this test as well—some
have argued that the fearless dominance
category does not accurately indicate
psychopathy itself, and that the self-administration
aspect of the test is unreliable. [7] Professional
consensus is spread over the many
other significant tests, including the triarchic
model of psychopathy, the categories for
which are boldness, disinhibition, and meanness,
while public consensus darts around the
765,000 results that pop up upon Googling
“psychopathy test.”
"PPI-R is divided into two
categories: fearless
dominance and
self-centered impulsivity."
Despite its notoriety, there is no official
diagnosis for psychopathy in the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-V), the standard criteria for diagnosing
and understanding mental disorders in North
America. The DSM has attempted to create
a diagnosis for psychopathy, called Antisocial
Personality Disorder (ASPD), [8] which overlaps
with many of the items that are outlined in
the PCL-R and that are generally agreed upon
in psychiatry. However Hare himself, and
many others in the field, have established
that ASPD is not an apt depiction of what can
commonly be understood as psychopathy.
[9]
Hare and others central to understandings
of psychopathy had made clear that affective
traits, like selfishness, egocentrism, and a lack
of empathy, were fundamental to the
diagnosis. However in the DSM-III, published
in 1980, ASPD was instead characterized
primarily by the ways in which social norms
were broken, such as lying, stealing, and even
traffic arrests, diminishing these traits that
so many saw as crucial. [9] This definition was
also far too broad to constitute psychopathy
as established by other tests and ideas. While
most that are understood to be psychopaths
meet the criteria for ASPD, most people with
ASPD are not actually psychopaths by this
same popular criteria. [9] As it stands, only one
in five people with ASPD could fit a diagnosis
of psychopathy. [10]
And yet, many believe psychopathy to
be a finalized diagnosis supported by
psychiatric certainty, immediately indicative
of an individual’s character. This perception
has been largely influenced by negative
media portrayals, in which psychopaths are
often cast in villainous roles. While these
depictions may ring a vaguely relative
truth—yes, Hannibal Lecter is a psychopath
according to all of the previously mentioned
tests—they are largely overly dramatic, and
imply traits and behaviours that are not
actually associated with psychopathy.
“At the very least the media should
show both sides of psychopathy, not just
showing them as cold-blooded murderers.
Psychopathy does not mean criminality”
clarified Guillaume Durand, a PhD candidate
in neuroscience at Maastricht University.
“[Media] don’t show that there is actually
very little agree ment on what psychopathy
is.”
In 2013, two Belgian psychiatrists
addressed how movies portrayed so-called
psychopaths. They studied over 400 films
released between 1915, beginning with
Birth of a Nation, and 2010, ending with The
Lovely Bones, all of which included a villain
that was portrayed as a psychopath. [11] The
psychiatrists had to eliminate all but 126 of
these films, because most of the portrayals
were “too caricatured and or too fictional” to
constitute even a vaguely correct reflection
of psychopathy. This in itself is a powerful
reflection of how movies choose to portray
psychopathy. What they identify as the
“Hollywood psychopath” encompasses a
variety of symptoms not typical with
psychopathy, including high intelligence,
fascination with fine arts, obsessive
behaviour, and exceptional capacity for
violence and killing. [11] They also clarified
that most characters largely associated with
psychopathy, like Norman Bates from Psycho,
actually suffer from psychosis, which is a
disconnect with reality, not a personality
disorder. [3] The study praised Anton Chigurh
from No Country for Old Men, Henry from
Henry - Portrait of a Serial Killer and Gordon
Gekko from Wall Street for being more
"Psychosis is a disconnect
with reality, not a
personality disorder."
accurate and insightful views on psychopathy.
[11]
“Usually more representation is always
positive—people always fear what they don’t
know. But [the media] only gives one side”
10 11