Niall wrote:
These are the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder, since sociopathy isn't used as a diagnosis as such:
A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:
1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
B) The individual is at least age 18 years.
C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.
If people with ASPD are simply extreme, typically intelligent, NTs, I would say that I have encountered excuses for humanity like this. If one replaces "grounds for arrest" with "violates moral standards" (many of those working for big business, immigration departments (especially those carrying out deportations) many politicians, etc work within the law, but behave immorally)) then there are a lot of people on this spectrum. I can name institutions that behave like this, and those institutions are made of individuals where these behaviours may be considered normalised.
I would call for research.
The DSMV proposed revision for Anti-Social Personality Disorder quoted below is much different. It removes much of the criminal element that was in the DSMIV version.
The bolded phrases below in the DSMV revision are some of the stereotypical comments I have heard through the years about Politicians and CEO's.
A key point as you make some reference to, and a new element included in the DSMV proposed revision is much of this behavior bolded below is stereotypical and generally considered a normative aspect within the subulture of politics and corporations.
As long as the behavior is acceptable within cultural norms, it's not considered anti-social behavior per criteria below.
Quote:
A. Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:
1. Impairments in self functioning (a or b):
a. Identity: Ego-centrism; self-esteem derived from personal gain, power, or pleasure.
b. Self-direction: Goal-setting based on personal gratification; absence of prosocial internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior.
AND
2. Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):
a. Empathy: Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another.
b. Intimacy: Incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, as exploitation is a primary means of relating to others, including by deceit and coercion; use of dominance or intimidation to control others.
B. Pathological personality traits in the following domains:
1. Antagonism, characterized by:
a. Manipulativeness: Frequent use of subterfuge to influence or control others; use of seduction, charm, glibness, or ingratiation to achieve one‘s ends.
b. Deceitfulness: Dishonesty and fraudulence; misrepresentation of self; embellishment or fabrication when relating events.
c. Callousness: Lack of concern for feelings or problems of others; lack of guilt or remorse about the negative or harmful effects of one‘s actions on others; aggression; sadism.
d. Hostility: Persistent or frequent angry feelings; anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults; mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior.
2. Disinhibition, characterized by:
a. Irresponsibility: Disregard for – and failure to honor – financial and other obligations or commitments; lack of respect for – and lack of follow through on – agreements and promises.
b. Impulsivity: Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli; acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes; difficulty establishing and following plans.
c. Risk taking: Engagement in dangerous, risky, and potentially self-damaging activities, unnecessarily and without regard for consequences; boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom; lack of concern for one‘s limitations and denial of the reality of personal danger.
C. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual’s personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and consistent across situations.
D. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual’s personality trait expression are not better understood as normative for the individual’s developmental stage or socio-cultural environment.
E. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual’s personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head trauma).
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=16Ironically though, some of the "neurotypicals" diagnosed with anti-social behavior may not be neurotypical after all. Research suggests that genetics may influence some children with anti-social personality disorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#GeneticsQuote:
A 2005 twin study found that children with antisocial behavior can be classified into two groups: those who also had high "callous-unemotional traits" were "under extremely strong genetic influence and no influence of shared environment" while those who were ranked low of those traits were under both "moderate genetic and shared environmental influence."[74]
Studies also link Schizophrenia, Bi-Polar disorder, and ADHD, to genetics, as some Neurodiversity sources include these conditions within the definition of neurodiversity.
I've seen only a few neurodiversity sources that include Schizophrenia, and don't think I have seen any that include anti-social behavior, but never the less, potential differences in the brain and neurology per genetic research are indicated in these disorders, as well as in Autism Spectrum disorders.
Up to 30 percent of the population has been shown as having some traits of autism.
In some studies Introverted personality types spread out into the population at reported rates from anywhere from 30 to 50 percent.
Introversion has also been linked to differences in the function of the dopamine reward system in the brain, through some research, so are introverts really neurotypical? Not really, if the research is correct.
On the other hand, if the rest of the population is somewhere in the extroverted range, and their dopamine reward system functions differently than the introverts, whose to say which one is neurotypical, extroverts or introverts? No way to tell as far as I can see.
That leaves somewhere in the middle for what might be considered the middle of the whole human spectrum of neurology, whatever that is.
But that might consist of anywhere from 1 to 20% of the population which means they would likely be out-numbered by both extroverts and introverts, so at most one might call them the mean or the average of neurology, but typical would definitely be a moving target, hard to define.
There is little to no evidence for neurotypical, but an abundance of evidence for neurodiversity.
Psychiatrists pick and choose traits and symptoms and label them, but they use a kinder gentler word than the word pathology. That's part of the reason we no longer see the word's psychopath or sociopath in diagnostic manuals, disorder is not nearly as stigmatizing as pathology.
18 Dec 2011, 5:17 pm
