one in 100 is an underestemation but i have a point to that. Scale it up.
Say you have 3000 twitter followers.
Thats 30 psychopaths in your circle. If you ise the 4 in 100 number thats 120 psychopaths in your circle.
@SelfsameSynonym @Laurelai Well the pyschopaty spectrum is complex, and yes some traits can be prone to violence but only a few percentage of pyschopats have high levels of those traits, most just have some level of lack of empathy...
anyway, the subject is too big to discuss over microblogging. There are some books and scientific publications about the problem with current pyschopaty concepts and its relation to crime.
@maop @Laurelai yeah, the actual dsm-5 definition of antisocial personality disorder, you’ll notice that it says that it’s a “diagnosis assigned to individuals who habitually and pervasively disregard or violate the rights and considerations of others without remorse.”
Your blog post focuses on violence, criminality, and public perceptions, which I didn’t mention and Laurelai didn’t talk about, so I’ll repeat myself: psychopathy is defined based on consistent behavior. Psychopaths are bad people
@maop @Laurelai Psychopaths are, by definition, people who have exhibited a consistent pattern of bad behavior. This is a non-controversial fact and yet here you are literally saying “not all psychopaths” like you’re worried about whether being labeled by a consistent pattern of bad behavior is fair to the people who’ve engaged in a consistent pattern of bad behavior
Also the definition of pregnancy is more ambiguous at the edges than psychopathy so thats an interesting comparison to make
@Laurelai I should be following around 5 psychopaths on Twitter but am certain I am not. I was carefully selective in my follows and am fairly certain I am not. I also vet those that follow me and am fairly certain that psychos do not find me interesting enough to follow.