If you mean, "what is conduct disorder?" then you could just look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduct_disorder

If you mean, "why is that part of the criteria?" I think it has to do with the traits being a part of the personality, and so they wouldn't be expected to just show up later in life with no evidence beforehand. I'm not really sure though.

Really? Lacking empathy is not the same thing as admitting "to everyone we don't give a **** about them or their problems." That's called admitting to everyone a lack of empathy. Actually lacking empathy isn't related to impulse control. You are really stretching to make this fit what you want it to be.

I mean, you did a psych rotation, right? So hopefully you saw that we don't just believe everything the patients tell us. We get collateral information, observe the patient, and ask questions to get the answers indirectly, and then we try piece it all together to see what makes sense. You can see these traits come out in the behaviors of the patient. Plus, they must be pervasive and inflexible with these traits to meet the diagnostic criteria, so you can notice the patient exhibiting them in front of you.

Do you have any stories of growing up to illustrate your mom's condition? What was childhood like in general for you?

I'd like to hear from jamakin on this.

Given that their ability to actually feel empathy is stunted, I don't think they really "get" it, but on an intellectual level they should be able to understand the concept, and be willing to exploit the empathy they assume others experience as part of the manipulation.

More like - if people ever stop being pack animals, their kind will flourish. Like the lone wolf. A lion needs to have empathy to function well in the pride. Other than maternal instinct, a leopard has no use for it.

That's my best completely wild-ass guess for why this trait exists. Sort of like how animals turn white and hairy when the ice age comes, then go back to normal when it recedes. Maybe sometimes conditions merit species developing into pack animals, sometimes they don't. If mammals have the ability to take either fork in the road, that gives them an advantage.

This would also explain how it's so easy for otherwise decent people to be blase about horrible things happening so some "other" group of people. From an evolutionary POV, there would be no need for empathy to extend beyond the pack. If one group of humans can somehow differentiate themselves (in their minds) from another group of humans, then that pack instinct can kick in. Only when people see the whole human race as a big pack, do we make it tough to tolerate atrocities.

I get where you are coming from. We're all sociopaths at some level, but the really dumb severe ones end up in therapy.

And no, I don't agree that empathy is solely a social construct. There's a genetic component as well, in my opinion, although how exactly that works (with some people being born with deficits in certain areas relating to empathy and the ability to emotionally relate), I don't pretend to know. I doubt many people would pretend to know for sure how that works right now.

Again, are you serious? How do they not meet most of the criteria just based on the fact that they didn't get caught? Did they not fail "to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest" (even without getting arrested), deceive "others for personal profit or pleasure," exhibit "reckless disregard for safety of self or others," and have a "lack of remorse?"

Plus, they may have been consistently irresponsible, "as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations." They were possibly not impulsive or irritable, but even those could have been exhibited without getting caught.

Didn't read everything, but vhawk, seems like you are confounding unconscious innate behavior with intentional conscious feelings and behavior.

Something like cooperation is a genetically advantageous behavior. It works for bees and people. Empathy may be part of the mechanism that directs this behavior for people, but not necessarily any part of the mechanism for bees. This doesn't mean that empathy isn't real and that it shouldn't be valued. Sure, it's just a trait that helps us pass on genes, but so are all of our feelings.

Abhorring a person who lacks empathy and classifying them as pathological is also adaptive. It helps keep individuals from taking advantage of the group.

Imho, you are psychoanalyzing people's genes, not people.

Lotta people outing themselves as sociopaths

I don't think humans need empathy to survive. A reasonably intelligent psychopath can absolutely figure out how to manipulate people to their advantage. They don't need empathy to take advantage of the "pack nature" of humans. They aren't comparable to lone wolves.

A pschopath can survive well, but a pack full of them can't. There's a little game theory in genetics about how competing strategies (selfish vs. cooperative) establish equilibriums.

anyone got a link to the "do sociopaths make excellent poker players thread?"

But a whole pack of sociopaths wouldn't work. Whereas a non-pack species of sociopaths would do fine.

Is it hard differentiate between someone who is active addiction, say opiates for example, and a real sociopath? Cuz, drug addicts will lie/cheat/steal non-stop and not give a flying **** and only be sorry if they are caught.

I would guess that the answer is that people in active addiction have behaviors that mimic a wide variety of personality/psychological disorders and until the person is clean for some time it is hard to give an accurate diagnosis.

I ask this for several reasons.

But that's the problem. The people who were reading The Art of War 20-30 years ago because they thought it would help them in business were self important douchebags with second rate intellects. I'm not sure why I should care that those same douchebags are reading a different book now.

I actually think most teenagers are sociopaths. I feel like I had very little empathy until my mid-20s. Although every now and then it would kick in over something and hit me like a ton of bricks. I wonder if it takes something severe to make those not-often-used neural pathways (or chemical receptors or whatever) fire. Sort of like the first time you get hit on the head when you're a little kid - you don't even know it hurts yet.

However I watched my 11-year-old cousin (who was always very precocious) just heartsick bawling at her grandpa's funeral. So I know empathy doesn't always develop late.