A New Understanding of Psychopathy: The Contribution of Phenomenological Psychopathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to present a theoretical paper about a clinical issue. Our aim is to propose some clinical and semiological considerations for a psychopathological conception of psychopathy. We will discuss several major theoretical works dedicated to this nosographic entity (mainly those of Schneider [Psychopathic Personalities (1923). London, Cassell, 1950], Cleckley [The Mask of Sanity. St. Louis, Mosby, 1941] and Hare [The Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised Manual, ed 2. Toronto, Multi-Health Systems, 2003]). We will also examine a significant issue raised by Cooke et al. [Psychol Assess 2001;13:171-188; J Person Disord 2004;18:337-357; Br J Psychiatry Suppl 2007;49:s39-s50; Int J Forensic Ment Health 2012;11:242-252], namely whether psychopathic functioning is consistently related to antisocial behavior. This theoretical essay is informed by clinical situations (involving psychopaths who were interviewed in prison or in forensic centers). The method applied a phenomenological psychopathology analysis to the clinical material. We first compare Binswanger's conception of mania with psychopathic functioning. Patient behavior is similar, but there is a difference related to the dialectic between the ego and the alter ego. A patient with mania has a fundamental crisis of the ego, which a psychopath does not have. A second finding of our investigations concerns emotions and the adaptive dimension of the psychopathic disorder. An epistemological discussion of the concept of emotions reveals that psychopaths are competent in the management of emotional stimuli, which confers a psychological advantage upon them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".