Handbook of Psychopathy
Christopher J. Patrick
Guilford Press, Oct 18, 2005 - Psychology - 651 pages
With contributions from foremost experts, this authoritative handbook provides a state-of-the-science review of current knowledge on the psychopathic personality. Coverage includes major theoretical models; conceptual and definitional questions; assessment approaches; and etiological pathways, ranging from family and environmental factors to genes, neurotransmitters, and brain systems. Manifestations of psychopathy in specific populations are addressed, as are links to salient problem behaviors such as aggression, substance abuse, sexual offending, and recidivism. Clinical and legal issues are also examined in depth. Seamlessly edited, each major thematic section concludes with a summary chapter that integrates the findings presented and highlights key questions for future research.
What people are saying - Write a review
This book is somewhat interesting until one gets to the part where it is suggested that Factor 2 is the "real psychopathy" as opposed to Factor 1. That couldn't be further from the truth and reviewing the writings of Dr. Hare, Likken, Mealey and others is enough to reach this conclusion.
While Factor 2 or secondary psychopaths are more aggressive/prone to physical violence, they are also significantly more 'emotional' for lack of a better word. They have been shown to be more responsive to stimuli and more prone to neurotic manifestations than "primaries".
Furthermore, many psychiatrists are arguing that if a given individual does not have Factor 1 traits, he is not a "psychopath" but rather simply a violent individual. My intention is not to trivialize violence, but to point out that being the perpetrator of violence does not necessarily make someone a psychopath. Such a notion is preposterous because we know that highly emotional/volatile individuals have historically engaged in physical violence (and will continue to).
Unfortunately, many have forgotten what psychopathy (from Pinel's 'manie sans délire' to Prichard's moral insanity) is supposed to be describing: The callous/unemotional individual who simply cannot respond emotionally.
This type of rhetoric is a disservice to victims and family members of psychopaths because it trivializes the experience of interacting with a grossly unresponsive, manipulative and remorseless individual who may or may not be physically violent.