Talk:Histrionic personality disorder

Other attributes

I added the following other attributes to the list, but then decided I should move them here to the Talk page to get a second opinion before adding them to the article proper. Somebody please move them back if appropriate.

• Chronic, pathological procrastination when a task is more difficult than desired or isn't "fun" or "exciting".
• Tendency to blame others and/or external circumstances for problems.
• A tendency to lie or distort the truth where necessary to maintain a facade, or to manipulate others.
• Perfectionistic, obsessive and/or obsessive-compulsive tendencies.
• Hypochondria, whether to garner attention, or simply born out of obsessive tendencies.
• A tendency towards confirmation bias, thinking as oneself as "different" or "special" because of events that keep happening to oneself but supposedly not to other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.14.7 (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that most of these are of dubious validity when they are claimed to be consequences of Histrionic Personality Disorder? And thus, they really shouldn't be included in a list of symptoms associated with HPD...

I'm not at all an expert on personality disorders - or on psychology?-), but I do know a bit about the subject, and many of the edits in this article clearly describe traits associated with Borderline Personality Disorder, as in the "Treatment" section of the article.

Regarding the item claiming the presence of Confirmation bias... I tend to think associating those characteristics with HPD makes sense, but that it would be more reasonable to characterize them as rooted in "self-promotion"? ;-)

... among the ones remaining, I feel really dubious about the one claiming "A limited or minimal capability of experiencing love" ... but can't check the citation! - thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Pathology?

"Pathology increases with the level of intimacy in relationships, which is exactly the same for males. Women may show inappropriate and intense anger masking their internal battle between the quest for intimacy and avoiding pathology."

is pathology the correct word? pathology is the study of disease which doesnt seem to make sense in this context. 76.190.206.197 (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Anna

Agreed, I didn't understand that sentence either, and linking to the pathology article seems weird. What's the intended meaning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.16.103.33 (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

pathology itself means 'sickness'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.9.230 (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That sentence actually makes perfect sense. it is written in Psychology jargon, which is the way an article about a psychological issue should be written. In Simple English translation, it means, the level of sickness or impairment, that is, the symptoms increase when the histrionic person is pressed into a situation where they have to get emotionall closer to someone else, and therefore are at greater risk of rejection. In the clinical psychology world, pathology means that pattern of maladaptive behaviors or symptoms. That passage should not be editted on the main entry page and actually does make perfect sense. Check a basic text on persnality disorders. JackVigdor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackvigdor (talk • contribs) 18:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Weird word in 3rd paragraph

"They are emotionally labile and cling to others in the context of immature relationships." I have never heard the word "labile": before, so I am hesitant to edit this. Is it a medical term, or a misspelling, or what? --DOHC Holiday 21:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Labile means erratic emotionality. It is a common term in psychiatry. --DashaKat 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand it to mean "easily changeable" or "not stable" in the fickle sense; not to be "smart" but next time can't you just look it up? (The Free Dictionary is very good, or just go to Google and type define: term).Historian932 (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright queries

"quotes from the manual are NOT COPYRIGHT PROTECTED - they are free to be reproduced)"

The above needs a citation where the author of the manual has relinquished copyright. --mav

I removed the prevalence stats, because they aren't in the external link, and such a claim needs some kind of evidence, I feel. More importantly, we need to say who said it, so that people who are anti-psychiatry can accept the article as NPOV. Martin

---

Note: The text in this article was substantially similar to that on http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001531.htm which is marked as "Copyright 2002 A.D.A.M., Inc". Note that presence on a .gov site does not necessarily imply that material is in the public domain! In addition, if it is claimed that this material is from "the manual" ie. the DSM-IV, note that that too is copyrighted, this time by the American Psychiatric Asociation.

I have thus removed it, as per copyright policy.

Read the source. It's explicitly public domain. Tannin 21:56 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

"Government information at NLM Web sites is in the public domain. Public domain information may be freely distributed and copied, but it is requested that in any subsequent use the National Library of Medicine (NLM) be given appropriate acknowledgement."

Actually, if you read the copyright FAQ on the NIH site (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/faq/copyrightfaq.html), it specifically says that the Adam material is copyrighted. - CE

Avoiding people

Avoid these people at all costs! I'm pretty sure I got mixed up with somebody who has got this disorder and I can only say that I'm much happier that I now have nothing to do with them.

Anon, please do not troll, or at the very least constrain your comments on the talk page to the article. Thank you. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure avoiding someone with Histrionic Personality Disorder is going to help them in the long time- it may, in fact, make them worse. Everyone needs to be loved at the end of the day; ironically, that's what many people with personality disorders seemed to have been starved of when they were children, when they were abused, abandoned or rejected. Walking away from them as adults is not a solution, but repearts the past, makes them more alienated, and would encourage them to do more destructive (e.g. attention-seeking) behaviours.

I say calm, patience, good therapy, medication, and divine grace are needed to help such people!

From my experience such people need to be made aware of the disorder by the person they identify with most strongly. It is very difficult to get the sufferer to seek treatment because they have a deep-rooted fear of evaluating themselves. The partner (especially in a long-term relationship) is not the type to divulge the problem on his/ her own and is likely to need counseling also. It takes an incredible amount of patience and strength to shepherd somebody through this. Zoltar 8 11:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Z

I'm seeing the symptoms of HPD correlate with "middle child syndrome." Am I correct in thinking that? It seems that there is a constant need for self justification and attention seeking. I love my sister but sometimes I just feel like she's sapping all the energy out of me... Fromshelter 16:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a friend who most likely has this disorder; she is very emotionally unstable in nearly every form imaginable, she tries to seem smarter than she actually is, she's publicly contemplated suicide on several occasions for attention, she almost never has her own opinions, she wears odd clothes to get attention, she's very touchy-feely, and she's managed to use all of these tactics to get friends in the first place. The problem is that she's getting on everyone's last nerve, including the most patient person I know, and she's completely oblivious to the actual effect she has on people. Of course, now that we're such close friends, I'd feel bad just abandoning her, even if I do feel liberated whenever she isn't around. Aeuoah 01:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

--- Amatuer psychologists are the most dangerous kind. This page does not really emphasis enough that the necessary precondition to any psychiatric or medical condition is that the people who have these "problems" are highly destructive to themselves or to others. Many of the traits listed are common human behavious in normal people at various times. Psychiatric conditions are very difficult to diagnose and you certainly cannot diagnose HPD in a person from the description provided in this article. In fact its dangerous to do so. If you have a serious "problem" with a person, dont try to practice psychology/psychiatry on them. If you insist on telling them they need professional help, then get the hell out of their way, because even if you're right they'll take it as the deep insult it is. They could have the "problem", or you could simply have a "problem" with them. If you feel you are at serious risk from someone, dont feel sorry for them until you have taken measures to protected yourself from them. Dont try to insist or force treatment on them because you are not a doctor and your first priority anyway should be to protect yourself. If you are right about them and you fail to immediately take steps to protect yourself from them they will create serious psychological/prychiatric problems for you. If you think the above is too harsh, then the person DOES NOT have this extremely dangerous medical condition. Dont go around lightly accusing people of being insane or "needing help" - its highly defamatory and extremely offensive. People do funny things for all sorts of reasons. Dont play doctor. Abunyip 01:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

-- I wouldn't say avoid is the best advice. But one must be prepared to deal with this kind of a person. I have a similar outlook after working with someone with narcissistic personality disorder (diagnosed by several health/psych professionals). It would be unacceptable to insist that everyone avoids or even claim that I know what is best for someone like this. But being on a low echelon of professionals that works with clients with various disorders, I can relate to the anon comment. Beware when dealing with someone like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.230.145 (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside links

This article needs more citations/footnote references. Two of the "Outside Links" are well referenced, written by psychiatric professionals, and could be a great source of help in this regard. Two of the cites on this page are references to as yet non-existent pages on two persons. Either these pages must be created and referenced, or the material must be referenced from other sources or end up pulled. -I am Kiwi 11:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added an outside link to a self test checking for traits of psychopathic, narcissistic and histrionic personality disorders based on ICD-10 and DSM-IV that could be of help for ppl who are not sure which disorder (if any) they are actually suffering from. It got deleted by 'OhNoitsJamie' @ 15:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC) by a mouseclick right away - a mouseclick by which she even removed a factual error in the text I corrected and that took me some tiem to dig up a credible source for. I can understand that contributions of 'new' users are checked carefully, but this treatment feels very awkward. Here is the link to the test: http://www.counseling-office.com/surveys/test_psychopathy.phtml , please check yourself if it may damage the reputation of Wikipedia as 'OhNoitsJamie' claimed... Sys2007 (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No thanks, per WP:EL and WP:Reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising commercial sites. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

Appropriate artwork would enhance this article. For instance, there are paintings of physicians attending to "hysterical female patients" that could be placed alongside the History sectin. -I am Kiwi 11:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Good candidates for histrionic personality disorder

Paris Hilton seems to have this mental illness. I'm no doctor, but she seems to fit the diagnostic criteria like a glove.--aceslead 22:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A good many hollywood/ music industry types would seem to be candidates for evaluation IMO.Zoltar 8 12:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting observation, but even if I were a doctor, I wouldn't try to make a diagnosis based solely on the public image. For all we know, inside that seemingly vapid head of hers is a crazy-like-a-fox mad genius. I doubt it, but I'm just saying... -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know why this is classified as a disease! Don't worry, I'm no anti-psychiatry scion, but frankly, I think Histrionic Personality Disorder should just be re-named "Teenage Girl". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.38.185 (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is why there is the age cut-off in the general symptoms of personailty disorder - a lot of teenagers seem to show abnormal personality characteristics that they seem to grow out of. Egmason (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This DISORDER does seem drawn by a misogynist, but rest assured it is not a disease like you say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.50.205 (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No mental disorder is a disease (IMO) but they can be considered "illnesses"…they're not the exact same thing. ([User:Historian932|Historian932]] (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It was revealed 06-17-2012 that the accused child molester, Jerry Sandusky, will attempt to use Histrionic Personality Disorder in his defense. Zippy47710) (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Fictional histrionics

Could someone add a section in which literary characters or historical figures who likely had this illness could be listed? I think it would help people get a sense of what this disorder is.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.51.239 (talk • contribs)

That's a double edged sword though, I seem to spend so much time moving similar lists to seperate list articles before they overwhelm other text? --Zeraeph 17:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, it would become an all too tempting target for people to stray from the historical and literary, and violate WP:BLP in the process. Either that, or vandalized, (I briefly considered what would happen if I uploaded a picture of my ex-fiancee, but of course I'd never act on that impulse...) -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First character that comes to mind is Melanie Griffith's character "Lulu" aka Audrey in "Something Wild".

My high school psych teacher said Goldie Hahns (I know sp) character from the banger sisters seems to have it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxbulldogxx (talk • contribs) 09:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I bet Shiori from MARS has this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.14.34 (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Maria Crawford - Mansfield Park.
• Norman Spencer - What Lies Beneath
• Scarlet O'Hara - Gone With The Wind
• Amber Sweet - Repo! The Genetic Opera
• Jenna Maroney - 30 Rock
• Abigail Williams from The Crucible by Arthur Miller shows histrionic features but is much more narcissistic and antisocial than histrionic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.201.140 (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Emma Bovary - Madame Bovary Gaustave Flaubert Egmason (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Bellatrix Lestrange and Gilderoy Lockhart from Harry Potter. --2.102.55.173 (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Norman Spencer certainly does not have HPD; he likely has borderline personality disorder or sadistic personality disorder. Domineering, controlling behaviour and use of violence to achieve what one wants are not HPD features. When in public he is well-behaved, quiet, reserved and emotionally cold, whereas histrionics are very extrovert, over-emotional, attention-seeking, flirtatious and seductive. Jim Michael (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Repetitious?

Does this article seem to rehash the same things again and again? It seems to list symptoms three times under different headers and twice states that diagnosis is difficult, in different sections. Maybe this should be streamlined?Joyan 16:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Are all women histrionics?

It seems the DSM IV's characteristics for histrionic describes virtually ever female I have ever come into contact with, and surely every woman I have ever dated, except maybe the speech/voice thing. Maybe it's where I live, but women seem to just all be insecure, seek approval, and get as much attention as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.29.196 (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Shannone1 (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Wow. It may simply describe the women to whom you are attracted.

It's critical to be aware of the potential for phallogocentric bias behind a diagnosis such as this. While the disorder may be valid, disorders in the DSM do come and go (homosexuality is no longer thought to be pathological deviance, for example, as the ethico-political regime that thus classed it has significantly splintered, per force made room for other humanity). It's important not to pathologize in a blanket way all who exhibit these "symptoms." Psychoanalyst Luce Irigaray discussed "hysterical mimesis" as a feminine/feminist strategy to cope with exclusion from the masculine symbolic order. What is not representable in speech, what is not utterable, what is scoffed at and labeled spurious, darkly manipulative, out of order, or mad, when it is simply out of the bounds of the circumscriptly acceptable- again, this defined by a dominant regime of valuation- gets expressed by the mute, or differently signing, body, or by the hysterical subject. Irigaray speaks of a subject not naive to the meaning she wishes to relay, so not out of her head-- but strategic; hyperbole is the means by which to express a feminine jouissance that is excessive, by definition, but deleterious only to those who wish to strangle the proliferation of different meanings and ways of being. So rather than an empty, inauthentic empathy, one should consider the possibility of an empathy that is rarefied, that is larger than average-- so that if it is not matched, the one who falls short would seem anomalous to the one who is more feeling. In other words, there is not just one peering subjectivity to count. One should avoid snuffing, maybe out of envy or lack of familiarity, the potentiality for uncommon access to feeling that is more beacon, positing a new or alternate model, than disease. It is typical to be dismissive of emotion, which traditionally has been aligned with the body, with the feminine; but one should consider, too, attending to what it points. Miming hysteria- a performance grounded in fierce impetus, not playful or vapid play-acting- refers to a hyperbolic reassertion of what has been flouted or overwritten, a push back as vigorous as is negation, and it is performed with reasoned, and felt, cause. Perhaps the one shunted as suffering from histrionic personality disorder has, rather, something to teach. Emotion is, after all, key to moral development. Also, the egocentrism in relationships imputed to those with this "disorder" may, if one dares to entertain the possibility that those who invest emotionally in an overlarge way are not necessarily "touched," derive from a faulty sense of fusion with the Unique Woman (Kristevan vocabulary), a false memory of symbiosis with an impossible mother, one not seen as also autonomous, or desiring something other than the child. So-called egocentrism may be a craving after a dream of wholeness with a partner, or a wish for mutual and uncounted, unbridled giving, that goes unmet- so, the opposite of egocentrism, which is a fixation on the gift that returns only to the self (Cixous). The one who imposes a demarcation between self and other, who abjects the other, though surely in his rights, should perhaps be called the more egoistic. "The worldview or paradigm of exchange is actually conducting a continuous struggle against a hidden paradigm based on unilateral gift-giving, an (ideological) struggle that it is winning. We do not notice the gift paradigm or even know that it exists. Rather, we attribute isolated instances of unilateral giving to individual virtue, quirkiness, disguised self-interest or even codependency." -Genevieve Vaughan -L. Gutierrez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lianalupe (talk • contribs) 20:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt I live where the original commenter lives, and I assure you, I've never met a woman nor dated a woman that this didn't describe to a tooth. I don't think the suicide thing applied, but everything else. Wow... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.134.31 (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this personality disorder is too biased as an exemplification of extreme Western femininity, and it's not surprising this disorder is noticed in so many women, considering it's a common stereotype of women as it is. However, descriptions of disorders too often overgeneralize, so as another commenter said, you've got to watch out for the Forer effect. Also, you'd be surprised how selective people can be in who they hang out with and be unaware of it, sometimes to the point of ignoring all other types as if they don't exist. For example, I've never known or dated a woman who was histrionic, mainly because I unconsciously avoid these people like the plague. 207.255.31.17 (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NO, NOT ALL WOMEN SUFFER FROM HISTRIONIC PERSONALITY DISORDER. Though the stereotypical western girl may share similar charateristics with people suffering from this disorder, the two are not the same. Like in all personality disorders, the symptoms of histrionic personality disorder are sever and rigid; symptoms are expressed constantly, not just from time to time. These symptoms are unlikely to change without serious intervention, are often considered deviant by society's norms and mores, can be maladaptive and always cause distress or threaten the safety of the afflicted individual or those around them. I seriously doubt that 2 of the above commentors have 'never' met a woman that didn't seem to suffer from this disorder. Gentelmen, you are both offensive and shallow in your analysis of other's personalities; I'm sure your mothers would proud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.148.249 (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Forer article

Oh My God! This disorder fits me perfectly! I exibit a lot of these symptoms. What do I Do? El Presidante (talk) 16:01, February 8, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 01:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like this should be renamed "College Student Personality Disorder" -Jeremy Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.62.16.12 (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's because the description is vague and suffers from the problems of the Forer effect BrainMagMo (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In order to have a personality disorder, be it histrionic or another disorder, your life has to have become unmanageable. The personality traits have to have over taken your life in such a matter that it is causing you to have daily problems functioning. If someone has the traits of a histrionic personality it does not mean they have a histrionic personality disorder. Sumrsnow (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Histrionic/narcissistic personalities

I have been having an affair for many years with a person that displays these characteristics. This person demonstrates a behavior very similar to what you would associate with a histrionic/ narcissistic personality. It is very difficult to be sure. I am not a professional psychologist or psychiatrist, but her is what I have observe over the years:

It does require a lot of free time to provide them with the attention they constantly crave for. They can be ultra friendly and appear very caring. They will tell you that they love you, adore you and can’t live without you because they know that you will be stimulated to feed their craving for attention. At other times, they can be cold, cruel and show a lack of empathy for others. It is a personality that constantly seesaws between extreme positions. They are very bright and extremely manipulative. They will gradually attempt to control your person and mind. When they sense that they are loosing your attention, they will tell you that you should concentrate on your spouse. This is only a tactic to get you to concentrate on them. If you dropped them (and they don't have another partner) they will call you back and make an excuse about their behavior and tell you about their deep love for you. In reality, your sole purpose is to fill their craving for attention.

When they are not depressed, sex can be utterly unbelievable and kinky. Their craving for sex is limitless and most imaginative. They just want to do it everywhere and as often as possible. It flatters them a great deal when you take pictures of their naked body. Their impulsive drives and flirtatious behavior forces them to look for other partners to sustain their need for attention. When they identify someone they like, they can be extremely forward with that person. They don’t shy away from telling him of their deep desire. Once they have ensnared the person, they will have some excuse not to appear too “easy”. They can appear prude one minute and sexually pervasive the next. It can drive you crazy. Again the sole purpose of these swings is to get your full attention by keeping you focus on them exclusively. Obviously, you should not expect to be their sole source of interest after a while because they get bored easily! It requires a lot of imagination to sustain their interest, but it can be most interesting.

They want the ultimate love and attention. If you have another relationship, they will work very hard at breaking the relationship you have with your partner because they want your full attention. They are envious and jealous of your companion. They are extremely self-centered and continuously talk about themselves. Conversations are usually monologue about themselves, their money, possessions and accomplishments. You learn with time that most of their monologues are somewhat exaggerated. At times, it can be difficult to interrupt their self-centered narratives. They lie with such ease that it becomes a second nature for them. They can easily blur the line between truth and lies. They don’t show any constriction when you catch them lying. They will even try to make you believe a lie even when you know the truth. They are fascinating manipulators.

A word of advice, if you want this type of personify as a lover, make sure to protect yourself from their great abilities at trying to control you and thrash your mind. Don’t ever fall in love. They will destroy your sanity and your life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.103.23 (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I too have had a relationship with a woman showing these characteristics. When I met her I was in a relationship that was failing and she was a friend. She was married and we formed a good friendship based on good discussion. She was very attentive and combined with being beautiful i was immediately drawn to her charming personality, her apparent honesty and constant communication. What I realise now was that I was a source of attention for her and she had my attention completely on a daily basis. I was drawn into the saviour role as I heard never ending stories about her daily unhappiness and battles with her husband (2nd husband) for a woman who was 26 at the time. I provided a relief to what she related was her daily agony of her unhappy life. Now I understand that this was the over-emotional exageration and over embellishment of her unhappiness as she craved new and exciting. I also recall her constantly flirting with other men, constantly going out to coffee with them as "friends" and her relating how she just could not cope with her children.

I eventually left my relationship to live on my own and told her i thought we were drawing too close and did not want to interfere with her marriage, also other firends of hers had told her they were attracted to me. She immediately told me she loved me, we were soul mates, I was the one who truly knew her and she wanted to be with me and leave her husband for me. I was deeply in love with her and accepted her advances. I felt pressure to praise her and felt sucked into the role of hearing the exaggerated dilema's of her life, offering advice and solutions but feeling the frustrations that none of the advice or solutions were acted upon to help solve those issues. I was always given the excuse, "You and I are different and I am doing it my way." I realise now that if the dilemas of her unhappy marriage and other concerns weren't what she wanted solved, otherwise she would not be drawing any attention to herself, nor would she be embroiling herself in the middle of such wonderful drama.

Sex with her was amazing, but it was used as a tool, as ammunition to be pulled out when I tried to draw away from the frustrations of dealing with the deception of the affair and lack of motivation to change anything. If I drew away and stopped contact I would get completely hysterical phone calls and visits begging me to stay that she was coming to me and asking questions about whether I had found someone else. The attention was lavish and in hindsight completely over the top. However once I was drawn back to her she would shut it off, become cold and distant, making me chase, then the pattern would repeat itself once I got upset and decided this wasn't for me. In hindsight I can see I was a pawn, hidden in a box only to be pulled out when she wanted to play with me, it was all about her and had nothing to do with me. If I tried to break free I was drawn back in. If I tried to jump out of that box I was quickly berated with unbelievable anger and told how much I was hurting her and beng abusive to her by my attempts to do so. Eventually her husband left her and I had to be the unseen and unknown shoulder on the side and support mechanism, drawn in but held completely at arms length. Any attempt by me to enter the reality of her life was shut down by over the top emotions and threats then promises of change. Any emotion shown by me was coldly disregarded and not paid any attention to other than the accusation of my being abusive in venting frustration.

I felt driven completely insane via rapid changes of emotions on her part daily, constant shifting of position and constant drawing in and then pulling away that I broke free of the relationship by declaring the truth of it to her family and her ex-husband and then leaving.

Notwithstanding I had just created a situation of outstanding drama and attention towards her, exactly what she constantly craved and wanted, whether that be negative or not. I was publicly disgraced and accussed of various misdemeanours and abuse. Her husband was drawn back to return to the marital home and then accussed of threatening her life and physical abuse. My god it was good for her, she was the talk of the town.

Some time later I formed another rleatioship with a woman who was so completely the reverse of her. Immediately for months afterwards she pursued me, attempted to seduce me and told me I was the one, I was the only one and she wanted me to choose her, we belonged together. I resisted for months but was drawn in by threats and over elaborate attempts at seduction. She could not bare that I was showing my attention to another. I was happy in my relationship and did my best to limit contact, not get sucked in but it was constant. I was rung day and night and all sorts of guilt trips applied to me. It was as if I was single handedly destroying her. The pressure form this after 18 months of it ruined my other relationship and I ended up alone.

Once I was alone and paid attention to her again, in the space of three weeks I was drawn in told that we were soul mates and visited with over the top sex and photos asent to me and very sexual text messages and then withdrawn from and treated with contempt.

I eventually lost the plot and became so angry and confused - It was not til I read this article and ticked every single box in the description of her that I realised this was a never ending battle I would not win. I could not tell her about this condiction because nothing is wrong with her, according to her. So i left and cut her off all together, changed numbers and address. It had to be done.

It was not only just me, it was every facet of her life. Her brother was married recently and she pulled a turn about stress and her children in order to draw the attention to her. She uses her two children born to two different fathers as pawns in custody games with them on a continuous basis with them and then accussing them of being abusive when they get angry about it, or that they don't care about their kids when they try not to react. Either way, No-one will ever win with a person like this. If you see anyhting remotely similar in your situations - RUN!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.112.249.14 (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

-- Actually the second story here more closely resembles borderline personality disorder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.41.120 (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti-male bias

Again (for the nth time), a WikiProject Psychology entry discriminates against men. Under the "In females" section, woman are (again) described as victims, while under "In males" men are described as perpetrators. It is quite subtle, but it is there.

This contradicts Wikipedia's NPOV. I'm sorry, it just does. Please let's clean this sort of thing up. Personally I'm rather fed-up with the creeping and insidious feminist misandry that pervades many WikiProject Psychology articles. It's about time we became objective about it, and stop this "reverse discrimination", where we consistently blame men for the ills of the world. --Atikokan (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A better approach might be to fix it yourself. Whatever404 (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed section, opinion of Dr. Hahn

I am troubled by the inclusion of the following:

However, Psychiatrist Dr. Rhoda Hahn supposes that it may be more often diagnosed in women because attention-seeking and sexual forwardness are typically considered to be less socially acceptable for women than for men, and, as suggested by Jonathan Oore, a more efficient means of initial social advancement.

While the quote may be valid and correctly referenced (I have not checked this), it is my personal opinion (I respect your right to have another opinion) that including it gives the wrong overall impression. I note, in particular, that the claim that it is less socially acceptable for women to be attention seeking is highly dubious: Not only would I consider it highly accepted, but would also argue that it something that most women do. (I do not have good references at hand, but The Female Brain could be a starting point. I would also assume that most others have made the same experience in person, in the first place.) The corresponding statement about "sexual forwardness" may hold; however, is rapidly becoming dated.

Further, the very idea that women would be less prone to this disorder verges on the absurd. When this disorder is discussed (including earlier comments on this talk page), there are almost invariably reactions along the lines of "All women have Histrionic Personality Disorder."---indeed, my own reaction has always been that it is just an extreme form of "normal/typical" female behaviour.

In effect, Dr. Hahn's claim is comparable to "Men are found to be taller than 2 meters more often than women because tallness is less accepted in men.".

I have added the Disputed-section tag for now. 88.77.153.96 (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the material in question (as cited on the history page) and taken down the "Factual accuracy" dispute. Rocketpop (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Treatment section

There is nothing in the references cited that suggests that Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) should ever be used as a treatment for HPD. I consulted the works cited and amended the treatment section to include valid recommended therapies. Also, the previously stated assertion that Group Therapy should be avoided altogether is also incorrect, according to the sources; rather, it can be beneficial if moderated. This has also been noted. Seduisant (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

yes; read The Bell Jar as to ECT. The film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest also gives a useful take. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lianalupe (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted section

Deleted section on the etymology of the word "Hysteria" because it seemed irrelevant and overly political (for lack of a better word). It didn't really do anything to communicate the definition of Histrionic Personality Disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.101.142 (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont agree. We cant airbrush out historical ideas because these days they wouldnt be considered politically correct. Also it explains the inherent female bias in the concept of "histrionics" and the persecution of "witches". The female bias of HPD remains controversial these days as well. --Penbat (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Vampires?

On the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanguine_(disambiguation) there is a link to "Vampire Community" that links to this page. I presume that this is incorrect. 24.113.52.123 (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tarot and histrionics

Below is the reading for the Queen of Wands (reversed) in the Rider Waite Tarot:

Queen of Wands, when reversed: The dark essence of fire behaving as water, such as steam: The natural embodiment of passion and sensuality, who will do anything to the be the center of attention. A seducer who calculatingly dons the guise of what others desire. A cocky and domineering person, who pushes anyone or anything aside to get what she wants. One who is vengeful and quick to take offense without good cause. May indicate infidelity and contempt for a relationship.

Interesting to see that this personality has been noticed for some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.81.191.1 (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is not sourced enough...

As Abunyp says, "Many of the traits listed are common human behaviours in normal people at various times. Psychiatric conditions are very difficult to diagnose and you certainly cannot diagnose HPD in a person from the description provided in this article. In fact its dangerous to do so."

I highly agree with this statement, and perhaps the most important part of it is that the description provided in this article is insufficient to prove that this is an actual psychiatric condition and not just a certain personality — and I believe that if HPD is to be diagnosed as, or is to continue to be diagnosed as, a bona fide psychiatric disorder rather than just a personality or personality difference, this wiki article is going to have to go out of its way to be a lot more specific than it is right now, in terms of parsing out the clinical certainties having to do with clear differences between a histrionic personality disorder and a histrionic personality.

What exactly makes a "histrionic personality" a "disorder to begin with? I have my skepticism that it can even be called a "disorder" to begin with, but if there are clinical reasons why it can, those clinical reasons are not explicitly stated right now, leading to a wiki article on the phenomenon that freely blurs the lines between the "disorder" form of this thing and the "regular" form of this thing (if there is one).

One other main concern I have with the classification of this thing as a "disorder" is that the psychiatric community itself doesn't have a psychiatric medication treatment for it that will help it to any degree, large or small, just like they don't have a psychiatric medication for dependent personality disorder either (which itself is a contentious term because apparently there is a non-clinical dependent type of person versus a clinical type of dependent person, the latter of which is assumed to be due to the person's depth of fear; if it's deep enough, the person is clinical and if it's not deep enough, the person is not; this is very ambiguous, unverifiable and dubious). The apparent lack of an ability, according to both the articles I'm mentioning, to give a clear pattern of treatment that can also include medication, in my mind casts severe doubt on the idea that HPD and DPD even deserve to be clinically called "disorders". Most people seem to be aware of the fact that there is a difference between a certain personality that needs psychological help but is clinically 'normal', and someone with a definable personality disorder who needs compulsory long-term psychiatric assistance.

Bottom line, I have major problems with this article, and I think that perhaps the clinically-knowledgeable people over in WikiProject Psychology might help us to get this article more clinical-sounding, as well as perhaps the dependent personality disorder article as well. I'll tag both those articles for review by them, if they aren't tagged as such already. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess the distinction you draw is like narcissism v narcissistic personality disorder where a certain amount of narcissism is perfectly healthy, so in theory we should have a separate "histrionic behaviour" or "histrionics" article. --Penbat (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should, if indeed we want to give the "disorder" version of this article any credence at all--which I guess we have to, considering it's in the psychiatric handbooks as official disorders (ICD-10, the DSMs, etc), and to create controversy by re-titling or deleting this page would probably not go over well with the representatives of the APA and similar organisations. We've already had one lady from the APA on here who has bitched at us about "copyright infringement", so I don't doubt that outright deletion or re-titling of this article to take away the "disorder" classification would probably make for a HUGE backlash. Not that I wouldn't do it anyway, if it were all up to me. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Histrionic personality disorder

The reason for the long-been iffiness of this article is simple. "[E]xcessive need for approval and inappropriate seductiveness" are culturally relative phenomenon. Any disorder stemming directly from interactions with "histrionic" types is a social disorder, which ought to be learned in the context of sociology, not psychology, while some of the real personality disorders such as anti-social behavior may be secondary effects partly caused by such social conflicts.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 07:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"L. Gutierrez"/feminist rant section

Histrionic personality disorder, as classified in the DSM, has naught to do with gender and is very rarely even considered as a diagnosis. lianalupe brings a pile of uncited, irrelevant, feminist drivel to this article. Not only has she clearly misunderstood the point & context of the article, she tries to sway the reader with unintelligible use of pretentious wording & new age feminist rambling. I find the idea of anyone reading this article & even remotely correlating it with the standard behavior of women absolutely repulsive, that includes someone who would find the need to write some nonsense to defend the honor of women. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. While the DSM is ever-evolving & a very imperfect guide, homosexuality was removed in the 1986 DSM-III revision. I do believe that was long enough ago to stop qualifying as a good example. Indeed, women were once diagnosed with hysteria, believed to be a uniquely female affliction, and institutionalized. This section would make more sense under the wiki article for hysteria as it is not synonymous with histrionic personality disorder. If you'd like to dispute the validity of the DSM, don't pick & choose which disorders will allow you to flaunt your own bias & "feminazi" propaganda. This is prime example of why Wikipedia, though perhaps one of the best sources for information, is not a valid source for cited research in school papers. I've tried to remove this section once, only to have it magically reappear. If it's that important to you, cite your materials properly & place it in a relevant article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokencurio (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I support the removal of this content as rant/blog material, non-encyclopedic, and extreme WP:POV. --Seduisant (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

the feminist perspective is entirely valid as a point of view (although personally i dont agree with it) - they also criticise borderline PD. But this is just an uncited non-encyclopedic rant and i support removal.--Penbat (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldnt object if it was much more concise, focused and properly sourced.--Penbat (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone is gay

Histrionic Personality Disorder is more often diagnosed in women than men, and when diagnosed in men often associated with homosexuality.(See: "Clinical applications of cognitive therapy," p. 260)

They routinely attach sexual motivations to other people while denying any in themselves, and are superficial, insincere, and shallow with others.(See: "The new Harvard guide to women's health," p. 457-458) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey Parrot (talk • contribs) 21:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Celtic people?

Are celtic people more likely to have histrionic personality disorder? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.144.156 (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt it, most mental disorders have *relatively* stable rates across ethnocultural groups (although how they get manifested, and how they are best treated, can vary widely according to cultural content). Why would you think this would be the case with Celts? If anything I would like people from groups like Italians and/or Middle Easterners (especially Semitic ones [meaning both Jews and Arabs]) *living in Euro-American cultures* would tend to get overdiagnosed…perhaps you think Celts are more likely to act out because the culture is *generally* less emotional (so people's feelings build up and then explode)? (or don't you agree with that stereotype to begin with?) P.S. A great book on the relationship between psychology and ethnocultural background is "Ethnicity and Family Therapy"; they release a new edition every few years I'm sure there are chapters on Irish, Angl-Americans, etc. maybe even Welsh. Historian932 (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Clinical?

What is the basis for the "warning" at the top of the article differentiating between Histrionic Personality Type and Disorder insofar as it defines one as "clinical" and the other as not…what real meaning does that have? (Because some "professionals" choose to define one of them as such? I don't think that changes the person or their behavior.) Historian932 (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the "warning" into this talk thread because it's a non-standard warning, and replaced it with {{expert-subject}}. Here's what it said: "This article may conflate the histrionic Personality Type, which is not clinical, with the histrionic personality disorder, which is. More, and clearer, explanations and sources from exclusively psychiatrically-verifiable origins, should be provided by editors to this page, to lessen and/or eliminate this alleged conflation." It was added on Oct. 14, 2010 by Kikodawgzzz (talk · contribs). Hopefully that helps. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

DSM-V proposed changes

The DSM-V is proposing a somewhat controversial revamping of personality disorders. The proposed revision needs to be copied here (under fair use) and explanation of the nature of the inclusion of this disorder into the narcissistic/antagonistic subtypes. I unfortunately do not have access to reliable sources. John Holly (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ruth E

Removed the 'Ruth E' nonsense that's been there for 6 years unchallenged.

It was added by an account whose only edits (all from 2006-2007) were vandalism - varying from dding single nonsense sentences to this, cyanide, and cat breed articles .. to simply blanking the declaration of independence text. This has been challenged explicitly for some 9 months now and no cite can be found. In fact, discussions exist trying to find this fictional character as a result of the claim in this article. The linked external thread suggests perhaps the ~1850ish 'Anna O' might be the real source, but that doesn't agree with the actual sentence in the article as it currently stands (a landmark case illustrating the DSM-IV revisions).

The edit in question that inserted it:

    05:23, 7 November 2006‎ 216.48.13.116 (talk)‎ . . (10,214 bytes) (+119)‎ . . (→‎History of the DSM-IV diagnosis) (undo)

By all means check the user page for that IP and see the other contributions. If any source can be found for this material (that predates 2006, to avoid possibility of self-referencing) by all means re-add it. The pre-2006 requirement shouldn't be onerous if the claim is true, since to influence the DSM-IV the case would have to have been widely publicized prior to 1996. Tofof (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Impact of recent student edits

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

• 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
• 1 - A few minutes of work needed
• 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
• 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
• 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Love

The characteristics section says that histrionics have a 'limited or minimal capability of experiencing love', yet one of the DSM criteria is 'considers relationships to be more intimate than they actually are'. This apparent contradiction should be clarified / corrected in the article. If a histrionic cannot truly love, how is it that she considers someone she first met last week as her dream lover or best friend? Limited capability indicates that they cannot feel strong attachments to anyone, yet more intimate that it actually is suggests quick, strong attachment and connection. Histrionics are prone to becoming depressed when a relationship or friendship ends. If she doesn't feel love or attachment, why is she very upset and depressed when rejected? Histrionics are typically good-looking and have good social skills, so they can easily, quickly find new partners / friends to replace them. They're never going to be alone (unless they want to be, which is unlikely) and they are certainly not in the slightest bit shy or reserved in approaching people they like, so why do they feel so unhappy when someone leaves them? 188.29.4.50 (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The statement in Love is miss-cited - that is to say the sources contradict the statement. It should be removed.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I had commented on this claim above, noting that it did not seem correct to me; I found the relevant section of the cited text available online at Personality Disorders: Recognition and Clinical Management on page 75 passim; I can't find any support there for the claim that HPD involves a "minimal capacity for experiencing love", so I'm going to go ahead and delete it. - thanks! - bonze blayk (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Histrionic ability to 'love'

Re: the limited ability of the histrionic to "love". I think you need to look into this from the angle of all the Cluster B disorders showing a marked lack of empathy. While the histrionic might make a quick attachment, they use that attachment for selfish manipulation, then just as quickly lose interest in that attachment. The last sentence in the next to the last paragraph at this link http://www.ulm.edu/~palmer/AntisocialandHistrionicPersonalityDisorders documents the histrionic's quick ability to abandon their own children. The quick forming of attachments have nothing to do with the "love" that a non personality disordered person feels. The histrionic's love is "shallow", fitting in with the criteria of "shallow emotions".

Too many automatically take the term "provacative" to mean sexually provacative. Histrionics are provacative in the sense that they will do things to provoke you to anger, shock, sympathy or some other reaction, all for attention, so you will "watch them." Provacative behavior can lead to bullying, again showing a marked lack of empathy for their target.

The ability to empathize comes from the ability to love. This is why that the limited ability to love correctly describes the histrionic.

As the above link also shows, Histrionic Personality Disorder is thought by some psychiatrists to be the female equivalent of the Anti-Social Personality Disorder (i.e. Sociopath, Psychopath).

If you leave out the discription of reduced ability to love, you remove the key element of "why" this is a serious personality disorder, often with dimensional features, or co-morbid, with other serious personality defects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctdiscern (talk • contribs) 15:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion of Histrionic Personality Disorder in the DSM-IV begins with the statement:

"The essential feature of Histrionic Personality Disorder is pervasive and excessive emotionality and attention-seeking behavior."

Regarding relationships and "love", the section on "Associated Features and Disorders" begins with

"Individuals with Histrionic Personality Disorder may have difficult achieving emotional intimacy in romantic or sexual relationships."

I wouldn't see any problem including that; however, "emotional intimacy" and "love" are distinguishably different emotional relationships. E.g., one might love another person, and demonstrate that love through one's behaviors, but not be capable of being open about one's feelings and sharing one's innermost thoughts.

Regarding the WP:SPS source you cite, which I've archived here: Antisocial and Histrionic Personality Disorders (source at [1]), I'm not much impressed, since the first statement begins:

"Antisocial personality disorder, also referred to as sociopathy or psychopathy…"

I'm not an expert, but some things are crystal clear to me: APD and psychopathy are distinctly different diagnostic constructs - see Psychopathy on the unfortunate confusion between the two.

Moreover, the source Palmer is relying on - Sociopathy as an adaptation, Harpending and Sobus 1987 - to link HPD to "female sexual cheating strategies" and thus liken them to the cheating strategies of psychopathic males refers not to HPD, but "Briquet's Hysteria":

"Sociopathy in males and hysteria (Briquet's syndrome) in females very closely fit predictions from a model of characteristics of cheaters or nonreciprocators in a complex social system."

And Briquet's Hysteria is absolutely not the same thing as HPD.

So… I really am not seeing a whole lot of value here in terms of establishing that "histrionics have a limited ability to love", just a mass of confusion between disorders that have (conceptually) different core characteristics, but may on occasion present in similar fashion in behaviors.

If you have some WP:RS that make this association, feel free to add it back. I'm thinking that adding the statement I cite from the DSM-IV here would be helpful in noting the nature of the relationship challenges faced by (some) persons diagnosed with HPD.

thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Briquet's Syndrome

Your link to Briquet's Syndrome actually links to Somatization Disorder (also Briquet's Syndrome or Hysteria) and contains an additional link to hysteria.

The hysteria article contains this quote "Many now consider hysteria to be a legacy diagnosis (i.e., a catch-all junk diagnosis),[4] particularly due to its long list of possible manifestations: one Victorian physician cataloged 75 pages of possible symptoms of hysteria and called the list incomplete.[5" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteria

Histrionic personality disorder is the newest term for hysteria. The somatic symptoms are a component of the personality. Thus Briquet's Syndrome or Hysteria or Histrionic Personality disorder are interchangable, depending on context.

From free dictionary.com: Hysteria Definition The term "hysteria" has been in use for over 2,000 years and its definition has become broader and more diffuse over time. In modern psychology and psychiatry, hysteria is a feature of hysterical disorders in which a patient experiences physical symptoms that have a psychological, rather than an organic, cause; and histrionic personality characterized by excessive emotions, dramatics, and attention-seeking behavior'. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hysteriadisorder

Re: histrionic and psychopathy:

"The current edition of the PCL-R officially lists three factors (1.a, 1.b,, and 2.a), which summarize the 20 assessed areas via factor analysis. The previous edition of the PCL-R[5] listed two factors. Factor 1 is labelled "selfish, callous and remorseless use of others". Factor 2 is labelled as "chronically unstable, antisocial and socially deviant lifestyle". There is a high risk of recidivism and currently small likelihood of rehabilitation for those who are labelled as having "psychopathy" on the basis of the PCL-R ratings in the manual for the test, although treatment research is ongoing.

PCL-R Factors 1a and 1b are correlated with narcissistic personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder. They are associated with extraversion and positive affect. Factor 1, the so-called core personality traits of psychopathy, may even be beneficial for the psychopath (in terms of nondeviant social functioning)" See Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist

Again, you are seeing more or less interchangeable terminology in regard to anti-social, sociopath, psychopathology depending on the context or author and his or her gut feeling for the words.

(Correctdiscern (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC))

Again, feel free to add statements that are supported by Reliable Sources. This is all Original Research, [or Synthesis - bonze blayk (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)] and that's not adequate for including assertions in a Wikipedia article. - thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)