Christine wrote:For you Pris I took the test ... what a load of crap!! LMAO
Of the multiple choice questions not a single one fit what I would really say. Of course they have to make the answers fit in "their" predetermined categories, all contrived too!
So I am happily normal! Yay!
True psychopathy, we all know what that is and don't need no stinking badges or labels to let us know.
Pris wrote:Do you think I am a psychopath?
1inMany wrote:Pris wrote:Do you think I am a psychopath?
Care to define psychopath?
Cathryn wrote:Oh gosh lol, I don't usually comment on 'psychopath' threads, its such a huge subject and very serious, making light of it as the above 'test' does can have implications for people of a more 'sensitive' nature. The thing is: it is very difficult to label someone as a psychopath because it is on a continum from mild narcissim (we all have traits) along to a fully fledged psycho.
A test completed by a successful psychopath can never be absolute because they know how to answer the questions. Bob Hare (Alberta, Canada) who has the dubious reputation of the world expert says he has been fooled on more than one occasion. that it is very difficult to diagnose even with his 'psychopathy checklist'. The administered test also needs to be backed by personal observation, additional questioning, historical evidence and many more points before it can be said a person fits the profile.
Part of the problem is that it is unethical and almost impossible to conduct a study from a random population, most studies are conducted in prisons where the psychopathic population rises from 4% (general population) to somewhere between 16 and 24%. Successful psychopaths never get caught. Plus there is a fundamental difference between male and female psychopaths, even though evidence suggests predominantly male (4:1) aprox, but a female has a different way of 'operation' which has been described as 'light the blue touch paper and stand well back' getting a rise from stirring the pot and watching the fallout, by whatever devious means possible. Thus they are not part of the action and rarely does their pathology become obvious, the ratio is likely to be more even than evidence suggests.
So what I am trying to say is the above test is way off base just enjoy and laugh but don't take it seriously pleeeease.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests