One might insightfully argue the whole point of the psychopath is precisely that it doesn't show. I recommend Cleckley, whose definition is seminal in The Mask of Sanity, [1] originally 1941 but prefer his 1988 fifth edition especially for its rather disconsolate preface. But even a cursory review of either will trivially show the comparison does not hold.
Begin your reading on page 346, at the heading "Pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love." After that, review Section Two for its many examples of psychopathic (mis)behavior in the marital context.
One might insightfully argue the whole point of the psychopath is precisely that it doesn't show. I recommend Cleckley, whose definition is seminal in The Mask of Sanity, [1] originally 1941 but prefer his 1988 fifth edition especially for its rather disconsolate preface. But even a cursory review of either will trivially show the comparison does not hold.
[1] https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/personality/psychopathy/194... - despite the filename, this is the 1988 edition. I like my paper edition (I made my paper edition) but the PDF will serve well enough for your reference here.
One might equally insightfully consider that psychopaths get married.
Begin your reading on page 346, at the heading "Pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love." After that, review Section Two for its many examples of psychopathic (mis)behavior in the marital context.
2 replies →