I do not have a problem with lay or media usage of psychopath, as it is a meaningful and well understood term.  On the other hand I have a strong objection to lay usage of schizophrenia, which is lazy, inaccurate and stigmatizing.   I have a question to this effect on RG, so far to little effect.

What is the evidence that researchers no longer use the term psychopath?

"Two dozen mental health experts believed they could do better, and the result is the highly anticipated book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President,” which officially goes on sale next week...

Remaining silent, Drs. Judith Herman and Bandy Lee contend in their prologue, would violate the public trust when a president “shows signs of clear, dangerous mental impairment” as, they believe, this one does. Most of the chapters dig into those “signs” and make the case for Trump’s mental impairment — with gusto...

Those suffering from “Trump anxiety disorder,” as one chapter calls it, will have no trouble accepting that the president exhibits malignant narcissism, a sociopathy, paranoia, a delusional detachment from reality, and more."

Sharon Begley  STAT Sep 29  2017  (emphasis added)

Thanks for getting back tome Mr. Gordon! To clarify: the term 'psychopath' as well as the term 'sociopath', doesn't appear in the DSM, nor has its use been approved by any psychological associations. The book you are mentioning is sort of the thing that I'm talking about, a book where people try and label someone they haven't treated! It's absolutely unethical and doesn't become less so just because they avoid the word 'diagnosis'. While the book has the appearance of being valid and authentic, I would argue that this is exactly the sort of pseudo-psychiatry that's designed to grab attention and sell copies, not to actually add anything to the psychiatric community. I guess my question is what are we doing to STOP that sort of thing?

"I would argue that this is exactly the sort of pseudo-psychiatry that's designed to grab attention and sell copies"

   I have not read this book, but surely there is overwhelming public interest in establishing Trump's mental state, and any contribution however half-baked must be welcome.   We have the very real possibility of reckless and delusional rhetoric triggering a nuclear war.   

"However, it is difficult to determine the extent of an environmental influence on the development of psychopathy because of evidence of its strong heritability.[82]"

From Wikipedia

So what is being inherited here?  Is this not just a matter of semantics?

As much as I appreciate your responses, please let me be perfectly clear. 'Sociopathy' or 'psychopathy' is NOT a diagnosis. We are not talking about serial killers, nor are we talking about sex offenders. We are talking about people with a serious personality disorder. Some of them may very well be predators, but that doesn't make it okay to apply that definition to everyone who lives with this disorder. 

 Dehumanizing people with severe mental illness is wrong. That is not the question because that is NOT up for debate. The question is what are we doing to STOP people from using the term. If that isn't what you want to weigh in on, then this is not the thread for you. 

I do not think that as well-informed clinicians and researchers we should stop using the term psychopathy or sociopathy. As someone who has done research on psychopathy and worked with people who had many psychopathic traits, I think it's a very useful construct that adds to our understanding of personality. There has been plenty of discussion on whether or not antisocial behavior is part of the construct, but that is not really relevant for this discussion.

I do agree that the term has often been misused in media, and that many lay people might have the wrong image of what psychopathy entails. This is the case however with most mental disorders, and we don't stop using those simply because others might understand it wrong. There is always more nuance in an individual's psychopathology than meets the eye, but we need to be able to communicate about it in some way, which is why we use labels. The term psychopathy is still very much alive in both serious scientific research and clinical practice (especially within forensic psychology). It does not aim to dehumanize anyone, merely to get a clear picture of personality pathology. More research is always necessary but I would certainly not condemn the term simply because of the way it is used outside of science/clinical practice.

Furthermore, you cannot get people to stop using a term that is ingrained in their language somehow, you can however try to add nuance to the construct by educating lay people in times where there may be many questions. Books written for lay people but by researchers/clinicians with a more nuanced scientific view might actually help, rather than make things worse.

 "Dehumanizing people with severe mental illness is wrong."

So, how do we describe those with a severe mental illness without using generally accepted and meaningful terms (at least in academic circles), like Schizophrenia? Surely every well-established term essential for accurate communication is bound to become dehumanizing or stigmatizing since the conditions themselves are inherently unpleasant?

Why do some people become psychopaths? PRIZE LECTURE Date: 19 October, 2017, 6.30pm – 7.30pm Location: The Royal Society, London Professor Essi Viding delivers this year’s Rosalind Franklin Prize lecture on her research into psychopathy. Discover why some individuals might be more likely to develop psychopathy, and what can be done to prevent it.

Why do some people become psychopaths? PRIZE LECTURE Date: 19 October, 2017, 6.30pm – 7.30pm Location: The Royal Society, London Professor Essi Viding delivers this year’s Rosalind Franklin Prize lecture on her research into psychopathy. Discover why some individuals might be more likely to develop psychopathy, and what can be done to prevent it.

I arrived at the Royal Society an hour early for the lecture on Psychopathy. I failed to get in, as did many hundreds in the queue behind me. Clearly this term resonates with the student population.

Date: 23/1/18 Time: 6:10 pm

Venue: LG01, Professor Stuart Hall Building, Goldsmiths (see http://www.gold.ac.uk/find-us/)

Speaker: Jennifer Rees

Title: Exploring the Mind of a Psychopath

Abstract In recent years, psychopathy has risen in prominence in the awareness and interest of the public. TV shows such as ‘Dexter’ and popular books such as Jon Ronson’s ‘The Psychopath Test’ were consumed by millions. Consequently, most are aware that psychopathy is characterised by lack of empathy, guilt and remorse. Jennifer’s talk expands on this common pre-existing knowledge by exploring the lesser-known facets of the condition; what can the field of neuroscience offer to illuminate our understanding of the condition?