{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027306967984934087, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011299435028248588, 'mean_word_length': 4.97191011235955, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The role of antisociality in the psychopathy construct: comment on Skeem and Cooke (2010).

J. Skeem and D. J. Cooke (2010) asserted that Hare and Neumann consider criminality to be an essential component of the psychopathy construct. The assertion, presented in the guise of a debate on the nature of psychopathy, is neither accurate nor consistent with the clinical and empirical literature on psychopathy to which Hare and Neumann have contributed. Broadly defined antisociality, not criminality per se, is considered to be part of the psychopathy construct. Skeem and Cooke also expressed concerns that the popularity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (R. D. Hare, 2003) inhibits the development and use of other instruments, that it has become the construct it measures, that it deviates from its clinical roots, and that it conflates criminality with personality. These and related issues are addressed, and it is suggested that the arguments proffered by Skeem and Cooke are not convincing, nor do they provide clear directions for theory and research.