(Original post by NeuralGroove)
Right, a few asides here. For one thing, I'm not denying that the people you call 'psychopaths' exist, just denying that any real, meaningful diagnostic criteria exists to enable such a diagnosis. Hare's checklist is famous for simply stating that there is a syndrome in which people are glib and unempathetic and then attempting to test to see if people are glib and unempathetic; it doesn't explain why, to what extent or even that this is necessarily detrimental and an established syndrome. Furthermore, its accuracy and validity has been pretty much dismissed by many prominent scientists. I do think that there is an issue here, but it is better described by many subsets of specific syndromes, but this really isn't the point of this argument.
My conviction that you are deeply and inherently wrong about in this issue stems from the fact that an unqualified poster on an internet forum can offer a 'diagnosis' that so affects people's lives based on two paragraphs of information from one perspective. To do so is fundamentally negligent, dishonest and unethical, regardless of what experience you think you have.
If we're going to quibble about who reads what, I'd point out that when I offered to attempt to answer any questions you have, you responded: "no you haven't".
It seems from the duration of this conversation that you are not, as I first thought, someone genuinely interested in the cognitive sciences. Instead, you appear to be irrational, uninformed and driven by an emotional conviction about your mother. Now, I can understand precisely why you feel this way, but arguing from such a perspective of certainty and emotional fragility is unscientific and unhelpful. I know you've repeatedly stated that you aren't a psychiatrist, but I wish to make it clear that the conversation should have ended there. These issues are better left to learned, accredited professionals.
To answer your final question, I must raise another question, with some contextualisation. Over the past few years, I've volunteered in a care home for the severely neurologically impaired. Their actions are often immensely, unwittingly, hurtful to those who love them and their levels of cognitive function are, in many cases, diminished far beyond what would allow them to survive in the outside world.
To apply your acid test of human worth:
"What would you do to resolve the problem of psychopaths in this world? Do you not see them as a problem? Have you ever met a psychopath? Do you think they are beneficial to the advancement of our species? Do you think their actions and way of thinking are commendable?"
Now, like with your 'psychopaths', I see their condition as a tragic challenge to science and medicine. My answer to both is that better science, progress and understanding is required to benefit these people.
As with either group, I don't feel that they 'are beneficial to the advancement of our species'. Mainly because I don't see that there is such a thing as the advancement of a species; there is no end goal in our evolution, and I seek not to eugenically filter the gene pool. I do, however, strongly believe that we need to concentrate on the advancement of our society, making life fairer, more enjoyable and less hostile for each individual. In that sense, these people, and our tolerance and understanding of them, is essential to working towards our end goal of a fair, beneficial world in which to live. My ideal society does not involve your horrific, degrading, supercilious, emotionally damaged plans of genocide. (I make the comment on genocide as you said that a "Psychopath holocaust [is not needed]...yet".
Do I think the actions and thought processes of either group are commendable? No. Do I think that they are a sign that these people are, to use your word, "worms"? Even less so. Instead, I simply realise that they are as much a product of their central meat computer as I am, and that my values and ideals don't apply to them. Now, if I see the possibility of improving their quality of life, then I see few ethical qualms about doing so.
Whilst a 'psychopath' might see my 'kindness as a sign of weakness', I see it as a sign of strength of the most crucial kind, one that I would not give up for any amount.
I think it a shame that you still accuse me of lying, as it furthers my cause none to do so. I have tried my best to honestly disagree with you, but I now see that you regard your views as absolutes, which only 'psychopaths' and those who 'wish to tell you what to do' would disagree with. That, to me, combined with your claims that I am trying to silence you, is a sign that this conversation is best ended. I think you most likely have a number of things that you need to resolve yourself. I wish you all the best.