Should There Be The Primary Source Of Psychopathology?

All forms of psychopathology—from mild depression to severe schizophrenia—have had a complex, if not contradictory relationship with the public and even those considered experts in the field. After compiling research through both secondary sources and primary sources, there was an obvious sense of discourse between what was right and what was wrong, even within the basic idea of what designates someone as suffering or not suffering from psychopathology. As a result, it seems much less that there are experts in the field of psychopathology, but rather are experts in the field of theorizing about psychopathology. Such a claim does not discredit those who have studied psychopathology and are deemed experts, such as Dr. Thomas Widiger or Dr. R.J.R.

However, this alleged misinformation may not be caused by The Kim Foundation, but rather by lack of proper and/or reported diagnosis of those affected by some form of psychopathology. The true cause, again, cannot be known as so many factors come into play. There is even a crossover between psychopathology and other fields. For example, Dr. Widiger explained that a sociopath and a psychopath are, by definition, technically the same person. It is who is using the term that determines who is what. For a sociologist, some afflicted with psychopathy is considered a sociopath, while, to a psychologist, they are a psychopath. However, there are still blurred lines between this ideology as some psychopathology experts believe there is a difference between sociopathy and psychopathy from how they begin, how they are diagnosed, and the symptoms. Other sources claim the major difference is that one will attempt to kill you while the other won’t (Medical Daily). This gray area does not cause difficulty with diagnosis, but it causes difficulty in the classification of what can be