I agree with the OP of this thread when he said that re-labelling psycho/sociopathology for the new DSM is an argument in semantics. And I believe
Scatterbrain hit the nail on the head describing the difference between the two.
A psychopath, as in "psychotic episode", has a poor sense of right/wrong, is a slave to their immediate desires (impulsive yet varied, opposed to
addiction), incapable of empathy (and if empathy is shown it is easily identifiably faux, ie-learned behavior, acting, etc). As for the cause, well,
it could be genetic, drug induced, physical/psychological damage/trauma/underdevelopment, or any combination there of.
A sociopath, root word "socio", has it's roots in social upbringing. A sociopath knows social norms and can have feelings/empathy for those close
to them, but s/he can turn it off at will for their own advantage or for the protection of their interests. Moral and ethical concerns/rules are an
illusion created by society and are considered a henderence to their personal interests, hence a total disregard of following the "rules"
cognatively and rationally. They are not necessarily impulsive, but rather calculating and capable of bold action when it comes to their interests
(unusual risk taking). They are good actors of empathy as well. As for the cause, blame it on upringing, environmental influence, indoctrination, or
Bundy = psychopath
Manson = sociopath (ok, there's a little psychopath in there
Dahmer = just messed up. That's a DSM term I think.
The key word some keep dancing around is empathy, or rather the inability to show true empathy, mixed with some compulsivness in the case of the
psychopath (psychopaths are disorganised, not sociopaths). Hence the glossy broad term anti-social personality disorder. In terms of diagnosis it's
kinda like saying someone who died from choking actually died from heart failure. The devil is in the details, and so to will the treatment be, if