Then why don't you try it and see if it work for you. Way more productive than endless speculation.
I see the irony that is your attempt to dismiss these labels is just a way to label these people as self-aggrandizing fraud. In absence of evidence isn't it wiser to not assume such a stand?
Would it change your opinion if I already have done exactly that and I have been professionally diagnosed as a sociopath? I'm also not accusing anyone of anything. I'm very specifically asking a question and revealing my opinions and reasoning for my opinoin on the matter as a non-expert on the subject.
edit: it should also be noted that the article says she was diagnosed with sociopathy which isn't even in the DSM-5. In fact the word sociopathy appears once in the entire DSM-5 as an incorrect term to describe antisocial personality disorder. Which to me is a red-flag for self-diagnosis.
The byline is "Patric Gagne is a writer and doctor of psychology from Los Angeles." She might have stretched the truth in the essay, but surely we can still trust NYT to verify something like this? Anyone with a PhD in psychology has had access to all the diagnosis she could ever need. She isn't anonymous. If she really isn't what she so publicly claims to be, someone from her university would speak up. Of course, no one wants to have a public squabble with a sociopath...
Speak up against what? It's an unfalsifiable immeasurable diagnosis. I appreciate that most everyone means well, but academia is not some city on a hill with saints wielding an omniscient peer review process. Incredibly elementary statistical errors make it thru peer review process in even the highest impact journals somewhat frequently - so no I don't have any faith that academics would criticize an unfalsifiable diagnosis even if they could. That's really the basis of my opinion in the first place - if you can't prove something is true then you can't prove it's false. That being the case, what's the point of the label to begin with?
If you were diagnosed it means some measurement was used. These labels are useful granted they’re correctly applied, to first of all understand oneself, attempt to improve the condition and blend in with the rest of the world without causing suffering/pain in others.
I see the irony that is your attempt to dismiss these labels is just a way to label these people as self-aggrandizing fraud. In absence of evidence isn't it wiser to not assume such a stand?