I pulled this excerpt from the article just to highlight a point I often feel inescapable whenever I give my time to taking seriously the claimed science of pyscho-writers.

Read the list and see if you can substitute any professions (especially ones involving finance) for the title sociopath.

"Sociopath:

It does not take long to realise how there is an often impenetrable language barrier to explaining anything about 'stereotypical' personalities - let alone disorderly ones. I can easily foresee how a wealthy personality disorder might gain enough popularity to set up their own country, or religion, whilst a poor one ends up in the local clinic. Historically this is very provable. Double standards abound throughout the 'classes' of society.

Hence, for me, psychology is a necessary pseudo science, seeking to understand and explain that which needs far more concise explanation, but which, it seems, cannot fail to fall into the trap it seeks to eliminate - becoming stereotypical about things it seeks to reduce the bigotry and bias respecting.

It's why I often want to take it very seriously but find I default to missing the mark. I perceive many of Its manoeuvres from theory to reality as a bridge too far! In fact I often consider the 'psychology expert', and especially underlings thereof, to be employing a high degree of circular hypothesis akin to that which religious thinkers employ in support of their 'feelings' about others behaviours/thoughts/attitudes.

I'd have hoped for a far more science specific approach but maybe there isn't one and that's the problem that perpetuates the irony of attempting to. Some things just avoid scientific analysis - and often deliberately so!