[tps5]

I think it's wrong on a few levels to use terms like sociopath in general, and especially about someone you've never met.

When you use that word you're talking about another person's mental state, which is opaque to you. No one knows what anyone else thinks and feels.

What you should really be concerned with is that person's actions, not what they feel about their actions. For example, you can be a murderer and not be a sociopath, as long as you feel bad about it. But it's really the murdering itself that's the problem. Does it really matter how the murderer feels about it? Some people think so, but the problem has to be dealt with either way.

I'm not saying you shouldn't criticize his actions, but I'd try to avoid criticizing his mental state or making assumptions about how he perceives reality.

[sooheon]

Actually a lot of what makes our judgements about behaviors salient is precisely what we think about their internal state. We're more likely to forgive someone who seems truly remorseful over someone who takes unrepentant pleasure in killing.

Just taking the action in isolation is not enough, we need to make judgements about how likely the person is to do the same or worse actions again. Uber's management has, through their actions, revealed something about their mental states--you'd be wrong to disregard this information.

[DannyBee]

"I think it's wrong on a few levels to use terms like sociopath in general, and especially about someone you've never met.'

I don't :)

"When you use that word you're talking about another person's mental state, which is opaque to you"

Sorry, but that is not accurate in this case.

A number of these conditions are diagnosable and defined based on their externally presentable actions and behaviors.

In particular, the DSM-IV and DSM-V definitions amount to: "Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociopaths."

Note that it is described in terms of behavior and not internal mental state.

It's true that some disorders are defined by opaque mental state. This is not one of them :)

So your argument is essentially "he may not be a sociopath just because his actions seem like those a sociopath would take".

But that is not correct.

"I'm not saying you shouldn't criticize his actions, but I'd try to avoid criticizing his mental state or making assumptions about how he perceives reality."

Again, given that sociopathy is defined in terms of behavior, i think this is not correct.

I think it's 100% completely and totally fair to say this about disorders characterized by internal mental state and not external actions.

But in this case, in large part, the DSM-IV defined sociopathy in terms of external behavior.

DSM-V is a little different, in that they cover self-functioning as well, but the self-functioning it covers are externally observable. e.g. " absence of prosocial internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior." Note that the internal standard is viewed solely in terms of failure of externally observable traits.

TL;DR if you stick with the straight definitions of what these disorders are, it's entirely possible to accurately believe someone has one based only on externally visible behavior.

I understand you may not like the societal connotations, and you can reasonably argue about that, but trying to cast this into an argument about whether it's possible to judge someone a sociopath or not based on externally visible actions seems a losing argument to me: It is possible, and you can validly do it.

[tps5]

I think these definitions of being a sociopath are demonstrably very silly. You can easily think of people who "disregard legal and moral standards" whom no one would ever describe as a sociopath.

When you call someone a sociopath you are absolutely making a judgement about their internal mental state. I don't see how anyone can reasonably argue otherwise and I don't find any of your arguments convincing.