You make great points, but I think 1) reasonable people can disagree and 2) your definition is overly pedantic. For example, a doctor can still discuss, in clinical terms, smokers (as individuals, as a class) who suffer from no discernible impairment warranting treatment. Without actual impairment such clinical vocabulary may ultimately be more fluid and hand-wavy than it otherwise might be if anchored by concrete presentations, but it's no less clinical in the sense of 1) a professional vocabulary with well-defined denotations and connotations 2) useful in the application of and study of clinical treatment of actual impairment. So, for example, doctors and researchers may use terms like diffuse intimal thickening (DTI) or nicotine dependence. Much like "lack of empathy" they beg many questions, but even so they raise the same questions among those familiar with the subjects.
I'll let those search results speak for themselves. If we're being pedantic I think many of them make my case. But in fairness those results taken as a whole probably augur in favor of the term "sociopathy" being, at best, borderline clinical.
Regarding the literature,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=sociopathy
I'll let those search results speak for themselves. If we're being pedantic I think many of them make my case. But in fairness those results taken as a whole probably augur in favor of the term "sociopathy" being, at best, borderline clinical.