“…The fraught construct of psychopathy (Lewis, ) has long been marked by two “faces,” one primarily or exclusively unsuccessful and the other at least somewhat successful, at least with respect to short‐term interpersonal functioning (Patrick, ). These protean polarities have reappeared in changing names and guises over the past century, but they display surprising conceptual convergence: the impulsive psychopath versus the swindler psychopath (Kraepelin, ), antisocial personality disorder versus psychopathy (Lilienfeld, ), sociopathy versus psychopathy (Lykken, ; Partridge, ), secondary psychopathy versus primary psychopathy (Karpman, ; Skeem, Poythress, Edens, Lilienfeld & Cale, ), simple versus complex psychopathy (Arieti, ), unsuccessful psychopathy versus successful psychopathy (Hall & Benning, ), nonadaptive versus adaptive sociopathy (Sutker & Allain, ), and aggressive versus emotionally stable psychopathy (Hicks, Markon, Patrick, Krueger, & Newman, ). Corroborating these overlapping distinctions, cluster analyses support the existence of separable secondary and primary “subtypes” among high scorers on the PCL‐R (e.g., Blagov et al., ) and PPI (e.g., Falkenbach, Stern, & Creevy, ), although these subtypes are almost certainly densifications of multiple dimensions in multivariate space rather than genuine taxa (Edens et al., ).…”