> It's also very othering and very blamey. It labels the guy a sociopath and comes from an assumption that this is all downside, some kind of defect that he needs to work at compensating for.

There's a lot of disparate things in these two sentences:

1. It's othering: so what? Everyone is unique and different, and any time you talk about those differences it's othering. If you view othering as a problem, then literally any conversation about differences between people is problematic.

2. Blamey? What is the article blaming him for, exactly?

3. I don't think the article assumes this is all downside. I also don't think you can ignore the fact that psychopathy has very serious downsides.

4. Psychopathy is absolutely something he needs to compensate for in order to be a prosocial member of society. The fact that he seems willing and able to compensate is amazing and admirable.

> Surgeons typically lack empathy. It is what allows them to cut into people. I could never do that job.

I'd love to see where you get your information that surgeons typically lack empathy. Maybe some do, but many don't and function just fine. I personally don't lack empathy, but I think I could cut someone open easily if it were to help them. I'm not a psychopath, I just have a strong sense of the difference between hurt and harm: I can hurt someone if it helps them rather than harming them.

> The guy is probably an excellent scientist because he's a sociopath. The article doesn't address that fact.

The article probably doesn't address that "fact" because there's very little to support a causal link.