The fundamental pattern these terms are all trying to address is the same: antisocial behavior, or a consistent pattern of behavior that harms others. Do we all have it in us to act selfishly sometimes? Yes. Just like we all have it in us to act altruistically. Psychopathy is a spectrum with Mother Theresa on one end and Hitler on the other. (I realize Mother Theresa may not have actually been all that saintly in real life, but bear with me for the sake of argument.)
The major flaw in the article is how it focuses on someone who was eventually diagnosed as a psychopath after seeking treatment. The issue here is that the people who are actually dangerous, i.e. very high on the Hare psychopathy checklist, i.e. true psychopaths, are never going to voluntarily be diagnosed. Real psychopaths don’t seek treatment to change their behavior. If they get caught, they try to destroy whoever exposed them, and if that doesn’t work, they move on to new targets and start over.
My point is that we need a consistent way to refer to people who are dangerous social predators. It doesn’t matter what the term is, sociopath, psychopath, ASPD, whatever. What matters is that the term doesn’t get watered down or confused with other so-called personality disorders which don’t share this aspect of harm to others. For example, aspergers/autism has absolutely nothing to do with psychopathy. If the term “psychopath” becomes meaningless, then it becomes harder to talk about and expose the real predators in our midst. In other words, the psychopaths win.