I resist the notion that Genghis Khan was a psychopath or sociopath. He might have been a homicidal maniac. He might have been sane (but still a mass murderer). If mass murder were enough to qualify as a sociopath, there would be a lot of soldiers accused of sociopathy.

Genghis Khan and Cesare Borgia cared a great deal about the strength of their social power base. They wanted strong armies. They cared about the strength and health of their subordinates. This runs contrary to your text: "Sociopaths aren't interested in mutual benefit. They care only about their own benefit …

Sociopathy also makes them utterly uninterested in actions that are of benefit to the wider society…"

A megalomaniacal leader like Borgia *does* have a sense of mutual benefit – each of his soldiers gets a small benefit, and Borgia himself gets a big benefit. It's not necessarily justice, but it is mutual benefit.

Sociopathy in power is a huge problem, but let's not gloss over history. The average sociopath in power probably looks like Lon Horiuchi or Lynndie England, not like Cesare Borgia or Genghis Khan.

I think you've hit upon an important line of research, but I would encourage you to get expert advice on the definitions of "sociopath" and "narcissist." Dr. Helen might be better-educated than Heartiste, but Heartiste is better at pulling in a broad audience and getting publicity. Now, if we could persuade Dr. Helen to study the character of Genghis Khan, we might elicit a truly expert opinion.