I'm going to call fallacy of grey on that. Yes, the human brain is a large mystery. But there's been an awful lot of work done in the field of psychology, and I have a very limited knowledge of psychology, relative to people who work in that field. And some of those people may be on less wrong.

And I'm going to call fallacy of composition on that. Sure, some psychiatric disorders are fairly well understood. Sociopathy/Psycopathy/ASPD, however, are not well understood by anyone.

To the extent that there is a condition, it's that there are a substantial number of people in the world who seem to exhibit similar personalities. Clusters in personality space, so to speak.

But that's not what we mean by a medical condition. All sorts of things are clusters in personality space - e.g. "nerd", "extrovert", and "workaholic." Generally speaking, if you aren't unhappy with something, and it doesn't inhibit your functioning in the world, it's not a medical condition. If Mr. X says "I wish I wasn't such an extrovert, please fix me doctor" then arguably Mr X. has a condition. But if Mr. Y says "I wish Mr. X wasn't such an extrovert," but Mr. X is fine with his personality, then it's much harder to argue that Mr. X has a condition. This is doubly so if there is no known working treatment. This works equally well if you substitute "sociopath" for "extrovert."

Typically, sociopaths do not believe they have a problem. Well, OK. If they break the law, they should be sanctioned/punished/etc. And to the extent that behavioural therapy/compulsory drugs/whatever can force them to behave more lawfully, then great. But we shouldn't pretend that we are treating them for any problem they have - we're training/forcing them to comply with our ethical norms, and that's all there is to it.