If you have read Cosmopolitan mag then you have probably seen the same level of mental sophistication that goes into the disciplines responsible for coming up with the concept of Sociopathy.
Psychology, Sociology are for the most part not real sciences. The people who inhabit them are not very mentally or emotionally sophisticated, they come to poorly reasoned conclusions, and what little data their conclusions are based on is better interpreted by people who at least no how to keep their biases in check.
Real versions of these sciences, that include synchronizing data from multiple disciplines, using careful reasoning to come to conclusions, and even using mathematics to prove things about human intelligence include: Any science with the prefix "Neuro-", psychometrics, Any discipline starting with "Cognitive" and even disciplines related to artificial intelligence which try to create models that work with units like neurons to create intelligent behavior.
Even the philisophical disciplines have more vaild insights in trying to understand human behavior.
What some people call sociopaths are just people with a different network of moral reasoning than what you or perhaps most people have. In some cases, these people are far superior in their moral reasoning. In other cases, they fail in some aspect while they are correct in others.
The most common element among these people is probably that they have had specific uncommon experiences that have taught them acceptance (as in the final stage of loss) of principals that most people don't normally think about because they don't experience loss associated with that principal being true.
Simple example: In conversation, average people often throw temper tantrums when you persistently disagree with them much like a preschool child throws tantrums when the teacher tells them they cannot steal a crayon from the kid next to them. A person can adapt to having competitive, intelligent and enlightening conversations, but such conversations cannot be adapted to people who throw tantrums when you disagree with them.
Each specific reaction has a specific moral principal behind it. I generally don't act on anger because it causes collateral damage. Most of the people you come here to talk about probably don't follow that principal.
However many of the others we may have in common. It's usually obvious when people try to lie, because their body language or some detail doesn't match the information provided. Further, lying or hiding things deprives other people of information that they need to plan and use their effort and resources effectively. So we reason that it is wrong to tell "white" lies or hide things from people.
Example: Lifetime obese girl asks you out. You say "No sorry, you are too fat". She cries and throws a tantrum for a few minutes. 6 months later, she is in shape and happier than she has ever been. This is opposed to you sparing her feelings for a few minutes and then she is miserable her whole life.
The disciplines I mentioned all try and understand how human behavior works with extreme preciscion. One day there will be a math problem for general intelligence that will describe every possible version of human behavior.