This chapter comments on the review of the Triarchic Psychopathy Model provided by Brislin and Patrick. The review provides an excellent discussion of the model, however, the author disagrees with several of its key tenets. First, the model places too much emphasis on boldness as a central feature. Boldness is too adaptive a trait to serve this function; its primary correlates are positive psychological adjustment and the traits associated with such adjustment (e.g., low neuroticism and high extraversion) and it shows little relation to other aspects of psychopathy or antisocial behavior. Second, the model de-emphasizes antisocial behavior—the defining feature of psychopathy in historical accounts (e.g., Cleckley, Lykken, Hare) and the outcome that has driven interest in psychopathy. Third, the model also de-emphasizes meanness which, in the form of Five-Factor Model antagonism, is central to all descriptions of psychopathy, shows the strongest correlation with psychopathy inventories, and serves as the glue that binds subscales within an inventory together. Throughout this commentary, the author discusses a variety of historical accounts and review empirical results in support of these criticisms.