"behavior in which attempts to promote the welfare of another, or others, results instead in harm that an external observer would conclude was reasonably foreseeable.” [link].
That is, she defines it as behavior designed to help someone that results in harm to that someone instead, as opposed to the one doing the behaving, or so the definition seems to suggest..
But that phenomenon is best described as "misguided altruism," or "counterproductive altruism," because it's not pathological in the usual sense, just stupid or unthinking, and she of course means the harm as unexpected and unintended.
In fact, Oakley has written a book titled Pathological Altruism, and it includes the definition above, but also includes the definition used by most of us on the alt-right, as altruism that harms the altruist as opposed to the beneficiary of the altruism. I'd say that her first definition is best dropped in favor of this one I found at Stormfront [link]:
Pathological/Psychotic altruism is defined as the sometimes bizarre forms of care-taking behaviour and associated self-denial seen in psychotic individuals, and often based on delusion.
And at The Right Stuff, Diabolus Candidus has a longer definition/evolutionary explanation [link].
And my definition is "the sacrifice of the welfare of oneself and of those one loves for the benefit of strangers." That makes it sound more explicitly crazy, which it certainly is.
The "Syrian refugees" who Obama and Hillary are inviting to move in and sign up for goodies will of course not be "vetted" because A, it's virtually impossible, and B, they don't really want to vet them, will include terrorists, plus just plain criminals. Many will rape and kill. Anybody who wants this to happen either hates this country or suffers from pathological altruism.
More on the subject from Tim Murray, over at The Occidental Observer:
Quibcag: These are some of the animals of the Chinese Zodiac, found at Pinterest.