I found the first article to be terribly written, for start. I could scarcely read one sentence without my stomach churning-it read like a middleschool essay hastily written between bites of cereal. However, I suppose it was the content you wished to discuss; not how said content was presented.
The tone of the article was indeed very judgmental.
It would seem to me that the people described have emotional issues which need desperately to be worked out, but the purpose of this piece was to incite disgust, not compassion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with helping readers identify patterns in those who may be emotionally harmful, I simply don't believe that was the purpose of the article. Rather, I think a sentence from its very own opening paragraph sums up the writer's intent quite nicely.
"The topic of sociopathy and narcissism are by far the most popular topics on the web to date."
The second article felt a lot more professional. Not only was it better written, but the symptoms were presented as just that-symptoms. Facts should not be saturated in personal bias.
The second urged understanding, the first did not.