Slashdot Mirror
Psychopaths Have Brain Structure Abnormality
mmmscience writes "A group of scientists has identified a structure in the brain of psychopaths that is abnormal when compared with controls. The change is found in the uncinate fasciculus, a bridge of white matter that connects the amygdala (emotion/aggression brain region) and the orbitofrontal cortex (decision making region). Interestingly, the greater the abnormality in the region, the more severe the levels of sociopathy in a subject. The results were published as 'Altered connections on the road to psychopathy' in the journal Molecular Psychiatry. A researcher on the team suggests the finding could have considerable implications in the world of criminal justice, where such scans could one day be presented as evidence in a trial." The study's results have not yet been replicated by other researchers.
Given the brain's ability to mold itself with use, I wonder whether this abnormality is a contributing factor of the psychopathic behavior, or a result of it?
Perhaps one thing that might restore sanity to the world is a bit of screening for this characteristic and perhaps some surgical corrections.
Yeah, I know that would never happen... "these" particular sociopaths are our leaders and our heroes. We shouldn't identify them with negatives should we... so let's continue supporting our sociopathic world leadership as we always have.
The summary mentions use of such scans in court cases. Frankly, that worries me a fair bit. Saying to a jury "look, this guy's brain shows that he's likely to kill people, so he's probably the murderer" is worrisome. It is all the more worrisome because of the implied argument that the individual should be locked up anyways. There's also the additional issue that when there are brain differences detected with MRI and similar methods they are often at a large-scale statistical level and there might be a substantial fraction of normal people whose brain structure looks close to that of a psychopath. I can't access the original study, so I can't tell.
This does also bring up the standard issues of free will and such. At minimum, if someone commits heinous crimes due to brain problems it makes it ethically problematic to engage in essentially punitive imprisonment.
A researcher on the team suggests the finding could have considerable implications in the world of criminal justice, where such scans could one day be presented as evidence in a trial.
My response:
"There is a tendency... today to explain human behavior, to remove purpose - motive - from serious consideration. We tend to accept the notion that mechanical, not purposive, causation accounts for the things people do. Joe Sinister is a criminal because his parents beat him or because of a chemical imbalance in his brain or because of a genetic disorder that removed the function we call conscience... These explanations of human behavior may be accurate... but the issue of accuracy is, in fact, quite irrelevant to human societies. A human community that uses mechanical causation to account for human behavior cannot survive, because it cannot hold its members accountable for their behavior. That is, no matter how you account for the origin of a human behavior, a community must continue to judge the perpetrator on the basis of his intent, as near as that intent can be understood (or guessed, or assumed). That is why parents inevitably ask their children the unanswerable question: Why did you do that? Terrible as that question is, it at least puts the responsibility back on the child's head and forces the child to ask himself the question that society absolutely requires him to answer: Why do I do the things I do? And how, by changing my motives, can I change my behavior?... We must believe in motives for human behavior, or we cannot maintain community life."
~ Orson Scott Card, from the Introduction to "Cruel Miracles".
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
This is scary as heck. And you think it's a pain in the backside having to take your shoes off at the airport now. "Sir, please place your head in the scanner..." Clang! "hey, how come that metal ring just tightened around my neck?" scary stuff... jp
Scan everyone involved with the design, construction, sales, and use of the scanner...
If the results can be replicated, maybe, just maybe, "psychopath" can actually be defined with some degree with concreteness, with physiological distinction. It'd be a big step for the pseudo science toward becoming less of quackery.
But I doubt it.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
They don't show a causal relationship. Changing the structure doesn't necessarily 'fix' it.
And the possibility of non-psychopaths having the structure abnormality, and/or psychopaths not having the abnormality has not been ruled out.
Given our limited understanding of the human brain, it's quite possible there be multiple things that cause psychopathic tendency.
For all we know removing perceived "abnormal" structure could wind up creating an even bigger harm, or worse disorder.
Sure, in a punishment model you have to determine if this brain abnormality somehow decreases the "moral responsibility" of the perpetrator, and how this affects the amount of punishment they "deserve".
Seen from a rehabilitation point of view, this abnormality could indicate a greater need of treatment, and some kind of special medical treatment may be considered. Or maybe they'd simply be deemed unsafe to release back into normal society without some sort of assistance.
The "making an example of" part shouldn't change much, since it isn't actually concerned with the known perpetrator.
Only if the mob is composed of lunatics
Which is generally the case with mobs....
Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
Disorders are certain ways of acting, it's certain ways of acting or thinking that is problematic to the individual. If, as an example, exhibiting schizoid behavior works for you and you lead a happy, functional life that way, then it's not truly considered a "disorder." A diagnosis is only rendered (or at the very least, treated) if it's problematic to the individual. Precisely because there is no "right" way for humans to think and act. You are paying too much attention to popular media and Scientologists' portray of psychiatry/clinical psychology.
There is no such thing as a healthy free market because greed is an antagonist of good faith.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
If I speed because of my sum biology + experience, then can't it be argued that I really don't have a choice in speeding?
But you do have a choice. There is nothing physically preventing you from acting differently and you logically understand the consequences of your actions, both the harm you cause others, and the punishment you will face. That's all that free will and choice means. If you're biologically inclined to make choices that are bad for you or others, well, so be it; you just have to live with the consequences, which may include incarceration or execution.
Purely from a practical point of view, people who are biologically destined to be sociopaths with a propensity to cause harm to others are exactly the kind of people we need to remove from society. Whether you call that "punishment" or "treatmnet" really doesn't make a big difference.
Is that why cooperation generally nets you more cash than the opposite?
And if the abnormality is the result of psychopathy, not the cause?
In any case, we are not robots programmed by the structure and chemistry of our brains. My fear is that discoveries such as these will prompt people to start blaming criminal behaviour on physiological features, with brain surgery as the prescribed cure, just as ADD is overused as an excuse for misbehaving children with the result that children are being medicated with potent drugs.
Everyone still has the ability to choose their actions, and for everyone with a disorder that "forces" them to commit a crime, I'm sure you can find someone with the same feature who lives a normal life. Brains are not computers, you cannot expect to hack them for a quick fix to interpersonal problems.
I am extremely puzzled by your post. You start out asking what "if the abnormality is the result of psychopathy and not the cause" and then go on to talk like your hypothesis is proven fact. I have no choice but to ask you the opposing question: What if there turns out to be a direct, provable causation between the abnormality and psychopathy? What if there are people who literally have NO choice about their 'moral' decisions? At the very least it would put the practice of 'punishment' under a whole new light if you are punishing people for something they have no control over.
My personal view, based upon my own experience, agrees somewhat with some of what you said. MOST people can at the very least see the consequences of their actions, if not the actual morality of them, and can choose to act one way or another. On the other hand, I have met a few individuals who have no tangible empathy or sympathy, and cannot perceive that their actions will affect their or others lives adversely, no matter how much you try to teach them. I call them Neoconservatives (I joke...).
All kidding aside, punishing someone who cannot see their actions as wrong, or even realizing the adverse consequences their action will have on theirs or others lives is pointless and cruel. By better understanding and possibly treating the extreme cases instead instead of locking them away for life or killing them, possibly we can also help the ones that are not so severe to not commit a crime in a time of weakness and throwing their life away, when they could have been a productive member of society. I understand this brings up questions about free will. But at the very least, I can imagine a juvenile or first time offender gladly give up some of their own free will if it gave them back some humanity and gave them the freedom to live in society instead of being locked away from it. I realize I am getting into Anthony Burgess / Clockwork Orange territory (It may not be nice to be good, little 6655321. ... It may be horrible to be good. And when I say that to you I realize how self-contradictory that sounds. I know I shall have many sleepless nights about this. What does God want? Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness? Is a man who chooses the bad perhaps in some ways better than a man who has the good imposed upon him? Deep and hard questionsâ¦) but that example, as deep and disturbing as it was, again presumed that people actions are purely a matter of choice, and in the real world not everything is black and white. Often times there is a gray area. And sometimes, there are new discoveries and ideas that completely redefine the color scale.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
Because dogs are animals and the danger to multiple human beings outweighs the animals life because rabies is an infectious disease and thus can spread to others and must be contained. And the only way we know how to treat rabies before it becomes incurable (and knew at what point it becomes incurable) was by keeping the dogs (and humans) alive.
A State sanctioned murder is morally worse than a sociopath's, because we know better.
Revenge is NOT justice.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
First, sociopathy is not a mental illness. It is a personality disorder.
And yes, the assignment of a personality disorder depends on the culture you are part of. In some cultures for example it is acceptible to be very emotional and theatric, while in for example Calvinistic north European cultures like mine it is not. In the one culture people will see nothing wrong, while in my country such a person could (if it is deemed disruptive to his social environment) be deemed to have a "Histrionic personality disorder".
The point (and many people seem to mis this point) of psychology is to map why a certain person does not feel well and/or funtion well within his social surroundings, and help solve that. So a diagnosis being tied to the culture you deal with is not strange and simply valid science actually. many sciences, including the natural sciences, actually employ criteria and diagnostics valid for a particular context only.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
That is not necessarily true. If as a result of our interaction, my greed is satiated by you becoming successful and providing me with better prices / products / services, then we both win and I continue to act in good faith. Not all interactions are a zero-sum game. One man's floor is another's ceiling and all that.
Too bad psychology hasn't progressed to a true science.
it's "narcisistic personality disorder" for those who have no criminal activity and "antisocial personality disorder" for those who do.
So as soon as someone with narcisistic personality disorder smokes a joint he automatically becomes someone with antisocial personality disorder, even though someone with narcisistic personality disorder who takes a drink isn't? Someone with antisocial personality disorder who drank in 1930 automatically became someone with narcisistic personality disorder when prohibition was repealed? A woman in Iran who has narcisistic personality disorder who wants equality of the sexes becomes someone with antisocial personality disorder?
Lots of laws themselves are antisocial; the Jim Crow laws in the US in the early 20th century, for example. As Spock's dad would scream when he's got the Vulcan alzheimer's, "ILLOGICAL! ILLOGICAL! ILLOGICAL! *sob*"
Free Martian Whores!
They know that your brain is constantly rewiring itself. Perhaps some non-surgical and non-drug therapy could be developed.
Free Martian Whores!
There is no such thing as a healthy free market because greed is an antagonist of good faith.
Adam Smith called. He'd like to know he has a 200 year old valid argument for you, if you could be bothered to learn something about economics, ethics and human behaviour rather than just making stuff up.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baronâ(TM)s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be âcuredâ(TM) against oneâ(TM)s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we âought to have known betterâ(TM), is to be treated as a human person made in Godâ(TM)s image. - C.S Lewis - Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
Lots of laws themselves are antisocial; the Jim Crow laws in the US in the early 20th century, for example. As Spock's dad would scream when he's got the Vulcan alzheimer's, "ILLOGICAL! ILLOGICAL! ILLOGICAL! *sob*"
There's a distinction in the English system between "mala prohibita" and "mala in se". The first is laws like 'smoking a joint is wrong'. The second is 'killing your neighbor is wrong'. The second were the laws that made Common Law.
When the phrase "ignorance of the law is no defence" was coined it referred to "in se" crime, and I can't find the original quote at the moment, but it went on to explain that nobody could possibly be expected to know all of the prohibita law (which is orders of more difficult today).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
And who has the right to decide who lives and who dies? And by what authority?
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
Fair enough. I still think a regular prison is too good for them though. I think that something along the lines of superjail might be more effective.
From a 'feelings' perspective, I can agree with you and some of the other posters. However I really don't think that's constructive or relevant.
Science requires objectivity. To view the subject objectively, you have to remove the feelings from the equation and view it like an anthropologist viewing a primitive culture. Only then can you make a rational decision based upon facts.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
I guess that's fine if killing innocent people doesn't bother you. Just look at the death row inmates that were on appeals in Detroit and other places when DNA evidence cleared them. The appeals process helps to ensure that there was nothing overlooked, and no shortcuts taken. This is especially necessary in an age of overzealous, dishonest police and prosecutors out to make a name for themselves. There was a case where I live of a man who was sent down as a child and spent over 20 years in jail because of an overzealous sheriff and a dishonest prosecutor who hid exculpatory evidence.
http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/NEWS01/71107031
If he had been an adult, he may have gotten the death penalty, and died before anyone knew or bothered to find out the truth. Never mind the real culprit, who was free to murder again.
Then there is the case of that idiot prosecutor in Kern county, California who literally went on a modern day witch hunt (see documentary: Bakersfield's Witchhunt).
When our law system becomes infallible, then we can abolish the appeals process, and not one moment before.
And please no one try to offer the argument of: Well if they're suspected, they must have done SOMETHING wrong. That's just plain ignorant.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF