Slashdot Mirror
The Neuroscientist Who Discovered He Was a Psychopath
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Joseph Stromberg writes at the Smithsonian that one afternoon in October 2005, neuroscientist James Fallon was sifting through thousands of PET scans to find anatomical patterns in the brain that correlated with psychopathic tendencies in the real world. 'Out of serendipity, I was also doing a study on Alzheimer's and as part of that, had brain scans from me and everyone in my family right on my desk,' writes Fallon. 'I got to the bottom of the stack, and saw this scan that was obviously pathological.' When he looked up the code, he was greeted by an unsettling revelation: the psychopathic brain pictured in the scan was his own. When he underwent a series of genetic tests, he got more bad news. 'I had all these high-risk alleles for aggression, violence and low empathy,' he says, such as a variant of the MAO-A gene that has been linked with aggressive behavior. It wasn't entirely a shock to Fallon, as he'd always been aware that he was someone especially motivated by power and manipulating others. Additionally, his family line included seven alleged murderers, including Lizzie Borden, infamously accused of killing her father and stepmother in 1892. Many of us would hide this discovery and never tell a soul, out of fear or embarrassment of being labeled a psychopath. Perhaps because boldness and disinhibition are noted psychopathic tendencies, Fallon has gone in the opposite direction, telling the world about his finding in a TED Talk, an NPR interview and now a new book published last month, The Psychopath Inside. 'Since finding all this out and looking into it, I've made an effort to try to change my behavior,' says Fallon. 'I've more consciously been doing things that are considered "the right thing to do," and thinking more about other people's feelings.'"
If he were a psychopath, he'd not be disturbed by it. Of course, maybe he's only faking being disturbed by it to promote his career.
Elizabeth Bordon took an axe
And gave her Mother forty wacks
And when the job was nicely done
She gave her Father forty-one
maybe psychopaths are not as one-dimensional as you think.
I question the serendipitous discovery. As a neuroscientist aware of his family's predilection for anti-social behavior, wouldn't his interest in this career path likely have been influenced by curiosity about himself?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The most troubling aspect of this story is that the person felt that he needed to change his behaviour when he learned society would diagnose him as abnormal, despite having been a functional member of society and a respected scientist for several decades with his behaviour as-is.
The problem with psychopathy is that the very definition came from selection bias.
We took a bunch of people who exhibited aberrant behaviour (socially unacceptable behaviour) and looked for common attributes. Then we invented a name for these attributes ("psychopathic") and the name became associated with the behaviour, but not the attributes.
There is abundant evidence that psychopathic tendencies are a spectrum. It's not a binary label, there's levels and shades of grey.
There is also abundant evidence that psychopathic tendencies are common.
There is also the evolutionary model, which proposes that leadership requires vision that isn't swayed by other people. The tribe will occasionally need leaders, so it's an advantage to have some psychopaths in the population. They are the ones who can step back and analyze a situation rationally, who aren't helpless against the flow of public opinion, and are immune to groupthink and mob psychology.
It should come as no surprise that lots of people are closet psychopaths, to any specific degree. The problem isn't that they are psychopaths, it's that they somehow feel that that they are damaged, dangerous, or somehow unacceptable. (Viz: gay people).
Relax, it's all right. We've identified a set of genes, you have a subset, and life is what you make of it.
1.) he was someone especially motivated by power and manipulating others
2.) MAO-A gene that has been linked with aggressive behavior
3.) is family line included seven alleged murderers
It's not all bad genes, but his genes affect his behaviour pretty strong, and the genes(family line) increase the chance of turning into a murderer.
The question is when will the trigger level be reached where he cannot suppress the violent tendencies and go postal. Yes he might have learned to emphasize
or simply learned to emulate it pretty convincing. And there is another question perhaps some folks at slashdot don't have the mild form of asperger but are just psychopaths, and get into a rage like "Hans Reiser".
So psychological conditioning is very important in these cases too, do you get a bonus for treating people in a human way or in an inhuman way.
- Is your peer group awarding you for helping someone or for calling someone a sissy, faggot or else ?
- Do you get a bonus if you treat your fellow workers with respect or you just use their burned out corpses as a ladder for your own success
And well taking these additional thoughts into consideration - soldiers are trained not to emphasize with the enemy, soldiers being awarded for brave behaviour (brave=where mostly the basis is a good rage like killing spree) - amok runs like the one in washington are a consequence of this trained behaviour and genetic disposition.
And the major question is how would a psycho-scan of the GOP and the Democrats turn out, because if you recall the term "liberal sissy" it carries a very distinct aggressive undertone and aims at casting someone out of a social group, and these are sociopahs (read: "manipulating others").
It's genes it's the environment it's the education the question is is there any free will or just a trigger level a source and a drain ?
Absolutely this. I've had the unfortunate experience of knowing two psychopaths very well. They both can be very charming and appear to be nice when it suits their interests. It's entirely for the purpose of being able to manipulate people and get what they want. Both of these people are the most frighteningly dangerous people you could ever meet. Yet, they're so manipulative and subtle, most people don't realize what they are. It's very hard to grasp the lengths a psychopath can go until you've seen it personally. They literally will do anything, say anything, lie, do anything they can to manipulate different people to get whatever they want. This is most often power and control. There is no reasoning with these people, there is no appealing to any sense of right or wrong, there is no way to convince them to not do any horrible thing that suits their interests. If you have interactions with a psychopath, you won't get them to change their ways. The only thing to do is get as far away from them as possible.
Spot on.
We ALL have psychopathic tendencies, empathic tendencies, etc ad nauseum. All of us learn, from the cradle, what is "acceptable" behavior, and what is not. We are all born with the potential to become almost anything, good or bad. Some of us have to work hard to learn some things, others of us just follow our natural inclinations.
We actually NEED all of these traits, IMHO. Consider the doctor - if he's psychopathic, then he's probably a cold, analytical, unfeeling kind of guy. Is that necessarily a "bad thing"? Absolutely not - those traits are good things in a scientist. He isn't going to allow stupid feelings, opinions, or emotions stand in the way of his research.
Sure, there is probably some point, or degree, at which being psychopathic makes you totally worthless to society. Where is that point?
Lizzie Borden probably had some value, up until she committed murder. PERHAPS had she been properly evaluated, and received counseling, she might have understood herself, and the people around her better. Being better able to relate with her family and acquaintances, she may have made more intelligent decisions. Or not - each person remains an individual after all. We each make conscious decisions to get along with people, or not to get along.
IMHO, we, as a race, developed all of our traits and tendencies for a reason. Even our worst traits have value under certain conditions and circumstances. Our best traits can actually work against us in other conditions and circumstances.
I wonder how many slashdotters have ever taken a test, only to learn things about themselves that they didn't know. A leadership course in the Navy included a self-evaluation test, that was never turned in to the instructors. The purpose of the test was to reveal to the student which type of leadership he could use most effectively. You may, or may not, imagine my surprise to learn that I was primarily an authoritarian. (note that being 'primarily' authoritarian doesn't preclude other tendencies) Once I understood that somewhat important fact, I was able to improve my leadership ability tremendously.
We could probably all benefit from a little self analysis.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Let's take somebody from a privileged background with good breeding and then transpose his life with that of a common man. More specifically a petty thief with inferior parental lineage. We'll get the privileged individual brought up on charges, remove his access to money and his home and create false situations where he's accused of theft! At the same time we'll take the petty thief and give him all of the privileges, money and responsibilities in life. I assert that the man of good breeding will always conduct himself with dignity and honor regardless of the circumstance while the petty thief will always act like a common thug. That's because one's parents genetics determine what we become in life, forget education and opportunity if you're born from an oak tree you're strong, from a willow, soft.
I'll bet you a standard gentleman's wager, $1....
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
"Did you ever take that test yourself? Deckard?"
IMHO, we, as a race, were created by God and anything that doesn't adhere to the most average standard representation of God's image (aka normal) is a pathology that represents an incursion of the forces of hell into our heavenly realm. Therefore, it must be cured and harnessed to prevent the spread of evil.
Not everyone who is a psychopath chooses to do evil. It's well known that many people who lack a visceral, emotional "sense of right and wrong" operate instead on logic and rules that substitute for a sense of right and wrong; and like this person, they seek feedback from trusted people about the morality of their actions. For them, being a psychopath is a brain disability which can be dealt with, and not a license to run around killing people and wreaking havoc.
Most doctors in the US are psychopaths.
It would be worth studying why assertions like this get an instant mod-up from the geek without a single citation to support them.
Granted, my knowledge of psychopathy is based in psychology and not neurology, but rather than degrees of psychopathy it's better to think of types of psychopaths. While there is a scale or spectrum of psychopathy, measured by the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R, or PCL-YV for the Youth Variation), subjects are generally extremely psychopathic or not at all. To be deemed a psychopath a subject need a score >= 30, 40 is the maximum. For a simple comparison, the typical 'career criminal' scores, on average, a 20 on the PCL-R. For the true psychopaths, it is the type of psychopathy that is of primary importance. Of the ten basic subtypes of psychopaths, only two --malevolent psychopaths and tyrannical psychopaths-- are characterized by overt anti-social behavior and violence, the two rarest but the two most commonly associated with the term 'psychopath' in popular culture. The rest are more driven by material gains (this isn't necessarily 'better', but it is much more common and probably, given my extremely limited knowledge of the subject, what drives Dr. Fallon if he is a true psychopath). The two violent subtypes are predominantly characterized by sadism and extreme self-aggrandizement, respectively (murderous variants of these two types rarely kill only one victim, as the violence amuses them). For example, sexually sadistic serial killers such as Ted Bundy are malevolent psychopaths; a serial killer like the Zodiac Killer who taunts authorities and views his (not a sexist pronouns, 80% of psychopaths are men) victims as inferior i.e.: the Zodiac 'hunting people' and his belief that after his death "ALL THEI [sic] HAVE KILLED WILL BECOME MY SLAVES."
But, again, this understanding is psychological not neurological. However, there is most likely a genetic component, as psychopathy appears equally across social classes and family environments. Further, psychopaths cannot be successfully treated psychologically. In fact, treatment generally exacerbates their qualities and makes them better psychopaths be teaching them to recognize, and thus better mask, their distinctive psychopathic traits.
What is most interesting about your rant, is that you sound like a psycopath in saying it.