The Neuroscientist Who Discovered He Was a Psychopath 241
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.'"
Re:Or, perhaps the test is not 100% selective (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Or, he's simply a scientist who discovers that he himself is an interesting test case.
Too cute a story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or, perhaps the test is not 100% selective (Score:5, Insightful)
the definitions we are given are often oversimplified. Psychopaths can have empathy, love and other feelings for others. But it appears they can turn them off at will. Use your favorite search engine and read about the studies, fascinating stuff.
Even normal people can turn empathy off under certain circumstances or through conditioning.
Re:Or, perhaps the test is not 100% selective (Score:4, Insightful)
Even normal people can turn empathy off under certain circumstances or through conditioning.
Like modern military training. [/sad-fact]
Yeah, that modern military training works really well, doesn't it ?
Except for the part which involves a high suicide rate among soldiers
who have returned home.
You see, people who are not sick know very well when they have committed
terrible wrongs, and many of those people will bring punishment on
themselves even after society has given them permission to murder.
Selection bias (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [forbes.com].
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 [wikipedia.org]).
Relax, it's all right. We've identified a set of genes, you have a subset, and life is what you make of it.
Wrong, please read how he describes himself (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ?
Re:The better path (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Behaviour change due to social pressure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Subjectively he was a functional member of society and a respected scientist and he was subjectively aware that he was motivated by power and a tendency to manipulate other.
So he felt that he needed to be more introspective about his behaviour when he found out something about himself that threatened to make the vaguely subjective awareness into something objective. Why is that troubling? Intelligent people often don't like being a subject to the fates. To me it would be more troubling if as a functioning member of society and a respected scientist he was simply fatalistic about it and say went on a killing rampage because he discovered this fact about himself.
Correlation does not make causation...
Re:Selection bias (Score:5, Insightful)
The bigger problem in my opinion is the author starts with the false premise that psychopathic behavior is determined by genetics. While genetics could (and most likely does) play a factor, it's not the major factor or only factor involved. The false premise should be obvious because the person performing the experiments was not a displaying characteristics of being a psychopath.
This study is not unique in using this false premise. In the last few years several 'studies' with this same false premise have made headlines. I won't backtrack on those articles except to mention them as "using genetics to determine if you are depressed", "using genetics to determine if a person is a psychopath or sociopath", and "using genetics to determine if you will be a criminal in the future".
As you wisely state, being a psychopath is not a binary thing. We all have tendencies toward at least some of the generalizations used to describe a psychopath. The same could be said for a diagnosis of a sociopath. The article does not address the main factors in what actually creates a psychopath or sociopath. Such as living in an abusive environment, education, lack of discipline for wrong doing, etc... All of those factors are sociological, not genetic.
In your example of leadership, I don't believe it's fair to characterize their traits as psychopathic. Psychopathic would be more self interested than the welfare of a group, so a leader being truly psychopathic would be contrary to many leaders. We see leadership in two forms, those that are concerned for themselves (many US politicians today, Aristotle) and those that are concerned for the majority more than themselves (Washington, Jefferson, Socrates).
When it comes to many of these alleged genetic studies, I have become very cynical. There seems to be a lot of biased studies trying to place all of the blame on genetics and ignore every other factor involved in creating mental disorders. Whether it is to remove blame for actions or possibly (and more frighteningly) eugenics purposes makes no difference. Either way, the studies seemingly are trying to set a labeling standard.
"You know that Voight-Kampf test of yours?" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Did you ever take that test yourself? Deckard?"
Re:Or, perhaps the test is not 100% selective (Score:4, Insightful)
My anecdotal experiences contradict your statement.
Consider doctors must slog their way through 4 years med school, 4 years residency, 2 years or so of fellowship, ~200K of student debt, and the threat of lowering wages due to healthcare reforms. All that, and they don't start their career in earnest until around age 32.
Most likely, doctors don't put up with that unless they want to help others to some degree. If they are driven purely by greed, there are other lucrative careers with more immediate earning potential- banking, law.
Re:Or, perhaps you just demonstrated a Catch 22 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Or, perhaps the test is not 100% selective (Score:4, Insightful)
Hm, a psychopath that considers himself the most interesting person he knows...
Re:Or, perhaps the test is not 100% selective (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not the attention. Its the challenge. They sometimes leave clues because its like playing chess against the police. More often than not however they leave clues because it's part of the ritual or pathology, not because they crave attention. Hence the reason the FBI often says they want to get caught. Very few care or have cared about the attention. Typically the attention seekers aren't so much psychopaths as they are malignant narcissists.
Re: Or, perhaps you just demonstrated a Catch 22 (Score:4, Insightful)
What is most interesting about your rant, is that you sound like a psycopath in saying it.