
The Myth of the Psychopath - dpflan
http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/do-psychopaths-even-exist
======
nickpsecurity
Let's test the title against proposed alternative with one sentence in the
article:

"even though that flow is unproven in the scientific literature on
psychopathy"

So, a lot of speculation with no evidence to back it makes the existence of
psychopaths a myth. Further, the article intentionally ignores research that
supports the existence of people with their alleged traits, even neurological
differences. Pop psychology and religious rhetoric are far from the only
things that went into it. So, the article's claims are unbalanced, weak, and
defeat themselves for now with above quote.

~~~
eric_h
I thought the article made a good point about the general popular adoption of
the ill-defined term 'psychopath', and that the reality of individuals with
traits often attributed to psychopaths may not be as clear as they are
portrayed in such pop culture representations as e.g. Dexter.

My real complaint is that the article seems to have conflated the psychopath
with the sociopath. I was under the impression that sociopaths were a superset
of psychopaths, with psychopaths being more traditionally "evil" (a la jack
the ripper).

I do agree that the article's arguments in general are weak, and I don't
really see any reasonable conclusion to be drawn from it. At the very least,
though, I do find the description of this Gregory character to be interesting
and to some extent representative of the small handful of people (~3) I've met
in my life who I believed to be sociopaths (admittedly, I'd never heard of
those particular individuals running someone over with a car with no remorse
or hesitation, but I also believe that had they done such a thing, they
wouldn't bring it up in conversation).

~~~
nickpsecurity
That point about popular adaption was good. It's clear that what psychologists
are debating and what happens on TV are different. Far as sociopath vs
psychopath, psychologists tell me they're both mostly pop-psych terms with
meanings that vary due to who you're talking to. The only one they mention is
Anti-social Personality Disorder. I'm under the impression that they focus
more on the potential psychopath's individual traits and less on the
categorization itself. I've seen some interesting categorizations which seemed
to be there just to have one. They treated the symptoms.

He was an interesting character. He exhibited that kind of behavior. Yet, it
could easily be his upbringing especially if growing up under and around
hustlers. The guy might have never been taught better. So, I call that sort of
thing bad character, a bit evil, but not all out psychopath in my book. This
may not be everyone, but I tend to associate it with people who clearly have
no conscience and seem to compulsively do these things. I've met them and they
stand out from the average bad apple.

Either the article or a commenter mentioned them getting back at people years
later. The inability to let go without doing what they were compelled to do.
Many I've met had that trait, too. That's why you figure out what pisses them
off and avoid it. Assuming you can't avoid them... (sighs)

------
norea-armozel
In part, I agree with the author's skepticism that psychopathy is purely a
mental disorder. I've known people who would easily be classified as
psychopaths but they clearly knew what they were doing was wrong, hurtful, and
downright evil (these people oddly happened to be bullies that fixated on me
through most of my childhood too).

Sometimes people _are_ just evil and trying to sugar coat the notion that
someone can be evil doesn't make it easier to cope with it. All it does is
delude people into thinking we should have respect or love for someone when
they do wrong by us and betray our trust. I think it's better to treat a so-
called psychopath as an adult (if they are one) rather than as some broken
down piece of machinery. At least then, you won't find yourself with your
guard down and your judgement clouded by false sympathies.

~~~
gnaritas
Evil is not a clinical term and attempting to clinically define brain
disorders is not sugar coating evil. The word evil really has no place in a
clinical discussion.

------
kukx
Here's an interesting talk from a psychopath
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzqn6Z_Iss0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzqn6Z_Iss0)
He made previously an other confession, which was less funny and much darker.
Unfortunately it's gone now. I guess, he had a second thought, and asked to
remove it. As far, as I remember he mentioned, for example, that if someone
did something bad to him, he could not forget it and he would get even in some
way, no matter if years had to pass. Also, another interesting talk related to
the subject
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bysVPcKQfeY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bysVPcKQfeY)

------
wmil
I'm not buying this article. There's a very strong tabula rasa / pure nuture
contingent that's been refusing to cede any ground despite decades of
evidence.

The article is pure opinion... and I have trouble believing that a trio of SFU
/ Okanagan College professors are the top researchers.

~~~
pekk
It's odd that you call the article pure opinion, because I don't see you
providing anything more substantial than your own feelings here. Can you
provide any citation or even a thesis to evaluate rather than just flinging
around epithets like "tabula rasa," asserting that someone is ignoring
evidence of something, and sniffing at institutional affiliations? The article
is just a magazine article, but at least it provides the name of the book so
people can track it down and look at its references if they want. You don't
provide anything for readers of your comment to look into at all.

~~~
kemiller2002
Sure, Dr. Kent Khiel on the study of FMRIs and people fitting the profiles of
psychopathy. There is significant evidence that people who are true
psychopaths (as in those who aren't misdiagnosed) suffer a deficiency in the
anterior cingulate cortex which relates to things like emotional regulation
and learned behaviors (Robert Hare has shown that psychopaths show a
deficiency in understanding things like fear of a negative outcome). The book
the author notes says this is anecdotal except that the research has been
going on for quite some time, and there have been several studies conducted.

Now the author argues that the main study of brain anatomy and behavior is
based on people who are incarcerated, and this to a certain extent is true.
However there are also cases where people who aren't in jail have gotten FMRIs
and exhibit the same types of behavior. James Fallon is a prime example (he
has an article about him in the Smithsonian). He's a neuroscientist and fully
admits that he fits the profile.

The author states that it can't be a disorder, because it only equates to life
experiences, but from a sociological perspective this can disproved.
Psychopathy has been noted across different cultures and socioeconomic
barriers. Plus, if life experience was purely the cause, one could stand to
argue that psychopathy would be significantly weighted towards one culture,
economic upbringing etc. It's not. Why would a kid with loving parents become
a psychopath.....and his brother with similar experiences not. Look up the
Ranes brothers. One of them is definitely a serial killer, and the other is
(was) also serving a life sentence for murder....except there is evidence that
the second isn't a psychopath even though he was convicted. There is a lot of
evidence that showed it was possible he was wrongly convicted and he doesn't
fit the profile. They had horrible childhoods and if upbringing was to be a
significant indicator, this could disprove that rule as the brothers should
similarly.

The article says something about a study which shows that psychopaths can
"turn their emotions on an off" (I remember reading the article but not
specifics). Kevin Dutton argues that psychopaths are essentially predators and
yes, they can understand emotion. That's how they are capable of finding
people they can take advantage of. Plus it's one study, and if it can't be
verified then it's not a very strong case. There was also a study recently
which the author stated that he was able to help true psychopaths (not just
people who have been diagnosed as APD) using behavioral therapy. This would
lead to suggest that if that works, then it's behavioral and not neurological,
but once again, it's only one article.

What really gets me is the last paragraph, declaring them as "evil" and
because of that they must be the "boogey man" Labeling someone as a psychopath
based on the criteria actually humanizes them, and makes them someone who
should be kind of pitied. They're dangerous and they do bad things, but if the
neurological evidence is correct, they really don't understand. They aren't
capable of understanding right and wrong like the rest of us. Saying that
disorder is a myth really turns these people into monsters, because it means
that we are assuming they have the same range of emotions as the rest of
society and they choose to ignore what they know is right and wrong.
Personally, I think that is a cop out answer to allow people to get mad and
take revenge on people who may not understand at an emotional level what they
are doing with a clear conscience. That's just me though.

------
ExpiredLink
You don't know what a psychopath is until you meet one. I decided to leave a
project because the project lead turned out to be a _real_ psychopath. It's
difficult to describe a psychopath's behavior. They are not 'evil', sadistic
or cruel. They are clearly self-centered, narcissist and self-important but in
unusual appearances. Appearances which can be very abusive to dependent
persons in their sphere of influence.

~~~
nickpsecurity
I've met... many... that meet their description. Some I know had decent
parents and childhood. The thing they had in common is they saw people like
objects rather than people. That was most distinctive. Being a bit impulsive
and anal about certain things was another. All could present themselves in
whatever way they needed to in front of a given audience. Some I've read on
but didn't meet had compulsive violence with even sexual arousal. Did they
learn _that_ and with what practice that hardwires one's junk to a woman's
screams?

So, esp with some having good childhoods, it's hard for me to believe they
just transformed into this by making some choices. Seems more likely to be
innate. Still a possibility that much of this was learned behavior but I'm
just saying I lean in a different direction given what I've seen and heard
dealing with them.

~~~
charlieflowers
Consider this question: what about cultures throughout history which callously
divided people into classes and treated the lower ones horribly?

Like slavery. Or the French aristocracy. Etc.

You could say "everyone", including people widely considered to be decent,
were still participating in treating the lower classes horribly. It was
perfectly acceptable to do so.

So the vast majority in those cultures found some way to "turn off" or become
desensitized to feelings of remorse.

Were they all psychopaths?

~~~
barry-cotter
No. The widened circle of evolutionary concern that we display is due to a
great deal of socialisation and enculturation. Most people, in most places
throughout history have not treated members of the outgroup as having rights
or worth.

There are some wonderful parts of _The Better Angels of Our Nature_ , Steven
Pinker, but one of my favourites was him taking the piss out of Richard
Dawkins for thinking Saddam Hussein was uniquely and especially evil, worthy
of individual study. Saddam's morality is vastly closer to the historical norm
than that of educated elite Westerners.

Where psychopaths differ from non-psychopaths is not in how they treat the
outgroup, but in how they treat the ingroup.

~~~
nickpsecurity
I totally agree. In discussions on race and gender discrimination, I often
argue that these are evidence of human nature's trend to (a) group together +
support those similar to oneself; (b) compete with or mistreat those outside
the group. It's a nice abstraction on top of all the forms I've seen of this
that gets to the real issue. Now, the specific forms of it certainly develop
their own mental baggage and reinforcements on top of this.

Yet, without being a sociology/psych major, I think this is a normal thing
that should be recognized and hit head on by any reformists. That it's a
weakness in human nature must be understood before it can be beaten.
Otherwise, strawmen and red herrings abound.

------
xx101010
There's sociopathy, but there isn't even a DSM definition for "psychopath".
That is a slang term (like sociopathy). Not that the DSM is even meant to be
taken entirely literally, but having models for diagnosis and treatment for
common classes of mental disorders can be useful.

People are themselves extremely varied, however, and a lot of the best methods
for treatment and diagnosis take into account that. eg, Ericksonian therapy.
(Which, sadly, most people will only hear of from some severely bastardized
version, if at all.)

I think, a lot of what they mean is "psychopathy", often covered for the other
slang term "sociopathy" which has more value for analysis. There has been a
lot of pop psychology on the later, and while I do definitely believe it is an
useful term one has to note there are "enlightened sociopaths" and ... not.
The vast majority are not as people think, and surely not criminals.

A good list came out not long ago which pointed out that on an "empath" to
"sociopath" scale, cops and surgeons score high on the sociopath side, while
grade school teachers and social workers score high on the other side.

The article is very right in pointing out how anti-social personal disorder is
very different from the model of the sociopath. Night and day different.

Behavior involved in severe criminal behavior is often very unique, unique in
formation, and unique to the person, even if many commonalities or classes of
definitions may be applied to some. The remaining question of any value is: do
these labels actually help you help any of them to change?

In terms of comp sec, putting on that kind of label on people won't help you
control them nor predict their behavior. You might do so from noting their
past behavior, if you know enough about it. But that is based on observation
of that particular individual, and would only give deceptive evidence in
regards to the actual usefulness of the label. Which is a label, which is a
way to shortcut thinking; and a way to shortcut dealing with individuals as
individuals in creative ways taking into account their complexity. A pain to
do, perhaps, definitely does not fit into tidy lists and written down
procedures. But it is what is required.

------
dpflan
Here are two HN submissions from 2 and 4 years ago entitled 'Letter from a
Psychopath. The content of course is what you'd expect from the title.

1\. 2 years ago - 340 comments -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6941171](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6941171)
2\. 4 years ago - 109 comments -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3094824](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3094824)

------
dpflan
This makes me curious about computational psychology/psychiatry/neuroscience
and diagnosing individuals with DSM-IV disorders. Anyone have any experience
in the field?

------
dbbolton
I'd like to see Robert Hare's response to this.

------
bcg1
Pieter Hintjens is writing a series on psychopaths. I found what I've read so
far to be worth my time.

Start here if interested:
[http://hintjens.com/blog:78](http://hintjens.com/blog:78)

------
jugad
We don't have to go too far to find psychopaths... a relatively larger
percentage of teenagers are "psychopaths" \- as in, they lack empathy.

All it takes to convert them into adult psychopaths is lack of guidance by
parents and a ruthless outside environment.

I would state, without proof, that the number of people who would be labeled
as psychopaths (by their behavior, violent nature and lack of empathy) would
be larger in third world countries as compared to, say, US, Norway or
Sweden... this is going by my personal experience.

~~~
sumitviii
Psychopathy, in the current context, is a clinical term for a condition. Its
not a state.

