
A Neuroscientist Who Discovered He Was a Psychopath (2013) - aaronbrethorst
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/#L2sv2b8So0W2z40L.01
======
gnode
I think it's easy to draw a flawed conclusion from research like this. While
it can be shown that a majority of psychopathic serial killers have the
prefrontal cortex brain anomaly, it's also the case that almost all such
criminals are male. Yet we have an abundance of plainly apparent
counterexamples to dismiss the idea that being male implies criminality.
Interestingly, there are similarities here, as one of the largest brain
differences between genders is in the development of the amygdala. The brain
anomaly here concerns the connectivity between the prefrontal cortex and the
amygdala.

> So the first thing I thought was that maybe my hypothesis was wrong, and
> that these brain areas are not reflective of psychopathy or murderous
> behavior.

> Eventually, based on further neurological and behavioral research into
> psychopathy, he decided he was indeed a psychopath—just a relatively good
> kind ...

It sounds to me as though he simply combined his finding with more research
possessing the same systematic error, in order to support his conclusion, in
spite of a counterexample. He then bends an established definition to suit his
theory.

When sampling the extremes of a population (e.g. the most prolific murderers),
combinations of compounding additive factors will naturally be common. To draw
a causal link about any of them would be flawed, without a thorough and
unbiased analysis of the rest of the population.

~~~
tempguy9999
> While it can be shown that a majority of psychopathic serial killers have
> the prefrontal cortex brain anomaly, it's also the case that almost all such
> criminals are male. Yet we have an abundance of plainly apparent
> counterexamples to dismiss the idea that being male implies criminality

That's a bloody weird argument, and AFAICS wrong: (psychopath -> male) /->
(male -> psychopath), where -> is logical implication and /-> is is 'does not
imply'. You are confusing implication with equality.

> with more research possessing the same systematic error ... in spite of a
> counterexample

What systematic error? What counterexample?

> without a thorough and unbiased analysis of the rest of the population

Sampling not good enough?

Serious question, do you have any background in either classical logic or
statistics? And what is your area of research?

~~~
soreine
It seems there's a misunderstanding. According to me you are actually pointing
to the same logical fallacy. The systematic error is indeed to think that
correlation does imply causality. There's no more reason to think prefontal
cortex anomaly causes psychopathy than being male does.

~~~
gnode
Indeed. Thanks for putting this more succinctly than I did.

I'd add that it's easier to observe the logical fallacy in the case of being
male, because half of people are male, and being male is obvious. The
occurrence of the PFC abnormality is much smaller, and we don't tend to see
people's brains, so it's much harder to point to the counterexamples.

------
tarcyanm
I wonder how many of those who run for public office would willingly present
results of such a scan... I would bet money that that particular demographic
would show an interesting trend.

~~~
gnode
I don't doubt that there may be a trend, but to me it sounds very unfair to
allow people's immutable biological characteristics to enter into an
adversarial debate about how they might act.

Also, the mechanics of how macro-scale neurology affects a person's psychology
and sociology is still poorly understood, which makes the data especially easy
to abuse. More than anything, I think the researcher's findings highlight this
point; he was a counterexample to the theory that a diminished prefrontal
cortex implies anti-social behaviour, showing the phenomenon to be more
nuanced.

~~~
shoes_for_thee
How is that unfair?

~~~
gnode
Because it is prejudicial, which is unfair because it fails to take into
account the person's individuality. Such traits do not simply equate to
behaviour, the relationship is complex, incomplete and the mechanics not
understood. A person's membership of a class which they neither chose to be
in, nor can choose to remove themselves from (in this case a genetic brain
anomaly), can not infer a fact about their mind or behaviour.

------
pier25
After reading that book a couple of years ago I've wondered if psychopaths are
a lot more common than previously thought. Am I one myself? I mean, how can
you know for sure? We have no way of comparing our inner workings with other
people. Even brain scans are not 100% conclusive, see the link below.

[https://www.businessinsider.com/what-a-psychopath-brain-
look...](https://www.businessinsider.com/what-a-psychopath-brain-looks-
like-2015-7)

~~~
hckrnwsthrwwy
I believe that psychopathy encompasses many traits, which may be expressed
individually to varying extremes

You may get someone who is particularly aggressive and mean-spirited but who
is generally honest, the opposite, and so on

------
raxxorrax
"Oh, my brain scan shows I am a psychopath. How very useful!"

While I do believe neuroscientists mostly know less than often implied, the
research is very interesting.

He describes himself to be competitive, wrangling with his own ego. But
wouldn't it be true then to say that he is no psychopath and a brain scan is
insufficient for diagnosis?

And what is defined as healthy? Certainly not the absence of competitiveness
or ego.

~~~
hvidgaard
Did you read the article?

> But 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. Eventually, based on further neurological and
> behavioral research into psychopathy, he decided he was indeed a
> psychopath—just a relatively good kind, what he and others call a “pro-
> social psychopath,” someone who has difficulty feeling true empathy for
> others but still keeps his behavior roughly within socially-acceptable
> bounds.

> 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, he says.
> Additionally, his family line included seven alleged murderers, including
> Lizzie Borden, infamously accused of killing her father and stepmother in
> 1892."

...

> “I’m obnoxiously competitive. I won’t let my grandchildren win games. I’m
> kind of an asshole, and I do jerky things that piss people off,” he says.
> “But while I’m aggressive, but my aggression is sublimated. I’d rather beat
> someone in an argument than beat them up.”

~~~
raxxorrax
I read the article, that is why I referenced being competitive for example.
But the "quote" wasn't meant to be attributed to him, I just thought it funny.
Just wanting to throw in the idea, that maybe he isn't a psychopath, not even
in the pathological sense.

~~~
hvidgaard
My apologies then.

One of the defining characteristics of a psychopath is the lack of empathy.
That is not to say you cannot learn when to feel empathic, and he touches on
that too. Maybe we just need to change our definition, or invent a new one.
One can be a pathological psychopath, but not be "a psychopath", because they
was loved and cared for properly. Essentially they learned that social
connections was overwhelmingly beneficial for them.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Psychopaths can fake empathic behaviours. In fact they're so good at this they
can appear unusually friendly and caring.

They do this by modelling social interactions and replaying them. It's more of
a scripted response: "In _this_ situation, act as if you feel like _this._ "

I don't think they can learn to have genuine empathic feelings, because the
part of the brain that would normally have them doesn't work very well.

It's not something good parenting can fix. It can maybe mitigate it to an
extent, but it's not unusual for average-to-good parents to be completely
baffled by a son/daughter with serious personality issues that are primarily
genetic.

------
wjnc
On a side note: Should he have been able to see whose results he was looking
at? It's surely unethical in my book. Even when, or perhaps even more when,
working with data from relatives the burden of ethical behavior lies with the
researcher. De-anonymising shouldn't be the researchers option without
safeguards imho.

~~~
ordu
Yes, researcher needs to be trained on ethics specifically. It is a part of
psychological education, it is a part of APA's mission[1]. Psychology takes it
seriously after Little Albert Experiment[2], Ash Conformity Experiment[3],
Zimbardo's Standford Prison Experiment[4], Milgram Experiment[5] and a lot of
others. Now it couldn't be done, a researcher needs to approve his
experimental plan with APA Ethics Committee.

It means, that any competent researcher in a psychology would know ethical
risks (due to education), and if he is testing his research plan on his
family, he must be ready to find something unexpected, and he must inform
participants on the risks.

[1] [https://www.apa.org/ethics/](https://www.apa.org/ethics/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment)

[3] [https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-
conformity.html](https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)

[5]
[https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html](https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html)

------
mike128
Seems like a catch 22 situation. Should we believe a publication of a
psychopath or should we assume it’s a manipulation. Matrix within Matrix.

------
appleflaxen
prior discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6787092](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6787092)

------
Beloid7man
I think that jims aggressive arguments behaviour comes not from its genetics
or frontal lobe abnormality. Its come from his past childhood. Being loved so
much in childhood make people become a competitive person and egocentric. They
get used to be a center of attention and think that arguments, will and other
persons needs is irrelevant. They are not violent in physical things but
violent in how they treat people. There were studies that said that people
with higher IQ have more self control ability under alcohol influence. I think
its the same in this case. Jims ability to control itself come from good
education that furthermore increase his self control.

~~~
faceplanted
"Being loved so much in childhood make people become a competitive person and
egocentric"

No it doesn't, that's a ridiculous generalisation, children are specifically
taught to restrain their competitiveness by their role models reactions to it,
it's not the amount of love they get, it's the priorities of parents, there
are many noncompetitive people who received a lot of love as children.

