
The Neuroscientist Who Discovered He Was a Psychopath - tjaerv
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2013/11/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath/
======
j_baker
"Psycopath" has no clinical meaning. The closest equivalent is Antisocial
Personality disorder. In extreme cases, an antisocial can be a Ted Bundy or
Jeffrey Dahmer, but that's not always the case.

It's worth pointing out that there is also such thing as an Antisocial
personality _style_ , meaning that a person has antisocial traits, but can
keep them in check well enough to function in society. They tend to do well in
roles that require aggression, and can make excellent entrepreneurs,
attorneys, and politicians. In fact, people are frequently surprised to find
out that some of their most prized traits are Antisocial, they have some
antisocial friends, and that they probably have one or two Antisocial heroes.
Martin Luther King Jr and Mother Theresa leap to mind.

TL;DR - It's simplistic to say "Trait A bad, Trait B good". There are plenty
of narcissists, sociopaths, and paranoids that have done great things for
society.

~~~
theorique
"Psychopath" absolutely has a clinical meaning. While not formally defined in
the DSM, it can be diagnosed via the "PCL-R" test [1] administered by a
psychiatrist or other qualified clinician. The test has a 40 year history of
use in penology.

More recently, a lot of interesting research is being done now on the physical
basis of psychopathy, using various non-invasive means [2].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist)

[2]
[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_seabrook?printable=true&currentPage=all)

~~~
j_baker
The thing is that the literature isn't clear on there being a single agreed-
upon definition of psychopathy. The PCL-R test certainly has been successful
in a criminal setting. In fact, that's its chief disadvantage: it's too
focused on the criminality aspect of it. There are certainly other points of
view.

~~~
dbbolton
Hare's definition is rather widely agreed-upon. I doubt there are many mental
illnesses that _do_ have a single agreed-upon definition.

------
GhotiFish
I've always viewed psychopaths as a sort of social predator, Something that
would naturally spring up in any kind of environment subject to evolution. If
you had a planet of sheep, you're going to eventually get sheep that eat other
sheep. Morality is never involved in a strategy to survive. Likewise in a
social environment, preying on others is effective.

With no moral aversion to such behaviour, I had basically assumed all
psychopaths would establish some kind of predatory behaviour in their lives.
Manipulation, plagiarizing, discrediting, blackmailing, ect.

On one level, it's not surprising to me to see an outlier such as Mr. Fallon,
but I can't shake it. When you have those tendencies as part of who you are,
then the question really becomes "why didn't you act on them?" Oh your mother
loved you a whole bunch? I see. The human spirit is just indomitable isn't it?
Uh huh.

I suspect the simplest answer is: "he did."

It would raise my spirits to know that pro-social psychopaths exist. Seeing as
the incidence of psychopathic symptoms on average is about 1/100 people. I've
also learned not to believe something because I wish it to be true.

I fall on the nature side of the debate. It's a scary world.

~~~
jrs99
if morality is never involved in a strategy to survive... why do you think it
exists?

~~~
philwelch
Imposing morality on others is a survival strategy, but obeying morality
yourself only becomes one once everyone else is imposing it on you.

~~~
jrs99
i disagree. i think there's some morality hard-wired in most people.

~~~
philwelch
Many survival strategies are hard-wired.

------
stdbrouw
Intriguing article, but I feel that Fallon might be a bit too hard on himself:
once you think X you start interpreting everything so that obviously it
corroborates X. "I forgot my wife's birthday" suddenly implies "I don't care
about other people's emotions because I'm a psycho" instead of the explanation
that is probably more sensible, namely "I can be forgetful sometimes".

Maybe he should revisit his initial hypothesis that brain scans are
quackery...

~~~
GhotiFish
When the topic of psychopathy comes up for lunch room discussion, I sometimes
go into depth of what I've personally learned on the subject (just something
I'm interested in). When I go into it, most people I've talked to immediately
ask me if they are psychopaths. It's funny how consistent that is.

Maybe, despite the evidence pointing in that direction, he just didn't
manifest a psychopathic brain.

maybe.

~~~
wisty
> When I go into it, most people I've talked to immediately ask me if they are
> psychopaths

I think a good answer is "if you care about the answer, then probably not -
all a psychopath would care about is whether anyone found out".

------
ChuckMcM
So now he is a candidate for Special Ops :-) More seriously, its another data
point in the nature vs nurture debate and one where even he points out, he is
very competitive and can be rude even to children. Advice, don't cut this guy
off on the freeway :-).

One wonders how many people "discover" they are psychopaths when they do
something psychopathic and it gives them a huge endorphin rush and then they
want to do it again? If this guy got into a competitive situation and ended up
literally beating his opponent into a bloody pulp, would his brain chemistry
make it feel to him like the best sex [1] he had ever had? And then would he
be able to not do it again? _That_ is the interesting bit for me, while I am a
big fan of the nurture hypothesis, can nature override it? And does it?

[1] Pick what ever primal rewarding activity you want here, sex seems to be a
fairly common one.

~~~
j_baker
This is a very good point. Generally, there's some element of nature and some
element of nurture in a person's development. I mean you take two identical
twins who are separated from birth and find that they're very similar in some
respects and completely different in others.

The point is that there's a difference between _temperament_ _personality_.
Some people are just wired to act a certain way and yet are raised to be a
totally different way.

------
yetanotherphd
While the concept of psychopathy is interesting, people shouldn't be lulled
into believing that this category is more well defined than it really is.

E.g. people often associate psychopathy with criminality, and yet only the
part of the psychopathy test that directly relates to past criminal behavior,
is predictive of future criminal behavior.

I feel like psychopathy as a category is almost made for people who want an
easy answer for the relationship between science and morality.

~~~
xk_id
Wow, your last comment struck a chord in me. And it also reminded me of this
incredible quote of A. N. Whitehead, the prominent mathematician:

"Pitiless indeed are the processes of Time and Creative Thought and Logic;
they respect the convenience of none, nor the love of things held sacred. Yet
their work is the increasing glory of a world, - the production of psychic
light, - the growth of knowledge, - the advancement of understanding, - the
enlargement of human life, - the emancipation of Man."

How about that?

------
auctiontheory
Interesting, but this story feels very incomplete without some interviews with
his family and his grad students. (Not that they would feel free to talk
openly.)

------
saalweachter
He broke the blinding on a study? The monster!

~~~
chris_wot
Surely doing a scan on his family and himself is a huge no-no?

~~~
saalweachter
Including yourself in a study is fairly routine. The rules for human
experimentation - at least for some categories of psych studies - are a lot
more lax when it comes to self-experimentation.

The family thing was probably an approved part of the study. When looking for
something with a suspected genetic component it makes a lot of sense.

------
quarterto
Makes you wonder what's going to show up when (if?) diagnostic scans like this
become widely available to consumers.

------
reasonnotreason
He talks about all his behavior alleles (?) but gives us no idea of a baseline
in the general population.

He talks about how his brain has this same scan as a psychopath, but doesn't
tell us how many people have this same scan in the general population.

It is all glossed over for a good talk.

This science has now evolved into books. I saw him on NOVA originally. Who
would know who he is outside his academia world, if not for this silly
discovery ?

This is such poor science. I'd question if having him look over a stack of
brain scans to find correlations with certain behaviors to be of value. Seems
like you'd be better off finding some layperson, teach them how to read these
heat map type things and let them find the correlations. Like A/B testing for
the brain. Then you don't have all these biases leading to book deals.
chuckle.

------
Houshalter
It scared me when I found out such a high percentage of people are sociopaths.
I know many are non-violent and live within social norms, but it still
unsettles me. How can you have empathy for someone who has no empathy for you
or anyone else? Someone who has no guilt?

~~~
gscott
My pretend empathy and guilt is as good as the real thing.

~~~
Houshalter
For utilitarian purposes, sure. But I'm not sure how I feel about someone who
would have no problem killing me or torturing me if it was ever a benefit to
them. And I'm not sure how I feel about having empathy for someone who can't
give it in return.

~~~
gscott
> I'm not sure how I feel about having empathy for someone who can't give it
> in return

That is always the hard part because at some point pretend empathy always
slips up and isn't as deep as real empathy. Some people are able to make up
the gap using manipulation (not myself).

------
tokenadult
I took care to read the fine submitted article and then share it among
Facebook friends of mine (who include psychologists who study human behavior
genetics and neuroscientists) before commenting here. Two things come to mind
after reading the comments posted earlier here.

1) Most people who have read about genetic influences on human behavior have
not read the masters, but rather their disciples. The masters of behavior
genetics research take care to write about the concept of "reaction range,"
the variety of possible behavior patterns that MIGHT arise from an individual
with a given genotype under differing environmental influences. It is apparent
that the reaction range for many human behaviors is very broad even if
genotype is fixed.[1]

2) Simply adding some brain-scan data to some hypothesis pulled out of a hat
will make even the most wild and crazy hypothesis more plausible to lay
readers. Neuroscience is hard, and so far there are not a lot of neuroscience
conclusions about human behavior that are well replicated and well backed up
by theory.[2]

[1] The review article Johnson, W. (2010). Understanding the Genetics of
Intelligence: Can Height Help? Can Corn Oil?. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 19(3), 177-182

[http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/PSYC621/...](http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/PSYC621/Johnson%20Current%20Directions%20Psych%20Science%202010%20\(G%20and%20E%20in%20IQ\).pdf)

looks at some famous genetic experiments to show how little is explained by
gene frequencies even in thoroughly studied populations defined by artificial
selection.

"Together, however, the developmental natures of GCA [general cognitive
ability] and height, the likely influences of gene-environment correlations
and interactions on their developmental processes, and the potential for
genetic background and environmental circumstances to release previously
unexpressed genetic variation suggest that very different combinations of
genes may produce identical IQs or heights or levels of any other
psychological trait. And the same genes may produce very different IQs and
heights against different genetic backgrounds and in different environmental
circumstances. This would be especially the case if height and GCA and other
psychological traits are only single facets of multifaceted traits actually
under more systematic genetic regulation, such as overall body size and
balance between processing capacity and stimulus reactivity. Genetic
influences on individual differences in psychological characteristics are real
and important but are unlikely to be straightforward and deterministic. We
will understand them best through investigation of their manifestation in
biological and social developmental processes."

[2] The book Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience by
Sally Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld

[http://www.amazon.com/Brainwashed-Seductive-Appeal-
Mindless-...](http://www.amazon.com/Brainwashed-Seductive-Appeal-Mindless-
Neuroscience/dp/0465018777)

explains the gaps in current knowledge about neuroscience of human behavior
and why a few brain scans in a few subjects don't tell us much about brain
function before other study methods are applied to the problem.

------
nzp
Sigh. This is one of those scientific subjects that has become a popular topic
in the mainstream, and with it come a lot of misconceptions. So it's not
surprising to me how many comments are skeptical of what this guy writes. It's
unfortunate because the article sums what we almost certainly know about the
phenomenon, albeit in a way that is clearly geared to promote his book. It's
marketing, but things he says are based on a fair amount of decent science.
It's just that long tables of statistical data and lectures on neurophysiology
don't sell as many books as amusing personal anecdotes.

------
bionerd
This is exactly why I find the field of epigenetics[1] absolutely fascinating
-- we are so much more than just the sum of our genes. _Everything_ in our
lives matters: our childhood, the stuff we eat, how much we sleep (or don't),
how much physical exercise we have (or don't)... all these things have an
influence on the levels of gene expression and that's what decides everything.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics)

~~~
stephp
Yes, I am completely fascinated by this too. Kinda makes one paranoid, though!

One article I read was cleverly headlined something like, "You are what your
grandpa eats."

------
squozzer
Sorry mate, off to the gas chamber with you. Genetics is destiny, and we have
to think about national security, the children, and what the insurance
companies think.

~~~
mattmanser
As a continuation of this, it's worth watching Gattaca if you never have.
Great film in it's own right too, pity Andrew Niccol's been off his game the
last couple.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/)

~~~
jboynyc
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology)

------
daemonk
He just went ahead and broke the blinding to look up who the scan belonged to?
Is he allowed to do that even if he knows it belonged to a member of his
family?

~~~
michaelt
There's a difference between blinding for purposes of protecting subject
privacy and blinding for purposes of preventing experimenter bias.

In blind trials of new medications doctors can break the blinding at will
(patent seems to be having an adverse reaction, was their treatment real or
placebo?) as long as they record having done it and exclude the subject from
the final results.

If the scans were required to be anonymous for subject privacy, they wouldn't
have kept the records needed to break the blinding.

------
dbbolton
Antisocial personality disorder and (Hare's) psychopathy are defined largely
by behavior, so this title is extremely misleading. However, I supposed
"neuroscientist discovers that his brain shares some anatomical similarities
to known psychopaths" isn't as catchy a title.

------
roma1n
I tought psychopathy was defined defined by unacceptable social behavior, i.e.
"pro-social psychopath" does not make a lot of sense.

------
atmosx
What I see in this article is a huge lack of knowledge on the subject, not by
the author but by the human kind as a whole.

------
taivare
Had to watch ad from Goldman Sachs, prior to the reading.The manipulations of
'Pro-social' psychopaths.

------
imahboob
I guess this is what talking to hundreds of psychopaths does to you...

------
guttermaw
This scientist seems to be using this Just So Story for self-promotion, and he
has done so for years.[1][2]

He has also attempted to profit personally.[3]

He seems to have the expertise to know that this story is flimsy, and not
well-founded in science. Using an unvalidated method in this way could be
considered unethical itself. [4]

Dr. Fallon's record of behavior might suggest a pattern of anti-social
behavior. His job as a tenured UC professor is, in part, to educate the
public. Instead he seems to give us sci-fi.

Of course, I'm just being totally silly, and so is he (not sure about all the
writers he has duped over the years.)

[1]
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1278889...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976)

[2]
[http://www.ted.com/talks/jim_fallon_exploring_the_mind_of_a_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/jim_fallon_exploring_the_mind_of_a_killer.html)

[3] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychopath-Inside-
Neuroscientists-...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychopath-Inside-
Neuroscientists-Personal/dp/1591846005)

[4] [http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-ethics-of-
public...](http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-ethics-of-public-
diagnosis-using.html)

~~~
woah
Doesn't this "pattern of anti-social behavior" just prove his claims?

~~~
moocowduckquack
no, it provides anecdotal evidence

~~~
SilasX
Proving a claim about one particular person is necessarily going to cite
anecdotes about them.

~~~
moocowduckquack
Disproving the claim that this particular person is behaving in this way
because of these brain structures is nearly impossible with the state of
neuroscience as it currently is, so it isn't a something that can be viewed as
anything other than an interesting hypothesis at this stage. You just wouldn't
be able to achieve anything approaching a decent level of statistical
confidence from studying a single subject, no matter how many anecdotes you
cite about them.

~~~
SilasX
The standard of proof, and things you're expected to cite as evidence, is very
different for "this particular person is a psychopath" vs "psychopaths in
general have this characteristic".

>You just wouldn't be able to achive anything approaching a decent level of
statistical confidence from studying a single subject, no matter how many
anecdotes you cite about them.

Therefore, no one can be found guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt
given that it's "just one person"?

~~~
moocowduckquack
you are confusing the legal with the scientific process, they are not the same
thing

~~~
SilasX
No, you are. You're bringing up scientific standards of proof that are totally
inapplicable to the question of whether one person meets the diagnostic
criteria. Your argument would likewise "prove" that therapists can't diagnose
patients with anything because they "only have anecdotal evidence" about "one
person".

Yes, someone is very confused here and wasting people's time, but it's not me.

~~~
lutusp
> You're bringing up scientific standards of proof that are totally
> inapplicable to the question of whether one person meets the diagnostic
> criteria.

It's not every day that I hear someone argue that scientific standards aren't
applicable to an issue potentially resolvable with science.

> Your argument would likewise "prove" that therapists can't diagnose patients
> with anything because they "only have anecdotal evidence" about "one
> person".

But that is true, and it's been proven over and over again. Psychologists
cannot reliably diagnose mental illnesses -- this is a matter of public record
and scientific evidence. Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM-
IV, says, "There are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most
of their patients with one particular disorder and really don't systematically
assess for other disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that
they are especially interested in treating and believe that most of their
patients have."

This is why psychology and psychiatry are being abandoned. Read this from the
sitting director of the NIMH:

[http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-
dia...](http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-
diagnosis.shtml)

Quote: "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at
best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength
of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has
ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. _The weakness is
its lack of validity._ "

Well put, Doctor Insel.

~~~
nzp
> This is why psychology and psychiatry are being abandoned.

This is like saying: "This is why biology and [insert-some-unreliable-medical-
procedure] are being abandoned." (because said procedure was found
unreliable). Without going into debate about DSM and psychiatric clinical
practice, psychology has little to do with this. Terminology should be used
properly, and we should be aware what words mean, especially if we criticize
sloppy science or health care.

~~~
lutusp
> Without going into debate about DSM and psychiatric clinical practice ...

A wise choice, since that debate took place, psychology was found wanting, and
is being abandoned as a result. Which part of this are you not clear about?

> ... psychology has little to do with this.

Psychology has everything to do with this. Psychology's basic premise is that
there is a normal behavior, a "good thing", and we should all aspire to it.
Meanwhile, in reality, evolution requires diversity to function. Diversity
stands at odds with the idea that there is a single correct model for
behavior.

The important thing to understand about evolution is that it's strongly backed
by scientific evidence, unlike psychology's belief system. One piece of
evidence in favor of evolution, by no means the only piece, is us -- we arose
by way of natural selection, and this happened by way of innumerable failed
experiments. No natural selection, no humans. That's strong evidence for how
badly psychology pictures reality.

> Terminology should be used properly, and we should be aware what words mean,
> especially if we criticize sloppy science or health care.

Don't tell me, tell the director of the NIMH and the highest-ranking
psychiatrist in the country, who is arguing for the abandonment of the DSM:

[http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-s...](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-
scientific-backlash-against-the-dsm.html)

I cannot impress on you strongly enough that the present criticism of the
field of psychology is entirely justified by facts.

~~~
nzp
Please stop confusing psychology and psychiatry. That was the point of my
post. You're using these two words as if they are synonyms. They are not. In
fact they have little in common. One is a science (psychology), the other
mostly (not completely) pseudo-medical quackery with little to no basis in the
actual science it's supposed to be grounded in.

As for the DSM, I'm afraid the highest ranking (what they have ranks in
psychiatry now? ;)) psychiatrist's idea will lead to even more quackery. DSM
isn't perfect, there is a lot to complain about theoretically and practically,
but it was at least a working attempt at objectivity. Abandoning the idea of
having a list of (at least somewhat well) operationally defined disorders and
working to improve that will again lead psychiatry to a state where a
psychiatric diagnosis is no better than a random choice of an arbitrary label
(it really was like that in the first half of 20th century, later things
stated getting _a little_ better).

~~~
lutusp
> Please stop confusing psychology and psychiatry.

Please stop confusing psychology and science. A psychiatrist is a psychologist
with a medical degree. Which part of this is in any way confusing? The reason
for the special category "psychiatrist" in modern times (wasn't always true)
is to allow drug prescribing, which is what psychiatrists now do
(psychologists do most of the talk therapy).

> DSM isn't perfect, there is a lot to complain about theoretically and
> practically, but it was at least a working attempt at objectivity.

To aspire to objectivity, the DSM's editors would have had to allow evidence
for causes of mental disturbances, not just effects (the DSM only lists
symptoms, effects, not one cause is listed). But when given a chance to accept
a cause-effect relationship, the editors rejected it, a story told in "Book of
Woe" by therapist Gary Greenberg.

Imagine a medical text that only lists symptoms, not causes. Modern medicine
would collapse. And modern psychiatry/psychology has collapsed.

According to the director of the NIMH and many others, psychology will be
replaced by neuroscience, a field that will tie causes and effects. I hasten
to add that neuroscience isn't ready for this burden yet, but it's not tainted
in the way that psychology is.

~~~
dragonwriter
> (the DSM only lists symptoms, effects, not one cause is listed).

This is false. While causes are usually not the primary focus of the DSM given
its intended purposes, a number of diagnosis do include causes (particularly,
those that where the presence or absence of a particular cause is relevant to
diagnosis.)

There are many very legitimate criticisms possible of the processes behind the
DSM in general or any particular edition of the DSM in particular, but this is
not one of them.

> Imagine a medical text that only lists symptoms, not causes

The DSM isn't a general manual of psychiatry, its -- first and foremost -- a
_diagnostic_ guide.

> According to the director of the NIMH and many others, psychology will be
> replaced by neuroscience, a field that will tie causes and effects.

Neuroscience doesn't differ from psychology in tieing causes and effects, it
differs in modelling lower-level, _intermediate_ causes and mechanisms --
which are fundamentally very important to psychology.

OTOH, its unlikely to _replace_ psychology (rather than simply informing and
refining it) for the same reason that chemistry is still around after various
domains of physics did more to reveal the lower-level, intermediate processes
underlying the higher-level effects studied within chemistry.

~~~
lutusp
>> (the DSM only lists symptoms, effects, not one cause is listed).

> This is false.

Check your facts. Here is what the sitting director of the NIMH had to say
about the DSM and the issue of symptoms, as he announced his decision to
abandon it:

[http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-
dia...](http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-
diagnosis.shtml)

Quote: "Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS,
the DSM diagnoses are _based on a consensus about clusters of clinical
symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure_. In the rest of medicine, this
would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of
chest pain or the quality of fever."

Circle the word you didn't understand and raise your hand.

> Neuroscience doesn't differ from psychology in tieing causes and effects ...

That is _exactly, precisely_ how neuroscience differs from psychology.
Psychology does not address causes, only symptoms, as the above quote
demonstrates, and as any honest appraisal of modern psychology shows.

> OTOH, its unlikely to replace psychology ...

Yes, I agree with this. Neuroscience won't replace psychology, for the same
reason astronomy didn't replace astrology: stupid people who need to believe
in things that have no empirical basis.

But in the future, unfortunately not any time soon, neuroscience will become
the preferred treatment for non-imaginary ailments.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Check your facts.

I've actually read substantial portions of the DSM-III, -IV, IV-TR, and -5.
The facts are exactly as I stated them.

> Here is what the sitting director of the NIMH had to say about the DSM and
> the issue of symptoms, as he announced his decision to abandon it

None of that supports your claim about causes. Nor does it support your claim
that psychiatry or psychology are somehow not science. What it does suggest is
that pyschiatry is less well-developed than other fields of medicine, which is
well understood.

> Psychology does not address causes, only symptoms

Repeating this doesn't make it true. Psychology in its current state doesn't
have a lot of information on low-level mechanisms, to be sure, and that
weakness is widely recognized; but to the extent that information is available
on causes, it incorporates them. Neuroscience informs pscyhology by
investigating low-level mechanisms, in much the same reason that physics
informs chemistry.

> as the above quote demonstrates

The quote you are referencing doesn't mention "causes" at all, nor does it
address "psychology".

What it does address, when taken in its full context (to which you provide the
link) is the problem that comes when allowing the existing symptom based
categories to _limit_ research to develop a better understanding of
psychiatric diagnosis to support better treatment.

> But in the future, unfortunately not any time soon, neuroscience will become
> the preferred treatment for non-imaginary ailments.

Neuroscience isn't a treatment.

And its been quite important to developing psychiatric treatments for some
time, its not a future contributor.

------
dreamdu5t
I learned nothing from this article but that neuroscience and psychology don't
really have any concrete definition for psychopathy and they don't seem to
have much predictive insights on it at all. Fascinating.

~~~
tantalor
There was some anecdotal evidence to support the prediction,

 _“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.”_

I think the takeaway is that sociopathy might be more normal than we thought.

~~~
jrs99
He likes to win arguments.

so maybe roughly 100% of humans?

~~~
auctiontheory
_He likes to win arguments / so maybe roughly 100% of humans?_

Not at all. Some humans "argue" or "debate" to understand the truth of an
issue, rather than to "win." In "losing," I actually learn more. I see that as
the difference between mathematicians (truth-seeking) and lawyers (win-
seeking.)

~~~
nostrademons
A number of other people don't like to argue at all, or if they argue it's
only to make people they care about feel good. They usually just let their
opponent win, although sometimes after putting up enough resistance to make
their opponent think it was a good fight.

------
contextual
Makes me wonder if scientists and supporters of vivo animal testing are
unwitting psychopaths, not just simply having low moral intuition.

