6 ms·

What a loaded sensationalist witch hunt. Someone either is an axe murderer or they aren't. There is no physical thing known as Psychopathy, it is an arbitrary

What a loaded sensationalist witch hunt. Someone either is an axe murderer or they aren't. There is no physical thing known as Psychopathy, it is an arbitrary descriptive label known as a category used to group similar behavior together. It is not a scientific discovery but a classification. This psychology professor is just asserting the classification he's devoted his life's work to is now bigger and applies to more people. He is simply coming up with an excuse to inflate his self-worth and sell more books, even though he is not making any discoveries and doing research. He's not even making the genetics argument, and if he was I would post articles citing nutritional deficiencies as causes of aggression or how gene expression changes due to epigenetics. I just want to insist that anyone interested in reading up on psychology stick to the scientific research, specifically cognitive- psychology\neuroscience\computing\science

samd 17y ago
Behaviors are caused by physical things, namely brain states, so it's perfectly reasonable to attribute a category of behavior to a physical characteristic of the brain. If people who behave fundamentally differently than others aren't physically different then what accounts for their behavior?
- metamemetics 17y ago
  Your making what's known in social psychology as the Fundamental Attribution Error: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
  - AndrewHay 17y ago
    Can you enlighten us as to how he is making this error?
    - metamemetics 17y ago
      We are always biased to overestimate the component of behavior attributable to some intrinsic quality of the person. The classic example is Nazi Germany\The Holocaust. Everyone started asking how could the Germans commit so many horrible atrocities, it must be something intrinsic and Freudian about their personality maybe they have a strong need for discipline, etc. Then along comes Milgram and his famous electroshock study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment , showing that Americans will perform actions even if they directly violate their internal beliefs, returning the primacy of behavior to the situation. It has been reproduced cross-culturally\many different times and variations. Another influential study is the Stanford Prison Experiments. Personally I still agree with the poster (samd) that everything is physical including brain states, and dualism is bonkers. But if we take that step, there is no longer a metaphysical ego holding personality. There is no distinction between individual and environment and the causality between the two is bidirectional, rendering the question moot.
      - samd 17y ago
        There is no distinction between individual and environment and the causality between the two is bidirectional, rendering the question moot. You are definitely on to something.
      - a-priori 17y ago
        See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_neuroscience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_neuroscience
      - rue 17y ago
        You could just as well make the argument that such "violating internal beliefs" is actually the exposed core and that such beliefs are the veneer furnished by upbringing.
      - berntb 17y ago
        Afaik, adoption studies support that psychopathy is inherited (to a large part) genetically.
    - AndrewHay 17y ago
      Ah yes, I see your point metamemetics, thanks. Which is the more leading cause of violent criminal behavior: circumstance or the person themselves? though, the rate of re offending seems to point towards the people themselves somewhat.
  - samd 17y ago
    I don't think so, I haven't really made any claims about how much of their behavior is situational versus dispositional. I'm just saying that disposition plays some role.
- aphyr 17y ago
  I agree that behaviors are caused by physical states. However, stating that people who behave in a fundamentally different way aren't physically different is misguided. Every person is physically different. The difficulty is that unless there are gross brain lesions, it's very hard to see what makes people with psychopathy different. It might be a slight difference in the sensitivity of key neurons to one of twenty neurotransmitters, for example, or a slightly different pattern of connections in one region. Psychology (like many sciences) is all about developing reliable abstractions for these complex physical states. The surprising thing is that it works: you can change the neurotransmitter balance of the brain in many cases just by sitting down and talking to people for a year.
itistoday 17y ago
Where on earth are you getting this from? The guy has done excellent hard research, psychopathy is fairly well established at this point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy Further, there should be nothing outrageous in the claim that some people have radically different emotions from "normal people," especially considering the fact that you can take a pill and instantly change the sort of consciousness and emotions that you experience.
- TimothyFitz 17y ago
  I think there's a fair point to make that calling one person a psychopath and another person not a psychopath is a purely arbitrary line drawn in the sand. Hare's test measures various responses and draws an arbitrary line (30 of 40 points) between which someone is or is not a psychopath. It's a classical false dichotomy that the article promotes in sensationalist terms.
  - itistoday 17y ago
    It may be arbitrary in the same sense the question, "Is that a fast car?" is arbitrary, but in exactly the same sense you can compare and make statements regarding the degree to which someone exhibits psychopathic traits, and as his research shows, this isn't something that's simply caused by a bad upbringing. The fact that it's not a black & white issue doesn't mean that there aren't concrete physical differences between the brains of the general population and the 1% of the population labeled as psychopaths. It's the same situation for any mental "disorder", i.e. Asperger Syndrome, etc.
- metamemetics 17y ago
  Psychopathy is a label that's not even widely used anymore. It's not a diagnostic in the DSM. This guy is a super old-timer who mainly works with police. 'Psychopathy' was a catch-all category that he is making increasingly more catch-all. We make categories because they are useful, but this categorization wasn't specific enough to be useful which is why it isn't used anymore. "According to Hare, the consensus among researchers in this area is that psychopathy stems from a specific neurological disorder which is biological in origin and present from birth[10] although this was not what was reported by a 2008 review which instead indicated multiple causes and variation between individuals" I am obviously not arguing that antisocial behavior doesn't exist, murder obviously is an action that has happened at least once before. What I am arguing strongly against is the idea that people are born intrinsically evil. Also the point he hammers in is all about "empathy", but empathy is also absent in autism... his category is too broad to be usable at helping people. Treating an individual as an individual rather than a category allows you to take off the blinders and address there specific situation better to promote more positive change. The methodology of categorizing someone as having an intrinsic psychological disorder is extremely pessimistic and hinders resocialization. It has also been out the door with the advent of positive psychology, here is a speech by a president of the american psychological association: http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psychology.html http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psy... http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/10773.html http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/10773.html The above is a completely different approach to looking at antisocial behavior. It is also one that leads to positive outcomes. It is also quantifiable.
Vivtek 17y ago
First, "this psychology professor" is trying to get people not to misuse his work, as reading the article would have told you. He is, in fact, "the scientific research". The reason he's not doing research now, as you seem to be asserting, is that he is retired. From doing research, you see. Secondly, if you don't believe in psychopathy, you clearly haven't met my mother-in-law. (And I only wish I were joking.)

samd 17y ago

Behaviors are caused by physical things, namely brain states, so it's perfectly reasonable to attribute a category of behavior to a physical characteristic of the brain. If people who behave fundamentally differently than others aren't physically different then what accounts for their behavior?

metamemetics 17y ago
Your making what's known in social psychology as the Fundamental Attribution Error: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
- AndrewHay 17y ago
  Can you enlighten us as to how he is making this error?
  - metamemetics 17y ago
    We are always biased to overestimate the component of behavior attributable to some intrinsic quality of the person. The classic example is Nazi Germany\The Holocaust. Everyone started asking how could the Germans commit so many horrible atrocities, it must be something intrinsic and Freudian about their personality maybe they have a strong need for discipline, etc. Then along comes Milgram and his famous electroshock study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment , showing that Americans will perform actions even if they directly violate their internal beliefs, returning the primacy of behavior to the situation. It has been reproduced cross-culturally\many different times and variations. Another influential study is the Stanford Prison Experiments. Personally I still agree with the poster (samd) that everything is physical including brain states, and dualism is bonkers. But if we take that step, there is no longer a metaphysical ego holding personality. There is no distinction between individual and environment and the causality between the two is bidirectional, rendering the question moot.
    - samd 17y ago
      There is no distinction between individual and environment and the causality between the two is bidirectional, rendering the question moot. You are definitely on to something.
    - a-priori 17y ago
      See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_neuroscience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_neuroscience
    - rue 17y ago
      You could just as well make the argument that such "violating internal beliefs" is actually the exposed core and that such beliefs are the veneer furnished by upbringing.
    - berntb 17y ago
      Afaik, adoption studies support that psychopathy is inherited (to a large part) genetically.
  - AndrewHay 17y ago
    Ah yes, I see your point metamemetics, thanks. Which is the more leading cause of violent criminal behavior: circumstance or the person themselves? though, the rate of re offending seems to point towards the people themselves somewhat.
- samd 17y ago
  I don't think so, I haven't really made any claims about how much of their behavior is situational versus dispositional. I'm just saying that disposition plays some role.
aphyr 17y ago
I agree that behaviors are caused by physical states. However, stating that people who behave in a fundamentally different way aren't physically different is misguided. Every person is physically different. The difficulty is that unless there are gross brain lesions, it's very hard to see what makes people with psychopathy different. It might be a slight difference in the sensitivity of key neurons to one of twenty neurotransmitters, for example, or a slightly different pattern of connections in one region. Psychology (like many sciences) is all about developing reliable abstractions for these complex physical states. The surprising thing is that it works: you can change the neurotransmitter balance of the brain in many cases just by sitting down and talking to people for a year.

itistoday 17y ago

Where on earth are you getting this from? The guy has done excellent hard research, psychopathy is fairly well established at this point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy Further, there should be nothing outrageous in the claim that some people have radically different emotions from "normal people," especially considering the fact that you can take a pill and instantly change the sort of consciousness and emotions that you experience.

TimothyFitz 17y ago
I think there's a fair point to make that calling one person a psychopath and another person not a psychopath is a purely arbitrary line drawn in the sand. Hare's test measures various responses and draws an arbitrary line (30 of 40 points) between which someone is or is not a psychopath. It's a classical false dichotomy that the article promotes in sensationalist terms.
- itistoday 17y ago
  It may be arbitrary in the same sense the question, "Is that a fast car?" is arbitrary, but in exactly the same sense you can compare and make statements regarding the degree to which someone exhibits psychopathic traits, and as his research shows, this isn't something that's simply caused by a bad upbringing. The fact that it's not a black & white issue doesn't mean that there aren't concrete physical differences between the brains of the general population and the 1% of the population labeled as psychopaths. It's the same situation for any mental "disorder", i.e. Asperger Syndrome, etc.
metamemetics 17y ago
Psychopathy is a label that's not even widely used anymore. It's not a diagnostic in the DSM. This guy is a super old-timer who mainly works with police. 'Psychopathy' was a catch-all category that he is making increasingly more catch-all. We make categories because they are useful, but this categorization wasn't specific enough to be useful which is why it isn't used anymore. "According to Hare, the consensus among researchers in this area is that psychopathy stems from a specific neurological disorder which is biological in origin and present from birth[10] although this was not what was reported by a 2008 review which instead indicated multiple causes and variation between individuals" I am obviously not arguing that antisocial behavior doesn't exist, murder obviously is an action that has happened at least once before. What I am arguing strongly against is the idea that people are born intrinsically evil. Also the point he hammers in is all about "empathy", but empathy is also absent in autism... his category is too broad to be usable at helping people. Treating an individual as an individual rather than a category allows you to take off the blinders and address there specific situation better to promote more positive change. The methodology of categorizing someone as having an intrinsic psychological disorder is extremely pessimistic and hinders resocialization. It has also been out the door with the advent of positive psychology, here is a speech by a president of the american psychological association: http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psychology.html http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psy... http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/10773.html http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/10773.html The above is a completely different approach to looking at antisocial behavior. It is also one that leads to positive outcomes. It is also quantifiable.

Vivtek 17y ago

First, "this psychology professor" is trying to get people not to misuse his work, as reading the article would have told you. He is, in fact, "the scientific research". The reason he's not doing research now, as you seem to be asserting, is that he is retired. From doing research, you see. Secondly, if you don't believe in psychopathy, you clearly haven't met my mother-in-law. (And I only wish I were joking.)