4 ms·

> But this killer is also very much a slave to their brain in the same way as the tumour individual. I think there’s an element of, ironically, survivorship bi

> But this killer is also very much a slave to their brain in the same way as the tumour individual. I think there’s an element of, ironically, survivorship bias there. We notice psychopathic serial killers because they kill people, and then we say they lack agency like the tumor victim. But the psychopaths who don’t kill people are invisible. We just call them CEOs (jk, but only kind of).

hntrader 6y ago
I believe this perspective is appealing because of our current inability to recognize what are the actual factors that drive psychopath A to become a killer and psychopath B to be a CEO. Agency is like the God Of The Gaps at the moment. We don't know what makes A and B differ and we magic that knowledge gap away with "agency". Over time, as we understand more about the brain and psychology, the serial killers who don't have any macroscopic impairments are going to look very much like the ones that do. And the psychopaths that become killers are going to look very different to those that become CEOs (either brain and/or environment). Only then, we will be able to point our fingers towards the precise causal pathway at play (genetics+environment). Until then, the best we can do is recognize that such a pathway exists, which the individual was gifted at birth, even though we're ignorant of the specifics.
- smogcutter 6y ago
  This reminds me of the x files episode where a serial killer asks psychics “why do I do the things that I do?” before he kills them. Peter Boyle answers: “that’s easy, you do the things you do because you’re a homicidal maniac!” More seriously, going all-in on biological determinism is just as much an article of faith at this point as looking for agency. This is one of the questions of western philosophy and science, let’s not pretend it’s settled or that we’re going to solve it in an hn thread either way. Also I don’t think this is what you intend, but where the line you’re proposing leads is “phrenology, but with magnets this time so it looks like science.” No thanks, and even if it does turn out to be where we’re going it seems a mite early to take it for granted.

hntrader 6y ago

I believe this perspective is appealing because of our current inability to recognize what are the actual factors that drive psychopath A to become a killer and psychopath B to be a CEO. Agency is like the God Of The Gaps at the moment. We don't know what makes A and B differ and we magic that knowledge gap away with "agency". Over time, as we understand more about the brain and psychology, the serial killers who don't have any macroscopic impairments are going to look very much like the ones that do. And the psychopaths that become killers are going to look very different to those that become CEOs (either brain and/or environment). Only then, we will be able to point our fingers towards the precise causal pathway at play (genetics+environment). Until then, the best we can do is recognize that such a pathway exists, which the individual was gifted at birth, even though we're ignorant of the specifics.

smogcutter 6y ago
This reminds me of the x files episode where a serial killer asks psychics “why do I do the things that I do?” before he kills them. Peter Boyle answers: “that’s easy, you do the things you do because you’re a homicidal maniac!” More seriously, going all-in on biological determinism is just as much an article of faith at this point as looking for agency. This is one of the questions of western philosophy and science, let’s not pretend it’s settled or that we’re going to solve it in an hn thread either way. Also I don’t think this is what you intend, but where the line you’re proposing leads is “phrenology, but with magnets this time so it looks like science.” No thanks, and even if it does turn out to be where we’re going it seems a mite early to take it for granted.