5 ms·

Reading paragraphs 2 & 3, the I thought that it was stated explicitly, though it seems to be simply implied. He was looking through stacks of scans from serial

Reading paragraphs 2 & 3, the I thought that it was stated explicitly, though it seems to be simply implied. He was looking through stacks of scans from serial killers and alzheimers patients and family members, and found one that was "obviously pathological"

lutusp 13y ago
Yes, but you see, that shows the questionable nature of the entire study. How could a person have all the traits supposedly associated with severe psychopathology and not even know it? In science, skepticism rules -- these brain scans might indicate something entirely separate from the object of the study, but something that produces a similar scan. A scientist would rule out all other possibilities before jumping to the conclusion that a person is a sociopath, which is just one of many explanations for the scan outcome. Most important of all, nature requires genetic diversity for evolution to work. Psychologists try to tell us there's only one "normal", but that's a myth put forth by people who don't understand evolution. "Normal" is anyone who has something to offer the world. Albert Einstein certainly had widely recognized gifts, but psychologists branded him mentally ill, as they did Thomas Jefferson, Bill Gates and many others -- using a "mental illness" label that has since been abandoned due to public protest. Sloppy science is a longstanding trademark of the field of psychology, and it would be a shame if the same sloppiness infected neuroscience also. To his credit, the author of the article expresses some of the same doubts as he tells the story.
- grey-area 13y ago
  The author points out that he does have some of the traits associated with psychopathy, he just sublimates them in acceptable ways (most of the time). Perhaps the best explanation is that this is a disorder of degrees, with only some outcomes being extreme enough to cause criminality, not that it doesn't exist at all? Of course there's room for scepticism here and a lot of doubt about what the scans actually indicate, and this 'illness' has fallen out of favour due to concerns about its fuzzy definition, but the author is absolutely not claiming that the scans are meaningless or not associated with psychopathy.
  - nzp 13y ago
    Yep, intelligence is a significant factor in the behavioral outcome.[0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6789637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6789637
- DanBC 13y ago
  > Psychologists try to tell us there's only one "normal" No they do not. Psychologists tell us that "normal" covers a very wide range of behaviours and experiences. They tell us that we only need to treat people who are not "normal" if those people have trouble functioning in their day to day lives. Thus, a person hearing voices can go on hearing those voices if they are okay with it. But when the person reports distress at the voices psychology and psychiatry step in to help that person. (I use hearing voices as an example, it could be OCD or anxiety or depression or any other mental health problem).
  - lutusp 13y ago
    >> Psychologists try to tell us there's only one "normal" > No they do not. Check your facts. Title: "Determining What Is Normal Behavior and What Is Not" Link: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fighting-fear/201305/determining-what-is-normal-behavior-and-what-is-not http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fighting-fear/201305/det... There are ten thousand more just like it. > They tell us that we only need to treat people who are not "normal" if those people have trouble functioning in their day to day lives. False. Homeless people are automatically given a diagnosis -- automatically and without consent -- in order to receive public assistance. You're living in a dream world. Modern psychology doesn't ask us what's wrong with us, it tells us. More evidence: Quote: "... according to the more recent NCS-R data, it’s not really 1 in 4 Americans who could be diagnosed with a mental disorder in any given year — it’s 1 in 3!" Link: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/05/03/mental-health-statistics/ http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/05/03/mental-heal... > Thus, a person hearing voices can go on hearing those voices if they are okay with it. Not if he has any property -- his relatives will have him committed. You are very clearly not conversant with modern psychological practice. The above abuses explain why the DSM is being abandoned, and by abandoning the DSM, society is rejecting all current psychological practice. Link: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... 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." -- from the current director of the NIMH.
yetanotherphd 13y ago
He may indeed have looked at some scans, and judged that one was "obviously pathological". But where does this imply that there already was a link between being a serial killer and brain scans? All it states was that he considered that particular scan (that belonged to him, it turns out) to be pathological. Also, even if he did find such a link, I can't find any publications by him on this link.

lutusp 13y ago

Yes, but you see, that shows the questionable nature of the entire study. How could a person have all the traits supposedly associated with severe psychopathology and not even know it? In science, skepticism rules -- these brain scans might indicate something entirely separate from the object of the study, but something that produces a similar scan. A scientist would rule out all other possibilities before jumping to the conclusion that a person is a sociopath, which is just one of many explanations for the scan outcome. Most important of all, nature requires genetic diversity for evolution to work. Psychologists try to tell us there's only one "normal", but that's a myth put forth by people who don't understand evolution. "Normal" is anyone who has something to offer the world. Albert Einstein certainly had widely recognized gifts, but psychologists branded him mentally ill, as they did Thomas Jefferson, Bill Gates and many others -- using a "mental illness" label that has since been abandoned due to public protest. Sloppy science is a longstanding trademark of the field of psychology, and it would be a shame if the same sloppiness infected neuroscience also. To his credit, the author of the article expresses some of the same doubts as he tells the story.

grey-area 13y ago
The author points out that he does have some of the traits associated with psychopathy, he just sublimates them in acceptable ways (most of the time). Perhaps the best explanation is that this is a disorder of degrees, with only some outcomes being extreme enough to cause criminality, not that it doesn't exist at all? Of course there's room for scepticism here and a lot of doubt about what the scans actually indicate, and this 'illness' has fallen out of favour due to concerns about its fuzzy definition, but the author is absolutely not claiming that the scans are meaningless or not associated with psychopathy.
- nzp 13y ago
  Yep, intelligence is a significant factor in the behavioral outcome.[0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6789637 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6789637
DanBC 13y ago
> Psychologists try to tell us there's only one "normal" No they do not. Psychologists tell us that "normal" covers a very wide range of behaviours and experiences. They tell us that we only need to treat people who are not "normal" if those people have trouble functioning in their day to day lives. Thus, a person hearing voices can go on hearing those voices if they are okay with it. But when the person reports distress at the voices psychology and psychiatry step in to help that person. (I use hearing voices as an example, it could be OCD or anxiety or depression or any other mental health problem).
- lutusp 13y ago
  >> Psychologists try to tell us there's only one "normal" > No they do not. Check your facts. Title: "Determining What Is Normal Behavior and What Is Not" Link: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fighting-fear/201305/determining-what-is-normal-behavior-and-what-is-not http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fighting-fear/201305/det... There are ten thousand more just like it. > They tell us that we only need to treat people who are not "normal" if those people have trouble functioning in their day to day lives. False. Homeless people are automatically given a diagnosis -- automatically and without consent -- in order to receive public assistance. You're living in a dream world. Modern psychology doesn't ask us what's wrong with us, it tells us. More evidence: Quote: "... according to the more recent NCS-R data, it’s not really 1 in 4 Americans who could be diagnosed with a mental disorder in any given year — it’s 1 in 3!" Link: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/05/03/mental-health-statistics/ http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/05/03/mental-heal... > Thus, a person hearing voices can go on hearing those voices if they are okay with it. Not if he has any property -- his relatives will have him committed. You are very clearly not conversant with modern psychological practice. The above abuses explain why the DSM is being abandoned, and by abandoning the DSM, society is rejecting all current psychological practice. Link: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... 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." -- from the current director of the NIMH.

yetanotherphd 13y ago

He may indeed have looked at some scans, and judged that one was "obviously pathological". But where does this imply that there already was a link between being a serial killer and brain scans? All it states was that he considered that particular scan (that belonged to him, it turns out) to be pathological. Also, even if he did find such a link, I can't find any publications by him on this link.