Sure, Dr. Kent Khiel on the study of FMRIs and people fitting the profiles of psychopathy. There is significant evidence that people who are true psychopaths (

Sure, Dr. Kent Khiel on the study of FMRIs and people fitting the profiles of psychopathy. There is significant evidence that people who are true psychopaths (as in those who aren't misdiagnosed) suffer a deficiency in the anterior cingulate cortex which relates to things like emotional regulation and learned behaviors (Robert Hare has shown that psychopaths show a deficiency in understanding things like fear of a negative outcome). The book the author notes says this is anecdotal except that the research has been going on for quite some time, and there have been several studies conducted. Now the author argues that the main study of brain anatomy and behavior is based on people who are incarcerated, and this to a certain extent is true. However there are also cases where people who aren't in jail have gotten FMRIs and exhibit the same types of behavior. James Fallon is a prime example (he has an article about him in the Smithsonian). He's a neuroscientist and fully admits that he fits the profile. The author states that it can't be a disorder, because it only equates to life experiences, but from a sociological perspective this can disproved. Psychopathy has been noted across different cultures and socioeconomic barriers. Plus, if life experience was purely the cause, one could stand to argue that psychopathy would be significantly weighted towards one culture, economic upbringing etc. It's not. Why would a kid with loving parents become a psychopath.....and his brother with similar experiences not. Look up the Ranes brothers. One of them is definitely a serial killer, and the other is (was) also serving a life sentence for murder....except there is evidence that the second isn't a psychopath even though he was convicted. There is a lot of evidence that showed it was possible he was wrongly convicted and he doesn't fit the profile. They had horrible childhoods and if upbringing was to be a significant indicator, this could disprove that rule as the brothers should similarly. The article says something about a study which shows that psychopaths can "turn their emotions on an off" (I remember reading the article but not specifics). Kevin Dutton argues that psychopaths are essentially predators and yes, they can understand emotion. That's how they are capable of finding people they can take advantage of. Plus it's one study, and if it can't be verified then it's not a very strong case. There was also a study recently which the author stated that he was able to help true psychopaths (not just people who have been diagnosed as APD) using behavioral therapy. This would lead to suggest that if that works, then it's behavioral and not neurological, but once again, it's only one article. What really gets me is the last paragraph, declaring them as "evil" and because of that they must be the "boogey man" Labeling someone as a psychopath based on the criteria actually humanizes them, and makes them someone who should be kind of pitied. They're dangerous and they do bad things, but if the neurological evidence is correct, they really don't understand. They aren't capable of understanding right and wrong like the rest of us. Saying that disorder is a myth really turns these people into monsters, because it means that we are assuming they have the same range of emotions as the rest of society and they choose to ignore what they know is right and wrong. Personally, I think that is a cop out answer to allow people to get mad and take revenge on people who may not understand at an emotional level what they are doing with a clear conscience. That's just me though.