One of the more interesting things I learned about was the study on infant cognition by Dr. Karen Wynn at Yale. In this study the researchers were hoping to ascertain if we are born with a moral compass. In order to do that it was necessary to study children that were under a year old and therefore not yet affected by their environment (school, tv, peers, etc.) Given the an infant cannot communicate through language they came up with an ingenuous system. They did a puppet show. In the first stage, a plush animal, colored puppet came in and tried to open a small plastic pencil box. After a few attempts where the puppet almost opened the box, another puppet is introduced. The second puppet approached the first and as the first one was trying to open the box the second one slammed it short, leaving the first one upset and crying. In the second stage of the experiment the same scenario was used, except that this time the first puppet came to the second puppet's aid and helped it to get the box open. The two puppets then hugged, happy that they'd accomplished their task. This scenario was repeated time and time again with a number of infants. In the end, it was found that a significant majority of the infants preferred the helpful puppet. Obviously none of the toddlers had been taught the idea of cooperation, sharing, crying bad/hugging good, etc. they preferred the helpful puppet without understanding the context of good or bad. The result led researchers to posit that a moral compass is something we are born with. Most of us are taught to be cooperative, to share, to be helpful and to in general be 'good' so this innate goodness or moral compass is further reinforced as we grown up. But it is also confused by the other things we learn from our surroundings, peer pressure, media, religion, etc. So, if we look at it from that light, as infants most of us enjoy the purest form of altruism there is.
The relevance of this research with my own is that while most of the infants chose the helpful puppet, some did not, some chose the 'bad' puppet. It is likely that those that did so were simply reaching for whatever puppet and that there was nothing proactive about their choice, but there were those who chose the 'bad' puppet because they wanted it above the 'good' puppet. Yale's Center for Infant Cognition was concentrating on the altruistic or cooperative aspects of the behavior, thus they did not explore the other side of the coin at all. We are left to wonder what would happen if we were to take a deeper look at those infants who chose the 'bad' puppet proactively. Did the puppet's behavior project strength or superiority and did the infants who select them decide they wanted the 'stronger' doll? Did the infants feel some sense of pleasure or satisfaction at seeing one character triumph over the other (Strong good/weak bad) or even more tangibly (more good/less bad). It is far more chilling to think that perhaps some of the toddlers felt a predatory instinct and chose the second puppet because they saw behavior that 'felt' more natural to them. The most recent understanding of psychopathy tells us that the the true psychopath is born with a different genetic make up and that the presence of a specific gene, what has been called the 'warrior gene' must be present. This gene in and of itself does not a psychopath make, certain environmental triggers are also required in order to spark psychopathy. The level of trigger necessary is based on other psychological and more importantly physiological factors. So, abuse in childhood might do it for one individual, but not another. Similarly something as inane as getting rebuffed by a potential mate might be sufficient for someone to engage in psychopathic behavior.
Perhaps the most significant difference between a psychopath and those that are perhaps of another species is the function of the amygdala. Amygdala function is associated with our ability to understand when certain behaviors are dangerous to ourselves and others. This function is what prevents us from acting in a rash or dangerous manner to even the slightest provocation or perceived provocation. It has widely been held that psychopaths' amygdala function is impaired so that they engage in behavior that is dangerous to themselves and/or to other people. It has also been posited that this inhibited glandular function is what most often brings the psychopath to the attention of authorities. Ted Bundy, Denis Rader, Gary Ridgeway, etc. engaged in their depraved activities often without consideration to how these activities might be dangerous, not to other, but to themselves. Denis Rader was caught because he sent a disc which was then traced to his computer at church. What would have happened if he had not sent the disc? How long would it have been before he was caught? Same with Ridgeway or Bundy. Bundy in particular could have gone on killing unchecked for a long, long time if he had not been so careless in how he carried out his atrocities. His looks, his eloquence, his education all served his purposes perfectly, but again, he functioned without any deep concern as to what might be dangerous to him and to his activities.
So amygdala function is what allows us to be so effective in tracking and capturing psychopaths. But there are those out there who have normal amygdala function, who do not suffer from the same conditions as the psychopath. They do form deep relationships, they do feel true empathy and pain (one of the people I learned about was so attached to his dogs that he went into a deep depression when the oldest one died), they are not narcissisistic nor are they manipulative in the more venal way. These distinctions are very subtle, but critical because it is these failings that put the 'traditional' psychopath on a level playing field with us. The embodiment of the new species is indeed a chilling look at what could amount to the most dangerous predator a human being could come across. I will paint a composite portrait of the new apex predator, a portrait based on the information I obtained from the scientists and researchers, police detectives, as well as prosecutors and defense attorneys, in a separate post.
The relevance of this research with my own is that while most of the infants chose the helpful puppet, some did not, some chose the 'bad' puppet. It is likely that those that did so were simply reaching for whatever puppet and that there was nothing proactive about their choice, but there were those who chose the 'bad' puppet because they wanted it above the 'good' puppet. Yale's Center for Infant Cognition was concentrating on the altruistic or cooperative aspects of the behavior, thus they did not explore the other side of the coin at all. We are left to wonder what would happen if we were to take a deeper look at those infants who chose the 'bad' puppet proactively. Did the puppet's behavior project strength or superiority and did the infants who select them decide they wanted the 'stronger' doll? Did the infants feel some sense of pleasure or satisfaction at seeing one character triumph over the other (Strong good/weak bad) or even more tangibly (more good/less bad). It is far more chilling to think that perhaps some of the toddlers felt a predatory instinct and chose the second puppet because they saw behavior that 'felt' more natural to them. The most recent understanding of psychopathy tells us that the the true psychopath is born with a different genetic make up and that the presence of a specific gene, what has been called the 'warrior gene' must be present. This gene in and of itself does not a psychopath make, certain environmental triggers are also required in order to spark psychopathy. The level of trigger necessary is based on other psychological and more importantly physiological factors. So, abuse in childhood might do it for one individual, but not another. Similarly something as inane as getting rebuffed by a potential mate might be sufficient for someone to engage in psychopathic behavior.
Perhaps the most significant difference between a psychopath and those that are perhaps of another species is the function of the amygdala. Amygdala function is associated with our ability to understand when certain behaviors are dangerous to ourselves and others. This function is what prevents us from acting in a rash or dangerous manner to even the slightest provocation or perceived provocation. It has widely been held that psychopaths' amygdala function is impaired so that they engage in behavior that is dangerous to themselves and/or to other people. It has also been posited that this inhibited glandular function is what most often brings the psychopath to the attention of authorities. Ted Bundy, Denis Rader, Gary Ridgeway, etc. engaged in their depraved activities often without consideration to how these activities might be dangerous, not to other, but to themselves. Denis Rader was caught because he sent a disc which was then traced to his computer at church. What would have happened if he had not sent the disc? How long would it have been before he was caught? Same with Ridgeway or Bundy. Bundy in particular could have gone on killing unchecked for a long, long time if he had not been so careless in how he carried out his atrocities. His looks, his eloquence, his education all served his purposes perfectly, but again, he functioned without any deep concern as to what might be dangerous to him and to his activities.
So amygdala function is what allows us to be so effective in tracking and capturing psychopaths. But there are those out there who have normal amygdala function, who do not suffer from the same conditions as the psychopath. They do form deep relationships, they do feel true empathy and pain (one of the people I learned about was so attached to his dogs that he went into a deep depression when the oldest one died), they are not narcissisistic nor are they manipulative in the more venal way. These distinctions are very subtle, but critical because it is these failings that put the 'traditional' psychopath on a level playing field with us. The embodiment of the new species is indeed a chilling look at what could amount to the most dangerous predator a human being could come across. I will paint a composite portrait of the new apex predator, a portrait based on the information I obtained from the scientists and researchers, police detectives, as well as prosecutors and defense attorneys, in a separate post.
