Important Notes on Psychopathy

[vinny]

I'm new to the forum, and here with my first post I want to basically think out aloud, specifically upon the subject of psychopaths born sociopathic.

Hello Aristillus, and welcome to the forum. While 'thinking out loud' can be beneficial, on this forum we work very hard to maintain a high signal to noise ratio. This means that opinion is not valued, while research, data and corroborating evidence are highly valued.

This is why you were asked:

What data do you have to back up this claim?

This forum has made available volumes of research that indicate, quite strongly, that essential psychopathology is a genetic trait. Therefore, for you to come here and state that you think differently, you need to present data that indicates that what you 'think' is true. Opinions hold no merit, nor do hunches and the like.

So, if you'd like to contribute to the forum and to this specific discussion, you would do well to read the in-depth research that has already been presented on these pages - and if you have uncovered research that proves contrary, please present it, since we are, after all, searching for the truth.

anart's simple and careful explanation still stands. Really, there is an absoluteley enormous amount of bona fide research material linked from this site, if only one is prepared to look for it, The 'working conclusions' reached, based on this collossal body of work is not 'set in stone', the quest for truth has to always be ready for new information that changes things.

but such new understandings cannot be reached by just saying "I disagree", without providing any data.

One can't just short-cut all that work, examine only the conclusion, and then say "I disagree" because you don't 'like' the conclusion reached - data is needed! Not only that, this data has to be acquired in the process of seeking out objective truth whatever it may be, such data CANNOT be obtained by pursuing one particular conclusion only, to the exclusion of others - that always skews the data. but in fact is oh so common in modern science.

Real 'open mindedness' is very different to uncritical acceptance every unfounded suggestion that is received.

 

[anart]

Nothing like self-importance to ensure that any opportunity for true learning is squelched. I take it from this response that you can provide no data to back up your previously stated opinions?

Take a look at the first page of this thread moderator, apart from Laura's initial post, where is the research and the quoted references to the research by the other posters? We see no links until we get to Laura's second post (no:12)...Highmystica links to this thread at no:3; Beau, the first to respond to my post, does so with a banal pithiness bordering on contempt for my opinion. Where are Beau's quotes to research refuting my opinion?

Please see this thread on opinions - http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3925 -

Also, those people you are siting are not disagreeing with what research has already proven simply because they 'want to' - so you are comparing apples and oranges, in a very legalistic, black and white, way.

CarpeDeim supplies a lengthy quote which offers a limited support to my opinion, but even this research does not establish a factual claim of what is the cause for psychopathy. It differentiates between the occurrence of two violences, that of reactive and that of predatory violences. Nothing of the research quoted provides anything that points to the cause of psychopathy, although it may well be assumed that brain chemistry plays a part in the process, but not in the cause.

You have clearly not read all the research. You are emotionally tied to your 'opinion' and because of this, you are unable to think clearly - you are reacting emotionally and fighting with all your might to 'be right'.

These points aside, my umbrage was raised by your post, which singled me out for unnecessary advice not given to other posters to the thread.

Not at all - none of the other posters said that someone cannot be born psychopathic and then offered no research to back this opinion up - you are comparing apples and oranges. You are not able to think clearly because you are emotionally tied to your own impressions - they seem to define you in your mind (you are identified with them), so when what you have written is challenged, you feel personally challenged and react emotionally.

You assumed that my being 'new' to the forum meant that I ommited to myself the neccessity of doing a little homework prior to posting...I ommited nothing.

You are mistaken and jumping to conclusions - I assumed nothing - I read what you wrote and directed you so as to reduce the level of noise in your posts. Clearly this is lost on you.

I made a small intial post that provided to the thread a particular stance on this particular subject, a second post was to follow with backup data or links. My initial post required no response from anyone, it was a opinion...a thinking out aloud as I stated, so now, am I to assume that with every post I make you have deemed it necessary that I am to back up my thoughts and thinking with links?

See this thread on opinions - http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3925

Don't be absurd! I need no tutorship from you on forum participation, take that into consideration before taking a high-handed approach with me.

Nothing like self-importance to keep a mind closed. The unfortunate (for you) fact of the matter is that if you do not follow the rules of this forum, and the spirit with which it is run, you do need 'tutorship' - or you will be removed. You certainly don't have to stay and interact on a forum that you find absurd - nor does that forum 'need' to keep you around.

Because of your hypocrisy, I had thought it better to leave the forum, but I have decided to hang around.

No, actually, you decided nothing. You reacted emotionally and were going 'to take your ball and go home' - then, once those emotions subsided, you reacted emotionally again, this time fueled by indignations and more self-importance, and returned for 'more'. You have 'decided' nothing - you have reacted your way to this little rant of a post.

I will make posts, some will contain links some won't, I believe one's own thinking is far better than taking the lazy avenues of using someone else's. When I link to data, it is because I am fully au fait with it in my understanding of it. I will not link to data or research just to give the impression that I do.

Boy, you are really worked up, aren't you? Unfortunately, this is not your forum - feel free to go and start a forum of your own where you can post what you like to your heart's content. This is not the forum for you.

Here's a claim...an opinion...

Please read this thread on opinions - http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3925

If you think I am wrong, debate the issue with your own mind and not that of someone else's by the provision of a link.

This forum is not for 'debate' it is for discussion among people who are capable of controlling their emotions and thought processes to the extent that an objective view of reality can be reached. Therefore, this forum is clearly not for you.

 

[anart]

Do you people not read posts with adequate understanding, or do you simply ignore clauses whose meanings explain the specifics. What meaning can be mined from the following clause?:I will make posts, some will contain links some won't...

You still seem to be missing the fact that this is not your forum - such dictates don't fly here.

You, yourself, Laura are very capable of quoting lengthy tracts of so-called 'bona fide' research, yet incapable of providing any personal commentary on what that research means to you...where is your provision to show to forum members your 'bona fide' understanding of all that you quote? What does all your quoting pertain to you, and what stance do you adopt from it all? I ask this because you don't supply it.

You have now descended to being aggressive and rude - which is not allowed on this forum. Please read the forum rules and abide by them or you will be removed.

As for asking me to provide my 'real' name such request goes against the forum's provision of anonymity, and you know that.

To what 'forum's provision of anonymity' are you referring? Where do you think you are? Do your pronouncements actually create reality for you? It's time to wake up, aristillus, and realize that this is not your forum; your kingdom in which you may dictate what is discussed and how it is discussed.

If you wish to take a diametric stance to mine that is fine and fair, because the subject matter under discussion is not me or you personally, but that of psychopathy. My area of expertise is in education, and that alone should suffice. I joined 'SOTT' in order to have reasoned discussion with other people seeking the same,

No, it appears you have joined to pontificate and throw hostile and derogatory words around for your own self-aggrandizement. Unfortunately (for you) this forum is quite used to dealing with such individuals - this is not the forum for you.

so far I have have been met with a veiled hostility that is often aroused by newcomers to cliques.

Ahh, and there we have it - the most common protestation by those riddled with pathology. The fact of the matter is that if the response you've received was due to you being a newcomer, than all newcomers would receive such a response, which would leave us with very few members -but since we have over 1500 active members, clearly something other than 'you being new' is involved here.

I have a point of view on the subject, and that should be accepted as 'bona fide', not to be taken as expert testimony, but as a 'lay' understanding of it...this is not a forum for experts, but of lay people, even if there are experts from the field participating on the forum.

Again, this is not your forum - why are you defining what this forum is and what it is not? Do you interact this way in all facets of your life - do you dictate conditions and definitions that are wholly outside your realm of influence? What an interesting life you must lead.

The 'essential' (correct use of the term) that members should bring to a forum is a open-mind and receptance to alternative points-of-view...I do not see anything in my initial post that should have elicited responses of pithiness, high-minded-ness, or a assumptory demand from you. If my initial post requires rebutting, then do so, rebutt it with your own thinking by staying on the subject without deflecting the argument to my personhood.

Ahh, defining what the forum is and isn't (though it's not your forum) and dictating how it should be run and even what content responses to you should contain AND a healthy dollup of self-importance to boot. Clearly, aristillus, this forum is not for you.

 

[Aristillus]

Hi There,

...such new understandings cannot be reached by just saying "I disagree", without providing any data.

Thankyou for this response. I agree. However, a personal commentary shows more succinctly why one agrees or disagrees, linking to other data will not necessarily show the accuracy of one's stance. For instance, I consider (for my stance) the 'psychopath' as having a 'integrational' disorder that omits a prevalent development of conscience. Seeking a biological etiology for what makes a psychopath is as redundant as seeking a biological etiology for the soul. There cannot be a classification of a true psychopath holding a conscience, thus, because of the observed lack of conscience as being an 'essential' element or aspect to classify a person as a psychopath, a biological etiology is not required. In other words, taking Hare's 20 point classification into consideration, we can clearly classify 'psychopath' from objective observables based on Hare's system.
This of course, does not provide etiology, only classification, but it does show observable lacuna in the psychopath's psycho-dynamic and its fractured relation to social norms (and here, I am assuming a tentative agreement as to the understanding of what 'social norms' constitute), which in turn, present a 'integrative' disorder. Could there be a biological etiology for this integrative disorder? Obviously I cannot rule out the possibility of some abberant brain chemistry being involved, but as I do not subscribe to a neurobiological/neurophysiological model, and have not come across any research that persuades me otherwise (and I am open to persuasion), I currently perceive psychopathy (in its relation to the true psychopath) as being a integrative disorder...the psychopath can be considered as having a incomplete or fractured 'psyche'. Something of a etiology will (I suspect) be found not in what is present, but what is not present, what has not been historically integrated into the psyche of the psychopath during the maturation years...from birth to adulthood.

Future posts will seek to provide support for this stance I take, and will include relevant links and data. Currently I am in opposition to a biological etiology, and I will criticise and rebut claims to support such a etiology until proven beyond reasonable doubt. In the meantime, do not assume that I do not read what has been provided on the forum, I will not allude to research I disagree with except in its criticism.

Best wishes

 

[brainwave]

I think there are genetic susceptibilities to psychopathy that can be worsened within particular environments. What I think has been demonstrated from several studies is that genes play a part, maybe a big part even if we don't know exactly what those genes are. Like anything else, say schizophrenia for example, those who suffer from symptoms show certain genetic similarities regardless of social background, although there may also environmental influences.
Looking at the genetic and developmental history of the individual as well as family members should give us some clues. I would say in the case of psychopathy there are ample clues regarding a genetic component.

Authors: Viding, Essi; Blair, R. James R.; Moffitt, Terrie E.; Plomin, Robert. Evidence for substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds
journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (formerly Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines); June 2005, Vol. 46 Issue: Number 6 p592-597, 6p
ISSN:
00219630; 14697610
Author Affiliations:
1Social Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK
2Mood and Anxiety Disorders Program NIMH, Bethesda, MD, USA
Abstract:
Individuals with early warning signs of life-long psychopathy, callous-unemotional traits (CU) and high levels of antisocial behaviour (AB) can be identified in childhood. We report here the first twin study of high levels of psychopathic tendencies in young children.At the end of the first school year, teachers provided ratings of CU and AB for 3687 twin pairs from the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS). For the analyses of extreme CU, we selected same-sex twin pairs where at least one twin scored 1.3 or more standard deviations above the mean on the CU scale (612 probands, 459 twin pairs). For the analysis of extreme AB, we selected same-sex twin pairs where at least one twin scored 1.3 or more standard deviations above the mean on AB scale (444 probands, 364 twin pairs). Furthermore, the extreme AB sample was divided into those who were also extreme on CU (children with psychopathic tendencies; 234 probands, 187 twin pairs) and those who did not score in the extreme for CU (children without psychopathic tendencies; 210 probands, 177 twin pairs).DeFries–Fulker extremes analysis indicated that exhibiting high levels of CU is under strong genetic influence. Furthermore, separating children with AB into those with high and low levels of CU showed striking results: AB in children with high levels of CU is under extremely strong genetic influence and no influence of shared environment, whereas AB in children with low levels of CU shows moderate genetic and shared environmental influence.The remarkably high heritability for CU, and for AB children with CU, suggests that molecular genetic research on antisocial behaviour should focus on the CU core of psychopathy. Our findings also raise questions for public policy on interventions for antisocial behaviour.



Title: Biological and genetic factors in childhood psychopathy: A twin study.

Author: Ward, Michelle Caroline, U Southern California, US
Source:
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, Vol 65(12-B), 2005. pp. 6679.
Publisher:
US: ProQuest Information & Learning.
ISSN:
0419-4217 (Print)
Order Number:
AAI3155495
Language:
English
Keywords:
biological factor; genetic factors; childhood psychopathy; twins; heart rate; skin conductance; caregiver reports; child self reports
Abstract:
Biological and genetic factors in childhood psychopathy were examined in a sample of 948 male and female twins (age 9-10). Childhood psychopathy was indexed by caregiver reports and child self-reports of the Childhood Psychopathy Scale (CPS). Psychometric analyses of the CPS factors indicated moderate psychometric properties for this measure, thus this study provided some support for the concept of childhood psychopathy. Contrary to findings from the adult literature, psychopathy group differences did not emerge for heart rate and skin conductance responses during the countdown paradigm in this study. Genetic analyses revealed substantial genetic and unique environmental influence for scores on the CPS. The genetic influences were largely non-additive (dominant) in nature. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)
A common genetic factor explains the association between psychopathic personality and antisocial behavior.


Title:
A Genetic Factor Explains Most of the Variation in the Psychopathic Personality.Find More Like This
Author(s):
Larsson, Henrik, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, henrik.larsson@meb.ki.se
Andershed, Henrik, Department of Behavioral, Social, and Legal Sciences, Orebro University, Sweden
Lichtenstein, Paul, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Address:
Larsson, Henrik, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, P.O. Box 281, SE-171 77, Stockholm, Sweden, henrik.larsson@meb.ki.se
Source:
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol 115(2), May 2006. pp. 221-230.
Publisher:
US: American Psychological Assn
ISSN:
0021-843X (Print)
Digital Object Identifier:
10.1037/0021-843X.115.2.221
Language:
English
Keywords:
psychopathy; genetic factors; environment; twins; adolescence; psychopathic personality traits; sex differences
Abstract:
The psychopathic personality can be conceptualized as three interrelated dimensions, (a) an interpersonal style of glibness, grandiosity, and manipulation; (b) an affective disposition of callousness, lack of empathy, and unemotionality; and (c) a behavioral/lifestyle dimension of impulsivity, need for stimulation, and irresponsibility, underpinning a higher order construct, psychopathic personality. The authors used a self-report questionnaire (The Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory) to study the importance of genetic and environmental influences on psychopathic personality traits in a sample of 1,090 monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs, aged 16-17 years. Results showed a strong genetic influence behind the higher order "psychopathic personality" factor, underpinned by the three psychopathic personality dimensions. Over and above the effects to the higher order factor, significant unique genetic influences were also found in the callous/unemotional and in the impulsive/irresponsible dimension, but not in the grandiose/manipulative dimension. The authors propose that this latent psychopathic personality factor is a meaningful target for future etiological research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)(from the journal abstract)



Title: A common genetic factor explains the association between psychopathic personality and antisocial behavior.
Find More Like This
Authors:
HENRIK LARSSON1
CATHERINE TUVBLAD2
FRUHLING V. RIJSDIJK3
HENRIK ANDERSHED4
MARTIN GRANN5
PAUL LICHTENSTEIN2
Source:
Psychological Medicine; Jan2007, Vol. 37 Issue 1, p15-26, 12p
Document Type:
Article
Subject Terms:
*DISEASES -- Causes & theories of causation
*GENOTYPE-environment interaction
*PSYCHOLOGY, Pathological
*DELINQUENT behavior
PSYCHOPATHY
Abstract:
Background. Both psychopathic personality traits and antisocial behavior are influenced by genetic as well as environmental factors. However, little is known about how genetic and environmental factors contribute to the associations between the psychopathic personality traits and antisocial behavior.Method. Data were drawn from a longitudinal population-based twin sample including all 1480 twin pairs born in Sweden between May 1985 and December 1986. The twins responded to mailed self-report questionnaires at two occasions: 1999 (twins 13–14 years old), and 2002 (twins 16–17 years old).Results. A common genetic factor loaded substantially on both psychopathic personality traits and antisocial behavior, whereas a common shared environmental factor loaded exclusively on antisocial behavior.Conclusions. The genetic overlap between psychopathic personality traits and antisocial behavior may reflect a genetic vulnerability to externalizing psychopathology. The finding of shared environmental influences only in antisocial behavior suggests an etiological distinction between psychopathic personality dimensions and antisocial behavior. Knowledge about temperamental correlates to antisocial behavior is important for identification of susceptibility genes, as well as for possible prevention through identification of at-risk children early in life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
************************************************************************

I am aware of the difficulties in separating genetic and environmental influences on a given phenotype, as well as separating multiple genes that may be involved in a particular phenotype. We can't really say there is one gene that identifies psychopathy and worse there are components of this disorder that shared with other disorders. However, as with most things that are deemed genetic, there are usually multiple genes and environment interactions involved which will be reflected in the degree that the person displays a trait and this is where a lot of confusion somes in. Furthermore, if the gene (s) that regulate a particular neurobiological or psychological function that affect behavior, say for example, shunting inhibition the pre-frontal cortex, or pre-pulse inhibition in amygdala; these activities can also be disrupted due to damage to the neural circuits involved at some point in an individual’s life resulting in similar behavior as a ‘core’ psychopath. This is what I guess you would term environmental effects. Any number of things can disrupt the electro-chemical balance that regulates our hypothetical shunting or pre-pulse inhibition via neurotransmitters .
So we see that in the various cases of neurobiological disruption leading to certain behaviors that can be due to genes and can also be to an environmental event during a developmental stage that affects how the genes regulating those activities function in adulthood. It still does not rule out genes.

So I would say that the underlying cause of psychopathy is disruption of the neurobiological systems involved in the function of emotion regulation, fear conditioning etc, executive control, risk taking behaviors etc., resulting in the core features two of which includes being callous and unemotional. Figuring out the actual cause of the disruption is the job of people like myself- neuroscientists, psychologist and developmental biologists. But it doesn’t mean others cannot understand or make use of our work, which I think is what is being done here as long as there is some understanding

As I said, I don’t entirely rule out that environment is involved but it seems to me that genes (the actual code there of or how they function and interact with the environment) have a lot to do with it. An individual can have the gene (s) of interest but never display the core traits as some environmental conditions may not be suited to the expression or function of the gene’s protein product. But we would still say that the person has a genetic risk for psychopathy whether they ever display the traits or not. We do this with other diseases to so why should psychopathy be an exception? I think there is a lot of politics (or maybe because psychopaths are in charge) involved with not wanting to go there with things involving personality and behavior.

Having a genetic component doesn’t always mean completely unable to remedy a problem, it just means we have to work harder at how we approach dealing with it. Consider also that an individual could have malfunctioning gene(s) but also other functioning genes that can regulate the same circuitry in normal manner. The brain is very redundant. Probably in those cases you won’t get the same degree of core features of a disorder. Thus the degree of expression of a given phenotype, like say psychopathy. will be based on many things; What multiple genes are involved in certain behaviors, how many are really “defective”, how many copies of a given defective gene (two or one) the person may carry, how many repeats within a particular area of the gene sequence and whether the version of a gene is long or short form etc AND the environment ( developmental etc). They are all good questions to ask and results from multiple studies have to come together to get a better picture. But how do you explain so called psychopaths that had "ideal' environmental upbringing and no *known* direct injury or pre and peri-natal exposure to damaging chemicals etc, but share a particular genotype and functioning brain circuitry with others who display similar traits? Again, you can’t always rule out everything but you can get to the most likely or dominant effects, and in such a case it would seem the genes are dominant.

Brain differences that are predictive for anti-social behavior are seen in very young children BTW and I am aware that genes are not the only mode of inheritance in biology, even if some neo-darwinists tend to promote it as the only one. I don’ think anyone is promoting that genes are the ONLY source of psychopathic behaviors but it is a strong causal component.



So in my view, multiple gene-gene interactions, as well as gene-environment interactions and plain ole environment (accidents, chemicals childhood diseases etc) can determine whether not someone displays characteristics of psychopathy, and to what degree it is displayed. In the core traits it looks like a developmental issue with a strong genetic component that I would even say genetic ‘cause’ of the traits that we observe (the science police aren’t around are they? LOL).

This website discuss current research with links to more research :http://personalitydisorders.suite101.com/articles.cfm


***********************************************************************

In 2004 a nice review was written on the issue including the need to address core psychopathy and anti-social disorder as well as genetic indications. Note there have since been some follow up studies addressing the issues raised in the paper. Loney et al (2007) found a strong correlation between maternal affective (the mothers are callous and unemotional) and these same core psychopathic behaviors in children. The mothers of course behaved in a hostile and dysfunctional manner and the authors suggest that this dysfunctional social environment the child is exposed to during development play a bigger role than assumed in other studies. I am guess this may be part of the ‘environment’ crowd’s evidence against gene. They authors went on to suggest that inherited characteristics could also be due to shared genetics that influence affect as well as shared hostile social environment. In my view, it is simpler to say they couldn’t rule out that genes which regulate the mothers behavior (low affect resulting in callousness etc) was also passed on to the child. As always correlation doesn’t mean causation. Also in the field, we are reluctant to say A cause B due philosophical issues regarding determinisms in science that has been written about extensively elsewhere, and also the way it has been used by bigots. Rather, we say A is involved in B but come on, we all know what is implied and it is disingenuous use this to rule out a phenomena that indications suggest is involved

I will put it in scientifically correct terms. Evidence from several studies ( Viding et al 2005., Ward, 2005, Larsson et al 2006, 2007) suggest there is a genetic component to core features of psychopathy. Twin studies show increased risk of core features of psychopathy among monozygotic twins compared to more distantly related family members. Although we do not know exactly what those genes are, they may be the same genes that are involved in the features of other psychiatric disorders showing certain of cognitive and affective symptoms. It seems this mode of inheritance is a key component of increased risk for displaying core features of psychopathy……blah blah blah


Annotation: Understanding the development
of psychopathy
Essi Viding
Social Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK
Background: Psychopaths are not only antisocial, but also have a callous and unemotional personality
profile. This article selectively reviews evidence that psychopathic personality traits are an important
factor in understanding and predicting the development of persistent antisocial conduct. Cognitive
neuroscience research and more tentative genetic work on psychopathy will be discussed, especially as
they relate to possible developmental trajectories to psychopathy. Results: A personality-based
approach has been successful in clarifying the conceptual boundaries of psychopathy and delineating a
group of antisocial individuals with a distinct profile of offending and clear neurocognitive markers
indicating problems in processing distress in others and punishment directed to oneself. These markers
are also present in children with psychopathic tendencies, suggesting that psychopathy may be a
developmental disorder. The neurocognitive profile relates to the callous and unemotional personality
traits at the core of psychopathy and may index particular vulnerability to persistent antisocial conduct.
Preliminary twin studies suggest that personality traits at the core of psychopathy are much
more highly heritable than other personality traits. There are as yet no molecular genetic
studies of psychopathy. Conclusions: It is argued that an interdisciplinary approach that integrates
cognitive neuroscience and genetics will enhance understanding of the development of
psychopathy. Keywords: Psychopathy, psychopathic tendencies, antisocial behaviour, cognitive
neuroscience, behaviour genetics, Violence Inhibition Mechanism (VIM).
*
1Social Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK; 2Mood and Anxiety Disorders Program NIMH, Bethesda, MD, USA

Essi Viding, Social Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Box Number P080, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK;
Email: spjgemc@iop.kcl.ac.uk
Abstract




This website discusses current research with links to more research which may have more up to date info. :http://personalitydisorders.suite101.com/articles.cfm
**************************************************************************************
Evidence for substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds

* Essi Viding11Social Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK,
* R. James R. Blair22Mood and Anxiety Disorders Program NIMH, Bethesda, MD, USA,
* Terrie E. Moffitt11Social Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK, and
* Robert Plomin11Social Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK
*******************************************************************************************
Another study:

Background: Individuals with early warning signs of life-long psychopathy, callous-unemotional traits (CU) and high levels of antisocial behaviour (AB) can be identified in childhood. We report here the first twin study of high levels of psychopathic tendencies in young children.

Methods: At the end of the first school year, teachers provided ratings of CU and AB for 3687 twin pairs from the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS). For the analyses of extreme CU, we selected same-sex twin pairs where at least one twin scored 1.3 or more standard deviations above the mean on the CU scale (612 probands, 459 twin pairs). For the analysis of extreme AB, we selected same-sex twin pairs where at least one twin scored 1.3 or more standard deviations above the mean on AB scale (444 probands, 364 twin pairs). Furthermore, the extreme AB sample was divided into those who were also extreme on CU (children with psychopathic tendencies; 234 probands, 187 twin pairs) and those who did not score in the extreme for CU (children without psychopathic tendencies; 210 probands, 177 twin pairs).

Results: DeFries–Fulker extremes analysis indicated that exhibiting high levels of CU is under strong genetic influence. Furthermore, separating children with AB into those with high and low levels of CU showed striking results: AB in children with high levels of CU is under extremely strong genetic influence and no influence of shared environment, whereas AB in children with low levels of CU shows moderate genetic and shared environmental influence.

Conclusions: The remarkably high heritability for CU, and for AB children with CU, suggests that molecular genetic research on antisocial behaviour should focus on the CU core of psychopathy. Our findings also raise questions for public policy on interventions for antisocial behaviour.
This article is cited by:

* Essi Viding, Alice P. Jones, Paul J. Frick, Terrie E. Moffitt and Robert Plomin. Heritability of antisocial behaviour at 9: do callous-unemotional traits matter?. Developmental Science doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00648.x
Abstract Abstract and References Full Text Article Full Article PDF
* Barbara De Clercq, Filip De Fruyt. (2007) Childhood antecedents of personality disorder. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 20:1, 57???61
CrossRef
* Daniel A. Waschbusch, Trudi M. Walsh, Brendan F. Andrade, Sara King, Normand J. Carrey. (2007) Social Problem Solving, Conduct Problems, and Callous-Unemotional Traits in Children. Child Psychiatry and Human Development 37:4, 293
CrossRef
* Bryan R. Loney, Angela Huntenburg, Carla Counts-Allan, Kelly M. Schmeelk. (2007) A preliminary examination of the intergenerational continuity of maternal psychopathic features. Aggressive Behavior 33:1, 14
CrossRef
* Bonamy R Oliver, Robert Plomin. (2007) Twins' Early Development Study (TEDS): A Multivariate, Longitudinal Genetic Investigation of Language, Cognition and Behavior Problems from Childhood Through Adolescence. Twin Research and Human Genetics 10:1, 96
CrossRef
* Véronique Dupéré, Éric Lacourse, J. Douglas Willms, Frank Vitaro, Richard E. Tremblay. (2007) Affiliation to Youth Gangs During Adolescence: The Interaction Between Childhood Psychopathic Tendencies and Neighborhood Disadvantage. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 35:6, 1035
CrossRef
* Michael A. Schonberg, Daniel S. Shaw. (2007) Do the Predictors of Child Conduct Problems Vary by High- and Low-Levels of Socioeconomic and Neighborhood Risk?. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 10:2, 101
CrossRef
* Daniel A. Waschbusch, Michael T. Willoughby. (2007) Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and callous-unemotional traits as moderators of conduct problems when examining impairment and aggression in elementary school children. Aggressive Behavior ,
CrossRef
* Mark R. Dadds, Jennifer A. Fraser. (2006) Fire interest, fire setting and psychopathology in Australian children: a normative study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 40:6-7, 581–586
Abstract Abstract and References Full Text Article Full Article PDF
* R.J.R. Blair, K.S. Peschardt, S. Budhani, D.G.V. Mitchell, D.S. Pine. (2006) The development of psychopathy. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47:3-4, 262–276
Abstract Abstract and References Full Text Article Full Article PDF
* Joel T. Nigg. (2006) Temperament and developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47:3-4, 395–422
Abstract Abstract and References Full Text Article Full Article PDF
* Paul J. Frick, Carrie Dickens. (2006) Current perspectives on conduct disorder. Current Psychiatry Reports 8:1, 59
CrossRef
* Craig S. Neumann, David S. Kosson, Adelle E. Forth, Robert D. Hare. (2006) Factor Structure of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL: YV) in Incarcerated Adolescents.. Psychological Assessment 18:2, 142
CrossRef
* J HILL. (2005) Conduct disorders. Psychiatry 4:7, 57
CrossRef
* Paul J. Frick, Carrie Dickens. (1996) Current perspectives on conduct disorder. Current Psychiatry Reports 8:1, 59
CrossRef


********************************************************************************************

 

[Mara]

I have always been able to detect psychopaths, always. I am quite sure that I began the inquiry into the psychopath in everyday life. This site is like coming home, and I am very glad to have found it. If I had not been banned from GLP for two weeks, I would not have been looking for a new forum; therefore, I am grateful to GLP for banning me for no discernible reason. The major point I want to make is that average people are not really good, soulful, and conscientious. The Milgram Study pointed out that most people will murder another human simply because they are told to do so by a person in authority. As a watch listed American, I can assure you that almost no one will go against the government and protect someone designated a terrorist. In over ten years on the list, two out of thousands of academics, managers, administrators, etc., stood up for me and said no to the government. TWO. This proves there are few people of conscience. They just don't exist. You need to study Rene Girard. He wrote a book about scapegoating that is far, far truer of human beings than normal versus psychopath. I may have begun this investigation into psychopaths, but I have always held a much larger view. I do not regard normal humans as evil. I regard them as not yet fully born, not much of anything but conformists, lemmings. This last sentiment is from Klaus Theweleit's study of the Nazi male.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I have always been able to detect psychopaths, always.

I think it would be best for you to keep in mind that even experts in psychopathy, who deal with real live psychopaths daily, cannot always "detect" psychopaths. You're probably overestimating your abilities in this regard. An effective subclinical psychopath can present a perfectly manicured mask of sanity, tailored specifically to your own weaknesses and shortcomings. The fact that you are so self-certain (a common human shortcoming) can be seen by a clever psychopath a mile away. It would be much safer for you to accept that you do NOT have 100% accuracy. To believe so is to put yourself in the position to be manipulated without your awareness.

 

[Z...]

I have always been able to detect psychopaths, always.

Hi Mara and welcome to the forum.

Could you please elaborate a bit more. Ho do you do this, I mean detect psychopats?

Also what is GLP?

 

[Beau]

Also what is GLP?

it's a website. godlikeproductions

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I have always been able to detect psychopaths, always. I am quite sure that I began the inquiry into the psychopath in everyday life. This site is like coming home, and I am very glad to have found it. If I had not been banned from GLP for two weeks, I would not have been looking for a new forum; therefore, I am grateful to GLP for banning me for no discernible reason.

Hi, is GLP "godlikeproductions"? Also, just curious, why were you banned?

The major point I want to make is that average people are not really good, soulful, and conscientious. The Milgram Study pointed out that most people will murder another human simply because they are told to do so by a person in authority.

I think the existence of armies is enough proof of that, even without studies.

As a watch listed American, I can assure you that almost no one will go against the government and protect someone designated a terrorist. In over ten years on the list, two out of thousands of academics, managers, administrators, etc., stood up for me and said no to the government. TWO.

Do you know why you are watch listed? And when you say stood up for you and said no, can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

This proves there are few people of conscience. They just don't exist.

Most people have been conditioned and brainwashed by psychopaths to act and think as they do, and to rationalize it as good. But they have the potential, through some serious and often painful effort, to rid themselves of this disease - a potential that real psychopaths don't have.

You need to study Rene Girard. He wrote a book about scapegoating that is far, far truer of human beings than normal versus psychopath.

But this does not mean that there are no psychopaths and non-psychopaths either. But I agree that just because someone is not a psychopath, doesn't mean they won't act like one in many ways. Humans are ignorant, selfish, and mechanical, and in our default state this makes us very susceptible to being influenced by psychopaths on many levels.

I may have begun this investigation into psychopaths, but I have always held a much larger view. I do not regard normal humans as evil. I regard them as not yet fully born, not much of anything but conformists, lemmings. This last sentiment is from Klaus Theweleit's study of the Nazi male.

Humans are all naturally selfish. I don't know how you would define evil, but self-serving (STS) is how I'd define it, so good would be STO (service to others). All humans are STS, and under that definition, evil. But psychopaths really have no choice about it any more than a car has a choice to not be a car. But generally, non-psychopaths can, again with effort and time and a lot of help from a collinear group, begin to snap out of their sleep, and possibly become something other than simply food, which we all are by default.

Have you read any of the material on this site? Your thoughts on this seem to be similar to the conclusions from the research, which is available at cassiopaea.org. If you have not already done so, I'd highly recommend reading the Adventure series and the Wave, both available freely.

And welcome to the forum!

 

[Laura]

I don't think I would discard the idea that somebody could detect psychopaths... and if so, maybe they can tell us about it. I mean, maybe it is something like a sixth sense? Or maybe you can smell them. I often think that this must be possible.

 

[Al Today]

I don't think I would discard the idea that somebody could detect psychopaths... and if so, maybe they can tell us about it. I mean, maybe it is something like a sixth sense? Or maybe you can smell them. I often think that this must be possible.

Perhaps observing their nature at childhood may be a clue. For example, there was this fellow I grew up with. As a child, he would get glee from sticking a firecracker up a cats arse (it goes boom & he’d belly laugh). He’d enjoy dropping large M-80 firecrackers into a bucket where a turtle was on the bottom (it goes boom & he’d belly laugh). He was entertained when opening car doors that were parked on the neighborhood streets after curfew, just to see what can be stolen (even if there was no use for the item). During XMAS, walking the streets at night, how about seeing a family, through a window, in the warmth of their home, this fellow was entertained by selecting a exterior XMAS bulb, right below the window, pretended to be GI-Joe, and crawling under the window, steathfully stealing that one(1) selected bulb. He liked to fight, just to see if he was the stronger. I could just go on and on... Would this fit the bill of having no conscience, having such ‘fun’, while having absolutely no remorse? I dunno for sure, but these may be good indications. Of course, over time, he was able to curb the appetite of inflicting pain, but never lost the thrill of winning, being above others, NO MATTER WHAT THE DANGER NOR COST. I grew up in comfortable suburban surroundings. Had food, clothes, and comfort. As a child, before ever coming across information such as presented with this forum, I ‘felt’ there was something like a different type of human. I could never understand why some people did the dastardly things they did. But while reading the information NOW available, I ‘think’ I am starting to understand the others, the psycopath, the dominators, the control freaks, people having the insatiable need to be above other, in charge, in control, in power, lie cheat steal to get to the top of the pyramid. Who knows, perhaps one of these may rise to top STS ‘in some future’. And I begin to wonder why I chose to come here as STS, I guess… Now I’m bummed, I’ll go out and smoke, build a few brain cells…

 

[QueenVee]

I don't think I would discard the idea that somebody could detect psychopaths... and if so, maybe they can tell us about it. I mean, maybe it is something like a sixth sense? Or maybe you can smell them. I often think that this must be possible.

I believe there are probably a number of ways that some people are able to "detect" psychopaths, while others cannot. The most obvious way would be through conscious knowledge of the signs, previous experience, etc. A "psychic" or "intuitive" ability to sense their "essence" may be another. The idea that one could possibly "smell" them is intriguing, and could go a long way to explaining why animals have extreme reactions to some people. I mean, dogs can smell cancer, why not psychopaths? And if someone were born with a freakishly enhanced sense of smell (akin to a dog's), why wouldn't they have the same ability?

There is a lot of evidence that minute changes in body language and facial expressions are foolproof signs that people are lying, even when in every other way they are observed to be telling the truth. And, of course, psychopaths are the most accomplished of liars. I posted some detailed information about this in another thread titled The Study of "Micro-Expressions": A Defence Against Psychopaths?.

In one of his books about neurological disorders, Oliver Sacks tells an instructive story about a group of stroke patients who had lost the ability to understand language, but had definitely NOT lost their innate ability to understand body language and micro-expressions. He observed them intently watching a politician's news conference on television (I believe it was Ronald Reagan). Although they could not follow what the politican was saying (due to their disability), they would periodically all laugh at the television at the same time. Puzzled, he asked what they were laughing at, and they all told him that they were laughing because whatever the politician was saying, it was so obvious that he was lying through his teeth!

One could perhaps extend the idea of micro-expressions to the human voice. Maybe liars are betrayed by micro-inflections in their voice that can only be detected by someone who has a heightened sense of hearing, or an unusual sensitivity to speech patterns. I am very intrigued by the idea that one might be able to detect psychopaths through subtle physiological clues, it seems quite plausible to me.

Perhaps such "hyper-sensitivity" on ALL levels -- psychic AND physiological -- is/will be a natural by-product of "waking up" and no longer wearing the "blinders" required to "get along" in society....

 

[Z...]

me thinks the best detector for people with no empathy is sneezing,
psychopath will never say bless you :)

 

[Zadius Sky]

Or yawning:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/136941-Yawning-a-test-of-your-empathy-