Psychopathy - something to strive for?

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I found this article on io9:
http://m.io9.com/5916074/should-we-eliminate-psychopaths-from-the-gene-pool

It mentions Robert Hare, the author of Snakes in Suits, and gives a good overview of the neurological basis for psychopathy and their status as an intraspecies predator that had a district survival strategy separate from that of normal humans.

Some parts of it I rather dislike, such as its mentioning at intervals that society may benefit from psychopathy (but this is a point that is greatly contended by researchers in the article). Maybe they just threw it in there to show they're playing nice and unbiasedly (remaining impartial between the fire brigade and the fire, as Churchill would say).

Overall a good piece I thought. It is a conversation we need to be having as a people.

Here's the main body of text, though the site itself has all the in-text links people should feel free to explore.

Should we eliminate psychopaths from
the gene pool?

By George Dvorsky, Jun 6, 2012 9:00 AM

Psychopaths make up an astounding 1 to 2
percent of the general population and
occupy virtually every niche in society.
Often ruthless, callous and completely
devoid of empathy, they impose an
incalculable toll on individuals and society.
And science is increasingly learning that
psychopathy may actually be a genetic
disorder — one that could eventually be
eliminated.

But what if it turns out that we actually need
psychopaths?

As a term, psychopathy often means
different things to different people. Part of
the problem is that psychopathy is not a
recognized clinical term, one that's defined
within the DSM-IV. But this is starting to
change. There's growing consensus among
clinicians and neuroscientists that
psychopathy does in fact exist as a
meaningful and identifiable personality
disorder. A growing community of experts
are starting to use psychopathy as a clinical
diagnosis.

Another part of the problem is that it's often
used interchangeably with such terms as
sociopathy and antisocial personality
disorder (ASPD). While sociopathy is a
rather vague term, ASPD does have a strict
definition within the DSM-IV — but it's not
the same same condition as psychopathy.
ASPD is diagnosed based on behavioral
patterns, while psychopathy includes
behavior but also measurable cognitive,
emotional, and neuropsychological
differences from neurotypical people. And
thanks to fMRI brain scans, neuroscientists
are increasingly showing that there is a
consistent and identifiable neurological
basis for psychopathy.

In terms of definition, psychopathy is a
personality disorder characterized by
severe emotional dysfunction, especially a
lack of empathy and remorse. Psychopaths
exhibit consistent disregard for the feelings
of others and the rules of society. They are
completely unable to recognize such things
as anger and fear in individuals, either
based on facial expressions or verbal
exclamations. In terms of behavioral traits,
psychopaths are generally regarded as
being callous, selfish, dishonest, arrogant,
aggressive, impulsive, irresponsible, and
hedonistic. At the same time, psychopaths
often exhibit higher than average
intelligence and a superficial kind of
charm.

But clearly, given that nearly 2 in every 100
persons is a psychopath, they can't all be
bad — otherwise society would have
completely imploded by now. There's
evidently more to this issue than meets the
eye.

An underlying genetic basis

Scientists are increasingly finding a genetic
basis to psychopathy . Work in genetics has
revealed that the heritability coefficient for
psychopathy is a shocking 50%.
Psychopathy, it would appear, runs deeply
in the family.

Moreover, neurologists are learning that
psychopathy can manifest early in a
person's life. There's an understandable
reluctance to brand children as
psychopaths, which is fair given the amount
of stigma involved, and the fact that many
children "act out" in age-appropriate ways.
Consequently, therapists and researchers
instead use the term "unemotional-callous"
to describe what might actually be
protopsychopathology.

Back in 2005, a twin study found that
antisocial children could be classified into
two groups: those who were influenced by
both genetic and environmental factors, and
those influenced by environmental factors
alone. Of the two, the former group
experienced the highest rankings of callous-
unemotional traits.

But while genes may be a key factor, there's
still plenty of room for environmental
factors. It's thought that, while genetic
factors may generally influence the
development of psychopathy, the
environment still affects the specific traits
that predominate.

It's also worth noting that virtually all
psychopaths exhibit anti-social traits as
children, but that half of them "grow out of
it". This gives therapists hope that the
condition could be treated environmentally.
Psychologist Robert Hare, a leading expert
on such matters, has argued that
psychopathy may actually be adaptive. He
has observed how many male psychopaths
have a pattern of mating with and quickly
abandoning women — and as a result, have
a high fertility rate. His contention is that
these children may inherit a predisposition
to psychopathy.

And there appear to be physiological
differences between psychopaths and
everybody else — a recent study showed
that the psychopathic brain has significantly
less grey matter in the anterior rostral
prefrontal cortex and temporal poles than
the brains of both non-psychopathic
offenders and non-offenders. These areas of
the brain appear to be important for
reading other people's emotions and
intentions, and seem to be active when
people think about moral behaviour.
Neuroscientists have also found that the
amygdala is impaired in psychopaths. The
amygdala is responsible for stimulus-
reinforcement learning and responding to
emotional expressions, particularly fearful
expressions. It is also involved in the
formation of both stimulus-punishment and
stimulus-reward associations.

The psychopaths among us
At first blush, the estimate that 1 to 2
percent of all people are psychopaths seems
astonishingly high. In a country like the
United States, this implies that there are
between 3 to 6 million psychopathic
Americans. Psychopaths also make up
roughly 15 to 25 percent of the prison
population, and are responsible for the
lion's share of brutal crimes and murders.
And according to the neuroscientist Fabrice
Jotterand, psychopathy affects 3 to 5 % of
all CEOs.

But not all psychopaths are dangerous.
Given the high prevalence of psychopathy
in our gene pool, and given that many seem
to fare rather well in society, it's fair to say
that we run the risk of generalizing about
this condition and pigeonholing all
psychopaths as being inherently dangerous.
That said, it's not outrageous to suggest that
psychopathy may eventually be branded as
a genetic disorder — one that may be
subject to prenatal screening or gene
therapy. Genomics and the practice of
preimplantation genetic diagnosis may
eventually alert prospective parents, not to
mention their fertility doctors, to the
possibility that their offspring could be
psychopathic. Genetic technologies may put
prospective parents in a difficult position, if
tests reveal that their future child has a high
chance of being a psychopath.
This issue could get trickier if the
government gets involved. According to an
estimate by the neuroscientist Kent Kiehl,
the national cost of psychopathy in the U.S.
stands at $460 billion a year — roughly 10
times the cost of depression. The
government could stand to save a lot of
money, if it decides that psychopaths should
never be born in the first place.

Robert Hare, co-author of Snakes in Suits ,
takes a hard-line when it comes to
psychopaths, referring to them as
"intraspecies predators." He argues that
they lack the very qualities that allow
humans to live in social harmony and is
concerned about their ability to blend in,
undetected, in a variety of surroundings,
including corporate environments. By
conceptualizing psychopaths as remorseless
predators, he feels we can better
understand what often appears to be
senseless behavior.

Indeed, it may very well have to be the
human toll that's considered. Psychopaths,
given their indifference and often insatiable
desires, can harm people in any number of
ways, whether through physical violence or
ruthlessness in the workplace. It's the
continuing prospect of having psychopaths
around in the general population that may
eventually determine whether they should
be filtered from the gene pool.
An important social role?

But a reality check is also in order. As
already noted, not all psychopaths are
violent. In fact, that's far from the case.
Psychopathy is not an all-or-nothing
proposition. Like autism, it falls along a
spectrum. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist ,
a standard inventory used in law
enforcement, has a top score of 40.
Psychopaths tend to get a bit scary when
they score in the early 20s. A very
demented and dangerous psychopath would
score around a 30. As journalist Jon Ronson
has noted, "There are absolutes in
psychopathy and the main absolute is a
literal absence of empathy. It's just not
there. In higher-scoring psychopaths, what
grows in the vacant field where that
empathy should be is a joy in manipulating
people, a lack of remorse, a lack of guilt. If
you've got a little bit of empathy, you're
kind of not a psychopath."

This is why Ronson and others feel that
some psychopaths make for great CEOs. "I
think the other positive traits for
psychopaths in business is need for
stimulation, proneness to boredom,"
Ronson told Forbes. "You want somebody
who can't sit still, who's constantly thinking
about how to do better things."

Kevin Dutton, the author of the upcoming
book, The Wisdom of Psychopaths, agrees.
He feels that psychopathy is an indelible
component of the human fabric that
extends well beyond the business world.
Dutton feels that psychopaths have a lot of
good things going for them. He argues that
they are fearless, confident, charismatic,
ruthless and focused -– qualities Dutton
believes are tailor-made for success in 21st
century society. Specifically, attributes like
coolness under pressure and strong desire
give rise to successful surgeons, firefighters,
movie stars, and attorneys. Weed out
psychopathy, argues Dutton, and you may
lose some very important personality traits
that help to create the greater whole that is
humanity.

No easy answers

Clearly the issue of whether or not
psychopathy should be wiped out is not as
straightforward as it might appear. As
geneticists have shown, there's an adaptive
nature to psychopathy — and its prevalence
may actually be on the rise. And there may
be a very good reason for it in the human
gene pool, one that contributes to a kind of
neurodiversity that's socially beneficial.
Taking a step back, an overarching question
that needs to be asked is one about end-
goals. What's more important: changing
someone's behavior, or changing a person's
state of mind? A consequentialist would
argue that it's behavior, and that it doesn't
matter what a person thinks or what kinds
of empathic impairments they might have
— all that matters is how they act.
Subsequently, an argument can be made
that, if we can root out criminally harmful
behavior, our task is done.

But as Robert Hare has argued, that may not
be good enough. The absence of empathy,
he argues — the very definition of a
psychopath — will always result in
malevolence.

That may very well be the case, but the
truest expression of humanity is the ability
to extend empathy towards others — even
those incapable of mustering empathy
themselves.
 
Re: Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?

I haven't finished reading the article yet but took a break and jumped to the comments section. It's interesting to see the first comment from a user named RemusShepherd, who claims to be a psychopath (or a sociopath, he adds), or at least believes so, saying he's had no diagnosis but the term is in his FBI file (Not sure why he has a file). He claims to work on being a good man and feels it is a choice between a good man and a monster. The comments from others, although detracting from the article itself, is quite interesting to see, as it demonstrates the range of understanding out there.

I am a little concerned about the slightly apologetic approach and concern the author shows for psychopaths.
But not all psychopaths are dangerous. Given the high prevalence of psychopathy in our gene pool, and given that many seem to fare rather well in society, it's fair to say that we run the risk of generalizing about this condition and pigeonholing all psychopaths as being inherently dangerous.

and

Kevin Dutton, the author of the upcoming book, The Wisdom of Psychopaths, agrees. He feels that psychopathy is an indelible component of the human fabric that extends well beyond the business world. Dutton feels that psychopaths have a lot of good things going for them. He argues that they are fearless, confident, charismatic, ruthless and focused -– qualities Dutton believes are tailor-made for success in 21st century society. Specifically, attributes like coolness under pressure and strong desire give rise to successful surgeons, firefighters, movie stars, and attorneys. Weed out psychopathy, argues Dutton, and you may lose some very important personality traits that help to create the greater whole that is humanity.

It's rather fascinating to see the discussion around psychopathy make its way into niche publications and MSM. However, I feel they are slowly preparing people to have a degree of feeling for psychopaths before everyone realizes how bad the situation actually is.

Gonzo
 
Re: Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?

"Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?"

No need as I see it, they are an evolutionary dead end, so nature will take care of them in its own time, but it is up to us to isolate them after recognizing them for what they are, a rare specimen in the evolution of species, that offers invaluable knowledge into behavior being influenced by biology. Only though our actions can this be done though.

Now, the culling that is already taking place will affect all of us psychopath or not, non-psychopaths have a greater survivability potential than psychopaths because we help one another without ulterior motives, at least if not completely ponerized. While psychopaths are always planning in the spirit of "what can I derive from this interaction," instability results from actions stemming from a lack of conscience, they are a force of nature, but they are out of balance with the rest of earth, so a balancing force is necessary, we are that balancing force in potential, but only if we act with knowledge and discernment, otherwise it's hello comets. Though comets may come irregardless of our actions, though our actions may mitigate their destructiveness.
 
Re: Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?

I feel certain that there are psychopaths who could manipulate the data, the policy, and/or the message so that any intention to even identify them in some large-scale way would completely backfire.

I think better would be to try to educate "person-to-person" - especially one's children and family members (let's hope none are not psychopaths) how to become responsible and aware, and be able to protect oneself from being 'conned', and as far as possible how to keep from support what is run by psychopaths.

Still though there is the problem of psychopaths in high places, who may even have been 'elected' ( by computerized voting machines... hmmmm.....). Any ideas about 'culling' anybody out of the gene-pool while these guys rule would be bound to backfire bigtime.

All the above IMHO.
 
Re: Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?

lake_george said:
Still though there is the problem of psychopaths in high places, who may even have been 'elected' ( by computerized voting machines... hmmmm.....). Any ideas about 'culling' anybody out of the gene-pool while these guys rule would be bound to backfire bigtime.

All the above IMHO.

Which is why the person to person, each one reach one strategy is our best shot osit, such little acts when performed by an ever increasing amount of people adds up, big time. Interesting p2p like how info is shared, completely circumventing establishment policies. ;)
 
Re: Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?

bngenoh said:
"Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?"

No need as I see it, they are an evolutionary dead end, so nature will take care of them in its own time, but it is up to us to isolate them after recognizing them for what they are, a rare specimen in the evolution of species, that offers invaluable knowledge into behavior being influenced by biology. Only though our actions can this be done though.

I am not sure about the "evolutionary dead end" part. Pathogens, predators, psychopaths seem like polarized manifestations of STS energy (a fundamental component of creation) at various levels of awareness. Gaining knowledge about them and applying such knowledge for protection is what is within human reach - osit.
 
Re: Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?

I haven't read the article. but Gene pool elimination sounds like pity melodrama for sympathy and manipulation. they are getting busted now a days even in MSM, so coming up with new tricks.

Rabbits are bottom of the food chain for animals ( at least based on some children books I ended up reading with kids ). Does it mean you want to remove all the animals for the sake of rabbits?. rabbits are watchful with long years , they give a big chase before being lunch, create elaborate tunnels, mass produce babies etc. That is the nature.

If the people are reminded of the dreaded nature of the psychopathic minority's gimmicks , non pathological can be watchful and keep the balance in check ( this watchfulness is high in struggling middle class countries, literally non existent in developed countries - ponorogenisis factor ). Again It all boils down to the what C's said "Evil is coming from 4D STS" and psychopaths happens to be destroyers. so Vigilance and knowledge are only protection for any species. Of course, it is easy to say.
 
Re: Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?

obyvatel said:
bngenoh said:
"Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?"

No need as I see it, they are an evolutionary dead end, so nature will take care of them in its own time, but it is up to us to isolate them after recognizing them for what they are, a rare specimen in the evolution of species, that offers invaluable knowledge into behavior being influenced by biology. Only though our actions can this be done though.

I am not sure about the "evolutionary dead end" part. Pathogens, predators, psychopaths seem like polarized manifestations of STS energy (a fundamental component of creation) at various levels of awareness. Gaining knowledge about them and applying such knowledge for protection is what is within human reach - osit.

I wasn't clear, I meant that they can't survive on their own without potentially normal people to feed upon and dominate, a population of psychopaths on an island, will quickly decimate the island's resources, start fighting with each other for what is left, and if there is anyone left in the aftermath, they will starve to death if the island is sufficiently isolated. In this view, there isn't much evolution possible for them as a population, but they are an evolutionary force for the rest of humanity, but only if they are brought into the light of awareness, and that awareness is used as a guideline by which we act, osit.
 
Re: Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?

I once heard something along the lines of "The lowest foundation for a group is the common enemy." For some while I've been pondering this. It seems to me that most, supposedly 'great' civilizations, had a few nominators in common prior to their fall:

...complete moral bankruptcy as well as turning a select population group into public enemy number one. Usually an unsuspecting minority.

It's clear (to this Autobot) that our morals were sold to the highest bidder some time ago. And even if we construct the Psychopath Detector 2000, what will the margin of error be? What is the result of a 'false positive'? Would you pass the test, or accept being eliminated from the gene pool? Would a psychopath accept his fate when faced with eradication? Does our current scientific evidence even support a 'common enemy of mankind'?
 
Re: Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?

bngenoh said:
obyvatel said:
bngenoh said:
"Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?"

No need as I see it, they are an evolutionary dead end, so nature will take care of them in its own time, but it is up to us to isolate them after recognizing them for what they are, a rare specimen in the evolution of species, that offers invaluable knowledge into behavior being influenced by biology. Only though our actions can this be done though.

I am not sure about the "evolutionary dead end" part. Pathogens, predators, psychopaths seem like polarized manifestations of STS energy (a fundamental component of creation) at various levels of awareness. Gaining knowledge about them and applying such knowledge for protection is what is within human reach - osit.

I wasn't clear, I meant that they can't survive on their own without potentially normal people to feed upon and dominate, a population of psychopaths on an island, will quickly decimate the island's resources, start fighting with each other for what is left, and if there is anyone left in the aftermath, they will starve to death if the island is sufficiently isolated. In this view, there isn't much evolution possible for them as a population, .......................

Evolution does not appear to be restricted by such artificial constraints in reality. There is evolution in the STS path as well as STO.
 
Re: Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?

Knobbingham said:
I once heard something along the lines of "The lowest foundation for a group is the common enemy." For some while I've been pondering this. It seems to me that most, supposedly 'great' civilizations, had a few nominators in common prior to their fall:

...complete moral bankruptcy as well as turning a select population group into public enemy number one. Usually an unsuspecting minority.

It's clear (to this Autobot) that our morals were sold to the highest bidder some time ago. And even if we construct the Psychopath Detector 2000, what will the margin of error be? What is the result of a 'false positive'? Would you pass the test, or accept being eliminated from the gene pool? Would a psychopath accept his fate when faced with eradication? Does our current scientific evidence even support a 'common enemy of mankind'?

The psychopath detector 2000, is the utilization of psychopathological knowledge in our associations with others, the margin of error will decrease with the degree of knowledge and personal experience, ie understanding of psychopathological deviants.

Any such test, factoring in the situation on the globe, is likely to be a deception, the qualities will probably be subtly twisted so as to implicate a demographic that has been targeted to be a scapegoat.

No creature in their right mind just sits there and accepts eradication. There are beings who view themselves as enemies of humanity, I don't have enemies, only sparring partners, they make me sharper, but I only speak for myself, I do not speak for humanity.

Obyvatel, very true, the C's have said that the ultimate destination of STS is black holes, ie total non-existence, one can say that an entity would have to evolve along the frequency condition of STS, to attain total non-existence or its approximation.
 
Re: Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?

Tempting as it may be, I'm not so sure it would be a good idea. Perhaps psychopaths are required for our evolution out of 3d STS. If we weren't STS, they'd have negligible impact on humans. We just wouldn't buy their crap. As it stands, with a minority easily swayed by them and a larger group potentially swayed by them, they are able to have great impact on us. But if we can learn about ourselves sufficiently to grow, we might adapt our susceptibility away. Of course, game theory tells us otherwise.

Then notion of putting them on an island is also tempting, but one of them would probably be ruthless and smart enough to figure out how to curb their behaviour long enough to get off the island and return with a vengeance.

Gonzo
 
Re: Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?

Gonzo said:
Then notion of putting them on an island is also tempting, but one of them would probably be ruthless and smart enough to figure out how to curb their behaviour long enough to get off the island and return with a vengeance.
:lol: Gonzo,

That is so true, he/she would return even more cunning and dangerous, having been strengthened by their experience on the island, it reminds me of Jet Li's movie "The One," and his psychopathic double being sent into the other dimension, which he immediately started to subjugate, it all goes back to the individual and their choices, I guess.
 
Re: Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?

obyvatel said:
bngenoh said:
"Should Psychopaths be Eliminated from the Gene Pool?"

No need as I see it, they are an evolutionary dead end, so nature will take care of them in its own time, but it is up to us to isolate them after recognizing them for what they are, a rare specimen in the evolution of species, that offers invaluable knowledge into behavior being influenced by biology. Only though our actions can this be done though.

I am not sure about the "evolutionary dead end" part. Pathogens, predators, psychopaths seem like polarized manifestations of STS energy (a fundamental component of creation) at various levels of awareness. Gaining knowledge about them and applying such knowledge for protection is what is within human reach - osit.

What I find interesting is that psychopaths are increasing in the population (according to the article), and that this is, evolutionarily speaking, due to the environment existing in a fashion that is conducive to psychopathy spreading. The over-institutionalization of everything, and the decreased reliance on networks in lieu of these institutions and officialdom, seem to be a prime breeding ground for psychopaths, who can manipulate and participate in fly-by-night fleecing of people in narrow circles before moving onto other social cells. Like the earth's huge population and technology and social/economic/political infrastructure helps them spread. Could this be one of the necessary preconditions of "Noah Syndrome?" That psychopaths are meant to spread and expand, in order to challenge the souled humans of the earth to "step up their game" during the coming times?

If the ice age or comets do set in, it should be expected the population should dramatically decrease (that is if epigenetic corruption from GMOs or other environmental poisons don't get to us first). This could reduce us to smaller communities and band of humans. These would be much harder for psychopaths to survive in, because they can't easily hop to different communities as easily as before to get a blank slate, since networking on a personal basis is far more critical to the survival of the group. In such a state their mask wouldn't last nearly as long, and once identified they would be easy to dispose of or "contain" (assuming the group wasn't completely ponerized to begin with, which seemed to be the strategy at certain times in human history).
 
Psychopathy's Double Edge

This was an interesting read and very chilling at times, specifically that psychopaths can be in essence created by training when you read what the special forces guy thinks and how he acts.

Edit added: Forgot the link

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Psychopath-Makeover/135160/

October 22, 2012

Psychopathy's Double Edge

By Kevin Dutton

Over a 28-year-old single-malt scotch at the Scientific Study of Psychopathy's biennial bash in Montreal in 2011, I asked Bob Hare, "When you look around you at modern-day society, do you think, in general, that we're becoming more psychopathic?"

The eminent criminal psychologist and creator of the widely used Psychopathy Checklist paused before answering. "I think, in general, yes, society is becoming more psychopathic," he said. "I mean, there's stuff going on nowadays that we wouldn't have seen 20, even 10 years ago. Kids are becoming anesthetized to normal sexual behavior by early exposure to pornography on the Internet. Rent-a-friend sites are getting more popular on the Web, because folks are either too busy or too techy to make real ones. ... The recent hike in female criminality is particularly revealing. And don't even get me started on Wall Street."

He's got a point. In Japan in 2011, a 17-year-old boy parted with one of his own kidneys so he could go out and buy an iPad. In China, following an incident in which a 2-year-old baby was left stranded in the middle of a marketplace and run over, not once but twice, as passersby went casually about their business, an appalled electorate has petitioned the government to pass a good-Samaritan law to prevent such a thing from happening again.

And the new millennium has seemingly ushered in a wave of corporate criminality like no other. Investment scams, conflicts of interest, lapses of judgment, and those evergreen entrepreneurial party tricks of good old fraud and embezzlement are now utterly unprecedented in magnitude. Who's to blame? In an issue of the Journal of Business Ethics, Clive R. Boddy, a former professor at the Nottingham Business School, contends that it's psychopaths, pure and simple, who are at the root of all the trouble.

The law itself has gotten in on the act. At the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping trial, in Salt Lake City, the attorney representing Brian David Mitchell—the homeless street preacher and self-proclaimed prophet who abducted, raped, and kept the 14-year-old Elizabeth captive for nine months (according to Smart's testimony, he raped her pretty much every day over that period)—urged the sentencing judge to go easy on his client, on the grounds that "Ms. Smart overcame it. Survived it. Triumphed over it." When the lawyers start whipping up that kind of tune, the dance could wind up anywhere.

Of course, it's not just the lawyers. In a recent study by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, in London, 120 convicted street robbers were asked why they did it. The answers were revealing. Kicks. Spur-of-the-moment impulses. Status. And financial gain. In that order. Exactly the kind of casual, callous behavior patterns one often sees in psychopaths.

In fact, in a survey that has so far tested 14,000 volunteers, Sara Konrath and her team at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research has found that college students' self-reported empathy levels (as measured by the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, a standardized questionnaire containing such items as "I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me" and "I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a decision") have been in steady decline over the past three decades—since the inauguration of the scale, in fact, back in 1979. A particularly pronounced slump has been observed over the past 10 years. "College kids today are about 40 percent lower in empathy than their counterparts of 20 or 30 years ago," Konrath reports.

More worrisome still, according to Jean Twenge, a professor of psychology at San Diego State University, is that, during this same period, students' self-reported narcissism levels have shot through the roof. "Many people see the current group of college students, sometimes called 'Generation Me,' " Konrath continues, "as one of the most self-centered, narcissistic, competitive, confident, and individualistic in recent history."

Precisely why this downturn in social values has come about is not entirely clear. A complex concatenation of environment, role models, and education is, as usual, under suspicion. But the beginnings of an even more fundamental answer may lie in a study conducted by Jeffrey Zacks and his team at the Dynamic Cognition Laboratory, at Washington University in St. Louis. With the aid of fMRI, Zacks and his co-authors peered deep inside the brains of volunteers as they read stories. What they found provided an intriguing insight into the way our brain constructs our sense of self. Changes in characters' locations (e.g., "went out of the house into the street") were associated with increased activity in regions of the temporal lobes involved in spatial orientation and perception, while changes in the objects that a character interacted with (e.g., "picked up a pencil") produced a similar increase in a region of the frontal lobes known to be important for controlling grasping motions. Most important, however, changes in a character's goal elicited increased activation in areas of the prefrontal cortex, damage to which results in impaired knowledge of the order and structure of planned, intentional action.

Imagining, it would seem, really does make it so. Whenever we read a story, our level of engagement is such that we "mentally simulate each new situation encountered in a narrative," according to one of the researchers, Nicole Speer. Our brains then interweave these newly encountered situations with knowledge and experience gleaned from our own lives to create an organic mosaic of dynamic mental syntheses.

Reading a book carves brand-new neural pathways into the ancient cortical bedrock of our brains. It transforms the way we see the world—makes us, as Nicholas Carr puts it in his recent essay, "The Dreams of Readers," "more alert to the inner lives of others." We become vampires without being bitten—in other words, more empathic. Books make us see in a way that casual immersion in the Internet, and the quicksilver virtual world it offers, doesn't.

Which is worrisome, to say the least, given the current slump in reading habits. According to a 2011 survey conducted by the British charity the National Literacy Trust, one in three children between the ages of 11 and 16 do not own a book, compared with one in 10 in 2005. That equates, in today's England, to a total of around four million. Almost a fifth of the 18,000 children polled said they had never received a book as a present. And 12 percent said they had never been to a bookshop.

But if society really is becoming more psychopathic, it's not all doom and gloom. In the right context, certain psychopathic characteristics can actually be very constructive. A neurosurgeon I spoke with (who rated high on the psychopathic spectrum) described the mind-set he enters before taking on a difficult operation as "an intoxication that sharpens rather than dulls the senses." In fact, in any kind of crisis, the most effective individuals are often those who stay calm—who are able to respond to the exigencies of the moment while at the same time maintaining the requisite degree of detachment. Individuals like my old friend Andy McNab.

McNab was arguably the most famous British soldier to have served in Her Majesty's Armed Forces until Prince Harry hung up his polo mallet at Eton. During the first Gulf War, Andy commanded Bravo Two Zero, an eight-man Special Forces patrol that was assigned the task of gathering intelligence on underground communication links between Baghdad and northwest Iraq, and tracking and destroying Scud missile launchers along the Iraqi main supply route in the area.

But soon the boys had other fish to fry. A couple of days after insertion, the patrol was compromised by a goatherd. And, in time-honored fashion, they beat it: 185 miles, across the desert, toward the Syrian border.

Only one of them made it. Three were killed, and the other four, including Andy, were picked up at various points along the way by the Iraqis. Suffice it to say that none of their captors were ever going to have their own talk shows ... or make their mark in the annals of cosmetic surgery. It's generally accepted that there are better ways of putting a person at ease than by stubbing your cigarette out on his neck. And better ways of breaking and remodeling their jawline than with the sun-baked butt of an AK-47. Thanks to more-advanced techniques back home in Britain, Andy's mouth now packs more porcelain than all the bathrooms in Buckingham Palace put together. He should know. In 1991 he went there to collect the Distinguished Service Medal from the queen.

Such mental toughness isn't the only characteristic that Special Forces soldiers have in common with psychopaths. There's also fearlessness. A couple of years ago, on a beautiful spring morning 12,000 feet above Sydney's Bondi Beach, I performed my first free-fall sky dive. The night before, somewhat the worse for wear in one of the city's waterfront bars, I texted Andy for some last-minute advice.

"Keep your eyes open. And your arse shut," came the reply.

I did. Just. But performing the same feat at night, in the theater of war, over a raging ocean from twice the altitude and carrying 200 pounds of equipment, is a completely different ballgame. And if that's not enough, "We used to have a laugh," Andy recalls. "Mess about. You know, we'd throw the equipment out ahead of us and see if we could catch up with it. Or on the way down, we'd grab each other from behind in a bear hug and play chicken—see who'd be the first to peel off and pull the cord. It was all good fun."

Er, right. If you say so, Andy. But what wasn't much fun was the killing. I ask Andy whether he ever felt any regret over anything he'd done. Over the lives he'd taken on his numerous secret missions around the world.

"No," he replies matter-of-factly, his arctic-blue eyes showing not the slightest trace of emotion. "You seriously don't think twice about it. When you're in a hostile situation, the primary objective is to pull the trigger before the other guy pulls the trigger. And when you pull it, you move on. Simple as that. Why stand there, dwelling on what you've done? Go down that route and chances are the last thing that goes through your head will be a bullet from an M16.

"The regiment's motto is 'Who Dares Wins.' But sometimes it can be shortened to 'F--- It.' "

Andy's on a weeklong spree in the desert, roaring around Nevada on a Harley V-Rod Muscle, when I call.

"No helmets!" he booms.

"Hey, Andy," I say. "You up for a little challenge when you get back?"

"Course!" he yells. "What is it?"

"How about you and me go head-to-head in a test of cool in the lab? And I come out on top?"

Manic laughter.

"Love it," he says. "You're on! How the hell do you think you're going to pull that off?"

I hang up. What I'm planning is a psychopath makeover, to find out firsthand, for better and for worse, what it's like to see the world through devil-may-care eyes. And there's nothing like a bit of competition.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (or TMS) was developed by Anthony Barker and his colleagues at the University of Sheffield in 1985. The inaugural application of TMS by Barker and his team comprised an elementary demonstration of the conduction of nerve impulses from the motor cortex to the spinal cord by stimulating simple muscle contractions. Nowadays it's a different story—and TMS has widespread practical uses, in both diagnostic and therapeutic capacities, across a variety of neurological and psychiatric conditions, from depression and migraine to strokes and Parkinson's disease.

The basic premise of TMS is that the brain operates using electrical signals, and that, as with any such system, it's possible to modify the way it works by altering its electrical environment. Standard equipment consists of a powerful electromagnet, placed on the scalp, that generates steady magnetic-field pulses at specific frequencies, and a plastic-enclosed coil to focus those magnetic pulses down through the surface of the skull onto discrete brain regions, thus stimulating the underlying cortex.

Now, one of the things that we know about psychopaths is that the light switches of their brains aren't wired up in quite the same way as the rest of ours are—and that one area particularly affected is the amygdala, a peanut-size structure located right at the center of the circuit board. The amygdala is the brain's emotion-control tower. It polices our emotional airspace and is responsible for the way we feel about things. But in psychopaths, a section of this airspace, the part that corresponds to fear, is empty.

In the light-switch analogy, TMS may be thought of as a dimmer switch. As we process information, our brains generate small electrical signals. These signals not only pass through our nerves to work our muscles but also meander deep within our brains as ephemeral electrical data shoals, creating our thoughts, memories, and feelings. TMS can alter the strength of those signals. By passing an electromagnetic current through precisely targeted areas of the cortex, we can turn the signals either up or down.

Turn down the signals to the amygdala, of course, and you're well on the way to giving someone a psychopath makeover. Indeed, Liane Young and her team in Boston have since kicked things up a notch and demonstrated that applying TMS to the right temporoparietal junction—a neural ZIP code within that neighborhood—has significant effects not just on lying ability but also on moral-reasoning ability: in particular, ascribing intentionality to others' actions.

Andy rocks up to the Centre for Brain Science at the University of Essex one bitterly cold December morning, and we're met at the door by the man who, for the next couple of hours or so, is going to be our tormentor. Nick Cooper, one of the world's leading exponents of TMS, ushers us into the lab, shows us over to two high-backed leather chairs, and straps us in. He wires us up to heart-rate monitors, EEG recording equipment, and galvanic-skin-response (GSR) measures, which assess stress levels as a function of electrodermal activity. By the time he's finished, the pair of us look like we're trapped inside a giant telecom junction box. The gel for the electrodes feels cold against my scalp.

Directly in front of us, about 10 feet away on the wall, is a large video screen. Nick flips a switch, which makes it crackle to life. Then he goes into white-coat mode. Ambient music wafts around the room. A silky, twilit lake ripples in front of our eyes.

"Bloody hell," says Andy. "It's like an ad for incontinence pads!"

"OK," says Nick. "Listen up. Right now, on the screen in front of you, you can see a tranquil, restful scene, which is presently being accompanied by quiet, relaxing music. This is to establish baseline physiological readings from which we can measure subsequent arousal levels.

"But at an undisclosed moment sometime within the next 60 seconds, the image you see at the present time will change, and images of a different nature will appear on the screen. These images will be violent. And nauseating. And of a graphic and disturbing nature.

"As you view these images, changes in your heart rate, skin conductance, and EEG activity will be monitored and compared with the resting levels that are currently being recorded. Any questions?"

Andy and I shake our heads.

"Happy?"

We nod.

"OK," says Nick. "Let's get the show on the road."

He disappears behind us, leaving Andy and me merrily soaking up the incontinence ad. Results reveal later that, at this point, as we wait for something to happen, our physiological output readings are actually pretty similar. Our pulse rates are significantly higher than our normal resting levels, in anticipation of what's to come.

But with the change of scene, an override switch flips somewhere in Andy's brain. And the ice-cold Special Forces soldier suddenly swings into action. As vivid, florid images of dismemberment, mutilation, torture, and execution flash up on the screen in front of us (so vivid, in fact, that Andy later confesses to actually being able to "smell" the blood: a "kind of sickly-sweet smell that you never, ever forget"), accompanied not by the ambient spa music of before but by blaring sirens and hissing white noise, his physiological readings start slipping into reverse. His pulse rate begins to slow. His GSR begins to drop, his EEG to quickly and dramatically attenuate. In fact, by the time the show is over, all three of Andy's physiological output measures are pooling below his baseline.

Nick has seen nothing like it. "It's almost as if he was gearing himself up for the challenge," he says. "And then, when the challenge eventually presented itself, his brain suddenly responded by injecting liquid nitrogen into his veins. Suddenly implemented a blanket neural cull of all surplus feral emotion. Suddenly locked down into a hypnotically deep code red of extreme and ruthless focus."

He shakes his head, nonplused. "If I hadn't recorded those readings myself, I'm not sure I would have believed them," he continues. "OK, I've never tested Special Forces before. And maybe you'd expect a slight attenuation in response. But this guy was in total and utter control of the situation. So tuned in, it looked like he'd completely tuned out."

My physiological output readings, in contrast, went through the roof. Exactly like Andy's, they were well above baseline as I'd waited for the carnage to commence. But that's where the similarity ended. Rather than go down in the heat of battle, in the midst of the blood and guts, mine had appreciated exponentially.

"At least it shows that the equipment is working properly," comments Nick. "And that you're a normal human being."

We look across at Andy, who's chatting up a bunch of Nick's Ph.D. students over by a bank of monitors. God knows what they make of him. They've just analyzed his data, and the electrode gel has done such a number on his hair that he looks like Don King in a wind tunnel.

All done, Andy is off to a luxury hotel in the country, where I'll be joining him later for a debrief. But that's only after I've run the gantlet again, in Phase II of the experiment. In which, with the aid of a psychopath makeover, I'll have another go at the experiment, only this time with a completely different head on—thanks to a dose of TMS.

"The effects of the treatment should wear off within half an hour," Nick says, steering me over to a specially calibrated dentist's chair, complete with headrest, chin rest, and face straps. "Think of TMS as an electromagnetic comb, and brain cells—neurons—as hairs. All TMS does is comb those hairs in a particular direction, creating a temporary neural hairstyle. Which, like any new hairstyle, if you don't maintain it, quickly goes back to normal of its own accord."

Nick sits me down in the sinister-looking chair and pats me, a little too reassuringly for my liking, on the shoulder. By the time he's finished strapping and bolting me in, I look like Hannibal Lecter at LensCrafters. He positions the TMS coils, which resemble the handle part of a giant pair of scissors, over the middle section of my skull, and turns on the machine.

Instantly it feels as if there's a geeky homunculus miner buried deep inside my head, tapping away with a rock hammer.

"That's the electromagnetic induction passing down your trigeminal nerve," Nick explains. "It's one of the nerves responsible for sensation in the face, and for certain motor functions like biting, chewing, and swallowing. You can probably feel it going through your back teeth, right?"

I nod.

"What I'm actually trying to find," he continues, "is the specific part of your motor cortex responsible for the movement of the little finger of your right hand. Once we've pinpointed that, I can then use it as a kind of base camp, if you like, from which to plot the coordinates of the brain regions we're really interested in: your amygdala and your moral-reasoning area."

"Well, you'd better get on with it," I mutter. "Because much more of this, and I'm going to end up strangling you."

Nick smiles. "Blimey," he says. "It must be working already."

Sure enough, after about 20 seconds, I feel an involuntary twitch exactly where Nick has predicted. Weak, at first. Then gradually getting stronger. Pretty soon my right pinkie is really ripping it up. It's not the most comfortable feeling in the world—sitting strapped in a chair, in a dimly lit chamber, knowing that you don't have any control over the actions your body is performing. It's creepy. Demeaning. Disorienting ... and kind of puts a downer on the whole free-will thing. My only hope is that Nick isn't in the mood to start clowning around. With the piece of gear he's waving about, he could have me doing cartwheels round the lab.

"OK," he says. "We now know the location of the areas we need to target. So let's get started."

My little finger stops moving as he repositions his spooky neurological wand in the force field above my head. It's then just a matter of sitting there for a while as my dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and right temporoparietal junction get an electromagnetic comb-over.

TMS can't penetrate far enough into the brain to reach the emotion and moral-reasoning precincts directly. But by damping down or turning up the regions of the cerebral cortex that have links with such areas, it can simulate the effects of deeper, more incursive influence.

It isn't long before I start to notice a fuzzier, more pervasive, more existential difference. Before the experiment, I'd been curious about the time scale: how long it would take me to begin to feel the rush. Now I had the answer: about 10 to 15 minutes. The same amount of time, I guess, that it would take most people to get a buzz out of a beer or a glass of wine.

The effects aren't entirely dissimilar. An easy, airy confidence. A transcendental loosening of inhibition. The inchoate stirrings of a subjective moral swagger: the encroaching, and somehow strangely spiritual, realization that hell, who gives a s---, anyway?

There is, however, one notable exception. One glaring, unmistakable difference between this and the effects of alcohol. That's the lack of attendant sluggishness. The enhancement of attentional acuity and sharpness. An insuperable feeling of heightened, polished awareness. Sure, my conscience certainly feels like it's on ice, and my anxieties drowned with a half-dozen shots of transcranial magnetic Jack Daniel's. But, at the same time, my whole way of being feels as if it's been sumptuously spring-cleaned with light. My soul, or whatever you want to call it, immersed in a spiritual dishwasher.

So this, I think to myself, is how it feels to be a psychopath. To cruise through life knowing that no matter what you say or do, guilt, remorse, shame, pity, fear—all those familiar, everyday warning signals that might normally light up on your psychological dashboard—no longer trouble you.

I suddenly get a flash of insight. We talk about gender. We talk about class. We talk about color. And intelligence. And creed. But the most fundamental difference between one individual and another must surely be that of the presence, or absence, of conscience. Conscience is what hurts when everything else feels good. But what if it's as tough as old boots? What if one's conscience has an infinite, unlimited pain threshold and doesn't bat an eye when others are screaming in agony?

Back in the chair, wired up to the counters and bleepers, I sit through the horror show again: the images modified, so as to avoid habituation. This time, however, it's a different story. "I know the guy before me found these images nauseating," I hear myself saying. "But actually, to be honest, this time round I'm finding it hard to suppress a smile."

The lines and squiggles corroborate my confession. Whereas previously, such was my level of arousal that it was pretty much a minor miracle that the state-of-the-art EEG printer hadn't blown up and burst into flames, my brain activity after the psychopath makeover is significantly reduced. Perhaps not quite as genteelly undulating as Andy's. But getting there, certainly. It's a similar story when it comes to heart rate and skin conductance. In fact, in the case of the latter, I actually eclipse Andy's reading.

"Does that mean it's official?" I ask Nick, as we scrutinize the figures. "Can I legitimately claim to be cooler than Andy McNab?"

He shrugs. "I suppose," he says. "For now, anyway. But you'd better make the most of it while you can. You've got a quarter of an hour. Max."

I shake my head. Already I sense the magic wearing off. The electromagnetic sorcery starting to wane. I feel, for instance, considerably more married than I did a bit earlier—and considerably less inclined to go up to Nick's research assistant and ask her out for a drink. Instead I go with Nick—to the student bar—and bury my previous best on the Gran Turismo car-racing video game. I floor it all the way round. But so what—it's only a game, isn't it?

"I wouldn't want to be with you in a real car at the moment," says Nick. "You're definitely still a bit ballsy."

I feel great. Not quite as good as before, perhaps, when we were in the lab. Not quite as ... I don't know ... impregnable. But up there, for sure. Life seems full of possibility, my psychological horizons much broader. Why shouldn't I piss off to Glasgow this weekend for my buddy's stag party, instead of dragging myself over to Dublin to help my wife put her mother in a nursing home? I mean, what's the worst that can happen? This time next year, this time next week even, it would all be forgotten. Who Dares Wins, right?

I take a couple of quid from the table next to ours—left as a tip, but who's going to know?—and try my luck on another couple of machines. I get to $100,000 on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" but crash and burn because I refuse to go 50-50. Soon things start to change. Gran Turismo the second time round is a disappointment. I'm suddenly more cautious, and finish way down the field. Not only that, I notice a security camera in the corner and think about the tip I've just pocketed. To be on the safe side, I decide to pay it back.

I smile and swig my beer. Psychopaths. They never stick around for long. As soon as the party's over, they're moving on to the next one, with scant regard for the future and even less for the past. And this psychopath—the one, I guess, that was me for 20 minutes—was no exception. He'd had his fun. And got a free drink out of it. But now that the experiment was history, he was suddenly on his way, hitting the road and heading out of town. Hopefully quite some distance away.

I certainly didn't want him showing up in the hotel bar later, where I was meeting Andy. They'd either get on great. Or wouldn't get on at all.

To be honest, I didn't know which would be scarier.

Kevin Dutton is a research psychologist at the University of Cambridge. This essay is excerpted from The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success, his new book from Scientific American / Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom