I think the best way to answer most of the questions posed and to bring us closer to what the new science posits is for me to share with you an example that one of the researchers gave me. This is a professor of forensic psychiatry with particular emphasis in cognitive physiology. I was almost exactly where a lot of you seem to be: Why would you think it's another species, why would you not simply think it is a different form of psychopathy and that maybe the Hare scale just needs revision? His answer really helped me to understand where this had come from and how it had evolved.
For starters, he explained that as a physical scientist he was not departing from the behavioral or 'emotional' component of psychopathy. In other words, he explained that psychopathy had always been the purview of psychologists and psychiatrists who studied it and learned to diagnose it and when possible treat it, but theirs were observations based on behavior. His area operated with absolutely no precepts relative to psychopathy and its defining behaviors. The concept of 'evil' did not have any role in his work.
In the work I've read relative to ponerology, the idea of psychopathy is discussed in the context of human behavior. The concept of 'evil' as defined through moral and religious traditions is a critical piece in the precepts of ponerology, characteropathy, objective deviations, etc. This isn't surprising given the fact that when Gurdjieff, and Lobecszewsky et. al. engaged in their searches there simply wasn't the technology for them to correlate their views with specific physical and physiological differences, nor did they seek to correlate their perspectives with evolutionary and genetic benchmarks. Theirs was a spiritual, emotional and philosophical endeavor, they looked into the soul and worked their way out. These scientists worked from the outside and then have left it to others to interpret how we can correlate the changes and theories they posit with our understanding of the spiritual, emotional and philosophical elements of the mind.
His hypothesis was based on his understanding of how psychopathy was established and then moved on to explore its physical manifestations and causes. Finally, once he had a clear and well-founded concept on how the psychological and psychiatric establishments defined psychopathy, he began to research subjects who fell outside of the established norms these disciplines had established and to try to identify physiological and biological differences that may account for the discrepancy, that's how it started. I was still not clear on exactly what he meant, I couldn't come up with a manifestation of what he was talking about. Below is a description of one of the subjects of his research. Hopefully it will clear at least some of the questions you've posed like it did with me:
A young man was referred to the study by a psychologist with agreement from a psychiatrist as well. The young man had served six tours in the Marine corps. four in Iraq and two in Afghanistan. He'd joined straight from high school. When he left the military he went to the VA, but quickly realized they wouldn't be able to help. He was not suffering from PTSD nor any other war-related emotional condition. He decided to pay for therapy on his own. He went to the psychologist and psychiatrist and explained to both that he was troubled by a 'condition' he'd had since he was a child. From the time he was young he'd felt a very strong inclination to prey on those around him. His chagrin at feeling this was the first indication to the therapists that this was not a typical case.
They'd both gone through his childhood and adolescence and established he'd never suffered any abuse nor had he ever gone through any trauma. He had normal sexual development and married a year after joining the marines. His family had never known him to be anything but a pleasant, if somewhat quiet, young man. He himself explained that since childhood he'd always been able to see things that seemed to escape others. Small and seemingly innocuous variations in behavior, twitches, patterns of action, fears, etc. allowed him to make observations of those around him. He had believed everyone could do it until he was twelve when he realized that was not the case.
When asked why he did what he did, try to read those around him, he said he did not know. He had thought that maybe he'd done it because he wanted to be 'safe', to know that if he had to 'protect' himself he'd know the threat's weaknesses. The psychologist asked him if he thought those around him were 'after' him or were trying to take advantage of him trying to establish whether there was an element of paranoia. He said he did not believe so, but that was the only explanation he could come up with for his constant 'awareness' of all of the minute shifts he'd mentioned. He had joined the marines in order to channel the strong inclinations he'd felt since he was a child. He volunteered for recon because he wanted to be in the heart of the action. Now that he was back home he'd gone back to feeling like there was something wrong with him, except that now the feeling was much stronger because he'd now experienced the feeling that 'eliminating' people brought. He stated he loved his family and wife and didn't feel 'safe' around them.
Over a period of time and through conversations with his family, his wife and his friends, both therapists had come to the conclusion that try as they may, they could not diagnose this man as a psychopath or a sociopath. He simply did not fit the established norms and the Hare scale. While both therapists tried to come up with a treatment plan the psychologist referred him to the study, a study on the physiology of predatory behavior. After a Pet scan, an active cognition scan, blood work and sensory testing the researcher came up with the following:
The parts of the brain that tend to light up in psychopaths, the parts that deal with imagination or story telling, did not light up in him. The area of the brain dealing with memory light up instead. He wasn't saying what he was saying in the hope of manipulating, he was sharing true memories. When he spoke of his family and his wife and the love he had for them the part of the brain that dealt with memories lit up again, along with the part of the brain that dealt with bonding, not the story telling part. When he said he loved, he was sharing a true feelings, not his idea of the feeling. His amygdala function was normal, he was aware of the consequences of his actions on other and on himself. His levels of the MAO-A gene were normal. His levels of testosterone were higher than normal. He tested well above average on IQ tests administered by the therapists and by the researcher.
His cognitive speed was also well above normal, he made connections between the environment around him and the actions of those within it much faster than the norm. His brain cavity was also much larger than the norm. His bone density was much higher than the norm, so the architecture of his bones was stronger than the norm. One of the most interesting things that the researcher found was that this guy made immediate connections between changes in the environment around him and fine motor skills. He was a sort of synesthete, but instead of smelling sounds or seeing shapes and colors when tasting something, he 'felt' changes around him physically. In other words, if he was at a party and someone there was in an angry argument, but they were keeping their voices low, he felt it physically. When we are scared we feel emotion physically, but it is our own emotion. He felt others' emotions and translated them into subconscious changes in his physiology. He got tense, his pupils dilated and his pulse rose.
This assessment provided insight for the guy's therapists, but they did not know how to proceed with his treatment protocol. I should make clear that the researcher that conducted the study did not make ANY determinations that he was part of another species, that was not the purpose of the study. the purpose of the study was simply to identify and catalogue physiological differences in individuals who did not fit into the established norms for psychopathy. Another researcher took his findings and those of others doing similar research to posit the new species. Most of those that have posited or proposed a different species are evolutionary biologists. I have not found a single reference to 'evil' or to the moral aspects of psychopathy or other mental conditions in any of their work.
As I have come to understand all of this, the motivation for a psychopath is quite different than the motivation for those who might be something else. We all know what defines a psychopath and wel all know what that represent for humanity, but the example above presented another consideration. What the detectives and lawyers and prison counselors described confirmed for me that there is something else out there that does not fit psychopathy. All of these folks deal with psychopaths on an almost daily basis, much more often than I do anyway and I venture to say much more than most other people, and they believe that there are individuals that are something else. None of these people ever said anything about another species, but when presented with the possibility almost all of them agreed that it made a lot of sense.
Predatory behavior is predatory behavior and the fact that the motivation for it might be something other than what we understand to be psychopathy does not in any way make any predator less responsible. The fact that there may be another species doesn't mean that we should therefore simply bow and say 'here, take over', on the contrary the more we understand the more we can develop insights to counter them.
Frankly, for me, it was their thoughts on the matter that gave the whole thing credibility. I am not well versed enough on the science involved to say that it is a fact that another species exists, but having spoken to those that have seen more diagnosed psychopaths than I will ever see (hopefully) and hearing their thoughts on the matter, have convinced me of the possibility. Psychopaths are not an 'idea' or a 'theory' for them, they are a very real, flesh and blood reality they deal with as a part of their job, so yes, their opinion is always going to hold a lot of sway for me.
Of course we can all choose to simply believe that all predators are psychopaths and we can simply continue to revise the established norms for psychopathy in order to encompass anyone who does not fit, but I think that is simply burying our heads in the sand. Advances in technology and a much deeper understanding of the boundaries of the human mind will continue to bring up all sorts of interesting possibilities and I think those of us that have a better understanding of psychopathy, ponerology, characteropathy, the pathology, etc. can use these technological advances to bring a different perspective to the discussion.
It would have been fascinating to see how those who have written about ponerology, psychopathy, the pathology, etc. would correlate a better understanding of the physical, evolutionary and physiological elements of predatory behavior. Perhaps such technological advances and hypotheses would have opened a whole new path of understanding for them to map.
