Hacker News Reader

Comment by j_baker | Hacker News Reader

"Psycopath" has no clinical meaning. The closest equivalent is Antisocial Personality disorder. In extreme cases, an antisocial can be a Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer, but that's not always the case.

It's worth pointing out that there is also such thing as an Antisocial personality style, meaning that a person has antisocial traits, but can keep them in check well enough to function in society. They tend to do well in roles that require aggression, and can make excellent entrepreneurs, attorneys, and politicians. In fact, people are frequently surprised to find out that some of their most prized traits are Antisocial, they have some antisocial friends, and that they probably have one or two Antisocial heroes. Martin Luther King Jr and Mother Theresa leap to mind.

TL;DR - It's simplistic to say "Trait A bad, Trait B good". There are plenty of narcissists, sociopaths, and paranoids that have done great things for society.

View on HN

"Psychopath" absolutely has a clinical meaning. While not formally defined in the DSM, it can be diagnosed via the "PCL-R" test [1] administered by a psychiatrist or other qualified clinician. The test has a 40 year history of use in penology.

More recently, a lot of interesting research is being done now on the physical basis of psychopathy, using various non-invasive means [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist

[2] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_...

The thing is that the literature isn't clear on there being a single agreed-upon definition of psychopathy. The PCL-R test certainly has been successful in a criminal setting. In fact, that's its chief disadvantage: it's too focused on the criminality aspect of it. There are certainly other points of view.

Hare's definition is rather widely agreed-upon. I doubt there are many mental illnesses that do have a single agreed-upon definition.

Good point. The PCL-R is definitely not part of routine psychological / psychiatric practice - your average clinician would certainly not administer that test, for example. It is most commonly used in the penal system, not in mainstream mental health treatment.

Worth noting that the PCL-R test was not designed for clinical use, and its author explicitly discourages such use (among other things, once you start using it widespread, it stops being effective as a measurement tool, and some parts of the test are reflective of history not current condition).

There are other test which measure psychopathic tendencies, although they don't necessarily label "psychopathy" as that which they measure, for example some are "amorality" questionnaires (where amorality is roughly defined as a profound lack of regard for other people's feelings and well being etc.). Some are quite successful in discriminating various types of prison populations (that is, it doesn't just say "this person is severely lacking empathy", but it shows there are various types of psychopathic/anti-social trait clusters, and this reflects on real life behavioral history of individuals). I'm speaking from a strictly academic research background with this and a lot of time has passed since I looked into it so I'm not sure if the tests I'm talking about got any clinical use among non-prison population. However, a lot of this can be gleaned from good general purpose personality questionnaires.

>"Psychopath" absolutely has a clinical meaning. While not formally defined in the DSM ...

Would that be the same DSM that's being abandoned by those who know it best? Consider this position taken by the sitting director of NIMH:

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia...

Quote: "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity."

Given the present widespread changes in the field of mental health, it might be better to find a more reliable source for views on this topic -- if they exist.

As to psychopathy, the linked article says it all -- a researcher finds out he's a dangerous person by reading a brain scan, with no other supporting evidence and copious contraindications.

> As to psychopathy, the linked article says it all -- a researcher finds out he's a dangerous person by reading a brain scan, with no other supporting evidence and copious contraindications.

Pretty much no, that's not what the article says at all. He didn't find he's dangerous, he found out his brain is lacking in capacity for "empathy, morality and self-control" (which is what he self-observed in the first place). These traits are central to psychopaths, but that does not mean a person with such traits is necessarily violent or actually doing anything overtly anti-social. And that's what the article actually says and tries to explain. A brain scan which shows dysfunction in ventromedial frontal cortex does not mean you're looking at a brain of an anti-social maniac, it's somewhat more nuanced.

EDIT: I forgot to mention a very relevant finding: it has been shown that intelligence has a non linear and interesting interaction with psychopathic personality traits. Basically, very high level intelligence can and does act like a defensive factor, extremely intelligent people with such traits are able to compensate the lack of empathy, self-control etc. (the relation is not so simple with lover levels of intelligence, as I said it's not linear). I wish I could give you some reference, but ATM I don't have anything in English at hand, sorry.

> that's not what the article says at all.

On the contrary, that is exactly what the article says.

> He didn't find he's dangerous, he found out his brain is lacking in capacity for "empathy, morality and self-control"

That wasn't an insight he had in advance, that was an interpretation forced on him by the test results. In other words, he was cornered into accepting a picture of himself, clearly at odds with reality, through personal dedication to his experiment and its outcome.

Science history contains any number of similar stories, in particular in psychology, where what one feels a need to believe becomes the evidence for the very thing being "objectively" studied.

> ... it has been shown that intelligence has a non linear and interesting interaction with psychopathic personality traits.

I think your use of "it has been shown" is completely overboard, given the level of evidence in this field. It has also "been shown" that Albert Einstein was mentally ill, on the ground that he wasn't a well-adjusted and boring member of society, but someone who focused his attention on a small handful of things that had no obvious utility at the time, and ignored his wife and family. By the way, Thomas Jefferson, Bill Gates any many others have been labeled mentally ill on the same ground -- unconventional thoughts and choices. "It has been shown" indeed.

Meanwhile, in reality, evolution requires diversity -- all sorts of people with all sorts of behaviors, some of which are very useful. Without diversity, we have a perfect psychological world, but no innovation and no unconventional ideas.

The evidence for evolution, and what evolution requires in order to function, is vastly better than the evidence for psychology's set of beliefs. If we accepted modern psychology's basic premise -- that there is a normal behavior toward which we should all aspire -- evolution would grind to a halt, as would science. It has been shown. :)

> That wasn't an insight he had in advance, that was an interpretation forced on him by the test results. In other words, he was cornered into accepting a picture of himself, clearly at odds with reality, through personal dedication to his experiment and its outcome.

Whether he in particular is a well adjusted psycho is actually irrelevant. He's trying to sell a book, he may even be completely lying about how he behaves just in order to spice up the story and sell more books. The point is that what he is describing is based on solid current knowledge about psychopathy. The behaviour he is describing is congruent with current best scientific knowledge on the topic. His behaviour and brain scan, whether true or just imagined, is not evidence to support anything and he isn't implying it is. It's just an illustration.

> If we accepted modern psychology's basic premise -- that there is a normal behavior toward which we should all aspire [...]

Just what on earth are you talking about? Please, stop the nonsense.

> The point is that what he is describing is based on solid current knowledge about psychopathy.

What? There is no "solid current knowledge about psychopathy." This is why the DSM is being abandoned, or have you not been keeping up with current events?

> The behaviour he is describing is congruent with current best scientific knowledge on the topic.

Well, that's certainly true. It's true because there's no science in this field. Prove this wrong -- point to a clear, testable psychological claim (a claim about the workings of the mind) that was falsified using empirical evidence, ever, anywhere.

> His behaviour and brain scan, whether true or just imagined, is not evidence to support anything and he isn't implying it is.

That would explain why he sincerely wondered whether he was a psychopath. You know, it's customary to read an article before offering learned views abut its content.

>> If we accepted modern psychology's basic premise -- that there is a normal behavior toward which we should all aspire [...]

> Just what on earth are you talking about?

Shall I quote from the vast psychological literature that tells us how many of us are sick and need therapy, or will you educate yourself? Shall I tell you the story of Asperger Syndrome, now abandoned for cause, that submitted any number of bright youngsters to pointless therapy before being laughed off the stage of public opinion?

Title: "Determining What Is Normal Behavior and What Is Not"

Link: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fighting-fear/201305/det...

There are ten thousand more where that came from.

> Please, stop the nonsense.

You have two choices: learn this topic, or stop posting your ignorant views in this public forum.

It's worth pointing out that there is also such thing as an Antisocial personality style, meaning that a person has antisocial traits, but can keep them in check well enough to function in society. They tend to do well in roles that require aggression, and can make excellent entrepreneurs, attorneys, and politicians.

Just because somebody isn't a serial murderer doesn't mean they are beneficial to society. Ruthless businessmen and politicians can cause far more damage than Ted Bundy ever did.

It's great that you point this out. Personality styles happen along a spectrum. You have some people who fit in well in society and do good things. Then you have some borderline cases where people can minimally fit into society albeit with many problems. Then you have people who just can't fit into society unless it's to cause damage. Depending on a person's background and talents, sometimes they're white collar and sometimes they're blue collar.

I haven't read it, so I can't vouch for it, but Snakes in Suits [1] is a frequently recommended book on this subject.

[1] http://amzn.com/0061147893

Great book on the topic. Talks a lot about how they do function in society (great business man-jerk of a boss, Provides well for family-controlling husband/father, etc). The book 'Sociopath Next Door' also goes further on how to deal with them.

Just because somebody isn't a serial murderer doesn't mean they are beneficial to society. Ruthless businessmen and politicians can cause far more damage than Ted Bundy ever did.

Unless these ruthless business men tortured, raped and murder people, then no, they did not do more damage than either of these two serial killers.

I get where you're coming from the moral relativism is going overboard.

What's worse, murdering 100 people or taking 10% of the quality of life (yes, it's a fuzzy metric, so what) from 1000?

That's what he's getting at. Of course, there's also the question of whether there are businessmen who have done such a harm, and whether they have done so intentionally, the measure of their blame for it, etc.

I would rather lose 10% of my QoL than be murdered, so I'd say murdering 100 is worse than reducing the QoL of 1000.

Easy. Next question?

Lose 10% of QoL or be murdered with probability of 0.00001%? Is there a probability point in which your answer changes?

This is the worst kind of response. To just absolutely declare that morality is X (relative, absolute, personal, anything) and put a period there is not a worthy method for discussing the subject. There is absolutely a case that maximal suffering of a handful is outweighed by lesser suffering across many, many more.

To take your comment at face value -- it's as if the question at the core of thousands of years of philosophy, public policy, and politics has suddenly been resolved. Much more likely that you are unaware of the nuance, and also unaware of your own unawareness. Thus you feel perfectly comfortable making bold, sweeping statements like this as if nobody has ever considered before today the matter at hand.

The truth is that there are many valid ways to measure the good/badness in a thing.

Unless these ruthless business men tortured, raped and murder people, then no, they did not do more damage than either of these two serial killers.

They may not have done so themselves but they paid people who did. Look at all the rape, torture and murder going on in places like Central African Republic. The place is loaded with mineral resources and yet the population starves and has to flee for their lives from press gangs and militias. Behind all of this you will find businessmen and politicians profiting immensely.

There's the example of Dick Cheney. If he pushed for the Iraq war for the profit of businesses he was associated with, a case could be made that he did more damage than Ted Bundy. Those who contribute to resourced killing efforts can see their results scale to a degree not possible for hobbyists like Bundy.

Gotta point out, the whole cool thing about this is that he initially diagnosed himself using concrete patterns in brain scans. So, maybe the term "psychopath" is vague and handwavey, but there're real brain patterns which correlate well to groups like serial killers, that can be identified in brain scans. We might need a less loaded term to talk about these patterns with.

Oh no, I agree completely. Here's the question that's on my mind though: does the fact that someone's brain works the same way as a serial killer mean that they'll act the same way themselves? Or are there millions of Ted Bundys out there who never actually killed anyone and even lead productive lives?

There's nature, nurture, and free will, as the article mentions. Biology is only one factor.

"free will"

this is heavily contested.

I sure wish I had the free will to agree with you.

Unfortunately I'm predestined to incorrectly ignore your arguments, maintaining my misplaced belief in free will.

Like the article says, there are other factors. There are those that are genetically predisposed to addictions (alcoholism, drugs), but that doesn't mean all of them are addicts.

> Or are there millions of Ted Bundys out there who never actually killed anyone and even lead productive lives?

Exactly this. Psychopaths may not have empathy or desire for social approval prevent them from becoming murderers, but they still don't want to be punished or become outcasts and lose all the things they need from society. They can even develop their own rational morality, arguably in many ways better than the instinctive emotional morality most people have.

Psychopaths typically only become murderers if they're either stupid, live in a defunct society or have some other metal issue that compels them to kill. Fortunately, that combination is rare.

> They can even develop their own rational morality, arguably in many ways better than the instinctive emotional morality most people have.

One of the striking things about psychopaths, and I'm talking about the obvious anti-social types, not the ones like Fallon from the article, is how they are able to talk and abstractly reason about morality. Based on words alone, they can often be judged as shining examples of virtue. The interesting thing about it is that they're not lying (no evidence that they do) or trying to deceive (well, it certainly depends on the situation, of course they won't have problems deceiving people when needed). They just can't relate on a fundamental level to rational analysis they are able to make. It is in fact the absence of emotional component in moral reasoning, which neurotypical people have, that leads them to behave in ways opposite of their stated abstract moral standards.

I've read almost every popular book on the subject of (pscho/socio)pathy. I think "Wisdom of Psychopaths" [1] would be one that you might enjoy.

> ...are there millions of Ted Bundys out there who never actually killed anyone and even lead productive lives?

I think the answer to this is probably yes-ish. The thing about people like Ted Bundy is that he wasn't JUST a psychopath. He was also sadistic, and probably some other characteristics [2]. The reason I say "yes" though is that there are certainly a lot of psychopaths (however you want to define the parameters of the definition) out there leading productive and "normal" lives without killing anyone.

Now, if I may indulge my own pet ideas...

Psychopaths have certainly been with us forever. Having no empathy, conscience or remorse and also being sexually promiscuous makes for a fairly effective survival and reproductive strategy outside of the modern context (see the Ghengis Khan effect [3]). On the flip side, they also probably killed each other off pretty regularly too (which would have had some possible cyclical effects). This leads one to ponder what role the psychopath might play in modernity. And it doesn't take too long to get some unsurprising / interesting results [4][5]. I'd say that one of the features of capitalism is that it can effectively (but not perfectly) convert volatile/psychopathic personalities into value for society. Where a psychopath might have been an Attila the Hun in historical past, he might be Steve Jobs today. Of course, as someone else pointed out, he might also be Dick Cheney too. Thankfully, nations have adopted political and governing structures designed to mitigate the damage one psychopathic person can do. When I see things like extreme inequality in America I wonder what role psychopaths are playing and if perhaps we're entering a phase where we may have to institute some enduring controls on the more emergent(?) psychopathic tendencies in our economic systems (as presaged by "The Corporation"?[6]). Anyway, don't want to beat a dead horse. Suffice to say, I find it amusing (and admittedly dangerous) to view history and current events through a lens of who-are-the-likely-psychopaths. Thought I'd share.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Wisdom-Psychopaths-Killers-Success...

[2] There are groups of traits that, when combined, don't form Captain Planet. Instead they're associated with bad mojo. See the Dark Triad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad) and the MacDonald Triad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad).

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan#DNA_e...

[4] http://www.spring.org.uk/2013/07/which-professions-have-the-...

[5] http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforceme...

[6] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHrhqtY2khc

Where did you get the idea that there is a correlation between brain patterns and being a serial killer?

To my knowledge, no such correlation has been established.

While there is a lot of literature on psychopathy and crime, one must bear in mind that the definition of psychopathy being used includes past criminal history. So there is obviously going to be a link!

Reading paragraphs 2 & 3, the I thought that it was stated explicitly, though it seems to be simply implied. He was looking through stacks of scans from serial killers and alzheimers patients and family members, and found one that was "obviously pathological"

Yes, but you see, that shows the questionable nature of the entire study. How could a person have all the traits supposedly associated with severe psychopathology and not even know it?

In science, skepticism rules -- these brain scans might indicate something entirely separate from the object of the study, but something that produces a similar scan. A scientist would rule out all other possibilities before jumping to the conclusion that a person is a sociopath, which is just one of many explanations for the scan outcome.

Most important of all, nature requires genetic diversity for evolution to work. Psychologists try to tell us there's only one "normal", but that's a myth put forth by people who don't understand evolution. "Normal" is anyone who has something to offer the world. Albert Einstein certainly had widely recognized gifts, but psychologists branded him mentally ill, as they did Thomas Jefferson, Bill Gates and many others -- using a "mental illness" label that has since been abandoned due to public protest.

Sloppy science is a longstanding trademark of the field of psychology, and it would be a shame if the same sloppiness infected neuroscience also.

To his credit, the author of the article expresses some of the same doubts as he tells the story.

The author points out that he does have some of the traits associated with psychopathy, he just sublimates them in acceptable ways (most of the time). Perhaps the best explanation is that this is a disorder of degrees, with only some outcomes being extreme enough to cause criminality, not that it doesn't exist at all?

Of course there's room for scepticism here and a lot of doubt about what the scans actually indicate, and this 'illness' has fallen out of favour due to concerns about its fuzzy definition, but the author is absolutely not claiming that the scans are meaningless or not associated with psychopathy.

Yep, intelligence is a significant factor in the behavioral outcome.[0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6789637

> Psychologists try to tell us there's only one "normal"

No they do not. Psychologists tell us that "normal" covers a very wide range of behaviours and experiences. They tell us that we only need to treat people who are not "normal" if those people have trouble functioning in their day to day lives.

Thus, a person hearing voices can go on hearing those voices if they are okay with it. But when the person reports distress at the voices psychology and psychiatry step in to help that person. (I use hearing voices as an example, it could be OCD or anxiety or depression or any other mental health problem).

>> Psychologists try to tell us there's only one "normal"

> No they do not.

Check your facts.

Title: "Determining What Is Normal Behavior and What Is Not"

Link: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fighting-fear/201305/det...

There are ten thousand more just like it.

> They tell us that we only need to treat people who are not "normal" if those people have trouble functioning in their day to day lives.

False. Homeless people are automatically given a diagnosis -- automatically and without consent -- in order to receive public assistance. You're living in a dream world. Modern psychology doesn't ask us what's wrong with us, it tells us. More evidence:

Quote: "... according to the more recent NCS-R data, it’s not really 1 in 4 Americans who could be diagnosed with a mental disorder in any given year — it’s 1 in 3!"

Link: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/05/03/mental-heal...

> Thus, a person hearing voices can go on hearing those voices if they are okay with it.

Not if he has any property -- his relatives will have him committed. You are very clearly not conversant with modern psychological practice.

The above abuses explain why the DSM is being abandoned, and by abandoning the DSM, society is rejecting all current psychological practice.

Link: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia...

Quote: " While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity."

-- from the current director of the NIMH.

He may indeed have looked at some scans, and judged that one was "obviously pathological". But where does this imply that there already was a link between being a serial killer and brain scans? All it states was that he considered that particular scan (that belonged to him, it turns out) to be pathological.

Also, even if he did find such a link, I can't find any publications by him on this link.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com