Hacker News Reader

Comment by stavrianos | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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