The neuroscience of psychopathy
Altered connections on the road to psychopathy:
… Earlier studies suggested that dysfunction of the amygdala and/or orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) may underpin psychopathy. Nobody, however, has ever studied the white matter connections (such as the uncinate fasciculus (UF)) linking these structures in psychopaths. Therefore, we used in vivo diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging (DT-MRI) tractography to analyse the microstructural integrity of the UF in psychopaths (defined by a Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R) score of 25) with convictions that included attempted murder, manslaughter, multiple rape with strangulation and false imprisonment. We report significantly reduced fractional anisotropy (FA) (P
People used to make a distinction between sociopaths (e.g., non-violent conmen) and psychopaths (e.g., ax murderers running amok), but then about ten years ago they stopped. How come?
I can answer that one. Psychologists took a vote to abolish those categories, in the same way that astronomers voted to strip Pluto of its planet status. The terms were too widely understood and weren’t sufficiently “scientific”. Therefore, they were replaced by terms that were less specific and more technical-sounding.
Many people don’t realize that the nature and structure of psychiatric diagnostic categories is quite literally determined by group consensus. In psychiatry and clinical psychology, there is no distinction between a “real phenomenon” and “politicized constructed pathology” – every condition is both.
“People used to make a distinction between sociopaths (e.g., non-violent conmen) and psychopaths (e.g., ax murderers running amok), but then about ten years ago they stopped. How come?” Maybe they weren’t sure how to categorise Bill Clinton?
I wouldn’t be surprised to see more of this in the future. We might eventually be able to take scans of people’s brains and say, “This person is schizophrenic, this person has a narcissistic personality, ect.” While this would be a boon to psychiatry, I worry what it will do to the criminal justice system. People will argue, “See, he’s a sociopath…he’s not responsible for his actions.” As a compatibilist, I don’t buy this argument, but many will.
There’s a huge leap between saying that all psychopaths have this brain abnormality and saying that everyone with this brain abnormality is a psychopath.
I wish there were more studies on the long-term effects of brain injuries. Could this be a result of an injury, say in early childhood that went unnoticed?
While there seems to be tons of data on the first few years after a traumatic brain injury, there seems to be no interest at all in how the survivors are getting along after 10-20 years.
chemdude:
Personally I’m more waiting for its effects on criminal justice system. Everything I’ve read about psychopaths indicates that they are incapable of learning from their mistakes (if they truly lack the capability or will to distinguish right from wrong). This suggests that the only way to really deal with violent psychopaths is to lock them up for good.
There’s a huge leap between saying that all psychopaths have this brain abnormality and saying that everyone with this brain abnormality is a psychopath. They haven’t even demonstrated that there’s an abnormality in the brain, rather than the brain’s behavior.
If a region of the brain is found to be associated with certain kinds of reactions in ‘normal’ people, and when you look at people who don’t have those reactions, that region doesn’t behave ‘normally’, you’ve really done nothing more than confirm that the region in question really is associated with that reaction. It says nothing about causality, and tells us nothing about etiology.
While what you state is true, it isn’t representative of what will be stated as true about this research.
Unfortunately.
Antti: There is a more permanent way to deal with violent psychopaths than imprisonment. No criminal has ever escaped from a coffin.
Caledonian: What you said. The researchers have demonstrated correlation. They have not demonstrated causation – though they imply they have (the last sentence). When they have a mechanism as well, which has been verified, that would be something.
Something very big, to be sure, and I hope they do.
Sadly, it’s rather unlikely that such an etiological link would be found.
I strongly suspect that there’s nothing wrong with the brains of the various types of bigots, even though I bet many of them would not have sympathetic feelings (with the associated activity / lack of activity in the brain) if shown images of people in the group they despised suffering. Their brains are probably perfectly normal. The reaction / lack of reaction to specific stimuli classes is learned rather than being a malfunction.
It’s entirely possible that we’ll find that there’s a physiologic subtype of people who tend to become sociopathic – but I’m confident that if such a difference is found, it will be present in lots of people that society currently insists are ‘normal’, many of which will be successful. The difference itself will not determine whether the person manages to conform with society’s expectations or not. Stupid sociopaths tend to become unsuccessful criminals. Smart ones become politicians, televangelists, and group leaders. Ah, but the rules for the diagnostic categories that have replaced sociopathy require that the person not be able to make themselves outwardly conform to the rules – so anyone who follows society’s rules by definition is not mentally ill.
It’s just the medicalization of politics, pure and simple.
For the terms that replaced sociopathic and psychopathic, see the following:
Personality Disorder
Caledonian, why go all the way to Szasz or all the way to the psychobabblers? Anyone can see that reality lies in between. To my mind your “extreme black-and-white thinking” on this may indicate subtle/latent Borderline Personality Disorder – prepare to be medicalized! Just kidding.
In all seriousness, people who are gonna study this do have to define phenotypes, in order to maximize their chances of research success (and funding!) There is some chance their research will pay off concretely though we both know how uncertain that is.
What should they do, in your ideal world? Declare these phenotypes exist but simply call them “phenotypes?” That would be perfectly fine with me. But realistically, when you take something like OCD where florid cases exist, people end up using the word “disorder.”
How did you get from psychopath to bigot? Are those terms synonymous?
In all seriousness, people who are gonna study this do have to define phenotypes, in order to maximize their chances of research success (and funding!) Certainly. But they’re going to end up warping their definitions due to social convention, rather than “carving reality at the joints”.
How did you get from psychopath to bigot? Are those terms synonymous? No, bigotry is just an example of a socially-disapproved mental state that isn’t currently medicalized. It’s used as an example of how declaring beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that are socially unacceptable to be medically pathological is absurd and dangerous.
What should they do, in your ideal world? Declare these phenotypes exist but simply call them “phenotypes?” That would be perfectly fine with me. But realistically, when you take something like OCD where florid cases exist, people end up using the word “disorder.” People should recognize 1) that behaviors exist along a continuum and that discrete categories, although convenient, usually aren’t valid, and 2) that the “normal person” is host to all sorts of pathological processes, and 3) that physiology is almost certainly not pathological in the vast majority of cases.
The text may be screwed up, but it’s not because the book it’s printed in is defective. Too many people are claiming, in essence, that because they don’t like the text that there’s something wrong with it, and because the text is wrong the book must be the cause.
“People should recognize 1) that behaviors exist along a continuum and that discrete categories, although convenient, usually aren’t valid, and 2) that the “normal person” is host to all sorts of pathological processes, and 3) that physiology is almost certainly not pathological in the vast majority of cases.”
People (psychologists and psychiatrists) already recognize this.
Good books on the subject:
Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us
Conservatives Without Conscience