Blog | Events | Multimedia | About | Purpose | Programs | Publications | Staff | Contact | Join   
     Login      Register    

Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.

Via PayPal




Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view









Personhood Beyond the Human Conference whats new at ieet
Mixed News from Space

Woman who lost limbs to flesh-eating bacteria gets bionic hands

Present Shock- explained in 15 minutes

Here’s the Real Reason Why Virtual Reality Doesn’t Work Yet

Making Friends With Artificial Intelligence

Will the Catholic Bishops Decide How You Die?

Hidden Beauty: Diseases become art under a microscope

US scientists clone human stem cells

Shame, Stigma and Angelina Jolie’s Breasts

Open Source Democracy


ieet books

eGods: Faith versus Fantasy in Computer Gaming
Author
by William Sims Bainbridge


comments

Peter Wicks on 'Will the Catholic Bishops Decide How You Die?' (May 18, 2013)

Chrontius on 'Push-Button (3D Printing) Gunsmithing and the Long Arm of the Law' (May 17, 2013)

Henry Bowers on 'Will the Catholic Bishops Decide How You Die?' (May 17, 2013)

Peter Wicks on 'Will the Catholic Bishops Decide How You Die?' (May 17, 2013)

Intomorrow on 'Why We Allow the Destruction of Our Planet' (May 17, 2013)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv

Hottest Articles of the Last Month

Life in the 2040s: nanofactories, flying cars, household robots, more
by Dick Pelletier
Apr 30, 2013
(6295) Hits
(1) Comments

Ten Responses to the Technological Unemployment Problem
by Jon Perry
May 1, 2013
(5241) Hits
(2) Comments

Noam Chomsky on Libertarians
Andy80o
Apr 27, 2013
(3058) Hits
(15) Comments

Organ, tissue replacement could end aging by mid-2020s
by Dick Pelletier
May 14, 2013
(2789) Hits
(0) Comments

Radical life extension: living a 1,000 year lifespan
by Dick Pelletier
May 7, 2013
(2533) Hits
(0) Comments

Statement on the Recent TED/Psi/Consciousness Controversy
by Ben Goertzel
Apr 20, 2013
(2493) Hits
(5) Comments



IEET > Rights > Neuroethics > Life > Enablement > Health > Vision > Bioculture > Directors > George Dvorsky

Print Email permalink (8) Comments (4291) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


Are Humans Becoming More or Less Psychopathic?


George Dvorsky
George Dvorsky
Sentient Developments

Posted: May 19, 2012

Readers of this blog know that I’ve started to develop a bit of a fascination with psychopathy. It all got started after attending the Moral Brain Moral Brain conference at NYU last April. The more I look into this subject, the more I understand why so many neuroscientists are making such a big fuss about it.

The one statistic that has stuck with me is the observation that 1-2% of the general population is psychopathic. As previously noted, psychopathic traits don’t always lead to crime or violence. In fact, studies have shown that 3-5% of business-minded persons are psychopathic; the realization that ruthlessness and indifference can lead to an interest and/or proclivity in business shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise. What I would like to know, however, is whether or not there is a correlation between psychopathy and business success. Any bets that there isn’t?

On a similar note, I’d like to know what degree of psychopathy exists amongst politicians and those who seek influence. I’m sure that, historically speaking, psychopathic traits have worked well for those hell bent on attaining and maintaining power.

The 1-2% figure also got me thinking about genetics. This ratio is exceedingly high, an indication that this trait is more than just the result of random mutation. Humans, it would seem, are predisposed for psychopathy. It’s a personality condition that may have some adaptive qualities to it. The question we need to ask now, therefore, is: are we evolving out of it, or into it?

A strong case can be made for both. But whatever the answer, we will increasingly be able to do something about it through the use of neurological interventions and genetic engineering.

The psychopathic brain

Psychopathy is a personality disorder defined as severe emotional dysfunction, especially a lack of empathy. Psychopaths are completely unable to recognize such things as anger and fear in individuals, whether it be from facial expressions or verbal exclamations. It can also defined by the expression of anti-social behaviors. Psychopaths are generally regarded as callous, selfish, dishonest, arrogant, aggressive, impulsive, irresponsible, and hedonistic. Yet, psychopaths often exhibit higher than average intelligence and a superficial kind of charm.

Neuroscience is indicating that that psychopaths have a brain that is markedly different from neurotypicals. This difference can come about through genetic causes, or through injury.

In a recent study, neuroscientists showed that the psychopathic brain has significantly less grey matter in the anterior rostral prefrontal cortex and temporal poles than the brains of non-psychopathic offenders and non-offenders. These areas of the brain are important for reading other people’s emotions and intentions and are activated when people think about moral behaviour.

Neuroscientists have also implicated the amygdala in psychopathy. 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. Psychopaths show impairment in stimulus-reinforcement learning (whether punishment- or reward-based) and responding to fearful and sad expressions. Neuroscientists believe that this impairment drives much of the syndrome of psychopathy.

Are we becoming more psychopathic?

Scientists have determined that there is a genetic component to psychopathy. They argue that genetic factors may generally influence the development of psychopathy while environmental factors affect the specific traits that predominate. Geneticists have calculated that the heritability coefficient for psychopathy is around 50%.

Psychologist Robert Hare has argued that psychopathy does indeed have a genetic component. 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.

Evolutionary psychologists theorize that psychopathy represents a frequency-dependent, socially parasitic strategy. This may only work, however, as long as there are few other psychopaths in the community. More psychopaths means that there’s an increased risk of encountering another psychopath as well as non-psychopaths likely adapting more countermeasures against cheaters.

That said, this “social parasite” theory doesn’t take into account the ways in which psychopaths can be successful in modern society. It might be an increasingly adaptive trait. As already noted, there’s a heightened tendency for psychopaths to enter into the business world. Similarly, there’s the (potentially) increased likelihood for political success. Thus, a case can be made that psychopathy remains an adaptive trait in Homo sapiens, and that success in business and political domains increases reproductive success (i.e. wealth and status). Should this be the case, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that the rates of psychopathy in the general population will remain stable — if not increase over time (given the same conditions).

A worthwhile study would be an analysis of the human genome to determine if the genetic factors required for psychopathy are more prevalent today than they were in the past. It’s an open question as to how we could conduct such a study given the dearth of genetic material from our ancestors.

Are we becoming less psychopathic?

It’s also quite possible that humans are evolving away from psychopathy. Perhaps the 1-2% is the smallest proportion yet in our species’ history. It’s generally thought, for example, that women are selecting for kinder, gentler males. This self-domestication has resulted in an increase in empathetic traits over time. It’s quite possible that we’re the “kindest” version ever to appear in our evolutionary trajectory.

On a similar note, we may have had a higher predominance of psychopathy in our past in consideration of our carnivorous legacy. We are a meat eating species, which implies predation. A carnivore would do well to not have too many feelings of empathy (particularly the ability to read fright, pain, and fear) for others, particularly prey. Humans don’t tend to hunt anymore, a change in routine that works to un-enforce the presence of those psychological characteristics in our gene pool.

Despite these possibilities, there’s little question that we may be able to weed-out psychopathy through biotechnological interventions. Genomics and the pending practice of human trait selection will alert prospective parents, not to mention their fertility doctors, to the possibility that their offspring could be psychopathic. Genetic technologies will let parents screen for what is essentially a genetic disorder.

On this note, a pair of interesting sidebars come to mind: (1) Given the high rate of heritability, it’s very likely that one of the parents is a psychopath, and (2) Would parents be compelled to abort a child with a proclivity towards psychopathy?

Looking further ahead, and given further insights into how the brain works, it’s very possible that psychopaths will be helped through pharmacological interventions, or even surgery, to fix the deficient areas in the brain (including the amygdala). This is speculative at this point, but it’s not terribly unreasonable to consider such possibilities. Interventions like these would bode well for those who have developed psychopathic traits on account of brain trauma in which there is no genetic factor involved.

It’s very possible that psychopathy as a personality disorder will eventually be eliminated. This will clearly bode well for individuals. But an unanswered question suddenly emerges: What are the broader social consequences, if any, to eliminating the psychopaths among us?


George Dvorsky serves as Chair of the IEET Board of Directors and also heads our Rights of Non-Human Persons program. George produces Sentient Developments blog and podcast.
Print Email permalink (8) Comments (4292) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


COMMENTS


It looks as though neuroscience will end up Illuminating the “naughty”.

“no one would harm another with out fear of retaliation” Socrates

“The divvy is greater then the gather.” unknown





There are some interesting studies on children and psychopathy, including the possibility of treatment.

I wouldn’t be surprised if psychopathy was linked to business success, especially success that is short-term and destructive. Our present society is particularly designed for psychopathy, so right now it is a survival trail. As we shift values away from who has the largest pile of crap to more intrinsic values the advantage of being a psychopath will drop.

There is also the question of artificial psychopaths that we create and send out to fight for us. It isn’t clear yet what level of rehabilitation is possible in returning vets.





“There is also the question of artificial psychopaths that we create and send out to fight for us. It isn’t clear yet what level of rehabilitation is possible in returning vets.”

This is a good point, one probably virtually no one at IEET would have thought of.

“As we shift values away from who has the largest pile of crap to more intrinsic values the advantage of being a psychopath will drop.”

Unfortunately, shifting values away from who has the largest pile of crap to more intrinsic values has a timeframe that is rather disheartening. If we postulate the last decade as being the high-water mark of who-has-the-most-toys-when-he-dies-wins, then it may take an equal number of decades to reach more intrinsic values—who knows how long? Consumerist values hit stride in the postwar period; the duration being from circa 1945 to 2008 (say perhaps roughly sixty years). Problem IMO with futurism isn’t futurism itself, it is the time it takes to change things without causing such massive dislocation the positive is negated; and of course related to this, being patient.. if it takes 50, 75 years to ‘reach’ more intrinsic values, then so be it; it isn’t pleasant, but we can’t jump on the horse of progress, dig our spurs into its flanks and yell “Giddyap!”
Because the horse might throw us off.





There is a thriving sub-economy even in the US that is turning away from the pile of crap theory of success. People are forming cooperatives and sharing ownership of everything from cars to lawn mowers and living in smaller homes. It is not big enough to be a major player in the debates yet, but it is there as a counter point.

While we can’t force the horse of progress, we can be part of the debate as transhumans, on what values will we hold as important.





Yes, debate for decades; and there’s a method to the madness, he-who-has-the-most-toys-when-he-dies makes sense for posterity: after one dies the toys go the children; so Darwinisticly, therein lies logic—yet as for the ethics, such is extremely dicey.





I’d offer that your fascination with psychopathy can benefit from a bit of clarification. While you reference a few – albeit inconclusive studies and some stats that are not clearly backed up - it all seems like something someone who did too much acid as a kid would come up with.

For instance, the obvious statement that “…historically speaking, psychopathic traits have worked well for those hell bent on attaining and maintaining power.” Ya think!? Brilliant!

Then go on: “Humans…are predisposed for psychopathy” and that psychopathy is “an increasingly adaptive trait.”  And then ask “are we evolving out of it, or into it?”  More genius, I’d offer.

To me, you really wrap it up with the idea that “We’ll increasingly be able to do something about psychopathy via “Neurological interventions and genetic engineering” Really? How do you envision these happening George? Can they be legislated? Or should we just genetically mark infants? I hear it now: “I think you’re a dangerous idiot! Lay down and show me your hands! You’re going to sleep!”

And then you say something about “…increases in reproductive success that wealth and status enable?” Huh?  What? Again, ya think?

I’m wondering how you came up with all this high-falutin’ knowledge George?  I’m just a simpleton…yet I worry greatly about this Twisted Science” that you seem to promote.  I suppose you may have a spot on some future death panel?

Looking forward….





Psychopathy is not not even a real pathological condition. It is a moral illness, like many others of our past. Egoism, infidelity, homosexuality, atheism, drapetomania (check wikipedia on this one, it’s pretty funny) have been considered mental illnesses somewhere, sometime. Of course, in our modern societies power structures use (pseudo)science to justify their taboos. So, this time, we are talking about a mental illness that can even make you a successful entrepreneur. Something is not right.

There is no science whatsoever in our definitions of moral illnesses, we are just talking about unacceptable behavioral patterns, including the expression of socially unacceptable ideas, or of mere forbidden words. Wikipedia defines Psychopathy as a “a personality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights of others and the rules of society”. First of all - notice, from the definition, how this (pseudo) disease is completely relative to the local legal system. In the medieval times, in certain regions of Europe, landlords had the right to copulate with every bride on their land, the night after the marriage (ius primae noctis). According to the definition above - If the groom decided to hide his wife, or protected her in any way, in complete disregard for his lord’s rights - well, he could have been diagnosed psychopathology. Literally. Pity there were no white suits back then.

Now, I would like to know how this can be a disease. Does it hamper the physiological functions of the diseased? Nope, zero. Does it cause suffering, pain, or generally reduces the well-being of the diseased? Nope, zero. We can say that other men might indeed hurt, jail, or kill the psychopath as a consequence for his/her actions. But that’s the not the consequence of his or her supposed disease - it’s a consequence of others’ actions.





Alex, as you wrote, “...right now it is a survival trail” (you meant trait, right?) to build up the largest pile of crap; how do you go about changing this? you can’t merely keep
writing “responsibility” and “teach people to think”, because today people think it is their responsibility to gain the most possessions.. for starters to, again, leave to their children when they die—they think it is irresponsible to not gain the biggest pile of crap.





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: The Optimism Bias

Previous entry: Driverless Cars Promise Huge Impact in Our Everyday Lives

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter | Podcast
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376