So I’ve been grateful to them for connecting me to those issues and feelings through the song. But then, last night, they connected me to them in another way that is extremely relevant to ponerology.

Pearl Jam performed on “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon” last night. Well, technically, their taped performance from an earlier time was played. In fact, they played a live show in Hartford, Connecticut last night. So after watching the airing of their performance on Fallon’s show, I was just looking around on Twitter to see what people were saying about it.

Instead, I ran into this tweet from the band regarding the show in Hartford:

“Come Back” was dedicated to Avielle Richman who would’ve turned 7 on 10/17. @AvieFoundation @sandyhook #PJHartford pic.twitter.com/WCvMqlkHXt

— Pearl Jam (@PearlJam) October 26, 2013

I was instantly hit with a mix of heartbreak for the obvious tragedy the tweet alluded to and curiosity about what the “Avie Foundation” was all about.

So I clicked through to their Twitter account.

The description reads:

“The Avielle Foundation – A non-profit foundation dedicated to preventing violence through brain health research and fostering community engagement and education.”

This grabbed me immediately. In the wake of the tragic loss of this little girl and many other children at Sandy Hook Elementary School, this group is advocating for the importance of understanding the link between the biology of the brain and violence. The relevance to ponerology could not be clearer.

I then clicked through to their website.

It tells the story of Avielle’s life.

It describes the organization’s mission.

And then the motivation behind the Foundation was revealed even more when I looked at the page about its founders.

The leading founders listed are Jeremy Richman, Ph.D., trained in pharmacology and toxicology and having worked in, among many other areas, neuroscience, and Jennifer Hensel, M.S., a multi-disciplinary scientist. They are also Avielle’s parents.

As a scientific discipline, ponerology encourages us to consider and respond to events often labeled as “evil” by applying the methods and tools of science. One of the victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy, Avielle Richman, was the child of two parents who are scientists. And in response, they have created a foundation through which to apply their expertise in science toward preventing violence.

The organization’s objectives revolve around addressing the causes of violence through a focus on what the organization terms “brain health.” They have very consciously chosen this term. As they explain:

“We want to start using this term, brain health, because mental health is intangible – it comes with some degree of trepidation and stigma. But we know there are real, physical manifestations within the brain that can be imaged, measured, quantified, and understood – We can work with that, and then, we can fix it.”

Specifically, their two objectives are:

1. “Understand the Underpinnings in the Brain That Lead to Malevolent Behaviors”
2. “Brain Health Community”

These are goals at the very heart of what ponerology and my interest in it are all about.

In the wake of the events at Sandy Hook and similar events elsewhere, people have channeled their anger and despair into certain causes usually focused on gun control or generally improving mental health awareness and treatment. But far too few have focused on something even more precise and central to the genesis of violence – the very biology of the violent brain.

Progress in the objectives of the Avielle Foundation could do so much to really get at the root of why tragedies like the one in Newtown continue to occur and how to reduce their likelihood. And I cannot think of a more fitting and meaningful way for these parents to honor their daughter’s memory than in working toward these goals.

I then wondered if those at the organization were aware of the many other researchers who have done such great work on topics related to their mission, a number of whom have been featured on this site. That question was answered when I looked at their impressive Science Advisory Board, which includes some of the most outstanding researchers on ponerology-related topics, including:

• Dr. James Blair, whose name is ubiquitous whenever I look at the research on the biology of aggression and malice, and who is mentioned in this post about a researcher that did post-doctoral work with him.
• Dr. Adrian Raine, author of The Psychopathology of Crime: Criminal Behavior as a Clinical Disorder and The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime, whose fascinating work and ideas have been discussed in several posts on this site.

Sometimes in life, a perfect storm happens. Sometimes it is a storm we wish never did happen. But out of that perfect storm can come something special. It is remarkable that one of Sandy Hook’s victims happened to have parents like this with just the background to be able to turn this horrible event into a movement with real potential to focus people on something so crucial and so often neglected – study of the biological underpinnings of violence and how we can foster healthier, less violent brains in our world.

The fact that Pearl Jam, an extremely socially conscious band – and one whose career was, in many ways, launched by a song and video about violence in school – got involved and happened to play in Hartford, so close to Newtown, the night I was looking at tweets about them, and that I then became aware of all of this through them is just another aspect of that perfect storm. Perhaps, with all this talk of storms, it’s fitting that the band’s new album, which started me down the path that led me to learn about the Avielle Foundation, is called “Lightning Bolt.”

Thank you to Pearl Jam for helping to promote this incredibly important subject matter by bringing attention to this great organization. Thank you to the scientists getting involved in this organization. And thank you most of all to Avielle’s parents for allowing their loss and grief to be catalysts for the very sort of effort so badly needed.

This is the precise type of organization that this world desperately needs.

The other day, after playing “Sirens” over and over, I went to share the song with my father. After he heard it, he saw a link to Pearl Jam’s famous video for “Jeremy,” which he hadn’t seen before. As he played that video – directed, in yet another example of a perfect storm element, by Mark Pellington, who also signed on to direct the pilot episode of a television show based on Raine’s Anatomy of Violence - I mentioned how timely it was since just that day there was another school shooting, this time in Sparks, Nevada. He hadn’t heard about the incident. And I mentioned that, sadly, we’ve gotten to the point where a school shooting can happen and elude our radar because we are becoming so numb to it.

The Avielle Foundation is doing the kind of work that we need to really understand how to change this situation.

Learn how you can help them in their mission by donating or volunteering to get involved with the Avielle Foundation here.

The post that I came across is entitled “I am angry!” and, in it, Linda expresses her despair about the state of the world and the futility of placing hope in and comforting ourselves with small daily pro-sustainability lifestyle changes in the face of destructiveness on such a massive scale. Like many who have wrestled with this viewpoint, Linda appears to have been influenced by Derrick Jensen, since the post features an image of the graphic novel he produced along with Stephanie McMillan, As the World Burns: 50 Simple Things You Can Do To Stay In Denial.

I was moved by what Linda was expressing in that post so I left a comment to share with her the idea that psychopathology may play a key role and to let her know about the field of ponerology, which has shed so much light on issues like this for me.

Linda responded right away with a comment that showed interest in those topics.

Then, a few weeks later, I got an email from Linda. She said my comment had thrown her off on a tangent looking into the ideas I had mentioned in the comment. She also said she was inspired to write an article about ponerology and how screening for psychopaths might improve workplaces, governments, the environment and the world at large. She wanted to interview me for this article.

A couple weeks after that I received a set of interview questions from Linda.

At that time, I was under the impression that Linda was writing an article for her blog that would just consist of the text of her questions and my responses. So I answered the questions at great length, thinking these would make up the bulk of her post. Only later, after I had responded, did I learn that she was actually writing a feature article for an Australian magazine called The Monthly, whose readers share an interest in law, politics and management.

Linda was then kind enough to share the early drafts of her article with me to get my feedback. As her editing process continued, though, it became clear to her that – perhaps because I had answered the questions having misunderstood their purpose or perhaps for other reasons – the information from the interview wasn’t well-suited to this particular article that she was writing, after all. However, since her questions had helped to surface some valuable information, we both agreed that it made sense for me to just post the interview, in its entirety, here on this blog.

As of this writing, Linda’s article is not yet published. If and when it is, I will link to it here.

So, without further adieu, here are Linda’s questions and my responses.

I’m not comfortable with the word ‘evil’.

Perhaps the deepest debate of all when it comes to the issue of “evil” – and you can tell that I agree that this is a debatable point by the fact that I, too, often put the word in quotes – is whether there is or is not any such thing objectively. People’s views fall all along the spectrum in regards to that question. At one extreme, we have some people who say there is no such thing as evil and, at the other extreme, we have those who are emphatic that evil exists and that denying it has terrible consequences (and that perhaps, in some cases, this denial itself even constitutes an evil act.)

I consider it one of the roles of ponerology to determine, to our best ability, whether there actually is any such objective thing as evil or there is simply “that which we often refer to as ‘evil.’” I am not sure if we will ever be able to resolve that question or not, but striving to do so is one of ponerology’s defining tasks and, even if ultimately unsuccessful, the process of striving itself can bring great insight.

Regardless of whether you choose to use the word “evil” or not, we can find common ground around the concepts of:

• Activity that is malicious and…
• Activity that is willfully negligent despite an apparent risk of unnecessary harm or suffering

With that being the case, those who take the stance that there is no actual evil, but simply “that which we often refer to as ‘evil,’” can still clearly see the importance and potential benefits of ponerologic study.

What is your definition of evil?

I don’t claim to have a scientifically supportable definition. Like I said, developing such an objectively-based definition for the word ‘evil’ – or concluding that there is no such supportable definition – is a task for ponerology. It may be one that we cannot succeed at for quite some time. And it may be that we never completely succeed at it.

In the meantime, I focus on these two main concepts.

• Malicious activity
• Willful negligence despite apparent risk of unnecessary harm or suffering

Whether you consider these activities evil or just think of the word ‘evil’ as a shorthand term that is often used to describe them and those who partake significantly in them, seeking to better understand them and their origins and devising optimal responses to their role in our world should keep us busy for quite some time.

Are psychopaths actually evil?

Without an objectively-supportable definition of the word ‘evil,’ this question cannot be answered precisely. However, what we can say with strong confidence is that psychopaths act maliciously and with potentially dangerous willful negligence quite frequently. Thus, they often pose a threat to those around them. Pragmatically, this is all we need to know to realize that the influence of psychopathy is an issue that deserves consideration. Philosophically, the debates about the semantic use of the word ‘evil’ and whether it applies to psychopaths – or anybody else – will carry on for some time.

Have you worked with psychopaths?

Given that psychopaths are estimated to make up 1% of the population – and, as suggested by some research, possibly even more in certain sectors of society such as on Wall Street – most people have probably worked with psychopaths at some point. However, it is not often that a psychopath will tell you that they are one (if they even know for sure themselves). In fact, they may spend much of their energy hiding that fact. So we usually will not know for sure whether someone is a psychopath or not. I’ve certainly worked with people who I would consider suspect. But definitively labeling someone a psychopath is not something that I would do without their having been tested by a qualified professional.

What methods are available that reliably diagnose psychopathy?

The best available method that I know of is the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R) test devised by Robert Hare. I’ve written about diagnosis of psychopathy here.

Do you know of any examples where organisations or businesses have screened for psychopathy?

I know of examples where researchers came in and screened this way. For instance, Robert Hare studied people in high level management positions at Fortune 100 companies to find out about psychopathy in that population. He describes that work himself in an interview in the movie I Am Fishead: Are Corporate Leaders Egotistical Psychopaths? As I detail in my review of the film, I’m not a huge fan of the second and third parts of the movie. But the first part is a great introduction to this material and includes this interview in which Hare describes his research. You can see the interview here. It runs from 22:00 (I’ve linked to this starting point) through 24:55.

Hare and colleague Paul Babiak have also written about this topic at length in their book, Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths go to Work.

However, I’m not aware of organizations or businesses having such specific screening for psychopathy done of their own accord as a matter of policy. If anyone does know of such cases, I would like to hear about them. Whether such screening should be done, and, if so, how to make sure that it is done fairly and responsibly, are certainly among the very most important and controversial questions considered within the realm of ponerology.

Do you believe labeling people as either normals or psychopaths, as  Andrew Lobaczewski does in Political Ponerology, might be counterproductive? While he does urge that we do not discriminate or persecute psychopaths, this could easily happen regardless (or am I just stuck in political correctness, perhaps the means justifies the end?)

Ponerology is, by definition, a scientific field. So, like all scientific fields, it is concerned with categorizing accurately. The evidence seems to increasingly reveal psychopathy to be a neurological condition that differs significantly from the norm in deeply meaningful ways with quite serious implications. It seems unreasonable to ask scientists to pretend it isn’t a real or substantially abnormal condition simply because some people might use this information in harmful ways.

All scientific knowledge has the potential to be used for harm rather than help. If we restrict scientists to only categorizing knowledge based on whether we think the categories will be used in healthy ways by the public, we will reduce science to a public relations battle. This seems more dangerous than the alternative. What is very important, however, is making sure that science – in this area and others – is being carried out in accordance with the rigors of the scientific method and not being manipulated for the benefit of those with self-serving or potentially harmful agendas.

There is one thing worth noting that makes this case somewhat special. Using – or manipulating – scientific knowledge in order to persecute a group of people is itself something most likely to be carried out, or at least led, by those with reduced levels of empathy and conscience. Becoming aware of those with conditions that significantly reduce empathy and conscience and informed regarding the tactics they use gives us a much better chance to protect people – even psychopaths themselves – from the type of persecution you fear. When people of conscience bond on the basis of a conscious appreciation for their strong conscience itself, recognizing that there is a segment of the population that does not – and may never – share this trait, they can more passionately and effectively work toward solutions that are, on balance, healthiest for everyone involved. So, in this sense, accurately categorizing on this particular dimension, as opposed to some less ethically-relevant dimensions, could actually help reduce, rather than increase, persecution throughout society.

The incidence of psychopaths in the workplace is becoming reasonably well understood, but do you believe  psychopaths in positions of authority are having an impact on our environment, and our subsequent attempt to address climate change and other environmental issues?

I cannot say for sure whether or not psychopathy is significantly and detrimentally influencing our efforts regarding a sustainably healthy ecosystem and environment. But, given what we know, it is reasonable enough to suspect this could be the case that the question deserves serious study. One of the main reasons that I am so passionate about advocating for the firm establishment of ponerology as a respected field of study is so that more people can access a platform and the necessary resources to do just such work.

One of the benefits I’ve experienced from researching and writing about ponerology is that, in the process, I’ve come across people and related fields that I had not previously known about doing work on issues like this one. For example, a few months ago I learned about the field of Green Criminology, which studies the role criminal behavior plays in the process of environmental damage. One of the benefits of running a website dedicated to these issues is that I can then share this information with others, as I did in this feature on Green Criminology that I posted soon after learning about it.

If so, how can we, armed with an understanding of ponerology, deal with psychopathic influences?

Psychopathic influences can occur at all levels and in all facets of human systems and, in each of these, pose different quandaries that both call for and challenge our responses. Just to give some examples:

• At the family level, psychopaths can be abusive or neglectful partners or parents. So recognizing psychopathy and how it works might lead someone to make a different choice about becoming involved or staying involved in a romantic relationship. If they choose to leave, it may inform how they do so in order to be as safe as possible. It may help them understand the trauma undergone by themselves and their children during the period of exposure to the psychopath and to seek the most effective counseling to help them recover.
• In the workplace, an understanding of psychopathy could inform wiser hiring and firing decisions and help in ensuring that roles involving important ethical decisions are filled by those with empathy and conscience.
• At the community level, understanding psychopathy could affect our approach to crime. We might see efforts to prevent or reduce crime in a different light when we realize that a certain percent of the population fundamentally lacks empathy and conscience.
• At the political level, we recognize that it is crucial that those who make decisions deeply affecting the lives of thousands or even millions of people be capable of empathizing with those over whom they exercise this power. But we can only work to ensure this is the case when we become informed about the range of levels of empathy that exist in different human beings.
• At the most basic level, the very existence of the field of ponerology can help provoke people to recognize that these challenges even exist. And, as that recognition grows, its findings can help us better strategize in the pursuit of optimal solutions.

Lobaczewski’s experience at the university – the new lecturer espoused views that appear to influence a formerly benign group. Are we ‘normals’ to a greater or lesser extent, vulnerable to their influence?

I think that, when uneducated about ponerologic issues, ‘normals’ are indeed vulnerable. The vulnerability stems from the fact that we tend to assume, on a very deep level, that other people are fundamentally like us. We realize that they differ in more superficial ways such as gender, skin color, ethnicity, talents and skills and so on. But we assume that they all share the most basic human traits and abilities such as the capacity to experience pain and pleasure, sleep and waking, heat and cold and so on. Experiences like these are so basic as to seem elemental to what it means to be human.

Along the same lines, we assume that the capacities to empathize with others and to experience pangs of conscience are also elemental to being human. Yet psychopaths, while often pretending to experience these, may not actually do so. And, at the same time, they realize that ‘normals’ around them are under the impression that they do. And this is the misinformation gap, the area of ignorance, that they are often able to exploit.

If so, how does a psychopath influence others to behave against their ethical beliefs?

There are a number of tactics that psychopaths use in manipulating others. Lobaczewski talks about and names several of them in his book Political Ponerology. Just a few examples:

• Paralogisms – Particular manners of twisting logic to falsely make the
  illogical appear logical and vice-versa
• Paramoralisms – Specific methods of twisting morality to falsely portray the unethical as ethical and vice-versa
• The appropriation and exploitation of ideology

You’ll notice two things that these tactics have in common:

• They all involve the manipulative use of language. Psychopaths are often very skilled at employing language in ways that mislead and fool people. This is why Lobaczewski proposes the study of what he calls “patho-semantics” to help us recognize how certain forms of communication are used for deceptive and malicious purposes.
• They all work best when the person using them is assumed to have working capacities for empathy and conscience. If we understood or even strongly suspected that this person lacked such capacities, we would be much more guarded against these tactics and skeptical of them. But when we believe they are a person of conscience like ourselves – and, in fact, as we believe in our ignorance, like every human being – we are much more likely to be taken in by their ruse.

Of course, when these tactics alone don’t work, many psychopaths, lacking a conscience to restrict them, are not averse to using explicit or implicit threats or even brute force to get their way.

If an organisation wanted to screen for psychopaths are there legal ramifications? What would they need to do?

As I alluded to earlier, screening for psychopathy – like any form of screening – raises serious concerns about issues ranging from privacy to unfair discrimination. So, if it is done, it needs to be done with care by highly responsible and competent people. I am not expert in exactly how the law applies here, since I’m not a lawyer, but I find it hard to believe that there wouldn’t very quickly be legal challenges as soon as anyone was refused a job or fired or forced to change positions as a result of being identified as a psychopath.

So I think it will be very important to involve legal experts, preferably with specialized training, ideally including education regarding ponerology itself, in developing any solutions in this area.

Having been interviewed numerous times myself I always wish they’d give me a completely open question. So here goes. What is the most important aspect of ponerology that you would like to share?

There are several important points I’d like to make that I don’t think have been raised in the rest of the interview.

1. Not all psychopaths are the same. Lobaczewski, in Political Ponerology, distinguishes several different types of psychopaths.
2. We have recently seen increased recognition regarding those who are not technically psychopaths, but share many of the same traits to a significant and troubling extent. These people are often referred to as “almost psychopaths.” Ronald Schouten, an M.D. and J.D. affiliated with Harvard Medical School, along with criminal defense attorney James Silver, has written a book about this subject called Almost a Psychopath: Do I (or Does Someone I Know) Have a Problem with Manipulation and Lack of Empathy? I covered this topic, a television news story about it and Schouten’s and Silver’s book on this blog post.
3. We have focused entirely on psychopathy here. But, as I emphasized in the title of one blog post, ponerology is not only about psychopathy.There are other conditions marked by significantly reduced levels of empathy and conscience that also play a role in the development of unhealthy systems. Lobaczewski’s name for a process by which human systems become pathological is ponerogenesis. And, in Political Ponerology, he goes into some detail about the various roles that his work revealed not only different types of psychopaths, but those with conditions besides psychopathy – as well as vulnerable normal people – to play in this process.

   I believe the other conditions most often involved are some of those that psychiatry has, for quite some time, classified as the Cluster B personality disorders, namely:

   • Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)
   • Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)
   • Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)
4. Finally, I just want to say that, like many fields of science, but perhaps to an even greater extent than most, ponerology attracts its share of pseudoscientists – people who either speculate in a non-scientific manner on the material within its purview or take scientific findings that it has revealed and then twist and misuse them to serve an agenda. Since ponerology is a relatively new and unknown field, many people, when first investigating it, may come across the pseudoscientists first, recognize their work as not credible and then dismiss ponerology as a whole. This is a shame because there are also many very credible scientists in a variety of related disciplines doing fantastic and responsible work on these issues.

   I hope that people will not let the fact that some misappropriate the name and ideas of ponerology keep them from putting in the effort to learn about the solid and important work being done in this area. I try to encourage this effort by documenting the growing body of such critical work at PonerologyNews.com.

I was heartened to see one indication of a protestor that knew of and took seriously the possible role of psychopathy in bringing about the protestors’ grievances.

But, as heartened as I was, I was more dismayed that this was pretty much the only sign I saw of any awareness of ponerology among them.

Well it’s better late than never.

Recently, I came across this video. It is an interview with a very articulate OWS protestor who came to the protests specifically to educate people about ponerology.
 

In the interview, he mentions or alludes to many important topics that I covered in my own writings about psychopathy and ponerology including:

• Some of the traits seen in different varieties of psychopaths and how they differ fundamentally from other human beings
• The profound work described in Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski, Snakes in Suits by Robert Hare and Paul Babiak and The Mask of Sanity by Hervey Cleckley

• How the pathological use pseudologic (which Lobaczewski actually calls paralogisms) and propaganda to attract support from the many people eager to find someone to follow and believe in
• How the pathological can hijack and distort the original purpose of integral political, economic, corporate and religious institutions, creating a culture in which even normal people are influenced so as to act in antisocial ways
• How the cultural obsession with vampires may reflect a certain subtle level of identification of psychopaths in our midst

Different people have very different feelings about Occupy Wall Street and its particular agenda. But regardless of one’s view of the “right vs. left” types of conflicts it raised, the issue of pathological influence in our systems should transcend those differences and interest anyone that cares about responsibility and ethics in our public policy.

This particular interviewee exhibits some possible partisan bias in two ways:

• He focuses on examples of pathological hijacking within the Republican party without mentioning any such corresponding examples in the Democratic or other parties.
• He states, perhaps without ample evidence – although one psychiatrist comes close to backing him up – that George W. Bush is a psychopath.

However, Lobaczewski points out in his work – and hopefully even this protestor knows – that pathological coopting and infiltration can and does happen within many parties and ideologies.

Also, in raising the possibility of concentration camps arising in the United States, he brushes up against the fine line that separates responsible education and conspiracy theory – something that is always a risk when discussing ponerology.

But if you can overlook those couple partisan statements and one perhaps extreme comment, the vast majority of the interview is extremely well-spoken and conveys information that has much backing in the research and should be of deep concern to us all – and especially to activists of all stripes seeking a better world, whether through Occupy Wall Street-type protests or otherwise.