• Passed for over 4000 yards
• Threw 40 touchdown passes, the most ever in the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) by a freshman, setting an Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) record
• Led his Florida State Seminoles to an undefeated season in which they consistently beat their opponents by astounding margins of victory
• Became the youngest person ever, and only the second freshman, to win the prestigious Heisman Trophy as college football’s most outstanding player
• Passed for the game-winning touchdown with just seconds left in the game to help the Seminoles win their first college football national championship since 1999 as he garnered Most Valuable Player honors

On top of all this, Winston lit up televisions around the country all year long with his enthusiasm, bright smile and charm.

Off the field, however, Winston faced a serious challenge.

For the last month of the season, the Florida State Attorney’s Office was investigating a complaint of sexual assault against Winston. The investigation made for headline news and called into question not only whether Winston would be eligible to lead the Seminoles in the last games of the season and in a possible national championship game – since, if charges were brought, he would be declared ineligible – and not only whether, despite his stellar performance, he might be denied the Heisman Trophy, but whether he could eventually go to prison.

Ultimately, on December 5, 2013, just days before the ACC championship game and the deadline for Heisman voting, Florida State Attorney Willie Meggs announced, in a widely-publicized and controversial press conference, that the state would not file charges against Winston or anyone else in the case. But for nearly a month, Winston played, and continued to perform at a historically high level, while the cloud of the investigation and a possible felony charge hung over him.

So how did he manage to maintain such a standard on the field despite the pressures of incredibly high expectations combined with being the subject of a high-stakes investigation?

Robert Smith

Well, Robert Smith, a former NFL running back and frequent guest discussing football on the sports television network ESPN, has a theory. Perhaps Winston exhibits some of the traits of psychopathy.

Outside the Lines (OTL) is a television show on ESPN that examines critical issues related to sports on and off the field. On January 7, 2014, the day after Winston’s MVP performance in the national championship game, the episode of OTL focused on various aspects of his dramatic 2013-14 season.

The podcast with audio of the episode is available here. I couldn’t find a way to embed it so you’ll have to click through to listen or download it.

At the 7:47 mark in the show, a clip is played of a reporter interviewing Florida State’s head football coach, Jimbo Fisher, about Winston’s ability to play consistently well despite the off-the-field stressors. The clip goes like this:

OTL’s host, Bob Ley, then says to Robert Smith:

“We have seen that, Robert, vividly. Alright. Help us civilians understand how an athlete…this was just not an off-the-field distraction, I mean some people minimized it calling it that. This was perhaps your life and liberty here hanging in the balance…how someone is able to focus like this on a game which is, of course, the focus of what they’re doing right now along with their schoolwork, and put this other stuff aside and excel like this.”

Smith responds:

“Well let me preface this by saying I’m not saying that Jameis Winston is a psychopath, OK? But now that the season’s over I’m going to have a little bit more time to read. There’s a book out there called The Wisdom of Psychopaths and it talks about certain jobs where some of the traits – being task-oriented, being so driven, the ability to focus like a psychopath – helps them perform better whether it’s an airline pilot, a surgeon, and I would certainly argue at the quarterback position having some of those traits, the ability to be so meticulous, to be so detail-oriented, to have such a short memory of failure and to be able to come back and to keep performing – I think that was the trademark of Jameis Winston.”

Then at the end of the segment that includes Smith, Ley says “Robert Smith, thank you so much. Educating us also on psychopaths. We appreciate that.”

Now, like Smith, I also want to emphasize that I am not claiming that Winston is a psychopath. There is not a sufficient basis on which to make such a claim and it would be absolutely irresponsible to do so.

However, Smith’s mention of the topic in relation to this story is interesting from the perspective of someone interested in ponerology on several levels.

• Having psychopathy raised by a football analyst on the most popular sports television network really indicates how mainstream this topic has gone in the wake of so many movies, books, television shows, and other media focused on it being released in recent years.
• This is not the first time that psychopathy has come up in relation to sports and been covered on this site. Last year we published “Goalkeeper David James Speculates on Psychopathy in Professional Soccer.” And James was also interviewed about the subject on the British television show Psychopath Night, which aired just last month. As an overall issue, the influence of psychopathy and other conscience-reducing conditions in sports is ripe for consideration, especially in light of criminal activity among certain athletes, a subject explored in Jeff Benedict’s books such as:
  • Pros and Cons: The Criminals Who Play in the NFL
  • Public Heroes, Private Felons: Athletes and Crimes Against Women
  • Out of Bounds: Inside the NBA’s Culture of Rape, Violence, and Crime
• As far as the specific case of Jameis Winston, it is a good example of the incredibly complex dilemma that the possibility of psychopathy or related disorders poses for us in assessing others.

  On one hand, Winston is someone who has been accused of a terrible violent crime. On top of that, his alleged victim still maintains her claim that she was sexually assaulted by him and vows to bring a civil suit against him. So, although Robert Smith emphasizes that he is not claiming Winston is a psychopath, when he then points out that Winston, with his remarkable coolness under pressure, does exhibit some of the traits of psychopathy, it takes on a new meaning in light of those accusations against him. And Smith didn’t even mention another hallmark of psychopathy, superficial charm, which some could interpret as being applicable to Winston’s demeanor.

  Yet, on the other hand, Winston was not charged with a crime and may be completely innocent, in which case he is himself the victim of false accusations and it would be an utter travesty to even imply that he may be a psychopath simply for being mentally tough on the field and charming off of it. In fact, if his upbeat, enthusiastic, inspiring attitude is genuine, then the same behavior that might otherwise be viewed as psychopathic charm instead makes it even more reprehensible to besmirch him.

So what is the ultimate moral of this story? It is one that can’t be repeated often enough.

It is imperative that we learn about and discuss the influence of conditions like psychopathy. Yet, at the same time, it is just as imperative that we be extremely cautious in labeling any individual as having such a condition. It is a difficult balancing act, but one that is unavoidable in these times, not only when talking about business and politics, but in regards to all areas of society…even the world of sports.

Earlier this month, on Saturday, December 14, 2013, Channel 4 aired Psychopath Night.

Psychopath Night is an approximately 90-minute show that engages many leading experts, psychopaths/sociopaths themselves – including convicted serial killer Charles Albright and a supposed sociopathic lawyer who goes by the pseudonym M.E. Thomas – and even the parent of a child psychopath, in order to explore a number of areas relating to psychopathy.

Below is the trailer for the episode:

The areas explored include:

• How psychopaths think and behave
• How psychopaths manage to con so many people (including a vivid portrayal of how the infamous Hillside Strangler, Kenneth Bianchi, bamboozled even psychiatrists)
• How to recognize a psychopath despite the “mask” they sometimes wear
• What psychopaths do for a living
• White collar psychopathy and the prevalence and influence of psychopaths in powerful positions
• Well-known people, including a sports star, that score highly on a psychopathy scale
• Some psychological experiments that help distinguish between those that rate higher and lower on measures of psychopathic traits
• Why some psychopaths are physically violent and others physically non-violent
• The role of childhood trauma in psychopathy
• How society should deal with psychopaths, including child psychopaths
• Whether psychopaths can be healed
• The top, most realistic psychopaths in film as selected by a panel of experts
• Why we maintain such a fascination with psychopaths

The experts featured in the episode include many of the most respected in the world in this field, some of whom have also been featured before on this blog and others of whom are likely to be featured at some point in the future. They include:

Psychiatrists

• Michael Stone, originator of the “Gradations of Evil” Scale
• John Eden, M.E. Thomas’ psychiatrist
• Bob Johnson, who claims, quite controversially, to have discovered a way to heal psychopaths

Psychologists

• Robert Hare
• Paul Babiak
• Kevin Dutton
• Oliver James
• Paul Frick
• Essi Viding

Others

• Retired FBI profiler Mary Ellen O’Toole
• Neuroscientist James Fallon
• Neuroscience Journalist Maia Szalavitz
• English soccer star David James

One of the highlights of the episode, for me, was getting to see James Fallon and Kevin Dutton interact as they discussed some of the psychopath-related films and characters that most impressed them. As someone who advocates for the field of ponerology, at least in part, as a way of promoting stronger ties between those from disparate backgrounds and disciplines that are interested in the roots of harmful behavior, this was just the kind of conversation I imagine and of which I hope to see more.

The lowlight for me was that the episode didn’t discuss quite enough the implications of psychopathy in the area of politics.

Also, I’m always a bit antsy when Kevin Dutton begins giving his usual spiel about the “good side” of psychopathy. But, since it was done in the context of an episode that covered the topic from many angles in a balanced way, I could live with it.

Overall, I found the episode to be extremely well done and valuable.

For a long time, I’ve looked for one concise and intriguing resource – especially a video resource – that I could use to introduce this topic to members of the general public. I had hoped that I Am Fishead would turn out to be that resource. But, unfortunately, despite starting off well, it ultimately had too many shortcomings, which I’ve documented in my review of it, for me to recommend it for that purpose. However, I think that in Channel 4’s Psychopath Night I’ve finally found at least one such video resource.

In an hour and a half, Psychopath Night manages to touch on just about all of the most important aspects and implications of psychopathy, to introduce and share the views of many of the most respected “big names” in the field and to explore the various sides of related controversies without leaning too far to one side on any of them.

Psychopath Night Resources

Channel 4 offers an Episode Guide to Psychopath Night.

Channel 4 also has the entire episode of Psychopath Night available on its site for those able to view it.

If you are unable to watch the episode on Channel 4’s site, then, luckily, it has been posted to YouTube in 6 segments, which I’ve embedded below.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

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.

That evening, on his CNN program, Anderson Cooper 360, Cooper discussed with a number of guests the events of the hearing and Castro’s behavior during it, including his persistent shirking of responsibility. Throughout the show, the topic of psychopathy was front and center. In fact, the words “psychopath” or “psychopathy” were used 19 times during the episode. And, unlike in many cases, they were used appropriately and accurately.

What was most heartening was that Cooper, as well as several of his guests, exhibited a genuine understanding of how important it is to expose the public to and educate them about the true nature of psychopaths. A number of important lessons about them were conveyed during the episode.

The focus on psychopathy was evident right from the get-go. At the beginning of the show, before playing the first footage from the hearing, Cooper prefaced it by saying:

“Now it’s very rare to see someone who may be a true psychopath justify their crimes. Today in court on live television, we saw just that.”

After the footage played, Cooper first spoke with reporter Pamela Brown and started the interview by asking her:

“What struck you the most in the court today? Because watching this, I just found it — don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like this, hearing this man who — we’re going to hear more from experts ahead, but I mean, his — I mean, he seems to be a psychopath that he actually believes these things that he was saying.”

After the segment with Brown ended, Cooper played a clip from the hearing where Castro appears to blame his victims even while denying doing so.

He then asked former FBI profiler Mary Ellen O’Toole about the clip. She responded (watch  :38-1:11 in above video):

“He’s absolutely blaming the three survivors. He’s taking no responsibility for his behavior. And that’s very classic psychopathy. We were – all of us – witnessing, in my opinion, a classic psychopath today…He’s not out of touch with reality, he knows right from wrong, the rules don’t apply for him and the hallmark again is this inability to empathize or feel guilt. It was all about him today. All about him.”

Cooper then asked O’Toole to explain why the prosecution’s forensic psychiatrist stated that Castro has no mental illness. O’Toole explained that this is accurate since Castro is not delusional or psychotic and knew right from wrong. (watch 1:11-2:15 in above video)

“Psychopath is not a mental illness. Psychopath is a personality disorder, it’s not a mental illness. We sometimes confuse those two, but someone who’s mentally ill may not understand the nature or the consequences of their actions. Not the case with Ariel Castro.”

Cooper then turned to Dr. Drew Pinsky, who agreed fully with O’Toole, stating that Castro is a “full-fledged psychopath.” Dr. Drew said (watch 3:47-4:03 in above video ):

“When you listen to this guy your brain just goes out of kilt, like how could he possibly be this way. I see the astonishment on your face, Anderson. And it is astonishing when you hear how a psychopath thinks and then you see what they have done to other people and don’t seem to be able to understand that.”

Cooper’s response:

“Well, that — I mean, that’s why I do think it’s important to — you know, as hard as it was, important to actually listen and see this guy’s face because it’s rare to actually see a psychopath — you know, you see them in movies and stuff and they’re kind of — you know, an actor kind of make — this is apparently, it seems like a true psychopath and just the coldness of it, it was — just stunning to watch. And you found it hard to watch.”

Later in the episode, attorney Mark Geragos called into question the value of Castro’s sentencing hearing for the public, referring to it, from a legal perspective, as “a parade of lunacy.” But Cooper stood his ground:

“I found — I mean, maybe just because I work in television I’m interested in people’s stories and try to understand people, and Mary Ellen, I want to talk to you about this, but I do find it valuable to look into the face of a psychopath…And to actually identify and say you know what? There are psychopaths among them — among us, this is what it looks like.”

At this point, while very glad to see some public education on the issue, I worried that perhaps Cooper was misleading people a bit into thinking that psychopaths generally are violent abductors like Castro. But he soon assuaged that concern.

O’Toole spoke further about how stunning the psychopath’s bald-faced lying and manipulation is.

Dr. Drew agreed with Cooper’s response to Geragos, saying:

“I think they have done a public service by taking a good, hard look at this guy. These people tend to be manipulative, charming. They are in many of our lives. If you — you cannot believe what many people say and if you see any evidence that someone is behaving inappropriately you must act no matter what they say and really be suspicious.

A lot of people lie in our country, a lot of people have sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies and you’re looking quite squarely in the face of it tonight. There it is. That’s how they think. They don’t understand emotions. They only act as if they had emotions because they have none.”

And then Cooper made the point I was hoping he’d make and, in light of the book Snakes in Suits, made it very appropriately:

“And I — you know, I think that’s a good point, Dr. Drew, because you put that guy in a suit, and he could be — look, I mean, he could be a college professor. He could be anybody that you run across at any point of the day.”

The point was then made that, in her speech at the sentencing hearing, one of Castro’s victims, Michelle Knight, mentioned how Castro would go to church each week before coming home to his captives chained up in his house…

– an incredible example of the double life that people like Castro can pull off for years.

In a later segment, Cooper interviewed Rebecca Bailey, the personal therapist of Jaycee Dugard, another woman who was abducted as a child and whose rescue, after 18 years of captivity, made headlines in 2009. Bailey made some key points about the psychopath’s remorselessness, stating:

“I was saying earlier that’s a psychopath in there, they never have to say they’re sorry. They never feel it. They never have to experience it. That’s part of the seduction of being a psychopath in my mind.”

Cooper then reinforced the crucial lesson of how difficult psychopaths can be to detect, asking her:

“And Rebecca, you’ve written about what parents can tell their kids and how to keep kids safe. Do you think there’s value? Because, I mean, I found there value today in looking in this man’s eyes, seeing this man’s face, and seeing that you know what, this is what a psychopath looks like and it’s not necessarily on the face of it someone you would pick out of a lineup as being a monster.”

Bailey responded:

“I agree. Absolutely. That’s why we say the notion of stranger danger doesn’t really work because there is no absolute prototype of what they look like.”

Kudos to Anderson Cooper and his staff for using this high-profile event to shed some light on the realities of psychopathy. In under an hour, he and his guests managed to get across several of the most important lessons about psychopaths that the public should know, including that:

• Most psychopaths do not resemble the sensationalized psychopaths of the movies, such as Hannibal Lecter. There is no particular look that can allow us to easily detect them. They could truly look like anybody and, often, they are the people you’d least suspect from appearances. We need to be aware that they are simply around us in our everyday lives. They are also in positions where you might not expect to find them, including, frighteningly, powerful positions.

  To quote Cooper speaking about Ariel Castro again, because I think the quote’s message is so crucial:

  “…you put that guy in a suit, and he could be — look, I mean, he could be a college professor. He could be anybody that you run across at any point of the day.”

  Professor, indeed. Or CEO, lawyer, surgeon, police officer or even religious leader. Check out the top 10 jobs that attract psychopaths according to Kevin Dutton in The Wisdom of Psychopaths.

• They can lead double (or even more) lives, fooling people by presenting different personas in different social circles. In some of their “lives,” they may even pretend to be highly moral, engaging in religious or charitable (think Jerry Sandusky) endeavors.
• They are fully in touch with reality and aware of what is considered right and wrong – in other words, not “mentally ill” – but simply choose to ignore this distinction in pursuit of that which, due to their personality disorder, they value.
• They simply do not experience and cannot relate with the normal range of human emotions. They will, however, mimic the outward expressions of many emotions to trick others into believing that they experience and understand them.
• They feel no remorse for their actions or negligence no matter how much harm is consequently incurred by others.
• They often manage to evade being confronted regarding their actions at all.
• When they are confronted regarding their actions, they are skilled at employing “patho-semantics,” the clever, manipulative use of language, in order to avoid responsibility and sometimes to frame others, including their victims themselves.
• Even when lying, they can appear extremely convincing because of their ability to project strong belief in their own stories.
• The psychopath’s evasions and manipulations can have a powerful befuddling – or to use, once again, the word that Anderson Cooper used – stunning effect on the average person. As Dr. Drew put it, engaging what I believe are some highly technical terms, “your brain just goes out of kilt” watching and listening to them.

The entire transcript of this episode of AC360 is available here.

More clips from the episode are available here on the AC360 Blog.

Our last post focused on Raine’s essay “The Criminal Mind,” featured in the April 27, 2013 Wall Street Journal, in which he discussed how advances in our understanding of the genetic, neurological and environmental bases of violence are influencing our view of and approach to crime.

Now another large media outlet, CNN, has run not one, but two segments featuring Raine’s work.

In a segment entitled “The Anatomy of Violence: A look inside the minds of killers,” CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta talked to Raine and discussed his work’s possible relevance in understanding why the Boston Marathon bombings occurred.

The segment opens with footage of the bombings, over which Gupta says:

“In the wake of tragedy come the inevitable questions. What makes a killer? Is there a switch that turns on a rampage? And why? Why would someone do this?”

Adrian Raine then appears on the screen and says that to simply label a person that commits such acts “evil” is “13th-century thinking.” Gupta introduces Raine, explaining that Raine believes there are “biological explanations for violence” and Raine then explains why he believes that brain dysfunction may partly explain the Boston Marathon bombings.

One interesting condition that Raine mentions that he found relevant, given that the older of the two brothers charged with the bombings, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was a very skilled boxer, is a recognized brain abnormality called Cavum Septum Pellucidum. Raine says that this condition, in which a maldeveloped limbic system fails to normally put pressure on and thus fuse the leaflets of the Septum Pellucidum, predisposes to a psychopathic personality marked by fearlessness and the ability to commit remorseless violence. For whatever it is worth, he says it has also been found in boxers.

In fact, in reading Wikipedia’s page about Cavum Septum Pellucidum, I became aware that perhaps the most famous fictional boxer of all time, Rocky Balboa, was specifically told in Rocky V that he had this very condition.

I could only find video of the scene in which Rocky receives this diagnosis online in Italian. And the translation has “pellucidum” apparently incorrectly transformed into “pelliculum,” which may be why the poster put a question mark at the end of the video’s title of “Cavum Septum Pelliculum?” You can see an English translation here. But here is the clip.

Gupta then shows us, using imagery from a psychopath’s brain, the smaller amygdalae found in psychopaths in Raine’s research, which also contribute to the fearlessness and disinhibition that could enable one to commit harmful acts like the Boston bombings.

Gupta also discussed the possible link between Raine’s work and the Boston Marathon bombings in another segment on the CNN program The Lead with Jake Tapper.

During the segment, which begins with the lower third title again saying “The Anatomy of Violence: A look inside the minds of killers,” host Tapper says, in reference to those bombings, that we are trying to “understand this unmitigated evil.” In that spirit, he asks Gupta about the bombers, Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev themselves, as well as about the three men later arrested for having attempted to help Dzhokar cover up his involvement. Gupta mentions having spoken to Adrian Raine about this topic and says it may be relevant to understand that Dzhokar and the three arrested later, all being just 19 years old, may have had a combination of fully developed and fueled emotional brain centers along with not-yet-fully-developed judgment centers in their frontal lobes.

The title in the lower third then changes to “The Mind of a Terror Suspect: Could brain chemistry have played role in bombings?”

Tapper raises the issue of whether defense attorneys will use our increased insight into the genetic and neurological underpinnings of harmful behavior to argue that their clients’ actions should be excused. Gupta calls our advancing understanding of the biological roots of crime and violence “an emerging science” and then offers two examples that really highlight the difficulty of assigning appropriate levels of blame to those that commit harmful acts while suffering from certain biological conditions.

• First, Gupta mentions that Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, in which a mother’s drinking during pregnancy harms the developing fetus’ brain, leads that baby in later life to have a much higher likelihood of committing crimes and a nineteen times greater chance than otherwise of ending up in prison.
• Gupta also mentions how a brain tumor can drastically change an otherwise normally-functioning person’s behavior.

This is one of the first times I have seen ponerologic material discussed so explicitly on CNN. However, it isn’t the first. For instance:

• In the wake of the Newtown school shootings, I saw Erin Burnett interview Dr. James Fallon about the biological markers of psychopathy and whether he expected them to be discovered post-mortem in shooter Adam Lanza.

• I also saw a recent segment in which anchor Don Lemon intereviewed criminal profiler Jim Clemente and forensic psychiatrist Helen Morrison about the prevalence of sociopathy. (I tried to find video of this latter segment to share on this site but it seems it was never posted online. However, the transcript of the segment can be found about 1/4 of the way down the page of this transcript of Lemon’s entire show that night.)

But it was really nice to see Sanjay Gupta, who I believe is deservedly highly regarded as a physician, scientist and journalist, covering this topic from a professional and medical perspective. This is the type of coverage I would love to see more of on CNN and similar networks. And I’m glad that I have seen a lot more of it in the past few months than I can remember ever seeing before.

Today’s Wall Street Journal features a sizeable piece by Raine as its “Saturday Essay.”

The title of the essay is “The Criminal Mind” and underneath the title it says “Advances in genetics and neuroscience are revolutionizing our understanding of violent behavior—as well as ideas about how to prevent and punish crime.”

It doesn’t get much more relevant to ponerology than that. And it’s heartening to see Raine given a platform to share his extremely important and provocative ideas in The Wall Street Journal just in advance of the release of his book The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime.

Raine’s essay touches on:

• The history of criminology as a science and its sometimes unfortunate devolution into pseudoscience
• The rise of neurocriminology
• The roles of genetics, environmental and developmental factors and brain structure and function in the emergence of aggression and antisocial behavior
• The political and social implications of a focus on biological bases for crime
• Recommendations for legal policies that account for our growing ponerologic understanding by both assigning appropriate levels of responsibility to offenders and optimally protecting the rest of society from the threats they pose
• Measures – including some relatively non-invasive ones – that can help significantly reduce the likelihood of harmful behavior in children that display signs of severe aggression

The article is accompanied by the video below. In it, Raine explains the relationship between diminished prefrontal cortex activity and violence, how such prefrontal dysfunction originates and possible treatments for such conditions, as well as how those with normal prefrontal activity but undersized amygdalae can also commit violence in a more planned and calculating fashion.

Raine also offers his opinion in the video about the Tsarnaev brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon.

One of the reasons this website was started is to document the evidence that this situation may be changing for the better. Awareness about these conditions is starting to spread and people are even starting to talk about them in cases where they should be rightfully suspected.

Perhaps no case has demonstrated this more than that of the Jodi Arias trial.

In fact, when it comes to speculation about Jodi Arias’ condition, the pendulum may even have swung too far in the other direction. Not only are people widely discussing whether she might be psychopathic or have NPD or BPD, but some are emphatic that they are certain about what her proper diagnosis would be despite never having met or examined her.

Perhaps this is just a necessary phase before another correction brings us to a happy medium where people recognize circumstances in which these conditions should be suspected but are also cautious about jumping to conclusions.

In any case, last night, I saw a panel discussion about Jodi Arias on the Dr. Drew On Call television show on Headline News. Below is a video of some of that segment. Even though this is just a two minute snippet of a longer discussion, a lot of welcome things happen even in this two minutes. Both psychopathy and Borderline Personality Disorder are mentioned. Moreover, there is actually a bit of intelligent discussion about them, the differences in their origins and how they develop over the lifespan and which one might apply in the case of Arias. And a larger point is made about the importance of recognizing the signs and symptoms of these disorders in people when they are young so as to intervene earlier.

But, regardless, I’m glad to see some coverage of these conditions along with considerations of their differential diagnoses on a television program discussing a relevant case. This is the type of discussion I’d like to see on television more often regarding a wider array of cases that may be influenced by ponerologic factors.

To close, here is one more video with Jane Velez-Mitchell, also of Headline News, discussing with clinical psychologist Seth Meyers how important it is to distinguish Borderline Personality Disorder from another potential diagnosis, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), in regards to Arias.

One response that has gotten a lot of attention is the one posted on Facebook by comedian and actor Patton Oswalt.

I highly doubt that Oswalt has ever heard of the term ponerology. But his response, more than many others, especially from celebrities, actually comes close to placing the event in a ponerologic context.

So first I want to point out the particular statements that reflect a somewhat-ponerologic perspective in his writing.

Toward the very beginning of his post, Oswalt says:

“I don’t know what’s going to be revealed to be behind all of this mayhem. One human insect or a poisonous mass of broken sociopaths.”

So he is very quickly zeroing in explicitly on sociopathy as a potential factor.

Just two sentences later he says:

“If it’s one person or a HUNDRED people, that number is not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population on this planet.”

Here, he is already discussing the damaging act in terms of the statistical makeup of the population as broken down by those who purposefully cause significant harm and those who do not. Considering such statistics is one of the central roles of ponerology. Note that Robert Hare, the world expert on psychopathy (slightly different from sociopathy), estimates that psychopaths make up 1% of the population.

Later Oswalt says:

“…every once in awhile, the wiring of a tiny sliver of the species gets snarled and they’re pointed towards darkness.”

I’m not sure if he even realizes how literally relevant his implication of “wiring” in the malice of a certain percentage of people really is. But ponerology is deeply involved in attempts to use neuroscience to discover how neurobiology contributes to harmful behavior and we cover that topic frequently on this site.

Oswalt then proceeds to comment on how those who are not evil vastly outnumber those who are. And he invokes an evolutionary viewpoint when he points out:

“We would not be here if humanity were inherently evil. We’d have eaten ourselves alive long ago.”

Overall, for someone who is not a professional in this area and probably has no specific knowledge of ponerology or related subjects, I think Oswalt’s response if full of valuable insights. While there is nothing wrong with simply expressing one’s emotional reaction to a painful situation, as many have done, it’s nice to see social media used to put forth a response to a damaging act that shares some real wisdom.

However, in addition to sharing and offering a bit of analysis of his response, I’d also like to show how ponerology – at least as Andrew M. Lobaczewski and some others have viewed it – might reveal the situation to be a bit more complicated than Oswalt portrays it to be here.

Oswalt attempts to inject some hope into the situation by pointing out that:

“…the vast majority stands against that darkness and, like white blood cells attacking a virus, they dilute and weaken and eventually wash away the evil doers and, more importantly, the damage they wreak.”

and:

“…when you spot violence, or bigotry, or intolerance or fear or just garden-variety misogyny, hatred or ignorance, just look it in the eye and think, ‘The good outnumber you, and we always will.’”

Oswalt is correct that, by a huge majority, non-pathological people outnumber the pathological. However, this does not imply that the non-pathological necessarily exercise more power for several reasons:

1. The pathological demonstrate specific skill at rising in hierarchies, which, by definition, afford much greater influence to those in some positions than others. So even though there may be fewer pathological people, they may be in positions where they have enormously disproportionate influence.
2. The constant development of increasingly powerful modern technology enables fewer and fewer people, if willing to employ it inhumanely, to inflict greater and greater damage.
3. As the Milgram experiment showed, a huge percentage of non-pathological people will, despite any qualms, comply with the directives of those they perceive as authority figures, even if those directives involve knowingly inflicting great harm on others.
4. As the Stanford Prison Experiment showed, systemic factors and contexts can influence even non-pathological people to act in sociopathic and sadistic ways. In other words, as systems thinking often points out, structure can create behavior. And, if even a few pathological people are in positions of power, they can shape systems and structures so as to drive much of the rest of the population to act in ways that mirror their pathological values.

So while Oswalt’s response is quite astute and comes close to offering a realistic perspective about how to approach the fact that we live in this world alongside pathological people, I think the work of Lobaczewski, Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo can help modify his advice to make it a little bit more effective.

Outnumbering the pathological isn’t enough. In order to develop a situation in which cooperation overcomes exploitation, non-pathological people must become educated about the dynamics of ponerology so that they can recognize leverage points to resist the influence of even powerful pathological people and reshape systems that otherwise drive them into pathological positions even if they themselves are not pathological.

The real hope comes from the fact that, in Milgram’s experiments, while 2/3 of participants were willing to administer the maximum voltage to a screaming confederate when ordered by the authority figure, and a frightening 90% were willing if they first saw someone else do it, 90% rebelled if they first saw someone else rebel.

That means that, just as pathological people can exert disproportionate influence, so can those who resist them, even when those they resist occupy positions of authority, as their personal resistance generates a ripple effect of resistance.

I hope that Patton Oswalt and those who were moved by his thoughtful response to these bombings in Boston will take the time to do more research about ponerology and the highly relevant work of those mentioned in this article. Perhaps the best tribute we can pay to the people, families and communities suffering in the wake of this event is to use it as a springboard from which to learn more about the actual science of evil. That science may well offer us our best chance for moving beyond relatively helpless hope and prayer to real understanding of how to prevent and mitigate future harmful malicious and neglectful activities.

One of the bonuses of running and promoting this site is that, in the course of doing so, a lot of relevant ideas and people come to my attention. And, once in a while, another whole field of study, related to ponerology, that also brings together many disparate threads, becomes known to me.

This happened recently.

Several weeks ago, I wrote about a study led by criminal justice professor Volkan Topalli. After publishing that piece, I found and followed Dr. Topalli on Twitter. Soon after that, Dr. Topalli retweeted a tweet by the criminology division of the publisher Routledge about a new book, the Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology.

Green Criminology?

The term intrigued me and I was motivated to do a little more research on it. I’ll share with you some of what I found shortly. But first I’d like to provide some context regarding how this topic relates with the wide-ranging audience interested in ponerology.

I know that, among those drawn to ponerology by a desire to understand the roots of what they consider “evil” behavior, there are those of all political stripes holding every possible view on environmental issues.

There are those who believe that:

• Evil is embodied in corrupt corporations and their possibly pathological leaders who rape and pillage natural resources for profit without concern for sustainability
• Stronger government regulation is needed to restrain these out-of-control, environmentally-damaging companies

There are some who:

• Share concern about environmental sustainability
• Believe that governments, expressing themselves through directly destructive activity related to natural resources, crooked politically-motivated subsidies and establishment and enforcement of the very legal structures that prop up corrupt corporations in the first place, are the real seats of “evil” responsible for environmental damage
• Advocate for less government and a laissez-faire, free-market policy that maximizes privatization as the strategy most likely to move us toward sustainability

Others believe that

• We are in no actual danger of running up against natural resource limits or threatening environmental sustainability
• Those claiming we are in such danger are, in reality, either evil people promoting self-serving political agendas or hoaxes or alarmists scared into their views by them
• We should ignore these malicious or misguided voices and continue, unrestrained, an aggressive policy of industrialization without concern for limits

And there are many who hold some combination of these views on the subject or still other views entirely.

In my case, concern about ecological sustainability was very instrumental in propelling me along the path that brought me to ponerology. The work of Daniel Quinn and Derrick Jensen, in particular, influenced me to focus, at a relatively young age, on the damage engendered on many levels by a cultural mindset, sanctioning infinite growth in spite of finite natural resources, that has become the basis for our economic system and both shaped and been shaped by deeply unhealthy psychological attitudes and belief systems – and, quite possibly, by those with pathological conditions.

During the many years spent following up on the ideas Quinn and Jensen helped introduce to me, I explored, from every angle I could, the environmental debates and the many subjects they involve. Over time, I’ve come to a deeper understanding of people who approach environmentalism from a variety of different perspectives.

The epiphany that I experienced upon discovering ponerology sprung in part from the fact that it clarified a mindset regarding questions about the emergence of harm that were woven through myriad areas that concerned me and to which I was having great difficulty formulating an approach. It embodied the idea that our starting point should be to learn all that we can about the scientific facts relating to these questions. While conceding that we will never know everything we need to know to make perfect decisions, it argues that maximizing our systematic, objective knowledge will provide us the firmest basis on which to make them.

When I saw Topalli’s retweet about the Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology, that term – green criminology – provoked in me another similar epiphany.

We may not, in the near future, all come to agree on either what is really happening environmentally or what we should do about it. But hopefully many of us can at least agree that we should establish, to the best of our ability, the facts regarding any egregiously reckless malicious or negligent behavior implicated in ecosystem damage and the people involved in it. Green criminology sounded to me like a field devoted to doing just that from a scientific perspective.

So I did some searching to learn about what green criminology is and what resources are available for people that want to know more or get involved.

One of the first resources I found is the GreenCriminology.org website. This site is run by the International Green Criminology Working Group (IGCWG), which is “a group of academic professionals, students, and others that practice Green Criminology and collaborate on projects and discussions” and was crowdfunded through a Kickstarter campaign that featured the video below.

• “What crimes or harms are inflicted on the environment, and how?”
• “Who commits crime against the environment, and why?”
• “Who suffers as a result of environmental damage, and how?”
• “What are the social, economic and political conditions that lead to environmental crimes?”
• “Which types of harms should be considered as ‘crimes’ and therefore within the remit of a green criminology?”

I then found that University of Colorado Denver, through their School of Public Affairs, supports a research working group on green criminology.

Of course, the Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology, which was where I first came across the term, looks like a thorough overview of the subject.

And Amazon also features some other books when I do a search for "green criminology". Some of the ones that look interesting include:

It’s somewhat surprising to me that, despite all the investigation I’ve done of pathological conditions and environmental issues, as well as their overlap, I’d never even heard the term “green criminology” before.

Derrick Jensen has explicitly linked our culture’s high level of environmental damage to the influence of psychopathy and has written thousands and thousands of pages and done countless talks on these issues. Yet even in all of his work that I’ve read, seen and heard, I don’t recall him using the term “green criminology.”

I’m thankful that, through promoting this site, I came across people who were able to finally bring it to my attention.

I hope to have more experiences like that in the future. And I am looking forward to learning more about green criminology.

I realize that not everyone interested in ponerology will be similarly interested in this angle on it. Some may even disagree with green criminology’s basic premises for various reasons (though I think, if they take a closer look at some of the writing on GreenCriminology.org, they may find some of their concerns are addressed more openly than they would have expected). And that’s fine. The goal of this site is simply to bring information related to ponerology to people’s attention. From there, they can do with that information what they wish.

But I believe green criminology is a discipline that anyone who cares about ponerology should at least be aware of.  It shines a light on what has often been a blind spot in the consideration of evil. Those who commit “evil” in which the damage is externalized to the broader environment, even if it then indirectly harms a large number of people, have been able, relatively, to escape notice as compared with those who do damage directly to even a small number of others. A tighter integration with green criminology may help correct this imbalance within ponerology’s perspective.

At the same time, I think those interested in green criminology should be aware of ponerology because the information it helps reveal can potentially inspire a more profound level of understanding about why the harmful events that field studies come to pass.

It’s always exciting for me to see connections and relationships develop amongst people with overlapping interests of great depth that pertain to improving health and sustainability. I hope this article will help catalyze some new connections and relationships between the emerging green criminology and ponerology communities. Not everyone in those communities will see eye to eye on every topic. But, surely, there are many within them who will find common ground and can share with each other a good deal of meaningful dialogue and support.

Dr. Kent Kiehl of the Mind Research Network has been one of the more active researchers investigating what we can learn from brain imaging of psychopaths. And he and colleagues have recently published, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, a study entitled “Neuroprediction of future rearrest.”

The study involved having 96 soon-to-be-released male prisoners perform computer tasks that required quick decision-making and inhibition of impulsive responses, while their brains were observed using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The researchers focused in on the brain region known as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and found that, when controlling for other known risk factors, those prisoners with less ACC activity than their fellow study participants were about twice as likely to be rearrested within 4 years of release as those with higher ACC activity.

We’ve already mentioned, in previous stories, that reduced cingulate cortex function is associated with psychopathy and has been identified in some violent criminal offenders.

The question is, as we zero in on markers like this – whether they be certain anatomical or functional characteristics of the brain, particular genetic features or anything else – what is the most ethical way in which to use this knowledge?

On one hand, it could be considered highly unethical and dangerous to discriminate against, detain or punish anybody – even a previous offender – simply because they happen to exhibit particular biological markers if those markers have not expressed themselves in a specific behavior for which they are being criminally charged. Beginning to do so could open the door to frightening abuses by authorities.

Most of the commenters on the Daily Mail’s story about this study fell on this side of the issue and raised such concerns.

For example, “Dunnyveg” said:

“Actually, low IQ, high testosterone, and a record of previous convictions are the best indicators for recidivism; there is no need for fancy technology. But none of these absolve society from our time-honored principle of innocent until proven guilty. Talk about a potential totalitarian nightmare, this is it….”

“Percival” said:

“Still like technology gullible science fans? Little do you realise these are not to benefit you but to control you, all of it is too control and watch and report back and have you slaves to the system.”

Martin said:

“Well that fills the biggest gap left in achieving the full ’1984 infrastructure’ now they’re rolling out internet TVs that watch you and listen to you (and that some mugs are actually buying) – welcome to the world of ‘thought crime’ ….”

The very idea of predicting and preemptively acting to prevent crimes before they are committed reminds many of the brilliant Philip K. Dick story, later made into a movie by Steven Spielberg, “The Minority Report.”

On the Daily Mail article, “Jeff Pringle” commented:

“Minority Report anyone?”

And Nature began their story on the study with “In a twist that evokes the dystopian science fiction of writer Philip K. Dick…” and, later in the article, mentioned “The Minority Report.”

But, on the other hand, it could be considered unethical not to use our improving predictive ability if failing to do so allows offenders to cause harm and suffering to others that could have, with minimal collateral damage, been prevented. How would you feel if a loved one was harmed by a person who we knew ahead of time, based on various markers and indicators, had an extremely high likelihood of offending but did nothing to stop?

Some may take comfort in the fact that we can, for the moment, postpone fully grappling with these dilemmas. Our predictive ability based on markers like those in Kiehl’s study is still poor enough that it seems clearly unreasonable, at the present time, to base highly consequential legal actions on it alone. Even Kiehl himself concedes as much.

But as our knowledge and technology improve, there may well come a day when the gap between the pros and cons of applying them to predict and prevent crime narrows. Eventually, we may have to decide at exactly which threshold level of predictive reliability it becomes more unethical, even in the face of potential unintended consequences, to allow a person marked as extremely likely to cause harm to act freely than to take action to reduce the threat they pose. The decision about where to draw such a line could arouse furious debate.

One commenter on the Nature article, “Mitch Trachtenberg,” offered a nice middle ground where many of us, despite different viewpoints on the matter, may frequently find ourselves able to meet, when he said:

“This knowledge could be abused by someone refusing to release someone on parole or probation due to “unacceptable-ACC-levels.” But it could really be helpful if the results were used to get someone additional help or even monitoring. Helping people with problems controlling their impulses could be beneficial, and it would be great to have a way of discovering which people in our prison system might well be there for exactly that reason.”

Hopefully Mitch’s idea will prove prescient and we can find a way, at least much of the time, to use this knowledge and these tools in a compassionate way that aims to authentically help people, not just stigmatize or harass them. But it’s hard to imagine a future where we aren’t sometimes faced with incredibly difficult decisions about cases that just don’t allow for any easy middle ground where we can hide.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

How do you weigh the danger of authorities abusing these predictive abilities against the threat posed by individuals with biological markers associated with harming others?

What do you think is the most ethical way to deal with the dilemmas these predictive abilities may one day pose?

Let us know in the comments below.