I’ve shared about relevant pieces that appeared on:

• CNN
• CNN.com
• Fox News Channel
• The Wall Street Journal
• Channel 4 in the UK

Surprisingly enough, there was even a ponerology-related moment on the sports network ESPN, which I also highlighted here.

What you’ll notice is that all of the aforementioned media outlets are ones with national reach. And that’s good news – pun intended – because it means that, through stories like the ones to which I’ve linked, large audiences are receiving information about, as well as being encouraged to consider, the influence of those with low empathy and conscience.

However, there is also something to be said for the impact of a story appearing in local news. Some people feel a closer tie with their local media outlets – whose personalities can come to seem almost like part of their family and with which they may have been engaging ever since childhood – and, therefore, might trust them more. Or they may feel that, if a story makes it to their local newspaper, radio program or telecast, it has more personal relevance to them than they do when they encounter it in a national outlet.

I have posted about at least one ponerology-related report from local news – a “Healthy Living” segment on KABC-TV in Los Angeles that focused on the work of Dr. Ronald Schouten and James Silver, authors of Almost a Psychopath: Do I (or Does Someone I Know) Have a Problem with Manipulation and Lack of Empathy?

But, for whatever reason, while there seems to have been a minor explosion of coverage on this subject in larger media outlets, it has been relatively rare that I’ve come across it in local media.

However, I was pleasantly surprised this week.

When I visited the homepage of the Detroit Free Press the other day, this is what I saw (see red arrow in the image below) in the list of top headlines, right underneath a nice fuzzy story about a local business leader’s charity-benefiting March Madness bracket success.

(Click image to view larger)

I was surprised because I didn’t expect to see the topic of psychopathy pop up in a hometown paper. I was even more surprised because I really didn’t expect to see it pop up there in this fashion – not just generically, but as part of a headline offering specific guidance to help people consider whether someone in a position of power over them may have the condition. Ponerology had definitely hit the Detroit Free Press.

Here is the actual article entitled “20 signs your boss might be a psychopath.”

As you can see, it is written by Michael L. Diamond and originally appeared in the Asbury Park Press, a local paper from the New Jersey city made famous by Bruce Springsteen. Asbury Park Press, like the Detroit Free Press, is a Gannett Company. So it appears that the story was taken from one local paper and then shared with other local papers owned by the same holding company. Thus, it garnered attention in various areas of the country, but did so by means of local outlets.

Diamond’s story quotes Kean University psychology professor Richard Conti. In a previous post, I’ve asked “Should Kids Learn about Ponerology in School?”. Well, although he doesn’t use (and may not know) the actual term ponerology, Conti seems to believe that, at least at the college level, they should. According to Diamond, Conti is teaching his students about “psychopathic traits found in business and government leaders,” a subject that could hardly be more central to the work of Andrew M. Lobaczewski, author of Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes, the book most responsible for popularizing the term ponerology.

Diamond mentions the public’s “complicated relationship” with leaders who are often widely admired as brilliant and strong on account of the very traits that, viewed in another light, might reveal them to be devious and dangerous.

A student of Conti’s is quoted, describing one of the characteristics of psychopaths. I see that quote – the words of a young woman expressing to a journalist her knowledge about a conscience-reducing condition that she has been taught in her school occurs among those in positions of power – as a symbol of something we desperately need more of.

Diamond then lists 20 traits associated with psychopathy, encouraging the reader to rate their boss on each to determine a final score. In the Asbury Park Press’ original version of the article, a sub-headline in big letters above the article copy implores the reader to “Take the test below to find out if your boss shows psychopathic tendencies.” If the score is high enough, Diamond even urges them to “call security.”

Now, obviously, this is not a truly valid means of assessment. A layperson cannot definitively diagnose or rule out psychopathy in anyone using a tool or method like this. But that is beside the point.

The point is that Diamond has planted a seed in his readers’ minds, just like the seed his primary article subject, Richard Conti, has planted in the minds of his students. He has provided some basic information about the kinds of characteristics exhibited by psychopaths, which is not only educational, but sure to generate curiosity. And he has nurtured that curiosity, encouraging its development into – and the application of this newfound knowledge toward – healthy questioning about the nature of authority figures.

Both Diamond and Conti are contributing to the emergence in the public of wise skepticism and an enlightened form of discriminating thinking regarding the possibility of reduced capacities for empathy and conscience among those in power. For this, they should both be commended.

I completed my primary writing about ponerology in early 2012. As I worked on it, and then for a number of months after finishing it, I kept thinking about starting a separate blog dedicated to documenting the growing number of cases in which ponerologic issues surfaced in the media. What impelled me to finally create PonerologyNews.com in early 2013 was – as described in this post about it, the very first post on this site – my discovery, at a very coincidental moment, of a Yahoo headline story about psychopathic bosses.

Now, thanks to Michael L. Diamond’s work, the first story of this type that I’ve featured here from a local newspaper is also one about psychopathic bosses.

I think the fact that that particular angle on ponerology – the possibility of psychopathy among workplace leadership – has repeatedly been key is appropriate.

Conscience-reducing disorders affect us profoundly whenever they influence our systems. They may even affect us more profoundly when they influence high levels of power structures. But it is perhaps easiest for most people new to the subject to begin to recognize their impact and relevance on a level at which they are very personally and directly affected.

The level on which this occurs most personally and directly is probably actually the family level. However, for a variety of reasons, there is often tremendous resistance, especially initially, to acknowledging such disturbing dysfunction within the family.

The next most personal and direct level at which to become conscious commonly involves a setting in which people viscerally experience the exercise – and, in some cases, abuse – of power over them on a daily basis, namely, at work. And in a climate in which the “bad boss” is a widely-accepted archetype – as lamented in countless after-work venting sessions and portrayed in iconic films and comic strips – circumstances are conducive for the awareness that is sometimes avoided in the family setting to blossom when contemplating the relationship dynamics in one’s work experience.

To be certain, it is important – and surely Diamond and Conti both appreciate it – that people ultimately recognize ponerologic influences in other areas, including family and government. That’s why I’ve included among relevant resources that I’ve shared ones that assist them in doing that.

But by focusing on psychopathic contacts, including bosses, at work – much as Robert Hare and Paul Babiak do in their highly significant and pertinent book Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work – Diamond opens the door for his readers to, over time, make the necessary connections to become even more sufficiently ponerology-conscious.

Just as I was making this realization, thanks to a number of resources on the topic, it seemed that much of the rest of the world was beginning to make the same realization. More and more stories related to the neuroscience of moral choice were coming out everywhere I looked. And dramas and books centering on psychopaths – perhaps the most fascinating examples of the stark difference between some humans and others in how they make moral choices – were attracting large audiences.

So I started this blog in order to help amplify this awakening to a new understanding about the factors underlying moral choice and, in turn, the types of events we refer to as “evil.”

Here on the blog, I’ve featured many stories that highlight the growing knowledge base at the intersection of neuroscience and morality. And today I read a quote that sums up well my feeling about this area of knowledge:

“It’s a field that’s waiting for a big revolution sometime soon.”

The quote is from Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Professor in Practical Ethics at Duke University’s Department of Philosophy and Kenan Institute for Ethics. And it comes from an article by Health and Science reporter Elizabeth Landau called “How your brain makes moral judgments” posted on CNN.com today as part of its “Inside Your Brain” series.

Landau’s article features a nice selection of ideas and research studies in this area of the neuroscience of morality. It demonstrates, yet again, that we do seem to be on the cusp of the revolution in the field to which Sinnott-Armstrong refers – and which this blog exists to help, in some small measure, to bring about – and explores the implications of that revolution.

It covers a variety of studies, relating to which areas of the brain do what when people make moral decisions, by some of the top researchers in the field, such as Joshua Greene and Adrian Raine.

It specifically discusses what is different in the relevant brain circuits in psychopaths as compared with others, a topic covered extensively on this site, as well as in autism.

And in one of its more fascinating aspects, it discusses how interventions in brain processes can manipulate moral judgments. For instance, it talks about research by Rebecca Saxe, associate professor of cognitive neuroscience at MIT and associate member of the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, in which the application of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to a particular area of the brain led to a temporary shift in response when making moral judgments.

In the article, Sinnott-Armstrong is quoted regarding one of the most controversial aspects of ponerology, saying that he “thinks one day there could be treatments directly developed for the brain in extreme cases, such as criminal psychopaths.”

“‘It’s possible that if we understand the neural circuits that underlie psychopaths and their behavior, we can use medications and magnetic stimulation to change their behavior,’ he said.

Such techniques might not work as well as behavioral training programs, however, he said.”

The article also talks about how different brain areas may be involved in different kinds of moral judgments and whether there may be cross-cultural differences in moral judgment.

All in all, a very worthwhile article for those interested in these topics and yet another example of the increasing recognition of this crucial area of study.

Apparently, Saturday Night Live did too, as they led off this weekend’s episode with a sketch in which this very question is asked.

Now, I am not claiming that George Zimmerman is a psychopath or has any other specific conscience-reducing disorder. I really have no ability to make a judgment on that. However, the conversation about his romantic situation did lead me to explain to my conversation partner that those that are psychopaths or do have certain related disorders are notorious for their ability to attract many romantic and sexual relationships. I mentioned some of the fascinating research, which I cover in my foundational page about psychopathy, about just how successful some of history’s most ruthless killers have been in spreading their genes.

Well, as so often happens after a deep discussion about an intriguing topic, it wasn’t more than a couple of days before a new, highly relevant story emerged in the news.

A 25-year-old woman named Star told Rolling Stone magazine that she plans to marry the now 79-year-old infamous mastermind of numerous murders, Charles Manson, who remains locked up in prison. Apparently, Star moved near the prison 6 years ago, when she was 19, so she could spend more time with Manson.

CNN also covered this story, interviewing the woman (who says her attraction to Manson was initially sparked by his environmentalism, not his crimes, which she only really became aware of later, but which did not dissuade her from her attraction.)

Now, Manson himself denies that they will be getting married. But the interesting thing is that, whether or not the marriage actually happens, a young woman would actually want people to believe it will.

What makes this story meaningful is that it is far from an isolated case. In his heyday, Manson was often surrounded by young women drawn to his charisma and aura. And he isn’t the only person associated with mass murder or serial killing to elicit such admiration. To offer just one more example among many, Ted Bundy was viewed as extremely charming and employed his skill for attracting young women in the course of carrying out his crimes.

This is an important topic. The ability of psychopaths and others with reduced conscience to attract mates has a number of implications and consequences:

1. It reinforces a sense of glamor about such individuals and their value systems.
2. It may increase their social standing.
3. It practically assists them in the commission of some of their crimes.
4. It leads to an increase in the proportion of their genes in the population’s overall gene pool.
5. It causes havoc for the partners and especially the children that must live with the consequences of these relationships.

I realize that there are men who are drawn to ruthless women and that is also an important topic to consider. But the Manson and Bundy examples – and, perhaps, to a lesser extent, the Zimmerman example – raise the question of why women are attracted to men of this kind.

Well, another coincidence that occurred in the wake of my conversation about this topic relates to that question. A few days after the discussion, through a completely different avenue, I ended up on the Wikipedia page for the topic hybristophilia.

Hybristophilia is described as:

“a paraphilia of the predatory type in which sexual arousal, facilitation, and attainment of orgasm are responsive to and contingent upon being with a partner known to have committed an outrage, cheating, lying, known infidelities or crime, such as rape, murder, or armed robbery.”

Apparently the term stems from the Greek word hybrizein, which means “to commit an outrage against someone” (and which, itself, stems from the word hubris) and philo meaning “having a strong affinity/preference for.”

The page even mentions the many female admirers that Bundy and Manson attracted as examples.

After reading that page, I was reminded of yet another relevant example.

As a result of running this website, I was recently sent a copy of the book Survived by One: The Life and Mind of a Family Mass Murderer, which is written, along with Robert Hanlon, a clinical neuropsychologist specialized in working with violent criminals, by a man named Tom Odle, who remains in an Illinois prison (after initially being placed on death row, before Illinois commuted all death sentences) for killing his entire immediate family – his parents and three siblings – in 1985. Odle has been diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder by one forensic psychiatrist and with Borderline Personality Disorder with Anti-social features by another.

At several points in the book, he describes how women have contacted him on death row and in prison, impressed and attracted by what he has done.

“People write me letters, especially girls and women wanting to be my friend and congratulating me on doing something that they had only thought about doing because they were mistreated and abused, also. There was also some kind of fan club for me…I liked the attention I was getting, and I even reconnected with an old friend I had a crush on for years. She wrote to me, so I wrote back, and we found each other in a new light.”

And later…

“I also responded to letters from girls who managed to find my address and wrote to tell me how cool they thought I was because I had murdered my parents. That was one thing I ate up at that time because it diminished my responsibility and guilt.”

Odle had women come visit him in person and begin relationships with him while he was on death row, as well. One of those relationships even led to a short-lived marriage.

So it was fascinating to learn that there is actually a term to describe this behavior – hybristophilia. And the Wikipedia page on that topic was also fascinating because it offers some theories about why such attractions occur.

Then, just this weekend, in the wake of the Manson girlfriend story, Yahoo featured a video by Discovery News about this very topic entitled “Why Psychopaths Turn Women On.” It even mentions the term hybristophilia and Bundy’s admirers, as well as those of other serial killers. It then speculates on some of the reasons behind this attraction or fetish.

Mate selection is a crucial driver of evolution. When a person selects another person as a mate, they are, in essence, voting for that person’s traits to become more prominent in humanity’s future. And they help make sure those traits do become more prominent in more than one way simultaneously.

Biologically, they help the person pass on their genes to their children. Developmentally, they ensure the existence of children shaped by parenting based in that person’s values – or by parental abuse or neglect as a consequence of those values. Socially, they may send a message that such traits are attractive, possibly influencing others to see an incentive in exhibiting them.

This is why, even though such relationships might seem like personal situations separate from our own lives, all of us should care when we see people with reduced empathy and conscience attracting mates. This phenomenon has, historically, had a surprisingly significant impact on the state of our world today. We must live in neighborhoods and communities with people deeply influenced by such relationships. And it may well be one of the mechanisms by which the health and sustainability of humanity continues to be threatened.

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 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.

Still, I don’t know what it says about the media that the source providing the most frequent and insightful coverage about psychopathy and sociopathy may be a satirical newspaper, The Onion.

Recently, I’ve seen several examples of The Onion’s use of humor to shine a light on this still too-often-overlooked topic.

Back in October, during the United States’ presidential debate season, The Onion featured a story entitled “Nation Tunes In To See Which Sociopath More Likable This Time.” It based its satire on the premise that voters take it as a given that both of the major party presidential candidates – and, indeed, all successful politicians – are sociopaths and simply use the debates to try to decide which candidate is better at pretending to have a conscience. I shared this story and put it into the context of ponerology in a piece of my own called “Ponerology Hits the Onion.”

Then, I came across another Onion piece – this one actually published in 2009 – called “New Study Reveals Most Children Unrepentant Sociopaths.” The story surveys many actually normal characteristics and behaviors of children and, by comparing them to those on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, manages to portray healthy kids as antisocial monsters. I found the article brilliant on several levels.

Almost all children who exhibit the traits and actions mentioned are simply reflecting appropriate developmental milestones. But, there are those in our culture who really do think of children, either consciously or unconsciously, for various reasons, the way the article portrays them. Such a view of children may both stem from and underlie some of the unhealthy parenting styles that, in our society, are accepted as worthwhile or even necessary to bring children into line. The article uses satire to bring this perspective to light more effectively than a child psychologist giving a lecture could probably ever do.

The article also, by focusing humorously on children rather than seriously on adults, lowers people’s defenses enough to make them aware that sociopathy and the Hare Psychopathy Checklist really do exist.

At the same time, there may be a small percentage of children who are psychopaths or sociopaths. This is a very controversial and deeply important topic and debate rages over whether such children really do exist and whether we should be screening children for such conditions. This is discussed at some length in this post from a couple months ago and in books like Savage Spawn: Reflections on Violent Children. The Onion article may provoke people to think about child psychopathy and its implications.

The relevance of this particular Onion article was brought home to me recently when I came across a piece by blogger Lyz Lenz entitled “Toddlers Are the Real Psychos,” in which she wonders whether her two-year-old daughter might be a psychopath. She even answered the questions on the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, Hare Psychopathy Checklist and Lynam’s Childhood Psychopathy Scale using her daughter’s traits and behaviors as a guide, almost exactly as was facetiously done in the Onion article with the PCL. I later showed Lenz the Onion article, which she had not seen before.

Well, yesterday, The Onion did it yet again. And, this time, they’ve returned to the political aspect of ponerology. Picking up where they left off when considering sociopathy in the presidential debates, they now consider its presence in the legislative branch.

The video is called “Authorities On Alert As Hundreds Of Crazed Sociopaths Enter Congressional Chambers.” As you might guess, the “crazed sociopaths” in question are the Members of Congress themselves, who are also described as “manipulative,” “extremely dangerous,” and “lunatics, many of whom are believed to suffer from severe personality disorders.”

I hope the folks at The Onion have indeed come to such an understanding. I eagerly want to see more public education about these topics occur. And the ingenious people at that satirical newspaper are great ones to have contributing to that cause.

The interview is of the famed and beloved late iconoclastic author and social critic Kurt Vonnegut, who skewered many aspects of our society in classics like Slaughterhouse-Five and somewhat lesser known, but also brilliant, works like Player Piano. It was originally published in the January 27, 2003 issue of In These Times, amidst an atmosphere rife with apprehension about the imminent United States invasion of Iraq.

I was quite struck by these lines of Vonnegut’s from the interview:

“…those now in charge of the federal government are upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography, plus not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka ‘Christians,’ and plus, most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities, or ‘PPs.’

To say somebody is a PP is to make a perfectly respectable medical diagnosis, like saying he or she has appendicitis or athlete’s foot. The classic medical text on PPs is The Mask of Sanity by Dr. Hervey Cleckley. Read it! PPs are presentable, they know full well the suffering their actions may cause others, but they do not care. They cannot care because they are nuts. They have a screw loose!

And what syndrome better describes so many executives at Enron and WorldCom and on and on, who have enriched themselves while ruining their employees and investors and country, and who still feel as pure as the driven snow, no matter what anybody may say to or about them? And so many of these heartless PPs now hold big jobs in our federal government, as though they were leaders instead of sick.

What has allowed so many PPs to rise so high in corporations, and now in government, is that they are so decisive. Unlike normal people, they are never filled with doubts, for the simple reason that they cannot care what happens next. Simply can’t.”

Consider all of the things Vonnegut got across there in less than four full paragraphs. He explained, to some extent:

• That psychopathy is a real condition about which we have a meaningful scientific understanding
• What psychopaths are like, including their fundamental inability to experience conscience or compassion
• That enormous suffering arises when those with psychopathic personalities infiltrate governments
• That enormous suffering also arises when those with psychopathic personalities infiltrate powerful corporate positions
• That psychopaths – like a microcosm of our infinite-growth-based, unsustainable culture as a whole – have a particular tendency to recklessly go to extremes with little concern for the costs, especially to others
• That psychopaths, engaging in just such reckless risk-taking, may have been involved in the disastrous downfalls of Enron, WorldCom and other corrupt corporations
• That psychopaths who do attain powerful positions are rarely recognized as pathological, but rather admired as leaders
• That the extraordinary (and often misguided) level of certainty that psychopaths bring to their actions is central to their ability to climb modern hierarchies

There it is. In less than four paragraphs, over ten years ago, Vonnegut laid out much of the framework for what I only began to seriously suspect almost ten years later when I finally focused on and ended up writing about it at great length in pages about psychopathy and ponerology.

Vonnegut even emphatically recommends a specific book, The Mask of Sanity by Hervey Cleckley. I ended up discovering this book a couple years ago and now recommend it in many of my writings, as well as in the resources section of this site.

Whenever I come across work by social critics like Vonnegut, I always wonder if they have considered the ponerologic factors that may underlie the dysfunctional symptoms on which they focus. This interview makes clear that, at least toward the end of his life, even though he may not have known about the actual word or field of ponerology, Vonnegut had done just that.

Whatever your view of Vonnegut’s particular politics, it’s hard to deny that he was a singular character with a deep insight into some of the innermost workings of our social systems and a passionate concern for the welfare of humanity. And it’s quite interesting to know that his life experience had brought him to such a level of consciousness about the role psychopathy might play in our culture’s unhealthy and unsustainable state. I believe that if he were alive today and made aware of it, he would be an outspoken advocate for more solidly establishing and promoting the discipline of ponerology.

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.

In our recent piece about Dr. James Fallon, we discussed the three ingredients that Fallon believes are required for the creation of a psychopathic killer.

These included:

• Certain structural and functional characteristics of the brain
• Certain variants of particular genes
• An environment that triggers the expression of these biological predispositions

While psychopathic killers can cause great harm to a certain number of people, they are relatively rare. The greater danger, from the perspective of society at large, is the emergence of “evil” on a broader scale within systems. And, as Andrew M. Lobaczewski makes clear in Political Ponerology, for that to happen, not only must people with disorders other than psychopathy be drawn into harmful activities, but so must some percentage of biologically healthy, normal people.

Zimbardo’s work has primarily focused on investigating how this latter event occurs – how everyday, average people can end up participating in destructive events.

Zimbardo has been a psychology professor at Stanford University for over forty years. He is best known for leading the team that conducted what has come to be known as the Stanford prison experiment back in 1971.

The study was actually funded by the U.S. Office of Naval Research because they wanted to understand more precisely why military guards and prisoners come into conflict.

In the study, part of the basement of the Stanford psychology building was set up to resemble a dungeon. 75 participants were considered and, out of these, 24 male college students who were assessed as the most psychologically stable and healthy of the bunch were chosen. They were then randomly assigned to one of two roles – prisoner or guard.

Once divided into these roles, the participants were treated very much as their assigned role would normally entail.

• “Prisoners” were suddenly arrested by actual city police at an unexpected time, taken to the mock prison, fingerprinted, photographed, searched and dressed in uniforms, just as might take place in a real prison.
• “Guards” were dressed in professional uniforms, complete with batons, and instructed to do what it takes to maintain order.

Then the drama was allowed to unfold.

Zimbardo’s original hypothesis was that the conflicts in the scenario would arise due to the inherent personalities of the “guards” and the “prisoners.”

But instead, the study showed that these relatively healthy, normal participants quickly and deeply internalized their assigned roles within a system that justified and supported them in doing so.

• “Guards” began to treat prisoners poorly, with a third of them acting in genuinely sadistic ways.
• “Prisoners” became subdued and submissive, even turning against fellow prisoners who resisted the guards’ abuse.

Even Zimbardo himself was surprised by how extreme some of the situations became.

At its inception, the study was expected to last for two weeks. But some participants were so upset that they quit early and, after only six days, the entire experiment had to be shut down because of the excessive emotional trauma being manifested.

Decades later, during the Iraq War, when the abuse of prisoners by American personnel at Abu Ghraib prison came to light, many recognized the relevance of Zimbardo’s research to the case. So did Zimbardo himself. In fact, so much so that he became an expert witness for the defense of one of the accused Americans, Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick. In that role, he attempted to show that Frederick and some of the other perpetrators were not inherently evil people, but that, just as in the Stanford prison experiment, the systemic and situational forces involved played a significant role in generating the horrific activities that took place.

Zimbardo discusses the lessons of the Stanford prison experiment and his experience with the Abu Ghraib trials in his book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. The book uses the story of Lucifer, God’s favorite angel who fell and was transformed into Satan, as an allegory about how good people can, in certain situations or if intoxicated with power, become corrupted.

Zimbardo’s work is somewhat controversial. Some have criticized his methodology, while others have conducted similar studies using different methodologies and come to different conclusions. But Zimbardo himself is a strong advocate for the need to take into account systemic and situational factors when analyzing why harmful activities occur.

Now, the reason that all of this came up at this time is that, as mentioned earlier, Zimbardo was just featured by The Huffington Post.

The page, posted last Friday, features his 2008 TED talk entitled “The psychology of evil”, seen below:

The talk’s relevance to ponerology is immediately evident, as it begins with Zimbardo telling the audience:

“Philosophers, dramatists, theologians have grappled with this question for centuries: what makes people go wrong?”

while standing in front of an image of an ominous looking face superimposed with the words “Evil: What Makes People Go Wrong?”

In the talk, he discusses:

• How his early life experiences taught him that the line between a “good” and an “evil” person is not as fixed as some would like to believe
• His view that the world will always be filled with a yin/yang mixture of good and evil
• The paradox of the fact that, mythologically, God created Hell as a place to store evil, including His once favorite angel, Lucifer
• His definition of “evil”
• His experience working as an expert witness for the defense of Abu Ghraib perpetrator Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick
• The individual (dispositional) vs. situational vs. systemic factors involved in the abuses of Abu Ghraib
• The famous Milgram experiment, in which a surprisingly large percentage of participants were – if told to do so by a supposed authority figure as part of an ostensible “learning experiment” – willing to administer shocks to another person, even up to a dangerous degree of voltage. This experiment is often paired with the Stanford prison study as a famous example of the power of situational factors in the generation of harmful behavior.
• The relevance of the Milgram experiment to the Jonestown tragedy, in which hundreds committed suicide or were murdered as a consequence of their obedience to the People’s Temple founder and cult leader Jim Jones
• His Stanford prison study
• How anonymity changes behavior amongst warriors
• “7 social processes that grease the slippery slope of evil”
• Why harmful behavior must be studied using a public health model that assesses systemic and situational aspects rather than just focusing on individuals
• How we can promote heroism, especially by recognizing everyday heroes

The video is accompanied by a blog post written by Zimbardo entitled “Journeying From Evil to Heroism,” in which he covers much of the same material, but also tells the story of the TED talk itself, which was, apparently quite dramatic. Zimbardo says he ran over the strict time limit just as he was about to launch into the uplifting conclusion of his speech. Only after a special exception was made for him, because of the moderator’s belief in the importance of his message, was he able to complete his talk, explaining why it is so important that we not only study evil, but also focus on the other side of the coin, heroism, so as to better understand and promote it.

The enthusiastic response to this conclusion of his TED talk helped inspire and support Zimbardo in scaling up his current endeavor, the Heroic Imagination Project. This is a non-profit organization, of which he is president, “dedicated to promoting heroism in everyday life.” They also conduct investigations into how reformed people, who were previously involved in violent activities, were motivated and able to change.

Few people have made more of a name for themselves when it comes to the study of “good” and “evil” than Dr. Philip Zimbardo. And even at almost 80 years old, he is still continuing to do so. His work does not focus as much on the very important biological aspects of ponerology. But when it comes to thinking about the non-biological influences relevant to the field, Zimbardo has given us a lifetime of work to consider.

Apparently someone agrees.

Months ago, I was reading an article on CNN.com called “Grants Help Abused Women Start Over” by Danielle Berger. The article tells the story of Johanna Crawford, who runs a nonprofit called Web of Benefit that provides “Self-Sufficiency Grants” averaging $500 to female domestic violence survivors in Boston and Chicago to help them with the bare necessities of re-starting their lives. The “web” in the name emerges from a novel part of the program whereby, as part of the terms of their grant, recipients must “pay it forward” by performing three good works to help other survivors like themselves.

What caught my attention was a discussion that broke out in the comments section. It centered around whether the signs of abusive relationships should be taught in schools. And in the midst of this, one comment in particular jumped out at me so strongly that I immediately took a screenshot:

It says:

All high-schoolers should complete a course in Cluster B personality disorders and how to recognize common traits of “would be” abusers.

Everyone can sit here and make snide remarks.  The REALITY is that abusers come from ALL income and education levels, as do the VICTIMS.

Although, as pointed out in a previous post, ponerology must account for a range of conditions in addition to the Cluster B personality disorders – including psychopathy and various psychotic conditions, as well as for the hijacking of normal people by the pathological – I found the comment insightful.

Should kids be taught about these issues in school? Some will say no because they oppose the school system entirely, but that is a separate debate. As long as kids are in school, I think that they should learn about these subjects. Kids take health classes in school and learn about everything from nutrition to safe sex, as their ages merit. Understanding the signs of pathological conditions associated with manipulation, violence or abuse is clearly important in maintaining one’s health, certainly mentally and emotionally and, at times, physically, as well. And, unfortunately, kids in our culture are guaranteed to run across people with these conditions and institutions influenced by them regularly (or more likely already have.)

Of course, teaching kids about topics like mental illness, manipulation, violence and abuse will be quite a bit more controversial than teaching them about nutrition. There are people, sometimes very close at hand at school or at home, who might feel threatened by such revelations. But that should not stop us from making the effort to provide kids with the information they need to optimally protect themselves.

The whole discussion also brought to mind a program I heard about a while back that sounded fantastic. It’s called radKIDS and provides “Personal Empowerment Safety Education,” teaching children about realistic, practical ways to stay safe, resist abduction and abuse and even recognize tricks that strangers may use to try to manipulate them. This program might be as close as I’ve seen to a pragmatic, age-appropriate course preparing children for encounters with at least some manifestations of “evil.”

So should kids be taught about ponerology in their educational curricula? What do you think? Let us know in the comments section below.