So I looked into it.

It turned out that, on that day, Cooper had done a segment with James Fallon, the neuroscientist who, in the process of studying the genetics and brains of psychopathic killers, discovered that he himself, despite being a successful non-violent researcher, had many of the genetic and brain markers associated with psychopathy.

I wrote a very detailed post about Fallon and his fascinating story last year called “Neuroscientist James Fallon’s Work & Life Shed Light on How Psychopathic Killers are Made…and Perhaps Prevented.” So I won’t cover that in any more detail here.

But Fallon has recently released a book about his story called The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist’s Personal Journey into the Dark Side of the Brain. And, in the wake of the book’s release, he has been showing up more frequently in the media, sharing his insights about psychopathy, its impact in the world, and what his story tells us about the possibility of reducing the number of psychopaths that develop, which is wonderful.

The interview with Anderson Cooper is below and, even though this clip is only five minutes long, it could be five of the most important minutes I’ve ever seen on television.

Early in the interview, Fallon:

• Shares a bit about his story
• Talks about the psychopathic traits that can be recognized by looking at brain scans
• Explains the difference between the “cognitive empathy” that he and psychopaths have and “emotional empathy,” which they tend to lack

The upshot of Fallon’s story is that, despite having the genetic and biological markers for psychopathic traits, he did not become a full blown psychopath. In fact, he became a very productive, contributing member of society. He believes the reason is that he had a very loving upbringing, which counteracted his destructive biological predispositions. And he believes that such an upbringing can have the same beneficial impact on others with similar biological predispositions.

As Fallon tells Cooper:

“I thought everything was driven by genetics, biology. And I didn’t think nurture had anything to do with it. Once I realized, because of the genes I have, that if you’re brought up in a very nurturing environment, you can offset the biology.”

I agree that Fallon’s case offers us hope that, at least in a subset of cases, people with biological propensities for psychopathic traits can be prevented from becoming full-blown psychopaths. However, I still think a lot more research is needed to determine how generalizable his case is. Is Fallon representative of all or most people with these markers or is he in some way a rare or special case?

Contrast Fallon’s statement that a caring upbringing can offset biological predispositions for psychopathic traits with this quote from Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed, and My Sister Stole My Mother’s Boyfriend by Barbara Oakley:

“Oddly enough, one study has shown that murderers who have a normal family upbringing have even lower function in their right orbitofrontal cortical areas than murderers who were abused during childhood. Perhaps murderers without a psychosocial ‘push’ toward violence require a greater neurobiological ‘push.’ In other words, children with less severe neurological problems may be helped by having a normal upbringing – but children with more severe neurological difficulties may not be.”

The study Oakley cites for this claim in the book’s footnotes is:

Adrian Raine et al., “Reduced Prefrontal and Increased Subcortical Brain Functioning Assessed Using Positron Emission Tomography in Predatory and Affective Murderers,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 16 (1998): 319-32.

I would like to see work to determine how Fallon’s claims and those of Raine’s study, which Oakley cites, can be reconciled.

The entire five minute clip of Cooper’s interview with Fallon is important. But, its last two minutes, from 3:13 on, take that to an even higher level, consisting of about as significant an exchange as I’ve ever seen aired.

Anderson Cooper basically admits to being convinced of the central point that many advocates of ponerology, from Andrew Lobaczewski on, have been trying to bring to public attention for decades now – that the influence of psychopathy and psychopathic traits in our world, including in circles of power – and specifically in the very highest circles of political power – is much greater than most people recognize.

Cooper says:

“I find this whole topic of psychopaths really interesting because I’m convinced there’s a lot more people out there who are psychopaths than we realize and particularly successful people, accomplished people, people on TV, people in the political sphere. I’m convinced there are tons of psychopaths.”

Fallon responds:

“If you look at, there was just a study done, a scientific study of all our presidents. And all the biographers answered all these questions about them and it was on a scale of psychopathy. And on the scale of psychopathy, in sort of the one part of psychopathy, not the criminality part but the other part which is a big part of psychopathy, the ones who scored very high were Theodore Roosevelt, JFK, FDR, Bill Clinton very high. The ones who had no psychopathy at all in this were people like Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford.

And when you look at the association of those psychopathic traits with leadership, it’s like we want these people, right, because they do things that are…they take chances, they lie at the right time. You know, FDR was lying all the time but he saved us so it was OK. So if you look at people that we choose to be leaders I think a lot of them have these traits and they’re part of leadership skills.”

Cooper then adds:

“I also think what it takes to propel somebody into the public sphere or propel somebody to success, I mean, it’s not, they are not normal impulses, I think and I think a lot of them are psychopathic impulses.”

Fallon responds:

“If you have that grand vision, cause psychopaths will have a grand vision – not all of them, some are just lousy rats – but people have that grandiose, narcissistic need and they’ve got something to prove and they’ve got something they say I’m gonna save the world. That’s part of it. Doesn’t make you psychopathic but it’s one of the traits that fits into this puzzle of psychopathy.”

Anderson Cooper is one high-profile journalist that seems to have realized the tremendous importance of ponerologic topics. Not long ago, he did a segment about Ariel Castro, the man who abducted three girls and held them captive for nearly ten years, in which the topic of psychopathy was front and center. Kudos to Cooper for recognizing how crucial it is that we educate the public on this subject and for courageously covering it on his show.

And the huge traffic surge that I saw as people looked for information in the wake of his interview with James Fallon?

That shows how much interest there is among the public about this topic. And it’s very heartening to see that interest increasingly being met not just by sensationalized fiction or news focused on titillating crimes, but by objective science disseminated by competent researchers and clinicians.

As for the psychopath test:

Well, after the interview with Fallon, not shown in the clip in this post, Cooper said:

“As I said, I find this just amazing. If you’re curious about where you fall on that scale of psychopathy, you can actually take a test to find out. We’ve posted it on our web site AC360.com. It just takes a couple of minutes. I’ve taken it. Pretty much everyone on our staff has taken it and let’s say the results are very, very interesting.”

The link he references on the AC360 blog is here.

And, from that page, it links to the quizzes page associated with Channel 4’s episode “Psychopath Night”, which features tests devised by Kevin Dutton, author of The Wisdom of Psychopaths.

• 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:

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.

Little did I know that, in the course of researching for that post, I would come across an episode of Explorer seemingly even more precisely relevant to ponerology than that. But that is just what happened.

Ponerology is defined as “the science of evil.” And, to my surprise, I came across a 2008 episode of Explorer actually entitled “Science of Evil.”

Just as in “Born to Rage,” the main framework for this episode’s exploration is established by the narrator early on. This time the guiding quote is this:

“Evil. It is blamed for cruelty beyond our mind’s comprehension. Is it a dark force outside of us that we are all vulnerable to, that we must work to resist? Is it inside of us, a stain on the soul, a dysfunction of the brain? Or just a word used to distance ourselves from inherently human behavior?”

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

“Science of Evil” focuses on four stories:

• One of the “usual suspects” when discussing evil, Dr. Philip Zimbardo, gives a detailed chronology of the development of sadistic events in his famous Stanford prison experiment and discusses its relationship to the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, after which he was called as an expert defense witness in the court martial of one of the accused American officers.
• We get a look at notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer through the eyes of Reverend Roy Ratcliff, a minister who met with Dahmer at a maximum security prison in Wisconsin in 1994 to discuss the Bible and ultimately help fulfill Dahmer’s request to be baptized.
• Joshua Greene, an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Harvard, speaks about what defines evil and – along with colleague Jonathan Cohen of Princeton’s Center for the Study of Brain, Mind and Behavior – introduces us to their fMRI research, imaging people’s brains during moral decision-making to determine the sometimes conflicting neurological processes involved in our sense of right and wrong.
• We follow Aya Schneerson of the United Nations’ World Food Program as she reveals through her work some of the atrocities she has witnessed in the course of distributing food in war-torn Eastern Congo that she considers evil.

As these stories play out, we are led to consider how situational and neurological factors can both play roles in the development of behavior often deemed evil and the implications of what we may discover as we continue teasing apart their relative contributions to the harm and suffering in our world.

National Geographic Explorer’s “Science of Evil” provides a rather cursory overview of some of the questions involved in ponerology. It doesn’t do nearly as much to provide answers to those questions as some of the other resources featured on this site do. But it may, nonetheless, inspire curiosity in a newcomer to these issues.

I write frequently about the fact that, despite the increased level of attention to it that we document here, this topic, the science regarding malicious and neglectful activity – a.k.a. the “science of evil” – is vastly under-discussed and under-promoted in our society. The fact that even I, having researched and written about this topic for years, was unaware until now that this episode of Explorer even existed offers just one more illustration of that. But hopefully, sharing it here will enable it to reach a few more people who will share it with those they know and so on.

I recently learned about an episode of Explorer dedicated to the topic of “the Warrior Gene.”

The episode is entitled “Born to Rage.”

It opens with a question that lies right at the heart of ponerology:

“Are some people born to be violent?”

In its very next lines it answers the question:

“An extraordinary discovery suggests they are. A single gene has been directly associated with violent behavior.”

Our guide through the episode is Henry Rollins, a leading figure in the American punk music scene as lead singer of the bands Black Flag and Rollins Band, now a well-known and accomplished spoken word artist.

Early in the episode, Rollins describes his painful experiences growing up in his family and at school, the violence that was part of his life in punk music and his long struggle with feelings of anger and questions about the reasons behind them.

“Born to Rage” then introduces us to Dutch geneticist Hans Brunner’s groundbreaking discovery of the association between a certain variant of the Monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA) gene – now also known as “the Warrior Gene” – and aggression and violence. We learn the mechanism by which a shortened MAOA gene with reduced activity can predispose men to violence and that a surprisingly high proportion of men have this form of the gene.

The bulk of the documentary involves Rollins meeting with people of various backgrounds with different relationships to violence who are then, along with Rollins himself, tested through a company called Family Tree DNA for the presence of the shortened form of the MAOA gene .

Those whose stories are discussed and who are then tested include:

• The Verdugo twins, a pair of twin brothers previously active since childhood and notorious for their involvement in one of the most violent street gangs in Los Angeles
• A group of men who participate in the highly violent sport of mixed martial arts
• A group of Harley-Davidson bikers
• An ex-Navy SEAL turned ambitious entrepreneur

For some contrast, Rollins also interviews and tests are administered to a group of men who, despite experiences of adversity, bullying and violence in their earlier lives, have come to lead relatively peaceful existences as Buddhist monks.

In the course of the program we learn about:

• The eternal debate over the influence of nature vs. nurture in the development of harmful behavior
• How recent research has brought to light a more significant role than previously understood for “nature” in this interplay
• How those who do carry “the Warrior Gene” can end up taking very different paths in life
• Kevin Beaver’s research on the link between “the Warrior Gene” and involvement in and violence as part of gangs
• The link between “the Warrior Gene” and other behaviors such as financial risk taking
• How this topic evokes controversies regarding genetic screening and even eugenics
• How “the Warrior Gene” influenced the verdict in a murder case with the potential for a death penalty sentence

So check out “Born to Rage” (the video is embedded above) to learn about this fascinating gene and find out which of the people featured in the episode tested positive for it and which did not.

And, if you find yourself intrigued, wondering whether you or someone you know might have “the Warrior Gene,” you and/or they can get tested for it through Family Tree DNA, the same company that provided the testing in this episode of Explorer.

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.

• The philosophical approach – Considering evil abstractly, rather than in its real-world implications
• The artistic approach – Considering evil through literature, painting, poetry and so on
• The theological approach – Considering evil as potentially emanating from the supernatural realm

This last approach, the theological one, is extremely commonly employed in our present world. It may actually remain the most common approach to evil. And it was on display last week during a segment of The O’Reilly Factor.

Recently, the television miniseries “The Bible” portrayed the character of Satan as bearing a remarkable physical resemblance to President Barack Obama. Some found this offensive and, in the wake of the minor outrage, Bill O’Reilly used his March 21, 2013 episode’s “Factor Follow Up” segment to explore the question “Does Satan Exist?”

O’Reilly introduced the segment by saying:

“We wanted to update the status of Lucifer the Prince of Darkness. What is the current wisdom regarding him?”

To help answer the question, he interviewed two theologically-based guests:

• Rabbi Aryeh Spero, author of Push Back: Reclaiming the American Judeo-Christian Spirit
• Dr. Christopher Ruddy, Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at The Catholic University of America

Ruddy believes there is an active God and an active Devil and that both actually influence human behavior toward “good” and “evil.”

The Rabbi believes that, at the time of creation, God allowed for the existence of an evil force in the world and within people, even if he does not believe in an actual being such as the Devil.

I was surprised that O’Reilly actually took objective enough an approach to question the Rabbi on what he meant by the word “force.” I took this as a small indicator that Bill really does want to understand the roots of evil, rather than simply resign himself to accepting clichés.

O’Reilly then asked the Rabbi how he explains those that, given free will, choose to do evil and what happens to them after they die.

The Rabbi claims that people choose evil because they are lazy or have ambitions or lusts and fail to bow to authorities.

O’Reilly says:

“But it’s always a free decision unless you’re mentally ill and incapacitated.”

This point is really glossed over, even though, in my view, a major discussion is called for on what O’Reilly means by “mentally ill.” Does “mentally ill” only refer to those, such as psychotics, who are out of touch with reality and, therefore, make their choices on the basis of delusions and hallucinations? Or does it also refer to those, such as psychopaths, who are fully in touch with reality and simply biologically lack conscience to guide their decisions in compassionate directions?

Now, one of the things I like about O’Reilly is that he is very aware of and concerned with the problem of evil. He frequently talks on his show about the implications of the fact that there are in our world truly malicious and destructive people. And he seems genuinely curious about what underlies their behavior.

He displays this interest once again toward the end of this particular interview when he says:

“I wonder why so many people succumb to evil, though, because I believe that they know it…When you do something bad there is something inside you, whether you’re born with it or not, that says, you know, this isn’t right. You know the — the people who are slaughtering other people and maiming other people and betraying other people and stealing and all, they know what they’re doing is wrong. Yet they choose to do it anyway.”

The Rabbi replies that the reason is that they succumb to immediate gratification.

O’Reilly asks him “But don’t they think there’s going to be a payday down the road for that?”

The Rabbi says “They should. If they had the right type of religion and teaching they would understand that ultimately we’re going to be accountable.”

I find this exchange symbolic of just why it is so important that ponerology become more established and promoted. Here, O’Reilly has asked some extremely important questions that lie at the very heart of any attempt to truly understand our world and how to improve it. But, because he is asking a Rabbi, rather than a scientist who specializes in studying the objective realities of this subject matter, he receives a response that is, as I like to say, quite “fluffy.” It really leaves us with no deeper understanding of the answer to O’Reilly’s question or how to address the problem (and in fact conflicts with what some actual research says on the matter.) And that is a shame because even at this moment there are people who do know more about the actual answer to his question than these guests.

It would be similar to asking a Rabbi, rather than a physician or microbiologist, about the cause of infections. It may be interesting to hear the Rabbi’s opinion, but if you really want to know where infections come from and how to best prevent or resolve them, you probably want to talk to the men and women of science.

O’Reilly then says that he believes more people are choosing to do evil today than ever before in the history of the planet. When Ruddy disagrees, O’Reilly responds by re-asserting his view. This is another example of how strongly O’Reilly feels about this topic and its relevance to our modern age.

With the most popular cable news/opinion program in America for many years running, Bill O’Reilly has quite a prominent platform from which to help educate a very large audience about the dynamics of evil – one of the most crucial topics there is.

I don’t begrudge him featuring on his show, at times, the theological viewpoint on evil. It is one viewpoint and there is nothing wrong with it being heard.

But the scientific viewpoint on evil, I believe, has much more profound insight and actionable information to offer on this subject. This is why I feel so strongly about promoting ponerology – the science of evil.

So I’d love to see O’Reilly and other media personalities with a genuine interest in this subject spend more time featuring the many scientists – such as some that we’ve featured on this website – whose work in fields ranging from neurobiology to criminology to genetics sheds light on the sources of harmful behavior. Luckily, this is increasingly happening. Not only have we highlighted on this site cases where the media has covered ponerologic stories – whether through online news, television news or television shows – but it was observing this uptick in such media coverage that inspired its creation in the first place.

If you look at O’Reilly’s expression at the beginning of the “Does Satan Exist?” segment, when he announces the show’s desire to “update the status of Lucifer the Prince of Darkness,” you can make out a bit of a grin. Perhaps this indicates that he himself realizes what a “fluffy” topic this is to feature on his show. I’d like to think this is the case and that deep down, he too realizes that, while a Rabbi and an academic theologian may make for a somewhat interesting discussion on good and evil, if he really wants answers to the questions about harm and suffering that perplex him and millions of others, he’d be better off interviewing folks like James Fallon, Philip Zimbardo, Adrian Raine, Robert Hare and any of the others who have devoted their professional lives to bringing us objectively closer to those answers.

Most who work in the fields that study aspects of this question take the view that the answer involves some combination of the two.

But this still leaves us with another question. In what proportion do each of these factors contribute in which people?

One remarkable case offers some fascinating insight on the subject.

Dr. James Fallon

James Fallon, Ph.D. is a highly decorated neuroscientist and Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Neurobiology at University of California, Irvine. Dr. Fallon has several areas of expertise. One is adult stem cells. Another is psychiatry. Specifically, he is interested in the relationships between brain imaging (he has served as Director of UC Irvine’s Human Brain Imaging Center), genetics and various psychiatric conditions, including schizophrenia, depression and addictions.

An Extraordinary Experiment

Aware of his specialties, for many years, Fallon’s colleagues have sent him brain images they wished to have him analyze.

At one point this interchange took the form of an experiment.

Colleagues sent him 70 MRI scans of brains belonging to people ranging from healthy to mentally ill. Included in the batch were scans of brains belonging to killers, including some notorious ones. But Fallon had no idea which scanned brain belonged to whom.

Nonetheless, he was able to identify differences in five of the scans so dramatic that he could recognize them as the markers of psychopathy. And it turned out that he was correct. The five scans on which he zeroed in actually were those from the brains of psychopathic serial killers.

Signs of the Psychopath’s Brain

How could Fallon distinguish the serial killers’ brain scans from the others? He says that all five had some tell-tale signs:

• A lack of activity in the orbital cortex, the brain area just above the eyes, which he says is in the circuit coding for ethics, conscience and impulse control
• A lack of activity in the anterior part of the temporal cortex, where we find the amygdala, a structure deeply involved in processing emotion
• Underfunctioning in the narrow strip of limbic cortices that connect the orbital cortex with the amygdala, namely:
  • The cingulate cortex, which codes for social cues
  • The hippocampal area, which, along with the amygdala, codes for emotional memories
  • The insula, which processes empathy and “gut feelings”

This makes sense. These areas are considered part of the limbic system, the brain complex primarily responsible for our emotional lives. When these areas are underactive or inactive, a person might feel driven – like many killers – to compensate by repeatedly pursuing extreme activities simply to feel satisfied and alive.

Violence-Related Genes

In addition to his study of killers’ brains, Fallon has also studied the genetics of aggression and violence.

Psychological traits are affected by multiple genes. And Fallon says that perhaps a dozen have been identified as high-risk, violence-related genes. These include genes affecting dopamine and norepinephrine neurotransmission and androgen (testosterone) receptors.

The most well-known of these violence-related genes is a particular version of the Monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA) gene. Because it was the first such gene discovered, it was labeled, and has become popularly known as, “the Warrior Gene,” although Fallon stresses that this nickname can be misleading since all of the various genes associated with violence and aggression could be considered, in a sense, warrior genes.

Most humans have an MAOA gene and it helps regulate serotonin, a neurotransmitter that Fallon says helps relax and calm us. But those with the “Warrior Gene” form of it receive too much serotonin during development in utero, which desensitizes the brain to its effects. That means that later in life, when serotonin would otherwise inhibit behavior, it is unable to do so, resulting in impulsivity and violence.

The MAOA gene is on the X chromosome. This has important implications for how its effects express themselves in males vs. females. Girls get an X chromosome from both their mother and father, so even if one parent passes along the “Warrior Gene” variant, they are likely to get a normally functional MAOA variant from the other parent that offsets its potentially dangerous consequences. But boys get only one X chromosome – the one passed down from their mother. If that X chromosome has the “Warrior” version of the MAOA gene, that will be the only version of it that the boy receives.

This means that violence related to the MAOA “Warrior Gene” is usually passed genetically from mother to son. Fallon believes it also explains why boys and men are much more likely to be very aggressive or psychopathic killers.

Moreover, Fallon says that the reduced empathy seen in psychopathy may be associated with the influence of low acting genes related to the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin.

Can Biology Alone Create a Psychopath?

So, putting this together, Fallon recognized patterns in both the brains and genetics of psychopathic killers.

1. Loss of function in the orbital cortex, anterior temporal lobes and the strip of limbic cortices connecting the two
2. Having one or more of several high-risk, violence-related genes (like the so-called “Warrior Gene”)

But a crucial question remained. Are these biological markers alone enough to create a psychopath?

Fallon suspected not. But little did he know that he would receive some validation for this suspicion from so close to home.

A Shocking Fallon Family Pattern is Revealed

Based on his work, Fallon was giving many presentations about psychopathic killers. His mother said that, since he was doing this, he should probably know about the release of a new book called Killed Strangely: The Death of Rebecca Cornell.

The Cornells, you see, were direct ancestors of Fallon’s father. One of them, for instance, was Ezra Cornell, the founder of Cornell University. But Killed Strangely is about another, more sinister Cornell: Thomas Cornell, who killed his mother, Rebecca, and was hanged for it in 1673, the first case of matricide, Fallon says, recorded in the new American colonies.

Investigating further, Fallon discovered that the rabbit hole went even deeper. There were actually seven murders committed by those within his father’s family line. This line also included Lizzie Borden, his cousin, who was controversially acquitted of killing her father and stepmother with an axe in 1892.

Testing Enlightens the Fallons

After learning of his family’s bloody history, James Fallon decided to have brain imaging – PET scans and EEG’s – as well as genetic analyses carried out on himself and nine family members, including his parents, wife and children, to see if any had the markings of killers.

The results:

• All of the images of the family members’ brains were normal when analyzed for markers of potential violence…except for the images of one, Fallon’s own. His scan looked identical to those of the serial killers he had studied, with a malfunctioning limbic system lacking activity in the orbital cortex, anterior temporal lobes and areas connecting them.
• The entire family exhibited a typical mix of genes related to aggression, impulsivity and other relevant traits…except one member. Fallon himself not only had high-risk genes associated with violence, but he had far more of them than many psychopaths and killers. In fact, he says, he had almost all of them.

His family’s reaction to these results is quite interesting:

His son said that he always knew there was something “off” about his father and that, at times, he had feared him because he is a “hothead” with all the traits you’d expect in a serial killer. He said this makes more sense now that he knows that his father has the brain and genetics of a psychopath.

Fallon’s wife said the results were surprising, yet not surprising because he is, in a way, two people, with a funny, gregarious side mixed with a standoffish side.

James Fallon himself does admit to some macabre interests, a predilection for risk-taking and a superficial charm, which you might see in psychopaths and murderers. And he also admits he may sometimes be drawn to behavior that he knows is wrong but “still doesn’t care.”

The Third Ingredient

But, however imperfect, James Fallon is not violent or a killer. And this has enormous implications.

How is it that, despite having so many biological markers for violence, Fallon ended up a scholar rather than an aggressor or even a murderer?

Fallon has come to believe that, in addition to particular brain and genetic patterns, there is a third ingredient involved in the development of a violent psychopath. The environment, he explains, can help determine whether violence-related genes and certain brain processes, such as those involving mirror neurons, are triggered towards aggression. Specifically, he believes that abuse – especially severe early childhood sexual, physical or emotional abuse – is instrumental in this process. And he also believes that the precise timing of when various factors come into play is critically important in determining whether one becomes a psychopath and, if so, exactly what type of psychopathological behavior is exhibited.

As for why he himself is not a violent man, Dr. Fallon credits his upbringing in a highly nurturing environment, in which he was not only not abused, but was showered with wonderfully loving family support.

Some of Dr. James Fallon’s Appearances

Fallon has spoken on these topics in a number of forums, including:

• This television interview
• A TED talk entitled “Jim Fallon: Exploring the mind of a killer”Here, Fallon talks about his research and his story.

  He also gives a brief synopsis of a talk he did in Israel about his theory of transgenerational, sex-linked violence in perpetually conflicted world regions. His theory is that severe trauma before the onset of puberty triggers violent expression in those with violence-related genes such as, for example, the “Warrior” version of the MAOA gene. When this happens frequently in an area, the environment becomes increasingly threatening, so aggressive men, capable of physical protection and more likely to carry these genes, become more and more attractive to females. In consequence, violence-related genes become relatively highly concentrated in the population’s gene pool, sparking a vicious cycle.

  This theory is consistent with a similar, somewhat stunning, phenomenon that I discussed in my own writings on psychopathy.

• An episode of Reason TV called “Three Ingredients for Murder: Neuroscientist James Fallon on Psychopaths and Libertarians”Here, in addition to sharing his story, Fallon discusses the implications of work like his for our views of free will and responsibility, as well as for our legal system, especially in regards to psychopaths. He also discusses how our increasing ability to recognize each person’s unique makeup will challenge our capacity for creating standards in public policy and drive us toward individualized medicine. And he explains why he is a libertarian and how that may correlate with the function and/or lack of function in certain brain areas.

• A September 2011 episode of the BBC program Horizon entitled “Are You Good or Evil?”In these clips from the show, Fallon talks about his research on the brain scans of murderers, the tests carried out on him and his family and his discovery that his results showed the brain and genetic patterns seen in psychopathy.

  The first video also contains a quote that I found very powerful which serves to crystallize Fallon’s study of killers:

  It really indicated that there was a biological basis – a really hardcore brain basis – for this urge to kill.

  
  The second video includes the comments about his personality attributed earlier to his son and his wife.

• A segment called “Confessions of a Pro-Social Psychopath” produced by the World Science Festival in conjunction with The Moth, a non-profit that promotes storytelling.The title of this talk grabbed me because I had often wondered whether there could be “pro-social psychopaths,” but I had never heard the term used elsewhere. I also found this to be a nice overall telling of his story by Fallon.

Dr. Fallon also appeared on a November 18, 2009 episode of Criminal Minds, the CBS drama about FBI profilers. In the episode, which was based on his TED talk, he played himself giving a lecture about his theory of transgenerational violence in areas of conflict, which was mentioned earlier.

What Fallon May Tell Us About a Possible Future with Less Psychopaths and Killers

What are the implications of Fallon’s research and his story for society at large?

Well, there are some conditions for which we screen early in life. If we detect that a person has or is at risk for such a condition, we can then intervene in time to prevent or best manage it.

A good example is phenylketonuria (PKU). This is a genetic disorder in which an enzyme needed to properly metabolize a particular amino acid, phenylalanine, is rendered nonfunctional. As a result, a person with PKU who eats a normal diet can experience severe consequences including mental retardation.

Luckily, in most countries, newborns are screened for PKU. If it is detected, they can be put on a special diet in which phenylalanine is restricted and special supplements are provided. As a result, the person with PKU can live a normal, healthy life.

Fallon’s case raises the possibility that, as advocated by Adrian Raine, we may someday be able to screen children for a predisposition to psychopathy and, when they are identified as at-risk, intervene with special measures to prevent or best manage the development of violent or other dangerous propensities in at least some of them. Further research could be done to more specifically identify the types of measures that bring about the healthiest outcomes for such individuals and those around them. But it’s likely that these would include conscientious provision, throughout these youngsters’ upbringings, of the abundance of love and care for which Fallon credits his own nonviolent lifestyle.

In other words, we may someday see a future when all, or at least at-risk, families will be tested for the markers of violence just the way Fallon’s was so that those who do have the brains and genes we find in psychopaths can more often develop into, say, professors like James Fallon rather than killers like too many others – including some of those he has studied for a living and quite a few of his recent ancestors.

It reads “Kids Can Be Psychopathic, Too.”

The article focuses heavily on – and introduced me to – the work of Adrian Raine, a professor of criminology, psychiatry and psychology on the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania’s Jerry Lee Center of Criminology.

Raine is the author of the textbook The Psychopathology of Crime: Criminal Behavior as a Clinical Disorder. And, as described in the article, he holds two highly controversial and enormously challenging beliefs:

• He believes that we will soon be able to use medical tests to determine whether a child is predisposed to grow up to be a psychopath.
• And he also believes that, once we are able to do that, we should screen children for traits linked to psychopathy.

The Philly Mag article itself is well worth the read, as it offers a fascinating look at:

• A brief historical overview of criminology and the nature vs. nature debate
• Structural and functional differences in the brains of psychopaths as opposed to those of non-psychopaths
• How psychopaths are responsible for crime at levels vastly disproportionate to their numbers
• What separates successful from unsuccessful psychopaths
• Genes influencing brain structure that are associated with antisocial and aggressive behavior
• Raine’s research showing certain differences among young children, which he believes are innate and biologically-based, that help predict which ones will exhibit future aggression and criminality
• Why, when it comes to the “chicken or egg” question regarding biological differences and psychopathy, Raine falls on the “biology as cause” side of the debate
• Why many resist biological explanations of “bad” behavior
• Interventions that might help children predisposed to criminal behavior
• Responses from others to Raine’s suggestion that we screen children for psychopathy-linked traits

I highly recommend taking the time to check it out.

But I bring up that article here in order to preface a new and exciting development regarding Adrian Raine that has come to my attention.

One other phenomenon that Hingston’s piece touches on is the recent explosion of media – including films (such as We Need to Talk About Kevin) and television shows (such as Dexter) – dealing with the subject of psychopathy. The article credits Raine’s investigations into the brains of criminals – neurocriminology research – for providing the platform for this explosion. If attributing this credit to Raine is appropriate then it is only fitting that his work will now serve as the basis for a television show in an even more direct manner.

Raine has a new book schedule for release on April 30, 2013 entitled The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime.

According to TV Guide, the highly successful producers of the show Homeland, Howard Gordon and Alex Gansa, sold a show based on that book to CBS and will write and executive produce a pilot episode.

Deadline.com reports that a third Homeland producer, Alex Cary, has also joined the team.

Another Deadline.com article reports that the pilot will be directed by Mark Pellington (perhaps best known for his work on the powerful video for the Pearl Jam song “Jeremy”) and that David Harewood, who appears in the cast of Homeland (and whose brief but theatrical appearance as the Prince of Morocco in Michael Radford’s film version of The Merchant of Venice I found memorably amusing), is the first actor cast for it. It describes the show as featuring “Raines, a criminal psychologist with an expertise in sociopaths”

It should be very interesting to see how the pilot is received and if the show can go on to further promote Adrian Raine’s deeply important work and provide even more public awareness and education regarding research into the biological roots of aggression and harm and other ponerologic themes.