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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is your definition of evil?

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

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

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

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

Are psychopaths actually evil?

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

Have you worked with psychopaths?

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

What methods are available that reliably diagnose psychopathy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

This happened recently.

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

Green Criminology?

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

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

There are those who believe that:

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

There are some who:

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

Others believe that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It said the film is about corporate corruption and the role that psychopathy may have played in it.

The title, supposedly, refers to a Chinese saying that a “fish stinks from the head,” implying that this movie might be an exploration of how the dysfunction of our hierarchical society originates from those at the top of the pyramid.

Well, of course, I was very intrigued as I have not only dedicated a great deal of time and energy to learning about this topic, but specifically to advocating for more – and more forms of – education of the public about it.

My interest grew even stronger since I related to the background of co-director/co-producer of the film, Misha Votruba, a former psychiatrist who moved on from that career to more creative endeavors, eventually circling back to focus on a psychiatric topic – psychopathy – from a more activist perspective as a filmmaker.

The other co-director/co-producer of I Am Fishead is Vaclav Dejcmar, an economist and businessman with a lot of experience in investing and the financial markets. This background makes him an ideal complement to Misha Votruba in making this film that includes a focus on the overlap of psychiatry and our economic systems.

I finally got around to watching the film and I have quite a bit to say about it. This piece is going to get quite into depth about the film so if you’d prefer to see it first before knowing too much about what happens, you might want to watch it (I’ve embedded it below) and then continue reading this afterwards. If you don’t plan to watch it or don’t mind going into it knowing a lot of what happens, then feel free to read on.

The titles of Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 in the sections immediately below are those from the actual film, but names given to other segments in this synopsis/review are my own.

Opening Sequence

I originally expected I Am Fishead to spend a good 45 minutes demonstrating various problems in our world and hinting at the sinister machinations hidden behind them before suddenly thrusting upon the viewer its ultimate conclusion – that psychopathic leaders are to blame.

But this is not that kind of movie.

Instead, I Am Fishead gets right to the point.

Our guide, prodigious actor and narrator Peter Coyote, starts by evoking for the viewer the visceral connection forged by psychopaths when you meet them but remain unaware of their true nature.

Then, within the first two minutes, he raises two extremely important issues at the heart of the matter – both of which are not often enough realistically discussed or recognized as possibly related.

1. He asks “What are psychopaths? Do you know any personally?”
2. He reminisces about the horrible pain and loss many experienced in the financial crisis of 2008.

He points out regarding the crisis:

“Did you make the mess? I didn’t. So who did? I think it makes sense to look for some explanation from the people who were in charge, at least for somebody to blame.”

So, considering those in positions of power, he asks quite directly, in a way that hits home and encapsulates what should be the focus of the film:

“What do we really know about people in power? We trust our lives to them. Their decisions affect millions. We know that some of them at least are not the nicest people on the planet. Could they be psychopaths?”

At moments during this opening sequence, the “I Am Fishead” logo quickly flashes in between images of despair and of people in power, a sort of visual tie linking everything together and to the underlying pathology in question.

All of this takes place within the first five minutes. So, as I said, this is not a movie that slowly leads up to the conclusion that those in power are psychopaths. It very openly confronts the viewer with that possibility before the movie’s formal “Part 1” even begins.

Part 1 – Psychopath

Part 1 of I Am Fishead does what I thought the whole film was going to do and does it well.

Corporate (and Other) Psychopaths

It starts with mention of Snakes in Suits and the coining of the term “corporate psychopath.”

People on the street are interviewed about what “psychopath” means, providing a nice representation of how large a segment of the public is aware of the term, but has only a vague idea of it as referring to someone “crazy” or a killer like in the movies or on the news.

Paul Babiak and Robert Hare, the authors of Snakes in Suits, explain what psychopaths really are and how they function and rise in the business world.

The differences between brain function during emotional processing in psychopaths vs. normals are not only discussed, but shown in brain images.

The Mask

We then explore how psychopaths fool us, a crucial skill that enables them to get away with the devious things they do and the damage they cause.

Matthew Logan, a psychologist and detective who has assessed over 160 psychopaths, talks about how charming and likeable they are.

Babiak explains how they wear a metaphorical mask that hides their dark side when we talk to them. The consequence of this, he says, is that when we go looking for the kind of overt darkness we expect to see from psychopaths based on their portrayal in the movies or in the headlines and don’t find it, we conclude that psychopaths don’t really exist or that we haven’t met one, even though we almost certainly have met one and were simply fooled by their mask.

Hare talks about our false assumptions that everyone reacts to the world as we do and how the psychopath mimics outer signs of emotion without actual feeling.

Hare illustrates the latter by describing a scene he created while consulting to Nicole Kidman, who was preparing to play a psychopath in Malice. She needed some way to get across to the audience that behind her character’s mask of a sweet woman was really something entirely darker. So Hare had her show the audience how, during a tragic event, she studied the agonized expressions of the victim’s mother, only to return home and practice them unfeelingly in the mirror.

Sociopaths

Coyote then says “OK. I get psychopath. What’s a sociopath?”

For this, Hare refers to Reservoir Dogs.

Duping Delight

Logan demonstrates how psychopaths react almost gleefully when presented with a challenge to get something they want from another person.

Prevalence, Influence and Difficulty of Detection

Hare and Babiak explain how prevalent, how disproportionately influential and how inescapable psychopaths are to us. We will all, at some time, be affected. We’re then shown a crowd and watch as a sort of “find the psychopath” simulation is run, causing us to wonder “which one is it?”

Hare admits that even he can’t identify the psychopath just by looking or sometimes even after months of talking to one.

The Psychopathic Bond

The way that psychopaths create the illusion of deep connection is crucial to their entire mode of operating.

Hare and Babiak explain how our tendencies to judge people on appearance and believe in people too much work against us when interacting with psychopaths.

Babiak:

“We tend to be very forgiving in our interpersonal relationships with people. We’re often open to their explanations and their rationalizations and we give forgiveness. We also, when building a relationship with people, believe that they are real. What a psychopath does is they weave a picture of a person that’s really a dream. It’s a spirit. It’s not real.”

Coyote follows up, discussing the “soulmate” feeling they evoke.

“And you feel like you’ve discovered a soulmate. A deep intimacy. And you’re experiencing one of those rare, fleeting moments that makes life worth living. And before you know it you’re involved in a deep personal bond with a psychopath.”

Babiak talks about how those around the victim looking in can’t understand this intense bond, especially since it is only an illusion, a form of psychological and emotional abuse, and the psychopath will soon simply stop playing the game and seek a new victim. We see a bug trying to escape a bottle, indicative of such a trap.

How Psychopaths Succeed

Babiak and Hare explain how corporate psychopaths, in contrast with the stereotypical serial killer image of a psychopath, can use education and the “corporate look and language” to fit in and impress people, ascend the ranks and attain a very comfortable lifestyle. They are able to do this more successfully than ever in the last few decades.

The Decision Making Behind the Financial Crisis

We are reminded that the financial crisis involved decisions by actual people and asked to consider who these people were.

We’re told that the psychopath’s decision process leads them to fearlessly take huge risks on a whim that others would not take.

The Pyramid

The extreme concentration of wealth and power at the top of our social hierarchy is demonstrated, with a Monopoly game metaphor to back it up.

Then Hare talks about Bernard Madoff, the ultimate pyramid scheme operator.

Studying Corporate Psychopaths

Hare then describes his study, the first empirical one using a well-validated measure, he says, investigating corporate psychopathy in high level management – VP’s, directors, supervisors – at Fortune 100 companies. He reveals findings of several individuals – more than would be expected based on rates in the general population – with very high scores on psychopathy measures, who, despite their dangerous traits and even poor performance were, nonetheless, viewed as commendable employees and being considered for promotion.

Being a Psychopath

Coyote explores what it’s like to be a psychopath, talking about how liberating it is since, with no inner restraints and nobody outside who can know what you’re thinking, you can get away with anything you want.

True Corporate High Performers vs. Mimics

Babiak then describes how psychopaths mimic high performers within organizations, so they access the trappings of success, and then go about manipulating and forcing out their rivals behind the scenes. Without a way to differentiate between the genuine performer and the devious mimic, these organizations both become saddled with dangerous people and lose the truly beneficial people.

The World Scale

Hare gets into the kind of material Andrew M. Lobaczewski focused on in Political Ponerology – the widespread suffering that has resulted from the influence of psychopaths in politics and government.

Conclusion of Part 1

Part 1 ends with Coyote saying:

“OK. So what you already subconsciously knew has been proven. That the world, to some degree or another, is run by psychopaths. So what do we do with that?”

At this point I thought the movie was going relatively well. It was a little scattered, but it had reinforced many of the most important facts about psychopathy and its influence so I was generally pleased. At the same time I was curious where they would take things next, since, after only the first part, Coyote’s closing lines not only said that we’ve already “proven” what I thought would be the ultimate conclusion of the film, but that the viewer really already knew it on some level.

What was coming next? I had some ideas and there were some great places it could have gone. But that’s not where it went.

Part 2 – Happy Pills

This is where I thought the movie went off the track somewhat in a number of ways.

1. Part 2 deals with the role of overmedication with psychiatric drugs. While this certainly is a topic worth investigating, and few people agree more that we have a problem with overmedication (or have made life decisions more central because of that belief), I found it out of proportion to devote the entire segment to it. The manipulation of emotions and suppression and repression of authentic feedback on the whole would be a worthy subject. But overmedication is just one part of that larger issue and more a symptom than a cause, at that. I didn’t expect this to be where they took the film next and, when they did, I was rather disappointed because it seems too narrow a focus.
2. I felt a big dropoff in the gravitas of most of the people featured in this part as opposed to the first part. After hearing from weighty, big name experts like Hare and Babiak in Part 1, I found the people featured in Part 2, other than the Philip Zimabardo, who is introduced here, disappointing. In fact, while I’ve heard at least one of the people besides Zimbardo in Part 2 has a high profile, I had never even heard of them.

   That wouldn’t be so bad in itself if not for the fact that the message they are brought in to communicate is not really one I’d have found most worthwhile. I don’t mean to impugn these people at all. They may do great work and I might agree with much of it. And if you are going to zero in on the subject of overmedication, they are certainly people who have put in the work to be worth hearing from on the topic. But I found their appearances a stark contrast to those in the first part.

   I think this dropoff in the gravitas of the interviewees may simply mirror the transition from Part 1’s focus on psychopathy, which draws the interest of people the caliber of Hare and Babiak because it is a truly root causal factor in our social systems’ dysfunction, to Part 2’s focus on overmedication, which genuinely systemic thinkers recognize is likely not a root causal factor.

Part 2 basically aims not so much to claim as to hint and speculate that possibly, just maybe, the influence of actual psychopaths and sociopaths is being reinforced by the overuse of psychiatric medications, which, kind of, sort of, might be turning non-pathological people into less extreme versions of psychopaths and sociopaths – as represented in an animation where figures are shown gobbling cartoon pills, causing one to suddenly transform into a devil, one of the film’s symbols of the psychopath.

It starts with Zimbardo telling a story of how a relative at his mother’s funeral was passing around valium to help people inappropriately drown out their grief. The story is a metaphor for what the filmmakers seem to believe is happening in society at large.

Much of Part 2 then consists of interviews with:

• Christopher Lane – Author of Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness
• Gary Greenberg – Author of Manufacturing Depression: The Secret History of a Modern Disease
• Charles Barber – Author of Comfortably Numb: How Psychiatry is Medicating a Nation

The three take turns telling us about:

• The prevalence of antidepressant use in the United states
• The history of using medication to manage moods
• Our past ignorance of side effects
• The impact of the legalization in the 1990’s of television marketing of drugs
• The assignment of previously normal challenges to diagnostic categories
• How it has become “cool” to be depressed and use antidepressants
• The absurdity of using drugs with potentially serious side effects to “treat” somewhat unpleasant moods

All of this leads up to the message that many of these psychiatric medications “attenuate emotional life” so that people in situations where they should feel something cannot access their deeper emotions, instead remaining numb and indifferent to the larger world around them and unable to deeply empathize.

The link is then made that it is just this kind of person who would stand back and watch as economic bubbles grow and then burst, saying and doing nothing to stop it. We are told that people in financial markets taking antidepressants would lack gut feedback on the consequences of their decisions while trading billions on transactions. At the same time, we see an image seeming to imply that possibly maybe (isn’t that how everything is in this part of the film?) their PCL-R scores would be rising.

Now, there is no specific claim made that the medications are directly linked to the economic catastrophe. Just insinuation. The weakness of this statement is summed up in the fact that the quote, by Gary Greenberg, which is meant to bring it all together is:

“It’s possible to assemble a picture where it at least bears investigation what these two phenomena have to do with each other.”

Yes, it’s true that it does bear more investigation. And if the film had simply taken a few minutes to point this out and call for more investigation, I’d have been fine with that. But instead it spends the entire second part of the movie on this supposed relationship only for it to culminate in such a weak, speculative non-conclusion.

Greenberg, in continuing, even explicitly admits how weak this is.

He first says that the Golden Rule and similar ethical philosophies are supposed to underlie Western civilization and are based on resonating with other people. Nevermind that Western civilization has such a long and sordid history of violence and conquest that it led me to consider whether psychopaths actually were at the root of it from the start. But even if we grant him his premise, his next line is:

“I think we need access to our full range of emotional experience in order to do that [basically behave based on an ability to empathize with others]. So it’s a leap from saying that to saying the drug amplifies or even causes sociopathy. But it’s a very suggestive link because I just don’t know what else is gonna guarantee that we don’t just cream each other all the time.”

All of this talk with all of these interviewees just to come to a “suggestive link.”

Ponerology is by definition a science of “evil.” And the claims made in part 2 are, even the film itself admits, highly non-scientific

Oddly, immediately after Greenberg finishes talking about how Western civilization is supposedly based on the Golden Rule and the film implies the explosion of overmedication is throwing us off the track of this previously ethical way of life, we are shown historical images of destruction. Is the obvious implication that civilization has been plagued by aggression and indifference to the suffering of others on a massive scale since long before these medications rose to prominence lost on the filmmakers? I’m not sure.

Part 2 comes to an end with Coyote making two points:

• That it’s tempting to want to stop here and say that the problem – the ultimate fishead – consists of psychopaths at the top of the pyramid and people taking “happy pills” to deal with the psychopathic conditions. But he claims this avoids the main question of why the rest of us aren’t doing anything about it.
• That the connection between psychopaths and happy pills lies in empathy or the lack of it. Psychopaths, he says, don’t have empathy and happy pills kill it.

What’s so conspicuously absent here, for me, is any discussion of what went on in people’s lives before and around their initiation into taking medications. Parenting. Schooling. Media. We hear too little about the forces that affect someone leading them to even get to a point where they want to take these medications and have no, or such reduced, qualms about doing so.

If there is one word that sums it up, I’d say what’s missing is context. Overmedication, the tip of an iceberg, is treated as the iceberg instead of being brought up as one issue in the context of an overall systemic issue in development.

Part 3 – Empathy

Part 3 is a sort of meandering, scattered exploration of empathy.

We start with Zimbardo going over some of his usual talking points about:

• The Lucifer Effect and biblical metaphors for the punishment visited upon those who don’t blindly obey authority
• The Milgram experiment, an example of how most people will blindly obey authority and how role modeling is crucial in determining whether they go along or rebel
• How parents teach their kids to obey
• How all of this leads to a population vulnerable to psychopaths

We’re then shown more images of historical violence, some of them black and white as if to pound home how old they are, even after being told earlier by Greenberg that Western civilization was supposedly built on the Golden rule and overmedication is likely central in chipping away at it.

Zimbardo then reinforces this contradiction by talking about how totalitarian dictators have been preying on people’s vulnerability since long before the modern day corporate psychopaths (and presumably modern psychiatric medications too).

Finally, Zimbardo does focus in more on parenting, which should have been given a lot more attention in Part 2. He talks about how people’s desire, even as adults, to be praised as a “good child” leads them to be compliant to authority, a form of prolonged childhood.

One great point Zimbardo makes here is that children learn to obey authority growing up, but often without learning how to distinguish between just authority that deserves respect and unjust authority that deserves defiance. So political, religious, corporate and other psychopaths can don the mask of just authority and hijack our allegiance.

Here Logan returns to point out that humans are the only animal that ignores its instinct and how this can get us in trouble with pathological people. Of course, this fails to recognize that we are in a civilization that is based on repressing those very instincts, often violently and that following those instincts, within such a context, can lead to harm just as ignoring them can.

And now we are introduced to John Perry Barlow, who is identified as a poet, political activist and performing philosopher. Reading a little about him, he seems like an interesting guy, having written lyrics for the Grateful Dead and helped found the Electronic Frontier Foundation, among other things. But when he suddenly shows up in the film, I can’t get over the question “Of all the people in the world to comment regarding corporate and social psychopathy, this is in your top few?” I just didn’t get it.

Barlow says that the problem isn’t sociopathic leaders, but sociopathic systems. This is the start of the film’s apparent attempt to inject hope by alluding to the idea that it’s “as much us as them.” But this ignores the question of how the systems are maintained as sociopathic and that this often involves violence or ostracism for not playing along.

Coyote then jumps in to express a sentiment many have experienced about not wanting to allow in too much of their own empathy since it might force them to give up their comfort and aspirations even as others refuse to make that same trade.

Then suddenly Byron Woollen, a psychologist and consultant, shows up to take us down yet another path involving discussion of how the vast sums of money being made by those at the top of our hierarchy lead them to just want more and to lose psychological touch with limits. But didn’t we just hear that the problem isn’t those on top, but all of us?

Now we suddenly enter a segment where consumerism is critiqued. Barlow tells us to stop pursuing happiness through “more” (a message that would make Growthbusters proud) and Greenberg comments on the pathologizing of failing to be a successful consumer.

And then we suddenly enter yet another segment in which Zimbardo tells us that there is a gray line between villains and heroes and that nobody who does evil ever thinks what they’re doing is evil. I actually take issue with this as some sadists do know and like that fact. But this kind of “it’s not us vs. them” mentality is key to the direction the film wants to take as it moves towards its conclusion.

Then, suddenly Zimbardo brings up Vaclav Havel, a playwright, imprisoned during the Communist occupation of his native Czechoslovakia, who went on to lead his countrymen out of passivity and into resistance, eventually becoming president of his nation. And now we’re suddenly listening to Havel himself waxing philosophical about conscience and courage.

Cut back to Zimbardo pointing to moms telling their kids not to get involved in troubling situations as programming for egocentricism and ignoring evil. Again, unfortunately it is only after spending all of Part 2 on overmedication that Zimbardo, in Part 3, finally returns to the roots in childhood.

The whole progression is just very scattered and often seems contradictory.

Now Coyote makes it sort of official that the film believes we are part of the fishead after all. This, to some degree, contradicts his own statement earlier in the film where he said that neither he nor the viewer, but rather someone else, created the financial crisis. But even if we accept that we’re part of the fishead, he asks, what can we do? Is there hope?

This mention of hope instantly reminded me of Derrick Jensen’s frequent frustration that, when he writes about unsustainability, editors so often ask him to end on a note of hope, as if he should tailor the writing to a reader’s desired feelings rather than write the truth and let it lead wherever it leads. This raised a red flag for me that would soon be proven warranted.

In order to inject this hope, Coyote introduces Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler, researchers whose work has illuminated the webs of interconnection between people, even strangers, as described in their book Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives — How Your Friends’ Friends’ Friends Affect Everything You Feel, Think, and Do. Specifically, their work has shown that we have influence on others and they on us over three degrees of separation. In other words, we affect our friends, as well as their friends and their friends and vice-versa. This creates a sort of ripple effect of influence, which is demonstrated with some images of water ripples.

Fowler points out that this influence plays a role in spreading obesity, smoking, drinking, depression and loneliness, as well as happiness.

Christakis gets into the history of human social networks.

They then talk about how their work challenges individualism and free will, since it reveals that we are actually externally influenced in our decisions more than we realize. But Christakis says it also “lifts up free will.” This is portrayed as a very lofty, inspiring statement. But for me it was all very lightweight compared to the reality of the type of strategy necessary to counter pathocracies.

And then we get into the big idea – that social behavior can change through networks. Christakis says that networks magnify whatever they’re seeded with, healthy or unhealthy. Zimbardo talks about how having a social norm for what’s acceptable is important. As an example, he mentions how social norms around the acceptability of public smoking have transformed over the last twenty years so that now, rather than the non-smoker having to leave the room, as was the case in the past, it is the smoker that usually has to leave the room.

This network-based approach, I think, needs to be seen in relation to the fact that we live in an extreme hierarchy – a pyramid, as the film has put it – in which those at the top have massively more influence than others, especially when they are willing to use violence to enforce that.

Christakis and Fowler continue, talking about how if you are treated kindly, then you will treat those you interact with kindly and Fowler talks of how, since learning of the web of influence, he has tried to maintain a better mood so as to have a more inspiring impact on others in his network.

To me this line of thinking, perhaps useful in many cases, seems like a huge oversimplification when applied to systemic corruption of the type I Am Fishead deals with. We live in a world with exploiters. The entire first part of the movie focused on those exploiters. And now in Part 3, the world is being talked about as if they aren’t really there or can almost be ignored.

I haven’t read Christakis and Fowler’s work, so perhaps they address these concerns there. But I wondered how their ideas reconcile with studies of the prisoner’s dilemma. If their logic about kindness spreading in networks held true in terms of interpersonal game theory, wouldn’t it logically follow that, in the prisoner’s dilemma, you should always treat the other person kindly and they will almost always cooperate?

But, in fact, that is not what happens. Nor would you expect it to happen if you know anything about the co-evolution of exploiters and detection of them. Christakis and Fowler imply that if you do good yourself, you end up surrounded by goodness and good people. Am I to believe that the incalculable amount of aggression and violence that is the history of civilized human systems simply represents a failure of people to spread joy to those in their networks? I tend to believe there are some far greater structural issues involved.

Coyote then expresses another common concern, asking whether, if we do something for others, it will pay off and help turn the world around.

People on the street are then asked if being moral pays off. They say yes. This is just another example of how “fluffy” the film gets as it progresses. Earlier, this same type of “everyperson” character was revealed as a model of ignorance regarding the dynamics of social dysfunction when they had no accurate idea of what a psychopath is. Should we now find hope in the opinions of this same type when they claim that helping others pays off?

Not only do the anecdotal opinions of these people on the street tell us nothing about whether being moral really does pay off in reality. But, we already heard how psychopaths lie and wear masks. So, for all we know, one of these people advocating for morality could be a psychopath laughing on the inside while thinking about how easily they exploit those who actually think this way. As the film itself told us, we’d expect such a person to lie and promote altruism as a wise philosophy for others.

Havel now talks about how, early on in the Velvet Revolution, Czech dissidents were seen as fools for resisting the Communist authorities because people knew they wouldn’t succeed right away. But by doing it on principle, not because they thought they’d soon succeed, they eventually did succeed.

Then we go back to the street where more people pointlessly tell us how good it is to be moral.

Then back to Havel who waxes poetic on why we sometimes act with conscience.

Then Coyote comments on the paradox that earlier we considered why we shouldn’t just be psychopaths ourselves and now we feel motivated to do good.

Then in comes Barlow with another odd non-sequitir. He says that no matter how mad the world around you is, what matters is day-to-day life, which remains the same despite any larger-scale catastrophes. So we just heard from Christakis and Barlow how everything is connected and, earlier, Barber said that “indifference to the larger world” is a problematic side effect of antidepressants. Yet here, toward the film’s conclusion, comes Barlow telling us to focus on the day-to-day and not worry too much about the larger scale things.

Apparently now the larger scale things can be separated from the day-to-day despite the networks and webs and ripples. And the message from Barlow seems to be to take your focus off of the larger scale when it looks ugly and when it comforts you to do so. But didn’t we just learn earlier that if you don’t pay attention to the outside world, you’re indifferent and unempathetic, possibly due to psychiatric medication?

Then in another amazing oversimplification, Havel says we don’t have to invent visions of a better world. Just start behaving politely to those around you. I found this especially bizarre since we heard earlier that psychopaths usually do act this way, very charming as far as we can tell.

Havel then says:

“And it’s enough for them to do it in their own microworld. It can expand, it can spread like an epidemic, but it doesn’t have to. It stays forever in their microworld. But it’s always worth it.”

So now the entire “network, ripple, spread” concept, which was the entire source of hope, is deemed unnecessary. First we should be hopeful because good can spread in the network. But then, hedging the film’s bet, Havel says “But if it doesn’t that’s ok too!”

Christakis then says that if you are violent or transmit deadly germs or spread misinformation to someone, they will cut the ties and the network will disintegrate. He says altruism, love and happiness are required to sustain the network. This seems not to account for the fact that there are sadists and many masochists in these networks. It also contradicts what he himself said before – that networks will amplify whatever you put in, not only healthy things. In fact, he specifically said that, if seeded with them, the network will magnify germs, fascism, smoking and drug use. So, first he says both healthy and unhealthy things are amplified by the network. Now he says if you spread unhealthy things, the network disintegrates. Which is it?

Zimbardo then comes in with talk of the importance of heroes and how we need to promote those who step up to the task of calling out what is wrong and improving the world.

Coyote concludes by saying that we can deal with the fishead if we remember we’re in this together, stop looking at the top of the pyramid and look at each other. He says we need just 5-6% of the population to become aware because then nearly everyone will and asks what the viewer will do to get us closer to that goal.

What I Liked

I Am Fishead is a film that covers material that sparked some of the greatest epiphanies I’ve had in the last several years and, perhaps, in my entire life. In some ways, it does so rather well, especially in Part 1, which, though it didn’t blow me away, perhaps because I already knew most of the information, left me feeling relatively satisfied because:

• I thought it zeroed in nicely on some of the really central issues, such as the psychopath’s mask and how they are able to fool people
• It features and promotes to another audience some of the best known and most important names in this field of study – Robert Hare and Paul Babiak – along with their work. It was great to see Snakes in Suits, for example, serve so prominently as, really, the basis of Part 1 of the film. Hopefully viewers will be moved to check out the original research, ideas and books of these thinkers.

In addition, Babiak’s mention of the cost to organizations when psychopaths successfully mimic high performers while driving out the genuine ones provoked me to think about how systems might proactively differentiate between valuable participants and dangerous frauds.

I also found value in other parts of the film.

I felt the inclusion of Philip Zimbardo was merited and made sense and I especially found important his mention of how parents’ failure to distinguish between just and unjust authority leaves people vulnerable to being preyed upon by those unjust forces that portray themselves as just.

I learned a new fact in an area that I otherwise know pretty well when it was mentioned in the film that “Sibling Relational Problem” is actually listed in the DSM-IV – a likely absurdity of which I was previously unaware.

I was glad to see the film take on the issue of passivity amongst the public and its systemic role in enabling the perpetuation of destructive processes and advocate, through Havel’s story and Zimbardo’s discussion of heroes, for the moral courage that is a prerequisite for breaking out of this pattern.

One of the greatest strengths of the movie is that it brings such important ideas to life and drives their lessons home through visuals and audio in ways that books – the delivery mode in which I originally encountered most of them – cannot do.

For example, ever since I learned about it, I’ve believed that the fact of the distinct differences in brain structure and function, when processing emotion as well as during other tasks, between psychopaths (and those with certain other disorders) and normals is one of the most important realities in our world. I Am Fishead not only tells us about these differences, but, very early in the film, actually displays the stark contrast in brain scan images, making clear that, in the psychopath, we are dealing with a significantly different creature from the rest of us.

Sometimes the film cuts to a clip from another film that exemplifies a character trait being discussed, such as:

• When we are shown some footage from Nicole Kidman in Malice in conjunction with Hare’s story of creating the scene through which she could show the audience there was something else behind her psychopath’s mask by offering them a glimpse into her practice of mimicking.
• When we see a clip of Reservoir Dogs relevant to the brief mention of sociopathy

Sometimes I Am Fishead offers one of its stylized, quirky animations that, though frequently over the top, capture and symbolically represent central concepts. Early on, when the “I Am Fishhead” logo sinisterly appears in between images of despair and of people in power, it helps set a tone and make a point.

Other times Peter Coyote – whose presence and voice lend gravitas to the film – stares you in the eye or powerfully asks a question right in your ear.

This tactic is used right off the bat as Coyote opens the film by summoning up the deep visceral feelings of connection that a psychopath can elicit in us, a very appropriate way to begin since this talent lies at the heart of their ability to manipulate and maneuver as they do. This connection is later described as a “soulmate” feeling and called a “psychopathic bond,” a useful term I hadn’t actually heard before from this particular perspective and with which many who have associated intimately with pathological people will relate. At that point, the image of the bug trying to escape a bottle provides an apt visual metaphor for the experience of being caught in a psychopathic bond.

“Coyote power” is employed again later when the screen goes black and we simply hear Coyote convey the inner sensations of freedom that psychopaths, unrestrained by guilt and unrecognized by those around them, may enjoy – and which may even make us yearn to be like them. This rich description then continues as a symbolic image of a smirking, scheming man, representative of such a psychopath, fades into view.

Logan not only tells us about the “duping delight” psychopaths exhibit when challenged to mischievously outsmart someone, he demonstrates it.

We aren’t just told that 1% of the population are psychopaths. We’re taken through a brief simulation in which we are shown a crowd and then watch as a virtual search takes place on the screen in an attempt to identify who among the crowd is the psychopath. This really crystallizes, in a way that mere statistical data cannot, the fact that whenever we are in a crowd of any kind, a psychopath is usually in our midst and that we have no easy way of knowing who and what they are.

Interviews of the “man on the street” about what a psychopath is work well in demonstrating how unclear most of us really are on the subject. The viewer can relate to these people as they give vague or sensationalized responses and it raises awareness that they, too, don’t really precisely know.

When the concentration of wealth within hierarchy is discussed, a Monopoly game is shown to visually reinforce the message.

I even enjoyed how the words of Coyote’s explanation of what it’s like to be a psychopath were turned into a pretty catchy song that plays over the credits.

These types of approaches, which really engage the senses, may provoke deep consideration and help the material stick in the viewer’s mind.

What I Didn’t Like

Part 1 – Reducing Ponerology to Psychopathy

My only really significant complaint about Part 1 of the film is that it falls prey to the common mistake of treating ponerology (which, though it is never explicitly mentioned in the film by name, is certainly its subject) as if it is only about psychopathy. It shows images of corrupt bankers and world leaders and implies that they are psychopaths. In fact, some of them may instead have had Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) or Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), as was the diagnosis of Hitler in George Victor’s book. But these other conditions are not considered.

This leads to an oversimplified representation of the process of ponerogenesis, which more likely involves people with other disorders, as well as normals, in a complex dynamic strongly, but not solely, influenced by psychopaths.

Part 2 – Happy Pills Out of Context

While I had just one major complaint about Part 1, I make up for it with many complaints about Part 2.

In fact, in a way, I believe that the entire focus of the second section is extremely misguided.

Certainly overmedication is a problem. But I don’t think that it is the central problem that the film makes it out to be by devoting an entire part out of only three parts to it and then, in that part, illustrating it as it did. To claim that it is such a central problem is to focus on too narrow a slice of the bigger picture and to oversimplify an issue that is more complex and larger than this topic.

In fact, overmedication is, in my view, more a symptom of other deeper problems than it is a root cause of problems. After all, most people are not forced to take these medications. So why is society full of people who so frequently choose to take them? Of course, children are often forced to take them, but this just raises the question of why so many adults so willingly give them to kids. Finding answers to these questions requires us to climb further down into the rabbit hole.

Overmedication is a potent symbol of the emotional repression and suppression rampant in our culture. It is becoming a cause of problems. But it is not a root cause.

What’s really missing in Part 2, as I’ve said, is context. Overmedication is worth mentioning, but in the context of a larger problem, ponerogenesis, that has been playing out for a long, long time, since way before these modern “happy pills” came along and reinforced a number of dynamics that have always taken place in oppressive systems. It is misleading to imply that the medications were hugely instrumental in this process.

Such systems, hijacked by pathological people, routinely repress and suppress the emotional feedback that might lead to resistance in many ways, ranging from the use of patho-semantics to out-and-out violence. Parents, out of fear and/or blind obedience, through modeling and force, pressure their children to repress and suppress their authentic responses, as well (something eventually mentioned by Zimbardo in the film, but never in a way that puts the medication use in context along with it.) The culture at large also incentivizes these defenses. Such dynamics have been in operation for thousands of years and contributed to massive destruction and even world wars before the era of overmedication came about.

Medications are simply one newer, more modern means within this ancient mix.

The misunderstanding of this context is really conspicuously displayed when Gary Greenberg claims that Western civilization is based on the Golden Rule and resonating with others, as if to say that the impact of these medications is what threw it off of that foundation. Of course, Western civilization has, in fact, never been practically based on the Golden Rule. Its history is incredibly violent, bloody and genocidal – so much so that, again, I have even wondered if civilization itself wasn’t based on psychopathy from the very start.

And what makes this misunderstanding even more confusing is that the film itself contradicts Greenberg’s own statement just minutes after he makes it by showing a montage of historical acts of ghastly destruction. In Part 3, it shows even more of them, some so old that they are in black and white, even while seeming to argue that today’s catastrophes are in great part consequences of the overuse of psychiatric medications.

Now, given that the filmmakers did devote a whole part to overmedication, misguided and out of context as I believe it was to do so, how well did they make their statement about the topic and its importance?

I think the answer, even on this score, is extremely poorly, as evidenced, again, by the pseudo-conclusion of Part 2 uttered by Greenberg when he said:

“It’s possible to assemble a picture where it at least bears investigation what these two phenomena [overmedication and the irresponsible financial behavior resulting in economic crises] have to do with each other.”

This is such a weak major statement in a film that devotes an entire part to this topic.

I have often said that one of the things I frequently forget to take into account when strategizing about how to improve things is that millions of people are just plain drugged and emotionally and even cognitively unavailable. Overmedication is an important problem. It deserves attention and even its own film. Few people feel more strongly about that or have made more significant decisions in their life paths because of that belief than me. And the overmedication, like I said, is a powerful symbol of our irresponsible and self-destructive reaction to our condition.

But I just don’t think it is a root cause that deserves to be seen as one of three main contributors – two if you consider Parts 1 and 2 to be about problem description with Part 3 being about strategizing solutions – to our society’s unhealthy and unsustainable state. It is more like a piece of a larger part.

Part 2 should have focused on denial, repression and suppression as a whole throughout the entire destructive history of civilization. It should have talked about all of the many tactics and tools, with medication being just one, that have been involved for millennia in keeping people in line, unquestioning and unresistant.

Instead of waiting until Part 3 to have Philip Zimbardo talk about how parents tell their children not to get involved in troubling external situations, thus programming them to be egocentric and look away from evil, they should have included this message in a larger discussion of repression and suppression in Part 2. And the overmedication of children, enabled and encouraged by parents, could then be put into context as just one more expression of this age-old desire to keep children expressing the outward signs of feeling well even at the expense of their accurate perception of reality.

Just as a small closing note, I found it strange that, with all the discussion of corporate psychopaths in Part 1 and overmedication in Part 2, the two were never directly linked through consideration of whether psychopaths might be involved in the pharmaceutical companies or other entities with an interest in promoting the use of these drugs themselves.

Part 3 – A Copout of Strategic Thinking?

One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone attempts to spuriously sidestep or evade a problem – especially this one regarding the influence of the pathological on our systems – by conveniently taking the onus off of perpetrators simply because, as long as we admit they are responsible, we feel we have less control over the situation. It reminds me of when an abused child blames themselves rather than their abusers just because then at least they can believe in an internal locus of control, a mechanism that is an important survival tool for children but is inapproprate when used by adults claiming to seriously strategize about important threats in our world.

Unfortunately, Part 3 of I Am Fishead employs this evasive mechanism in spades. The entire part is based on the notion that “the problem is just as much our [the general public’s] fault as theirs [the pathological’s].” This claim is meant to evoke hopefulness because, if we are just as responsible for social dysfunction as the pathological, then we have the power to make a fundamental change without having to really confront them.

Zimbardo’s idea of there being a “gray line” between villains and heroes, though true in that there are plenty of people in that gray area, ignores the fact that there are some people that are far more in the solid black or white areas than others and is symbolic of this line of thinking. So is his idea that “nobody does evil knowingly,” which I think is patently false.

This is especially confusing given that, in Part 1, we were shown brain images of psychopaths and told about how their brain structure and function render them unable to process emotions or exercise conscience as others do. Did the film forget about that information by the time it got to Part 3?

It is also confusing given that, in Part 1, Peter Coyote mentions how it was not us that caused the financial collapse, for example, and that to understand how it happened we need to look not at ourselves, but at those in power. Apparently, in Part 3, that line of thinking was forgotten, as well.

Moving on, I found the “strategy” put forth based on Christakis and Fowler’s work to be a reach. If you recall, Christakis and Fowler showed that we influence and are influenced by people associated with us with up to three degrees of separation. They specifically said that the networks within the resulting web of influence transmit both healthy and unhealthy ideas and habits.

But then, suddenly, they start to speak about their work as if the very fact that we’re so interconnected makes for an inherently hopeful situation. They basically say that, since we’re connected in this way, we just need to go do good things and happiness and peace will spread. This struck me as a copout on so many levels.

1. Obviously, as the researchers themselves stated, the networks can spread dysfunction just as well as they can health, so there is nothing inherently hopeful in the connections themselves.
2. Our system is an extremely hierarchical one and that hierarchy is enforced with violence or the threat of violence. So if pathology is being forcefully exerted from above – from levels that, by definition, confer greater power than those below them – then the transmission of wonderful ideas and habits within the network on lower levels may not be sufficient to overcome that. And the tight interconnectedness can simply enable the pathology to spread even faster than it otherwise would.
3. It excessively disregards the existence and nature of exploitation, a factor that, evolutionarily and in game theory terms, will always be incentivized to some degree.
4. How can simply being good and polite to others be the answer when we spent significant amounts of time in Part 1 covering the fact that psychopaths simply mimic these behaviors. Nothing is said in Part 3 to address the profound implications of such deception even though they were so conscientiously communicated earlier in the film.
5. We live in an economic system based on and reliant upon constant growth, itself a quite possibly psychopathic model. This economic system is not merely an idea, but a physical reality. It isn’t something that just changing our attitudes or the messages we send each other can resolve.
6. We just finished Part 2, an entire part dedicated to claiming that one of the most central reasons for our unsustainable situation is that overmedication is so out of control and people so chemically numbed that it is likely directly contributing to economic collapses. You’d think the strategy put forth in Part 3 would have to address that. But no substantial link of this kind is really made between Part 2 and Part 3. We’re just told to be kind to people and that this kindness will ripple through the system without any explanation of how that can happen in a system full of overmedicated people unable to substantially experience their emotional feedback systems.

After the film competently set the stage in Part 1 by informing us of how fundamentally different from others psychopaths are, how hard they are to recognize and how skilled they are at insidiously influencing systems and driving healthy, constructive people out of prominent positions, this extremely weak “spread kindness through networks” conclusion was a huge let down. To be honest, it felt more like a pep talk than a realistic strategy session. I almost couldn’t believe the filmmakers would allow the film, after all the work that went into painting a complex and challenging picture of our modern dilemma, to climax (or anticlimax) with such an oversimplified idea.

To me the ending was full of “fluff.” Motivating people and building their courage to do “good” is a necessary part of the healing process. I certainly encourage people to influence their networks, as Christakis and Fowler advocate, with meaningful generosity, compassion and love. But if all this film does is convince people to do some vague “good,” without equipping them with the hard knowledge they need to successfully do so in an often paradoxical counterintuitive world full of and teeming with the values of pathological people and exploiters – of whom we must remain conscious and who, many times, we must confront – then it has done somewhat of a disservice. It might be forgivable in some other film to conclude with a feel-good inspirational message and leave the deeper education to others. But, by beginning with the provision of detailed information about the problem of pathological conditions within our hierarchy courtesy of people of Hare and Babiak’s stature, I Am Fishead sets itself up to be held to a higher standard.

This isn’t even to mention how the entire philosophy of just being polite and allowing it to spread as a main strategy for healing a dysfunctional world contradicts Havel’s statement that it’s “OK if it’s only your microworld” and Barlow’s that “day-to-day life,” not the big picture, is what really matters. If a person took Havel’s and Barlow’s approaches, as stated in those quotes, to heart, then the Christakis and Fowler strategy, which presumably is supposed to save us, might be dead on arrival

In fact, as we’ve seen, Christakis even contradicts his own message. As mentioned, he and Fowler describe how the network spreads both “good” and “bad,” whichever it is seeded with. But then, at another point, perhaps realizing how that view fails to support networks as inherently hopeful, he changes tack completely and suddenly seems to argue not just that the network can only transmit “good”, but that it can only even exist when seeded with “good” as opposed to “bad”. In so many words, he claims that the network relies on “good” to keep it going and that its very existence breaks down if seeded with “bad” because people will cut ties with those who spread “bad” things.

It’s painfully obvious from the state of our systems that networks do not only spread health and cheer. If they did, we would not see the spread of dysfunction in epidemic fashion like we do. Christakis was right with his first statement. Networks of these kinds can perpetuate and amplify both desirable and undesirable things. And, as long as that is the case, the simple fact of the connections’ existence does not imply hope.

Some of the people in Part 3, like Vaclav Havel, have done very impressive things in their lives. So you want to respect what they have to say. But, unfortunately, the line of thinking communicated in Part 3, from so many perspectives, just does not make sense or even feel serious to me in the end.

Scattered/Contradictory

Even in part 1, the film is a bit scattered and contradictory. But later, it becomes far more so.

A good example is the huge contradiction between two overriding philosophies both expressed at different points in the film. One tells us that it is “important to focus on the larger world beyond ourselves,” and that not doing so is a sign of dysfunction and one of the most concerning side effects of antidepressants, while the other claims that we should “focus on the day-to-day and not worry too much about the larger scale.”

Most troubling, though, is the film’s seeming inability to make up its mind and take a stand. Is the problem psychopaths? Parenting? Medication? Are we all responsible or are most of us victims? It would be permissible if the film’s message was that all of these are part of the problem. But it fails to even explain in a coherent fashion how they each play their roles in an interconnected system.

Overdone, Misleading and Contradictory Imagery

I mentioned that the use of imagery (along with audio) to reinforce important messages is, at times, one of the most effective aspects of the film.

But, as gratifying as this is when I Am Fishead does it well, it is just as irksome when done poorly for a few reasons:

• Some, depending on their tastes, may find the imagery jarring and over the top.
• Certain visuals – such as the constantly reappearing sinister “I Am Fishead” logo – can be overused, eventually losing their impact.
• As well as the film’s images work to reinforce accurate information, they work just as well to reinforce unsupported or misleading messages that would be better forgotten. A good example is when we are shown an image of figures swallowing down “happy pills,” leading one to turn into a devil, implying it has become a psychopath, even while we are explicitly told that it is “a leap” to claim one causes the other. Another example is when, as antidepressant use among financial professionals is discussed, we are shown an image of a meter implying, even if not directly asserting, that their PCL-R scores are rising in conjunction with the medications.

Meanwhile, the display of images of historical violence from bygone eras, in stark contrast to the insinuation that modern overmedication is a root cause of dysfunction, offers an example of how the imagery and messages sometimes conflict with each other. In this case, it is actually beneficial to the viewer that the images remind them of what other aspects of the movie have unjustifiably overlooked. But it is an inconsistency that reflects poorly on the film.

Interviewee Choice

In a world full of so many brilliant people who have done great work on the subjects focused on by I Am Fishead, I was confused as to why the filmmakers chose to include interviews with some of the people they did as opposed to others who might have made more sense. For example, when the filmmakers had the clout to attract people of the caliber of Hare, Babiak and Zimbardo, was John Perry Barlow really one of the more relevant people to interview? I have nothing against Barlow. He sounds like an intriguing person. But I just didn’t understand why he was high on the list of people to make part of this particular project.

Final Thoughts

I’m always on the lookout for a film I can recommend to people that, in one fell swoop, can convey to them a balanced, accurate, fact-based overview of the information about our world explored by ponerology. I had high hopes that I Am Fishead would be that film. Unfortunately, after watching it, I can’t say that it is.

Part 1 is certainly valuable to watch. It starts the film out on a worthwhile chain of thought and pretty competently lays out a summary introduction to the problems posed by the pathological among us enhanced with some audiovisual devices that help drive it home. Even for the newcomer to this subject, I wish it had discussed the other disorders that are relevant in addition to psychopathy. But it is more than enough to pique a viewer’s interest and point them in the right direction for further investigation. Thus, I can happily recommend Part 1.

It’s a shame that Part 2 and Part 3 didn’t keep pace with the quality of Part 1. In these later parts, the film becomes more scattered and misguided.

The filmmakers touch on different pieces of the ponerologic puzzle throughout those parts, but fail to explicate how they relate to each other so as to reveal a clear picture.

They don’t define the parts of the problem within a context that explains how they operate in conjunction with those covered in Part 1.

Where a sensible, meaningful, coherent strategy to address ponerologic problems is called for, they offer oversimplifications, apparently based on the premise that lack of kindness, rather than real structural challenges – such as those they themselves exposed in Part 1 – are involved.

As a result, I Am Fishead never takes a clear, focused stand on the problems of the day.

Part 2 and Part 3 are at best confusing and at worst divert people’s focus from the highest leverage point concerns and promote what I see as quite weak, naïve strategic advice.

These parts of the film, despite providing some relevant, interesting and inspiring information, are so misguided, in fact, that I feel that after recommending the film to people so that they could benefit from Part 1, I would have to warn them that if they plan to continue and watch the rest of the movie, they should take what is said in Parts 2 and 3 with a grain of salt and then look to other resources to round out their understanding of this subject.

I think that the reason the film turned out this way is that the filmmakers lacked an overall systemic framework, like that we can draw from ponerology, with which to help organize understanding of what is a very complex ponerogenic process. It looks a lot like a movie desperately in search of ponerology, but unaware of its existence. This makes sense since, when I briefly talked with Misha, he told me that, once people started hearing about the film, a number of them had made him aware of ponerology, but he didn’t seem to have known about it at the time it was being made. And this is also a great example of a situation that, by creating and promoting this website, I aim to prevent from happening again. I hope that the next people who set out to tackle this important and challenging subject will do so with the benefit of realizing that this field, which has so much to offer them and their audience, exists.

In the end, it’s somewhat disappointing. We badly need factual, grounded, non-conspiracy theory driven films to educate the public on this topic. But an unrealistic perspective in terms of context and solutions, no matter how well-intentioned or motivational, can undermine even a relatively successful basic education. And this is how I believe I Am Fishead ultimately failed.

The film, to its detriment, I think, tried too hard, in unjustifiable ways, to manufacture a sense of hope about our situation. And as a result, I come away from it without much hope that this movie will make a significant impact because it sets up a strategic challenge and then spends the rest of its runtime evading its implications. It may educate some people about the problem, but it may also do even more to lead them down a road of futility based on unsupported approaches to thinking about the situation.

Perhaps I’m wrong. In fact, I’d like to be wrong. I’d be glad to discover, to my surprise, that Votruba and Dejcmar’s proposed strategy – although I was so confused by the seeming contradictions that I couldn’t quite put a finger on what that is – works. But I’m highly skeptical.

Still, I’m glad this film was made because it may serve as an impetus for future filmmakers to take on this subject matter, which I Am Fishead explored with some success, and see it through to the extent that it deserves.

I Am Fishead, after its credits end, fades in with the famous quote from Albert Einstein:

“…the world is a dangerous place to live;
not because of the people who are evil,
but because of the people who don’t do
anything about it…”

While I believe that those who are “evil” actually are a large part of the reason that the world is dangerous, we presently have no simple, feasible and ethical solution available for eliminating that factor. So Einstein was at least correct in implying that our leverage point lies in encouraging the rest of the public to take protective and transformational action. I Am Fishead may make us aware of the need to do that. It may even help inspire us to want to do it. But it fails to tell us how to effectively do it. And that is where, for all the good it contributes, it falls short.

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

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

Well it’s better late than never.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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