So I looked into it.

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

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

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

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

Early in the interview, Fallon:

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

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

As Fallon tells Cooper:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cooper says:

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

Fallon responds:

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

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

Cooper then adds:

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

Fallon responds:

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

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

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

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

As for the psychopath test:

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

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

The link he references on the AC360 blog is here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smith responds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below is the trailer for the episode:

The areas explored include:

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

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

Psychiatrists

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

Psychologists

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

Others

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psychopath Night Resources

Channel 4 offers an Episode Guide to Psychopath Night.

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

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

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6: