Scientists Have Established a Key Biological Difference Between Psychopaths and Normal People

originally posted by: beyondknowledge

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheReaversChain
Here I'm going to say it.

I actually don't think there is anything wrong with psychopathic traits. Certain dangerous careers call for lack of fear and little time for the need of comforts, as well as the tendency to stay up into the night etc.

Think about this, who else do you send into a dangerous environment to retrieve something, like a treacherous mine or whatnot. Who cares if someone lacks empathy if they have enough of a clue and know how to control themselves.

We live in a non creative society where nitpicking and sizing one another up in coquettish little battles of wit is the order of the day. And so we just cease to apply people to what they're good for because we cant figure out anything else but preening? If anyone wants to know who would be applicable vs who wouldn't we'd have to dust off our boots and get the ol mental gears turning again and figure it out.

I think that's very practical.

As long as people aren't forced into something because of their brain scan.

You don't believe this will lead up to the eugenics wars as was profisized in Star Trek? They did predict the flip phone (communicator) and smart phone (tricorder).

I think we're far too cautious with science and new discoveries.

We should be so much more advanced than we are.

I'm going to add -- I'm not necessarily against eugenics.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
So we have gone from studying the shape and size of the head to MRI scans to evaluate personalities? What could go wrong?

The shape and size of the head was pseudoscience not backed by actual rigorous scientific work. MRI scans detect metabolic use of brain pathways.

Like medicine used to be about the four 'humors'. They had some vague notion that there was biochemistry involved but didn't know what it is. Now, there are molecular tests for known biochemical substances which are predictive. Just because the humours theory was bunkum doesn't mean blood chemistry is baloney.

And so, like crainial shape is irrelevant to cognition doesn't mean measurement through MRI is irrelevant. Reasoning by analogy is dangerous when it hits specific facts.

originally posted by: Annee


We should be so much more advanced than we are.

I'm going to add -- I'm not necessarily against eugenics.

Parents with IVF use eugenics all the time---and good for them. The danger of previous "eugenics" was from fascists who used eugenics as excuses to oppress people they didn't like (for emotional reasons) instead of any actual understanding of useful genetics.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Annee


We should be so much more advanced than we are.

I'm going to add -- I'm not necessarily against eugenics.

Parents with IVF use eugenics all the time---and good for them. The danger of previous "eugenics" was from fascists who used eugenics as excuses to oppress people they didn't like (for emotional reasons) instead of any actual understanding of useful genetics.

Yes, with advancing science -- we also need to advance our thinking.

I'm really over the base-human Neanderthal mindset (no offense to real Neanderthals).

We need to get past god and irresponsible breeding. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

originally posted by: machineintelligence
scitechdaily.com...

This article from SciTech Daily is I think an indication that we will start to treat mental fitness for certain activities like firearm ownership and access assessed via technology means of detection. You will in the future need to have a brain scan to own a weapon or be employed a LEO or soldier or security or really any position of authority or control. Politicians will in the end have to take an MRI of their brain in order to qualify to run for office.

I think that ultimately as information like this in the article linked here becomes public knowledge there's going to be pressure for people that have a scan of their brain in order to qualify for certain types of access to services and even certain employment Pathways which will be foreclosed to them if they fail to pass an MRI of their brain.

Nope.
Shall not infringe, thus sayeth WE THE PEOPLE.
What is so hard to understand?

originally posted by: TheReaversChain
Here I'm going to say it.

I actually don't think there is anything wrong with psychopathic traits. Certain dangerous careers call for lack of fear and little time for the need of comforts, as well as the tendency to stay up into the night etc.

Think about this, who else do you send into a dangerous environment to retrieve something, like a treacherous mine or whatnot. Who cares if someone lacks empathy if they have enough of a clue and know how to control themselves.

We live in a non creative society where nitpicking and sizing one another up in coquettish little battles of wit is the order of the day. And so we just cease to apply people to what they're good for because we cant figure out anything else but preening? If anyone wants to know who would be applicable vs who wouldn't we'd have to dust off our boots and get the ol mental gears turning again and figure it out.

This is true.

Not all psychopaths kill. And not one person can prove this to be untrue.
So, anyone who is calling for one's Constitutional Rights to be removed because of a technical scan - maybe their rights should be removed for being a fascist.

a reply to: shaemac

It is certainly not something I want to see happen. I just am predicting it will certainly be attempted and it obviously can from a strictly technological standpoint.

Are experts always right?

However knowledgeable they may be, experts in any field may have conflicting ideas and shifting opinions. Take, for example, the ongoing debate in medical science on something as basic as causes of illness. “The relative importance of nature versus nurture in illness forms the fabric of heated debate among scientists,” writes a professor of medicine at Harvard University. Those in what has been called the determinist camp believe strongly that our genes play a decisive role in our susceptibility to various diseases. Others, however, contend that the environment and life-style are the major factors in human pathology. Both sides are quick to cite studies and statistics to support their case. Nonetheless, the debate continues.

The most renowned of thinkers have been proved wrong again and again, even though what they taught seemed at the time to be beyond dispute. Philosopher Bertrand Russell described Aristotle as one of “the most influential of all philosophers.” Yet, Russell also pointed out that many of Aristotle’s doctrines were “wholly false.” “Throughout modern times,” he wrote, “practically every advance in science, in logic, or in philosophy has had to be made in the teeth of opposition from Aristotle’s disciples.”​—History of Western Philosophy.

Just remember...

From wiki on the page for "scientist":

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

a reply to: whereislogic

But, what if they are right?

What if brain scans are accurate.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Hypntick

Politicians too...

Corporations as well.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: whereislogic

But, what if they are right?

Haven't really thought about it. Uhm... life goes on?

When I hear about research findings in medical research, and especially the field of psychology, I can't shake some of these 'complaints' (or remarks) though:

“The competition is savage. Winners reap monumental rewards; losers face oblivion. It’s an atmosphere in which an illicit shortcut is sometimes irresistible​—not least because the Establishment is frequently squeamish about confronting wrongdoing.” So opened the article “Publish or Perish​—or Fake It” in U.S.News & World Report. To escape perishing, many scientific researchers are faking it.

The pressure on scientists to publish in scientific journals is overwhelming. The longer the list of published papers to the researcher’s name, the better his chances for employment, promotion, tenure in a university, and government grants to finance his research.

Because “the scientific community shows little stomach for confronting its ethical dilemma,” “has been strangely reluctant to probe too deeply for hard data about its ethical conduct,” and “isn’t keen about cleaning house or even looking closely for malfeasance,” congressional committees have held hearings and considered legislation to do the job of policing for them. (New Scientist; U.S.News & World Report) One science journal asks and answers the question: “Is the house of science clean and in order? The bit of evidence that reaches the public invites serious doubts.”

Some researchers eliminate data that does not support what they want to prove (called cooking); report more tests or trials than were actually run (called trimming); appropriate for their own use data or ideas of other researchers (called plagiarism); and make up experiments or data they never performed or produced (called forging). A cartoon in a science journal poked fun at this last tactic, one scientist talking to another and saying of a third: ‘He’s published a lot since he took up that creative writing course.’

“What’s the major product of scientific research these days? Answer: Paper,” U.S.News & World Report said. “Hundreds of new journals are being founded each year to handle the flood of research papers cranked out by scientists who know that the road to academic success is a long list of articles to their credit.” Quantity, not quality, is the goal. Forty thousand journals published yearly produce a million articles, and part of this flood “is symptomatic of fundamental ills, including a publish-​or-​perish ethic among researchers that is stronger now than ever and encourages shoddy, repetitive, useless or even fraudulent work.”

A senior editor at The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Drummond Rennie, commented on the lack of quality: “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-​serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”

Editors of science journals often​—but not always—​submit papers to other scientists for review before publishing them. This practice, called peer review, theoretically weeds out erroneous and fraudulent articles. “Science is self-​correcting in a way that no other field of intellectual endeavor can match,” Isaac Asimov says. “Science is self-​policing in a way that no other field is.” He marveled that “scandal is so infrequent.”

But many others do not share this view. Peer review is “a lousy way to detect fraud,” said previously quoted Dr. Drummond Rennie. The American Medical News said: “Peer-reviewed journals, once regarded as almost infallible, have had to admit that they are incapable of eradicating fraud.” “Peer review has been oversold,” said a medical writer and columnist for The New York Times.

“For high-​octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,” said New Scientist magazine. The highly vaunted peer-​review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. “The reality,” New Scientist said, “is that few scientific scoundrels are caught, but, when they are, they frequently turn out to have been running wild for years, publishing faked data in respectable journals, with no questions asked.”

Previously, an official of the NIH said, as reported in The New York Times: “I think an age of innocence has ended. In the past people assumed that scientists didn’t do this kind of thing. But people are beginning to realize that scientists are not morally superior to anybody else.” The Times report added: “Although a few years ago it was rare for the National Institutes of Health to receive one complaint a year of alleged fraud, she said, there are now at least two serious allegations a month.” Science magazine observed: “Scientists have repeatedly assured the public that fraud and misconduct in research are rare . . . And yet, significant cases seem to keep cropping up.”

The chairman of one of the congressional investigating committees, John Dingell, at one time said to scientists: “I will tell you that I find your enforcement mechanisms are hopelessly inadequate and that rascality seems to be triumphing over virtue in many incidences in a fashion that I find totally unacceptable. I hope you do too.”

The NOVA program on “Do Scientists Cheat?” concluded with this acknowledgment by one of the scientists present: “Skeletons have to come out of the closets, bureaucrats’ careers have to be impaired if that’s what it takes, and there’s no alternative. This is ethically required, this is legally required, and it’s certainly morally required.”

Since none of that has happened (especially in the field of medical research, and even more so in the field of psychology specifically), it puts into question the reliability of papers published in those fields, especially when it is only one research team reporting some finding/discovery, whose chances of further research funding are dependent on results (note the part I bolded in the quote from Dr. Drummond Rennie). If they report finding nothing of note, that would be seen as a failure of the research and possibly a waste of money (rather than an incentive for further research funding). Making the researchers more prone to 'finding' something that isn't actually there, and doing something like the earlier mentioned “cooking” (which involves what I bolded from Dr. Drummond Rennie), which is very difficult to detect for the outsider. Because psychology is such a complex subject, it makes cooking (or self-serving analysis) easier. Also easier to get away with without anyone noticing (not even other experts in the field, especially when they have the same or similar habits and don't wanna see it, or when they do see it, don't want to say anything about it because they don't want to draw any attention from someone who might possibly scrutinize their own published papers in the same manner).

originally posted by: machineintelligence
scitechdaily.com...

This article from SciTech Daily is I think an indication that we will start to treat mental fitness for certain activities like firearm ownership and access assessed via technology means of detection. You will in the future need to have a brain scan to own a weapon or be employed a LEO or soldier or security or really any position of authority or control. Politicians will in the end have to take an MRI of their brain in order to qualify to run for office.

I think that ultimately as information like this in the article linked here becomes public knowledge there's going to be pressure for people that have a scan of their brain in order to qualify for certain types of access to services and even certain employment Pathways which will be foreclosed to them if they fail to pass an MRI of their brain.

This has been known for 30+ years, not sure why it is being posted now. I have talked about this years ago as to mental issues like psychopaths and pedophiles are incurables since it is how their brains are wired.

2011

"PSYCHOPATHS' BRAINS SHOW DIFFERENCES IN STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION"

2009

"Psychopaths' brains biologically different"

2006

"There are biological brain differences that mark out psychopaths from other people, according to scientists."

1987

"BRAIN DEFECT TIED TO UTTER AMORALITY OF THE PSYHCOPATH"

And about 1000 more in between

a reply to: Xtrozero

I think FMRI has improved in resolution and the expanded comparative analysis of the dataset in the study linked in the article is the reason for this.

originally posted by: machineintelligence
I think FMRI has improved in resolution and the expanded comparative analysis of the dataset in the study linked in the article is the reason for this.

OK I can go with that, but its not new. BTW the vast majority of Psychopaths are not dangerous in the sense of killing people, some just kill people in business, politics, religion etc. They are very good at assuming what people want to see, and then they use that to their advantage. The truth is they lack empathy and other emotional things that might hold them back., they have no barriers to limit their capabilities.

a reply to: machineintelligence

I also think a key difference between psychopaths and normal people is that normal people dont take sh#ts in their ex partners beds.


sorry i couldnt resist.