Psychopaths - a separate species?

[Mal7]

It seems to me that referring to psychopaths as a different species or a different subspecies is problematic.

I don’t mean to suggest that there isn’t a radical difference between the psychopath and the non-psychopath, but suggest that the difference doesn’t amount to psychopaths being a different species or subspecies in the biological sense of the term. Biological definitions of what makes something a separate species center around the concept of reproductive isolation – if the individuals in a population are reproducing with each other under natural circumstances, intermingling their genetic codes to produce the next generation, they are of the same species.
Individuals within a species can be dissimilar e.g. one sex being more colorful than the other as in many bird species. Even within one sex, there can be morphological dissimilarities, e.g. ants can have castes of workers, soldiers, and the queen ant can be much larger and the only reproducing individual in the colony. The mole rat is an example of a mammal which lives in a colony with one queen mole rat who is the only reproductively active individual in that colony – “she keeps the rest of the colony in line by releasing pheromones that suppress the maturation of the other females’ reproductive organs” (Dennett, Daniel C. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, p. 484).
E. O. Wilson gives this short definition of the “biological species concept”:

[A] species is a population whose members are able to interbreed freely under natural conditions.

- Wilson, E. O. The Diversity of Life, page 36.

The reference to natural conditions is included to exclude hybrids from e.g. breeding lions with tigers. Although lions and tigers have been bred in captivity to produce ligers and tions, they do not interbreed in the wild. So wild populations are still reproductively isolated from each other (for behavioral reasons rather than strict genetic incapability of producing offspring), and on separate trajectories of biological evolution, rather than co-mingling their genes as one population.
Wilson’s short definition doesn’t cover the insect colony species with infertile castes. These colonies have individuals that are not able to interbreed themselves, which is generally explained by some theory of kin selection.
So on the biological definition of a species, I think some individuals could have no conscience at all, and still be the same species. The male of some species could even have no brain at all, and exist as some kind of parasite on a female host, but as long as he contributed his share of chromosomes to the formation of a zygote, he would still be the same species.
It is of course possible to refer to psychopaths as a different species or subspecies, but that seems to then be using species or subspecies in a different non-biological sense of the term, since there doesn’t seem to be evidence that psychopaths have a tendency to breed with other psychopaths rather than with the population as a whole.

The logic of calling psychopaths a separate species could be expressed as:

Humans have empathy.

Psychopaths do not have empathy.

Therefore psychopaths are not human, and must be a different species.

The alternative logic that would keep psychopaths in the same biological species could be expressed by changing the initial premise “Humans have empathy” to:

"Some humans have empathy."

Or alternatively one could use "species" in a non-biological sense to just mean "very different", but it seems to me the biological definition of species is a useful one.

 

[Renaissance]

I think identifying psychopaths as a distinct species is to drive home the point of the completely foreign nature of psychopaths to humans. If we're looking at homo-sapiens in purely biological terms, then sure, we pretty much have the same parts. But the exploration of what it is to be fully human takes on more than just our biology, as you allude later in your post, Mal7. I think a purely material science has a rather myopic view of our nature and denies capacity and values that could move us forward. Fortunately there's a lot of good work being done that is moving past this with information theory, cognitive science, neuroscience and related consciousness studies. So, it seems to me that the distinction opens the doors a bit to understand ourselves better too.

 

[whitecoast]

I think nitpicking over whether they are a species or subspecies is a bit semantically meaningless, because in the end they are characterized by sets of traits, which are by no means homogenous. For example I know some people who are lie as naturally as they breathe, but lack the covert aggressive manipulation. In the end I think it comes down to the individual diagnosis and professional determination of treatments or prohibitions. Pigeonholing them to me seems a little too tribalistic and splitting. For what it's worth.

 

[RflctnOfU]

I think identifying psychopaths as a distinct species is to drive home the point of the completely foreign nature of psychopaths to humans. If we're looking at homo-sapiens in purely biological terms, then sure, we pretty much have the same parts. But the exploration of what it is to be fully human takes on more than just our biology, as you allude later in your post, Mal7. I think a purely material science has a rather myopic view of our nature and denies capacity and values that could move us forward. Fortunately there's a lot of good work being done that is moving past this with information theory, cognitive science, neuroscience and related consciousness studies. So, it seems to me that the distinction opens the doors a bit to understand ourselves better too.

I very much agree with the statement in bold above. Beyond physiology, what makes humanity human is consciousness/psyche. There is a fundamental difference between the psyche of a normal human and the psyche of a psychopathic human (bipedal hominid outwardly resembling a normal human). If you consider the fundamental parts of a normal human psyche - moving, feeling, thinking - in terms of geometrical points, they could define a plane -- three points are required for this. A psychopath, at best, has two and a half 'points'. It seems to me that 2.5 is an optimistic point of view (how could one have half a dimension??). According to the research on the subject, the 'feeling center' life of a psychopath is quite outside the form of feeling-center-life in normal humans. The point is, in relation to normal inner world experience, the psychopath would have only a line [segment]. A thought just occurred to me that perhaps temporal awareness is related to the normal functioning of the feeling center. A psychopath 'declares' what reality is. That is absolutely 'now', or 'being-in-the-moment'. No concern for the past (actions taken), nor the future (consequences of actions taken). Does this make sense??

From what perspective is the call made that psychopaths are not/are human?? Is it just physiology? Or the ability to abstract? Or empathy? IMO, all three must be taken into consideration, and from that point of view, psychopaths are not human.

Kris

 

[aragorn]

I think nitpicking over whether they are a species or subspecies is a bit semantically meaningless, because in the end they are characterized by sets of traits, which are by no means homogenous. For example I know some people who are lie as naturally as they breathe, but lack the covert aggressive manipulation. In the end I think it comes down to the individual diagnosis and professional determination of treatments or prohibitions. Pigeonholing them to me seems a little too tribalistic and splitting. For what it's worth.

I agree. I think that the main benefit of regarding psychopaths, at least the primary ones (born that way), as a different species is to drive home the realization that they don't even remotely think the way we do. There's also the "esoteric component" of them being perhaps soulless, and in that sense not looking at the physical traits, they are different creatures altogether.

 

[Arwenn]

I found a similar discussion on the forum here and it's a shame that forum member hasn't been back to post some more.

{snip}
Researchers in forensic psychiatry, forensic genomics and evolutionary biology have posited the idea that there is another species of human sharing the planet with us. After some research of my own I have found that it is an opinion shared by prosecutors, policemen and defense attorneys. (More on that later.) At least one other species, if not more. The etymology and science involved in establishing the existence of a new species are far too complex and indeed lengthy to make for a good post on a forum such as this one. So, I will attempt to encapsulate the basic idea as succinctly and clearly as possible. If you are looking to respond to this post with a thirty page diatribe of the exact science, please understand that while fascinating, I am sure, it is far too dry to try to encompass completely in a forum post. It is really a pretty straight forward concept once you get past the precept that if it looks human and it acts human it must be human. That seems to be the 'breaking point' when it comes to this science and it principal idea. We have been taught from the time we were toddlers and over generations to simply take as established fact that we are the highest species on the food chain. Any claim that this might not be the case is simply dismissed as science fiction. We are perfectly fine in the understanding that there are many races the share the planet, but a different species is simply not something we are taught or indeed allowed to consider. It is in fact science, but the fiction is gone.

Evolutionary biology researchers have established that we did not evolve from neanderthals, as previously believed. There was a member of the Homo sapiens species on earth 65,000 years before the neanderthal. Homo sapiens idaltu was a human species with very similar facial features, larger bone structure and musculature. The species was discovered in 2003 and anthropologists and archaeologists are still attempting to establish a baseline relative to their society. In any case, the point is that Homo sapiens sapiens, the definition of modern man, has clearly not been the only species of human on the planet. Why would we contrive to imagine that evolution has stopped with us, that unlike every other species on the planet we have not evolved at all in thirty thousand years?

The basic precept of Darwin's contributions are based on the simple idea that a species will, over time, adapt to better survive in its environment and to procreate and thus ensure the survival of the species. Survival of the fittest is alive and well, even when it comes to humans and the new species. And it is this premise on which the new science is most firmly founded. Is is the scientific definition of evolution we must rely upon, not the common idea of evolution as enlightenment. That is not to say that this new posited species in entirely without a higher intellect, it is simply that the context we most often associate predatory behavior is devolution or even savagery. It is important to establish that there is quite a difference between predatory behavior based on the context of Darwin's core idea and predatory behavior as defined in the context of the psychopath. It is a subtle, but clear difference for predatory psychopathic behavior is usually driven by a desire for an intimately personal satisfaction without regard for a long-term strategy or any sort of natural inclination for self-preservation, however that self-preservation might come.

My interest in the subject came about as I spent most of my law school years working for both the district attorney and public defender in San Diego county. During that time I had the opportunity to engage in a number of murder cases, most of these were driven by typical human failings, greed, drug addiction, jealousy and the normal mental deficiencies, schizophrenia and psychopathy. There were a few cases, however, where the defendant appeared to have engaged in almost purely predatory behavior, not driven by drugs or greed or jealousy, but by a simple and clear desire to hunt humans. As it was explored further, this desire was driven by their idea that the stronger were meant to prey on the weak. It was when their defense attorneys explored the idea of psychopathy and when, after being examined by psychiatrists and found to not fit the standard definition utilizing the established norms, that the idea first came in. Not surprisingly, the defense attorneys found psychologists or psychiatrists who were more than able to stretch the scale and norms in order to 'fit' their clients into the definition and thus we see how the definition of the psychopath is ever expanding.

The DA likewise utilized psychiatrists to establish that the accused simply engaged in clear predatory behavior, not affected by any mental deficiency, but rather driven by 'evil'. Clearly this last concept of moral 'evil' was borne of a desire to secure a conviction rather than establishing any sort of legal definition. And it was the legal implications of such a scientific finding that finally captured my full curiosity about the possibility of a new species. How would the law receive such a declaration by the scientific community? If there is an individual who, from birth has the clear and undeniable desire, the instinct to hunt other humans, who possess distinct physiology, physiology observed in a significant number of individuals, whose mental cognitive processes are also markedly different from those of 'normal' human and who clearly do not fit the traditional definition of psychopathy, then should it not stand to reason that somewhere science would begin to establish another plausible answer? And is it not then clear that the way in which law encompasses human interaction would likewise need to establish new guidelines, particularly in criminal law?

Thinking about it from the traditional view of evolved behavior, one of my first questions for the experts I consulted was: Why should it be that if there is indeed a different and distinct species we would end up finding them at the very extreme of what we consider to be aberrant human behavior? If there is a new species why did we not first define it along a different set of behaviors? The answer I received was as simple and logical as it was satisfying. They encountered the new species at the most aberrant end of the spectrum of human behavior because it is that end which is engaged in the most continuous research into the human mind. That research is obviously based on the desire to understand the why of such behavior, but since it is limited by what has been established as the human behavior spectrum it must, by definition, be also limited to find all behavior to be human. These scientists and researchers have simply gone beyond the defined limitations of human behavior. Science and to an even greater extent technology have served to confirm what were once simply hypotheses and to uncover previously unknown physiological and biological processes within the brain. So, while previously speculation about a distinctly different human species was based simply on observed behavior, it is now buttressed by clearly established differences in physiology, cognition processes, genetics and evolutionary biology.
{snip}
In summary, there is credible and groundbreaking science that posits the existence of another species of human besides Homo sapiens sapiens higher on the food chain. These individuals have heretofore been defined as psychopaths or as having some sort of 'personality disorder.' The boundaries and norms that have historically been used to diagnose psychopathy are in constant flux changing in order to be able to encompass the ever-expanding nature of our understanding of aberrant human behavior. Many scientists and other experts believe that individuals who are in high levels of politics, science, media and education are more likely members of this new species rather than psychopaths of sociopaths as has been believed. The science of forensic genomics, a science which provides another standard of justice for those who have a certain genetic makeup has set a precedent in criminal court.

I don't doubt that there are studies that either have been done or can be done to show that psychopaths are different species of human (genome, brains scans etc) but what are the chances of that information being allowed into the public? Not likely when you have those very same predators in control.

 

[Laura]

I think the problem with defining certain psychopaths as a different species (though I have done it myself out of a lack of a proper nomenclature) lies in the fact that the definition of a species includes the ability to "cross pollinate", that is capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

Okay, a tiger and a lion can be induced to interbreed though they don't normally. But they are, respectively, Panthera tigris and Panthera leo, the genus being panthera, the species being tigris or leo.

So, I think we can describe certain psychopaths as a different species, though under the same genus.

 

[SMM]

The same genus, different species notion is the one I found simplest to understand. That is as simple and logical as it is satisfying when considered alongside a spectrum of X-chromosomal differences and all possible expressions on that continuum, which might not show in a phenotype.

Kind of like what's written in the extract:

Evolutionary biology researchers have established that we did not evolve from neanderthals, as previously believed. There was a member of the Homo sapiens species on earth 65,000 years before the neanderthal. Homo sapiens idaltu was a human species with very similar facial features, larger bone structure and musculature. The species was discovered in 2003 and anthropologists and archaeologists are still attempting to establish a baseline relative to their society. In any case, the point is that Homo sapiens sapiens, the definition of modern man, has clearly not been the only species of human on the planet. Why would we contrive to imagine that evolution has stopped with us, that unlike every other species on the planet we have not evolved at all in thirty thousand years?

Except with Homo sapiens perhaps being a genus, rather than a species, containing a subsystems of species?

I think identifying psychopaths as a distinct species is to drive home the point of the completely foreign nature of psychopaths to humans. If we're looking at homo-sapiens in purely biological terms, then sure, we pretty much have the same parts. But the exploration of what it is to be fully human takes on more than just our biology, as you allude later in your post, Mal7. I think a purely material science has a rather myopic view of our nature and denies capacity and values that could move us forward. Fortunately there's a lot of good work being done that is moving past this with information theory, cognitive science, neuroscience and related consciousness studies. So, it seems to me that the distinction opens the doors a bit to understand ourselves better too.

I very much agree with the statement in bold above. Beyond physiology, what makes humanity human is consciousness/psyche. There is a fundamental difference between the psyche of a normal human and the psyche of a psychopathic human (bipedal hominid outwardly resembling a normal human). If you consider the fundamental parts of a normal human psyche - moving, feeling, thinking - in terms of geometrical points, they could define a plane -- three points are required for this. A psychopath, at best, has two and a half 'points'. It seems to me that 2.5 is an optimistic point of view (how could one have half a dimension??). According to the research on the subject, the 'feeling center' life of a psychopath is quite outside the form of feeling-center-life in normal humans. The point is, in relation to normal inner world experience, the psychopath would have only a line [segment]. A thought just occurred to me that perhaps temporal awareness is related to the normal functioning of the feeling center. A psychopath 'declares' what reality is. That is absolutely 'now', or 'being-in-the-moment'. No concern for the past (actions taken), nor the future (consequences of actions taken). Does this make sense??

From what perspective is the call made that psychopaths are not/are human?? Is it just physiology? Or the ability to abstract? Or empathy? IMO, all three must be taken into consideration, and from that point of view, psychopaths are not human.

Kris

I think what you have said, Renaissance and RflctnOfU, is of value. Spatial-temporal awareness can plausibly be related to both functions of the feeling and intellectual centres or cognition.

Complexity arises IMO when taking into account physical attributes and behaviours as is customarily in mainstream science for the animal kingdom and other species, as part of the definition of species. More nonverbal subtle nuances found in human attributes really amount to, as Aragorn alludes to, a completely foreign inner landscape making it harder to determine a differential prognosis.

In other words, we can see the predatory nature of a lion chasing its prey in action. Thus predatory behaviour is readily evinced. I wonder, if we could see psychopathic predatory behaviour like we could see the spots on a leopard, if those same predators would be in control?

 

[Mal7]

Evolutionary biologists think of reproductive isolation as being a key factor in speciation (speciation being when one ancestral species splits into two different species). The most common way of establishing reproductive isolation is through geographic isolation, e.g. a few birds are blown onto an island, or snail species on Hawaii are separated from each other by deep valleys, or changing sea levels separate one land mass into two.

The small population of birds on the island, since it is not interbreeding with the parent population, will follow a separate evolutionary trajectory, adapting to the local conditions on the island, or just changing through random genetic drift (not all alterations in the genotype have to be adaptive), and after many generations may be so different from the parent population that is no longer able to interbreed with them. It would then be considered a separate species. If on the other hand a land bridge developed between the island and the mainland before much differentiation had occurred, and the small population began breeding freely with the mainland population again, the gene pools would be mixed up with each other and the small population would no longer be a separate trajectory of forming a new species.

So another way of looking at the matter of whether some psychopaths are a separate species in the biological sense (rather than a more metaphysical but not less important sense of "what is human?") is in terms of when or where or how a speciation event is occurring. If psychopaths are breeding with "normal" humans freely, rather than as an occasional hybridization event, then their genes are being mixed 50:50 with each generation, and the prevalence of psychopathic traits would be seen as variance within the (biological) species. That doesn't mean the variation is continuous or a Normal Distribution, it could be discontinuous, e.g. either you have sickle cell anaemia or you don't (you have sickle cell anemia if you have "homozygosity [the gene is on both chromosomes of a pair of chromosomes] for the mutation that causes HbS". (_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease_)

If zoos all let their tigers and lions that had been culturally habituated to interbreeding go free, and they continued to interbreed or hybridize freely with each other, and their offspring were also all fertile, then after many generations (10,000 years?) I think they would eventually be considered as one biological species, and the existence of a range of leonine or tiger-like traits would be considered as variation within the species.

Some biologists argue that the species is the only taxonomic that has any real existence at any point in time beyond being a useful classification system for humans. Even at the species level though, there are complicated real life examples. For example, herring gulls are an example of what is called a "ring species". The populations of gulls circumscribe the whole globe at northern latitudes, and each population breeds freely with neighbouring populations, but there are two "end populations" that meet at one point on the globe that are unable to interbreed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) There are other species that freely hybridize where there geographical ranges meet.

In the plant world there are even more complexities, and some biologists have argued that for plants even the taxonomic rank of "species" is nothing more than a useful classification for human purposes. (_http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Do_Plant_Species_Really_Exist.html_)

Speciation can occur overnight in plants through what is called polyploidy. This is where the zygote gets a full set of chromosomes from each parent, resulting in a doubling of the overall number of chromosomes. The resulting plant is unable to interbreed with its parent plants. Polyploidy occurs in some animals too. It occurs in humans too - "Polyploidy occurs in humans in the form of triploidy, with 69 chromosomes (sometimes called 69,XXX), and tetraploidy with 92 chromosomes (sometimes called 92,XXXX). Triploidy, usually due to polyspermy, occurs in about 2–3% of all human pregnancies and ~15% of miscarriages.[citation needed] The vast majority of triploid conceptions end as a miscarriage; those that do survive to term typically die shortly after birth. In some cases, survival past birth may occur longer if there is mixoploidy with both a diploid and a triploid cell population present." _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy

Polyploidy is pervasive in plants and some estimates suggest that 30–80% of living plant species are polyploid, and many lineages show evidence of ancient polyploidy (paleopolyploidy) in their genomes.[21][22][23] Huge explosions in angiosperm species diversity appear to have coincided with the timing of ancient genome duplications shared by many species.[24] It has been established that 15% of angiosperm and 31% of fern speciation events are accompanied by ploidy increase.

-_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploidy

 

[Arwenn]

I very much agree with the statement in bold above. Beyond physiology, what makes humanity human is consciousness/psyche. There is a fundamental difference between the psyche of a normal human and the psyche of a psychopathic human (bipedal hominid outwardly resembling a normal human). If you consider the fundamental parts of a normal human psyche - moving, feeling, thinking - in terms of geometrical points, they could define a plane -- three points are required for this. A psychopath, at best, has two and a half 'points'. It seems to me that 2.5 is an optimistic point of view (how could one have half a dimension??). According to the research on the subject, the 'feeling center' life of a psychopath is quite outside the form of feeling-center-life in normal humans. The point is, in relation to normal inner world experience, the psychopath would have only a line [segment]. A thought just occurred to me that perhaps temporal awareness is related to the normal functioning of the feeling center. A psychopath 'declares' what reality is. That is absolutely 'now', or 'being-in-the-moment'. No concern for the past (actions taken), nor the future (consequences of actions taken). Does this make sense??

From what perspective is the call made that psychopaths are not/are human?? Is it just physiology? Or the ability to abstract? Or empathy? IMO, all three must be taken into consideration, and from that point of view, psychopaths are not human.

Kris

Consciousness sets us apart from other animals, but it is the lack of conscience and empathy that sets psychopaths apart from 'normal' humans. They appear to have a completely different emotional sub-stratum, their inner landscape is so completely alien to us. Because we cannot comprehend this (we are all taught to believe that if it looks like a human and talks like one, it must think and feel like one i.e. we are all the same), it has lead the psychopaths in power to progressively ponerize the rest of us. I found this site an excellent source of information on psychopathy:


[quote author=http://www.systemsthinker.com/interests/mind/psychopathy.shtml]
Evolutionary Views of Psychopathy

We have already seen earlier how essential cooperation and mutual support - based on constant reinforcement and, when necessary, repair, of tight-knit ties within a band or tribe - were for the survival and flourishing of early Homo sapiens.

Given this evolutionary history, we understand clearly why the emergence of empathy and conscience were so central to human survival and success. The sustainable functioning of a band or tribe, and the survival of its members, would have been nearly impossible without the widespread development among individuals of the abilities to:
* Recognize and care for the feelings and needs of others
*Experience guilt and remorse, which motivate us to make amends, upon unfairly harming or neglecting another
In other words, conscience is, quite literally, at the very foundation of what enabled our species to survive and thrive on this planet.

This is why, in The Sociopath Next Door, Martha Stout claims that, perhaps even more fundamental than gender or race or intelligence, the presence or absence of conscience is "possibly the single most meaningful characteristic that divides the human species." How then do we explain the case of the psychopath, who lacks the very aspects of character upon which the emergence and survival of human societies have relied?
Defect or Alternate Evolutionary Strategy?

Well, the most basic approach simply views psychopaths as mutations or aberrations of the normal human being, who, as reviewer Martha Beck put it, "lack scruples the way someone born blind lacks eyesight." Advocates of this perspective would explain that, just as some people are born with damaged eyes or hearts or kidneys, psychopaths suffer from a birth defect involving the moral and emotional processing centers of the brain. In Political Ponerology, Lobaczewski informs us that, at one time, psychiatrists often used to describe those whom he calls "essential psychopaths" – people with a form of psychopathy that he believed to be inherited and most centrally involved in catalyzing pathocracy – as "Daltonists of human feelings and socio-moral values," thus making the analogy between them and people with a form of color blindness known as Daltonism.

However, other experts hold a more complex view of the psychopath not as a "broken" normal human, but rather as a different type of human entirely. They believe that, just as humans of conscience were naturally selected for via the pressures of their environments, certain environments may also, in parallel, have naturally selected for the survival and reproduction of a certain number of humans without conscience. In this paradigm, psychopaths are seen as a subset of humanity, wired to enact an alternate evolutionary strategy that - though perhaps reprehensible to many of us and possibly dangerous to our long-term sustainability - has nonetheless served them relatively effectively within the context of our recent history.
Intraspecies Predator or Subspecies of Homo sapiens?

Our understanding of the psychopaths’ essential difference is reflected in the labels attributed to them by some experts. Because their life strategy, generated by their profound biological differences, frequently places them in fierce – though often unseen - competition with their fellow humans, Robert Hare has referred to the psychopath as an "intraspecies predator."

Others have gone even farther, drawing the perspective out to its ultimate conclusion by classifying the psychopath as a separate subspecies of humanity - what Lobaczewski, in one interview, termed "a para-Homo Sapiens." For these thinkers, empathy and conscience are so fundamental to what it means to be a normal human being that a person without those traits represents a new evolutionary branch.
The Biological Basis of Psychopathy

The fundamental and seemingly intractable nature of psychopathic influence in our society may stem from and be mirrored by the underlying biology of the condition. As has been mentioned, psychopathy, unlike some related conditions, is a term with a history in the "hard sciences" and experts have long speculated on its likely biological basis. As our ability to examine genetic influence and brain structure and function has improved, this speculation is increasingly being verified.

Research is finding that, far from simply normal humans motivated - due to poor parenting, trauma, abuse or just personal preference - to make unethical choices, psychopaths are, in some respects, "a different animal" from the rest of us. Various techniques are allowing us to correlate their many abnormal traits and behaviors – their lack of empathy and conscience, their inappropriate reactions to disturbing emotional stimuli, their inability to experience normal fear, guilt and shame, their failure to relate to the horror of victims – with demonstrable differences in their physical constitution.

Some of the relevant studies and findings include:
Genetic Basis for Psychopathy

"Evidence for Substantial Genetic Risk for Psychopathy in 7-Year-Olds" – This twin study demonstrated 81% heritability for antisocial behavior among those twins that were highly psychopathic. As Barbara Oakley puts it in Evil Genes, “Discarding the belief in the natural innocence of children and eliminating a century of social engineering, this means that some kids are born with a marked tendency toward evil.”
Several other studies have also found a very significant level of heritability for psychopathy. No specific genes, however, have yet been identified that cause psychopathy. Most researchers believe that there are multiple genes that contribute to the development of the condition.

Since psychopathy is not 100% heritable, that means that the environment does play some role in determining whether a person ultimately becomes a psychopath or displays antisocial behavior. However, the exact role that the environment plays can vary in sometimes surprising ways. For instance, Oakley explains how, in some cases, those who experienced a normal upbringing actually show more severe neurological impairment than those who were abused as children.
Brain Abnormalities in Psychopaths

*"Limbic Abnormalities in Affective Processing by Criminal Psychopaths as Revealed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging" – This study showed that criminal psychopaths, when repeating emotionally charged words, show less activity than normal people in some brain areas and more activity than normal people in others. In other words, criminal psychopaths process emotions using different brain regions in different ways than do the rest of us.

*The amygdala, a brain area deeply involved in emotional processing and reactions, has been shown to be less reactive in some situations among psychopaths than among normal people.

*While still being investigated, preliminary findings have shown that psychopaths may exhibit differences in the functioning of mirror neurons, special neurons that allow us, upon observing the actions and responses of others, to simulate them in our own minds, and therefore to empathize.

*A number of studies show impairments in psychopaths in specific brain areas whose activation is associated with the experience of moral feeling.

*Some of the symptoms of psychopathy are reproduced in patients with injuries in relevant brain areas. A University of Haifa study showed that the psychopath’s impairment in empathy is remarkably similar to that found in frontal lobe brain injury patients. And the term "pseudopsychopathy" has been coined to refer to those who exhibit certain psychopathic traits after incurring frontal lobe lesions.

*"Corpus Callosum Abnormalities in Psychopathic Antisocial Individuals" – This study revealed that, in psychopaths, the corpus callosum, the area that connects the two brain hemispheres, has significantly more white matter volume and is longer and thinner than normal. This means that their brain hemispheres may have difficulty communicating properly with each other.

*"Temporal Lobe Abnormalities in Semantic Processing by Criminal Psychopaths as Revealed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging" - Psychopaths show less activity than others in the right anterior superior temporal gyrus when hearing abstract words, though they show similar activity to others when hearing concrete words. This may explain the psychopath’s diminished ability for grasping abstract concepts.
This is just a sample of the voluminous research documenting the biological underpinnings of psychopathy. Most of these, as well as many other, examples are described in great detail and with wonderful explication in Evil Genes, which features a section called "The Genetics of Psychopathy" and the fourth chapter of which is entitled "Using Medical Imaging to Understand Psychopaths."

[/quote]

 

[RflctnOfU]

I very much agree with the statement in bold above. Beyond physiology, what makes humanity human is consciousness/psyche. There is a fundamental difference between the psyche of a normal human and the psyche of a psychopathic human (bipedal hominid outwardly resembling a normal human). If you consider the fundamental parts of a normal human psyche - moving, feeling, thinking - in terms of geometrical points, they could define a plane -- three points are required for this. A psychopath, at best, has two and a half 'points'. It seems to me that 2.5 is an optimistic point of view (how could one have half a dimension??). According to the research on the subject, the 'feeling center' life of a psychopath is quite outside the form of feeling-center-life in normal humans. The point is, in relation to normal inner world experience, the psychopath would have only a line [segment]. A thought just occurred to me that perhaps temporal awareness is related to the normal functioning of the feeling center. A psychopath 'declares' what reality is. That is absolutely 'now', or 'being-in-the-moment'. No concern for the past (actions taken), nor the future (consequences of actions taken). Does this make sense??

From what perspective is the call made that psychopaths are not/are human?? Is it just physiology? Or the ability to abstract? Or empathy? IMO, all three must be taken into consideration, and from that point of view, psychopaths are not human.

Kris

Consciousness sets us apart from other animals, but it is the lack of conscience and empathy that sets psychopaths apart from 'normal' humans. They appear to have a completely different emotional sub-stratum, their inner landscape is so completely alien to us. Because we cannot comprehend this (we are all taught to believe that if it looks like a human and talks like one, it must think and feel like one i.e. we are all the same), it has lead the psychopaths in power to progressively ponerize the rest of us. I found this site an excellent source of information on psychopathy:


[quote author=http://www.systemsthinker.com/interests/mind/psychopathy.shtml]
Evolutionary Views of Psychopathy

We have already seen earlier how essential cooperation and mutual support - based on constant reinforcement and, when necessary, repair, of tight-knit ties within a band or tribe - were for the survival and flourishing of early Homo sapiens.

Given this evolutionary history, we understand clearly why the emergence of empathy and conscience were so central to human survival and success. The sustainable functioning of a band or tribe, and the survival of its members, would have been nearly impossible without the widespread development among individuals of the abilities to:
* Recognize and care for the feelings and needs of others
*Experience guilt and remorse, which motivate us to make amends, upon unfairly harming or neglecting another
In other words, conscience is, quite literally, at the very foundation of what enabled our species to survive and thrive on this planet.

This is why, in The Sociopath Next Door, Martha Stout claims that, perhaps even more fundamental than gender or race or intelligence, the presence or absence of conscience is "possibly the single most meaningful characteristic that divides the human species." How then do we explain the case of the psychopath, who lacks the very aspects of character upon which the emergence and survival of human societies have relied?
Defect or Alternate Evolutionary Strategy?

Well, the most basic approach simply views psychopaths as mutations or aberrations of the normal human being, who, as reviewer Martha Beck put it, "lack scruples the way someone born blind lacks eyesight." Advocates of this perspective would explain that, just as some people are born with damaged eyes or hearts or kidneys, psychopaths suffer from a birth defect involving the moral and emotional processing centers of the brain. In Political Ponerology, Lobaczewski informs us that, at one time, psychiatrists often used to describe those whom he calls "essential psychopaths" – people with a form of psychopathy that he believed to be inherited and most centrally involved in catalyzing pathocracy – as "Daltonists of human feelings and socio-moral values," thus making the analogy between them and people with a form of color blindness known as Daltonism.

However, other experts hold a more complex view of the psychopath not as a "broken" normal human, but rather as a different type of human entirely. They believe that, just as humans of conscience were naturally selected for via the pressures of their environments, certain environments may also, in parallel, have naturally selected for the survival and reproduction of a certain number of humans without conscience. In this paradigm, psychopaths are seen as a subset of humanity, wired to enact an alternate evolutionary strategy that - though perhaps reprehensible to many of us and possibly dangerous to our long-term sustainability - has nonetheless served them relatively effectively within the context of our recent history.
Intraspecies Predator or Subspecies of Homo sapiens?

Our understanding of the psychopaths’ essential difference is reflected in the labels attributed to them by some experts. Because their life strategy, generated by their profound biological differences, frequently places them in fierce – though often unseen - competition with their fellow humans, Robert Hare has referred to the psychopath as an "intraspecies predator."

Others have gone even farther, drawing the perspective out to its ultimate conclusion by classifying the psychopath as a separate subspecies of humanity - what Lobaczewski, in one interview, termed "a para-Homo Sapiens." For these thinkers, empathy and conscience are so fundamental to what it means to be a normal human being that a person without those traits represents a new evolutionary branch.
The Biological Basis of Psychopathy

The fundamental and seemingly intractable nature of psychopathic influence in our society may stem from and be mirrored by the underlying biology of the condition. As has been mentioned, psychopathy, unlike some related conditions, is a term with a history in the "hard sciences" and experts have long speculated on its likely biological basis. As our ability to examine genetic influence and brain structure and function has improved, this speculation is increasingly being verified.

Research is finding that, far from simply normal humans motivated - due to poor parenting, trauma, abuse or just personal preference - to make unethical choices, psychopaths are, in some respects, "a different animal" from the rest of us. Various techniques are allowing us to correlate their many abnormal traits and behaviors – their lack of empathy and conscience, their inappropriate reactions to disturbing emotional stimuli, their inability to experience normal fear, guilt and shame, their failure to relate to the horror of victims – with demonstrable differences in their physical constitution.

Some of the relevant studies and findings include:
Genetic Basis for Psychopathy

"Evidence for Substantial Genetic Risk for Psychopathy in 7-Year-Olds" – This twin study demonstrated 81% heritability for antisocial behavior among those twins that were highly psychopathic. As Barbara Oakley puts it in Evil Genes, “Discarding the belief in the natural innocence of children and eliminating a century of social engineering, this means that some kids are born with a marked tendency toward evil.”
Several other studies have also found a very significant level of heritability for psychopathy. No specific genes, however, have yet been identified that cause psychopathy. Most researchers believe that there are multiple genes that contribute to the development of the condition.

Since psychopathy is not 100% heritable, that means that the environment does play some role in determining whether a person ultimately becomes a psychopath or displays antisocial behavior. However, the exact role that the environment plays can vary in sometimes surprising ways. For instance, Oakley explains how, in some cases, those who experienced a normal upbringing actually show more severe neurological impairment than those who were abused as children.
Brain Abnormalities in Psychopaths

*"Limbic Abnormalities in Affective Processing by Criminal Psychopaths as Revealed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging" – This study showed that criminal psychopaths, when repeating emotionally charged words, show less activity than normal people in some brain areas and more activity than normal people in others. In other words, criminal psychopaths process emotions using different brain regions in different ways than do the rest of us.

*The amygdala, a brain area deeply involved in emotional processing and reactions, has been shown to be less reactive in some situations among psychopaths than among normal people.

*While still being investigated, preliminary findings have shown that psychopaths may exhibit differences in the functioning of mirror neurons, special neurons that allow us, upon observing the actions and responses of others, to simulate them in our own minds, and therefore to empathize.

*A number of studies show impairments in psychopaths in specific brain areas whose activation is associated with the experience of moral feeling.

*Some of the symptoms of psychopathy are reproduced in patients with injuries in relevant brain areas. A University of Haifa study showed that the psychopath’s impairment in empathy is remarkably similar to that found in frontal lobe brain injury patients. And the term "pseudopsychopathy" has been coined to refer to those who exhibit certain psychopathic traits after incurring frontal lobe lesions.

*"Corpus Callosum Abnormalities in Psychopathic Antisocial Individuals" – This study revealed that, in psychopaths, the corpus callosum, the area that connects the two brain hemispheres, has significantly more white matter volume and is longer and thinner than normal. This means that their brain hemispheres may have difficulty communicating properly with each other.

*"Temporal Lobe Abnormalities in Semantic Processing by Criminal Psychopaths as Revealed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging" - Psychopaths show less activity than others in the right anterior superior temporal gyrus when hearing abstract words, though they show similar activity to others when hearing concrete words. This may explain the psychopath’s diminished ability for grasping abstract concepts.
This is just a sample of the voluminous research documenting the biological underpinnings of psychopathy. Most of these, as well as many other, examples are described in great detail and with wonderful explication in Evil Genes, which features a section called "The Genetics of Psychopathy" and the fourth chapter of which is entitled "Using Medical Imaging to Understand Psychopaths."

[/quote]
The bolded above is what I was talking about. Empathy and conscience are a part of the psyche/consciousness, which is fundamentally different in the psychopath.

Kris

 

[Tripitaka]

I don't feel that psychopaths are a sub species at all.
I also believe that they have souls the same as the rest of us.
From a spiritual perspective who knows why they chose to come to earth with this disorder? It could be karmic? There could actually be spiritually specific reasons why there are psychopaths on earth.
Of course also if one were to go by Ra Law of One material, then it could be that the Orion group mentioned may have a mighty big influence in either creating, or controlling a being with this disorder? Would they then be categorized as a sub species if indeed the Orion group, mentioned In Ra the law of One have anyhing to do wih it?


Tripitaka

:)

 

[Arwenn]

I don't feel that psychopaths are a sub species at all.
I also believe that they have souls the same as the rest of us.
From a spiritual perspective who knows why they chose to come to earth with this disorder? It could be karmic? There could actually be spiritually specific reasons why there are psychopaths on earth.
Of course also if one were to go by Ra Law of One material, then it could be that the Orion group mentioned may have a mighty big influence in either creating, or controlling a being with this disorder? Would they then be categorized as a sub species if indeed the Orion group, mentioned In Ra the law of One have anyhing to do wih it?


Tripitaka

:)

Hi Tripitaka, have you read Laura's books and articles on the subject of psychopathy and organic portals? I have some links below to articles and a podcast that discuss this topic well:
Organic Portals - The Other Race: Part 1
Organic Portals - The Other Race: Part 2
Transcript #40 - Organic Portals & Psychopathy

 

[Laura]

I don't feel that psychopaths are a sub species at all.
I also believe that they have souls the same as the rest of us.
From a spiritual perspective who knows why they chose to come to earth with this disorder? It could be karmic? There could actually be spiritually specific reasons why there are psychopaths on earth.
Of course also if one were to go by Ra Law of One material, then it could be that the Orion group mentioned may have a mighty big influence in either creating, or controlling a being with this disorder? Would they then be categorized as a sub species if indeed the Orion group, mentioned In Ra the law of One have anyhing to do wih it?

Tripitaka

:)

You can "believe" all you want; doesn't make it so. And on this forum, we are interested in data-supported discussion, not beliefs. If you are into belief without substantial data to back it up, find another forum.

 

[Tripitaka]

Thank you Arwen, I will take a look at these.

No I do not have anything substantial to back this up other than things that I have read. Like Ra Law of One, also recently for my own personal benefit I looked into 'entity attachements', and came across this: _http://www.shamanportal.org/article_details.php?id=852
And this: órion group' Law of One. http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?c=Orion

Now I am unsure how correct this may be with regards to anything discussed here on psychopaths being a sub species.
I only have opinions based on books I haver read.
I do apologize as I definitley cannot provide any substantial evidence to suggest whether they are a sub species or not?

Ciou

Tripitaka :)