One of the “holy grails” of ponerology – and an achievement that will inevitably force us to confront extremely challenging ethical dilemmas – is an improved ability to predict harmful behavior before it happens.
Dr. Kent Kiehl of the Mind Research Network has been one of the more active researchers investigating what we can learn from brain imaging of psychopaths. And he and colleagues have recently published, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, a study entitled “Neuroprediction of future rearrest.”
The study involved having 96 soon-to-be-released male prisoners perform computer tasks that required quick decision-making and inhibition of impulsive responses, while their brains were observed using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The researchers focused in on the brain region known as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and found that, when controlling for other known risk factors, those prisoners with less ACC activity than their fellow study participants were about twice as likely to be rearrested within 4 years of release as those with higher ACC activity.
The question is, as we zero in on markers like this – whether they be certain anatomical or functional characteristics of the brain, particular genetic features or anything else – what is the most ethical way in which to use this knowledge? (more…)
Ponerology is defined as the scientific study of that which is called “evil.” The reason that we explicitly specify “scientific” is to distinguish it from other approaches to considering evil, such as:
The philosophical approach – Considering evil abstractly, rather than in its real-world implications
The artistic approach – Considering evil through literature, painting, poetry and so on
The theological approach – Considering evil as potentially emanating from the supernatural realm
This last approach, the theological one, is extremely commonly employed in our present world. It may actually remain the most common approach to evil. And it was on display last week during a segment of The O’Reilly Factor. (more…)
Because Political Ponerology mostly focuses on the emergence of “evil” at the macrosocial level of nations and governments, some forget that, even in that seminal book, Andrew M. Lobaczewski talks about how it plays out at the smaller human systems scale, as well. Make no mistake, ponerology is just as concerned with what underlies harmful behavior that takes place in the most intimate one-on-one relationships as it is with how psychopathic dictators can disrupt the lives of millions. In fact, it is not only concerned with both, but with understanding how these phenomena at these different system levels interconnect and feed back upon each other.
It is in this context that I’d like to share with you a project that recently came to my attention.
A couple of weeks ago, I came across a tweet. It was from an actor who was announcing that he had been given a small role in a new movie about Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Of course, this drew my interest as I always have an eye out for any new media that focuses on educating the public about the personality disorders and other conditions marked by reduced empathy.
So I looked into the project more and here are some of the details.
The film’s title is pretty straightforward. It’s Narcissist the Movie. (more…)
Last summer, while searching the web for ponerology-related information and people, I came across a website discussing a movie called I Am Fishead – or, cleverly, I Am <Fishead(.
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. (more…)
Historically, the images of psychopaths in the public consciousness have tended to focus on sensationalized serial killers, whether fictional like Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs and Patrick Bateman in American Psycho or real like Ted Bundy.
Increasingly, people are recognizing the exponentially greater damage that can be done when “snakes in suits” exert their influence over powerful institutions as compared to when lone individuals commit gruesome, but isolated, acts. In the latter case, several people and families may be tragically affected. In the former, entire economies affecting millions, if not billions of people can be put at risk.
In the wake of this increased awareness, the Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice features a two part review by Angela Dawn Pardue, MS and Matthew B. Robinson, Ph.D. of Appalachian State University and Bruce A. Arrigo, Ph.D. of University of North Carolina entitled “Psychopathy and Corporate Crime: A Preliminary Examination.”
Last week, The Huffington Postfeatured someone whose name should always be in the mix when discussing ponerology: Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D., a man who has spent much of his life investigating the science of what makes people act in ways we might deem “good” vs. “evil.”
In our recent piece about Dr. James Fallon, we discussed the three ingredients that Fallon believes are required for the creation of a psychopathic killer.
These included:
Certain structural and functional characteristics of the brain
Certain variants of particular genes
An environment that triggers the expression of these biological predispositions
While psychopathic killers can cause great harm to a certain number of people, they are relatively rare. The greater danger, from the perspective of society at large, is the emergence of “evil” on a broader scale within systems. And, as Andrew M. Lobaczewski makes clear in Political Ponerology, for that to happen, not only must people with disorders other than psychopathy be drawn into harmful activities, but so must some percentage of biologically healthy, normal people.
Zimbardo’s work has primarily focused on investigating how this latter event occurs – how everyday, average people can end up participating in destructive events.
Zimbardo has been a psychology professor at Stanford University for over forty years. He is best known for leading the team that conducted what has come to be known as the Stanford prison experiment back in 1971. (more…)
In my original writings about ponerology, I briefly mentioned its implications for our educational systems. In addition to asserting the importance of preventing pathological people from exerting undue influence to bias curricula or personnel decisions, I said that we should decide how to include age-appropriate lessons about ponerologic material.
Apparently someone agrees.
Months ago, I was reading an article on CNN.com called “Grants Help Abused Women Start Over” by Danielle Berger. The article tells the story of Johanna Crawford, who runs a nonprofit called Web of Benefit that provides “Self-Sufficiency Grants” averaging $500 to female domestic violence survivors in Boston and Chicago to help them with the bare necessities of re-starting their lives. The “web” in the name emerges from a novel part of the program whereby, as part of the terms of their grant, recipients must “pay it forward” by performing three good works to help other survivors like themselves.
What caught my attention was a discussion that broke out in the comments section. It centered around whether the signs of abusive relationships should be taught in schools. And in the midst of this, one comment in particular jumped out at me so strongly that I immediately took a screenshot:
When we speak about ponerology and consider, from a scientific perspective, the conditions that underlie acts of commission or omission that some might term “evil,” it’s easy to get caught up in the one that dominates discussion in this area – psychopathy. We might even focus on psychopathy so much that we forget that other conditions and disorders can also be involved in these harmful situations.
In Political Ponerology, Andrew M. Lobaczewski details an entire process, which he calls ponerogenesis, by which “evil” emerges in human systems. While it’s true, in his model, that various kinds of psychopaths play a central role in that process, he also elucidates how others, including those with what he calls characteropathies – which we would refer to as personality disorders – are essential for it to play out to its destructive potential.
But as disproportionate an impact as people with these disorders can have on their surroundings, they still make up too small a proportion of the population by themselves to bring about a system dominated by the pathological. Thus, Lobaczewski details how a certain percentage of non-pathological people must also be coopted to participate in ponerogenesis if such a system, which he calls a pathocracy, is ever to come about.
Every now and then, however, we are reminded that there are still other conditions – beyond psychopathy and the personality disorders – that can play a role in unnecessary harmful events. (more…)
One of the benefits of having a website about the “science of evil” is that, in the course of researching for articles, promoting the site and communicating with readers, I get to come in contact with some very interesting people. Some of them are others who are as fascinated by this subject matter as I am, recognize how important it is and do great work educating people about it.
One of the first such people I “met” after starting this website was Jack Pemment who runs the brilliantly titled Blame the Amygdala site. Jack is an eloquent writer and a graduate student at the University of Mississippi who passionately studies, among other things, the neurological basis for moral decision-making. This includes consideration of autism, psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder. He is also investigating the biology of aggression.
All of these subjects lie right at the heart of ponerology and are talked about often on this site.
I highly recommend you check out Jack’s site.
It only took me a short time reading his site to realize that Jack has a talent for thinking and writing about these crucial matters in novel ways. But that was really confirmed when I discovered that recently he released an actual novel about these matters. (more…)
Back when the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests were going on, I remember being frustrated because I felt the protests – like many activist movements – were missing the heart of the matter. While they focused on particular political and economic grievances, I felt it was crucial that they zero in on the potential pathological nature of some of the people involved in bringing about and aggressively maintaining undesirable conditions.
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. (more…)
