"The Anatomy of Evil"

[H2O Man]

I like to watch some of the criminal trials on "TrueTV," and think they serve a useful purpose in providing public education on the legal system. In the last week or so, there was a trial of a vicious rapist/murderer in Florida; he was found guilty of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a 21-year old woman, who was married and had two little children. Even as a person who is opposed to the death penalty, I found myself reacting to the sight of the thug, especially while the victim's call to 911, begging for help, was played.

During one of the discussions in the studeo after the trial, there was mention of Dr. Michael Stone's new book, "The Anatomy of Evil." Many DUers may recognize Stone, who authored a classic text titled "Personality Disorders: Treatable and Untreatable." The $75 cost may cause some to choose not to buy it; however, it is worth finding a copy at a library. But that's a topic for another OP/thread.

Dr. Stone teaches clinical psychiatry at Columbia College. He's wrote 10 books, and over 200 articles for journals, and chapters for other books. Most DUers have likely seen him on television over the years (including on the Discovery Channel's series "Most Evil").

This book, published in July, doesn't use the religious or philosophical definitions of "evil." Rather, it uses the term in the "common" way -- such as if a person watches a trial such as Michael King's, finds their skin crawling, and thinks that what he did was evil.

He writes about a variety of the aggressive, violent, and sadistic murderers that are the dark side of our culture. He also explains a great deal about the combination of "nature" and "nurture" -- including information on the role that head injuries can play in increasing aggression in some individuals.

There is, in the general public, a good deal of misinformation regarding issues involving violence and sociopaths. It's both interesting and important to read books like this, which are strongly recommended by experts ranging from J. Reid Malloy (the forensic psychiatrist who authored "The Psychopathic Mind"), to Mary Ellen O'Toole, PhD, who supervises the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit (for "profiling").

I definitely recommend this book for anyone who is interested in the topic.

[SpiralHawk]

1. "Beware the Evil Doers. Smirk." - xCommander AWOL (R)

"You can always pick the evil doers out. They will be the ones pretending to have integrity and they will also pretend to be patriots by wearing on their lapels little American flag pins made in Thailand, or some other godforsaken hellhole. Smirk."

- xCommander AWOL (R)

[Voice for Peace]

4. re nature/nurture & violence, you might enjoy this research

http://www.violence.de

THE ORIGINS OF PEACE AND VIOLENCE
Deprivation of Physical Affection as a Main Cause of Depression, Aggression and Drug Abuse

[H2O Man]

9. Perhaps he and Cheney

took some punches to the head in their younger years, that the public is unaware of.

[fascisthunter]

2. I may check it out, after I finish, "Without Conscience" by Robert D. Hare, PhD

a book you recommended I read. My girlfriend got to it before I could, since I was reading Into the Wild by Krakauer... she couldn't put it down, and finished reading it in three days.

[H2O Man]

8. That's an outstanding book.

Hare and Malloy are very good sources.

I'm enjoying this one, too. My oldest brother boxed a lot, amateur and professional. He was not gifted in defensive skills, though he could take an unbelievable amount of punishment, and come out winning. But it was not good for him in the long run. So, besides my former work, this book covers information that I find of great interest.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. Tsk, Patrick.

First you demote Meloy to psychiatrist (I believe he's a psychologist), and now you misspell his name!

[H2O Man]

15. You are correct

on both counts. I am guilty of making both errors. And I feel guilt and remorse! I promise not to read and type, ever again.

I'm curious what your impressions of this book are? Have you read it yet? I'm enjoying it very much -- just got it this afternoon, hard to put down.

[H2O Man]

17. One more question,

in a rambling form. Certainly, any comparison of current figures/movements to Hitler/Nazis has a built-in negative response. So, I find myself looking at the likes of this Rep. Wilson and the Glenn Becks, and the paranoid, increasingly aggressive alternative reality that they exist in. The repeated lies, which they substitute for truth. Their followers who are anticipating social unrest and violence. Thus, my question to you -- and I intend it seriously: do you think that this is similar to the group (largely self-induced) psychosis that defined the "Manson Family"? Manipulative "leaders" who convince unstable folk to the point where some are apparently at least considering violence, in order to begin their "revolution"? I have not stated this clearly, but I'm confident that you will know what I'm asking. Group madness, rather than the lone killer.

[Jackpine Radical]

20. ...and a rambling reply.

I haven't read the Stone book, but I have nevertheless been giving some thought to what I think of as "high-functioning psychopathy," the Snakes in Suits Syndrome, and the nature of authoritarianism. I pretty much like Bob Altemeyer's work on this topic (popularized by John Dean in Conservatives Without Conscience. I think there is a continuum that ranges from pure psychopathy on one end to paranoid delusion on the other. The most fully-developed authoritarian leader-types are pure psychopaths with a taste for personal power and control, while their followers are in some sense psychotic, at least in a metaphorical sense, even if they don't fully meet any of the criterion sets in the DSM (i.e. they are profoundly out of touch with reality and willing to act on their misperceptions and misconstructions). There are some prominent figures who fall at intermediate points on the continuum, drinking of the Kool-Ade even as they pass it out to their followers. In my formulation, Cheney is a pure psychopath. Wilson, a minor figure, is somewhere in the middle on my A-Scale. Most teabaggers are in the paranoid-delusional camp. I don't think this unidimensional model captures all the variance, but there is a lot I haven't sorted out at this point. For one thing, psychopathy is not a unidimensional construct in itself. Personally, I'm not particularly compelled by the two-or 4-factor models coming out of the Hare camp; I much prefer the Cooke group's 3-factor model, which they summarize in these words:

he superordinate trait, psychopathy, overarched three highly correlated symptom factors: arrogant and deceitful interpersonal style, deficient affective experience and impulsive and irresponsible behavioural style. The first factor was specified by glibness/superficial charm, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, and conning/manipulative, the second factor by lack of remorse or guilt, shallow affect, callous/lack of empathy and failure to accept responsibility for own actions, and the third factor by need for stimulation/proneness to boredom, irresponsibility, impulsivity, parasitic lifestyle and lack of realistic, long-term goals.

In this model, I would say that Cheney is strong on Factors 1 & 2, while Bush carries all 3. The Follower class tends to carry a strong dose of only Factor 2.


Edited to add a point of clarification on Hare's PCL-R, which helps us to understand the distinction between the common, garden-variety street psychopath and the Snake in the Suit (from Cooke, D.J., Michie, C. & Skeem, J.(2007). Understanding the structure of the Psychopathy Checklist – Revised.The British Journal of Psychiatry 190: s39-s50):

The Psychopathy Checklist - Revised is used as a primary means of selection for the programme. The Checklist confounds two distinct constructs - personality disorder and criminal behaviour. This confound is important both practically and theoretically. For example, under the criteria for DSPD it is necessary to demonstrate that personality disorder has a functional link with future risk of criminal behaviour. The confound has been exacerbated recently by claims that criminal behaviour is a core feature of psychopathic disorder. This contention is based on inappropriate analytical methods.

See Cooke, D. J. & Michie, C. (2001) Refining the construct of psychopathy: towards a hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13,171 -188.

[LuvNewcastle]

3. Sounds like something I would really dig.

The price is a little steep, but I have a birthday coming up soon and maybe I'll drop a hint.

[H2O Man]

6. This one is

%27; the one on PDs is more expensive ($75). Sorry if I didn't make that clear. (Too busy trying to read while I type!)

[Voice for Peace]

5. sorry, meant to post #4 directly to the OP nt

[H2O Man]

7. Thanks for the link.

I will definitely be reading it. Much appreciated.

[Me.]

10. Would You Please Expound On Nature/Nurture

As it relates to the subject?

[H2O Man]

11. Sure.

I'm going to be brief, though, as I am only taking a short break from the book. I heard a heck of a lot of noise outside, minutes ago, and one of my dogs and I ventured out to find a neighbor's male cat starting a fight with one of my daughters' young male cats. Then, when I was heading back towards the house, a few of my male dogs -- excited by the noisy battle -- started going at each other. So, I will use that as the foundation for "nature" -- being male cats and dogs, their behavior at many times is subject to their genetic predisposition and drives.

In the human animal, there are also genetic predispositions and drives, and some have association with violence -- both offensive and defensive. This is related to, among other things, the old "flight or fight" reactions that are hard-wired into our systems.

For many years, law enforcement and other forensic sciences have looked for genetic predispositions to offensive violence, including but not restricted to murder. The shape of people's heads was actually one focus of study. Concepts about "race" have been another. And even today, the media often focuses on "mental illness," which is associated with genetics, though we have a far greater chance of being attacked and murdered by a "sane" person, especially one who has been consuming alcohol.

Nurture is, of course, the environmental factors, from family of origin to culture. It's worth noting that the standards that almost any society deems acceptable during "war" times are different than what is in "peace" times. That is perhaps an extreme example, but one that nonetheless helps illustrate a culture's views on how literal "thou shall not kill" is taken.

My own opinion is, in part, the result of having a brilliant supervisor, who said that in reality, human beings are green. Nature adds the yellow, and nurture contributes the blue.

I'm not sure if this answers you question. Please feel free to respond with a well-meaning, "What the heck are you babbling about? Now answer my question!", if by nature, nurture, or any combination requires.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. The two get very tangled, especially when you take into consideration

factors such as prenatal influences. Environmental effects (mother's drinking, smoking, stress levels, chemical use, etc.) start coming into play long before birth. Also, it is often very difficult to separate out postnatal environmental effects from genetic ones. Even separated-twin studies, the supposed gold standard, have their problems and lead to results that are often far from methodologically clean.

[Me.]

16. You're Getting There

Does one have a greater influence or is environment the deciding factor

[H2O Man]

12. A brief thought:

I always find books like this to be helpful in identifying the dynamics of times like these.

[bulldogge]

18. A strange question for you

As for Nurture and Nature....Would it be fair to say that nature plays a roll in nurture? The obvious example I suppose would be the high rate of violence in congested cities. Is there any correlation between, lets say, mental illnesses, violent crime etc when you compare nature dwellers to city dwellers (aside from obvious things like population density, the higher the number the larger the number) ...am I asking that properly? Or am I stereotyping it and sugar coating?

[Me.]

19. Why Are There Objections To This Thread?

Unrec silliness going on