I think there's a fair point to make that calling one person a psychopath and another person not a psychopath is a purely arbitrary line drawn in the sand. Hare's test measures various responses and draws an arbitrary line (30 of 40 points) between which someone is or is not a psychopath.
It's a classical false dichotomy that the article promotes in sensationalist terms.
It may be arbitrary in the same sense the question, "Is that a fast car?" is arbitrary, but in exactly the same sense you can compare and make statements regarding the degree to which someone exhibits psychopathic traits, and as his research shows, this isn't something that's simply caused by a bad upbringing.
The fact that it's not a black & white issue doesn't mean that there aren't concrete physical differences between the brains of the general population and the 1% of the population labeled as psychopaths. It's the same situation for any mental "disorder", i.e. Asperger Syndrome, etc.
Comments
I think there's a fair point to make that calling one person a psychopath and another person not a psychopath is a purely arbitrary line drawn in the sand. Hare's test measures various responses and draws an arbitrary line (30 of 40 points) between which someone is or is not a psychopath.
It's a classical false dichotomy that the article promotes in sensationalist terms.
It may be arbitrary in the same sense the question, "Is that a fast car?" is arbitrary, but in exactly the same sense you can compare and make statements regarding the degree to which someone exhibits psychopathic traits, and as his research shows, this isn't something that's simply caused by a bad upbringing.
The fact that it's not a black & white issue doesn't mean that there aren't concrete physical differences between the brains of the general population and the 1% of the population labeled as psychopaths. It's the same situation for any mental "disorder", i.e. Asperger Syndrome, etc.