Explaining Is Not Understanding: A Critique of Psychopathy -and Psychology- Research

*This paper was submitted as the midterm assignment of my Psychopathy and Psychopaths course.

March, 2025

Dear God,

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;

the courage to change the things I can;

and the wisdom to know the difference.

The Serenity Prayer

---

This paper reflects upon a number of topics that have resonated with me during the course of the readings. The topics might seem independent, but to me are related subjects revolving around each other. As I was attending to the readings across the weeks, I found myself remembering the serenity prayer for reasons I could not point. I later understood why. It had to do with what I was thinking about the differences between biological and environmental factors that contribute to manifestation of psychopathy. I thought that the genetic influences were unchangeable, whereas, the biosocial and environmental influences were more controllable, and that focusing on the latter could be more effective.

Inspired by the prayer, I used it as the framework of my paper. I will briefly first share my insights on the biological underpinnings of psychopathy, as things we cannot control; then compare the case studies and overview the environmental factors as things we can control; and lastly, will share my insights about categorizing mental health disorders, hopefully having drawn wise conclusions.

Things that cannot be changed

Studies in genetics, neuropsychology, and hormones have been crucial in explaining how psychopathy manifests. These studies have shown that reduced connectivity between amygdala and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex dysfunction is associated with psychopathy. The reduced cortisol production, which affects the amygdala, seems to explain the low levels of fear and stress response, lack of empathy and emotional detachment psychopathic individuals tend to exhibit. An impaired vmPFC development can result in poor impulse control, reduced moral reasoning and empathy and can increase likelihood of antisocial behavior. Impairments in the development of these areas could be caused by number of factors like genetic factors, neurodevelopmental disorders, physical injury, early childhood trauma, neglect, etc.

Unable to empathize and process emotions like non-psychopathic people do, the mind of a psychopath gives calculated responses to moral questions and tends to make utilitarian decisions. This is why they are perceived as cold and emotionally detached in relationships.

Learning these, I kept finding myself thinking that if we keep posing the question why, to biological foundations, we end up with an environmental factor which in return alters the biological structure.

The common misguided conclusions that arise from the genetic association studies that generally impose the burden over biology do not only pertain to psychopathy, but are conclusions that can be and are drawn for any given condition. The overemphasis by the public opinion on the things that cannot be changed, such as the biological heritage, could be preventing us from taking more effective measures at a societal level.

Things that can be changed

Psychopathy is moderately to highly heritable. Even if it was 99% heritable, talking more about the social and environmental factors instead of biological ones could yield more desired outcomes. As future psychologists or mental health workers, it could be more effective to focus on the biosocial and environmental factors, promote and search for ways to organize the social structure in a way that minimizes the negative outcomes. I think the cases we studied can be reviewed to support the idea.

Despite having their differences in motivation and experience, cases of Ted Bundy, Gary Gilmore, and Aileen Wournos share a number of things in common: unstable upbringing, two of which had dysfunctional families with poor support which likely contributed to trigger the underlying biological tendencies. Not having faced severe abuse, Ted Bundy was the case study with the least social risk factors. Although, having been told that his mother was his sister, it is likely that he developed attachment problems. Accounts also suggest that his grandfather, whom he thought was his father, used to have aggressive outbursts, indicating that he might have had an unstable environment. Both Gary Gilmore and Aileen Wournos faced violence, abuse, and neglect.

James Fallon, on the other hand, a functional psychopath, despite carrying the biological foundations, has been successful in his career and has been able to form an intact family. He is known to have had a functional upbringing by a supportive family and stands as an example of how a positive environment can help switch off the biological tendency, and functionally integrate an individual with psychopathic traits into society.

Promoting healthy lifestyles, and the importance of functioning families that allow forming secure attachments can be much more important. Studies conducted with the Romanian orphans, one of natural experiments of psychology, have also found that neglect and lack of attachment cause antisocial behaviors.

Besides, knowing the exact causal links might not be even necessary to come up with effective strategies of intervention while we can tell they are probably correlated. Addressing one of the correlating factors will be beneficial in multiple areas due to the interconnected nature of the problem.

Differences and insights

Another topic that resonated with me was the difficulty of differentiating psychopathy from ASPD. Psychopathy is characterized by criteria such as superficial charm, absence of nervousness, lack of remorse and shame, antisocial behavior, failure to learn by experience, poverty in major affective reactions, etc. The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised created by Robert Hare proposes two factors of psychopathy, each consisting of two facets. According to the DSM, psychopathy falls under ASPD and is difficult to separate due to high level of overlapping symptoms. The factor structure helps us understand what sets psychopaths apart from antisocial individuals. It is the presence of Interpersonal-Affective (Factor 1) features.

Regardless, it is established that psychopathic traits exist on a continuum. This is why Ted Bundy was diagnosed with multiple mental health disorders, two of which are ASPD and psychopathy, by many psychologists.

Categories are useful constructs. Placing things in categories helps us control and manipulate them and enable us to create shortcuts to make faster decisions. In the case of mental disorders, it makes it easier to create treatment plans. However, excessive categorization of things oversimplifies what is being studied and leads to a mechanistic, disconnected understanding of reality, of the human soul in the case of psychology. It creates the illusion of a fixed, rigid way of being and causes us to see the labels by overshadowing the reality’s nuances, its interconnected nature, not only that of the subjective experiences of individuals, but of the way in which our brain is structured.

Not only do people differ from each other on the psychopathy scale, I’d hypothesize that it is even possible for an individual to show various levels of psychopathic traits at different times and places depending on situation and conditions. A person will probably give different affective responses to the same stressor at the comfort of an office than under conditions of violence or maybe even war, where one might be repeatedly exposed to stressful stimuli. Different conditions possibly affect our moral decision making. While this is the case, drawing a cutoff line between disorders, and trying to measure the human condition at a fixed time and space drastically misses the crucial nuances. It opens a space to view and evaluate the suffering souls as measurable, quantifiable objects. The result of excessive categorization and defining is the loss of the subject by means of objectification. Professor Kent Kiehl’s remark when has been very insightful and helpful in empathizing with them. While the latter helps us explain psychopathy, the former helps us understand it. A common mistake we tend to fall for, confusing the ability to explain with understanding.

Ironically, the way in which psychology departments study and try to understand mental health problems by approaching the soul mechanically, categorizing its various organizational patterns, and explaining it in quantifiable terms, is similar to the way psychopaths process emotions and make decisions: we understand them intellectually, as if they are mere cause and effect relations, and are calculable mathematical formulas but are unable to empathize with them.

The first two sections of the paper, representing serenity and courage aimed to demonstrate my understanding of biological and social foundations and claimed that focusing on the environmental factors would be more effective in developing intervention plans. The last section, representing wisdom, attempts to make connections through differences and offers a philosophical critique of the way human soul is being studied in psychology departments. Despite touching upon various topics, I believe the structure of the paper is in accordance with what it puts forth and reflects the interconnected nature of the subject by drawing meaningful connections.