A leading University of Chicago researcher on empathy is launching a project to understand psychopathy by studying criminals in prisons.
Jean Decety, the Irving B. Harris Professor in Psychology and Psychiatry, has received a $1.6 million grant from the National Institute of Mental Health to use fMRI technology to examine the neural circuitry of criminal psychopaths.
The research comes at a time of increased awareness about the role that mental health plays in crime, including questions about the suspects accused in recent mass murders in Norway and in Arizona.
Through the project, Decety and his colleagues intend to study mental health by measuring the activity of brain networks necessary to experience empathy among a prison population and compare the results with data from healthy individuals.
Although only one percent of the general population has psychopathy, between 20 and 30 percent of the prison population are psychopaths. Criminal psychopaths are disproportionately responsible for crime and typically commit five major crimes by the time they are 40, research shows.
Little is understood about psychopathy, and almost no treatments have been developed that have been effective.
"If psychopathy is to be treated effectively, targeted therapies and interventions must be developed based on the underlying causes of the disorder," Decety said.
Other attempts at studying psychopathy have been inadequate because they were based on inferences about brain functioning not based on neuroimaging, or they had small sample sizes, Decety pointed out.
"Our project will correct all of these issues and be the first to be in a position to adequately address the underlying neurological differences characterizing psychopathic offenders with respect to empathic processing," he said.
Decety has conducted extensive studies on empathy with children, adolescents and adults that have shown, for instance, that the brain circuitry among bullies is different from that of other children.
In his studies on empathy, Decety shows subjects video clips of intentional and unintentional harm and measure responses in their brain circuits, particularly the insula, amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex. A similar approach will be used in the psychopath study, to be conducted in New Mexico prison facilities, where he will work with Kent Kiehl, Professor of Translational Neuroscience at the University of New Mexico.
The Kiehl Lab at the MIND Research Network has an established relationship with the New Mexico correctional system and is conducting ongoing research in three of the 10 state correctional facilities.
Participation rates among the prison population have been excellent, with 85 percent of the population volunteering to participate.
Decety's project will cover four years and will include collecting data on 160 men with varying levels of psychopathy. The results will be compared with those of a control group of non-criminals with similar socioeconomic backgrounds and histories of drug use and psychiatric problems.

hush1
1 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2011This is astonishing. No other scientist in the world knows the necessary brain networks to experience empathy.
Why are you limiting the scope of that knowledge only to the study of psychopathy and not sharing the network knowledge that belongs to all of science? This is far beyond Nobel Prize worthy.
Or is this a paid journalist's Faux pas?
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2011(go to "google scholar" and type in 'fmri empathy')
FrankHerbert
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2011Where's my Nobel?
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2011fMRI is area study.
So, next, the bad analogy:
Flying over a city, I notice structure. (Actually this looks like any city you fly over). Clever as I am, I know cities have streets. So which street address is labeled;
'Psychopathy'? 'Empathy'?
What is 'housed' there? Etc., etc.
8480 published articles. No one agrees to the address and will swear by the city. lol
lol FH. Not one for humor....yet.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2011Well, it says right in the first sentence that they will use fMRI. So what's your point?
They will try to find out if there are certain areas that exhibit localized anomalies. It has already been shown that by magnetically suppressing activity (I think it was in the frontal cortex) one can inhibit ethical reasoning.
This proposed study could find out if the majority of psychopaths have such a deficincy then that would be valuable information.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 04, 2011Yes. Identify and target the brain specific chemically associated circuits enabling empathy. Or an analogous line of strategy. Area independent targeting. Regardless of where those circuits are found in the brain, they won't work without their 'fix'(brain specific chemical substance) to make them fire. (exceed threshold).
Area study will not bring about effective treatment. Identifying chemically responsible associated circuits underlying physiological and specific cognitive associative memories is the way to go.
In fact, until such brain produced chemically responsible associated circuits are identified, a temporary work-a-round is reduction of brain specific substances directly responsible for sensory perception. Touch, for example. Suppression and inducing insufficient brain specific substances to sustain this neuron circuit activity under the assumption that touch stimulates or inhibits empathy associated psychopathy.
cont...
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2011Only if you limit yourself to treatment via chemicals.
Ther are other ways of treatment available:
E.g. selective (cognitive) training of underused brain areas. or a brain 'pacemaker' implant like the ones used for some cases of epilepsy.
Direct/repeated stimulation therapy via magnetic fields (essentially the reverse of fMRI) of the relevant parts may also be possible.
Even when you go for drugs then targetted administration via localized pumps (lke insulin pumps) or specialy designed drugs that bind to proteins that are predominantly available in that brain area are a possibility.
I can see many ways in which findings that indicate a localized problem could help.
It may even be as simple as augmenting the bloodflow to that area via surgery.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 04, 2011The above is a suggestive, vague strategy. Lobotomizing areas of activity is wrong in anyone's book.
"Well, it says right in the first sentence that they will use fMRI. So what's your point?" - AP
Jean Decety is claiming:
"...measuring the activity of brain networks necessary to experience empathy..."
implying the brain's activity and those associated locations will be those activities and locations that are necessary to experience empathy.
What is empathy?
1.)I demand a mathematical expression for it.
2.)I demand the physical interpretation of the mathematical expression for it.
3.)I demand a unit of measure for it.
My point is fMRI is of very little value here. Why?
Location means nothing if you don't know what you are looking for and it doesn't have a definition or a measure.
I can meet every one of those demands.
It remains to be seen if Jean Decety meets those demands.
Then, and only then, can the four years be called research.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 04, 2011Psychopathy and/or empathy.
Until then, treatment is symptom orientated.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2011I was actually advocating the reverse (if it turns out that these areas are underused). Lobotomy would be the (permanent) deactivation of a brain area.
Well, medical innovation and research doesn't work that way. You usually look at pathologies, contrast them with people who do not show these pathologies - and then try out stuff that reduces/eliminates those differences to see if it cures the pathology.
Medical (and psychological) issues are far too complex to (yet) be broken down into simple formulae. There are also ethical issues, since you can't simply induce the pathology in a healthy subject to see if what you think causes the pathology is actually the cause. (So even if such a mathematical description were to be had you could never test it under controlled conditions)
Hic Rhodus. Hic salta.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 04, 2011Well, when Jean Decety steps down, I'll have four years.
"and then try out stuff that reduces/eliminates those differences to see if it cures the pathology." - AP
Yes. "...stuff..." the list is long under the guise of "medical innovation and research". Not all bed and roses.
"Medical (and psychological) issues are far too complex to (yet) be broken down into simple formulae." - AP
Sounds like fatalism.
"since you can't simply induce the pathology in a healthy subject to see if what you think causes the pathology is actually the cause." - AP
Done all time. Never within lawful means or scope and certainly not ethical.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2011No. Notice the 'yet' in my statement. But if you ever sat in psychology course at Uni then you know that the monocausal links between an issue and a (psychological) pathology are few and far between.
Realistically we're still in the one-size-fits-all treatment stage for most illnesses (though mostly because it's much more profitable than to develop custom tailored cures/treatments for small groups).
Ahh..I thought you said you CAN already do it. Hot air? Looks like it.
Or would you mind posting links to some of your papers on the subject?
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2011Yes. I mind posting. Looks are deceiving.
You are overreacting. And we are in the middle of a game.
Your 'yet' was not overlooked. Or shall we say, your hook.
I stand corrected. Now your 'yet' stands for 100% confidence this will change. Which is also incorrect from me.
(This is the point where I don't engage the point further.)
"...monocausal links between an issue and a (psychological) pathology are few and far between." - AP
I have no idea why no one does not substantiate monocausal links. Lack of imagination? Insight? Diverted? Discouraged? The list of excuses goes on.
"Realistically....groups)." - AP
Yes. Agreed.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2011Well, the subject at hand since that was what you were referring to as 'can do' (psychology)
Why? You should be proud of your papers - if you have any.
But with your unwillingness to go any further I'm assuming that you have none and that your assertion was all fake.
Look at omatur - at least he has published his theories.
Because you can oftentimes find many studies linking different causes to a single pathology. It becomes a matter of lacking statistical power very quickly when you posit multicausal factors (i.e. he number of cases you need to get a scientifically significant answer quickly grows into the tens of thousands).
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2011I am quoting you. Then answering the quote.
"Ahh...subject?" -AP
And answering and addressing the content in between the first and last words.
"Why? You should be proud of your papers - if you have any." - AP
Never use the words 'should', 'would', 'could', 'maybe' 'but' and 'if'. No content that follows these words are factual. Ever. No exceptions. Period.
"But with your unwillingness to go any further I'm assuming that you have none and that your assertion was all fake." - AP
Assume nothing.
"Look at omatur..." -AP
Your example makes no sense.
"Because you... ...of thousands)." - AP
These two sentences makes no sense.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2011Item: You said you can do a certain thing
Item: I called you on it to prove it
Item: you failed to do so
Conclusion: You lie. Or you dissemble. Basically I don't care which - it just will mean that anything you post in the future will be taken with a major dose of scepticism.
No 'would', 'could' or 'should' anywhere in this, either.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2011""Supposing," he says of Breivik, "you examine him and you come to the conclusion that this, that and the other factor went to create the situation. You wouldn't have any more than a statistical generality." But if that statistical correlation could be verified, could it lead to "locking up people before they've done anything"?"
http://online.wsj...11904888
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2011Super-ego mode.
"Item: You said you can do a certain thing" - AP
"Item: I called you on it to prove it" -AP
"Item: you failed to do so" - AP
Super-ego mode.
"Conclusion: You lie. Or you dissemble." - AP
Super-ego mode.
"Basically I don't care which - it just will mean that anything you post in the future will be taken with a major dose of scepticism." - AP
Id mode. - Super ego mode.
"No 'would', 'could' or 'should' anywhere in this, either." - AP
Id mode.
We will continue to converse. A reply from me will ensue after your words display even the tiniest resemblance of adult mode.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Aug 05, 2011"Can you corroborate your claim that you are able to express psychological phenomena in simple mathematical terms or can't you?"
This is a simple yes/no question (and a source if the answer is 'yes' would be appreciated)
If you cannot then why do you make such a claim?
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2011Hearing is a psychological phenomenon. Hearing is directly proportional to the amount of estrogen in the brain.
The roots of this psychological phenomenon are physical. Decibels (sensitivity) and frequency (Hz) are directly proportional to estrogen associated circuits in the brain.
Half the amount of estrogen will produced half the amount of sensation of sound. Everything 'sounds' 'half' as 'loud' despite the volume remaining unchanged.
If you argue that there is nothing psychological about physiological sensory perceptions you will have support that with literature that supports your stance.
Your discourse will improve without constant resort from your super ego mode scripts. We shall see...
Pyle
5 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2011AP: I think you misinterpreted his initial "claim". He said he could meet the three demands:
But I don't think he was talking about empathy. I think he was referring to the spring in his step from wearing his Hush Puppy slippers. The new unit of measure is mushiness and the SI units are millimeters per hundred kg. It will revolutionize slipper design once the patent expires. Until then he isn't going to speak of it again.
Sorry hushie. Some fatty was down rating AP so I had to help him out. And then you got the real answer in before this silly nonsense.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2011antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2011Why would I argue that psychology and physiology are separate? They are not (unless one were to believe in souls or similar crap)
However, the estrogen example is again a very monocausal explanation for an issue that can have many causes. And that is what the article here is about: finding out A possible cause for psychopathic behavior.
Googling for the original source of the estrogen article I found that the same group has also articles on how Progestin affects hearing in aged women...so now we already don't have a moncausal link.
http://www.pnas.o...46.short
Physiology (and consequently psycholgy) ain't as simple as you think.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 05, 2011Case in point:
H. pylori
Decades of senseless treatment.
Of cost to the patient.
The article is about:
"the intend to study mental health by measuring the activity of brain networks necessary to experience empathy among a prison population and compare the results with data from healthy individuals."
"...the activity of brain networks..."
does not equate to
"finding out A possible cause for psychopathic behavior."
Jean Decety is NOT in a monocausel mindset.
Jean Decety is NOT open to a monocausel explanation.
Jean Decety will find nothing wrong with the neuroscience definition of salience.
All at the expense of the patient.
"Physiology (and consequently psycholgy) ain't as simple as you think." - AP
Classic textbook super ego script/text.
A disservice to the user and recipient alike.
The estrogen example is an example given to take issue with the "many causes" hypotheses running rampant in psychology.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2011Unfortunately your writing style is quite idiosyncratic, not least due to the fact that you're not a native speaker. This makes it hard to understand for most readers. Additionally, your responses to people showing their difficulties with understanding your texts are not always giving a benevolent impression.
Hence, your performance is quite effectively preventing the expression of contrary stances by people not fluent in English and German.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2011Well, I tend to feed those who go into super-ego mode their own medicine back. It seems you don't like that. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic (or at least if you could back up what you claim).
hush1
not rated yet Aug 06, 2011That does not make sense. Why do you do this? Simply point out the mode. Instead of indulging the game.
"It seems you don't like that." - AP
You are being assumptive. I don't understand it, which has nothing to do with what I like or do not like.
Id mode - a child testing limits. Not necessary.
"It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic" - AP
Judgmental now. Super-ego mode. Simply uncalled for.
"or at least if you could back up what you claim" - AP
I am placing demands on the author. If you believe I am making claims, they are irrelevant to the demands I make.
I can not meet your demands for claims you are alleging I made, yet never stated.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 06, 20111.)You are not a native speaker. I am aware of that. I am a native speaker. Raised bilingually.
2.)What is the purpose of leaving benevolent impressions in discussing science?
3.)Where does your knowledge of most readers come from, as far as knowing what they are having difficulty with in their understanding?
4.)My performance effectively leaves no room for a contrary stance that is sustainable. That is the purpose.
5.)I restate my text with different wording when people say they do not understand my original statements.
6.)Everyone's writing style is unique. The is not a reason to additionally ascribe idiosyncrasy to the style.
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2011hush1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2011Instead, you suggest another alleged strategy I am following:
"to play word games"
"So your strategy is to play word games instead of facing the issue?" - AP"
You have no desire to discuss Jean Decety's project. You have every desire to discuss me and the claims you alleged I have made. I have focus on Jean Decety and the claims his project will bear out.
It is you who insist on a game that discusses everything except the subject of the article.
frajo
not rated yet Aug 07, 2011Everybody is a native speaker; unfalsifiable statement; the sound of your English has an unmistakeable German timbre.
Don't care. But it's worth mentioning.
What knowledge? I'm modelling your communication protocol.
No. Remember our little excursion into the Axiom of Choice.
But there's no different wording when people don't say anything.
Not where platitudes abound.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 08, 2011It is easy to address the label. That encourages mutual bias and obscures the mutual biases harbored.
An insightful thread here. Thks.
Pyle
not rated yet Aug 08, 2011People don't often recognize their own bias even when it is presented to them. When you dig deeper than simple prejudices, I am sure I don't even recognize the tip of the iceberg of my cognitive biases. Unfortunately my linguistic capabilities are limited to a smattering of swear words and this woefully inadequate and confusing language I comment in. I wouldn't know where to start when comparing my understanding of something to somebody whose native language is anything other than American English.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 09, 2011Correct. It is useless to state what 'mode' - parent, adult, and/or child - their 'scripts/texts' reflect.
Even stating where, when and how they first heard and use a statement other than one's own created and original statement does not 'enlighten' the user of the statement.
For example:
All three 'modes' are to be found here. These statements express a degree of helplessness (not only). That expresses the feelings a child(mode)feels when confronted with a (not necessary true yet perceived) inability:
"...I am sure I don't even recognize..."
hush1
not rated yet Aug 09, 2011You start by acquiring 'another' language. Eventually, you will be confronted with total immersion. What will happen to me, when the language I am acquiring 'performs' 'better' that the original language I had? Is there a chance I will 'lose' the capacity for the original language?
All unfounded fears. To say that does not help with the fears those questions raise when people start asking themselves such questions when the proficiency of any language approaches native proficiency of languages acquired .
I had such fears. And I don't know if these statements make sense to you. Usually the recipient of your statements are the first to inform you that they do not understand you.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 09, 2011We have:
1.)Adult - Acute awareness, recognition of an object(iceberg)that has the potential to exist and so far lacks evidence for it.
2.)Parent - Approves of the shortcoming, or at least approves of the recognition of the supposed shortcoming.
3.)Child - feeling helpless for lack of an imagined inability.
All modes, simultaneously in six words. All modes in concert, in harmony, in accord with each other - no internal conflict.
The adult is satisfied - rational, analytical approach.
The parent is satisfied - the child recognizes limitations, something any parent can deal with effectively, showing empathy for example.
The child is satisfied - despite helplessness, the parent and adult are there to offer compassion, sympathy, empathy or reason.
Did I overextend my analysis? Of course. For the sake of showing the 'mechanics' of all 'three' of you. Rarely is there a single 'mode' statement from commentators.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 09, 2011Who is addressing what where? A=A, is adult mode. A person seeing and agreeing to this is an adult. There is nothing childish and parental about that statement.
And the statement: When does A not equal A? is borderline between modes unless you know the parties are logicians, philosophers or mathematicians discussing existence theorems.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 09, 2011Typo correction for error in the 36th comment.
frajo
not rated yet Aug 10, 2011Is the phrase "I show the players their instruments" spoken by a native speaker?
Yes - by a German native speaker.
Is the sentence "If all the ways of nurturing intelligence were known, then no test for it becomes necessary" spoken by a native speaker?
Yes - by a German native speaker.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 10, 2011Instead of saying:
Nature provides subjects a variety of abilities, all of those abilities vary in efficiency.
It is not the 'endowment' from genes that determines genius,
it is the ability to 'use' 'endowments' genetically inherited or bestowed upon an individual to their fullest potential.
You use two examples. Within those two sentences, which word signals or indicates first the direction to the language the speaker's words are native words?
hush1
not rated yet Aug 10, 2011"Within those two sentences, which word signals or indicates first the direction to the language the speaker's words are NOT native words?"