There Are No Psychopaths

There Are No Psychopaths by Rasmus Rosenberg Larsen

Several months ago I received the above paper by forensic epistemologist Rasmus Rosenberg Larsen. 

Here is summary produced by ChatGPT:

Larsen begins argues that the concept of psychopathy may be one of modern psychology’s greatest misconceptions.  Despite more than two centuries of research and widespread acceptance in popular culture, Larsen contends that there is remarkably little scientific evidence supporting the existence of a distinct psychopathic personality type.

The traditional view of psychopathy describes individuals who lack empathy, remorse, and conscience, and who engage in manipulative, antisocial, and often violent behaviour. Popularized by researchers such as Robert Hare and dramatized through fictional characters like Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men, psychopaths are commonly portrayed as emotionally empty predators who exploit others without guilt.

However, Larsen argues that decades of empirical research have failed to support these claims. One of the strongest examples concerns empathy. Psychopaths are widely believed to lack empathy, yet Larsen cites a systematic review of 66 studies involving over 5,700 individuals diagnosed with psychopathy. The review found that nearly 90% of tests showed no significant difference between psychopathic and non-psychopathic individuals. High-quality studies produced even more null results, suggesting that people labelled as psychopaths do not, in fact, suffer from measurable empathy deficits.

Similarly, the longstanding belief that psychopaths have shallow emotions has failed to withstand scientific scrutiny. Although early studies appeared to support this hypothesis, more sophisticated research using measures such as heart rate, skin conductance, and brain imaging has consistently failed to find clear emotional impairments. Larsen notes that across dozens of studies conducted over several decades, researchers have been unable to demonstrate that psychopaths experience emotions differently from other people.

The same pattern emerges for other alleged psychopathic characteristics, including impulsivity, treatment resistance, genetic markers, brain abnormalities, and heightened dangerousness. Initial studies sometimes report promising findings, but later research either fails to replicate the results or directly contradicts them.

Larsen examines two common explanations for this failure. The first is that psychopathy is difficult to study and current scientific tools are inadequate. He rejects this argument, noting that modern behavioural science employs highly sophisticated methods capable of detecting subtle psychological differences. If psychopathy involved extreme emotional and moral deficits, these should be observable by now.

The second explanation is that researchers have not yet found the correct method for identifying “true psychopaths.” Larsen is equally sceptical of this claim. Although the widely used Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) has limitations, alternative assessment tools have produced similarly disappointing results.

Instead, Larsen proposes that psychopathy may be what scientists call a “zombie idea”—a concept that has been disproven yet continues to survive because it is intuitively appealing. He compares psychopathy to outdated scientific beliefs such as phrenology and biological race theory, which persisted long after evidence had undermined them.

He points out that even famous examples often cited as psychopaths, such as serial killer Ted Bundy, do not fit the stereotype when examined closely. Bundy exhibited emotional attachments, insecurities, and numerous psychological problems inconsistent with the classic psychopathic profile.

Larsen concludes that psychopathy has produced little genuine scientific progress despite decades of research. The overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that the concept itself may be fundamentally flawed. While some researchers remain committed to the idea, Larsen argues that psychopathy is better understood as a compelling myth than a scientifically validated diagnosis.

End of summary.

First let me start by saying that I do not believe Psychopaths lack empathy.  In fact, it is quite the opposite.  They spend a lot of their time analysing people trying to work out how to use them to their best advantage,

One of the great examples of this in the English Theatre is the manipulation of Othello by Iago.

This documentary shows how he did it: https://marquee.tv/watch/series/bbc-shakespeare-uncovered-othello-with-david-harewood-s2e5?hash=f1f7c766-057d-4d0d-8692-7bd478e96bd2&id=862&index=4

This quatrain by Adam Lindsay Gordon tells us what psychopaths lack.

Life is mostly froth and bubble;

Two things stand like stone,

Kindness in another’s trouble,

 Courage in your own.

It is not empathy that Psychopaths lack but kindness.  Say a psychopath was competing against a non-psychopath for a promotion and some misfortune hit the non-Psychopath.   There would be no kindness shown by the Psychopath.  Instead, he (or she) would use every tool they could to work out how to use this misfortune to his advantage.  They certainly would try to walk in the non-psychopath’s shoes.