Thái Nhân Cách - Phía Sau Tội Ác

by James Fallon

"The memoir of a neuroscientist whose research led him to a bizarre personal discovery"

James Fallon had spent an entire career studying how our brains affect our behavior when his research suddenly turned personal. While studying brain scans of several family members, he discovered that one perfectly matched a pattern he d found in the brains of serial killers. This meant one of two things: Either his family s scans had been mixed up with those of felons or someone in his family was a psychopath.

Even more disturbing: The scan in question was his own.

This is Fallon s account of coming to grips with this discovery and its implications. How could he, a happy family man who had never been prone to violence, be a psychopath? How much did his biology influence his behavior?

Fallon shares his journey to answer these questions and the discoveries that ultimately led to his conclusion: Despite everything science can teach, humans are even more complex than we can imagine."

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Science, Memoir, Neuroscience, Biography, Mental Health

391 pages, Unknown Binding

First published October 31, 2013

Reviews

[Claudia Putnam · Rating 3 out of 5]

This guy is a complete jerk, as you might imagine from the title. As a narcissist, he not only doesn't mind this, he kind of likes the idea that he's an asshole. Once you get past that, he does happen to know a few things about brain science and about genetics. For the most part, he explains them quite well. He also knows a bit about mental illness, neurotransmitters, and how psychotropic medications refine communication within the brain. You often hear that we have no idea what causes mental illness and/or that we have no idea why different medications work. In fact, researchers have a very good idea of what's going in with things like bipolar, schizophrenia, and depression. They do understand why the various types of medications work. What is less clear is why they work on YOUR depression, or what is the appropriate dose. As Fallon says, there are as many ways to be schizophrenic as there are people who are schizophrenic. Without a brain scan and a complete genetic workup on each affected individual as well as a much more complete understanding of the way genetic expression works on these diseases, as well as the role that nurture plays, figuring out what to do each individual case is still going to be a bit difficult.

But that doesn't mean they don't understand what types of chemical imbalances are likely to be involved and what types of drugs can help.

Anyhow, this is only one of many interesting discussions Fallon has with himself in this book. Another fascinating item is how epigenetic tagging works to pass on things like PTSD vulnerability through families, or the tendency to put on weight under stress--perhaps because a grandmother once endured a famine.

Fallon discusses his own personal enjoyment of manipulating people, the way he'll wait years to get revenge if he feels slighted--but revenge in only the exact proportion to the insult he feels he received. He's not, after all, a killer. If you've ever been involved with a high or low-level psychopath you probably know how confusing they are. If they're manipulative on this level, there's a good chance no one else sees it, and all your friends and family may see him or her as a nice guy or woman. So I found reading sections like this enormously validating.

Fallon also provides good advice for dealing with psychopaths. They're 2% of the population across all ethnic groups, worldwide. Any party with 100 people, any company...

Narcissist that he is, Fallon gets carried away with his narrative quite often. I'm sure this is diagnostic for some, but for the average reader it gets tedious. Not sure where the editor was. We didn't need to hear all about his favorite swim strokes, and which sports all his family members enjoyed when they were twelve, and what dances he went to with his wife-to-be when they were in high school. He has no sense of hierarchy of information. He repeats himself frequently.

So, to get to the good stuff, which is indeed quite worthwhile, you either have to be very good at skimming, or be prepared to wade through a lot of irritating muck (such as when he groups the capacity for insight in with ESP and other "silliness"). In fact you might want to skip a lot of the grandiosity of the first few chapters and dive in around chapter 4.

[Pamela D · Rating 1 out of 5]

I received this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.

This is the first review copy that I considered not reviewing in a very long time. I kept going back and forth about what I was going to do. In the end, I decided to review it, because I figured maybe someone might want to read it for all of the reasons that I did not like it. This sounds very ominous, huh? Let me explain. In the "real world," I am a graduate student studying clinical psychology. All I have left to do is to finish writing up my dissertation. Due to my background in psychology, I may be more sensitive to certain things that are going on in this book than the average reader. In other words, this book may not drive you as crazy as it drove me. :)

In this book, James Fallon, a neurologist, has decided that he meets the criteria for a possible diagnosis of psychopathy. The entire book is a showcasing of the evidence for this diagnosis, and he includes both a personal history and biological evidence for this. So I need to stop right here. During the first day of graduate school (and on the first day of Abnormal Psychology in college), my professors stated in no uncertain terms that we should not diagnose ourselves, because you cannot observe your own behavior objectively. Fallon paints a very particular picture of himself in this book to show that he has a particular diagnosis. Granted, a lot of his behavior is problematic (e.g., burning things and manipulating people); however, he never tells a complete story. For example, he rarely tells a story about him just acting like a boring, regular person. All the stories are told in such a way that he is portrayed as a superlative including smartest, bravest, most handsome, most cunning, and most manipulative. We have to take his word for it that what he is telling us is the truth. He does say that he interviewed his friends and family, but (1) what do you expect them to say to him? and (2) he is still filtering what they said to him to us. His writing and story telling do suggest certain pathologies; however, I am not diagnosing someone from a book just like maybe a neurologist shouldn't be diagnosing himself with a psychological disorder.

This book left me feeling dirty and used. Fallon would argue that my gut reaction to him does indicate that he has antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy. He may be right; I have worked with people with the antisocial personality disorder diagnosis who have caused my spidey sense to go off just like it did when I read Fallon's book; however, this manipulativeness that Fallon prides himself on could be related to a number mental health issues or the fact that he wants to sell books.

So you may be thinking that Fallon's personal history is a bit shady, but he cites biological proof like his brain scan! Although we have learned a lot about the human brain and how it works, we don't know everything. Maybe Fallon is a psychopath, because his brain looks like serial killers' brains. Maybe his brain scan also matches people's brains with OCD, or autism spectrum disorders, or narcissistic personality disorder. Maybe his brain matches other super geniuses' brains. Unfortunately, Fallon doesn't have any evidence to suggest the contrary to his psychopathic brain structure. Fallon follows this same path with other biological evidence that he has. He shows the reader some blood work that might be damning and states that it might suggest psychopathy, but then he moves on to the next topic. We don't know if Fallon isn't explaining himself fully, because there is not enough research in this area or he didn't bother to look too far from the psychopathy tree. Fallon makes a few leaps of faith that seem reasonable, but ultimately he doesn't always show the evidence he has to back up his claims. There is a lot of razzle dazzle but not enough objectivity, at least for me.

I did not care for this book, because (1) there was not enough objectivity for me and (2) the narcissism was at times unbearable. With that said, this book made set off my spidey sense for serious personality disorder to go off. Delving into a person's brain like the one Fallon suggests that he has, it not my cup of tea. I thought this book was going to be more fun that it turned out to be. If you want to get a flavor for someone who may have antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy, this may be the book for you. It certainly gives you flavor. I don't think I could have had such a strong reaction to this book, if the flavor wasn't here. At the same time, if you want an objective book on psychopathy, I would look somewhere else.

[Anne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nature vs Nurture.
I've heard it said that genetics loads the gun and environment pulls the trigger.
But how true is that?



So, Fallon was/is a neuroscientist who had two separate studies going.
One looking at brain scans for markers of Alzheimer's and another looking at the brain scans of "psychopaths".
I'm putting it in quotation marks because apparently there isn't any real psychopath diagnosis, but everyone knows what the term means. Like porn, you know it when you see it.
Anyway.
He was using members of his family in the Alzheimer's group because they had the disease on his wife's side of the family. But as he was pawing through the data it appeared that one of the violent criminal's scans had somehow made its way into his Alzheimer's study.
Nope.
Turns out, it was his brain scan.



So how was this non-violent, intelligent, well-liked, happily married father of 3 doing with a "psychopath's" brain?
Well, spend some time listening to him talk about himself and his life. He's a pretty classic narcissist. A very happy, if emotionally stunted sort of guy who enjoys his life to the fullest and doesn't really care about the impact his reckless or selfish behavior has on anyone - including his family and friends.
In fact, not many of the people who knew him either professionally or personally were especially surprised that his brain looked like a potential Dexter's.



There is a lot to unpack here but the skinny version is that if he hadn't been raised in a loving family, who knows what sort of person he would have become?
As it is, he may not be the sort of person who does things from the heart, but he is a productive member of society.
A very interesting book with a lot of tidbits about how our brains work, what a huge role genetics play in our personalities, and how important the formative years are in our future development.
BUT.



How objective is he and how much is he lying to the reader? Who knows?
I wouldn't suggest that you read this and take it as God's truth.
However, if you're just looking for something outside the norm to read and are willing to go along for the ride with someone who may or may not be a reliable narrator, then I think you'll have fun with this.
Recommended.

[Kitty · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book should be called "Me, Myself & I"

[Beth · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book, especially the science. I skimmed through some reviews and saw many people didn't like the book because they thought the author was full of himself and down plays the wrong he has done and the hurt he has caused others. Of course he is and has. If truly a psychopath (even lite or pro-social as he says) he literally cannot fathom empathy or emote it genuinely. What he says in the book aligns with much of what I've read about sociopathy and psychopathy, but he delves deeper into the anatomical, structural, and functional defects in the brain that cause these disorders. And I love that everything he's thought and taught for so many years regarding genetic determination suddenly requires another think. And yes, you must keep in mind that he is a liar as you read, but also that telling the truth doesn't hurt him either. He simply doesn't really care. I found the book fascinating and would read it again to better absorb the science.

[David Rubenstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

James Fallon is a neuroscientist, a professor of psychiatry at the School of Medicine at University of California, Irvine. He is an active researcher in brain structure. He discovered telltale attributes of brain scans (PET, fMRI) that indicate that a person is a psychopath.

So, it was with shock and some degree of disbelief, when he found that his own brain scan showed that he, himself is a psychopath! And then, additional evidence came in that he is a psychopath. First, a relative did a genealogy of his father's ancestors. It showed that seven of his ancestors were murderers! They had murdered their close relatives, never outsiders. The famous case of Lizzie Borden is among his ancestors!

And then, James Fallon asked his friends and relatives to comment on his personality--the whole truth, no holds barred. And he got the truth; Fallon is a fun guy to be around, but totally untrustworthy. As an example, he took his own brother on a trip to a particular cave in Kenya, where he new that Marburg disease (related to Ebola!) is actively infectious. When his brother learned that Fallon knowingly took him to this dangerous place, he realized just how untrustwothy he is. Fallon does not want to harm anybody; he is not a violent man, he is married and has children, and never committed a violent act. But he has no empathy for other people. He can fake empathy, but does not really feel it in his gut.

But nevertheless, he is a distinguished scientist, and has made many contributions to neuroscience. This is a fascinating book; about two percent of the world's population are psychopaths. They are not all violent; they have learned to cope, and many probably do not even understand what "empathy" is all about. How can you know you lack a feeling, if you have never felt it yourself?

[Mia · Rating 1 out of 5]

The title should be "The Narcissist's Personal Journey into Cashing in on His Own Self-Indulgence". While maintaining that he has insight into his grandiose and self-centered thought patterns, the author has failed to recognize the degree to which he comes across as a boorish ass. He should have hired an editor to save him from himself---or (heaven forbid) maybe he did do that and the original draft was even worse.

Some of the genetic information discussed borders on interesting, but it is presented poorly and decorated with pseudoscience (Indigo child? Are we trapped in 1989 Mothering Magazine world?)and armchair genealogy typical of the profound narcissist. The end result being that without reading up on the research he is describing, I would not believe his interpretation of any of it.

In our graduate seminar on personality disorders we were taught that the difference between "officially having a personality disorder" and "just being an asshole" is whether the symptoms are having significant negative impact on the person's functioning: ability to form and sustain relationships, ability to support himself, ability to perform activities of daily living as needed by one's station in life, etc. With that framework in mind, and taking at face value Fallon's claims to have good relationships with his wife, children and "thousands" of colleagues, I think it's safe to say he's just an ass. Whether or not he's a psychopath or has a psychopath's genetic profile is irrelevant and rendered uninteresting by the quicksand of his self-involvement. He's a libertarian! No kidding?

[Traveller · Rating 4 out of 5]

We all have an idea what “evil” is. The fifth emperor of Rome, Nero, (r. 54 AD-68 AD) was seen as evil, as was Caligula, Rome’s third Emperor (r. 37 AD – 41 AD), mainly because they killed many people upon a whim in some rather cruel ways, and seemed not to care a fig about the well-being of their subjects.

After fingers were pointed at him for setting Rome ablaze, Nero blamed Christians for the deed. Apparently he had them thrown to dogs, nailed to crosses, and on occasion, he dipped them in oil, set them on fire, and used the light to illuminate his gardens at night. Of course he famously killed his mother and his two wives. Some blamed him for kicking his second wife to death. According to Roman historian Cassius Dio, “Nero would fasten naked boys and girls to stakes, and then putting on the hide of a wild beast would attack them and satisfy his brutal lust under the appearance of devouring parts of their bodies.” Sounds a bit far-fetched, but that’s all part of the mythology surrounding Nero’s cruelty.

Stories surrounding the life of Emperor Caligula, have reached legendary proportions, making it hard to separate fact from fiction. A theme that seems to run through all the stories, is that he loved displaying his god-like power. Historians wrote that he would sleep with his own officials’ wives, then brag about it publicly in front of them. He snatched his second wife from her wedding to another man. His third wife was a married woman whose husband was forced to give her to the emperor. He paraded his fourth wife naked in front of his friends.

It was after a severe illness that Caligula became really ruthless, and he apparently had family members killed around him left, right and center. But Caligula had endured severe trauma as a child – the emperor Tiberius had Caligula's entire family killed to ensure that Tiberius’s progeny would have sole claim to the Roman throne. Eventually Caligula was the sole survivor, and only escaped death due to the fact that Tiberius's only heir died young. Could the systematic destruction of his close family including six siblings, as well as the constant peril to his own life, have had an influence on his “madness?”

Have you heard of Vlad the Impaler, AKA Vlad Tepes or Vlad Dracula? Stories of Tepes’s cruelty abound, though they may have been embroidered upon for political reasons. Still, it is apparently true that he used to plant men, women and children impaled with stakes all around the countryside, but it’s not certain if the stories of having suckling women’s breasts cut off and then having them impaled on the same stake as their babies, might have been an embellishment. Apparently he also had fun boiling people alive.



Above: Woodcut of Tepes dining among people he had impaled.

In any case, he became such an apt symbol for evil, that, apparently, Bram Stoker’s Count Dracula was based on his character. But what characteristic makes certain people to be perceived as evil? One might very well argue that it is exquisite callousness coupled with cruelty that would receive almost universal recognition of being traits that would make a person perceived as “evil.” The three men mentioned above, were surely all "evil", so, do they qualify to be classed as psychopaths? And if they were psychopaths, could it be that their cruelty stemmed more out of ruthlessness in order to hold on to power, than out of sadistic bloodlust? Because the main characteristic, it would seem, of a psychopath, is that he or she manipulates people and circumstances without the slightest twinge of conscience. One of the things that these three men had in common, is that once they had managed to attain power, a sought-after commodity for a psychopath, they abused that power for their own personal gain without a second thought for it's effects on other people.

So, what is a psychopath? Are psychopaths intrinsically evil? And are they really as evil as the characters in the stories above? Hollywood and popular literature would certainly have us believe that they are. But in terms of psychology and psychiatry, the term has always been challenged and controversial. “Psychopathy” is not a term currently acknowledged by the DSM anymore. The DSM, or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is a publication by the American Psychiatric Association for the classification of mental disorders using a common language and standard criteria. It is the standard diagnostic reference book for psychologists and psychiatrists.

Before 1980, psychopathy was still recognized in the DSM as presenting: affective and interpersonal traits such as egocentricity, deceit, shallow affect, manipulativeness, selfishness, and lack of empathy, guilt or remorse. In 1980 this tradition was broken with the publication of DSM-III. Psychopathy - renamed antisocial personality disorder - was now defined by persistent violations of social norms, including lying, stealing, truancy, inconsistent work behavior and traffic arrests.

The current iteration of the DSM, DSM V, contains two conditions that fit most closely with the definition of a psychopath. Because many of the classic traits of psychopathy were impossible to measure objectively, the diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and dissocial personality disorder (DPD) respectively, were added. These diagnoses have been referred to (or include what is referred to) as psychopathy or sociopathy. There is agreement that not every individual with an antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is a psychopath. In fact, research shows that only one third of people with AsPD meet the criteria for psychopathy. So as you can see, this is a very hard term to wrestle down and label effectively.

In modern culture, it has been a rather vague term to describe people who seem insanely cruel, and it has been used as a more secular term for what the more religious would term as “evil”. The most recent generally accepted definition for “a psychopath”, is : a person suffering from a chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.

So with all of this background in mind, imagine you went for a brain scan, and the doctors doing the scan, told you that you were a psychopath, based purely on your MRI scan. Would you believe them? Neuroscientist James Fallon happened to be doing research on what the brains of psychopaths look like, when he found, to his disbelief, that his own brain looked incredibly similar to those of diagnosed psychopaths. Shocked, Fallon went on a journey of discovery, trying to figure out how he, a respected scientist, could possibly have the brain patterns of a psychopath.

It was very interesting to see the phenomenon of psychopathy examined from a neuroscience point of view. One of the most salient things that I have realized with recent reading about psychopathy, especially with a neuroscientific vantage point informing the phenomenon, is that the basic difference between psychopaths and "neurotypicals" is that they simply have an under-active sense of both fear and of personal responsibility, or what people might generally call "caution" and "conscience".

Fallon suggests this lack has it's origin in the brain's inherent anatomy, but one can't help wondering if the chicken or the egg came first. Do psychopaths act without conscience because the area in the brain regulating it, is genetically and unalterably under-active? Or, did this area become under-active because of learned behavior, and due to traumatic early life circumstances and experiences? There are suggestions that the former makes a psychopath, and that this condition is completely incurable, and that the latter makes a sociopath, which might be curable.

Fallon investigates questions such as these, as he combs his own genealogy for psychopathic behaviors in his close ancestors. So in addition to the scientific inquiry, lies nested a personal story of denial and discovery. This parallel narrative gradually unfolds and builds momentum to climax into a chilling conclusion.

Altogether, I think this book lends a unique perspective, and also helps to demystify some of the myths surrounding psychopathy.

For example: Myth: Psychopaths are very rare. Truth: There are more of them than you realize, because many of them manage to hide their true nature very well.

Myth: All psychopaths are killers. Truth: Not necessarily. The stereotypical "psychopathic killer" is more of an extreme, an outlier. Many of them are not violent, but rather, manipulative, and you'd see them quite highly represented among, for example, stock traders or CEO's of companies, where ruthlessness would be an advantage, but that's as far as it goes. Apparently they're also relatively highly represented among surgeons, where it would clearly not be in their interest to exhibit some of the more extreme anti-social tendencies, but where it does help to have nerves of steel.

Fallon does drive home quite hard on his view that a psychopath is definitely born and not made, but then, one should approach that with care, since he has an interest in protecting his own research and his own character with such a viewpoint. This would strengthen the view that, as many sensationalist novelists will have us believe, "evil" can exist from the cradle.

Admittedly there is some evidence for such a viewpoint, but it's a hard one to definitively prove, especially since in Fallon's case, his psychopathy did not emerge as badly pathological sociopathic behavior, which, as he himself points out, is probably due to the fact that his circumstances while growing up, were positive and nurturing.

A lot of it seems to be, as it is with so much in psychology, a matter of degree.

Highly recommended to those interested in the phenomenon.

[Becca · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall - very interesting. For those that say this was a narcissist's memoir, I just have to say that it was a book about him, and his brain... so what were you expecting?

[Susan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Though I forced myself to finish this, it was agony. This guy's narcissism, evident on every page, was insufferable. As a tour of a "pro social" psychopath's brain and mind (I'd guess he has plenty more personality disorders in the mix), I couldn't wait for the journey to end. As he says, he does not care one whit for other people's feelings, and his every behavior is motivated by some perceived benefit he derives. Here's an example: as a Libertarian he felt compelled in the 1990's to refuse federal grant money for his research. But guess what -- he "softens" later because NOT to accept such grant money seemed "silly" given the "good research" his lab produces. Ugh. This kind of thinking pervades the entire enterprise. I felt extremely sorry for his wife and family. I'd love to hear the stories he claims to have "left out" because I'm sure they showcase some truly insensitive and appalling behavior. I don't care if the guy is a smart scientist with a very high IQ -- no amount of self-aggrandizing bravado could sell me on how much better and more glorious he is than everyone else. In fact, his admission to seeking cold, distant, impersonal "revenge" on people who affronted him (sometimes even years later in ways that people wouldn't recognize as revenge) ought to strike a note of chill in readers. If we need to cull the human race, let's start with this guy and people like him. No loss. (For readers interested in this subject, Martha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door is much better and more useful.)

[♏ Gina☽ · Rating 4 out of 5]

James Fallon is a neuroscientist who was conducting studies comparing brain scans of psychopaths vs. the "normal" population to see if there were any differences that would indicate a person's predisposition to violence of the most heinous kind.

To make the study valid, he needed a control group. Many of his family and friends volunteered to have the scans done for this purpose.

Imagine, if you will, that he is sitting as his desk working diligently on his study when he notices a scan that would indicate a severe and profound - such as he had never seen to date - predisposition to violence and psychopathic behavior. The scans did not include names, so he assumed this was a scan from a known psychopath, but due to the extreme differences, he elected to find out who the scan belonged to.

And - no spoiler here as he tells you this at the beginning of the book - the scan is his.

The revelation that his brain had all the qualities he was seeing in true psychopaths to a very high degree led him to a journey he never expected in the beginning. He had never committed any type of hideous crime, nor was he a violent individual by nature. And yet, when he thought long and hard about his own thought processes, he had to admit he lacked empathy for others, among other things common to those we would consider psychopaths. As an example, he relates a story of when he was part of a group in his class that had to visit a morgue. Lying on the table was the body of a very young girl. While the others were horrified at the death of the child, his first instinct was to comment on the beauty of the white dress she was in rather than the fact that a child was dead.

The book is an extremely interesting read for anyone interested in how the brain works and why we think the way we do.

[Nancy · Rating 1 out of 5]

This could be a great book club read except that some of the members might buy the book which just seems wrong. Fallon pretty much spends a whole book telling us what a jerk he is. Buying the book rewards him for that. Stealing the book hurts the bookstores, not Fallon. Maybe take a copy out of the library. As a libertarian who believes it is just fine to let people starve, Fallon can't possibly approve of spending tax money on library books.

In any case, do not read this book alone. If you don't close it up and walk away after a few chapters because the author gives you the creeps, you will want to discuss it with someone. What makes a psychopath? Is James Fallon one or are his scientific discursions just a smoke screen justifying his bad behavior? What should society do about psychopaths? This book could spark a lively conversation, but do you really want to have James Fallon's shadow overhanging your book group?

[Jason Koivu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Continuing my Halloween reads. I was afraid that there might be a twist, where I find out I'm the psychopath!

[Wanda Pedersen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Publisher says:

The Psychopath Inside tells the fascinating story of Fallon’s reaction to the discovery that he has the brain of a psychopath. While researching serial murderers, he uncovered a distinct neurological pattern in their brain scans that helped explain their cold and violent behavior. A few months later he learned that he was descended from a family with a long line of murderers which confirmed that Fallon’s own brain pattern wasn’t a fluke.
As a scientist convinced that humans are shaped by their genetics, Fallon set out to reconcile the truth about his brain with everything he knew about the mind, behavior, and the influence of nature vs. nurture on our personalities. How could he, a successful scientist and a happy family man with no history of violence, be a psychopath? How much did his biology influence his behavior? Was he capable of some of the gruesome atrocities perpetrated by the serial killers he had studied?

Combining his personal experience with scientific analysis, Fallon shares his journey and the discoveries that ultimately led him to understand that, despite everything science can teach us, humans are even more complex than we can imagine.

My thoughts on the book:

An interesting read, always bearing in mind that the author is potentially unreliable. He says so himself in many places in the book. Can you trust a psychopath, even a psychopath lite (as this author refers to himself), to give you the straight goods?

Obviously, Fallon is interested in both protecting his professional reputation and in writing an interesting book that will make money. In some ways, these two desires are in conflict--revealing your psychopathic tendencies isn't the passport to professional recognition. But playing both ends against the middle is a game of risk that it seems he can't resist, totally in keeping with his self-diagnosis.

As I say, an interesting book, but not one to take at face value--read it with a critical mind and don't believe everything he says about himself. He makes a lot of excuses and dismisses a lot of the harm he has inflicted on those around him. The science bits are probably the most reliable, but I've given only 3 stars because the writing is not exceptional and I get the distinct impression that the author is being a weasel about the personal parts of the book (apologies to real weasels, I actually like them a lot). I've known several people whom I have suspected of psychopathy and this book gave me a tiny window into their interior lives (or lack thereof).

[Allison · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book in short is not only phenomenal in its creation but draws conclusions about human nature that could revolutionize how we parent and teach our children. Every paragraph speaks to some condition in today's environment that could easily explain the host of flaws many of us see in the 'casual' parent. Its only flaw lies in the title. Granted it is entirely about one man's search for self-awareness after learning that his brain scan mirrored a 'psychopath's'. But the layman's approach to explaining the various zones of the brain and their functioning as a result of complex schemes of genetics is adeptly done. Page after page, I was drawn back to my own life, learning how hormones and dual systems of the brain work explained how and why I perceive the world the way I do. It's sort of the end game in post, post modern reductionism.

If this book has at all piqued your curiosity, please read it. It's well done.

And as for the author, the most interesting thing is how unwittingly honest about his condition the writing is. As he's writing his story, revealing dark corners of his brain, you are struck with the complete understanding, that he's lying, and that whatever truth he has just revealed was in reality worse than what he wrote. Reading between the lines in this book might be the most fun I've had in a scientific book ever...

[Jeff Raymond · Rating 3 out of 5]

The strange thing about getting multiple books about psychopathy in from the library is how quickly you get to see the differences in the styles of the books. Having read the M. E. Thomas one a few weeks back, reading a more clinical take was an interesting endeavor.

The hook with this book is how Fallon, while investigating other brain issues for things like Alzheimer's and such, inadvertently learned that his brain scan matched many society would consider to be psychopathic. This brought him full bore into an investigation of psychopathy and prompted a look back in his own life.

The book, I suppose, is the better of the recent ones. His biographical stuff wasn't terribly interesting, the clinical stuff often too clinical and dry for me to get invested in, so what was left were some interesting pieces bridged by a lot of less interesting parts along the way. The ending portion almost redeems it, but not quite, as he largely abandons the likely result in favor of his own original hypothesis.

Honestly, if this is a topic you're interested in, the Jon Rosnon book, The Psychopath Test, is ultimately the best read of the group even if it's less traditionally informative and more pop-sciency.

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Most of the really good stuff here could be got from any general psychiatry text. What remains is engaging, self-absorbed and self-serving waffle.

[Joy D · Rating 4 out of 5]

Non-fiction memoir from a research neuroscientist who inadvertently discovered his brain scan is similar to that of the psychopathic killers he had been studying. Fallon is married, has a family, and does not show a history of violence; however, he admits he possesses many of the traits of a psychopath, such as lack of empathy and remorse, unreliability, impulsivity, putting loved ones in danger for the thrill of it, lying, manipulation, and narcissism. He provides plenty of examples from his life that demonstrate these traits. Fallon considers himself a “pro-social” (non-violent) psychopath, which he also refers to as “Psychopath Lite.”

In his words, “Love me or hate me, I was not a criminal. My brain may have looked a lot like those of the murderers I’d been studying, but I had never killed or ruthlessly assaulted anyone. I had never fantasized about committing violence or doing harm to another individual. I was a successful, happily married father of three—a pretty normal guy.”

I found the title intriguing. Ever since I had an extremely unpleasant encounter with a psychopath years ago, I have been occasionally reading about brain science, how psychopaths operate, and how to identify and avoid them. Many people with only a passing idea of psychopathy believe these people are hard-boiled killers, but what some may not realize is that a certain percentage of the population carries every negative trait of a psychopath except the violent criminal behavior. They lack empathy, and can be cold, calculating, superficial, and manipulative. They can also be glib and charming. Fallon estimates two percent of the population are psychopathic. I have read other books that put this figure as high as four percent.

If you are just starting down the path of reading up on brain science, I recommend starting elsewhere to get the basics down before tackling this book for a couple of reasons. 1) Fallon engages in an abundance of scientific analysis and uses jargon unfamiliar to many people. He speaks of chemical neurotransmitters, brain anatomy, psychotropic medications, epigenetic tagging, and similar related concepts, which merit a basic understanding in order to follow his train of thought. 2) He makes a few outlandish claims, which I don’t think anyone without at least a basic knowledge of these concepts would be able to refute, or even know they should be refuted.

Although he tries to remain objective, I do not think he succeeds. He spends a good amount of time excusing and rationalizing his actions. He argues that psychopaths are beneficial to society. In my opinion, his logic is flawed. Of course, I’m not a research scientist, but much of my reading does not lead to the same interpretations. He includes a plethora of personal information, some of which is unnecessary and repetitive, and as should come as no surprise, much of it sounds grandiose. Several chapters read like a thesis.

I found this book a very good guide on how a “pro-social” psychopath thinks. The last few chapters, in particular, are very telling. For example, he states, “But the inherent problem I could not shake is that, try as I may, I really just don’t care. There it is again. I do have some desire to keep the people around me happy, but that’s mostly because it makes my own life easier and more pleasant.” At any rate, it is an interesting memoir, providing you do not accept his conclusions at face value.

[ElphaReads · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is pretty fascinating. It definitely is more of a memoir than a general narrative on psychopathy, though it does have a lot of scientific moments in it. I think that if it had found a way to meet in the middle of being too personal and too dry I would have probably liked it more. At times it was uncomfortable in some ways just because Fallon fully admits to having very little empathy for others, and can be kind of flippant about it and the suffering of others.

But at the same time, for the people who are railing against this book for being too egomaniacal, I have to ask: what did you think you were going to be reading when you picked up a memoir by a person with psychopathic tendencies?

[kylajaclyn · Rating 1 out of 5]

Man, all I want is just an informative book about psychopaths. All I’ve been getting is narcissistic blowhards telling me about their own journeys. This guy has been the worst of the bunch. Yet another person trying to make a case for why psychopaths or sociopaths should be in society. Keep talking. I’m walking right on by.

[Patricia Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a psychologist, I found this book fascinating. Psychopaths and narcissists typically lack introspection. They do not seek out psychotherapy, although some are occasionally court-ordered to do so. They have little interest in understanding their underlying motives and their origins.

So here we have a brilliant neuroscientist who discovers in his own brain scan the clear signs, based on his prior research, of psychopathy. He initially denies that he belongs in this category; he has not murdered or maimed, has a stable marriage and career. But he is so intrigued, as a scientist, with what appears to be a discrepancy, that he pursues a lengthy, academic examination of his psyche.

Dr. Fallon had previously attributed most of personality to genetics rather than environment. Yet his self-exploration causes him to realize that his early nurturing likely had powerful effects. I found his discussion of brain changes throughout development extremely informative. It is not just "frontal lobe growth" that alters one's thinking and reasoning, but the role of hormones and neurotransmitters, and circuitries among limbic structures and throughout the brain that affect
our eventual perceptions and character. The brain is immeasurably complex.

Finally, I appreciate Dr. Fallon's honesty. I don't imagine it was easy for him to reveal his true nature, or to confess to his "inappropriate" behavior and lack of empathy. He is, after all, a scientist, and this book is an academic study. Moreover, he is a psychopath (albeit a lite/prosocial one)!

[Lupita Reads · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Good grief, Mrs. O'Leary, other than that, how's your cow?"

Seriously this book was a wild intellectual ride for me. After reading it, I just had to read the acknowledgements and as listed there; there is truly a specific audience for this read. I really enjoyed the science aspects of the book. Fallon is very talented in explaining scientific theories etc, however like every great scientist can get carried away and can get you a lost. My advice, stick with the book anyways, it is truly interesting. Its a great exploration into the human brain and an open door to the depths one signal human being can contain. I would highly recommend this book to anyone in the science, psychology community.

[Erin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was so intrigued by the premise of this book, but overall, I never really got attached to the story. It's pretty apparent that this man is a scientist and not a writer. He may be brilliant, but he doesn't know how to capture the reader. There were just too many examples of him saying he'd done bad things without ever elaborating on what they were.

[Jafar · Rating 3 out of 5]

A neuroscientist finds out accidentally that his brain scan resembles those of murderous psychopaths. He’s shocked. After all, he’s a renowned scientist with wife and children and many friends and colleagues, not a murderer. He wonders what this means. He reads the literature on psychopathy, digs into his past, talks to his family and friends, and it turns out that he’s actually quite an asshole. Not all psychopaths are violent criminals. Most are “prosocial” non-violent types who lie and manipulate to get ahead in life and are incapable of empathy and remorse.

I expect this book – which is half science and half memoir – to annoy you. Fallon is a psychopath. Even though he’s being honest, he’s still comes off glib and self-satisfied. His psychopathy shows up clearly. It was quite interesting that he diagnosed Bill Clinton as a psychopath and called him “the patron saint of prosocial psychopaths.” It takes a psychopath to recognize one.

Fallon ends the book with a chapter that claims that prosocial psychopaths do society and civilization good by taking risks and pushing the boundaries. You can count this as the grandiosity of a psychopath. Civilization is propelled forward by great scientists and artists and thinkers and humanitarians. Psychopaths leave behind only a trail of wars and destruction and ruined lives and hurt feelings.

[Diana · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a fascinating book. Some of the scientific jargon and details about the brain I could have done without, and I would have liked more specific details from the author's life about how some of his psychopathic behaviors have affected him and others close to him. He's not the best writer. However, it was still good and worth reading, especially if you're interested in psychopathy and the nature vs. nurture thing. Fresh insights, etc.

And I have to give this book credit for really getting me to understand that a psychopath's brain is actually just structurally different from everyone else's, which makes it impossible for them to experience emotions--especially "soft" emotions like compassion and empathy--that "normal" brains experience. And that they are most likely born that way. Psychopaths can change their behavior, but they can never become motivated by the same emotions as everyone else, because they simply do not have access to those emotions.

[tarah · Rating 2 out of 5]

This guy sure is a dick.

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

News at 11: psychopath writes an autobiography in which he is obnoxiously glib and self-aggrandizing and hard to like.

Not sure what I was expecting...

This is a very weird book to review / rate. On one hand, James Fallon is a jerk, and reading an autobiography where you don't like the author is always pretty tough. I viscerally cringed throughout the book.

On the other hand, all of that is sort of the point: James Fallon is a psychopath. He's not supposed to be likable, so does it really make sense to ding the book for delivering on the promised content? What was I expecting, Mother Teresa? A redemption arc? It's a book about a person who lacks empathy and a conscience, and the book demonstrates exactly that. Complaining is like going to a horror movie and being upset it was scary.

Ultimately, even with the recognition that the book is hard to read by design, I can't say I enjoyed the book. The lack of enjoyment isn't driven by the book being poorly written or not thought-provoking; it was fairly well-written and did make me think. The problem is, the second-hand visceral cringe was too much. I kept wanting to argue with the guy on principle and make him see why he was wrong. If I could just shake the guy by the shoulders and put some empathic sense into his head. (I guess on the plus side, confirms I'm not a psychopath?) Despite the book making me think, I'm not sure I'm better off having read it. I'm left with this unsettled feeling instead...

The book is split in two interleaving parts: a discussion of the brain, and a personal account of James Fallon himself. I'll address the two separately.

Insofar as James Fallon's discussion of the brain goes, this part of the book was quite good and made me think. Credit will go where credit is due: this subject can get very academic, but he makes the brain very accessible for non-academics.

It gave me a better appreciation than probably any book I've ever read about how different aspects of the brain work in concert with one another. I was a psychology major, so no strange to the brain and its parts, but I feel like textbooks always approach the discussion of the brain in discrete parts with discrete jobs. The amygdala processes emotion and fear. The hippocampus manages memory. Etc. What is not really ever discussed is: if X part of the brain and Y part of the brain are activated in a particular way, they produce result Z, but if X is overactive, X+Y=A; underactive, X+Y=B, and any number of combinations thereof. Brain regions are not independent units, but actually capable of any number of possible permutations. It sounds obvious writing it now, but popular literature on the brain has always been so categorical in nature that it is easy to adopt that simplified view. Fallon explores this expertly by discussing the interaction between the different brain regions that aren't quite right with psychopathy. It's clear how as one lever gets out of whack, others overcompensate (or undercompensate) and create different behavior patterns.

Finally, someone actually explores serotonin correctly! I was very pleasantly surprised to see Fallon's nuanced exploration of serotonin, which is best-known for its relationship with depression, but is so, so, so, so much more than that. It is exceptionally common to see depression reduced down to "not enough serotonin," which is a gross undersimplification of what happens in the brain. Maybe you don't have enough serotonin receptors in the brain. Maybe your serotonin transporters are long or short. Maybe you don't respond normally to serotonin. Maybe you don't make enough, or too much. We understand vanishingly little about the brain. There are a million subtle ways for things to go wrong, with different subtle effects. Oh, and there are over 15 different serotonin receptors. They do different things.

Epigenetics are wild! Our genes are not static; genes will turn on and off in response to the environment, which is why identical twins can have very different personalities, heights, weight, etc. I've heard of epigenetic changes before, of course, but I did not know they could be inherited. Fallon notes children and grandchildren of famine survivors can have an increased tendency to gain weight, whereas siblings who were born before the famine do not see such an impact. I instantly thought of the Holocaust--starvation and unimaginable emotional misery. The families of Holocaust survivors absolutely bear generational trauma, but, surely, then, they also carry genetic trauma.

Nature and nurture are equally important. There's a saying in the psychology field: genetics loads the gun, and environment pulls the trigger. The psychology field itself has swung between polar opposites of the spectrum for decades like a pendulum, unsure which has more impact. There is an awful lot that is set in stone by genetics; I will never be tall or blond-haired, for instance. But our environment shapes a lot, too; there is nothing genetic that makes Japanese people more reserved and Israelis famously blunt. Raise an Israeli child in Japan and a Japanese person in Israel, and their personalities would differ vs. those in their home country. Some people are inclined towards psychopathy, but whether they commit robberies and murders has a lot to do with environment. Abuse a psychopathic child, and you wire a brain predisposed towards callous aggression to act out.

So, yeah, brain stuff, all well and good. But half of the book was dedicated to James Fallon himself. That bit was ... rougher.

I know people like James Fallon, to varying degrees. We all probably do, really. They're not common, but they're not uncommon, either. I've met various people where I have thought to myself, you are not wired right. You're a blast to hang out with, but, at the end of the day, you don't care. Those people can be generous; they can be thoughtful; they can have morals. But empathy is subtle. You can sense when it's not there. There is something cold and self-centered about them.

It's not that I think the people I know like this are psychopaths, per se. Like all behaviors, I think psychopathic tendencies exist on a spectrum. In a different environment, though, perhaps raised in an abusive home, or in a highly tense war situation ... As they say: nature loads the gun, and nurture pulls the trigger.

This is probably part of what was very unsettling to me about the book, to be honest: some of the "psychopath-lite" people I know very intimately, and I couldn't help but read James Fallon's description of his thought process and think: That is exactly how XYZ person thinks. I knew about them before reading the book, but I hate being reminded of it. I want everyone to have morals and be empathic and kind, and I try to convince myself they're not as cold as I know they are. But no, their thought process is that cold and logical. It makes me feel sick.

The psychology behind people who remain in James Fallon's life is fascinating to consider. James Fallon sounds like a complete jerk of a husband. He states bluntly that he doesn't love his wife; his wife is intellectually fascinating to him. I think tending to her needs is kind of like tending to a plant, maybe; a plant in your house makes the room look nicer, so you water it, but ultimately, you're not doing that for the plant's benefit. You're doing it for your benefit. Your room would look less nice without the plant. Superficially, it seems like he cares about his wife, but he only cares about her needs to the extent they service his own needs.

You have to wonder: what on earth does Diane see in this dude? Of course you can be superficially charmed by someone like James for a while, but eventually, the mask slips. Why is she married to this guy? He never explores her motivations. Does she think she can fix him? Does the intellectual connection make up for the lack of emotional connection? Does she have some kind of psychic wound that makes her think she doesn't deserve better?

Other people in his life are much the same. James keeps them in his life because they provide some kind of value: intellectual stimulation, entertainment, career benefit. His friends seem well-aware he has significant flaws. Their reasoning for remaining friends is far easier for me to grok: I imagine those people keep him in their life because they, too, have turned the relationship transactional: James is fun to be around. They just wouldn't ever rely on him for anything. We're all party to that kind of friendship-making: that one friend you don't have much in common with, but enjoy going to the theatre/sports games/etc. with, or that friend who is fun, but only in limited doses.

James Fallon tries really hard to come off as an "enlightened" psychopath, but he's not very good at it. I think James Fallon tries very, very, very hard to impress on the reader what a good guy he is. He's gregarious! He's the life of the party! He has a moral code! He donates to the poor! Everyone loves him!

It's almost (truthfully, is) annoying how much he praises himself. But you kind of want to believe it--surely a guy with this many friends is a good guy? And, hey, he's taking ownership for being a psychopath and that he doesn't always treat people nicely. That fits nicely into a normal person's redemption arc, admitting a deep and vulnerable flaw. You want to like him, at first.

Except, the problem is, even admitting he is a psychopath is just part of James Fallon's psychopath game. He's not admitting he's a psychopath because he wants to be better, even though he makes sympathetic noises about how he should treat people better and shouldn't do this and that. He admits he's a psychopath because it's a badge of pride. Look at me, I'm a psychopath and I'm not a murderer! I work the system benignly! I'm great! Tellingly, he calls people who lie and steal "losers." It's not that he feels bad for their victims; he feels smugly superior to the psychopaths who transgress the system and get caught. James Fallon gets a high off socially manipulating people. The fact that people don't realize and that it doesn't break any "official" rules is the entire thrill and point. He's obviously an incredibly smart guy, and he uses his intellect to play games with people who have no idea they are participating.

By admitting you're a psychopath and should treat people better, it makes it sound like there's hope for redemption, that you're not such a bad guy. Manipulation at its finest!

He's not as smart as he thinks he is, though. He constantly reminds the reader everyone loves hanging out with him, and, also, he doesn't ever break the law. He has principles and a moral code. He is a prosocial psychopath. Yeah, true, he's not as bad as he could be. He hasn't committed any crimes. He assumes he's still a good person if he "only" manipulates people or is callous towards their feelings. And he makes the assumption everyone else will assume so, too. His reality distortion field is somewhat effective, yes, but I don't think he pulls the wool over other people's eyes as effectively as he thinks.

James Fallon never really explains what exactly in detail he does to warrant being called a psychopath by so many, but so many people comment on it, you start getting a sense he's a lot worse than he implies. I suspect he doesn't talk about some of it to preserve his own self-image, but I also suspect he literally doesn't realize the extent of his own deficits, either.

Interestingly, the longer the book goes on, the more the mask starts to slip, and cracks appear in his story of "not being that bad". For instance, earlier in the book, he goes on about how he's a great father with a great relationship with his kids. Later, he mentions his daughter writes him a letter accusing him of being a horrible person who has never been there for her. He cracks it up to him forgetting to bring his grandson to a dinner event one night. No, dude ... that obviously must have simply been the straw that broke the camel's back. Nobody writes a letter accusing their father of being emotionally neglectful their entire lives over one incident. James Fallon thinks he's a good father and is invested in maintaining that story, but that one anecdote spoke volumes.

Ultimately, towards the end, James admits: he doesn't care. He can go through the motions, and he can superficially care about the consequences if they negatively impact him, but, truly, at the end of the day, he just doesn't care. Yup. This is correct. The only thing James cares about is how things impact him. Everything else, meh. That's what differentiates someone on the psychopathy spectrum vs. someone who is simply mean or hot-headed; they can both do horrible things, like murder or hurt someone's feelings, but ... psychopaths just don't care. About any of it. Whatever.

It's the same conclusion I've come to about the people I know who aren't psychopaths, but certainly flirt on the edges of the spectrum: at the end of the day, they just don't care and won't ever. If you're not close to them, no big deal; if you are, expecting any different will just be an exercise in folly and hurt. Accept them for what they are, take what they give, and expect nothing more.

[Breanna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty interesting. I puts tabs on quite a few pages, as I felt I was learning some pretty fascinating things. The author sounds like an annoying, narcissistic person to be honest, but I don't think he'd disagree with that. Overall, an educational read, but nothing all that memorable for me.

[Saskia · Rating 2 out of 5]

Üllatavalt igav. Pmst vaadake kui lahe ma olen in 200 pages

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a terrifying book. A neurologist who discovers he is a psychopath explains his condition and personality to us. While he attempts to justify, alleviate, and avoid blame and shame, his own observations reveal his true nature. To him, his young children were just "dolls", only after they grew were they interesting, and thus worthy of his time and attention. Later in life his children described him as cold, an emotional black hole. His friends, of which he had many (according to him), said the same and stated that they always knew he was a psychopath.

Fallow claims that humanity needs psychopaths, as only a psychopath will do what needs doing, but I disagree. His own statements about himself reveal more than he believes, his belief that he is a "pro-social" psycho are false. It is merely that he has found fame and vindication in a non-violent activity. His is the same brain as other psychos who have caused pain and misery.

The human species is afflicted with a 1%-2% of psychopaths. They are dangerous. Should we scan all CEOs, politicians, and public figures?