Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Is psychopathy an evolutionary strategy rather than a disorder?
Psychopaths are manipulative, violent, impulsive, and lack empathy — but if psychopathy encourages more frequent reproduction, is it, then, an advantageous strategy?
- It's tempting to think of psychopathy as a kind of aberrant mental condition, but several studies suggest that it may be an evolutionary strategy.
- A study compared the genetic profiles of psychopaths with individuals who were more likely to have children younger and more frequently and found significant overlap.
- This suggests that the qualities that bring about psychopathy are also qualities that encourage more frequent reproduction, making psychopathy an advantageous strategy.
From an evolutionary perspective, it seems odd that we would have psychopaths among our numbers at all. A great deal of what's made humanity a successful species is our social cohesiveness, our empathy toward one another, and our understanding of right and wrong. What benefit could there be for individuals to simply lack these socially binding qualities and to feel a tendency toward violence to boot? The evolutionary role of psychopaths becomes even stranger when you consider the fact that psychopaths are at higher risk for becoming disabled or dying early owing to their impulsivity and reckless behavior.
It's tempting to say that psychopathy is simply the result of a short circuit in the complicated wiring that makes up our brains. However, it may be the case that psychopaths are simply employing a different reproductive strategy than the rest of us. At least, that's what Jorim Tielbeek and colleagues argue.
Looking at the genome
While psychopathy is believed to have some environmental causes, much of what brings it about is genetic. We know that there are certain mutations that encourage psychopathic personalities. Tielbeek and colleagues were curious as to whether these mutations also conferred some other kind of benefit. So, they looked at two large databases containing genotypic data on over 31,000 individuals. A prior study had also uncovered the genetic profiles of individuals who were more likely to have children younger and to have more children overall. By looking at the overlap of these two genetic profiles, the research team was able to see whether there was any correlation between the two sets.
They found that there was, indeed, a fairly significant overlap. The genes associated with having children earlier and more often are also associated with the genes that give psychopaths the characteristics that make them psychopathic, like a lack of empathy.
Why psychopathy exists
It seems counterintuitive, but this finding fits well with what we understand about psychopaths. Previous research has found that psychopaths are often superficially charming, which enables them to attract others in the short term. In the long term, though, this façade crumbles over time. Psychopaths are also prone to greater disinhibition than others, meaning they have problems with impulse control and tend to seek immediate gratification. Combined, these traits would make psychopaths sexually promiscuous, and their disregard for social norms makes them more prone to poaching others' mates or sexual assault, a theory that has been supported by a number of other studies.
But if psychopathy can be a way to have more offspring, why aren't there more psychopaths? After all, Tielbeek and his colleagues' study showed that psychopaths are more likely to have more children, and we know that there is a significant genetic component in psychopathy. Wouldn't the psychopathic gene out-reproduce the non-psychopathic gene?
Why we aren't all psychopaths
One theory is that there's a kind of balancing act going on in the human genome. Highly psychopathic individuals make up about 1 percent of the human population. According to this theory, this number is so low because psychopaths are a kind of social parasite that can only thrive in groups predominantly made up of people who can be taken advantage of; that is, environments made up of moral, empathetic, socially-minded individuals. In groups like these, its easier to take advantage of others' trust to gain resources, like access to sexual partners. If there were too many psychopaths, then this system wouldn't work, and a given social group might become stricter about enforcing group norms. It should be noted that this a difficult theory to test directly.
There's also the idea that the "fast" lifestyles of psychopathic individuals may encourage them to reproduce more frequently, but it doesn't encourage them to invest any of themselves in their offspring's success. Individuals with "slow" lifestyles have fewer children but tend to stick around to make sure their children develop into healthy, competent, and successful adults. The psychopath wouldn't care about that — they demand instant gratification and aren't particularly attracted to the promise of future rewards. In this way, fewer offspring with the psychopathic genome would go on to be in a position to reproduce.
Evolution doesn't have a perspective or an opinion on things. It's a neutral process that selects what works. What these studies show is that, at least when it comes to human evolution, psychopathy is more of a feature than a bug.
- Stopping Psychopaths in Their Developmental Stage | James Fallon ... ›
- Is Your Partner a Psychopath? Here's How to Tell and What You ... ›
- Inside the brains of psychopaths - Big Think ›
So much for rest in peace.
- Australian scientists found that bodies kept moving for 17 months after being pronounced dead.
- Researchers used photography capture technology in 30-minute intervals every day to capture the movement.
- This study could help better identify time of death.
We're learning more new things about death everyday. Much has been said and theorized about the great divide between life and the Great Beyond. While everyone and every culture has their own philosophies and unique ideas on the subject, we're beginning to learn a lot of new scientific facts about the deceased corporeal form.
An Australian scientist has found that human bodies move for more than a year after being pronounced dead. These findings could have implications for fields as diverse as pathology to criminology.
Dead bodies keep moving
Researcher Alyson Wilson studied and photographed the movements of corpses over a 17 month timeframe. She recently told Agence France Presse about the shocking details of her discovery.
Reportedly, she and her team focused a camera for 17 months at the Australian Facility for Taphonomic Experimental Research (AFTER), taking images of a corpse every 30 minutes during the day. For the entire 17 month duration, the corpse continually moved.
"What we found was that the arms were significantly moving, so that arms that started off down beside the body ended up out to the side of the body," Wilson said.
The researchers mostly expected some kind of movement during the very early stages of decomposition, but Wilson further explained that their continual movement completely surprised the team:
"We think the movements relate to the process of decomposition, as the body mummifies and the ligaments dry out."
During one of the studies, arms that had been next to the body eventually ended up akimbo on their side.
The team's subject was one of the bodies stored at the "body farm," which sits on the outskirts of Sydney. (Wilson took a flight every month to check in on the cadaver.)Her findings were recently published in the journal, Forensic Science International: Synergy.
Implications of the study
The researchers believe that understanding these after death movements and decomposition rate could help better estimate the time of death. Police for example could benefit from this as they'd be able to give a timeframe to missing persons and link that up with an unidentified corpse. According to the team:
"Understanding decomposition rates for a human donor in the Australian environment is important for police, forensic anthropologists, and pathologists for the estimation of PMI to assist with the identification of unknown victims, as well as the investigation of criminal activity."
While scientists haven't found any evidence of necromancy. . . the discovery remains a curious new understanding about what happens with the body after we die.
Metal-like materials have been discovered in a very strange place.
- Bristle worms are odd-looking, spiky, segmented worms with super-strong jaws.
- Researchers have discovered that the jaws contain metal.
- It appears that biological processes could one day be used to manufacture metals.
The bristle worm, also known as polychaetes, has been around for an estimated 500 million years. Scientists believe that the super-resilient species has survived five mass extinctions, and there are some 10,000 species of them.
Be glad if you haven't encountered a bristle worm. Getting stung by one is an extremely itchy affair, as people who own saltwater aquariums can tell you after they've accidentally touched a bristle worm that hitchhiked into a tank aboard a live rock.
Bristle worms are typically one to six inches long when found in a tank, but capable of growing up to 24 inches long. All polychaetes have a segmented body, with each segment possessing a pair of legs, or parapodia, with tiny bristles. ("Polychaeate" is Greek for "much hair.") The parapodia and its bristles can shoot outward to snag prey, which is then transferred to a bristle worm's eversible mouth.
The jaws of one bristle worm — Platynereis dumerilii — are super-tough, virtually unbreakable. It turns out, according to a new study from researchers at the Technical University of Vienna, this strength is due to metal atoms.
Metals, not minerals
Fireworm, a type of bristle wormCredit: prilfish / Flickr
This is pretty unusual. The study's senior author Christian Hellmich explains: "The materials that vertebrates are made of are well researched. Bones, for example, are very hierarchically structured: There are organic and mineral parts, tiny structures are combined to form larger structures, which in turn form even larger structures."
The bristle worm jaw, by contrast, replaces the minerals from which other creatures' bones are built with atoms of magnesium and zinc arranged in a super-strong structure. It's this structure that is key. "On its own," he says, "the fact that there are metal atoms in the bristle worm jaw does not explain its excellent material properties."
Just deformable enough
Credit: by-studio / Adobe Stock
What makes conventional metal so strong is not just its atoms but the interactions between the atoms and the ways in which they slide against each other. The sliding allows for a small amount of elastoplastic deformation when pressure is applied, endowing metals with just enough malleability not to break, crack, or shatter.
Co-author Florian Raible of Max Perutz Labs surmises, "The construction principle that has made bristle worm jaws so successful apparently originated about 500 million years ago."
Raible explains, "The metal ions are incorporated directly into the protein chains and then ensure that different protein chains are held together." This leads to the creation of three-dimensional shapes the bristle worm can pack together into a structure that's just malleable enough to withstand a significant amount of force.
"It is precisely this combination," says the study's lead author Luis Zelaya-Lainez, "of high strength and deformability that is normally characteristic of metals.
So the bristle worm jaw is both metal-like and yet not. As Zelaya-Lainez puts it, "Here we are dealing with a completely different material, but interestingly, the metal atoms still provide strength and deformability there, just like in a piece of metal."
Observing the creation of a metal-like material from biological processes is a bit of a surprise and may suggest new approaches to materials development. "Biology could serve as inspiration here," says Hellmich, "for completely new kinds of materials. Perhaps it is even possible to produce high-performance materials in a biological way — much more efficiently and environmentally friendly than we manage today."
Dealing with rudeness can nudge you toward cognitive errors.
- Anchoring is a common bias that makes people fixate on one piece of data.
- A study showed that those who experienced rudeness were more likely to anchor themselves to bad data.
- In some simulations with medical students, this effect led to higher mortality rates.
Cognitive biases are funny little things. Everyone has them, nobody likes to admit it, and they can range from minor to severe depending on the situation. Biases can be influenced by factors as subtle as our mood or various personality traits.
A new study soon to be published in the Journal of Applied Psychology suggests that experiencing rudeness can be added to the list. More disturbingly, the study's findings suggest that it is a strong enough effect to impact how medical professionals diagnose patients.
Life hack: don't be rude to your doctor
The team of researchers behind the project tested to see if participants could be influenced by the common anchoring bias, defined by the researchers as "the tendency to rely too heavily or fixate on one piece of information when making judgments and decisions." Most people have experienced it. One of its more common forms involves being given a particular value, say in negotiations on price, which then becomes the center of reasoning even when reason would suggest that number should be ignored.
It can also pop up in medicine. As co-author Dr. Trevor Foulk explains, "If you go into the doctor and say 'I think I'm having a heart attack,' that can become an anchor and the doctor may get fixated on that diagnosis, even if you're just having indigestion. If doctors don't move off anchors enough, they'll start treating the wrong thing."
Lots of things can make somebody more or less likely to anchor themselves to an idea. The authors of the study, who have several papers on the effects of rudeness, decided to see if that could also cause people to stumble into cognitive errors. Past research suggested that exposure to rudeness can limit people's perspective — perhaps anchoring them.
In the first version of the study, medical students were given a hypothetical patient to treat and access to information on their condition alongside an (incorrect) suggestion on what the condition was. This served as the anchor. In some versions of the tests, the students overheard two doctors arguing rudely before diagnosing the patient. Later variations switched the diagnosis test for business negotiations or workplace tasks while maintaining the exposure to rudeness.
Across all iterations of the test, those exposed to rudeness were more likely to anchor themselves to the initial, incorrect suggestion despite the availability of evidence against it. This was less significant for study participants who scored higher on a test of how wide of a perspective they tended to have. The disposition of these participants, who answered in the affirmative to questions like, "Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in his/her place," was able to effectively negate the narrowing effects of rudeness.
What this means for you and your healthcare
The effects of anchoring when a medical diagnosis is on the line can be substantial. Dr. Foulk explains that, in some simulations, exposure to rudeness can raise the mortality rate as doctors fixate on the wrong problems.
The authors of the study suggest that managers take a keener interest in ensuring civility in workplaces and giving employees the tools they need to avoid judgment errors after dealing with rudeness. These steps could help prevent anchoring.
Also, you might consider being nicer to people.