Kent A. Kiehl PhD

Talks to you in a straightforward, easy-to-understand way. Clear, if a little self-absorbed and repetitive. Often frankly charming.

That could be a description of this book -- or the so-called "psychopaths" it examines.

If you rate it strictly as a "read," this is one of the best science books I've ever encountered: Easy to understand, quite straightforward, and requiring no specialized knowledge at all. I read through it faster than almost any scientific text I've ever read. It's true that it show more repeats things a little too much. Also, it is arguably a little too personal; I'm less interested in the author's personal triumphs in the field than with the science. But these are quibbles.

The one thing that is not a quibble is that... the book may not be about anything. The subject is "psychopaths," who are defined according to Robert Hare's psychopathy checklist. But here's the thing. There is an official list of recognized mental illnesses in America: The American Psychological Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (now in its fifth edition, although the fourth edition was current when most of the research in the book was done). The DSM does not include a diagnosis of psychopathy. What it has is "antisocial personality disorder" ("APD") -- a subject author Kiehl mentions briefly but waves aside.

I don't think he can do this. There seems to be a sense that all psychopaths fit the criteria for APD, but that not everyone with APD is a psychopath. This may be true -- but until psychopathy is a recognized diagnosis, we have a problem on our hands. Kiehl seems to have identified areas in the brain associated with psychopathy -- but guess what: they're also associated with a lot of other conditions, including but not limited to autism. Nowhere does this book compare the brain abnormalities of psychopaths with people with any other psychological condition -- not APD, not autism, not anything. Until this material can go into the DSM, it isn't going to be helpful in clinical evaluation, and until it is compared with other conditions, we can't really be sure how useful the treatment will be.

Don't misunderstand me. I liked this book, and I learned from it, and I want to learn more. But, in the absence of more evidence, I'm more inclined to trust the DSM than one individual author, no matter how amazing his results. show less

In this fascinating scientific exploration into the biological differences between psychopaths and non-psychopathic people, Kiehl discusses his own dealings with psycopaths in prisons. Kiehl is known as the first person to use an MRI in a prison to study the differences between psychopaths and non-psychopathic prisoners.

Kiehl would determine psycopathy by interviewing prisoners and then rating them 1-3 on a list of 20 attributes. A score of 30 indicates a psychopath. Approximately 20% of show more inmates were psychopaths. A balanced number of people who rate high and low on the psychopathy scale would be chosen for the experiments.

Once the study subjects were put in the MRI, they would be shown pictures of three types: a morally neutral photo (perhaps an ice cream cone), a morally ambiguous photo (perhaps a wrestling match), and a immoral act (perhaps someone placing a bomb in a car). The prisoners would then rate one a 1-5 scale how immoral the picture was. When a person who scores low on the psychopathy scale sees an immoral picture, his limbic system lights up; but a psychopath's limbic system remains eerily dark.

In his book, Kiehl also discusses findings other people have made about psychopaths - like the fact that they have no startle reflex. This mixture of scientific, psychological, and personal narrative make for a fantastic book.

I enjoyed this book quite a bit - especially the ethical implications of whether a psychopath deserves an insanity plea because their brains function differently than "normal" people and they are unable to physiologically respond the "right" way to the thought of immoral activity. Kiehl himself longs for a day when psychopathy will be caught earlier in childhood, so that they can receive treatment rather than incarceration. But the issue is quite an ethical dilemma. Where do you draw the line on the insanity plea? show less

An interesting look at the science of psychological disturbances, with an easily-understood description of the experiments and studies the author has done on people deemed to be psychopaths. Even more interesting is the question that his studies invite: if you can show that the brain of a psychopath works differently, in ways beyond the control and desire of the individual, where do you draw the line between criminal behavior and mental illness? Do we excuse criminal punishments for them, or show more do we expect them to control their behavior and take responsibility despite their measurable differences? There's a lot to ponder about ourselves and our society beyond the scope of the studies described. Well worth a read. show less

One of the more chilling books on Psychopathy I read. The writer did a pretty good job in writing cohesive subject-level profiles that SO concisely describe my experiences being around psychopaths and their ways of relating to the world (and they will deny it). The action language is so decoupled from the emotion that carries it forward. The author talks about Guiteau's vanity:

Guiteau felt that menial work was beneath him. His former wife reported that he looked down upon people who did such show more work. He believed he should be a published author, but he failed to put in the time and effort in his writing, instead plagiarizing text from others. As an orator, he enjoyed the crowd’s attention but copied his religious speeches from others. He dreamed of marrying rich, traveling the world, and living the high life, even though he had no reasonable plans to acquire such wealth. His former wife noted that:

"He was always anxious to live so far beyond his means. It was always “Nothing but the best,” the best place and among the very best first-class people, prominent people, people well known, so far as position and wealth were concerned. That was his great object—always to be among them and to live at the most expensive places and to have the best accommodations; he was not satisfied to live in plain style anywhere." (pp. 85–86)

A note found in his pocket when he was arrested for shooting President Garfield provides additional evidence of this trait:

"To the White House,

The President’s tragic death was a sad necessity, but it will unite the Republican Party and save the Republic. Life is a flimsy dream, and it matters little when one goes. A human life is of small value. During the war thousands of brave boys went down without a tear. I presume the President was a Christian and that he will be happier in Paradise than here. It will be no worse for Mrs. Garfield, dear soul, to part with her husband this way than by natural death. He is liable to go at any time any way. I had no ill will toward the President. His death was a political necessity. I am a lawyer, a theologian, and a politician. I am a Stalward of the Stalwarts. I was with General Grant and the rest of our men in New-York during the canvass. I have some papers for the press, which I shall leave with Byron Andrews and his co-journalists at No. 1,420 New-York Avenue, where the reporters can see them. I am going to jail. CHARLES GUITEAU."

A morbid follower offered to pay $1,000 for Guiteau’s body following his execution. Guiteau replied, “I think I ought to bring more than that.… Perhaps some other fellow will offer $2000, then I can pay my debts, and if I get a new trial, that miserable Corkhill can’t bring on a lot of fellows just to swear how much I owe them.” The prosecutor, Corkhill, had subpoenaed numerous individuals who testified that Guiteau owed them money.

During his time in jail, Guiteau dictated his autobiography. The man who took the notes in shorthand referred to Guiteau’s vanity as “literally nauseating.” show less