[guttermaw]

This scientist seems to be using this Just So Story for self-promotion, and he has done so for years.[1][2]

He has also attempted to profit personally.[3]

He seems to have the expertise to know that this story is flimsy, and not well-founded in science. Using an unvalidated method in this way could be considered unethical itself. [4]

Dr. Fallon's record of behavior might suggest a pattern of anti-social behavior. His job as a tenured UC professor is, in part, to educate the public. Instead he seems to give us sci-fi.

Of course, I'm just being totally silly, and so is he (not sure about all the writers he has duped over the years.)

[1] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1278889...

[2] http://www.ted.com/talks/jim_fallon_exploring_the_mind_of_a_...

[3] http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychopath-Inside-Neuroscientists-...

[4] http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-ethics-of-public...

[woah]

Doesn't this "pattern of anti-social behavior" just prove his claims?

[moocowduckquack]

no, it provides anecdotal evidence

[SilasX]

Proving a claim about one particular person is necessarily going to cite anecdotes about them.

[moocowduckquack]

Disproving the claim that this particular person is behaving in this way because of these brain structures is nearly impossible with the state of neuroscience as it currently is, so it isn't a something that can be viewed as anything other than an interesting hypothesis at this stage. You just wouldn't be able to achieve anything approaching a decent level of statistical confidence from studying a single subject, no matter how many anecdotes you cite about them.

[SilasX]

The standard of proof, and things you're expected to cite as evidence, is very different for "this particular person is a psychopath" vs "psychopaths in general have this characteristic".

>You just wouldn't be able to achive anything approaching a decent level of statistical confidence from studying a single subject, no matter how many anecdotes you cite about them.

Therefore, no one can be found guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt given that it's "just one person"?

[moocowduckquack]

you are confusing the legal with the scientific process, they are not the same thing

[001sky]

no, it provides anecdotal evidence

So, in other words perfect ...?

There has never been a diagnosis called "psychopathy" in either the DSM or ICD.[contradiction] The first edition of the DSM in 1952 had a section on sociopathic personality disturbances, then a general term that included such things as homosexuality and alcoholism as well as an "antisocial reaction" and "dyssocial reaction". The latter two eventually became antisocial personality disorder in the DSM and dissocial personality disorder in the ICD

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/antisocial-personality-disor...

[JackFr]

By definition there is nothing biologic about anti-social behavior. That is to say, without social context there can be no 'anti-social'. Social context is a culture specific construct.

But you say, "Culture and social context are mere extensions of biology." Bullshit, I say.

The whole of popular "neuroscience" is so corrupted and bereft of real science one would be best served to ignore it for a decade or two.