overall, i found this book to be incredibly interesting. as a neuroscientist, i really enjoyed reading about the various studies performed to elucidate the differences between the average brain versus those of psychopaths, alongside the investigations of similarities between monks and psychopaths in certain paradigms—a parallel that many would hesitate to make. i found the parallels between potential potential psychopathy and saints intriguing (notably, however, the section on saint paul was present in my digital copy of the book but missing in my physical copy…). 

the book does well to explain why psychopathic traits are not more prevalent than they already are, despite the inherent promiscuity (and thus, passing down of genetics) that psychopaths have. this is done by “saints”, “tit for tat”, and “shysters” as an example to explain why the prevalence of psychopathy remains relatively low in the human population yet is not completely squandered. an equilibrium must be reached—if too many ruthless people exist, they’ll extinguish each other, but a ruthless person versus a typical person… well, the more ruthless individual tends to win out.

further, the portion in which he speaks with the people at broad moor was enlightening. i wish there was more information on them, a deeper interview! i’d find that very insightful. 

also, the hypothesis that psychopaths aren’t incapable of fear, so to speak, but instead don’t notice it due to ‘tunnel vision’ when it comes to a reward—thus functioning to filter fear out—is fascinating! this, in combination with the MAOA variant that causes lower than average levels, makes me want to bridge connections between some aspects of psychopathy and it being an issue of cognition and attention. the importance in dopamine (and perhaps monoamines in general) in other attentional disorders, add being a prime example, is well-established. i think an investigation into the effects of monoamines in psychopathy affecting attention in another manner is something that i definitely will be looking into further.

i think that it was also interesting how psychopathic traits were framed as necessary in times when one should break the mold. the author touches on the dangers of groupthink, and how lacking the traits that cause one to rebel against the herd mentality can actually exacerbate issues in group decision making. he also speaks on ‘cold’ versus ‘hot’ empathy, and how each is helpful under different circumstances. 

that being said, while he does point out some positives of certain psychopathic traits, the explanation on how to harness them is lacking. the title implies that we’ll be taught how to use these traits in order for us (the reader) to be successful, but feasible steps aren’t given in order to put this belief into action. i didn’t mind too much bc that wasn’t my goal when reading, i was actually much more curious about the neuroscience and sociology aspects of psychopathy, but i see why it could be disappointing to others who pick up the book.

with the emphasis on how these traits aren’t necessarily married to violence, i found that there was less stress than i expected on how psychopaths function day-to-day when they aren’t blatantly ruffling society’s feathers. he touches on it when it comes to his childhood friend johnny, but i would’ve enjoyed more information on these types of interpersonal relationships, beyond the general overview that they tend to be more ruthless, calculating, and self-serving. he says psychopaths tend to be drifters, but does not speak on how this affects relationships for the ones that are exceptions to the rule. i’m certain he has more insight on this subject—after all, his own father was a psychopath! what could the benefits be to maintaining a relationship to a less migratory psychopath? he remains friends with johnny and states:

”you may be wondering why on earth i’ve remained friends with johnny […] one of johnny’s [saving graces] is his uncanny ability to turn virtually any situation to his own advantage.”

this is, frankly, not a convincing argument as to why he’d sustain this friendship. so, johnny is gifted in twisting situations to benefit himself—yeah, and? where does that leave you, johnny’s friend? he should’ve elaborated on the intricacies of relationships with psychopaths and what positives could come from this, since he seems to believe there must be some sort of gain in order to maintain these relationships. (i am realizing as i write this how ironic it is for me to imply that relationships are not to be maintained if they don’t grant you any favors—but really, what i value in my friendships requires some level of altruism that this population doesn’t seem to have. if i were to be friends with johnny, i’d be a disquieted caesar waiting for my brutus to stab me in the back.)

there was a mention of college kids nowadays being 40% less empathetic than their predecessors; i want to look into this further, but it would be interesting to research this in the context of the ‘what-about-me’-ism combined with lack of media literacy and anti-intellectualism that seems to be pervading in this generation.

lastly, i couldn’t help but roll my eyes when police officers or the military were put on a pedestal as a ‘good’ use of psychopathic traits. um… acab.