Evil

February 8, 2005 9:55 AM

Mental Health & Behavior (NYT). The work (and controversy) among psychiatrists and forensic scientists to classify extreme, psychopatic, anti-social, "evil" behavior. The items to rate the peacetime offender includes a 20-item personality test qualifying glibness and superficial charm, grandiose self-worth, pathological lying, proneness to boredom and emotional vacuity.
posted by semmi (14 comments total)

The description above made me think..."ahhhh, MeFites.."..

but the article brought to mind this clever quote: "A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti."
posted by HuronBob at 10:06 AM on February 8, 2005

While the term may not be appropriate for use in a courtroom or a clinical diagnosis, they say, it is an element of human nature that should not be ignored.

I'm not sure what use of the term evil does to advance any clinical or forensic discussion about these people. It seems far more an issue for philosophy than for medicine, or for the courts. The fact is that we can talk about people in any way we want, but a word like evil, with its indelible echoes of morality and punishment, has no place in official documents. Especially now that someone whose world view condones any killing he does and none that anyone else does is using the term to justify an entire foreign policy.
posted by OmieWise at 10:38 AM on February 8, 2005

We are talking about people who commit breathtaking acts, who do so repeatedly, who know what they're doing, and are doing it in peacetime

So repeated, breathtaking acts of "heinous" violence are only OK in wartime? One cannot help feeling this is more of the black-and-white cultural creep that seems to be pervading America at the moment: this time, The War on Moral Ambiguity in Forensic Science.

There's a good reason psychiatrists avoid the word "evil" - its loaded term that has no scientific basis, with or without "depravity scales". If these acts are so heinous then simply describing in neutral terms should do them justice, without recourse to hot words like "depravity", "heinous" and "evil".
posted by axon at 11:03 AM on February 8, 2005

A hierarchy of evil, justifying something because 'most people agree' on it, trying to inject arbitrary social constructs into science?

How stupid.
posted by driveler at 11:06 AM on February 8, 2005

There's a good reason psychiatrists avoid the word "evil" - its loaded term that has no scientific basis, with or without "depravity scales".

I figure it's just a soundbite-friendly synonym for incorrigible or irredeemable.
posted by scratch at 11:37 AM on February 8, 2005

Some sanity on p. 3 of the article:

"I think the main reason it's better to avoid the term evil, at least in the courtroom, is that for many it evokes a personalized Satan, the idea that there is supernatural causation for misconduct," said Dr. Park Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist in Newport Beach, Calif
posted by selfmedicating at 11:40 AM on February 8, 2005

a 20-item personality test

Where would I find this? I do very well on tests that don't involve math.
posted by davy at 12:05 PM on February 8, 2005

"I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti."

Farther off-topic: Wouldn't that combination give most folks a headache?
posted by davy at 12:08 PM on February 8, 2005

I figure it's just a soundbite-friendly synonym for incorrigible or irredeemable.

I elect to revive the science of phrenology.
posted by axon at 2:31 PM on February 8, 2005

"I think the main reason it's better to avoid the term evil, at least in the courtroom, is that for many it evokes a personalized Satan, the idea that there is supernatural causation for misconduct," said Dr. Park Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist in Newport Beach, Calif

For his next pronouncement, Dr. Dietz will reveal the colour of the sky.
posted by axon at 2:55 PM on February 8, 2005

Interesting read, especially the part about how the brain scans showed that psychopath’s process words and images differently.

If it is proven to be true that serial killers are different in the brain from 'normals', why even bother punishing them?

Wouldn't it be better to isolate them from society in a non-punitive way if they can't help the way they are?
posted by UseyurBrain at 3:35 PM on February 8, 2005

I always thought that one lesson from experiments like Milgram's is that "normal" people are capable of heinous acts. Doesn't the notion that "evil" people are somehow different increase the risk that we will think ourselves incapable of committing terrible acts? The article notes that many atrocious acts are committed by people who aren't psycopaths.

I remember years ago watching a documentary about the now-grown children of SS officers. These children painted a picture of their parents as "normal" fathers and good family men. I suddenly realized that I had been taught, all my life, to dehumanize Nazis. I think there are terrible risks in seeing everyone who commits terrible acts as somehow "other". Psychologists who want to classify "evil" people are doing just that. I worry that it reduces our own vigilance.
posted by dougny at 3:57 PM on February 8, 2005

davy: i guess you have to be qualified to possess the evaluation materials (or know someone who is). if you are / do, then buy one here!

note to posers (from hare's site--damn! i wanna be a textbook psycho!):
The potential for harm is considerable if the PCL-R is used incorrectly, or if the user is not familiar with the clinical and empirical literature pertaining to psychopathy.

the misfits were a good band.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 5:44 PM on February 8, 2005

There is one very good reason for keeping the word "evil" out of the language of science, and that is so that we may continue to see its usage for what it almost always is — propaganda. Once any political or activist entity begins throwing around words like "evil", "wicked" or "sinful", we know we need to perk up and start paying attention, because it's very likely that something bad is about to come down the pike, and we need to start sharpening up words like "manipulative", "exploitive", "greedy", and "oppressive".
posted by taz at 3:07 AM on February 9, 2005