Murderous psychopaths may create compelling film villains, but recent research indicates that these emotionless killers are not a reality in the world we live in.
Traditionally, psychopaths are portrayed as individuals devoid of empathy, exhibiting a chilling lack of emotion alongside manipulative and callous behavior. This stereotype is prevalent in popular culture and often leads people to label difficult ex-partners, bosses, neighbors, or relatives as fitting this mold.
However, Dr. Rasmus Larensis, a forensic scientist at the University of Toronto Mississauga in Canada, challenges the very existence of psychopathy, suggesting it might be more myth than fact.
Dr. Larensis highlights a critical issue: each claim about the nature of psychopaths has been systematically debunked over time. Common beliefs, such as the idea that psychopaths are incapable of feeling fear, have either been outright refuted or lack robust supporting evidence.
This reevaluation of psychopathy encourages a deeper understanding of human behavior, moving beyond the simplistic and often sensationalized depiction of psychopaths as cold-blooded killers.
Ideas, such as the notion that psychopaths don’t feel fear, have either been flat–out disproved or faltered as rigorous evidence in their support failed to emerge.
Dr Larensis even argues that famous ‘psychopaths’ such as the serial killer Ted Bundy are really just misunderstood.
Dr Larensis told the Daily Mail: ‘After decades of research, we still lack compelling evidence for the specific type of person described by the traditional psychopathy model.’
A scientist claims that psychopaths don’t really exist, and that even serial killer Ted Bundy wasn’t as emotionless as most people think
Psychopathy is one of the oldest and most intensely studied psychotic conditions, with the first scientific analysis dating all the way back to 1786.
However, the classic stereotype of a psychopath, exemplified by characters like Anton Chigurh in the movie No Country for Old Men, simply doesn’t stand up to rigorous analysis.
Psychopaths are characterised by a lack of empathy, poor grasp of conventional morals, impulsiveness, self–serving behaviour, shallow emotions, and a lack of remorse for their acts.
In clinical settings, psychopathy is usually measured by something called the Hare Psychopathy Checklist.
This measure combines interviews and an analysis of the patient’s history to look for traits like repeated rule–breaking and unstable relationships.
This tool is commonly used in prisons and psychiatric units and has proven to be useful for predicting the risk of re–offending or institutional misconduct.
This seems to suggest that the test is measuring something real, but a growing number of scientists are questioning whether this really helps identify psychopaths.
‘The real scientific question is whether those scores correspond to a coherent, naturally occurring psychological condition or disorder,’ says Dr Larensis.
In movies, psychopaths like Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men (pictured) lack empathy and remorse for their violent actions. But experts say that this is just a Hollywood fantasy
‘In my view, the evidence for that proposition is extremely weak.’
The main reason for this push is that people identified as ‘psychopaths’ seem to lack almost all of the key traits that are typically associated with the condition.
In a recent study, Dr Larensis and his co–authors conducted a systematic review of empathy research, covering 66 papers in which 5,711 people were assessed using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist.
If psychopathy were real, these studies should show that people who score highly for the
They discovered that there were ‘overwhelming null findings’ for over 89 per cent of all the tests.
In high–quality studies that used more rigorous methods, the number of papers showing ‘null findings’ increased to a staggering 94.77 per cent.
Essentially, statistical analyses cannot tell the difference in performance between psychopathic and non–psychopathic persons.
Likewise, other studies have consistently found no evidence to support other common claims about psychopaths.
Unlike in the films, research has consistently shown no evidence that psychopaths actually lack empathy or have shallow emotions
Researchers have found that so–called psychopaths do not have impaired moral judgements, shallow emotional reactions, or a muted response to fear.
Even supposedly obvious psychopaths such as Ted Bundy actually lack many of the classic traits under closer inspection.
Bundy was a notorious serial killer and rapist who murdered at least 20 women and young girls throughout the 1970s.
He is often portrayed as an otherwise normal man who suddenly decided to start killing without a hint of regret, but this theory falls apart on closer inspection.
‘The historical record suggests a much more complicated picture,’ says Dr Larensis.
‘There is evidence of severe sexual pathology, obsessive fantasies, possible delusional thinking, and problems involving substance use.
‘In other words, there are many psychological factors that may have contributed to his behaviour; or as we would say in the science: many other ways to explain his behaviour.’
Dr Larensis says he is cautious about trying to ‘prove a negative’, but that the lack of evidence for the existence of a ‘classic’ psychopath after decades of research calls for scientists to ‘reflect on this in a serious manner’.
In reality, so–called psychopaths have much more complicated psychology. Even ‘textbook’ psychopath Ted Bundy had a caring relationship with his family, as well as intimate partners, which doesn’t fit with the classic psychopath model. Pictured: Ted Bundy with his long–time girlfriend, Elizabeth Kendall, and daughter, Molly
In the face of the yawning gulf of evidence, some researchers have branded psychopathy as a ‘zombie idea’.
This is a theory in science that persists long after evidence has shown it to be false.
Psychopathy offers such a simple and compelling explanation for the cruel behaviour we see around us that it has proven tricky to dislodge from the public consciousness and scientific institutions.
He says: ‘What unquestionably exists are people who engage in serious violence, manipulation, deception, and exploitation.
The real question is whether these individuals belong to a distinct psychological category called ‘psychopathy’ and have deep–seated psychological deficiencies. On that question, I remain highly sceptical.’
