The Science of Evil (via Blame the Amygdala)

This sounds like a really interesting book. I’ve heard empathy discussed as a factor in psychopathology but never as an explanation for evil. Perhaps there is an implication that those doing evil are also psychopaths but in a limited or lessor way.

This is interesting stuff and if the author’s ideas are subject to test, we may have new ways of thinking about crime and even the proper role of government.

James Pilant

Special Thanks to Blame the Amygdala.

I am about half way through Simon Baron-Cohen’s “The Science of Evil” or “Zero Degrees of Empathy” in the UK, and it is really very good; he manages to explain pretty complex neuroscience terminology in a very palatable way. I am now convinced that understanding empathy is the only way we can really understand the spectrum of human behavior, from the evil to the insanely benevolent. Baron-Cohen talks about the three types of zero-negative persona … Read More

via Blame the Amygdala

mea culpa? (via hbd* chick)

The idea of the rational man has always been a bit of an exaggeration. However, it has been a useful idea. The American court system often rest on the idea of the “reasonable man.” And that idea has functioned well incorporating contemporary social beliefs informally into the legal system.

The idea of the rational buyer has permeated American economics. It has bizarre elements. For instance, it assumes that buyers make rational decisions even in the face of advertising. It assumes that buyers recalculate safety risks to maintain the same level of safety, etc. It also is useful, but mainly for protecting business from criticism.

It would be extremely difficult to develop a criminal justice system that takes a perpetrator’s reasoning into consideration. But that it is difficult does not mean it should be done. It would add depth and power to punishment and social control.

It needs development, but I think it can be done.

James Pilant

great article in the telegraph: “The human brain: turning our minds to the law” “Our understanding of the way the brain works could help us create a better legal system, says neuroscientist David Eagleman…. “The problem is that the law rests on two assumptions that are charitable, but demonstrably false. The first is that people are practical reasoners, which is the law’s way of saying that they are capable of acting in alignment with their b … Read More

via hbd* chick