Categories
podcast

On psychopaths and ‘dark empaths’, with dark traits expert Nadja Heym

A talk with Nadja Heym, a psychology researcher who specializes in dark traits, like psychopathy, narcissism, and sadism, and who has researched so-called “dark empaths”: people with dark traits who have a good amount of empathy. We delve into some nuance in the area of psychopathy.

Topics discussed include: How she defines psychopathic traits; The misuse of the term “psychopath” (and related misuse of other terms like “narcissist”); Can we say from a brain scan if a brain is “psychopathic”?; “Bad seed”-like concepts of how psychopaths arise; Can an environment (like a highly competitive job) make someone have more psychopathic traits?; What are “dark empaths”? 

A transcript is below.

Episode links:

Resources related to or mentioned in our talk:

TRANSCRIPT

[Note: transcripts will contain errors.]

Zach: Hello and welcome to the People Who Read People podcast. This is a podcast about better understanding other people, and better understanding ourselves. On this show, I talk to a variety of people from a variety of professions about their understanding of human behavior and psychology. You can learn more about it at behavior-podcast.com.

Today’s episode is about psychopaths and psychopathic traits. I talk to Dr. Nadja Heym, who is an Associate Professor in Personality Psychology and Psychopathology at Nottingham Trent University in the UK.

The reason I wanted to cover this topic was to examine some nuance in the area of psychopathy, and to get a chance to ask some questions I’ve just been curious about in this area. Which is one of the reasons I like doing this podcast: getting to ask ignorant questions of people who know a lot more than me.

To take one example of something I’ve been curious about: I often see people throwing around the label ‘psychopath’ in ways that seem simplistic and unhelpful. Clearly, as with a lot of psychological labels, the general public and entertainment media often misuse these terms: for example, we can see people calling random people psychopaths all the time, whether it’s a politician they don’t like, or a CEO that’s done some bad stuff. It’s similar with how people throw around the word ‘narcissist’ so much these days.

But I also see people using these labels for themselves in ways that seem to me simplistic and a bit unhealthy. To take a specific example: I’ve seen people take online tests that are meant to tell you if you have psychopathic traits, and then use the results of these tests, which are often pretty simplistic, as evidence to say things like “Yeah I’m a bit of a psychopath.” And some people even seem to take a bit of joy and pride in that, which I think reflects our cultural love affair with villains and anti-heroes. And I’m interested in how the self-labeling can be self-restricting in various ways. If someone thinks “hey I’m a psychopath, that’s just the way things are,” or even take a little pride in it, they’re not going to be very incentivized to change. And that also gets into questions I have about how much of these so-called psychopathic traits are simply aspects of immaturity, in the sense that sometimes when we’re young we have a hard time caring about other people. Or how many of these traits might be just due to people disliking other people and having some anti-social tendencies that they then interpret as something they can’t help, as something intrinsic and unchangeable about them.

And then, apart from the loose ways us regular citizens use these terms, which isn’t surprising, even some knowledgeable people and experts seem to use these terms in seemingly cavalier and loose ways. I recently read Jon Ronson’s book The Psychopath Test, and in there he describes Robert Hare, who is well known for developing the mainstream definition of what a psychopath is, talking very cavalierly about people around him who might be potential psychopaths. In one scene, Bob Hare tells the author that a hotel employee who acted a little rudely might be a psychopath. As Hare tells the author “A lot of psychopaths become gatekeepers, concierges, security guards, masters of their own domain.” They talk about this for a while and Ronson finds this interesting but then later thinks to himself: “Was that a bit trigger-happy? Maybe the guy just had a long, bad day. Why did neither Bob nor I think of that?”

To take another example: there’s a neuroscientist named James Fallon who’s gotten a lot of attention in the last few years for his book The Psychopath Inside. He claims he has a quote “psychopathic brain” based on how his brain scan shows similarities to the brains of psychopathic killers he’s studied. But is it proven that one can look at a brain scan and say that someone is a psychopath? I’ve personally seen no good evidence presented for that, even if there seems to be some evidence that there’s a correlation there. Is it a bit over-the-top and grandiose to say that your brain is “psychopathic”? And some of the things he describes about his own life as ways to show that he has some psycopathic traits simply didn’t sound that psychopathic to me and sounded more like random dumb things that people often do that can be a bit dangerous and irresponsible. Which I think gets back to my general skepticism about these terms.

And to be completely clear: I’m not skeptical that there are people who have a constellation of traits that we can label “psychopathic”. Like any psychological term, these things can be useful labels for various groupings of traits. But I do tend to get a bit skeptical when people seem to throw around these terms loosely and cavalierly. Maybe I’m a bit offbase with my skepticism: i’m admittedly no expert. But I am curious about these things and thought it would be interesting to throw some of these questions at an expert.

I learned about Nadja Heym’s work when I read a piece on Vice.com by her titled There’s a Little Bit of Psychopath in All of Us. In that piece, she examined some of the nuance in that area, and corrected some misunderstandings.

A little bit more about Nadja from her university page:

Dr Heym’s main research interests are in the area of individual differences, psychopathology and antisocial behaviour. She’s an expert in dark personality traits (for example, psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Sadism)…
Her research aims to further our understanding of the neuropsychological mechanisms, such as punishment and reward sensitivity, goal conflict processing and behavioural inhibition deficits underpinning psychopathology and antisocial tendencies. She has published peer reviewed papers on threat processing, impulsivity and anxiety in psychopathology, such as antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy, ADHD, depression and self-harm. Her research also focuses on the specific roles of affective and cognitive empathy deficits in the associations between maladaptive traits, as well as different types of aggressive behaviour.
End quote

An interesting research paper by her and her colleagues is from 2021 and is called The Dark Empath: Characterising dark traits in the presence of empathy. To quote from some sections of that paper:

A well-established literature associates these dark traits with empathy deficits; that is an impairment in the ability to take the perspective of others, understand their viewpoints, and share their emotions to attain interpersonal reciprocity …

To this end, the current study … investigates the existence of darkness in the presence of empathy – a combination we refer to as the ‘Dark Empath’.

End quote

Okay here’s the talk with Nadja Heym about those pesky psychopaths.

Zach: Hi, Nadja. Thanks for joining me.

Nadja: Hi, Zach. Thanks for inviting me. It’s, uh, great to, to be here with you today.

Zach: Thanks. Maybe a good place to start would be, how do you define psychopathy and how do you differentiate between psychopathic traits and then, you know, using the label psychopath? I know that’s probably a big question, but maybe you could give your, your thoughts on how you define those things.

Nadja: It’s quite a massive question, in fact. Uh, and, uh, one of, one of the main issues we have here is that, uh, you know, there isn’t just one [00:08:00] conceptualization of what psychopathy is. So there are various different models, um, but in, in, in general, there’s some commonality at least. Um, so when we talk about psychopathy, we probably mean or direct more, more likely, um, the construct of personality disorder.

And when I talk about psychopathic traits, I talk about personality traits, um, that are related to what we see in psychopathy. Mm-hmm. So from a dimensional point of view of personality, we assume that people can, you know, score from very low to very high on a specific personality traits. And there are certain traits that are related to psychopathy itself that, um, are are similar enough, uh, to what we see in psychopathy, but it’s often, it’s a combination of traits that are coming together that might, we might then see as, as being particularly maladaptive or particularly similar to what we see in full blown psychopathy, let’s say.

Mm-hmm. Coming back to psychopathy and what psychopathy is, [00:09:00] uh, one of the most prominent models, I think in clinical psychopathy would be that of, um, Robert Hare. He defines, uh, kind of, uh, uh, two main, uh, factors here. And one is the effective interpersonal factor and one is the lifestyle antisocial factor.

And when we’re looking at the effective interpersonal aspects, um, we distinguish in terms of the affect that might be quite poor, positive and negative affect. Um, it’s defined by callousness, uh, lack of remorse and empathy. So one of the big hallmarks in psychopathy is this lack of empathy in terms of their interpersonal features.

We are seeing an individual who’s quite superficially charming and therefore can be quite adjusted in terms of personal and interaction. However, the individual’s quite deceitful conning and manipulative and quite strategic in in their way in terms of achieving their goals and what they want. They can be egocentric and selfish and engage and, and, you know, pathological align.[00:10:00]

When we’re looking at the other side, there’s kind of antisocial behavior type factors. Uh, there’s a lifestyle aspect. So as an individual’s quite impulsive and reckless and, and irresponsible in their behavior, they might lack long-term goals. They have a high need for stimulations, are sensation seeking, uh, behaviors.

And then we have the fourth aspect there, the antisocial behavior itself. So that’s of course the poor behavioral control that leads to kind of persistent rule breaking and criminal behavior so often. Um, psychopathy of course, is studied in the context of forensic psychology, therefore in terms of criminal, um, psychopathy.

Zach: So the, uh, with the charming aspect, I, I see that, uh, you know, a lot in a lot of people’s concepts or definitions of, you know, what makes a so-called psychopath. A lot of people point to that. That charming aspect. I’m curious, did that come in later? You know, it seems like the definition of psychopath might have drifted a bit over [00:11:00] time, and I’m curious, did the, did the kind of like superficially charming aspect maybe come in later?

Like, was that part of like hair’s definition and how, how do you see that? Do, do you see it as being, as being a necessary. Part of, of a psychopathic trait compilation?

Nadja: Well, actually the charming aspect came from the seminal work from, um, Kley and, uh, the Mask of Sanity, a book that was written in, in the 1970s.

Mm. And this was a early clinical description of cases that had encountered, um, in his work. And he described 16 different criteria there of the prototypical psychopath. Aspects. So officially charming aspect was part of that. So that was part of what he called the positive adjustment, where we have superficial charms, social depthness, absence of nervousness and delusion.

So individuals who seem to be on a surface, you know, uh, quite [00:12:00] well adjusted.

Zach: And, and one of the reasons I, I wanna do this talk was I, I see so many seemingly simplistic use uses of, uh, the word psychopath these days, which is probably just a, a general, you know, uh, misuse in the culture of how we use psychological terms in general, like calling so many people, you know, narcissists and psychopaths and mm-hmm.

And things like this. And, you know, one, the reason I reached out to you was, I, I saw your, your vice article about, uh, you know, psycho psychopathy being a, a spectrum. And we’re all somewhere on that spectrum. And I, and I’m curious, do you agree? You know, we, that we seem to be misusing a lot of these labels, not, not just for how, what we call other people, but I’ve even seen.

People take these online tests that seem very simplistic to me about, you know, whether it’s about, uh, uh, narcissism or, or psychopathy. And then I, I even know people that will like kind of self label themselves psychopaths, and it, it just feels like there’s this simplistic usage [00:13:00] which not only results in, uh, kind of mislabeling, uh, you know, miscategorizing people we don’t know well, but also even miscategorizing ourselves, which can lead to, you know, uh, kind of a lack of willingness to change or just, or just being like, well, I guess I’m a guess I have psychopathic traits and I, and I’m curious, do you see.

Some of that in the, in the culture.

Nadja: Yeah, absolutely. No, especially the, uh, term of narcissist is really, you know, free floating around at the moment, everywhere, isn’t it? Wherever you look, uh, you seem to be stumbling across it. And, um, it’s a little bit of a problem because, you know, it’s, it’s again, that whole notion we, that we might want to differentiate between a personality disorder and, uh, traits.

Mm-hmm. And, and traits and narcissistic traits can be seen. And, you know, uh, elevated, narcissistic traits can be seen in many people, uh, just as we can see psychopathic traits, um, elevated and, and, and, and, you know, everyday people. Mm-hmm. But it doesn’t make them, uh, uh, fully kind of clinically diagnosed, psychopath, or someone [00:14:00] with narcissistic personality disorder.

Um, the other issue is also that, um, what we might need to think about is that psychopathy itself wasn’t necessarily part of the, um, diagnostic, my statistical kind of manual, uh, for a long time. It’s only just been recently really firmly integrated. In the fifth version of the DSM and, and so the term psychopath nevertheless existed in the research literature for a long time.

And in terms of diagnosis, uh, you know, one of the most, kind of the gold standard diagnostic tool is again, um, has, uh, psychopathy checklist. And in order to be diagnosed, you really got to hit a lot of points there. You really need to, you know, there are 20 items across which, uh, you know, you, you need to. A score quite highly, um mm-hmm.

To be diagnosed as a psychopath. And the, the psychopath itself is a very dangerous, um, individual. Yet we can, for each of [00:15:00] these points, we can look at some traits that might be related to these behaviors. So, you know, one of the points will be the glibness and the superficial charm again, you know, and of course there are many people who are very charming, uh, but that doesn’t make them a psychopath.

It’s the accumulation of different aspects coming together that might make a toxic mix. Mm-hmm. Um, or problematic mix that, that leads to more maladaptive forms and more kind of, uh, uh, you know, disordered behavior in the end.

Zach: Mm-hmm. It, it seems like in psychology in general, there’s a, there’s a move away from using, you know, these, these nouns for people like psychopath or, or narcissist, because they can be, you know, the, the stigma attached or, or the, you know, self-limiting nature of the, of the labels.

And, and do you see that, you know, are people. In general, more careful with how they use that. And do they, and do they tend to try to talk more about like psychopathic trait compilations and, and not use the word psychopath these days?

Nadja: Um, certainly when we [00:16:00] study it in the general population, yes. I, I, I would say so.

And it’s really important to differentiate there. Um, I mean, when it comes, you know, the, our diagnostic, um, uh, manuals and tools are important in, in the clinical fields and in the forensic fields. And assessing someone thoroughly to establish if they have a disorder is, can be quite important. Right. Um, so in some cases, you, you need to have a diagnosis in order to receive the right support options, for example, or in order to identify risk and, um, specific needs, uh, depending on, on, on what your problem areas are.

For example, and we know that, you know, individuals who are formally. Properly diagnosed with psychopathy. You know, um, this diagnostic tool has a really high predictive power in terms of risk assessment and recidivism re-offending. These individuals commit more crimes, a larger variety, more violent, more premeditated and instrumental.

Um, they’re four times more likely to commit future crimes, et cetera. [00:17:00] So being able to diagnose using diagnostic tools in specifically, um, problematic populations or dangerous, uh, populations, for example, is important, you know, and so we can’t wipe that away. However, when we study, um, psychopathy or psychopathic traits in the general population, I personally, I think the usage of, uh, psychopathic traits is more appropriate rather than the full blood term there.

Zach: Mm-hmm. Uh, we, some sometimes hear about the bad seed explanation of psychopathy or other personality traits that sometimes psychopaths just come out of nowhere due to their. Genes, there’s something in their brains that, that make it, make those traits inevitable. And I’m curious, I know this isn’t your specialty, but do you have thoughts you’d like to share on the, the bad seed explanations of psychopathy and how much of those kind of dark personality trait compilations are due to genetic versus upbringing factors?[00:18:00]

Nadja: Well, yeah, I mean there’s quite, uh, a lot of research around the genetic underpinnings and, and, uh, brain abnormalities, let’s say linked to psychopathy and, you know, it’s not weak evidence. So there, there’s certain, certainly plenty of evidence around the, um, showing that there might be some, uh, genetic predispositions and that there might be, uh, brain differences, um, in, in psychopathy.

But generally with all personality traits, we assume some kind of heritability, um, we assume some kind of brain or biological markers that underpin, uh, personality traits. And in the same way we would assume that for personality disorders, they’re at the extreme end of personality traits because we, we are taking this dimensional approach where we say, right at the extreme ends of certain traits, we see problematic, uh, behaviors, maybe.

And it’s, it’s not really a matter of, oh, there’s one gene, and if you’ve got that gene, then that’s it. Right? So, um, the explanations are more around combination of [00:19:00] genes, uh, combination of, uh, uh, maybe neurotransmitters, combination, uh, combination of brain abnormalities and brain function that might, um, combine into, um, that one profile or that, that one kind of, uh, construct that we see at the other end.

Mm-hmm.

Zach: And, uh, one, one thing I often wonder about these dark personality traits, I’m a big believer in the impact of the envir environment and, and even mm-hmm. Less obvious, uh, impacts. You know, for example, we, we tend to think of abuse. As the more obvious forms of abuse, like the physical, the sexual, the extreme psychological, but mm-hmm.

Personally, I think that there’s this whole realm of less obvious psychological or abuse or neglect. That’s whether it’s purposeful or not, that parents with various kind of personality defects, like, you know, pathological, narcissism, these things that don’t rise to, you know, being obvious forms of abuse, but that [00:20:00] can mess up their children in various ways.

Mm-hmm. And, and, and I, I think there’s kind of a hidden epidemic of that kind of thing that, you know, is, is is not like it’s purposeful, it’s just, uh, ways that kids can get messed up by the psychological problems of their parents. And that can be hard to see and also just hard to talk about because, you know, we don’t.

Want to imply that that is a, uh, you know, a malicious thing the parents are necessarily doing. But I, I’m curious if you’d agree that, do you think that could be the, some of the cause of some of these, these antisocial personality traits they get, you know, lumped into the, the psychopathic barrel. Even, even if those, you know, like, like you were talking about, have some, can have some genetic predispositions, but I’m curious if you, if you see the environment there as having some.

A, a big amount of, uh, influence in, in ways that aren’t even obvious?

Nadja: Absolutely. There’s a, you know, no two ways about it in terms of, um, you know, antisocial [00:21:00] behavior itself, nevermind whether with or without psychopathy. Um, antisocial behavior has, has quite a, a strong kind of environmental impact. They’ll predictors then.

So it’s a, it can be a combination. So you might have some genetic predispositions and then the environment in which you grow up might then really shape the expression of, of, um, these predispositions and, and whether they, they come, uh, um, to show some kind of full blown problematic behavior. So, for example, in terms of psychopathy, we, we, when, when we study these traits in children, we talk about colors and emotional traits.

Zach: A note here. I myself wasn’t sure what Nadja was saying here, so I thought I’d clarify. She was saying callous and unemotional traits, also known as CU traits for short. This is a label for traits that’s often used in research of antisocial behavior back to the talk.

Nadja: And so there’s a lot of research that has been conducted in children that, um, engage [00:22:00] in, um, impulsive behavior and conduct problems.

And these that can then be kind of split in those who have colors and emotional traits and those who haven’t got the colors and emotional traits. And we know that children with colors and emotional traits, um, tend to have a much earlier onset of antisocial behavior and aggressive behavior and more severe indicators of aggressive behavior.

Um, it tends to be much more stable over time and as less treatment responsive compared to those kids without those CU traits. And there have been some studies looking at the kind of genetic irritability, underpinnings, and environmental factors. There was a, a review by ing, for example, some years ago, and in, in terms of looking at twin studies there and CU traits alone, um, predicted about se 67% of the heritability, whereas antisocial behavior with CU traits together predicted about 81% irritability.

And when we’re looking at just antisocial [00:23:00] behavior without zero traits, there’s a 30% he irritability. And just from the research on. Aggressive and antisocial behavior itself. We know that environmental factors like, um, low SCS and poor peer relationships, for example, so friendships that engage in, in criminal behavior can account for about 30% of antisocial behavior.

Mm-hmm. So they are quite predictive. And this is where the combination of things coming together, right. So if you have a genetic predisposition, for example, and you have the adverse environmental kind of predictors coming together, then the risk is much higher than either one alone,

Zach: you know, the movie or based on the play, the the Bad seed.

Have you seen that? Just a correction here. The Bad Seed was first actually a book, then a Broadway play, then became a movie back to the talk.

Nadja: Um, no, I’m afraid not, but Oh, okay. I shall put it on my movie. Yeah,

Zach: you, you, it’s an old, uh, it’s an old movie. I think you made several remakes of it, but [00:24:00] the, the original movie was from the, um, the 1950s or maybe sixties, uh, black and white movie.

Uh, but it, it’s interesting ’cause I, I think it, uh, it, it kind of informs the cultural idea of psychopathy where it’s like, basically it’s about this young girl who just is a, a coldblooded murderer, like right out of the gate, you know? Um, but I, I, I think it’s an interesting cultural thing because I think that’s a lot of people’s idea of like, oh, you’re just born this coldblooded murder.

Right. Uh, which I think, you know, as, as we’ve been talking about, is a, it’s a lot, it’s a lot more complex than, than that. Um, even if you, even if someone believes it’s, it’s largely, or, or a big genetic component. Yeah. But yeah, recommend that movie. It’s, it’s interesting, even just for the cultural, uh, aspects.

Nadja: Yes. Uh, I shall have a look, and actually there’s, there, there are so many movies out there. Uh, silence of the Lamb was another one classic kind of portrayal there, wasn’t it? Um, and, and you know, they’re probably based on some of the kind of seminal work back in the day, but we also [00:25:00] need to remember, I mean, when these movies were made and what we knew at the time and what we know now might be different.

And, and so these, um, all of this kind of, you know, the evidence base might feed somewhat into it, but then in the end, with movies or mainstream media, you know, it’s meant to be enticing for the viewer. And, and it doesn’t always have to be, you know, based on facts and truth, I guess. Mm-hmm.

Zach: Mm-hmm. Regarding the.

You know, my, basically I’m just giving my various, uh, forms of skepticism mm-hmm. About various things, but I’ll, I guess I’ll continue. Um, so one thing I’ve been a bit skeptical of is, um, you’ve probably heard of James Fallon, who’s a doctor who’s gotten a good amount of press and attention over the mm-hmm.

The last few years for saying that he has a quote, psychopathic brain. And the story goes for people who don’t know that he noticed similarities between the brain scans of cold-blooded killers, uh, psychopathic trait killers that he was studying and, and similarities with his own brain scans, which had something to do with the lack of [00:26:00] activity, uh, in the lower cortex, I think.

Mm-hmm. Um, one, one exact quote from him is I found, I had the brain imaging pattern and genetic makeup of a full blown psychopath, and I’m admittedly an amateur on these things, but the reason I was skeptical of some of this is that. I haven’t seen any specific proof that you can definitely say if you have this type of brain scan, you are high in psychopathic traits.

I, I get that there can be correlations there. Uh, and, and you know, but to say that I have a psych psychopathic brain, uh, just seems like a very certain way to phrase. And I, and I just haven’t seen, you know, that that kind of evidence that, you know, for example, like, can you have that type of brain scan and be high in empathetic traits like I haven’t seen.

You know much about that. And, and I’m curious, I know that this, the neuroscience aspect isn’t, isn’t your specialty, but I’m, I’m curious if you think it’s, it’s okay to, or justified for, for me to be a bit skeptical of that certainty there?

Nadja: No, absolutely. It’s justified that I think I’m, I’m [00:27:00] assuming himself is skeptical about it as possibly as well.

Uh, you know, you might see some genetic makeup that, that might be similar or that might be common across, uh, individuals. Um, but as, as we just said, you know, they, the, uh, nature nurture issue, the inaction between factors and combination of factors that are coming together is important. And I think, you know, in some of the, uh, podcasts.

Uh, uh, James Faller. He, he was talking about, you know, he had a really good upbringing. He had a healthy family relationships, and, you know, he had very nurturing environment as he grew up, and that was probably a good protective factor for him, even if he had some genetic predispositions or some, you know, uh, brain imaging kind of patterns that might be similar to what we see in psychopathy.

But, um, clearly in his case, um, his, his social and interpersonal functioning has been preserved, presumably. I’m not sure whether he ever, uh, did a full diagnostic test, but I’m pretty sure he, you know, wouldn’t quite, [00:28:00] um, qualify as a, um, um, fully diagnosed, uh, criminal psychopaths. So yeah, he had those, uh, protective aspects.

And that’s coming back to Yumi. You were talking about adverse childhood experiences and childhood abuse, and there’s, you know, evidence out there showing that individuals with psychopathy, um, had, uh, were more likely to have some kind of traumatic experiences. But all of this again, goes also back to our conceptualizations of psychopathy and the different types that are out there because we are not necessarily always assuming that the psychopathy is a homogenous kind of construct.

But, um, some people differentiate between the primary and the secondary psychopath, for example, are slightly different. And, um, socioeconomic status, uh, trauma, adverse childhood experiences, et cetera, seem to be more prominent in, in what we call the secondary psychopath, which is. Probably a bit more similar to, um, what we have an antisocial personality disorder.

So, uh, we are seeing someone who’s highly [00:29:00] impulsive and has difficulties in terms of their, um, behavioral, uh, control, for example. And that might not be the case for him as he seems to be behaviorally really, you know, probably well adjusted. Um, and, and he might show some of the emotional detachment aspects, maybe some of the effective or interpersonal aspects, but he might not see the problems, um, that we have and the lifestyle and antisocial factors in terms of that reckless, um, uh, style, that constant need for stimulation or poor behavioral control that then is more likely to lead to antisocial behavior.

Zach: Yeah, and to be a little bit more specific, I, I guess I’m just. It’s strange to me for, I, I just haven’t seen, and I may just because I’m, because I’m ignorant of the, of the area, but I just haven’t seen a proof saying like, if you have this kind of brain scan, like you will, you know, you, you are, you are, you definitely have a, a what we could call a psychopathic brain, even if [00:30:00] you’ve gotten good things to balance out.

It’s, it’s almost like, to me the more accurate way to phrase it would be, I have a brain that has traits that, that is more likely to be correlated with, you know, uh, the, these antisocial or, or psychopathic traits in, in other words, like I haven’t seen a proof that like I. One can’t have that brain scan and then, and then fi we find that they actually have a lot of high empathy traits, you know, but I, I, I think it’s a difference between like the correlation and like boldly stating that I have a psychopathic brain that seems a little bit, uh.

Overly certain to me, but, uh, it might just, you know, maybe I’m just ignorant of, of the amount of proof that’s gone into that or something.

Nadja: Uh, it, it, well, it probably is. And, and, and I think the issue is here, you know, um, if you try to explain it properly, it takes a lot more words, right? Um, you know, as we’ve just seen when you, you’re trying to put it in, in, into the correlational kind of explanation, it, it really requires much more explanation because of the complexity of [00:31:00] the issue, right?

And so sometimes to make just that kind of, um, heading news, you, you, you know, uh, people might use the shortcut to grab attention and, um, hopefully they will then use the space and the attention they get to clarify exactly what they mean. And so, of course when, so when we write papers, academic papers, for example, you know, we, we, we think very carefully how, how we state things.

Um, when things are being translated into media, it often pops out slightly differently. Yeah. And to make it more understandable for people, for example, in terms of lay language, using lay language rather than academic language. Or to make it, you know, shorter briefer rather than giving a long spiel of explaining the exact complexities that might be involved and.

Sometimes that might come through. So I mean, you were talking about earlier in terms of the conversation piece where I refer to a spectrum in, in that piece, and that was actually, um, I would’ve preferred the term dimensional. Right. Uh, a [00:32:00] dimensional, a construct rather than spectrum. ’cause even spectrum, the terminology is not particularly the ideal case to use here.

Right. Um, but it was used because of, um, trying to put it in lay language that people. May be more likely to, to un, you know, to understand and incorporate in the everyday usage of language.

Zach: Yeah, that’s a good point. Even, even the, even the spectrum, the spectrum lends more, uh, nuance, but it’s still a simplistic idea of so many of these things because as you say, yeah, it’s a, it’s a multidimensional, uh, matrix of some sort that we don’t really understand.

Right?

Nadja: Absolutely. It’s a very difficult combination of many traits coming together. It’s not just one trait. It’s many traits coming together and in a multidimensional space, and this is where the complexity lies. And actually, because psychopathy is not a homogenous construct, it might be different combination of traits coming together that are not always exactly the same.

So we’ve been talking about the, the hallmark of the lack of empathy. And [00:33:00] then, uh, more recently we have seen in, in, in our dark empath paper that you referred to earlier, that, you know, there are some individuals who have elevated dark traits, so psychopathic narcissistic Machiavellian traits, but they show really high levels of empathy.

And actually, um, probably in terms of everyday interaction in society, they might possibly be a bit more successful, but less anti-social and perform better. So in terms of the analysis we did, we, we saw that they are more extroverted. For example, we, we see they are less aggressive than, uh, those with dark traits and low levels of empathy, right?

So we see, depending on the combination of those dark traits and whether you have high or low empathy, we already see different outcomes there.

Zach: Do you see the dark empath kind of traits? Is that more likely to be tied to, uh, some sort of abusive or neglectful childhood where somebody basically [00:34:00] enjoys, uh, or, or has a, uh, animosity towards other people?

You know? So, because it seems like that, that that logical way that could come about is you have some sort of, you, you, you’re normal. You’re, you’re normal in the sense that you can have empathy for other people. But maybe you’ve, you’ve had some experiences that made you kind of high animosity or kind of enjoy, you know.

Putting people down or, or, or seeing them, you know, suffer a little bit or something. Do, do you think, is that part of what, what your research has, has been about? Or do you go into that?

Nadja: Um, possibly. I mean the, the dark traits, um, um, because they have that, that kind of, well color and that, that kind of maybe, uh, being less caring, um, about others, uh, might show that.

And then the capacity, capacity to empathize, uh, might, might put a slightly different slant on it. So if you completely, uh, lack empathy for other people, you re, you might not understand that they’re [00:35:00] distressed, so you might not have a kind of inhibitory mechanism to, to tell you that, wait a second, you know, somebody is really sad or frightened upset.

Um, I better just, you know, um, try to make them feel better or, I, I try to, um, uh, care about this and, and, and, and stop, uh, bullying them, for example. So if, if you are lacking that capacity, it, it might just make you keep going because you, you really don’t care about the feelings of the other person necessarily.

Um, however, if you’re a bit, if you have higher levels of empathy, then uh, you know, it, it, it seems to be acting as a little bit of an inhibitory, uh, mechanism that might allow you to control your behavior better, that you then initiate some pro-social behavior towards the individual who is in distress.

For example, quite a bit of research that has shown that individuals, uh, with psychopathy might struggle in terms of recognizing or processing or paying attention towards the distress of other people. Um, [00:36:00] so recognize, recognize specifically sadness or fear in others, and that has always been used as an, you know, as an explanation why they are so antagonistic and why they are so aggressive towards others.

Zach: Whereas like a dark empath might be somebody that actually can feel the other person’s pain and actually can, can maybe enjoy that in kind of a, a sadistic sort of way. Is that accurate to say?

Nadja: Um, possibly.

Zach: Some of them I

Nadja: think sadism is, is in itself against slightly different to, um, uh, um, psychopathy, I guess.

But, uh, yeah, so we don’t know the exact, uh, mechanisms in, in terms of sadism, but one assumption would be that, uh, sadistic individuals might enjoy the pa well, they enjoy the, you know, humiliating others and, and seeing pain in others. So, which makes you think that, you know, they must be able to process that pain another somewhat.

Mm-hmm.

Zach: Mm-hmm. Do you see, uh, so one thing I see around us is kind of a cultural love affair [00:37:00] with, um, psychopaths in the sense that we have all of these movies and shows where the protagonists are, are pretty bad antisocial people. Uh, and I, and I even know, I personally know people that. Kind of like proudly proclaim that they’re psychopaths, you know, they’ve taken these tests online and, uh, they’re like, you know, uh, yeah, that’s, that’s just how I might, how, how I am.

And even my family, you know, tells me that, or my wife tells me that. And kind of a, kind of a proud way. And, and I, and I am curious what you think, is there sort of a. An unhealthy sort of, uh, love affair going on with the, you know, the anti-hero, the, the, the, the psychopath kind of personality traits.

Nadja: Um, sure.

You know, I mean, sometimes, you know, people might just want to stay, um, stand out. Mm-hmm. It might be more of one aspect, different be different, you know? Yeah. And there’s this whole notion about, you know, girls like my boys, uh, type, um, aspects of it, maybe because they’re associated with more sensations [00:38:00] seeking adrenaline, uh, junkies, uh, you know, with more exciting lifestyle, fast paced lifestyle, these kind of things.

And that might make them more excitable, I’m not sure. But, um, to be fair, research shows that in terms of long-term mating preferences, I think, um, the more stable and safe, secure options are preferred relations with. You know, there might be that thing whereby, uh, um, you know, people want to be cool and, and yeah.

And in terms of being cool, you must be a little bit of bad. And, uh, being people don’t,

Zach: people don’t want to give a fuck. Yeah. They always say that, you know, that I, I I give no fucks kind of thing, you know?

Nadja: Yeah, yeah. But that might also just be, um, a wall, a barrier, an emotional kind of, you know, uh, don’t come too close to me.

You don’t know, you know, what, what might be the motivation for, for people in terms of, um, saying that or, or being like that. Right? But in some individuals you truly have that I give no fuck situation and they’re the ones that might be dangerous because they’re the ones that really won’t care about hurting [00:39:00] you,

Zach: like you say, online, especially when, when people are always insulting each other online.

There, there’s that, you know, pe people can say things they really don’t mean in the sense that, like, I don’t, I don’t care what anyone thinks about me. And it’s really just a protective thing to say, your, your words are not gonna. Harm me. Uh, but yeah, my, my joke about that is, you know, who really doesn’t give a fuck is, is psychopaths.

Nadja: Hmm.

Zach: They, they, they, they, they truly don’t. Uh, yeah. Anyway, uh, so I’m curious, do you link, do you see a link with, um, autism? Because I can, I was reading some articles about people that were self-proclaimed psychopaths, and one article in, in the independent, uh, newspaper online was someone admitting that they didn’t care about the Holocaust and admitting to kicking their dog.

And I, and it made me think like, this person just sounds like really autistic. Like in the, in the sense that they would be even willing to say that publicly, uh, made me think, you know? And then, then that got me down a, a rabbit hole of [00:40:00] people, you know? Uh, the overlap sometimes of the, uh, of the autistic and, and psychopathic traits.

And I’m curious, do you have any, any thoughts on that?

Nadja: Um, no. I see them, uh, but yes, I have thoughts, but no, I don’t see them as being similar. I see them as, as very different. In fact, um, I, I think in terms of the, um, empathy capacities and or, or, um, um, uh, deficits is in autism, we see a lack of cognitive empathy.

So that’s the kind of, um, theory of mind. So the mentalizing something that, that other individuals might have a different kind of mental state to your own, and that’s somewhat quite different to, um, what is more the problem seen in psychopathy in terms of their effective de deficit, as in, um, I can’t feel what you are feeling, right.

So one is, I, I don’t understand what you are thinking and that makes it difficult for me to navigate in the world because I find it difficult to predict your behavior, um, which we might see in autism. And whereas [00:41:00] in, in Psychopathy it’s more a, a, a matter of I don’t feel what you feel. I don’t understand what you feel, I don’t care about what you feel, um, and therefore it’s okay for me to hurt you.

So it’s, it’s a very different, uh, um, aspect there. And, and this is, I mean, there, there’s been some very old kind of, uh, studies that, that try to equate the two, but this, it has been mainly kind of, um, debunked nowadays. And, and, and we, we see really, truly very different patterns of, um, underpinning mechanisms, for example, or, or different kind of, uh, correlates and relationships, um, for autistic traits as opposed to psychopathic traits.

So I would, I would, you know, really try and keep these separate. Mm-hmm. As much as possible.

Zach: What do you think it’s, uh, do you think it’s possible some people are just misdiagnosing themselves then when somebody reach, reaches out to a journalist and says, I’m a psychopath, that you Sure. I think the, I think we have to be more skeptical of these kinds of things because, for example, there’s this book by.[00:42:00]

It’s, it’s an anonymously published book that’s pretty popular, and it’s a, uh, I can’t remember the name now, but it’s by a self-proclaimed psychopath. And I read some about this book, and this person’s online and has a online following, but they’re a very unreliable narrator. Like some people think they just made up their past, you know, for attentions to sell books.

Some people think they’re just a, a narcissist who likes the attention. So I think the, uh, you know, when I read some of this stuff, uh, especially about the self-proclaimed psychopaths or any self-proclaimed, any, any kind of category, I guess I, I, I, I think there, I don’t know if you would agree that we, we should be a little bit more skeptical because the self-reporting aspect of these things can be.

Know, I, I think we’re a little bit too trusting where, where we’re like, oh, they said they’re a psychopath and they’re telling us how it is to be a psychopath. And yeah, I think, I think we should be a, be a little bit more skeptical and, uh, take things a little bit more salt maybe.

Nadja: Yeah, absolutely. Unless you have had a full, uh, [00:43:00] diagnosis using a proper.

Probably validated, uh, psychometric tool to do so. I don’t think, you know, you, you, you can, uh, self label or should self label in any case. And the, the problem is we, we, we generally, we always seek my, we see, see a list of symptoms and we say, oh yeah, oh yeah, that might apply to me. That might apply to me.

So I always say, say that to my students. And, uh, when I teach them about, uh, psychopathologies as a, you know, we will go through various different disorders. You will see some symptoms and you might kind of almost tick for yourself those boxes. But please, please just avoid self diagnosing because it’s not okay.

You know, we, we shouldn’t be doing that. Uh, you know, that there are tools that do that properly, but even, you know, as with any psychometric measure, you know, it, it, uh, um, gives a probability, let’s say, but it, it’s not always a hundred percent accurate either, right. So, um, some are more validated than others.

Some have stronger research, kind of, um, um, evidence behind them to be strong psychometric tools than others, et cetera. So with all of this, we have to [00:44:00] be really careful. Um, to be fair and for, you know, for any diagnosis, it requires an experienced person who have been highly trained to know what they’re doing, uh, to diagnose someone properly.

And, and these are experts, these are people who know what they’re doing. So any self-diagnosis is always dangerous. And, and the stigma that one might attach or the, that with that laboring that comes with it, it can be, you know, dangerous as well. Um, as you said, in terms of self-fulfilling prophecy, in terms of, uh, you know, how we interact with other people, how other people will start interacting with us if we say these things,

Zach: right?

Yeah. That, that, it gets into that, uh, yeah, that kind of self-limiting aspect where, you know, at certain points in my life, like, you know, flipping through, I. Various DSM kind of categories. You know, at certain points in my life, I’ve thought I’ve, I’ve had, uh, you know, I thought I was a, uh, borderline personality disorder.

I thought I was a avoidant personality disorder. You know, I, I, I, I could have, uh, really embraced the, uh, you know. Super depressed [00:45:00] label because I have taken, you know, I, I was really depressed at one point in time. Um, I’ve had general anxiety and used to take medications for, for bad anxiety. Uh, but, you know, but I think it gets to this kind of like hypochondriac, or not even hypochondriac, but just.

The fact that we all have, to some degree, these experiences of, of different sorts and absolutely when we read these descriptions, we, there can be this tendency to be like, oh, that, that I felt that way. You know, where it’s like, like you say, it’s, yeah, it’s much more complex. And you feeling that way at a certain point in time doesn’t mean that you always have, you know, consistently have those traits and, and things like that.

Nadja: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And, and this is where more thorough testing comes into play, really to, to fully look at things and also that the time span you’re looking at in which people display certain traits, for example, or certain symptoms, depending what you’re looking at. Um, and, and that again, you know, is, is, is, is qualified by di diagnostic tools in terms of, you know, what’s the time [00:46:00] span of, because yeah, of course we, we might all feel sad when we had sad experiences.

You know, it doesn’t mean that we are necessarily depressed and what depression means a lot more than that is, is, you know, um, and, and it’s a combination of many things coming together, um, that, that qualify as depression, anxiety, whatever it might be. Um, and so, um, yeah, the same for psychopathy. You know, you might be in some situations a bit colors, you know, because for whatever reason you have to, um, but it doesn’t mean you’re a psychopath, you know?

And sometimes we might, um, suppress our emotional response towards others because we need to, you know, get something done. Um, and, and it doesn’t mean we are psychopaths necessarily, it’s just how things come together and how they influence your everyday behavior over a long period of time. That can become quite maladaptive in a way, how you function in society and whether you become a risk to yourself or to [00:47:00] society.

Zach: Do you think, uh, can some psychopathic seeming traits. Especially in younger people, just be a sign of a combination of basically immaturity and, and childlike selfishness and maybe combined with, you know, a, a rough childhood. And, and to give a specific example, I was, uh, sometimes I’d watch these interrogations of, um, you know, killers.

And I was watching one about, um, a kid who killed his dad and two brothers. Uh, and it was a very, he was a high school kid. And uh, you know, I think there’s, there would be a tendency to say This kid is a psychopath. He, he, he, you know, it met all the, probably met all the, the, the traits. But then like, the more I learned about the case, like his, his grandfather after, after the, he had killed his family members, his grandfather said that the dad had been psychologically abusive to him and he was actually defending the sons, you know, messed up mental [00:48:00] state.

And it, and it got me thinking like. You know, some of the things that we can perceive as psychopathic could just be due to like an, almost like a child. Like, you know, we all, we all have that remembrance of being a child and being like, I’m suffering. How can I solve it? I’ll, I’ll think of some simplistic solution that, you know, just makes things worse.

And, and I, and I wonder, you know, how, how much of these things, and it’s not like, it is not like it was a, it was like this well executed plan. It was like he immediately got caught for it and he clearly like, was just a, just a really kind of dumb kid in a way. And it, and it, and it got me thinking, you know, is that psychopathy can, can we say for sure, uh, is it possible that he was just in a really dark place mentally?

And that was like the only way his, his dark suff suffering place knew to, to, to get out of this situation. Uh, things, things like that. Do, do you see some of this nuance for some of those, especially for the, for the, the young kids?

Nadja: Absolutely. I mean, the problem is when we are looking at, uh, [00:49:00] children or, uh, um, adolescents, we shouldn’t be really referring to psychopathy in the first place.

Um, um, you know, like with antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy, et cetera, where we are looking at at least 18 years of age before we’re starting diagnosing, because the assumption is that during childhood your personality still develops and it manifests into something that there is an adulthood.

Um, and this is why a lot of the research tends to refer more to colors and emotional traits in children rather than psychopathy. Okay. So that’s, that’s the first thing. So even from a kind of ethic reason, um, uh, I would not like to label children as psychopaths, um, and try to stay away from that. Okay. Um, but yes, we might possibly see colors and emotional traits and, and some children that might be early indicators for a trajectory towards developing an antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy into adulthood.

Um, there’s a risk. It’s a risk. It doesn’t mean it has to be [00:50:00] that way. Um, and yeah, you with these kind of stories, whenever you read about crime and, and, uh, case studies and these things, you need to have sufficient detail to fully understand what underpins and what, uh, motivated their behavior, what drives their behavior, et cetera.

And in this case, I mean, from a few things that you just said, you know, it, it was probably somebody who’s been abused for many years, uh, and um, who kind of reactively kind of in terms of almost, you know, defensively, um, may have resorted in into killing their relative. Um, to me that may not be necessarily psychopathic in, in, in, in general.

Right. In terms of these features. But it’d be difficult to say unless you see, uh, to see, um, all of the kind of complexities of the case to make a full kind of diagnostic evaluation of that, um, person. [00:51:00]

Zach: Mm-hmm. Well, I guess, yeah, maybe that’s a good segue into the general question I have about, uh, you know, it seems like in some cases we, we can make ourselves more psychopathic or, or, or fate in, in some way, or, or a series of events can, can make us sort more psychopathic.

Like for example, that the kid who, who shot his family, like even, you know, it seems like you could easily go down this path, you know, once you, once you start doing horrible things, however it happens, it seems like you, you kind of, uh, you know, one thing leads to another kind of thing and you’re, you kind of have built a, uh, without trying you, you’ve, you’ve stumbled down a psychopathic, uh, kind of cascading.

Pathway, that pathway that where you’ve, you, you know, you’ve, you have to live with the, the bad things you’ve done and you’ve become desensitized and that becomes your new normal or whatever. Um, so, and, and that, and maybe that’s a place to segue into the questions I have about, [00:52:00] you know, some of these traits, like taking the psychopathic tests online.

Some of the questions to me seem like I could, I could imagine if you got into a really cutthroat business, let’s say like a, you know, a really competitive, uh, career, uh, some of those paths seem to me to be more likely to, to instill traits that we would view as more psychopathic. So if you were like a, you know, an a, a high powered lawyer and you, I think you’d be more likely to answer some of those questions in ways that seem psychopathic.

But it’s just a. It’s a, a way that they have to view the world in order to, to succeed. You know, like they, they have to focus on the results and, and not worry about people’s feelings and these kinds of things. And I wonder if you see some of that, like, that we can go down some of these pathways purposefully or not, that kind of instill in us by pursuing a goal or, or just by, you know, a, a random series of events that kind of instill in us more psychopathic traits.

Nadja: Um, [00:53:00] yeah, sure. Of course. They, you know, uh, what we experience over time, um, manifests into who we are, who, how we perceive ourself, our self concept, how we interact with other people, et cetera. You know, if, if you’ve been hurt many, many times, you might become, you might try to toughen more up and, and relationships, for example, in order to avoid being hurt again.

Right? Or if you’ve been ex exposed to severe trauma, for example, during childhood, that that can, has, you know, have, have a huge impact on the way how your personalities being shaped. Um, and how you, you know, view threats, for example, where they become hyper or hyposensitive to towards threats, for example.

Um, and there are different pathways. You know, there’s not always one sure way of this is when X happens, this is how Y will look like. Um, so even with trauma and some children they might lead to, you know, highly in internalizing behaviors in terms of high levels of anxiety and threat, responsivity, et cetera.

And in [00:54:00] some children we might see high externalizing behaviors. So they might actually become quite angry and aggressive because, you know, that’s their defensive response towards the experiences they had. And, and in terms of coping with the trauma, um, or dealing with, with the, those kind of situations.

And that might manifest over long term if it’s not addressed in, into more problematic behaviors later in adulthood. So with many, you know, personality disorders and, and also other disorders, we, we see those adverse childhood experiences and, and, and, um, that may have kind of led to unhealthy attachments, um, or that, uh, um, might lead to kind of, uh, unhealthy behaviors and maladaptive behaviors later on.

And so, even during adulthood, we might shape still somewhat, right? So even though personality is relatively stable over time, it doesn’t mean that it’s not flexible enough to adapt and change. In fact, one of the things that makes our personality healthy is that [00:55:00] we are able to adapt and change to our environments and that we might, you know, change how extroverted we are, how impulsive we are, or how much in sensation seeking we engage, uh, with.

I mean, the older you get, the less sensation seeking usually happens, the less impulsivity happens. And that’s an adaptive thing. Um. And so in personality disorder, usually the main problem is here that we are looking at an inflexibility and a pervasiveness of traits that’s, uh, um, are, are compromised in terms of their psychosocial functioning.

And if that flexibility isn’t there for, for your personality to be able to, uh, for you to behave in different ways and adapt to your environment, depending on where you are and and, and what the requirements are, this is when, when things become problematic. And yes, I mean, you were talking about desensitization in terms of, um, uh, problems when as you develop, clearly we do see that in terms of attitudes and, and, uh, belief [00:56:00] or schemas, belief systems people might have in relation to aggression, for example.

If it is perfectly normal in the environment that you grow up in, that you know people are aggressive and in order to get what you want, you, you engage in aggressive behavior, um, then we might learn this and internalize this and use this as a strategy for ourself later on in life. And this is where it comes back to, you know, having good role models, having good peer relationships, having healthy, uh, nurturing environment in terms of, and, and parental attachments, et cetera.

All of these things that, that might have an impact on the way, what we perceive as what is acceptable or normal behavior or strategies that we learn how we cope with the world.

Zach: Do you think, uh, and it seems like there can be something of philosophy in there too. Like people, people can actively kind of seek a, a more kind of selfish way of, you know, in an active way.

You know, like say you’re a high powered lawyer or, or, uh, you, you actually, [00:57:00] like, you have to Yeah. You, you, you, you’ve actively told yourself, well, this is the way I have to be and I will actively pursue this cold-blooded, uh, way of mm-hmm. Of treating other people. Because that’s what it will take. And you can even perceive that as, as a long-term good thing where you’re like, I’m going to accomplish great things, but in the short term.

I’m gonna help the world, but in the short term, I’m gonna, I’m gonna have to treat people really coldly and do bad things to them. I think that’s, you know, when it comes to some of these like high powered CEOs and, and these kinds of people mm-hmm. Sometimes I think there’s this mentality of, you know, embracing kind of psychopathic or lack of empathy, ways of, of treating other people because they can perceive themselves as doing such great things, you know, and, and, and it gets into the more like philosophy or, or, you know, uh, motives of, of just how people can be.

Yeah,

Nadja: sure. I mean, and we had that construct of, uh, concept of, uh, successful psychopathy, for example. So how, um, in, in [00:58:00] some individuals these psychopathic traits, uh, might, uh, lead to adaptive outcomes or might be successful, right. In terms of. How they navigate the world. And in some professions you can see how being more ruthless and being able to walk over bodies basically is, is important to be successful.

Right. So we do find, um, more elevated traits in some of these professions you just mentioned, for example. So it, it is, um, likely, however, on the, on the other side, you know, if you, if you’re a manager working in HR and it’s really important that you’re able to lead a team well, et cetera, then um, sometimes that can backfire.

You know, um, because if you need to have a team that can rely on each other and trust each other and hold each other’s back, then you know, you need to establish those bonds in a healthy way. And by being ruthless and, uh, deceitful or, um, um, instrumental in some way, it doesn’t necessarily [00:59:00] always work so well.

So it, it depends very much on the environmental context and what is required in that context. And in the end, one of the notions in terms of personality in general is that kind of we seek to be in situations or, or in terms of our vocational interests, we seek to be finding opportunities that suit our traits, right?

So if we are more aggressive, trade, aggressive, for example, then we might seek, um, situations, opportunities, jobs, et cetera, that allow us to express that trait more easily, right. If we are not, then we will find places that, that, that are really calm and, and agreeable and friendly, right? If we don’t like this kind of behavior, then we try to avoid those type of situations.

So even in terms of which job you might end up with or seek or really want to do or are really good at, might be under pinned by your kind of personality traits.

Zach: Um, and maybe we can end with, um, what, what are you working on these [01:00:00] days?

Nadja: Well, we, we still work on, on the notion of the dark empaths to try and, uh, disentangle, delineate a little bit more, um, around that notion.

What happens if you have dark traits and high levels of empathy? How, how? Does that make things different for you? And I mean, we’ve only looked at that in the general population at the moment. I’m not clear. Is would that be a possibility? And, and, uh, criminal forensic populations, maybe not. Maybe the hallmark of the lack of empathy or really low empathy is, is very much kind of exclusive in, uh, those criminal.

Maybe that lack of empathy is that particular problem that leads them to be in that kind of criminal population. Um. So right now we are just looking at the general population in terms of, um, those dark traits and how various factors might be influenced or, or vary as a function of your empathic capacities.

Um, we are also interested in measuring things in more implicit ways. So one, one thing, um, I want to, ’cause often me use self [01:01:00] reports, right? And so in self reports, you know, you might have some social desirability aspects in there that are problematic. Uh, you might have a narcissist, for example, would always say how great they are in terms of, of course I’m great in understanding other people, right?

It doesn’t mean that they are in reality. So, um, we are trying to test various kind of experimental paradigms. For example, we also been working a little bit around identifying some kind of biomarkers or physiological algorithms, et cetera, that might be underpinning various mental health aspects, for example, not just in terms of psychopathy, but um, as, as early kind of indicators that might help to alleviate risk in, in mental health, for example.

But yeah, it’s, it’s trying to disentangle that complexity a little bit more, and not making it just as such a simplistic thing, but trying to understand more the different mechanisms that might be involved and how they might lead to different outcomes as well. [01:02:00] Because we can’t just choke everything into one pod.

Zach: Right. That’s what I liked about your work and what got me to reach out to you was your, your work in examining that, that nuance and the dimensionality there. Yeah. And thank you for coming on, and thank you for, uh, talking about these things and thanks for your work.

Nadja: Thank you, Zach. It’s been great. Thank you very much for inviting me.

Zach: That was Nadja Heim, a psychology researcher who specializes in dark traits. If you’re interested in her work, I’ll put some links to some of her papers and writings on the page for this episode on my site behavior podcast.com. This has been the People Who Read People Podcasts with me, Zach Ellwood. This is a podcast aimed at better understanding other people and better understanding ourselves.

If you’ve enjoyed this podcast and wanna support it, consider signing up for a premium membership, which gets you ad free episodes and some other benefits. Go to behavior podcast.com to learn more about that, or if you’d like to just send me a gift, send me a message via the contact form on my site. [01:03:00] And I’ll send you my PayPal and Venmo information.

Okay. Thanks for listening. Music by small skies.