You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
179 reviews for:
The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist's Personal Journey into the Dark Side of the Brain
James Fallon
3.26 AVERAGE
179 reviews for:
The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist's Personal Journey into the Dark Side of the Brain
James Fallon
3.26 AVERAGE
A neuroscientist discovers that his brain scan looks the same as that of a psychopath. He then tries to justify his existence as a "regular" guy, while describing his activities,(fire starting, lying, manipulating, cheating, obsessions) that anyone else would classify as psychopathic.
Overall a pretty interesting book. I read this casually over the course of 3 days after finding it in a bookstore. I've always been interested in psychology and I'm especially always interested in abnormal psychology. I enjoyed the historical family lineage aspects as well as the science of the brain, the latter of which I had to reread a couple passages of since my biology and psychology days in college and university now some years ago. This is essentially a memoir about an individual who learns more about himself while studying others, then he expected. I feel like the length of the book is appropriately short and did what it sought to do for the most part.
Who knew a book about a pyschopathic brain could be so repetitive and poorly written?
The title should be "The Narcissist's Personal Journey into Cashing in on His Own Self-Indulgence". While maintaining that he has insight into his grandiose and self-centered thought patterns, the author has failed to recognize the degree to which he comes across as a boorish ass. He should have hired an editor to save him from himself---or (heaven forbid) maybe he did do that and the original draft was even worse.
Some of the genetic information discussed borders on interesting, but it is presented poorly and decorated with pseudoscience (Indigo child? Are we trapped in 1989 Mothering Magazine world?)and armchair genealogy typical of the profound narcissist. The end result being that without reading up on the research he is describing, I would not believe his interpretation of any of it.
In our graduate seminar on personality disorders we were taught that the difference between "officially having a personality disorder" and "just being an asshole" is whether the symptoms are having significant negative impact on the person's functioning: ability to form and sustain relationships, ability to support himself, ability to perform activities of daily living as needed by one's station in life, etc. With that framework in mind, and taking at face value Fallon's claims to have good relationships with his wife, children and "thousands" of colleagues, I think it's safe to say he's just an ass. Whether or not he's a psychopath or has a psychopath's genetic profile is irrelevant and rendered uninteresting by the quicksand of his self-involvement. He's a libertarian! No kidding?
Some of the genetic information discussed borders on interesting, but it is presented poorly and decorated with pseudoscience (Indigo child? Are we trapped in 1989 Mothering Magazine world?)and armchair genealogy typical of the profound narcissist. The end result being that without reading up on the research he is describing, I would not believe his interpretation of any of it.
In our graduate seminar on personality disorders we were taught that the difference between "officially having a personality disorder" and "just being an asshole" is whether the symptoms are having significant negative impact on the person's functioning: ability to form and sustain relationships, ability to support himself, ability to perform activities of daily living as needed by one's station in life, etc. With that framework in mind, and taking at face value Fallon's claims to have good relationships with his wife, children and "thousands" of colleagues, I think it's safe to say he's just an ass. Whether or not he's a psychopath or has a psychopath's genetic profile is irrelevant and rendered uninteresting by the quicksand of his self-involvement. He's a libertarian! No kidding?
4.4 stars!!!
as a psych grad… such an interesting book to read. i’ve been slightly obsessed with the idea of psychopathy for a while (just how the brain functions differently than the “norm”… none of that weird stuff) so to read about it with the science behind it was insightful and intriguing to read throughout its entirety.
his question of: “do we need psychopaths?” truly is a leading question which made me stop and think for a couple moments. while the perfect world would probably say “no”, realistically, we do in fact need them. we have been able to learn so much from them that without their existence (gene existence) we probably wouldn’t know the things we do now. just my thoughts
overall great read, science heavy (wasn’t aware going into my first read) but explained very well, funny
as a psych grad… such an interesting book to read. i’ve been slightly obsessed with the idea of psychopathy for a while (just how the brain functions differently than the “norm”… none of that weird stuff) so to read about it with the science behind it was insightful and intriguing to read throughout its entirety.
his question of: “do we need psychopaths?” truly is a leading question which made me stop and think for a couple moments. while the perfect world would probably say “no”, realistically, we do in fact need them. we have been able to learn so much from them that without their existence (gene existence) we probably wouldn’t know the things we do now. just my thoughts
overall great read, science heavy (wasn’t aware going into my first read) but explained very well, funny
informative
fast-paced
medium-paced
This book was somewhat interesting, but very "science-y". I did pick up a few fun facts, but I found myself skimming through many parts.
A lot of the science stuff (brain diagrams my beloathed) took a bit more processing power than the purely anecdotal segments, but having multiple methods of attack when breaking down psychopathic traits was... dare I say "enjoyable"?
I expected this book to be more introspective and anecdotal than science, but it was definitely heavy on the science, which I did enjoy. I learned a lot about the science behind mental illness.
I’m not a big fan of the author as a person. He seems hypocritical at times, and despite saying he has cognitive empathy, he repeatedly says he’s fine with putting others he is close to in significant danger. I don’t care if he wants to do this, or if he could do this without feeling bad. I do care that he actively does this, and despite saying he cares about the species surviving, he seems to have no problem with killing people he enjoys spending time with.
Similarly, he states he wouldn’t let a kid starve to death in front of him, but that he would advocate for some kids starving to improve humanity. This seems to be pretty common, and I would have assumed he wouldn’t care about the kid in front of him. A lot of what he describes seems contradictory to me, and there’s enough of it that I question the author’s understanding more than mine. He’s the expert on himself, of course, but he seems pretty blind.
Still, I found his anecdotes and the neuroscience interesting. I know a psychopath who is a much better person than this author, so maybe that’s why I was a bit let down. The author states many times he just doesn’t care, and that’s clearly true. But for all he says he does care about the survival of the species and the betterment of humanity, I’m not seeing it. His actions don’t match his words.
Anyway, interesting read. Worth it, just don’t expect a reliable narrator.
I’m not a big fan of the author as a person. He seems hypocritical at times, and despite saying he has cognitive empathy, he repeatedly says he’s fine with putting others he is close to in significant danger. I don’t care if he wants to do this, or if he could do this without feeling bad. I do care that he actively does this, and despite saying he cares about the species surviving, he seems to have no problem with killing people he enjoys spending time with.
Similarly, he states he wouldn’t let a kid starve to death in front of him, but that he would advocate for some kids starving to improve humanity. This seems to be pretty common, and I would have assumed he wouldn’t care about the kid in front of him. A lot of what he describes seems contradictory to me, and there’s enough of it that I question the author’s understanding more than mine. He’s the expert on himself, of course, but he seems pretty blind.
Still, I found his anecdotes and the neuroscience interesting. I know a psychopath who is a much better person than this author, so maybe that’s why I was a bit let down. The author states many times he just doesn’t care, and that’s clearly true. But for all he says he does care about the survival of the species and the betterment of humanity, I’m not seeing it. His actions don’t match his words.
Anyway, interesting read. Worth it, just don’t expect a reliable narrator.