Skip to main content

Psychopaths as Extreme Future Discounters

This post is by Jane Kisbey, PhD student at the University of Birmingham. Jane talks about her research on psychopathy and moral responsibility in this video interview.


Jane Kisbey


Some philosophers have recognised that in psychopaths there appears to be a failing in prudential concern. Philosophers characterise this in various ways, however I offer a new conceptualisation of the psychopath. My hypothesis says that we can best understand psychopaths as extreme future discounters.

This account draws upon Neil Levy’s (2014) account to substantiate my hypothesis. However, there is a crucial difference between mine and Levy’s view. Whilst Levy thinks that psychopaths are unable to imagine what it is like to be a future person, it seems that this is not the case. It is rather that psychopaths cannot see why they should care about their future self, because for psychopaths, it is only what happens now they should care about.

Levy argues that psychopaths have an impaired ability to mental time travel (MTT). Because psychopaths possess an inability to MTT they fail to appreciate prudential reasons. In other words, they cannot understand reasons to act for their own future’s sake. Levy follows Suddendorf and Corballis’s definition of MTT:

[T]he ability to project oneself into the future or the past: to recall, in a distinctively first-person manner, past episodes and to simulate possible future scenarios in which one is personally engaged. (Suddendorf & Corballis, 2008)

MTT is analogous to episodic memory – ordinary people can not only remember that an event occurred, they can remember it “from the inside”. MTT includes imagining, remembering, and projecting oneself in the future.

Unlike Levy, I think that psychopaths are capable of MTT, it is just they do not care about their future self when they do. The main reason why I think that psychopaths retain the capacity for MTT is that when we examine the case studies in the psychiatric literature, it seems obvious that they are able to figure out and understand the consequences of their actions. However, what is striking is their reaction to those consequences. They do not seem to care about those consequences. Hervey Cleckley’s case studies support this idea:

The consequences occurred to him, but rather casually. (Cleckley, 2015)

The essential difference [between psychopaths and non-psychopaths] seems to lie in how much the consequences matter. (Cleckley, 1988)

 


It strikes me that the problem for psychopaths is not that they cannot conceive of themselves as a persistent being, but instead that they do not care about that future being. They conceptually know that they will be a future being but they just discount that. They care more about the state they are in now. 

So, it is not an inability to imagine what it is like to be a future being. Rather, it is assigning a lower value to that future than the value of your current states. So, psychopaths are extreme future discounters in the sense that they only value their current interests, and as such discount their future interests. They live in the present moment and do not care about their future self. 

Psychopaths can recognise what they will feel at a later stage, however their future feelings are not ‘real’ to them now. What they lack is normal appreciation of anything outside of their current mental states which explains their lack of prudential concern.

Popular posts from this blog

Delusions in the DSM 5

This post is by Lisa Bortolotti. How has the definition of delusions changed in the DSM 5? Here are some first impressions. In the DSM-IV (Glossary) delusions were defined as follows: Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.

Rationalization: Why your intelligence, vigilance and expertise probably don't protect you

Today's post is by Jonathan Ellis , Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Public Philosophy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Eric Schwitzgebel , Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Riverside. This is the first in a two-part contribution on their paper "Rationalization in Moral and Philosophical thought" in Moral Inferences , eds. J. F. Bonnefon and B. Trémolière (Psychology Press, 2017). We’ve all been there. You’re arguing with someone – about politics, or a policy at work, or about whose turn it is to do the dishes – and they keep finding all kinds of self-serving justifications for their view. When one of their arguments is defeated, rather than rethinking their position they just leap to another argument, then maybe another. They’re rationalizing –coming up with convenient defenses for what they want to believe, rather than responding even-handedly to the points you're making. Yo

A co-citation analysis of cross-disciplinarity in the empirically-informed philosophy of mind

Today's post is by  Karen Yan (National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University) on her recent paper (co-authored with Chuan-Ya Liao), " A co-citation analysis of cross-disciplinarity in the empirically-informed philosophy of mind " ( Synthese 2023). Karen Yan What drives us to write this paper is our curiosity about what it means when philosophers of mind claim their works are informed by empirical evidence and how to assess this quality of empirically-informedness. Building on Knobe’s (2015) quantitative metaphilosophical analyses of empirically-informed philosophy of mind (EIPM), we investigated further how empirically-informed philosophers rely on empirical research and what metaphilosophical lessons to draw from our empirical results.  We utilize scientometric tools and categorization analysis to provide an empirically reliable description of EIPM. Our methodological novelty lies in integrating the co-citation analysis tool with the conceptual resources from the philosoph