LAURA KNIGHT-JADCZYK AND JOE QUINN
Since the 9/11 attacks, no book has provided a satisfactory answer as to WHY the attacks occurred and who was ultimately responsible for carrying them out - until now.
The sense of smell is wired into the brain in a different way than the other senses, going directly
into the frontal lobes. It is closely related to baseline arousal. Check out Neil Slade's work on this. Also
there was a lot of work done on GSR and arousalin the 50's. It was unjustly was ignored because of
the Church of Scientology's promotion of the "Emeter".
Just because a person has a low arousal level, doesn't mean they are Psychopaths. It is interesting
that alcohol affects frontal lobes first, which accounts for its reputation for causing antisocial behaviour.
One of the symptoms of low arousal is a poor sense of smell. Early childhood stress usually results
in a habitual suppression of arousal. This particularly effects the frontal lobe, blunting the conscience,
and causing a person to function somewhat like they had a lobotomy.
True psychopaths probably have a very specific deficit that doesn't entirely suppress frontal lobe function
as their ability to plan can be highly developed. This points to a need for more specific terminology. Many people
are functional psychopaths, but not genetic psychopaths. There is another category of people who lack a conscience
but also lack planning ability. It would IMHO, be incorrect to call them psychopaths.
What makes you assume I am uninformed? I read very broadly and in depth, and usually think carefully about what I've read.
While what you state is true, my hypothesis, or more correctly my speculation, is not negated by it.
To restate it: growing evidence seems to point to a cluster of physical differences that are present from birth, that those differences strongly suggest that some forms of psychopathy are heritable, reinforced when carried by both parents. Ergo, the mounting evidence points to a seperate line of humanity. One trait a psychopath does not make, but a cluster of traits that are consistent do.
To conclude that they may form a seperate branch of humanity is no great leap, in fact the great leap is to assume that only one branch exists today when there were demonstrably many variants in the past. Those variants did not disappear without a trace, as their genetic material is found all over the planet.
The fact that psychopathy has more than one cause, that stress and environment (think the Nazi state or Wall Street) can induce psychopathic behavior in no way refutes the idea.
A situational psychopath has hope of returning to normal, but for a genetic psychopath, psychopathy IS their normal and can't be cured or changed. Which leads us back to the speculation that they are a different line of humanity, a predator species. Every other species on the planet has at least one predator associated with it. To assume that humans are somehow different seems to fly in the face of reason and nature, a form of the human exceptionalism so prevalent in religions, but without basis in reality.
As more evidence points the physical differences between psychopaths and normal humans, it leads me wonder if psychopaths aren't actually remnants of a different line of humanity.
Psychopaths seem to share the same physical and emotional abnormalities, ones that breed true and are reinforced when both parents are carrying the genes.
Historically, ruling families have tended to weed out those viewed as "weak", i.e., those insufficiently ruthless and uncaring of the rest of humanity, and have interbred more so than normal humanity to preserve bloodlines.
Could it be that they are the remnants of a subspecies of humanity, like Neanderthals or Denisovians, capable of interbreeding with homo sapiens sapiens, but not actually of that branch?