Primary psychopathy is a neurological difference in how the brain processes empathy, it is not a moral failing. Recognizing this distinction could transform how we identify, support, and channel these traits toward prosocial outcomes.
When you hear “psychopath,” you probably picture a predator; someone dangerous, manipulative, beyond redemption. That image comes from decades of research conducted almost entirely in forensic settings. Prisons. Psychiatric facilities. Criminal populations.
Here’s the problem: that’s not science. That’s selection bias dressed up as science. We’ve built our entire understanding of psychopathy by studying only the people who got caught doing harmful things. It’s like trying to understand human sexuality by only interviewing people in divorce court.
What we’re actually looking at is two distinct things that got lumped together. There’s Factor 1 psychopathy, a constitutional difference in how the brain processes affective empathy, the visceral emotional response to others’ feelings. And there’s Factor 2 psychopathy, antisocial behaviour often rooted in trauma, environment, and circumstances.
These aren’t the same thing. One is neurological variation. The other is behavioral outcome. Conflating them has led us to treat a brain difference as a moral failing.
Think about autism. Thirty years ago, we pathologized everything about it. Now we recognize it as neurological diversity: we provide support, accommodation, and we value the unique perspectives autistic individuals bring. We don’t assume autism equals danger.
People with primary psychopathic traits who function prosocially exist everywhere, in operating rooms, in courtrooms, in emergency response. They never enter forensic systems, so they’re invisible to researchers. But they demonstrate something important: you don’t need to feel empathy viscerally to behave ethically. Rational frameworks: game theory, contractualism, enlightened self-interest, provide perfectly functional foundations for prosocial behaviour.
What if instead of waiting for harm and then labeling, we identified these traits early and provided appropriate education and channeling? This is how we get better outcomes for individuals with these traits and for society.
