Here. In particular see the meta-analysis (4th on the list). For the connection to babies and cuteness see the second to last on the list. To summarize: the fear expression mimics infantile expressions- enlarging the eyes and opening the mouth. The reason for this is that the way babies look elicits a caring and protection response in other people. Psychopathy is, at least partly, a dysfunction in processing fear expressions. There is decreased amygdala activity in response to distress expressions among psychopaths relative to control groups. Thus, finding babies disgusting suggests some pretty serious amygdala dysfunction.
There is no direct evidence that finding cute babies disgusting means you’re a psychopath but it suggests that the something pretty abnormal is going on with the person’s experience of empathy.
Note that saying someone is a psychopath that doesn’t mean he/she has committed any crimes or is particularly damaging to society. Indeed, given some estimations it would be very surprising if there weren’t several psychopaths reading Less Wrong. Higher even, since there is some evidence of comorbidity with other conditions that seem to be unusually common here (like ADHD and problems with executive functioning, for example). I guess being called one carries with it some negative social costs. That should have occurred to me and maybe it is reasonable to delete my comment above as result. I honestly just saw the evidence and thought it was an interesting thing to point out- I wasn’t being reflective.
Thank you for the references, upvoted. But it’s not clear to me that “finding babies uncute” has actually been linked to psychopathy per se, albeit it might be something interesting to investigate because of a couple of chained correlations. In fact the term “fairly strong evidence” in the original comment does seem misplaced, unless you know of a specific experiment indicating that.
(Also, would “fairly strong evidence” in this context mean say “a likelihood factor of ten for finding babies uncute, even though the base frequency of psychopaths is low” or “a substantial fraction of people who find babies uncute are in fact psychopaths”?)
The way you characterized the evidence I would have said, “This comment reminded me: there’s an interesting correlation between psychopathy and finding babies uncute—it comes down to the relation to the fear expression and infantile expressions.”
But I would want more evidence (particularly regarding alternative mechanisms for baby-distaste) before I claimed a likelihood factor as large as ten.
Note that saying someone is a psychopath that doesn’t mean he/she has committed any crimes or is particularly damaging to society...I guess being called one carries with it some negative social costs.
Indeed, I suspect that most people who aren’t versed in psychology hear “psychopath” simply as a negative-affect-word meaning “sick, twisted person likely to have committed a heinous crime”.
Here. In particular see the meta-analysis (4th on the list). For the connection to babies and cuteness see the second to last on the list. To summarize: the fear expression mimics infantile expressions- enlarging the eyes and opening the mouth. The reason for this is that the way babies look elicits a caring and protection response in other people. Psychopathy is, at least partly, a dysfunction in processing fear expressions. There is decreased amygdala activity in response to distress expressions among psychopaths relative to control groups. Thus, finding babies disgusting suggests some pretty serious amygdala dysfunction.
There is no direct evidence that finding cute babies disgusting means you’re a psychopath but it suggests that the something pretty abnormal is going on with the person’s experience of empathy.
Note that saying someone is a psychopath that doesn’t mean he/she has committed any crimes or is particularly damaging to society. Indeed, given some estimations it would be very surprising if there weren’t several psychopaths reading Less Wrong. Higher even, since there is some evidence of comorbidity with other conditions that seem to be unusually common here (like ADHD and problems with executive functioning, for example). I guess being called one carries with it some negative social costs. That should have occurred to me and maybe it is reasonable to delete my comment above as result. I honestly just saw the evidence and thought it was an interesting thing to point out- I wasn’t being reflective.
Thank you for the references, upvoted. But it’s not clear to me that “finding babies uncute” has actually been linked to psychopathy per se, albeit it might be something interesting to investigate because of a couple of chained correlations. In fact the term “fairly strong evidence” in the original comment does seem misplaced, unless you know of a specific experiment indicating that.
(Also, would “fairly strong evidence” in this context mean say “a likelihood factor of ten for finding babies uncute, even though the base frequency of psychopaths is low” or “a substantial fraction of people who find babies uncute are in fact psychopaths”?)
Yes. This was why I qualified the initial claim with “fairly”. Perhaps it should have been qualified further.
The way you characterized the evidence I would have said, “This comment reminded me: there’s an interesting correlation between psychopathy and finding babies uncute—it comes down to the relation to the fear expression and infantile expressions.”
But I would want more evidence (particularly regarding alternative mechanisms for baby-distaste) before I claimed a likelihood factor as large as ten.
Alright, this + the sensitivity of the subject lead men to edit the original comment. Th
Indeed, I suspect that most people who aren’t versed in psychology hear “psychopath” simply as a negative-affect-word meaning “sick, twisted person likely to have committed a heinous crime”.