Pseudoscience and psychopathy

Last month I posted concerning the original article, pondering whether I would want to know. The following article brings to light some interesting points in rebuttal, that I should have considered, but didn't.

• I was curious as to how a single brain scan from an unrelated study could predict psychopathic behavior.
• I was confused on why Dr. Fallon was comparing his brain scan from an Alzheimer’s study to an unrelated study about psychopaths. Did they do the same task in each study?
• A crucial issue with Dr. Fallon’s story is that we can’t even critique such an experimental design because he wasn’t even doing any sort of morality study! So to say that less frontal and temporal activity equals less morality is a gross oversimplification to begin with and there isn’t even any details to support such a claim.
• ,,,comparing a single brain scan from one study to an aggregate of brain scans from an entirely different study isn’t just wrong, it’s unethical.
• This is a classic example of poor scientific journalism and I believe it became so popular due to widespread deficits in scientific literacy. You don’t have to be a neuroscientist to see that there are huge problems with his story. You simply have view this story objectively have a healthy dose of skepticism without quickly deferring to the authority figure.
• ,,,the news articles covering his story do not provide enough details to support his claims. I find it rather troubling that no one is even addressing this

Pseudoscience and psychopathy