How can we explain the participation of many psychologically normal people in premeditated violence, genocides, and massacres? Why did battalions of seemingly ordinary men commit brutal massacres against civilians during World War II? Why was the “architect of the Holocaust,” Adolf Eichmann, evaluated by many psychologists as a “terrifyingly normal” person without any mental abnormalities? And speaking of the Holocaust, it would not have been possible without the participation of tens of thousands of psychologically normal individuals who abandoned their moral principles toward a particular group of people.

There is a hypothesis that explains this as a phenomenon called “selective psychopathy”^[1]. It argues that a psychopathic leader, together with his close associates, who are also psychopaths, can exert a strong influence on the population through manipulation, propaganda, and compulsion. He may label a group of people as enemies and “subhumans” who must be eliminated for the greater good, thereby stimulating selective psychopathy in the population. It is hypothesized that this influence may affect the functioning of people's brains, making them more similar to the brain of a psychopath. It suppresses the activity of brain regions involved in empathy, guilt, impulse control, pain, fear, and moral behavior, thereby removing the inhibition of violence. To confirm or refute this hypothesis, experiments on people of far-right and far-left political views are proposed, assessing their reactions and brain activity to viewing images and videos depicting supporters of their own and opposing (enemy) positions in different situations. So far, no such experiments have been conducted.

We can partially agree with this hypothesis. However, psychiatrist Andrew Lobaczewski estimated that only 6% of the population tend to be easily influenced by psychopathic individuals and join them in their crimes. This figure may vary slightly from society to society, but in any case, it is a small minority of people. While the majority may be disoriented by such influence, they will not actively participate in the crimes of psychopaths^[2].

When it comes to the ability of humans to commit violence directly, numerous studies have demonstrated the importance of mediating factors: genetics, neurophysiology, and psychological state. Individual predispositions always mediate the impact of external influences on human perception and behavior. Certain variants of genes associated with violence inhibition lead to “immunity” to various forms of influence such as social isolation (in animals), childhood abuse, and low socioeconomic status; individuals who carry them do not become more prone to violent behavior and the development of psychopathy in such circumstances^[3][4][5]. And high scores of psychopathic traits explain aggressiveness due to alcoholism, as well as a tendency to indirect aggression, totalitarian attitudes, religious radicalization, and extremism^{[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]}. Finally, psychological trauma may play an important role. There is historical evidence of widespread, abusive child-rearing practices in Germany at the turn of the 20th century. Many of those who were psychologically traumatized in childhood later became Nazi supporters. Some researchers believe that punitive political attitudes, including the favoring of war as an instrument of national policy and capital punishment, are consequences of punitive upbringings that cause individuals to displace their childhood anger onto political issues and outgroups^[15][16][17].

Another consideration concerns individuals who have committed violent acts but seem completely non-psychopathic and healthy. In this matter, it is crucial not to forget that the farther people are from the direct perpetration of violence, the weaker their inhibition of violence will be. It is hard to make a valid argument about human vulnerability to propaganda, citing the examples of some office workers in oppressive structures. But even the case of individuals who were fully aware of what they were doing, observed their victims directly, and even killed them, yet appeared to be completely normal, can be explained by one interesting ability of psychopaths. There are claims that they are not necessarily incapable of empathy. Not only that, but they may be just as capable of it as healthy people. The only difference is that in the norm, empathy is spontaneous and reflective. Psychopaths, on the other hand, can control when and under what circumstances to show it^[18]. It is not hard to imagine that some psychopathic individuals would be able to pretend to be normal in front of others in a fairly believable way while remaining capable of violent acts when they wanted to commit them. It should also be kept in mind that some psychopaths may well be able to fool even skilled psychiatrists (but testing for psychopathy can still be useful, for example, to show voters which politicians have worrisome personality traits)^[19].

Considering all this information, we will draw the following conclusion: the hypothesis of selective psychopathy may be valid to some degree, but not all people are affected by this phenomenon to the same extent. We must also consider the extent to which a particular person has been involved in committing violence and the possibility that a psychopath may successfully pretend to be a perfectly normal and mentally healthy person. Any future experiments aimed at confirming or refuting the hypothesis of selective psychopathy must take all of these issues into account in order not to lead to false conclusions.

▶ Discuss the topic "The hypothesis of selective psychopathy and critical remarks on it"