Free The Psychopath Whisperer: The Science of Those Without Conscience by Kent A. Phd Kiehl

comprised of 20 items that typify the affective, impulsive, and antisocial symptoms of the condition. Each of the items is scored on a three-point scale. A “0” indicates that the trait does not characterize the individual, a “1” indicates that the trait describes the individual in some areas, and a “2” indicates that the trait is present in all aspects of the individual’s life. Typically, I would interview the individuals before scoring them, but of course Booth and Guiteau are deceased, so we will have to rely on the historical record. Thankfully, there is abundant information available on both men, due to the infamy of their crimes. We have available to us dozens of reports from family, friends, investigative journalists and reporters, autobiographies, historical biographies, and even personal diaries. These collateral sources are sufficient to score the items on the Psychopathy Checklist for both assassins. In scoring Booth and Guiteau, we have to be careful not to let our ratings of psychopathic traits be overly influenced by the assassinations both men carried out. Despite the fact both men committed a horrific crime against the nation, we cannot let a single incident distort our assessment; we must consider the totality of both men’s lives.
    My goal in this chapter is to offer readers a window into how scientists assess psychopathic traits in an individual. Typically, the Psychopathy Checklist is part of the risk assessment of criminal offenders, but the checklist is also being used in other parts of the legal system, including custody disputes, divorce court, and other adversarial processes. The assessment of these traits is not as simple as it might seem, and the results that follow might be surprising. Let’s go through the traits, one by one, and assess John Wilkes Booth and Charles Guiteau in light of what we know.

1. Glibness/Superficial Charm
    One aspect of psychopaths’ behavioral repertoire is that they often speak quickly, volubly, and interrupt the flow of the conversation frequently, in an energized speech that observers can find difficult to follow and process in real time. The listeners are bombarded with so much information that they often leave the conversation not having been able to digest it all. Then, as observers recall the conversation, their minds interpolate, usually in a very positive sense, the information that was presented. The psychopath often comes off as quick witted, even likable, but the listeners’ “gut” feelings detect that there is something not quite right about the individual. It takes practice to sift through psychopathic speak.
    One of my favorite things to do with college psychology undergraduates is to send them to prison to interview psychopathic inmates without letting them read the collateral files first or letting them know the individuals they are interviewing are psychopaths. I’ll observe an interview and let the novice probe and question the subject. Upon completing the interview, I ask the undergraduate what he or she thought of the guy. More often than not I get a response such as “He was so nice, I can’t imagine why he is in prison” or “If that guy was on the outside, I’d get a beer with him.” Then I let them read the inmate’s file. “This can’t be the same guy,” a novice commonly replies. I tell the student, “Go reinterview the inmate now that you have studied the collateral information.” During the reinterview, the novice asks, “Why didn’t you tell me about all that stuff in your file, all the crimes you committed, the rape, the robbery?” The psychopath more often than not replies with something like “Oh, that’s the old me. I wanted to talk about the new me.”
    It’s a valuable lesson for anyone who wants to work with psychopaths. It is not possible to score psychopathic traits based on an interview alone. You need collateral information if you want to score individuals with these traits.
    Do you think that