I did get to see the video's about the parents group https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFlaQmHGyw
They also have a Facebook support group, but I would never recommend someone sharing these very personal details about your child on a public platform like FB. There really is no privacy. I've learned that even sharing these details privately with a friend is usually misunderstood and judged based on the fact that most people really do not understand what a psychopath is.

I'm so glad it's being talked about on mainstream media. Any coverage of this is good. Having said that, I know some have concerns about Dr. Keil misleading parents stating that 80% of the kids grow out of it. Knowing now what a psychopath kid is and knowing the medical documentation on it, that is probably unlikely.
The doctor also uses the term brain disorder rather than the textbook definition of a psychopath Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD). I don't claim to be a doctor or understand the difference completely, but I think ASPD is something that just is with your brain functions and cannot be changed. A brain disorder is caused by a variation or mutation in a gene or is inherited. In that sense BD confirms Dianne and my suspicions that a psychopath (usually) is not made but born, but this definition does not conform to DSM-IV (textbook) definition for psychopath/ASPD.

I do see and read that a psychopath/ASPD can't really get rid of it completely, but perhaps he is saying that most learn to manage it to the point they can appear normal in most circumstances. Also there are degrees of the condition, which will make it more or less manageable, and the likely existence of co-morbid conditions that can complicate it and make it more dangerous.

My son's condition is very serious, but to someone just casually observing him for a day may not notice anything out of the ordinary. I think my son would be in jail if it wasn't for him being in institutions and our County having lax policies on juvenile crime. Will he one day have a developed enough mental capacity and chemical stability to keep out of trouble, and out of institutions? Maybe. Will he ever be completely free of having outbursts, aggression, and threats? I don't believe so. Also we are totally dependent on med management. If he is off meds or needs adjusted, he goes out of control, which has just happened again in the institution he is in. Perhaps when he is fully grown, his medications may not need adjusted, but they are adjusted based on his behaviors, which are not predictable. So much of the outcome is dependent on these factors that no one has control over, full understanding of, or ability to forcast.

Hi, I was taken back by the talk about being a brain disorder. I have never heard that and I do consult with experts and have never heard it referred to anything but a Personality Disorder according to the DSMV. Also I was confused about his work with identifying it in the brain. I know there is some work going on in this area but I just did a recent search and came up empty. I share your thoughts about it is great to get some information in the public arena but not sure that any news is good news.

For example, if Keihl said, according to this reasearch, blah blah I would have felt like I learned something new. To me, it sounded like speculation and possibly false hope. It is too bad that the APA and the PCLR can't get together and help clear this up for us.

I think we have to go by observations at this point which is sad. I also think he said it all begins with Conduct Disorder and my understanding is the first step on the diagnosis is Oppositional Defiant Disorder before Conduct Disorder. I have asked a couple of psychiatrists and they both said the same thing about how the diagnosis progresses. Maybe I am nitpicking here but it stood out to me.

I listened to it a few times because the figure of 80% of kids growing out of this kind of diagnosis caught my attention. Like I said before if he had stated some study other than what appears to be his views I would feel differently. I clearly do not have his degrees but even I know better than to cite information without any sources.

The situation you are in is exactly what I have heard for many years now. Few outside of the family are usually targeted and even within the family circle they can isolate victims to create the image of everything being okay. It takes work and observations to dig deeper like you have done. I feel like this new information is very misleading and full of false hope. I would like to challenge anyone that claims it is the fault of the parents. How did the rest of the children in the family end up just fine. It is time to stop bashing the parents and also time to make sure what we are getting from these experts is the correct information. I would encourage others to do a search for Dr. Kent Kiehl and share your views. I always want to be open to new research so perhaps these few comments he made have given me a bias against his work and am very open to hearing your views. I agree that modifying behavior will lessen the total impact down the road but it will never go away according to the experts that I have heard on the subject.

We never hear about these shooter kids getting a diagnosis. There are tools out there to diagnose or at least give us some idea. If we can't even figure out what these killer kids are but have to guess at it what about all the parents out there like yourself who are ignored and not understood?

I agree about Facebook we are no longer publishing the podcast there. There have been times that people have messaged me from there and I don't want people to not be safe. I am closing down the small account I used there and I have nothing to hide so user beware if sensitive information is being discussed there. The main issue I have is that Facebook only apologized when they got caught and then continued on until caught again. It only took 300K people to fill in that survery to capture over 85 million peoples information. I have all the links about what is going on with Facebook that I copied during the latest breach which they hid as long as they could. I know if I had a psychopath in my personal life I would consider Facebook a high risk place to be.

I think his work (Kiehl) is based on the criminal types which makes sense because his "studies" are with those in youth custody.

I found it confusing to listen to so will welcome feedback. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtaF4MNvyUc The conversation drifts into another one so not sure what it is all about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAEYwgDre3g this video shows his mobile brain scan in action.

I am not sure if this is relevant but it is a new study about child psychopaths. I can't figure out how to access the file

Psychopathy in childhood: Why should we care about grandiose–manipulative and daring–impulsive traits?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/...9D209BFB40CF41B]

I watched the videos linked. I don't really find too much disturbing about Dr. Keil. As mentioned, I know his terminology of brain disorder is not accurate according to the DSM-V, and I'm not sure the rest of the medical field affirms that psychopaths can be detected in a brain scan consistently. However, what I do like is that he is dispelling the myth and pop-psychology notion that psychopaths are result of bad environments. The reality is they have bad genes and have a genetic problem. There really is nothing a parent or environment can do to change someone's personality and that is the message that our culture has a hard time accepting. Also, there really isn't anything you can treat these people with that will suddenly get their brains working correctly enough to feel empathy, emotion, or have a conscience.

Some comments on the commentary:
1) I thought it was laughable that they were analyzing Dexter and his level of psychopathy. This is a fictional character that is not a true psychopath, but Hollywood's portrayal of one. Irrelevant.
2) I'm not familiar with scale 1-40 of psychopaths. I think this is Hare's scale, is that correct?
3) I thought it was interesting that they rated presidents on the psychopath scale and figures like Clinton scored high and Carter scored low. I tend to believe that. Really successful psychopaths are great at spinning a situation to get out of trouble, manipulating others to get what they want, making heartless decisions to further an agenda.
4) I liked the fact that he brought out how their behaviors can be modified through positive re-enforcement. I saw that in another article, and I see that in my son who while in an institution, has a lot of motivational programs to progress through achievement levels to get privileges, etc. I do agree that he does best in those environments, and he really needs that highly structured easily achievable reward system. It backfires though when he slips up, doesn't receive a reward and then gets upset. Also, he has tendency to begin not to care about rewards, for the sake of rewards, it has to be something he really wants.

Thanks for your thoughts. I may be missing something.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with his comments about the Clintons etc. The rest of us can clearly sit around and speculate but typically a researcher doesn't use movies or public figures and offer a diagnosis without any contact or testing of the individual. I am not sure about this idea of saying this public figure is a psychopath or not is appropriate for any actual researcher to say. I can observe that typically Ponzi schemes, cults etc. are typically run by psychopaths. I am only speculating based on my observations. I can see that many people in power clearly must not have a conscience in order to do what they are doing.

The Hare checklist is based on criteria of 20 items, I could be using outdated information but that is my understanding. I will ask a researcher that I communicate with about this figure.

I do agree that the home environment doesn't dictate is a person is a psychopath or not. The best of homes or the worst of homes. I see the difference in the more educated the less likely they will get under the eye of the law and also perhaps the parents with more financial means can bail the kid out quicker than those with less financial resources. That said it is NOT always the case and too much of a generalization. We understand the criminal ones better because they have been caught. There really isn't a blanket way to look at this, lots of grey areas.

Most experts agree it is the lack of conscience and it is my understanding that either a person has one or doesn't. Clearly, behavior modification can give the appearance of a conscious and help to model behavior but without a conscience, a person will never grow one. I have read about the reward system in working with young psychopaths. I agree with you, it can work and like you said it can also not work all the time. Everyone has to work with what they think will work the best.

From what I understand President Clinton and Carter were evaluated based on this assessment. Not sure if they volunteered to take it or if others entered in data about the person. Obviously, this is subjective even if the actual person filled it out. I don't know any public figure who would admit to manipulating, lies, and being ruthless. From what I observed, psychopaths refuse to see themselves as anything other than a super star, so how do you get an honest assessment, except to question those who know the person best? From your interviews, do you agree with that statement, or were your psychopaths more self-aware?

At any rate, you are right, just throwing around names and statistics without any references to how these were measured is not very honest or scholarly.

Assessing Dexter may be an amusing assignment in a college psychology class, but I can guarantee you that the Dexter character is a dramatization to the point that it does not accurately portray a psychopath consistently. I have seen Hollywood continually try to empathize with psychopaths to the point they just don't get it - These are not damaged people, they are hopelessly and genetically deranged people. There isn't a good side to these people any more than there is a good side to a snake. They just are what they are and do what they do, and they have such a lack of moral compass, they will not choose victims who deserve to be victims. They choose victims just because they can and they are cowards, so they will usually choose easy targets.

I came away from interviewing them that they are more self-aware than I ever would have guessed. One of them said to me that if I think they are anything but proud of what they are then I wasn't listening. Paraphrasing here. Now there are forums etc. run by and dedicated to being a psychopath.

I am not familiar with any study about Clinton or Carter. It is one thing or us to engage in "kitchen table talk" and speculate amongst ourselves. It is another thing for a "professional" to make claims without even an interview. It isn't common. I did hear that Fallon guy make a parlor game out of diagnosing famous people. He claims he is one and by his words flat affect etc. I can't argue that he is probably correct in self-identifying himself. Other than that it is unusual behavior and should cause lots of red flags to wave.

I think the ones I interviewed knew there was something about themselves that got them started looking for answers. From what they said they decided that telling the truth was important to get an accurate diagnosis. My guess is a lot of them know who they are but are very unlikely to ever submit to an evaluation.

Even when we get them in the legal system there doesn't seem to be much effort put into a diagnosis. When was the last time you heard of one of these kid shooters getting an evaluation? Jodi Arias always comes to mind, instead of hiring an expert like Dr. Gacono they hired a therapist with no training in evaluating psychopaths. She got diagnosed as being a Borderline. I don’t know how that could happen, she is clearly a psychopath from all appearances. Possibly a comingled thing but not likely so really psychopath would have made more sense as the primary diagnosis. I get irritated when I see them all get lumped together. Borderlines do have a conscience. My mother was a borderline so I am not just making wild guesses here. They may be in the same Personality Disorder Cluster but not even close to what a psychopath is.

Most of them will never get a diagnosis even if they know who they are. They have too much to risk by being exposed. That is why I think talking about characteristics to watch for is the best approach I can think of to help people make informed decisions.

I think deep down they are cowards. If you watch a true crime show, they are all full of themselves and think they are too smart to get caught. The detectives etc. all comment about their lack of emotion and the crocodile tears. They are so afraid of death for themselves they will usually take a plea deal to keep themselves off death row. Watch them during the sentencing they cry like babies. They are crying for themselves, never the victims. That is why their strategy of always being the biggest victim in the room according to them works. If they weren’t such weak cowards their actions would show otherwise. Why the fear of death row when they get caught killing a bunch of innocent people. Cowards are the word that comes to mind for me.

Hollywood rarely gets it right because of their understanding of why and how these people operate is missing from the equation. Do I really believe Dexter is such a good guy trying to get rid of the bad ones? They are all the same.

Somedays I wake up so depressed it is hard to function. I wish I could say I have seen a big change in the last 20 years but actually the opposite.

Why should they change, first of all they can't but society rewards them. I know of a full-on psychopath who is a hospital executive. Do you think he has had trouble finding work? No, they do seek them out to protect the bottom line and they will do things that no caring person could ever dream up or do.

I am glad that I didn't know 20 years ago that so little progress would be made. I would probably have never tried to make a difference because I really can't see much progress.

Progress will ultimately be at the cultural level. Right now there is such a predominate mentality in our culture and even in our higher education that bad people are made and not born. Changing that cultural perspective is an uphill battle and can really only be done one story at a time. I know that article you sent from Australia was far more on track than any articles you see here. That is because they are looking at it through a different cultural lens. You are getting the word out, and opening up the conversation, that is the way to begin to get people thinking differently.

As tragedies happen and people ask why is the only way they can come to face reality. Unfortunately, media gets so caught up in the gun debate, they aren't even asking the right questions.

As an indicator of where things are. A man on a flight recently helped out a woman who had two children having episodes. The video went viral, why because someone did something nice for another human being. The media have lost their way a long time ago. It is sad because even when caught lying they still keep their big paychecks and jobs.

I think the only way we are going to survive is to keep talking and supporting each other. I can't see any other way. Victims of psychopaths are very misunderstood and shamed for things that are beyond their control. Someday when I have the energy I will tell you the story of the "successful" psychopath who runs hospitals. Question everything. It all is about money. These people who cross many lines are very successful in terms of book sales and appearances = money. Spreading false information is a path to success but at what cost to the rest of us. We need more information not more bad information.