First Impression Post #3 (Week 4):

For this week’s first impression post, I chose to discuss the TED talk with Jim Fallon. “Exploring the mind of a killer” was the title of this particular episode. I was drawn to this topic because I watched numerous television shows involving psychopathic killers in the past. I was interested in knowing some background information on why these murderers commit severe crimes.

“Exploring the mind of a killer” was given by Jim Fallon, who was a neuroscientist and professor of the University of California. Fallon was given the opportunity to discover how one became a psychopathic killer by looking at their brains. He examined many brains, normal and those of previous killers, to conclude his findings. From his data, he searched for reasons in the brain that caused the human to become a murderer. He saw how the damaged brain and the environment together impacted the human. He concluded all killers had damage to the orbital cortex; however, the specific timing of the damage resulted in a unique and distinct psychopathic killer. Fallon also talked about the major violence gene, and how it was sex linked on the X chromosome. This meant more males were expected to be killers than women. Lastly, Jim Fallon talked about his previous history. His family, on his father’s side, had numerous psychopathic killers including Lizzie Borden. He described how he viewed the brains of his family members, and they were now waiting to see who the next psychopathic killer would be in their family line.

The most interesting thing I learned from the talk was the major violence gene (MAO-A gene) explained why the people became psychopathic killers. I was further intrigued the MAO-A gene was sex linked and only appeared on the X chromosome. This meant the mothers carried the gene, so men were more likely to become murderers compared to women. I had previously wondered why television shows usually depicted men as psychopathic killers, but I had learned the reason for this after watching the TED talk.

Jim Fallon was an overall reliable presenter on the information he presented in the TED talk. I believed he was trustworthy because he was a neuroscientist and professor at the University of California. He had over thirty five years of background, studying the behavior of genes and circuit analysis in the brain. Since he was a presenter on the TED talk, this also showed the importance and high standard of knowledge he needed to have prior to the show. Even though he was on TED talk, there were some things that stuck out to make him seem unreliable. He did not explain all the aspects and details of the experiment, which would lead to questioning whether it was a true experiment or not. I was not able to see whether or not the experiment included random assignment, the age differences between the brains, or whether the data was generalized to the entire population. Jim Fallon, however, described the experiment was blinded, and he did not know which brains were from the psychopathic killers.

Based on the information presented, I would conduct a research experiment to see if the damaged brain in the orbital cortex could be reversed. Can a method of research be implemented in a child who has damage to the orbital cortex to prevent him or her from becoming a psychopathic killer? The independent variable would be the use of the research methods to reverse the orbital damage. The control group would not receive the treatment, while the experimental group would receive it. The dependent variable would see if the damage to the orbital cortex was corrected by the ones who received the treatment. The random selection of the population would include all genders, age groups, and different cultures. Random assignment would allow the participants to belong to certain groups of the experiment. Also, the ones who received the placebo and the treatment would be randomly assigned. This experiment would allow for casual claims because it was a true experiment. Lastly, it would be generalizable to the entire population because it included all cultures and had random selection. This experiment would be trustworthy because it answered the five critical questions of research. There would be some problems with the experiment because it would be potential for it to be unethical by the Institutional Review Board. Some children would not receive a method to prevent them from becoming a psychopathic killer, which would be considered harmful and inhumane.

Overall, “Explaining the mind of a killer” was extremely interesting and gave me an insight on how damage, a severe event, and the X chromosome all had a part in creating a psychopathic killer.