Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty
The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty
The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty
Audiobook4 hours

The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty

Written by Simon Baron-Cohen

Narrated by Jonathan Cowley

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

3.5/5

()

About this audiobook

Borderline personality disorder, autism, narcissism, psychosis, Asperger's: All of these syndromes have one thing in common-lack of empathy. In some cases, this absence can be dangerous, but in others it can simply mean a different way of seeing the world.

In The Science of Evil, Simon Baron-Cohen, an award-winning British researcher who has investigated psychology and autism for decades, develops a new brain-based theory of human cruelty. A true psychologist, however, he examines social and environmental factors that can erode empathy, including neglect and abuse.

Based largely on Baron-Cohen's own research, The Science of Evil will change the way we understand and treat human cruelty.
LanguageEnglish
Release dateAug 16, 2011
ISBN9781452674001
The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty

Related to The Science of Evil

Related audiobooks

Psychology For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for The Science of Evil

Rating: 3.7058823529411766 out of 5 stars
3.5/5

34 ratings13 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Before building a house, one should always make sure the ground is strong enough to support it.That is the deep and fundamental difficulty of Simon Baron-Cohen's examination on the relationship between empathy and cruelty. It is well-researched -- it should be, since he did a lot of the research in his own lab! It is easy to read and understand. And the argument is fascinating and provocative: That a failure of empathy makes it easier to be cruel, and hence that those who lack empathy are more likely to do vile things.This, on its face, makes brilliant sense, and it explains such mysteries as why young people (usually but not always men) go out and become jihadis or suicide bombers. Since they don't understand others' pain or viewpoint, they can easily and deliberately set out to harm them.But much of Baron-Cohen's argument is built on sand. For example, he identifies three sorts of people with poor empathy, and hence (by implication) a greater open-ness to vile behavior. These three are psychopaths, borderlines, and narcissists. His identification of these three has some pretty strong firepower behind it: The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM-IV), identifies Antisocial Personality Disorder (a group containing psychopaths), Borderline Personality Disorder, and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.The problem is, these groups are essentially made up. A committee assembled, tried to define "Personality Disorders," and published what they had. The DSM-IV identifies ten such in all. But... they're just guessing. Even at the time the DSM-IV was written, there were dramatic doubts about the validity of the ten personality disorders: "If one can predict anything with any confidence, it is that future classifications [of personality disorders]... will look very different" [W. John Livesley, "Past Achievements and Future Directions," being chapter 25 of Livesley, editor, The DSM-IV Personality Disorders, Guilford Press, 1995, p. 504]. That prediction seems to be coming true; when the American Psychiatric Association voted on the changes proposed for the next revision of the DSM, they voted down the section on personality disorders. Baron-Cohen's three types may exist (they probably do) -- but they may not, and if they do exist, they may not be quite what Baron-Cohen thinks they are.Baron-Cohen's other contention, that people with autism don't have empathy, has also come under pretty strong criticism. (This one strikes home, since I'm autistic myself.) His description of people with Asperger's Syndrome (a syndrome which was eliminated from the latest DSM, by the way) is accurate for some, but no two people with autism are alike, and some do have empathy. And some are much more human and compassionate than those he describes.What this boils down to is that much of Baron-Cohen's science is unproved or incomplete. This badly weakens his argument. What he is left with is a highly logical suggestion that is worthy of further investigation. But the science he brings to it is a very feeble support indeed. It's not a building I'd want to be in should there be even a slight earthquake.

    2 people found this helpful

  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Baron-Cohen begins with a couple of grappling chapters on the concept of evil, calling for the more appropriate and less abstract phrase "empathy erosion". He admits that though we are all capable of being momentarily void of empathy, there are biological, environmental and societal factors that enables certain people to "be more evil" than others.The book argues that a lack of empathy is found in a broad range of personality disorders, ranging from borderline personality to autism, opening the reader's eyes to the positive aspects that a low level of empathy can bring. This appears to contradict his concluding arguments that empathy is what makes us humane, and is what could ultimately resolve the current conflicts occurring across the globe. I found this to be an overly simplified, and idealistic position to say the least, and that is what this book is at its core: an overly optimistic work that lacks the appropriate amount of scientific data and information to back its conclusions up.The writing was, in my opinion, redundant and lacking in quality as a result of the author's intent on being accessible to as many kinds of people as possible. For those who are interested in the subject of evil, the book does not deliver ground-breaking knowledge, and could even be a disappointment. The fact that Baron-Cohen enters the discussion of evil by merely breaking it down into psychological disorders was an ineffective and shallow approach. For example, an integral part of the discussion on "evil" is entirely dismissed: to what extent can the trait be learned by all who are part of a systematized evil? The book lacked examples of experiments which, in my opinion, could have enriched this short read (the bibliography took up a considerable number of pages).There were also far too many instances where I nervously cringed at the book's probing into sex differences in relation to biological traits such as aggression and empathy circuits. The author's frequent one-liners marking the differences between male and female brains was, I found, out of place because such a subject deserves large amounts of research and delicate exploration, which he clearly failed to provide.The book's strength most certainly lies in its clarity and humane, sensitive approach to psychiatry, though there is not much else that makes this book stand unique or memorable.

    2 people found this helpful

  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    The scientific definition for an evil person these days is someone who is lacking in empathy—that is to say, zero empathy. Simon Baron-Cohen describes empathy as a sort of double mindedness that allows us to think about ourselves and others at the same time, to be able to relate to the other’s emotional state and respond appropriately. Neuroscientists are in the process of building a body of research to answer questions about the nature of evil and how it relates to empathy. Nature or nurture? Are evil people born or made?“The key idea is that we all lie somewhere on an empathy spectrum (from high to low). People said to be evil or cruel are simply at one extreme of the empathy spectrum,” writes Baron-Cohen. And, too, nearly everyone experiences periods of no empathy. “Alcohol, fatigue, and depression are just a few examples of states that can temporarily reduce empathy,” he tells us. Whether this state is permanent or temporary, when we are at the low end of the empathy scale, we become capable of dehumanizing other people.Baron-Cohen states that, through various brain studies, researchers have come to a consensus that there are at least ten interconnected brain regions involved in empathy or its lack. There is an area for processing social information that can be used to compare someone else’s viewpoint to your own, an area that operates when judging someone else’s intentions, an area that processes disgust, an area that reacts when we are touched or we observe someone being touched, and on and on. There is even an area that measures our empathy when we observe emotional faces.Both genetics and environment influence empathy, say researchers, with the scales tipped in the direction of genetics. There are some good news, though. There are aspects of empathy that can be learned, and, Baron-Cohen writes, “it is possible to develop a strong moral code even in the absence of empathy.” He also found that “in typical individuals and in people with autism,” oxytocin nasal inhalation spray boosts empathy.The questionnaire used to measure Empathy Quotient (EQ) is in an appendix at the back of the book, just in case you want to check yourself out. And if all you want to know is how to avoid these unpleasant people, there is another appendix that lists their characteristics, with tips on how to spot them.Baron-Cohen is a scientist, Professor of Developmental Psychology at Britain’s Cambridge University, and a world-renown expert on autism. (And, yes, he is related to that other Baron-Cohen; they are first cousins.) The Science of Evil is a fascinating read, but it is thick with scientific information. Anyone familiar with the vocabulary of neuroscience will find it a breeze. For the rest of us, be prepared to look up a fair number of words and reread passages, particularly in the first half of the book.

    1 person found this helpful

  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Interesting for its discussion on the current state of empathy research and the brain, but I found it frustrating in his unexamined assumptions about where "normal" levels of empathy should be defined. I also believe that while there are probably stable levels of empathy in personalities, cultural roles have often proven easily able to over-ride this circuit for otherwise normal people, i.e. the famous class where undergraduates were divided into "prison guards" and "prisoners," and abuses of power by the "guards" quickly spiraled out of control.

    1 person found this helpful

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    This book is like a catch 22 on empathy and I say that after mulling it over for a few weeks. I wasn't keen to read it, because I am not keen on the phrase - "extreme male brain theory of autism".I am even less keen now, and think it is pejorative and should not be used.This book has only male examples of autism, plus an additional general group of female anorexics. It was enough to make me throw the book at the wall, but that would probably be enough to have me defined as bpd - where all subjects were female.That said, I think this is an interesting topic and the discussion makes you question your own thoughts on empathy. If I could draw,I could explain it in a model, which would use his idea (?) of a light bulb, but be considerably more complicated.However, empathy is also the tool and lever of psychopaths, sexual predators and con artists. Its what gets the old lady to hand over her pension book, the young girl to worry about hurting the feelings of her abuser and/or family and possibly befriend the dangerous loner.Empathy feels like a skill that you can develop, although people will start with biological (dis)advantages and also different society expectations.It is a talent - in his words a pot of gold that you carry with you in life, that can also make you more vulnerable to attack. I think the zero positive would be more usefully applied to the individual instance of empathy and the result is produced.

    1 person found this helpful

  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    I find that this book could be a lot shorter than it is, for the fact that it is repetitive and offers a lot of hypothesis and questions rather than answers or true discoveries. It regurgitates what has already been mentioned about narcissism, autism, antisocial disorder, and borderline disorder. I am not an expert on psychological studies but it appeared to only state what has already been stated and suggest that there are links between those disorders and levels of empathy in certain individuals and how that could potentially cause them to be inclined towards evil ways. Not that I think this is a bad link to be studying, but it basically stated that they are not sure if there is a link between the two and was so vague that I felt that this book accomplished nearly nothing. You are left with just as many questions if not more than when you went in and while it may be good in some cases to write something that causes society to question something that is being under-questioned, I read the book to get answers and data on proof or near-proof to actual conclusions.However the book was very interesting for about 5 pages when it discussed the discoveries about empathy that were observed in animals such as mice and monkeys. I felt that a more interesting question isn't how Hitler or certain people in history could be so evil but rather, how they were able to get so many 'normal' or 'common' people to commit such horrendous acts when they were seemingly healthy psychologically. The fact that Hitler may have been messed up psychologically and that that could have contributed to his demise is not ground breaking, earth shattering information that I couldn't have gathered on my own. It was interesting but I don't know that I would recommend it because I feel reading it came quite close to a waste of my time. Especially when you consider how many other books are out there to read and all the books you could be reading instead of this one.

    1 person found this helpful

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    This book was on the bargain table of my bookshop and I started reading it and couldn't put it down, so I had to buy it. Fascinating as it was, it's hard for me to review since I'm in the odd position of being fascinated by psychology while not taking any of it very seriously.I'm just going to comment on one thing in this book. The book seems to assume that empathy is innate in human nature, something everyone is born with (or should be born with), yet it also posits that empathy can be taught. These concepts seem mutually exclusive to me. If empathy can be taught, then it's learnt behaviour. Learnt behaviour can be deliberately ignored. It's not innate. So if we accept that there is such a thing as innate empathy - which the rest of the book seems to imply, to me - then teaching true empathy is impossible. We can only teach the RULES of interaction with others, which is no replacement for genuine empathy. If genuine empathy is lacking, a person can still commit unempathic acts even if they've been taught 'empathy' (i.e. the rules of interaction with others). Innate empathy seems to be prerequisite for any kind of understanding of right and wrong; if a person lacking innate empathy is simply told that some behaviours are right (i.e. empathic) and some are wrong (i.e. unempathic) they still have no existing moral compass to base their behavioural decisions on.There is another reason I see for why teaching empathy might not really be effective. To teach empathy in schools would be to make empathy something that kids might consciously rebel against because they associate it with authority. That is terribly dangerous IMO.In any case this book was extremely thought provoking, and it's given me a whole new way of viewing the human nature.

    1 person found this helpful

  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    The only part that is difficult for the layman to grasp is when the author discusses the different parts of the hypothetical empathy circuit. In the end, one comes away with a picture that is only slightly more enlightened on the neuroscience than before. The clinical studies and psychological stuff makes intuitive sense but doesn't seem as substantial as one might like.

    1 person found this helpful

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Highly interesting theory behind why some people perform acts of cruelty. Simon provides a scientific basis for his theories that is backed by his experience and credentials. I believe that he has developed an excellent explanation for cruel behaviors. He covers a variety of behaviors including psychopaths, narcissists, borderlines (unpredictable and impulsive behavior as well as sudden changes or shifts in mood), and those with Asperger's syndrome. I strongly recommend the book.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Written by the cousin of Borat, Simon Baron-Cohen’s book The Science of Evil does not fulfil what its subtitle promises. In fact, as Milgram and other experiments have shown, all human beings are capable of performing evil acts and the resistance keeping men from doing bad things are terrifyingly small. Baron-Cohen’s book isn’t really about evil at all: Its focus is on three types of persons who are showing little to no empathy: Psychopaths, narcissists and autistic persons. Baron-Cohen makes a normative distinction between the autistic persons and the other two groups. He labels the autistic persons as positive because they often have special gifts of concentration and are not morally aware of their lack of empathy. Their destructive acts are not intended and can be averted by creating fitting support systems for autistic persons.In contrast, destructive acts are part of the driving force of both psychopaths and narcissists. While these two types inflict harm, they often perform services for society. Their lack of empathy makes them masters of creative destruction. Snipers and CEOs score much higher on psychopath tests. Mitt Romney has amassed great wealth for himself and his promoters in executing tasks that humans with minimal empathy could not have enacted. It is thus too facile to simply make a moral judgment. Evil was and will always be with us. It is the duty of society to create checks and boundaries to contain bad human behavior until medicine can cure the lack of empathy.
  • Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
    1/5
    the way for me to empathize as a borderline us way more, than most humans living out there. displeased..
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    The second half of the book was not as good as the first half.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    I was pretty disappointed with this book. It purports to be a look at the scientific reasons for lack of empathy, the author's definition of evil. I appreciated his look at possible genetic origins for lack of empathy, and there was some interesting information in the book, but it completely skipped over situational evil. By that I mean evil illustrated by the Stamford prison study -- where perfectly ordinary people can wind up losing their empathy because of the situation and not because of some inherent genetic trait. Baron-Cohen mentions the prison study in passing, but doesn't give it more than a sentence or two. I don't see how you can have a book about psychology and evil without going into situational empathy loss. From what social psychology has shown, a very large percentage of humanity is capable of situational evil, and to skip over that makes the book seem incomplete. Still, Baron-Cohen expressed some interesting theories about genetics and empathy, so I'm glad I read it. I just wish it wasn't so incomplete.

    3 people found this helpful