Thank you for the balanced article on psychopaths [“Inside the Mind of a Psychopath,” by Kent A. Kiehl and Joshua W. Buckholtz]. All too often I hear people with this condition referred to as monsters or with the Dark Ages moniker of being “evil.” I have a good friend who has this problem, and it is heartbreaking to see such an intelligent young man have brushes with the law because he does not seem to have the ability to understand common social codes of ethics.

Let’s hope that in the near future sensationalism will give way to understanding and research and that it will be possible to treat and prevent this condition.
via e-mail

Twenty-five years ago I was working as a psychologist at a Texas state hospital and interviewed a 12-year-old boy. He was nine years old when he shot his best friend to death. He expressed no remorse.

By state law, he would be released on his 19th birthday with his criminal record sealed. With this loophole in mind, I would encourage mental health workers in state hospitals to advocate thorough screening procedures (including the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, Revised) to diagnose psychopaths early on and provide them therapy and medication that will benefit them and protect the public later.
Joe Roberts
Jackson, Miss.

As a high school student, I completely disagree with what was said in the article entitled “The World at Our Fingertips,” by Derek Cabrera and Laura Colosi. When I was in elementary school, I absolutely hated any time that we used physical objects to learn a lesson. In geometry, for example, we would always have to use differently shaped blocks to learn about polygons, and I never had any clue what was going on until the textbooks got cracked open and I could read about it for myself. My worst subjects in school were the ones that teachers tried to make the most engaging through the use of “manipulatives.”

I would have found the article more enjoyable if it had incorporated a few paragraphs about students who don’t see any gains in learning when they use physical objects. As it was, I felt that the article was one-sided and shallow.
via e-mail

How could a scientific lay magazine like yours show a set of equations (in “Smart Jocks,” by Steve Ayan) that are nonsense? Don’t your editors know that your readers are educated? Using that stock photo seems like really sloppy work that reeks of marketing, not substance.
Tom Malzbender
via e-mail

At one point inReading between the Lines” [Illusions], Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and Diane Rogers-Ramachandran state that “the question of whether you actually ‘see’ the train’s movement comes perilously close to being a philosophical one.” I do not know whether they mean to imply that such philosophical questions are bad (at least in this context), but the comment does highlight one thing that is missing from your magazine: the perspective of philosophers working in cognitive science. I am a great fan of the magazine and enjoy all the fascinating articles and blurbs. But cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field, and I think that there are many philosophical questions that ought to be part of your coverage—not avoided as perilous.
Benjamin J. Stenberg
Department of Philosophy
Western Oregon University

Are Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld serious when they infer that Dr. Laura’s and Dr. Phil’s callers and guests have “psychological problems?” Of course, such problems cannot be “changed by simple directives.” But to conclude their column [Facts and Fictions in Mental Health] with that blanket statement is to infer that the two are practicing psychology without a license, as opposed to helping housewives and students (like myself) by utilizing their life experiences and opinions.

I find many faults with this article. One is the criticism leveled at Dr. Laura for not spending enough time with her callers. Obviously she finds it impractical to host only three guests during her three hour show, so she instead chooses to interact with several callers during her allotted broadcast time. In doing so, her millions of listeners are given the chance to hear her personal advice on several real-world situations.

Her trademark “lack of empathy,” though perhaps not as helpful to the individual caller as the authors would like, illustrates problems and advice to listeners who are helped by the back and forth. In my opinion, Dr. Laura’s directness with her callers is probably more helpful to those listeners than if she were indirect and more reassuring.

Dr. Laura also knows her limits and routinely advises callers on air that she cannot help them when they present her with a problem beyond her training and knowledge.
Chris McDaniel
Riverside, Calif.

THE AUTHORS REPLY: McDaniel’s comment implies that people who call in to Dr. Laura’s show do not suffer from psychological problems; however, the main reason for their calls is to seek help for marital and relationship difficulties, child abuse, domestic violence, eating disorders, and the like.

The reader argues that it would be “impractical” for Dr. Laura to spend more time with each caller given that she wants her listeners to hear her advice concerning many different problems. But Dr. Laura has chosen to spend little time with callers and, by doing so, offers strongly worded advice based on minimal information about callers and their problems. As a result, callers and listeners may come away from the show with the false impression that there are simple and easy solutions to their complex life difficulties and may end up feeling guilty or hopeless, or both, if these “solutions” fail. 

McDaniel falls victim to the very trap we cautioned readers against, namely, assuming that advice can only be helpful. As we noted, research suggests that advice given in a very directive way that is low in empathy is unlikely to be helpful and may even be harmful. Without systematic follow-ups of callers, there is no way to know whether Dr. Laura has helped or harmed her listeners.

What a kick to have my book The Twenty-four Hour Mind reviewed in the September/October issue, especially alongside the excellent Charlie Rose brain series. I was not happy, however, to see some errors and misunderstandings in my review.

In the very first sentence, a strong finding that short sleep in humans leads to increased appetite, weight gain and higher rates of obesity is linked to results of an acute study of total sleep deprivation in rats. In that study three weeks of loss of total sleep was followed by rapid, untimely death. Luckily, humans are not rats, and readers will note the statement in the review that “less than six hours of sleep can lead to obesity and even death” mixes species.

Furthermore, the reviewer misunderstands the weight of evidence now supporting two psychological functions of sleep: the consolidation of new learning in long-term memory and mood regulation in dreams. These are no longer “hypotheses” about which sleep researchers disagree. They are both based on many well-designed studies by many different investigators.

I hope readers of this book will not mistake the facts (the results of the studies) with their implications (the discussion of their meaning). This is an important distinction to maintain not only in publications but also in their reviews.
Rosalind Cartwright