Kevin Conti

Science is the most objective way to knowledge, but it is not the answer to everything. Yes determinism exists and individuals may committ criminal deviant acts that are the result of causal psychological factors, e.g. depression, love, brain damage, e.g. frontal lobe damage, instincts, e.g. seeing your wife cheating. But on the whole we possess psychological mechanisms that allow us to tell right from wrong, we have moral schemas, and we have the ability to recognise a crime. THerefore, the criminal justice system is legitimated and it serves as a higher order body to act as an aversion system to deter people from criminal acts. Think of determinism as a pressure, in hard science disciplines it is always predictible and the laws of atoms follow it. However, in human beings determinism is less pronounced. It affects us in the form of instincts, psychological feelings/emotions, genetic predispositions, environmental upbringing, social class, social development etc. But crucially it only makes a specific behaviour more likely, it does not always mean that behaviour is guranteed or cannot be overcome. When you are really angry and upset for e.g. your levels of norepinephrine and serotonin may be lowered, but the power of thought and rationalisation can overcome that, it does not give legitimate pretext to act upon it badly.

np. I must goto sleep the now, i am extremely tired.

wtf, why the flame? No, you are the one that is confused. An anti-cheat mechanism could have been theorised as an adaptation before there was any hard research into it. Once you study evolutionary sciences you start to think in its terms.

It is not a unique theory, anyone with knowledge of the process of sexual selection could have easily formulated it.

Indeed, studies of evolutionary sciences in this area show that we have innate mental mechanisms specifically designed to catch out cheats. David Buss is a leadering theorist of the area. The reasons for it are fundamentally to assist us in our battle for paternity and to ensure that we get the appropriate resources in return for our co-operation in social circles.

yes, phrenology, but modern psychiatry is far more sceptical, objective and advanced :}

I C :[]P

All i have done wrong is convey my point somewhat informally and have not expressed it as fluently as one might, particularly as i don't use a set of consistent traits. Moreover, please note that i did not reply and say everyone in society possesses such gene, i only expressed that a lot possess some of the positive traits associated with it. Furthermore, I said it was down to a combination of genetics and environmental development and i explained those factors. So what is wrong with the post?

I disagree and research shows it does correlate. Alcohol increases the activity of GABA (low levels responsible for anxiety)by affecting ion channels and the effects we see subsequently are a lost of anxiety and inhibitions. Does the loss of anxiety and inhibitions not correlate with increased confidence? yes they do. Same principle with psychopaths, that could be a way in which the environment allows them to be more confident and charming (i.e. constantly being unaffected by social pressures allows them to form rapports quicker and enables them to be shaped from their positive successes, and to ignore failures. I am a new member on here and i may be on all the time now and it may appear as if am trying to muscle my way into these forums, so i do expect you to disagree with me. But at the end of the day am studying for my Ph.D in Clinical Psychology and forensic sections of it have been a big part of it so far.

No, i do not think you understand what i am saying. THESE ARE only the positive parts of the problem, these on their own are common amongst normal individuals but it is when they are together with other hayness ones then we begin to build a picture of a serial killer.

My argument has been consistent and logical, it does not need to be strong, maybe it is just a naivety of forensic psychology that is renderring your perception blind on it.

Your argument is weak, and you are skipping off target. Next you will be arguing with me about how bad conditioning doesn't affect you. AM NOT saying that every person who lacks remose will be a psycho, am just giving you an account on how psycho's can be produced, with a combination of genetics and environmental conditioning being responsible. Moreover, it seems to be that psychos have a combination of factors that make them more likely to fit the psychological stereotype. It is NOT my theory, but rather the current academic theory surrounding it. thanks

Indeed, and that is why psychopaths are very good at beating the polygraph. It should be noted that there are many alternative theories on what causes individuals to become socio/psychopaths. Specifically, consider the ability of language and its acquisition. The crucial stage of its attainment of course is between birth to around 5 years old. It is within that time scale that children learn the fundamental rules of grammar and language as a whole, allowing them to be verbally fluent as adults. Individuals who are deprived in that stage of verbal stimulation ultimately lose their ability to learn language properly (e.g. case of Genie.). Language is not the only function that is heavily influenced by childhood development; in fact most other mental attributes are severely affected by neuroplasticity. The ability to feel empathy, love, reason, etc are all inherent but are heavily influenced by the environment in childhood. That is why kids often engage in fantasy play, where they imagine that they are a particular character in a fictional story. It is not because they are bored, rather, it is because it is their brains way of growing the regions of the brain responsible for those functions as childhood is the crucial time. Consequently, in terms of psychopaths it can be argued that they are made partly out of a process of bad conditioning, whereby they are unable to progress normally through the usual developmental stages that children do to. As the ability to feel love and guilt for e.g. is innate but developed progressively from birth it can be said that individuals who are not given the environmental requirements to develop that functions are prone to lose it completely (similar e.g. cases of kids who have had their eyes covered at birth and subsequently lost it function). The same principal could happen with socio/psychopaths and it to an extent might explain why they are the way they are. In terms of them being very charming and socially competent, that perhaps is attributed to the fact that a lack of social inhibitions means that they are able to achieve social fulfillment and take risks that would condition them to be confident. Moreover, a lack of self-esteem of course is often linked to high levels of anxiety and guilt (which they don’t possess). This is just another perspective on the creation of psychos.

You cannot generalise your introspective thoughts/feelings on the rest of society, everyone is different and are genetically inclined to go separate ways in life. And am not speculating that everyone here has the serial killer gene, it is rare, as of course are other genes like the one for huntingtons disease. I did not just suddenly make this up, i specialise in forensic psychology at University and that is what the current evolutionary theory on it says Cheers old boy, btw am still tanned! i have did like 18 beers today with ma irish pals! *edit update* http://www.criminalprofiling.com/article.php?sid=289 << is a website i just found on this exact issue!

Currently, am absolutely hammered as we are having St pat celebrations (yes am a fenian!) but in all honestly pathological killing could had resulted as a consequence of natural selection.

no, but it appears as though many of us may have the trait, but only through a course of maladaptive environmental conditoning are we likely to receive it properly. It may sound bull, but its current forensic theory on it (or one variation)

It should be noted that organised serial killers are very difficult to catch, only now with advanced police methods are they able to be tracked with efficiency. In cave man times, maybe no one knew who the killer was and the killer would had been cautious about it.

Your opinion, end of the day most forensic psychologist would adopt a view similar to mines.

Since the forum is rather quiet with no posts I have decided to post something in order to provoke some insight from you guys What makes a serial killer? Are certain individuals genetically predisposed to have serial killer attributes or are they learned through environmental conditioning? Like everything to do with psychology and indeed general human science, academic theory can only be tested and generalized with to an extent, but certainly there appears to be a two-way interconnected process in terms of what causes someone to be a serial killer. I will give you my psychological view on it; serial killers possess a genetic adaptation that evolved in ancestral times to aid survival. You see, altruism cannot exist as our selfish genes put itself forward before the well-being of others. Of course, you will say in response that altruism can exist as some people are co-operative and relatively generous. However, here is where the problem lies, co-operation and kindness are evolved strategies to aid our selfishness. Specifically, we have learned that sometimes working together reaps more rewards than by working individually. In ancestral times this would have been important in the case of hunting. In addition, studies of reciprocation show that we are subconsciously inclined to give to people who give us. So back to my theory; serial killers generally speaking have similar traits to each other in terms of their modus operandi (behaviour, methods etc), with their signature (motivation) being slightly different. But organized serial killers also have an abundance of “positive” personality traits that can be categorized as coming under the remit of persona such as sociableness, cunningness, charismaticness, intelligence, emotionally aloof and unaffected by criticisms. These effectively are “mating assets” to them so their chances of reproducing and passing on their genes are enhanced significantly. Indeed, this appears to be the case with this stereotypical variation of serial killers as friends are always shocked as they seem so normal and friendly (e.g. Ted Bundy was a ladies man, Harold Shipman was regarded as the best Dr in Manchester by some of his patients). In addition, in ancestral times the traits associated with serial killers would had been useful in aiding survival as murder would have helped gather resources. So if serial killers are predisposed to kill, does that mean everyone with the gene will? No, rather it is a result of maladaptive condoning which exacerbates the problem and ultimately they end up acting on their genetic impulses. I would like to see what you gents think. DO you agree with me, or have I just spouted out a pile of crap!

LOL

yes Our sleep cycles of course are influenced by out evolutionary history and survival needs. It is no surprise that the animals most in danger from predators sleep significantly less than other animals who are less at risk.

I am not farmilar with animal psychology and I cannot elaborate on the procedure in which sharks sleep. But what I will say is that most (if not all?) higher order animals who are physically and mentally developed (in sharks, advanced mating techniques etc, memory) are usually required to have sometime sleeping. The reasons I speculate is similar to why humans sleep. Specifically, to ensure that a degree of physiological restoration and mental relaxation are carried out. However, studying animal sleeping of ones that possess primitive type nervous systems is somewhat difficult to accentuate, particularly as they do not generate the same electroencephalogram patterns of brain activity that psychologists use to record sleep. Almost certainly, however, they do sleep but have difficult mechanisms for it.

They may be an influx of psychology graduates but there is a clear shortage in the number of experts in several key areas, e.g. clinical, neuropathology, forensics etc. So like I said it is also best to specialise in a few areas if you really want to crack the discipline. In terms of working with just a basic degree in the subject, your chances are severely limited as your knowledge is likely just be preliminary fundamental background knowledge. Jobs available therefore are far and few between, particularly of course due to the abundance of psychology graduates.

If you want to progress in psychology my advice to you would be to be different in your approach, than would say your average BA student. Specifically, go further than your recommended books and SPECIALISE in a few areas. In order to make it as a clinical psychologist you have to be unique and be able to innovate, formulate and postulate, not just be able to read and quote. Researching classical psychology texts are good only if you're a beginner but there are numerous drawbacks to them. Namely, they are sometimes based only on the basics of psychology, and there is frequently little scope in them for specialist research. So certainly if you hope to make it big in the field then pick a few areas that you would consider useful. I would advice you to read about psychopathology of all contexts, from the neurological to the psychological end. Additionally, learn about natural selection and the process in which individuals can be genetically inclined to develop some mental problems. In the process, find out about the prognosis for such disorders and read about the potential cures that influence that prognosis. Furthermore, I cannot highlight enough the importance of neuroscience knowledge when studying pathology. In terms of the lack of jobs in psychology I would have to concur, but in the specialist arena (i.e. clinical, forensics) the Western world is lacking. Like your man Glider said, the UK is seriously lacking in clinical psychologists and there is vacancies in abundance here. And no you will not be a psychiatrist's subordinate, unless your just a BA grad with an interest in pathology. If you are a clinical psychologist you will be working with psychiatrists and other experts and you will be responsible both collectively and individually for dealing with particular cases. In such cases, clinical psychologists have as much autonomy as psychiatrists (except they can provide drugs) and expert psychologists are often more skilled in the various psychological causes of problems and the psychological methods used to reverse them. Kev

I absolutely agree as research I have read has very much documented similar results along your line of input. I should add that people who tend to be pessimistic are usually more inclined to be neurotic and as a consequence of that are likely to be stressed and anxiety prone. In practice, physiological research shows those individuals are more likely to suffer from heart problems than individuals who are mentally stable. Or in the occupational level those individuals who work in highly stressful jobs end up experiencing more health problems in those individuals in less stressful occupations. In terms of positive thinking, a recent psychology specialism, i.e. psychoimmunology (power of thought on the immunuse system), has shown that positive thinking can have a monumental positive influence on the state of the immune system. In some cases, individuals have cured themselves, albeit from inconsequential problems, just based on thought power. Positive thinking also in hypnosis may trigger the release of endorphins. Additionally, consider the placebo effect, that highlights the power of self-thought (e.g. i believe this is real) on the physical body. The state of one's physical health, of course, is the main determinant (unless Ur a gangster or something!) of an individuals life span. So yes there is a two way interrelated process there. Kev