What makes a serial killer

[Kevin Conti]

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!

[Crash]

TLDR but ill go with the "crap" option, i think its nurture not nature that brings on this sort of behaviour

[Kevin Conti]

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

[Crash]

each to their own

[Skye]

I'd really like it if you actually start with the genetic mechanism, at least an outline of how it could work, rather than saying, 'here's a trait, it has some gene behind it, somehow, because I've an olutionary reasoning for it'. Whilst some things in human sciences are hard to gather experimental data on, genetics ain't one of them.

[Sayonara]

Anthropological evidence shows that most facets of human evolution relied on - or were in some way directed by - the unique societal structure that set our ancestors apart from other animals, and by the constant positive interactions within small communities.

 

This proto-serial killer instinct would be as contrary to those elements of pre-society as the serial killer element is today. Not only does it serve to further the individual and not the group (for humans, this is mainly a disadvantage), but it also makes the individual concerned "high risk" as they're much more likely to be beaten to death with sticks than the average caveman.

 

The "positive characteristics" you mentioned might help offset this to a degree, but probably not so much so that they could actively further genetic proliferation.

 

I'm not sure where I stand on this :scratch:

[Radical Edward]

killing one person after another, surely?

 

black humour aside, I would suspect that it is something derived from the individual act of killing, perhaps some kind of satisfaction in ridding the world of someone they do not like, or sexual gratification, or perhaps even some twisted sense of "doing the right thing" as I would suspect in the case of Harold Shipman.

 

As with all things to do with the human mind though, It will be a mixture of nature and nurture.

[Kevin Conti]

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.

[Sayonara]

If you keep bashing in people's heads with rocks, you're going to be seen eventually.

 

Or the old classic... "Another death? Did anyone see what happened? Oh, Gashloog, you were the last person to see him alive... again."

[YT2095]

Gimme a box of Corn Flakes and a Really sharp Axe, I`de be pleased to demonstate

 

seriously though, the original question in the post is like saying how long is a peice of string, I don`t think that any particular 2 killers ever have the same reasons or triggers, the closest you`ll get to similar motivations would be with "copycat" types, they all copy known serial killers and so at least share a greater likelyhood of similar motivation

 

[Skye]

I just don't see the selective pressure on something occurs in say a hundred thousand people resulting in such a complex behaviour. Besides, it's not as though serial killers are known for having large families, at least not after they're done.

[Kevin Conti]

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)

[YT2095]

Kevin Conti said in post # :

but it appears as though many of us may have the trait,

 

do really think so?

I don`t think so, at least not as far as "Many" of us having it, I think a FEW might, then the rest of what you said maybe true, but not MANY of us

[Kevin Conti]

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.

[YT2095]

cool! Green Beer

what`s a "fenian"?

how do you factor the vast majority of us that just want a quiet peacfull life with no upset? I include myself to an extent amongst these people, sure I would fight for it and yes I would kill if I absolutely had to and was left no other option that was viable (and I`m a Man of many options! )

and yes there are types of people that I`de like to be gotten rid of, I can`t envisage a scenario at all whereby I`de feel in the slightest bit comfortable as a "serial killer" a one time assasin maybe, or heat of the moment murderer, not a serial killer though???

[Kevin Conti]

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!

[Sayonara]

YT2095 said in post # :

seriously though, the original question in the post is like saying how long is a peice of string, I don`t think that any particular 2 killers ever have the same reasons or triggers, the closest you`ll get to similar motivations would be with "copycat" types, they all copy known serial killers and so at least share a greater likelyhood of similar motivation

While this is true, he is talking about pathological killers, so to a certain extent the root causes don't vary much.

[MishMish]

Recently saw posted on some other board an article about some questionnaire for detecting the "sociopaths" among job applicants. This was a different one from the more general MMPI that the gov't uses, and was portrayed as being for private companies

 

I did not save it and a quick google did not find it for me

 

At any rate, it seems possible to me the basic associated personality profile you described could be more widespread and manifest in less extreme manipulative or destructive ways with only a further subset then having some additional genetic/environmental factors

 

I saw reference to one experiment comparing empathic response measured by galvanic skin response between "psychopathic" and normal murderers (and I don't know the technical definitions of sociopath or psychopath by the way.) Normal murderers had a normal response, while the psychopaths did not (the same article referenced another experiment on autistics which showed they had normal rsponse as well.) Both single studies, but intriguing none-the-less. And if the results are upheld might be interesting to see what the response of non-murderous sociopaths might be

[YT2095]

doesn`t "pathology" or "pathalogical" involve the body as opposed to the mind?

couldn`t a "pathological" disorder be an almost infinate number of things, and bit like saying "there`s something wrong with me, guess what it is"

so how long IS a peice of string?

 

 

and btw, Kev, nice post edit, I see you`ve taken the "YT" bit out of it, just as well as I was about to pull you up about that

[Kevin Conti]

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.

[YT2095]

but surely that could describe any number of "normal" or at least functional human beings that are NOT killers?

 

"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"

 

I to some extent fit this description, and yet I`m perfectly stable, perhaps more so than my associatates as they come to me for help/advice/stability. ok so I fall down on the guilt bit, I Do feel guilt if I`ve done or Think I`ve done something wrong.

and yes I can use myself as an example by virtue of the fact that I`m quite average, and so to say that most people are this way also, would not be a dire mistake

[Kevin Conti]

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

[YT2095]

don`t get ansy with me or I`ll eat your liver with fava beans! and smile while I do it )) *slurp*

 

as of yet I`ve not heard a "strong" argument from YOU yet other than repeating some "Theory" that may or may not be true.

grantened, I am indeed playing Devils Advocate here with you, in the hope of gleening something of substance, nothing personal at all, just scrutiny seeking substanciation

 

You`re welcome

[Kevin Conti]

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.

[Sayonara]

He's not getting ansy, he's rightly pointing out that the following is a false positive and does not falsify the hypothesis:

 

YT2095 said in post # :

but surely that could describe any number of "normal" or at least functional human beings that are NOT killers?

"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"