What makes a serial killer

[Kevin Conti]

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.

[Sayonara]

I meant you're not getting ansy, not YT.

[MishMish]

Kevin, best I can tell your argument boils down to we're a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental influence. Not particularly shocking news, and nothing that addresses psychopaths specifically and nothing that supports your original position that the genetic predisposition is widespread or prevalent, much less that bit about purported better reproductive success

 

YT (sort of,) how to define empathy seems to be a nuisance. I have seen some define it as the ability to "read" the emotional states of others, and consider psychopaths great at empathy. Others define it more by response. If one can not "read" others well they could not be expected to respond, as in autistics. Seems there's a third element I have seen listed, remember which article but not sure where I put it offhand.

 

The notion that either good or poor empathy, depending on definition, of itself correlates with sociopathy does not seem reasonable to me. Which does not directly address your question about your winning personality, but maybe someone else can flush out whether or not it actually has any bearing?

 

And back to Kevin, a comment on lack of inhibitions. Seems to me if oblivious enough one could be quite uninhibited. I don't see that that of itself would correlate either.

[Kevin Conti]

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.

[MishMish]

Kevin, first must apologize, sort of. You seem rather vague about what you consider the prevalence of these genetic factors to be. My initial impression was that you think it a selective advantage, and you said "many" people would have the trait, then moved to saying it is rare.

 

Basically I just want to say make your mind up, except I would not expect there to be enough solid genetic information at this point for you to be able to. Just a guess, that

 

I do not doubt that they have a different sort of brain. And actually that was more the point of the experiment I mentioned on empathic response. I see no reason offhand they should have chosen to try to beat the test, and took the difference in response to reflect a real difference. But I also only saw it referred to in the context of another article on something quite different, so do not know the details

 

As I say, is not that I question genetic predisposition and environmental interaction, it is just that of itself that doesn't say very much.

 

As for the personality profile being associated, correlate was a poor choice of words on my part, and the same will apply to lack of inhibitions. They are not specific to sociopaths is what I meant

 

As for the last, you have no reason to imply you being new here is a factor for poor reception. Aside from the embedded insult to my intelligence (and of the other posters if generalized) of that comment, I am relatively new here as well. You simply had no basis for that comment whatsoever except idle speculation. And as for you being a student in forensic psychology, that isn't going to carry any weight with me if you can't better articulate your position.

 

Pulling this out:

 

"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."

 

Aside from the minor detail that I'm not sure what "hayness" is, perhaps clarifying what features you consider specifc to serial killers would be helpful. I am also still unclear about where you stand on how the basic personality profile you described is involved. From what you have said I get the impression you think the basic personality profile coupled with "bad environment" is sufficient. I question that. That may not be what meant to say, but is how it comes across to me. A related question, is it possible whatever factors predispose someone to being a serial killer would be distinct, but perhaps if not associated with that personality profile they simply wouldn't be very effective serial killers and so not attract notice

 

Basically, you need to provide a clearer outline of what specific mechanism you think may be in play

[Glider]

YT2095 said in post # :

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?

 

The term 'pathology' applies to both. In a physical pathology (e.g. disease) the effects or symptoms are manifested physically (lesions, elevated temp., dysfunctional organs etc..). In psychopathology the the symptoms are manifested behaviourally (affective disorders, hallucinations, maladaptive behaviours etc..) and are not directly damaging to the physical body (suicide and self-harm notwithstanding).

 

Having said that, I don't believe there is any psychological condition or state that does not have its base in neurological function (or dysfunction), so in a sense, psychopathologies can be said to be physically based, it's just that their most direct effects are not.

[Sayonara]

MishMish said in post # :

My initial impression was that you think it a selective advantage, and you said 'many' people would have the trait, then moved to saying it is rare.

To be fair, 1 in a million is rare but it still allows 6000 examples in the human population, and 6000 serial killers chasing you would certainly seem like "many".

[Kevin Conti]

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?

[YT2095]

Cheerz Glider, you`re a Star

 

Kevin, you`ve done nothing "wrong" as far as I can see. but here all ideas (certainly when stated as "current thinking"), will be subject to questions from us, that`s all

[Kevin Conti]

I C :[]P

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

/\:spam:

|

You know people used to think someone's appearance showed their personality?

[Kevin Conti]

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

[BrainMan]

You know people used to think someone's appearance showed their personality?

 

When you give people "games" such that people have the chance to either cooperate or cheat (gaining an advantage- say in cash- at the expense of others), certain people under certain circumstances will cheat. As it turns out, if you give photographs of all people involved to other participants and ask them to pick out the cheaters, they are able to do so at a rate far above random.

[Skye]

The stocking over their head is a giveaway though.

[Kevin Conti]

BrainMan said in post # :

 

When you give people "games" such that people have the chance to either cooperate or cheat (gaining an advantage- say in cash- at the expense of others), certain people under certain circumstances will cheat. As it turns out, if you give photographs of all people involved to other participants and ask them to pick out the cheaters, they are able to do so at a rate far above random.

 

 

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.

[BrainMan]

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.

 

 

I believe that Cosmides and Tooby are the primary source of this theory, not David Buss. In fact, they have a good deal of information on the topic on thier webpage at the Center for Evolutionary Psychology there at UCSB:

 

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/index.html

[Kevin Conti]

BrainMan said in post # :

 

 

I believe that Cosmides and Tooby are the primary source of this theory, not David Buss. In fact, they have a good deal of information on the topic on thier webpage at the Center for Evolutionary Psychology there at UCSB:

 

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/index.html

 

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

[BrainMan]

I think you are deeply confused Kevin Conti. Your understanding of evolutionary psychology is mediocore at best.

[Kevin Conti]

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.

[BrainMan]

I appologize, I was out of line. I have been in a bad mood as of late...

[Kevin Conti]

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

[x__heavenly__x]

I am true believer of environmental/natural and family effects on a person to commit any crime may it be rape or murder (he had reasons and he wasnt dumb!)

[mike90]

why not a combination of both? Seems to me like some people are born with a genetic disposition towards one kind of behavior or another, but then again everyone is shaped by their environment, it often doesnt seem to get the credit it deserves for sdhaping a persons personality. To relate it in another sense, Ive known many gays/lesbians that said they were attracted to the same sex since early childhood. Ive also known many who were orginally inclined towards the opposite sex, but then were sexually abused and in the wake of that it seemed to change their preferences.

[Psion]

killing one person after another' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Bingo.

[beautyundone]

i didn't read the entire thread, as it was rather long. but here's my two cents:

 

it can be either genetic or a developed behavior. some people are genetically predisposed to mental disabilities such as antisocial personality disorders; whereas others are abused or treated in a certain way that would cause them to be so violent. most of the time, you hear about serial killers that were abused as children, blah blah blah. but there are cases of serial killers who were raised in a happy environment. in the first case, it would likely be a learned behavior, or perhaps a combination of genetics and learned behavior. in the second, it would be genetics.

 

some radical groups use these as excuses for serial killers behaviors, saying it "isn't their fault" because they were either genetically predisposed to being the way that they are or have been mistreated, causing their behavior. regardless, they are still a danger to society and must be locked up for the good of the public.