# Serial killers



## Obligatoryusername91 (Apr 5, 2015)

What turns a person into a serial killer? I often hear about them being like some odd phenomenon in human neural development, that is, an example of many things going wrong at the same time in the development of a person from birth to adulthood. These are a mix of genetic and environmental factors, that combine in such and such a way so as to create the "perfect storm", that is, the birth of a serial killer. What would you imagine it would take to push someone over that edge?


----------



## desert (Mar 29, 2015)

Serial killers or better known as psychopaths are people who have traits like glibness and superficial charm, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, cunning/manipulative, lack of remorse, emotional shallowness, callousness and lack of empathy, unwillingness to accept responsibility for actions, a tendency to boredom. They have these traits because not all of the electrical waves in their brain are working right, its like their fear and empathy are shut off making them different from the majority of people. here's a link that might help 3 Things Psychopaths Can Teach You About Being a Happier Person - TIME


----------



## Obligatoryusername91 (Apr 5, 2015)

@desert I'm not sure ALL serial killers are Psychopaths. I know Jeffrey Dahmer was Borderline or something, and I saw material stating that Ted Bundy was more Bipolar than anything. Schizotypal symptoms can also lead to the "deluded visionary" type of mission based serial killer.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I believe the root cause is inherently sexual. They can't have normal intimacy, even Dahmer had gay sex slaves and Wuornos killed men, and Knorr killed her two teenaged daughters out of sexual jealousy. All the way back to Jack the Ripper and prostitutes. It would I guess be linked to a pathological inability to bond and enormous sexual entitlement. That's why they sometimes keep trophies of body parts.


----------



## Petrahygen (Nov 22, 2012)

I've read that most serial killers had a troublesome childhood. I do believe most serial killings may be related to unreleased/unexpressed anger at the very core. It's a bit hard to explain, though.


----------



## Ik3 (Mar 22, 2015)

I read this study about an adopted child who was raised in a very loving/stable home, but turned into a violent criminal murderer. 

While he was in prison, his cell-mate noticed that he looked almost identical, albeit younger, than a man he knew from a prison in another state. The Prison psychologist did some digging and found out the other man was his father. After interviewing the father, the two men had led nearly identical lives. 

Both began committing crimes at the same age, they had the same interests, and were serving life for murder. What is even stranger, is that when the psychologist dug even deeper, the grandfather of these two men had a life that mirrored the other two! A violent, criminal murderer with similar tastes, interests, and his life unfolded on the same time frame as his son and grandson. 

None of these men had ever met each other. 

Clearly a strong biological link here that totally overwhelmed the Nurture factor in Nature Vs Nurture, in these men's case.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

I would suggest not to equal serial killers to psychopaths because they are not synonyms.

Yeah, it usually seems to come with a sexual undertone. Oppression, sexual humiliation...

Ted buddy talked about boredom too. He seems like someone who almost just let go.

Interestingly, serial killers more often than not turn out have a high IQ.


----------



## Twitchie (Apr 2, 2015)

Shameless Nation said:


> I would suggest not to equal serial killers to psychopaths because they are not synonyms.
> 
> Yeah, it usually seems to come with a sexual undertone. Oppression, sexual humiliation...
> 
> ...


Serial killer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Studies have suggested that *serial killers generally have an average or low-average IQ*, although they are often described, and perceived, as possessing IQs in the above-average range.[7][14][21] A sample of 174 IQs of *serial killers had a median IQ of 93*; only serial killers who used bombs had an average IQ above the population mean.[22]

Many have been abused, bullied, bed wetters, pyro's, menial employment. But the serial killer with a high IQ is more pop culture than reality.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

it all depends on if they get a rise from the killing, pleasure and the like, or if it's for some other agenda like in the case of the unabomber. Would you count contract killers? There's a bit of a mystique blended in to some convicted serial killers, and fabrications as well.. I honestly don't think they're really that interesting.


----------



## Obligatoryusername91 (Apr 5, 2015)

@Thalassa I once read about the stabbing of a victim being like sexual intercourse, entering them for release, just in a different way. I think it can in some cases be linked to sexual issues.


----------



## Obligatoryusername91 (Apr 5, 2015)

@Razorgirl Same. I do sometimes think about what happens to cause an overwhelming need to murder though. It's because I find humans as a whole interesting, that I think about what individual people do with their lives. Contract killer, I probably wouldn't count. I'd say that there needs to be an autonomous compulsion, with a pattern. A contract killer kills who they kill for money, they kill who they're told to kill.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Shameless Nation said:


> I would suggest not to equal serial killers to psychopaths because they are not synonyms.


 Exactly: the general population is 4% psychopaths to 96% non-psychopaths, whereas the serial killer population is about 85% psychopaths to 15% non-psychopaths.

Also, considering the sheer number of people who aren't serial killers, the vast majority of psychopaths wouldn't be serial killers either.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Twitchie said:


> Serial killer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Studies have suggested that *serial killers generally have an average or low-average IQ*, although they are often described, and perceived, as possessing IQs in the above-average range.[7][14][21] A sample of 174 IQs of *serial killers had a median IQ of 93*; only serial killers who used bombs had an average IQ above the population mean.[22]
> 
> Many have been abused, bullied, bed wetters, pyro's, menial employment. But the serial killer with a high IQ is more pop culture than reality.


Yes. I missed it myself. Psychopaths, psychopaths I was talking about.

EDIT: Scratch that. I really should re-check my sources before typing general statements. *walk of shame* 
But it does suggest that psychopaths with higher iq's are more prone to crimes of a larger scale and severity.

http://www.crimetimes.org/06b/w06bp7.htm


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

Obligatoryusername91 said:


> What turns a person into a serial killer? I often hear about them being like some odd phenomenon in human neural development, that is, an example of many things going wrong at the same time in the development of a person from birth to adulthood. These are a mix of genetic and environmental factors, that combine in such and such a way so as to create the "perfect storm", that is, the birth of a serial killer. What would you imagine it would take to push someone over that edge?


A troubled upbringing. The effect mental trauma through bullying and such can have is immense. It can make you hate the world, which would make it a lot easier to go on a killing spree.


----------



## WindowLicker (Aug 3, 2010)

You might enjoy the show Criminal Minds. Its about the BAU (behavioral analysis unit) that hunts serial killers by analyzing their killing patterns, victomology, and what type of weapons they use. In one episode they go in depth of the neorological state and how their brains have a deformed frontal cortex, and unproportional brain hemispheres. 

As far as why they kill, ask yourself, why does a hunter kill? For sport, or are they merely projecting their domance over what they believe is an inferior species?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Ik3 said:


> I read this study about an adopted child who was raised in a very loving/stable home, but turned into a violent criminal murderer.
> 
> While he was in prison, his cell-mate noticed that he looked almost identical, albeit younger, than a man he knew from a prison in another state. The Prison psychologist did some digging and found out the other man was his father. After interviewing the father, the two men had led nearly identical lives.
> 
> ...


I definitely think it's both nature and nurture. It has to be partly nurture, though, since the serial killer rose with industrial capitalism, and the spree shooter rose in the digital age. ..and typically these perps are white (if not white, Asian, never like Mexican or black) and male and middle class. There are female outliers, but there's definitely some sort of pattern here.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Shameless Nation said:


> I would suggest not to equal serial killers to psychopaths because they are not synonyms.
> 
> Yeah, it usually seems to come with a sexual undertone. Oppression, sexual humiliation...
> 
> ...


There's some sort of sexual link in nearly every case, ranging from abduction and rape of women, to making gay male sex zombies, to crafting a woman suit...Bundy was troubled from childhood, surrounding his aunt or sister with knives while she slept, then later in high school he was a peeping tom, and as an adult he carefully avoided killing women he knew personally...including the fiancee who jilted him who he later retrieved just so he could have the pleasure of dumping her. Bundys "boredom" was likely the intense emptiness of a sociopath, not just regular boredom, as he was in law school for fucks sake, what he meant by boredom is that he wanted animal excitement. ..he was absolutely VILE, his crimes against women are notorious in the extremes of his brutal anger, his rage, the level of violence. ..whomever said he was "more bipolar than anything" needs to read quite a bit more. He may have had bipolar comorbidity, but that was not exclusively his problem.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

WindowLicker said:


> You might enjoy the show Criminal Minds. Its about the BAU (behavioral analysis unit) that hunts serial killers by analyzing their killing patterns, victomology, and what type of weapons they use. In one episode they go in depth of the neorological state and how their brains have a deformed frontal cortex, and unproportional brain hemispheres.
> 
> As far as why they kill, ask yourself, why does a hunter kill? For sport, or are they merely projecting their domance over what they believe is an inferior species?


The deformed frontal cortex is very significant, which probably explains that apparent inability to deeply bond with other humans in a "normal" sexual or intimate way.

Also excellent point about hunting. I definitely thought about that with Bundy at least originally being a peeper. He was learning to stalk his prey.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Razorgirl said:


> it all depends on if they get a rise from the killing, pleasure and the like, or if it's for some other agenda like in the case of the unabomber. Would you count contract killers? There's a bit of a mystique blended in to some convicted serial killers, and fabrications as well.. I honestly don't think they're really that interesting.


Yes I think worship of them is wrong, the serial killer as celebrity, like they're geniuses or something. They usually aren't. What they do is different, it's interesting. It's PRIMITIVE. I think some of us are more interested in our animal past more than others, which is why some of us like horror movies, we just can't believe the deathless lie...in other cultures, people die every day and there are actually adults in the United States who have never seen a dead body.

There is a level of admiration though I do have for the crafty ones. The ones who have an ongoing apparent skill to hunt and kill and collect humans. Like these people are playing the most dangerous game. Certain ones, like the Zodiac, were sharper than others. Then you have your kind of sloppy ones who are just interesting in their depravity. Theresa Knorr is the wicked queen in the fairy tale. Just like omg, people still do these things, it's not "behind us."

I have a much deeper contempt for spree killers. No talent losers. Amateurs...but seriously, they anger me in their straight forward selfish stupidity. No moral shame, no intellectual reason. Just spraying bullets.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Thalassa said:


> I believe the root cause is inherently sexual. They can't have normal intimacy, even Dahmer had gay sex slaves and Wuornos killed men, and Knorr killed her two teenaged daughters out of sexual jealousy. All the way back to Jack the Ripper and prostitutes. It would I guess be linked to a pathological inability to bond and enormous sexual entitlement. That's why they sometimes keep trophies of body parts.


Do you think that applies to male violence more broadly? It is sexual?

I agree that serial killers are not even interesting. They have no cause but themselves. Guys like Hitler are actually interesting. 

Somebody made an interesting thread on this:


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

Some researchers believe that the three main components needed in the making of a serial killer are mental illness, brain damage, and an abusive childhood. None of these factors by itself can be blamed to cause the level of pathology needed to commit such atrocities, but together they add fuel to the fire.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Do you think that applies to male violence more broadly? It is sexual?
> 
> I agree that serial killers are not even interesting. They have no cause but themselves. Guys like Hitler are actually interesting.
> 
> Somebody made an interesting thread on this:


No, I don't believe that sex is more of a reason for general male violence. Power is. Females kill quite frequently out of sexual jealousy, in more of a second degree way. I just think serial killers have serious intimacy issues, like even when they are capable of having sex or partners (like Bundy or Knorr) something keeps them from being able to feel or have what most people can. Bundy could not even appreciate having the woman he loved so much back. Knorrs first victim was actually her first husband in her teens, which she got away with on "self defense. " The truth only became obvious twenty years later when she tortured and killed two of her daughters, and probably would have set into the third if she didn't stand up and run.

Hitler doesn't fascinate me much. I'm as interested in him as any dynamic individual who is shockingly evil, but not especially so. His murders were bloodless, hands clean kinds of things that he had other people carry out, and I also disagree it was "for others"...he just reasoned that it was.


----------



## Twitchie (Apr 2, 2015)

Thalassa said:


> I definitely think it's both nature and nurture. It has to be partly nurture, though, since the serial killer rose with industrial capitalism, and the spree shooter rose in the digital age. ..and typically these perps are white (if not white, Asian, never like Mexican or black) and male and middle class. There are female outliers, but there's definitely some sort of pattern here.


How do we know there weren't serial killers before industrial capitalism? Investigative tools weren't so hot back then and how many cultures even had a police force? How would they connect murders that weren't obviously connected? Shooting sprees appear to be new/ish. But I don't see evidence that serial killers are newish.


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

Thalassa said:


> No, I don't believe that sex is more of a reason for general male violence. Power is. Females kill quite frequently out of sexual jealousy, in more of a second degree way. I just think serial killers have serious intimacy issues, like even when they are capable of having sex or partners (like Bundy or Knorr) something keeps them from being able to feel or have what most people can. Bundy could not even appreciate having the woman he loved so much back. Knorrs first victim was actually her first husband in her teens, which she got away with on "self defense. " The truth only became obvious twenty years later when she tortured and killed two of her daughters, and probably would have set into the third if she didn't stand up and run.
> 
> Hitler doesn't fascinate me much. I'm as interested in him as any dynamic individual who is shockingly evil, but not especially so. His murders were bloodless, hands clean kinds of things that he had other people carry out, and I also disagree it was "for others"...he just reasoned that it was.


Are you familiar with the murder of Sylvia Likens by Gertrude Baniszewski? (I know, technically not a "serial" killer, but since we're talking about serial killer profiles and motives for killing, we can't deny that her psychology is very interesting.) She was able to influence her own children as well as the neighborhood children to act as willing participants in the extremely prolonged torture and eventually murder of the poor Likens girl, a child she was supposed to foster.


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

Twitchie said:


> How do we know there weren't serial killers before industrial capitalism? Investigative tools weren't so hot back then and how many cultures even had a police force? How would they connect murders that weren't obviously connected? Shooting sprees appear to be new/ish. But I don't see evidence that serial killers are newish.


There were, and I believe it's a reasonable assumption that that many of them remained undetected; Gilles de Rais and "blood countess" Elizabeth Bathory were two famous examples of historical serial killers.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Twitchie said:


> How do we know there weren't serial killers before industrial capitalism? Investigative tools weren't so hot back then and how many cultures even had a police force? How would they connect murders that weren't obviously connected? Shooting sprees appear to be new/ish. But I don't see evidence that serial killers are newish.


Well the "evidence" we have, at least in Europe, are fairy tales and folk tales...people who haven't made a study of the original fables may not realize it's not all talking animals and romantic love, but the stories in some cases are quite grisly. They were probably all based in a true story along the way, which is why they were passed down through the middle ages until Hans Christian Anderson and the Grimm Brothers said hey let's make sure we write these down, because I guess they saw the world was changing. It's not like they wrote the stories from a completely original inspiration. There's different versions of stories, but clearly we see that the witch in Hansel and Gretyl may have very well been a woods dwelling cannibal. Maybe Snow Whites mother was kind of like Theresa Knorr. Dracula and other vampire myths tend to revolve around Elizabeth of Bathory, and the actual Count who murdered and tortured people, combined with the epidemic of TB, and the pallor it caused. ..I mean garlic is even a natural antiviral and antibiotic, but also drives away "vampires."

I just wonder if it actually became more common the more people were removed from certain more "natural" lifestyles. 

Written history is long. There have been intelligent people recording facts and insights for centuries before the idea of the serial killer. It seems it should have been extraordinary enough that we would have more accounts than folk tales, and two mad royals in Eastern Europe.


----------



## Twitchie (Apr 2, 2015)

Thalassa said:


> Well the "evidence" we have, at least in Europe, are fairy tales and folk tales...people who haven't made a study of the original fables may not realize it's not all talking animals and romantic love, but the stories in some cases are quite grisly. They were probably all based in a true story along the way, which is why they were passed down through the middle ages until Hans Christian Anderson and the Grimm Brothers said hey let's make sure we write these down, because I guess they saw the world was changing. It's not like they wrote the stories from a completely original inspiration. There's different versions of stories, but clearly we see that the witch in Hansel and Gretyl may have very well been a woods dwelling cannibal. Maybe Snow Whites mother was kind of like Theresa Knorr. Dracula and other vampire myths tend to revolve around Elizabeth of Bathory, and the actual Count who murdered and tortured people, combined with the epidemic of TB, and the pallor it caused. ..I mean garlic is even a natural antiviral and antibiotic, but also drives away "vampires."
> 
> I just wonder if it actually became more common the more people were removed from certain more "natural" lifestyles.
> 
> Written history is long. There have been intelligent people recording facts and insights for centuries before the idea of the serial killer. It seems it should have been extraordinary enough that we would have more accounts than folk tales, and two mad royals in Eastern Europe.


I think it was easier to get away with it before the industrial age.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

AmandaLee said:


> Are you familiar with the murder of Sylvia Likens by Gertrude Baniszewski? (I know, technically not a "serial" killer, but since we're talking about serial killer profiles and motives for killing, we can't deny that her psychology is very interesting.) She was able to influence her own children as well as the neighborhood children to act as willing participants in the extremely prolonged torture and eventually murder of the poor Likens girl, a child she was supposed to foster.


Yes! Craziness. She's kind of the Charles Manson Baby Sitter...technically not a serial killer, but crazy influential over a group of more vulnerable people to do something horrific with no tangible cause. That story is truly sickening.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Twitchie said:


> I think it was easier to get away with it before the industrial age.


Hmmm...I might be inclined to agree with you except that people used to live in small villages where they kept an eye on each other (ahhh the beauty and terror of Fe, however you choose to look at it) and so that's highly unlikely. 

I think it's industrial capitalism, because it gave rise to the faceless, nameless city of industry. It may have been easier to get away with briefly, but in terms of longer history, I believe there should be more record of it. Even religious books like the Bible, who hold nothing back in terms of incest and public stoning, don't mention anything like a serial killer. Herrod was a mass murderer like Hitler or Stalin (the reason they don't interest me *as much* is because it seems predictable for a psychopathic leader with a great deal of money and power to convince the people its for their own good, I've gotten to the point that Hitler may as well have been the CEO of Nestle)...but why no serial killers?


----------



## Twitchie (Apr 2, 2015)

Thalassa said:


> Hmmm...I might be inclined to agree with you except that people used to live in small villages where they kept an eye on each other (ahhh the beauty and terror of Fe, however you choose to look at it) and so that's highly unlikely.
> 
> I think it's industrial capitalism, because it gave rise to the faceless, nameless city of industry. It may have been easier to get away with briefly, but in terms of longer history, I believe there should be more record of it. Even religious books like the Bible, who hold nothing back in terms of incest and public stoning, don't mention anything like a serial killer. Herrod was a mass murderer like Hitler or Stalin (the reason they don't interest me *as much* is because it seems predictable for a psychopathic leader with a great deal of money and power to convince the people its for their own good, I've gotten to the point that Hitler may as well have been the CEO of Nestle)...but why no serial killers?


I'm thinking of sailors and ports. They were known to be dangerous. Plus there plenty of wars to hide psychotic behavior in.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Twitchie said:


> I'm thinking of sailors and ports. They were known to be dangerous. Plus there plenty of wars to hide psychotic behavior in.


Ok but we already tend to think of pirates as indiscriminate murderers rather than serial killers, as it were. But I see what you're getting at. Like The Highwayman. The man who travels and you don't know where he's going and where he's been. In literature and country music the Highwayman is a romantic figure, but sure, him or a rogue sailor are the best candidates. Though I would imagine sailors more commonly raped or committed second degree murder in things like bar fights. So then you get a bunch of sea faring descendants carrying this baffling antisocial behavior into the 21st century.


----------



## Twitchie (Apr 2, 2015)

Thalassa said:


> Ok but we already tend to think of pirates as indiscriminate murderers rather than serial killers, as it were. But I see what you're getting at. Like The Highwayman. The man who travels and you don't know where he's going and where he's been. In literature and country music the Highwayman is a romantic figure, but sure, him or a rogue sailor are the best candidates. Though I would imagine sailors more commonly raped or committed second degree murder in things like bar fights. So then you get a bunch of sea faring descendants carrying this baffling antisocial behavior into the 21st century.


Well, that and mercenaries. If you think back to feudal times, mercenaries were paid to travel from place to place to protect castles under siege or to attack castles at other times. They traveled freely and while people tended to be wary of them, no one stopped them. Also traders/merchants traveled a good deal. There were a lot of types of jobs that required a good deal of travel and little verification that these people were who they said they were. They had stories of men who were killed by nymphs in the woods. I think some of the 'nymphs' were serial killers. No one saw who killed these men and they made up stories of nymphs.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Twitchie said:


> Well, that and mercenaries. If you think back to feudal times, mercenaries were paid to travel from place to place to protect castles under siege or to attack castles at other times. They traveled freely and while people tended to be wary of them, no one stopped them. Also traders/merchants traveled a good deal. There were a lot of types of jobs that required a good deal of travel and little verification that these people were who they said they were. They had stories of men who were killed by nymphs in the woods. I think some of the 'nymphs' were serial killers. No one saw who killed these men and they made up stories of nymphs.



Or the nymphs were bears. That's why we gotta beware the big bad wolf when we go to grandma's. But yes, an individual with a taste for blood of his fellow man could intentionally choose such a traveling job. Much easier to just become a soldier, but serial killers, the especially "interesting" ones at least have some kind of relationship to the body of the victim. Many books or essays on the subject though make a clear link between industrial capitalism because of the specific character of the murders. The murders are said to have become more sexualized and bizarre in detail.


----------



## Twitchie (Apr 2, 2015)

Thalassa said:


> Or the nymphs were bears. That's why we gotta beware the big bad wolf when we go to grandma's. But yes, an individual with a taste for blood of his fellow man could intentionally choose such a traveling job. Much easier to just become a soldier, but serial killers, the especially "interesting" ones at least have some kind of relationship to the body of the victim. Many books or essays on the subject though make a clear link between industrial capitalism because of the specific character of the murders. The murders are said to have become more sexualized and bizarre in detail.


Or they started really looking at what had happened to the body and recording in detail. I think with the invention of print and over time as more people knew how to read and information spread further, people didn't as readily write off a missing person as running away to join the circus or was lured away by fairies. Literacy grew a great deal with the industrial revolution. Before that, when they came across a body that had been sodomized and the such, they'd never heard anything like it and probably covered it up. They wouldn't want news of this happening in their area to travel. That's my theory.


----------



## AmalyaIvy (Mar 12, 2015)

Obligatoryusername91 said:


> What turns a person into a serial killer? I often hear about them being like some odd phenomenon in human neural development, that is, an example of many things going wrong at the same time in the development of a person from birth to adulthood. These are a mix of genetic and environmental factors, that combine in such and such a way so as to create the "perfect storm", that is, the birth of a serial killer. What would you imagine it would take to push someone over that edge?



Here's an article if you are interested: Sabbatini, RME: The Psychopath's Brain. Tormented Souls, Diseased Brains

The non-psychopathic majority who doesn't kill being unable to figure out or to imagine HOW and WHY, and this constant guessing suggest, that an average brain/normal one (without such tendencies) can't comprehend this. Why? because we don't have that 'disease' or whatever one may call it. I think only a psychopath or a serial killer is able to understand another such or perhaps even they can't.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

AmalyaIvy said:


> Here's an article if you are interested: Sabbatini, RME: The Psychopath's Brain. Tormented Souls, Diseased Brains
> 
> The non-psychopathic majority who doesn't kill being unable to figure out or to imagine HOW and WHY, and this constant guessing suggest, that an average brain/normal one (without such tendencies) can't comprehend this. Why? because we don't have that 'disease' or whatever one may call it. I think only a psychopath or a serial killer is able to understand another such or perhaps even they can't.



Mmm I am not surprised that none of these people are geniuses, and apparently they have low EQ, but enough of them are clever enough that I think people look to a certain. ..prowess? They have. Some are damn sad and slow like Ed Gein...but also he was the most "harmless"...nice to neighborhood children, mostly dug up graves, and this was best portrayed (by halves) in Texas Chainsaw Massacre, by Leatherface who is a virtual idiot abused by his family, so especially dangerous because of his stupidity at the hands of the crueler, average family members. The genetic link was also suggested 30-40 years later in the latest Chainsaw, with the granddaughter who is a normal girl who works as a butcher, but makes art from the animal bones, suggesting again the primitive feature of such behavior. 

But the Zodiac and "smarter" serial killers suggest it's not just a matter of an animal nature, especially since there are low IQ individuals who are excessively kind, the complete opposite, a fool for others.

There's some other component. Is it disease? OR does it only express itself diseased in certain circumstances? 

I am never fully convinced that mental illness is illness but just socially inconvenient, but advantageous in other environments. That's why I think "mental illness" plus trauma plus brain damage explains something. Brain damage is a strange thing. 

But we still should always look to what society may be unintentionally creating...


----------



## AmalyaIvy (Mar 12, 2015)

Thalassa said:


> There's some other component. Is it disease? OR does it only express itself diseased in certain circumstances?
> 
> I am never fully convinced that mental illness is illness but just socially inconvenient, but advantageous in other environments. That's why I think "mental illness" plus trauma plus brain damage explains something. Brain damage is a strange thing.
> 
> But we still should always look to what society may be unintentionally creating...



Are you implying mental illnesses are not real in specific circumstances (like with psychopaths/serial killers) or in general? I'm not saying it's all disease but it certainly have a big role. 

As for what makes a serial killers, I do not disagree with your view, however I don't believe we have a specific answer for "what determines a serial killer" because enough study on serial killers has not been done. They are not studied to prevent another one, rather get locked up then put to death (I'm not saying they should not be, they certainly deserve punishments). Majority of us get overwhelmed and terrified over the horrific actions they are capable of, we remember their tales, some writes books and hits bestsellers. We try to understand,obviously, something we cannot. So there must be something in them that's different from the rest of us.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

I read somewhere that many of them, as children, even tortured animals. If that's so, hard to argue that it was anything in their adult life that somehow turned them away from being loving sweet caring people.


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

Study: ‘Significant’ statistical link between mass murder and autism, brain injury - The Washington Post


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Shameless Nation said:


> I would suggest not to equal serial killers to psychopaths because they are not synonyms.
> 
> Yeah, it usually seems to come with a sexual undertone. Oppression, sexual humiliation...
> 
> ...


Someone has probably mentioned this, but Gary Ridgway, one of the most successful serial killers of all time, had an IQ of 82, and I believe he graduated highschool at age 21.


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

Yomiel said:


> Someone has probably mentioned this, but Gary Ridgway, one of the most successful serial killers of all time, had an IQ of 82, and I believe he graduated highschool at age 21.


Serial killer partners in crime, Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole, had very low IQs as well. Same with Arthur Shawcross.

On the other hand, Ed Kemper, one of the most notorious serial killers of our time, has a genius level IQ.


----------



## Gman1 (Mar 3, 2015)

Obligatoryusername91 said:


> What turns a person into a serial killer? I often hear about them being like some odd phenomenon in human neural development, that is, an example of many things going wrong at the same time in the development of a person from birth to adulthood. These are a mix of genetic and environmental factors, that combine in such and such a way so as to create the "perfect storm", that is, the birth of a serial killer. What would you imagine it would take to push someone over that edge?


From what I have researched, serial killers are 99% of the time considered to be an extreme variant of the psychopathic personality.
In other words, abnormalities in the stress/cortisol system (hence the inability to comprehend fear), a raised testosterone-to-cortisol ratio (hence the dominant like behaviour), and most importantly, a dysfunction of the Thyroid axis (elevated T3, which is what leads to impulsive violent behaviour). 
More successful variants like Ted Bundy are able to intelligently determine how to satisfy such violent impulses with minimal threat of consequence.

Do bear in mind, the label of 'serial killer' is vastly different to 'mass murderer' which is linked more to negativistic or even psychotic disorders.


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

I really dislike the dehumanization of "psychopaths" (a term which many people with ASPD consider to be a slur, and no wonder). I doubt my saying that will change anything here, but I wish people would reconsider using the term so loosely. When someone is a psychopath, they cease to be human to society. They are a person. Why society so casually forgets the personhood of people I'll never understand, but it does and needs reminding. 

Serial killers, however - people who have actively killed other human beings - I think are on a different plain. I'm not quite sure how I feel about serial killers and regard towards serial killers. I also hate the dehumanization of serial killers - which of course is rampant - and I disagree with the death penalty for serial killers, but I do understand people being upset by serial killers. Naturally. They hurt countless people. And obviously they ended the lives of many. 

I'm not sure what makes a person a serial killer. I imagine it's a combination of extreme numbness to the humanity and reality of existence of others combined with extremely emotionally terrible conditions. But I have nothing to back that up apart from the things I've picked up from the unfortunate abundance of news / information floating around about serial killers.


----------



## VinnieB (Mar 3, 2015)

They make for the best movies/series imo.


----------



## Gman1 (Mar 3, 2015)

alittlebear said:


> I really dislike the dehumanization of "psychopaths" (a term which many people with ASPD consider to be a slur, and no wonder). I doubt my saying that will change anything here, but I wish people would reconsider using the term so loosely. When someone is a psychopath, they cease to be human to society. They are a person. Why society so casually forgets the personhood of people I'll never understand, but it does and needs reminding.
> 
> Serial killers, however - people who have actively killed other human beings - I think are on a different plain. I'm not quite sure how I feel about serial killers and regard towards serial killers. I also hate the dehumanization of serial killers - which of course is rampant - and I disagree with the death penalty for serial killers, but I do understand people being upset by serial killers. Naturally. They hurt countless people. And obviously they ended the lives of many.
> 
> I'm not sure what makes a person a serial killer. I imagine it's a combination of extreme numbness to the humanity and reality of existence of others combined with extremely emotionally terrible conditions. But I have nothing to back that up apart from the things I've picked up from the unfortunate abundance of news / information floating around about serial killers.


It's wonderful you've got such a big heart.


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

agwood said:


> It's wonderful you've got such a big heart.


Someone has to.


----------



## Fern (Sep 2, 2012)

Obligatoryusername91 said:


> @_desert_ I'm not sure ALL serial killers are Psychopaths. I know Jeffrey Dahmer was Borderline or something, and I saw material stating that Ted Bundy was more Bipolar than anything. Schizotypal symptoms can also lead to the "deluded visionary" type of mission based serial killer.


And likewise, not all psychopaths are serial killers...


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

AmalyaIvy said:


> Are you implying mental illnesses are not real in specific circumstances (like with psychopaths/serial killers) or in general? I'm not saying it's all disease but it certainly have a big role.
> 
> As for what makes a serial killers, I do not disagree with your view, however I don't believe we have a specific answer for "what determines a serial killer" because enough study on serial killers has not been done. They are not studied to prevent another one, rather get locked up then put to death (I'm not saying they should not be, they certainly deserve punishments). Majority of us get overwhelmed and terrified over the horrific actions they are capable of, we remember their tales, some writes books and hits bestsellers. We try to understand,obviously, something we cannot. So there must be something in them that's different from the rest of us.


I'm saying that the DSM has quadrupled in size in 70 years, and I think lots of "mentally ill" people, particularly "undiagnosed" in history were deeply creative, smart, interesting or brave. Perhaps some conditions we seem personality disorders are useful in more chaotic or violent societies, that the traits were seen as socially advantageous. 

I don't deny all mental illness, that would be absurd and unhelpful, but my post was meant to emphasize brain injury instead of "mental illness" as many mentally ill people are kind, or are more dangerous to themselves than others. People who have had head trauma are sometimes most damaged in the regions affecting empathy, I have done some reading on brain injury, it depends on the type of damage. Another part of the brain may over develop to compensate for the damage, which is why some serial killers seem smart, creative, or capable of planning but still lack empathy. 

Or its a combination of all of the above, like many have said.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

alittlebear said:


> Someone has to.


There's really no point, it's misguided. I don't think having a heart precludes one from acting sensibly. Some of these people are not operating with a fully human brain, more or less. It's not like your grandmother who is declining slowly in old age towards death with dementia or Alzheimer's, either. In the elderly, or even early onset Alzheimer's, the brain is basically. ..falling apart. That's why one begins to lose the ability to learn new things, but can remember the distant past, and how to talk, because it's basically like a child's brain growing, but in reverse. The elderly generally just eventually become more harmless and dependent, and I believe it to be the normal process of brain death, especially since the main culprit is age, and it can be hastened by sedentary lives with limited intellectual or social stimulus. 

Serial killers on the other hand, still have brains that will keep them alive and killing for decades more, like a sick animal. It's like you're complaining that we put down animals who have rabies. That's what an unrehabilitated psychopath is.


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

@Thalassa I can't agree to that. It's inhumane to refer to anyone as "an animal with rabies" that needs to be "put down". I recognize that you probably see your argument as logical, but to me it is unethical. I have participated in "debates" regarding the humanity of people with personality disorders before, and have left these debates; I know I cannot emotionally handle trying to prove someone's humanity. To me, it just is. "Psychopath" (which, again, is a slur) or not. That's all I can really say here. I understand that most people here are good people trying to make the arguments they think best, but to me they are ableist and incomprehensible and for that reason I cannot argue against them. I am sorry I have no better defense than that, or if I come across as insulting... I know that people mean no harm here, but without meaning to these words _are_ harmful, and... Yes, it's just best that I do not engage in this conversation further. My apologies.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

alittlebear said:


> @Thalassa I can't agree to that. It's inhumane to refer to anyone as "an animal with rabies" that needs to be "put down". I recognize that you probably see your argument as logical, but to me it is unethical. I have participated in "debates" regarding the humanity of people with personality disorders before, and have left these debates; I know I cannot emotionally handle trying to prove someone's humanity. To me, it just is. "Psychopath" (which, again, is a slur) or not. That's all I can really say here. I understand that most people here are good people trying to make the arguments they think best, but to me they are ableist and incomprehensible and for that reason I cannot argue against them. I am sorry I have no better defense than that, or if I come across as insulting... I know that people mean no harm here, but without meaning to these words _are_ harmful, and... Yes, it's just best that I do not engage in this conversation further. My apologies.


Ok. I used to think like you as a teenager, but in my adult life I understand that attitude to be the sort of thing like. ..projecting yourself onto an animal or object. You're projecting your own humanity on to a person who probably wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. In fact if left alone as a free man with you, they might actually set you on fire. Furthermore serial killers are sometimes murdered by other prisoners, not by the state, and many of those prisoners surely have personality disorders themselves. I think it's wildly unhelpful to lump serial killers in with people who have mild to moderate personality disorders who are generally not dangerous, too.


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

@Thalassa I've met people who would actually set me on fire. In many ways I _have_ been set on fire by people who considered it absolutely okay. I know there are people in this world who do not care at all for others. Trust me. I know people like this, and I have been greatly damaged by them. I still don't think that's any reason to deny them the humanity that they were ensured at their birth. 

I recognize that my words have no logos. I'm going to have to find a way to argue this undeniable and unsinkable humanity I think every one belonging to our species has. Maybe before I get there I will take your path and go to the other side of this argument. Given my experiences I do not think that I will, but honestly who can predict the path of one's opinions. I will leave now, as I have no logical argument, but... I still don't think the reasons you are listing are _any_ justification to regard someone as inhuman. There is no justification to do that.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

alittlebear said:


> @Thalassa I've met people who would actually set me on fire. In many ways I _have_ been set on fire by people who considered it absolutely okay. I know there are people in this world who do not care at all for others. Trust me. I know people like this, and I have been greatly damaged by them. I still don't think that's any reason to deny them the humanity that they were ensured at their birth.
> 
> I recognize that my words have no logos. I'm going to have to find a way to argue this undeniable and unsinkable humanity I think every one belonging to our species has. Maybe before I get there I will take your path and go to the other side of this argument. Given my experiences I do not think that I will, but honestly who can predict the path of one's opinions. I will leave now, as I have no logical argument, but... I still don't think the reasons you are listing are _any_ justification to regard someone as inhuman. There is no justification to do that.


Ah but you see, I love animals. So even one I see as an inhuman animal, I wouldn't recommend that we torture it for no good reason. We dispose of it quickly and humanely. It is actually quite difficult for people to even regard such a person even as an animal though, because animals are not sadistic generally. Generally animals kill for food and territory, out of fear. The sadist sets you on fire for his own pleasure. I actually believe it is sick and wrong to identify too strongly with a psychopath, serial killer or spree killer, as it sets you up to identify with an abuser, and through this vehicle take on the persona of either abuser or victim yourself. It's one thing to agree that we shouldn't senselessly harm other humans, it's another thing entirely to put other people in danger to allow a psychopath to live. Ted Bundy was actually assured such human rights that he actually took a wife and sired a child in prison. Does that fill your heart with gladness? It certainly doesn't mine, imagine growing up the child of Ted Bundy or the genes they carry.


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

alittlebear said:


> @Thalassa I've met people who would actually set me on fire. In many ways I _have_ been set on fire by people who considered it absolutely okay. I know there are people in this world who do not care at all for others. Trust me. I know people like this, and I have been greatly damaged by them. I still don't think that's any reason to deny them the humanity that they were ensured at their birth.
> 
> I recognize that my words have no logos. I'm going to have to find a way to argue this undeniable and unsinkable humanity I think every one belonging to our species has. Maybe before I get there I will take your path and go to the other side of this argument. Given my experiences I do not think that I will, but honestly who can predict the path of one's opinions. I will leave now, as I have no logical argument, but... I still don't think the reasons you are listing are _any_ justification to regard someone as inhuman. There is no justification to do that.


I pray to a god I don't believe in that you're just really young.

I hope you realize that your statements can be regarded as deeply offensive by someone who has been victimized by a psychopath or watched this happen to a loved one. It's basically like imploring a child who has been molested to empathize with their molester. Just... don't. 

There's also no denying that your "bleeding hearts" attitude is a very real danger to yourself. You might not dehumanize the psychopaths, but if given the chance, they'll most certainly dehumanize you. I hope you don't have to learn this the hard way. I would advise _everyone_ to apply an immediate scalpel to the relationship if a person in your circle of acquaintances is showing psychopathic traits. You might believe that by showing them love, consideration and empathy, you will somehow "fix" them, but you can't. You might think that instead of a bad person, judged by the world, you see the "lost and lonely little boy inside", and he'll play into this, but you'll do best to remember he has an agenda of his own that differs from yours. 

If this makes me "ableist" in your opinion, I'm happy to accept that label. I'd much rather be ableist than throw out my self-preservation instinct.


----------



## Obligatoryusername91 (Apr 5, 2015)

@Fern I figured what I said went both ways. Not all serial killers are psychopaths, not all psychopaths are serial killers. I guessed people are smart enough to guess.


----------



## Gman1 (Mar 3, 2015)

Obligatoryusername91 said:


> @Fern I figured what I said went both ways. Not all serial killers are psychopaths, not all psychopaths are serial killers. I guessed people are smart enough to guess.


Funny thing is, even amongst psychopaths, serial killers are truly a rarity. Have a read of the book 'Without Conscience' by Dr Robert Hare to get a better impression.
In a video on Youtube, psychologist Frank Ochberg says that a serial killer requires 3 components: lack of conscience, sadism, and narcissism. And it isn't always environmentally triggered.
I believe even Ted Bundy showed very disturbing signs at a very young age.

Even if you knew a child was genetically predisposed, I truly believe the only beneficial form of nurture is to restrict any kind of environmental trigger, which effectively means raising them in a very desolate environment.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

AmandaLee said:


> I pray to a god I don't believe in that you're just really young.
> 
> I hope you realize that your statements can be regarded as deeply offensive by someone who has been victimized by a psychopath or watched this happen to a loved one. It's basically like imploring a child who has been molested to empathize with their molester. Just... don't.
> 
> ...


Absolutely. That's why most religion calls for something called disinterested love, because empathy past a certain point will become identification, and I don't believe there's anything beneficial about that, it can even be harmful. I think detached interest is fine, or a recognition that they are human is actually self evident (why even care what causes it if they weren't human?)...it's possible to enjoy a book or film or person without forming an identification or attachment, and through this we can dispose of a psychopath humanely without any unhealthy identification, or unnecessary cruelty to the psychopath. 

I love cats. I love them with all my heart. But realistically I would rather some be put to sleep than suffer and starve to death. I actually had a cat rescue lady tell me today, I agree but I would not tell too many people that. Because there are people who will idealized "no kill" past the point of feasibility, even with feral or stray cats. I can understand because animals are innocent, but it's the same kind of irrationality that suggests we should over empathize with a human who inherently lacks empathy.


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

@Thalassa You misunderstand me. It was never my meaning that one should put themselves in the shoes of people who have no empathy. Empathy is my world. I could never personally identify with someone who does not have it. I can't even relate to most characters in books who do not show what I consider true kindness. My perspective that we should identify people as human has little to do with empathy to me and more with just recognizing that they are people and do not deserve to be treated as they may have treated us. I understand that many people disagree with me here for their personal views, but I still go by the principle that one should not "fight fire with fire". 

What's more, as someone who has been literally nearly killed and tortured by people who got pleasure from my pain, I can never empathize with those people. They are bad people. Truly bad people. But I personally would not want to ever treat them as they treated me. They deserve punishment. And at this time I am sad to say that I truly, truly hate them. It's very sad to me, as a person who hates hatred, but hatred for these people is something I am currently suffering from. They are bad, and I will never, ever be able to put myself in their shoes and justify what they did to me. It is impossible. But my recognition of their humanity, what I mean here (I think perhaps we could have different concepts of what it means to identify someone as human) is not that we should empathize with them, but rather give them what all humans deserve. That we should give them what they did not give us. (I understand that you might not agree with this, very possibly due to your own experiences, but with my experiences this is how I feel on the matter.) 

@AmandaLee I never meant to offend you, and I apologize that I did. I am not saying that what your abusers did to you was right. My saying that the people you refer to as "psychopaths" are human does not mean they they are good people and not deserving of punishment. I hope with all my heart that you receive justice for what they did wrong to you, and I am sorry you had to experience it. 

You say you hope that I am only young. The fact is I am not only young. My insistence that we recognize first that all people are people in any situation, however drastic, comes from my own extremely traumatic experiences of being abused by people who gained pleasure from my pain. Before then, I had grown up watching my family members be nearly killed by people who also gained pleasure from their pain in domestically violent situations. I know firsthand what happens when someone removes the humanity of another person. While my abusers did that to me, and I would spit on their graves if I happened to come across them, I do not find it fitting to take their humanity from them. They did that to me. But they were not right to do it. My doing that does not make me right either, regardless of how they treated me and how I might think they deserve that. Perhaps you deal with it differently, but from what I have experienced I have emerged with the view that dehumanization is never the answer. Because that is what I see as one of the roots of all evil at human hands in our world. You have emerged from your experiences differently and while I do hope your different perspective does not hurt people I can respect it. As survivors, I think we should be allowed to cope with it however we can. I apologize if I came across as not respectful to your experiences; I can assure you that was not at all my intention and, as I did you on the topic about Asexuality, you completely misunderstood what I was implying. However, I recognize that was my fault for not being clearer about it. 

I would also like to not that with this described, dehumanization is obviously a very personal issue for me. I get very heated when discussing it - and yes, perhaps irrational to those who do not agree with me due to their own experiences. To be honest, this entire discussion has been very triggering to me. I would appreciate it greatly if I was no longer involved in it, but I did want to clarify what I meant and try to alleviate the offense that I unintentionally caused the two of you. You may still misunderstand me, and I can not really do much about that beyond this post, but I hope that this perhaps gave you more understanding in what I meant and why this issue of dehumanization is so important to me as a trauma survivor and lifelong witness to abuse. 

(To reiterate - please do not tag me or quote me after this message. Please stop responding to my posts here. This topic has brought great distress to me, as defending the humanity of people and this concept of universal humanity for every member of the human species is my core coping mechanism for my trauma. This topic brought me so many flashbacks, so many tears, so much crying. You did not know that, either of you, but I would appreciate it if you did me the kindness of not contacting me further with more of this debating with me now that you have the understanding that this issue is very personal to me and discussion of it is very harmful to my health. I also apologize if the misunderstandings my words evoked within you caused any of these same symptoms within you. That is mainly why I did choose to respond again. I want you to know that in no way do I think your abusers were in the right, and while I do not know your situations I hope dearly that those who abused you are brought to justice and never hurt you again. I may regard them as human, but I know already from what you are described that they are truly Bad People. I hope their immeasurably terrible karma finds them and reflects that. I apologize very much that I did not make this clear and seemed to be defending your abusers in no way was that my intent.) 

(I'm sorry for what to you I'm sure seemed like my irrationality here. It was more than that, but... I am leaving now. I hope that you both take care.)


----------

