Murderers & Serial Murderers

[Sapphire]

This is a bit of a different line of debate.

What do you think drives people to kill others?

[Atonement]

Serially, I think it is caused by traumatic events in ones life or insanity of some sort.

Murder is done out of passion. Love, hate, etc.

[theOperaGhost]

I am generally under the impression that serial killers are sociopaths/psychopaths. Anyone that could continue to kill people after killing one obviously has no remorse for what they've done, thus making them sociopathic/psychopathic.

I agree with Addi on someone who murders once. I feel that is general out of some sort of emotion be it envy, hate, revenge, etc.

[Sage]

I am generally under the impression that serial killers are sociopaths/psychopaths. Anyone that could continue to kill people after killing one obviously has no remorse for what they've done, thus making them sociopathic/psychopathic.

More specifically, that'd be Antisocial Personality Disorder. =)

[theOperaGhost]

More specifically, that'd be Antisocial Personality Disorder. =)

I know exactly what it is, I just hate having to explain what antisocial personality disorder is every time I post it, as I have several times now. It gets annoying explaining the same thing every time, so I just thought I'd put the more familiar term(s), sociopath/psychopath. I'm happy to see someone who knows what it is though. :)

[INFERNO]

More specifically, that'd be Antisocial Personality Disorder. =)

WRONG

Psychopathy and antisocial PD are not the same, people assume they are. Antisocial PD is in the DSM-IV-TR, psychopathy is in the Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R), which, for some stupid reason, is not in the DSM-IV-TR. A psychopath can fulfill the requirements for antisocial PD however, there are differences.

Anyways, I'm a huge fan of serial killers, have some books on them, finished most of my paper on functional neuroanatomy of psychopaths, and will take some 3rd and 4th year uni. courses about them.

They kill for a variety of reasons, however, to say a psychopath kills out of love or hate is wrong for the simple reason they tend to experience no emotions at all. Some think that their killing will do something good, such as Elizabeth Bathory killing and tortuing and raping plenty of virgin girls then bathing in their blood thinking she'd restore youthfulness.

However, when talking about serial killers, psychopaths, etc..., people tend to know jackshit. The media has screwed it all up to a point where it's just disgusting.

Psychopaths can be very sane and tend to have average or even higher intelligence. They're not stupid, they're very calculating in what they do. Also, most don't kill, it depends on how they're raised that results in whether it'll be a violent or non-violent crime.

Psychopaths clearly have a very different brain structure and brain activity, and that leads to their behaviors. What causes those structures is thought to be genetic. As for people who are non-psychopathic, non-APD, trauma can be a factor, although it's not always a cause, it's a high risk factor.

If someone murders only once and has no other criminal activity, it may be out of love/hate, etc..., but then again, 12 murders may be out of love or hate.

The causes depend on what the person has in terms of mental disorders, their upbringing, the context with which the murders occur, etc... . So, there's not really 1 or 2 reasons that apply to all. A psychopath has abnormalities in the amygdala among other areas, and this one is heavily responsible for production of emotions and learning emotions via Pavlovian conditioning. A person who kills 12 people may or may not have a dysfunction here.

The cause for a certain individual can be many, and it will vary.

[theOperaGhost]

WRONG

Psychopathy and antisocial PD are not the same, people assume they are. Antisocial PD is in the DSM-IV-TR, psychopathy is in the Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R), which, for some stupid reason, is not in the DSM-IV-TR. A psychopath can fulfill the requirements for antisocial PD however, there are differences.

Anyways, I'm a huge fan of serial killers, have some books on them, finished most of my paper on functional neuroanatomy of psychopaths, and will take some 3rd and 4th year uni. courses about them.

They kill for a variety of reasons, however, to say a psychopath kills out of love or hate is wrong for the simple reason they tend to experience no emotions at all. Some think that their killing will do something good, such as Elizabeth Bathory killing and tortuing and raping plenty of virgin girls then bathing in their blood thinking she'd restore youthfulness.

However, when talking about serial killers, psychopaths, etc..., people tend to know jackshit. The media has screwed it all up to a point where it's just disgusting.

Psychopaths can be very sane and tend to have average or even higher intelligence. They're not stupid, they're very calculating in what they do. Also, most don't kill, it depends on how they're raised that results in whether it'll be a violent or non-violent crime.

Psychopaths clearly have a very different brain structure and brain activity, and that leads to their behaviors. What causes those structures is thought to be genetic. As for people who are non-psychopathic, non-APD, trauma can be a factor, although it's not always a cause, it's a high risk factor.

If someone murders only once and has no other criminal activity, it may be out of love/hate, etc..., but then again, 12 murders may be out of love or hate.

The causes depend on what the person has in terms of mental disorders, their upbringing, the context with which the murders occur, etc... . So, there's not really 1 or 2 reasons that apply to all. A psychopath has abnormalities in the amygdala among other areas, and this one is heavily responsible for production of emotions and learning emotions via Pavlovian conditioning. A person who kills 12 people may or may not have a dysfunction here.

The cause for a certain individual can be many, and it will vary.

He's obviously correct. I myself am fascinated by serial killers, although I don't seem to have the psychological background he has (I've only ever taken one psychology course, plus a bit of my own research). I've done papers on antisocial personality disorder as well as serial killers (separate papers). I am however a criminal justice major, so I know all of the schools of thought for why criminals are criminals.

[Oblivion]

Mental insanity.
Period.

I don't think it's biologically possible [don't quote me. I have no sources other than my opinion :P] for a human to murder another human being unless they have either been driven insane, or were born insane.

Then again, in war, people are killed left and right. Maybe since it's not viewed as murder, soldiers see themselves as doing the right thing, and thus they don't need to be insane to kill.

[Sage]

I don't think it's biologically possible [don't quote me. I have no sources other than my opinion :P] for a human to murder another human being unless they have either been driven insane, or were born insane.

You could also count hate as a reason. If someone killed someone else's family, the victim would likely want revenge of some sort.

Then again, in war, people are killed left and right. Maybe since it's not viewed as murder, soldiers see themselves as doing the right thing, and thus they don't need to be insane to kill.

That's a good point, though I'd like to add that many armies train their soldiers to view enemies as a lot more horrible than they really are, almost dehumanizing them to some extent.

[INFERNO]

so I know all of the schools of thought for why criminals are criminals.

As much as I like reading your posts, I highly doubt you know all of the schools of thought. You may know some and you may know some details, I'll give you that but know all of them, knowing the details of them... I doubt.

Mental insanity.
Period.

I don't think it's biologically possible [don't quote me. I have no sources other than my opinion :P] for a human to murder another human being unless they have either been driven insane, or were born insane.

Then again, in war, people are killed left and right. Maybe since it's not viewed as murder, soldiers see themselves as doing the right thing, and thus they don't need to be insane to kill.

Any human can kill any human. You don't need a biological abnormality or predisposition. Anyone can grab a carving knife or gun and go wild.

As for the soldiers, they have a variety of reasons for going. During the conscription versus the Iraq war, the reasons would be different. They also get a fairly high rate of PTSD (look up Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, very popular man helped make PTSD a disorder that the Canadian government in 2000 or 2001 recognized as need disability pension).

People may be "born insane" (I'll assume you're referring to psychopaths), BUT, that doesn't mean they'll go about killing. Many psychopaths don't go on a killing spree and become serial killers, yet their functional neuroanatomy clearly is rather odd. As for being "driven insane", you don't really need this. Let me ask you this: What is stopping you (morally and ethically) from going, grabbing a knife and killing? I assume you're not "born insane" and I also assume you're not "driven insane". People don't need either of them.

The biological aspects can explain partially the behaviours observed and give an increased chance but it doesn't mean they will. The opposite is also true; having none of the biological aspects that contribute to killing still doesn't mean that you won't kill. Humans are very capable of killing, they question isn't "can we", it's "should we"?

I know you have no sources so, I'm curious, in your opinion, why is it not biologically possible? After all, we evolved into a human did we not? That's biological, so what's to say that us killing each other or something going wrong leading to killing isn't possible?

[Oblivion]

Any human can kill any human. You don't need a biological abnormality or predisposition. Anyone can grab a carving knife or gun and go wild.

It's actually not quite like that. Even if humans think they have the capability to kill, many don't have the ability to actually do it, even if their/their family's life/ves is/are in danger.
Sure, physically, anyone could kill other people. But mentally, most people really can't.
I know you have no sources so, I'm curious, in your opinion, why is it not biologically possible? After all, we evolved into a human did we not? That's biological, so what's to say that us killing each other or something going wrong leading to killing isn't possible?

Honestly, even if there is proof otherwise, I can't logically rationalize [in my mind] how any sane person could kill another human being.

[Atonement]

It's actually not quite like that. Even if humans think they have the capability to kill, many don't have the ability to actually do it, even if their/their family's life/ves is/are in danger.



Honestly, even if there is proof otherwise, I can't logically rationalize [in my mind] how any sane person could kill another human being.


Hm. If a sane person is not capable to kill, then I guess EVERYONE in the military that has shot a gun at another human, is insane. So are any drug dealers in a gun fight. While I don't agree with either, it doesn't make them insane.

[Oblivion]

I'm thinking planned murder, not military, or spontaneous reaction.

[Atonement]

Military is planned. Well, in many cases. In an assault of a place. Sure, they would rather not kill, but they know that it is a likely possibility, thus, are mentally capable of murder. Or take the Revolutionary War, the militia literally aimed to kill or capture. Kill first till surrender. So, aiming to kill, is aiming to murder, which is planning, which by your logic, is insanity.

[Oblivion]

Then again, in war, people are killed left and right. Maybe since it's not viewed as murder, soldiers see themselves as doing the right thing, and thus they don't need to be insane to kill.

That's my military thoughts.

[INFERNO]

It's actually not quite like that. Even if humans think they have the capability to kill, many don't have the ability to actually do it, even if their/their family's life/ves is/are in danger.
Sure, physically, anyone could kill other people. But mentally, most people really can't.

If their lives were in danger, depending on the exact situation, I'd assume many people could kill because it'd be justified. Either they die or they live, simple as that, or their family dies and they live. Best solution is they and family live. During a time of crisis, epinephrine and norepinephrine start pumping and people can be capable of many things that otherwise they wouldn't be. By this, I would assume they could overcome the mental barriers. As an example, if you're pissed off at someone, most people want to keep the anger somewhat inside. Maybe let a bit out to show they're angry. But, if they're stressed, and angry enough, they explode and the person gets heavily verbally beaten down. Presto, they overcame their mental barrier.

Is this the same as killing? No. But, the same concepts can be applied. You get excited or nervous or angry or whatever, E and NE start pumping along with other molecules, and some of your barriers go down. Only thing is, they'd have to be pushed hard enough, which does happen.

Honestly, even if there is proof otherwise, I can't logically rationalize [in my mind] how any sane person could kill another human being.[/QUOTE]

Care to look back in human history where people killed many other people? Example: Hitler and his Nazis. Were the Nazis insane?


I'm thinking planned murder, not military, or spontaneous reaction.

... OK, you realize that the part of yourself that you quoted made no sense? Killing people left and right is rather spontaneous in the sense that you don't know which one of the enemies will be killed but it's planned in that you know some of them will be killed.

[Oblivion]

... OK, you realize that the part of yourself that you quoted made no sense? Killing people left and right is rather spontaneous in the sense that you don't know which one of the enemies will be killed but it's planned in that you know some of them will be killed.

Not necessarily.
Killing left and right would be planned.
For example, if someone was being threatened, even if they could kill someone, they probably wouldn't be insane, since it was a spontaneous reaction to immediate danger.
But on the other hand, if someone went into a school and shot up people left and right, it would still be planned. If a bit spontaneous, it's not a spontaneous reaction.

Example: Hitler and his Nazis. Were the Nazis insane?
IMO, Nazis and Hitler were mentally unbalanced.

Remember, it's all just my view of it. I have no doubt some, if not most/all, of it is wrong.

[NightHawksr71]

This is a bit of a different line of debate.

What do you think drives people to kill others?

Depends, For some its money, a social reason, love, hate etc

but for the Serial Killers and "Psycho's" I believe its a deep urge similar to in depth to peoples desire to be loved, but for a certain part of the killing, such as the stalking and capture, the torture/fear part or the killing itself which brings them some sort of mental gratification from their actions. My opinion, but who knows.

I believe every human is capable of killing, Some just require more motivation or more of a reason to do it then others.

[theOperaGhost]

As much as I like reading your posts, I highly doubt you know all of the schools of thought. You may know some and you may know some details, I'll give you that but know all of them, knowing the details of them... I doubt.



Any human can kill any human. You don't need a biological abnormality or predisposition. Anyone can grab a carving knife or gun and go wild.

As for the soldiers, they have a variety of reasons for going. During the conscription versus the Iraq war, the reasons would be different. They also get a fairly high rate of PTSD (look up Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, very popular man helped make PTSD a disorder that the Canadian government in 2000 or 2001 recognized as need disability pension).

People may be "born insane" (I'll assume you're referring to psychopaths), BUT, that doesn't mean they'll go about killing. Many psychopaths don't go on a killing spree and become serial killers, yet their functional neuroanatomy clearly is rather odd. As for being "driven insane", you don't really need this. Let me ask you this: What is stopping you (morally and ethically) from going, grabbing a knife and killing? I assume you're not "born insane" and I also assume you're not "driven insane". People don't need either of them.

The biological aspects can explain partially the behaviours observed and give an increased chance but it doesn't mean they will. The opposite is also true; having none of the biological aspects that contribute to killing still doesn't mean that you won't kill. Humans are very capable of killing, they question isn't "can we", it's "should we"?

I know you have no sources so, I'm curious, in your opinion, why is it not biologically possible? After all, we evolved into a human did we not? That's biological, so what's to say that us killing each other or something going wrong leading to killing isn't possible?

I never said I know all the details...putting words in my mouth is bad.

[INFERNO]

You said you knew all the schools of thought, and knowing all of them means you know what they are, hence you'll know the details. Unless you don't know the details yet know of all the schools of thought, so you know the vague concepts. I assumed that since you said how you're a criminal justice major, you know all the schools of thought, you seemed rather proud of that, I assumed the first one. Call that ignorance on my part.


For example, if someone was being threatened, even if they could kill someone, they probably wouldn't be insane, since it was a spontaneous reaction to immediate danger.

This is what I said in a condensed form. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

But on the other hand, if someone went into a school and shot up people left and right, it would still be planned. If a bit spontaneous, it's not a spontaneous reaction

I don't get what you mean by "if a bit spontaneous, it's not a spontaneous reaction". If something is spontaneous and someone reacts, it's most likely a spontaneous reaction because the event wasn't planned. Or, maybe I'm not getting that part.


but for the Serial Killers and "Psycho's" I believe its a deep urge similar to in depth to peoples desire to be loved, but for a certain part of the killing, such as the stalking and capture, the torture/fear part or the killing itself which brings them some sort of mental gratification from their actions. My opinion, but who knows.

Well... the deep urge to be loved is sort of a tricky part to understand and answer. It depends on the individual. Generally, the psychopaths love themselves, they do what they want for themselves. Killing someone can be for a variety of reasons, although I don't follow how you think it's to be loved.

OK... now you're generalizing. Not all psychopaths and serial killers capture, stalk or torture. So that's quite inaccurate on your part. For the ones that do, they can do it for a variety of reasons, generally though, it's for some sort of satisfaction.

[theOperaGhost]

i'm a criminal justice major, but I've only taken \a few of the classes. I know what the schools of thought are and the main concepts of them however I don't know all the details....I could argue my point better if I weren't drunk...sorry.

[Sapphire]

Psychopaths are not born "insane" - there is evidence that shows that not developing a warm relationship with a caregiver (typically their mother). This can lead to them becoming an "affectionless psychopath" which is characterised by a distinct lack of empathy.

What I have found interesting is that there are cases of men who have raped and murdered an obscene number of women. One case in particular is fresh in my memory. After arresting him, they discovered that he has an extra Y chromosome and that this was the main factor in why he couldn't really control himself properly.

It's actually not quite like that. Even if humans think they have the capability to kill, many don't have the ability to actually do it, even if their/their family's life/ves is/are in danger.
Sure, physically, anyone could kill other people. But mentally, most people really can't.
You might be interested in reading about a study conducted in the 60's by a psychologist called Milgram. It is very interesting with some VERY surprising results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment%5D)
http://www.cba.uri.edu/Faculty/dellabitta/mr415s98/EthicEtcLinks/Milgram.htm
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment%5D)

[theOperaGhost]

Psychopaths are not born "insane" - there is evidence that shows that not developing a warm relationship with a caregiver (typically their mother). This can lead to them becoming an "affectionless psychopath" which is characterised by a distinct lack of empathy.

What I have found interesting is that there are cases of men who have raped and murdered an obscene number of women. One case in particular is fresh in my memory. After arresting him, they discovered that he has an extra Y chromosome and that this was the main factor in why he couldn't really control himself properly.


You might be interested in reading about a study conducted in the 60's by a psychologist called Milgram. It is very interesting with some VERY surprising results.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment%5D)

Those men with an extra Y chromosome are called super-males. A very large portion of the prison population are these "super-males."

[INFERNO]

Psychopaths are not born "insane" - there is evidence that shows that not developing a warm relationship with a caregiver (typically their mother). This can lead to them becoming an "affectionless psychopath" which is characterised by a distinct lack of empathy.

What I have found interesting is that there are cases of men who have raped and murdered an obscene number of women. One case in particular is fresh in my memory. After arresting him, they discovered that he has an extra Y chromosome and that this was the main factor in why he couldn't really control himself properly.


You might be interested in reading about a study conducted in the 60's by a psychologist called Milgram. It is very interesting with some VERY surprising results.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment]

Ah yes, the Milgram experiment. I see someone else here knows a few things about psychology *high fives*.

Well, about him not controlling himself, there's another reason that applies to psychopaths and probably also APD and DPD: serotonin and MAO. serotonin (5-HT) is a neurotransmitter in the brain and in psychopaths, it's quite low. Possibly somewhere in the synthesis pathway (starting from L-tryptophan), something is distorted. 5-HT is secreted by raphe nuclei which are located in several parts of the brain, thus, some small changes have catastrophic results. MAO typically degrades 5-HT unless 5-HT is complex with a 5-HT-binding protein to form a 5-HT-5-HT binding protein complex. If this is the case, MAO simply cannot bind and cannot degrade it. However, there's abnormal levels of MAO also in psychopaths and probably APD and DPD. These results lead to the impulsivity, intolerance to boredom, aggressiveness, etc.... .

The term "affectionless psychopath" I've never heard of and it seems quite redundant. Psychopathy is characterized by a lack of empathy (look on the PCL-R), so an "empathyless person without empathy" makes no sense.

[Sapphire]

As someone who knows psychology are you not familiar with attachment theories in childhood, Bowlby's Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis and his 44 Theives study?

There is a growing amount of evidence that indicates that psychopaths can function in society without commiting crimes and that they are aware of peripheral cues (including emotional cues like fear) until they focus on a single short term goal. Very different from our stereotypical view of vicious and completely remorseless monsters.

Where did you got your information on serotonin and MAO in the disorders you mentioned?

[Oblivion]

I don't get what you mean by "if a bit spontaneous, it's not a spontaneous reaction". If something is spontaneous and someone reacts, it's most likely a spontaneous reaction because the event wasn't planned. Or, maybe I'm not getting that part.

I'm saying that even if it was quickly planned, or if it was only thought of a little while, it would still be planned- not a spontaneous reaction.
Ex: A spontaneous reaction would be if someone was being beat up, and they shot someone and ran away.
A planned [even though it can be somewhat spontaneous] killing would be like if someone was beat up, then they went home, planned where to find them, and then found them and shot them.

Both are murders, but to me, they are on different levels of sanity.

[Sapphire]

Shattered, I still think you should take a look at Milgram's study. It will give you food for thought.

[Oblivion]

I'm saying that even if it was quickly planned, or if it was only thought of a little while, it would still be planned- not a spontaneous reaction.
Ex: A spontaneous reaction would be if someone was being beat up, and they shot someone and ran away.
A planned [even though it can be somewhat spontaneous] killing would be like if someone was beat up, then they went home, planned where to find them, and then found them and shot them.

Both are murders, but to me, they are on different levels of sanity.

That was before I saw the Milgrim's study.
Still, it was just one study, and I see many flaws.
Obviously, most would assume, as I would, that an experiment by Stanford in America would not permanently harm or kill anyone. I never said someone had to be insane to inflict harm- only to kill. Another flaw, is that many, also like me, would not realize what voltage was a 'lethal dose'.
A lot of people may be able to be directed to inflict pain, but not kill.

[Sapphire]

That was before I saw the Milgrim's study.
Still, it was just one study, and I see many flaws.
Obviously, most would assume, as I would, that an experiment by Stanford in America would not permanently harm or kill anyone. I never said someone had to be insane to inflict harm- only to kill. Another flaw, is that many, also like me, would not realize what voltage was a 'lethal dose'.
A lot of people may be able to be directed to inflict pain, but not kill.
The machine used to administer the shocks was labelled with the volts and also from mild to severe shock so they were all aware of the strength. At one point the "learner" would complain about pain and an existing heart problem. Later he would refuse to respond and then finally he stopped responding at all. Over half of them continued to the very last shock on the generator (450v).
Milgram carried out a number of variations on the original experiment - for example, having the participant and the "learner" in the same room as well as conducting it in buildings that were far less reputable - so it isn't just one experiment.

An experiment that works on the same lines as Milgram's was conducted by Hoffling. A supposed doctor gave orders to a nurse over the phone to administer dangerous doses of drugs to patients. 21 out of 22 obeyed even though they knew that the dose was too high.

[INFERNO]

As someone who knows psychology are you not familiar with attachment theories in childhood, Bowlby's Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis and his 44 Theives study?

There is a growing amount of evidence that indicates that psychopaths can function in society without commiting crimes and that they are aware of peripheral cues (including emotional cues like fear) until they focus on a single short term goal. Very different from our stereotypical view of vicious and completely remorseless monsters.

Where did you got your information on serotonin and MAO in the disorders you mentioned?

Did I ever say they are the remorseless monsters, they always commit crimes? Of course they're aware of cues, but "unsuccessful psychopaths" are less abled at fear conditioning due to abnormalities in the hippocampus:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T4S-4BFTWB5-B&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ff9d586b5747f2fd243cf158ef0ccd57


Even though I am familiar with psychology, I don't know all the theories. I'm taking 3rd year abnormal psych in children next year so maybe then I'll learn it. I focus a lot on the biological side and mostly with adults. I hope to learn more about the child abnormal psych.

About the serotonin and MAO..
http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Neuroimaging+in+psychopathy&fr=ytff1-sunm&u=www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/SocialClub/pridmore-neuroimagingpsychopathy.pdf&w=neuroimaging+psychopathy&d=HIAbmp2uSYxz&icp=1&.intl=us

http://www.scinet.cc/articles/psychopathy/psychopath.html

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/51661

There are many others you can easily look through.

Also, look up a paper by Cheng and Muir (2007) called Mechanisms of aggression and production in chickens: genetic variations in the functions of serotonin, catecholamine, and corticosterone. It shows how in chickens, low 5-HT and MAO can cause aggression, impulsivity, etc.... and this can be applied to humans.

[Oblivion]

Just to let you all know, I probably won't be in the debate much more.
Honestly (obviously :P) I'm somewhat (very) uneducated on the matter. I just had my personal opinion, out of the blue. I have no knowledge of psychology... They don't have psych courses in middle school :P
Just for future reference.

[INFERNO]

Just to let you all know, I probably won't be in the debate much more.
Honestly (obviously :P) I'm somewhat (very) uneducated on the matter. I just had my personal opinion, out of the blue. I have no knowledge of psychology... They don't have psych courses in middle school :P
Just for future reference.

Nah, you don't have to leave. It can be a learning experience .

[Oblivion]

I'll watch and learn, but leave it to those who have a clue!! :P

[Sapphire]

Did I ever say they are the remorseless monsters, they always commit crimes? Of course they're aware of cues, but "unsuccessful psychopaths" are less abled at fear conditioning due to abnormalities in the hippocampus:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T4S-4BFTWB5-B&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ff9d586b5747f2fd243cf158ef0ccd57
Actually, unsuccessful psychopaths have been shown to be just as able at picking up on emotional cues when compared to anyone else if they are not focused on a short term goal at the time. Their deficit in detecting cues comes into play when they focus on a short term goal.
http://psychcentral.com/news/2006/07/03/improving-the-definition-of-%E2%80%98psychopath%E2%80%99


Even though I am familiar with psychology, I don't know all the theories. I'm taking 3rd year abnormal psych in children next year so maybe then I'll learn it. I focus a lot on the biological side and mostly with adults. I hope to learn more about the child abnormal psych.Childhood attachment is very basic. I am surprised that it is possible to study psychology for two years and not cover it tbh.

About the serotonin and MAO..
http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Neuroimaging+in+psychopathy&fr=ytff1-sunm&u=www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/SocialClub/pridmore-neuroimagingpsychopathy.pdf&w=neuroimaging+psychopathy&d=HIAbmp2uSYxz&icp=1&.intl=us

http://www.scinet.cc/articles/psychopathy/psychopath.html

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/51661

There are many others you can easily look through.I can see that serotonin has a purpose in treatment. However, I do not see how you can draw definite conclusions that it is a cause of psychopathy. It can help explain why some of them are violent, but you have already said yourself that not every psychopath is violent. I also have a problem with your attempt to generalise it to APD in your last post when there is such uncertainty as to it's causes.

Also, look up a paper by Cheng and Muir (2007) called Mechanisms of aggression and production in chickens: genetic variations in the functions of serotonin, catecholamine, and corticosterone. It shows how in chickens, low 5-HT and MAO can cause aggression, impulsivity, etc.... and this can be applied to humans.That only proves that they are linked with aggression in chickens as well as in humans. You cannot use that to support any theory on human conditions because the two species are so different.

[INFERNO]

Actually, unsuccessful psychopaths have been shown to be just as able at picking up on emotional cues when compared to anyone else if they are not focused on a short term goal at the time. Their deficit in detecting cues comes into play when they focus on a short term goal.
http://psychcentral.com/news/2006/07/03/improving-the-definition-of-%E2%80%98psychopath%E2%80%99


Childhood attachment is very basic. I am surprised that it is possible to study psychology for two years and not cover it tbh.

I can see that serotonin has a purpose in treatment. However, I do not see how you can draw definite conclusions that it is a cause of psychopathy. It can help explain why some of them are violent, but you have already said yourself that not every psychopath is violent. I also have a problem with your attempt to generalise it to APD in your last post when there is such uncertainty as to it's causes.

That only proves that they are linked with aggression in chickens as well as in humans. You cannot use that to support any theory on human conditions because the two species are so different.

Once again, I focus on the biological aspect and on adults. First year psychology covered basics about child development but none of the things you mentioned. The other courses have been geared towards adults and not childhood. Just because I study psychology doesn't mean that I equally study childhood development and attachment nor that I know most of the theories.

I never said 5-HT caused psychopathy. I said it causes the impulsivity, aggression, intolerance to boredom. It has no relation to the emotional deficets, lack of empathy, etc... . Don't twist around what I've said. Fine, to use a better word, it's highly correlated. APD also has aggression, impulsivity, intolerance to boredom, so it would be reasonable to assume 5-HT and MAO deficits are also highly correlated.

If you say I can generalize it to humans, then I can easily generalize it to some human disorders that it would apply to. Saying you cant do that yet can generalize it to humans makes no sense.

Your article you gave does not talk about "unsuccessful psychopaths" because it talks about them in a general sense. Unsuccessful ones have an abnormality in the hippocampus, which seperates them from successful psychopaths. Your article doesn't differentiate the two, and thus, would apply to all psychopaths.

[Sapphire]

I didn't say that you can generalise from animals to humans. I said that the study shows the effects that serotonin and MAO have in chickens seems to be the same as in humans. Nothing more and nothing less.
You attempted to generalise a finding in a farm animal to a human being which is dodgy enough. It gets worse when you use it to try to support your view that the serotonin and MAO are very important in the cases pf psychopaths. A chicken cannot become a psychopath so I really do not see any credit to you using that study in this debate.

The studies that are talked about in the article are done on imprisoned psychopaths. As such, there is not need to differentiate - they only used unsuccessful psychopaths in the studies.

I wonder if any of you remember the case of Jamie Bulger a toddler who was abducted in a shopping centre by a couple of young boys? They abducted him, tortured him and murdered him. Many people theorised that the film Child's Play was what inspired their attack as they had shoved batteries into the infants body and both had seen the film.
Do any of you have opinions on that case?

[INFERNO]

I didn't say that you can generalise from animals to humans. I said that the study shows the effects that serotonin and MAO have in chickens seems to be the same as in humans. Nothing more and nothing less.
You attempted to generalise a finding in a farm animal to a human being which is dodgy enough. It gets worse when you use it to try to support your view that the serotonin and MAO are very important in the cases pf psychopaths. A chicken cannot become a psychopath so I really do not see any credit to you using that study in this debate.

The studies that are talked about in the article are done on imprisoned psychopaths. As such, there is not need to differentiate - they only used unsuccessful psychopaths in the studies.

I wonder if any of you remember the case of Jamie Bulger a toddler who was abducted in a shopping centre by a couple of young boys? They abducted him, tortured him and murdered him. Many people theorised that the film Child's Play was what inspired their attack as they had shoved batteries into the infants body and both had seen the film.
Do any of you have opinions on that case?

... The serotonin and MAO abnormalities in the chickens caused aggression. In humans, they caused aggression and impulsivity. I'm not saying that those chemicals cause psychopathy. I'm saying they may cause the impulsivity and aggression, and intolerance to boredom, which are showed in humans and chickens.

Do you not understand that an "unsuccessful psychopath" has certain hippocampus and other brain abnormalities? If a successful psychopath is imprisoned, does he get the label of "unsuccessful psychopath"? Not unless he has the brain abnormality. So there is a need to differentiate in neuropsychological studies. I don't know how to make that any clearer to you. (Read http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:81AIUjSq5Z8J:www-rcf.usc.edu/~raine/volume%2520reduction%2520in%2520unsuccessful%2520psychopath.pdf+psychopathy+%2B+ unsuccessful&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a).

My opinion is that it's an over-generalization about Child's Play being the reason. Sure they both could have seen it but they could have also seen other killing movies involving similar killings. I'd say the boys should have been interviewed and determine their reasons for killing, then assess their environmental factors and such.

Because getting some articles requires me to sign in with my student university ID, below are basic articles from google.

http://www.laurenscharff.com/courseinfo/articles/physio_psychopathology.html

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2505658/Neurochemistry-and-Neuroanatomy-of-APD ==> relates to APD with what I said a few posts before. It doesn't directly say DPD (haven't looked through all of it) but, if it applies to APD, it would likely apply to DPD.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/vj4fldr315fe4mrv/

http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/51/3/394

[Sapphire]

Do you not understand that an "unsuccessful psychopath" has certain hippocampus and other brain abnormalities? If a successful psychopath is imprisoned, does he get the label of "unsuccessful psychopath"? Not unless he has the brain abnormality. So there is a need to differentiate in neuropsychological studies. I don't know how to make that any clearer to you. (Read http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:81AIUjSq5Z8J:www-rcf.usc.edu/~raine/volume%2520reduction%2520in%2520unsuccessful%2520psychopath.pdf+psychopathy+%2B+ unsuccessful&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a (http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:81AIUjSq5Z8J:www-rcf.usc.edu/%7Eraine/volume%2520reduction%2520in%2520unsuccessful%2520psychopath.pdf+psychopathy+%2B+ unsuccessful&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a)).
That is the physical difference between them. However it is not the only difference. Successful psychopaths are ones who avoid being caught committing crimes and therefore will not be found in a prison population. Unsuccessful psychopaths, on the other hand, are found in prison populations.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001998.html
Therefore, a study done on psychopaths in a prison population uses unsuccessful psychopaths.

My opinion is that it's an over-generalization about Child's Play being the reason. Sure they both could have seen it but they could have also seen other killing movies involving similar killings. I'd say the boys should have been interviewed and determine their reasons for killing, then assess their environmental factors and such.The boys were both interviewed and incarcerated in a detention centre for juveniles. They were released a couple of years ago and given new identities.
Both kids came from very, very abusive backgrounds which I feel resulted in the urge and opportunity to abduct, torture and kill a toddler.

[INFERNO]

That is the physical difference between them. However it is not the only difference. Successful psychopaths are ones who avoid being caught committing crimes and therefore will not be found in a prison population. Unsuccessful psychopaths, on the other hand, are found in prison populations.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001998.html
Therefore, a study done on psychopaths in a prison population uses unsuccessful psychopaths.

The boys were both interviewed and incarcerated in a detention centre for juveniles. They were released a couple of years ago and given new identities.
Both kids came from very, very abusive backgrounds which I feel resulted in the urge and opportunity to abduct, torture and kill a toddler.

So, if a successful psychopath is caught, then he/she is dubbed to be an unsuccessful psychopath? True, the physical difference is not the only difference but it is a major difference. Therefore, if a successful psychopath is caught, and he/she is put in jail/prison, in terms of their neuroanatomy, they cannot be dubbed an unsuccessful psychopath.

Well, child abuse and parental psychopathology have been associated with increased psychopathology in the child(ren). I don't think that their abuse alone resulted in their actions, although I do think it was probably a good contributor, along with other factors. As you mentioned, they watched Child's Play, and I'm sure that too was one of the other contributors. Which one (child abuse or watching Child's Play) had more of an effect, I'm not sure as I don't know what their abuse was, for how long, etc... and it could be argued both ways.

My view on this, is the child abuse probably resulted in an urge to hurt or destroy something if they couldn't destroy their abusers. Watching Child's Play was probably an inspiration provider, because I could sort of see how Chucky would be viewed as them (or the abuser) and the people killed would be the abusers.

There may have been other contributors aside from the child abuse and Child's Play, such as parental psychopathology, or some other environmental contributor.

[Sapphire]

So, if a successful psychopath is caught, then he/she is dubbed to be an unsuccessful psychopath? True, the physical difference is not the only difference but it is a major difference. Therefore, if a successful psychopath is caught, and he/she is put in jail/prison, in terms of their neuroanatomy, they cannot be dubbed an unsuccessful psychopath.Yes, a psychopath is only successful if he/she isn't caught by the law.
Seeing as you haven't read the link I gave, I will quote something from it.

"In the study of the hippocampus, the research team expanded the scope of previous studies by comparing the brains of two groups for the first time: “successful” psychopaths - those who had committed crimes but had never been caught - and “unsuccessful” psychopaths - those who had been caught.
[...]
He tested the theory that psychopaths with hippocampal impairments could become insensitive to cues that predicted punishment and capture. As a result, he said, these “impaired’ psychopaths were more likely to be apprehended than psychopaths without that deficit.
Fewer than half of both the control subjects and the “successful” psychopaths had an asymmetrical hippocampus.
Ninety-four percent of the unsuccessful psychopaths had that same abnormality, with the right side of the hippocampus larger than the left."
It defines a successful psychopath as one who hasn't been caught committing a crime and an unsuccessful psychopath as one who has. It also clearly shows that not all unsuccessful psychopaths have this abnormality.

This study (that you have posted yourself) also makes the distinction that unsuccessful psychopaths are caught for committing crime and successful psychopaths aren't.
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:81AIUjSq5Z8J:www-rcf.usc.edu/~raine/volume%2520reduction%2520in%2520unsuccessful%2520psychopath.pdf+psychopathy+%2B+ unsuccessful&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

This one makes the exact same distinction as the two I have already mentioned.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11502085

[INFERNO]

The study I posted (http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a) does indeed make the distinction, however, unlike the one you posted saying not all unsuccessful psychopaths have that abnormality, the study I posted says:

"Similarly, the only structural brain imaging study on psychopaths to date has showed an exaggerated structural anterior hippocampal asymmetry ... again suggesting that brain structural impairments are specific to unsuccessful forms of psychopathy".

And the other link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11502085) indeed does show the distinction you made but it also comments on how successful psychopaths have "increased autonomic stress reactivity and better neuropsychological function compared with unsuccessful psychopaths ... unsuccessful psychopaths showed reduced cardiovascular stress reactivity". This too shows that there is a physiological distinction between them, not only specific to the anterior hippocampus.

I've been trying to talk about in terms of their anatomical and physiological differences. Your study and the one I posted seem to be conflicting on whether all unsuccessful ones have the hippocampal asymmetries.

[Sapphire]

The studies I quoted were chosen because they define what a successful and an unsuccessful psychopath are as you were disputing how I used the terms. I feel that the definition of these terms is now clear.

The fact that there is a disagreement in the studies presented about hippocampal abnormalities in unsuccessful psychopaths indicates that it isn't as clear cut as that. The size of the corpus collosum has also been linked with psychopathy which adds to the inconclusive literature on this topic.

[NightHawksr71]

Well... the deep urge to be loved is sort of a tricky part to understand and answer. It depends on the individual. Generally, the psychopaths love themselves, they do what they want for themselves. Killing someone can be for a variety of reasons, although I don't follow how you think it's to be loved.

OK... now you're generalizing. Not all psychopaths and serial killers capture, stalk or torture. So that's quite inaccurate on your part. For the ones that do, they can do it for a variety of reasons, generally though, it's for some sort of satisfaction.[/QUOTE]

I was just comparing this desire for whatever they enjoy of the killing to something most people would understand, I was saying the depth is in my opinion similar to the depth of which most humans desire love.

They do it because they enjoy some part of it, as I said it brings them some sort of mental gratification doing some part of it, killing, torturing, stalking, capturing depending on the person, the part they enjoy will differ as well as how they will do it differ's but most of the time they will continue doing what they enjoy unless what they enjoy of the killing changes.

and wow I was slow to reply by a lot.

[The Joker]

Serial killers can be people who have been bullied. They could also have a serious mental disease.

It shows that the two behind the Columbine Massacre were bullied, even called "fags". I've heard of a lot of killings at schools related to bullying, way too many. There was a guy in Alberta, I believe, who decapitated a man and decided to show the people on the bus he was on the decapitated head. He was recently deemed not criminally responsible for this, because he was hearing voices.

Also, if someone knows another person who has what he wants, sometimes that person kills to get what they want.

Most killers, serial, or just regular killers, kill because of these things.

[INFERNO]

First, the Columbine Massacre weren't serial killers. They were mass murderers, and yes, there is a difference between the two.

Second, they can kill for a variety of reasons. Neuroanatomical or neurofunctional deficits can give an insight as to what is part of the process but they cant give the whole reason.

However, what if they weren't bullied, had no psychosis, didn't kill for an object or person? What about the famous Jeffrey Dahmer to Richard Chase (aka Vampire of Sacremento) to Andrei Chikatilo (aka the Mad Beast [of Russia]) to Arthur Shawcross? All of them are notorious serial killers and did rather unusual things to their victims (i.e. Shawcross performed necrophagy), Dahmer... well no need to re-tell his legacy, so don't you think there are other reasons, other than those additional ones of bullying, psychosis and getting an object/person to motivate their acts?