Music: Lift

Evaluation final:

• illusionist;
• dreamer;
• menace to society.

 Poets of the Fall - Lift












Times when I just can't
Bring myself to say it loud
'Fraid that what I'll say comes out somehow awry

That is when it seems
We move in circles day to day
Twist the drama of the play to get us by

And it feels like fear
Like I'll disappear
Gets so hard to steer
Yet I go on
Do we need debate
When it seems too late
Like I bleed but wait
Like nothing's wrong

You lift my spirit, take me higher, make me fly,
Touch the moon up in the sky, when you are mine
You lift me higher, take my spirit, make it fly,
Where all new wonders will appear

Like the other day
I thought you won't be coming back
I came to realize my lackluster dreams

And among the schemes
And all the tricks we try to play
Only dreams will hold their sway and defy

And it feels like fear
Like I'll disappear
Gets so hard to steer
Yet I go on
Do we need debate
When it seems too late
Like I bleed but wait
Like nothing's wrong

You lift my spirit, take me higher, make me fly,
Touch the moon up in the sky, when you are mine
You lift me higher, take my spirit, make it fly,
Where all new wonders will appear

Classified Killers

I'd like to point out three things before I get started.
Point the first: This post is really me to getting really pedantic about terms that crime shows misuse. Well... just one term that really gets on my nerves.
Point the second: I did mention that due to my assignments I wouldn't be doing a proper Disturbing the Disturbed post this week, however I did find some really neat studies while researching this so they will go in a different post.
Point the third: Half of this blog is me giving my thoughts some sort of structure. So this is a bit of an organizing process.

Firstly the "one phone call" rule means one phone call to your lawyer - not to the helpful old lady who will find the real killer for you. Just wanted to clear that up.

Now, the ones that actually sparked my desire to explain terminology: mass murderer, spree killer, and serial killer. Now, most of you have probably heard of the first and last ones from crime shows. The fact is that most of the “serial killers” on television are, in fact, spree killers – if there is a serial killer on a show, it will likely be the “big bad” for the season and their crimes will be a overarching plot between different shows, in which the individual crime will play second fiddle to the murder-of-the-week until the big confrontation episode. An example of a TV serial killer is the Dollhouse Killer of from the CSI franchise.

However, what is the actual difference?

Let’s start with mass murder.

First thing about mass murder is that all the killings take place in one place over a continuous period of time. This time span ranges from a few minutes to a day. They have to have killed at least 3 (or 4) people. Most high school shootings fit under Mass Murder, as well as crimes that involve the killing of multiple family members at a time.
The mentality to do with a mass killing is different to serials and sprees. For starters, while the demographic of serial killers and spree killers are typically white males from the ages of 20 to 30, the mass murderer, while also a white male, is typically between the ages of 25 and 40. Their “plan” tends to be disorganized and the motive is usually revenge or rejection.
Cases of rape are rare, and sadism is not usually a factor. The greatest difference would be that the attitude towards being caught is uncaring, or even suicidal. Typically the mass murderer is a frustrated individual, has lots of weapons, likes violence, have no partner, and lives alone or with a parent.


Next is the spree killer.

The spree killer will have killed two or more victims in multiple locations in a short period of time. The common time frame is from a few days to a week but the formal definition is that “there is no cooling-off period”. Timing is the key difference between the three categories with mass murderers having no distinctive time period between kills and with the crimes of serial killers being definitely separate events – a spree killer’s kills, though in different locations, are considered a single event.

Spree killers tend to be disorganized, and also tend to be fueled by revenge/rejection. Sadism is not a factor in their kills but rape may factor in. Spree killers usually don’t plan on being caught but there are exceptions to this.

Both mass murderers and spree killers fall under “rampage killers” and their victim demographic is usually spread between men and women (though more women do tend to die in mass murders). However, spree killers and serial killers are more likely to have partners than mass murderers.


Finally we come to serial killers.

The serial killer commits 3 or more murders over a period of more than a month with a “cooling off period” between, and has a motive based on psychological gratification. Usually the victims have something in common, such as race or sex, but in some cases such as that of the Zodiac killer there is no pattern. Due to the large time difference between kills it can be months, years, or even decades before a serial killer is caught, if they are caught at all.

While spree killers and mass killers tend to use guns, a serial killer will commonly use a knife or employ some means of strangulation to kill their victim. Both rape and sadism can play a part in their crimes and serial killers do not intend on being caught.

In terms of personal characteristics, there have been many studies done on this.

• A sample of 174 serial killers revealed a mean IQ of 93, with only bombers having IQs significantly greater than average.
• Often abandoned by their fathers and were raised by domineering mothers.
• Their families often have criminal/psychiatric/alcoholic histories.
• They were emotionally/physically/sexually abused by a family member.
• May have a large history of suicide attempts.
• Frequently bullied as children
• Interested in voyeurism, fetishism, and sadomasochism from an early age.
• A disproportionate number exhibit one, two, or three of the MacDonald Triad (predictors of psychopathy):
• Pyromania
• Sadistic tendencies (especially in children who have not yet reached sexual maturity – usually takes the form of torturing animals)
• Bed wetting beyond the age of 12.
• More than 60% did this but there have been debates on the statitistical significance of this figure.

There are exceptions to this, such as Harold Shipman, Dennis Nilsen>/a>, Vlado Taneski, and Russell Williams. These are only guidelines.

Some serial killers exhibit various degrees of psychopathy, a condition that will be covered in a later post but is mainly defined by having traits of both narcissism and antisocial personality disorder (also covered later). 50-80% of criminals exhibit ASPD but only 15-30% score as primary psychopaths on the PCL-R test. There is no data to identify the prevalence of psychopathy amongst serial killers.
However, serial killers who exhibit ASPD are often aware of how to hide the characteristics in order to blend in – an infamous case is that of Ed Kemper who tricked psychiatrists into thinking he was cured.

While there are female serial killers they are very rare and primarily kill for money, are emotionally close to the victims, and generally have a relationship with them (wife/mother/nurse). Once again, there are exceptions such as Aileen Wuornos.

A common theory as to why serial killers keep killing is that they are trying to live out a fantasy and since reality never meets up to fantasy, they are compelled to keep trying.

Serial Killers can be both organized, disorganized, and mixed (a three to four ratio on the first two). What this means is that
Disorganized:

•  More impulsive, often use whatever weapon is available at the time, don’t usually try to hide the body
• They usually have a history of mental illness, below average intelligence (the mean IQ of disorganized killers is 92.5), may be unemployed or a loner, and their crimes can be very violent.

Organized:

• Plan methodically, usually have above average intelligence (mean IQ of organized killers is 113), usually abduct victims, have different kill and dump sites, and may lure out victims by playing on sympathy (e.g. Ted Bundy) or target prostitutes due to their being more likely to walk off with strangers.
• Occasionally they have forensic knowledge to help them control the crime scene and cover their tracks.
• They are socially adequate, has friends/lovers, and even a family. These are the ones who would be described as “they wouldn’t hurt a fly”.

Serial Killers obviously have a motive of some sort – recognized motives are:

• Visionary: having suffered a psychotic break from reality, they sometimes believe that they are another person or are being compelled to murder by another entity.
• Mission-oriented: justify their actions in that they are “ridding the world” of a type of person whom they deem undesirable on the basis of sexual preference, occupation, ethnicity, religion, etc. It is important to note that these kinds are generally not psychotic.
• Hedonistic: thrill seeker and see people as expendable in order to get said thrills.
• Lust: sex is the primary motive here regardless of whether the victim is alive or dead. The fantasy plays a large part in their killings and the will use close contact weapons like knives or hands. As the killings continue the time between victims will decrease and/or the stimulation required increases.
• Thrill: primary motive is to inspire pain/terror in victims and thus excitement for themselves. They murder only for the kill – the attack is not prolonged and there is no sexual aspect. The victims are typically strangers but prolonged stalking may proceed the attack. They can abstain from killing for a long period of time and tend to refine their techniques as they go on – they aim for the perfect murder.
• Comfort (profit): material gain is the main purpose, thus the victims are usually family members or close acquaintances. Long periods of time between victims in order to avoid suspicion. Poison is the most popular weapon – especially arsenic.
• Power/control: main objective is to exert power over the victim. These killers were usually abused as children and they are trying to make up for their lingering feelings of powerlessness and inadequacy. In these cases rape is not about sex but domination.

[looks at the page]
Well… that’s enough of serial killers for me. >_>

A great graph that mostly summarizes most of this can be found here. And I like this site but failed to include – just read.

DISCLAIMER: In regards to the demographics of the killer (white/male/age) one must keep in mind that these are derived from figures taken from the USA. When these statistics are compared with those of other countries, it is found that Caucasians are no more likely to be a serial killer than any other race. This can be attributed to the media’s tendency to focus on crimes where the victims are “pretty white females”. However, of America, South Africa, and Australia, the latter has a much lower incidence of serial murders.

Disturbing the Disturbed: The Dark Triad

Hello! It's still Wednesday!

No “witty” title here – this week we discuss the Dark Triad. Okay, the next three weeks (including this one) will be done somewhat oddly as I am actually building up to the concept of a psychopath – a definition that gets pretty much butchered... at least as far as I’ve noticed. However, it comes in this nice little package with two other personality traits that I am fond of so I wanted to discuss them first as one of them is also very relevant to a future post.
But I’m getting ahead of myself...

The Dark Triad is a group that consists of three personality traits: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Now, the reason these guys are part of this dark little club is that while each is distinct in theory, they often overlap in life.

An argument to try and separate the three in terms of an example is that while the narcissist will attack when threatened, the psychopath will attack when threatened; also in a academic view, the Machiavellian will plagiarize an essay to cheat, the psychopath will try to copy another’s exam answers without forethought.
However, those examples are rather negative... and kind of sound like a David Attenborough documentary.

So instead I will give each disorder its own post... mainly because my Narcissism section was long enough to warrant a post of its own. I’m sure it’s very happy that it no longer has to share with Machiavellianism as originally intended.

Okay, I will first tackle Machiavellianism.

I assume we’ve all heard the expression “the ends justify the means”? Well, this is a misappropriation to Niccolò Machiavelli, an Italian diplomat and political writer. Much like the “It is better to be feared than loved” quote it’s been taken out of context and shortened. The correct versions are as follows:

"look to the consequences before you act"

And

Whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with...
Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated.
— Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 17

However, it is this popular understanding that gives us the general gist of this personality trait.

Commonly, Machiavellians use deception and manipulation to trick others for their personal gain. An entity’s capacity for Machiavellianism is called Machiavellian Intelligence. This behaviour may be demonstrated through:
• Blaming and forgiveness;
• Lying and truth-telling;
• Making and breaking alliances
• Making and breaking promises
• Making and breaking rules;
• Misleading and misdirection.

Yes, I think this list is rather, well, silly. I mean, forgiveness? I presume that it is talking about using the above to manipulate others/events – this fits with the fact that Machiavellians feel little remorse or empathy when their actions harm others.

One method Machiavellians may use is known as "gaming the system - "[using] the rules and procedures meant to protect a system in order, instead, to manipulate the system for [a] desired outcome".
If you’re a gaming fan then “gaming the system” is the same as rules-lawyering (also known as “ignoring rule 0: the Game Master is always right”).

The Machiavellianism trait also strongly correlated with the belief that it is fine to lie for the greater good to be achieved – a sentiment which makes sense to me. NOTE: One of the “defining” traits of Machiavellianism is supposed to be cynicism towards morality, however the acknowledgement of a “greater good” contradicts that idea and yet these people still have enough traits to be classified as Machiavellian. Therefore, just because someone is Machiavellian, it doesn’t make them a “bad” person.
(Actually, most descriptions vary between “cynical towards morality” and “cynical towards people” – you could actually link the latter to basic economic theory in that if everyone acts in their own self-interest then you get a better result overall. Economic interests. -_-)

Ok, in essence Machiavellianism is " the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct ” which sounds less judgemental.

A great villainous example of Machiavellianism is Edmund from King Lear – not only does he deceive his father into thinking his half-brother was plotting to kill him, he manages to trick Goneril and Regan into thinking he’s in love with them. Through these deceptions he gets himself an estate, and almost a kingdom – you know, if Edgar hadn’t come and stabbed him.

As you may have noticed by now, this trait is common amongst fictional villains – the ones usually termed “psychopaths”. When we get around to discussing psychopaths you’ll see it to be rather different. However, as I stated earlier, the Dark Triad do occur together fairly often so it may be were the misconception is rooted.

This trait is not a bad one per say – no mental condition or personality trait is inherently bad. It’s all to do with how it’s applied. Machiavellianism has so far stayed through to its roots in politics - politicians with this trait fare much better than those without it. This is partially because Machiavellianism is highly correlated with charisma – whether this is as a result of their manipulation skills or as assistance to it, I’ll leave to you... though I reckon it could go either way since I know many charismatic people who aren’t manipulative but I also know a lot who are (but then out of those few are maliciously manipulative, if you understand what I mean).

Now, the charm is especially prevalent in short-term social interactions – I would consider this the difference between genuine charisma and good acting.

There were some studies that correlated High Mach with Type A personalities, but since the Type A/Type B personality thing has since been discredited I won’t talk of it.

I think I’ll close on this quote, which in my opinion summarizes Machiavellianism... which could be paraphrased from the Evil Overlord list as “I will not be a damned fool".

Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn now not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as a necessity requires. - Niccolo Machiavelli, 1469-1527

Disturbing the Disturbed

As I have hinted at, I have an interest in mental disorders above that of most people I know (i.e. more than no interest) and one thing I have discovered while researching these disorders is how many times fiction, and real people, get it wrong.

 

Over the next few weeks I will put up a post explaining some of the common misconceptions that appear in fiction. I anticipate that the series will last about 6 weeks, provided I don't have some sort of pressing rant I'd like to get off my chest. In that case I may post twice in a week to keep to schedule depending on how enthusiastic I'm feeling.

 

The first post of this series will be on Wednesday and it's sequals will also be posted on Wednesdays. After the series ends I shall return to posting on Mondays for the most part.
(Any Monday posts before the end will likely be an aforementioned "pressing rant".)

 

Anyway, so that is all for now.

 

ADDENDUM:

 

When I discuss any "personality disorders" (it will be stated in their name) they must first satisfy the following criteria before a specific disorder can be assigned:

 

Under the DSM-IV:

• An enduring pattern of psychological experience and behavior that differs prominently from cultural expectations, as shown in two or more of: cognition (i.e. perceiving and interpreting the self, other people or events); affect (ie. the range, intensity, lability, and appropriateness of emotional response); interpersonal functioning; or impulse control.
• The pattern must appear inflexible and pervasive across a wide range of situations, and lead to clinically significant distress or impairment in important areas of functioning.
• The pattern must be stable and long-lasting, have started as early as at least adolescence or early adulthood.
• The pattern must not be better accounted for as a manifestation of another mental disorder, or to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g. drug or medication) or a general medical condition (e.g. head trauma).

 

Under the ICD-10:

• markedly disharmonious attitudes and behaviour, involving usually several areas of functioning, e.g. affectivity, arousal, impulse control, ways of perceiving and thinking, and style of relating to others;
• the abnormal behaviour pattern is enduring, of long standing, and not limited to episodes of mental illness;
• the abnormal behaviour pattern is pervasive and clearly maladaptive to a broad range of personal and social situations;
• the above manifestations always appear during childhood or adolescence and continue into adulthood;
• the disorder leads to considerable personal distress but this may only become apparent late in its course;
• the disorder is usually, but not invariably, associated with significant problems in occupational and social performance.

The ICD also adds that 'For different cultures it may be necessary to develop specific sets of criteria with regard to social norms, rules and obligations.'

 

Fear versus Actuality

I just thought this was funny and sad at the same time - it's a list of fears and the realistic chance of them eventuating. Found in a book published in 2006.

Deadly shark attack: 1 in 280 million
Deadly antrax attack: 1 in 57 million
Deadly airplane accident: 3 million
Shot by a sniper: 1 in 517,000
Losing your job: 1 in 252 (this is pre-GFC though)
Home burglary at night: 1 in 181
Developing cancer: 1 in 7
Catching foodborne illness this year: 1 in 4
Cathing a sexually transmitted disease: 1 in 4
Developing heart disease: 1 in 4
Dying five to ten years earlier if you're overweight: 1 in 4
Death from tobacco-related illnesses: 1 in 2

Funny: Not only are you more likely to catch a deadly case of anthrax than get killed by a shark, even more likely to get shot by a sniper than die in an airplane crash. It's amusing to think that we should all be more worried about little red lights being directed at our heads over giant fish with multiple teeth.

Sad: Why do people spend so much time worrying about the improbabilities in life, when there are real things to be afraid of that can actually be prevented by healthier living and regular medical check-ups?
Instead we're hearing the Jaws soundtrack play in our heads everytime we go to the beach.