Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sorry if there is already a thread on this topic.

Anyway,I have always had a rather morbid fascination with serial killers.Not so much what they do but why they do it.So I was wondering is it nature or nurture?Can someone be born to kill or is it to do with their life experiences and how they were brought up?

I myself am in a wierd grey area as I belive it is rather a mixture of both.I mean there have been serial killers like Joel Rifkin(spelling)who have had a totally noraml up bringing and still went on to kill.Yet there are even more men/women who experienced trauma in there lives and have went on to kill.

So I was wondering what you guys think is it nature or nurture?

Mixture of both.

Someone can be mentally unbalanced their entire life, and never really harm anyone. This depends on how they were brought up, relationship with parents etc.

Example of a combined Nature and Nurture. At the school I used to work with, we had a number of students with ADHD, all taking Ritalin to control it. One Kid was determined to behave and knuckle down. This was because his Parents had explained to him what ADHD is, and how it affects him. Another kid, same condition. Except his Parents said it doesn't matter if you're naughty, it's the ADHD doing it, not you.

Care to take a guess as to which was a little sod and which was a solid little dude?

So I think it's about your nature, and the social expectations learned from those around you. Same with Homosexuality. If being Gay is a major Taboo in your neck of the woods, then even if you do turn out to be on the other Bus, chances are you'll plump for a life of repression. Raised in an area where it's accepted, and you are more likely to experiment sexually to find where your personal border lies.

I don't think there are any BORN serial killers. I'm pretty sure that if you look into a killers past, you'll find something (could be any little thing) that made them snap.

I'd say nurture.

(But on the other hand, I'm sure there are wo/men who have had truamatised lives, yet don't go on a rampage)

Emperors Faithful wrote:I don't think there are any BORN serial killers. I'm pretty sure that if you look into a killers past, you'll find something (could be any little thing) that made them snap.

I'd say nurture.

(But on the other hand, I'm sure there are wo/men who have had truamatised lives, yet don't go on a rampage)

I believe many are born with the capacity to kill. But very few of them receive the kind of treatment that creates a serial killer. It's more about mistreatment in early childhood that really makes someone a killer. Also, women don't kill as often as men.

I think I would go towards nurture but I think people with very defined senses of right and wrong and very strict boderlines between the two are more likely to become a serial killer.

I'd say it's 50/50.

Like mentioned before.. I believe some people are born that will kill and not think anything of it.

This can still be argued as nurture though..

This is a very touchy subject though, prepare for some disagreements!


Cheers,

Jack.

All meat eating animals are born with the ability to kill, the only thing stopping us from killing is nurture.

IMO at least...

Ah another infinate debate.

corpsesarefun wrote:All meat eating animals are born with the ability to kill, the only thing stopping us from killing is nurture.

IMO at least...

The giant panda has the digestive track of a carnivore, except all they eat is bamboo.

Killing another animal for food is not the same as killing a member of your own species, especially when it's a conscious decision.

avantgarde wrote:Killing another animal for food is not the same as killing a member of your own species, especially when it's a conscious decision.

Oooh... the rub I see, yes indeed.

There is a pretty obvious difference between humans and other animals with the same type of war-like nature. This is not a universal trait by any means though, but the more aggressive cultures have most definitely proven they tend to last by sheer violence alone. The more violent the culture the more likely it is to produce a "serial killer", which could be more generally defined as an inherent detachment from societies goals on the whole.

Anyway, long story short, nature vs. nurture is a pretty moot point really, most people do not end up at the sort of moral impasse that would present options to be so very disconnected. Most if not all serial killers have been A.) abused very very badly B.) shunned from the social group they feel they should be a part of... and C.) have very unsatisfying lives.

American Psycho is a good example of sensationalism, mainly because most serial killers come from quite poor backgrounds, or live a life of relatively "need" free nuances.

corpsesarefun wrote:All meat eating animals are born with the ability to kill, the only thing stopping us from killing is nurture.

IMO at least...

As long as you assume all animals are the same and therefore all killing is the same. Which is fine if you believe it but it isn't an assumption everyone is going to want to make.



Meanwhile, I'm not sure there's a chance of making much progress on this question as is. For starters, there isn't really any such thing as a typical serial killer, and the psychology of a serial rapist/murderer is going to be very different to a guy who is just killing hitchhikers. So trying to form a general nature/nurture rule is going to be fraught with assumptions.

But more importantly, exactly what is nature and what is nurture can get very hazy. Nature starts with the genes, but what about conditions in the womb? What about events during early life, when the brain is still in development (malnutrition preventing development of certain brain functions, is that nature or nurture?)

And does agency play a role at all? Is it all nurture and nature, or is there any point where we can say 'while he may have psychological problems he made a choice to kill those people'?

I think it might be best just to look at causative factors, whether nature or nurtue, and leave it at that.

Who has seen Dexter the cable show?

The whole character is a quite generalized, in the same way the media tend to generalize everything.

My question is what is the difference between an utter madman who needs to perform acts of murder to fulfill their social/psychological "needs" and a person like Dexter who goes out and kills those people for practically the same reasons.

I am not asking whether Dexter is some sort of hero (which he most definitely is not), just if there may be a rational difference between the two sides of this coin. Perhaps Dexter only got half of the story when he was a child? It is a character to be sure, and the occurrence of such vigilante serial killer are extremely uncommon in comparison to the "evil" serial killers.

Wrexasaur wrote:There is a pretty obvious difference between humans and other animals with the same type of war-like nature. This is not a universal trait by any means though, but the more aggressive cultures have most definitely proven they tend to last by sheer violence alone.

I'm not sure this is true. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's an interesting question that probably can't be taken as simply as you've put it. Sure, the most powerful, longest lasting civilisations have tended to have famously deadly militaries, but they've also tended to have very sophisticated trade and social systems. I wonder if the effectiveness of the militaries in these countries has been based on the wealth produced by the underlying social models.

I don't know, it's an interesting question and I'd be interested to hear what the resident history buffs think about it.

The more violent the culture the more likely it is to produce a "serial killer", which could be more generally defined as an inherent detachment from societies goals on the whole.

I've read some interesting stuff on shooting to kill over the years. Studies have shown remarkably few soldiers ever fire a round directly at the enemy, many will take on other roles, often very dangerous, but won't fire directly on the enemy. It goes back as far as the civil war, where it was noted that the number of rounds a unit could put on target in a minute in training was reduced to something like 5% of that in combat. Part of that would be from nerves and panic, and part from the amount smoke that was in the air, but that couldn't account for a drop in effectiveness of 95%. It also couldn't account for the number of muskets that were found that had been loaded again and again and never fired, some had six and seven rounds loaded.

The theory goes that only a small percentage of us are naturally capable of killing without being directly threatened. In tribal days you wouldn't see total war, you'd see the strongest few of each tribe fighting, and the rest looking on (much like when you see a streetfight today generally there'll only be a couple of guys really going at it). It's related to the idea of the alpha male, where the optimum group has one member who's preference is to lead and the rest preferring to support. Similarly a tribe only needs one or two members willing to murder to defend themselves, so the rest don't develop that way.

But take all that with a grain of salt. It's interesting, but none of it is hard science.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:Who has seen Dexter the cable show?

The whole character is a quite generalized, in the same way the media tend to generalize everything.

My question is what is the difference between an utter madman who needs to perform acts of murder to fulfill their social/psychological "needs" and a person like Dexter who goes out and kills those people for practically the same reasons.

I am not asking whether Dexter is some sort of hero (which he most definitely is not), just if there may be a rational difference between the two sides of this coin. Perhaps Dexter only got half of the story when he was a child? It is a character to be sure, and the occurrence of such vigilante serial killer are extremely uncommon in comparison to the "evil" serial killers.

Dexter is a terrific show because it asks these very questions and doesn't give cheap answers. Dexter is murdering people that none of us are going to miss, but he is motivated out of his desire to kill, the choice of victim is a secondary choice. So maybe his actions end up positive, but his motivation is horrible.

Great show.

Mixture.

sA

Nurture(enviromental factors) is a large influence on nature(genetic predisposition). But its only an influence.

Too many people want to see nature vs nurture as a y/n or true/false sort of deal. And its not.

There are many instances of well nurtured psychopaths, and fewer of sociopaths. For those that dont know the difference, a very rough definition:

Psychopaths generally have a strong compulsion for thier behavior and often get a high from it, but its pattern forming and they often dont 'learn' from the mistakes involved. This is why so many sex offenders have to register- they are intensely pattern oriented in their compulsions.

Sociopaths have little or no regard for anything other than what they want. They often display a very shallow charm, but if that doesnt get them what they want, violence and intimidation are their habits. Think of someone thats OCD, ADD, has extremely low impulse control, and a total disregard for morals and ethics(unless it gets them what they want) and thats a basic behavioral framework.


So, now that the difference between the two is becoming better acknowledged and recognized, there has been some progress in helping the younger kids that display the sociopathic patterns. If given good reasons they can learn to work around it. But, the long term is still grey, only time will tell if its something that can be overcome, or if its just the pattern asserting itself and 'behaving' to get what it wants.

And, for those curious, I worked in a super-max prison for almost 10 years. So, this isnt class room psycho-babble form a book or wiki quotes. Its applied criminal science, I learned first hand by working with many that are 'poster children' for this sort of debate.

In the end- nurture can help some, but its ultimately a personal effort on the individuals part is what will make the difference. Providing these people the reasons to make that effort is what nurture should be about. Bigger carrots are needed sometimes, when sticks just make things worse.

Of course, there is the argument that (apart from the most blatantly insane) these people choose to be serial killers ENTIRELY of thier own choice. They are the ones who ultimately make the decision.

I know this sounds lame, but look at Macbeth. The prophecy, the witches, his WIFE, all encourage him to kill his kind King Duncan, but it is his choice. And he is the one who ultimately makes it.

There is always a choice.

Mistress of minis wrote:Psychopaths generally have a strong compulsion for thier behavior and often get a high from it, but its pattern forming and they often dont 'learn' from the mistakes involved. This is why so many sex offenders have to register- they are intensely pattern oriented in their compulsions

Whether a matter of choice or not, most of these cats don't even know the meaning of change. Every opportunity they have to put things in their favor they will usually take, not being involved in decision so much as instinct.

Macbeth is a lame comparison to be sure EF, you would find more insights through silence of the lambs, but that is a pretty much non-existent character in real life. The closest there was to the doc was a guy who went around dibbying out lobotomies to any who "needed" them. So little research has been done on this very rare group of "genes" if you may, there really is no conclusive evidence how this type of person could work.

Mistress of Minis were you working in a womans super-max? No offense, but it sounds quite dangerous for a woman to be a mens super-max. I don't know how everything worked in there, I would assume a distance of 10 feet at all times or something along those lines for the aggressive inmates. I do know that a lot of states seriously lock some of these cat's up, like hook-line-sinker, and adamantium box kind of stuff. I saw a show where a bunch of inmates went ape and tried to take over a prison. Needless to say they didn't last very long, although the leader ended up breaking out with the help of a guard at one point. Crazy story really, I can't remember the guys name.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Mistress of Minis were you working in a womans super-max? No offense, but it sounds quite dangerous for a woman to be a mens super-max. I don't know how everything worked in there, I would assume a distance of 10 feet at all times or something along those lines for the aggressive inmates. I do know that a lot of states seriously lock some of these cat's up, like hook-line-sinker, and adamantium box kind of stuff.

It was mens super max prisons. Im not even sure if theres a population large enough to warrant a womens supermax- they generally have a higher security detention unit inside a medium custody facility for women.

Its dangerous for anyone to work in a super max, regardless of gender. Learning how to communicate in thier social framework, basically showing them respect while still maintaining authority, went a long ways to ensuring my safety. I worked in a modern design with mesh fronted electrically operated doors, and also in an antiquated prison with cell blocks having been built in the 20's. 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' was actually filmed at the last one I worked at. Going from the modern(SMU I- very similar to Pelican Bay), to the older(Central Unit) stereotyped prison bars was a change in perspective, but not in the way I looked at things.

Regardless of where I was, I always treated them like the cell door wasnt there. Which worked out well, as sometimes doors dont close, get accidentally opened, or the guys get released and you run into them at the grocery store. I never had any problems. There were more than a few OMFGWTFBBQ sort of scary moments, but nothing bad ever came from them.

But going back to your statement about them having to want to change/recognize change. Motivation can be a large factor in whether or not they can want to change- but by the time you get to this point- nature vs nurture is simply a way of determining where their mindset is at for a basis of rehabilitation. And theres still little evidence from either side of the 'Lock em up!' or the 'They can be saved!" crowds.

They better figure it out though- because of slowed litigation from incarcerated individuals, and the enormous growth of the inmate populations- the US Penal system is becoming one of the largest burdens on the US tax payers. It costs more to house most inmates than many people make in a year, its ridiculous.

Some of us are born able to kill, but often require a push.

Deff Dread red Edition wrote:Sorry if there is already a thread on this topic.

Anyway,I have always had a rather morbid fascination with serial killers.Not so much what they do but why they do it.So I was wondering is it nature or nurture?Can someone be born to kill or is it to do with their life experiences and how they were brought up?

Neither. Its the DPS. I think you'll find all our real psychos started their sprees shortly after visiting the DPS.

So...Frazzled is blaming all psyhos on the...Deamon Princes? Oooor the Drop pods?

Sorry, thats a USAism.

DPS, is Department of Public Saftety. Name changes by state but its known by that due to Hollywood. DPS is where you got to get you driver's license. Its commonly known as the fifth ring of Hell. One of Dane Cook's comedy routines was the theory that, when you walk in, someone should immediately punch you in the face, to take your mind off the pain.