Jack the Somatic Narcissist

[Barnaby]

Let's take Jeffrey Dahmer for example. It's entirely possible he was a narcissist. It didn't make him kill, but it probably helped him live with it. It's a toss up as to whether or not he was a sociopath. Certain statements and actions could lead one to believe that he was not incapable of empathy, but he clearly had none for his victims. .

Hi Erratta,

I've been thinking about your post today and believe it is very inciteful. I, myself, believe that there are genetic predispositions to becoming a serial murderer but also environmental triggers. The problem is that we think we know quite a bit about both but even if we put them together most people do not end up this way. Which means we are missing something. It seems like most of what we know is a necessary (or likely) but not sufficient cause.

I highlighted your above comment because it raises an important point. I believe that Dahmer did care about others. I think antisocials can be empathetic, but it seems that they have an uncanny ability to block it when it comes to whatever drives them, be it money, sex, murder, whatever. It is like someone can engage in a torture murder without it bothering them in the slightest and then go home and legitmately care for their ailing grandmother in a truly loving way. Weird.

[Errata]

Hi Erratta,

I've been thinking about your post today and believe it is very inciteful. I, myself, believe that there are genetic predispositions to becoming a serial murderer but also environmental triggers. The problem is that we think we know quite a bit about both but even if we put them together most people do not end up this way. Which means we are missing something. It seems like most of what we know is a necessary (or likely) but not sufficient cause.

I highlighted your above comment because it raises an important point. I believe that Dahmer did care about others. I think antisocials can be empathetic, but it seems that they have an uncanny ability to block it when it comes to whatever drives them, be it money, sex, murder, whatever. It is like someone can engage in a torture murder without it bothering them in the slightest and then go home and legitmately care for their ailing grandmother in a truly loving way. Weird.

Ironically, grief is one of the most narcissistic emotions we have. Caring for an ailing relative, feeling true devastation when they die is typically a selfish act. We care for them ourselves because we fear the guilt associated with tossing them into a home, or because it violates our own sense of propriety. It rarely has anything to do with the wishes and needs of the person who needs care. And when they die, we mourn our loss. Not theirs.

As far as the x factor in creating a serial killer, I'm all about the genesis moments. There is a time when a person is not a serial killer, and then they are. When does that happen? According to criminology, it's when they kill their third person. But by that time, they have been a serial killer for awhile. They just hadn't racked up the appropriate numbers. By the time they kill their third victim, they have been on that path for awhile. So when does it begin? It isn't their first kill. Dahmer's first kill didn't make him a serial killer. Is it the moment they realize that they enjoy killing? The moment they realize that they need it? The moment they decide they are going to do it again? Is it before they ever kill? Is it in childhood? There comes a time in an obsessive behavior pattern when the only way you are not going to engage in the behavior is if you get hit by a bus. You are locked on that path, it becomes part of who you are. When is that moment? I think that is the genesis moment. And without understanding what happens in that moment, and in the moments before and after we won't be able to identify the x factor. And it may end up being different for different kinds of serial killers.

[mklhawley]

Folks, this is an awesome and thought-provoking discussion. As a retired Navy pilot in antisubmarine warfare, one of my jobs (which I never had to do) was to hunt down and kill a sub -and all of the human beings inside it. It seems that normal humans in a position to kill (as in the military) must play mind games, such as consider the 'bad guys' as something other than human beings. The problem is, we have continued memory of this, thus, we must repress it.

A person with a pathology may not need to repress, since the amygdala does not kick in and sympathize or empathize. I've also heard of the immature amygdala in those exhibiting pathological behavior, and it does make sense.

If it is true that many serial killers had ruthlessly killed animals when they were younger, this seems to conform to a physiological issue with the amygdala.

Any thoughts?

Mike

[Errata]

Folks, this is an awesome and thought-provoking discussion. As a retired Navy pilot in antisubmarine warfare, one of my jobs (which I never had to do) was to hunt down and kill a sub -and all of the human beings inside it. It seems that normal humans in a position to kill (as in the military) must play mind games, such as consider the 'bad guys' as something other than human beings. The problem is, we have continued memory of this, thus, we must repress it.

A person with a pathology may not need to repress, since the amygdala does not kick in and sympathize or empathize. I've also heard of the immature amygdala in those exhibiting pathological behavior, and it does make sense.

If it is true that many serial killers had ruthlessly killed animals when they were younger, this seems to conform to a physiological issue with the amygdala.

Any thoughts?

Mike

The amygdala has a lot to do with social interaction, but less with empathy or sympathy. The reason it can be a causal factor in violence by antisocials is because there is a direct correlation between the size of the amygdala and the amount of social intelligence. People with damaged amygdalas can't read people well. They can't interpret facial expressions or body language well. If you can't read remorse on someone's face, it is easy to assume that they wronged you on purpose. Conversely, the larger the amygala the more aggressive a person can become.

The best analog I can come up with for serial killers is Autism. I am NOT saying people with autism are violent or sociopaths or anything like that. Autism is essentially a train wreck of causal factors with no unifying mechanism. There are structural issues in the brain. There are chemical issues. But we have no idea what causes autism. It could be genetic, it could be environmental, it could be structural. It could be all of the above or none of the above. There may be no unifying factor at all. We don't know.
But some of the symptoms of autism are present in serial killers.

Autistic kids are generally incapable of empathy. And it's because they are so socially dysfunctional that they can't bond to people. They also don't read people well, if at all. They don't read expressions, body language, cannot assign motive, and thus have no intuition about other people. They can't understand why people do what they do. Temple Grandin characterized it as being "an anthropologist on Mars" they can observe and even mimic social behavior, but they can't understand it. They are incapable of empathy because they cannot identify distress, and don't feel it the way neurotypicals do. Which is not to say they don't feel it, they absolutely do. Just not the same way. They can attach to the people closest to them, but certainly not to a stranger. And even the attachments they form are different. A child with Autism (as opposed to Aspergers) will likely never initiate contact with a parent. And as they grow, they may know that their parents see a hug as a sign of affection, but they don't. They don't empathize because they don't feel the need for contact, and they are incapable of people pleasing behavior. It simply does not occur to them to display affection to a parent because it would please the parent.

There is also a repetitive aspect of Autism that is present in serial killers. Repetitive or compulsive behavior, and resistance to change. Autistic kids find something that works, and they stick with it come hell or high water. It's a way of reducing anxiety. It has been said that the goal of a serial killer is to recapture the feeling of the fist successful kill. They stick with what they know. It's why so few of them change things up. Why knife guys tend not to switch to guns, why they don't change victimology. It's not a rule, but it's a distinct trend.

Also quite frankly, the level of concentration and attention to detail the average autistic can bring to bear is frighteningly high. They see things we don't see. A serial killer's level of attention to detail is also very high. They also see things we don't see. We can look back on Jack the Ripper and know all his victims were prostitutes. But we don't know that he was solicited by them. We don't know he ever saw them with a customer. I don't think it would have mattered. Serial killers are expert profilers. They know who to target, they can read their targets like a book. Some serial killers have even successfully convinced their victims that they knew each other. It's all about attention to detail.

I think it's possible that whatever leads to these things in autistics also causes them in serial killers. I don't think it causes serial killers, but I think thats what makes them successful. I think potential serial killers without these qualities get weeded out pretty early. But I think that like autism, it's a train wreck of causes. If it was just one malfunction it would be more common. But I think that environmental factors are less important than we would think. The truth is there is nothing common to all serial killers that we know about. In the end, it could just come down to simple choice.

[Barnaby]

By the time they kill their third victim, they have been on that path for awhile. So when does it begin? It isn't their first kill. Dahmer's first kill didn't make him a serial killer. Is it the moment they realize that they enjoy killing? The moment they realize that they need it?

I think there are a lot of parallels here with drug addiction.

[Errata]

I think there are a lot of parallels here with drug addiction.

I agree. But there is an element that is different from most mental illnesses. A lack of self awareness about any mental illness by necessity prevents you from controlling it. People can be Bipolar (for example) without knowing about it. And it causes problems. And it will cause problems until they not only become aware that they have a mental illness, but accept that fact. Then, even if they don't medicate they can exert some control. Same with addiction, schizophrenia, depression, even personality disorders.

Serial killers can exert control without self awareness. They exert control before they are even serial killers. Not necessarily to keep from killing, but certainly to keep from getting caught. They will reject a potential victim if it is deemed unsafe. They can stop, reverse course, suppress he urge, even release a victim with a facile explanation if it is in their best interests.

The definition of any mental illness includes dysfunction, and a lack of control. Without training or medication, a Bipolar cannot control their disease. There is nothing that can prevent either mania or depression. Medication can tone it down, or reduce the number of episodes, but nothing can stop it. All you can do is try to reduce the amount of havoc it causes in your life. Dysfunction is not defined in a societal sense. It is defined in a personal sense. Dysfunction prevents you from leading your life as you would choose. Which is why seemingly harmless activities can be crippling. Hand washing is a desirable activity. But with someone with OCD, it can lead to becoming a shut in, physical disfigurement, suicide. It's a classic example of dysfunction. Even narcissism and antisocial personality disorder cause dysfunction. They cause unhappiness in the sufferer.

Serial killers don't appear to have dysfunction associated with their activities. It doesn't prevent them from living their life as they choose. It seems to cause unhappiness in some, but the whole "catch me before I kill again" thing is a myth. There has never been a serial killer whose activities have caused such distress in him that he has either sought help or turned themselves in if other options are present. They may want to be normal, but they don't want to stop. Which on the surface sounds like addiction, but there is a difference. An addict who doesn't want to stop will cause harm to everybody in their life, including themselves. Serial killers are very careful not only to keep themselves safe, but to protect anyone innocent who might be in their life, like a spouse or a parent. It's like serial killers are addicts, but only when it poses no danger to them. And that is contrary to addiction, where one of the hallmarks is that a person is willing to die in pursuit of a high.

So if dysfunction and loss of control are the hallmarks of mental illness, then serial killing is not a result of mental illness. We can find analog to their behavior in psychology, neurology, biochemistry, etc. but nothing fits. Which argues for a complicated series of malfunctions in a person (which could also account for it's rarity) but still would not explain the genesis of the behavior. Why killing, as opposed to arson or animal cruelty? And why can they control themselves?

[Barnaby]

I agree with the point that some serial killers can operate without it causing distress or dysfunction in their lives, but I would argue that it does cause it in many. If you are trolling the streets for prostitutes all night long (e.g., the Green River Killer, Jack), suppressing the urge to kill by drinking excessively (e.g., Dahmer, Kemper), or ruining a promising career (e.g., Bundy) then I'd say you aren't functioning optimally. But I agree that their global functioning scores are going to be much higher than someone with schizophrenia, for example.

[Errata]

I agree with the point that some serial killers can operate without it causing distress or dysfunction in their lives, but I would argue that it does cause it in many. If you are trolling the streets for prostitutes all night long (e.g., the Green River Killer, Jack), suppressing the urge to kill by drinking excessively (e.g., Dahmer, Kemper), or ruining a promising career (e.g., Bundy) then I'd say you aren't functioning optimally. But I agree that their global functioning scores are going to be much higher than someone with schizophrenia, for example.

I would say that these maladaptive behaviors would be present if these men were killers or not. Well, I can't speak to Jack the Ripper because we know nothing about him. But Ridgeway was picking up prostitutes long before he started killing them. I doubt he changed his behavior to start killing them, rather he simply did what he had been doing since he he was a young adult, but added killing. Dahmer didn't drink to keep from killing. He drank because he was an alcoholic, and had been since high school. Kemper may or may not have drank out of guilt. He certainly testified that he did, but we know he's a psychopath. And he has participated in any number of studies, including brain scans. It's entirely likely that he is physically incapable of feeling guilt. As for Bundy, he evidently had no problem with working while killing. Or attending law school while killing. In fact, his killing didn't derail his career until he got caught. Which doesn't precisely mean that he didn't sacrifice his career for killing, but it does mean that as long as he wasn't caught, he didn't feel the need to choose one or the other.

I'm am not saying that these guys function normally or in a socially acceptable way. But the peculiar part of being completely unburdened by guilt is that killing people simply doesn't cause the psychic stress it does in other people. In fact, most if not all of the stress on a serial killer is related to not getting caught. So while the fear of discovery, or actual discovery can completely blow up a serial killers life, the taking of human life does not.

This is why I hate Axis II disorders. They are so bloody subjective. To the point that different countries recognize different diseases. Hell they even HAVE different diseases. Not that I don't love me some sociology, I just don't want it in my science.