Well, I've worked in psychology for twenty-two years and have worked with mass murderers, serial killers, regular murderers, sex offenders and all types of criminals in a prison with a shifting population of about 4000 inmates for about seven years. The rest of my time was spent working with people with mental problems in the community. My observations agree with the ideas of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Behaviorism that people genuinely believe what they're doing and that's why they do it. In Gestalt Therapy it's pointed out that most people have multilayer personalities. Example: Fred likes to snort coke. Fred tells this too: 1. Not his mom, he tells her he's drug free and thinks drugs are dumb. 2. Not at college because he wants to appear motivated and traditional to teachers. 3. Not on his facebook page because that would bring negative publicity. 4. Not his girlfriend because she's an anxious health nut. 5. He shares his enjoyment and thoughts about the drug with his friend that he knows enjoy illegal drugs. This is what you'd call a "neurotic" or according to Gestalt terminology and Incongruent Lifestyle. That means that one's words don't mesh with their thoughts. The goal in this therapy is to say exactly what's on your mind no matter if it's positve of negative. It's part of being "real" and living a real life instead of the one you think people want you to live. Anyway, when you're doing something, but saying the opposite, the beliefs behind the doing are the one's you really believe in. Fred believes coke is good or else he wouldn't be doing it. So, no matter what he says the cogitions about coke are positive. That's one reason drug users relapse so frequently, they get off the chemicals, but do not truly believe drugs aren't positive. Charming: One reason sociopaths are charming/manipulative and seemingly have no empathy is because they have alternate beliefs about life and people. For instance, the idea "People seem like insects to me" is a constant for murderers and even rapists. A fairly high IQ is associated with serial killers and now you can see some connection between that and seeing average people as insects. They may have little in common with other people and feel isolated and angry. In the US people aren't very community oriented in many places and that's the "socio" problem that contributes to the "path" or the sickness in the criminal. Such a person is going to be charming because they don't think others are equal or understanding. It's much like you might talk to a little kid. You don't BELIEVE they'll understand or maybe that you don't have to explain yourself. Also, if you believe people are like bugs then you don't feel much about what you do to them. So, my point here is that belief drives human behavior. If the behavior is at odds with the statements of the person, then the statements aren't true. Of course, our minds are filled with many beliefs and some are at war. So, a depressed person might believe that life is hopeless, but they know there's people who don't believe that and there's what's called Cognitive Dissonance, like a painful confusion, that makes them want to explore the conflict. Getting therapy would be about helping to tip them in a positve direction.
I love you reasoning. But my question wasn't about of they were in a social denial about their behaviors or problems (like a person cutting them self and denying it), but id they are unaware that they got a problem at all. A person cutting them self know that they feel a lot of anxiety and probably that they are depressed as well. Neither did I questions that people hold believes that might be wrong based in their disease, like a depressed person believing that the world is hopeless. But I stated that is that in most cases a depressed person is still aware that they are depressed as well.
Do research. Read 'Anatomy of Motive' by John Douglas. Besides being a great book to read, will inform your writing much more than an assumption. John Douglas is the father of FBI profiling and the 'idea' (and consultant) behind Jodi Foster's boss in Silence of the Lambs. In reading that book, there is much more that goes in to creating a serial killer and if you are going to write about the subject, understand it. Also, really...a great book to read. Very interesting stuff and you can get it for less than $10. If you want to invest in writing a book on the character, understand how the mindset works or you will probably be wasting your time.
It's more that he knows he's a murderer, and has rationalized his own (semi-honorable) method to his madness. This is actually very much what sociopaths do. They're all about rationalization and are usually very calculated in and aware of their 'code.' Serial kills don't just randomly run and happen to kill people, they plan and plot and calculate exactly whom they're going to target and kill. Dexter is doing the same thing. He KNOWS he's a murderer, and also is intelligent enough to know how he works, and [usually] controls that by essentially rationalizing himself into murders that are at least deserved (in his own mind, but also in an interestingly compelling way for the show and general commentary on right and wrong). Not to mention, considering he was messed up by a criminal element murdering his mother, his murdering of criminals and murderers kinda makes sense. Honestly, it just seems as if your dislike for the show is what's informing your opinion on whether it's realistic. There are some cheesy 'just for tv' aspects, but for the most part based on everything I've read and everyone I've talked to (with degrees and stuff), the show is quite plausible. It may not be realistic in the sense that this would actually happen, but it's plausible in the sense that if it did happen, this is how it would occur. When writing a sociopath, if one wants to even bother with the term, one needs to realize they aren't just mindless Frankenstein like monsters stumbling through life happening to kill people. They're usually quite intelligent, very calculated, and yes also quite aware of themselves and their motivations. If they weren't aware, then they wouldn't need to go to such great lengths to rationalize everything to make it okay, in their own minds, for them to do what they're doing. Meaning, in fiction, just having some irrational character doing irrational things is the biggest mistake people make when they writing a 'crazy' character. This is also the importance of a close, limited pov when writing such a character, as we have to get inside the characters head or they'll just be the stereotypical 'he was crazy all along' trope that is never effective.
Yeah, it's never the cheesy sort of TV explanation as simple as "sharks killed my family, now I'm a uncontrollable, irrational shark killer!" One thing I like about Dexter is while it shows how such trauma can have a huge impact on a child's development, it also goes deeper and is more complex. There are a lot of questions that can be asked, like would Dexter have really ever even become a serial killer if not for Harry basically channeling what Harry assumed to be inevitable? Maybe if left to his own devices, Dexter just becomes some socially awkward reject who does things aberrant, but not necessarily killing or even committing crimes at all. Of course, we focus on what makes a serial killer a killer, as it's relevant and easy to do, as opposed to taking random people and focusing on horrible things that may have happened to them, but that didn't just magically (TV magic!) make them an irrational killer. In general, though, if you're going to write just about anything that is non-standard, research is good (and watching most TV is about the opposite of research as one can find in most situations, lol).
My favorite trick when writing the kind of serial killing sociopath Hollywood loves so much is to realize that these characters essentially see other people as things. Yes, the most interesting of these (Dexter and Hannibal Lector have both been mentioned, and are probably the best examples of the trope) both have a complex 'codes' that they use to rationalize to themselves their behavior, but it comes down to the fact that they see other people as things to be manipulated. Dexter kills other murderers- why? Because his adoptive father (spoilers, obviously) sensed in him the fact that he would grow up to be a serial killer, and decided to use Dexter as a weapon against other serial killers, ones whom the law could not catch and punish. Dexter has an elaborate system he uses to select his victims, but he mostly uses this system because it's part of the game. He enjoys killing, and having an elaborate system for selecting the victim adds to the fun. Other people- normal people- are just toys to him, and he selects the toys that will be the most fun to play with. That's it. Dexter is not an admirable or honorable character, just an entertaining one to watch on TV. Ever play The Sims? Ever play just to torture the game characters? That's how characters like Dexter and the sociopath you're writing see all humanity. To make things interesting, choose a system the killer has for selecting victims, make it as complicated and convoluted as possible, and try to depict the glee the killer takes in playing the game, but never lose sight that the character is playing a game for their own amusement. Also, drink a lot.
Yes, but unless they have a medical problem, like a thyroid issue, it's their beliefs that causes their depression. So, it's like I explained, a person who wants help but doesn't give it to themselves by just changing their mind is having a battle of beliefs. They are asking for help to prove the negative beliefs wrong.
Yeah, but a lot of the diagnosis got genetic and endogenous factor. Among them bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.
Dexter is a romantic conception of what a killer is and he's more like a Ninja or a character in the Chinese wuxia tradition. That's where wandering warriors find and challenge bad guys based on their own moral code. In real life, serial killers tend to me sexual in nature and extremely mentally disorganized (living in their own world). I've read a huge number of case studies going back to the 1800s to improve my understanding of the motives associated and I have never found a Dexter or Hannibal type of killer. A guy named Theodore Millon is noted for his work in personality types and he breaks down the types of antisocials very nicely and it's worth a look. What Dexter does is a socially "normal" eye for an eye kind of thing and appeals to the averge Joe's desire to "have the same thing happen to him as he did to others". It's not logical that a "serial killer" would follow through on a relatively normal impulse. Did you ever see the anime Death Note? It's very good. Anyway, it's about a young guy who finds a mystical means of killing bad people to make the world better. That's a fairly normal thought and it's what Dexter is about. Serial killers are either psychotic (fantasy world) or deeply bitter about some disappointment, which makes them power freaks. They hate people and that trumps human authority, etc. So, the bit about Dexter's father "channeling" his desire to murder people is absurd. If you could do that then you could recruit such murderers for military service and whatnot, but you can't because they disorganized and perverse people. I hate seeing the worst example of humanity turned into a hero, but I must admit the shows I watched were addictively entertaining because of the writing. Of course, I love superheroes too and they no more believable.
Those are just hypothesis from psychiatry associated with prescribing medication. People in psychology (how the mind works) and Behaviorism (how we are conditioned) stick with what I'm telling you. Medical doctors are notorious for the use of the placebo "you were born that way" as a means of "treating" neurotic behavior. I don't like that. In relation to that, it seems to me that in the US people have given up trying to figure out why human behavior is shaped. I think that's because of our economic system.
Yet there is no longer a serious nature vs nurture debate anymore anywhere. Evidence points to that that there is genetic, environmental and social factors involved in pretty much anything, and it has been confirmed in twin studies and other genetic studies that some psychiatric disorder have a strong genetic factor, as well as detectable changes or abnormalities in brain function on a biological level. To which degree different factors affects what vary between diagnosis as well as individual cases. The same way that most somatic diseases have as affected by both genetic, environmental and social factors. For example if we talking about a skin condition it will be affected by your genetics, environmental factors as where you live and what you eat as well as social factor as skincare and if you spend time in a solarium etc. There no simple nature or nurture truth.
There's a lot of criticism of twin studies, which I won't go into. A hilarious example I saw was wherre two adult twins were featured and they were both standing there wearing the same plaid shirt, had a moustache, and were both firemen and they shared some mental problem. Well, I doubt there's a gene for moustaches, firefighting, or plaid shirts. So, the criticism is that people raised in the same kind of milieu may develop the same kind habits and problems. For instance, had one of those twins been raised in Mongolia, things might have been different. Also, researchers can be very tricky eliminating subjects that don't conform to their desired study findings. But still genetic factors are considered and the "biopsychsocial" approach is considered. The "bio" part is seen as being a very minimal baseline, like a disposition. For instance, a person might have more energy chemicals in their body and they've got energy. If they have parents who teach and keep them interested, then they might develop into a highly focused goal oriented person. If they don't have interested parents their energy could turn into a hyperactive and directionless person. I don't know if you have beavers in your country, but they're a rodent that is born knowing how to build elaborate dams in waterways. Humans show no evidence of knowing anything about anything and we're like the most unprepared animal ever. Humans will give you reasons for their behavior and they always go back to some past experience or teleological fantasy they have. That's because people are the most creative animal and whole alternate realities can be created, and we know that from being writers. Humans aren't born with the ability to carry out complex tasks and we can see that as behavior differs wildly across culture. But when say a Chinese baby is raised in the US they act like a person from the US, not like a Chinese person in spite of that country's ancient culture. Getting back to the topic, most killers operate on generalizations, mystical thinking, either/or thinking, and so on. They aren't born to kill.
Hi W176, I should have been more specific, when I said crazy I was literally thinking of serial killers and other psycho murderers etc in the context of this thread. And yes, there is an underlying logic to what they do. We just had a released schizophrenic kill his mother in a rather tragic way, and ignoring all the rest of the matter, he had told everyone including his father that he was going to do it because the voices were telling him to. Its not that he didn't know that he was the only one hearing the voices, its not that he didn't know it was wrong, it was simply that the voices were real to him. Bundy I think before he was executed said some fairly horrible things about why he did what he did. He tried to blame pornography, but he was a genuine psychopath who actually said things like when asked why he'd killed so many said "what's one more". He genuinely did not understand that the people he killed had value. So if you want to write crazy you really need to understand the logic behind the crazy. Cheers.
