Where Did All the Serial Killers Go?
this is actually a big point of contention, it's not clear that sociopathy isn't actually environmental in origin.
_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?
Adam Smith
this is actually a big point of contention, it's not clear that sociopathy isn't actually environmental in origin.
I've heard an unofficial distinction that 'psychopaths' are the ones with genetically wonky amygalae and 'sociopaths' are created. If you meet either, call them a psychopath because it's not like they can defend themselves with 'No, I'm just a sociopath'.
Here is an article that suggests that there is only one salient feature that separates a hero from a sociopath, and that is the ability to see past one's own needs. They relate genetics to both and don't differentiate a sociopath from a psychopath,
http://www.science20.com/rogue_neuron/addicted_being_good_psychopathology_heroism-60137
low impulse control
high novelty-seeking (desire to experience new things, take more risks, break convention
no remorse for their actions (lack of conscience)
inability to see beyond their own needs (lack of empathy
willing to break rules
always acts in the interest of himself
X-altruist:
low impulse control
high novelty-seeking
little remorse for their actions (would "do it again in a heartbeat")
inability to see past the needs of others (very high empathy)
willing to break rules
acts in the best interest of others, or for the "common good" (because it is the "right thing to do")
There are many instances in history of good guy gone bad.
It is possible that the genetics between a sociopath and a hero are very similiar, and environmental agents of all kinds, make the difference if one turns their efforts inward or outward.
When the nation is at war the opportunity is there for individuals of all economic backgrounds to strive to be the hero, for the greater cause.
Timothy McVeigh comes to mind, a very troubled individual headed in a bad, bad direction that found a temporary purpose, mission, and success in the military, only to become lost again after the short, first gulf war, and we all know what the result of that was.
Perhaps the most unusual part of the period spanning '75 to 2001, was an extended period without direct conflict with other nations, except for the first gulf war, peaking in the 80's along with the peak of reported serial killings.
For some with troubled childhoods, the military and combat, may be the difference for a few that separates a hero from a serial killer.
Perhaps defense of some type of common enemy is part of the tribal instinct, and when there is none, the tribe must search for another focus, resulting in interesting results.
The last five years of vietnam along with Nixon and Watergate, shattered the illusion of nation for some. 9/11 brought it back in a huge way, until disillusion became the norm again.
The point I'm getting at is Violent Video games, many that focus on war time elements, online or off, allow most anyone to strive to be a hero, in a vicarious way.
The longer we went without war the more popular that genre of video games became, starting in the early nineties, flooding the market by the end of that decade, and by the time the next war started in 2001, the opportunity to be a vicarious hero at home and one abroad, were both available.
Not everyone can be a war time hero, a football star, famous musician, politician, CEO, or movie star, but most anyone can exert those energies into a vicarious reality provided by a video game.
Who knows, perhaps violent video games, change some potential villains, into vicarious heroes.
What's even scarier, is within their subculture they are neither considered insane, psychopath or sociopath, and likely respected as a hero.
What is villain and what is hero, in this case, depends on the socio-cultural norm.
It is what makes eventual nuclear conflict, almost a certainty; primates whom will always have different socio-cultural norms among different groups, baring their teeth at each other.
And when that socio-cultural norm becomes an illusion beyond the reality of this world, the only limits of destruction, are the limits of the tools available to assist in that destruction.
The most compelling reason to separate church from state, and it's hard enough to keep it separate in a country that insists that it is their ideology.
Why is it so widely accepted that law enforcement is doing a better job in identifying and capturing serial killers? Law enforcements track record has never been great, Gary Ridgeway is a perfect example. There was a rash amount of convictions once new technology was introduced (DNA, etc) however that technology is general knowledge now.
I imagime serial killers of today would be more inclined to stay under the radar, and leave less evidence where as in the past trophies were left.
Law enforcement may simply be more pre occupied with the internet, spree killing, and terroristic crime than in the past when serial killers were public enemy #1.
When the zodiac stopped communication, the case dried up. My point is, serial killers have the huge advantage of playing offense and law enforcement has never been great on defense, it is probably more likely that the new age serial killer has evolved into a more undetectable individual than it is they declined.