Some people seem peculiarly predisposed to murder for no clear reason, could this be a partially spiritual phenomenon? (8 Viewers)

[SickoPsycho01]

There exists a certain chunk of murderers out there that murder simply because they like how it makes them feel, and often because they had already wanted to since a young age. I first fantasized about this at age 14 myself. Does anyone else think that there is a spiritual component to that nagging desire to murder? If the soul exists, then wouldn’t it make sense for some to be blacker than others? As someone who struggles with a sort of duality (yes, believe it or not I have a nice side.. 🙄) I have begun to think that maybe it really is something you inherit, or are born with to some degree. Something you carry with you that you were always going to carry. Be it the mark of cain or demonic possession, there is something something intangibly mysterious and ancient about that desire.

 

[Russellmark11]

Not spiritual. If anything it would be having closer genetic ties to the Neanderthal, whose saw less value in life. So I guess you could call it ancient in that sense. And this would be lacking empathy and would lean toward the narcissistic spectrum.

 

[Theseus]

I think it comes from environmental factors, and certain brain chemistry people can be born with. I wanted to kill my dad and my mother had to talk me out of it at age 10. He was also abusing me and my siblings. Mine was environmental. Some have an urge to control/dominate others and get some sick kick out of it. I don’t believe it has anything to do with spirituality.

Not spiritual. If anything it would be having closer genetic ties to the Neanderthal, who’s saw less value in life. So I guess you could call it ancient in that sense. And this would be lacking empathy and would lean toward the narcissistic spectrum.

I agree with your statement except Neanderthals actually had emotions like ares if not identical. They had music and tight knit family groups. Love is how a pack animal such as are selves and Neanderthals survive. Some bones have shown injuries that would have killed them without care from others. Those broken bones healed, meaning they were loved by their group. It would be simpler and less risky to just kill and eat them and make a new one by fucking. 🤣🤘🏻why keep a burden around and tend to their wounds/needs?

 

[Dark_Voyeur]

I think it comes from environmental factors, and certain brain chemistry people can be born with. I wanted to kill my dad and my mother had to talk me out of it at age 10. He was also abusing me and my siblings. Mine was environmental. Some have an urge to control/dominate others and get some sick kick out of it. I don’t believe it has anything to do with spirituality.


I agree with your statement except Neanderthals actually had emotions like ares if not identical. They had music and tight knit family groups. Love is how a pack animal such as are selves and Neanderthals survive. Some bones have shown injuries that would have killed them without care from others. Those broken bones healed, meaning they were loved by their group. It would be simpler and less risky to just kill and eat them and make a new one by fucking. 🤣🤘🏻why keep a burden around and tend to their wounds/needs?

Was it love, or good insurance?

 

[Bruno Puntz Jones]

Nature (genetics) and nurture (environment) work together to produce every phenotypic trait we exhibit, including behavioral tendencies. There is no extricating nature from nurture, or vice versa, so everything we are is a product of both. Psychopathy, for example is an inherited neurodevelopmental disorder which can become behaviorally dangerous through environmental exacerbation. On the other hand, sociopathy has a stronger environmental component than genetic, but the pre-existent genotype of the individual, when influenced by environment, produces sociopathy; which is why not everyone who has a bad childhood becomes sociopathic (because their genotypic traits were not conducive or amenable to it). That aside, both psychopathy and sociopathy indicate a diminished sense of affective empathy (as opposed to cognitive empathy). Affective empathy is the ability to feel what others are feeling emotionally, or at least to be emotionally moved by another's first-person emotional experience. These disorder, however, do not affect cognitive empathy, which is the mere cognizance of another's emotional state (i.e., the ability to "read" another person). Today, both disorders are grouped together in the DSM-V under Antisocial Personality Disorder, but they are indeed different. What makes them similar is their diminished affective empathy, which is what I believe you are referring to when you describe your moral ambivalence, or scruples. Neither psychopathy or sociopathy entail an absence or morals. And the affective empathy component of both disorders exists on a spectrum ranging from completely absent and up through varying degrees of diminished presence. In other words, it is usually not an all-or-nothing trait. Both psychopaths and sociopaths will possess varying degrees of affective empathy across a sample size. Regardless, neither sociopathy or psychopathy necessarily entail murder or murderous tendencies; however, most if not all serial killers are believed to have one or the other.

As I stated earlier, environment is inextricable from genetics (as epigenetic mechanisms are being constantly elicited by one's environment, and these mechanisms elicit phenotypic changes), but overt environmental factors can and do play a role in the development of paraphilias. For example, Dennis Rader (BTK) remembers first being turned on sexually by death when he was a young child watching a family member behead a chicken. Whether the seed was sown before then by abuse, sexual or otherwise, I do not know. But this paraphilia - his sexual turn-on regarding death, violence, and murder - certainly grew to the point where he decided to indulge it in real life. Often, these fantasies start small, but persist and grow into rape/murder/power fantasies, that they then decide to carry out for real. But, obviously, not everyone who harbors such fantasies carries them out. So what does? What is that final straw? I'm sure it differs by serial killer. Maybe desperation for some? Opportunity for others? But as with all human behaviors, they exist on a slippery slope once one takes that initial step and succeeds without falling (e.g., getting arrested). A more benign example is learning to ride a bike. Once initial failures (e.g., falls) are overcome, and riding becomes possible, it becomes easier and easier to do.

So, to answer you question, yes it is something you are born with partially, and something you developed environmentally, partially.

As for the soul. It doesn't exist. So, no, I don't believe it would be a psychological factor regarding the aforementioned disorders except as a schema through which an individual views the world; though possibly also, as in your case, an analog for a moral sense or moral "force".

(PS: If anybody has any corrections, please amend. I haven't studied this in a little while, I just finished lifting weights so there's very little blood in my brain, and it's past my bed time.)

 

[Bruno Puntz Jones]

There is a cluster of diagnostic criteria for ASPD, but the empathy criterion is the one I felt related most directly to OP's post.

 

[Nobbler]

Maybe your family was murdered in a past life and you have come back for revenge..

 

[Russellmark11]

Nature (genetics) and nurture (environment) work together to produce every phenotypic trait we exhibit, including behavioral tendencies. There is no extricating nature from nurture, or vice versa, so everything we are is a product of both. Psychopathy, for example is an inherited neurodevelopmental disorder which can become behaviorally dangerous through environmental exacerbation. On the other hand, sociopathy has a stronger environmental component than genetic, but the pre-existent genotype of the individual, when influenced by environment, produces sociopathy; which is why not everyone who has a bad childhood becomes sociopathic (because their genotypic traits were not conducive or amenable to it). That aside, both psychopathy and sociopathy indicate a diminished sense of affective empathy (as opposed to cognitive empathy). Affective empathy is the ability to feel what others are feeling emotionally, or at least to be emotionally moved by another's first-person emotional experience. These disorder, however, do not affect cognitive empathy, which is the mere cognizance of another's emotional state (i.e., the ability to "read" another person). Today, both disorders are grouped together in the DSM-V under Antisocial Personality Disorder, but they are indeed different. What makes them similar is their diminished affective empathy, which is what I believe you are referring to when you describe your moral ambivalence, or scruples. Neither psychopathy or sociopathy entail an absence or morals. And the affective empathy component of both disorders exists on a spectrum ranging from completely absent and up through varying degrees of diminished presence. In other words, it is usually not an all-or-nothing trait. Both psychopaths and sociopaths will possess varying degrees of affective empathy across a sample size. Regardless, neither sociopathy or psychopathy necessarily entail murder or murderous tendencies; however, most if not all serial killers are believed to have one or the other.

As I stated earlier, environment is inextricable from genetics (as epigenetic mechanisms are being constantly elicited by one's environment, and these mechanisms elicit phenotypic changes), but overt environmental factors can and do play a role in the development of paraphilias. For example, Dennis Rader (BTK) remembers first being turned on sexually by death when he was a young child watching a family member behead a chicken. Whether the seed was sown before then by abuse, sexual or otherwise, I do not know. But this paraphilia - his sexual turn-on regarding death, violence, and murder - certainly grew to the point where he decided to indulge it in real life. Often, these fantasies start small, but persist and grow into rape/murder/power fantasies, that they then decide to carry out for real. But, obviously, not everyone who harbors such fantasies carries them out. So what does? What is that final straw? I'm sure it differs by serial killer. Maybe desperation for some? Opportunity for others? But as with all human behaviors, they exist on a slippery slope once one takes that initial step and succeeds without falling (e.g., getting arrested). A more benign example is learning to ride a bike. Once initial failures (e.g., falls) are overcome, and riding becomes possible, it becomes easier and easier to do.

So, to answer you question, yes it is something you are born with partially, and something you developed environmentally, partially.

As for the soul. It doesn't exist. So, no, I don't believe it would be a psychological factor regarding the aforementioned disorders except as a schema through which an individual views the world; though possibly also, as in your case, an analog for a moral sense or moral "force".

(PS: If anybody has any corrections, please amend. I haven't studied this in a little while, I just finished lifting weights so there's very little blood in my brain, and it's past my bed time.)

 

[Bruno Puntz Jones]

Good point. Diagnostically speaking, Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) and Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) exist under the penumbra of Cluster B Personality Disorders. Also included in this grouping are Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD), and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). They are all grouped together in this cluster because they share overlapping diagnostic criteria; as such, a person exhibiting one of these disorders will likely exhibit symptoms of one or more disorders in this grouping. Under diagnostic assessment, however, a subject's diagnosis will fall within one of the four personality disorders (though diagnostic notes may indicate that they are on the borderline between one or more). Having said that, the concept of Malignant Narcissism is not a valid diagnostic category. It appears to be an early (1983) moralizing take on the concept of NPD. And this is not to say that those exhibiting NPD may not be "malignant" in their behaviors, but diagnostically speaking, moralization plays no part in diagnosis. It seems that the internet has taken to hypothesizing and expanding on NPD in recent years by adding moralizing and descriptive qualifiers such as "malignant", "covert", "closet" etc. Analogously, we have seen this done with genders and gender theory over the past years. For example, choose any one of the silly scientifically unverifiable genders, or silly neo-pronouns that have popped up in droves: "non-binary", "demi-sexual", "clown gender", "clown self", etc. The internet loves to hypothesize and postulate on real word phenomena like film buffs love to hypothesize and postulate about cinematic universes, but hypothesizing and postulating something does not reify it into existence. Luckily, Psychology has come a long way since 1983. During the 80s, psychology was still dealing with the lingering effects of Freud's influence on the field. And though psychology is indeed indebted to Freud in some regard due to his early scientific rigorizing of it, he burdened the field much more through his wildly unscientific hypothesizing (e.g., "penis envy"!), and such unscientific hypothesizing is evidently rampant on the internet still regarding psychological concepts.

 

[Morally-Skewed-Hippo]

think that there is a spiritual component to that nagging desire to murder?

Yes. God tells me to go forth and destroy his divine creations.

No, of course not. Only the mentally challenged, socially repressed, or the truly schizo think that killing is a special calling, or an aspect of your soul (spirituality/religion/insert woo of choice here).

 

[Russellmark11]

Good point. Diagnostically speaking, Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) and Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) exist under the penumbra of Cluster B Personality Disorders. Also included in this grouping are Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD), and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). They are all grouped together in this cluster because they share overlapping diagnostic criteria; as such, a person exhibiting one of these disorders will likely exhibit symptoms of one or more disorders in this grouping. Under diagnostic assessment, however, a subject's diagnosis will fall within one of the four personality disorders (though diagnostic notes may indicate that they are on the borderline between one or more). Having said that, the concept of Malignant Narcissism is not a valid diagnostic category. It appears to be an early (1983) moralizing take on the concept of NPD. And this is not to say that those exhibiting NPD may not be "malignant" in their behaviors, but diagnostically speaking, moralization plays no part in diagnosis. It seems that the internet has taken to hypothesizing and expanding on NPD in recent years by adding moralizing and descriptive qualifiers such as "malignant", "covert", "closet" etc. Analogously, we have seen this done with genders and gender theory over the past years. For example, choose any one of the silly scientifically unverifiable genders, or silly neo-pronouns that have popped up in droves: "non-binary", "demi-sexual", "clown gender", "clown self", etc. The internet loves to hypothesize and postulate on real word phenomena like film buffs love to hypothesize and postulate about cinematic universes, but hypothesizing and postulating something does not reify it into existence. Luckily, Psychology has come a long way since 1983. During the 80s, psychology was still dealing with the lingering effects of Freud's influence on the field. And though psychology is indeed indebted to Freud in some regard due to his early scientific rigorizing of it, he burdened the field much more through his wildly unscientific hypothesizing (e.g., "penis envy"!), and such unscientific hypothesizing is evidently rampant on the internet still regarding psychological concepts.

The idea of multiple genders comes from the ancient teachings of the Essenes. In order to achieve world peace humanity must overcome all of its self imposed limitations. Unfortunately man has made it a negatively, inharmoniously, struggle causing further limitations, further inharmony and further separation in thought. Peace is mankind's ultimate and final goal.
Since there is not peace, society has to accept the malignate narcissist as part of it. In order to be protected from evil one must have the same evil except it has to believe it is doing good and believe it is good in order to be a part of the society that is all good. You know what I'm saying?😎
Why can't it be reified? We have done it with race. Humanity has brought the idea of there being multiple races which in some species there are but not in the human species. The human race is biologically singular with differences of tones determined by melanin. So if that false belief is allowed to permeate society why can't the gender role be just as fluid? It's merely society choosing its "Truths" without it being limited by the definition of Truth.

 

[Bruno Puntz Jones]

The idea of multiple genders comes from the ancient teachings of the Essenes. In order to achieve world peace humanity must overcome all of its self imposed limitations. Unfortunately man has made it a negatively, inharmoniously, struggle causing further limitations, further inharmony and further separation in thought. Peace is mankind's ultimate and final goal.
Since there is not peace, society has to accept the malignate narcissist as part of it. In order to be protected from evil one must have the same evil except it has to believe it is doing good and believe it is good in order to be a part of the society that is all good. You know what I'm saying?😎

Fight evil with evil-under-the-guise-of-good? Is that what you mean? A form of meliorism by subterfuge, perhaps?

Regarding current gender theory, as far I can trace its contemporary lineage, it appears to have grown from a bastardization of two ideas: first, Simon de Beauvoir's use of the term "gender" in The Second Sex", wherein she utilized the term to describe how women can use their imposed societal roles to meet and achieve their needs given women's societal limitations, and second, Judith Butler's theory of "gender performativity", wherein she described gender as an action, not a noun (e.g., gender is what you do; it is not what you are). Taken together, contemporary "gender queer" theorists have taken both ideas and corrupted them to mean several contradictory things, namely, that gender does not exist; gender does exist but is malleable; gender exists, but on a spectrum rather than on binary scale; gender is how you act (e.g., if you act "female", then you are female"); gender and sex are not synonymous; gender and sex are not necessarily, but can be, synonymous; etc. It is a hodge-podge of self-serving theorizing and postulating. They do, however, make use of certain historical and anthropological precedents, such as that which you drew reference to (and including certain American Indian conceptions of gender, as well as other assorted examples from disparate world cultures, both past and present), in order to bolster their arguments, while completely negating the fact that exceptions do not prove the rule. Needless to say, I agree very very little with any of it.

 

[Father Corpse]

Seems like ‘murder’ is a definition based on some criteria or rules of conduct. Moral code or ethics or whatever.

If you’re the one doing the murdering, you probably define this behavior differently than others.

 

[SGElliot]

Dead women are hot. But yeah seriously there is something deeper to it than just knife go stabstabstabstab. This will sound crazy and that’s because I’m fucking deranged (we’re on goregrish so we’re both kinda messed up either way). I get pleasure from watching gore because of how much women have fucked me over in life in just about the worst ways possible. Heavy childhood abuse (not sexual), false rape allegations, attempted theft, lying to other guys to get them to assault me and the list goes on. Whenever I see a woman die (the more brutal the better) I get an intense amount of gratification from it (once again not sexual) and it just helps me deal with trauma in the least healthy way possible. Plus to get to sleep at night I have to close my eyes and imagine myself torturing certain woman and seeing women die just really relaxes me in a way that not many things do. Just the knowledge that women are suffering in the world makes me feel content. Either way the reason people have murderous tendencies are going to be different for each person. Maybe it’s like me and that I hate women so much I’d happily kill one if I had the chance to 100% get away with it and maybe for the next guy, he could be such a simp and thinks that killing women sends them to heaven and he wants them to live for eternity in paradise. There really isn’t a massive amount of consistency between murderous people because wrrr all kind of fucking insane.

 

[GiaG]

Everything is spiritual. So, it has to be. Jeffrey Dahmer's father said he had similar psychopathic thoughts his son had. Only he never acted on them, but Jeffrey did.

 

[SickoPsycho01]

Yes. God tells me to go forth and destroy his divine creations.

No, of course not. Only the mentally challenged, socially repressed, or the truly schizo think that killing is a special calling, or an aspect of your soul (spirituality/religion/insert woo of choice here).

What about someone exploring spirituality for the first time who is genuinely curious? I guess you wouldn’t really know how this feels, you might think differently if you did. with the implementation of authoritarian censorship lately I’ve made the decision to question everything I know. If they want to shut up opposing views so bad.. there must be something to them.

 

[Morally-Skewed-Hippo]

What about someone exploring spirituality for the first time who is genuinely curious? I guess you wouldn’t really know how this feels, you might think differently if you did.

Unlike you, I do think.

 

[SickoPsycho01]

Unlike you, I do think.

Maybe you should stop thinking and take a three story swan dive into a parking lot, you nit-picky cunt.

 

[Morally-Skewed-Hippo]

Maybe you should stop thinking and take a three story swan dive into a parking lot, you nit-picky cunt.

Maybe you should stop thinking

What, like you seem to have done? No thanks, I'll take a pass on that kind suggestion. I'd rather have my wits and critical thinking, than resemble a blithering idiot like yourself.

Everything is spiritual.

...with enough Vodka.

 

[SickoPsycho01]

Not spiritual. If anything it would be having closer genetic ties to the Neanderthal, whose saw less value in life. So I guess you could call it ancient in that sense. And this would be lacking empathy and would lean toward the narcissistic spectrum.

In the world we live in right now, it is suitable to carry empathy… but the world is kind of like a box made of fat-wood stuffed to the brim with magnesium shavings. Once it goes up no amount of dousing the flames with water will work until the combustion has run its course. The world will soon accommodate the boogeymen instead, and we will take what we please from the weak once more as we always should have been free to do. Darwinism is rapping at the gates after decades of being held back… allowing the weak and the spineless to proliferate and poison entire societies. Not much longer