Why are there sadistic killers?

[Dionysus12]

Why are there sadistic killers? I would like to turn the question on its head and ask 'Why are there not serial killers in the world?' Let's say I had the opportunity of visiting another civilization existing on another planet and found complete harmony between its inhabitants with no aggressive taints, feelings or conflict, and so asked the question. The answer to both questions (or at least one approach) is the same. We are all part of a totality, the universe and, if quantum mechanics is correct, then the universe is indeterministic. But the universe, it seems to me, is both clockwork and indeterministic. Science can make predictions based on its mechanical side, generally speaking, in the macroworld but not altogether in the microworld. Given the complexity of the human body and, in particular, the brain, some c-fibres might stop firing at any time and mental or physical events start to take a twisted (unhealthy) course. We are part of the macroworld and the brain is far more complex than the universe, as we know it today, so the original event cannot be predicted. Why not, if we are part of the macroworld? I think it is a mistake to see creation simply as macro- and microworlds as everything belongs to both worlds, whether it is a tree, a star, a rock, an atom or human being and this complicates matters. The original building blocks or elements of creation and the universe at large have long since been supervened upon by those we can detect, but still act in the universe and creation. (dark energy, dark matter come to mind). In theory, this is called the Russian Doll effect. Remove one and another appears, remove that and another appears and so on, to the original particle that can account for what we cannot account for at the moment, if that point is ever reached. It may be this particle (or group of particles) that determines the course an action takes in conjunction with what is already known. This can result in almost any set of circumstances or event, within the limits of existence. I may ask the leader of the utopian planet 'Are you then not part of the totality' He or she may answer 'O yes, but we have removed the offending particle(s), just as you remove a bad tooth to stop the pain. But let me tell you a secret. We were born as we are, as you humans were born as you are. Creation can take many forms and things did not happen in the only way they could have happened.' This may seem an exotic cop-out. All I am saying is that things are determined and unpredictable. We are not responsible for our actions. We can act responsibly, but that doesn't mean we are responsible for our actions. Events have causes and those causes act recursively. Our utopian planet is still driven by a first cause, but it has taken a different course to our own. No matter how much we rationalize and even understand human behaviour it will not stop the consequences of that behaviour happening.

[Mysterio448]

What chimpanzees do are natural and instinctual, there is no question of 'evil' no matter how violence and ugly it seem to be. Llamas also bite off testicles in their fight. knowledgenuts.com/2013/12/19/male-llama ... genitalia/

But the question is: why do such behaviors come naturally and instinctively to chimps? What purpose could it serve to mutilate an enemy after he is already dead?

And as far as the llamas, I can envision an evolutionary advantage for one male to emasculate another male; so while violent, it is not altogether unreasonable.

[Logic_ill]

I'm not sure chimps exactly understand the concept of death. A higher consciousness may perceive the flaw or limited knowledge, and that might serve a purpose. Humans themselves may be limited.

[Misty]

What chimpanzees do are natural and instinctual, there is no question of 'evil' no matter how violence and ugly it seem to be. Llamas also bite off testicles in their fight. knowledgenuts.com/2013/12/19/male-llama ... genitalia/

But the question is: why do such behaviors come naturally and instinctively to chimps? What purpose could it serve to mutilate an enemy after he is already dead?

And as far as the llamas, I can envision an evolutionary advantage for one male to emasculate another male; so while violent, it is not altogether unreasonable.

Why couldn't the chimps purpose be the same as the llamas?

-- Updated Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:28 pm to add the following --

I doubt animals think of death the same way humans do.

[Spectrum]

I may not doubt that there is a diversity out there that might make or influence us to do the things we do. One of the major problems with that is being able to accurately predict behaviours based on the neural circuitry, genes or biology and/or any possible discrimination against these "different" people.

Sometimes I think that we might rely too much on "our justifications and reasoning" and that in itself will influence us. As social animals many of us are geared into seeking these explanations and we are also inclined to give them. What I mean is that it's sometimes difficult for an individual to tell (themselves or others) what is it that they are "feeling", and it's much more difficult for others to understand it. Why? Because we each have a narrow scope of understanding. Some people may have a broader scope or set of experiences then others, yet it will still be interpreted by the limited experiences that our consciousness allows. Before we know it, we have been influenced and perhaps without a proper overall understanding. As an example, I'll give the ideas that were spread by the one drop rule. Society so much internalized these non-scientific ideas that we play into them to this day. It is still a reality that people who have some semblance of black ancestry are defined as black and not white, or Asian. Yes, it may be due to political reasons or even for social advantage, but the idea was wrong in the first place and for many many years people used it to define themselves and others.

What I'm trying to get at is the idea that people naturally seek out definitions/explanations/justifications, and no matter how wrong these can be, they may still be influenced by them. If society defines me, for example, as a beautiful woman because I fit the standards, I may easily believe that of myself. I will certainly be influenced by it. But these examples I give are when people get explanations without a scientific basis, which by the way, we are naturally inclined to follow. Our default is to internalize society's belief systems, or to acquire the beliefs of those who we trust and see as leaders or experts.

When there is a scientific basis or at least an evidenced material correlation, one has also to be careful with interpretation. It may seem to be a bit more of a justified explanation but still it has a major impact or influence on the psychology of people. One might believe the reasons others give for our feelings, or we might persuade ourselves about "our understandings". Perhaps the most important thing to do is to think or relax before we leap. That is if the situation allows for it. Another thing a person can do is simply leave it as an open ended question, until we find an answer...

There is also a variety in our developing consciousness or what one might call personality differences.

There is substance versus form, and nature versus nurture.

My emphasis is more on nature and substance but I did mention external triggers, i.e. nurturing and environmental factors.
The point is, it is more effective to understand the proximate root causes rather than chasing after the 'branches', 'twig' and 'leaves' of any issues.

Regardless whether it is nature or nurture, fundamentally it is about neural wirings.
I deliberately gave example of the existence of abnormal wirings the case of the senses.
There are many aspects of human nature where there are cases of abnormal wirings of various degrees, e.g. transgender, sexuality, psychopathy, etc.

I gave a basic formulation of how sadistic killers could possibly arise, i.e. a neural combinations of the following sub-modules,
'fight' + 'kill' + 'pleasure' + action [execution] + [lack of impulse control] + others
A study of sadistic killers will confirm they have a high degree of the above elements plus a tons of various not so critical information.

At present scientists are already very familiar with the above modules in the brain and they can use to electronic triggers to invoke the respective response from the brain.
Note research on 'Electrical brain stimulation' and direct probing of the specific brain areas.

The Connectome Project is moving ahead and we will reach a stage where we can study closely the exact connectivity of human behaviors.

1. Mapping the human brain is one of the great scientific challenges of the 21st century. The Human Connectome Project (HCP) is tackling a key aspect of this challenge by elucidating the neural pathways that underlie brain function and behavior. Deciphering this amazingly complex wiring diagram will reveal much about what makes us uniquely human and what makes every person different from all others.
   http://www.humanconnectome.org/

When we have advanced sufficiently scientists will be able to inhibit the abnormal connections and mitigate the sadistic killer response.
Btw, at present we can do that to some extent with 'trial and error,' 'hit and miss,' 'outside the black box' approaches.

-- Updated Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:03 pm to add the following --

But the question is: why do such behaviors come naturally and instinctively to chimps? What purpose could it serve to mutilate an enemy after he is already dead?

And as far as the llamas, I can envision an evolutionary advantage for one male to emasculate another male; so while violent, it is not altogether unreasonable.

From the case of the llamas [there could be others] we understand there are cases where male animals attack [to damage or remove] the testicles of another male. This is driven by need to exterminate the possibility of another males passing his genes and for the winner to gain exclusivity. So this 'removing testicles' circuitry exists in some animals and it can happen during fights or immediately after the animal is dead. Such a circuit exists in chimps and it is natural to aggressive chimps. The question is why they only remove the testicles and not the eyes, legs or arm? I presume this is to ensure the certainty the other cannot pass on his genes in the case of llama and in the case of the chimps who do that to 'enemies' it is some left over circuit from sometime from the past.

The follow up after killing the enemy is likely to be due to the continual flow of testosterone, adrenalin and other hormones and chemicals. You will note they did it immediately after the fight and only in the short duration while the chemicals last, then they moved on.

I don't think the term 'mutilate' is relevant. Animals do what is natural to them and some animals eat up their opponent or kill them violently [note lions on hyenas] without eating them.

-- Updated Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:29 pm to add the following --

The main reason of my research of sadistic killers is from my quest to understand the sadistic killings by SOME Muslims. Here are my findings;

1. A percentage [say a very conservative 1%] of Muslims [like any other humans] have inherent sadistic killer circuitry. 2. The holy texts of Islam has a great % [up to 55%] of verses that contain negative elements which can catalyze and trigger the sadistic killing instincts of those in 1 above.

Note in the Milgram Experiment, it is the authority factor that further catalyze even ordinary people to commit violence on others. What more when we have an all powerful God that sanction [via the holy texts] the killing of infidels to inherent sadistic killers.

[Sy Borg]

...To the whole topic, it is important to note that not all killing is sadistic. People hurt and kill each other for a lot of reasons, sadism is only one possible motivation.

However, I think psychologists can provides a more accurate classification of the motivations of killers to kill the people they happen to kill as opposed to the killers themselves. The rest of us suffer from rationalization. I doubt anyone actually behaves according to a utilitarian philosophy (though I absolutely agree it is a great methodology of discussing both politics and so-called 'ethical' issues). In practice, our complicated philosophical ideas become the smoke and mirrors of rationalization.

I guess you could say that William Golding exposed those rationalisations as a veneer. Here we are, ostensibly civilised apes chatting online, yet without ready access to clean water, food and shelter we'd be very different people to deal with.

Re: a predator's lack of empathy for prey

I imagine a secondary, complimenting influence of the evolution of such impulses is in the tribalism stage. The role that played in specifically human evolution was explored a lot in the February book of the month The Meaning of Human Existence by Edward O. Wilson. At that stage, we needed to sympathize and cooperate with those from our 'in-group' for the group's survival (and genetic reproduction of one's genes) but we had to compete and even war with humans from the 'out-groups'.

Yes, I agree with EO and you. In a sense all interactions, be they friend, foe or otherwise, are about energy exchange. With partners, friends and colleagues we exchange energy in a mutually controlled way, but with foes and prey it's a forcible energy grab.

What does a sadistic killer want from his/her victim? Energy. It's a metaphysical consumption. They gain the primal excitement and energisation of "the hunt" and "the kill", feelings that drive most human hunters. Sadism would seem to be an extension of those natural drives. I imagine that humans' "extreme hunting" is largely driven by anger and fear.

[Mysterio448]

(Nested quote removed.)


But the question is: why do such behaviors come naturally and instinctively to chimps? What purpose could it serve to mutilate an enemy after he is already dead?

And as far as the llamas, I can envision an evolutionary advantage for one male to emasculate another male; so while violent, it is not altogether unreasonable.

Why couldn't the chimps purpose be the same as the llamas?

-- Updated Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:28 pm to add the following --

I doubt animals think of death the same way humans do.

The llama's purpose had a clear evolutionary functionality: to eliminate reproductive competition. The chimp's behavior -- mutilating a victim after he is already dead -- has no evolutionary functionality, and appears to have some sort of subjective meaning or symbolism.

But the question is: why do such behaviors come naturally and instinctively to chimps? What purpose could it serve to mutilate an enemy after he is already dead?

And as far as the llamas, I can envision an evolutionary advantage for one male to emasculate another male; so while violent, it is not altogether unreasonable.

I don't think the term 'mutilate' is relevant. Animals do what is natural to them and some animals eat up their opponent or kill them violently [note lions on hyenas] without eating them.

You assume that animals only do what they are led to do by their natural instincts. But what makes you so sure that humans do not possess such irresistible instincts? How do you know that serial killers don't mutilate for the same reasons chimps mutilate, or perhaps chimps mutilate for the same reasons humans mutilate?

You seem to be one of those people who draws a hard distinction between humans and animals, where humans are the sole possessors of free will and animals are just automatons, slaves to natural instinct. I have never found such an ideology convincing. Humans have free will only within the bounds of their own instincts, just as dogs have free will within the bounds of their canine instinct. I as a human will never feel a compulsion to urinate on a tree to mark my territory, any more than a dog will feel the compulsion to write down his philosophical ideas on the Internet. What we, in our free will, want to do is one and the same with what our instinct tells us to do. I think it is a kind of imaginary freedom.

[Spectrum]

You assume that animals only do what they are led to do by their natural instincts. But what makes you so sure that humans do not possess such irresistible instincts? How do you know that serial killers don't mutilate for the same reasons chimps mutilate, or perhaps chimps mutilate for the same reasons humans mutilate?

You seem to be one of those people who draws a hard distinction between humans and animals, where humans are the sole possessors of free will and animals are just automatons, slaves to natural instinct. I have never found such an ideology convincing. Humans have free will only within the bounds of their own instincts, just as dogs have free will within the bounds of their canine instinct. I as a human will never feel a compulsion to urinate on a tree to mark my territory, any more than a dog will feel the compulsion to write down his philosophical ideas on the Internet. What we, in our free will, want to do is one and the same with what our instinct tells us to do. I think it is a kind of imaginary freedom.

Nope, earlier I did not venture into the refined and shades of grey.

I understand there are degrees of overlap between humans and those animals with some degrees of self-awareness, e.g. elephants, dolphins, primates and others. In general animals rely more on instincts and human lesser on instincts.

Humans and animals share the same instincts of 'flight or fight' 'kill or be killed' and others like winning the prized females. These basic circuits are inherent in the DNA of both humans and animals. The difference is humans has more inhibitors to modulate these basic instincts. However for those humans with weaken inhibitors [impulse controllers], these inherent instincts are likely to manifest and executed as like sadistic killers, psychopaths and the likes. Since humans evolved from a similar line as chimps it is possible for the 'mutilate of testicles' circuitry to exist within the human DNA somewhere and it has happened before. [url=https://en.w:kipedia.org/w:ki/William_MacDonald_(serial_killer)]en.w:kipedia.org/w:ki/William_MacDonald ... al_killer)[/url]

His modus operandi was to select his male victims at random (mostly derelicts), lure them into a dark place, violently stab them dozens of times about the head and neck with a long bladed knife, and finally sever their penis and testicles.

[Sy Borg]

Humans and animals share the same instincts of 'flight or fight' 'kill or be killed' and others like winning the prized females. These basic circuits are inherent in the DNA of both humans and animals. The difference is humans has more inhibitors to modulate these basic instincts. However for those humans with weaken inhibitors [impulse controllers], these inherent instincts are likely to manifest and executed as like sadistic killers, psychopaths and the likes. Since humans evolved from a similar line as chimps it is possible for the 'mutilate of testicles' circuitry to exist within the human DNA somewhere and it has happened before. [url=https://en.w:kipedia.org/w:ki/William_MacDonald_(serial_killer)]en.w:kipedia.org/w:ki/William_MacDonald ... al_killer)[/url]

His modus operandi was to select his male victims at random (mostly derelicts), lure them into a dark place, violently stab them dozens of times about the head and neck with a long bladed knife, and finally sever their penis and testicles.

His history is telling:

Under questioning, MacDonald readily admitted to the killings, blaming them on an irresistible urge to kill. He claimed he was the victim of rape as a teenager, and was inflicting his revenge on victims chosen at random. A schizophrenic, MacDonald said that he heard voices in his head telling him that his victims were the corporal who raped him as a teenager.

In other words, a tragic case of damaged goods. His inhibitory systems weren't working, or broke off when he encountered older men with physical characteristics that reminded him of the corporal in the British Army who raped him. It seems tat when he saw the men he didn't see them as human but as symbols or analogues of a particular human (who had more blood on his hands than he realised).

[Misty]

I don't think animals can be compared to humans as to violence because violence can be studied and behavior altered by human will and animal violence has an instinctual survival element.

People obtain pets thinking if the animal knows them and is around them all the time or from the time an animal is born that they will not hurt them. But animals, no matter if domesticated, are still animals and have the potential to return to basic instinct. Humans do not learn about an animals basic instinct and can become their pets victim through ignorance of how a particular animal lives in relation to their species. For instance, looking dogs in the eyes can be lethal. Dogs (and other animals) in their own habitat are taught hierarchy, and humans cross those boundaries without realizing the animal is acting normal for their species. Horses may have their spirit broken and are considered tame, but sometimes they also turn on their "owners" and rebel, elephants have been known to do the same thing.

There are articles that say chimps are not normally violent and that it is rare. I think the chimp attack on people is because the chimp is not with its own kind and reacts to certain sounds or gestures of humans as a threat and reacts according to their own species. Animals do not think in terms of violence as cruel or bad like humans do. Chimps "mutilating" their dead is no different really than what humans do to human bodies through autopsy or a body being prepared for a funeral.

https://www.psychology.com/blog/moral-l ... iolent-not

[Wilson]

I think Spectrum's ideas are similar to my own, if I understand him correctly. Think for a second about how personality traits might be wired in our brains. It's got to be devilishly complicated. I couldn't begin to comprehend how to configure the neurons and their connections to accomplish it, even in theory. How did evolution arrange it so that men are attracted to women, and vice versa, in terms of brain configurations? How did evolution arrange it so that we have the optimal level of such things as aggression vs timidity, self-control vs recklessness, compassion vs self-interest? It is best for the species that we want to accomplish more than our peers, to have a certain degree of selfishness - but not too much - so that we create and innovate and work hard. There are hundreds of personality traits that are wired somehow or other in our brains.

We're not like the simpler creatures who are simply programmed to respond in a standardized way to external stimuli. Our decision making is complicated, and there's considerable variation from one person to the next. I suspect that evolution tried to configure our DNA so that most people have a level of each characteristic that is advantageous to the species. But it was probably also best for the species that there's a variety in all our characteristics from one person to the next. So there's a Bell curve of the expression of each of those personality traits, meaning that most people are close to the average, and a few are way out on the fringes. So most men are attracted to women - but not all. Most people are kind to those in their community - but some are a-holes to one and all. Most people take a degree of pleasure in dominating those around them - but a few are obsessed with domination. Most of us of capable of schadenfreude (pleasure in the misfortunes of at least some others) but a few of us delight in the pain of others.

The point is that sociopathic sadists and others who are outside what most consider normal are exhibiting extreme forms of certain personality traits that are present in almost all of us. In other words, there are differences in how they're wired.

[Logic_ill]

I think Spectrum's ideas are similar to my own, if I understand him correctly. Think for a second about how personality traits might be wired in our brains. It's got to be devilishly complicated. I couldn't begin to comprehend how to configure the neurons and their connections to accomplish it, even in theory. How did evolution arrange it so that men are attracted to women, and vice versa, in terms of brain configurations? How did evolution arrange it so that we have the optimal level of such things as aggression vs timidity, self-control vs recklessness, compassion vs self-interest? It is best for the species that we want to accomplish more than our peers, to have a certain degree of selfishness - but not too much - so that we create and innovate and work hard. There are hundreds of personality traits that are wired somehow or other in our brains.

We're not like the simpler creatures who are simply programmed to respond in a standardized way to external stimuli. Our decision making is complicated, and there's considerable variation from one person to the next. I suspect that evolution tried to configure our DNA so that most people have a level of each characteristic that is advantageous to the species. But it was probably also best for the species that there's a variety in all our characteristics from one person to the next. So there's a Bell curve of the expression of each of those personality traits, meaning that most people are close to the average, and a few are way out on the fringes. So most men are attracted to women - but not all. Most people are kind to those in their community - but some are a-holes to one and all. Most people take a degree of pleasure in dominating those around them - but a few are obsessed with domination. Most of us of capable of schadenfreude (pleasure in the misfortunes of at least some others) but a few of us delight in the pain of others.

The point is that sociopathic sadists and others who are outside what most consider normal are exhibiting extreme forms of certain personality traits that are present in almost all of us. In other words, there are differences in how they're wired.

This is a very interesting subject. I have very little understanding of neural connections but I thought that we were born with very few. Aren't these connections made as we go along? Are you suggesting that future neural connections can be predicted because they tend to form a pattern? In some sense they must, because we have been able to detect the overall areas that involve language, sight, hearing, etc. and they seem to be common to all of us.

But if we rely on neural connections alone, I don't know if we would be able to tell if some people are "wired" for sadism. We don't seem to be born with such a wiring. What creates it then? It must be the experiences the subject/person has been exposed to, or experienced.

Our limited scope or narrow experiences may be in large part responsible for extreme behaviours. With this I mean that most human beings, if not all, are born with a very narrowed field of view. They may not all be naturally inclined to wonder about themselves in their context (world context) because they need to learn other "important" skills for survival or adapt to their particular circumstances. In other words they may not perceive further than what their immediate social groups and their particular way of sensing their surroundings. They can make, what might appear to be, very odd constructions or develop very strange behaviours because no one has explained their feelings to them or they cannot see beyond these constructions they made. That is why education is so important.

Yes, human beings experience urges, and some may experience them more intensely than others due to genes, hormones, chemical substances, brain wiring, past human interactions and constructions, but maybe if they knew that or could detect that early on (through information), they could reason or control them better.

[Wilson]

I have very little understanding of neural connections but I thought that we were born with very few. Aren't these connections made as we go along? Are you suggesting that future neural connections can be predicted because they tend to form a pattern? In some sense they must, because we have been able to detect the overall areas that involve language, sight, hearing, etc. and they seem to be common to all of us.

I think the number of connections within our brains at birth are huge, well beyond our ability to comprehend. The framework for the personalities we will develop is there from the beginning. Our life experiences will add vast numbers of new connections, but the framework has to be there, and the framework varies from person to person, depending on differences in their DNA and the environment in the womb and chance variations. For example, evolution gave us the capacity for compassion, anger, cooperation, violence, sociability, cruelty, altruism, desire to dominate, desire to please others, and so on, in varying degrees. Then as life goes on, new connections are made that affect the expression of those qualities that are potentially there from birth. Wide variations. Many people say that our tendencies are half nature, half nurture, but who knows? What's important is how people turn out.

[Logic_ill]

I have no idea how authoritative this link is, but I'm sending it anyway. It seems we do make connections along the way, although we are born with many brain cells and neurons...

http://umaine.edu/publications/4356e/

[Mysterio448]

I don't think animals can be compared to humans as to violence because violence can be studied and behavior altered by human will and animal violence has an instinctual survival element.

It is true that humans have the ability to choose whether they give in to their impulses, but humans cannot choose the impulses themselves. And whether animals can consciously choose whether or not to acquiesce to their instincts is beyond my, and probably your, ability to know.

People obtain pets thinking if the animal knows them and is around them all the time or from the time an animal is born that they will not hurt them. But animals, no matter if domesticated, are still animals and have the potential to return to basic instinct. Humans do not learn about an animals basic instinct and can become their pets victim through ignorance of how a particular animal lives in relation to their species. For instance, looking dogs in the eyes can be lethal. Dogs (and other animals) in their own habitat are taught hierarchy, and humans cross those boundaries without realizing the animal is acting normal for their species. Horses may have their spirit broken and are considered tame, but sometimes they also turn on their "owners" and rebel, elephants have been known to do the same thing.

There are articles that say chimps are not normally violent and that it is rare. I think the chimp attack on people is because the chimp is not with its own kind and reacts to certain sounds or gestures of humans as a threat and reacts according to their own species. Animals do not think in terms of violence as cruel or bad like humans do. Chimps "mutilating" their dead is no different really than what humans do to human bodies through autopsy or a body being prepared for a funeral.

https://www.psychology.com/blog/moral-l ... iolent-not

It seems that you are of the belief that animals are incapable of the phenomenon that we humans call "evil." But I think you should be mindful of whether you may be committing the fallacy of begging the question. You assume that animals are incapable of evil a priori, and then proceed to absolve them of all evil unconditionally. You say that "animals do not think in terms of violence as cruel or bad like humans do," however the concept of thinking of violence as cruel and bad is just that -- a concept. It is unlikely that most animals could think of violence in conceptual terms anyway -- conceptualizing is mainly a human trait -- so your point seems moot. However what is really being discussed here is not the reflective, self-aware, and conceptual understanding of violence but the act of violence itself.

The simple fact is, some people have a deep desire to murder, torture, mutilate and dismember innocent people purely for their own enjoyment. The question at issue here is not why some people give in to this impulse but why some people simply have this impulse to begin with. My position is that serial killers, such as Jeffrey Dahmer for example, are following their primal instinct in the same way as Travis the chimp.