Mythology and the Criminal Mind Not much has changed and there is nothing new under the sun, as humans give lip service to allegations of modern civility, social progress and pious intellectualism.
Hypocrisy runs rampant in our pretext to knowing so much about so little in terms of our psychopathologies.
Our egocentric fixations on what is and what ought to be clamor over the tip of the psychosexual humanistic iceberg.
We obsess at the gnat that specks upon the next opus we hope to proselytize, and at the same time, swallow the elephant sitting in the room right next to us.
Accepted beliefs about the deterministic/positivist views about the "causes of crime" are extremely difficult to change, since we vicarious identify with our social nemesis.
None the less, we speculate the fictions of cause and effect.
Basic misconceptions about the nature of crime and criminals, as well as subsequent punishment, devolve into unfortunate social policies.
Not to mention of course, the distracting effects perpetrated in the hallowed halls of academia.
Ivory towered narcissism, especially by those who've never been there, done that or lived to get the tee shirt, perpetrates a sordid list of misguided theoretical constructs.
From which, many become "experts" and start consulting businesses.
In very succinct terms, criminals fully understand the choices they make, and comprehend the dimensions of what is right and wrong.
They've got us fooled because they are us and we are them.
Many know their rights better than you do and they grasp the ways and means by which the system works.
This is particularly true when they're confronted by they're next psychological evaluation.
They make their choices, pick their targets and satiate their prurient passions.
As usual appearances are always deceptive.
Criminals represent every aspect of the social, commercial and political spectrum of human interaction.
(1) Depth and Meaning of Anti-Social Behavior What could be the depth of meaning behind anti-social behaviors? Or, the expanse within the cerebral networks that conjure the incredible variety of illicit proclivities.
We can't know its shadowy richness because it's very intricate.
Particularly, those activities that all of us think about and never reveal.
What about the manner by which some of us sometimes act out extraordinary heinous behaviors? There's the frequent news report where the neighbor conjures up surprise about the murderer next door.
Surprise, surprise, and yet, lurking just under the psychic surface, a person reveals another part of the self.
But, wait, where did that come from? Well, it was there all the time.
Aside from the usual cover stories and ruses about parenting, poverty and poor potty training, what the real story? Deeper inside the human psyche the investigation must delve to find the mysterious nature of human beings.
We have to go beyond the simplistic templates that touch only the surface of human behavior.
Not just material acquisitions are the goal, although that's a compelling aspect of enticement.
Such is not the entire answer to the human equation.
But, we have to search the darkest regions of thinking that remain in the privacy of human ideations.
It has to be something that is universally applicable.
A complexity that fits every single human being.
Argumentatively, many will decry any full-scale comprehensive application of criminality to every single person.
If you were to say everyone is a potential criminal, then you'd suffer a degree of social complaint.
After all, aren't most people "law abiding"? Depends on what you mean? At this point, we'd have to define criminality in a very broad sense.
To this end, the applicability must span a global spectrum.
For example, when someone alludes to so called "serial killers", that appellation should have world-wide implications.
However, depending on one's definition, and country of origin, the term "serial killer" has a confusing meaning.
So, definitional criteria should ascribe data in the broadest sense possible.
Why couldn't we say people who kill more than one person are basically "multi-murderers"? Rather than become fixated on specific criteria as to whether or not they kill over a period of time.
Or, in that regard, have a "cooling off" period, what ever that is.
A broader scope is necessary.
In this regard, time-travel would be relevant.
Such an exercise could be significant in demonstrating how we easily overlook important aspects in our more modern perspective.
People can become cleverly seduced by their worldview when limited in depth, scope and extent.
In your historic time travels, you should go back a hundred years to say the least.
Discover the essence of human evil in so many past debaucheries.
Moving backwards a hundred year's is a minimum teleportation for this exercise.
Each point along the way, we'll discover certain consistent modes of behavior.
Human beings don't alter their habits, intentions or desires very much.
For the most part, we are steadily consistent in our need to fulfill our thinking processes.
Actually you ought to peer in reverse for a much longer stretch of history.
One's quest for the "holy grail" of human existence encompasses a diversity of interactivity.
However, for the purposes here, in view of contemporary investigative assessments, that brief expanse of century should suffice.
Sometimes however, we even think nothing happened before a few decades ago.
For most, history is very short.
All too often, in today's post-modern society, we suffer from historic revisionism.
Even so, you don't have to stop there, you can journey even further.
From your vantage point of hindsight, you have a pretty good idea that not much changes.
When you conduct an analysis of the various murderous case studies, sooner or later, it occurs that people have ongoing self-interests.
As such, we remain committed to our own gratifications.
In the past, we've seen heinous proclivities unmasked in brazen selfishness for getting what one desires.
For instance, take H.
H.
Holmes as an example.
With him, compare Jack the Ripper who was killing at about the same time.
Only difference is that each of the multi-murderers lived in two different countries.
Both pursued the physical expression of their potent inner cravings.
We may want to wonder about typologies and the manner by which people, places and properties gain their notoriety.
Some people want to be the "first" at everything.
Others like to stereotype as in the over-use of the word "serial".
We now have serial rapists, serial bank robbers, serial car jackers, and everything else that comes in an apparent series.
Albeit a simplistic example, it goes to the explanation of assigning labels to anything that seems to move, hold still long enough or appears to fit the expectations of our personal agendas.
To say a particular problem-solving requirement necessitate reductionist viewpoints, prevents a universe of alternate possibilities.
You may find the whole is not the sum of its parts.
On the contrary, the parts are more likely the sum of the whole in a murder scene.
As such, this approach sees the complexity in a dimensional matrix.
Meanwhile, when you use metaphors, mythic references, clever slogans and euphemisms, you create pathways to deception.
Around us, everyone remains confused as to the exact determination of what is and what isn't credible.
That's partly because they have their own ideas also, and desire to be right in their thinking.
While theoreticians postulate, politicians pontificate.
When social misdiagnosis occurs, such errors may be translated into educational and social legislation.
As to what is precisely meant by the verbiage of a given proposition, one must do their own investigative research validation.
Unfortunately, we're comfortable with easy and trouble free categories, checklists and templates, where one size fits all.
But, in the real world, given the expanse of human diversity, simplistic "profiles" are just a reference point.
Whether you theorize about "scales of evil", "psychic fortunetelling" or "criminal profiles", you're only scratching the surface.
People are not easily placed in pre-set types, groups or classes.
For this reason, given the complicated multi-faced rubric of human thinking, fuzzy designations compound and confuse investigative methodologies.
At the same time, convoluted hasty generalizations devolve to typecasting, prejudice and ethnocentric beliefs.
Frameworks for critical thinking processes should possess a larger scope in relation to human behavior.
In this connection, some say there is a standard for normal behavior.
Well, you'd have do define that more clearly.
In reaction though, how do we distinguish that concept? Who is normal and who is abnormal?(2) Here's five points to ponder as to why we formulate extraneous beliefs: 1.
On size fits all - simplistic templates or overly definitive typologies; 2.
Immediate self-gratification; 3.
Feelings instead of facts; 4.
Fantasy sounds better than reality; 5.
We believe what want to believe; An abstract from a major research project by Dr.
Randy Gonzalez.
1.
Samenow, S.
E.
, Inside the Criminal Mind, (New York, NY: Crown Publishers, 1984), pages 2-3; 2.
Gonzalez, R.
A.
, Murder Mind Matrix - Why People Kill Other People, an except from an ongoing research project; 2010;