Pleasure out of scamming people?

[Moxie]

Bundy is speaking there about his biological mother and stepfather. Bundy's early life was spent with his grandparents and he was told they were his parents. According to other relatives, the grandfather beat his wife, kids and tortured animals. They also believed that he was Bundy's grandfather and father, due to him raping his daughter.

For every killer that claims to not have been abused, there are plenty who claim they were, such as Edmund Kemper who says he was locked in a basement for months at a time.

 

[handrewrites]

Bundy is speaking there about his biological mother and stepfather. Bundy's early life was spent with his grandparents and he was told they were his parents. According to other relatives, the grandfather beat his wife, kids and tortured animals. They also believed that he was Bundy's grandfather and father, due to him raping his daughter.

For every killer that claims to not have been abused, there are plenty who claim they were, such as Edmund Kemper who says he was locked in a basement for months at a time.

That's a correlation, not necessarily a causation. It just shows that Bundy's grandfather was a sociopath too, and that's where he got those genes from. Bundy would have fucked over others one way or another even if there was no abuse and he didn't become a hands-on killer.

On the other hand, I do agree that non-sociopaths can become killers given enough shit in their lives (and they break). Take Seung Hui Cho - he was a quiet, bullied nerd (polar opposite of a sociopath) but he couldn't take it anymore and shot up his school.

Far cry from the cool, calculated murders of sociopaths though, who actually enjoy it.

 

[Moxie]

That's a correlation, not necessarily a causation.

Causation of anything such as this cannot be 100% proven until researchers are able to go back in time. It is technically possible that the people attracted to smoking cigarettes were already born with an unknown biological predisposition to getting lung cancer, or that space aliens are secretly injecting them with cancer. All we can do is control for as many variables as possible, look for patterns and try to determine the most statistically probable causes.

It is also technically possible to roll a 6 sided die 1,000 times and get a 6 every time. If we find out that the person doing the dice rolling owns loaded dice, then that might be enough for proof in a court of law, but scientifically speaking it would still be a correlation.

It just shows that Bundy's grandfather was a sociopath too, and that's where he got those genes from.

There is no known sociopath gene, but the MAO-A gene that is believed to be related to aggression is only passed down on the mother side.

Bundy would have fucked over others one way or another even if there was no abuse and he didn't become a hands-on killer.

How would you know this without a time machine? 30% of males have the high-aggression variant of the MAO-A gene.


Jim Fallon: Exploring the mind of a killer | Video on TED.com

That's a short TED talk with a neuroscientist who was studying the brains of serial killers and then found out that he has the same type of genes as the killers tend to have.

 

[conv3rsion]

problem 1:

You think wikipedia represents a reliable source of information. College papers citing wikipedia regularly receive F's for this exact mistake.

Problem 2:

All the people they cited in said wikipedia article practice soft science. Riddle me this? How do you explain all the people who had fucked up childhoods (ie most people) who don't grow up to be serial killers? Furthermore what makes you assume that the fucked up childhood was the cause rather than the symptom of a genetic pre-disposition towards douchbaggery as evident in the primary gene donors (the parents). That's the problem with soft sciences. They make assumptions and then fail to prove them out in a tangible and measurable way.

Just because some fields of science involve data that is harder to directly both measure and isolate does not mean you can just throw it out and say "soft science is bullshit"

To your example smoking has an extremely high correlation with lung cancer and yet some people smoke their whole lives and never develop lung cancer. Guess what, thats nearly everything in medicine.

TIDE COMES IN, TIDE GOES OUT, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!

How about this jerk-off, animals who are beaten when they are young are more aggressive (collectively) towards other animals. Maybe the researchers just randomly selected all of the 'going to be aggressive' animals.

 

[conv3rsion]

"Hard" science has proven that smoking makes people more likely to get cancer. The majority of smokers though, do not get cancer.

[/url]

goddamnit moxie. I should have read the whole thread.

 

[danke]

The Patrick Bateman tag literally made me spit on my screen. LMAO

 

[handrewrites]

Ok Moxie, all I'm saying is that while both sociopaths and non-sociopaths can be killers/"evil", sociopaths actually enjoy it while non-sociopaths do it for other reasons (survival, mental illness, buildup of frustrations in life, etc.).

Anyhow I'm no expert - if you want to argue about sociopathy I suggest you do it with Dr. Robert Hare.

 

[apexSEORM]

Just because some fields of science involve data that is harder to directly both measure and isolate does not mean you can just throw it out and say "soft science is bullshit"

To your example smoking has an extremely high correlation with lung cancer and yet some people smoke their whole lives and never develop lung cancer. Guess what, thats nearly everything in medicine.

TIDE COMES IN, TIDE GOES OUT, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!

How about this jerk-off, animals who are beaten when they are young are more aggressive (collectively) towards other animals. Maybe the researchers just randomly selected all of the 'going to be aggressive' animals.

Erm tide is an effect of gravity imposed on the earth from the moon. This is like 5th grade science. As to your lung cancer comment they are actually quite able to explain the connection between smoking and cancer and even smoking and non-cancer. Smoking introduces carcinogens which can damage DNA and cause cells to divide faster than normal. Basically it causes your cells to "age" prematurely. Some people (lots in fact) have a genetic predisposition to cancer which would normally appear in old age but becomes present earlier in life due to this "early aging" introduced by the dna damage. In other words, given a long enough life span these people would eventually develop cancer regardless however because of the damaging effects of smoking it presents earlier in life. Metabolism itself can cause this problem as well and often does.

But hey lets pretend none of that stuff is true because the moon confuses you.

 

[ShadowCaster]

TIDE COMES IN, TIDE GOES OUT, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!

 

[apexSEORM]

hah i didnt know that line was a meme. Do now.. fucking o'reilly is really sad.

 

[Dresden14]

Yes I'm sure there are many sociopaths here, and it's not anything special, you just had a fucked up childhood.

Thats pretty fucked up and I would agree you probably had a horrible childhood

LoL funny shit pulling the psychologist cards trying to determine why people do what they do to make dorah.