4 ms·

> But my understanding from an Intro to Psych class that I had years ago is that serial killers typically have six traits, including high IQ, plus other traits

by dsacco 9y ago

> But my understanding from an Intro to Psych class that I had years ago is that serial killers typically have six traits, including high IQ, plus other traits we would consider sociopathic, like lack of empathy. Your understanding is incorrect. Serial killers do not typically have high IQs.[1] In fact they have normal IQs on average, and typically present themselves within a standard deviation of the norm. The high IQ serial killer is a popular meme, but is ultimately unfounded. ___________________________ 1.http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial%20Killer%20Information%20Center/Serial%20Killer%20IQ.htm http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial%20Killer%20Information...

logfromblammo 9y ago
Television-serial serial-killers typically have high IQs. It's the part of the conceit that keeps the character from getting caught, so they can keep making new episodes. They're smart enough to stay one step ahead of the law, but the chief investigator is also smart, so the killer can never get more than two steps ahead. The possibility of getting caught out from just one misstep keeps the tension in the show. Real serial killers are average intelligence, chased by cops with average intelligence. They get caught for the same reasons that get other criminals collared. They get sloppy, and they fall into predictable patterns, or the cops get lucky. The only reason they can commit the same crime multiple times is that real investigative police work is difficult without CSI-style magical technology. Most people could formulate a simple set of rules that would keep their crimes separate from their public identity--until one of them hits a corner case and leaks critical information. Don't burgle houses with dogs. Always burn the clothes you wore. Never look inside the package. Use encryption and dead drops. Put thermite on incriminating storage devices. Never work the same postal code twice. Don't work with a pimp. Always pay the boss exactly what you owe. Don't surface the submarine until you get within 50m of the floating dock. Wives and kids are off limits. Don't spend your share conspicuously. Don't sample the goods. Don't talk about Project Mayhem. &c. &c. &c. It doesn't require mastermind-level plotting. The hardest part about crime is finding a person willing to do it. A lack of empathy goes a long way towards that, and an unwillingness to take responsibility for the consequences of one's actions gets even closer. The smart criminals don't murder people; instead they go into real-estate fraud, money laundering, and insider trading. The money is better and the prosecutions rarer.
DoreenMichele 9y ago
There's an excellent book called How to lie with statistics. It goes into detail about the various ways you can package the same data to support whatever point you want to make. Having read that book more than once, I like to try to dig into the guts of the data, if possible, to see if it really says what people claim it says, which is very often not the case. The piece you link to lists the lowest IQ as Simon Pirela with an IQ of 57. I found the following two pieces about Pirela: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1874807.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1874807.html http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-05-02/news/0405020461_1_death-sentence-death-row-murderer http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-05-02/news/040502046... He was apparently involved in four murders, but I am failing to find good details. From what I am reading of the one case where I can find a few details, you could conclude he was pressured into helping commit murder by other people and this occurred in part due to his low IQ. They commuted the death sentence due to his disability. So even the law doesn't hold him fully responsible. The research you cite lists people as serial killers who killed at least two people. I don't think this is really what most people have in mind when talking about serial killers. Other research defines it differently, only including people who have killed at least three people. Saying that someone typically has a high IQ doesn't mean they always have a high IQ. If you drop the very low figure of Simon Pirela's 57 IQ from the data, I imagine that would substantially change the means, medians, etc. cited. My best understanding is that serial killers are typically bright. And the link you have provided is not really compelling evidence to the contrary. I have spent part of my afternoon looking at this information because a. I did take Intro to Psych a long time ago, so perhaps what I know is outdated and b. I have a sincere interest in knowing what the truth is. That matters far more to me than winning internet arguments. I'm not here to argue with anyone anyway. That's not what motivates me. But I'm really not finding your source compelling. So my mind has not been changed. I see no reason to believe the stated conclusion of this piece is better information than what I have previously been told. In fact, it looks pretty sketchy to me.
- openasocket 9y ago
  I'd recommend looking at the source of this information more closely: http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial%20Killer%20Information%20Center/Serial%20Killer%20Statistics.pdf http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial%20Killer%20Information... on page 12 it breaks down the statistics relating IQ and serial killers. While you might find reason to disagree with 2 murders as sufficient to warrant the serial killer title (for the record, the reason they include 2 is because that is the official FBI definition), that breakdown shows what the average IQ is for those who committed three murders, 4 murders, and 5 or more. It also breaks things down by organized vs. disorganized killers, whether or not they raped victims, and the method of killing, and the N value for each subset. The only breakdown with an average greater than a standard deviation from average is for the serial killers that killed using bombs. And that it because it's only N=3 and includes Ted Kaczynski. Also keep in mind the median IQ is 86, and removing a couple of data points like Simon Pirela will have little effect on that value. I can also give a personal citation of my own if that might help convince you. My Dad is a clinical psychologist who gives lectures on Conduct Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder, and does work for the courts evaluating the mental competency of defendants. He's the one who first told me there is no correlation between serial killers and intelligence.
shawndellysse 9y ago
Off topic: It's always strange to see my alma mater in the wild (Radford University)

by dsacco 9y ago

logfromblammo 9y ago

Television-serial serial-killers typically have high IQs. It's the part of the conceit that keeps the character from getting caught, so they can keep making new episodes. They're smart enough to stay one step ahead of the law, but the chief investigator is also smart, so the killer can never get more than two steps ahead. The possibility of getting caught out from just one misstep keeps the tension in the show. Real serial killers are average intelligence, chased by cops with average intelligence. They get caught for the same reasons that get other criminals collared. They get sloppy, and they fall into predictable patterns, or the cops get lucky. The only reason they can commit the same crime multiple times is that real investigative police work is difficult without CSI-style magical technology. Most people could formulate a simple set of rules that would keep their crimes separate from their public identity--until one of them hits a corner case and leaks critical information. Don't burgle houses with dogs. Always burn the clothes you wore. Never look inside the package. Use encryption and dead drops. Put thermite on incriminating storage devices. Never work the same postal code twice. Don't work with a pimp. Always pay the boss exactly what you owe. Don't surface the submarine until you get within 50m of the floating dock. Wives and kids are off limits. Don't spend your share conspicuously. Don't sample the goods. Don't talk about Project Mayhem. &c. &c. &c. It doesn't require mastermind-level plotting. The hardest part about crime is finding a person willing to do it. A lack of empathy goes a long way towards that, and an unwillingness to take responsibility for the consequences of one's actions gets even closer. The smart criminals don't murder people; instead they go into real-estate fraud, money laundering, and insider trading. The money is better and the prosecutions rarer.

DoreenMichele 9y ago

There's an excellent book called How to lie with statistics. It goes into detail about the various ways you can package the same data to support whatever point you want to make. Having read that book more than once, I like to try to dig into the guts of the data, if possible, to see if it really says what people claim it says, which is very often not the case. The piece you link to lists the lowest IQ as Simon Pirela with an IQ of 57. I found the following two pieces about Pirela: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1874807.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1874807.html http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-05-02/news/0405020461_1_death-sentence-death-row-murderer http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-05-02/news/040502046... He was apparently involved in four murders, but I am failing to find good details. From what I am reading of the one case where I can find a few details, you could conclude he was pressured into helping commit murder by other people and this occurred in part due to his low IQ. They commuted the death sentence due to his disability. So even the law doesn't hold him fully responsible. The research you cite lists people as serial killers who killed at least two people. I don't think this is really what most people have in mind when talking about serial killers. Other research defines it differently, only including people who have killed at least three people. Saying that someone typically has a high IQ doesn't mean they always have a high IQ. If you drop the very low figure of Simon Pirela's 57 IQ from the data, I imagine that would substantially change the means, medians, etc. cited. My best understanding is that serial killers are typically bright. And the link you have provided is not really compelling evidence to the contrary. I have spent part of my afternoon looking at this information because a. I did take Intro to Psych a long time ago, so perhaps what I know is outdated and b. I have a sincere interest in knowing what the truth is. That matters far more to me than winning internet arguments. I'm not here to argue with anyone anyway. That's not what motivates me. But I'm really not finding your source compelling. So my mind has not been changed. I see no reason to believe the stated conclusion of this piece is better information than what I have previously been told. In fact, it looks pretty sketchy to me.

openasocket 9y ago
I'd recommend looking at the source of this information more closely: http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial%20Killer%20Information%20Center/Serial%20Killer%20Statistics.pdf http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial%20Killer%20Information... on page 12 it breaks down the statistics relating IQ and serial killers. While you might find reason to disagree with 2 murders as sufficient to warrant the serial killer title (for the record, the reason they include 2 is because that is the official FBI definition), that breakdown shows what the average IQ is for those who committed three murders, 4 murders, and 5 or more. It also breaks things down by organized vs. disorganized killers, whether or not they raped victims, and the method of killing, and the N value for each subset. The only breakdown with an average greater than a standard deviation from average is for the serial killers that killed using bombs. And that it because it's only N=3 and includes Ted Kaczynski. Also keep in mind the median IQ is 86, and removing a couple of data points like Simon Pirela will have little effect on that value. I can also give a personal citation of my own if that might help convince you. My Dad is a clinical psychologist who gives lectures on Conduct Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder, and does work for the courts evaluating the mental competency of defendants. He's the one who first told me there is no correlation between serial killers and intelligence.

shawndellysse 9y ago

Off topic: It's always strange to see my alma mater in the wild (Radford University)