4 ms·

A couple of things; Firstly, serial killing is actually a very rare crime. I would say that our perception of the frequency of serial killer murders is skewed

A couple of things; Firstly, serial killing is actually a very rare crime. I would say that our perception of the frequency of serial killer murders is skewed by media representation of these crimes - because when they happen they are shocking and reported extensively, and so with that, also it becomes far more memorable. My next point: You argue that women have an easier time hiding “such behaviours” because of cultural stereotypes, but then go on to use instinct to argue your point, which isn’t good science and completely undermines your argument. I’m fairly confident that a lot of the points you make could be refuted with empirical evidence. Finally some other thoughts I might add: There is some evidence to suggest that female psychopaths are in someways different to male psychopaths. Male psychopaths are more antisocial and physically aggressive, whereas females use more relational and verbal aggression. Also, just in general, most psychopaths do not kill people. While female abusers and killers exist, I wouldn’t call it a secret pandemic of our time. Additionally, I think that serial killers found in healthcare settings “angels of death” or “angels of mercy” are less motivated by “aggressive/violent” factors, but rather they either believe that they are: 1. Easing suffering - putting someone out of their misery (which may also be delusional). OR 2. They enjoy the power that they have that they can kill people. OR 3. They have a Hero complex - that’s gone too far. They enjoy the adrenaline/excitement of resuscitations, and these situations often result in death - full resus is often chaotic and they’re even more difficult on a Night Shift when there is less people. OR 4. They revel in other people’s sorrow. OR some combination of the above…

keepamovin 3y ago
So, wait, the reason you don't agree with this is because instinct is a problem for you and it's "not scientific"--I guess it depends how good your instincts are, huh--but you're confident there's evidence to refute what I say? Is that your instinct? You haven't engaged logically to refute my points, and your lack of response speaks volumes. Your invocation of "surely there's evidence" seems to indicate that you might think what I'm saying is true but have no other reply. Invoking science without evidence because you're "confident" it will back you, is an abuse of the very thing you merely pretend to be backed by, and not valid argument here. I'm not interested in the creepy weirdness of what it's actually like in a hospital ward; that's irrelevant. Are you defending these female abusers and killers out of fear they're being discriminated against? Justifying their actions with labels like "angel of mercy" is undeserved and abhorrent. You seem to have misunderstood what I'm saying. People who have an inclination to "such behavior" to harm others are essentially the same, regardless of gender. They don't care about causing harm, but due to their different biology, they express it differently. Female abusers might be less physically aggressive but utilize other forms of abuse. I think you're in agreement with some of my points, but you're quibbling over bizarre details. You've taken issue with calling this behavior the "secret pandemic," but I believe that female abusers take advantage of social stereotypes to conceal their actions. Their victims might not report it, and it's not investigated as often as it should be. This case illustrates those hallmarks, and the inclination towards violence is the same for both genders. Female killers and abusers need to be more conniving due to their physical limitations and take advantage of stereotypes for protection. If you want to argue against this idea, you can't just claim that science will back you up. You need to engage with the concepts I've presented. Why would you want to cover for these people? It doesn't make sense. Your argument seems insincere, and frankly, disturbing. BTW - does anyone else know what that cluster type is mentioned? I'd hoped to get an answer to that here.
- Quinzel 3y ago
  Ok here you go. Point one: instinct isn’t a reliable source of knowledge: Here’s a link to a page that comments on instinct: https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/psychmethods4e/chapter/methods-of-knowing/#footnote-21-1 https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/psychmethods4e/chapter/methods-of... Another book you might be interested in, “Blink: The power of thinking without thinking”. Also here’s a link: https://jtnthebe.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Blink-The-Power-of-Thinking-Without-Thinking.pdf https://jtnthebe.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Blink-The-Po... Second point, you take issue with the “angel of mercy” or “angel of death” terminology but this is a type of criminal offender: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_of_mercy_(criminology) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_of_mercy_(criminology) Third point: for your instincts on female abusers and killers being a secret pandemic - I disagree. I don’t disagree that women commit crime, can and do abuse, and do indeed kill - but I don’t think it’s a secret pandemic, and gender differences between men and women who abuse, and/or kill do exist and there’s many possibly explanations for this. Including stereotypes, but that is not the only issue. Here’s another book: “Social Problems” And a specific page, “Who commits crime”: https://open.lib.umn.edu/socialproblems/chapter/8-3-who-commits-crime/ https://open.lib.umn.edu/socialproblems/chapter/8-3-who-comm... Although reading the whole book might be helpful, or studying some criminology, sociology, or psychology might be even more useful, if you’re heavily interested in this stuff. And finally, at no point have I tried to cover for these people or justify the actions of people who kill or abuse other people. Me disagreeing with you is not the same as me supporting or defending killers or abusers. I accept your comment that I then followed up with saying I was fairly confident and then provided no evidence for my confidence, which was hypocritical of me and I apologise. My comment was more intended to point out that you made bold statements, based on your instinct and you didn’t actually present any information that gave your comment any credibility.
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    So you don’t think logic is credible? I’m not sure why you keep pressing back against the fair, reasonable idea that women who want to harm others will take advantage of their stereotypes of being nurturing, harmless, not violent to gain access to victims, abuse those trusted positions and protect themselves from scrutiny and investigation. I’m also not sure why are you push back on the idea that women by virtue of the physical differences will choose victims weaker, younger or choose to abuse via ways that are not as physically aggressive. And because of all that, their crimes would likely go under investigated, and under reported. Yes, needless to say, this would lead it to being the secret pandemic of our time. It seems to me you don’t want this to be true. It seems perhaps you have a personal issue with both ideas about instinct and what I’m saying here you don’t want me to be right about this. It seems you want to invoke data to support your feeling but you haven’t succeeded. I think the problem your face is you have some kind of unresolved issues for yourself about these ideas and so you don’t like what I’m saying, but rather than face that you’re wanting to pretend that they’re simply not true because of data but I don’t think you supplied that information…so I think rather than trying to argue with me here you just can consider this more yourself. Why are you so against what I’m saying about instinct and about women who abuse? What harm would it really do to you if both those things are true? All of that seems very reasonable, logical, and it aligns with my instincts. I don’t see you’ve supported your case with any of the links you seem to be saying dispute this. Could it simply be that you don’t like this idea for some reason? Maybe it’s my use of the word instinct it’s particularly triggering for you for some reason. In my experience, people who try to dissuade others from trusting their own instinct, internal compass, emotions, internal knowledge are people who are not to be trusted. It’s like a killer telling someone “don’t trust your instincts about me.” to get the person to lower their guard. I don’t see why you’d be interested in trying to persuade people to not trust their instincts. Seems like not a very nice thing to do. You seem to have a problem with instincts. Maybe you can examine how do you feel yourself how about that because it doesn’t have anything to do with me. But instincts are a reliable source of knowledge and information. It just depends on how good your instincts are. I guess maybe yours are not that good but mine are pretty good. You can develop your instincts, you can get life experience, and you can learn. I think there’s something dangerous about this idea that instinct is bad that isn’t covered simply by the untrustworthiness of trying to gaslight people into not trusting themselves. There’s something in error or horribleness of saying “look I don’t care what you think and feel inside. You can’t trust that, you have to trust me, on this textbook because that is the truth” it’s kind of an ideological absolutist, dogmatic bullying by pretending you’re aligned with some source of divine absolute truth, that’s in the textbook or religious book or whatever some objective reality. I think everyone having their own instincts, and trusting those, and having their own mind, and trusting that, is a much better way for things to go. There’s also something like: well maybe you don’t know your own mind or your own feelings so you wanna pretend that nobody else can have that kind of instinctual knowledge too and you think you can substitute it by studying textbooks. Textbooks while useful are not a substitute. that may not be what you wanna hear yet you did press this path so you have to be aware that these are the kind of things you might find out. Apology accepted but it’s more for you. I mean you can reflect. Thanks but I’m not really interested in continuing to interrogate this with you. It seems that you have some blocks or issues there that maybe you can reflect about and so your involvement in this discussion while merely ostensibly about what I am saying, I think it’s really About how you’re feeling about these things, so maybe you can take a look at that before coming back and wasting more of my time ? Because it’s not really about me I think it’s about you, so I don’t need to do this work for you. Anyway, thank you. And if you’re going to develop your instincts more in future, good luck to you! I wish you all the best with that.

keepamovin 3y ago

So, wait, the reason you don't agree with this is because instinct is a problem for you and it's "not scientific"--I guess it depends how good your instincts are, huh--but you're confident there's evidence to refute what I say? Is that your instinct? You haven't engaged logically to refute my points, and your lack of response speaks volumes. Your invocation of "surely there's evidence" seems to indicate that you might think what I'm saying is true but have no other reply. Invoking science without evidence because you're "confident" it will back you, is an abuse of the very thing you merely pretend to be backed by, and not valid argument here. I'm not interested in the creepy weirdness of what it's actually like in a hospital ward; that's irrelevant. Are you defending these female abusers and killers out of fear they're being discriminated against? Justifying their actions with labels like "angel of mercy" is undeserved and abhorrent. You seem to have misunderstood what I'm saying. People who have an inclination to "such behavior" to harm others are essentially the same, regardless of gender. They don't care about causing harm, but due to their different biology, they express it differently. Female abusers might be less physically aggressive but utilize other forms of abuse. I think you're in agreement with some of my points, but you're quibbling over bizarre details. You've taken issue with calling this behavior the "secret pandemic," but I believe that female abusers take advantage of social stereotypes to conceal their actions. Their victims might not report it, and it's not investigated as often as it should be. This case illustrates those hallmarks, and the inclination towards violence is the same for both genders. Female killers and abusers need to be more conniving due to their physical limitations and take advantage of stereotypes for protection. If you want to argue against this idea, you can't just claim that science will back you up. You need to engage with the concepts I've presented. Why would you want to cover for these people? It doesn't make sense. Your argument seems insincere, and frankly, disturbing. BTW - does anyone else know what that cluster type is mentioned? I'd hoped to get an answer to that here.

Quinzel 3y ago
Ok here you go. Point one: instinct isn’t a reliable source of knowledge: Here’s a link to a page that comments on instinct: https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/psychmethods4e/chapter/methods-of-knowing/#footnote-21-1 https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/psychmethods4e/chapter/methods-of... Another book you might be interested in, “Blink: The power of thinking without thinking”. Also here’s a link: https://jtnthebe.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Blink-The-Power-of-Thinking-Without-Thinking.pdf https://jtnthebe.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Blink-The-Po... Second point, you take issue with the “angel of mercy” or “angel of death” terminology but this is a type of criminal offender: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_of_mercy_(criminology) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_of_mercy_(criminology) Third point: for your instincts on female abusers and killers being a secret pandemic - I disagree. I don’t disagree that women commit crime, can and do abuse, and do indeed kill - but I don’t think it’s a secret pandemic, and gender differences between men and women who abuse, and/or kill do exist and there’s many possibly explanations for this. Including stereotypes, but that is not the only issue. Here’s another book: “Social Problems” And a specific page, “Who commits crime”: https://open.lib.umn.edu/socialproblems/chapter/8-3-who-commits-crime/ https://open.lib.umn.edu/socialproblems/chapter/8-3-who-comm... Although reading the whole book might be helpful, or studying some criminology, sociology, or psychology might be even more useful, if you’re heavily interested in this stuff. And finally, at no point have I tried to cover for these people or justify the actions of people who kill or abuse other people. Me disagreeing with you is not the same as me supporting or defending killers or abusers. I accept your comment that I then followed up with saying I was fairly confident and then provided no evidence for my confidence, which was hypocritical of me and I apologise. My comment was more intended to point out that you made bold statements, based on your instinct and you didn’t actually present any information that gave your comment any credibility.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  So you don’t think logic is credible? I’m not sure why you keep pressing back against the fair, reasonable idea that women who want to harm others will take advantage of their stereotypes of being nurturing, harmless, not violent to gain access to victims, abuse those trusted positions and protect themselves from scrutiny and investigation. I’m also not sure why are you push back on the idea that women by virtue of the physical differences will choose victims weaker, younger or choose to abuse via ways that are not as physically aggressive. And because of all that, their crimes would likely go under investigated, and under reported. Yes, needless to say, this would lead it to being the secret pandemic of our time. It seems to me you don’t want this to be true. It seems perhaps you have a personal issue with both ideas about instinct and what I’m saying here you don’t want me to be right about this. It seems you want to invoke data to support your feeling but you haven’t succeeded. I think the problem your face is you have some kind of unresolved issues for yourself about these ideas and so you don’t like what I’m saying, but rather than face that you’re wanting to pretend that they’re simply not true because of data but I don’t think you supplied that information…so I think rather than trying to argue with me here you just can consider this more yourself. Why are you so against what I’m saying about instinct and about women who abuse? What harm would it really do to you if both those things are true? All of that seems very reasonable, logical, and it aligns with my instincts. I don’t see you’ve supported your case with any of the links you seem to be saying dispute this. Could it simply be that you don’t like this idea for some reason? Maybe it’s my use of the word instinct it’s particularly triggering for you for some reason. In my experience, people who try to dissuade others from trusting their own instinct, internal compass, emotions, internal knowledge are people who are not to be trusted. It’s like a killer telling someone “don’t trust your instincts about me.” to get the person to lower their guard. I don’t see why you’d be interested in trying to persuade people to not trust their instincts. Seems like not a very nice thing to do. You seem to have a problem with instincts. Maybe you can examine how do you feel yourself how about that because it doesn’t have anything to do with me. But instincts are a reliable source of knowledge and information. It just depends on how good your instincts are. I guess maybe yours are not that good but mine are pretty good. You can develop your instincts, you can get life experience, and you can learn. I think there’s something dangerous about this idea that instinct is bad that isn’t covered simply by the untrustworthiness of trying to gaslight people into not trusting themselves. There’s something in error or horribleness of saying “look I don’t care what you think and feel inside. You can’t trust that, you have to trust me, on this textbook because that is the truth” it’s kind of an ideological absolutist, dogmatic bullying by pretending you’re aligned with some source of divine absolute truth, that’s in the textbook or religious book or whatever some objective reality. I think everyone having their own instincts, and trusting those, and having their own mind, and trusting that, is a much better way for things to go. There’s also something like: well maybe you don’t know your own mind or your own feelings so you wanna pretend that nobody else can have that kind of instinctual knowledge too and you think you can substitute it by studying textbooks. Textbooks while useful are not a substitute. that may not be what you wanna hear yet you did press this path so you have to be aware that these are the kind of things you might find out. Apology accepted but it’s more for you. I mean you can reflect. Thanks but I’m not really interested in continuing to interrogate this with you. It seems that you have some blocks or issues there that maybe you can reflect about and so your involvement in this discussion while merely ostensibly about what I am saying, I think it’s really About how you’re feeling about these things, so maybe you can take a look at that before coming back and wasting more of my time ? Because it’s not really about me I think it’s about you, so I don’t need to do this work for you. Anyway, thank you. And if you’re going to develop your instincts more in future, good luck to you! I wish you all the best with that.