GENIUS FORUMS

A father killing his wife and children prior to suicide used to puzzle me, but if we acknowledge the following ideas, then it should be a lot more clear:


a) The father is deeply attached to his wife and kids, to the point where he literally identifies with his family. His identity extends beyond his own personal ego, extending to his wife and kids. They are extensions of who he is. Mirror neurons are largely responsible for this tendency in humans.

b) The reason he wants to commit suicide is to escape shame.

c) Shame terrifies him more than death.

The thought of his family living on past him is unbearable. This is because he identifies so strongly with his family, that imagining them live their lives feels literally like living his own. The distinction between himself and his family blurs and disappears. He imagines his daughter or wife learning about his suicide. He imagines their loneliness, their fear, their shame, he imagines that they might think he is a coward, etc. The pain he feels when apprehending this is unbearable. Again, mirror neurons are the culprit here. He can’t distinguish between his pain and their pain. His brain fools him into thinking they are one.

So basically, for him, committing suicide without killing his family is not really suicide. He’s leaving pieces of himself behind. For suicide to be complete, he must kill all of himself. Not just a part. Otherwise, the pain won’t end.

At least that’s what his brain is telling him at the time.

--

Ever read Anne Rule?

In one of her books, I think the Want-Ad Killer or maybe another, a man kills his whole family and the suicide note he leaves behind is some twisted messed up stuff. He goes on about being in paradise, but only he can be there unless he does something to bring them with him and that the world is corrupt.

Actually... I can see his point. Anyway, I don't think the theory pans out in every case. Could be wrong.

Yeah, probably not in every case. But I think it explains a good deal of them.

Never read Anne Rule, but I heard of her. I think I heard Ted Bundy was her co-worker at some point, prior to her career as author.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Yeah, probably not in every case. But I think it explains a good deal of them.

Never read Anne Rule, but I heard of her. I think I heard Ted Bundy was her co-worker at some point, prior to her career as author.

Yea, she worked side-by-side with Ted Bundy at a support hotline.

I think your theory works for a lot of cases of suicide. But serial murderers are usually interested in some kind of fame as well. Like even Columbine and V-Tech had a degree of fame involved in it. I see the point they were trying to make, but to a large degree they were egomaniacal, IMO.

Oh yes, for sure.

The theory I proposed in the initial post only attempts to explain the family man who takes his wife and children, or similar cases.

Columbine and stuff like that are very different.

Elliot Leyton, in his book "Hunting Humans" proposes a compelling theory.

His thesis is basically this: the Majority of serial killers who take their own life, like Mark Essex and the Columbine killers, are largely reacting to frusteration related to the way a certain "class" instills a sense of inferiority in them. The suicide sees his act of killing many people as a form of revenge upon a specific social class that has denied him the social acceptance that he craves. Elements of sadism and sexual pervasion are his means of punishing his supposed persecutors.

This "spirit of vengeance against a class" may be what animated Bundy, but I'm not as sure. In Bundy's case, he specifically targeted marginally upper class, beautiful young women, all with the same color hair and complexion.

Interesting, all his victims resembled his first girlfriend who dumped him. Bundy's psyche must have been very hurt by being dumped by her, which I think explains why he targeted a particular type of woman, ones which resembled her. It was an expression of vengeance and a will to overcome that which instills inferiority.

Of course, lots of men get dumped, feel inferior and wish bad things upon their ex, but that's a lot different than killing dozens of women who look like her! So obviously there is also something very biological/neurological that is occurring of which is quite unique and undesirable.

Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis Nilsen, who are amazingly similar, are a special class of killer who I think escape Leyton's theory. Their killings don't have anything to do with "class frusteration" or vengeance, IMO.

They are so similar that they are essentially the same case, which deserves it's very own unique theory.

---

Well, I have no problem admitting, as some do, that I've had times where I've come very close to Columbine and V-Tech. At least, in terms of how I felt at the time.

But, today I am fine, I have no desire to do such things and see the futility in them.

A few life circumstances here or there could have tipped the scales in the other direction.

Though, I understand that psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder can manifest as young as 2 years of age, indicating neurological correlates.

Animus wrote:Well, I have no problem admitting, as some do, that I've had times where I've come very close to Columbine and V-Tech.

No fault of your own. That is the way nature willed it.

A few life circumstances here or there could have tipped the scales in the other direction.

Yeah, there's a lot to be said about more thoughtful social engineering, better parenting, and the like. On the other hand, I look forward to the day when we can genetically engineer ourselves to be more aptly primed to become what we wish.

Though, I understand that psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder can manifest as young as 2 years of age, indicating neurological correlates.

I'm not sure if there's a very strong correlation between kids who get diagnosed with ASPD or psychopathy, and the tendency to go on a killing spree. I haven't heard anything about that.

I think what generally drives people to kill on a large scale is hypersensitivity and frusteration with and vengeance towards a certain class, combined with a desire for large scale attention.

In general, these acts are caused by people who are caught up in their own personal dramas and lack a larger perspective on things - whether they be young students (being young they lack perspective as a matter of course), middle-aged husbands (their emotional attachments have driven away all perspective), Islamic suicide bombers (their elders see to it that all perspective is destroyed), and so on. It's a narcissistic disorder, basically.

-

In my case it seems to have stemmed from a serious head injury. The head injury itself didn't cause my hatred towards society, but it messed me up enough for society to turn hostile towards me. Once that dynamic was set in motion it was entirely natural for me to hate society.

It wasn't so much that all of society was hostile towards me. My peers and my teachers most certainly were hostile towards me, the police were just doing their job, counsellors and probation officers seemed to want to help (in hindsight), but at the time it was just like being under a microscope.

It turns out I was a bit claustraphobic when it came to people trying to "help" me. The most progress in my life came in the last few years, living alone and just studying philosophy and science.

To some extent, the society bearing down on me, I think added to my discomfort and lashing out.

My father used to say "You are in a box, and the harder you try to get out, the smaller the box becomes." but this just irritated me!

If you are forced to interact with a lot of "statistically normal" people every day, that can really flare up the emotions and make it difficult to focus on less egotistical matters. Solitude, in the right measure, is a great way to calm down the mind and contemplate more logical things.

David Quinn wrote:In general, these acts are caused by people who are caught up in their own personal dramas and lack a larger perspective on things - whether they be young students (being young they lack perspective as a matter of course), middle-aged husbands (their emotional attachments have driven away all perspective), Islamic suicide bombers (their elders see to it that all perspective is destroyed), and so on. It's a narcissistic disorder, basically.

-

Exactly! That's what my issue was, a personal drama, and I was at the centre of it. But think about this! I had my self-esteem destroyed, I was egoically crippled! And that made me interested in philosophy and science. In hindsight, had I been a jock or someone popular, I'd detest myself today!

Cory Duchesne wrote:If you are forced to interact with a lot of "statistically normal" people every day, that can really flare up the emotions and make it difficult to focus on less egotistical matters. Solitude, in the right measure, is a great way to calm down the mind and contemplate more logical things.

Haha, when I was 14 I was made to see a child psychologist. She tried to get me to play with dolls, puppets and sandboxes (all stuff small children like to do). I was like "What? Are you stupid?".

It turns out this is a common practice with child psychologists. lol.

"Statistically normal" I guess so.

More possibilities:

He really wants them dead (whether as retribution, a favor to society, or a perceived favor to them to not have to put up with life without him, or suffer through some horror he perceives to be awaiting them), but doesn't want to go through the penal system (can't stand incarceration, feels the death penalty is appropriate and doesn't want the hassle of due process...)

Religious fanaticism

Undo the "mistake" of having children, and mercy killing of the mother of the children

Lost his temper and killed one, then killed the rest to try to clean up his mess

Chemical imbalance in the brain (natural, illicit drugs, bad reaction to prescriptions, sugar issues...), and just felt like it one day.



...just a few more suggestions. There are probably other reasons too.

Cory Duchesne wrote:For suicide to be complete, he must kill all of himself. Not just a part. Otherwise, the pain won’t end

David Quinn wrote:In general, these acts are caused by people who are caught up in their own personal dramas and lack a larger perspective on things.

Many people appear to be caught up like that. But only a few go to the extreme of suicide or violent death spread. Or perhaps it's just a variance, as near everyone commits violence and spreads death in their particular subtle more manageable way. We don't always qualify it as equally serious but that's just contemporary, cultural perhaps.

One bold statement: ignorance equals violence. And I differ between aggression and violence here. When caught in the cage of a personal drama, so fully self-centered, out of the deep a counter-force, a shadow could be said to creep up. IT's summoned and this person, event or wish that takes form embodies the desire to end, to destroy the cage, the shame, its sources - the ultimate ressentiment.

Why doesn't it happen all the time? Why are we still shocked when the full drama plays out once in a while, spilling over the imagined boundaries where we think the drama should remain contained inside? Researchers and psychologists are scrambling for explanations. They might look at it from the wrong perspective: as the exception while perhaps what we're seeing is the rule, only temporary suspended by drugs, repressive structures, organized killing like war or mob violence, harsh discipline and so on.

It's not exactly a surgical process. The forces unleashed are not logical, measured or sensible. Least of all fair. So while with a 'standard' suicide one takes out the physical context to stop the suffering (one might hope, as one doesn't know if in the afterlife one is forced to live the same way but worse), sometimes the process goes amok. Perhaps this is like Cory suggested because of extreme identification. But the berserk is released and you hear often descriptions of determination and serenity as state of mind of this newly born killing machine. They experience liberation even perhaps, a short burn of release.

Violence shows a part of reality, but only the reality of ignorance, where ignorance has to lead to, as a long shadow cast. One cannot prevent the shadow without identifying what's obstructing the light. With the world seemingly becoming more and more obsessed with itself, are we going to see increasingly more of this? In my view it's our own society, with the media and the markets, that encourages actively the very situation that gives rise to this violence. To coin a phrase: the "violence of the real" - against the unreal. Without sense, without rationality. This is what can become so frightening to behold.

"Love" rearing its ugly nine heads.

Diebert wrote: Why doesn't it happen all the time? Why are we still shocked when the full drama plays out once in a while, spilling over the imagined boundaries where we think the drama should remain contained inside? Researchers and psychologists are scrambling for explanations.

I have no doubt that many have murderous fantasies. But I think the reason that only a few actually follow through with these fantasies is because these few feel more intensely. Their inner landscape is exceptionally hostile and intense, and thus from these exceptionally painful inner conditions, we see exceptional actions. Basically, some people have more intense desires and fears than others.

They might look at it from the wrong perspective: as the exception while perhaps what we're seeing is the rule, only temporary suspended by drugs, repressive structures, organized killing like war or mob violence, harsh discipline and so on.

Sure, there are outer stimulants and structures that help blunt the pain, but for some individuals, they are so ravaged within, that the outer stimulants and supports fail to influence them sufficiently. Or perhaps the supports that most people use elude them for some reason. And thus they break out of the cage, becoming violent.

Sometimes the process goes amok. Perhaps this is like Cory suggested because of extreme identification.

For the family man who takes his wife and kids prior to his own life, yes, I think it's extreme identification. In this case, the suicide wants nothing more than mercy on himself. There's no vengeance involved.

On the other hand, for someone like Mark Essex or even Ted Bundy, I think we are seeing anger and vengeance towards a "class"

I think most instances of multiple murder and suicide are born out of "class consciousness" - which brings fear, shame, inferiority, anger and depression.

Even rare birds like Jeff Dahmer, who seem to be operating from the most alien and base desires, settled on their morbid lifestyle due to low self esteem and shame about who they are (both were homosexual and socially inept).

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:One bold statement: ignorance equals violence.

Not completely true - even leaving the axiom "ignorance is bliss" aside. Controlling regimes have historically sought to keep its populace ignorant in order to keep them more docile. Let's even boil it down to the ridiculous - if you had a wife who you were cheating on, would she be more likely to be violent if she believed that you were working late, or if she caught you mid-coitus with the other woman?

Ignorance of a more effective means of achieving the desired results may, in part, lead to violence. Rarely does one come to a rational conclusion that based on available data, violence is the optimal means of achieving the desired results - but it does happen.

Violence is most often an expression of an emotion. Emotions often cloud reason, so even if a person is not ignorant of a better means of accomplishing their desired result, that person may choose violence under the principle of immediate gratification.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:They might look at it from the wrong perspective: as the exception while perhaps what we're seeing is the rule, only temporary suspended by drugs, repressive structures, organized killing like war or mob violence, harsh discipline and so on.

That sounds true. "Repressive structures" may also include the discipline imposed on children as they grew up, including the cultural indoctrination into social mores. When children became more able to substitute television, video games, etc. for less structured social interation, the anesthetizing effect of these activities may have disguised the basic human nature enough for it to not be noticed - then when the "anesthetic" is removed, even temporarily, these people do not have the kind of coping mechanisms they might have developed had they been forced to deal with their own nature all along.

Cory Duchesne wrote:I think the reason that only a few actually follow through with these fantasies is because these few feel more intensely.

I'm inclined to agree that is the case at least some, if not most, of the time. I still think that a lack of effective alternative coping mechanisms bears some measure of culpability.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

They might look at it from the wrong perspective: as the exception while perhaps what we're seeing is the rule, only temporary suspended by drugs, repressive structures, organized killing like war or mob violence, harsh discipline and so on.

Sure, there are outer stimulants and structures that help blunt the pain, but for some individuals, they are so ravaged within, that the outer stimulants and supports fail to influence them sufficiently. Or perhaps the supports that most people use elude them for some reason.

Yes, this goes equally well as a response to my interjection - and I would like to add the possibility that a coping mechanism may have been removed, so a more base response came into play (for example, someone who learned to tell a person exactly what she thought of a person's behavior, but was prevented from verbalizing her response in a situation that she found intolerable, she might tell that person in a non-verbal [violent] manner).

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:One bold statement: ignorance equals violence.

Not completely true - even leaving the axiom "ignorance is bliss" aside.

Interestingly, there's quite some bliss in all violence and quite some violence in all bliss. Ask the addicts.

Controlling regimes have historically sought to keep its populace ignorant in order to keep them more docile.

The problem needs to be defined as: what is being violated. Truth? Order? Progress? Life? In most cases the populace is its own worst enemy.

Violence is most often an expression of an emotion.

And yet some of the most violent depraved acts are being done cold hearted and cool headed, skilfully justifying itself in the process. Ignorance runs deeper than mere emotion. Just like violence runs deeper than causing pain and death in the context of one specific event.

When caught in the cage of a personal drama, so fully self-centered, out of the deep a counter-force, a shadow could be said to creep up. IT's summoned and this person, event or wish that takes form embodies the desire to end, to destroy the cage, the shame, its sources - the ultimate ressentiment

When I was suicidally depressed many years ago now, mid 90s, that’s exactly what it was like - an alter-ego formed telling me to kill myself or to dream of harming others.

Although my personal drama was one of possible insanity, via getting too wrapped up in my own problems, I am certain it originated from a physical reality, that over time and suffering, mentally became delusional. It was the good old "pariah of society" effect that I guess most killers feel, certainly these young ones.

Although the suicidal side of my depression ebbed away, the lower key depression/sadness lasted a fair while.
It does takes a while to gain control, particularly where one is not a courageous enough person to take a few risks to induce change. One knows they are fragile and change brings risk, and with failures is the possibility of regressing back to the suicidal state. Indeed noticeable remnants of this time still exist in me, and reappear under certain pressures.

During these times, and decreasingly frequently since, I would have the "gun dream", often while trying to go to sleep and upon waking. Not as a daydream like these kids though.

While it was a dream about inflicting death in order to get things I wanted, there was a mindlessness about it, a sense of being on auto-pilot.

Rest assured though that while I am verbally aggressive at times, I've never been otherwise inclined to commit physical violence. As an adult, I have never owned, or had access to, or desired to have a gun or serious knife or whatever. I'd be lying however, if I said I didn't want martial arts skills - too undisciplined and lazy though :)

What interests me now is the relationship between the auto-pilot nature of my dreams back then, and the same effect one sees in young killers. It is truly like another simpler one-tracked personality has temporary control of your mind.

There just seems to be a physical element to the raising of this destructive demon, something more than stress emotions.
Though the physical catalyst manifests as a result of the state of the mind, and a negative mindset will result in additional suffering from the resulting increased negative feedback from other herd members (which could be a hormonal trigger), this physical affect causes a subsequent multiplication of the stress burdens upon the already fragile mind.

I think it could be some form of hangover from our ape or pre-ape past, wherein if a herd member did something that caused that member to become an outcast to the herd, then it was more beneficial for the herd for that member to self-destruct quickly rather than continue to consume resources.

Perhaps as said above, a certain death hormone creator is stirred into activity when the mind feels sufficient depth and preconception of permanently being isolated, that coexists with a conflicting desire for acceptance.

While this may not hold water with folk who are severely physically malformed, such unfortunates must come to an accommodation with the non-accepting feedback of others rather more quickly than a depressed outcast would. Also they often have people around that will always accept them. They learn to control the negative, whereas the depressed are already under the spell of uncontrolled negativity.

Jamesh,

When I was suicidally depressed many years ago now, mid 90s, that’s exactly what it was like - an alter-ego formed telling me to kill myself or to dream of harming others.

Did you want to harm people who had specifically harmed you, or did you also want to harm innocent people? In your mind, did you go on a killing spree?

During my worst depression, I specifically wanted to kill one person. I fantasized about how this killing would be done. In my insanity, I thought I could not get out of my depression unless that person was dead. But it never occurred to me to hurt anybody else, except in the smallest of ways.

Did you want to harm people who had specifically harmed you, or did you also want to harm innocent people? In your mind, did you go on a killing spree?

I guess I wanted to harm the herd, so yes innocent people, in particular the carefree types, and the most egotisitcal types. However, as I said, it was a fairly mindless dream, not a ongoing advancing dream story in which increased levels of dream-planning were involved. I had enough control to be able shut it down, prior to getting caught up in planning. I wanted to die to end personal suffering, not so much as the very likely outcome of taking revenge against the machine.

During my worst depression, I specifically wanted to kill one person. I fantasized about how this killing would be done. In my insanity, I thought I could not get out of my depression unless that person was dead. But it never occurred to me to hurt anybody else, except in the smallest of ways.

I presume that is related to your "bad ex-husband". I guess the difference is mine was more generalistic - an outcome of an inherent lack of self-confidence, rather than the outcome of a relationship with a single "confidence-destroyer".

I think the serial killer type, as opposed to these "blow up the world" one hit wonderkids, often may start killing as result of wanting to kill one person - that person I think most commonly is their controlling or insane mother, and for the rare female serial killer, their controlling and abusive father. Thankfully I had none of that as a kid.

Jamesh,

I presume that is related to your "bad ex-husband".

No. I suppose it is a little weird that I never hated my ex-husband. It may have been for two reasons. (1) He was so crazy, I couldn't help feeling sorry for him. (2) Even at his meanest moments, he never stopped loving me. Being loved felt good to the ego.

I guess the difference is mine was more generalistic - an outcome of an inherent lack of self-confidence, rather than the outcome of a relationship with a single "confidence-destroyer".

Right. So seriously depressed people seem to lash out against whoever they perceive or blame for getting them into that hell hole.

Jamesh wrote:

Did you want to harm people who had specifically harmed you, or did you also want to harm innocent people? In your mind, did you go on a killing spree?

I guess I wanted to harm the herd, so yes innocent people, in particular the carefree types, and the most egotisitcal types.

I wonder if that conscious (using psychological, not philosophical, definition of "conscious" in this post) desire to harm the herd was not also a subconscious desire to help the herd. Some people bully people in an effort to "help" them. I have heard this reported most often in the African-American culture, but it occasionally happens with caucasians, too. The scenario includes that the instigator believes that the innocent person is at a disadvantage due to their naivety, and believe that the only way to remove their niavety is to victimize them. They somehow see it as safer for the other person if they are the victimizers rather than someone they do not know.

In the case of killing rather than causing physical or psychological damage to the primary target, the potential killer may see the victims as damaged either as being evil themselves or damaged due to being niave. The greater herd would then receive the psychological impact of the killing, thus removing niavety in the secondary targets.

(forgive me for taking so long to respond. My internet access is quite limited now)