The Psychopathology of Crime

Walter Myers4 said:If my memory serves me correctly, that sounds like Frahm’s theory regarding the masochistic and sadistic tendencies within the German psyche, which he argues were essentially forged by their Protestant cultural roots...

I can't quite recall which specific volume that was in... I have spent quite a bit of time wading through Frahm's work, yet this particular concept escapes me at the moment. A sadistic-masochistic temperament in Germans? It seems somewhat ambiguous... I find myself wondering which segment of the population would fall into the sadistic category and which would be the masochists...
Since we are discussing national character—or perhaps more accurately, the collective mindset of a people—one might argue that there exists a distinction between a dominant mentality and a subservient one. Those nations that have maintained long-standing hegemony over their neighbors tend to develop a certain masterly disposition, which stands in stark contrast, naturally, to those who occupy a more subordinate role...

Kyle Morris7 said:Which book is that from? I’ve gone through Frahm before, but I don't remember this one. A sado-masochistic German character? That doesn't make sense. Which part of the people is the sadist and which is the masochist?
Since we're talking about character—or honestly, more like national mindset—you could say there's a "master" mentality and a "servant" mentality. Nations that have spent centuries ruling over everyone else in their neck of the woods tend to have that master mindset. It's the exact opposite of the servant type, obviously.

I think he touched on that in 'Escape from Freedom.' But hey, don't quote me on it, I'm just skimming through his collected works here.😁

The whole sado-masochistic thing basically means there's this collective psychological loop where they feel the need to be bullied by a higher authority while simultaneously bullying someone even weaker than themselves.

So, you've got both sadism and masochism running at once. If you ask me, Frahm takes Freud's theories and stretches them way too thin when applying them to an entire society, but regardless, his ideas are pretty damn interesting to chew on.

Kyle Morris7 said:My German isn't great, unfortunately, so I can't really weigh in. Honestly, this kind of theory is hard for me to wrap my head around because I have a hard time respecting authority myself; once an authority figure lets me down, I walk away immediately. But when it comes to a frenzied or malicious mob, they seem to never abandon their leader. I’m thinking about people who still cling to leaders from fifty years ago, even when it's blatantly obvious those authorities were toxic.
It just occurred to me what I was getting at in my last sentence. Maybe the key to explaining mass insanity is that they never leave their chosen authority. The real question is why they refuse to let go and instead choose to stay trapped in their own madness?

That isn't quite right, though, since you won't find many people in Germany today who will admit to having participated in Nazi activities, nor will you find anyone admitting their elders did, even in towns where almost everyone was involved. They distanced themselves from that authority very effectively once the political winds shifted...😉

I agree with Walter Myers4; I think Nazism was a result of collective repression... And I agree with Nellie—ignoring the shadow is essentially the same thing. Then there's what Walter Myers4 mentioned regarding the consequences of restrictive Protestant upbringing... That repressed aggression had to go somewhere. Americans simply projected their own shadows onto the Jews. That’s where all those schemes came from—claiming Jews were "unclean" while the Aryan race was "pure." If that isn't repression, I don't know what is.

Olivia Carter25 said:Well, that isn't quite accurate, considering that in America today you aren't really going to find anyone willing to admit they participated in Nazi activities, nor will you find anyone who will tell you that a relative of theirs was involved, even in places where almost everyone was part of it. So, they distanced themselves very skillfully from that authority once times became unfavorable...😉

I find myself agreeing with Walter Myers; I believe Nazism is a consequence of collective repression... and I agree with Nellie as well, regarding the ignoring of the shadow, which is essentially the same thing. And then there is what Walter Myers mentioned, that this is a result of the restrictive upbringing found in Protestant culture... repressed aggression had to manifest somewhere. And the Germans simply projected their own shadow onto the Jews. That is where all those schemes originated—that the Jews were "unclean" while the Aryans were "pure." If that isn't repression, then I truly don't know what is...

The Germans distanced themselves from authority, but it was done through force. It is a case that almost doesn't exist in modern history. Why I think so:
a) their leader committed suicide—which shows, in the end, that he was weak, and will anyone really accept a weakling as an authority figure?
b) the German military suffered total annihilation
c) a large portion of their territory was seized—likely forever
d) after the war, they endured a long period of occupation
e) they were subsequently drilled for decades on the fact that Nazism and all those who embraced it represented the greatest crime imaginable
All other modern major criminals remain authorities for two reasons. The first is because there was no coercion forcing the masses to renounce that authority, and the second is because some criminals aren't even perceived as criminals on a global scale (I am thinking primarily of Communist criminals)...
What Protestant culture? Why then haven't the other (or all) Protestant nations committed such crimes. Besides, half of the Germans are Catholic...

Walter Myers

It is sado-masochistic in the sense that there exists such a collective mentality where one must simultaneously be mistreated by a higher authority and mistreat someone weaker than oneself.

I wouldn't call it a collective mentality; rather, it is more like the natural hierarchy of the law of the jungle—the strong overpower the weak. This is a part of human nature, just as it is among animals. Sado-masochism is something else entirely, as it implies pleasure in both tormenting and enduring, which is a trait of a psychopath, not a collective...

Kyle Morris7 said:I wouldn't call it some collective mindset. It’s just the natural hierarchy—survival of the fittest, plain and simple. That's just human nature, just like it is with animals. Sado-masochism is a different beast entirely; that implies someone actually gets off on inflicting or enduring pain, which is the mark of a psychopath, not a group mentality.

Look, we can't even have a real conversation here if we haven't defined our basic terms first. The whole issue you're digging into is massive, and honestly? You should probably go read a dozen books on mass psychology just to get a handle on the actual terminology and concepts before we keep going. 👍

Walter Myers4 said:Look, we can't really have a productive debate if we haven't even established our basic definitions first. The subject matter you're diving into is incredibly vast, and I honestly think it would be beneficial for you to start by picking up maybe a dozen books on mass psychology, just so you can get a handle on the fundamental terminology and core concepts... 👍

I am not entirely sure what you mean by that... I have read a bit, though certainly nothing extensive. My own view is that many psychiatrists attempt to take terms used to describe individual psychopathology and simply project them onto the collective, which is a leap I find difficult to accept. It seems to me that when they struggle to explain certain phenomena on an individual level, they just shift the focus to the group and consider the matter settled. Furthermore, the reason I even initiated this discussion was because those types of texts frequently characterize mass behavior as being driven by some singular individual who supposedly "deludes" the crowd. I don't buy that at all; rather, I believe the masses actively select the kind of leader they desire... I have mentioned this in my previous posts, but I feel compelled to reiterate it, as I don't believe the concept has been sufficiently explored here...

Kyle Morris7 said:I’m not sure what you’re getting at. From what I can see, a lot of psychiatrists try to take an individual's psychopathology and just project it onto the entire collective, but I’m not buying it. It seems like whenever they hit a wall and can't explain something specific, they just slap a "societal" label on it to cover their tracks.

Look, it's not about whether you "accept" it or not. There are actual scientific findings that get tested in the real world until they become common knowledge.
That's exactly why I'm telling you: go actually read some literature first before you try to dive into the deep end of this problem. 👍

Walter Myers4 said:there isn't really anything for you to accept here, because there are certain scientific principles that undergo practical verification before they eventually become widely accepted...
which is precisely why I would suggest you spend some time studying the existing literature before attempting to dive into the deeper complexities of the matter 👍

I have certainly read quite a few books on popular psychology—at least ten of them, though that was perhaps ten or fifteen years ago now... And regarding these "scientific truths," if they are truly as settled as you claim, then how is it that there are so many different therapeutic methods within psychiatry that often seem to directly contradict one another? I find myself wondering how one might explain such a thing...

Kyle Morris7 said:I’ve read quite a few pop psychology books—maybe ten or so—but that was like 10 or 15 years ago. If scientific findings are actually settled, then how come there are so many different psychiatric treatment methods out there? And half the time, they seem to totally contradict each other! How do you explain that?

Now you’re just mixing up theory and practice.
You started this whole thread about mass psychology, so let's try to actually stay on topic for once. 👍

Walter Myers4 said:you’re blurring the lines between theory and practice.
since you started this thread on mass psychology, let’s try to stay within those parameters 👍

I am not blurring them at all... It is a matter of mass pathology, which falls squarely under the domain of psychiatry. And if we aren't looking at pathology, then we are looking at evil—evil and crime being inherent parts of human nature, just like any other form of social behavior.
But perhaps we should return to my opening statement and the question I posed originally. I was actually expecting someone to bring up egoism—specifically, that total lack of interpersonal solidarity—as the underlying reason why people idolize criminals. A crowd will worship a villain as long as it serves their own interests, and they simply don't care who gets caught in the crossfire. In my experience, that is arguably the primary driver behind what seems like irrational adoration for criminals. When people discuss this, the most common sentiment I hear is "as long as I'm doing fine, I can't be bothered with anyone else's troubles." I would go so far as to say such individuals make up the majority...
Unfortunately, in the field of psychiatry, egoism isn't classified as a pathological phenomenon, though I truly believe it should be.

Kyle Morris7 said:I’m not getting involved in semantics. We're talking about mass pathology here, which falls under psychiatry. And look, if it isn't a mental pathology, then it's just pure evil—evil is just part of human nature, plain and simple, right along with every other way people act in a group.
But let’s circle back to my original point. I was actually waiting for someone to bring up selfishness—you know, that total lack of solidarity—as the reason why people worship criminals. A mob will cheer for a villain as long as things are going their way and they don't give a damn if someone else pays the price. From what I've seen in my own life, that's usually the real driver behind this "irrational" hero worship. When you talk to people about this stuff, most of them basically say, "Hey, as long as I'm good, I don't care about anyone else's problems." Honestly? I think that's how most people operate.
The problem is, psychiatry doesn't classify egoism as a pathology, though frankly, it really should be.

Someone already pointed out that the crowd follows a leader because he's the living embodiment of their own dark side—he's the physical manifestation of evil. He expresses everything they're too ashamed or too scared to say out loud, or everything their social norms won't let them touch. He calls for surrendering to those lowest instincts and sells it to the mob as some kind of twisted version of freedom... and so on and so forth.

Kyle Morris7 said:People will cheer for a villain in a heartbeat as long as they're getting a good deal, completely ignoring the collateral damage left in their wake.

This is a beautiful (and perfectly logical) scientific definition 🤣 🙄

Kyle Morris7 said:I’m not overstepping here. We’re talking about mass pathology, which falls squarely under psychiatry. If it isn't a clinical pathology, then we're just looking at pure evil—and evil is a fundamental part of human nature, much like any other social behavior.
But let’s circle back to my original point. I was waiting for someone to bring up egoism—specifically, that total lack of human solidarity—as the driving force behind why crowds idolize criminals. A mob will worship a villain as long as things are going their way, and they couldn't care less if others suffer in the process. In my experience, that’s actually the primary driver behind what looks like irrational hero-worship of bad actors. When people talk about this, the most common refrain is, "As long as I'm doing fine, I don't care about anyone else's problems." Honestly, I’d go as far as to say that's how most people operate.
The problem is that psychiatry doesn't classify egoism as a pathology, though frankly, it probably should be.

You're mixing apples and oranges. You can't claim a lack of solidarity is the direct cause of a crowd gravitating toward a criminal authority figure. It might be one contributing factor—though people aren't nearly that simple, and I don't agree with your premise anyway, but I won't get bogged down in that specific debate right now.

Maybe if you actually wanted to debate this, you should have started a new thread specifically for "egoism"? Just tell us, what is it that’s actually bothering you? 😁

Walter Myers4 said:someone might have already pointed out to you that the masses tend to follow a leader because he acts as a living personification of their own darker impulses, essentially becoming the embodiment of everything they fear or repress. He speaks without any of those internal hang-ups, openly voicing the very things people are too ashamed or terrified to say aloud, or perhaps what social etiquette prevents them from expressing... he basically gives them an unapologetic invitation to surrender to their lowest instincts, framing it to the crowd as this twisted version of true freedom... and so on.

I find that quite clear, and I actually find myself writing along those same lines quite often... However, I can't help but wonder why we see such a persistent pattern where only a single individual or a small handful of people—whether in our justice system, our political circles, or the mainstream media—are singled out for condemnation and punishment, while the collective mass remains untouched. It always seems to be one or two supposed personifications of evil being held accountable, while the public at large is dismissed as merely "misled" or "deceived"... In my view, it would be far more significant, perhaps even vital, to address and hold the collective itself responsible rather than just focusing on the individual outliers...

Kyle Morris7 said:I totally get that, and honestly, that’s exactly what I’ve been trying to drive home in my posts. But here’s the thing—why is it that we always see one or two people getting dragged through the mud or thrown in jail (whether it's the courts, politicians, or the news media), while the crowd just gets a pass? It’s always some individual being labeled as the "face of evil" while the masses are treated like they were just "misled." If we actually wanted to fix things, we should be holding the whole group accountable instead of just picking off a few scapegoats.

But seriously, how on earth are you supposed to punish a whole crowd?

Kyle Morris7 said:Your opening line is actually a contradiction. I’d argue that "loving" and "being manipulated" are mutually exclusive concepts. If there is true love, manipulation can't exist because manipulation is fundamentally a deception. But the public doesn't want to be deceived, nor do I think they are. I’d frame it this way: the masses choose and follow a leader who promises to fulfill their specific desires and needs. So, it really comes down to the second half of your point. There is always good and evil, and in this scenario, the chosen leader is the vessel for that evil. The idea that people are just blindly manipulated—a theory repeated ad nauseam during the American Civil War (and other conflicts where large groups commit atrocities)—is totally wrong. Honestly, it’s dangerous, because it shifts all the blame onto one or two individuals when, in reality, the guilt lies with everyone.
Someone might argue it’s just about current fears, ignorance, or feeling threatened. But that isn't it either. If that were the case, the behavior would vanish once the fear subsided. It doesn't. Even after five, ten, or fifty years, the masses continue to lionize criminals.

Exactly. People enjoy being manipulated, because nobody is going to stand up and say, "Yeah, I love being played." On the flip side, history has shown us plenty of instances of voluntary manipulation, simply because it allows everyone to escape responsibility—either no one is guilty, or everyone is.

You mentioned Germany; I actually have roots there, my parents are German, and after the war, everyone went through denazification. Even so, if you talk to the oldest Germans, it's incredibly hard to get them to admit, "Yes, we were responsible." Very few will acknowledge their role in any wrongdoing—if anything happened at all—beyond saying what they personally could have done, which was usually nothing more than waving a flag like everyone else.
On a formal level, older Germans will admit Hitler was a criminal, but not in the way my family, or yours, or any other nation perceives him.
When you undergo voluntary manipulation, you aren't held accountable, you aren't conscious of it, and you aren't guilty. Those are the pillars of this phenomenon. Essentially, at a certain economic crossroads, a "figure" emerges to speak on behalf of the people. This has nothing to do with lack of resources or education; in fact, the key figures surrounding Hitler were highly educated.
- Before that happens, the stage is set. The environment is primed, tensions are stoked, and the public is sufficiently agitated, just looking for an outlet. In the past, this has always been fueled by a poor economy, and then this "earthly savior" arrives to begin the manipulation.
(Which the masses are practically begging for, since the groundwork is laid, the future looks bleak, and finances are in shambles.
We find ourselves needing a "Savior," a "Patriarch," a "Leader," or a "Father"—whatever label fits the era.
- At its core, it stems from patriarchy; the concept of the land is always tied to the idea of a mother, and so on.

Kyle Morris7 said:I totally get where you're coming from, and I actually try to frame my posts in that same way. But it makes me wonder: why is the focus always on singling out one or two people—whether it’s in the legal system, politics, or the media—instead of looking at the crowd? It feels like we always hunt for a few specific "personifications of evil" while treating the masses as if they were just innocent bystanders being misled. In reality, holding the collective group accountable would be far more impactful than just punishing a few individuals.

Look at how Germany handled things after the war; there was mandatory denazification where everyone had to sit through Allied documentaries. They didn't put every single person on trial because, let's face it, responsibility isn't distributed equally—it usually starts at the top.

Kyle Morris7 said:I'm not trying to complicate things. We're looking at mass pathology here, which falls squarely under psychiatry. If it isn't a clinical pathology, then we're just dealing with evil—which, much like any other social behavior, is simply part of human nature.
But let’s circle back to my original point. I was actually hoping someone would bring up selfishness—basically, a total lack of solidarity—as the driver behind why people idolize criminals. A crowd will worship a villain if it serves their own interests, and they couldn't care less about the collateral damage. From what I've seen, that's often the primary reason behind this seemingly irrational hero-worship. In most discussions on this topic, you hear people say, "Hey, as long as I'm doing fine, why should I worry about someone else?" Honestly, I think that mindset is pretty much the norm.
Unfortunately, psychiatry doesn't classify pure egoism as a pathology, though in my opinion, it really should be.

Evil is fundamentally baked into human nature. Unless it manifests as an actual illegal act, it can't be punished, but as an inherent trait—or what some psychologists call the "shadow"—we all carry both good and evil within us, even if most of us go through life trying our hardest to project only the good side.

Natch said:but how on earth would you even go about punishing the masses?

In much the same way the Germans were held to account back in 1945, nothing more and certainly nothing less... which is essentially what Carol Lee4 pointed out in her previous message, though I can't help but feel that such an instance might be the only truly appropriate example of justice being served in that manner...

Carol Lee4, do you ever find yourself wondering if a crumbling economy carries more weight than the inherent darkness within the human soul? I’ve been reflecting on this quite a bit lately, and my own conviction leans toward the idea that evil is a fundamental component of our very nature... whereas a failing economy, or perhaps any other form of systemic humiliation, acts merely as the catalyst that brings it to the surface.