The Psychopathology of Crime

Kyle Morris7 said:Carol Lee4, do you think a failing economy carries more weight than the inherent darkness in people? Personally, I feel that evil is baked right into our nature, and things like a recession or any other kind of humiliation are really just the catalysts.

Evil is pretty much woven into the fabric of being human, and since we’re all out here living in such a materialistic society, a bad economy serves as the perfect trigger; it's no wonder they say everything comes with a price.

Sad, this is a harsh truth 😢
"The death of one individual is a tragedy. The death of ten million is a statistic."
Stalin

silentpilot6 said:It is a grim reality, yet undeniably true... 😢
"The death of one person is a tragedy; the death of ten million is merely a statistic."
Stalin

silentpilot6, if you consider yourself a student of history, I wonder if you could tell me whether there has ever truly been a communist leader who actually faced justice for their crimes...

Take Nicolae Ceaușescu, for instance...

...no, (let me jump in before this spirals out of control) please, let’s not turn this thread into a history lesson.
The discussion regarding good and evil has already drifted quite far into philosophy.

Psychology isn't really about the concepts of good and evil... (after all, what evidence is there that humans are inherently evil? Perhaps we are just selfish and driven by survival, much like any other biological organism... but if someone wants to call that "proof" of being evil, fine).
I'm not saying psychological science doesn't rest on certain philosophical foundations, but if we go down that road, those debates belong in a philosophy forum or a general science sub-forum.

Stick to history and historical facts only when they are necessary to explain socio-psychological phenomena.

Gerald Rivera60 said:Take Nicolae Ceaușescu, for instance...

... though, if I may intervene before the entire discussion drifts completely off course, I would kindly ask that we refrain from turning this thread into a pure history lesson...
Even if our debate regarding good and evil has already begun to veer quite heavily into the realm of philosophy...

Psychology doesn't truly concern itself with the concepts of good and evil... (after all, on what basis could one claim a human is inherently an evil being... perhaps merely selfish or driven by a fundamental instinct for self-preservation, much like any other biological organism... but if someone chooses to interpret that as "proof" of inherent evil, well, that is their prerogative)...
I am certainly not suggesting that psychological science isn't built upon certain philosophical foundations, but if we go down that path, then perhaps such discussions belong in a dedicated philosophy forum or a broader scientific subforum...

Please, try to stick to historical context and established facts only when they are necessary to explain specific socio-psychological phenomena...

You make a valid point, and I agree that we shouldn't stray too far from the core subject...
But I must wonder how you can claim psychology doesn't deal with good and evil, given that the field encompasses everything immaterial... the intersection of psychology and philosophy seems entirely unavoidable...
Besides, nobody here actually suggested that humans are fundamentally evil...
You mention selfishness? It isn't just a trait; it's one of the defining characteristics of the human condition. I would even argue that this very selfishness is one of the primary drivers behind mob mentality and the irrational idolization of criminals. As for self-preservation, I cannot say for certain...
If selfishness truly exists solely as a mechanism for self-preservation, then perhaps it shouldn't be condemned at all. And if it isn't something to be judged, then perhaps collective madness shouldn't be either...

Kyle Morris7 said:...
How can you claim psychology doesn't deal with good and evil? Psychology covers everything non-material. The overlap between psychology and philosophy is unavoidable.

Look, modern psychology actually leans toward the material side. It tries to pin hypothetical constructs and theoretical models down to the brain—to the physical body—as much as possible.
Psychology doesn't encompass all things non-material. Philosophy and ethics tackle the problem of good and evil; psychology generally does not.
Just as physics eventually broke away from philosophy, psychology did the same. Of course, like all sciences, it rests on paradigms built upon certain philosophical concepts (like the inductive method), but the actual subject matter shared by philosophy and psychology is minimal. Sure, some philosophers have dabbled in psychology—for instance, Bertrand Russell criticized Behaviorism, or Sartre explored the phenomenology of emotion—but fundamentally, psychology and philosophy operate in different spheres. They also utilize different research methods, such as controlled experimentation.

Kyle Morris7 said:Nobody here ever claimed humans are inherently evil beings.
You suggest selfishness? It isn't just selfish; it's one of the core traits of being human. I would go further: selfishness is a primary driver behind mob mentality and the cult of personality surrounding criminals. As for self-preservation, I'm not so sure.
If selfishness truly exists as a tool for self-preservation, then it shouldn't be condemned. And if we aren't condemning it, then collective madness shouldn't be condemned either.

I think someone mentioned earlier that evil is part of human nature... it's irrelevant. That's a premise you even see hinted at in Freudian theory.
But what constitutes good versus evil? That isn't a question for psychology.
Regarding selfishness or self-preservation, that’s a topic currently being explored by geneticists as well... take Richard Dawkins and his selfish gene theory. Does that imply humans are naturally evil? No. 😕
The concept of self-preservation sits at the foundation of many theories regarding motivation and emotion (such as the drive to avoid discomfort).
Some authors studying aggression categorize it into reactive and instrumental types.
Reactive aggression is a response to a threat or frustration. For example, defending yourself when attacked, or a subculture group turning violent due to perceived frustration. Instrumental aggression, however, is a byproduct of another goal. You rob a bank and hit someone in the process; you didn't necessarily set out to strike them, they were simply an obstacle in your way.
...

Gerald Rivera60 said:You see, modern psychology is essentially attempting to find a material basis for everything... trying to pin down hypothetical constructs and theoretical models within the physical confines of the brain, or the body, as much as humanly possible...

...

Psychology, at its core, is meant to be the study of the soul and the psyche. If modern psychology is obsessed with finding a purely material explanation for everything, then it has wandered into absurdity, becoming something else entirely rather than staying true to its purpose. This leads me to wonder about a fundamental question for you... is it even possible to truly examine the inner workings of the human spirit while simultaneously avoiding the concepts of good and evil?

Kyle Morris7 said:Psychology is the study of the psyche. If modern psychology insists on being strictly materialist, then it’s an absurdity; it ceases to be psychology and becomes something else entirely. A question for you: is it even possible to study mental life while avoiding the concepts of good and evil?

Psychology is, strictly speaking, the science of the mind (though it also encompasses behavior). However, there is no soul existing independently of the body. The physical brain is primary; the "soul" emerges from the physiological. Elevating psychology into the immaterial realm contradicts its definition as a science—and while some might argue, many psychologists firmly categorize it as a natural science.
Science doesn't deal with the immaterial. That is the domain of philosophy, theology, and similar disciplines.

Every science strives to remain independent of value judgments, and good and evil are precisely that.

Furthermore, the definitions of good and evil lack clarity and cannot be operationalized in any meaningful way.

Psychology is, for lack of a better term, the study of the psyche—though one could just as easily argue it is the science of behavior—yet there simply isn't a soul that exists independently from the physical form... the body, specifically the brain, remains the primary driver... any notion of a "soul" inevitably springs from our physiological reality...

But who actually holds that view? Theology, and indeed almost every organized religion out there, argues the exact opposite... and since the vast majority of people remain religious, it stands to reason that most people share that perspective as well, at least on a surface level...

Gerald Rivera60 said:Trying to push psychology into the realm of the non-material goes against its very definition as a science (though I know people will argue about that—the reality is that most psychologists view their field as a natural science).

Exactly. It makes me wonder why on earth a natural science would even be housed within a liberal arts college.😁 😛

Gerald Rivera60 said:Every scientific discipline strives for value neutrality... and concepts like good and evil fall squarely into that category.

Furthermore, the definitions of good and evil lack clarity; they aren't clearly defined and simply can't be operationalized in any meaningful way.

Exactly. In my view, that’s the fundamental flaw within psychology—it struggles immensely with operationalization. It's constantly trying to quantify things that are, by their very nature, impossible to fully measure.

That said, I agree that terms like "good" and "evil" have no business being used in psychological discourse...

Kyle Morris7 said:Who exactly is making that claim? Theology and basically every religion out there argue the complete opposite. Most people consider themselves believers, which implies that the vast majority share that mindset, at least on a surface level.

That’s precisely where psychology and religion diverge.😉 Besides, you were just lecturing me moments ago about how the masses are rarely right, and now suddenly you're claiming they are. Pick a side.😬>

Olivia Carter25 said:I honestly wonder what a natural science is even doing over at the liberal arts colleges.😁 😛

Well, here’s the reality... the first experimental psychology lab in Washington, D.C. was actually located at the Medical School... it only moved to the College of Arts and Sciences later on.
Freud was a physician, and Wundt—the founder of scientific psychology, for those who aren't aware—was a physiologist.
Naturally, if psychology wants to understand human behavior, both internal and external, it has to account for more than just biology. Psychology isn't merely the physiology of behavior; it covers behavioral aspects that physiology alone cannot explain.
That said, we shouldn't view these things in total isolation. These divisions are largely arbitrary, serving only to make concepts easier to grasp and organize.
A systems approach is best here. Every sub-system is part of a larger one. While the larger system is defined by its lower-level components, it remains more than just the sum of those parts. You can't understand the higher system without knowing the sub-systems, but you also can't truly grasp them without looking at the whole picture.

.. and regarding the soul as something immaterial... if the soul is immaterial, someone please explain how something non-material influences something material? Where is the interface, the point of contact between the soul and the brain? (If memory serves, Descartes believed it was the pineal gland). And what becomes of the soul if the body is gone, assuming the soul is immaterial...
... but that isn't what psychology deals with. It doesn't even concern itself with the nature of the soul, but rather with mental processes, brain states, and the human behaviors resulting from them—alongside the material factors that influence those processes. By "material," I mean factors we can conceptualize and identify in the physical world, such as genes, physiological processes, or an individual's micro- and macro-environment. Or, if we insist on discussing the soul... one could say psychology deals with the material manifestation, the material expression of the soul. (It sounds a bit clunky, but it works).

We are drifting a bit off topic (mea culpa)... perhaps I should start a new thread.

Quincy:

I suppose I should begin by addressing the matter at hand, though my thoughts seem to drift quite easily toward other concerns... it is often difficult to maintain a singular focus when the world feels so interconnected, yet here we are, attempting to find clarity amidst the noise... if one could only find a moment of true stillness... kaže: It is my sincere belief that one must carefully consider why there exists such a profound distinction between the realm of psychology and the domain of religion... while they both attempt to address the complexities of the human condition, they operate on fundamentally different planes of existence. Psychology seeks to understand the mechanics of the mind through empirical observation and clinical study—much like how a researcher might analyze data at a place like Johns Hopkins—focusing on the tangible processes of behavior and cognition... whereas religion leans into the metaphysical, seeking purpose through faith and spiritual connection, which is an entirely different pursuit altogether... It is quite easy to conflate the two, yet they serve different needs within the soul, much like how science and art occupy separate spaces in our culture... though sometimes they seem to overlap in ways that are difficult to define... 😉 Furthermore, if I recall correctly, you were just expressing your opinion moments ago that the masses are fundamentally mistaken, yet now, quite suddenly, you seem to be suggesting that they are indeed correct... one really must decide where they stand on such matters... 😬

I never actually stated that the masses are right, nor did I suggest they were wrong... it's simply not what I was getting at in my previous remarks...

Quincy:

It occurs to me, somewhat unexpectedly during my recent observations of the modern landscape, that the concept of the "Mad Scientist" has undergone a rather peculiar transformation in our collective American consciousness... One used to think of such a figure as a solitary individual, perhaps working in a dimly lit basement somewhere in the Midwest, driven by a singular, frantic obsession with something like lightning or forbidden chemistry... But today, it seems much more complicated, doesn't it? We see these brilliant, albeit deeply unsettled, minds operating within the massive, polished corridors of places like NASA or even the most advanced laboratories at MIT, where the pursuit of knowledge feels less like a personal mania and more like a systemic, almost bureaucratic, madness... It makes one wonder if the true danger lies in the individual's eccentricity, or if it is actually found in the quiet, methodical momentum of large-scale institutions pursuing goals that none of us can truly grasp anymore... I find myself reflecting on this quite often lately, as the line between genius and instability continues to blur in ways that are both fascinating and, if I am being entirely honest, somewhat unsettling... ... however, one must consider that psychology simply does not concern itself with such matters...

Why must you be so insistent on pinning everything down with rigid definitions? My opening message, and indeed the subject matter as a whole, encompasses such a vast spectrum of disciplines... there is psychology, of course, and philosophy, alongside politics, but perhaps most significantly, the complexities of psychiatry...
Perhaps if one were to offer some reflections regarding the subject I have brought forth here... though I must clarify that my intention was never to engage in a pedantic debate over definitions, nor was it my aim to attempt the categorizing of mass psychopathology into some tidy little pigeonhole...