Sociopath is not actually a defined clinical term. It is one of the reasons I use it. It helps convey something people will tend to colloquially understand, but there is no formal definition, so its meaning is flexible.
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.
Generally speaking, if someone has a low IQ, I just consider them to be mentally retarded and not pathological. I don't know why anyone would call someone sociopathic who lacks the mental faculty to comprehend the consequences of their actions.
> 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.
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.
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:
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.
I'd recommend looking at the source of this information more closely: 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.
Unless I am missing something, that's 20 pages of aggregate stats on things like age, race and gender. There is very little info here about IQ. It doesn't give me the data I need to draw meaningful conclusions.
It breaks down the average IQ based on the number of victims, which is what you mentioned in your comment. You said that defining serial killer as having at least 2 victims is too low. But this data has the IQ averages for those who killed three or more, four or more, etc. And in all cases it shows the average as being between 90 and 100. All of this data is just basic aggregates from the Serial Killer Database (http://skdb.fgcu.edu/info.asp) by the way, if you're skeptical of the source. Is there something specific you need?
Very interesting research, thank you for linking. I only wish they'd broken out IQ by broad motive, I imagine it would differ between those doing it for "thrill/lust/power" vs "financial gain".
Aggregated data is part of the problem. And even in that small data set, the average IQ trends up as the number of victims trends up. It comes a lot closer to average IQ than the overall number of 86, but it does trend up.
The piece you linked to seems to have an explicit political agenda of disproving the popular image of a serial killer as a young white male. And that makes the entire database questionable because if that is the goal, then you explicitly define things as broadly as possible so as to accomplish your political agenda.
I'm aware there are legitimately different profiles of serial killers. For example, your typical female serial killer has murdered multiple relatives by poisoning for the insurance money. This is very different from your typical male serial killer.
At this point I am tired and frustrated and I don't know how to sort out the answer to this question. I know we have IQ scores for a number of high profile cases that clearly fit my understanding of what a serial killer is and those IQs are on the high side, fitting my general understanding. I don't know where to look for data that doesn't have a political agenda of explicitly rebutting popular perception. For the moment, I feel stymied. And the reality is this is not important enough for me to keep digging into the question indefinitely. It's already eaten an excess of my time.
>And even in that small data set, the average IQ trends up as the number of victims trends up. It comes a lot closer to average IQ than the overall number of 86, but it does trend up.
Obviously, duh. It's not because serial killers tend to be of higher IQ, but because serial killers of higher IQ can get uncaught for longer, and thus manage bigger "number of victims".
> My best understanding is that serial killers are typically bright. And the link you have provided is not really compelling evidence to the contrary.
Your understanding is incorrect. But I read How to Lie With Statistics too, so I'm happy to help you with more sources for your perusal. Keep in mind that merely invoking How to Lie With Statistics does not refute a statistical analysis, you actually have to identify the problem.
3. This study conducts a meta analysis of published literature that finds no correlation between verbal intelligence and traits traditionally associated with psychopathy: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28836093/ (also on bioRxiv if you'd like to read the non-paywalled version).
> But I'm really not finding your source compelling. So my mind has not been changed.
I suppose I should be transparent with you: I don't debate with people online to persuade them, I debate with people online to persuade the audience. I don't particularly mind if you're convinced, but it is important to me that misinformation not be spread unchallenged. So now we're at a crossroads. I've provided empirical evidence from a variety of cited sources, and you've provided an anecdote from an undergraduate course you took years ago. My sources might be incorrect! The beauty of science is that you can challenge its findings. I welcome you to challenge the sources I've provided as well (though I'd remind you that you've continually abstained from providing any of your own). But if you don't, that's also totally fine, because I think I've sufficiently demonstrated my point either way. Considering your lukewarm dismissal of an academic dataset based on a disagreement with one particular data point out of 206, it appears true crime television and your recollection of an old psych class are better authorities than published research.
Considering your lukewarm dismissal of an academic dataset based on a disagreement with one particular data point out of 206
I can't find info on the other 204. I see 2 names listed, one a famous case I already had heard about. So I tried to find details on the only other data point where I was provided a name and came up short on the kind of info I would like to see.
Your comments are not written in a good faith fashion. I don't plan to engage you further.
Being unable to comprehend the consequences of your actions is actually related to the defining symptoms: poor planning and impulse control. And serial killers do NOT tend to have high IQ, the average IQ of a serial killer is within normal.
Your assertions are inconsistent. In another comment, you admit that you know that sociopath is not a defined clinical term. Now you assert that there are "defining symptoms."
So, I think you need to back up a step and figure out what your point is.
When I use the term sociopath, I generally am talking about people who:
1. Lack empathy
2. Are narcissistic
3. Are manipulative
4. Do not have some innate sense of morality
5. Are very intelligent.
This fits with traits listed in the article under discussion. It fits with what I learned in a college class, Intro to Psychology, about traits typical of serial killers. It fits with what I have heard in true crime shows profiling serial killers.
So you and I are not on the same page, which is okay because it isn't a clinically defined term. But you and you are also not on the same page, and that makes it really hard to meaningfully engage you in discussion.
Sorry, I gave those defining symptoms in reference to Antisocial personality disorder, which is the clinically-defined term that most closely matches sociopathy. In fact, ASPD is defined by most of the criteria you gave for a sociopath (excluding intelligence). I should have included that, I apologize.
Again, serial killers do not tend to have higher IQ than the general population. It is a popular misconception, but it is incorrect all the same.
I highly recommend not basing opinions on true crime shows.
EDIT: I sincerely apologize, it was not my intention to insult you. I included that last line as a way to knock down one of your supporting arguments, not as a personal attack, or to imply that true crime shows were the reason you have these opinions. I actually originally had that section also rebutting your citation of an intro to psych class (how I'm guessing you took that class a while ago, the field has changed a lot since then, and depending on the exact year you might have been taking classes while sociopathy was a clinically defined term, etc) but I cut it down for the sake of brevity. That's an explanation, mind you, not an excuse. The intention of my words are irrelevant, all the matters is how they are received. I really am sorry, and I don't mean to belittle you or your experiences.
When a person deeply intertwines themselves into their argumentation, you are given the choice to argue around them or at them, or you can just nod at them. It's very hard to attack someone's personal credibility without being "personally insulting", and that especially includes questioning whether true crime tv cuts it for discussion. How does one do that not insultingly?
That's why, whether the effect is desired, the final result is constraining. You cannot lower someone's credibility non-insultingly.
I highly recommend not selectively pulling out one detail of many as an excuse to be dismissive. It's actually contrary to HN guidelines to argue in that fashion.
As already stated, I have taken college classes where this was touched upon. I have raised two children with a lot of personal challenges and I've read quite a lot of stuff.
It's fine for you to disagree with me. But you are being personally insulting for no real reason.
So I plan to step away from further discussion with you. If you take additional personal potshots at me, my lack of reply is not some sort of confirmation that these low blows are in any way accurate.
> I highly recommend not selectively pulling out one detail of many as an excuse to be dismissive.
The other commenter didn't merely nitpick a detail, they attacked a central pillar in your comment's credibility. When you responded with irrelevant information about watching criminal dramas, the commenter (rightly) advised you not to get your information from entertainment media. I can't tell you how to feel personally, but frankly I'm not sure it could be worded any more gently. You really shouldn't get your information from TV. At a certain point it's difficult to correct someone else without coming across as patronizing. As for your other sources of information:
> As already stated, I have taken college classes where this was touched upon.
As I cited in another reply to you, those college courses either provided you with misinformation, or you misunderstood them. Reading "quite a lot of stuff" and raising children while encountering "personal challenges" also does not satisfy any empiricism for your claims.
> If you take additional personal potshots at me, my lack of reply is not some sort of confirmation that these low blows are in any way accurate.
This is irritating and comes across as controlling, in my opinion. You don't really have any authority on how other people interpret your lack of reply. Nor were the commenter's valid criticisms "potshots" or "low blows" - you're being factually incorrect, insofar as there is cited, demonstrable evidence available. In fact, I'll freely interpret your lack of response as a tacit concession!
Sociopath is a clinical term, it's just not in the DSM because it's not, per se, a disease or disorder. Being a sociopath doesn't, by itself, cause impairment as defined by the DSM. But that doesn't mean it's not a clinical term. Ask any psychiatrist or psychologist what the defining characteristics are of a sociopath and they could immediately recite the Hare Psycopathy Checklist.
And there are plenty of psychiatrists who treat sociopathy as such. It can cause the sort of impairment cognizable by the DSM, especially as children when the measure of impairment is different than as an adult (e.g. "unruly child", something that would be non-sense once they reach the age of majority). And in those cases while it might be formally treated under the rubric of Anti-Social Personality Disorder, clinicians understand that treatment (in as much as its treatable at all) requires understanding sociopaths as a distinct class with a very distinct pathology.
Sociopath in the vernacular does often connote a serial killer. Fair enough. But there's plenty of literature, for professionals and laymen, that discusses sociopathy in clinical, well-defined terms.
FWIW, AFAIU I don't think there's any real debate about whether sociopathy exists as a concrete human phenomenon. The debate is largely how big the umbrella--do we only include those who are "incurable" (i.e. neurobiologically lack the capacity for empathy, either at birth or from a combination of nature and nurture), or those which behave as-if they lack such capacity, but where the capacity is simply suppressed for other reasons. And of course, this begs the question of what, exactly, is empathy. Like sociopath, I think most agree that empathy is a thing (and much more concretely than, say, "love"). But is "cognitive empathy" a thing? And given these questions, how accurate can we ever hope to get in particular cases?
FWIW, here's a good, recent radio interview discussing a special clinic in Wisconsin that has seem good results treating sociopaths--not in making them stop being sociopaths who harm people, but at least in minimizing their harm to a level below that which is considered criminal.
Of course, most sociopaths are already non-violent. Empathy seems to be but one evolutionary mechanism for checking violence and dampening violent tendencies. It's not the sole mechanism and might not even be the most important.
> Sociopath is a clinical term, it's just not in the DSM because it's not, per se, a disease or disorder. Being a sociopath doesn't, by itself, cause impairment as defined by the DSM. But that doesn't mean it's not a clinical term. Ask any psychiatrist or psychologist what the defining characteristics are of a sociopath and they could immediately recite the Hare Psycopathy Checklist.
Sociopathy is not a clinical term, despite Robert Hare's research into the subject. I have spoken to psychologists and psychiatrists about this, as you're recommending - they only use terminology like "sociopathy" insofar as they use terminology like "insanity." It helps them quickly invoke a set of peripherally familiar traits when they're speaking to a lay audience, like clients or law enforcement.
The entire purpose of a clinical term is to label a disease or disorder. There's no such thing as a clinical term not being documented in clinical reference material, because that's implicitly definitional. Antisocial personality disorder is the clinical label for traits which are usually bundled together under the colloquial term "sociopathy" because "sociopathy" is just that - colloquial. For the same reason the legal insanity defense doesn't qualify it as a clinical term, psychologists do not actually use sociopathy because it's far too imprecise.
> Sociopath in the vernacular does often connote a serial killer. Fair enough. But there's plenty of literature, for professionals and laymen, that discusses sociopathy in clinical, well-defined terms.
Can you cite literature intended for a professional audience that actually uses sociopathy as a clinical term? Using sociopath in popular science books or books targeted to a lay audience doesn't count. That sociopathy occupies a zeitgeist among a lay audience is exactly why it's not used in a clinical setting. It has too many associations and inconsistencies that do not lend itself to a rigorous analysis, and is often abused to refer to whatever set of qualities someone wants to attribute to another party.
This might come across as pedantry, but I find it very frustrating when words like "sociopathy" or "psychopathy" or even "insanity" are all claimed to be clinical terminology. Claiming they are dilutes the clarity of actual diagnosable disorders in discussion, and somewhat legitimizes ad hominem attacks involving these terms. The terms are fun as a popular reference or for joking incredulity, but there is a serious lack of self awareness among all of the comments in this thread which keep trying to define and redefine terms which have no clinical definition.
Also, FWIW, the last time I asked a psychiatrist about sociopaths it was a very short conversation. He immediately replied that he doesn't see many because 1) there's no real treatment and 2) they usually have no reason to seek treatment.
My sense of the conversation was that the term evoked precisely the same concepts in both our minds (even if his had more nuance and depth), and nothing at all as a muddled as "insanity". I wanted to ask more questions but I figured, what was the point. All he could do would be to confirm what I've read and reiterate the open questions and debates.
"Clinical" is not defined by the degree of accuracy or precision relative to the objective truth of a phenomenon. Depending on the state of the science a clinical term could be extremely fuzzy or perhaps even an ontological misstep--i.e. a grouping of unrelated phenomena, or an overly restrictive grouping. But it can be still be a clinical term serving a clinical role.
You make great points, but I think 1) reasonable people can disagree and 2) your definition is overly pedantic. For example, a doctor can still discuss, in clinical terms, smokers (as individuals, as a class) who suffer from no discernible impairment warranting treatment. Without actual impairment such clinical vocabulary may ultimately be more fluid and hand-wavy than it otherwise might be if anchored by concrete presentations, but it's no less clinical in the sense of 1) a professional vocabulary with well-defined denotations and connotations 2) useful in the application of and study of clinical treatment of actual impairment. So, for example, doctors and researchers may use terms like diffuse intimal thickening (DTI) or nicotine dependence. Much like "lack of empathy" they beg many questions, but even so they raise the same questions among those familiar with the subjects.
I'll let those search results speak for themselves. If we're being pedantic I think many of them make my case. But in fairness those results taken as a whole probably augur in favor of the term "sociopathy" being, at best, borderline clinical.
And I don't really want to discuss this any further with folks nitpicking my comments. The individual I was addressing has replied and explained the reason for their interest and I have replied to that. So I plan to step away from this discussion since I don't think it's at all constructive and I don't like how I am being addressed.
No, it isn't. "Antisocial personality disorder", "dissocial personality disorder", "unspecified personality disorder", etc - these are all clinical terms. Neither psychopathy nor sociopathy are clinical terms. They are colloquial terms used variously for many things, and unfortunately people tend to use them inconsistently.
> And I don't really want to discuss this any further with folks nitpicking my comments.
It's not nitpicking to point out actual inaccuracies. This isn't pedantry, and thus far you've defended your points by citing 1) "true crime" television, 2) an intro to psychology class you took "years ago", and 3) your experience as a parent.
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.
Generally speaking, if someone has a low IQ, I just consider them to be mentally retarded and not pathological. I don't know why anyone would call someone sociopathic who lacks the mental faculty to comprehend the consequences of their actions.