about a new short story :) (murder tied)

[Kyriakos]

I actually first wrote this in english, then translated it to greek. It has roughly 6000 words.
The story is about the idea that murder is likely not done en masse by highly intelligent people. The narrator thinks that some fundamental human trait prevents both high intelligence and ability to murder to manifest in the same human. But this is just meant for mass murder; ie he reflects that if a genius could create some means of ending human life, they probably would not do it, while a brute can and will kill, but due to lowly means the victims wont be that many.
Anyway, the story then moves on to the core of the narration, which is about an old and failed attempt to cause the death of someone. The text mostly focuses on childhood views about killing being identified as a proof of being part of a high cast (a creator of victims, and not a victim).

I think that books -and films- often show highly intelligent murderers, but real serial killers tend to either be brutes or have specific (ussually sexual) pathology.

-what do you think of the story's topic?
-do you agree with the narrator's premise?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think pathology tends to run with high intelligence at least as much as otherwise, so I'd not believe your premise there, myself. My observational anecdote is that other than being in the navy (and only in my own end of the boat) have I been among a group with a larger proportion of really smart people than I found in prison, so I generally don't lend much credence to the whole "all criminals are stupid" bit.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think pathology tends to run with high intelligence at least as much as otherwise, so I'd not believe your premise there, myself. My observational anecdote is that other than being in the navy (and only in my own end of the boat) have I been among a group with a larger proportion of really smart people than I found in prison, so I generally don't lend much credence to the whole "all criminals are stupid" bit.

I think we arent in actual disagreement; the premise isnt that an intelligent person cannot murder, it is that a genius is not likely to wish as much to destroy as a brute does, and that in theory a genius could actually develop the means to do very serious damage; while the lowly serial killer will at most kill 100 people (and statistically far less that that). A virus created for this purpose could take out tens of millions.

Even in cases of intelligent killers, you have a theory urging them, not lust for destruction itself. Eg in the unabomber.

 

[Zkribbler]

I don't see a correlation between intelligence & morality.

Witness mass murdering geniuses: Unabomber, Hitler & Putin.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't see a correlation between intelligence & morality.

Witness mass murdering geniuses: Unabomber, Hitler & Putin.

Hitler doesnt seem to have been a genius, putin seems very intelligent but maybe not genius level (certainly far better than other politicians, though), and unabomber killed only a few people, with killing not being his end but a means.
I mentioned unabomber in my own post cause he -like the narrator in my story- caused (or tried to cause) death as a result of a highly particular view, which made killing seem tied to a goal ussually not tied to it. Eg for the unabomber it was tied to mass social change, and in my narrator it was tied to being part of a secret caste of people safe from bullying. Both reasons were false, but based on thinking, not on will to destroy/kill

 

[Bamspeedy]

I think pathology tends to run with high intelligence at least as much as otherwise, so I'd not believe your premise there, myself. My observational anecdote is that other than being in the navy (and only in my own end of the boat) have I been among a group with a larger proportion of really smart people than I found in prison, so I generally don't lend much credence to the whole "all criminals are stupid" bit.

Not 'all', but if they were so smart they wouldn't have got caught.....Movies definitely falsely portray criminals as being super smart (but almost always outsmarted in the end by a cop when in reality nowadays it isn't usually the cop figuring out the clues but the cops just gathering the pieces of evidence and submitting it to the lab and the scientists figuring it out.

Serial killers have been in decline. Profile of serial killers has changed (it's always been "any demographic can be a serial killer", but it's no longer true that the vast majority are done by white men if you just look at the last three decades).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/15/are-american-serial-killers-a-dying-breed

DNA, cell phone records, surveilance cameras, changes in lifestyle (hitch-hiking being near non-existant), murderers staying in prison longer, less parole for killers, etc. all contributed to the decline in different ways (catching people before they kill more, giving killers less opportunities to find victims without getting caught, etc.).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not 'all', but if they were so smart they wouldn't have got caught.

I think this understates the odds. Being a criminal is flat out hard. Yet most criminals only get caught after a long series of successful crimes. The vast majority of criminals in prison summarize their situation with "should have retired." I described getting caught as "no matter how well you load the dice, if you keep throwing them long enough one will eventually bounce off the table."

 

[Lexicus]

I don't see a correlation between intelligence & morality.

Witness mass murdering geniuses: Unabomber, Hitler & Putin.

Hitler and Putin aren't really geniuses.

 

[Bamspeedy]

https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/intelligence-and-crime/3/

Inmates, on average, are not as smart as the general population.

These data clearly show that low-IQ offenders (below 80) are substantially overrepresented in the Texas prison population (23%–9.18%), that those with scores between 80 and 109 are modestly overrepresented compared with the nonincarcerated population (69%–63%), and that individuals with IQ scores at or above 110 are underrepresented in the Texas prison population (9.6%–25%). Data from every other state reveal the same pattern.

I could see it's perhaps possible people who commit some crimes could be smarter (on average) than people who commit other types of crimes (the average bank robber being smarter than the average gas station robber). One committing accounting fraud is probably smarter than the average rapist, but I do not have studies to back up those assumptions.

I think that books -and films- often show highly intelligent murderers, but real serial killers tend to either be brutes or have specific (ussually sexual) pathology.

40% did for 'enjoyment' (thrill, lust, power)
28% for financial gain
15% out of anger
The rest was for multiple reasons, gang activity, avoid arrest, cults, convenience, hallucinations, or attention

Average IQ (of 260 tested) was 94.8 when the average for the general population in the US is 98. Highest scoring IQ for serial killer was 186, lowest was 54. Killers who used bombs far smarter than those that bludgeoned their victims (140 to 78). Number of victims, the IQ increased until hitting 5 victims, then it decreases (all slight changes in IQ). Disgusting thing is necrophiliacs slightly smarter than non-necrophiliacs.

http://skdb.fgcu.edu/public/Serial Killer Statistics 23NOV2015.pdf

Bruce Ivins (2001 Anthrax) was well educated, but most people in his situation would realize it would eventually get traced back to him as few people have access to military grade anthrax. MAGA bomber could only send baking powder.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/intelligence-and-crime/3/

Inmates, on average, are not as smart as the general population.

The point was about the number of smart people available rather than actual concentration. It's hard to find a place where you can round up a bunch of smart people. Most professional/educational environments are full of persevering people rather than actual smart people. The regular world just offers too many choices, so in most places it's hard to put together more than a handful of real smart people.

 

[MaryKB]

I really don't understand why you still so often see people talking about IQ, I thought that was really debunked a long time ago? My understanding also is IQ was originally about testing children in school to see what your learning rate is when you're young to make sure you're placed properly, but is totally irrelevant when you're a teenager or something. And also IQ is very subjective, because much has to do with cultural understanding and context, and that's why you see some demographics test higher than others. But of course men love to measure themselves against each other lol.

I think your story's a neat idea, but like in context of being a story, I really don't know how you'd ever prove something scientifically, but just because something's not true doesn't mean you can't make a good case about it (oh but please know my favorite genre is fantasy!) I think what would matter is how your protagonist uses what he learns to apply to what's going on in his own life, and if that makes a difference in what's happening around him.

I don't know if I personally agree about intelligence making you unable to be a mass murderer, but I don't have enough knowledge to say, I can only talk as a layperson. But I believe intelligence is very spread out, and I feel opportunity really is more important, and I've read studies saying luck is a much larger factor in your success than your intelligence is. You can be very smart and toiling away, or you could also be very foolish and somehow succeed, and you see that all the time. But I don't believe you have any definitive answers, and the whole point of writing in my opinion is for you to share your perspective and ideas and other people can read and maybe see a new way of thinking. I've never heard anything before like what you're talking about, so I definitely feel you have an original idea worth exploring!

Oh and I totally believe, whether we like to admit it or not, most peoples' personal definition of intelligence is "people who think like I do," lol

 

[Bamspeedy]

Sure, the IQ test is flawed, but unless you have a better suggestion for testing intelligence, it's the best we have. I don't put much stock in people bragging about high IQ scores on internet tests since you can practice for that, or worry too much if someone beats someone by a point or two.

No one ever said smart people can't be a serial killer or mass murderer, because there has been many smart people who have killed multiple people. For every 'highly intelligent' serial killer, there are a couple dumb ones. Opportunity is definitely a thing in finding victims. Serial killers with highest body counts were preying on children, vulnerable women, or the killers worked in the medical field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

 

[Akka]

I think this understates the odds. Being a criminal is flat out hard.

No, it's not. It's frighteningly easy.
Being a complete sociopath able to take advantage of it is rare, instead.

I think this understates the odds. Being a criminal is flat out hard. Yet most criminals only get caught after a long series of successful crimes. The vast majority of criminals in prison summarize their situation with "should have retired." I described getting caught as "no matter how well you load the dice, if you keep throwing them long enough one will eventually bounce off the table."

That kind of prove the point of not being smart enough to know when to stop.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, it's not. It's frighteningly easy.
Being a complete sociopath able to take advantage of it is rare, instead.

I meant maintaining the lifestyle of a criminal. Sure, anyone can commit a crime, pretty much any time on the spot. But operating in the modern world with your income coming from an illicit source is very complex.

 

[Akka]

I meant maintaining the lifestyle of a criminal. Sure, anyone can commit a crime, pretty much any time on the spot. But operating in the modern world with your income coming from an illicit source is very complex.

Related to the second part of my previous post, I'd flag "keeping to live as a criminal" as a failing on the part of the person.
I'd bet that the reason why the average intelligence of convicts is lower than population is not that intelligence correlate with morality, but rather that it correlate with risks assessment.

Kinda fits with what Bamspeedy said in his post too : average intelligence grows up to about five victims, after which it lowers. I take it as a statistical effect of smart people being able to both plan better so they get more profitable crimes/don't need as many crimes to get what they want, and the ability to think "now I'm really pushing my luck here".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Related to the second part of my previous post, I'd flag "keeping to live as a criminal" as a failing on the part of the person.
I'd bet that the reason why the average intelligence of convicts is lower than population is not that intelligence correlate with morality, but rather that it correlate with risks assessment.

Kinda fits with what Bamspeedy said in his post too : average intelligence grows up to about five victims, after which it lowers. I take it as a statistical effect of smart people being able to both plan better so they get more profitable crimes/don't need as many crimes to get what they want, and the ability to think "now I'm really pushing my luck here".

I think if most people were really good at risk assessment we'd have the criminal behind every rock and bush that the cop apologists always act like we have. Getting away with a single crime is a very low risk proposition. Filtering the proceeds into a regular income stream, if you have one, is also very low risk. But no one does that.

And there is no "got what I want, I'm done" on that rainbow. It's like when people say they would keep their job if they won the lottery; "yeah, sure you would." "I'm gonna pull this one job, and it's gonna sort out my bills and stuff for me, and then I'm gonna just fly right after that," said by many, actually done never.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think i sort of misled with my story description... Yes, it is just the narrator's pov, not a treatise on criminology
Furthermore, to give you an idea of the narrator, he argues that while he feels he would feel strong aversion to killing, he is certain that an even greater reason why he could not kill is that it would be trivial to kill 5,10,50 etc people. Nothing would change and he would still feel alienated.
That said, the bulk of the story is the description of a failed attempt to cause someone's death, and an account of why he wanted to do it at the time.