Evolutionary Motives For Mass Murders: An Association Of Status Loss And Attempts To Retain It
Fascinating piece by evolutionary psychologist Robert J. King at Psychology Today. It's from research he and his colleagues are doing on mass murderers. They found two big age clusters -- men ages 23 and 41.
He notes this:
Male humans swim in worlds of status, like trout swim in complex currents of water. Anyone who is not aware of this (or in denial about it) finds things like the high rates of male suicide, or the fact that males are massively over-represented in apparently senseless crimes, utterly baffling.
And first, the 23-year-olds:
The younger group (average age 23) tended to have been in trouble with the law, they were more likely to have had mental illness. In other words--at the age where young men are acquiring status, and the skills and abilities that will enable them to do so--they were, in fact, acquiring signs that they were on a fast track to reproductive oblivion. In ancestral times--times without highly trained and equipped SWAT teams--a "Hail Mary" attempt to attract attention and make 'them' take you seriously might (just might) have worked. This age group also tended to be less likely to be killed during their killing spree, and follow-up work we are doing suggests that many of this type do attract a significant amount of female attention when in prison.
And then age 41:
The older group (average age 41) were much more likely to be married, and maybe have families. They were less likely to have had prior signs of legal issues or of mental illness. But a peek into their personal details (so far as we were able) revealed that they had a pattern of recent status loss--or threat of same. A job. A relationship. Custody battles. A looming scandal. These older guys were not so much trying to acquire status, their actions looked more like a highly pathological attempt to not lose it. No more rational than the desperate "If I cannot have you then no-one can" actions of a jealous murderer, the role of status possibly sheds some light on their final act.These age clusters map pretty closely onto the curves for male reproductive fitness. As men acquire status they fit the first type, as they potentially lose it, they fit the second.
And finally:
A lot of things did overlap between the groups. Reputational slights are, especially when we are talking about paranoid and unstable individuals, somewhat in the eye of the beholder. We might never be able to see all of these events coming. Specifically, we have no insight into what particular actions and victim selection means to the perpetrator. But, without the realisation that status is likely to always be a component of that meaning, we will not have a complete picture.
The shooting in progress and the heroic cops and security people hurrying people out of there. Video by Raymond Page.
And first, the 23-year-olds:
As I understand it this is also about the time a large minority of males finally exit puberty with a few more hormonal surges on the way out
lujlp at October 4, 2017 10:33 PM
41 is the age where men start to realize that their possibilities are finite; you aren't going to be President or a movie star or win the Daytona 500. It can make your world seem awfully small, especially if your situation is unsettled at the time. It's also the age where, if you lose your job, finding other work starts to become more difficult.
Having said all this, the topic of immediate interest, that being the Las Vegas shooter, doesn't fall into either of these age groups.
Cousin Dave at October 5, 2017 9:58 AM
I still remember the article, referenced here some 6 million months or so ago, "Beta Males Want to Kill Women Because They Can't Get Laid." We must not discount a lack of nookie as a factor with some of these male mass shooters, although that probably does not apply to Paddock
mpetrie98 at October 5, 2017 11:00 AM
Individuals who have lost all hope and then go on a rampage can be found in all cultures. It has to do with a feeling of being humiliated and therefore wanting revenge--usually on the whole society. Such a person has nothing to live for anymore but rather than just killing himself he wants to take "those" people with him.
cc at October 5, 2017 12:57 PM
The comment about men doing senseless things: it is correct that doing foolish things can raise status. The boy who fights back against the bully, even if he loses, will not be bothered again. The "hold my beer and watch this" raises status because the idiot (if he lives) is clearly fearless/dangerous/talented and you shouldn't mess with him. So boys spend hours learning to ride a unicycle or jumping off roofs or doing other meaningless activities that are hard/dangerous to impress the other guys. Girls do not understand this.
cc at October 5, 2017 1:03 PM
> or win the Daytona 500.
Take it back, Cousin Dave.
Crid at October 5, 2017 1:32 PM
I think:
These responses are essentially mechanical: The magnitude of the crime is so large that people assume the explanation must be large as well. Collusion! Foreign intrigue! Organized crime!
But at present, there's little reason to doubt this was an evil individual who want to bring a lot of suffering to a lot of lives. Coulda been country music fans, coulda been Lollapalooza. There may be no remarkable meaning to this horror.
We see that small differences can have powerful effects in demanding human realms like sex, music and chemistry.
Don't be so appalled by this crime that you lose your capacity to apply —or to discount— scale as a distinct component of the nightmare. (Pop internet news magazines all agree that mass killings tell us little about the horror of gun violence, which is mostly about male suicides and youthful gang murders.)
Last weekend more people were injured by police 'lawfully' attacking voters in Catalonia than by the madman in Las Vegas.
Crid at October 5, 2017 1:52 PM
Girls do not understand this.
Sure they do, they might not understand it intellectually, but given they get all tingly and fuck the guy they understand it instictually
lujlp at October 5, 2017 4:09 PM
I would give more credence to Amy's belief in and support of evolutionary pysycology if she didnt throw it all out the window whenever she talks about terroism.
It is *evolutionary psychology* when white men and black men are mass murders, but with Arab, apparently, it is all caused by *Islam*.
Isab at October 5, 2017 4:20 PM
"Male humans swim in worlds of status, like trout swim in complex currents of water."
Are male humans, on the average, more status-obsessed than female humans? I don't think so. The ways that status is obtained and manifested are different, but I think women in general are at least as status-focused as a men.
david foster at October 5, 2017 4:55 PM
It is a secondary sexual characteristic in males Dave. I.e. men don't actually want status. Men want sex. Women give sex to high status men. Hence men want status only to trade it for sex.
Once men give up all hope for sex you see those secondary sexual characteristics fade away. Hygiene starts to fall off. Interest in alcohol increases (both consumption and production). And increased interest in games too. Desire for money or wealth pretty much vanishes.
Ben at October 5, 2017 6:25 PM
"Take it back, Cousin Dave."
Hey, I wasn't talking about myself! I'll take Indy, Monaco or Le Mans, thank you.
And this is actually on topic... everybody has probably heard the quote, supposedly from Hemingway, about sport. Bullfighting, mountain climbing, and auto racing are all dangerous sports, but they are also sports where strength matters to an extent, but reflexes, hand-eye coordination, and the ability to think and strategize on the fly are more important. Thus, they are in reach of men who aren't hulks, which gives these men more chances to impress women, in a way that is socially acceptable. Things like this were an important step in moving beyond the might-makes-right mentality of the tribe.
Cousin Dave at October 6, 2017 6:00 AM
"It is *evolutionary psychology* when white men and black men are mass murders, but with Arab, apparently, it is all caused by *Islam*."
But it's all the same, isn't it? Radical Islam is a way of gaining status too, in that particular dysfunctional society. Becoming a jihadist is a short cut to status. The leadership of the society praises you, and you get a hall pass on the religion's normally strict standards. Don't forget that Islamic culture approves of polygamy, which means that there are always going to a sizable body of men who have no mating prospects unless they do something drastic.
Cousin Dave at October 6, 2017 6:09 AM
But it's all the same, isn't it? Radical Islam is a way of gaining status too, in that particular dysfunctional society. Becoming a jihadist is a short cut to status. The leadership of the society praises you, and you get a hall pass on the religion's normally strict standards. Don't forget that Islamic culture approves of polygamy, which means that there are always going to a sizable body of men who have no mating prospects unless they do something drastic.
Cousin Dave at October 6, 2017 6:09 AM
Exactly. There is nothing unique or particularly evil about islam. It just reflects the values of the culture(s) that practice it.
Isab at October 6, 2017 11:44 AM
A real man uses mustache wax, drives a new Stanley Steamer, and keeps his spats bleached. I laugh at the low-status "wristwatch" wearers. A clock? On your WRIST?! Come on, show off your fob like a man!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 6, 2017 1:23 PM
Gog, that reminds me of Yale's Brandon French's essay on "Some Like it Hot," in a book on women characters in 1950s films: "On the Verge of Revolt: Women in American Films of the Fifties."
She wrote that gangster Spats Columbo, like Little Caesar, wants "nothing whatsoever to do with women." Quote:
"Spats's attitude toward women is also suggested, indirectly, by his compulsive attention to his snowy white spats, his insistence that his aides only touch them with clean hands, and his horror when blood drips onto them at one point in the film."
lenona at October 7, 2017 8:54 AM
Status as from whom?
Not many of us want status among every man in the entire world.
It might be among neighbors, others in the same profession, the same sport, class standing, among the kids you graduated with forty years ago....
Example. If the guys in my OCS class thought I was a good soldier, I liked that and it gave me status, although I didn't know it. If a bunch of lefties I'd known in college thought I was a miserable baby-killer, I didn't worry. I suppose the question might be, who are they that I should worry.
So with Paddock. What would his "they" be?
I'd like to know who this guy's reference persons were. Whose opinion of him was important to him, consciously or unconsciously?
Richard Aubrey at October 8, 2017 5:23 PM
Leave a comment