Anti-Social Psychology Basic
Markus Aurelius Franzoi's Meditations:
On Anti-Social Psychology
This document is for people who don't need their Behavioral Science set out for them in a literary fashion like a Thomas Harris novel.
​
It's for people who can take their Psychology straight up—no plots, no characters, no settings, no action.
Just Basic Psychology for people who can take it and apply it themselves.
For this reason, this work is all Public Domain.
​
Needless to say, Academia is ill-equipped to deal with violent criminal behavior as it relies on research studies done in controlled situations. We rely on none of that and are not constrained in any way with any priority greater than the issues that are a matter of life and death.
​
Also contains the Post-Adolescent Homidical Triad, not that we want to present another Triadic over-simplification. We simply want to provide an adjunct of investigative value to compete with the Pre-Adolescent and Adolescent one and all the other ones.
Anti-Social Psychology
There are 2 Prevailing Theories of Extreme Homicidal Behavior:
1. Irrationalism
Irrationalist Theory is the Insanity Theory.
​
Irrationalist Theory of Murder is still widely being debated and discussed. We have to ask, Why? Are we to believe men are more irrational than women because they commit more crimes?
​
I would put theories that look for adolescent issues behind heinous crimes, such as the Macdonald Triad and Oedipus Complex, under this category and I'd equally dismiss their relevance.
We already know that adolescents are homicidal by nature, so who cares about adolescent habits and pseudo-psychology when it comes to a murder in adulthood (i.e. MacDonald Triad)? Just tell me what an adolescent is in the First Principle and don't tell me it's Irrational!
​
​2. Immoralism
​
Immoralist Theory is the Good vs Evil Theory.
​
Good vs Evil is a religious concept and has to be based on religious scriptures. It’s not a secular concept at all although it keeps being used in secular settings without religious underpinning or scriptural support.
​
They don't use scriptures (besides some Old Testament rhetoric) because religious works tend to equate all men as essentially indistinguishable with respect to "good and evil" with the real battle of light and dark taking place in a completely different realm.
In this world, the greater evil is not considered to be the one with the greater crimes but the one with the greater knowledge (advanced and in advance). This makes it hard to judge a greater guilt or a greater evil.
​
So immorality is another universally shared trait (or widely imposed, like irrationality) which doesn't help us distinguish the "worst" criminals.
​
​
​
​
Then there’s a third theory:
3. Extremism or Xtremism
Extremist Psychology Theory is simply that: Extremism Theory. It’s never promoted unless they’re talking about Religious Extremists.
​
We will use the term Xtremist so differentiate from that definition.
​
Now, if we use The Mad Trapper as our prime example, he was not really and truly someone you or I would bother calling Anti-Social. Anti-Social is a subjective term and far too broad for this study anyway even if we still use it here. But he was Xtreme. He was Xtreme in the Great War in response to the Germans. He was Xtreme in the Great Manhunt.
He was just Xtreme. Is this the answer? Is this the right theory? And if there is one extreme, isn't there another one? Can that be the society, home or otherwise?
