Summary Of The Murderer Next Door: Why The Mind Is Designed To Kill

Whether appearing on breaking news headlines, or vividly depicted in mainstream contemporary entertainment, murder and the act of murdering are no foreign concept to the public. But, one thought still perplexes our mind: “How can someone ever think of committing such a heinous act?”. In The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind is Designed to Kill by David M. Buss, he explains the mind’s inner workings that can compel us to find murder as actually, a rational thing to do. He breaks the preconceived idea and definition of what it takes to be a murderer, such as only the mentally insane can be murders (brought on by only shocking/”news-worthy” depictions of serial killers/ psychopaths in today’s movies, games , or news) or that today’s mainstream media

influences murder, or that murderers can only be hard-criminals/gangsters. While he concedes that these factors can influence murder, they are only the small percentage of why people kill. Veering from this idea, he goes to say how murderous intent and homicidal fantasies can and do appear in almost everyone at one point or another, but only some act on these thoughts and turn them into a reality based on certain advantageous circumstances, mostly from an evolutionary-psychological perspective of being able to reproduce. With this perspective in mind, he breaks down popular scenarios of murder and tries to find a rationality behind them: why parents kill their own children, why mating is a dangerous game that can lead to murder, etc. Through the book, Buss hopes to change the stigma on murderer and in fact tell everyone that- anyone can be a murderer, even ourselves.

Before Buss dives into his reasoning as to why the mind is designed to kill, he offers rebuttals to popular psychological beliefs that try to explain why a person might be more inclined to kill. One popular theory was the social-environment theory, proposed by Albert Bandura. Bandura’s social-learning theory proposes that people- murders in this instance, observe and imitate the act of murdering, which are either punished or rewarded. These observations are often gender-linked, which can explain the reason why boys are more likely to murder than girls, as explain by aggression-behavior researched Leonard Berkowitz when he says “modern western society….. Teached children that fighting is far more appropriate for men than women. Popular literature and the mass media consistently show men but not women fightings. Parents by toy weapons for their sons and dolls for their daughters.” (25) But, if people acquire social behavior from others, then what compels them to follow this exact murderous deed? Burr discusses that we are exposed to many different models of behavior and are taught many things, “from nice men who perform heroic deeds, to evil, sneering and guys who get punished for having been violent.” (25) Plus, “we are taught from an early age that murder is wrong and that crime doesn’t pay.” (25) So, the social-learning theory fails to explain as to why from all the moral and positive thoughts and behaviors more predominant in the world, why someone would choose a model or murder to imitate. Furthermore, Buss explains that even in cultures without influences like from media, date still remains steady in men committing way more murders than women do, such as the majority of same-sex killing being committed by men, with “97 percent in Brazil, 93 in Scotland, 94 in Kenya, 98 in Uganda, and 97 percent among the people known as the Tiv in Nigeria.” (23) Social-learning fails to explain the consistency of murderous intent in vastly different cultures with vastly different media outlets.

Another rebuttal he offers is for the pathology theories.

These theories imply that thought or the actions or murder can be caused by the brain being damage. The amygdala, for example, are two almond-shaped neural clusters that can influence aggression and fear. If this area of the brain were to be damaged, then a person could no longer evoke or feel these emotions, causing them to not feel the fear or danger of committing murder. Another area of the brain that can be damaged may be the frontal lobes, which help in planning/judgements and decision making. If this area of the brain were to be damaged, then one could possibly not think through the act of murder and all of the potential repercussions. But, as Buss discussed, when he did a study of Michigan murderers, where “in collaboration with Dr. Carol Holden, director of Evaluation Services at the Forensic Center, and Joshua Duntley, [he] has studied case files of 375 murders committed over the past 15 years.” (17), he only found that “4 percent had a diagnosis of psychosis or some other disorder sufficient to qualify for the insanity defense.” (22) This means that most of the murders committed are from mentally-sound people, which agains disproves pathology

theories.

Buss’ theory on why murderers kill however, is due to evolutionary psychology which contends that “we come into the world factory-equipped with a mind that is designed to solve a range of adaptive problems our ancestors grapple with throughout human history.” (35) With this perspective, Buss argues that the main reason as to why people murder is simple- for the means of ensuring their reproductive success. An example of ensuring one’s reproductive success can come from cuckoldry. Cuckolded men are seen are cowardly and shameful, which could hurt their reputation and social standing in the world if the news get passed around. A damaged social standing will then “.....hinder his future ascension in the social hierarchy. It impairs his ability to attract future mates. The cuckold acquire a reputation as easily exploitable...Women assume he lacks the ability to prevent other men from encroaching.” (87) So, killing in these circumstances could salvage his status and reputation. His act of violence warns both men and future mates that infidelity will cost them, ensuring in the future that we will keep his reproductive partner.
This is also why Buss found from “thousands of murder cases and murderous fantasies…..revealed just how central to so many murders is sexual rivalry.” (47) Sexual rivalry could help therefore explain as to why in all cultures, Buss saw a consistent percentage or murders mostly being by men to men. Sexual rivalry can even apply to non-humans, as “When we witness two male hamadryas baboons going at it tooth and claw, two male elk crashing antlers, or two male sea lions attempting to gore each other to deak, invoking “pathology” or “media exposure” or “parenting practices” obviously doesn't get to the core of the matter.” (63), but the fight to keep one’s own lineage alive does.
Another chilling instance of ensuring reproductive success is when parents kill their own children. This idea may sound contradictory at first, due to the fact that they are killing off their own future bloodline, but parents often kill their own children for three reasons. One reason is if the child has serious birth defects, as “in our ancestral past, the child would not be expected to survive and thrive no matter what efforts were made by the parents.” , which is supported by “In the cross cultural record, parents, mostly mothers, kill their infants for observable deformities more than any other single cause of infant killing.” (166) A child with a deformity wouldn’t ensure a family any reproductive success for sure, so rather than wasting valuable on nurturing a lost cause (in the reproductive sense), the family would be saving supplies if the baby was terminated in the first place. With the deformed baby gone, the mother can be free to become impregnated again for a healthier baby, one that will grow up to be reproductively healthy. The second reason would be if a mother already had children and investing in a new infant would not be feasible. For example, in the Arunta, an Australian Aboriginal tribe. “The Arunta native does not hesitate to kill a child- always direct it is born- if there be an older one still in need of nourishment from the mother.” (167) If a family was already struggling on keeping one infant alive and helping that one survive to reach reproductive maturity, then raising another one would just cause to the detriment of the first child, which is why parents would rather end the hassle of the infant to continue to raise the child they have already invested their resources on and ensure that this child will grow up to reproduce. These two reasons can example why a parent may be influenced to kill their own kin, doing everything they can to have the highest probability of ensuring that their genes are passed onto future generations.

Overall, I would not recommend this book to anyone who would like to read this in a psychological aspect. The title of the book “Why the mind is designed to kill” is not a good representation of the content in the book. Buss talks briefly of the psychological implications of why the mind is designed to kill, but rather more on topics of mating such “Women’s Defenses Against Murderous Mates”, or “Rapists as Sexual Predators”, etc. The book discusses more about statistics and scenarios, but doesn’t dig deep into the Psychological aspect of murders, which was what I was hoping for.