<p>[Just addressing your title question:] supposedly so, but there isn't a lot of data on this. One of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Buss" rel="nofollow noreferrer">David Buss</a>' students has this in his <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/16c0/71b24e9fc2848b3c930c1401c56b4ee95c7d.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">PhD thesis</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>participants from the Austin
  community completed a survey instrument that asked a series of questions about their
  most memorable fantasy of killing someone else. Seventy-six percent of women and 91
  percent of men reported having at least one homicidal thought in their lifetime. The
  person both men and women most frequently thought of killing was an intrasexual rival.
  The majority of homicidal fantasies involved the murder of someone who was not a
  genetic relative. Men were significantly more likely than women to have a murder
  fantasy triggered by a romantic partner’s infidelity. Women were more likely than men
  think of killing a rival who damaged their sexual reputation. These and other findings
  were predicted in advance by Homicide Adaptation Theory [HAT] (Buss &amp; Duntley, under
  review). </p>
</blockquote>

<p>As you can probably tell, their angle is evolutionary psychology; they don't care about any free will debates, it seems. I could easily find <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.06.005" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a criticism of HAT by Durrant (2009)</a>, which cites several works of Duntley and Buss on this; the latest cited in there being:</p>

<ul>
<li>Duntley, J. D., &amp; Buss, D. M. (2008). The origins of homicide. In J. D. Duntley, &amp; T. K.
Shackelford (Eds.), Evolutionary forensic psychology: Darwinian foundations of crime
and law (pp. 41−64). Oxford: Oxford University Press</li>
</ul>

<p>A more recent paper <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1259540" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Reynolds &amp; McCrea (2017)</a> summarizes a few of the older studies on prevalence:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Unfortunately, there is a paucity of
  research on homicide fantasies, with most of
  the research historically focused on criminals
  or the pathological [...] This tells us little about the psychology
  process of homicide in typical individuals.
  <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(93)90019-E" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kenrick and Sheets (1993)</a> conducted
  two studies with college students as subjects
  to address just this limitation. In the first
  study, participants were asked about their
  most recent homicide fantasy, and in the second
  study participants were asked about their
  homicide fantasies in several contexts.
  Results indicated that the majority of participants
  did have at least one fantasy, with
  males recalling more homicide fantasies
  (e.g., 73% vs. 66% in Study 1), and males
  reporting longer and more detailed fantasies.
  Results were interpreted as supporting evolutionary
  explanations for homicide like the byproduct
  hypothesis.</p>
  
  <p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(2000)26:3%3C225::AID-AB2%3E3.0.CO;2-R" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Crabb (2000)</a> also found that homicide
  thoughts were common in normal
  undergraduates. Crabb investigated homicidal
  thoughts and the weapons used in these fantasies.
  Similar to Crabb, Kenrick and Sheets
  (1993) explicitly asked undergraduates questions
  concerning their thoughts about killing
  someone. Replicating previous research, most
  participants admitted to a homicide fantasy.
  Results also indicated that homicide fantasies
  were preceded by a threatening interpersonal
  event and involved weapons like firearms, knives,
  and clubs, rather than weapons like hands
  and feet. The evidence was interpreted as supporting
  the existence of evolved psychological
  mechanisms able to associate material–cultural
  implements, like firearms, with aggressive
  actions and to rehearse this through fantasy.
  These studies are important as they demonstrate
  that homicide fantasies are common and
  unlikely the result of pathological processes.
  Furthermore, they support evolutionary explanations
  for homicide like the by-product hypothesis
  and homicide adaptation theory.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Reynolds &amp; McCrea's study tried to elicit subjects to spontaneously think of murder by providing them with some typical contexts in which murders occur, but they weren't terribly successful at this: less than 5% of participants reported such cued homicidal thoughts, although many more reported violent thoughts. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-23T02:51:34.087Z
@ChrisRogers: done, thanks.
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-22T15:38:03.577Z
2018-09-23T02:51:19.937Z
2018-09-23T02:51:19.937Z
got trolled too much this week
<p>This is a very interesting question.</p>

<p>I think that there are many both conscious and unconscious factors that determine destructive behavior. The conflict between the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego" rel="nofollow noreferrer">id and super-ego (mediated by ego)</a> can, at some level, be understood as a conflict between needs and social norms. Murder seems to be universally accepted as "bad behavior" so it must be coded both on the conscious and unconscious level in our psyche, therefore, I assume the wide majority of people try to combat destructive impulses with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanisms#Vaillant&#39;s_categorization" rel="nofollow noreferrer">defense mechanisms.</a></p>

<p>Here is a set of questions you can toy with:</p>

<ul>
<li>When would your evolutionary ancestor murder someone?</li>
<li>When is it okay to murder someone? Why?</li>
<li>What behavioral and mental changes you'd have to undergo to become
the evilest person you know of?</li>
</ul>

<p>Jordan Peterson does quite a good job describing what leads to resentfulness and how can it manifest itself in the world in his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQD_IZs7y60I3lUrrFTzkpat" rel="nofollow noreferrer">biblical series.</a> / Short clip about him <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R-56Xo3qwE" rel="nofollow noreferrer">discussing hell.</a></p>

<p>Jungian concept - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Shadow</a> - is also an attempt to articulate evil aspects of a human being which is worth exploring. Especially because Jung stressed the importance of getting to known your own shadow. In other words, incorporating the evilest aspects of your personality and learning how to live with it properly.</p>

<p>One of the things that are common among rape victims and soldiers who develop PTSD is the naivety and inexperience prior to the accident of evil. Peterson and other psychologists hypothesized that PTSD can be a shock effect upon realization of the depth of the evil within self or within another human being.</p>

<p>Based on this, I'd say that almost all people have thought about murdering someone at least once, however, have stopped / didn't behave destructively. I'd go further and say that the wide majority of people at a certain point of their lives have fantasized about murdering someone and enjoyed that fantasy.</p>

<p>Based on my personal experience and practice, I'd say murder impulses, desires and fantasies are a very good self-improvement tool that one can use to understand the deep nature of their own personality. Murder correlates with some aspects of our personality. Assumption #1: those personality traits (for example narcissistic features) have to do with the evolutionary survival patterns that can, in some sense, be useful. However, there must be a trigger behind extremes - assumption #2: those triggers are subtle and very hard to notice. So, if one can trace the link between feature and trigger they can improve their lives. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-21T14:13:48.013Z
Thanks for the answer. I’ll have to check out your sources when I have time. Lots of interesting stuff here!
Cannabijoy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-21T15:08:58.967Z
Re *"when is it OK to murder someone"*: if a killing is OK, (*i.e.* the action is both *just* and necessary), then it's not murder.  Also, when most people without any actual experience or even acquaintance with such matters  think about murder and killing, really they're just adapting tales from TV and movies to their frustrations of the moment.  It's only serious as fiction, they walk through the story, or several stories, until the ends which seldom provide any very compelling alternatives.  A small magnanimous and condescending satisfaction ensues:  bah, spared, not even worth it.
agc
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-21T17:03:01.597Z
@agc, you forgot that different people are different judges.
rus9384
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-23T02:23:13.493Z
You put forward some interesting points of view here but be careful with this as giving and seeking opinion is not on topic here. Can you please expand on your assumption that the wide majority combat destructive impulses with defense mechanisms? Which defence mechanisms are you thinking of and what research do you base this assumption on? Can you also please explain what you mean by the *"naivity and inexperience prior to the accident of evil"*?
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-23T03:57:12.090Z
Hello Chris. On your first question: Displacement, Dissociation, Repression, Anticipation, Humour, Sublimation, Suppression. As always, when it comes down to unconscious stimuli it's a very tricky to find a decent researcher, however, the fact that psychoanalytic theory has been around for so long kinda proves at least usefulness of the assumption.
Goga Vachnadze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-23T04:01:13.417Z
On your second question - If you read clinical cases / meet people who lived traumatic experiences you immediately notice naivity of their attitude. Sentence: "How could this happen to me?" comes to mind. It's not uncommon that if you ask them about their past and whether they knew if something like this could happen the answer is now. Actually, if you think about exposure therapy, it's a form of mentally re-living the nightmare till you learn a lesson from it. (Shouldn't be understood as victim blaming though. I am talking about personal responsibility not justifying traumatic experience.)
Goga Vachnadze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-21T13:21:36.050Z
2018-09-21T13:21:36.050Z
Goga Vachnadze
<p>It seems like the most popular theory among philosophers and neuroscientists who believe in free will is something called <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dont-delay/201106/free-wont-it-may-be-all-we-have-or-need" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>free won’t</strong></a>. This basically means that we cannot <em>will</em> what we want to will, but we have the power to <em>veto</em> a thought that our brain has produced.</p>

<p>This would mean that a person who is about to murder another person should have the power to veto pulling the trigger- but if they don’t, then they should be held morally responsible because they didn’t use their <em>free won’t</em> power. </p>

<p>Now, I don’t think about murdering people, but I might be a weirdo. <strong>Do most people want to murder other people, but they use their <em>free won’t</em> to refrain- so that they should be praised for their <em>self-control</em>?</strong></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-21T06:32:15.613Z
I see where you are coming from here, but your hypothesis could be altered to say that most people want to rob a bank, attack an innocent person, hurl abuse at anyone who is different to them... anything.
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-21T06:51:43.777Z
@ChrisRogers Yes that’s what I’m basically asking. Is our unconscious mind full of constant and randomly evil thoughts, so we all deserve a cookie at the end of the day for not doing everything our brain *makes* us *want*? But criminals don’t use this power effectively, and that’s their own fault?
Cannabijoy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-21T10:12:29.160Z
[Self-control theory of crime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-control_theory_of_crime) (originally boldly named *general theory of crime*) is one of the most popular theories to explain criminality. It states essentially that, yes, lack of self-control is for all intents and purposes *the* cause of crime. This theory is quite a bit too grand in its claims, however there is substantial evidence that lack of self-control is at least partly the cause of criminality. There is much literature about it, for example two chapters in the book 'The nurture versus biosocial debate in criminology.'
Eff
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-21T13:15:06.573Z
@Eff this would make an excellent answer!
Seanny123
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-21T13:54:01.577Z
@Eff That would be a great answer. If possible, I would like to know if criminals (real criminals- not drug users) experience *constantly random/ overwhelming unconscious desires to commit crime* that is above what “average” humans experience. Maybe *preconscious* is a better word. I’m trying to understand how this “free won’t” can be correlated with “free will”, but if overwhelming unconscious desires *effect* our conscious decisions, then surely there’s no such thing as either.
Cannabijoy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-21T14:21:42.183Z
@Seanny123 The reason why I didn't answer is because this question is more regarding "free will," a topic I find very uninteresting. If the question would simply be 'What psychological variables predict crime?', then I might answer. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as free will in *any* real sense. So I don't accept the premise of there existing "free won't."
Eff
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-21T14:31:10.947Z
@Eff That’s okay with me. I also don’t believe in either, but I keep hearing about this “free won’t” as though it means something, so I’m trying to understand how it works- but if it doesn’t then a simple “Free won’t is nonsense” would work.
Cannabijoy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-21T17:07:32.997Z
Hm. Given that so many schoolboys (about a half?) are violent towards peers, this made me think.
rus9384
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-21T17:09:11.777Z
@Eff, but there must be both impulse and lack of impulse suppression. Latter alone is not enough for a crime.
rus9384
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-22T01:45:05.603Z
@rus9384 I'm not the one who created the theory. I don't personally claim that self-control is the only variable needed to explain criminality. If you want my opinion, I think that self-control is probably a *part* of the equation, but not even close to all parts.
Eff
<moral-psychology><self-control><free-will>
Do most people want to murder?
Cannabijoy
# Do most people want to murder?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-09-21)

It seems like the most popular theory among philosophers and neuroscientists who believe in free will is something called [**free won’t**](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dont-delay/201106/free-wont-it-may-be-all-we-have-or-need). This basically means that we cannot *will* what we want to will, but we have the power to *veto* a thought that our brain has produced.

This would mean that a person who is about to murder another person should have the power to veto pulling the trigger- but if they don’t, then they should be held morally responsible because they didn’t use their *free won’t* power.

Now, I don’t think about murdering people, but I might be a weirdo. **Do most people want to murder other people, but they use their *free won’t* to refrain- so that they should be praised for their *self-control*?**

**Tags:** moral-psychology, self-control, free-will

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I see where you are coming from here, but your hypothesis could be altered to say that most people want to rob a bank, attack an innocent person, hurl abuse at anyone who is different to them... anything.  
> **username_0**: @ChrisRogers Yes that’s what I’m basically asking. Is our unconscious mind full of constant and randomly evil thoughts, so we all deserve a cookie at the end of the day for not doing everything our brain *makes* us *want*? But criminals don’t use this power effectively, and that’s their own fault?  
> **username_2**: [Self-control theory of crime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-control_theory_of_crime) (originally boldly named *general theory of crime*) is one of the most popular theories to explain criminality. It states essentially that, yes, lack of self-control is for all intents and purposes *the* cause of crime. This theory is quite a bit too grand in its claims, however there is substantial evidence that lack of self-control is at least partly the cause of criminality. There is much literature about it, for example two chapters in the book 'The nurture versus biosocial debate in criminology.'  
> **username_3**: @username_2 this would make an excellent answer!  
> **username_0**: @username_2 That would be a great answer. If possible, I would like to know if criminals (real criminals- not drug users) experience *constantly random/ overwhelming unconscious desires to commit crime* that is above what “average” humans experience. Maybe *preconscious* is a better word. I’m trying to understand how this “free won’t” can be correlated with “free will”, but if overwhelming unconscious desires *effect* our conscious decisions, then surely there’s no such thing as either.  
> **username_2**: @username_3 The reason why I didn't answer is because this question is more regarding "free will," a topic I find very uninteresting. If the question would simply be 'What psychological variables predict crime?', then I might answer. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as free will in *any* real sense. So I don't accept the premise of there existing "free won't."  
> **username_0**: @username_2 That’s okay with me. I also don’t believe in either, but I keep hearing about this “free won’t” as though it means something, so I’m trying to understand how it works- but if it doesn’t then a simple “Free won’t is nonsense” would work.  
> **username_4**: Hm. Given that so many schoolboys (about a half?) are violent towards peers, this made me think.  
> **username_4**: @username_2, but there must be both impulse and lack of impulse suppression. Latter alone is not enough for a crime.  
> **username_2**: @username_4 I'm not the one who created the theory. I don't personally claim that self-control is the only variable needed to explain criminality. If you want my opinion, I think that self-control is probably a *part* of the equation, but not even close to all parts.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2018-09-22. Score: 5

[Just addressing your title question:] supposedly so, but there isn't a lot of data on this. One of [David Buss](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Buss)' students has this in his [PhD thesis](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/16c0/71b24e9fc2848b3c930c1401c56b4ee95c7d.pdf):

> participants from the Austin
> community completed a survey instrument that asked a series of questions about their
> most memorable fantasy of killing someone else. Seventy-six percent of women and 91
> percent of men reported having at least one homicidal thought in their lifetime. The
> person both men and women most frequently thought of killing was an intrasexual rival.
> The majority of homicidal fantasies involved the murder of someone who was not a
> genetic relative. Men were significantly more likely than women to have a murder
> fantasy triggered by a romantic partner’s infidelity. Women were more likely than men
> think of killing a rival who damaged their sexual reputation. These and other findings
> were predicted in advance by Homicide Adaptation Theory [HAT] (Buss & Duntley, under
> review).

As you can probably tell, their angle is evolutionary psychology; they don't care about any free will debates, it seems. I could easily find [a criticism of HAT by Durrant (2009)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.06.005), which cites several works of Duntley and Buss on this; the latest cited in there being:

* Duntley, J. D., & Buss, D. M. (2008). The origins of homicide. In J. D. Duntley, & T. K.
  Shackelford (Eds.), Evolutionary forensic psychology: Darwinian foundations of crime
  and law (pp. 41−64). Oxford: Oxford University Press

A more recent paper [Reynolds & McCrea (2017)](https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1259540) summarizes a few of the older studies on prevalence:

> Unfortunately, there is a paucity of
> research on homicide fantasies, with most of
> the research historically focused on criminals
> or the pathological [...] This tells us little about the psychology
> process of homicide in typical individuals.
> [Kenrick and Sheets (1993)](https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(93)90019-E) conducted
> two studies with college students as subjects
> to address just this limitation. In the first
> study, participants were asked about their
> most recent homicide fantasy, and in the second
> study participants were asked about their
> homicide fantasies in several contexts.
> Results indicated that the majority of participants
> did have at least one fantasy, with
> males recalling more homicide fantasies
> (e.g., 73% vs. 66% in Study 1), and males
> reporting longer and more detailed fantasies.
> Results were interpreted as supporting evolutionary
> explanations for homicide like the byproduct
> hypothesis.
>
> [Crabb (2000)](https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(2000)26:3%3C225::AID-AB2%3E3.0.CO;2-R) also found that homicide
> thoughts were common in normal
> undergraduates. Crabb investigated homicidal
> thoughts and the weapons used in these fantasies.
> Similar to Crabb, Kenrick and Sheets
> (1993) explicitly asked undergraduates questions
> concerning their thoughts about killing
> someone. Replicating previous research, most
> participants admitted to a homicide fantasy.
> Results also indicated that homicide fantasies
> were preceded by a threatening interpersonal
> event and involved weapons like firearms, knives,
> and clubs, rather than weapons like hands
> and feet. The evidence was interpreted as supporting
> the existence of evolved psychological
> mechanisms able to associate material–cultural
> implements, like firearms, with aggressive
> actions and to rehearse this through fantasy.
> These studies are important as they demonstrate
> that homicide fantasies are common and
> unlikely the result of pathological processes.
> Furthermore, they support evolutionary explanations
> for homicide like the by-product hypothesis
> and homicide adaptation theory.

Reynolds & McCrea's study tried to elicit subjects to spontaneously think of murder by providing them with some typical contexts in which murders occur, but they weren't terribly successful at this: less than 5% of participants reported such cued homicidal thoughts, although many more reported violent thoughts.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: @ChrisRogers: done, thanks.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2018-09-21. Score: 2

This is a very interesting question.

I think that there are many both conscious and unconscious factors that determine destructive behavior. The conflict between the [id and super-ego (mediated by ego)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego) can, at some level, be understood as a conflict between needs and social norms. Murder seems to be universally accepted as "bad behavior" so it must be coded both on the conscious and unconscious level in our psyche, therefore, I assume the wide majority of people try to combat destructive impulses with [defense mechanisms.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanisms#Vaillant's_categorization)

Here is a set of questions you can toy with:

* When would your evolutionary ancestor murder someone?
* When is it okay to murder someone? Why?
* What behavioral and mental changes you'd have to undergo to become
  the evilest person you know of?

Jordan Peterson does quite a good job describing what leads to resentfulness and how can it manifest itself in the world in his [biblical series.](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQD_IZs7y60I3lUrrFTzkpat) / Short clip about him [discussing hell.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R-56Xo3qwE)

Jungian concept - [Shadow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)) - is also an attempt to articulate evil aspects of a human being which is worth exploring. Especially because Jung stressed the importance of getting to known your own shadow. In other words, incorporating the evilest aspects of your personality and learning how to live with it properly.

One of the things that are common among rape victims and soldiers who develop PTSD is the naivety and inexperience prior to the accident of evil. Peterson and other psychologists hypothesized that PTSD can be a shock effect upon realization of the depth of the evil within self or within another human being.

Based on this, I'd say that almost all people have thought about murdering someone at least once, however, have stopped / didn't behave destructively. I'd go further and say that the wide majority of people at a certain point of their lives have fantasized about murdering someone and enjoyed that fantasy.

Based on my personal experience and practice, I'd say murder impulses, desires and fantasies are a very good self-improvement tool that one can use to understand the deep nature of their own personality. Murder correlates with some aspects of our personality. Assumption #1: those personality traits (for example narcissistic features) have to do with the evolutionary survival patterns that can, in some sense, be useful. However, there must be a trigger behind extremes - assumption #2: those triggers are subtle and very hard to notice. So, if one can trace the link between feature and trigger they can improve their lives.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for the answer. I’ll have to check out your sources when I have time. Lots of interesting stuff here!  
> **username_7**: Re *"when is it OK to murder someone"*: if a killing is OK, (*i.e.* the action is both *just* and necessary), then it's not murder.  Also, when most people without any actual experience or even acquaintance with such matters  think about murder and killing, really they're just adapting tales from TV and movies to their frustrations of the moment.  It's only serious as fiction, they walk through the story, or several stories, until the ends which seldom provide any very compelling alternatives.  A small magnanimous and condescending satisfaction ensues:  bah, spared, not even worth it.  
> **username_4**: @username_7, you forgot that different people are different judges.  
> **username_1**: You put forward some interesting points of view here but be careful with this as giving and seeking opinion is not on topic here. Can you please expand on your assumption that the wide majority combat destructive impulses with defense mechanisms? Which defence mechanisms are you thinking of and what research do you base this assumption on? Can you also please explain what you mean by the *"naivity and inexperience prior to the accident of evil"*?  
> **username_6**: Hello Chris. On your first question: Displacement, Dissociation, Repression, Anticipation, Humour, Sublimation, Suppression. As always, when it comes down to unconscious stimuli it's a very tricky to find a decent researcher, however, the fact that psychoanalytic theory has been around for so long kinda proves at least usefulness of the assumption.  
> **username_6**: On your second question - If you read clinical cases / meet people who lived traumatic experiences you immediately notice naivity of their attitude. Sentence: "How could this happen to me?" comes to mind. It's not uncommon that if you ask them about their past and whether they knew if something like this could happen the answer is now. Actually, if you think about exposure therapy, it's a form of mentally re-living the nightmare till you learn a lesson from it. (Shouldn't be understood as victim blaming though. I am talking about personal responsibility not justifying traumatic experience.)  

---

