# Seriously, Annie-Xmas, shut up about adoption and serial killers. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 12, 2011, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652 "2011-05-12T14:42:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/201 "2011-05-16T03:32:05Z")
> [@scratch\_llll](#): > > How many children have YOU raised? I’ve had full custody of one from the time he was born. I have had temporary custody of three others at various points in their lives. Currently only one is under my supervision now. The fact that my youngest brother is a law-abiding, productive member of society rather than a criminal scumbag can be attributed to one factor my foot firmly stayed on his neck when it came to discpline. And you know what folks, he spent his entire childhood without calling anyone mother or father because his parents were dead. I cannot help the way you were raised, but I know what I believe to be true. Respect is the tie that binds. ---
**Author:** ![Sierra\_Indigo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f0a364/32.png) [@Sierra\_Indigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sierra_Indigo)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/202 "2011-05-16T03:33:46Z")
She hasn’t read the book or the thread, Sarah. She’s more well-educated than the rest of us combined! ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/203 "2011-05-16T03:34:52Z")
> [@needscoffee](#): > > Stoid, since you obviously haven’t read the whole thread, here are some of the more relevant parts. They are not relevant to my point, which was actually that someone with the education and experience to present themselves as a legitimate authority has in fact theorized that adoption\*\*\* is\*\*\* a causative factor and found support for the theory among people whom one might expect to be hostile to such an idea. Your first citation argues against a _presumption_ of what any causation theory might be, not against the Krischner theory that actually exists, therefore it isn’t relevant or meaningful: it has nothing to do with the actual argument Kirschner makes or the research he is working with…or maybe it does, but none of us, the poster, you, or me, knows one way or another. So it’s not relevant to anything I’ve said, and we don’t know if it’s relevant to anything Kirschner has said. Your Wiki cite is irrelevant to my point as well; that ACS is controversial doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, nor does it mean that it is wrong. That it is not yet included in the DSM doesn’t make it wrong. Especially since the DSM is also described as controversial, and it is: do you agree that transgenderism is a mental illness? [The DSM says it is.](http://www.cchrint.org/2011/03/21/psychiatrys-billing-bible-the-dsm-the-debate-over-diagnosis/)A little looking around easily produces lots of complaints about how legitimate or worthwhile the DSM is. I like [this](http://justnoticeabledifferences.blogspot.com/2008/12/controversy-over-dsm-v.html) psychologists’ blog post about it: > [@](#): > > When I started out in the 1970’s, DSM-II was the manual we used, and it was awful. Definitions were vague, and you could diagnose the same person with anything from depressive neurosis to schizophrenia without much difficulty. DSM-II was generally denounced as irrelevant and unnecessary by behaviorists and humanists. > > … > > DSM-IV has been a small improvement over DSM-III, but it’s still controversial. Now DSM-V is on the horizon and it’s generating more heat. A [recent article](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/health/18psych.html?ref=health) in the New York Times picked up on the controversy. There are a number of points of controversy. > > First, there is no real understanding of the causes of mental illness. We’re still not even sure if there is such a thing as a mental illness. Psychiatry has been moving toward a neurobiological model of mental illness, but is still far away. If you ask a psychiatrist what causes depression, you’ll hear one of two answers. You might hear, “We don’t know,” which is the honest answer. However, more likely, you will hear some mumbling about serotonin and biochemical imbalances. Those guys are just blowing smoke. Just ask them to define a healthy biochemical balance; their response will be entertaining. Unfortuantely, more than half of the members of the task force writing DSM-V [have drug company connections](http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/watch/200805051.html#4), so you know they will remain committed to a neurobiological model. But again, Kirschner’s theory that adoption in some way, to some degree, is in fact a cause of some negative psychological consequences is a fact. It exists. It definitely has has a lot of support as well as some detractors. And none of us knows exactly what the details are so none of us are genuinely in any position to argue for or against it. I’m certainly not, so arguing with ME about whether it’s legitimate or not is particularly pointless, and that’s what you appear to be doing. ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/204 "2011-05-16T03:39:36Z")
> [@Kolga](#): > > You’re a feminist the way a ham-and-cheese sandwich is kosher, you evil shitstain lunatic. Aren’t you late for your street corner? Seriously, women who enable rapists are equally criminal. I have never understood the logic that the way to protect women is too give men more opportunities to abuse them. ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/205 "2011-05-16T03:41:10Z")
Re Stoid: I give up. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/206 "2011-05-16T03:46:55Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Whether the case is _ **persuasive** _ or not, I have absolutely no idea. Damn, as the organizer of the Dope office pool, I have bad news for all those who bet against Stoid making an appearance in an irrelevant thread and going psycho. The bold, underlined and italics are already out even before bets have started, and on only her second post in the tread. The good news is that both size and red are still open. Place your bets fast, because irrationality happens quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/207 "2011-05-16T03:56:31Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > It’s a perfectly valid rebuttal to the cries that abortion is depriving us of the next Mozart or Einstein. …which is also a batshit crazy position to hold. I’m not sure what you think should be done about adoption, though. Are you arguing that adoption should be outlawed? Or just that adoption shouldn’t be the peg that pro-life people hang their hat on? ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/208 "2011-05-16T04:00:13Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > Seriously, women who enable rapists are equally criminal. Criminal? What law are they breaking? ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/209 "2011-05-16T04:00:37Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > But again, Kirschner’s theory that adoption in some way, to some degree, is in fact a cause of some negative psychological consequences is a fact. It exists. It definitely has has a lot of support as well as some detractors. And none of us knows exactly what the details are so none of us are genuinely in any position to argue for or against it. I’m certainly not, so arguing with ME about whether it’s legitimate or not is particularly pointless, and that’s what you appear to be doing. I’m going to go out on a limb and argue against it. Let’s take it as a given that adoption is the cause of some negative psychological consequences (which, in a vacuum, I’m not sure is even true). You can read that book from cover to cover, and I guarantee that you will not find this simplistic link “adoption causes people to become serial killers.” See, it is a huge leap from “some negative psychological consequences” to “serial killer.” A gigantic leap. Adoption cannot possibly be a big enough trauma, absent of other factors, to cause that kind of sociopathy. And if you take adoption out of the equation, and look at all the serial killers in the world, all the other factors associated with being a serial killer will still exist. Feelings of rejection, abandonment, not belonging, a background of abuse and neglect, or whatever you find in reviewing the backgrounds and psychological profiles of serial killers will exist. It may be due to problems in a biological family, it may be due to problems in an adoptive family, it may be hereditary, it may be not having a family at all. But those other factors will always be there, and are not necessarily associated with adoption. Anything that it takes that guy however many pages that fill up his book to explain, can’t be described in a sentence as simple as “adoption causes people to become serial killers.” It just can’t. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/210 "2011-05-16T04:02:19Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Well, in absence of any supporting evidence whatsoever, I’m going to go ahead and make that assumption if you don’t mind… > > Look, I don’t want to dog **Annie** anymore at this point, but you brought up the fact that I said she was making blatantly false statements and that I said she was making herself sound like an idiot. As far as I can see, if you make an assertion that you are not backing up with evidence you either 1) know that you can’t back it up, in which case unequivocally stating that it’s true IS a falsehood, or 2) you think you ARE backing it up, which means that you don’t understand why you aren’t. I don’t happen to think **Annie** is an idiot (which is why I said she was making herself sound like one, vs. saying she actually is one), nor do I think she’s a liar. BUT I do think that she’s being hyperbolic in order to push an agenda. And I’m asking her not to do that (which, incidentally, she agreed to). . So, I don’t really see a point to your white-knighting on this thread. The OP says to Annie: > [@](#): > > You don’t know what you’re talking about. You have been trying to draw a link between adoption and serial killers for years on this board. Then quote her talking about an FBI agent making (the erroneous, it turns out) statement that “most” serial killers were adopted, and she believes that it’s food for thought. Then a few more similar quoes. When you get to your main rant, it appears to be that she has not cited anything which demonstrates causation, and she has not made a good argument herself for the legitimacy of causation. But THEN… you make this statement: > [@](#): > > Please please please show us this cite. Wait, no, don’t bother looking for it BECAUSE IT DOESN’T EXIST. And since it doesn’t exist PLEASE FUCKING STOP MAKING THIS BLATANTLY FALSE CLAIM. Which, to my eyes and understanding, is not a statement about Annie’s citation skills or lack thereof at all, it is a statement about the actual idea that adoption can be a causative factor in the formation of serial killers, and you are asserting, very strongly that it is not _ **possible** _ to provide any cites to demonstrate such a thing because no such citation _ **exists** _, therefore saying it is a _ **lie** _.(And that is then followed by a host of unpleasant remarks from various posters directed at telling Annie the poster who agrees with her how stupid and crazy they are) As I said, I have never found Annie to be controversial, and I believe I have always observed her to be a very pleasant and agreeable poster whom I do not ever recall doing anything that calls for her to be told that she is a liar or an idiot. I also found the subject interesting so I checked it out and I discovered that in fact, this was not some wild hair up Annie’s ass, it had a source, even if Annie herself had not actually ever bothered to track it down. Presumably Kirschner’s book makes a reasonable attempt to support his theory that adoption can be a causative factor in the formation of a murderer, and that makes your assertion that no citable source for the idea actually exists and that Annie is lying an inaccurate statement and this whole unpleasant thread directed at her unfair. I don’t like to see anyone attacked, and I especially don’t like to see anyone attacked unfairly. So I got all white-knighty. ---
**Author:** ![Sierra\_Indigo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f0a364/32.png) [@Sierra\_Indigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sierra_Indigo)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/211 "2011-05-16T04:02:39Z")
SOMEONE GRAB MY LEGS, I’VE GOT TO TOSS THIS PRESERVER TO SARAHFEENA! Quick, before she’s dragged into the vortex ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/212 "2011-05-16T04:03:34Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > That’s not sociopathy, that’s fighting fire with fire. If women’s lives don’t matter to them, infant lives shouldn’t matter to us. Seriously, how baby deluded can you be to claim a woman should just roll over and take whatever tyranny is inflected on us? WTF??? Once an infant is born, what “tyranny” are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/213 "2011-05-16T04:08:19Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > …which is also a batshit crazy position to hold. > > I’m not sure what you think should be done about adoption, though. Are you arguing that adoption should be outlawed? Or just that adoption shouldn’t be the peg that pro-life people hang their hat on? Adoption defintely shouldn’t be the peg that the anti-abortion movements hangs their hat on. Adoption as it’s practiced now in which the extended family and group living situations are ignored or trivalized and children’s birth certificates are falsified, I would like to have outlawed. I would like the lying that goes on with stranger adoptions to be outlawed. Put it under one of the limits of free speech like false advertising, perjury, or libel. Legal custody doesn’t change genetics and anyone so insecure about their infertility they can’t admit they are unable to have children and therefore choose to be the guardian of a child who needed someone, is too mentally unstable to be trusted with custody. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/214 "2011-05-16T04:09:53Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I don’t like to see anyone attacked, and I especially don’t like to see anyone attacked unfairly. So I got all white-knighty. Welp, I disagree that I attacked her unfairly. I stand by everything I said in this thread, including the apology I offered to her. She’s a big girl and I don’t think she needs any white-knighting, but I’m not going to argue with you about it. ---
**Author:** ![Sierra\_Indigo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f0a364/32.png) [@Sierra\_Indigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sierra_Indigo)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/215 "2011-05-16T04:09:58Z")
Is there any way we can get the two fonts of crazy talking at each other rather than past each other? I have a theory. It may spell the end of life as we know it, but it’s for SCIENCE ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/216 "2011-05-16T04:11:43Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > WTF??? Once an infant is born, what “tyranny” are you talking about? The tyranny that denied the woman an abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/217 "2011-05-16T04:12:24Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I’m going to go out on a limb and argue against it. Feel free; since I do not know what his argument actually is I cannot possibly address your argument. I do believe is that arguments based entirely on assumptions about what someone else is saying, whether they are pro or con, are a waste of time. You (both in this case and in a generic sense) must believe that you have the ability to think of every possible way that an argument might be made and are therefore qualified to reject it sight unseen. I don’t hold that belief, so I can’t be your foil. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/218 "2011-05-16T04:14:29Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I don’t like to see anyone attacked, and I especially don’t like to see anyone attacked unfairly. So I got all white-knighty. Welp, I disagree that I attacked her unfairly. I stand by everything I said in this thread, including the apology I offered to her. She’s a big girl and I don’t think she needs any white-knighting, but I’m not going to argue with you about it. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/219 "2011-05-16T04:25:34Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Feel free; since I do not know what his argument actually is I cannot possibly address your argument. > > I do believe is that arguments based entirely on assumptions about what someone else is saying, whether they are pro or con, are a waste of time. You (both in this case and in a generic sense) must believe that you have the ability to think of every possible way that an argument might be made and are therefore qualified to reject it sight unseen. I don’t hold that belief, so I can’t be your foil. Well, first of all, neither statistics nor logic are terribly complex. If the case could be made, I think it would be fairly easy to demonstrate it. Maybe not, but in absence of cut-and-dried evidence, I have to assume that it’s not so cut-and-dried. Secondly, I’m basing the my logic on the information you and Annie have provided, my only assumption being that what’s been provided is his best, most relevant stuff. Maybe there’s some other stuff in the book that would make it super obvious to me that adoption tips the scales, but I doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2011, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652/220 "2011-05-16T05:02:18Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > But THEN… you make this statement: > Which, to my eyes and understanding, is not a statement about Annie’s citation skills or lack thereof at all, it is a statement about the actual idea that adoption can be a causative factor in the formation of serial killers, and you are asserting, very strongly that it is not _ **possible** _ to provide any cites to demonstrate such a thing because no such citation _ **exists** _, therefore saying it is a _ **lie** _.(And that is then followed by a host of unpleasant remarks from various posters directed at telling Annie the poster who agrees with her how stupid and crazy they are) Just realized I wanted to address this part of your post as well. No offense, but your logic here is whacked. Just because I don’t believe the relevant cite exists doesn’t mean that I think Annie’s a liar. As I said in my post, it’s perfectly possible for her to be mistaken and to believe that she is showing causation when she isn’t. It’s also possible to be so entranced by a theory that you are prone to believe it, even without adequate supporting evidence. That’s what I believe has happened in Annie’s case. Given that virtually everyone does this (I won’t cite any names as examples, but I’ve certainly seen it time and time again on this board), I don’t think it’s a major character flaw or anything. But when it’s a case where it seems very obvious that the person hasn’t supported the claim, I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with calling them out on it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-annie-xmas-shut-up-about-adoption-and-serial-killers/581652.md?page=12)