The conflict between Jenna and her classmates has basically been resolved, because after all, this method was proposed by Jenna. If she really caught the murderer as she said and added a glorious touch to her resume, then indeed no one would
I'm sorry to bother her anymore.
And if Jenna really managed to capture such a brutal serial murderer based on just a few words in class, then no one would be able to say that psychoanalysis is just guesswork.
After all, the behavioral analysis method is not just a guess. After analyzing a lot, it can only analyze the general appearance of the murderer. Gotham is so big, and if you shrink it to the end, you can find at least dozens of people.
Even if the super criminal Scarecrow is finally pinned down, a super criminal who can make a name for himself in Gotham must be very cunning. It would be troublesome to arrest him, and he doesn't know how much effort it will take and how many police officers will be sacrificed.
By directly analyzing the opponent's unique mental characteristics and using these characteristics to directly catch the opponent, it is undoubtedly the simplest and most labor-saving method.
Moreover, Schiller said before that neither psychoanalysis nor behavioral analysis can be viewed independently, because people are not only logical or emotional. The so-called two roads are actually one road, but one is the main way and the other is the way.
Just a supplement.
So the success of psychoanalysis is not proof that behavioral analysis is not effective. On the contrary, Jenna started with an analysis that was biased towards behavioral analysis. This proves that psychoanalysis must also be based on facts, not really out of thin air.
Just guessing.
It's just that the facts based on the two methods are at different points in time. The behavioral analysis method looks for past facts, while the psychoanalytic method feels the present facts. If the two can be perfectly combined, an effect similar to predicting the future can be achieved.
The atmosphere in the class became relaxed immediately, but unexpectedly, Schiller was not completely satisfied, he said.
"Miss Jenna's performance is very good, but maybe she was too nervous in class and didn't feel it deeply enough. But it doesn't matter. This is just the beginning. I believe she will perform better in the future."
The classmates were a little surprised. This is not in-depth enough. What else do you want? Really read minds?
At this time, Schiller began to tell them the difference between past facts and present facts.
One of the very important points is that there is a lag in analyzing the past. Even analyzing the crime scene a few hours ago still has a certain lag.
For example, if a footprint is left at the scene and there is a shoe sole pattern on the footprint, it can be inferred that the murderer's shoe sole also had the same pattern. However, the murderer may have changed his shoes after leaving the crime scene, so this clue becomes an invalid clue.
.
The so-called super criminal can fly may also have such an effect. You can clearly see the footprints at the scene, but you can't find the footprints after you go out. That's because the super criminal was standing on the ground when committing the crime, and when he escaped, he was standing on the ground.
He flew away, even if it was only a few minutes later, the facts were changed.
Lagging facts cannot be used as evidence, not even as support for the next inference. Once changed, the entire clue may be broken.
Therefore, modern criminal investigation pursues more current evidence, that is, those things that cannot be changed over time, such as genes, which will not change in the past ten years, and are much more reliable than past evidence that will change due to time.
So does a person’s psychology count past evidence or present evidence? In fact, both count.
A person's psychology when killing may be evidence from the past. He may be very cruel when killing, but after this stage, he feels panic and regret again, so if you look for someone who has a very cruel personality at first glance,
, it may not be found at all.
But a person's personality belongs to the current evidence, just like genes. It is said that one's country is easy to change, but one's nature is hard to change. This is exactly the case. As long as you can find the characteristics of his basic personality, you will have the same ironclad evidence as genes. This is true.
This is the necessity of psychoanalysis.
As long as you want to infer a person's personality, you must conduct psychoanalysis. Even if you first infer the person's personality through behavior, it will inevitably become pure psychoanalysis in the end, because only by going in depth vertically can you find the most profound part of a person's personality.
The solid and most unchangeable present fact.
The current facts based on personality may even be easier to identify the murderer than genes, because if you want to compare genes, you must first come into contact with the murderer, but personality can be externalized and does not require physical contact in reality.
You only need to observe to make comparisons.
This is also the reason why modern criminal investigation requires interviews and investigations, and conducts multi-faceted investigations on the suspect’s acquaintances, friends and neighbors. This is a personality comparison.
Some people may say that in the interviews they saw, the interviewees all said that the murderer was a good person. Is this comparison really accurate?
But in fact, this kind of comparison in modern criminal investigation is not based on the evaluation of the other party. It doesn't matter whether he is good or bad. The purpose is to learn some details of the other party's life from the mouths of these insiders.
That is to say, laymen watch the fun, and experts watch the door. The audience sitting in front of the TV can only hear the good and bad, but the real criminal investigation experts can collect enough evidence to judge the personality of the other party from all these evaluations.
.
Are the facts now more important than the facts in the past? In fact, this is not the case, because everything now is accumulated from the past. The easiest way to judge a person's personality is to understand his life and educational background. This is also the case in modern criminal investigation.
the measures taken.
After all, there are very few people like Schiller and Jenna who are born with strong empathy. If they are expected to be psychics, then there is no need for the grassroots police to do so. Most people are doing psychoanalysis through behavioral analysis.
And this also involves an experience issue. Between an excellent police detective who has been working at the grassroots level all year round and a fledgling empath, the former must be able to analyze faster and more accurately, because he has a large number of cases in his mind for reference.
Although empaths can feel something, they realize that there are several barriers between summarizing and speaking out, and it is not that easy.
What's more, most people with strong empathy abilities have excessive empathy disorder. It can be said that they have high attack skills and are fragile. As they empathize and empathize, they will easily empathize with themselves.
Mental problems are trivial. 80% of psychopathic obsessives and serial killer imitators have hyperempathy disorder. This proves that many people choose to join if they can’t beat them, not to mention that there are many people who have never experienced it.
Correct education, choose to join directly.
It is very troublesome to guide these empaths, because negative emotions damage the human spirit far more than positive emotions can repair the human spirit, so empathy is an abyss without a bottom line, often with ups and downs.
Even if the murderer jumped off the cliff together, it would be considered an outstanding performance. It is impossible to expect these people to save the world.
After Schiller explained the differences and connections between past facts and present facts, most students found their position.
To put it bluntly, compared to empathy, which requires talent, is unstable, and may have strong negative effects, they still choose to learn behavioral analysis in a down-to-earth manner and rely on learning and accumulation of experience to complete reasoning.
Some people even began to sympathize with Jenna. This seemingly mind-reading ability is indeed cool, but it also interferes with her learning of behavioral analysis, making her always take it for granted and whimsically. This allows her to accumulate experience in this area.
The speed will be much slower than others.
And this ability is not omnipotent, and it is not very stable. At its peak, it is like reading minds, and at its weak stage, it is just talking in sleep.
Not even Schiller dares to say that every time he empathizes is accurate, but because he has rich experience and can combine various methods for analysis, his accuracy rate appears to be very high.
The atmosphere in the classroom became active again, because most students realized that the combination of behavioral analysis and psychoanalysis is invincible.
But we are all students, and it is difficult for someone to be good at both. Most people are better at behavioral analysis. So if we find someone who is good at psychoanalysis to join forces, wouldn't we be invincible in the future courses?
Instantly, some people began to look at Jenna with intense eyes.
What's wrong with monkeys? Even if you are a monkey, you must be the best monkey among the monkeys.
Immediately, a girl climbed over the seat from the back row and sat next to Jenna. She looked at her with bright eyes and said, "You are so amazing. You can say such a long list. It's all really you."
Did you think of it? How did you think of it? Can you teach me?"
"Forget it, Christina, you still want to learn this with your brain? Ignore her, Jenna, there are only three people in our group, and there is still one missing. Do you want to join?"
Jenna's role as the victim wasn't even halfway through when she couldn't continue. She was worried that if she pretended to be weak again, these people would want to help her get revenge. If a fight broke out in class, she would definitely be stepped on by an elephant.
die.
She could only pretend to smile shyly, but she had never been so looking forward to the end of get out of class bell.
But in fact, the one-hour class was only halfway over, and it would take at least half an hour before get out of class ended. Jenna felt desperate.
Fortunately, Schiller finally started teaching according to the lesson plan. He mainly combined some basic contents of criminal psychology with this case. His style was his usual script, and most of the students began to focus on their notes.
Near the end of get out of class, a student asked Schiller a question, but not about the knowledge in the textbook. He just asked curiously: "Professor, you said that Jenna did not analyze deeply enough. Is this true? So what is the real reason? What should an in-depth analysis look like?”
Other students also looked at Schiller curiously.
Recently I read Shirai Tomoyuki's book again, it's so good