The days of being a spiritual mentor in Meiman

The conflict between Jenna and her classmates was basically resolved, because after all, this method was proposed by Jenna. If the murderer was caught as she said, adding a glorious chapter to her resume, then no one would dare to bother her again.

And if Jenna really captured such a brutal serial killer with just a few words in class, then no one could say that psychoanalysis was just a blind guess.

After all, it was not a blind guess. The behavioral analysis method analyzed a lot, and could only analyze the approximate appearance of the murderer. Gotham is so big, and at least dozens of people can be found after shrinking the circle to the end.

Even if the super criminal Scarecrow is locked in the end, the super criminal who can make a name for himself in Gotham must be very cunning, and it is also a troublesome thing to arrest him. It is not known how much effort it will take and how many police officers will be sacrificed.

And directly analyzing the unique mental characteristics of the other party and using this characteristic to directly hook the other party up is undoubtedly the simplest and most labor-saving method.

Moreover, Schiller said before that psychoanalysis and behavior analysis cannot 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 one and the other is the auxiliary one.

Then the success of psychoanalysis is not a proof that behavior analysis is not good. On the contrary, Jenna opened with an analysis that was biased towards behavior analysis, which proved that psychoanalysis should also be based on facts, rather than just guessing out of thin air.

It's just that the two methods are based on different time points of facts. Behavior analysis looks for past facts, and psychoanalysis 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 classroom became relaxed, but unexpectedly, Schiller was not completely satisfied, he said.

"Ms. 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 students were a little surprised. This is not deep enough, what else do you want? Really mind reading?

At this time, Schiller began to tell them the difference between past facts and present facts.

One of the most important points is that the analysis of the past is lagging, even if it is the analysis of the crime scene a few hours ago, there is a certain lag.

For example, if there is a footprint left at the scene, and there is a pattern of the sole of the shoe on the footprint, it can be inferred that the sole of the murderer's shoe also has such a pattern, but the murderer may change his shoes after leaving the crime scene, so this clue becomes an invalid clue.

The so-called super criminal can fly, which may also cause such an effect. You can see footprints at the scene, but you can't find them after you go out. That's because when committing the crime, the super criminal was standing on the ground, and he flew when he escaped. Even if it was only a few minutes later, the facts were changed.

Lagging facts cannot be used as evidence, even as a support for the next link of inference. Once changed, the whole clue may be broken.

Therefore, modern criminal investigation pursues current evidence, that is, those things that cannot be changed with time, such as genes, which will not change even after ten years, which is much more reliable than past evidence that will change with time.

So is a person's psychology considered past evidence or present evidence? In fact, both are considered.

A person's psychology when killing someone may be past evidence. He may be very cruel when killing someone, but after this stage, he feels panic and regret. So if you look for someone who looks very cruel, you may not find him at all.

But a person's personality belongs to present evidence, just like genes. As the saying goes, it is easy to change a country, but it is difficult to change one's nature. As long as you can find the characteristics of his basic personality, you will have ironclad evidence like genes. This is the necessity of psychoanalysis.

As long as you want to infer a person's personality, you must conduct psychoanalysis. Even if you infer the person's personality through behavior first, it will inevitably become pure psychoanalysis in the end, because only by going deep vertically can you find the most solid and unchangeable present facts in a person's personality.

And the present facts based on personality may even be easier to lock the murderer than genes, because if you want to compare genes, you have to contact the murderer first, but personality can be externalized and does not need to be touched in reality. You only need to observe to compare.

This is why modern criminal investigation requires field investigations and multi-faceted investigations of the suspect's acquaintances, friends, and neighbors. This is 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 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 these insiders.

That is to say, laymen watch the excitement, and experts watch the doorway. The audience sitting in front of the TV can only hear whether it is good or bad, but the real criminal investigation experts can collect evidence from all these evaluations to judge the other party's personality.

Are current facts necessarily more important than past facts? Actually, 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 education background, which is also the method used in modern criminal investigation.

After all, there are very few people like Schiller and Jenna who are born with strong empathy. If they are expected to communicate with spirits, then grassroots police officers don't have to do it. Most people are doing psychoanalysis through behavioral analysis.

And this also involves an experience issue. An excellent detective who has been working at the grassroots level for many years and a fledgling empathizer must be faster and more accurate in analysis, because he has a huge number of cases for reference in his mind.

Although empathizers can feel something, there are still several barriers between realizing, summarizing and speaking it out, which is not so easy.

What's more, most people with strong empathy have excessive empathy disorders. It can be said that they are high-attack fragile skins. When they empathize, they are easy to empathize themselves.

Mental problems are nothing. 80% of psychopathic fans and serial killer imitators have excessive empathy disorder, which proves that many people choose to join when they can't beat them, not to mention that many people have not received proper education and choose to join directly.

It is very troublesome to guide these empaths, because negative emotions destroy people's spirits far more than positive emotions repair people's spirits, so empathy is an abyss with no bottom line, often ups and downs, and being able to jump off the cliff with the murderer is considered an excellent performance. It is impossible to expect these people to save the world.

After Schiller explained the difference and connection between past facts and present facts, most students found their own position.

To put it bluntly, compared with empathy, which requires both talent and instability and may have strong negative effects, they still choose to learn behavioral analysis down-to-earth and complete reasoning through learning and accumulating experience.

Some people even began to sympathize with Jenna. This seemingly mind-reading ability is indeed very cool, but it will also interfere with her learning of behavioral analysis, making her always too self-evident and whimsical, which makes her accumulate experience in this area much slower than others.

And this ability is not omnipotent, and it is not very stable. It is like mind-reading in its peak period, and pure dreaming in its weakened period.

Even Schiller dare not say that his empathy is accurate every time, but because he is more experienced and can combine various methods for analysis, it seems that the accuracy rate is very high.

The atmosphere in the classroom became active again, because most students realized that in fact, behavioral analysis and psychoanalysis are invincible when combined.

But everyone is a student, and it is difficult for someone to be good at both. Most people are better at behavioral analysis. If you find a psychoanalyst to join forces, wouldn’t it be invincible in the future courses?

In an instant, some people began to look at Jenna with fiery eyes.

What's wrong with monkeys? Even if you are a monkey, you have to be the best monkey in the monkey group.

Immediately, a girl flipped over the seat from the back row and sat next to Jenna. She looked at her with shining eyes and said, "You are so amazing. You can say such a long list. Are you really the one who thought of all these? How did you think of them? Can you teach me?"

"Forget it, Christina. You want to learn this with your brain? Don't pay attention to her, Jenna. There are only three people in our group, and we are still short of one. Do you want to join?"

Jenna couldn't play the victim halfway through. She was worried that if she pretended to be weak again, these people would want to help her get revenge. If they fought in class, she would definitely be trampled to death by the elephant.

She could only smile shyly. She had never been so eager for the bell to end the get out of class.

But in fact, a one-hour class was only halfway through, and it would take at least another half an hour before the get out of class ended. Jenna felt desperate.

Fortunately, Schiller finally started to teach according to the lesson plan, mainly combining some basic content of criminal psychology with this case. His style was always to read from the book, and most students began to focus on their notes.

When the get out of class was about to end, a student asked Schiller a question, but not about the knowledge in the textbook. He just asked curiously: "Professor, you said that Jenna's analysis was not in-depth enough. Is this true? Then what should a truly in-depth analysis be like?"

Other students also looked at Schiller curiously.

I recently read Shirai Tomoyuki's book again, it's super good