Naturally, in the beginning, definitional criteria set the stage for subsequent discussion. Where possible, any prior assumption of facts not in evidence requires clarification. In connection with the multidimensional spectrum of ideation, conjecturing, and analysis, it implies competency in such deliberations. While experience in the field is vital, grounded education academically, practically, and realistically earned contributes to the logical process of deduction. Emotional reactivity is controlled to the extent possible, where reason pervades the senses with exceptional candor. Anyone attempting to claim an expository aspect of discourse ought to have some notion of what the scope of discussion represents. Additionally, such allegations necessitate the maturation of profound insight relative to the analytic exposition of behavioral probabilities. Important to keep in mind that personal bias influences conclusions at any juncture.

     In continuation of the exploration of the criminological subtype generally referred to as the “involuntary celibate”, along with associated references, the tie-in here is an inclusion in the broad scheme of domestic terrorism. As to the aforementioned, if an observer or inquisitor chooses a simplistic dictionary reference, then the result is that of a male who blames women for his lack of sexual encounters. Too one-dimensional, yes, no doubt about that. Such brevity does not consider the complexity of multidimensional ramifications for the intricacy of individuality. Regardless of the origins of “involuntary celibate”, or “incel”, which might trace a 30-year history, or more, contemporary assessment regards a hostile, misogynistic thinking process. Within the realm of criminology, one of the several spheres of the “social studies arena”, the focus slants toward the potentiality for criminogenic perpetrations on the safety and security of others. An inference is posed in the sense that causation comes to the forefront of the discussion.

     At the outset here, the underlying foundation is that which stems from a classical school of thought relative to the field of criminology. In brief, criminology, which borrows from other fields of study, embarks on investigative discovery, assessing issues related to crime, criminals, and criminalistics. Like the other “social studies” perspectives in the framework of the pseudosciences, various schools of thought represent an extraordinary diversity of philosophical expressions. These include fields of criminology, psychology, sociology, and theology, which represent a range of agendas, interests, and backgrounds. For scientific validation, say for instance in the police crime lab, some criminologists seek out the viability of “hard-core” science.

     That is, in reference to the science of physical causality, the so-called hard sciences are represented by such fields as astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics, and so forth. Gazing out over the evergreen, ivy-laced, and brick-laid patterns of academia, a jaunt across campus visits the organic materiality of the investigative sciences. Traversing the commons of various academic endeavors, the traveler finds other perspectives on human existence. Several of these notorious adventures are found in places like “arts and humanities” buildings. Within most of these taxpayer-funded enclaves, some proudly decry the capitalism that supports their alleged research. At the same moment, direct deposits find their yearning bank accounts. Such matters aside, sometimes within these constructed fabrications of higher learning, the philosophical pursuits salaciously desire competitive equity with the natural world of the physical scientists.

     All that in the foregoing is to suggest three ramifications of American myth, magic, and metaphors. First, the long history of slow transgression on the part of some philosophers to trespass upon the realms of hard science. So as to provoke the inference of their self-validation as viable matters of legitimate inquiry, philosophical assumptions presupposed an authenticity for behavioral analysis. Offering the basis of “medical inquiry” from the posture of medical doctors, the psychodynamics of behavioral analysis escaped into the atmosphere of speculative inquiry. Later, captured as the ideal credential for a “career” in academia, PhDs flourished. And yet, the trinity of great influence stemmed from the medical doctors, those with an M.D., in those valiant formative stages of “mind” investigation. In America, philosophers desired similarity. Likewise, and secondly, most individuals desire notoriety and acceptance for their existence.

     Unless self-evolving in extraordinarily transformative ways beyond self-centeredness, a second admonition is of egoistic proportionality. In the “social studies” arena, proselytes desire to be noticed and the social commonality as being seen as “scientists”. With that comes the worship of the founders of schools of thought, mentors, gurus, and related academic “celebrities”. The persistent regurgitation of anecdotal and observational opinion and conjecture perpetrates the mythology. In time, an entire society is captivated by “Alice in Wonderland” fantasies. In the field of criminology, for instance, an academic journey of about 10 years or less produces a freshly minted PhD in a very generalized conceptualization of “criminal justice”. During that seemingly higher reaches of “criminal justice” curriculum, the hard sciences barely make an appearance. For the most part, it’s a matter of reading someone’s point of view on the “American criminal justice system”. To that end, the other associated “social studies” are not much different.

     For a third ramification herein, as it applies to the investigative assessments of criminal behavior, magic, mystical notions, the unexplained, and hence the paranormal, it impresses mainstream believability. Even among those thought to be well-educated, there exist rampant levels of ill-conceived points of view. To speak of mystical things in a culture enthralled by everything from Bigfoot, chimeras, demons, and ghosts, to UFO’s, just about any sleight of hand is potentially believable. Intentional gullibility forsakes the necessity of personal and social responsibility. It is easier to let someone else do the thinking, or simply appeal to the “authority” of another as a convenient alibi. Meanwhile, the irony chuckles as a Shakespearean stage play in a comedy of erroneous misdirection. As each person devolves at different stages of irresponsibility, with arrogance of ignorance, meaningful assessment of illicit behaviors becomes elusive.

     For the aforementioned digression, the point to be made is that unevolving, or slow-evolving, as well as devolving persons are engaged in a diversity of investigative capacities. Whereas these enclaves of supposed “experienced intelligentsia” are the “authorities” for which answers are sought, they carry their shortcomings and dysfunctions. In brief, targeted suspects are evaluated and investigated by inquisitors with complications not dissimilar from the people they study. Bias, prejudice, and a range of egocentric influences trouble the viability of credible and authentic speculations as to the pursuit of a particular matter. Now then, once it is accepted, the “social studies” is akin to the notions of pseudoscience, as opposed to hard science; investigative progress is potentially possible. Not entirely, but at least conceptually. Of this, there is no shame or loss in accepting the reality that a particular field is simply not a real science.

     Now, given the high probability that one who makes inquiries as to the illicit behaviors of another has their own “demonic forces” to reckon with, some degree of honesty can enter the investigation. Again, philosophical embracement of pseudoscience is creative. For example, while some criminologists and psychologists insist upon the mockery of “paranormal investigators” or derision for fields of study like parapsychology, all are actually in the same sphere of pseudoscientific endeavors. With that in the forefront, the investigator can potentially avoid stumbling over his or her own self-centeredness. No one has all the answers to the complexity of human thinking and subsequent behaviors. Deception and ignorance work across the game board in multiple directions. To chase the white rabbit, or the white whale, the investigator strives at every opportunity for profound introspection. There is no “single bullet” theory, or one-size-fits-all, or template that satisfies the parameters of every investigation.

     In the cause-and-effect efficacy of the classical school of criminology, one of the several valid schools of thought in the pseudosciences, emphasis is placed upon willful choice of deliberate actions. While those illicit or unlawful behaviors stem from the ideations of the perpetrator, subsequent inflictions are not a result of “demonic possession”. If so, the solution would invite the divinely inspired efforts of exorcism. Nonetheless, in a culture of diminishing intellectual ascension, perhaps intervention by clergy might be appropriate. For the classicist in the pursuit of criminogenic delineations, as opposed to the positivist’s theories of superficial mitigations, an externality of deterministic correlations fails to explain the complexity of maladaptive thinking processes. For all the unevolving fascinations with fame, fortune, and the frolic of self-idealization in the hunt for personal validation, the end result is the cold anonymity.

     From the historicity of literary and philosophical adventures in the investigation of behavioral intentions, two foremost points of reference echo the admonition of such meaninglessness. In the chase of amative adulation for purposeful exoneration in the expression of subjective validation, comes to question the existential reality of individual existence. From one playwright in the English 1500’s, a tragic comedy expresses the anguish of lost fame, or failed virginity, faded across the barren tombstones of discarded final resting places. As such, the metaphorical implication castigates the chase of erotic subjective validation. As to the confirmation bias of self-validation, in the loss of laborious egocentric obsessions, hope springs eternal in the expression of selfish indignation. Or, an expression of regressively passive nihilistic intentions.

     As the echoes of the past flash forward, a secular infantile nihilism unfolds. As Peter Pan fails to grow up and undergo the rites of passage into adulthood, the child remains an adult. Where self-loathing in child-like narcissism flourish, and excuses justify deterministic externalities, maladaptive inclinations choose the nature of their criminality. In the antagonistic intentional impotence, profoundly creative ideations and motivated productive innovations falter. Culture, community, and country experience a diversity of criminal perpetrations. To defend the transitional feelings of fear and dread in facing the rigors of personal transformation, some entrench their emotional reactivity in the nihilistic dimension of self-destruction. Of those numbers of criminal potentiality, a small percentage choose the path of “involuntary” chastity. As though a powerful statement of “rebellion”, the social “castration” is a repudiation of communal responsibility, as well as the accountability of adulthood. Such refuses the willfulness to self-evolve and, in so doing, becomes a well-differentiated personality.

     In the furtherance of self-imposed exile of social “wussification”, which opens the scope to wider discussion, the emotional reactivity purposefully devolves to illicit protestations. Of selfish claims of “victimization”, the selfish child-man is grossly envious of others. Wimpy, pitiful, and infantile, mostly he, but sometimes she, professes the pretensions of superficial insight to others. As such, the intentions lurk in the darkness of maladaptive perpetrations regarding the success of another. While argumentation may justify an alternative viewpoint, such as indignation, the envious, the jealous, and the self-focused rationalize their incessant animosity. Likewise, taken to a macro-level, such as social media, or mainstream media, or even entertainment media, the message appears one of constant negativity and condescension. Celebrity culture and its paparazzi worship assert similarities in the devolving state of persistent, resentful criticisms.

     As to that, criminality of such provocations and hollow self-righteous vindications collude across a broad swath of pseudoscience over-generalizations. Likewise, in the “social studies arena”, the academician is quick to provide “expertise” for the satiation of self-centered appeasement. All too frequently, the non-expert boasts of an expertise neither he nor she possesses. Lacking definitive scientific validations for labels, diagnoses, and theoretical constructs, “demonic possession” continues. Regardless, as to a “wussified” social mainstream, as well as infotainment and social media, one veteran journalist described the culture as a “sissy America”. Regarding the word “sissy”, the accusation points to those willing to wallow in their cowardice. This reference pertains to the psychophysical development of a grown-up, mature person. The admonition is about lazy, self-indulgent, immature, and unevolving persons who refuse to accept the responsibility of adulthood. It is all intentional and premeditated.

     As one contemporary philosopher suggested, this is a critical matter of societal “rites of passage”, from child-like high school antics to grown-up perseverance of responsible adulthood. Such retreat into the overly gratuitous self-indulgence of foolishness shuns the vitality of pioneering self-exploration. Weaklings justify their weakness and sneer at those diligently pursuing the higher realms of personal differentiation. Gorging in bloated self-absorption, the fatted sheep graze in the illusions of condescending blogs, scornfully pompous “video channels, and contemptuous uncreative forums. An era of swashbuckling non-conformist individuality is being overrun by temperamental, overly sensitive, unimaginative whiners. Of course, others claiming contrary positions counter such notions of broad generalizations. Nonetheless, the point to be made is that there are signs of a society in regression toward eventual breakdown.

     With all the innovations in 21st-century techno-savvy, or alleged advances in the instantaneous acquisition of information and connectivity, the human species does not appear to be ascending. On the contrary, with the exception of a few creative and visionary persons, the overall population regresses in an ever-decreasing intellectual and productive capacity. For some, those who forsake the innate possibilities of creative and imaginative capabilities, a certain percentage are overtly counterproductive by their own premeditation. In spite of extraordinary options for rigorous elevation of wiser, mature, and well-differentiated personal competencies, many pursue debasing and devolving choices of immature reactivity. As to the few who embrace the strenuous and painful efforts of personal transformation, many more contrast that with reluctance to self-evolve. A smaller group forms an alliance of devolving like-minded personalities and blames others. They become a form of domestic terrorism and focus on targets of opportunistic ventures.

     As the human species devolves, the various realms of the “social studies” arena quickly perpetrate their own version of sleight-of-hand mysticism. In the pseudosciences, such as criminology, psychology, sociology, and theology, philosophical spectrums run the gamut of redundantly specious conjecture. Pontifications, usually from the detached safe mediocrity of ivory towers, non-practitioners with little or no real-world expertise, boast their cause-and-effect rationalizations for all manner of explanations. Yet, in the end, so what? Those who choose to be unmotivated, purposefully wallowing in the empty loneliness of self-delusion, intentional maladaptation, sooner or later come to the attention of the real practitioners of criminology. That is to say, law enforcement deals with the premeditations of those who intend to injure, maim, and kill others. As to this vanity of selfish gratification in counterproductive ideations, the loose-knit, diverse, and cultish misogynistic confederation espouses terroristic provocations.

     In one online magazine specializing in foreign policy matters, an article poses the question of whether or not such behavior characterizes a terrorist movement. Herein, the answer to that would be a yes, relative to the techno-oriented world of the 21^st century. Criminals adapt to achieve their gain over the prospects of risk to their pleasurable satiations. Meanwhile, in the “social studies” arena, philosophical entreaties of one sort or another claim the mystical insights of cause-and-effect conjecture. For some pontificators of varied schools of thought, externalities of “demonic forces” conspire to “cause” the incels to rebel against the “injustice” of not getting enough sex. In the aforementioned article, from a renowned news source, the usual causative suspects are rounded up. These include the notorious demons of bullying experiences.

     From the “social studies” arena, unsatisfied with the willful criminality of purposeful illicit choices, the supernatural transforms into seemingly “scientific” claims of further deterministic externalities. Meanwhile, criminality finds comfort in embracing the convenience of easy defenses. As the list of excusatory mediations fosters insidious, intentional schemes of maladaptation, a host of incestuous co-conspirators creep into the psychic background. Of such sinister creatures, like “low self-esteem”, “depression”, loneliness, and no friends, as well as alleged failure at “impulse control”, a contrived conspiratorial framework unfolds. Suddenly, in the madness of “out of character” behavior, the “evil” possession drives the individual toward diabolical purposes. Seriously? Does reality really work that way? Would an exorcism work better than a session with a medical doctor (psychiatrist) or a philosopher (psychologist)?

     As to the criminality of such horrific perpetrations, the culmination of those events, within the “mindset” of an individual, spans a lifetime of psycho-physiological complexity. From an individual spectrum, deception to fraud to theft and murder, everything in between, the intricacy defies precise specification. Flashback, take conspiracy theories, for example, alluded to earlier. By conspiracy in this sense, the suggestion relates to those issues that fall within the range of three perspectives. These include the planetary, the paranormal or supernatural, and the political intrigue of alleged government cover-ups. Where the planetary is concerned with “aliens”, the paranormal involves beliefs that express notions outside normal reality. Yet, where is that demarcation for the rationality of logical deductions? Whereas 75-80% or more of the population believes in otherworldly schemes, and such belief systems influence thinking skills, what is the probability that behavioral analysis is skewed toward the investigator or researcher?

     Beliefs are potent, mixed with the prospect that the believer, the investigator, as well as the subject or subjects in question, are at divergent levels of personal development.  Most likely, there is quite a bit of disparity in thinking processes. For instance, the criminal knows what he or she is up to. But the inquisitor is not savvy to all the ramifications. To do so, he or she, the sleuth, requires a paranormal ability to know such invisible psychodynamics. Yet, to a large degree, things like “parapsychology” are typically mocked in academia. Where immaturity to maturity transitions, or not, possess dependent variables of experiential comprehension, much translation will remain in the void of the unknown. Regarding the foregoing, a possibility is that bias influences conclusions, the observers influence the observation, and the investigative design influences outcomes. When it comes to the liberal arts, science is often forgotten.

     Most often, real-world field experience finds that many are easily distracted by the comfortable notions perpetrated in simplistic explanations of complex behavioral existence. Intentionally naïve, purposefully insulated from the terroristic realities of human inflictions, the safe mediocrity of trouble-free conjecture brings superficial comfort. Likewise, the armchair “afficionado” of pretentious “criminological expertise” enjoys the comfort of convenient labels, theoretical non-organic diagnoses, and the misplaced concreteness of simplistic templates. In other words, one size fits all, as though the population is composed of like-minded robotically cloned masses of “hardwired” humanoids. While such fictional affinity makes for good science fiction movies or enticing horror stories, the uncomfortable reality is that criminal behavior remains extraordinarily intricate. Understanding, deeper knowledge, and definitive delineation as to cause-and-effect manifestation is elusive and falls into the realm of pseudoscience. Again, there is nothing wrong, nor does any rule, law, or edict curse or prevent investigative efforts into such mysteries.

     In regard to the field of criminology, the criminality of unlawful perpetrations or related horrific events spans a wide spectrum from fraud to theft to terrorism and everything in between. Take conspiracy theories, for example. By conspiracy in this sense, the suggestion relates to those issues that fall within the range of three perspectives. These include the planetary, the paranormal or supernatural, and the political intrigue of alleged government cover-ups. At any given point on a continuum of human behavior, a conspiracy may exist. Criminality might transcend by collaborative instigations toward individual or group gainfulness. Where the planetary is concerned with “aliens”, the paranormal involves beliefs that express notions outside normal reality. As to political conspiracies, a variety of “conspiracy theories” abound, from political assassinations to intentional bombings of government and public buildings.

     At the core, people will believe anything, no matter how much evidence to the contrary you present. As hope springs eternal for the satiation of cognitive bias and the reinforcement of subjective validation, personal imposition of patternicity by agenticity superimposes one's will over that of others. As some might call this selfishness at an infantile level, the punitive realism is that the vast majority of the population is engaged in such socio-political behaviors. Overall, the mirror reflects a diversity of discontent where psychic trespassing treads upon the darkness lurking inside. Maybe those solitary souls in self-imposed exile are a reflection of everyone else. Hiding behind a computer screen is a mask that cuts across the social mainstream of wandering personifications searching for essential relevance.