Chapter 3030

The conflict between Jenna and her classmates was basically resolved. After all, this method had been proposed by Jenna, and if the murderer were truly caught according to her suggestion, adding a glorious achievement to her resume, then indeed no one would have the nerve to go and cause her trouble anymore.

Moreover, if a criminal behind such a brutal serial murder case were truly captured based on just a few words from Jenna in class, then no one would ever be able to say that psychoanalysis is just blind guessing again.

After all, it wasn't blind guessing. Behavioral analysis, even after analyzing a whole lot, could only determine the general appearance of the murderer. Cat Getan is so big; even if you narrow the circle down to the end, you could at least find dozens of individuals.

Even if it were finally locked onto the supervillain Scarecrow, a supervillain who could make a name for himself in Cat Getan must be extremely cunning. Arresting him would also be a troublesome matter, and there's no telling how much effort it would take or how many police officers would have to be sacrificed.

Yet, by directly analyzing the opponent's unique psychological traits and utilizing those traits to lure the opponent out directly, it is undoubtedly the simplest and most labor-saving method.

Furthermore, as Schiller had said before, psychoanalysis and behavioral analysis cannot be viewed independently, because people are not composed of only logic or only emotion. The so-called two paths are actually one path; it is just that one is primary and the other is auxiliary.

Thus, the success of psychoanalysis is not proof that behavioral analysis doesn't work. On the contrary, Jenna started with an analysis that leaned toward behavioral analysis, which proves that psychoanalysis must also be based on facts, rather than truly being blind guessing out of thin air.

It is just that the time points of the facts that the two methods are based on are different. Behavioral analysis looks for past facts, while psychoanalysis senses present facts. If the two can be perfectly combined, one can achieve an effect similar to predicting the future.

The atmosphere in the classroom suddenly lightened up, but unexpectedly, Schiller was still not entirely satisfied. He said:

"Miss Jenna's performance was quite good, but perhaps she was too nervous in class and did not sense deeply enough. But that doesn't matter; this is just the beginning, and I believe she will perform even better in the future."

The students were all somewhat surprised. That wasn't deep enough? What else do you want? Is it really mind reading?

At this moment, Schiller began to explain to them the difference between past facts and present facts.

One very important point is that analyzing the past has a lag. Even analyzing a crime scene from a few hours ago has a certain degree of lag.

For example, if a footprint is left at the scene, and there is a pattern on the sole of the shoe, one can infer that the murderer's shoe sole also has such a pattern. However, it is possible that the murderer changed their shoes after leaving the crime scene, and then this clue becomes an invalid clue.

The so-called supervillains can fly, which might also cause such an effect. You clearly see footprints at the scene, but after going out, you just can't find any footprints. That is because when committing the crime, the supervillain was standing on the ground, but when escaping, they flew. Even if it was only a few minutes apart, the facts had already been changed.

Lagging facts cannot be used as evidence; they cannot even serve as support for the next link of inference. Once changed, this entire line of clues may be broken.

Therefore, modern criminal investigation pursues present evidence more, which is those things that cannot be changed with time, such as genes. Even ten years later, they remain unchanged, which is much more reliable than past evidence that changes with time.

So, does a person's psychology count as past evidence or present evidence? Actually, it counts as both.

A person's psychology when committing murder might be past evidence. When committing murder, they might be very brutal, but after this stage passes, they feel panic and regret. So if you look for someone who looks very brutal in personality, you might not find them at all.

However, a person's personality belongs to present evidence, just like genes. The saying "rivers and mountains are easy to change, but a person's nature is hard to alter" is exactly this. As long as you can find the traits in their basic personality, you have grasped ironclad evidence just like genes. This is the necessity for the existence of psychoanalysis.

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

And present facts based on personality might even be easier to lock onto a 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 manifested; it does not require actual physical contact, and one only needs to observe to conduct a comparison.

This is also the reason why modern criminal investigation requires visiting investigations and conducting multi-faceted investigations on the suspect's acquaintances, friends, and neighbors. This is conducting personality comparison.

Some people might say, in these interview segments we see, those interviewees are all saying the murderer is a good person. Is this kind of comparison really accurate?

But in reality, this kind of comparison conducted in modern criminal investigation is not based on the evaluation in the other party's mouth. Whether they evaluate them as good or bad is completely irrelevant. The purpose is to learn some details about the other party's life from the mouths of these informed persons.

It is the so-called "laymen watch the excitement, experts watch the doorway." The audience sitting in front of the TV can only hear good or bad, while true criminal investigation experts can collect enough evidence from all these evaluations to judge the other party's personality.

Are present facts necessarily more important than past facts? Actually, that is not the case, because everything in the present is accumulated from the past. The simplest way to judge a person's personality is to understand their life and educational background. This is also the means adopted in modern criminal investigation.

After all, people with strong empathy like Schiller and Jenna are rare. If you count on them to communicate with spirits, then grassroots police officers wouldn't have to work. Most people are conducting psychoanalysis through behavioral analysis.

And this also involves an experience problem. An excellent detective who has worked at the grassroots level for many years and a fledgling empath—the former will inevitably analyze faster and more accurately because they have a massive amount of cases for reference in their mind.

Yet, although empaths can sense certain things, there are still several barriers between realizing, summarizing, and speaking out, which is not that easy.

What's more, most people with strong empathy have excessive empathy disorder. They can be said to be high-attack but fragile. As they empathize and empathize, they easily empathize themselves into it.

Mental problems and such are minor matters. Among psychopath-obsessed people and serial killer copycats, 80% of them have excessive empathy disorder. This proves that many people choose to join if they can't beat them, not to mention that many people have not undergone correct education and choose to join directly.

Guiding these empaths is a very troublesome matter because the destruction of negative emotions to the human spirit is far greater than the repair of positive emotions to the human spirit. Therefore, empathy is an abyss without a bottom. It is often ups and downs and downs and downs and downs. Being able to hug the murderer and jump off a cliff together is already considered an excellent performance. Counting on these people to save the world is impossible.

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

To put it bluntly, compared to empathy, which requires talent, is unstable, and may have powerful negative effects, they still choose to learn behavioral analysis in a down-to-earth manner and complete reasoning by learning and accumulating experience.

Some people even began to sympathize with Jenna. This ability, which seems like mind reading, is indeed very cool, but it will also cause interference to her learning behavioral analysis, making her always take things for granted and be whimsical, which makes her speed of accumulating experience in this aspect much slower than others.

And this ability is not omnipotent, and it is not very stable. In the peak period, it is like mind reading; in the weak period, it is purely talking in one's sleep.

Even Schiller would not dare to say that every empathy of his is accurate. It is just that because his experience is relatively rich, he can combine various methods to analyze, which makes the accuracy rate appear very high.

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

But everyone is a student, and it is difficult for anyone to do both very well. Most people are better at behavioral analysis. Then if you find someone who is good at psychoanalysis to join forces, wouldn't you be invincible in future courses?

Instantly, the gaze of some people looking at Jenna began to become fiery.

So what if you are a monkey? Even if you are a monkey, you have to be the most excellent monkey in the monkey group.

Immediately, a girl climbed over the seat from the back row, sat next to Jenna, looked at her with shining eyes, and said: "You are truly too amazing. To be able to say such a long string, did you really think of all this? How did you think of it? Can you teach me?"

"Forget it, Christina. With that brain of yours, you still want to learn this? Don't pay attention to her, Jenna. Our group only has three people, and we are still missing one. Do you want to join?"

Jenna's acting as a victim wasn't even halfway through, and she couldn't keep acting. She was worried that if she continued to pretend to be weak, these people would want to help her take revenge. If they started fighting in class, she would definitely be trampled to death by an elephant.

She could only pretend to smile shyly, while internally she had never looked forward to the bell for the end of class so much.

But in fact, a one-hour class was only halfway through, and it would be at least another half hour before class ended. Jenna felt despair.

Fortunately, Schiller finally began to teach according to the lesson plan, mainly combining some basic content of criminal psychology with this case. The style was his consistent rote teaching, and most students began to focus on their own notes.

Near the end of class, a student asked Schiller a question, but it was not about knowledge in the textbook. He just asked somewhat curiously: "Professor, you said Jenna's analysis was not deep enough. Is this true? Then what should a truly deep analysis be like?"

Other students also looked at Schiller curiously.