In fact, not so very long ago, the FBI organized an advanced fire investigation training session and, at the start of the meeting, asked over 600 participants (fire agency personnel, insurance investigators, law enforcement, and mental health professionals) to write down their definition of pyromania. Not a single one got it entirely right—at least, not according to the American Psychiatric Associations' formal diagnostic criteria. To be considered a full-fledged pyromaniac, one must set fires deliberately on more than one occasion, show tension or arousal before the act, be fascinated by or attracted to fire or its paraphernalia, and feel pleasure or relief when setting fires or witnessing their aftermath. Even that's not enough to earn the diagnosis, though. The arsonist in question must also set fires for fires' sake (i.e. not for monetary or other gain), and the act must not be due to inebriation, psychosis, or any other form of impaired cognition. That is to say, the qualifications are strict.
A compendium of perspicacious reportage and a weblog about all things pertaining to politics, news and intergalactic agriculture; weblog of Alistair Murray.
Understanding pyromania
Although the term 'pyromania' is used widely, explains Jesse Bering, there is widespread confusion among experts – and indeed, the public – about the conditions actually required before someone can be considered a pyromaniac. Once a child with a slight (but somewhat concerning) level of interest in fire, Jesse Bering explores the science of pyromania, and the definition: