Illuminating and disturbing view from a psychologist

[beastlyslumber]

meghanmurphy.substack.com/p/how-do-you-become-a-psychopath-jon#details

Wondered if anyone else has listened to this? I thought his comments about the seriousness and significance of pornography were spot on and something that should be brought up more often.

@beastlyslumber oh a new thread. I just had a feeling someone was about to start a thread on this. Felt it in my broomstick i did.

Oh i shall go wash the dishes whilst i listen.

I disagree to a degree with the male speaker. I work in this field, it's much more subtle the cause and effect.

Always trust your broomstick, Beetz. Or your cauldron!

What specifically do you disagree with? Would be great if you pull give a rough summary and time stamps to give context to your disagreements. Thanks.

Right. So. to get the porn out of the way I agree with him totally.

Having known personally a psychopath who was a paedophile who was a rapist and murderer. A psychopath who was cruel and self centred, but never in legal trouble, and a psychopath who comes across as, you're slightly better version of course than, average joe. I do think the guy is not necessarily taking into account the subtlety of the different presentations of some psychopaths. Especially as I'm betting his ones are nearly all male and predominantly all the same sort of psychopath whI have followed a couple of specific routes through life to jail.

I'm not sure i completely agree with his made not born theory. I think that nurture definitely shapes the path or trajectory a psychopath will take. But i think you probably have to have been born one to begin with.

I don't think female psychopaths present the same. Nor do i think their reasons for ending up as a psychopath are the same.

But I do think he's got the brains of paedophiles spot on. And his thinking on drag queen, and transwomen. I wish i thought he was wrong. I wish i thought his percentages were wrong. But I don't. I think he's perfectly correct in what he's saying.

The decapitate Terfs sign absolutely solidified all this in my head the other day.

I started listening to this yesterday and got as far as the discussion about furries, drag queens and the overlap with paedophilia. It was interesting to listen to. I will listen to the rest of it over the weekend.

I'm not sure i completely agree with his made not born theory. I think that nurture definitely shapes the path or trajectory a psychopath will take. But i think you probably have to have been born one to begin with.

I don't know. I think it's probably both. He does talk about men that stop using porn when they get to the 'barely legal' category and says that their conscience kicks in. Whereas pyschopaths don't have a conscience. But maybe the use of porn silences the conscience, if you push past the point of discomfort.

Another complicating factor he didn't address is the fact that boys are being exposed to porn at increasingly earlier ages, ages when we don't expect them to have developed a mature conscience and empathy.

But I do think he's got the brains of paedophiles spot on. And his thinking on drag queen, and transwomen. I wish i thought he was wrong. I wish i thought his percentages were wrong. But I don't. I think he's perfectly correct in what he's saying.

Yes. The bit that really struck me was when he was talking about males in women's sports and saying it's not that they want to win medals. But that they want to taunt women.

I hope that MM will have him on again. I thought his perspective was really fascinating and valuable.

This demonstrates that therapists are not scientists. Just because he gives therapy to these people doesn’t make him an expert.

Which part(s) of this conversation demonstrates that he's not an expert, @DontdothisDothat? What's the relevance of saying "therapists aren't scientists" and are you claiming that only scientists can be experts on any given topic? (I would have thought that on subjects like this, professional experience and exposure to psychopathic individuals and child abusers is going to count for a lot towards expertise - but I'm interested in why you think that isn't the case.)

Could you explain your points in a bit more depth, please? If possible, could you summarise specific parts that you disagree with and give a rough time stamp so we can get the context for your disagreement as well as the substance of it? Thanks.

I don’t have time to go over in detail. If you read the science around the subject, you will be able to see that this was a great interview from a journalistic point but not so wonderful from the scientific perspective.

I prefer a scientific take over a therapist’s view because it is less biased. There are tons of research papers on the topics covered in this interview, and same for Jon Ronson’s, it’s great journalism and very well researched but describes and doesn’t explain in a solid way. I’m not interested in arguing, this is my opinion on it.

I’m not interested in arguing, this is my opinion on it.
Very scientific.

I agree with this, don't know why it's a controversial thing to say. Surely it's pretty straightforward to understand that working with the end result of psychopathy doesn't automatically mean you have or need to have a deep knowledge of the underlying causes etc of that psychopathy.

I'm very interested in this subject, thank you for the link.

Right now I don't have an hour to set aside. I have read R.D.Hare and know a psychologist who worked at Broadmoor.

I'll have a listen when I can.

But I don't even know what it is you're disagreeing with? That there are psychopaths and sociopaths who abuse children? That pornography is a part of that picture? That males sometimes pretend to be trans to get access to women and children?

I have no idea what the substance of your disagreement is @DontdothisDothat or why @CandlelightGlow agrees with you when you haven't said anything except that psychologists aren't scientists.

Could you at least take the time to say what is it that he says that you disagree with?

He's banned on Twitter if not most social media platforms. He has numerous controversial and inaccurate takes ranging from COVID to US presidency. He is not a trained psychologist. Science does not support his claims regarding porn and sexual offenses. He makes sweeping unsubstantiated comments that are ultimately meaningless like "men are designed to be chivalrous but by nature they are selfish". What does that even mean?

Literally so so many red flags around this guy. He was also charged with forgery so all round, just yikes. Does nobody do source checking as long as the source agrees with what you're saying?

you haven't said anything except that psychologists aren't scientists

Inaccurate, I've said he's not a psychologist he's a counsellor. Have not said psychologists are not scientists, they are.

I didn’t say psychologists are not scientists - they very much are. He is not a psychologist. This is journalism. I am not ”disagreeing”, I am giving my opinion. He is not a psychologist, and these are not proven claims he is making.

I’ve just read Candle’s posts - I didn’t realise this man has a history of those things, but I am not surprised. He makes many unasserted claims. To me, this is not “illuminating” but provocative.

Okay. You haven't actually said what you disagree with in what he's said so I'm going to assume you haven't listened to the podcast and indeed have nothing of interest to contribute.

I'm more interested in discussing ideas and arguments than gossiping about people. As far as Meghan's podcast goes, he hasn't presented himself as anything other than what he is.

However. As you are answering questions I addressed to @DontdothisDothat am I correct in assuming you are posting under both names and agreeing with your own comments? Seems a bit odd?

Right, so you haven't got any disagreements with anything he actually says. You just don't think he's a scientist and you've heard some rumours about him.

And yet you still thought your comments would be of great value to everyone on the thread.

Not at all. You can ask the MN mods to confirm this.

I’m finding your tone very hostile & aggressive. It’s a chat forum, not a courtroom. I listened to this podcast & I don’t like this man or what he says. I find his terms vague & inaccurate. How much more do you need, your honour?

I didn’t think my comments would be of any more or any less value to thus thread than anyone else’s. I cant speak for Candlelight.

Which claims has he made that are "unasserted"? (Presume you mean unevidenced.) Either of you may reply. Since you claim he makes "many" it shouldn't be hard to name a few of them. Thanks.

Thank you for your kind permission to reply. You heard the sane 1 hour podcast as I did. Go listen over with critical thinking. Read the science - you can do a Google search on the papers by Hare previously mentioned, and it will be clearer to you. You don’t need me to spoon feed you.

Well that's ironic, because I am findin your comments extremely vague. All you've said is that you disagree. Despite my repeated requests you are unable to say what you disagree with. No it's not a courtroom but it's reasonable to ask people to actually explain what they mean. Since you clearly can't or won't, there isn't much point in you commenting or me engaging any further.