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.

Thank fuck for that! You can just read through again. I didn’t disagree - I pointed out there’s no science for any of his claims. If you want specifics, you can read up for yourself. I’m not your teacher.

Okay, bye now.

Do you have issues with memory? You also directly tagged me in that post asking to explain what I disagreed with?

Hilarious that you would assume we must be the same person because it would be IMPOSSIBLE for more than more than one person to have a different opinion than you 😂

Ah okay I see, you didn't want anyone to explain about credibility and aren't interested in either acknowledging that claims he makes about psychopathy are not substantiated by studies, nor are you interested in finding out what the science does say. You were just stating that you didn't understand why I agreed with the other poster. Forgive me for providing context to the podcast speaker's credibility, I did take your tag as an invitation to explain my view.

It’s either anecdata or practice knowledge and valuable in itself but hasn’t been tested more widely using the scientific method and all that and then written up and subject to peer review.

Give it up OP. You're embarassing yourself with your belligerent behaviour.

It's the difference between evidence based practice and practice based evidence. The podcaster is the latter. Talking about their own experiences doesn't make it generalisable. If it were to be the former (EBO) it would be, for example 20 counsellors sharing their views and experiences. Collated together , analysed etc and then peer reviewed for robustness/ credibility.

Why won't anyone say what it is that he's supposedly got so wrong?

Is it:

1. That there are psychopaths and sociopaths who abuse children
2. That all child abusers use pornography
3. That pornography use is an integral part of the behaviors that lead to child abuse
4. That some males pretend to be trans as a way of accessing women and children for the purpose of harming them
5. That these males hate women
6. That child abusers are evil

To my recollection, those are the key claims he makes in the podcast discussion. Could those of you who are claiming he's got it all wrong please explain which of the above claims he's wrong about and why.

I'm more embarrassed for those of you who can't even manage to explain your own opinion.

Something to back up your opinion would make your contribution useful. You say science doesn't back up his claims - what science? Fine to disagree but if you can't substantiate that then your contribution doesn't add anything to the discussion. It's the opposite of hostile - you have our attention and you're being invited to contribute your knowledge and perspective.

I have already mentioned the work of Hare and there are other many psychologists & neuroscientists who have published well controlled, experimental work on psychopathy. If you do a Google search, you can find them: Raine, Belafoutas, Cleckley, Semple, Cooke & Michie, Skeem. You can find the papers yourself. I’m not a teacher.

But you do seem to be a lecturer.

Furthermore, I don’t need your or any invitation to give my opinion, nor does anyone else on this thread.

OP you seem very invested in this guy. Are you him?

You are also coming across as entitled and petulant. A very different posting style to most of the women on this forum. I will say no more...

i am not a lecturer. I have done a lot of reading on this topic, and I’ve made sure that it comes from reliable sources.

But you won't share it, so why keep commenting? I and many others, would love to hear your perspective - you keep telling us you have a valid one but won't share it because 'you're not a teacher' which renders your contribution pointless. You seem unnecessarily defensive. What do you hope you achieve from your contribution?

I'm contributing because I would like to hear and understand other perspectives.

I have already explained that the results of those other perspectives are by various scientists, including the list above.

You have had the perspectives & flaws explained to you by others on the thread, too, so at this stage it is fair to conclude that you are either being obtuse, argumentative, or are stupid.

Illuminating. I think that's all we need to know about your contribution.

I'm most interested by the explanation of psychopaths, it's not about winning, it's all about effect, transgressing boundaries. It is all around us.

If a person disguises themselves as something they are not, they're already transgressing boundaries, you can bet my heckles are up - there are men and then there are men in disguise - what are they hiding?

Very over simplified.
There are people with sociopathic traits. They divide largely into two groups. Those that appear to have developed sociopathic traits as a result of their life, especially their childhood. They have often experienced a lot of abuse, and combined with societies social conditioning of men and toxic masculinity this makes them angry and violent. These are largely men. Women who are badly abused show the impact in different ways.
The second kind of person with sociopathic traits appears to have been born that way. There also does not appear to be a sex difference with women as likely as men to have sociopathic traits.
Pornography teaches men to dehumanise largely women, but some men as well. Pornography can provide a learning opportunity for dangerous men on how to channel their anger and aggression. So it plays a role, but it is not the root cause.
Sociopathic tendencies are not necessarily bad for those born with them, they can be extremely useful in some careers and there is a theory that society needs some people with sociopathic tendencies for jobs that require those traits.

Also feels important to add that pornography encourages and provides a road may for child abuse but it is not needed. Child abuse happened in plenty of homes when even when I was young, it would be difficult in most parts of the country to access child sexual abuse images. There was no internet so the only images were photographs or illegal magazines. Sex shops only existed in very large cities. In my town the only place selling magazines was WH Smiths. But plenty of men still sexually abused children.

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.

Perfectly reasonable questionable in the OP. Looking for a discussion on what usually lovely peeps here thought of the points a guy talks about. All with regards a situation we have been mulling over on here for a while in various threads

I want to listen to it again properly when I finish work later.The interview covers psychopaths but mainly a specific sort. And the guy being interviewed talks about men and paedophiles and their typical behaviours regarding types of porn.

He also talks about drag queens and trans women amongst a lot of other things in the interview. (I'm assuming it's this bit and his thoughts that have brought disgruntled peeps to the thread).

So I'm at a loss to understand why some posters having made a statement without any context or expanding as to why they thought that way, when asked by the OP to possibly explain their post meaning or what the issue was, decided to have a go.

I am increasingly convinced that some newer posters who come on these threads just like having a go at people for the sheer hell of it.

If you want a conversion or discussion with us on this board, how about a bit of civility instead of coming on posting non - sensical posts and then launching an attack on the OP when she had the temerity to ask if you could maybe explain what you meant in your post.

You can keep doing it on threads, but we soon recognise the names and the writing styles.

So knock yourselves out. Have your fun. We will still be here when you've got bored and left us in peace.

we see you and we see your attacks on some posters.

For you OP

💐

Yep.

I was looking forward ti this discussion but only a few posts in and I see people coming into the thread to just be difficult and try to wind the OP up. Why? Why waste your time. And why am I wasting my time writing this? OP thank you for the link, really interesting and looking forward to listening in full.

Just catching up on this thread.

Wow. I see what Nicola is talking about. And yes we start to recognise the names.

It was as I said up thread, in my mind, on the money in some areas. Not in all mind.
Whatever his issues are with the rest of the internet, or whatever purity spirals he's caused in people it's worth a listen to whilst you are pottering around if nothing else.

OP Isee you've already had flowers so

🍫