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.

Ah, yes. I've always been uneasy when the two are linked.

OP you have just ignored anyone disagreeing with you who have pointed out what the research and science actually shows. At the same time complaining that you just wanted a discussion but it is getting derailed. If you just want people to agree with you, maybe save us some time and put that in the post. I engaged in good faith and wish I had not bothered.

No, I really haven't! I have asked repeatedly but NO ONE has "pointed out what the research and science actually shows". I've asked everyone who's told me that the speaker is wrong what he's wrong about and what other researchers say. I've even listed the key claims from the discussion to make it easier for people to tell me what it is that he's got wrong. But no one's done it.

At the same time complaining that you just wanted a discussion but it is getting derailed

Nope, I haven't done this. Are you on the right thread?

If you just want people to agree with you, maybe save us some time and put that in the post.

I definitely don't want people to agree with me. I want the people who say they disagree with the speaker to tell me WHAT they disagree with in what he says. I really don't think this should be a problem. Do you know what you disagree with? If so, just tell me! I've been asking and asking and asking.

I engaged in good faith and wish I had not bothered.

What was it you commented? I will go back through the thread to see your good faith comment and I'm happy to engage with you.

I'm not sure it is over simplified. He's talking about psychopaths in the main rather than sociopaths (and he does draw a distinction between the two.) The discussion about sociopathy is tangential to this discussion I think.

Pornography can provide a learning opportunity for dangerous men on how to channel their anger and aggression.

You mean that it teaches them how to better direct their abuse of women and children? I agree with that.

So it plays a role, but it is not the root cause.

I honestly don't know what the root cause of psychopathy is, although I did try to think this through in an earlier comment, in the context of what Uhler says in the discussion.

Yes, I think this seems fair. Although there were "paedophile rings" that operated without the internet, so I'm not sure you can discount it completely.

However, I do agree that use of pornography is a key factor in the progression of men towards child abuse, at least since it has become widely available. It is always present in these stories now.

I would speculate that the wider access to such images and their normalisation increases the incidence of child abuse (and lets not forget they are child abuse in and of themselves). At one time a child abuser was an outlier. Now you can put 'MAP' on your twitter handle. It feels intuitively correct to me that this makes a difference in the prevalence and severity of abuse.

Totally disagree that child abuse used to be an outlier. The adult reported figures of child sexual abuse before the internet are incredibly high.

No, I said the abuser was an outlier. Maybe that's the wrong word. An outcast, marginalised, etc - or would be if he was known outside the family/institution within which he was abusing. Now he can freely and publicly say he's an abuser and go on marches etc.

I don't have any evidence to support it, but my feeling is that this must make a difference. I don't disagree that there has always been child sexual abuse. I don't know of any figures comparing pre- and post-internet incidences of CSA.

@beastlyslumber Yes I meant pornography teaches men specific ways to direct their aggression and violence towards women and children.

In the literature they talk about sociopathic traits i.e. lack of empathy towards humans. Psychopathy tends to be used for convicted criminals with sociopathic traits.
There is a lot of research about what causes this. As I said those created by early horrific experiences and those born that way. Those born with sociopathic traits can grow up to be fairly reasonable people if they have very good parenting. I know someone like this who is a senior child protection social worker. She is excellent at her job as she does not get burnt out or upset about children being abused, but enjoys the accolade she gets for being excellent in her job. She often takes on the most difficult and horrific cases.

Yes, I think there is a difference between sociopathy and psychopathy, and in the podcast Uhler does define what he means by both. He says that psychopaths in his experience are way more evil than sociopaths - that while a sociopath may lack empathy, a psychopath will get pleasure from causing harm.

I know this doesn't accord with all other researchers' definitions, and many people don't draw much distinction between the two terms at all. But for the purposes of discussion, I've been using Uhler's definitions. I think he would agree with you that people with sociopathic traits can be useful members of society.

*In theory, at least.

@beastlyslumber That is not the view taken by experts in this field. He does not know what he is talking about and is using a movie version of what a psychopath is.

It's not the view taken by ALL experts. However, it's certainly a legitimate view to take and doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. There's a lot that experts don't know when it comes to psychopathy and other personality disorders - we don't really understand them very well. Uhler does address some of these questions in the discussion. He also admits his biases, so that helps to give him legitimacy with critical thinkers, too.

Is that the main thing you disagree with him about? His definition of psychopathy?

FFS, you come across as some kind of high school playground bully - the popular girl gang… Behave!

@beastlyslumber I have posted a long list of things I disagree with that he says. I have read a lot on this subject. He appears to know very little about current research.

Ah apologies, @OutForBreakfast . Where did you post these? Can you post a link so I can see what you said? From this thread you've said you disagree with his understanding of what a psychopath is and that you disagree that progressive porn use leads to child abuse. Were there other points you've made that I've missed?

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).

Ah yes, I missed this bit the first time I read this comment. I suspect you're correct.

Sorry this may be a ramble, it's a stream of thought. Apologies

The other argument to that would be, and I'm not saying this was the case with what happened in your life, but there will be abusers who abuse young children who are abused themselves, that would have, without the abuse committed on them, have eventually with no input from anyone else gone on to abuse a child.

I do think there will be a percentage of children that are so badly abused that they are unaware their behaviour is so far from the norms of society that they don't realise that abusing children is wrong, until later into adulthood. At which point, the past abuse becomes irrelevant as then they become responsible completely for their actions from that point on.

It was a perfectly normal part of their entire childhood, that probably increased in depravity of what was done to them over time and so their sexual responses are continually reinforced through their own childhood that sexual pleasure and children with adults is what sex is all about. they than repeat the abusive cycle.

But that's the brain evolving in the same way that porn addiction worsens, as stated by the man in the clip, as their sense of decency and their sexual responses gets blunted and less enjoyable they move onto the next thrill. Increasingly getting exposed to sure and wise rumours our porn. The journey is through bestiality then into children being abused. Then all combine the two. These guys will start taking more risks until they get arrested, or if not, decide porn isn't enough they need an actual child.

He seems to be saying that a "normal" man can degrade to phycopathy via progressive loss of conscience. It's a new one on me and I've no idea of how true it may be

I give you my doctor growing up. Nice guy great doctor, slightly handsy but not enough to raise alarm bells. And no mad or bad vibe some paedophile give off.

So yeah the below was a shock. His collection, they stopped counting eventually as they're was just to much to go through, did include bestiality.

www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/16062207.prominent-chester-gp-caught-almost-17-000-indecent-images-children/

Sorry missed a bit in last post when i knew him he gave off no psychopath vibes, and i knew how to spot them. Yet by the time he was arrested he was obviously a very different person mentally, whilst still projecting this facade of normality. Was he by then psychopath? I'd love to see the brain scan thing done on him to find out

It sounds like Uhler's arguing that there's a predictable progression through pornography that inevitably ends in physical abuse.

I don't think he's arguing that this is the only path to becoming a child abuser (maybe he is saying that? I didn't think so.) But he is saying that every abuser he's worked with has been on the same path through pornography.

I guess it's an open question whether pornography acts as a kind of trigger for existing psychopathy or whether it plants the seed of psychopathy in the man. Maybe it can be both.

Because Uhler talks about it from a faith perspective and uses the word 'evil' (which is a word I also use) then I think you could look at it as the idea that all humans have an innate potential for evil - "the line between good and evil runs through every human heart" as Solzhenitsyn said - and that by engaging in pornography use, that evil potential is encouraged.

I'd love to see the brain scan thing done on him to find out

Robert Hare claims to have discovered he was a psychopath by accident when he saw his own brain scan during his studies on psychopaths' brains. Apparently no one who knew him was surprised.

I give you my doctor growing up.

This made me jump:

A PROMINENT Chester GP has avoided an immediate prison sentence after being caught with almost 17,000 indecent images of children on his computer.

In the name of God how? Especially when:

It also included 45 of the most serious category A, of which 11 were video files up to an hour long of children being raped and abused

and

and one final count of attempting to incite a girl aged 13 to 15 to engage in sexual activity.

He'd moved from fantasy to acting upon it.

Sentencing, Judge Simon Berkson said he was willing to suspend the 20-month prison sentence for two years as he believed Bland could be rehabilitated.

Because he's not Bill from a council flat.

Heavens what a strange thread. Good to see it mostly got back on the FWR even keel of people saying what they think and why and not losing their shit when people ask them to show their working

will listen and do some research on Uhler and then I may be back!

James Fallon is the person who found he was a psychopath through brain scan research.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-25116826

Here are his Ted talks.

Thanks for posting this. Fascinating subject. I was under the impression that psychopaths were a combination of nature and nurture.

That porn can draw someone into psychopathy is a difficult to get my head around. I fully comprehend the idea being drawn into further deviance through porn but wouldn't you need to have the capacity to be a psychopath (or already be one)? I probably need to have a further listen to the podcast.