Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Paedophile Next Door
Comments
-
-
-
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I randomly selected your second link here as I have not the time this evening to do all 4 so I went with a random selection.
The paper confirms exactly the very words I used a few posts ago namely that "Also hampering any firm conclusions is that,
should a correlation between pedophilia and poorer general brain
function be verified, causality cannot be easily inferred." and it goes on to give reasons why.
One of the reasons given is one I had not even thought of myself which is that given the majority of our data set are convicted offenders.... rather than people who volunteer themselves..... the IQ issues are just as likely to be correlative to their inability to get away with it, rather than to their predilection to children in the first place.
Another issue less referenced in the paper of course is that IQ can relate to ability to control ones urges too, rather than to the urges themselves. Another conclusion equally valid but impossible to ascertain without a better data set and study group. It would be mere assumption to declare a link between low IQ and paedophilia for this reason without valid research on a control group of higher IQ pedophiles normalizing for their ability towards self control.
But like me, the paper warns against falling for correlation. It tells us "The causal association between cognitive capacity and pedophilic interest is only indirect, making correlations between them inherently small".
The paper also repeats another point I made in the thread which is that our main issue here is sample size and because of this it points out that conclusions remains tentative due to sample sizes.
So really this paper really does just support what I have been saying already. We need more paedophiles under the microscope, and we need them to be volunteers not apprehended offenders, and we need to be hyper aware of correlation-causation errors.
In fact the paper makes this quite explicit, agreeing AGAIN with things I already said in posts in this thread already. Such as how we can not assume a causal link between them, but "more plausible" is a root cause to both independantly. "More plausible is the third-variable model (lower diagram of Figure 1), where a perturbation occurs in early brain development and causes each of the characteristics measured here: lower cognitive capacity, decreased rates of right-handedness, and pedophilic interest"
I made a similar (identical) point about substance abuse which suggested you can not merely assume one X causes the other Y, but as with many correlation errors it is often much more plausible that X and Y have a common cause.
Good link, and a nice support for everything I have been saying thus far, so cheers for that. Though given how closely it matches my own views and statements so far on the thread, and supports them, I rather suspect I might have read this exact paper when it first came out, assimilated much of it, and then forgot I have read it.
Eh .......... you must have read a different paper to the one I did so!!
0 -
-
I find your own irrational dogma about what people should be allowed think inside their heads and what attracts them or repulses them rather twisted myself, and your contribution to the conversation hardly merits you having any say over whether floggg has more to add of value or not.
My apologies ......... I meant to say in my opinion he has nothing more substantial to add to this conversation .......... he may (and probably will :rolleyes:) post some more on this thread but it will be nothing of any value.
He believes adults being attracted to small children is acceptable ffs!!! 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
My apologies ......... I meant to say in my opinion he has nothing more substantial to add to this conversation .......... he may (and probably will :rolleyes:) post some more on this thread but it will be nothing of any value.
He believes adults being attracted to small children is acceptable ffs!!!
I have read no such claim by him. But then your idea of what 'acceptable' means is very very confusing.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Criminal paedophiles ............ is there another kind?
Clearly there is. The ones that never have committed a crime against anyone are no criminals. The ones who have are.
And to treat pedophilia and understand it, what we need is a data set not solely based on convicts. We need open discourse and evaluation and study of ALL pedophile types. Without this I hold little hope of ever creating useful treatment plans.
Convicting them of thought crime is a move which is never going to allow us to treat them or find a way to treat them which is what the thread is about.you must have read a different paper to the one I did so!!
Did I quote something that was not in the paper? Did I interpret something in particular wrong? Given you replied to not one shred of my response to the paper, I can do little to nothing with your blanket dismissal here.He believes adults being attracted to small children is acceptable ffs!!!
More accurately my position is that I think that whatever goes on in the privacy of ones brain is entirely their business and no one elses, and is simply irrelevant to me in any way unless they come to us seeking help, in which case I feel we should offer it. And that is what the thread is about. How to treat them.
So my position is not that it is acceptable OR unacceptable. My position is that what goes on in peoples heads is _irrelevant_ unless they seek help, perpetuate a crime, or their thoughts are useful data to us in formulating a cure or treatment for them.... which is what the thread is about.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
It is not, and cannot be, a question of acceptable or unacceptable, right or wrong etc.
That would imply that having this attractions was something we could judge by moral standards of some sort.
But any rational standard of morality would require the person make some sort of choice or exercise a reasonable degree of control over matters before their actions or circumstances can be judged on moral grounds.
Involuntary actions should never really be considered immoral though as you have no control over them.
Whether we like it or not, these attractions are involuntary and I'm sure many people with them would prefer not to have it. They can't help it though.
So we can't really say having these attractions are unacceptable - since they will remain whether we "accept" it or not.
What is however completely unacceptable is acting on these attractions. That, people do have control over and anybody who chooses to act on it as abhorrent and should be punished to the full extent of the law.
But unless and until they do (or attempt to), they do nothing wrong whatsoever.My apologies ......... I meant to say in my opinion he has nothing more substantial to add to this conversation .......... he may (and probably will :rolleyes:) post some more on this thread but it will be nothing of any value.
He believes adults being attracted to small children is acceptable ffs!!!I have read no such claim by him. But then your idea of what 'acceptable' means is very very confusing.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Clearly there is. The ones that never have committed a crime against anyone are no criminals. The ones who have are.
And to treat pedophilia and understand it, what we need is a data set not solely based on convicts. We need open discourse and evaluation and study of ALL pedophile types. Without this I hold little hope of ever creating useful treatment plans.
Convicting them of thought crime is a move which is never going to allow us to treat them or find a way to treat them which is what the thread is about.
Did I quote something that was not in the paper? Did I interpret something in particular wrong? Given you replied to not one shred of my response to the paper, I can do little to nothing with your blanket dismissal here.
More accurately my position is that I think that whatever goes on in the privacy of ones brain is entirely their business and no one elses, and is simply irrelevant to me in any way unless they come to us seeking help, in which case I feel we should offer it. And that is what the thread is about. How to treat them.
So my position is not that it is acceptable OR unacceptable. My position is that what goes on in peoples heads is _irrelevant_ unless they seek help, perpetuate a crime, or their thoughts are useful data to us in formulating a cure or treatment for them.... which is what the thread is about.
The HE being floggg .......... this thread is not all about you :rolleyes:0 -
-
Two excellent posts nozzferrahhtoo, though your last statement begs the comment to be made yet again that the community of studies across the world in this area are widely accepted to be both limited, biased and inadequate. Either they are limited, as we agree, to the criminal and the caught kind, or are carried out by groups with an agenda that makes their reports almost worthless. This especially applies to female paedophiles. I wish I could remember where I saw it but about two years ago I saw a report from some survey (And YES all surveys should be taken with a shovel of salt !) where abuse my mothers of their children and children in their care came out higher than child abuse my men. But this is politically incorrect poison these days and is ignored thoroughly by the media.
We are going through a period when the media are exploiting paedophilia for all it is worth and every red cent they can screw out of it, and the resulting hysteria has created an atmosphere where the public has little patience with people wanting to study this phenomena.
Until that changes, I cannot see much progress being made in the area. Meanwhile we have a thought police ranting and raving with their own brand of hysteria.
So you (and others) seem to be separating paedophiles into two distinct categories ......... those who have the urges and attractions but have not and would not act upon these urges .......... they would have to be considered, by your logic, as not dangerous to children.
Then there are the paedophiles who do act on these urges and hurt small children ........... the, as you and others have called them, Criminal and Caught paedophiles ............ they would have to be considered, and indeed are, dangerous to children.
So while the study and treatment of "safe" paedophiles may be interesting it surely cannot be considered a priority right???
Surely it's the study of the dangerous paedophiles that are a priority ........... the same studies that you, and others, have criticised as not being as valid as the potential studies of "safe" paedophiles ............ I don't see the logic in that argument at all
Unless of course you consider "safe" paedophiles to be potentially dangerous to small children maybe ......... ???0 -
-
-
-
-
So you (and others) seem to be separating paedophiles into two distinct categories ......... those who have the urges and attractions but have not and would not act upon these urges .......... they would have to be considered, by your logic, as not dangerous to children.
Then there are the paedophiles who do act on these urges and hurt small children ........... the, as you and others have called them, Criminal and Caught paedophiles ............ they would have to be considered, and indeed are, dangerous to children.
So while the study and treatment of "safe" paedophiles may be interesting it surely cannot be considered a priority right???
Surely it's the study of the dangerous paedophiles that are a priority ........... the same studies that you, and others, have criticised as not being as valid as the potential studies of "safe" paedophiles ............ I don't see the logic in that argument at all
Unless of course you consider "safe" paedophiles to be potentially dangerous to small children maybe ......... ???
You seems to think the world to be very black and white.
Firstly, I imagine their is no clear divide between "dangerous" and "non-dangerous" pedophiles. There are going to be many people who fall into one side or the other, but others will be somewhere in the middle.
If you only study one extreme, you won't ever have a complete understanding of the picture, or what might choices or circumstances might result in those in the middle committing abuse.
You likely won't ever got an accurate understanding of causation from studying only offenders - as they may be more likely to also have other personality traits or issues which might lead them to be more prone to abuse or violence than others.
So to isolate the cause of the attractions, you will to be able to separate attraction from other issues.
If you can't understand the cause, formulating a treatment will be much more difficult.
And obviously as nozzferhatoo has said, the fact that non-offenders themselves would also benefit from more research on this is reason enough itself.
We already study and treat a whole range of mental, sexual and emotional issues which affect people's quality of life but which don't pose a risk to other people. Why should this be any different?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement