02 Feb 2013, 5:49 pm
02 Feb 2013, 5:49 pm
GGPViper wrote:
Jono wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
LKL wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Here are some tidbits from The Handbook of Psychopathy. (I'd link to the original articles, but pay-walls are everywhere 
).
- Between 12.1 and 40 percent of incarcerated rapists meek the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy
- 30 percent of male incarcerated psychopaths had committed an offensive of rape, buggery or indecent assault compared to 13 percent of generic male prisoners.
These are of course different samples (and much of the literature on psychopathy is based on the US), but the data nonetheless suggests that there is a very strong link between psychopathy and rape.
Oh, and psychopaths are *not* likely to come across as creepy, as they usually possess superior charm and social skills (in fact, being superficially charming is part of the diagnostic criteria for being a psychopath).
).- Between 12.1 and 40 percent of incarcerated rapists meek the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy
- 30 percent of male incarcerated psychopaths had committed an offensive of rape, buggery or indecent assault compared to 13 percent of generic male prisoners.
These are of course different samples (and much of the literature on psychopathy is based on the US), but the data nonetheless suggests that there is a very strong link between psychopathy and rape.
Oh, and psychopaths are *not* likely to come across as creepy, as they usually possess superior charm and social skills (in fact, being superficially charming is part of the diagnostic criteria for being a psychopath).
So between 60 and 87.9% of incarcerated rapists - *most* of them - do NOT fit the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy.
When a certain subset of the human population - psychopaths - has a much higher prevalence in certain subset of criminals - rapists - by a factor of 12-40 compared to the general population... well... then it might be wise to pay more attention to this particular subset than the vague "creep" category...
That's besides the point. Saying that psychopaths are more likely than the general population to fall into that group is not the same thing as saying that most people in that group are psychopaths.
I never made that claim. I made the claim that 12.1 - 40 percent of incarcerated rapists are psychopaths. One needs 50+ percent to make the "most" claim.
However, it is not "beside the point". Learning to avoid psychopaths is likely to be an effective strategy at reducing the risk of sexual assault.
Your own numbers do not back up that statement. Most rapists are not psychopaths, so focusing on avoiding psychopaths will not protect you from most rapists.
@ AP: most young women are not opposed to having sex with a man that they find attractive, too. What comes across as 'creepy,' to me, is this idea that sex is something that men do *to* women, rather than *with* them, and that it inherently degrades the woman in the process.
02 Feb 2013, 5:54 pm
02 Feb 2013, 6:00 pm
LKL wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Jono wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
LKL wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Here are some tidbits from The Handbook of Psychopathy. (I'd link to the original articles, but pay-walls are everywhere ).
- Between 12.1 and 40 percent of incarcerated rapists meek the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy
- 30 percent of male incarcerated psychopaths had committed an offensive of rape, buggery or indecent assault compared to 13 percent of generic male prisoners.
These are of course different samples (and much of the literature on psychopathy is based on the US), but the data nonetheless suggests that there is a very strong link between psychopathy and rape.
Oh, and psychopaths are *not* likely to come across as creepy, as they usually possess superior charm and social skills (in fact, being superficially charming is part of the diagnostic criteria for being a psychopath).
).- Between 12.1 and 40 percent of incarcerated rapists meek the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy
- 30 percent of male incarcerated psychopaths had committed an offensive of rape, buggery or indecent assault compared to 13 percent of generic male prisoners.
These are of course different samples (and much of the literature on psychopathy is based on the US), but the data nonetheless suggests that there is a very strong link between psychopathy and rape.
Oh, and psychopaths are *not* likely to come across as creepy, as they usually possess superior charm and social skills (in fact, being superficially charming is part of the diagnostic criteria for being a psychopath).
So between 60 and 87.9% of incarcerated rapists - *most* of them - do NOT fit the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy.
When a certain subset of the human population - psychopaths - has a much higher prevalence in certain subset of criminals - rapists - by a factor of 12-40 compared to the general population... well... then it might be wise to pay more attention to this particular subset than the vague "creep" category...
That's besides the point. Saying that psychopaths are more likely than the general population to fall into that group is not the same thing as saying that most people in that group are psychopaths.
I never made that claim. I made the claim that 12.1 - 40 percent of incarcerated rapists are psychopaths. One needs 50+ percent to make the "most" claim.
However, it is not "beside the point". Learning to avoid psychopaths is likely to be an effective strategy at reducing the risk of sexual assault.
Your own numbers do not back up that statement. Most rapists are not psychopaths, so focusing on avoiding psychopaths will not protect you from most rapists.
And cigarettes don't cause most cancers...
If one has at her or his disposal a variable which has a well-documented correlation with rape, should it be discarded simply because it has a Pearson correlation of less than 0.707106781?
02 Feb 2013, 6:01 pm
02 Feb 2013, 6:18 pm
02 Feb 2013, 6:21 pm
GGPViper wrote:
LKL wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Jono wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
LKL wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Here are some tidbits from The Handbook of Psychopathy. (I'd link to the original articles, but pay-walls are everywhere ).
- Between 12.1 and 40 percent of incarcerated rapists meek the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy
- 30 percent of male incarcerated psychopaths had committed an offensive of rape, buggery or indecent assault compared to 13 percent of generic male prisoners.
These are of course different samples (and much of the literature on psychopathy is based on the US), but the data nonetheless suggests that there is a very strong link between psychopathy and rape.
Oh, and psychopaths are *not* likely to come across as creepy, as they usually possess superior charm and social skills (in fact, being superficially charming is part of the diagnostic criteria for being a psychopath).
).- Between 12.1 and 40 percent of incarcerated rapists meek the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy
- 30 percent of male incarcerated psychopaths had committed an offensive of rape, buggery or indecent assault compared to 13 percent of generic male prisoners.
These are of course different samples (and much of the literature on psychopathy is based on the US), but the data nonetheless suggests that there is a very strong link between psychopathy and rape.
Oh, and psychopaths are *not* likely to come across as creepy, as they usually possess superior charm and social skills (in fact, being superficially charming is part of the diagnostic criteria for being a psychopath).
So between 60 and 87.9% of incarcerated rapists - *most* of them - do NOT fit the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy.
When a certain subset of the human population - psychopaths - has a much higher prevalence in certain subset of criminals - rapists - by a factor of 12-40 compared to the general population... well... then it might be wise to pay more attention to this particular subset than the vague "creep" category...
That's besides the point. Saying that psychopaths are more likely than the general population to fall into that group is not the same thing as saying that most people in that group are psychopaths.
I never made that claim. I made the claim that 12.1 - 40 percent of incarcerated rapists are psychopaths. One needs 50+ percent to make the "most" claim.
However, it is not "beside the point". Learning to avoid psychopaths is likely to be an effective strategy at reducing the risk of sexual assault.
Your own numbers do not back up that statement. Most rapists are not psychopaths, so focusing on avoiding psychopaths will not protect you from most rapists.
And cigarettes don't cause most cancers...
If one has at her or his disposal a variable which has a well-documented correlation with rape, should it be discarded simply because it has a Pearson correlation of less than 0.707106781?
The two are not mutually exclusive. You seem to be advocating the equivalent of avoiding cigarettes but hanging out downwind of Dai-ichi and pretending that there's nothing wrong.
DialAForAwesome
Veteran
Joined: 4 Oct 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,189
Location: That place with the thing
02 Feb 2013, 6:26 pm
hyperlexian wrote:
Tequila wrote:
DialAForAwesome wrote:
Lexi, where are these magical, wonderful people that you know, because all I see around here is, one person calls someone a creep, and everyone in that person's network, as well as the "creep's" network takes it at face value and shuns the person. They don't have to do anything creepy. It could be like Tequila described, where somebody just didn't like the person's look, or their color or religion. And they'd STILL take the insult at face value. "Well if Susie says that guy's a creep, he must be a creep!"
Exactly. And I'm definitely not saying that some people don't wholeheartedly deserve that label. There are people who are quite sexually aggressive (under a thin veil of 'banter') and I could fully understand that such a term being given to them is justified. They make my skin crawl and I'm glad when I'm out of their company, because their 'jokes' aren't funny at all, they're just predatory.
But what about for those men for whom it isn't justified? What if a vicious woman labels a man 'creepy' because she doesn't like the look of him, or, worse, wants to make fun of him? How would you feel if a man did a similar shaming thing to a woman?
That's the problem with a lot of the female posters on this thread - they're partisan.
....and many of the male posters are equally partisan. not sure why you'd exempt them from that comment.
by the way, men do shame women like that all the time. i've been called a b***h for not wanting to talk to a man who was trying to chat me up. he was quite pushy. i guess i could have called him creepy before he had a chance to label me, but i don't roll like that.
I wasn't making the point that men don't shame women. I was making the point that it's pretty messed up when non-creeps get labeled as creeps. Whether it's a man or a woman. I don't doubt that men shame women a lot; I've personally witnessed this happen a lot. But it's funny that most of the time I see the "C" word get thrown around, instead of it being thrown at the men who are actually shaming women, and hurting them, and thinking of them as objects, it's thrown on unattractive nerdy guys who happen to be doing something innocuous, or just came up to say hi. I've had this happen a lot to me. Because of that I've just learned to avoid most people.
It wouldn't be that much of a problem if "creep" wasn't such a powerful word. If a woman shouts "creep!" a whole bunch of people are gonna come to her aid, and the sap that got called the word will have his **** utterly destroyed, for lack of a better term. Again, this is awesome if it's a guy who actually does something creepy, like making unwarranted sexual comments and advances, or intentionally violating someone's space. But from my experience, it's not used that way a lot.
People need to stop bastardizing words like this and "nice" and get them back to what they really mean and should be used for.
02 Feb 2013, 6:35 pm
DialAForAwesome wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Tequila wrote:
DialAForAwesome wrote:
Lexi, where are these magical, wonderful people that you know, because all I see around here is, one person calls someone a creep, and everyone in that person's network, as well as the "creep's" network takes it at face value and shuns the person. They don't have to do anything creepy. It could be like Tequila described, where somebody just didn't like the person's look, or their color or religion. And they'd STILL take the insult at face value. "Well if Susie says that guy's a creep, he must be a creep!"
Exactly. And I'm definitely not saying that some people don't wholeheartedly deserve that label. There are people who are quite sexually aggressive (under a thin veil of 'banter') and I could fully understand that such a term being given to them is justified. They make my skin crawl and I'm glad when I'm out of their company, because their 'jokes' aren't funny at all, they're just predatory.
But what about for those men for whom it isn't justified? What if a vicious woman labels a man 'creepy' because she doesn't like the look of him, or, worse, wants to make fun of him? How would you feel if a man did a similar shaming thing to a woman?
That's the problem with a lot of the female posters on this thread - they're partisan.
....and many of the male posters are equally partisan. not sure why you'd exempt them from that comment.
by the way, men do shame women like that all the time. i've been called a b***h for not wanting to talk to a man who was trying to chat me up. he was quite pushy. i guess i could have called him creepy before he had a chance to label me, but i don't roll like that.
I wasn't making the point that men don't shame women. I was making the point that it's pretty messed up when non-creeps get labeled as creeps. Whether it's a man or a woman. I don't doubt that men shame women a lot; I've personally witnessed this happen a lot. But it's funny that most of the time I see the "C" word get thrown around, instead of it being thrown at the men who are actually shaming women, and hurting them, and thinking of them as objects, it's thrown on unattractive nerdy guys who happen to be doing something innocuous, or just came up to say hi. I've had this happen a lot to me. Because of that I've just learned to avoid most people.
It wouldn't be that much of a problem if "creep" wasn't such a powerful word. If a woman shouts "creep!" a whole bunch of people are gonna come to her aid, and the sap that got called the word will have his **** utterly destroyed, for lack of a better term. Again, this is awesome if it's a guy who actually does something creepy, like making unwarranted sexual comments and advances, or intentionally violating someone's space. But from my experience, it's not used that way a lot.
People need to stop bastardizing words like this and "nice" and get them back to what they really mean and should be used for.
yeah i wasn't disagreeing with your original comment necessarily. i am sort of in the middle about this. i just didn't like the direction the following comment went in, as though women don't get exactly the same treatment in some social situations. shaming is a powerful tool that isn't used by only one gender.
02 Feb 2013, 6:36 pm
02 Feb 2013, 6:42 pm
02 Feb 2013, 6:47 pm
02 Feb 2013, 6:53 pm
02 Feb 2013, 6:59 pm
02 Feb 2013, 7:02 pm
LKL wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Jono wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
LKL wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Here are some tidbits from The Handbook of Psychopathy. (I'd link to the original articles, but pay-walls are everywhere ).
- Between 12.1 and 40 percent of incarcerated rapists meek the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy
- 30 percent of male incarcerated psychopaths had committed an offensive of rape, buggery or indecent assault compared to 13 percent of generic male prisoners.
These are of course different samples (and much of the literature on psychopathy is based on the US), but the data nonetheless suggests that there is a very strong link between psychopathy and rape.
Oh, and psychopaths are *not* likely to come across as creepy, as they usually possess superior charm and social skills (in fact, being superficially charming is part of the diagnostic criteria for being a psychopath).
).- Between 12.1 and 40 percent of incarcerated rapists meek the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy
- 30 percent of male incarcerated psychopaths had committed an offensive of rape, buggery or indecent assault compared to 13 percent of generic male prisoners.
These are of course different samples (and much of the literature on psychopathy is based on the US), but the data nonetheless suggests that there is a very strong link between psychopathy and rape.
Oh, and psychopaths are *not* likely to come across as creepy, as they usually possess superior charm and social skills (in fact, being superficially charming is part of the diagnostic criteria for being a psychopath).
So between 60 and 87.9% of incarcerated rapists - *most* of them - do NOT fit the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy.
When a certain subset of the human population - psychopaths - has a much higher prevalence in certain subset of criminals - rapists - by a factor of 12-40 compared to the general population... well... then it might be wise to pay more attention to this particular subset than the vague "creep" category...
That's besides the point. Saying that psychopaths are more likely than the general population to fall into that group is not the same thing as saying that most people in that group are psychopaths.
I never made that claim. I made the claim that 12.1 - 40 percent of incarcerated rapists are psychopaths. One needs 50+ percent to make the "most" claim.
However, it is not "beside the point". Learning to avoid psychopaths is likely to be an effective strategy at reducing the risk of sexual assault.
Your own numbers do not back up that statement. Most rapists are not psychopaths, so focusing on avoiding psychopaths will not protect you from most rapists.
GGPViper already said that the prevelance of ASPD is around 3 times higher than psychopathy according to the statistics he gave, and it's basically the same thing more or less. Ted Bundy was diagnosed with ASPD for example.
02 Feb 2013, 7:07 pm
