Monday, March 6, 2017

The IQ deficit of pedo abusers may not transfer to the celibate

Research on pedophiles has suggested that <we differ from ordinary people in a variety of non-flattering ways> . The implications of being short or left-handed are obvious and not very serious for a person's self-concept. But IQ is more central to a person's self-worth, and the claimed deficit bothers some pedophiles a great deal.

Researchers cannot locate non-offending pedophiles in sufficient numbers to support research studies, as most of us go to great lengths to stay hidden. Instead, they are limited to looking at sex offenders and comparing those who are attracted to children with those attracted to adults. We might expect criminals (and criminals who are caught) to be less intelligent than the average person, but by comparing criminals to criminals, the researchers control for that. If pedophilic sex offenders are less intelligent than teleiophilic sex offenders, then we would expect that non-offending pedophiles would also be less intelligent than non-offending teleiophiles. The burden of proof falls on those who would deny this extension to offer some relevant difference.

I have a suggestion: Pedophiles who become offenders may have an imagination deficit, and imagination is strongly correlated with IQ.

Some scientists observed that while non-human animals do sometimes masturbate, only humans seem to masturbate to orgasm. The speculation was that we humans can imagine a scenario of sex in our minds that is compelling enough to cause orgasm. There are also significant differences within humans in the ability to construct compelling images.

Next consider why people commit hands-on sex crimes. In general, a large number are explained by some form of psychopathy combined with desire and a lack of self-control. This would be true of pedophiles and teleiophiles both. That's the population that is common to both.

Consider teleiophiles who do care to some extent about the well-being of the adult women they would like to have sex with. They can usually find willing adult women partners, or can engage the services of prostitutes. They can satisfy their desire for sex directly.

Pedophiles do not have these options -- they cannot find consenting child partners, and prepubescent child prostitutes are also hard to find and carry a legal risk far beyond that of engaging an adult prostitute. Nonetheless, they have a strong sex drive, and some people will satisfy it in illegal ways.

I claim that more intelligent pedophiles will be more likely to find legal substitutes that are somewhat satisfying. They can masturbate to an imagined attractive child and be less likely to offend against a child. The offenders against children will be disproportionately those who are less intelligent.

Pornography would present an intermediate case. Teleiophiles have access to a wide variety of legal pornography, and looking at it will not make them a sex offender. Being caught with child porn will make a pedophile a sex offender. The better the imagination, the better satisfied a pedophile could be with less extreme pictures or with legal pictures. So pedophiles who get significantly more sexual satisfaction from CP than from imagination would be more likely to download it and get caught downloading it (and maybe also less likely to properly use measures like TOR). The <Diamond et al studies> suggest that the availability of CP reduces hands-on crime against children, and that would fit with this picture -- pedophiles will substitute looking at CP for hands-on offenses against children.

One of my fellow Virtuous Pedophiles members summarized my idea like this: "More child abusers on average offend because they're not intelligent enough to fantasize fulfillingly. Whereas teleiophilic rapists on average offend for some reason other than inability to fantasize, because they wouldn't have to fantasize anyway; they could just have legal sex. What you end up with is the teleiophilic offenders being on average more intelligent than the paedophilic offenders but not necessarily higher than non-offending paedophiles who would have on average benefitted from a better imagination and intelligence to help them not offend."

This hypothesis leads to a number of predictions.

One is that in studying sex offenders, a direct measure of imagination would also distinguish pedophiles from non-pedophiles and perhaps be even stronger than the IQ difference.

We might expect more remorse among child sex offenders than rapists of adult women, if there are fewer psychopaths in the mix.

If child rape went down in Japan, Denmark or Czechia when child porn became widely available, we could predict that the average IQ of the remaining child rapists would be lower, as only the least imaginative pedos were left without satisfying material (though this study would probably be impractical).

We could do a simple study of ordinary people asking for frequency of masturbation solely to fantasies in a person's mind compared to ones involving visual pornography and looking at the relationship to IQ.

We could also look for this effect in other cases where people are trying to be celibate -- teens from conservative religions, for instance. Would more intelligent ones be more likely to stay celibate? I found <this on the web>: "A 2000 Study by University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill concluded that more intelligent teenagers are more restrained about sex, and are much less sexually active on the whole than their less-intelligent classmates. In the experiment, 12,000 students between the 7th and 12th grades were polled (confidentially) about their sexual activity, and then given a basic intelligence test…."

Perhaps there are other crimes where imagination could substitute somewhat for the benefit of the crime, and we could look for an imagination difference there too.

At a subjective level, we pedophiles might observe this in ourselves too, perhaps varying over time -- feeling more temptation if our imagination fails us.

I am not especially bothered by the IQ deficit in pedophiles, and believe resolving it is a scientific question. My suggestion is made within a scientific framework, it makes testable predictions, and it can be evaluated scientifically.

The other deficits pedophiles have suggest that something went wrong in the brains of many pedophiles by an early age, and that makes an IQ deficit likely too, so I expect my hypothesis would at best explain part of the effect.


7 comments:

  1. Very interesting and thought-provoking

    P

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think the studies compare pedophile sex offenders to teliophile sex offenders. I think it is pedophile offenders to teliophile criminals (without screening teliophiles by type of crime). Also I think CP offenders are included in the pedophile group. Not sure how this plays into the analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The best known studies that claim paedophile offenders have lower IQ than teleiophile offenders were done by James Cantor.

    One very significant difference between paedophiles and teleiophiles (and between paedophile offenders and teleiophile offenders) is that the most paedophiles will have experienced considerable stigma from early adolescence. And this stigma exists whether they are 'discovered' or manage to keep their desires secret.

    Research shows that stigma has many effects, not the least significant is disruption on academic career and also intelligence. And presumably stigma that is experienced during adolescence, when the brain is developing and a person's identity is being reconstructed, will have long lasting effects.

    Stigma lower IQ. And in Western society paedophiles experience stigma from the moment they realise they are paedophiles.

    I suspect that it may not be your policy to link to non-virtuous sites - but I've just posted the first of two essays on Cantor's research that may be of interest:-

    https://consentinghumans.wordpress.com/2017/03/16/dr-cantor-the-case-of-the-extrapolated-equivalence/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you're looking at stigma, you may want to explain why gay men, Jews, and Asian-Americans showed no IQ deficits (I assume) even when stigmatized.

      Your first essay doesn't seem to comprehend the basic control group structure in Cantor's work, in finding differences between pedophiles and teleiophiles when both groups are known to be offenders.

      Delete
  4. "Your first essay doesn't seem to comprehend the basic control group structure in Cantor's work, in finding differences between pedophiles and teleiophiles when both groups are known to be offenders."

    If Cantor had restricted his conclusions to 'paedophile offenders' then his research would have been less vulnerable to criticism - but I think his extrapolation from 'paedophile offenders' (via teleiophile offenders)to paedophiles in general is flawed.

    Anyway if you have time and inclination, I'd welcome a more detailed response to my essay posted in the comments.

    re stigma - do you really consider that gays, jews and asian-americans are stigmatised nowadays? In the USA? They might be subject to stereotypes, but those stereotypes are nowadays largely positive, not negative (creative, intelligent, creative, hard-working...)

    A better group to compare with paedophiles with might be blacks, or the disabled, or the disfigured.

    Moreover there are NO positive aspects to the paedophile archetype - we're not 'good at dancing' like blacks, nor 'brave' like the disabled, nor undeserving of the stigma we receive, like the disfigured.

    Can you think of a more stigmatised identity in Western Society? Not even the moslem terrorist is as stigmatised - and paedophiles as young as 13 or 14 years are having to live lives bombarded pretty constantly with an awareness of this. Can you deny this will affect a child's socialisation, academic career, mental health?

    Even though I found out I was a paedophile in the most supportive and favourable circumstances I know for a fact that it had a negative effect on my academic career.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I think his extrapolation from 'paedophile offenders' (via teleiophile offenders)to paedophiles in general is flawed"
      As I said in my post here, your job is to provide a specific reason why the generalization is not reasonable.

      "do you really consider that gays, jews and asian-americans are stigmatised nowadays? In the USA?"
      It is certainly less, but your stigma hypothesize should hold for IQ in past times when they WERE heavily stigmatized.

      "there are NO positive aspects to the paedophile archetype"
      Not so clear. We are thought to be very clever at getting children and their parents to trust us.

      Delete
  5. "As I said in my post here, your job is to provide a specific reason why the generalization is not reasonable."

    And I do - in the essay I link to in my first comment.

    "It is certainly less, but your stigma hypothesize should hold for IQ in past times when they WERE heavily stigmatized."

    It's a HELL of a lot less.

    I've been trying to get hold of statistics for men convicted of homosexual offenses before decriminalisation. I know they exist since, in the UK anyway, all prisoners underwent intelligence tests, but I have not had much luck in finding these stats - it seems that no-one has seen fit to investigate this data. The seach continues - though I have some anecdotal evidence from prison doctors that convicted homosexuals had lower IQ than prisoners with less stigmatised identities.

    I think that there are two other closely related factors that can mitigate the damaging effects of stigma - the degree to which individuals are isolated within a stigmatising social environment (which with paedophiles is high) and the ease with which supportive subcultures and communities can be formed (much easier for gays - whose desires lead them to seek each other out).

    "Not so clear. We are thought to be very clever at getting children and their parents to trust us."

    That's really clutching at straws, EE.

    ReplyDelete