[rosndo]

JCS frames what he does as psychology, most of the things he claims have absolutely nothing to do with the field.

He regularly makes wild claims which aren’t supported by research at all.

In (real) psychology you rarely have clear “x caused y” situations, in JCS’s “criminal psychology” you do.

Stuff like this can be incredibly dangerous, people have literally been sentenced to death based on the testimony of similar quacks.

[apostacy]

I have no idea what videos you were watching.

The thing that is so compelling about JCS is that he keeps his distance from the subject, and lets the facts speak for themselves most of the time. The only time he really talks about psychology at any length it is pretty textbook criminology that you could find on the wikipedia entry about criminal psychology.

[no_time]

>Stuff like this can be incredibly dangerous

By this logic, History Channel should've been sent to the shadow realm decades ago along with their alien pyramids and pawn shop "experts".

[aestetix]

Would you also argue that TV shows like "The Search for Bigfoot" and whatnot should be banned? I can understand removing something because it contains personal information or something really obscene (like terrorists beheading someone), but videos like this are mostly just entertainment.

[rosndo]

I think “Search for Bigfoot” is obviously different. Nobody is going to hurt themselves or others after watching it.

JCS - Criminal Psychology will create idiots who think they’re master criminal psychologists and get innocent people put in prison.

There’s a simple solution for JCS, just distance from the pseudoscientific “psychology” and stick to the true crime.

[effingwewt]

Quite the slipper slope you got going on there. I fail to see how a youtube video discussing interrogation techniques is going to magically cause people to 'think they're master criminal psychologists and get innocent people put in prison.'

By your reasoning anything discussing anything could be 'harmful'.

How about we decide for ourselves what we want to watch/listen/read.

[rosndo]

>discussing interrogation techniques

Spreading misinformation about interrogation techniques in a sort-of educational format.

> How about we decide for ourselves what we want to watch/listen/read.

We can, of course. I just also happen to believe that youtube should get to decide what they distribute, and this is a fairly reasonable thing to choose not to distribute.

[sennight]

> I just also happen to believe that youtube should get to decide what they distribute...

Sort of like a publisher, right? Well that sounds totally reasonable for a publisher to... oh. Might wanna rethink that one - it would be a shame to lose that sweet sweet platform protection.

[rosndo]

In a hypothetical world where you’re right, why would that not kill sites like HN? And if it would, is that a good outcome?

[throwaway73838]

What if I deem your comment to be misinformation because it could lead to people developing capitalistic tendencies? Would you have a problem then?

[joshuamorton]

You can deem whatever you want. You don't run HN, so its not really relevant.

[retrac]

> Nobody is going to hurt themselves or others after watching it.

https://www.montanarightnow.com/community/man-says-he-was-sh...

Don't be so sure.

[kolanos]

> JCS - Criminal Psychology will create idiots who think they’re master criminal psychologists and get innocent people put in prison.

This is, at best, hyperbole.

But you know what else creates idiots? The homogenization of information.

[kolanos]

Can you give any specific examples of JCS perpetuating pseudo science?

[brokenmachine]

So what?

Most videos on youtube are just people giving their opinion.

I enjoyed the videos.

>people have literally been sentenced to death based on the testimony of similar quacks

The court system needs an overhaul if it's basing death sentences on the opinions of youtubers.

[gpas]

Isn't homeopathy pseudoscience? Yet YouTube is full of people praising it.