He also actively shows that not everyone reacts the same. One of his videos is fully based around an innocent man who seems to react differently than the average person and is kept in jail because of it. He makes the point that cops sometimes do read too much into these tells and forget the facts.
If you think that this could somehow be problematic; after watching the channel the only conclusion you can reasonably come to is "if the police suspect me of a crime, shut the hell up and get a lawyer." He is quite clear that the police are way better at psychological games, and the absolute last thing they want you to do is get your lawyer involved. Heck, he shows a cop who murdered someone get caught to show that even cops can't keep up with their own interrogation tactics! This is actively helpful and exactly what anyone under investigation should do.
It makes me sad that so many people have a knee-jerk reaction that anything amateurish must be fake news.
Most of the latter simply present the interrogation unedited whereas the JCSCriminalPsychology channel edits out most of the interrogation and have a lot of talk by a narrator on the strategy being employed by the police or on the suspect's body language. My point is that the presence of the "JCS Inspired" language should not be interpreted as evidence that the channel JCSCriminalPsychology was a seminal influence on later YT creators.
BTW I found what the narrator says to be worthless and consequently have told YT to stop recommending the channel JCSCriminalPsychology to me.
This comment would be more satisfying if I could explain why "JCS Inspired" occurs so often in the descriptions of videos on YT, but alas, I cannot. (Nor can I explain why YT chose to ban most of its videos. All very mysterious.)
Just threw together a script to do just this, if anyone wants it:
download () {
local directory="/archives/YouTube Archives/$1"
mkdir -p "$directory"
pushd "$directory"
# youtube-dl --download-archive https://youtube.com/$2 -o "%(title).%(ext)"
youtube-dl --playlist-reverse -o '%(playlist_index)s - %(title)s.%(ext)s' --write-annotations --download-archive .archive --add-metadata --write-info-json --write-thumbnail -f bestvideo[ext=vp9]+bestaudio[ext=opus]/bestvideo+bestaudio --merge-output-format mkv --all-subs --embed-subs -i --embed-thumbnail "https://youtube.com/$2"
popd
}
download "Jim Can't Swim" c/JCSCriminalPsychology
# etc. etc.
Do you genuinely believe that youtube should host videos attaching various involuntary physical traits to criminal behaviour?
It’s obviously not okay to say that “this guy is black, so he’s probably guilty”. But is it okay to say “this guy is jittery under stress, he’s probably guilty”? Why should it be okay to say one or the other? Both will result in equally harmful outcomes.
It is really a reason to decide not to distribute it.
> And if so, then who's in charge of deciding what's harmful pseudoscience and what's legitimate content
Anyone who is asked to actively participate in the chain of distribution.
> and what happens when they're wrong?
If someone disagrees with their decision not to distribute, they seek some other distribution. Except when it is a decision to distribute and the content is harmful in a way which produces liability, their decision being “wrong” in any authoritative sense isn't really an issue, only disagreement.
Isn't sitting on Hacker News a harmful waste of time?
Then again, a non trivial portion of what is going on in academic psychology is pseudoscientific garbage so maybe this is state of the art?