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.)
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.
This channel promotes an incredibly dangerous narrative and ideology that has the potential to do real damage to peoples lives. He accuses people of terrible crimes that could lose them their freedom for life because he thinks they seem "nervous" or like "they are giving too many details" and then uses a false veneer of science to justify what essentially boils down what I will standby as SWAGs or hunches. This is psycopathic behavior IMO and i believe it deserves to be openly ridiculed. At least having some voices say that they feel this is serious I really don't think is damaging the conversation.
I don't feel that I have an obligation to be positive on every topic. Nothing I write is written to elicit a negative response for the sake of eliciting a negative response ie trolling. I write plenty of positive posts. And I don't think the language I used here was even that colorful again especially relatively to the seriousness of the thing being discussed. If something is bad I might criticize it. In this case I think the tone was relatively in line to the seriousness of how dangerous the thing being promoted is and there is a real risk to normalizing these kinds of insidious things if the only response allowed is to agree or dissent with flowery language.
I come here generally because it is well moderated but I feel that there is a difference between trolling and expressing a viewpoint that something is genuinely really bad and it's not very interesting to have a discussion where the only acceptable viewpoint is to agree/support or even to make very weak statements of disagreement. If someone actively supports genocide or something like that politely saying "I disagree" is not a measured response. In this case they are advocating for things that not only could ruin people lives but aim to use the megaphone of youtube to normalize this philosophy. I'm not equivocating it with genocide but it is serious and I would suggest that saying "I disagree" is similarly not proportional to the seriousness of the topic at hand.
If you really feel like I'm trolling / flamebaiting just ask me to leave and I'll kill my account. I get vastly more positive feedback for what I write on here than negative and I think it's because I try to write honestly and clearly both on the positive and negative side of topics. I will try to avoid use of phrases like "flaming pile" in the future but if it's more than that than I wouldn't even know what I'm supposed to be saying or not saying
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.
Why? What exactly is wrong with Matroska? Almost every media player these days supports it just fine (as has been the case for a while now) and it's a great deal more featureful than the mp4 container. (Embedded subtitles, file attachment support for extended cover art and related files, DVD-type menu support, 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.
I seem to recall 'Judge' Janine Pirro going on pretty crazy rants, also Nancy Grace. Where were the 'harmful content' bans or nptices then?
It seems evident to me, from the reading the HN comments, that there is hardly any sort of agreement about what the "exact nature of the content" actually is.
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?