MRT brain test can diagnose pedophiles

Pedophile – yes or no?

"We calculate the activation of a single brain in relation to the average group activation," explained Ponseti. "In comparison to other subjects, we can then recognize whether a particular subject is a pedophile or not. And we were correct in 95 percent of cases."

As well as through brain activity, the researchers also use imaging processes to find differences in brain structure. With special programs on tablet PCs, the doctors test impulsivity and empathy. "If we also carry out blood tests and make genetic and neurotransmitter analyses, maybe we will begin to track down the mystery of pedophilia," Ponseti said.

"The MRT can tell us who is a pedophile – but, unfortunately, not why."

Many people don’t know that doctors classify pedophilia as an illness, though only if the person or another suffers as a result of the urges. "According to the new American psychiatric classification system, a person is only classified as a pedophile if that person acts on their sexual attraction to children – or at least suffers from the fact that they have this attraction," said Ponseti. "If he has this attraction without abusing a child, then we can call it a sexual orientation."
Source: Deutsche Welle

Just scan the entire population to find the pedophiles!  Finally we can discover pedophiles and lynch them before they ever cause any damage. Or put them preventively on a sex offender list before they ever do any harm. After all, we imprison men for having indecent movies of themselves when they were younger 5, or photographing their 17 year old spouse or legal girl friend 6, which can not even be justified by the voodoo theory of child porn.  And all this even though free access to child pornography reduces actual child abuse, as proven by peer reviewed research by Professor Milton Diamond.

Many people don’t know that doctors classify pedophilia as an illness, though only if the person or another suffers as a result of the urges. "According to the new American psychiatric classification system, a person is only classified as a pedophile if that person acts on their sexual attraction to children – or at least suffers from the fact that they have this attraction," said Ponseti.

In today’s pedophile witch hunt, Jack McClellan, a self declared law abiding pedophile, gets his life destroyed by restraining orders, death threats, and more. And now we learn, from an academic, that he did not qualify as a pedophile, until society made him suffer.

"If he has this attraction without abusing a child, then we can call it a sexual orientation."

mrt-0,,15730668_403,00A non practicing happy pedophile is a sexual orientation. Tell this to the public and the courts. Extend workplace anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation for the likes of Jack McClellan, the law abiding child attracted man.

All the tests in Kiel happen in the Medical Center’s neurological center, where computer images of sexually aroused heterosexual brains are stored. The images show active brain regions, lit up an intense red-orange color as strong blood flow causes high oxygen content.


MRT imaging is used to track brain activity

"You can see the reward center very clearly on these pictures," explained Ponseti. "In the visual cortex further down, a stronger visual analysis happens as soon as an adult heterosexual man sees a woman of the same age. The exact same regions activate in a pedophile’s brain when they see a naked child."
Source: Deutsche Welle

Study Finds Pedophiles’ Brains Wired to Find Children Attractive

The research could mean that paedophilia could be diagnosed using children’s faces, overcoming ethical concerns about showing them naked pictures of youngsters under the age of consent.

Pedophiles’ Brains Show Abnormal Reaction To Kids’ Faces In fMRI Scans | Huff Post

These findings could help lead to a reliable test for pedophilia based on brain responses to child faces, Ponseti said.

"When it comes to psychotherapy of child-sex offenders, it is important to know whether an offender has a pedophilic orientation or not," Ponseti said. "In half of first-time child-sex offenders, the offenders are not pedophilic — they may have problems with adult females, such as not knowing how to approach them, so they turn to children instead."

A very important distinction. A real pedophile who is especially, or exclusively attracted to children. Versus a adult attracted person who picks children out of lack of success with adults.

Human-Stupidity dares to suggest that these loser types could be detracted from children if they had access to adult sex partners. Learning "game" pickup artists teach would be the best cure.  Prostitution could also help to avoid child abuse by people who would prefer adults, if they had a chance.

However, Ponseti noted that more research is needed. "It is important to find out if an adult’s brain shows an increased response to child faces because they are normally constantly exposed to child faces and not because they are pedophiles — for instance, if they are teachers, or someone who works with children," Ponseti said.


Is paedophilia an illness? Brains are wired differently in offenders, study claims

Huge differences have also been found in the white matter of paedophiles’ brains, compared to typical men’s. Paedophiles tend to be between 10 and 15 IQ points lower than average.





See also these Human-Stupidity reports:

Author: Human-Stupidy (Admin)

Honest Research, Truth, Sincerity is our maxim. We hate politally correct falsification, falsification, repression of the truth, academic dishonesty and censorship.

5 thoughts on “MRT brain test can diagnose pedophiles”

  1. While I am as anti-feminists as anyone and am ready to be objectively reasonable, I cannot support relaxing laws stopping adults from sexually being with pre pubescent children. Whether pedophilia is biological or not. If a 25 year old man came sniffing around my 7 year old son or daughter, it wouldn’t end well for him. Now if my 17 year old daughter was seeing a guy who was 25, I wouldn’t mind, if I didn’t like the guy, it wouldn’t be solely because he’s over 18.

    I think the subject of pedophilia is one that should be left alone. I mean, most guys are willing to be reasonable more or less and have a rational discussion when you’re talking about 16 or 17 year old girls, but pre school age children will make you look like perverts. Non practicing pedophiles should be left alone. I think that’s reasonable. Especially if it’s biological.

    As far as mid to late teen girls are concerned, I think most men are attracted to them, it’s just not socially acceptable to say so out loud. I once worked at a factory and a co worker of mine had a picture on his phone that he showed us. The picture was sent to him by a 16 year old girl he knew of her in bra and panties. Even after finding out she was 16, every guy except 1, admitted that they’d have sex with her. Of course I know that, in front of the right audience, they probably would deny it and join in the lynch mob of a guy who would. I think calling fully developed teen girls “children” is a fundamentally dishonest tactic, it’s also the logical fallacy of weasel wording and emotive language. What sounds worse, “16 year old young lady” or “16 year old child”? Emotive wording is defined as such:

    (also known as: loaded words, loaded language, euphemisms)

    Description: Substituting facts and evidence with words that stir up emotion, with the attempt to manipulate others into accepting the truth of the argument.

    Logical Form:

    Person A claims that X is true.
    Person A uses very powerful and emotive language in the claim.
    Therefore, X is true.

    The word “child” and “pedophile” stir up strong emotions in people and feminists know that. So if you call a 16 or 17 year old girl a “child” and call a 26 year old man interested in her a “pedophile”, it will stir strong emotions in people. The word “child” invokes images of 4 year old Suzie innocently frolicking about on the playground, while pedophile invokes images of a fat, hairy 55 year old man wearing a urine stained trench coat trying to lure children into his lair with candy. That’s why those words are purposely distorted.

    I remember one day, me and 2 of my friends were driving around and stopped at a gas station and there was a group of girls standing at the bus stop. It was the end of summer 2012 and my friend was in the passenger seat I was in the back. So he called one of the girls to the car. The girl was wearing a tube top and daisy duke shorts and the flip flops females wear in the summer. This particular girl was shaped like a perfect hourglass with d cup breasts. So when she came over to the car and talked to my friend, it turns out she was 17. He was 26 at the time. She gave him her number and from what he told me, he had sex with her later.

    The fact is, most men would’ve had sex with her and she probably had men trying to hit on her all the time. However, feminists would insists she’s a child and that my friend is a pedophile. They’d also insists that he traumatized her, even if she doesn’t know it and would be willing to brand him as a child rapist. If she sent him a naked pic, he could be prosecuted for possessing “child porn”. Yikes!!! There was nothing childlike about that girl in the slightest. By the way, AOC in my state is 16.

  2. “Huge differences have also been found in the white matter of paedophiles’ brains, compared to typical men’s. Paedophiles tend to be between 10 and 15 IQ points lower than average.”

    Or maybe a paedophile would have to have a sub-normal IQ in order to volunteer to take a test like this?

    Are they really saying that showing a 40 year old man a picture of a naked 40 year old woman will ‘light up his reward center’, whilst a picture of a naked 15/17 year old will only excite a ‘paedophile’?

    I wonder if these jokers are the same pseudo-scientists who performed the ‘your brain on porn’ junk research. And yes, I know it is the MIT, but even that esteemed place of learning has been infiltrated by junk science and feminist advocacy research.

    It’s also disturbing in the way that most Germans seems unable to see the slightest ehtical concern at what is going on today with regard to solving the ‘paedophile’ problem (it was a story reported in Duetsche Welle). Have they forgotten that their grandparents turned 1 million Jewish children into lampshades as a result of junk science and scapegoating?

    1. @theantifeminnist: This research seems to be about real classic pedophilia, attraction to pre-pubertal children.

      As about 1% of males (?) have this preference, there are serious concerns how to get these people to live with this preference without actually messing with prepubertal children. And our legal situation regarding child porn, and our pedohysteria are serious obstacle towards that goal. This creates unnecessary suffering in the so far non-practicing pedophile and increases the danger of moving from thought crime to real child abuse.

  3. This is absolute nonsense. If they actually started using this crap science to try and discover pedophiles it would create a huge out of control witch hunt (larger than already is) that would result in many people being wrongly labeled as pedophiles.

    I imagine this could be fooled just like a lie detector test. Just think of something really hideous (like Hillary Clinton’s face) while looking at the child.

  4. Sigh…what a load of nonsense. Only studying adult attraction to children does not help resolve the underlying issue. Like most adult behaviors and thoughts the roots for adult child attraction probably begins at a young age. This in no way means the roots for such attraction result from traumatic experiences, actually I vaguely remember reading somewhere years ago that there is little correlation between having a bad or abusive childhood and going on to do bad things as an adult.

    Want to really find out why some people are attracted to children? Do a wider study to determine what we humans find attractive and when. Take breasts for example; some people like them big (technically big is subjective, but for argument sake I will say everything D cup and above is big), others like them small or non-existent, and some like them in between. Where are the thresholds and what if people were not told cup size when being asked about how much they like a given set of breasts. Additionally if the images were only of exposed breasts and age was not given either the study could be fairly revealing.

    Does someone really know the difference between the largest B cup breast size and the smallest C cup breast size, how about fully developed and still developing breasts do people know the difference? There are adult women with A cup breasts who based on their chest size might appear 12 years old and 12 year olds with D cup breasts who look in their mid twenties or older. Why does this matter, because with enough diversity in breast size and development and enough people being asked to rate their level of preference for each set of breasts true interest can be discovered. Firstly who is attracted to what breast size and does it matter if breast size is only temporary because a particular set of breasts has yet to develop further (information which won’t be provided to study participants). Secondly among all the different participants (who should come from as diverse a pool as possible. Including all age ranges who were photographed for the study, and all relevant sexual orientations [straight men/teen boys, bi sexual women/teen girls, bi sexual men/teen boys, and lesbian women/teen girls]), looking at their age/orientation groups as a whole do patterns appear in the test results? Third since this would be an international study do regional patterns show up within groups or simply by all participants in an area of the world? Maybe certain cultural or social norms play a role in determining how all the different breast sizes are viewed. Fourth are any ethnic patterns that might show up. I mean if the study is already somewhat comprehensive it might as well go all the way. In the end two things could be very clearly defined; where regionally in the world various breast sizes might be slightly more common and who in those regions and elsewhere is interested in those sizes of breasts. Broken down by age, gender, and ethnicity such information could be very useful.

    Say someone is approaching others in public and grabbing breasts for a few seconds. Nobody is able to accurately describe the person. Cross reference the localized study results in comparison to any similarities of the girls or women being groped and a general profile of the mysterious individual begins to take shape. What is the percentage chance of them being male or female, how about an estimated age range, their sexual orientation, ethnicity, are they more likely poor, middle class, or wealthy?

    This is just with breasts now imagine what can be revealed by doing similar in depth studies on all other physical characteristics, personality traits, social affiliations, and religious beliefs that may make some find another person attractive. Individually each aspect might not reveal a lot because people are often interested in others for way more than one reason. Though adding in a variety of factors can show where people with a given set of attributes live and who is interested in those things in that area. If someone could say area x, y, or z has a group of people who are really interested in qualities a, b, and c, but qualities a, d, and g are the most common and halfway across a country the profile of a rapist reveals a pattern for raping people with qualities a, d, and g that area could be one to focus on for potential victims if the crime trail starts heading that way. Finally if people in one city over have a, b, and c qualities anyone looking for a more exact match might try that city instead of where they live. Of course reality is not that simple and it’s possible for 47.34% of the a, b, and c people in the next city are themselves interested in q, v, o, and k attributes which might not be a majority anywhere nearby.

    My point being complicated thing like attraction can’t be fully explained or understood with a singular barrage of tests. The entire spectrum of diversity needs to be accounted for. Some people might be really attracted to six years, thirty nine year olds, and corpses. Don’t believe it could get that weird? That’s nothing, perhaps some of them have a balloon fetish, love chocolate chip cookie dough with sardines, eat out every third Sunday for four months at an Indian Mexican restaurant, are scuba diving instructors, and are retried former special forces. People are complex and interactions between people are even more complex, we won’t know for what’s going on, where, when, how, and why until we examine all the dynamics involved.

Leave a Reply. We appreciate a discussion: if you disagree, your comment still is welcome.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.