Pedophilia for dummies

First of all: Nobody makes the conscious decision to become a pedophile.

Think of the children!

This slogan is enough to mobilize and justify any action against pedophiles. Public figures demand actions to cope with the assumed pandemic. Some even demand that every pedophile be put to death - more or less merciful. If you still blame pedophiles for their "sick lifestyle", here is a question for you: Why would anyone want to be a pedophile? Trust me, it's not a desirable destiny. Do you really think that someone would choose that life?

Few are bothered to question the nature of pedophilia and what is causing it. When pedophiles are hunted, stigmatized and persecuted in the manner they are, it is obvious that this is not a choice.

Are they born this way?

The argument "we are born that way" has been used by homosexuals to demand acceptance of homosexual love. It is not really an explanation, because it raises the question, why are some born this way? Together with "It's a sexual orientation" it is more of an activist slogan than a scientific explanation. The best current explanation is that something went wrong during the development. There is some evidence that it starts very early - even before birth.

Think of it like a train derailment. There are tracks, which the train is supposed to ride on. And then there are obstacles and defects that can cause the train to leave the tracks. So, what went wrong with pedophiles? If we start asking about something "wrong", we should know what is "right". Hence, what is it that goes right in most people? What happens in people that don't turn out to be pedophiles? It is kind of an obvious mystery, since most people don't spend much time thinking about stuff that comes natural.

Sexual development - what is it exactly?

Imagine that you are a normal boy heading for a straight heterosexual orientation. A "normal" boy plays with certain toys, later he plays football/soccer with other boys. At first, girls are icky and boys are afraid of catching girl cooties, with Valentine's day being an exception. However, something strange happens during puberty - boys are starting to behave irrationally. Parents told us to wait with it, teachers are against it, even pals are complaining that we spend less time with them. Nonetheless, spending time with a girl becomes important on it's own.

Because "everyone" has this attraction, this is kind of normal and nobody is questioning it. Is it culture, or is it the expectation of others that drives "normal" boys to try to get the attention of girls again and again? If it were just a search for friendship, then we would see a 50/50 distribution of boy/girl and boy/boy couples. There are even fewer obstacles for a boy to befriend another boy than to befriend a girl.

Actually, several things are already known. Gay men tend to have more older brothers. There are hypotheses that explain how the influence happens, developed antibodies in the mother being the current favorite explanation. Gender atypical behavior during childhood is considered to be an indicator for later homosexuality. The latter statement is remarkable. Not only does it state a deviation from "the norm", it also states that certain behavior is "the norm" for a boy. Already as little boys, their behavior is supposed to follow some invisible tracks.

Gender typical behavior - but why?

Stripping "gender" from the question, we could ask: What causes a typical behavior? Some behavior is so common typical that we have named them. Fear of flying is an example. As soon as the airplane starts moving, those affected freak out. In a rational discussion outside the plane, they will agree that the fear is irrational and somewhat silly. But that does not matter once the airplane starts moving. It is a consistent innate behavior very difficult to override. This is not an exception.

Human behavior follows certain patterns, this is the very base of psychology. If we were able to just snap out of a depression, we wouldn't need psychiatric institutions. Often, we need to become aware, how much trouble a certain behavior will cause and we need help to avoid or handle those situations.

If we were animals, we would simply call it instincts. Many animals are born with a fully developed set of instincts. This is not the case with a human baby. Unlike a baby deer, it does not get up within a few hours after birth and follows the mother around. A human baby resembles more a fetus than a preteen child during the first year. Some animals can walk a few hours after birth and instinctively follow the flock. For most animals, instincts are like solid railway tracks guiding their behavior. They are so controlled by their instincts, that a lion jumping through a burning hoop is a circus sensation.

Instincts are considered to be non-existing in humans, since we are in general able to override them. This is taken to the extreme by the assumption that humans have a free will. The example of the fear of flying shows that this obviously is not the case. Few million years ago, our ancestors certainly had instincts and those instincts didn't disappear suddenly. And they haven't completely vanished. 

How little instincts do we need?

Humans are superior to animals, because we can think and decide on a rational base what actions to take. That is the theory, in praxis we quite often behave in a certain manner that we are not aware of. Sometimes it is good for us, otherwise it can present an obstacle like the fear of flying. The fewer irrational behavior we are forced to act out, the better it is for us.

Instincts are in a way hard-wired knowledge how to behave in certain situations. Without hard-wired instincts, the appropriate behavior has to be learned. The freedom from instincts not only requires us to make rational decisions, but also allows us to adjust them in order to get anticipated outcomes. Without guiding instincts and learned knowledge, we are doomed to make stupid decisions. Hence, loosing instincts is not only an advantage, but it is a liability too. Using trial and error, we learned what was best for our survival. Hence, those with a lesser amount of instincts had a greater learning potential. This presents an evolutionary advantage leading to a higher survival rate for human genes.

Animals have instincts to a varying degree. Reptiles have a primitive brain and are completely instinct controlled. The higher up on the evolutionary stage the animals are, the less they are controlled by instincts and more able to learn things. It is no surprise that most trained animals are mammals.

Animals living in a stable environment tends to show very little variations. It is almost impossible to tell two penguins apart. Animals living in a changing environment show a greater variation. Individuals that are better adapted to a change will ensure the survival of the species, while the unfortunate die. Over time this will lead to a higher variation of individual characteristics in those species, which represents a higher flexibility. This is the reason for the noticeable individual characteristics among humans. Some of us are born with stronger instincts and have to suffer from fear of flying or similar compulsive behavior, while others enjoy a higher degree of free will.

How does evolution know where to stop?

It doesn't. Well, evolution does not stop before it is too late. Evolution is not about the survival of species or to make individuals comfortable in their environment, but about the survival of DNA. Humans are pushed by evolution towards the edge of losing all instincts, and due to the variation some are pushed over the edge. Those, who were too far on the other side, would not pass down their DNA. Evolution comes with a price tag attached, the dead end of an DNA-line. It is like a tree, where only few branches are allowed to continue to grow, while others are cut back.

As it seems, a certain minimal amount of instincts is necessary for procreation. Boys need to find girls. That is why boys start to behave irrationally during puberty, even when they were angel-like to their parents during previous years. The current society makes it  hard for them: child sexuality is not encouraged and abstinence-only sex education is on the program in some countries. Hence, the instinct of chasing girls meets a lot of obstacles, experiences headwind. 

Should we expect everyone to develop a "normal" heterosexual orientation? Some think that gender is a social construct and feminists claim men and women to be equal. Moreover, many romantics claim that it was the personality that attracted them to their spouse. If the existence of a vagina or penis is that insignificant, shouldn't we be equally attracted to men and women? I mean, if we downplay the importance of the gender/sex, shouldn't we see like a 50% prevalence of homosexuality?

Evolution does not like 50% homosexuality, it is simply not sustainable. It would mean that 50% of the genes are pushed over the edge and are not passed down. During the evolution humans lost much of the intensity of instincts. The behavior became more and more rational and that was an advantage. This also meant that the gender of the significant other half became less important. We are more attracted to the personality than to the outlook of intercourse. At the same time, sex became more versatile than just as a means to procreation. Intimacy creates strong social bonds. Hence, evolution drove humans away from the 100% heterosexuality towards a point where the advantage of free will is balanced by procreation failure.

So what went wrong in pedophiles?

Nothing! Everything went according to the plan. That means the plan of evolution. Evolution does not care about individuals, only about the survival of genes. Individuals are just a means for procreation. Fish have many thousand offsprings, most end up being prey for others. For evolution it is ok that just enough individuals make it into adulthood. 

Flexibility was and is a necessity for humans. In order to adapt to the changing environment, we show rather big differences between individuals, we are taller or shorter, we have different skin colour, and we lost much of the control instincts had over our behavior. Variance is part of the evolutionary game. This means also variance in the strength of certain instincts, among them the instinct that drives boys towards girls during puberty.

To be honest, this post is actually "paraphilia for dummies" - i never talked why pedophiles prefer the company of children. Most think it is for sexual gratification only, but this is wrong. The company of children averts aggression of bullies, children are very emotional and might satisfy the demands of someone with a more intense emotional life. There are in fact many reasons why adults turn towards children and turn the back to adults. The current stigmatization is one of them. Children don't judge someone based on media incited hysteria, they judge people according to their actions.

Why does the mystical p-value sometimes do not tell the truth?

P-values seem to carry an importance in science paper, which the layman does not understand. Instead of going into the details of its definition, i'm using coin tosses as an example. Most coins are balanced, which means each side is equally likely to end up in a coin toss - which makes them perfect for the use in random experiments.

The experiment

My experiment is the prediction of a coin toss. Other experiments are less random, like measuring the height or intelligence of a group of people. The big question is what is random or not?

The correct order of business would be:

1. Stating the hypothesis - here predicting the outcome to be heads.
2. Carrying out the experiment - here flipping the coin.
3. Observing the results - here:  (just for the sake), it was tails.
4. Publishing the results - here: writing a paper in any case, even when the hypothesis got not confirmed.

What would we see in the scientific literature? About 50 percent of the papers are reporting heads, the other 50 percent reporting tails and everybody would understand that the outcome of flipping coins is random. This is something we seldom see in the scientific literature. 

The successful scientist

If my career depends on the publication of successful papers, then papers with negative results are not desirable. My reputation would get damaged, if i publish a report where the experiment does not support my hypothesis. This pressure results in papers, where the outcome would be tails, if the hypothesis was tails; or heads if the hypothesis was heads.

Another way to ensure a successful paper is to postpone the making of a hypothesis until after the analysis is carried out. This procedure is also known as the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Obviously this is wrong. However, data dredging is quite common.

In my case, i made a hypothesis on the outcome of coin flipping. I predict heads assuming that the coin will always land this way - which is my hypothesis. The null hypothesis assumes that the outcome is random, giving me a 50% chance to be right. 

Making it significant

My paper only counts if my findings are statistically significant. Often a threshold of 0.05 is employed. In order to reach that level, i would have to predict the outcome of 5 subsequent coin tosses. Flipping the coin 5 times gives a probability of 1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2=1/32 or a chance of 3.125%. Hence, the more details i predict, the more significant would a success be. 

Some scientific papers do execute an extensive data analysis, finding not yet seen details. He who seeks finds. If one looks for details shared by only 5% of the studied subjects, then one of such details is statistically (p<0.05) significant. A detail shared by only 1% becomes statistically (p<0.01) significant. 

In my case, i would postpone the hypothesis making until after my data analysis is carried out. Many journals do not require me to state the order of business, hence i get away with a vague description how my hypothesis came into existence. As i continued the coin flipping business, the result became tails-tails-heads-tails-heads (TTHTH). Publishing this would give me a desired publication, but 31 out of 32 replication trials will be unable to repeat my experiment.

Some experiments are expensive to carry out. Sharing lab-results is a nice gesture among scientists. It is obvious that using my "lab-results" will enable you to confirm my results. If you insist on using your lab-results, it would come with the disastrous results! Since my results were statistically significant, everybody would assume that you are an inexperienced scientist. 

One in twenty details should turn out to be p<0.05 statistically significant.

Give me a hypothesis or lab-results, but not both!

P-values give an indication how likely a outcome is, if it were random. It is calculated like a probability. Using the correct formula does not ensure its correctness. How likely is a certain outcome of 5 coin tosses? It is 1/32. However, if i know that the first one is tails, it changes. Outcomes starting with heads are no longer likely, all others increased their likelihood to 1/16. At this point, my results would no longer be statistically significant. This change of probabilities is the achilles heal of conditional probabilities - they change when new information is obtained.

One could claim to have calculated the outcomes of 5 coin tosses before the experiment, hence they numbers should still be valid. However, i have picked out one special number (TTHTH). By singling out this number, i applied an after-the-fact selection - which is an additional condition, hence the value should change. In my case, the value increases to 1.0.  This is the probability to see tails-tails-heads-tails-heads, when my coin fell tails-tails-heads-tails-heads.

What is left?

As a reader of a scientific paper i have to skip statements about statistical significance, when the authors were too lazy to describe when exactly they came up with the hypothesis. Without the p-values, only the existence of details can be acknowledged. It could be a property of the sample, or it could indeed indicate some correlation. 

If a certain scientist only publishes papers on successful experiments, then it could mean two things:

• the scientist is cheating, making up the hypothesis after the fact,
• the outcome is less random than assumed.

An unlucky scientist studying a random phenomenon should publish results according to the random distribution. In the coin flipping science field, halv the papers should report a failing. Assuming all scientists are using the same coin, and only 25% report a failure - then the assumption of a balanced coin seems to be wrong. In this case, the coin is likely to heavier on one side. Even though the reports were pair-wise contradicting, together they would give a more correct picture of the randomness.

My checklist:

• When was the hypothesis made?
• Has data material used for hypothesis making reused in the analysis?
• How much data dredging has been carried out?
• Have the author been picking out details from the examination?
• How many similar details are there?
• Where are the failures?

Background

There are some scientific papers out, which try to identify pedophiles as a group. As it seems the authors are not aware of the pitfalls of data dredging and the Texas shooter fallacy. As a results some characteristics of pedophiles are given as "statistically significant", which are at least doubtful. Since those results contribute to the stigmatization of pedophiles, such papers are in my opinion unethical.

Neoteny, gut feeling, and dwindling human instincts

Human have a free will, right? My gut feeling tells me no. The field of psychology is a science that figures out what makes humans tick. If humans had a free will, we would just snap out of a deep depression and be happy at will. Psychologist wouldn't have a job to go to. It simply does not work that way. There is even a book about the science of fear. It shows how gut feeling interferes with rational thinking and even leads to riskier behavior.

The human gut feeling are the remains of fully functional instincts. Instincts guide behavior in animals, the perceived situation triggers one or another response. Reflexes are more simpler, sensory input leads to a motoric action. Instincts are like an advanced version of it.

Instincts are good for animals, but not so good for humans. We live in a more complicated world, where our actions should not solely be guided by gut feelings. As mentioned in the book, our gut feeling might be a disadvantage. In difference to animals, humans possess rational thinking, which leads to better outcomes.

Neoteny is an explanation for the dwindling human instincts. While most animals are born with a fully myelinated brain, humans are not. Those animals join the flock after a short rest following birth and show instinctive behavior. Newborn humans show few reflexes and very few instincts.

Neoteny works by slowing down maturation of the affected parts up to the point of standstill. The processes responsible for development simply work at a slower speed. Myelination of the human brain does not happen in uterus, it takes many years of human life. During this time, we learn how to cope with the challenges our environment throws at us, and we develop strategies for survival. Those strategies can work along with our instincts or work against them.

Neoteny appeared due to evolution. This means the maturation processes were faster in some individuals, and slower in others. Those small variations are enough to give an advantage to the ones going into the right direction. Moreover, not all maturation processes are slowed down equally. Compared with chimpanzees the body needs like 3 times the amount to mature, while the brain needs several more times.

Rebellion during the teenage years are a good example for instincts. The irrational behavior is exactly that: irrational. It often is attributed to raging hormones, but is better explained by instincts. The orientation towards age peers and conforming to their pressure is more important than obedience to parents. Even more important is the attraction towards the opposite sex. Parents might forbid it and age peers might ridicule one, nevertheless the opposite sex must be conquered. Some teenagers are more obsessed with it than others. This is so irrational, that instincts must be responsible for that. We all know how teenagers behave who were gifted with more than the usual amount of teenagers instincts.

Those, who have a lesser amount of teenage instincts, will behave according to the learned norms and conform to requests. Since the current society wants to keep adolescents immature for a prolonged time, those children will stay children. Stunted psychological or emotional development is real. There are several theories why this happens, but i'm missing the role instincts play. One very important instinct is the heterosexual mating instinct. If that one does not manifest, then the genes don't make it into the next generation. This is the disadvantage that evolution uses to stop the dwindling instincts from disappearing altogether.

Since i'm always seeking the connection to pedophilia, this is no exception. Quite too often i found on the internet the notion that boylovers see themselves as emotionally young. One even wrote that it is tiring to pretend to be an adult all the time. If one feels himself as a teenaged boy, one probably is stunted in his emotional development. It might be as simple as this. The heterosexual mating instinct is too weak in pedophiles. The obstacles for a normal heterosexual relationships offer too much a resistance for this instinct to overcome. Those obstacles might come in different forms. Sometimes the family environment is diametral to the romantic advances of the child, sometimes it is just missed opportunities. Common factor is the absence of "raging hormones".

Why is everything upside down?

I mean, every morning the sun goes up in the east, she set in the west. During night, i can see the stars wandering from the east to the west. Hence, for me it's obvious that the universe revolves around the earth (or me). But Copernicus made sense of the movements of the few wandering stars, now called planets, by putting the sun into the center. This makes me think.

Sexual orientation sounds pretty much like a direction one looks into in order to find a mate. Or like an arrow pointing to the right one. But that makes no sense for bisexual persons. Kinsey showed some diagrams, which resemble a profile.

Edited 2015-08-30: Kinsey presented his results as a profile, while he used a one-dimensional model for sexuality. Newer research uses an additional axis of intensity for the definition of sexual orientation. However, many researchers are measuring the intensity of sexual arousal for each age/gender group.

We are more or less attracted to others. The sexual orientation science put humans into categories and measures if we are attracted to them. But for me those categories make no sense. Mostly they are gender and age based, leading to homosexual or heterosexual, pedophile, hebephile and teleiophile categories. There is no division into latino's or nordic blonds. Moreover, most boylovers are attracted to boys who go through puberty - right at the border between prepubescent and pubescent. This confuses boylovers, since they don't understand if they are pedophiles or hebephiles. It seems that the categorization is somewhat arbitrary. Shouldn't we ask, what are you attracted to? Then we might know what we are looking for. If we look at the wrong categories, then we might never understand what makes certain others so attractive.

Sex conversion therapy tried to break sexual arousal. Those therapists punished their patients if they showed arousal to clues. I say "punished", since giving electric shocks is nothing else. This therapy is based on the understanding that arousal causes desire. But haven't we learned to react positively to signs of our desire. Aren't we on the lookout for the right one? Maybe, arousal is a mirror image of our desire. Then those conversion therapies had to fail.

Some researchers are looking for single direct causes of pedophilia. So far they didn't had any success. If we compare the normal sexual development with a train on rails, then we might see a problem. Most trains arrive at their destination. Some do not - they crash, break down or derail. A train might go downhill and the brakes are failing. Getting more and more speedy the next curve is a challenge too much to master. The train jumps out from the track. Did the brakes moved the train sideways? Of course not. All disasters happen by a chain of events. Pneumatic train brakes can fail in many different ways. Brake lines can get disconnected, holes are punched into storage tanks, storage tanks can be depleted by human mistake. All different root causes are making the train go faster than advised.

There are indications that homosexuality has something to do with the X-chromosomes, since extreme skewing of X-chromosomes in mothers is correlated with a higher number of homosexual sons. The X-chromosome contains several genes that influence the brain development. Here we might have one tripping root cause, but homosexuality manifests itself only after a chain of events. Researchers are looking for root causes, but the layout of the rail tracks and the existence of switches is critical for understanding the chain.

Sometimes, we have to lean back and investigate other explanations, switching cause and effect, looking for chain of events and evil cycles. Sometimes, we assume that things exist, when they do not. Freud claimed that humans are born bisexual. He assumes that children are sexual, but i think they haven't learned the meaning of the artificial demarcation line located around the belly button. They aren't sexual, but just enjoying bodily pleasure. Some animals aren't homosexual, they are just not picky with whom they enjoy pleasure. Sometimes, things are not caused, but rather not prevented. This might be the case with missing white matter.

Sexual orientation in human adults might be a neotenous thing, which means we should compare human adult sexual behavior with behavior of juvenile animals. Are boys entering puberty later than girls, because they are left behind? Or is it the case that late puberty was evolutionarily selected for? Moreover, that this evolutionary pressure was exercised on boys. I say exercised, because boys enter puberty earlier than decades before. Now, how was this evolutionary pressure exercised?

Wanted: new Galileos

Galileo is a name familiar to many school children. Adults often forget what the name stands for. A scientist who allowed himself to think freely and not to be afraid to publish his findings. Often he is attributed the discovery that earth travels around the sun and not the other way around. This actually was known to astronomers like Copernicus before, but he had the guts to stand to his ideas.

Science comprises methods and routines such that scientific work results in truth and new knowledge. Findings can be published after peer review processes and discussed. At the end we will get new insights and understanding. This will always change our way of life. A scientific discourse is also characterized by the fact that the discussion always centers around the topic and never turns into an attack on the person. Every appeal to emotions rises the question if the topic is a matter of ethics and moral rather than science.

Politicians on the other hand are the opposite extreme. Elected for a few years they have to aim at securing their future. On the long way to public positions they have learned that folding to public opinion is a must. They are elected to lead the country but in reality, they are trailing the masses. A well known phenomenon are self re-enforcing processes, divided into virtuous and vicious cycles. The latter are devastating to society, here we need enlightened persons to show the way out, persons like Galileo. However, speaking out against main-stream opinion carries the risk of political and social death.

Currently, scientists face the same situation. Funding is provided to those, whose previous results have been approved. Publishing results and findings which are in conflict with main-stream schools, can mean the end to a scientific career. Nowadays, published results have to be politically correct. As happened recently in the USA, such publications have been a controversy and publishers pressured to withdraw printing. Scientific societies have been under pressure to expel certain members. And it happens in Europe too, in Germany, some publication might be considered a criminal offense. The most visible cases are in psychology, where published findings were in conflict with conservative moral and ethics.

Some conservative non-governmental organisations want to dictate the political agenda, such that the funding of their institutes is guaranteed. They are easily discovered by their appeal to emotional arguments and usage of absolute terms. In comparison, scientist make a lot of effort to state all assumptions and discuss their findings thoroughly. Also, they use reasoning and logic to make a point. It just makes sense. If only one side is presented, then it often is an attempt by a conservative nut-job to gain followers.

A new dark age has arrived. Whistleblowers like Snowden are very seldom. The world need many more of them. Edward Snowden pointed to the terrible surveillance activity that poses a danger to democracy. It becomes increasingly easy to identify people of a different mind.

It would be nice if Europe could remind itself of its tradition of carrying the burden of civilization. But for this we need new Galileo's who can tell bullshit from reasonable arguments, who have the guts to tell the truth no matter what, and to tell what is right and what is wrong.