Human Predators in Power: How They Hide in Plain Sight | Karen Mitchell

On this episode we discuss Dr. Karen Mitchell’s book Human Predators and her research on harmful people across settings such as business, law, medicine, media, religion, and politics. She argues that predators outside prison are common, often act covertly through emotional and social abuse, and share similar traits and tactics regardless of labels like narcissist or psychopath. 

We also discuss her view that the DSM can blur distinctions between predators and traumatized victims, especially in categories like borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder. Karen describes how predators target vulnerable “prey,” use gaslighting and coercion, and can cause severe psychological harm, while also pointing to behavioral red flags and the need for better awareness and screening in leadership roles. 

Karen's recommended shows: 

• Wild republic (German miniseries) 
• Fifteen-Love (British miniseries) 
• Unknown Number: The High School Catfish 
• Wild, Wild Country 
• Escaping Utopia 
• Fake (Australian miniseries) 
• The Tinder Swindler 
• Dr Death 
• The Family 

Karen's book is now available here: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1923630423/ 

• Website: https://www.kalmor.com.au/ 
• Twitter: https://x.com/karenmitchell__ 
• Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drkarenmitchell_/ 

MindMatters on odysee: https://odysee.com/@MindMatters:4

Transcript

[0:00] So human predators outside of prison are far more in number than those in prison, and they are equally as committed to destruction.

[0:18] Welcome back, Karen.

[0:20] This is our second discussion. I had you on, I think it's been a while. It's been, what, two years, maybe more than that?

[0:30] Yes. I'm terrible with remembering how long ago things happened, but it's been a while. So welcome back. Thank you. Thanks for having me on your show, Alison. I appreciate it. Great. And the reason we're here and the reason we're publishing today, so when people are seeing this, your book will be out. So this is the book that you mentioned. I believe you mentioned it at the end of our last talk that you were working on a book, basically a reader-friendly version for the general public of the information in your thesis and more. So you've completed the book. Congratulations, and it's out. So good job. Thank you thanks so much yes it was a huge a huge a herculean is that how you say it a herculean effort um, but i wanted to make sure i covered all of the pertinent areas so i'm very happy with the finished product, great and it is called human predators groundbreaking insights into the red flags narcissists psychopaths and manipulators don't want you to know, I'll have links. Everyone should check it out. I had the pleasure of finishing it already, so I've read it and I recommend it. I think everyone should check it out and buy multiple copies to give to other people and force them to read it.

[1:51] I guess we'll just get into it. I'll give a little bit of summary from my perspective. Let me just open up your table of contents here. You've got 16 chapters and the first several are basically a summary and a, like a paraphrase of, of your thesis. So it's the information from your thesis, um, and for, for a general readership. So you kind of go over everything and there's little new little details in there. So it's not like, um, it's not just, uh, it's not just the thesis it's, it's rewritten for this purpose. So it's a good, a good overview for the, for people who haven't, haven't read the thesis or you know a good reminder or a good um a good refresher for people who have and then, you get into you've got a whole bunch of new material in here so this is material that's of course you know consistent with uh with your research based on your research but not necessarily included um in your original thesis so i wanted to talk, i wanted to talk mostly about that but i guess maybe for listeners and viewers who haven't watched our previous discussion, um, maybe just give a.

[3:01] A brief description of the study you did and, um, like the study you did, the purpose of it and kind of your, your general conclusion. Again, just feel free to keep it brief because people can always go back and listen to the first one, but it'll be good to have a little bit of a, you know, a little bit of background for new people.

[3:19] Okay, so my background is not psychology or psychiatry, which was useful because it meant when I started to look at, dangerous people, I wasn't wedded to or specifically educated about models that are revered in these areas. However, I have worked for decades in corporate culture change internationally with groups, with executive teams, with individuals.

[3:54] On issues of contention, risk issues, behaviour-based cultural issues, deaths, suicides, mergers. At changing cultures to be more team-based. So I know a lot about human behaviours. So I was in a really good position to, what I wanted to understand is what are the core motivations of people who harm without remorse and what are their common attributes? And what I found when I went to the literature was that there's a lot of different fields studying the same behaviors, they don't talk to each other and they don't interact. This is not good because, you know, understanding human predators for us is called to survival. So we need to be able to see them. And these people, so the areas, I've basically looked at our global knowledge about psychopaths, narcissists, dark triad, Machiavellians, dark tetraps, cults, child sex abuse in religion, coercive control in human trafficking, terrorism, coercive control in other areas, black swan behavioural events in medicine.

[5:17] Toxic leadership in politics and business. I did a huge deep dive into all these areas. So the biggest study in the world, the most in-depth study on all the fields of research examining people who actively violate social norms and harm a disadvantage to others by conscious choice. Then, I also did the first research in the world with expert practitioners working long-term with human predators or dark personalities outside of prison, in areas like law and medicine and business and, journalism and politics, all sorts of areas. And they were working with their victims as well.

[6:05] Previously, researchers had just gone out on general surveys to the general public and asked questions about, do you manipulate? Do you lie? I mean, the answer would be, yes, we do lie. But most human predators would not engage in something like that. They wouldn't be honest because they just love to toy with their minds anyway. And the depth of malevolence is not easy to capture in just a general survey anyway. You need to be talking to the victims or targets about that. So my research was massive. It pulled in a lot of perspectives and it threw up some really interesting information. Some of the key bits of information are around people outside of prison that are human predators, when I say human predators, I mean narcissists, psychopaths, people whose brains are wired differently to us, who enjoy controlling sadism, etc. We can talk more about that.

[7:11] So human predators outside of prison are far more in number than those in prisons. And they are equally as committed to destruction as those serial killers. They just aren't smart enough to know I don't want to get in prison because then I'm not free to lead my dark life, so I'm going to kill people differently. I'm going to do it covertly. I'm going to do it emotionally and mentally and torturing them around their children or their reputation or their social relationships, usually all of those. Um so that they do it in a very macabre way and induce people to suicide or, engage in addictions or to dull the pain because it is quite unbearable when people are targeted um, so and just because you wanted me to say this briefly it's already not brief.

[8:08] Like so just a couple more issues that i found um were that there's definitely only one type of human predator so the whole narcissist psychopath most of these will be made up by human predators, um to confuse us so narcissism you've got malignant narcissists covert narcissists you've got vulnerable narcissists i mean what does all that mean really, what my data shows is there's just one set of attributes that they all share, They all use the same 25 tactics to avoid accountability and destroy and win. And there are some other red flags that I've learned too that we just haven't understood.

[8:56] The difference, there are differences. The differences, though, are not important in trying to see them. So.

[9:05] Some of them are smarter than others. Some have got more money. Some have been brought up differently. Some have got far better impulse control capability when they experience this pathological anger reaction that they have than others. And so there's all these different factors, and some enjoy being outgoing and want to be the centre of the crowd and others are very reserved. So, you know, we get this grandiosity. Well, that's just for the lower functioning ones that are in jail. They're grandiose because they make stuff up. But there's, you know, ones that are CEOs and executives and doctors and they're not grandiose because they don't have to be. They've got their own good stories. Interestingly, though, some of them downplay their capability. So as you don't suspect them as easily the the central core is around deceit, around you never really know what's going on with one of these people they always have a dark life, um and i think do you want me to stop it there you know i could go on for a long time, i think that's a i think that's a good place to stop and we can get we'll get into more as we you know as we as the conversation develops of course because everything's related but i think that's a good a good summary. And basically, so maybe I'll add just a couple, a couple points of the way I see it. So, and I'll just reiterate something that you just said, that.

[10:32] You were looking at all of these various conceptions in various different sub-disciplines, even sometimes the same discipline, but just a different area of it. So like, because in, in psychology, we've got, Well, in the broad field of psychology, academic and practitioner-wise, we've got psychopathy, we've got antisocial personality disorder, we've got other personality disorders, we've got a more kind of academic, dark triad.

[11:02] Narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy. We've got all these different, all these different things that, um, when you look at each of them individually, um, like you mentioned the possibility that, that many of these may have been, um, conceptualized by human predators themselves. There's a, there's the alternative that, um, the people doing them were just ignorant, right. Or just, or just grad students, right. Because the way I see both possibilities as, as possible, as possible, where you can have, you've got a different, you've got a field, right. Um, or an existing field, um, a young student, you know, becomes a psychologist like me. I, I was, I, I might have gone in that direction if I didn't drop out of university because, because psychology was my favorite course when I went to university.

[11:52] And, um, I didn't plan it that way. It was just very interesting. But when you go, a lot of kids, when they go to school, they don't really know what they want to do. Um, I'd say probably most of them, they go to school and then they kind of just figure out, oh, well, I guess I'll do this because this is kind of interesting. They don't really have a lot of prior knowledge or background in that field. They just go into it. And then of course they've got their professors and they have to kind of do what their professors say. The professors kind of, um, guide them in a, in a particular direction. That's why you have different schools of thought. You've got their, the gurus and then the followers. And it seems like in a lot of these fields, um, and I think you make this point in the, in the book is that when they started out, it seemed like they were all looking for the same thing. Oh, I identified this kind of, let's say human predator, unknown quantity X, and then they kind of latched onto some ideas or tried to develop it, but, you know, completely ignored all the existing and previous things.

[12:47] Contradictory or maybe even complimentary, um, conceptualizations of that. And so we get these, these silos of these, these different fields. And then once you, once you have established this field, then it's just the, the academic, um, like production line of reproducing people within that tradition, that field, like it's, they're like, uh, they're like religious sects, right? Where the, um, once that, once you have it, once you have that, the school set up, then those professors teach their students that particular brand of psychology. And then you, and then you get these, they kind of like seal off like cells. Um, and each cell has their own particular way of looking at things. And then you get all this siloed, siloed research and siloed conceptualizations, and they don't talk to each other and all that. So of course that confusion can of course be, let's say weaponized or, well, there's a whole other thing we can get into there. But you find out doing your research, talking to people who actually have life experience. So this isn't like a grad student, right? A grad student goes in with no experience.

[14:00] So, and then they have to gain their experience while they're being indoctrinated at the same time. So they're being given the blinders as they are learning. So it's very hard to get out of that situation once you're in it, where the blinders are part of your experience, where you're saying, okay, I'm going in this direction and that's how I get my experience. And just by the very nature of that setup, you're going to be missing a whole lot. Whereas if you look at people that have acquired all of this almost incidentally as a part of just their life over decades.

[14:31] Then you get what you found. So you went to those people directly. They weren't like indoctrinated. Well, not all of them. Of course, you talked to some people that were part of the academic community, but for the most part, you gained your best information from the people that didn't have that indoctrination process. Like, would you say that that's a fair representation of the way things are, or do you think I'm exaggerating? Yes. No, no, that's well said. And I think it's correct. Yeah, some of them have done this, and I do talk about this in the book too. Some people, some researchers and academics who have explored these concepts have done it inadvertently. They've just been directed, as you were saying, corralled down a particular mind, you know, well, with a particular mindset. That's exactly right. And you know what is fascinating? Like, for example, the PCLR, which is, you know, Professor Robert Hare or Dr. Robert Hare, who created that in the 80s, which was.

[15:33] The psychology and psychiatry professions were looking for a way of describing or diagnosing people who seem normal and yet had no empathy, et cetera. And Bob Hare listed a series of kind of traits, a mix of attributes and outcomes, like revocation of conditional release, so revoking the condition on their release, so outcomes, attributes. So he came out with this list and it became the PCLR. And it's now the tool that's used the most in the world to diagnose or to assess psychopathy, which is not in the DSM, although it has under a recent amendment being put under ASPD, which is very unusual.

[16:21] In the book, I actually go through the DSM in depth around predators and pray and how they're.

[16:33] Dealt with in the DSM. In fact, it's impossible to diagnose a high-functioning human predator using the DSM. It's impossible, which is interesting. But with Bob here's PCLR, going back to your point, it's fascinating because as soon as he got this list, instead of people continuing to look at the nature of these people who are very different to the rest of the population and my data, which is not statistically significant but a very good indication from my experts, it's up what if 10% of the population. It's a huge amount of people and up what if 15% in positions where there's power and control. But what they started studying, continuing to go back to your point, which I'm moving away from, But as soon as he had this list, everyone started just studying his list, his list of the PCLR.

[17:33] So instead of, yeah, continuing to go more deeply into what is the true nature of these people and other attributes we've kind of missed here from Bob Beher's list, which became the PCLR, everyone, like tens of thousands of pieces of research had been just on those attributes and outcomes and sort of mix of that list, which was made in prisons, right? He created that from prison populations. And on Clepley's work from 1941, but Clepley also included four people who were not in prison, who were, one was a doctor, one was, I think, a lawyer, a lawyer.

[18:15] And Bobhead did not include those. So his work is completely focused on people, on attributes of people or traits and outcomes for people in prison. And yet he's trying to take his work into domestic violence, into workplaces. I mean, to, of course, to be able to see a predator who's high functioning, you can't overlay somebody, something taken from criminal populations onto CEOs and judges and doctors, etc. You've got to have something much more nuanced. But yeah, so there's clearly a lot of problems in the way we have been.

[18:59] The whole history of how information that we receive has been developed and continues to be developed. And I wanted to cut through all of that. So I spent five years full time doing that i just took this time out of my life, and just completely focused and it was actually kind of sadly amusing like some of them were litigating against each other if they challenged their views i mean who does that and how does that help us, um so i did actually i travel a lot and i did go to meet different people in different countries to really understand what was going on in addition, to the full research into all these fields in addition to my own primary data. So I'm very confident around what I've produced in terms of the 20 attributes and the 25 tactics. But yes, what's happened is people have been led down particular.

[20:05] Pathways, as you've said, to, The researchers have been led down, and they have been led down by some human predators. My PhD research does show that some of the top academics or researchers, as well as some of the top educators, are predators. And there's ways of identifying this, which I talk about in my book. Because we don't want to be supporting the academics or the educators that are predators. Even though some of them are brilliant and say great things that really resonate with us as victims, and I have been a victim in pretty horrible ways.

[20:53] We don't want to give them a platform because they're going to hurt other people. Um so and a lot of us are a lot of victims are oh gee she's saying great things or his research is really interesting, and in the absence of anything else we're supporting that because they're the first ones to jump on the bandwagon of course they want to control that's what they're driven by so they've controlled the research they're controlling the education, because the academics have given out such inaccurate information around how to see them, in the broader population that all of the predators have gone, oh, wow, great, that's a market niche. I'm going to jump in and be an educator. And they say more than what the academics and researchers have done. So a whole lot of people who've been targeted and others say, oh, gee, that's great. They're a self-confessed narcissist and they're saying this information. But of course, they're not going to give away the—they're never going to educate effectively. And some of them, in the domestic violence space or coercive control or narcissism education and support in healing.

[22:06] To be honest, most of the high-profile ones are predators. And so they're provoking women, actually, and making it more unsafe for women, even though they're saying fantastic stuff like, oh, you know, borderline personality does not exist. It's really about people who've been pathologized as victims. And I agree with that, right? So they're saying really good things like that, but they're also putting people at risk. with most people not even realizing for their own benefit, financial benefit and profile. Well, and that's one of the things that, well, that is one of the points in the book that you make that.

[22:52] I was most interested, well, I don't know the right way to put it. I was happy to see that point being made because I think you're the first person, maybe one of the, you know, maybe there have been others. Um, but I'd say the first person, um, who, who's, uh, I think you're the first expert and I consider you an expert on, on this topic, um, to say something like that. The only other person that I, uh, like of a, of a similar, I'd consider stature, um, stature would be Lobachevsky who, who, who said something that when I first read it, I was like, um, well, I don't know. That seems, it seems kind of, kind of conspiratorial because he was talking about the situation in, in Poland and the, the, the psychiatry situation over there, psychiatry and psychology. And he said that the authorities were basically, um, I'll, I'll use your term. I'll try to use your term instead. Cause I usually use psychopathy, but I'll, I'll try to convert myself to human predator. He says that the human predators in charge in, in Poland, you know, that were kind of formed the, the nucleus of the, of the communist government there, um, that they controlled psychiatry and psychology. They knew what they were doing. They deliberately, um, blocked any accurate research on human predators. And they, the re the way that they did that was through the creation and use of a deliberately, um, confused conception of the problem.

[24:20] And that, that, that definition that they used, that they taught in the universities, they, that they taught to the students was a deliberate conflation of different problems, different psychological problems in order to prevent people from understanding. what the real issue is. And so first time I read that, I was like, well, you know, I mean, I, I, I think I believe him just cause you know, I, I trust, I trust what he's saying, but it just, it just sounds like so out there at least that's what, that was my reaction 20 years ago. Um, of course now, now I, I, now I don't have the same reaction. And so I was happy to read it, but, um, to read you say, say the same thing. Um, because, That, uh, that does seem to be what's going on. Um, and I think there was even a, Cleckley might have even hinted at something like that, you know, in a very subtle way. I can't remember exactly what he'd said that makes me think that, but, um, but, you know, even early on he, he had said something similar to that. Oh no, I think what he said was that, um.

[25:19] Uh, no, it's, it's out of my mind, but I think I've got it in my, in, in the notes of, of, uh, Ponerology somewhere, but I can't remember, but that leads me to one of the things that I wanted to talk about it and you brought it up is borderline personality disorder, because I've had, I've had shifting thoughts on borderline personality disorder over the years. Cause I've read a lot of good things, you know, in, from all different directions, on, uh, like totally like totally opposite opinions and arguments about the nature of BPD and you know what it is and what to think of it just to list a couple. So there's.

[25:58] Um the and some of these might be obscure but it's just what comes to mind. So there's a psychiatrist uh Colin Ross who's um um who's written a whole bunch of a whole bunch of different on a whole bunch of different topics and, he he he writes a lot about trauma and, um, and kind of trauma-based reactions and things like that. He's of the opinion that BPD isn't real and it should be considered, he's got a name that he came up for, for it. I can't remember what it was, but he said it should basically be considered, a, um, a traumatic response and that's it. Like BPD is a response to trauma and that's all it is. It's not a personality disorder according to, you know, the way he looks at it. It's just a trauma response. Then I've heard other people. Um, I don't have any particular names, but for this perspective, but, um, um, I I'm aware, you know, some people argue that BPD, especially in, let's say some women is actually a misdiagnosis of psychopathy because, um, um, for, some researchers argue that, um, yes, there are women, women psychopaths, but we're, we're not as, um.

[27:09] We're not as skilled at identifying it in, in the female population because it manifests slightly differently. And I can see the value. I see the value in that too, because I know that they're like, I know in my life, I know of some women who are diagnosed BPD and I'm convinced that they are human predators. Right. And I don't see a trauma response in them. I see them like as just super manipulative people destroying other people's lives and with like no guilt, no conscience whatsoever, but they're diagnosed as BPD. Now, so.

[27:42] And correct me if I'm wrong, but I got that impression from your book as well, that BPD itself is one of those hodgepodge diagnoses where different things get mixed in there. And in the process, it doesn't really tell us anything meaningful because, you know, it can mean one thing, it can mean another. What are your thoughts now on BPD? Yes, that's a really good area. So what I've done is read the DSM or the Diagnostic Statistical Manual. So just for your listeners who may not be aware of it, there are two key manuals in the world that are used for diagnostic purposes. One is the ICD, which is really European based and one is the DSM, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual that's put out by the American Psychological Association. And they first started doing these kind of manuals like a couple of hundred years ago when they started doing.

[28:46] Census. So they needed to capture information for sensors, and then not censoring things, you know, sensors collecting information sensors. And so, but then these manuals became more about research and diagnostics and et cetera. So in the DSM, there is a section, people tend to call them cluster Bs, and cluster B tends to be the personality disorders.

[29:15] And so I've kind of pulled all of this apart and looked at all of it, and it is fascinating and horrific at the same time. So I look at the attributes that came out of my model, and the motivation of predators, and it is impossible to diagnose a high-functioning predator, like one that's out in the community and hasn't never been arrested, etc. It is impossible to diagnose one from the DSN by looking at the group. You might have six attributes, and if they have four of them, then they have this. That's how they talk about it. So NPD, narcissistic personality disorder, is meant to represent really the predator type with the brain differences and the no empathy and everything, because it says no empathy. But you can't put most of the other attributes of grandiosity and impulsive, you know, things that really do not fit the high functioning ones. So then BPD is in there as well. And BPD doesn't have no empathy. It's clearly meant to be.

[30:26] A conceptualization that represents the prey, those who've been abused. But here's the thing, if you can't diagnose a predator, where are you going to put them if you have to give a diagnosis? So you shove them all into BPD. It's horrific. So what you've got is these poor people who've been really terrorized by predators, by their, father or mother or by their partner for years or a boss at work or in a religious congregation. And the level of emotional and mental and sexual and physical and social reputational assaults, that goes on with these people is often hidden and they're really good at projecting this fantastic facade of being caring and I don't know what she's talking about. I don't know what he's talking about. The amount of torture is war-based. It is like being in a war and they've been subjected to this and they need compassion. And, yeah, they might have some of these, they might have learnt to lie. They might be particularly sensitive to criticism and so they can.

[31:38] Be angry because they're coming from a different context of what they experience, just like war veterans, right? But they are well-meaning and well-intentioned and they want to be their best self. They experience empathy. They experience shame. And if we can catch them early on, right, or even prevent it in the first place, we would be a lot better off as a human population. So, what's happening now is though.

[32:07] The predators who can't be diagnosed get shoved into BPD. So people say to me, oh, I don't agree with you, borderline personality disorder people are horrible, they're definitely predators. Well, the thing is, the way that it is.

[32:24] And I'm sympathetic to everyone's perspectives because we've been confused by the academics, by the psychiatrists, by the psychologists who are predators, and there are millions, there are so many. I say, without statistically significant research backing this claim, I believe that the level of predatory behaviour or predators in mental health, is of the same magnitude of child sex abuse and religion. But these predators are predating on people mentally, like forcing them, down this route of horrific engagement where they eventually commit suicide, not because of the reason they went to the mental health professional for, but because the way the mental health professional has dealt with them. And it could be mentally, sexually, there's a lot of sexual abuse by mental health professionals, socially, it's the usual, when I talk about a predator, It could be mental, psychological, emotional, social, like killing off people's social networks, killing off their reputation. You know, it's a whole lot, killing their relationship with their kids or.

[33:44] Yeah. So, predatory to me is not just sexual, it's very broad. It could be physical or sexual. So, and the same has happened with the ASPD, anti-social personality disorder, is more a disorder around the prey, the people who've been preyed on. But by putting psychopathy under that heading by an amendment to the DSM-5, again, you're diluting the waters. So it's really impossible to say they're a predator because you're saying ASPD, which is the overlay, but the ones that really need the support who've just got the behaviours. So ASBD is more behaviourally based and psychopathy is more the whole personality base and motivational base that is different. Yeah, so what the psychiatrists and psychologists creating the DSM keep doing is mixing them up together. I mean, it's insidious and with capital letters insidious. It's, if every time they put out a new DSM, and there is meant to be a new one coming out soon, DSM-6, let's have a look at what they do. Let's see if we can actually diagnose a disease.

[35:09] A human predator from the DSN because right now it's almost impossible. The low-functioning ones, the ones that are in jail, and that's what they want us to believe, the high-functioning psychologists and psychiatrists that are predators, right? They want us to think they're the ones in jail. They're the ones that are violent and aggressive and have those impulse control capability issues, but that's, just a small section that they're corralling us down with movies and with every.

[35:46] Although there's been some things that have come out on, you know, as series, et cetera, recently that are paying more attention to the more subtle and covert techniques the predators use. Do any stick out or stand out that people could watch as good examples? Well, do you know what I would do? I'll come back to you with the ones I would prefer to mention because there's quite a few. I want to pick just a few of the good ones. There's actually one from Germany that's fantastic at showing the difference. It's got some titles, but it really is good. So I want to think about that. And maybe you could put that up on the screen at the end when you finish this. Would that work for you? Yeah, I'll probably put it. Yeah, that'll work. I'll probably put it in the description, and then I'll be writing about this too and posting it on my Substack, so I'll do a little write-up on Substack to add some stuff to that too. Yeah, great. Well, thank you for that. Okay. Well, you mentioned predators and prey, And now this is a chapter,

[36:58] this is chapter 11 in your book. So maybe I want you to get into, uh, just maybe a little bit more on that topic because, um.

[37:09] Of course, the persistent predatory personality model is about predators, but you've also got this chapter where you introduce the concept of prey. I guess it's in the thesis too a little bit. I can't remember if you use the word prey in the thesis or not, but you expand on it in the book here. So when you're saying prey, maybe just expand on that a little bit. What is human prey as opposed to human predators? Yes well so unfortunately there are a set of attributes that predators look for and i often use the metaphor of predators in the wild like lions um, they look for where are their groups of vulnerable vulnerable people so or sorry in the metaphor of the animals they might go to a watering hole for example because they know that's where those groups are vulnerables they can find And zebras there or, wildebeests or, you know, the other animals they like to prey on. And that's the same in the human predator. They go to work in hospitals where people are sick. They work with kids because they're more vulnerable. They look for those of us who've been targeted by predators before, right, brought up by them or being part of a cult or being married to one or recently bereaved, right? So they look for groups. Um, So they'll look on social media where we are.

[38:39] So it's just the same. And then what they do, what the predators do in the wild, is they'll watch their prey for a while. They'll look at those that are more vulnerable. So they'll look for the young. So they won't just look where there's groups of them. They also look for which are the younger ones, which are the older ones, which ones look sick. And the predators, unfortunately, do that. Human predators do the same. And then they will watch their behavior, and that's what human predators do. They'll observe. They'll say, are they kind of away from their family? Are they, you know, how smart are they? How easily will they be to control? So they kind of look for that. And then what they'll do in the wild is they isolate. So they'll go off and try and coordinate off a young one or an older one or a sick one from the tribe, from the group, from the pack or whatever. That's exactly what they do as well as...

[39:46] That's what human predators do. So they look for people who might have recently moved to the country, from another country, because they're isolated from their community.

[39:57] Or they will actively isolate their victim. Oh, look, do we want to see your family? You know, I'm not sure they really support you. You know, I'm here for you. Let's just not see your family as much. Look, let's exclude Lisa from this meeting. but she's got a heavy workload. Look, let's not ask her for drinks on Friday night after this meeting because, you know, she's got family. We don't want her to feel bad that she can't. So there's these manipulative ways that they isolate their human prey just as the wild animal do the same with their prey. And then they weaken. So in the wild, they'll chase them, of course, and wear them down and et cetera. Human predators do the same. Once they've isolated them, they'll demean and insult and the word gaslight. So they play with their mind. In my research, one example was where a guy would get his wife's car set of keys and he would go and move her car while she was at work. And so she would be like, I just don't understand what's going on. Like, so they actively break the person, right? They play with their mind.

[41:20] They decrease their confidence.

[41:25] And then gradually it leads to the death. In the wild, of course, it leads to death. With the human predator, what they do with the prey is that they might push them, as I've already said, eventually to suicide or to become such a hollow, shell of what they once were. I often talk to victims or targets of human predators, and there's a lot of this data in the book as well around they're just not the person they ever were. It's such a fundamental pulling apart of a person's being. It's hard to describe. It is like what a lion would do to a zebra, you know, a young zebra that they would catch. It's the same thing. It's quite horrific. So I just think that what a lot of the academics and mental health professionals have done is just mixed up a lot of this when it's actually quite simple. And then mental health professionals will say when I'm commenting on social media, oh, this is such a simplistic. But it is simple. I mean, it actually is. And yes, there's people with other sorts of mental health issues, but I'm not talking about those. And then there's something just falling over.

[42:42] And then there's a whole bunch of people whose behaviours are, you know, inside the paradigm of normal who don't tend to get targeted because they're not as easy to manipulate and control.

[42:57] So the prey... Will, even if they don't suicide or go to addictions, they often get sick. So one of the people in my research was a highly experienced cancer doctor, very respected. And he said, although he could not provide specific data, he has no doubt from what he watches amongst couples, et cetera, that these people drive their partner to get a life-threatening disease because the level of abuse on so many different fronts.

[43:36] Is so high. The prey often don't realize that they're prey because, again, just like lions hide before they bounce, that's what predators do. They, at their core, are very, very dangerous and committed to control and sadism, right? Not affinity and love because of these brain differences, which we can talk about a bit later. But what they do, you would have heard the term love-bonding initially in workplaces or in families or in religious, they will absolutely bond their target with or, push all of this positive energy and ideas and gifts, onto their target. So they stay hidden, their true self, because they always have two sides, because they create these false facades so they can get away with this stuff, but they stay hidden. And once there's a legal event, like a marriage, a baby, their kids turn 18, once there's a legal event, then it all changes. So that nice thing, that nice facade that they're projecting, because they can control more once it's a legal event.

[45:03] So that false persona comes out more, so that you've just got this kind of nice act initially and it is so overwhelmingly convincing. The person often feels like they've never been seen before in a way that's been seen by the predator because they don't experience fear or shame. Literally, we've done so many tests to show they don't experience fear so they can brazenly just stare into the eyes of someone forever and make you feel so special, they listen for what your vulnerabilities are, and they will say, let's do this, I want to be this for you, I want us to have this in our life. There were two women that I spoke to who had dated the same predatory man, and he promised completely different things to one than to the other. It's just a masterful tailoring, which is all sadly false, and it's horrific,

[46:05] for the poor victim or the prey when they realize the truth. I call it recalibration. The process of going back over all these circumstances and thinking, oh, what really was going on there? Were they lying? Was there someone else there then?

[46:22] It's the most sickening process, the recalibration, the realization you were being completely fooled. So basically, when you ask me about prey, I would just say a very technical term, which is it totally sucks to be the prey.

[46:42] Well you you said something else in there that i i think is interesting and that is about the the people who don't get targeted maybe because um, for for whatever reason they they aren't perceived as as, as good prey you know they're not perceived as weak in the way that a you know the young antelope or the the aged antelope might be um, you because in in those in those herds of course there are the the strong ones the strong fit able ones in the prime of their, of their youth that can they can run faster and they get away so it's like okay that's not worth my, worth the trouble but the problem is the problem in the human world that that i see is that because because the people who are successful at avoiding that kind of contact um you know the the predators aren't interested in them. They have no experience of it. So when they hear about it, it sounds crazy. They don't, you know, they don't have any frame of reference for it. That's a really, really good point and really difficult. So predators also, it's not just the young or the old or the sick, it's also people who are just kind, kind-hearted, generous, honest.

[47:56] Because they will look past people's faults. And people also say to me, oh, well, you know, they also go for really successful people, and they do. So some that are higher functioning want a partner to hide their, because like I keep saying, they've always got a dark life, but they want a partner that looks good, that will perform.

[48:21] They might have to do social stuff for work or whatever. So they still can target, and sometimes that's more of a challenge for them. Let me target them, and if I bring them down, then that will be fun because, again, it is impossible for people, particularly if they haven't been targeted, as you were saying, to understand. The depth of darkness that motivates these people.

[48:51] And sometimes people say to me, surely not, he's a CEO. He wouldn't put the time into doing all of that. Or they're a high-flown journalist. Why would they spend all the time doing that? They do. They are so different to the rest of us. That's where they get their kids. Because of this brain and all these, do you want me to talk about that? Or do you want to, look, the whole thing, asking your question, and get us to.

[49:20] Or do you want me to talk a bit more about the fact, it is, like, how do we bring the people who have not experienced being targeted, which was your point before, how do we bring them up to speed? How do we, because we need them. They're the stronger people, potentially, or in communities that need to be leading this fight, against the dangerous because there are many and they are becoming much more brazen. And we mentioned that before the show, right? They're coming out more and making decisions in courts that are more conditioned towards, that don't help the victims. So judges that are predators are making decisions more and more that don't help the victims of rape or sexual assault or predators you know engaged in pedophilia and child sex abuse, they're letting them go more and more, so the predatory judges are becoming or the judges that are predators are becoming more blatant in terms of letting people off so they're not setting precedent, because all predators are sexually boundaryless. That's one of the attributes. So they'll do anything with anyone, and they're going to just keep that open in the courts.

[50:48] So, yeah, how do we get people who are really strong and leaders in communities who have not been targeted to understand what to do, like how to help and how bad? That's what I'm hoping to do in my book. I'm actually hoping that people will read it who are higher functioning but, you know, have not been preyed on and are not predators and might join the fight. Because I tell you what, I'm nervous about the future of the world now and where it's heading and how a lot more of these, predators are becoming more active. They're not hiding as much. Okay, well, yeah, there's a whole handful of things I want to say to respond and to take off on that. Um, I'll make a few observations and then, and, and we'll go with that. Um.

[51:53] So one about how to, how to get these people on board, one of the, I think the point that shines through, I think you're, I think the, the, the recommendation you give in your book the most with the most, um, um, like frequency and intensity is, you know, education, education, education, that that's the, that's the, the first step. And it's kind of the, the step without which no other steps will be effective. It's kind of the, the, the fun, the fundamental, um, you know, base on which anything else will, will, um, will come and, and, and must come. So, and I, and I think that that's, um, it, I think that's true. It's just a matter of, of course, how to implement it, how to actually put forward this education, because.

[52:47] Again, to use my, or just to use the university example, you know, you have high school kids that go into university like, like me. Um, I, you take your psychology 101 and I learned some really interesting things in psychology 101. Um, and was, was exposed to all kinds of stuff. Like we even learned a little bit about, um, psychopathy, I'm pretty sure. Um, and even, even in high school, there was a course that I didn't take. I had the option, but I didn't take it of taking like a high school psychology course just cause one was offered in my high school. So.

[53:21] And once, I think the hurdle is basically getting into the curriculum. Once you're in the curriculum, then kids are like, kids are pretty receptive and open to learning new and interesting things. And this is a new and interesting thing for a lot of people. I think it would be for kids, especially, it would be interesting and helpful for various different kinds of kids, right? Because in any school, you're going to have child victims. You're going to have children that have been, um, uh, abused, you know, abused as children who have a, uh, uh, like a predator as a family member. Um, you're going to have that subset of kids. You're going to have, the kids who will grow up to be those resilient ones and the ones that are never targeted, but they're going to be learning about it at a young impressionable age where they, where I think they'll be more interested in it just because it's, um, by its very nature interesting. You know, it might not have any immediate relevance to them in their lives because they haven't experienced that. Um, um, but I think, I think youths are the, are the, the best target, um, for, for that kind of education. Some people might be too old, you know, and, and, um, you know, you just can't teach them. Maybe they won't, they're not interested in learning anything new. Um, but I, I think that, I think that's possible. It's just a matter of getting it done. Um, and, um.

[54:44] With, uh, with social media, of course, um, you know, anyone can, anyone can view it. So if there were, if there were online, um, you know, resources online that were sufficiently, um, accessible and, you know, viral, that, that would be great. Again, it's a matter of implementing that, which is the hard part.

[55:10] But on that, you mentioned the judges. So I think some of the examples that you were alluding to are recently judges who are being extremely lenient with the perpetrators of the crimes that you mentioned. Like it might be, um, rapes, um, violent rapes. Um, you can, you can expand on that and what's going on with these, these judges, basically. Now, one of the things that I've, that has been going around, um, like social media has been this concept of like suicidal empathy. Right. I don't know if you've seen the discussion on that before or seen it crop up, but basically the idea that some people are just empathetic.

[56:01] To a degree that it becomes dangerous to themselves. And you can kind of see what the, what, what is meant by this. If you, if you imagine a person who is so tolerant and open-minded that they will give, um, rights and lenience to, you know, the worst sort of people to the point where they get harmed in the process. I think that, I think that is kind of the, maybe a charitable way of, of interpreting that. Um, I don't necessarily agree with the, the, the way the concept is framed. Um, because I think that And you could look at these judges in these cases and say, oh, they're being suicidally empathetic. Um, but you know, I don't think that's going on. I don't think that's what, I don't think that's what you think is going on. Um, maybe let's talk about that a bit more, um.

[56:52] What is going on with these judges? Maybe we can take it in a few different directions, but maybe just say a bit more about that.

[56:59] Okay. Well, the whole suicidal empathy, I don't support that, and I don't support the person who came up with that concept, because it takes the focus away from the predator, which has been done on purpose by this person, right? Now, what I would say, though, because I have studied that in depth, I like going down any rabbit hole to look at what's actually going on here. I collect a lot of data and a lot of research. So I'm not supportive of that. But because it is about the predators, it's not about the prey. The prey are pretty much good people who are trying to do the best thing in life, trying to be their best selves. But it's not to say you're not responsible for your behaviors. you are. But what I will say is there is this whole thing about turn the other cheek and forgive and forget. I mean, you've got to think predators must have made that up, right?

[58:01] And it is true that we, and again, I don't blame people for not understanding this, right? Because a lot of people educating in this space are predators, they don't bring up the brain stuff, right? These people have completely different brains, right? The prefrontal cortex in particular and the amygdala and also not just structure but functional aspects of the brain and also interconnectivity between different parts of the brain. In my book, I mention for all people, because a lot of people like to know I need to see this because I haven't heard much about it, There's heaps of references in my book to the brain differences. Like I talk about that in quite a solid, in fact, I work with a neuropsychologist on it and we did a huge amount of research. We looked at all the metadata analysis that had been done and tore those apart. We looked at singular researchers and who the control groups were as well as the non-control group. And so it's not just the brain stuff. It's also in terms of fear. I mean, clearly they don't experience fear, not just from the brain stuff, but also.

[59:16] From perspiration studies and heart rate studies. Heart rate. I mean, it's just, yeah, yeah, it is just, it is very clear these people do not experience fear. They're different animals. So, so, so, so the problem.

[59:32] Pray sometimes, not pray, but because I don't want to, this is not about the victims and those who are targeted, but sometimes broadly in the world, there is this view because we don't understand these people are so different through their brains, and through their motivations and they're just not motivated by affinity or by love or by accomplishment in the way that we know it. It's about control, not accomplishment, right? So they're just so different. And sadism is about demeaning, diminishing, you know, humiliating, sort of brainwashing. There's all sorts of stuff around sadism. But because we don't understand it, we do think, a lot of people think, yes, everyone's redeemable. You know, we can all, with love, be changed. You know, I used to think that very strongly. You know, I'm a big kind of empath, like love to love, you know, all this sort of stuff. And I used to be horrified if people would say, no, no, they're not, you know. But the fact is, now that I know what I know.

[1:00:41] Absolutely we can't say turn the other cheek it just gives them they they rub their hands with glee oh great they're turning the other cheek i'm yet to do it again and in fact a lot of predators love to go to religion charities because they know there's less governance processes people will turn the other cheek there's they they're not they don't think as badly of people so they can get away with more stuff.

[1:01:08] I mean, yes, charities. I know three charities in Australia that have CEOs who are predators through a whole lot of research that I've done. One of them, I tried to talk to one of the board directors about it and people don't want to know. And also, we've been prevented from understanding the full set of behaviours. So it's the education. I agree with you, everything, your point about it's got to be education before everything else, totally accurate. So my work is very much around human behaviours and shifting human behaviours. And people just can't go from here to here. There has to be, before they can start actively doing stuff, they do need to understand. So education is the first plank, as you're saying, awareness, then education and I think schools is a fantastic place to start, so we will see through who might implement that in a curriculum who the predators are and who aren't because there's teachers that are predators, and and I often get them um writing to me saying our principal is one and it's really difficult because he or she does this that and the other, but yes I'd love to help anyone who.

[1:02:25] Is listening to this and would like to work with me or my team on developing curriculum for schools, really happy to do that. Back to the crazy judges, I'll just make a couple of comments because I've noticed the same thing. I don't know if we're reading the same stories or if it's just happening everywhere. Like I've noticed several stories in the, in the past couple of years, many in Europe, um, and then a few in the, in the U S um, even including some high profile cases of, um, of kind of the, the criminal predator, right. The one that, uh, the one that doesn't have very much self-control, um, and, and is just a recidivist criminal, just crime after crime after crime. And these, uh, these judges who just, um, like refuse to charge them, let them out after a month. And it's just, they're back on the streets, back on the streets, back on the streets until they kill someone in public for no reason whatsoever. And it becomes a huge story. And then, you know, who knows if they're going to, you know, if they're going to get a big sentence after that either. But, um, and then you hear the stories in Europe, very similar, but I.

[1:03:39] The ones I've read in Europe are more about the, the rape cases where, um, just, you know, a violent rapist who it's like, oh, well, you know, we have to, I don't even know what the justification is. Um, I know there are some trends in European law, um, some kind of, um.

[1:03:58] Or arguments and justifications for lenient sentences. And from the little bit of research I did on this for, a separate project, not even directly relating to this issue, is that it seemed to me that, those policies were fairly effective.

[1:04:19] Maybe just in prior years, because the, I think the motivation behind them is, is an, uh, an insight that I think the, you mentioned is that a lot of the, even let's say antisocial personality disorder, you know, it's a, it's a prey, a prey behavior, a prey outcome, is that there are a lot of people that are, are in prison or that go into prison are reformable. They, they are able to, um, to become, you know, better people, better citizens, healthier, and, you know, not commit crimes again. But there are those that that doesn't work on, right? There are the human predators who can't be fixed, who can't be changed. Now, so in a criminal, like legal setting, it works when there's even an intuition about that situation where it's like, okay, well, this person obviously isn't going, you know, can't be reformed. It seems like we, you know, we might be able to give this person a chance, you know, and see what happens. It's possible for that to work. It would work better if there was a better understanding of those human differences. But it seems in many cases, at least with particular judges, that it's gone totally off the rails where, it's almost like they're using the leniency in sentencing as the cover to just let off the.

[1:05:38] People who really shouldn't be let back on the streets because of the crimes that they've committed and the, and the crimes that they will undoubtedly commit, you know, in a week, a month, you know, within the next year. And it just seems like an insane situation. Um.

[1:05:58] And well, there's a, I just wrote an article on, um, that gets into some of this stuff. Well, it relates to one other comment that I want to make. I won't get into my article. Um. About, uh, about high functioning predators and academia. Well, um, not in academia, but in relation to academia, because the, the, the way the academic, the academic, um, constructs present it.

[1:06:26] You don't really see any focus on the idea that, as you say, the C, this CEO can be a predator, You know, this highly regarded, um, surgeon can be a predator, et cetera, et cetera. But for the average person on the street, I think that the, I think the average person is much more receptive to that, especially in politics, right? I think that if you talk to some just totally ignorant person on the street that knows nothing about psychology or psychiatry or any of these concepts.

[1:06:55] They, they've got a pretty good idea that there are completely evil people in very high positions. Uh, and we, we see that in the, in a lot of the conspiracy theory and the conspiracy fact that comes out, you know, like Jeffrey Epstein and we've got pedophile scandal after pedophile scandal in the UK. Um, like if you just look in the past 50 years, you've got like a dozen high profile pedophile ring scandals just in the UK alone. You've got the DeTrue scandal in Belgium in the 90s, um, the Franklin scandal in the, in, in the U S in the eighties. And there's just one after the other. And what you see is absolute depravity among the top echelon of, you know, the elites in society. So normal, like normal people are aware of that. Um, people on the internet are aware of that. It's not shocking to them because they've just become, they've become used to it in a sick kind of way. It's kind of, um, there's, and used to it in the, and almost desensitized to it. Like it still gets people really angry, but it's kind of even just recognized on among a certain.

[1:08:08] Maybe it's just the terminally online percentage of the, of the population that's just aware of these things, but I don't think, so I think that's actually a good thing because I think that the, the, the, the general person is more open to this, to, to your ideas, like to the insights that you've, that you've gotten into this subject than the, like the academic who's already made up his mind. Right. So I think that there's, there's fertile ground for, uh, for people latching onto this as being okay well that you know that explains what i see happening in the world because i know there are really evil people that are very high functioning.

[1:08:44] Um so i think i i tend to think that's kind of a good thing but i'm just kind of like rambling just sharing some some thoughts that came to me over the course of the discussion but yeah, there's a couple of things like so we're talking about now really high functioning and i want to go back to that because they're not just when i say high functioning they're also like your local accountant, your GP, like, you know, the person who runs the corner, they're like everywhere. So it's not just control. Like when I say control, it might just be control. It might be control over a body during a rape or control of your accounting client, like, or a control of like whoever they, you know, GP control over their, like their patient in the weirdest ways, right? It doesn't have to be control over a country or control over a company. It can be control over a family, it can be.

[1:09:40] So I use some examples in the book around how this might look, and I talk about in the finance industry, how might this play out, right? And with an accountant, with a finance advisor or with a treasurer or with it, because I've seen this quite a lot.

[1:09:57] Um and so what they might do for example with an accountant like how do you control they might actually do incorrect tax just so they can dob you into the tax office or they might if you want to leave because you realize there's something shifty going on here that it's just, they won't let you leave they keep giving you wrong invoices so you actually can't leave them to move to another so in some countries until you know you've paid your invoice you can't move to so they just, it's actually with a lot of them less about money and more about the control is the greatest driver now some of them are avaricious they do like money they like collecting toys they like the.

[1:10:40] Control that is given to them through power right but not all of them, are like that so so we need to so we need to think about a high functioning there's two different ways one is those really high function where they have all the power countries businesses church there's so many religion like, um and then you have the just normal people going about normal life who you might have someone at the local planning office who, bring accepts your form for planning and then says you've done it wrong and then gives you the right and next form that's also wrong on purpose and you think oh that's weird so you go back again or you email them again or whatever, and then they'll they'll put it in the wrong thing like you don't even know sometimes they just don't like the way you look at them, or you might cut in front of them in a car, and they might.

[1:11:33] Because they're very vengeful, vengefulness is one of their attributes, they might come after you for the next five years, right? They might follow you, they might know where you live, you don't even know, and you're getting letters where you think, what's going on? And then you're kind of finding stuff out, you know, with your kids, or that you just think, what's going on here? And you're prevented from certain things, the extent they go to with vengefulness is extraordinary. So they will pretend to be, oh, I'm such and such a sister, something really important is going on at the moment, she's been hurt. Can you just give me her car, Rego? We're in a big car park, I can't find it. And people do.

[1:12:14] Human predators have ways of getting information. Because they have no fear and they're completely brazen, they will just get information in ways we would go, no, really, no one would do that. The moment you say no one would do that, you know it actually is a human predator. So there's the higher functioning ones, but then there's just normal people.

[1:12:37] Not normal because they're not normal, but there's predators just in the broad population. It might be a school parent who decides that they're going to get another parent, right? And then they just do stuff in the background to do with their children or their, you know, registration records. And I mean, and they like, a lot of them like that you don't know it, right? They like that they're just causing all this havoc in someone's life. That's how they get their kicks. not by love, not by formal accomplishment, not by affinity.

[1:13:13] They get it like that. They're motivated very differently. But to go back to your judges and the Epstein files, I mean, that has just brought up the most horrific stuff. And a lot of mainstream media haven't covered it because they're involved. Some of the people that own the mainstream media are in the Epstein files and whatever. So you have to be really, because I always say you've got to do the research. You've got to know the red flags and you've got to do your research. And so you've got to really do, I mean, I've found the platform I prefer to get my information from. And then I found particular people that I know are not predators and who are clued in.

[1:13:56] And not necessarily conspiracy theorists but people who just know the facts and the data and what the trends are in the world. So we've got to be kind of nowadays, if we want to avoid these people, we've got to do quite a bit of research of where do we get our information from. And I don't think I, the political party, when we're talking about high-functioning ones, they both, all political parties have predators. So we're fighting it out. No, it's the Democrats, no, it's the Republicans in Australia, it's the Labor Party, the Liberal Party. But it's really, this is what predators love to do. Let's just get everyone fighting against each other while we get on, and that's how they get their power, right? So they're going to have predators in all political parties. They go wherever they can get the control. So I really wish we would stop kind of doing that and just, I don't know, somehow create. We're the non-predator party. We screen for normal people that aren't predators. But with the judges and the higher functioning ones being more brazen and coming out there was an advertisement which I won't mention.

[1:15:15] Do you know who it is? It was done by a lifestyle company, is all I would say, and it was put on TV around the time of the Paris, the French Olympics, right? Yeah. Yes, around the time of the French. It was a lifestyle company. Oh, my goodness. It promotes, it compares Olympic athletes to predators, and it actually promotes the attributes of predators. It talks about, you know, I have no empathy. Does that make me a bad person? It keeps saying, you know, what's mine is mine, what's yours is mine. Like, there's all this stuff that's celebrated. And I actually was very upset when I saw that because I realized this is the beginning of them starting to be more open, which means it's coming fast. their willingness to.

[1:16:17] Um then that's what's going on with the judges i've noticed this in the last six to twelve months there is an appetite for predators to be more open whereas before they always had that facade so i looked up the people behind, the production of this advertisement and i looked at the company the board you know i'm not going to talk any more about this but then i looked at what other boards a couple of these people were on, and the stories just hung together. Again, I can't really say much, I don't think, because I'm sure my lawyers would say not to, but people can kind of look it up and find it, and they will be shocked about how, Yeah, the glorification of predatory traits, so obvious, so obviously done.

[1:17:15] Yeah. So, yeah, with the judges, they're clearly setting precedents and no doubt we'll eventually start looking. What they want to do is bring down age for sex, right? Everything is about, and look, shall I talk about the left-right facial hemisphere asymmetry stuff? Yes, let's get to that next. I just wanted to expand a little bit on that last point that you made. That to me it seems like there is.

[1:17:54] A deliberate breaking down of sexual boundaries because sexual boundarylessness is a universal trait of human predators. This is actually the article that I wrote that recently that I was alluding to. It's basically a book review of a book by Jason Horsley called The Vice of Kings. Um, great book, which looks at, um, how did, well, just really simply, um, he, he tracks a history of connections, uh, in the UK, um, you know, linking, um, Fabian socialist politics because his grandfather was a, you know, a prominent Fabian, um, and a successful guy and all the connections that came from that. And, and it turns out that a lot of the, the people that started Fabian socialism, um, one of them was Havelock Ellis. He was like the pre Kinsey about, um, uh, sexual psychology and as, as Horsley is going through this history and just, just tracking like family connections at first. And it gets, cause it gets into all the politics, um, labor, the, the labor party in the, in the UK was founded by 1900 by primarily Fabian socialists, part of the Fabian society.

[1:19:17] No matter where you look, there's this, this trio of, um, weird kind of occultism, like ties to Aleister Crowley, Crowley, who was a famous, um, how, how should I put it? Sexual libertarian of, of any sort. Like he, he wanted, um, total sexual freedom for anyone, for everyone, um, that you should be totally free to express and absolutely any sexual proclivity that you might have, um, words to that effect. He, you know, he wrote and he put into practice and, um, and pedophilia have luck. Ellis was an early, um, um, you know, researcher into pedophilia and, and you find just those connections all through British history and the starting up of, of childcare homes and homes for like wayward youths. Um, and, and, um, you know, people, kids with, with, um, disturbed, um, childhoods, all these care homes. And then these care homes end up being, the sites of these pedophile ring scandals. And it's just, it's this very dark picture that gets painted of what's, what's going on. And, but one of those common features is these people are themselves, um, sexually boundary lists and they.

[1:20:36] Have pushed a, a social agenda to make that.

[1:20:42] Um, more, more and more legal, more and more accepted so that they can express, you know, express their sexual boundarylessness with less, um, outside pressure from the world, you know, less legal pressure, less social pressure. They want, um, a total sexual liberation, um, in order to freely express themselves. So very early on ties with pro pedophile groups and then into the seventies with the pedophile information exchange. Um, again, closely tied in with, with the civil rights, um, groups that existed in the seventies in the UK, all wanting to bring down the, you know, the age of consent to like four years old, like absolutely crazy, crazy people. And, and, uh, and it's, and it's been going on for the entirety, even, even prior to the sexual revolution, you know, they were pushing for this stuff in the late 1800s. Um, and as Horsley writes at one point in the book, he says, you know, if we, I'm paraphrasing, you know, if we look at the world today.

[1:21:39] You know, everything Crowley wanted is coming true. You know, we, we, we are living in the product of Aleister Crowley's, you know, um, vivid, vividest, you know, imagination. Um, and it's just, uh, it's just, it's really weird. It's a really weird book. Um, just because of the, these connections and how things play out. So basically when you were saying that, that's, that's kind of the way I see it is that, is that when you have judges doing things like this, um, they're not just, they're not just ignorant. They're not just, you know, um, incompetent. Oh, oh, I asked, you know, uh, for whatever reason, I accidentally, you know, gave this guy a very lenient sentence or let him go with a slap on the wrist.

[1:22:18] It's deliberate, um, that there are people out there that are deliberately trying to put into place this, um, they're trying to legalize this sexual, sexual boundary listness. Um, they're trying to make it The norm, which is... Yes, correct. Insane. And yes, and that's what some of these judges are doing. And we think that the legal system is there to protect us, that it's about justice. I mean, we all know it's not fully about justice, but it's much darker than that. It really is.

[1:22:54] Yeah, definitely. I mean, I've been involved in the family court for about 20 years as an advocate, and there's definitely a group of people there, barristers, psychologists. There's one psychologist that's been suspended twice, uh, and is now, um.

[1:23:12] She's now on trial, still hasn't been deregistered, but she's suspended again. I mean, what does it take to get rid of these? So there's 22, witnesses, last time I heard, and, you know, she's tried to push people to suicide, you know, like giving kids to wrong parents, all sorts of stuff, because out of the sages it's in control. But now because she's suspended here, she's working off the U.S., the coast of the U.S., one of the coasts of the U.S. So they just move around. They're the same person. They never change. Data shows they can't change. People sometimes say to me, well, what about neuroplasticity and can their brains change? Their brains are very different. And I don't think neuroplasticity is going to work. Plus, with neuroplasticity, you have to want it to work. These predators, they don't want to change. They think they're superior. So that's why one of their attributes, so one attribute in my model is brazenness. Another attribute is entitlement and a strong sense that they're of superiority, because they don't have fear. They feel they can get away with what they are very confident about their ability to get out of anything that might. Yeah, people say, oh, they fear going to jail. They don't fear going to jail. They believe they can get out of it.

[1:24:34] If they're up for jail, they just will convince, manipulate, bribe, threaten, you know, they just believe, they just back themselves no matter what. So, yeah, I do fear that it has got worse. And these people used to run countries, right? You know, you'd have, you know, administrations run in countries like, why is my brain? I know there's so many of them.

[1:25:10] Chile, you know, in Chile you had, anyway, I do know all these. My brain's just not working but now they've got global reach with with it platforms and uh ai i don't want to go down that one but yeah it ai.

[1:25:31] Um uh and also globalization so you've got global companies that they can run that it's not just countries anymore it is a first that everything's been worldwide, but i do have hope that there's 90 of us, and only 10 of them but yes the education has to happen quickly um i often get asked about brain scanning like can we scan and look i think it's really, beyond time to start setting up groups around the world to start looking at the efficacy of that, um people will say yeah but you know maybe they'll be used inappropriately like the brain scan it's like we're way past worrying about that i mean really the, as we've just been talking about the increase in willingness of judges and people very senior like this lifestyle company this global lifestyle company to be so out there around supporting their, attributes and setting the world up for them i fear with ai like we only have a certain set of resources on the country if we're going to use all our water supplies for, to set up ai i mean and they don't they actually don't care right it's for them they just want the planet for them if it compromises everybody else you know they'll have ai they'll have, robots that can till the fields and.

[1:26:57] But, like, I think it is time, beyond time, to look at, you know, brain scanning and can we do that? And, you know, like, some of the research is conflicting in some areas, but then I'm always suspicious about, like, as soon as we talk brain scanning, the academics will do what they always do, the predatory academics. They'll create data that challenges it, even though it might be data that's just been made up, right? Or because nothing is beyond them. And they will stack editorial boards to publish the material with them and they've already done that. Do you know how hard it was for me to publish my material? Like, do you know how hard it was for me to even finish my PhD? Because I had been approaching a number of, you know, fairly senior academics, well, very senior from around the world, and I hadn't realised that some of them were predators. And, yeah, there was a lot done. Even since I've started posting on social media, like you can see who the predators are that will push back against it. But, yeah, I think we definitely need some working groups in different continents looking at how do we screen it.

[1:28:17] And how would we set that up and how would it work? And, you know, false negatives, false positives some people bring up. But I think that can be addressed.

[1:28:30] Yeah, I mean, I think, in my view, these people are the cause of all of our wars, right? And all of our.

[1:28:41] Yeah, a lot of the negative stuff that happens in humanity, becomes from this 10% of the population. So, yeah, we do, it's, but we haven't been able to see them enough until now, until my data, it makes them much easier to see. Yeah. That, that reminds me of one other point that I was going to make. And that is the, there's a kind of academic gatekeeping in the, um, in the seeing or just the, the, in the noticing of, uh, of a predatory personality. Um, especially with the word psychopathy, like over the last 20 years, there have been several times where I understand the, the technicalities and the legalities of it. I think, but of just a regular person saying, oh, that person's a psychopath. And then you'll get an academic type that says, oh no, you have to be a professional in order to give that kind of diagnosis. That's irresponsible. You shouldn't be saying things like that. It's like, it's like, uh, there, there's a, there's a professional process that has to be gone through and okay. Yeah. Yeah. If you're actually diagnosing someone, sure. You, you know, you need to, you need to be a part of an accredited body in order to do that. But the, the whole point of psychopathy research from the very beginning, because it's a, you know, it's an old topic is here is a type of person that people experience in their everyday lives.

[1:30:04] People notice those, these people in their lives and they say, oh, there's something weird about this person. This person has an identifiable difference than the other people in my life. So scientists come along, um, like collectively and say, oh, well, let's, let's analyze this. Let's see if we can, uh, understand this phenomenon better, understand this person, but it starts from real life. Like even collectively, it starts from personal experience. It starts from him being like, oh, I've got these patients. Like these ones are really weird. Like what is different about these patients? You don't have to be an expert to realize that there's something weird going on. You don't have to be an expert to, to in your personal life, be like, wow, this person is totally evil and is like, is, is a predator. I know it because I've experienced it. You don't need a degree in order to be able to do that. Um, and if anything, the, like the victims and the, and the, the.

[1:30:53] The professionals that you interviewed, the, the, the experts that have, you know, decades of experience with these people, you know, um, with these types of people in various situations, like they're drawing on their, their personal experience. That is the place to start that you wouldn't, um, like that's where, that's where science starts. Like the only reason that we have that, that we have that scientists look at things, it's because like we notice them in the real world. Um, well, maybe not the, maybe not the only reason, but the primary reason, like biology, you notice as a new type of animal, oh, I have to understand that new animal. You have to see it first. Like people have seen the animal. The scientist just kind of like clarifies things about it, but you don't need to be a biologist to be, to be like, whoa, that bird looks pretty different.

[1:31:39] Yeah, I'll give you a really good story.

[1:31:44] That signifies what you're talking about, because what you're saying is the academics kind of hold themselves up as the keeper of the knowledge when their knowledge is actually out in the real world, and they're meant to be supporting the understanding of that, is what you're saying. Oh, by the way, there also is a thing in the U.S. called the Goldwater Ruling where, you know about that, where mental health professionals can't diagnose without having met a person.

[1:32:14] A couple of academics who I do respect said, well, in fact, you can. If they have a profile, you know, and you see a lot of them, right, and they say a lot, you can actually, but that's a whole different thing.

[1:32:31] A really good example, this is a fantastic example of what you were talking about, is, Oh, there's these, you know, the dark triad, the dark triad is made up of psychopaths, narcissists, and machiavellians. And two researchers thought, oh, they've got a lot of similarities, you know, the kind of the lack of empathy and the manipulativeness. And we'll put them together because, you know, that's a really cool thing to do and make the dark triad, right? And then another researcher came along and said, oh, everyday sadism, that some people are sadistic. I'm going to make it the dark tetra, because some people are sadistic. It is hilarious, right? It's not hilarious. It's tragic. What they did, the researchers, was they went into a laboratory to investigate sadism. And they got college students and the ones that went a bit extra to kill an insect in an experiment were said to be sadistic. And then in another experiment, so there were just two, right, people who could deliver a loud noise to other people who were willing to kind of put up money to do it or do something, to put forward something to get the opportunity to give a loud blast was said to be sad.

[1:33:55] Sadists oh my goodness in real life the level of sadism that is asserted by predators, is phenomenal it can go over years it means people losing their children their jobs their their demeaned in my research some of them had to eat on dog bowls they had to have sex with other people you know and were like, that they didn't want to but it was all coerced and threatened if they didn't. And, you know, people had limbs cut off because of the sagism. It's huge. These academics, instead of looking at what's going on in the real world and really understanding it, because guess what? None of the personality researchers have ever, right? None of the academics researching narcissism or psychopaths or doctorate have ever actually gone to real people in the real world and say, oh, guess, you know, I'm going to do a research project actually finding people who work with these people, right, outside jail, you know, these experts working. In my research, it was an average of 22 years, continuous exposure, not exposure, working with these, you know, predators and their victims, both.

[1:35:11] In outside of the justice system and inside the justice system. So I also had the FBI agent who caught the highest number of serial killers, like people working on death row. So it's all high functioning and the ones with not as good impulse control. The whole mix is where my data comes from. My data says all of them are sadistic. Whether you call them narcissists, psychopaths, Mackey, Relian, they're all sadistic. But these people based on, I'm getting overly excited here because it's so insulting. It's so insulting to those of us who've been subjected to the sadism over decades, right?

[1:35:51] In my case, it was my mother. And some of the sadistic, I couldn't get out of it. Like, you know, people say, why don't you get out of it? Well, in relationships, it can be hard. In cults, it can be hard. In human trafficking, it can be hard because of the threats and the coercion and the intimidation, the vengeance. Like, it can be dangerous to get out. And I just couldn't because I was younger and grew up with it. But how insulting for all of these people who have experienced all this by these people saying with insects and with a loud noise saying, oh, they're sadistic, but none of the others are, right? Every single one of my experts who worked outside of the justice system with predators and their victims, everyone said they're all sadistic, right? But no, the whole world is now talked about dark tetra and everyday sages, and yet again we've been led astray, right, in terms of how to see them. Was it innocent was it done on purpose who knows but it's not correct and um, you know the academics will say oh she's only done one study and she can come out and say all this i'm sorry none of the academics have actually looked at every field studying people who actively violate social norms and harm and disadvantage others by conscious trust they haven't looked at all the data So.

[1:37:15] I had done a much broader examination of the field than any of them had done. So, yes, it might be one study, but it's broader and deeper.

[1:37:28] Sorry, I get really passionate when victims are misrepresented in such a way that it makes it hard for other people to see and to, you know, to prevent harm in others. It's just not okay. But I just thought that was a good example of what you were talking about, where the academics, instead of going to the real world and taking their information from the real world, um don't you think that's a good example where they've just kind of gone down their own track and it just doesn't reflect the real world, and because yeah the disparity is so great between the the everyday reality that people just experience in their in their everyday lives which should be the basis for research and then this kind of um, antiseptic like uh you know university lab version of trying to, trying to replicate that situation among, amongst a group of college students. It's a.

[1:38:26] So when you were describing that, the way I was thinking about it is it's all fine and good for college students, you know, setting up their experiments to try to, you know, do something like that, to get an idea for how it is to, you know.

[1:38:42] To do a lab experiment, right? To do an experiment, but to assume that you're going to get anything useful out of that is kind of, I'd say kind of naive, kind of misguided because it's not a real world situation. You're not really analyzing, you're not really researching the thing as it exists in the real world. What would be really interesting is, okay, you take, um, you take college students and based on the insights you have from real life, try to figure out, okay, which of these college students are actually sadists? Um, you know, is the, is the insect test a way of doing that? But in order to do that, you have to have a preexisting measure to, to compare to, you can't just say, oh, this person likes killing insects more, you know, more than the other, therefore he's a sadist. No, you have to be like, okay, well, this person likes killing insects more and, oh, it turns out in his real life, he is a real sadist, but you can't do that to college students, right? You can't, um, you know, get into their personal lives and try to see if they're, if they're, if they're an actual sadist, like it's just, it's difficult. So it's a, it's just totally misguided. I think on all levels.

[1:39:47] The, the place to do that research is where you have access and where you have access is the people who have access to people like that, which is like the people that you talk to. Um, and, um, yeah, it's, it really is a tricky situation, um, for that reason. But, but I think like your research shows that it's possible that you can, you can bridge these worlds. You can actually, um.

[1:40:15] You can actually, let's say, you know, exploit the knowledge of the people with the most experience. You can gain insights from it. You can use it. And I think that is the most important corrective for the academic research that, you know, to use the metaphor earlier, it has these blinders on and is going down these, you know, these.

[1:40:41] Roads to nowhere, blind alleys.

[1:40:46] I differentiate between personality researchers and behavioural researchers, personality researchers, narcissism, machiavellianism, dark tread, etc. The behavioural ones are very specific. So some of them looking at cults, the behaviours in cults, some looking at the behaviours in coercive control. And some of the behavioural researchers actually have gone to targets or victims and got information from them. So, I do want to differentiate, right, because the personality researchers just have not done that because, again, some of those key people are themselves predators. They don't want the information to come out. The fact that the PCLR, for example, doesn't contain control or sadism, and it's the tool that's used the most in the world to assist, how come no one said anything, like, what.

[1:41:40] Because there are a group that support that model, that's why I've had to be out of the scene, to be able to comment on it. You just get, well, Bob Hare has litigated against people who have tried to challenge him. So, you know, some of them make it really difficult. I think he also tried to sue the APA, according to one of his colleagues that he sued. I mean, like, why would you do that? Why wouldn't you just try and work together to look at that? I mean, this is about saving humanity and people from extraordinary heart.

[1:42:19] Yeah. Anyway, there's, there are a lot of issues out there.

[1:42:25] Well, first of all, Karen, do you have to get going quick or do you have time to, to keep going? Cause I've got a few more questions. Yeah, yeah, go for it. Okay. Well, first I wanted to get into what you'd suggested about facial asymmetry. This comes from the chapter on red flags. So this is a new chapter, you know, this is stuff not in the thesis. So maybe, yeah, talk a little bit about red flags, but specifically about this facial asymmetry that you've been noticing.

[1:42:57] Yeah, that's a really good question. So this is a really unusual one. So there are definitely red flags with human predators as a result of them not having the normal emotional world that we have. No fear, no empathy. They do have this pathological anger response when they're thwarted and getting what they want or when someone tries to expose them but it's not a normal anger people say oh yeah they have emotions they get angry but it's not it's like a lion having its meat taken away from it it is and it's, it's terrifying to be in the presence of it uh it is a pathological response to being stopped um, so and and there's there's a lot of red flames in that they don't have emotions so they copy people they i imagine predators are looking in the mirror a lot right because they they're not so while i'm talking to you my hands are moving a lot particularly when i get.

[1:43:58] Things and predators look for that so one, of the many that are in this chapter in the book is someone watching your hands a lot because they're always looking for your weak spots, your vulnerabilities and your passion points are a vulnerability. It's something they can take away from you or something that they can, interfere with, right? Another thing is because they don't emote and they're often copying, they sometimes don't get it right. And you can see a mismatch between their emotional response and the subject area. And a number of adopters in my research said that too, that they can see that the response just wasn't right for the delivery of news, for example, that someone had cancer, right? Their partner, there was just nothing. Or one of the clean sites in my work was saying that.

[1:44:55] They're just too contained in the way they respond.

[1:44:59] There's no emotional match with what it is that's being spoken about that could be really horrible about kids or whatever. That came out a lot. But because they know their emotions aren't right, they put on these facades, and yes, the facades aren't always right. They also know that they don't gesticulate like others do, et cetera, so they often won't do very specific hand movements to cover that up. Well, they sometimes do a bit of flailing stuff, like, Crying is another one, where a lot of them can't cry. Some can, and they use it in a performative way. So I've noticed one of the experts on narcissism just uses it quite a lot. It's actually not really appropriate for clinicals, you know, for psychologists to kind of emote quite a bit on platforms. Sure, but they're just too much. She cries too much, right? Mother's Day, this, data. But people don't know because it's so engaging, right? But there's so many other red flags. I always say that one red flag does not a predator make. You've got to do the research and look at the others. But as soon as I see a performative crime, but a classic is, and you see it in women predators with high profiles quite a lot, they'll wipe their eyes, but there's clearly no tears, or they might just keep working the same side of their face.

[1:46:29] Or they'll get the tissue and dab it and there's nothing or they'll often screw up their face in an unusual way right it just looks like, You know, some people are ugly criers.

[1:46:43] But this is different, you know, it's like, this is just a scrunched up face. And again, if you know, I'm just so used to it now, I'm so familiar with it, but I want the rest of the planet to be familiar with these things so they can be more discerning, because there are so many of these people sucking us in and hurting people. So to get to your point of the left-right facial asymmetry, left-right facial hemisphere asymmetry, some people say to me, oh, Dr. Mitchell, that sounds quite unscientific, right? But it's not. It's related to the brain differences.

[1:47:22] And it's just that we haven't been educated well about the brain differences because none of the higher public profile people in the area want to talk about it because they're predators. So we don't get educated well on it, right? But what this left-right facial hemisphere asymmetry is, it's kind of related to what's called the smirk, where you see some of this, it looks like someone's smirking, a predator is smirking, enjoying someone else's pain or enjoying the fact that, you know, they're fooling everyone and no one knows with the mouth going out slightly at the side. It's referred to as the smirk. But a lot of the predators have it anyway. like even in their resting face. So if you put your hand on one side of the face, you'll see a slight smile, the mouth will go slightly, you'll have the wrinkles around the eye. If you put your hand on the other side of the face.

[1:48:21] It's a dead eye and a flat mouth. And again, I always say one red flag does not a predator make. It just means if you sit, because some people have facial palsy. We all have differences in our faces. Like my eye, that one's a bit, opens a bit more than that one. I mean, yes, we all have differences in our face, but it's the predators that will make that point a lot because they know, I've seen hundreds of predators with this phenomenon. It is not just –.

[1:48:53] And there's another person who talks about it a lot, Joe Navarro. He's an ex – well, I think he's still FBI, ex-FBI. He's written a lot of books. He talks about it. Ted Bundy has it, like if you've seen Ted Bundy's thing. And then he shows another person who killed his wife in one of his books. And I've actually put those photos and a quote from him in my book in that part, so you can reference it from there if you want to see it. But it's quite obvious. And then when you actually look at the dead side of their face, the eye can be really scary. Like it's a darkness. And that sounds a bit kind of like really scary. It sounds a bit theatrical almost. But it's not that. I get a sick feeling in my stomach sometimes when I see the eye. Because there is a darkness in it, right, when you see it.

[1:49:52] So often they will have in their normal face an asymmetry like that, just normal. That side of their mouth will go up and that one's straight, and it will be in their eye as well. You can see it. Now, some have learned, and I've noticed this, to manage the muscles around the face. They're very aware of it. So some will put their hair across their face. I've seen one woman in particular with a high profile in a DV area who puts her hair across it so you can't see. Or she might take photos back so you can't see the face as well. I've studied her at length. She has a lot of red flags for predators. Or, you know, only take from my good side, right? Yeah. Well, a lot turn their head to the side. So there's another one on social media with a very high profile who claims to be –.

[1:50:47] You know, abused by, look, I won't go into that actually, but turns their head to the side, like on all the photos so you can't see it, that's a classic. But I looked at these judges making these decisions, letting off the pedophiles and the sexual assaults and the rapes, and the first four I looked at, very obvious. When I say obvious, it's not actually very obvious, but once you do the hand thing, it's actually quite, It's just a slight upturn of a smile, just a slight upturn, and the wrinkles. But on the other side, there's none. Once you start to see it, it is quite a classic thing. So the face is formed in utero in two halves, our faces, between about four weeks and 16 weeks. And so I think something happens in the brain at that point. Like people always ask, are they born that way? I actually don't know. Does it own families? I actually don't know. But what I do know is that there are brain differences. I think somehow it's related to how their face forms differently with these two halves coming together. And we need to do more research on that too. It warrants more research by people who are not predators.

[1:52:08] Well, cause I remember, um, I, Ian McGilchrist has written a lot on left, right brain hemisphere differences. So he wrote the, um, the master and his emissary several years ago. And then he, he wrote like his magnum opus, um, the matter with things, which is more of a philosophical exploration. Well, part, uh, part brain science and psychiatry and then part philosophy. But while reading that one, um, I can't remember the details, but I came away with the, with the impression that there's got to be a left, right brain hemisphere difference going on in psychopathy. Um, and a lot of, well, he argues with a lot of, um, mental disorders, like with schizophrenia too, because, um, left hemisphere is, um, I won't get into details cause I forget all of them and I don't want to get it wrong, but, but, um, there's certain qualities of, um, of the left hemisphere as opposed to, uh, you know, distinct from the right that, um, um, that are very, um, let's say, um, well, one analogy is the left hemisphere grasps, you know, in order to, to take something to get it to the right hemisphere more, I think, what does he say? Like, uh, uh, what, I can't remember what the, uh.

[1:53:25] What the right hemisphere analog would be, but, um, but basically there are different, there are different, um, let's say proclivities of each brain hemisphere. And when you, when you read off the, some of the descriptions of that, he comes to with the left hemisphere and some of the conclusions he comes to, very, um, compatible with, let's say some like predatory behaviors. And the, those brain differences will manifest in all kinds of different ways. Like I said, schizophrenia is one of them with like a highly, um, highly analytic and, um, and order oriented and, and pattern finding, but in a, in a, in a, in a idiosyncratic kind of way. Right. It's very different, but there are some similarities. Uh, there are some similar, some, some, some similarities. So I was wondering if, um, if when I was reading that, I was saying, okay, well, it seems like in a lot of.

[1:54:20] Psychopathic type behaviors and, and personalities, uh, there's gotta be some kind of left hemisphere versus right hemisphere thing going on. And that would express itself in the, you know, in the two hemispheres of the body, not just, uh, you know, not, not just the face. So maybe that would have something to do with it, uh, with the, the, the development of facial features as well. Well, and, and over time because, um, um, throughout development, like throughout child development and, and, uh, and then into adulthood, your, your, your face, your face acquires certain additional features based on what you do with it. Right. So that's why, that's why you get, um, you know, you get the, the, what do you call them? The, the crow, crow's feet or, and then the, the, you know, lines on the forehead and, and smile lines and all this stuff. Um, if you never smile and you never move your eyes, you're not going to gain that, all of, all of those features. And this is something that another Polish psychologist, um, Dabrowski also wrote about. He, he thought that you could tell a lot about a person from their face and that.

[1:55:21] Um, um, one of, so he did, he had a, a, a photograph kind of almost like, uh, Rorsch, almost like a Rorschach test where he had a bunch of photographs of famous people and, and paintings and random, just random people. And he'd basically get, um, you know, get patients to look at those faces and see which they identify with more and what the, you know, what they thought about certain, certain, certain of these faces. And the, for the, For the ones that would fall under a classification that, you know, that would include the human predators, he would say, well, often you would, yeah, just find that deadness.

[1:56:00] Sometimes they would seem more youthful than they were just because they don't have the wear and tear of like 50 years of emotions that have gone through their face. So I don't know. Those are just some possible relationships. I'm cautious in this area about only talking about that, that we can see and prove, right? Because sometimes people have done stuff with the faces and it's been discredited, et cetera. So I'm very cautious about what I say. And I will only talk about what's proven, which is prefrontal cortex differences and mid-blood differences. There's some connectivity issues going on definitely around functionality so they've done pet scans mris, fmris which you know they're looking at different things structure versus functional like when people are doing activity so they're all kind of yeah and so some of them we have to make assumptions on but, they're very predictive you know if you keep it's very predictable if you keep getting the same results all the time.

[1:57:11] So I'm very cautious about saying anything about the face other than what I know, for sure. And what I know is there are two sides of the face. There's just, and no, this is, I have not done a statistic, you know, it's not statistically significant. I have not done a PhD in this area. But what I have done is study.

[1:57:33] Thousands now of faces of predators i mean it's been my life's work this work, and you can see now not in all of them right but as soon as because some like i said have learned to control it's extraordinary they've learned to control the muscles so it looks like a smile but the eye will often give it away sometimes even then, they can learn to kind of squeeze it in a way that but you catch them off guard. As soon as you find one image that has it, that's a big red flag, and then you go look at all the other red flags. So I'm big on, because some people do get distressed and say, oh look, I've got facial palsy and that's real. I don't want to be seen as one of these people, and I'm really upset that you're saying this. Understandable, right? But we have not been able to see these dangerous people for so long because we've been so misled, it's now time like I think my work really puts it out there in terms of here's how to see them all and, you know it won't take long once we're educated to not even you know we see the one person everything oh yeah they've got that let's just have a look and besides cerebral, not cerebral but the facial palsy, it's a different look. Because I've been looking at thousands of these images, it is a slightly different look.

[1:58:58] It would be good if you actually put, I don't know if you can do this, but put onto the interview a couple of the photos just to show it. Can you do that afterwards?

[1:59:09] Yeah, the ones that Joe Navarro puts in his book that I put in mine, those two would be good. And then cover one side of the face so people can sit and the other side that would be great um so yeah look i, i know it's difficult for people if they do that but you know again the sooner we educate the sooner that we're going to um, everyone will know it's just one sign, you know, I need to look for other red flags. I always say there's always two things in this area. If we want to protect ourselves and our families, there's two things. You must know the attributes, the tactics, the red flags. That's why I put them all in the book and spent so many years of my life trying to get it out there because I really want to help people. So you've got to know that and you must do research. A lot of people just don't do the research. Like these people are not going to come out with a sign on their head saying, I'm a predator. You've actually got to look at their behavioral patterns. One thing that I'm getting a lot of.

[2:00:18] Mental health professionals contacting me saying, I'm using artificial intelligence, to take your attributes and tactics from your model. I call it the persistent predatory personality model. I'm taking them and overlaying them on the behaviours of my client's abuser, who's a predator, and I'm getting a great report that shows it all and putting it in the courts. And they tell them I would love it to be used. My work is great where there's no physical harm or historical crimes. Yeah, I'm actually excited. I'm speaking at the Conference for the Fellowship of Criminal Analysis, like profilers, in the U.S. In a few months. And I'm excited because they're all criminal profilers. I'm there with one that's different. So I'm excited that they're willing to embrace a different model looking at where there's no evidence and no physical harm necessarily. So, yeah, that's exciting.

[2:01:28] Yeah. Well, with the whole red flags thing, I think that, um, like you said, if there's just one, one red flag, it's kind of like, okay, I see one red flag. I'll be wary, but I'm not necessarily going to, you know, I'm not, I'm not going to throw that person in prison just because of one red flag. Right. It's just, it's just a possible, it's just that a red flag, like those exist for a reason. Like, um, when you're going on a date and someone puts on, puts up a red flag, it's like, okay, well, it's not necessarily a, um, a deal breaker, but I'm noticing that. Right. And, but if the, if they pile on top of each other one after the other, then it's, then it's like, okay. Um, I, I should probably back away slowly or, or quickly. And that's just, that's just common sense, right? That's just what people do. So I don't think there's anything wrong with that. And if you, if you happen to display one red flag, um, it's kind of one of those things that, uh you just kind of have to eat it's like okay it's unfortunate but um but i've got the red flag right so.

[2:02:30] Well we all i'm sure like some red flags you know what i mean it's like yeah but it's the pattern, the predators are about the pattern of behaviors just because someone lies it doesn't mean they're a predator or just because someone has the face thing it doesn't mean they're a predator but it is a bit of a red flag if someone's lying or, they have that you know whatever, um so yeah you do your research always the two things know the attributes tactics and red flags do the research i was out last night and i.

[2:03:02] Got talking to someone who clearly had the left-right facial asymmetry. And for me, that is quite a strong indicator. And I then started asking some just normal questions and discussions because I was interested to see how they would respond. In my book, I do have some questions you might want to ask or people can ask mental health professionals because you don't want to end up with one who is a predator. And the chances are higher than we might think. There were some brilliant mental health professionals out there compassionate passionate, you know good at their work but there's a lot of these ones too so in the book i do put you know here's some questions you can ask to check and we almost need that in social situations like on a date or something like yeah you know how would you ask how would you kind of ask questions this was in a group, um context so i didn't want to make it too, evident but yeah and i couldn't tell still by the end of it again i'm very cautious i will never say someone is, unless i've got a lot of information and i can confidently say here it is right here are all the things um.

[2:04:13] So yeah it's i'm excited that there's a lot more that we can, you know see that there's a lot more for red flag i mean there's hundreds more than we've ever been taught or told so yeah i'm excited about the book that it brings all this out there yeah good, good me too maybe one last question um.

[2:04:40] In the book um well i think this will, There are a few things you just touch on briefly in the book. Now, this is probably because this is just a project for maybe even decades in the future, if that's even possible. I mean, I'd like to get it all done quickly, but basically where things should go in the future, what things need to change, right? You talk about problems with the current state of law, some good things that are going on in certain places with certain trends in the law that are, you know but but we've also talked about some really bad things in the law and, so i'm i'm envisioning let's say okay we've got the foundation that the educational foundation um, where do we go from there so i wanted to well and at one point in the book you you recommend um, perhaps as a starting point looking at how people used to deal with this sort of problem and we might be able to gain some insights in how to deal with these types of people you know in the future because this is something that.

[2:05:45] I haven't devoted a whole lot of time to thinking about it, but I've thought about it a little bit and, um, I've written a little bit about it, uh, cause Lobachevsky mentioned something like this in, in Ponerology about, you know, well, what did people used to do? Um, and if I look, uh, so my take on history and from what I've read about this is that in the past for in some tribal societies, for instance, so these will be small tribes, um.

[2:06:12] How, how are big tribes got, um, you know, maybe up to like, uh, you know, a couple hundred people at the, at the, at the max. But when they encountered a person like this in the, in like the Inuit, they kind of put them on a, on a, on a, a little iceberg glacier and just, you know, set them out to sea so that they'd never see him again. Um, ancient or older cultures or ancient, uh, or ancient cultures, you know, they had certain practices like exile, you know, they would exile them from the tribe. Okay. You're on your own. If you find another, another tribe that's willing to take you in, great. Um, you know, if you die of exposure and, and, uh, you can't find any food, that's not our problem. Um, those are kind of, those solutions don't really seem like they'd work in our society because we live in giant cities and it's, it's, you know, it's tough to, we don't have, um.

[2:07:01] Uh, we don't have walls and, uh, and the divisions aren't really, you know, it's not totally analogous. But basically in the, in olden times, they tended to get rid of these people, um, in various ways. Um, and I would imagine this, well, so what Lobachevsky recommended, he, he didn't have very much to say about this, but what he kind of recommended a system of, um, like early identification. So as early as possible in, you know, in a, in, in a, in a kid's life, you should, you should be looking for these red flags. And if, and if it becomes, if it becomes identifiable as a problem, um, at whatever stage, maybe even at just an, in adulthood, whatever, those people need to be, um, monitored kind of like there are some, um, in, in some countries they have.

[2:07:49] It's very rare, but they have a pretty good system of when someone's released from prison, and then they're closely monitored after that, right, in order to make sure they don't re-offend. But basically, a system of close supervision.

[2:08:05] And Loboshevsky argued, maybe he was wrong about this, that even though that would cost a lot of money and have a lot of resources, you'd be saving all that money from various other, you know, costs that come along with this situation when you're not dealing with it. So that's what he thought. Um, but really I was wondering if you had any thoughts, um, or if you wanted to just brainstorm or some of the other things that you might've noticed in, in, in, in how people used to deal with this problem or how, you know, how you envision how it might look in the future. Do we kind of like just create an island and put them all on there whenever we identify them? Um, uh, kind of like assisted living facility where they're separated from the general population. Um, how do you, you know, is there anything that you think could work, um, feasibly?

[2:08:51] So we're doing the easy question last this is the hard one because i get this a lot what do we do about it, that's a really is a really tough question and it's true i did do a lot of research on how they had dealt with this in early in other times in history, and in those hunter-gatherer communities, they did used to just oust them, you know, but it was those just who breached social norms and didn't fit.

[2:09:24] One of the problems is with us is we see the ones that might be a really good advocate or a really good, you know, researcher or a really good surgeon and we think, oh, does the good outweigh the bad? Well, no. And unanimously, my research participants outside of the justice system said, no, the good does not outweigh the bad. Because there's some books like The Wisdom of Psychopaths, it makes me so cross, to see titles like that because they're so dangerous. So even though they might be a good brain surgeon, they are a risk. One that I worked with a situation like this, and they threw scalpels around the room. They would pit their assistants against each other. They wouldn't come in on the weekends and stuff because they'd be playing golf. And they gave the registrars too much power to do stuff, putting patients at risk. They, yeah, there were just a whole lot of things that, you know, it might be a good surgeon, but you might be the one that gets the nerve seven when the scalpel gets thrown or whatever, right? So what my participants said were, no, there's no way I would work with one. I wouldn't want to be in the military with one.

[2:10:43] So the sorts of things they would do like in the military is if they wanted to kill someone where they shouldn't, they would just make sure there are other people engaged so other people wouldn't dob them in because they would be part of it. They'd get them frenzied up. They have ways of ensuring that others are at risk when they do bad things, right? I mean, it's a complex and very effective way of being dangerous and harming people. But in terms of what we do about it, I mean, we have to first and foremost be really clear the danger they present, right? So as we do have a clarity around and not mixed feelings or different sorts of views.

[2:11:33] But then yeah I would have thought maybe, Yeah, I mean, and the brain scanning, like, how early do their brains change? Is it from utero? We'd have to work out that. But, yeah, I would say the same as you, putting them out living separately. They would do everything they could to avoid that. It would start potentially worse to do stuff like that because they will not be contained, right? So it's a huge topic to discuss.

[2:12:13] And I feel quite nervous, actually, even discussing it, because I know how extreme. The reaction it can provoke? Correct, correct. Yes, exactly. But I would say, and the cost, the savings, like in my book, I talk about the costs in that last chapter. So some people have estimated the billions of dollars that they cost to society, in a whole lot of different contexts. So to have them in assisted living on an island would be a good, I wouldn't want to work there, just saying, but.

[2:12:56] I think, that would be a good option. In ancient Athens, was it? I wrote about this in my book too. They would, people were not allowed to be in political, people who got a lot of power in a particular way were not allowed to, be in a political role again, not to stop them, just to, I mean, it was actually a really good system they had where people just couldn't, muster that much control that they could start commanding defence systems like military poos and that sort of stuff couldn't happen because they just couldn't amass that level of power. They swapped their leaders or they wouldn't. We somehow could assess someone's level of power and then they wouldn't let them in if they had that. Again, not as a punishment but as a way of maintaining democracy. Uh what other yeah look i i don't want to go into some of the other solutions but but you know time but uh um.

[2:14:15] Yeah just it is a tough one i mean if you look at in my in that last chapter i talk about primate societies uh and how they they they use the same techniques, They've studied different types of primates and they also ostracize animals, that harm others and that do not fit with the values of the primate community that they're part of.

[2:14:47] We seem to be the only ones that elevate, human beings seem to be the only ones in this current time that actually elevate our, human predators to positions of power, or allow them that, and to be able to harm higher levels. Well, I'll add one more idea. So this is one of the ones that Lobachevsky introduces in Logocracy. So this is his book on politics. Now I'll just preface this by saying he's got a lot of different interlocking ideas. So this one, it doesn't exist in, um, like, uh, in exclusion from the other ones. They, they kind of like, I think he would argue that they work as a, as a set. So we can't take this one in isolation, I mean, but he, he thought that for, um, for top positions, now this can extend probably the idea can extend anywhere, you know, to, to any top position, but he was specifically talking about the top leadership positions of a country, that there should be an independent, um, body, which he called the council of the wise. So he basically thought that there should be an independent council of wise men. So these would be in his mind, good. Men and women.

[2:16:10] He was, he, he was a product of his time. So, okay. Men and women, um, that, um.

[2:16:17] Specifically from the, now, now this, this is debatable, but he, he thought that they should be primarily, um, physicians and psychologists, but good ones. And that they should have the, the ability to, for any of any, any candidate for those top positions, this would be like president, prime minister, um, um, um.

[2:16:40] Secretary of defense or, or, or, um, like commander in chief of, of armed forces, whatever in any country that they would have full access to every candidate's, um, entire medical history, the ability to do tests on them. Um, you know, to basically interview the people they know, basically do a full, uh, full investigation into their personality and their, and their mental health. And then if they, if they showed, if they turned up that this person was dangerous, you know, any kind of human predator, they would, they would basically say that candidate would have the option of either bowing out. On their own free will, or that information becomes made public, uh, is made public and say, no, like this person, this person is not qualified. Here are the reasons. And, um, if, if brain scans were shown to be effective, um, that would be something that, you know, could be implemented in this kind of system. But, um, but like I said, that can't be viewed in isolation from the other recommendations he has, but just one idea, because he was adamant that you can't have a human predator.

[2:17:50] Get to that position in politics in any country because it's disastrous. It has been disastrous historically and it's disastrous today. So that was just one thing that he recommended. Yeah, I like the idea of the Council of the Wives because what the focus is on is ensuring that we have people who are not predators as leaders. And that is what has to be the case. It's not to say that, yeah, There's still the issue of how do we deal with them, right, which is a separate issue, but this is a leadership issue. See, none of the, like we try and assess for these sorts of people going into organisations now, but none of the tools are effective. I'm starting to think about that now in the absence of brain scanning, like what's the best way to test for? I was actually talking to someone yesterday about it who's a senior executive search person like what is a way, so i'm going to start thinking about that too like but i but i agree we need to find ways of keeping them out of leadership at least leadership of countries leadership of, organizations leadership of artificial intelligence leadership of you know so technology um, Because right now what we've got is entrepreneurs and people with money.

[2:19:14] And a lot of them are predators just to get to where they've got to. The whole system.

[2:19:23] Like, yeah, what is the best form of civilization to decrease the power that they have to harm? Because they do harm without conscience at all.

[2:19:38] Yes. Okay. Why don't we think further about that one? Yeah, that'll be for, we'll get more into that in the next talk. All right. Well, I think we'll end there. We've been going for a while, Karen. So, um, so I'll say thank, thank you again. And, uh, everyone, I, everyone check out the book. I'll have links. I'll have links, uh, to your website, your Twitter, um, the book. Um is there anything anything else that you want to let everyone know um any other resources or any final any final thoughts, uh thank you well thanks for having me on the show i always love chatting to you and thanks for your support with the book i really appreciate, it i'm starting to do training programs now that's the next phase the educational phase and i want to have some of them, available to just the general population at limited costs so as people can just go in and learn and maybe do some, kind of ways to view them like practical stuff that's what i'm really into practical ways of learning so yeah so that's just to let people know that's the next stage, um but yeah well yeah thank you thanks so much i really appreciate it for having me, great well thank you again and when And when those training things become available, yeah, let me know and I'll help promote them. It sounds like a great idea. Yeah, great.

[2:21:06] Thank you. Thanks so much. Thanks, Harrison. Bye.