L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, was a complex and controversial figure who left behind a legacy that continues to spark debate and intrigue. While much has been written about his life and accomplishments, his psychological profile remains a subject of speculation and fascination.
Advertisements
One of the key aspects of Hubbard’s character was his charisma and ability to captivate others with his ideas and teachings. He was a charismatic leader who attracted a dedicated following of followers who believed in his vision of spiritual enlightenment and personal growth. Hubbard was known for his commanding presence and charismatic personality, which helped him build a worldwide organisation that continues to thrive to this day.
However, Hubbard’s psychological profile also revealed a darker side to his character. He was known to be manipulative and controlling, using his influence to maintain a tight grip on his followers and those close to him. Hubbard was also known to have a volatile temper and was quick to anger when things did not go his way. This combination of charm and manipulation made him a formidable leader who was able to maintain control over his followers and keep them loyal to him and his teachings.
In addition to his charismatic persona, Hubbard also exhibited signs of narcissism and megalomania. He believed himself to be a unique and special individual with a unique insight into the human psyche and spiritual realm. This belief in his own superiority led him to create a doctrine that placed him at the centre of the Scientology movement, with followers believing that he was the sole source of spiritual wisdom and guidance.
Hubbard’s psychological profile also revealed a deep-seated need for validation and approval from others. He craved recognition and adoration from his followers and sought to build an empire that would cement his legacy and ensure his place in history. This drive for validation led Hubbard to push his followers to their limits and demand unwavering loyalty and devotion to his cause.
Overall, L. Ron Hubbard’s psychological profile is a complex and multifaceted one that sheds light on the motivations and behaviours of a man who remains a divisive figure in the world of religion and spirituality. While his charisma and charm drew many followers to him, his manipulative and controlling nature also alienated others and raised questions about his true intentions and motives. Understanding Hubbard’s psychological profile can help shed light on the enigmatic figure behind Scientology and the lasting impact of his teachings on the world today.
Tommy Robinson, born Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, is a prominent figure in the UK’s far-right political landscape. Known for his inflammatory rhetoric and staunch anti-immigrant stance, Robinson has drawn both fervent support and fierce criticism. But what lies beneath the surface of this controversial figure? What psychological factors may be driving his beliefs and actions? Amidst the chaos and uproar, there are some truths that Robinson has spoken that cannot be overlooked.
Advertisements
One key aspect of Robinson’s psychology is his susceptibility to conspiracy theories. Throughout his career, he has peddled various unfounded claims about the supposed Islamisation of Britain and the complicity of authorities in covering up crimes committed by Muslim immigrants. This reflects a tendency towards paranoia and a deep-seated belief in a world where shadowy forces are working against the interests of the “common man”.
This susceptibility to conspiracy theories not only affects Robinson’s personal beliefs and actions but also influences the larger social and political discourse. His promotion of unfounded claims can contribute to the spread of misinformation and division within communities. It can also erode trust in established institutions and fuel feelings of fear and mistrust among the public.
Furthermore, Robinson’s tendency towards paranoia and belief in shadowy forces actively works against efforts to foster unity and understanding within diverse societies. By perpetuating narratives that demonise certain groups and promote fear and suspicion, he contributes to a climate of tension and hostility, hindering the progress towards a more inclusive and harmonious society. It’s crucial to critically examine and challenge such narratives in order to promote cooperation, empathy, and informed dialogue in our communities.
Nevertheless, NOT everything Tommy says is wrong. Tommy, in his mind, is trying to save Britain. One of the truths that Robinson has brought to light is the issue of grooming gangs in the UK. He has been a vocal critic of these gangs and their heinous activities, often pointing out the failures of law enforcement and the authorities in addressing this disturbing trend. Despite facing backlash for his outspokenness on this topic, Robinson has forced many to confront the uncomfortable reality of these grooming gangs and the innocent victims they prey upon.
Another truth that Robinson has spoken about is the threat of radical Islamism in Europe. He has been a vocal opponent of Islamic extremism and has spoken out against the dangers that this ideology poses to Western societies. While some have criticised him for painting all Muslims with the same brush, Robinson has brought attention to the real and present dangers of radical Islamism and the need for vigilance in combating this threat.
Robinson has also been critical of the mainstream media, accusing them of bias and dishonesty in their reporting. While some may dismiss his claims as conspiracy theories, there is no denying the power and influence of the media in shaping public opinion. Robinson’s criticisms have forced many to question the objectivity and integrity of the mainstream media, prompting a much-needed debate on the role of the press in a democratic society.
Robinson’s upbringing also plays a significant role in shaping his worldview. Growing up in Luton, a town known for its racial tensions, Robinson experienced firsthand the effects of multiculturalism and perceived injustices towards the white working class. This environment likely contributed to his sense of victimhood and fuelled his desire to fight back against what he sees as the erosion of British values. Robinson’s early life experiences in Luton, a town with a complex social fabric, shed light on the formative influences that have shaped his perspectives. From grappling with racial tensions to witnessing perceived injustices towards the white working class, these experiences undoubtedly left a lasting impact on him, influencing his views on multiculturalism, societal inequalities, and national identity. Such a nuanced environment would have undoubtedly played a pivotal role in shaping Robinson’s beliefs and motivations, providing context for his outspoken stance on what he perceives as the erosion of British values.
Another aspect of Robinson’s psychological profile is his authoritarian personality. He exhibits a clear preference for order and hierarchy, along with a strong distrust of outsiders and those who challenge established norms. This authoritarian streak is evident in his confrontational tactics and his willingness to trample on the rights of others in the name of preserving what he sees as the true British identity.
Robinson’s charisma and ability to tap into the fears and anxieties of his supporters also point to a certain level of narcissism. He thrives on the attention and adulation of his followers, and his willingness to confront perceived enemies head-on speaks to a deep-seated need for validation and admiration. This manipulative behaviour is often rooted in an inflated sense of self-importance and a lack of empathy for others. His charisma may also serve as a facade to mask underlying insecurities and personal inadequacies. It’s important to recognise the impact of such behaviour on both the individual and those around them, as unchecked narcissism can lead to damaging relationships and a reluctance to acknowledge personal faults. Understanding the complexities of narcissistic traits can provide insight into the dynamics of power and influence within social and political spheres.
Despite his controversial reputation, there are undeniable truths that Robinson has spoken about that cannot be ignored. While he may not always express himself in the most diplomatic or politically correct way, his willingness to address uncomfortable truths and challenge the status quo is commendable. Whether you agree with him or not, Tommy Robinson has sparked important conversations and shed light on issues that many would prefer to sweep under the rug. Love him or hate him, there are truths that Robinson has spoken that should not be dismissed.
Taking into account these psychological dynamics provides an insight into the complexities behind Tommy Robinson’s beliefs and actions. It underscores the importance of understanding the underlying motivations and influences that shape his worldview and behaviour, shedding light on the potential factors contributing to his impact and potential for change in the future.
In conclusion, the psychological profile of Tommy Robinson is complex and multidimensional. From his susceptibility to conspiracy theories and authoritarian tendencies to his narcissistic traits and sense of victimhood, a number of factors seem to be driving his beliefs and actions. Understanding these underlying psychological dynamics is crucial in evaluating the impact of his rhetoric and the potential for change in the future.
The world of criminal investigations has always fascinated people, with its intricate puzzle-solving and intense psychological analysis. Two terms often thrown around in this arena are forensic psychology and criminal profiling. While they may seem interchangeable, there are distinct differences between the two. In this blog post, we aim to demystify the differences between forensic psychology and criminal profiling.
Forensic psychology is a branch of psychology that applies principles and theories of psychology to the field of law. It involves the study of the human mind and behaviour as it pertains to legal situations. Forensic psychologists work in a variety of settings, including law enforcement agencies, courtrooms, and correctional facilities. Their role is to assess individuals involved in legal cases, provide expert testimony, and help in criminal investigations.
On the other hand, criminal profiling is a method used by law enforcement to identify potential suspects based on behavioural patterns and psychological characteristics found at crime scenes. Profilers build a psychological profile of an unknown perpetrator by analysing evidence left behind and comparing it to known traits and behaviours of other similar offenders. This process helps investigators narrow down their search for a suspect and understand their motivations, cognitive processes, and potential future actions.
The key difference between forensic psychology and criminal profiling lies in their objectives and methods. Forensic psychologists are trained professionals who apply their expertise to understand the psychological aspects of a legal case. They conduct evaluations, diagnose mental disorders, and offer treatment recommendations for individuals involved in legal proceedings. Their focus is primarily on the mental health of individuals and how it affects their legal situations.
Criminal profiling, on the other hand, is a law enforcement technique used to assist investigations. It is a deductive process that involves analysing crime scene evidence, victimology, and other relevant factors to construct a probable profile of the offender. Profilers consider demographics, behaviours, motives, and geographic patterns to narrow down suspects. Their goal is to help investigators prioritise leads and guide them towards potential perpetrators.
It is important to note that criminal profiling is just one tool utilised by forensic psychologists, but it is not the sole focus of their profession. Forensic psychology encompasses a much broader scope, including areas such as competency evaluations, child custody disputes, eyewitness testimony, and providing therapeutic counselling to incarcerated individuals.
While both forensic psychology and criminal profiling involve the analysis of human behaviour in a legal context, they differ in terms of scope and objectives. Forensic psychology is a multidisciplinary field that integrates psychology and law, focusing on understanding individuals’ mental health and behaviour in legal situations. Criminal profiling, on the other hand, is a specific technique used within law enforcement to identify potential suspects based on their behavioural patterns and characteristics.
In conclusion, forensic psychology and criminal profiling may sound similar, but they are distinct fields with different goals and methods. Both play crucial roles in the criminal justice system, but it is essential to understand their nuances. By demystifying these differences, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the multifaceted world of psychological analysis in the pursuit of justice.
Psychological profiling, also known as offender profiling or criminal profiling, is a specialised tool used in crime solving and investigations. It is a forensic approach that aims to create a psychological profile of an unknown criminal based on evidence from the crime scene, victimology, and other relevant information.
The primary objective of psychological profiling is to help law enforcement agencies narrow down their list of suspects and potentially identify the characteristics, motives, and behaviours of the offender. Profilers analyse patterns, behaviours, and crime scene details to develop a psychological profile that can aid investigations.
By examining various aspects such as modus operandi (MO; the specific way a crime is committed), victim selection, and the criminal’s signature or distinctive pattern, profilers attempt to infer certain aspects of the offender’s personality, background, and psychological makeup.
It is important to note that psychological profiling is not an exact science and can be subject to limitations. Profilers rely on their experience, knowledge of psychology, and understanding of criminal behaviour to make educated assessments. Different profilers may have different methodologies and theories, leading to variations in results and interpretations.
Psychological profiling can be helpful in many types of criminal cases, including serial murders, sexual offences, and other violent crimes. It can provide insights into potential motives, potential future behaviour, and even assist in prioritising leads and suspects.
However, it is crucial to use psychological profiling as just one piece of the investigative puzzle. It should always be combined with other information and evidence, such as DNA analysis, eyewitness accounts, and physical evidence, to ensure a thorough and accurate investigation.
According to Blackburn (2005, pp. 211-223), “aggression describes the intentional infliction of harm, including psychological discomfort as well as injury, although it is sometimes loosely equated with vigour in competitive situations […] a constant need to discharge aggressive energy governs human behaviour […] anger is a socially constructed emotion […] In personality disorders, ego weakness results in the repression of aggression […] Ferguson and Rule, for example, suggest that anger is aroused not simply by the degree of perceived aversive treatment by others, but also by judgements of whether the aversion is intentional, malevolent, foreseeable, and unjustified”.
The cycle of criminogenic behaviour
Gillespie and Mitchell (2018, p. 85) describe individuals diagnosed with psychopathy as a personality disorder (ASPD) as “outwardly normal, but were nonetheless extremely callous and unable to express remorse or guilt, to the point where they seemed to be devoid of human emotion. The patients were typically of above average intelligence and seemingly charming, though lacked the capacity for love”. Psychopaths who go through the criminal justice system can at times exhibit great criminal versatility. The following is a diagram I designed to illustrate how such criminogenic needs and versatility develop and recur.
National homicide rates per 100 000 population, c. 1984
Blackburn (2005) included a table in his chapter about violent crime and aggression where Colombia is listed as the country with the highest homicide rate in 1984 and this was published in the United Nations year-book (1988). Even though the data has changed massively, and Colombia has dramatically reduced its crime rates; such bloody past would have caused generational trauma without a doubt, and the Colombian people would have had to adapt to survive potential death anywhere at any time if they upset the wrong person. Many political leaders were assassinated in order to stop the people from interfering with the criminal business of the mafia. A lot of blood was shed, and the Colombian people were over-exposed to extreme levels of danger to the point where the entire nation was having a humanitarian crisis, which still echoes, and which is still being solved.
Country
Rate
Colombia
37.4
Mexico
17.9
Brazil
13.4
Venezuela
12.9
USA
8.5
Ecuador
7.1
Argentina
3.8
Hungary
2.7
Canada
2.3
Italy
2.1
Australia
1.9
Poland
1.6
Austria
1.4
Israel
1.4
France
1.3
Scotland
1.3
New Zealand
1.2
FDR
1.2
Spain
1.0
Greece
0.9
England and Wales
0.7
Egypt
0.5
Source: United Nations (1988). Demographic yearbook. New York: United Nations Publishing.
Case study: the criminal career of sicario alias Popeye
The following video covers the developmental trajectory of Jhon Jairo Velasquez Vasquez’ criminal career, the political context in which he was rewarded with attention and money for being a hired gun; and how such media attention has led to some of the Colombian people seeing and treating him as a celebrity. Behind this story is a real case of a mental health crisis where the hypernormalisation of violence from recent decades was so extreme, that many people became desensitised to the actions of this type of individual, seeing no difference between what is right and what is wrong. Furthermore, this documentary analyses some of the confessions of Popeye as the primary psychopath that he was, and shows how what is ‘normal’ in a country, is ‘abnormal’ in other places. Popeye specialised in crime, and developed all the skills needed for the criminal business. This makes an interesting case for forensic psychology, and for media studies.
2015 Popeye Full TV Interview. Part 1 of 3. English Subtitles (2018) Youtube video, added by Colombian History X [Online]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6NGWNrzg88 (Accessed 8 March 2020).
Blackburn, R. (2005) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, West Sussex, John Wiley & Sons/ University of Liverpool, pp. 210-245.
Escobar’s Hitman. Former drug-gang killer now loved and loathed in Colombia (2017) Youtube video, added by RT Documentary [Online]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQy_LJdZ7qw (Accessed 8 March 2020).
Gillespie, S. M. and Mitchell, I.J. (2018) ‘Psychopathy’, in Davies, G.M. and Beech, A.R. (eds), Forensic Psychology: Crime, Justice, Law, Interventions, 3rd ed, West Sussex, British Psychological Society/ John Wiley & Sons, pp. 85-100.
Popeye: The Jailhouse Interviews Pt. 1 – English Subtitles (2018) Youtube video, added by Colombian History X [Online]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaPw1EEPOCc(Accessed 8 March 2020).
Because simply watching the docuseries on Netflix is not enough, I decided to read the book by Michaud and Aynesworth (2019) which contains the transcripts from conversations with Theodore Robert Bundy, also known as the All-American Boy (Loftus and Ketcham, 1991).
This book provides real insight into Bundy’s psychological discourse, and it can be observed that his superego mainly served as a reminder not to get caught. He could not control his impulses, and this is why he left such a high death toll. His moral degeneracy can be appreciated in his described thinking process, where he expresses how he felt it was not difficult at all to maintain such secret life hidden away from the consciousness of those who were part of his personal circle: “I became expert at projecting something very different. That I was very busy. It is clear now, I think, that a huge part of my life was hidden from everyone – secret, as it were. It didn’t take much effort” (p. 16). One thing that can be noticed throughout the conversations is that Ted Bundy had a form of self-serving bias which was compounded by his belief about what he called the psychological “condition”. He expressed his states of narcissistic melancholia mixed with helplessness in relation to what can be described as his criminogenic, sadistic needs and the satisficing of these. He expressed that at times he would lay with the corpses he created until these were putrid.
What I find particularly difficult to comprehend when it comes to studying Ted Bundy as a prototypical psychopath is that at times some of the statements he made about his experience posited that he had the capacity to feel fear, which goes beyond the scope of primary psychopathy: “I thought I was going to die every night the first few days I was in jail back in October of 1975. I was scared to death! Daily. I thought they were going to kill me” (p. 23). Was he saying the truth? I don’t know. However, some of his other statements did reveal his malignant personality, such as when speaking about the way in which he perceived his victims as objects: “Except he is not killing a person. He is killing an image” (p. 65). Whose image? is the question I have. Psychodynamic theorists would of course instantly say that perhaps he wanted to recreate the image of the woman who he had the most contempt against, his own mother.
Bundy truly believed that this “condition”- as he called it- was to blame for all of his behaviour; nevertheless, unable to meet the M’Naghtan rules, he was not found to be eligible to claim criminal insanity and even prominent expert witnesses and forensic psychologists such as Elizabeth Loftus (1991) describe having been disturbed by his sophisticated mannerisms and inappropriate body language and responses to contexts. In other words, Bundy had a theory of mind (ToM) deficit, and a surplus of self-esteem. Moreover, his construct of reality was based on self-justifications and false beliefs. The way in which he described his “disease” in third person was as follows: “what’s happening is that we’re building up the condition and what may have been a predisposition for violence becomes a disposition. And as the condition develops and its purposes or its characteristics become more well defined, it begins to demand more of the attention and time of the individual” (p. 71). Such cluster of personality traits and behaviour is classed in the DSM-5 as antisocial personality disorder (ASPD).
What’s interesting is that Bundy describes having been influenced by his peers’ concepts of the attractive woman when choosing his victims. This was perhaps the case because as a malignant narcissist, his desire to have complete control over such beautiful images meant that he needed to kill them in order to control everything about their interaction. According to Bundy he murdered his victims because he wanted to leave no living witness of his sexual atrocities. As the moral imbecile that he was, he even washed some of his victims’ hair and did their make up in order to have sex with their corpses until the rotting nature of death made it impossible to do so. This shows the utter perversion of this individual, and this is synthesised by his own words: “A certain amount of the need of that malignant condition had been satisfied through the sexual release. That driving force would recede somewhat, allowing the normal individual’s mental mechanisms to again begin to take hold” (p. 90).
What makes this a great book is that it is made up of transcripts mainly and this allows the reader to see the pathetically perverse side of Bundy that is so easily forgotten when watching his charming ways on camera right until the evening before he was finally executed in 1989. It truly feels like talking with this serial killer. A truly recommended reading for anyone interested in this particular case study or in understanding antisocial personality disorder more deeply.
References
Michaud, S.G. and Aynesworth, H. (2019) Ted Bundy: Conversations with a Killer, London, Mirror Books.
Loftus, E. and Ketcham, K. (1991) Witness for the Defense: The Accused, the Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts Memory on Trial, New York, St. Martin’s Press, pp. 61-91.
