Poll for the Armchair Psychologists

[lil_buddy]

Sorry guys but I see Jodi rather different than some of you do. I don't believe that Jodi ever wanted to marry Travis or anyone for that matter. Jodi was simply a leach that used up the "host" until there was nothing left. If you look at the past boyfriends each one was useful to Jodi until she had used them up to the point of them having nothing left to give her. Daryl didn't have the money anymore that Jodi wanted and was even loosing the house. Jodi always moved upwards and never sideways or backwards. Travis still had plenty to offer. She had not yet drained his bank account, he still had his nice home and nice car. Travis also was a huge threat to Jodi's upward moving "lifestyle". Travis threatened to expose her for what she really was. How was that going to help her snag the next better guy in the Mormon church? Travis also had the nerve to take back his control. Travis was the one guy that dumped Jodi and would not bend to her wants anymore.

Jodi was never going to marry a man unless he was a multi millionaire with no living family members that was on deaths door with one foot in the grave and the other foot on a banana peel. And kids? Never going to happen for someone like Jodi. Not even to "trap" a guy with.

MOO

BBM = hilarious!:floorlaugh:

 

[Karmady]

I have seen people glom onto someone and they do not want to let go for some reason. I am not bashing the victim. I just do not see TA as that big of a deal.

Ryan Burns was a lot better looking, for one.

But, if she wanted a ticket out, she could have struck it with numerous wealthy guys she would have met out in Monterey. Even Aileen W. had a super rich husband that just didn't do it for her.

I don't think JA was looking for money alone. She could have done much much better that way. And she could have had a nice rich girl life with some guy who would be happy to have a sexy young thing on his arm

So very true. And the PHX is a hotbed for that. My area is crawling with wealthy, divorced (or not) men looking for a newer model. And intelligence and accomplishment are not the traits they're looking for. The more vapid and dependent the better. And, for the record, I've not been on either side of that scene, personally. Just an unbiased observor

 

[shelley921]

Men resist sex all the time.
It is not ethical for mental & physical health pros, teachers/professors, lawyers, etc. to engage in sexual behaviors with clients/students.
Of course, this rule is broken all the time, but I would venture to say the majority of these people do not break it.

Also, I have seen guys spurn girls... it happens.

Now the FWB thing post break-up... that's pretty hard to resist even for many chicks. If both parties are lonely and randy it's easy to have sex with someone you've already had sex. No dating, no dress up, no wooing, they've already seen you naked... easy.

agree lil'buddy - i have seen men resist sex too and this idea that men can all be led around by their dicks is silly. SOME men can - sure - but there are many who can't. or maybe they are for awhile and then they wise up. when i was 33 i a had a male teacher friend who was just divorced. he was also 33 & handsome, smart funny and a great guy. lots of women threw themselves at him. he told me once - i'll never forget this -"If I can have sex with a woman right away, I usually lose interest in her.."...

this was in response to me asking him about why he was no longer interested in dating this voluptuous, sexy young thing he had seen a few times....this gal could not understand why he quit calling her and why she got the cold shoulder when she turned up unannounced at his place.

 

[human]

I have worked, while in college, a jillion years ago at expensive resorts.

I am retired now and travel to very very expensive places, but I know how to rent a house, for instance, rather than stay at the expensive resort.

Consequently, I have seen older guys in action. They are not asking for a high school diploma. I have seen so many young women on their dream honeymoon with their older new hubby.

I have also seen older rich women with their new love, but not that many.

Jodi went to LaJolla to get her boob job. That is the most expensive place to live in the US. 10 million dollar homes are nothing out of the ordinary there.

She worked in Monterey which is filled with the rich. She saw real money . TA did not have real money . Unless Jodi was blind, she saw real money.

I asked a really really handsome man why that guy with Anna Nicole Smith would have a relationship with someone after cash.

He said that a sexy woman is like a car. It shows the world what your money can buy.

With her skills ,she could have had a real rich guy.

So she was getting something more out of it than cash.

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

I will say that I think if the defendant has a long history of psych problems, that should be known.

I personally have zero faith in forensic psych methods or any interpretations of psych testing/evaluation done once the defendant has been brought up on charges.

The fact that defense and prosecution can get psych pros up on the stand and give opposing opinions does not say anything good about the profession and it's standards. IMO!!!

Yes I see your point and agree. It's a double edge sword for me he whole psych in court situation.

If psychs actually told the truth about the defendant instead of being inspired monetarily to ascribing psych aspects that are false to a convict all in order to placate the defense teams argument...

Well ppl like ALV and Geffner wouldn't have a job.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

agree lil'buddy - i have seen men resist sex too and this idea that men can all be led around by their dicks is silly. SOME men can - sure - but there are many who can't. or maybe they are for awhile and then they wise up. when i was 33 i a had a male teacher friend who was just divorced. he was also 33 & handsome, smart funny and a great guy. lots of women threw themselves at him. he told me once - i'll never forget this -"If I can have sex with a woman right away, I usually lose interest in her.."...

this was in response to me asking him about why he was no longer interested in dating this voluptuous, sexy young thing he had seen a few times....this gal could not understand why he quit calling her and why she got the cold shoulder when she turned up unannounced at his place.

I will respectfully agree to disagree with you on this based on my past personal experiences. And that's okay 'cause there are many that agree with you and many that agree with me. It's all good.....

:rockon:

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

So very true. And the PHX is a hotbed for that. My area is crawling with wealthy, divorced (or not) men looking for a newer model. And intelligence and accomplishment are not the traits they're looking for. The more vapid and dependent the better. And, for the record, I've not been on either side of that scene, personally. Just an unbiased observor

Oh my goodness me too! Arizona State University!!! :seeya:

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I have worked, while in college, a jillion years ago at expensive resorts.

I am retired now and travel to very very expensive places, but I know how to rent a house, for instance, rather than stay at the expensive resort.

Consequently, I have seen older guys in action. They are not asking for a high school diploma. I have seen so many young women on their dream honeymoon with their older new hubby.

I have also seen older rich women with their new love, but not that many.

Jodi went to LaJolla to get her boob job. That is the most expensive place to live in the US. 10 million dollar homes are nothing out of the ordinary there.

She worked in Monterey which is filled with the rich. She saw real money . TA did not have real money . Unless Jodi was blind, she saw real money.

I asked a really really handsome man why that guy with Anna Nicole Smith would have a relationship with someone after cash.

He said that a sexy woman is like a car. It shows the world what your money can buy.

With her skills ,she could have had a real rich guy.

So she was getting something more out of it than cash.

Speaking of marrying someone with one foot on the grave and the other on a banana peel----Anna Nicole Smith married that old rich guy, at like 85 yrs old or something!

 

[thefragile7393]

I will say that I think if the defendant has a long history of psych problems, that should be known.

I personally have zero faith in forensic psych methods or any interpretations of psych testing/evaluation done once the defendant has been brought up on charges.

The fact that defense and prosecution can get psych pros up on the stand and give opposing opinions does not say anything good about the profession and it's standards. IMO!!!

What you describe happens in all the sciences.Anything can be interpreted several different ways. Doctors of the same medical specialty can have different opinions about a same event. So can two different medical examiners. So why should psych be any different? Anything is pretty much open to interpretation among experts-that's the nature of human and medical sciences.
A study of the human brain, its chemistry, and the persona are vital to people as plaintiffs or defendents. Jurors need to know why people act the way they do. It can be vital to explaining the actions of someone on either side, since the average lay person has little knowledge of such things. If REAL domestic abuse, child abuse, mental illness, or a host of other things play a major factor then someone who is an expert has to come in and explain to the jury how living through those things caused a plaintiff or defendent to act in xyz way.
There is nothing wrong with each side hiring an independent person to look at evidence and present their opinion. You can be fairly objective as a psychologist...Demarte is just one of many I have seen over the years who have done just that. Again, just because the other side hires someone who gives a diff opinion does not mean psychology is useless. Courts do it with medical experts as well, blood spatter experts, etc.
Where the murkiness comes in is when ones like Samuels and ALV, or Henry Lee the ME...those who cannot be objective, who are paid to testify a certain way instead of being objective. Those who blur the pt/professional boundaries. That happens in other fields besides psych as well (Lee case in point). Those people are ones that that shouldn't be around giving so-called expert testimony. True professionals don't do that; that is not what is supposed to be done.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Karmady]

Oh my goodness me too! Arizona State University!!! :seeya:

:seeya: I'm a transplant, but I've lived in the north east valley for many years now. Plastic and bling abounds!

 

[lil_buddy]

I will respectfully agree to disagree with you on this based on my past personal experiences. And that's okay 'cause there are many that agree with you and many that agree with me. It's all good.....

:rockon:

You're just irresistible you sexy thang you!

 

[2Hip2BSquare]

What you describe happens in all the sciences.Anything can be interpreted several different ways. Doctors of the same medical specialty can have different opinions about a same event. So can two different medical examiners. So why should psych be any different? Anything is pretty much open to interpretation among experts-that's the nature of human and medical sciences.
A study of the human brain, its chemistry, and the persona are vital to people as plaintiffs or defendents. Jurors need to know why people act the way they do. It can be vital to explaining the actions of someone on either side, since the average lay person has little knowledge of such things. If REAL domestic abuse, child abuse, mental illness, or a host of other things play a major factor then someone who is an expert has to come in and explain to the jury how living through those things caused a plaintiff or defendent to act in xyz way.
There is nothing wrong with each side hiring an independent person to look at evidence and present their opinion. You can be fairly objective as a psychologist...Demarte is just one of many I have seen over the years who have done just that. Again, just because the other side hires someone who gives a diff opinion does not mean psychology is useless. Courts do it with medical experts as well, blood spatter experts, etc.
Where the murkiness comes in is when ones like Samuels and ALV, or Henry Lee the ME...those who cannot be objective, who are paid to testify a certain way instead of being objective. Those who blur the pt/professional boundaries. That happens in other fields besides psych as well (Lee case in point). Those people are ones that that shouldn't be around giving so-called expert testimony. True professionals don't do that; that is not what is supposed to be done.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

I agree that neuropsychology brings much factual evidence into the brain of the suspect on trial. If there is brain damage consistent with the behavior that caused their incarceration, I find that significant.

Interesting enough, scientists have studied the brains of psychopaths and every single one had damage in their prefrontal cortex. You physically could notice upon comparing the ASPDs brains to a healthy brain that there was significant compression/absence of certain parts of the cerebral cortex. Where that damage was on the cortex varies specifically with each psychopath - essentially causing them all to have the same core personality issue but different specific mechanisms/ways in which those behaviors are manifested.

Also MAOA which regulates serotonin is carried by the X chromosome axis so males are more likely to inherit psychopathy (from their mothers) as typically they lack they amount of MAOA necessary bc of their male sex chromosomes.

Also, all psychopaths studied had an over abundance Of serotonin via the mother in utero can cause the baby to become infiltrated and overly tolerant of serotonin later in their brain development.

James Fallon, Ph.D. is a highly decorated neuroscientist and Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Neurobiology at University of California, Irvine. Dr. Fallon has several areas of expertise. One is adult stem cells. Another is psychiatry. Specifically, he is interested in the relationships between brain imaging (he has served as Director of UC Irvine’s Human Brain Imaging Center), genetics and various psychiatric conditions, including schizophrenia, depression and addictions.

An Extraordinary Experiment
Aware of his specialties, for many years, Fallon’s colleagues have sent him brain images they wished to have him analyze.

At one point this interchange took the form of an experiment.

Colleagues sent him 70 MRI scans of brains belonging to people ranging from healthy to mentally ill. Included in the batch were scans of brains belonging to killers, including some notorious ones. But Fallon had no idea which scanned brain belonged to whom.

Nonetheless, he was able to identify differences in five of the scans so dramatic that he could recognize them as the markers of psychopathy. And it turned out that he was correct. The five scans on which he zeroed in actually were those from the brains of psychopathic serial killers.

Signs of the Psychopath’s Brain
How could Fallon distinguish the serial killers’ brain scans from the others? He says that all five had some tell-tale signs:

A lack of activity in the orbital cortex, the brain area just above the eyes, which he says is in the circuit coding for ethics, conscience and impulse control
A lack of activity in the anterior part of the temporal cortex, where we find the amygdala, a structure deeply involved in processing emotion
Underfunctioning in the narrow strip of limbic cortices that connect the orbital cortex with the amygdala, namely:
The cingulate cortex, which codes for social cues
The hippocampal area, which, along with the amygdala, codes for emotional memories
The insula, which processes empathy and “gut feelings”
This makes sense. These areas are considered part of the limbic system, the brain complex primarily responsible for our emotional lives. When these areas are underactive or inactive, a person might feel driven – like many killers – to compensate by repeatedly pursuing extreme activities simply to feel satisfied and alive.

Violence-Related Genes
In addition to his study of killers’ brains, Fallon has also studied the genetics of aggression and violence.

Psychological traits are affected by multiple genes. And Fallon says that perhaps a dozen have been identified as high-risk, violence-related genes. These include genes affecting dopamine and norepinephrine neurotransmission and androgen (testosterone) receptors.

The most well-known of these violence-related genes is a particular version of the Monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA) gene. Because it was the first such gene discovered, it was labeled, and has become popularly known as, “the Warrior Gene,” although Fallon stresses that this nickname can be misleading since all of the various genes associated with violence and aggression could be considered, in a sense, warrior genes.

Most humans have an MAOA gene and it helps regulate serotonin, a neurotransmitter that Fallon says helps relax and calm us. But those with the “Warrior Gene” form of it receive too much serotonin during development in utero, which desensitizes the brain to its effects. That means that later in life, when serotonin would otherwise inhibit behavior, it is unable to do so, resulting in impulsivity and violence.

The MAOA gene is on the X chromosome. This has important implications for how its effects express themselves in males vs. females. Girls get an X chromosome from both their mother and father, so even if one parent passes along the “Warrior Gene” variant, they are likely to get a normally functional MAOA variant from the other parent that offsets its potentially dangerous consequences. But boys get only one X chromosome – the one passed down from their mother. If that X chromosome has the “Warrior” version of the MAOA gene, that will be the only version of it that the boy receives.

This means that violence related to the MAOA “Warrior Gene” is usually passed genetically from mother to son. Fallon believes it also explains why boys and men are much more likely to be very aggressive or psychopathic killers.

Moreover, Fallon says that the reduced empathy seen in psychopathy may be associated with the influence of low acting genes related to the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin.

Can Biology Alone Create a Psychopath?
So, putting this together, Fallon recognized patterns in both the brains and genetics of psychopathic killers.

Loss of function in the orbital cortex, anterior temporal lobes and the strip of limbic cortices connecting the two
Having one or more of several high-risk, violence-related genes (like the so-called “Warrior Gene&#8221
But a crucial question remained. Are these biological markers alone enough to create a psychopath?

http://www.ponerologynews.com/neuroscientist-james-fallon-how-psychopathic-killers-made-prevented/

 

[thefragile7393]

I agree that neuropsychology brings much factual evidence into the brain of the suspect on trial. If there is brain damage consistent with the behavior that caused their incarceration, I find that significant.

Interesting enough, scientists have studied the brains of psychopaths and every single one had damage in their prefrontal cortex. You physically could notice upon comparing the ASPDs brains to a healthy brain that there was significant compression/absence of certain parts of the cerebral cortex. Where that damage was on the cortex varies specifically with each psychopath - essentially causing them all to have the same core personality issue but different specific mechanisms/ways in which those behaviors are manifested.

But yeah I'd never take a defendant solely at their word as a forensic psych. Too much room for error diagnostically speaking.

Its an opinion...a professional opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. As you remember, you can choose to accept any of the expert witness opinions, or disregard them. My point was they all have a place in the world of criminal justice, but in the end all it is is opinions..to be accepted or.disregarded.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[lil_buddy]

What you describe happens in all the sciences.Anything can be interpreted several different ways. Doctors of the same medical specialty can have different opinions about a same event. So can two different medical examiners. So why should psych be any different? Anything is pretty much open to interpretation among experts-that's the nature of human and medical sciences.
A study of the human brain, its chemistry, and the persona are vital to people as plaintiffs or defendents. Jurors need to know why people act the way they do. It can be vital to explaining the actions of someone on either side, since the average lay person has little knowledge of such things. If REAL domestic abuse, child abuse, mental illness, or a host of other things play a major factor then someone who is an expert has to come in and explain to the jury how living through those things caused a plaintiff or defendent to act in xyz way.
There is nothing wrong with each side hiring an independent person to look at evidence and present their opinion. You can be fairly objective as a psychologist...Demarte is just one of many I have seen over the years who have done just that. Again, just because the other side hires someone who gives a diff opinion does not mean psychology is useless. Courts do it with medical experts as well, blood spatter experts, etc.
Where the murkiness comes in is when ones like Samuels and ALV, or Henry Lee the ME...those who cannot be objective, who are paid to testify a certain way instead of being objective. Those who blur the pt/professional boundaries. That happens in other fields besides psych as well (Lee case in point). Those people are ones that that shouldn't be around giving so-called expert testimony. True professionals don't do that; that is not what is supposed to be done.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

I am not any closer to understanding why Jodi did what she did now, after hearing the shrinks testify, than before.

I mean I agree that DeMarte was clear/logical and her conclusions fascinating, but I just don't see the value of her testimony in the trial. I do not think it swayed anybody in the guilt/aggravation/sentencing phases.

Psychology helps people in a clinical setting, without question.

In a legal setting, it just put pennies in kettles. IMO

ETA - Psychology cannot predict behavior. There is no 'You experienced ABC, therefore you will behave in manners XYZ'
There are correlations but almost nothing that can directly seen to be causal-
like you're more likely to be an alcoholic if you had an alcoholic parent BUT that does not say that you will be an alcoholic or that you are likely in a total probability sense.

 

[Night-owl]

She can make whatever claim she wants. She had to be defended with something, so the lawyers gave it their best shot. They had nothing to work with.

She does not meet the definition of insanity, so what other options are there?

Well, one option would have been plead guilty to the murder you committed and throw yourself at the mercy of the court.

<snipped for space>
Anyway, I am wondering what works to get a person out of an abusive situation.

This is going to sound harsh. But you can't do anything to get a person out of an abusive relationship. The first time you are abused, you're a victim. From there on, you're a volunteer. Someone may not recognize the other options, but if they talk to people, they can get advice. There is support out there. It's not going to be fun to leave, but honestly, if a person is staying, that is a decision on their part. Maybe they rationalize it 900 ways to Sunday, it's not that bad, they have kids together, they want to maintain a certain standard of living, they really do care for the other person. I don't judge if it's a "good" or "bad" reason. It is their choice though.

Ask anyone who has left an abusive relationship what the turning point was for them. It will be the point that person decided enough is enough. Until a person "gets it", you can't help them.

For both JA and TA, people told them to get out. People told them that each was not going to fare well. That did not work.

I feel that TA used intermittent reinforcement which is the most powerful. He kept responding to her after not responding.

I have learned from that example that making a total and complete elimination of any interaction is the way to go. Never have any communication. It just encourages them.

I don't think TA actively was trying to condition JA into anything. You know that behavior spike you get when you are trying to extinguish an unwanted behavior? Where, if JA calls 10 times a day and that's not getting a response, maybe she ups it to 20 or 30 calls? Or a couple drive-bys? Maybe a tire slashing or two? Unless you have some experience with that situation, that is very easy to fall back into the pattern of responding to JA. I can tell you what some of the dynamics going on were, but I have the clarity of being on the outside, and probably having more experience than TA with people who need to be "managed" in your life. If either of them was cognizant enough to manipulate that kind of behavior, it would be JA. She's exceptionally manipulative, people with un-moderated BPD are good at manipulation and other forms of crazy-makin'.

But what to say or do to a friend that is in a horrible relationship?

The only thing I figured out was that the person needs to be kidnapped and taken to be deprogrammed. That is what parents used to do when kids got into cults.

That changes nothing. You can stop an alcoholic from drinking by locking them up as well. Provide a ton of therapy, get them on a health regime, teach them to meditate while swimming with dolphins. If they don't want stop drinking, as soon as they are at liberty, they will start drinking again.

 

[human]

I agree that neuropsychology brings much factual evidence into the brain of the suspect on trial. If there is brain damage consistent with the behavior that caused their incarceration, I find that significant.

Interesting enough, scientists have studied the brains of psychopaths and every single one had damage in their prefrontal cortex. You physically could notice upon comparing the ASPDs brains to a healthy brain that there was significant compression/absence of certain parts of the cerebral cortex. Where that damage was on the cortex varies specifically with each psychopath - essentially causing them all to have the same core personality issue but different specific mechanisms/ways in which those behaviors are manifested.

But yeah I'd never take a defendant solely at their word as a forensic psych. Too much room for error diagnostically speaking.

We have gone round and round on this, but experiences alter one's very cells. I believe that people can be born with a predisposition to something, but it does not need to go that way.

We all have our issues we are born with. I know someone whose father had juvenile diabetes. She is in her 40's and has never once eaten food that is not good for you. She looks like she is 20. Her father, a doctor, is still alive and chugging along. He has to be in his 70's or more.

Then we have referenced the man who has a sociopath brain scan, but never manifested because he was raised in a loving home. Is he the one that people referenced as related to Lizzie Borden?

 

[human]

Well, one option would have been plead guilty to the murder you committed and throw yourself at the mercy of the court.



This is going to sound harsh. But you can't do anything to get a person out of an abusive relationship. The first time you are abused, you're a victim. From there on, you're a volunteer. Someone may not recognize the other options, but if they talk to people, they can get advice. There is support out there. It's not going to be fun to leave, but honestly, if a person is staying, that is a decision on their part. Maybe they rationalize it 900 ways to Sunday, it's not that bad, they have kids together, they want to maintain a certain standard of living, they really do care for the other person. I don't judge if it's a "good" or "bad" reason. It is their choice though.

Ask anyone who has left an abusive relationship what the turning point was for them. It will be the point that person decided enough is enough. Until a person "gets it", you can't help them.



I don't think TA actively was trying to condition JA into anything. You know that behavior spike you get when you are trying to extinguish an unwanted behavior? Where, if JA calls 10 times a day and that's not getting a response, maybe she ups it to 20 or 30 calls? Or a couple drive-bys? Maybe a tire slashing or two? Unless you have some experience with that situation, that is very easy to fall back into the pattern of responding to JA. I can tell you what some of the dynamics going on were, but I have the clarity of being on the outside, and probably having more experience than TA with people who need to be "managed" in your life. If either of them was cognizant enough to manipulate that kind of behavior, it would be JA. She's exceptionally manipulative, people with un-moderated BPD are good at manipulation and other forms of crazy-makin'.



That changes nothing. You can stop an alcoholic from drinking by locking them up as well. Provide a ton of therapy, get them on a health regime, teach them to meditate while swimming with dolphins. If they don't want stop drinking, as soon as they are at liberty, they will start drinking again.

I would like to hear what made people leave a situation. I was shocked, but I told a mother of a student she should leave her abusive husband. A one time conversation. She left him and later thanked me for talking with her.

I talked with many other parents as well, and they stayed with the abuser, I even had money hidden in my classroom for a mother that I told her I had for anytime she wanted to leave. No. So many times I spoke with mothers and even a father .

As far as the intermittent reinforcement, I am sure TA had no idea that he was doing that. I know that intermittent reinforcement is the most powerful reinforcer, but I had never applied the idea to an abusive relationship before or any relationship, actually,

I think with alcoholics , intervention where everyone sits down and confronts the alkie has worked. Or maybe it does not anymore? I have not kept up with that issue so much.

 

[human]

Ok. 2hip2bsquare.

Here is the Fallon man with his own brain scan. He is the relative of Lizzie and other psychos.

He says genes do not control all.

Great article. Easy to read

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

You're just irresistible you sexy thang you!

Well, they don't call me "Busty" for nothing! j/k :floorlaugh:

On a serious note, there's a lot of disappointing shallowness that goes on between both genders within our society.
I'd like to believe otherwise but I have seen and have been told too much to believe otherwise. Okay maybe I'm a tad jaded (but I grew up on the Jersey Shore, ahl--right)!

So the shallowness of our society causes me a certain amount of angst. It really comes down to a power struggle for women who want to be taken seriously, for their merits, for their accolades, for their achievements of which I have strived to rack up.

But then look at men from a "nature" componenet, men are very plain and simply put; "Visual" creatures. Close male friends have confided to me that they size up a woman within seconds based on their attractiveness and that determines their worth--based on if they want to "get down" (due to a lack of a better way of saying it).

Do women then rebel by working the game?

Ahhh......therein lies the rub.

Which came first; the chicken or the egg?

Anywhoo, I would've liked to believe in the Cinderella fairytales of my childhood than to live in the reality of our society which hovers around how much money and power a man has; and how much sexiness and youth a woman evokes.

Thanks for letting me rant about this aspect.

Now back to the previously sponsored program!

:seeya:

:scared:

 

[Night-owl]

I would like to hear what made people leave a situation. I was shocked, but I told a mother of a student she should leave her abusive husband. A one time conversation. She left him and later thanked me for talking with her.

I talked with many other parents as well, and they stayed with the abuser, I even had money hidden in my classroom for a mother that I told her I had for anytime she wanted to leave. No. So many times I spoke with mothers and even a father .

The first woman? She was ready to leave. She just needed someone (you) to somehow crystallize her intention.

The other folks? Not ready to leave. Again, don't want to sound harsh, but I wouldn't try to drive that decision for someone. Too often you find yourself somehow tagged with the "common enemy of the relationship" role. Abuser wants the person to stay, you want the person to go.... it has to be what the person in the situation wants.

As far as the intermittent reinforcement, I am sure TA had no idea that he was doing that. I know that intermittent reinforcement is the most powerful reinforcer, but I had never applied the idea to an abusive relationship before or any relationship, actually,

OMG, yes. Abusers are not abusive all the time. And when they are not, they can be very contrite and affectionate. They promise they will change, they promise it will never happen again. And the abused person is left scrambling trying to figure out what to do to get the "nice person" back into the relationship. It's a trap, you think you can do something to make the other person non-abusive, when in reality, you can't. In long standing abuse situations, it's sure not for a lack of trying tho.