Re: The Pedosmile: Do Pedophiles Have A Certain Smile?

This concept is ridiculously absurd. To take an article from a clearly satirical website--that makes such a superficial claim backed with many statistical flaws (n=19 is the most easily seen)--then claiming that this deserves more research has me wondering if Natalie herself is interested with joining Mr. Maddox as another satirist herself. What many of the previous posters have tried to mention, but failed to articulate, is that eugenics was considered a legitimate form of science amongst many respected European and some American academics up to almost the mid C20. Eugenics legitimizes racial and ethnic discrimination based upon differences in phenotypical expression that reflect either superiority and inferiority of a population. Respected researchers--scientists, statisticians and biological anthropologists have since demonstrated reasonably that this archaic epistemology has no legitimate scientific foundation. To actually take seriously Mr. Maddox's (I am fan of his, actually) satirical claim in this regard is tantamount to advancing some perverse blend of neoeugenics as well as the also archaic biological theories of criminal offending. The respected scientific academic community has discarded these because they are not useful and are ethically questionable.

All types of people have goofy smiles and moreover take poor pictures: who do not touch children. But let's leave logic aside and pursue this anyway. By what and who's criterion are we supposed to evaluate such a "pedosmile?" Assuredly, individual and even cultural differences of perception would likely make for a rather complicated and subjective mess for a standard of evaluation. I wonder how such a talented scholar might put together her research methods and analyses? Using a flawed research plan with non-randomized samples with poorly planned studies might find quantifiable standards with the appearance of legitimacy and statistical significance--even if we all should know that correlation is not necessarily causation. Unfortunately, most in the media as well as lay followers of pop science are quite ignorant of how to actually critically analyze "pseudoscience." They believe it and then we do get a 'witch-hunt' where anyone with a superficial deviation (the pedosmile) from whatever is defined as the "norm" becomes suspect. What about child-touchers who have Hollywood smiles? Hmm, Michael Jackson? Perhaps we need to think ahead about the sociological impacts of flawed science before we advance pursuing such a trite concept. Also, we should not waste valuable resources, time and energy that should be spent pursuing legitimate and useful research to better understand and eliminate the problem of child sex offenders.