The Nice-ish Ramblings Podcast

If you are like most human beings, you will likely have made a fair few New Year's resolutions in your life... and like everyone else, you may not have been able to stick to them as much as you would have liked. Personally, I am not one for resolutions or the whole "new year, new me" idea. But if you are, here are some reasons why you may not have stuck to your resolutions in the past. And (more importantly) how to make sure you can keep them... and just in time for New Year's Eve. It's like I planned this or something. Sources·      The top 3 reasons New Year's resolutions fail and how yours can succeed (Caprino, 2019);·      A psychotherapist says there are 3 common reasons so many people's New Year's resolutions end in failure (Abadi, 2019);·      10 Reasons Why New Year's Resolutions Fail (Wallen, 2020);·      The Transtheoretical Model of Change Prochaska & DiClemente (1983)

Hi there. How are you? Hopefully, you’re having a nice day. Today, can we please talk about Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk wanting to fight each other? I have been fascinated by all of this since the initial reports of this fight being declared. However, when it all kicked off, I didn’t say much about it as I wanted to see how it all played out. But it doesn’t seem to be fizzling out at all. So here we are to think about how all of this – how this very public display of bravado – relates to a concept known as precarious manhood.In case you are unaware, two of the most prominent tech bros, Zuckerberg and Musk, have been embroiled in a highly publicised feud. There’s obviously been some longstanding animosity between the two, given the fact that they both own two of the biggest social media companies. Still, things seemed to turn up a notch around the time that Zuckerberg was set to launch Threads. Which bears a striking resemblance to Twitter (now currently known as X, but I will continue to refer to it as Twitter because I can’t bring myself to call it X. I just think it’s a really fucking silly name. But anyway). Reports suggest that Musk was quite displeased about this development, and on June 20th, 2023, he took to Twitter to challenge Zuckerberg to a cage fight. I mean, the Tweet literally reads, “I’m up for a cage match if he is.” Which, I’m not going to lie, doesn’t feel like a very thought-through Tweet. The challenge was met with a response from Zuckerberg, who took to Instagram to inquire about the location, with Musk then suggesting the UFC Octagon in Las Vegas.Now you would be forgiven for thinking that the situation would just have stopped there; however, it seems to have only escalated as time’s gone by.While nothing has been set in stone – like no date or actual venue has been set – allegedly, UFC president, Dana White, wants the fight to happen and is trying to make the fight a reality. He’s been quoted as saying: “This would be the biggest fight ever in the history of the world, bigger than anything that’s ever been done. It would break all pay-per-view records.” So, we can see what his motivations might be to make this fight take place. More recently, Elon Musk has noted that the fight would be live-streamed on Twitter and that any money made would go to a charity for veterans. It seems like Musk might need to let Dana White know about what’s gonna happen with all that pay-per-view money. But, in discussing how likely the fight would be to happen, Dana White was of the opinion that Zuckerberg is taking this very seriously.And he’s not wrong.It’s been recently reported that Mark Zuckerberg has been training in Jujitsu for over a year and has recently been awarded his blue belt (no idea if that’s good or not, but it sounds impressive) and has also been winning competitions while he’s been at. In training for the fight, he’s reportedly been consuming 4,000 calories a day and has also reportedly (and if this is not a sign of escalation, then I don’t know what it is) had his own cage-fighting octagon installed in his garden, which his wife is apparently less than pleased about. Also, it’s been reported that Zuckerberg has been training with actual UFC stars Israel Adesanya and Alex Volkanovski (I have no idea who these people are, but if you’re into UFC you might be impressed). Volkanovski has noted that he believes Zuckerberg is serious about fighting Musk and is quoted as saying: “Man, I'm telling you he [Zuckerberg] is serious. I don't know how serious Elon is, but I'm telling you, he [Zuckerberg] is training.” So, it seems that at least one of the billionaires preparing for a fight.Musk, on the other hand, seems to be somewhat less prepared. In all fairness, Musk has reportedly often spoken about being in “real hard-core street fights” while growing up in South Africa, with his father, Errol Musk, noting that Elon had once “aced a purple belt in Japanese karate”. Musk seems also to have once told Joe Rogan that he has trained in taekwondo, judo and Brazilian Jujitsu. Jujitsu seems to be the thing to do when you’re a billionaire. Alongside this, it has also been noted that Musk will have a significant height and weight advantage over Zuckerberg. So, looking into this, and depending on which website you look at, Musk is 52 years old, between 5’11’’ and 6’1’’, and weighs between 180 to 187 lbs. While by contrast, Zuckerberg is between 5’7’’ and 5’8’’ and weighs between 154 to 165 lbs.  However, despite this, and speaking once more about his son, Errol Musk has noted that Elon Musk “doesn't know how to go in for the kill” so to speak. So resounding support from Papa Musk there. In terms of actual training for the fight, Musk has allegedly been offered assistance by (and again, maybe this means something to you, but it doesn’t to me) UFC star Jorge Masvidal, apparently reaching out to Musk and stating that Musk needs Masvidal on his team. I have no idea if Musk has accepted this. However, Musk has apparently been (and I quote here) “lifting weights throughout the day”, adding, “I don’t have time to work out, so I just bring them [the weights] to work.” So, it looks like Musk is getting into some training, but seemingly not as much as Zuckerberg is, though.Because of this, most people are putting their money on Zuckerberg. A boxing promoter, Eddie Hearn, has been quoted as saying, “I don't know anything about Elon Musk's training regime, but if I was Elon Musk, I’d be staying well away from it.” He followed this up by saying, “If you go in a cage with someone that knows how to do Brazilian jujitsu like it's over.” But apparently, Musk knows jujitsu too, remember? So who knows. Mr Hearn is not the only one doubting Musk’s chance in the cage. His father was also noted to have said that he's quite worried about the prospects of the fight, calling it “high school behaviour”, but also noting that Musk “loses if he wins and loses if he loses”. So, according to his father, if Musk wins, he’s a bully, and if he loses, he’s a loser. His father has gone on to say, “I think Elon has got himself into quite the difficult situation as a result of high school behaviour. They both have.” I would argue that Musk the Elder is quite astute in this observation. So, how have Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk gotten themselves into this situation?Well, there are several reasons why this fight might be bulldozing its way to becoming an eventuality. Firstly, there is money to be made. Even though Musk has said that profits will go to charity, I am not so sure someone somewhere won’t be profiting off this fight in a non-charitable way. Secondly, there is the old adage that “all press is good press” (or something like that). So, there is no doubt that both Zuckerberg and Musk stand to gain with all the media attention this fight is generating, especially Zuckerberg in relation to Threads. The other one is possibly ego. But it might relate to something a bit deeper than that. It might relate to a concept called “precarious manhood.” Now, before anyone worries that I am trying to get into the minds of Zuckerberg and Musk, I’m not. I have no idea what they are actually thinking or what their motivations might be. What I am about to offer is nothing more than a social theory that could be used to inform what’s going on here. It is not a definitive answer but more of a possible hypothesis.Precarious manhood is a theory that suggests that the societal perception of manhood is often seen as something that is not inherent or automatic but rather needs to be continually earned and proved through actions and behaviours. This theory suggests that manhood is fragile and easily lost, making it a “precarious” state. The idea of precarious manhood suggests that men are under constant pressure to demonstrate their masculinity and prove themselves as “real men.” This can manifest in various ways.In a paper titled “Precarious Manhood and Its Links to Action and Aggression”, the authors explored the idea that because manhood is often seen as something that needs to be proven and maintained, men may feel compelled to engage in behaviours that demonstrate their toughness, dominance, and control. This can lead to actions that are more aggressive or risk-prone compared to individuals who do not feel the same pressures to prove their masculinity. The reviewed a series of experiments and studies to examine the ways in which men’s behaviours are influenced by the perception of their own manhood being precarious. They found that when men’s sense of masculinity was threatened or questioned, they were more likely to respond with behaviours that are traditionally associated with masculinity, such as aggression and risk-taking.For example, I am going to read an excerpt from the paper: “If manhood threats activate physically aggressive cognitions among men, do they also evoke physically aggressive behaviours? To answer this question, we threatened some men’s gender status by making them perform a stereotypically feminine hair-braiding task; other men performed a gender-neutral rope-braiding task. Next, all men got to choose between hitting a punching bag or solving a puzzle. If men use aggressive displays to restore manhood, then men in the hair-braiding condition should select the punching task more frequently than men in the rope-braiding condition. Indeed, this is what happened. In a follow-up study, men first did the hair- or rope braiding task, and then all of them donned boxing gloves and hit a pad that measured the impact of their strikes. Consistent with the idea that manhood threats evoke physically aggressive displays, men who had styled hair punched the pad harder than did those who had braided rope. Finally, men in a third study did the hairstyling task and then either did or did not punch the pad. Next, they all completed a measure of anxiety. Men whopunched the pad after the hairstyling task exhibited less anxiety than men who did not punch, suggesting that aggressive displays can effectively downregulate men’s anxiety in the wake of manhood threats. Thus, these findings provide converging evidence that men use displays of physical aggression to restore threatened manhood.”I mean, I am not sure I need to expand on this further to highlight the parallels between what Zuckerberg and Musk are doing and the above discussion of precarious manhood. But it seems possible that through various threats to their essence of being men, which may have started with Musk feeling massively threatened by Zuckerberg releasing Threads, which I guess can be hypothesised as a threat to Musk’s status, he then possibly Tweeted a flippant challenge to Zuckerberg. Who, in kind, when seeing a public physical challenge, and most likely being in a good enough state of physical prowess, took up that threat to his own masculinity and responded by taking up the challenge. Now, when I first started writing this podcast episode, it was looking like this was all snowballing towards both men beating the shit out of each other, which would have been ludicrous. Initially, due to the possible influence of precarious manhood on this whole situation, I thought that neither of these men would want to bow out; that taking a mature position on how things are escalating would not happen. However, the social media news site, Pubity, released a Threads post by Mark Zuckerberg, who has stated he is moving on from the fight. In the post, Zuckerberg writes:“I think we can all agree Elon isn’t serious and it’s time to move on. I offered a real date [which was apparently August 26th]. Dana White offered to make this a legit competition for charity. Elon won’t confirm a date, then says he needs surgery, and not asks to do a practice round in my backyard instead [probably because you have built an Octagon ring there, Mark]. If Elon ever gets serious about a real date and official event, he knows how to reach me. Otherwise, time to move on. I’m going to focus on competing with people who take sport seriously.”So, while it seems that Mark Zuckerberg is allegedly moving on from the fight, he has not necessarily been mature or nice about it. In the message, it seems he has still done a few things to maintain the image of his manhood and seemingly tries to undermine Musk’s. There is the idea that Musk seems to have been offering excuse after excuse not to get involved in the fight, while Zuckerberg has openly been preparing for it, which seems to give the impression that Musk is worried and possibly scared to undertake the fight. And then there’s the jibe about competing against people who take sport seriously, which again, is a slight undercutting of Musk’s image of a man – that he does not take sport seriously because that is what men do… which, to me, is a weird angle to take, because, I don’t know about you, but I was not aware that Zuckerberg was in any way a fan of sport or sporty before this whole drama unfolded.So, while this seems to have ended for now, the way in which Zuckerberg has ended, it leaves his image of a man capable and willing to engage in an aggressive form of sport intact while seemingly trying to undermine Musk’s image of being a “real man”. So even in this way, there are elements of precarious manhood playing out. It would perhaps have been different if Zuckerberg had put out a post that went something along the lines of, “I realise that things are getting out of hand. I reacted to Musk’s initial Tweet from an emotional place, but thinking about it now, training to beat the shit out of each other is not the mature image I want to convey to the world. So, because of this I am withdrawing from the fight.” It will be interesting to see how Musk responds to this. Who knows, if Musk feels further emasculated, this fight might still be back on. But, for both their sakes, I hope this is where it ends.Anyway, that’s it from me. I’ll leave this with you to percolate and to think about. All resources used in this podcast are linked in the show notes at the end of the transcript. So, if you want to have a read, please do. Also, if you have any thoughts you want to share, do get in touch and let me know what they are. If you have the time, please rate the show, or leave a comment. But also, please share it with anyone else you think might enjoy it. Thanks again for listening to my bullshit. Hopefully, you’ve taken something from the show.Hope you have a great day. Or not. No pressure.SourcesThe Sun: “Elon Musk vs Mark Zuckerberg fight updates”Sportsmanor: “Elon Musk vs Mark Zuckerberg – Height and Weight Differences Between the Two Rivals”Journal Article: “Precarious Manhood and Its Links to Action and Aggression”Pubity: “Zuckerberg Withdraws from Fight with Musk”Music* Opening: “Chilled Ambient Minimal”* Closing: “Seven” - Tobu Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.

Last weekend some text messages were released by Sarah Brady, a surfer, model, and the former girlfriend of Jonah Hill. The messages were released on Brady’s Instagram stories. They quickly went viral, most notably for highlighting what Brady inferred to be controlling and demands requests made by Hill, which he described as his “boundaries” for their relationship. The release of these messages sparked some heated debate across social media with some polarizing views.In this discussion, Dr Bekah Shallcross joins me in a rambling conversation that covers the nuances of what boundaries are, what they are not, how boundaries are upheld and agreed to between men and women In a patriarchal society, and what can be done to change this.As always, please get in touch to let me or Dr Shallcross know your thoughts. And if you think anyone would benefit from hearing this episode, please do share it with them. Also, if you could leave a rating or a comment to let others know this show isn’t a bag of shite, that would be wonderful too.All the best,Nice-ish.Music* Opening: “Chilled Ambient Minimal”* Closing: “Seven” - Tobu Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.

I have the utmost pleasure of being joined once more by Dr Martha - a clinical psychologist who specialises in working with young people - in a fascinating and winding discussion about shame. Shame has received a lot of attention on social media, for good reason. But, as with anything, I was keen to take a closer look at this particularly aversive and unpleasant emotion. And who better to talk to than another psychologist, and one that specialises in how shame might serve a purpose?Dr Martha and I discuss the prevalence of shame discussion on social media, the purposes of shame, how it helps to shape social connections and behaviours, and how it can potentially be a force for good for social change.As always, it was a thoroughly enjoyable and through-provoking discussion and hopefully, it is for you too. If you enjoyed the episode, please do share it widely on social media (tag me in it if you do), or with someone close to you who you think might enjoy it (or benefit from it).And if you can, please leave a rating or comment. It all goes towards letting others know how good (or totally shit) this podcast is.Thanks as always,Nice-ish.Resources* Why Shame Is Good* Why Shame and Guilt Are Functional For Mental Health* The Positive Side of Shame* Is Shame Necessary?: New Uses for an Old ToolMusic* Opening: “Chilled Ambient Minimal”* Closing: “Seven” - Tobu Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.

In today’s episode, I am joined by Pierre Azzam, a psychiatrist-turned-men’s coach, in which we discuss an aspect of men’s mental health that is often not thought about or considered all that much. It was an engaging and fascinating chat, which I am glad I got to have with Pierre again (we had previously recorded this episode, but the recording software malfunctioned). Hopefully, you find similar value in what Pierre shared with me.As always, if you liked this episode and think that someone else may benefit from hearing it, please do share. And if you have the time, please leave a rating and a comment (if you can). It does go a long way to let others know if the show is helpful or a bag of shit.All the best,Nice-ish.Music* Opening: “Chilled Ambient Minimal”* Closing: “Seven” - Tobu Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.

Hello and welcome to The Nice-ish Ramblings Podcast with me the Nice-ish Psychologist where today I am putting a bit more of a forensic spin on the episode.For those of you who don’t know, I am a Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, and in my actual life outside of this social media world, I sometimes get asked what kind of work I do with those in the forensic population. And how I go about trying to help these individuals turn things around for themselves. Not going to lie, it’s quite a hard question to answer. Mostly because it’s not straightforward. I mean, it’s relatively straightforward in my head, but that’s because I know what I’m doing (allegedly).But the full answer is quite lengthy. So, I thought it could make for a good podcast episode. And so here we are, to think about how prison rehabilitation work ideally. I say ideally because human beings are complex and not straightforward. And even though we can theorise how best to help and work with individuals in the forensic population, it’s not straightforward. We’ll explore some of those reasons as we go along.But before we get into it, as always, if at the end of this episode, you think “Bloody hell that was interesting, I bet all my friends and family would enjoy hearing this,” then please do share this episode with them. And if you could rate or leave a comment, too, that would be very much appreciated. I must admit, I found this an interesting episode to make, so hopefully you find it interesting, too. Also, I would say that if there is anything that piques your interest further and you want to know more about, do get in touch, and ask a question. I might be able to answer it then and there, or I might do a further podcast episode about it.Now that that’s out the way and before we think about what ideal rehabilitation should look like, I thought it might be worth taking a very quick historical trip to learn about how the prison system came about. It’s a summary of three different sources, which I have included in the transcript. So, if you want to know more about something or I don’t cover something in as much detail as you’d like, do look for the relevant hyperlinks in the transcript.So, not going to lie, the history of the prison system is a long and complex one, with roots dating back to ancient civilisations. From the dungeons of medieval Europe to the modern-day prison industrial complex, how society has dealt with crime and punishment has evolved significantly over time. In the 18th century, however, the concept of imprisonment as a form of punishment became increasingly popular. In an interview about the invention of incarceration, Ashley Rubin, a sociologist specialising in the history of prisons in America noted that there is a difference between the existence of jails and the development of prisons.Apparently, prisons have not always been used as a punishment or deterrent for criminal behaviour, but rather as a means of keeping the perpetrator of a crime detained until the actual punishment could be carried out. Before the introduction of prisons, people were punished either through capital punishment (what we know as the death penalty and – according to good old Wikipedia – was formerly called judicial homicide”) or corporal punishment. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the sanctions for criminal behaviour were public events that were designed to shame and deter, including the ducking stool (which is a contraption that had a long arm with a seat on the end of it and was used to dunk those convicted of offences into the water and were later used to identify witches), a pillory (which is effectively a stock in which a person’s head and hands were locked in a frame at the end of a long post), whipping, branding, and stocks (which, unlike a pillory, were used to restrain a person’s feet). Further along in the interview, in response to a question about people being locked up long before the 18th century, Rubin notes: “Yes, but those were jails, not prisons. There were, for example, workhouses in England and the Netherlands in the 16th century that held a big mix of people, including vagrants, debtors and prostitutes. Even orphans in some cases. People who had done minor things or hadn’t necessarily been convicted of a crime, or were being held awaiting trial, or until they paid a fine or for other administrative purposes. Some scholars have argued that those were the first prisons, but in my view, they were more similar to what we would call a jail today. Jail is basically a short-term holding cell, not a place of punishment, and we’ve had that throughout history.” So, initially, prisons tended to be a place where people were held before their trial or while awaiting punishment. It was very rarely used as a punishment in its own right.In 1777, John Howard, the first penal reformer, called for reforms to the prison system, which included paid staff, proper diet, and outside inspection (which only goes to show what the conditions of this confinement would have been like before any of these things were implemented). The existing punishments of capital and corporal punishment were deemed inhumane, and they were not seen as effective in deterring crime. This led to a movement to reform the jail system, which was considered terrible, grotesque, and a hot spot for disease. The desire for a new type of punishment and the need to reform the jails paved the way for prisons as we know them.The first prisons in the world were developed in America. The Massachusetts state prison, which opened in 1785, was the first actual prison, followed by Connecticut in 1790 and Pennsylvania in 1794. In 1791, in the UK, Jeremy Bentham designed the “panopticon” – a prison design that allowed a centrally placed observer to survey all the prisoners, as prison wings radiated out from this central position – which became the model for prison building for the next half-century. If you can’t conceptualise that, I would go have a look at the link, it is quite a fascinating design.So, in summary, historically the prison system was designed to punish criminals and deter others from committing crimes. But over time, it has become clear that incarceration alone is not enough to prevent individuals from re-offending. This has led to a shift in focus towards rehabilitation and reintegration programs within the prison system. However, the effectiveness of the prison system has been a topic of debate for many years (over 200 years, apparently).Then, fast forward to America in 1974, when we meet criminologist Robert Martinson who takes it upon himself to review all evaluations of offender treatment programmes available at the time. In summary, this leads him to conclude that “we haven't the faintest idea about how to rehabilitate offenders and reduce recidivism [which in case I have not mentioned it before is a fancy word for re-offending]”, which lead to the now famous question of “Does Nothing Work?” in terms of prisoner rehabilitation. Just to add, the question is famous in Forensic circles. You would be forgiven for not knowing what I am talking about. It’s no “to be or not to be”, and you’re not going to be using it in pub quizzes any time soon.However, in response to Martinson’s review and despair, a group of Canadian psychologists proceeded to review all the literature available in the 1980s related to offending to then find out “What Works?” From this review, Donald Andrews and James Bonta developed the Psychology of Criminal Conduct (PCC), which has been around for fucking ages and is now in its 6th edition published in 2016.The PCC highlighted that (surprise, surprise) there were in fact individual factors as to why people offended, which comprised of social, biological, and individual influences. From this, Andrews and Bonta developed the Risk-Need-Responsivity (R-N-R) model, a model of offending that stood in stark contrast to the previous attitudes of correction that relied heavily on punishment (not going to lie, I feel like the prison system is still pretty punitive these days; but anyway, it’s what the literature says...) Seemingly for the first time a model existed that forensic practitioners could use as a framework to understand the causes of criminal behaviour but also aid in reducing re-offending.The first “R” of the R-N-R model is the risk principle, which has two key components. Firstly, it involves predicting the level of risk posed by those who have committed offences, which is not fortune-telling but is based on a combination of statistical likelihood and structured clinical judgment. To achieve this, a thorough assessment of the offender’s static risk factors (which are historical and unchangeable) and dynamic risk factors (which are potentially changeable) is required. Secondly, the risk principle involves matching the individual to an appropriate level of treatment based on their level of risk. In this way, it is proposed that present as a higher-risk should receive higher-intensity interventions, whereas those who present with a lower-risk should receive less intensive or no intervention (there have also been arguments that even those in the low-risk category should receive intervention regardless of being low-risk). But overall, this approach enables correctional institutions to direct resources to those who pose a greater risk and require a greater level of rehabilitation.The “N” part of the R-N-R model is the need principle, which is a key factor in reducing reoffending rates through targeted interventions. To achieve this, it is suggested that interventions should focus on the dynamic risk factors, also known as “criminogenic needs.” The reason for the focus on dynamic risk factors is that, as noted above, static risk factors are historical and can’t be changed. An example of a static risk factor is something like a history of violence or previous offending. These are considered risk factors in the sense that often the predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, and if someone has a long history of violent behaviour then there is a higher chance that person may engage in violent behaviour in the future. And a history of violence or previous offending is not something that can be changed or undone. However, static factors aren’t necessarily an absolute guarantee of future behaviour as static risk factors are influenced by dynamic risk factors (or criminogenic needs), which are changeable and can be focused on as an area of intervention. There are eight identified criminogenic needs that include a history of antisocial behaviour (it’s worth noting here that all offending can be considered antisocial behaviour, but that not all antisocial behaviour is offending – just think about people who talk loudly or on their phone when you go to the cinema; it’s certainly antisocial but no one’s going to prison for being a dick while you watch the latest Marvel instalment). Other dynamic risk factors are an antisocial personality pattern, antisocial cognitions and attitudes, antisocial associates, problematic home or work circumstances, having few positive leisure activities, and substance abuse. So, for example, through interventions that challenge attitudes and beliefs that are supportive of criminal behaviour, these attitudes and beliefs can be modified, theoretically then leading to a reduction in re-offending.The second “R” principle is that of responsivity – or a person’s responsiveness to an intervention – which is a crucial aspect of effective rehabilitative treatments. The idea behind the responsivity principle is that it’s all well and good to identify the level of risk, and what an intervention should target, but if a person is not responsive to treatment, then things are very unlikely to change. The responsivity principle has two main components: the general and the specific components. The general component emphasizes the use of cognitive behavioural approaches to effectively reduce reoffending rates. Basically, this is linked to trying to challenge and modify beliefs and attitudes towards offending. Meanwhile, the specific component considers individual factors that may hinder successful rehabilitation, such as low motivation, personality, and, intellectual ability, and gender (having said that out loud, I am not quite sure why gender is considered an individual factor that might hinder rehabilitation. I might look into that). The theory is, that, that by addressing these individual factors, the responsivity principle increases the likelihood that rehabilitative treatments can be delivered effectively to those who have committed crimes.That all sounds, lovely right. Think about the level of risk, figure out what dynamic risk factors need to be intervened with, and then think about how to make sure someone can engage with an intervention to address those dynamic risk factors. Pretty cut and dried. Well…Even though the R-N-R Model is the “gold standard” by which prisoner rehabilitation is conducted (and it certainly has the breadth of empirical evidence to support this claim) the R-N-R model has come under significant criticism in the last 20 years. The primary criticism comes from Tony Ward and Claire Stewart in the early 2000s who note that in practice – so in real world, practical terms – the R-N-R model neglects the responsivity principle. And so, because of this, the R-N-R model runs the risk of reducing someone who has offended to a set of risk factors without any sense that those individuals are human beings that have basic needs that they were possibly trying to meet through their offending behaviour. From this, they developed the Good Lives Model (although, when looking at the Good Lives website, I think it was Tony Ward’s brainchild).So, as human beings, we all have basic needs, and we all go about achieving these needs in different ways. The GLM describes eleven “goods” that we seek to achieve/obtain throughout our lives in order to live “a good life”. These are as follows: life (wanting to live a “good life” which includes healthy living and functioning); knowledge (wanting to know more about the world); excellence in work (being good at /having a job); excellence in play (having leisure time); excellence in agency (having choice about what we do, having autonomy, power, and self-directedness); inner peace (being content and free from emotional turmoil); relatedness (having good relationships, both intimate and non-intimate); community (feeling a part of/connected to something); spirituality (either through religion or spiritual connectedness and having meaning and purpose in life); pleasure (which means feeling good in the here and the now); and creativity (being able to express oneself). It has been conceptualised that “criminogenic needs” serve as indicators that an offender has had difficulty in seeking these human “goods” and has gone about trying to achieve/obtain these goods through antisocial means, either through lack of life skills (which may not have been acquired for a variety of reason) or challenging life circumstances.An example I like to use to illustrate this is that of a parent stealing nappies for their young child because they can’t afford to buy them. You could view the parent as having antisocial tendencies and a lack of regard for the rules of society. Or, you could understand that this parent, given their financial constraints and potential limitations in being able to acquire nappies in a prosocial way, was pursuing the “good” of “life” in that they were trying to provide their child with a basic, functional need that every parent strives to fulfil for their children. While both choices are criminal, the second framing humanises the parent as someone doing the best they can within the limitations of their circumstances, and what that parent needs are opportunities to do what they need to for their children in a way that does not involve offending. Now, I can appreciate that this is perhaps an easy example to digest as the circumstances can convey a certain level of sympathy and possibly empathy. Something that might not be possible for you, good listener, to do for those who have committed crimes along the higher end of severity and harm. And that’s OK – that’s why there are folks like me doing the job we do so that you don’t have to.The main claim behind the (GLM) is that to simply focus treatment on “criminogenic need” is to suggest that there is something wrong with a person who has committed an offence and that a more humanistic approach would be to find out what these individuals need to live a different, more prosocial life. Therefore, by finding out what “goods” a person was trying to obtain through their offending and framing. these are treatment needs, or approach goals (i.e., how best to achieve their goals), which may serve to motivate them to engage in rehabilitative strategies more effectively.So, in summary, in forensic settings if we can a) work out the kind of “goods” a person was trying to obtain at the time of their offending, b) find out why that “good” is important to them, c) help them learn more prosocial/healthy/helpful ways of obtaining that good in the future we will then be able to reduce that person’s risk of trying to obtain those “goods” through antisocial means in the future (i.e., reduce risk of reoffending). Of course, in reality, things don't work out so neatly, and this is not to say that if a person’s goods are identified and addressed then things just fall neatly into place. There is a lot of work that goes into rehabilitation and a lot of barriers which can impede rehabilitation. But the GLM offers a framework to follow and offers a principle that positions those who have committed offences as human beings who have committed offences for specific reasons that relate to things that a non-offending population – so people like you and me – also strive for.And there we go. That’s it for today’s episode. Hopefully, it has been informative in some way and has given you something to think about. As I have noted throughout, this is just a theoretical underpinning, but often times things are not as clear-cut as I have outlined here. But this is the framework that should underpin rehabilitation in forensic settings. Whether that is or isn’t done is beyond my capacity to know.Like I said earlier, if you liked this episode, please rate, share, and leave a comment if you can. It all goes towards letting others know if this is a good show or a bag of shite. As always, thanks for your time.And I hope you have a good day. Or not. No pressure.  Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.