Would the OP be saying this if it wasn't Freddie that got evicted? I don't think she's biased at all and the Freddie fans are just bleeting about him being evicted.

Perhaps we would find fault in her analysis of Marcus then!

I found Judy James comments about Sophie ludicrous. Also highlighting the argument with Noirin as a changing point did not sound right, that incident stood pretty much in isolation. Freddie received more acceptance in the house because Kris & Karly got kicked out, and Tom told people the public liked him. But BB wouldn't want to admit their new HM's spoilt things.

I have observed Judy James' pseudo analysis of the evictees of the BB house for weeks now and it always seems to me she gets it completely and entirely WRONG. It is like she does not watch the show at all. I think she is just ridiculous. When Karly was evicted she made out that Karly was very nice person but looks bitchy in her body language and this is why people evicted her. Eh, no! Karly was sly, devious and ganged up on Freddy with the bullies. Now she is a gold digger. She also made out in said episode that Freddy was really a bitchy character but he had positive body language and so that is why he stayed in. Absolute rubbish! This woman has a very dubious sense of morality in stating these things about Karly v Freddy and does not seem to have a clue of the notion of "cause and effect"..Freddy was a pure intentioned man from day one, the housemates out of a reversed snobbery ostracised and bullied him unprovoked, of their own volition (they had a choice to do this or not to and they revealed the essence of their characters in that moment as bullies). This is what bullies do. You do not have to be anything in particular for someone to behave unjustly towards you. Freddy in his so called bitching is reacting to the cruelty of people like Lisa, Kris, Karly, Charlie, Dogface etc...Judy is completely nuts and she seems to twist absolutely everything. It is the equivalent of watching a group of schoolyard bullies at secondary gang up on one of the more vulnerable and different kids and then rationalising their nasty behaviour and contriving the victim as the instigator and culprit. The woman is insensitive and embarassing..

Are yo a professional psychologist - or just an amateur one?

She's obviously not a psychologist as she's judging Judy Jones on a purely emotional and extremely subjective level when it's perfectly clear to me that Jones never made moral assumptions on any of the housemates. A psychologists job is to observe and analysis behaviour - their causes and eventual effect - and never to question their ethical values or lack thereof. To do so would obscure her rational, logical thought pattern when it concerns human behaviour.... it's was very apparent in the interview that she was trying to stay focused and not involve herself in too much emotion, allowing the analytical mind to take control.
That's the key to remaining impartial when commenting on human behaviour.

To attack her for overt bias is really laughable in my eyes. There's no hidden, vindictive agenda behind her comments..... and most of her insights were bang on the mark. She never questioned them on an ethical level -stating it they're bad or good - she just tried to give Freddie some insight as to why some people may have viewed him suspiciously. She wasn't condeming him or seeking to crucify him.... ridiculous to see it that way.

Why do you people have to complicate things to such an extreme. It really isn't that complex an issue. The pyschologist got it wrong. She left out details and facts of the actions of characters within the house..To focus on an example, That Karly's "Body language" was separate to her character. What ****. That just doesn't mean anything.

The End.

The root of what's been said here is factually correct. Regardless of how it's been said. Deal with it.

Oh - I see the psychologist got it wrong - because you say so!!

Another one that thinks they know better than a professional!

Sorry - but as has been said by another poster - she is there in a professional capacity to analyize behaviour and causes - not to get emotionally involved by giving personal opinions!!

You are the one simply giving personal opinions - and your opinions are more likely to be influenced by personal likes and dislikes than the psychologist's!!

I think the OP has a point. Judi James seemed to overlook some quite major things and her appraisal of Freddie seemed very cold compared to when she met some of the others. That 'over-congruent' sh!te she attributed to Freddie - I was a bit confused, is she implying that when someone is genuinely nice, friendly and a bit enthusiastic by nature, that they are therefore perceived as a threat by other people? Because that is what she seemed to be saying. :puzzled:

It's not that. As I stated before, I honestly believe that some of the methodological reasoning is nonesense.. For example "reading bodylanguage" in isolation from all other factors of the enviroment and character.

And as people stated before, trying to track certain behaviours to more primitive stages of human development.. (ie. What people were complaining about before in the references to "animals" etc.)...
Even with my most hated housemate Bea.. I would rather not have to listen to this **** being applied to her initial eviction interview. We want basic real questions, with real answers. Whether I like the housemate or not.. I found this reasoning to be too rigid and factually incorrect.

Completely disagree. I'm sure many people have come across 'professionals' in Judi James' field and others who are not necessarily objective and not necessarily worthy of their title.

Exactly.

Based on what - those people's amateur opinions - my point exactly!

No professional has a 100% 'success rate' - in whatever field - but their opinions are based on professional knowledge and experience guided by accepted professional and academic guidelines! An amateur may not agree - but their opinion can only ever be a personal one - with a lot less expertise to back it up!

I agree with everything Judy said. Love what she said in fact.
Freddie isn't blameless and was unfortunately isolated.
Sophie is a better judge of character
Sophie too is soft and different and is better able at social interacting without constantly fecking people off; which Freddie constantly did with..... let me tell you how wrong you are and how right I'm sermons....... no listen listen dude listen ........ interludes.
Quirky and different are great but patronising and controlling will get you ostrasized.

commonsense-
In actual fact you are coming across as the amateur one. OR maybe the arrogant one! I studied psychology for a year in college (a good few years ago now, so I forget certain categorical points in the learning process) and my dad is a psychologist. Are we not allowed to criticise certain methods even if they've been accepted in the academic world?

he does have a facebook. A friend of mine had it....

Like you I have also studied psychology (although not to a particularly high level) and again, like you, some time ago - but psychology does come into my job as a nurse - so it is something that I give a lot of thought to!

Yes - we are allowed to criticise and disagree with professionals - but that doesn't make us right and them wrong! Our opinions are more likely to be emotive!

My point simply being that professionals have a lot more knowledge to back-up their opinion - and they are trained to base their findings on recognised professional practice and to keep personal opinions out of it!

She was way off with freddy..a therapist whos a bad judge of character is a dangerous one..she has peoples lives in her hands...

You see, this is my point.... where was she way off?

She wasnt saying he caused the bullying ffs, she said he became an outsider because he didnt understand when to shut up sometimes and wasnt always that socially aware (basically)! lol

If only psychology was an exact science, we'd be able to say who was 100% right and who was 100% wrong.

She was terribly way off because when analysing freddys downfall she didnt take into consideration his awful wounding by Bea...she merely said he was a bad judge of character ...she had no insight or empathy..two traits that you definitely need in her field...

Who said she didn't take Freddie's wounding by Bea into consideration - you! If she didn't mention it - doesn't mean she didn't take it into consideration! Freddie didn't just mis-judge Bea - he mis-judged other housemates and the public!

He mis-judged the public's ability to see his arrogance for a start! He mis-judged the public's ability to change their minds! It is not all about Bea!

I think she showed insight! She is a professional trained not to bring her emotions into it!

But he obviously is a bad judge of character and his social skills need to be tinkered with..... that's clearly evident from his interpersonal skills. She wasn't there to condemn Bea or anyone else for that matter- that wasnt part of her agenda as a psychologist on the show. Her memo was to analyse Freddies behaviour, attempting to seek patterns and a possible explanation for his early departure, and she did so with clarity and with no trace of bias.

bring back cecilia

Commonsense you have a profoundly superficial understanding of life if the only determination you make in any situation is a degree qualification, the nominal title of 'professional' or 'psychologist' or what have you. I judge people by their individual merits. Not everybody that pursues a particular profession has a real vocation for it. For many, it is a status thing. For many it is a necessity thing and for many it is a passion. It seems to me that if you were to see a therapist tomorrow and after your first few sessions they were confusing you, upsetting you, wrongly attributing things to you and your life, you would make recourse to their diploma and that is enough for you to have faith in them. Human beings are fallible and psychologists can be especially fallible also. I hope you do not consider everything in your life in such black and white terms and reduce the sheer complexity of human beings to superficial considerations. For example, there are many who are condescending and disrespectful to those younger then them as in their heads they have placed said young person in a box, a stereotype and give no further thought to the complexity of being a person. Their thinking is 'this person is younger then me therefore i can reduce them to a number of token sterotypes disregardingly'. My advice to you is look at what is actually there in another person, the reality and not to superficial signifiers about who they are whether 'psychologist', 'teenager',' pensioner' or 'priest'..


This is my attitude to Judy James. I am not impressed by any of the superficial titles and accolades of this world but on the content of character and I will think for myself. I will not agree with a person if it does not sit well with my own reasoning and logic even if they have as I said the nominal title of 'psychologist'. I know a woman who is a sadistic heroin/cocaine addict who was cruel and abusive to my brother who wants to practice psychology and you know what, I am not impressed with her expertise in such a case...and quite rightly I should think..