The Most Misleading Story About Young Men - William Costello
Here are the top 10 key takeaways from Chris Williamson's podcast interview with William Costello discussing the Netflix series "Adolescence" and its controversial portrayal of young men and incel culture.
1. Media portrayal vs reality
The Netflix series "Adolescence" portrays a fictional 13-year-old boy who commits violence influenced by online "manosphere" content. This portrayal is problematic because there has been no real-world equivalent of a well-raised, academically successful 13-year-old committing such violence specifically due to incel content. The show presents a narrative that doesn't match real-world patterns of violence or incel demographics.
The speakers emphasize that while the show depicts a plausible scenario, it shouldn't be treated as representative of an epidemic. They express concern that UK politicians, including the Prime Minister, have referred to the show as a documentary and are using it to inform policy decisions despite its fictional nature.
2. Demographic misrepresentation
The show portrays the incel phenomenon through a white, middle-class boy from a stable family, which contradicts research findings. According to studies mentioned in the podcast, incel communities have higher representation of ethnic minorities, with research showing ethnic minorities are overrepresented among those who admire manosphere figures like Andrew Tate.
The speakers also note that real incel communities have extremely high rates of autism (approximately 30%) and severe mental health issues including suicidality, with about two-thirds of incels having regular suicidal thoughts. These critical factors were largely absent from the show's portrayal, missing an opportunity to address the mental health crisis within these communities.
3. Terminology confusion
The show demonstrates confusion about manosphere terminology, wrongly conflating incels with Andrew Tate followers despite these groups generally disliking each other. Incels follow "black pill" ideology (fatalistic view that looks determine dating success), while red pill adherents believe men can improve their success through specific strategies.
The speakers point out that the show incorrectly portrays incels using a secret emoji language, which neither of them (despite being researchers in this field) had ever encountered. This suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the communities being portrayed and raises questions about the research that went into creating the series.
4. Mental health overlooked
The serious mental health crisis affecting incels is largely overlooked in the show. Research mentioned in the podcast indicates that 30% of incels report thinking about suicide or self-harm every day, with another 33% thinking about it several times over a two-week period. This is dramatically higher than the general population's 5% annual rate of suicidal thoughts.
The speakers argue that most incels pose a greater danger to themselves than to others. The focus on potential violence against women, while important, shouldn't overshadow the mental health crisis affecting these young men that requires serious intervention and support rather than demonization.
5. School portrayal accuracy
The portrayal of school environments in the series was described as relatively accurate, depicting schools functioning primarily as behavioral management systems rather than educational institutions. Teachers are shown struggling with burnout and discipline issues, which matches the speakers' experiences in UK schools.
The speakers note the irony that while the show critiques a teacher character for relying too heavily on showing videos to students, the UK government is now proposing to show this Netflix series to students nationwide. They question the effectiveness of this approach, suggesting it's inconsistent with the show's own messaging about educational methods.
6. Notoriety concerns
The speakers express concern that widespread attention to the show might create a "notoriety effect" that could inspire copycat violence. They reference guidelines from organizations studying male supremacism that recommend against giving extensive media coverage to incel-related violence to avoid creating anti-heroes or role models.
By making this show required viewing in schools and discussing it in Parliament, there's worry that it could inadvertently elevate the status of such acts. The speakers suggest that the attention given to this fictional story could potentially inspire real violence through the promise of fame and recognition.
7. Modern masculinity challenges
The discussion highlights the challenges young men face in defining healthy masculinity in the modern world. Young men receive conflicting messages about what constitutes acceptable masculine behavior, with traditional expressions often labeled problematic while alternatives may seem inauthentic or unclear.
The speakers suggest that young men need credible role models who can guide them through challenges of dating and relationships. They note that many young men turn to the manosphere precisely because it offers concrete (if problematic) guidance in areas where mainstream education and culture provide little practical support.
8. Dating market realities
The speakers discuss what they call "the low mate value theory of misogyny," suggesting that some incel behavior might stem from strategies to lower women's perceived self-worth. They note that society is reluctant to acknowledge dating as a competitive marketplace with hierarchies of desirability, despite evidence that such dynamics exist.
The discussion includes observations about how teaching young men about status, achievement, and self-improvement as paths to dating success is sometimes viewed as problematic, despite being potentially empowering. The speakers suggest that ignoring these realities leaves young men vulnerable to more extreme ideologies that at least acknowledge these dynamics.
9. Media attention dynamics
The podcast discusses why incel stories capture so much public attention despite their relative rarity. According to research mentioned, incel content hits multiple "cognitive attraction rules" that make it compelling media: it involves sex, threat, counterintuitive elements, tribal psychology, and activates protective instincts regarding women.
This creates a situation where media coverage can be disproportionate to the actual prevalence of the issue. The speakers suggest that the Netflix show and subsequent reaction exemplifies how these dynamics work, with potentially negative consequences for both public understanding and policy responses.
10. Male sedation hypothesis
The speakers reference the "male sedation hypothesis," which suggests that despite increasing rates of male sexlessness, violent crime hasn't risen correspondingly because young men are being "pacified" through online worlds including gaming and pornography. While not necessarily healthy, these digital outlets may prevent real-world violence.
They argue that the show presents the opposite message by suggesting that online activity leads to violence. The reality may be more complex - while certain online content can promote harmful ideologies, overall online engagement may actually reduce physical violence by providing alternative outlets for status competition, frustration, and social connection.