The Rush from Judgment (1997)
city-journal.org
city-journal.org
I am not entirely sure what conclusions to draw from here, if any, but I can tell you that I have definitely been and sometimes continue to be a victim of self-deception. Sometimes when I feel bad and there is a real reason why I feel bad, there are actions that I can take and do not take. Sort of like the "but he'll kill himself" line of 'reasoning'.
I could not tell you exactly why, but this article makes me think of James Gilligan - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gilligan.
> James Gilligan is an American psychiatrist and author, husband of Carol Gilligan and best known for his series of books entitled Violence, where he draws on 25 years of work in the American prison system to describe the motivation and causes behind violent behavior.
I read an interview with Gilligan (first heard of him from a subthread on an AskReddit post about prison systems, I think) where he talked about dealing with violent prisoners and about recidivism and (re-?)habilitation. It was very inspiring stuff - here's a link to the interview: https://www.psychotherapy.net/interview/gilligan-violence
I've since bought a book by Gilligan but have yet to crack it open. I bet I'll love it if I get around to it, though.
Anyone who says "I don't judge" or "don't judge me" is someone you shouldn't have in your life.
NO TRUE SCOTSMAN, indeed. The author seems to believe that the only thing we shouldn't "pass judgement on" is the immediate and well-documented result of letting moral scolds like him run a society.
And no, I didn't read the article to the end. Giving the author a fair hearing just seemed too... nonjudgemental.
The author has found that, in his experience, some (maybe many) victims of continued domestic abuse stay with their abusers because they simply continue doing what they've always done. Or perhaps the abuser "needs them" in some capacity. So the authors solution is to encourage and explain to victims that they can choose a different path in life and that their abusers may in fact not need them at all. It seems the author believes that a lack of self interest can be a contributing factor in continued abuse and that the solution is to increase the victims sense of self-worth and self-determination.
I don't believe that this solution will always be beneficial. Or that domestic abuse is in some way the victim's fault but the author does present an interesting argument for the benefit of asking the question "what do you get out of this relationship?" And has, at least anecdotally, found some positive results from doing so.
Quite a lot of his other anecdote was pure bollocks though. Here's the clearest example:
>> I know from experience that such a man might take an overdose as a form of emotional blackmail: the vast majority of male overdoses in my ward are of men who have beaten their women—the overdoses serve the dual function of blackmailing the women into remaining with them and of presenting themselves as the victims rather than the perpetrators of their own violence. I also know from experience that the Muslim burglar would never actually kill himself.
He's a complete cunt. Men like him did very great harm to their patients.
This is an interesting viewpoint. I didn't get that at all from the reading but the truth is I know very little of psychiatry. It seemed to me to be about empowering people to make good decisions. It's funny how quickly I was to make my own judgement: "This guy knows what he's talking about! Life can be better!"
But then I read your comment and the other one critizing ths guy, thought some more, and wondered if it were possible I was missing some stuff. I know for one I was a little off-put by the reference to 'illegitimate children are wrong' and perhaps he was off-base in this "... would never actually kill himself" thing too. But again, I really have no point of reference. I just know that I am incapable of making a proper assessment of this piece or of the author. I swear the more I read and learn the more difficult it can be for me to actually understand anything.
Anyway, I did some reading on the good ol' Wikipedia and read his talk page.
> What we have here is a pseudoscientist (Dalrymple) making claims in a range of specialist (social-)scientific areas such as addiction, narcissism, and rationalisation/excuse-making without apparent knowledge of the state of the field and in a manner incompatible with the field. He has been mostly ignored by scholars in these areas (source: Google scholar search) and when referred to is criticised. It violates neutrality that he is portrayed without any criticism and with the appearance of scholarly credibility.
Take that as you will... but you made me think, at least. Thanks for that.
Unless your point is "women who bear children out of wedlock should be imprisoned for life," which I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
I guess you were pointing out that he's attempting to defend passing harsh and quick judgement on people by pointing out the 'exception to the rule'?
"Judgement is not bad... this judgement was bad, but really true good judgement is never like this!"