
The Rush from Judgment (1997) - jseliger
http://www.city-journal.org/html/7_3_oh_to_be.html
======
nchelluri
Wow, that was a really interesting (and good) read. I am sometimes really
pleased with the stuff that shows up on the HN front page.

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](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](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.

------
caseysoftware
Adults apply judgement. It's how we prioritize, apply our personal morals, and
make decisions.

Anyone who says "I don't judge" or "don't judge me" is someone you shouldn't
have in your life.

------
cpr
Dalrymple (pseudonym) is one of the most trenchant writers on the British
social scene today. (Or was. Can't keep up.)

------
al2o3cr
" friend of mine recently discovered a woman in her nineties who had lived as
a "patient" in a large lunatic asylum for more than 70 years but whose only
illness—as far as he was able to discover—had been to give birth to an
illegitimate child in the 1920s. No one, surely, would wish to see the return
of such monstrous incarceration and cavalier destruction of women's lives"

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.

~~~
boombip
I think you should reconsider reading the article. It presents an interesting
viewpoint on the benefits of passing judgement in domestic abuse situations. I
think that "passing judgment" is a misleading description of what he is doing.
A perhaps better one would be "encouraging victims to take control of their
lives".

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.

~~~
DanBC
> 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.

~~~
nchelluri
> 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.

