"To Judge or Not to Judge?" A conversation on Moralistic thinking, The lonliness of some FDR members, and learning new tools for rehabilitating poor relationships

[Marc Moini]

 

This parenting podcast, I think, bears some relevance:

Alright you wonderful, wondeful people! Here is the new podcast!

 

Hi Antony

I listened to the podcast just now and what I get from it is that if we judge people as bad then many won't want to make any efforts to improve their interactions with us (as Darrell in the story who I guess was happy to get negative attention since he believed he couldn't get respect), whereas if we get past our negative images of them and address them more as equals then they are more likely to treat us back with affection and understanding.

I'm interested in hearing what you get out of the anecdote you selected!

Best wishes,

Marc

[STer]

 

....if we judge people as bad then many won't want to make any efforts to improve their interactions with us (as Darrell in the story who I guess was happy to get negative attention since he believed he couldn't get respect), whereas if we get past our negative images of them and address them more as equals then they are more likely to treat us back with affection and understanding.

 

This is not true for quite a few people with conditions like psychopathy and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as well as some others, that are deeply rooted and reduce empathy and cooperation. Thinking that "getting past our negative images of them" will lead to better behavior on their part is sorely misguided and can lead to a lot of pain. For many many people, it is true that taking a forgiving view of them will help them grow and heal and cooperate more. But it is really important to recognize there is a whole category of people for whom, by the very definition of their conditions, this is not the case. And this category likely includes at least 5% of the population, which is quite a lot when you really think about what 1 in 20 people means.

[Marc Moini]

 

 

Hi Howard,

 

I was writing a reply to your previous post:

 

 

 

* http://sfhelp.org/relate/keys/maslow.htm Note how there is no "need to harm others" or "need to control others", these would be tragic strategies for meeting these needs and not needs themselves.webkit-fake-url://DFEEAE27-D22E-4CA4-831A-329A1992BB59/fdr39.jpg

 

I understand that this is Marshall Rosenberg's explanation for any destructive behavior. But I'm not sure it holds water. There are sadistic people who commit acts that inflict suffering on others where I think you'd have a hard time finding any alternative need that they are trying to meet but failing to meet. Maslow sometimes talked about an "aesthetic need" and used the experience of having to straighten a crooked painting as an example. I think for some sadistic people the suffering of others meets some kind of aesthetic need for them.

 

Make no mistake, there are many - if not most - people who do harm because they are indeed using faulty strategies to meet needs and thus failing to meet those needs. But if you look at the case of a psychopath, for example, they are often quite satisfied by their actions and do not find their needs being unmet. Rather, they find their needs indeed met by their destructive actions. They are only frustrated when others try to stop them from satisfying themselves.

 

I think the NVC crowd - in which I find a great deal of value - have not sufficiently contended with cases of these sorts and their implications.

 

when your new one arrived:

 

 

 

....if we judge people as bad then many won't want to make any efforts to improve their interactions with us (as Darrell in the story who I guess was happy to get negative attention since he believed he couldn't get respect), whereas if we get past our negative images of them and address them more as equals then they are more likely to treat us back with affection and understanding.

 

This is not true for quite a few people with conditions like psychopathy and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as well as some others, that are deeply rooted and reduce empathy and cooperation. Thinking that "getting past our negative images of them" will lead to better behavior on their part is sorely misguided and can lead to a lot of pain. For many many people, it is true that taking a forgiving view of them will help them grow and heal and cooperate more. But it is really important to recognize there is a whole category of people for whom, by the very definition of their conditions, this is not the case. And this category likely includes at least 5% of the population, which is quite a lot when you really think about what 1 in 20 people means.

 

and my answer is similar to both so here goes: I read what you wrote on your website about the limitations of NVC, which if I understand correctly is essentially what you posted here, meaning there exist people with medical conditions (abnormal or impaired brain functions) that effectively make them different from normal people. And you are concerned that normal people interacting with these abnormal individuals may be harmed if the abnormal individuals are not recognized as such.

 

I suppose you have had experience yourself dealing with such abnormal individuals, which is why you are aware of this danger and why you are keen on warning others, so they don't get harmed like you were or could have been.

 

Around the time I was a baby, the accepted knowledge in the medical world was that infants cannot feel pain because their nervous system has not sufficiently developed yet. This led doctors to the general practice of operating on infants without anaesthesia. As far as I understand it, the medical view today that such conditions as Psychopathy and Sociopathy and Narcissistic Personality Disorder exist, is similarly misguided and without evidence. Marshall Rosenberg gives an example in his book Nonviolent Communication where a person diagnosed with such a condition was found to be perfectly normal, and the condition they were thought to suffer from was in fact caused by the way of thinking this person had picked up from the culture. He explains how thinking that we should be this way or that way (moralistic judgment*) can lead to depression and other "medical conditions". He stopped his practice as a clinical psychologist, after he found that he could help people much more effectively by not diagnosing them, i.e. not thinking of them as sick or stupid or damaged or abnormal.

 

I refer you to the work of Milton H. Erickson and Jay Haley for other examples of similar miracle cures for people who had been diagnosed with mental disorders and thought of as incurable, often after having been imprisoned in "mental care institutions" for years. The work of Thomas Szasz (http://www.szasz.com/manifesto.html) is also admirable in this regard, I find.

 

I wish you and other FDR members, who fully understand how mistaken the establishment view on economics or anarchy can be, would come to recognize that the establishment view on psychiatry and psychology (and nutrition, and medicine, and history, etc.) can be just as mistaken.

 

Best wishes,

Marc

*as far as I can tell, you are practicing moralistic judgment when you see people as normal or abnormal, which then leads you to think that NVC only applies when dealing with normal people. Whereas the central message of NVC as I understand it, is that it is possible to replace moralistic judgment with value judgment (based on universal internal human needs instead of universal external moral rules) and then NVC is effective for getting your needs met with everyone since the categories of normal and abnormal no longer exist for you (they are replaced by the single one of "people trying to meet their needs in the best way they can manage right now"). 

 

 

[LovePrevails]

Loveprevails,

This is why I try to reframe moral terms into objective terms having to do with values about health and sustainability.

We can somewhat effectively use words like "evil" if we define them in certain ways. I usually tell people that when I use that word I mean someone who purposefully and unnecessarily harms others through action or neglect without any corresponding benefit to the others....

I think it is very important for people to realize that there is nothing inherent that says what is "good" or "bad" in nature.We are viewing things from the perspective of our own value system.

yes I think this is what we have been trying to argue!

I don't say that our response is the all or we are definitive because I'm still a bit agnostic on the whole thing, but it certainly seems that way

But there are those of us who value healthy and sustainability of ourselves, other people and creatures and the ecosystem as a whole. The are others who value none of this. And there are others that value some of those and not others. These are very real and consequential differences.

Well, of course a lot of people thing that their value system is the best for this, and not all are empirically correct in their thinking!I agree we seem to have pretty good value systems!

But value systems we see as not-life-enriching --- it's to us to show by example the benefits of our way and try and spread the good shit to those who have less life-affirming views where we can. I've not seen any evidence that moralistic thinking is helpful in that, and plenty to the contrary...

 

 

The dictionary defines malice as:

"desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness"

Do you deny there are people who have such desire? If so, calling
them malicious is simply an accurate assessment. If someone says
correctly that another person has malice and you tell them they
shouldn't say that because it's moralistic, it seems to me you're simply
refusing to accept reality or an expression of it.

 

Alright sure, someone might want to harm someone else

if you just describe them as malicious you are being very reductionist in your view

it doesn't say anything about the whys and wherefores

of
course they might disagree, "I'm not being malicious, I'm serving
justice, they deserve it!!" or "I'm not being malicous I'm showing no
one messes with me"

"I'm not being malicious I'm being assertive

 

in
fact this comes down to moralistic thinking itself, if you ask anyone
who does want to hurt anyone else why, they always seem to have what
they think is a really great and reasonable justification for it, even
if you think they find it bonkers

it usually comes down to the other person deserving it in some form

[STer]

 

and my answer is similar to both so here goes: I read what you wrote on your website about the limitations of NVC, which if I understand correctly is essentially what you posted here, meaning there exist people with medical conditions (abnormal or impaired brain functions) that effectively make them different from normal people. And you are concerned that normal people interacting with these abnormal individuals may be harmed if the abnormal individuals are not recognized as such.

 

I suppose you have had experience yourself dealing with such abnormal individuals, which is why you are aware of this danger and why you are keen on warning others, so they don't get harmed like you were or could have been.

 

Around the time I was a baby, the accepted knowledge in the medical world was that infants cannot feel pain because their nervous system has not sufficiently developed yet. This led doctors to the general practice of operating on infants without anaesthesia. As far as I understand it, the medical view today that such conditions as Psychopathy and Sociopathy and Narcissistic Personality Disorder exist, is similarly misguided and without evidence. Marshall Rosenberg gives an example in his book Nonviolent Communication where a person diagnosed with such a condition was found to be perfectly normal, and the condition they were thought to suffer from was in fact caused by the way of thinking this person had picked up from the culture. He explains how thinking that we should be this way or that way (moralistic judgment*) can lead to depression and other "medical conditions". He stopped his practice as a clinical psychologist, after he found that he could help people much more effectively by not diagnosing them, i.e. not thinking of them as sick or stupid or damaged or abnormal.

 

I refer you to the work of Milton H. Erickson and Jay Haley for other examples of similar miracle cures for people who had been diagnosed with mental disorders and thought of as incurable, often after having been imprisoned in "mental care institutions" for years. The work of Thomas Szasz (http://www.szasz.com/manifesto.html) is also admirable in this regard, I find.

 

I wish you and other FDR members, who fully understand how mistaken the establishment view on economics or anarchy can be, would come to recognize that the establishment view on psychiatry and psychology (and nutrition, and medicine, and history, etc.) can be just as mistaken.

 

Best wishes,

Marc

*as far as I can tell, you are practicing moralistic judgment when you see people as normal or abnormal, which then leads you to think that NVC only applies when dealing with normal people. Whereas the central message of NVC as I understand it, is that it is possible to replace moralistic judgment with value judgment (based on universal internal human needs instead of universal external moral rules) and then NVC is effective for getting your needs met with everyone since the categories of normal and abnormal no longer exist for you (they are replaced by the single one of "people trying to meet their needs in the best way they can manage right now"). 

 

Marc,

Not only have I had dealings with such individuals, but so has every one of us. It's literally not possible to live in our current society and not have such dealings given their prevalence and the level of influence they have. My concern also stems from a rich and growing body of very solid research on the subject.

If your argument is based on attempting to claim that such people don't exist, that is going to be as close to impossible to support as you can get. Even if you'd like to challenge the existence of psychopathy - itself a nearly impossible position to support given the enormous amount of evidence of differences in brain structure and function - can you challenge the existence of those who have brain tumors which lead them to become violent? We know with enormous confidence that tumors in certain areas can cause such behavioral change and have for quite a long time. This is not something I think you can find any remotely credible neurologist or brain surgeon who would dispute.

So if you can accept that brain tumors can biologically predispose someone to violence - even someone who was previously very peaceful - then you must accept the principle that biological conditions can render a person violent or non-cooperative. Our only debate would be about how many and which such conditions.

By the way, quite a few psychopaths are very open about the fact that they are, in fact, quite different from the rest of us. Many of them are even proud of it. So it isn't as if all of these people are out there fighting to avoid being labeled and feeling stigmatized and wishing to be viewed as misunderstood. Their testimony is pretty important to take into account here, as well.

Rosenberg giving evidence of a misdiagnosed person does nothing whatsoever to call into question the existence of these conditions. I can find people misdiagnosed with heart disease, as well. Does that show that heart disease does not exist? Such an argument would be almost a textbook example of a fallacy.

Also remember that Rosenberg himself, in the book Nonviolent Communication, has an entire section on the "protective use of force." Why do you think he has that section? Because even he recognizes that there are cases where people simply will not respect the boundaries of others no matter how effective our attempts at dialogue.

I am very familiar with the work of the people you mention who spoke eloquently against some of the views of the mainstream mental health establishment. I have studied their work and even spoken personally with some of them in my life. And I agree with their views when it comes to many aspects of mental health. But it is misguided to conflate their view on some types of mental disorders with those on other very different mental disorders. I agree with you (and them) that many vaguely-defined disorders, such as depression, are often dealt with absurdly and misdiagnosed and misunderstood. However, psychopathy, for example, is increasingly recognized not just as a psychiatric, but really as a quiet striking neurological condition. There are more studies coming out almost weekly or monthly pinpointing the brain differences, which are quite distinct and very significant (which is something we cannot say for many of these other, far more questionable types of disorders). I urge you to take a look, in an unbiased manner, at the array of research on the topic. I think if you do that in an honest and sincere fashion, simply seeking the truth, you'll come away pretty impressed with the sheer amount of solid research we have on this. Search on terms such as neuroscience and psychopathy, neurology of psychopaths, neurocriminology and so on. Or I can share with you a number of links to this type of data if you wish.

The irony of you appealing to an anti-establishment sentiment as a reason to disbelieve in these conditions is that, in fact, it is the establishment itself that has conspicuously failed to pay much attention to these conditions. That's why, despite so much solid research in this area, you rarely hear about it and will be surprised when you see how much there is. It is the establishment that has attempted to make huge profits off of treating people with depressed symptoms with pills while barely paying attention to the conditions of the abusers who may well have caused their symptoms.  It is also the case that many of these people work in the establishment and thus have no desire to bring attention to their conditions. It is hardly an establishment view to pay serious attention to these conscience-reducing conditions. In fact, the lack of such a focus is one of the reasons why I myself became disenchanted with the mainstream mental health field. It is only in very recent times that I am starting to finally see more mainstream discussion of these conditions and much of it is being driven by people not at all originally in the heart or mainstream of their fields.

It requires no moralistic judgment to make the very scientifically-supported statement that there are people with neurological conditions affecting the areas of the brain responsible for such capacities as empathy and impulse control which render them more likely to be violent and uncooperative. Nor is there any moralistic judgment in recognizing that there are also recognized genes that play a role, as well.

This is a very important and archetypal back and forth here because I believe the desire to deny the reality of these conditions is at the very heart of some people's philosophy on life. I empathize with them because I wish these conditions did not exist too. I also would like to believe in a world where we didn't have to take account for them. And I believe that for many people, accepting the reality of these conditions is itself very painful as it shatters some of their protective defenses in a variety of ways which could take an entire separate post to cover.

But I think we, as well as others, pay a steep price for our remaining in that denial.

Ultimately, you will have to decide, as will others, on what basis you will decide what to believe on this subject. Will you look at the neurological and genetic research and base your decision on that? Or will you base your decision on what is most comfortable to believe or fits your current worldview? Will you cherry pick the views of those that validate what you'd like to believe (none of whom have done any actual neurological or genetic research on this topic) and ignore the overwhelmingly greater preponderance of evidence on the other side? The research is there and quite strong and voluminous. I post pieces about new studies and stories on the subject weekly. You could spend weeks just reading that research.

None of this is to completely devalue the importance of the philosophy you are promoting. To me it is like Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. Newton's work is of great value as long as we are working within certain everyday limits. But once we go outside of those limits, his work doesn't apply. Similarly, approaches like NVC can work very well in many cases. But now and then we run into someone with whom or a system in which those rules simply don't work. And we have to recognize when we are dealing with people or situations that require us to take a different approach. A philosophy, like a tool, only works effectively if you know where it applies and where it doesn't. Trying to apply it inappropriately can backfire quite badly.

I'll end this with a quote from perhaps the world's leading expert on psychopathy, Robert Hare, that I think is highly relevant here, not only because it hits on the denial of psychopathy in general, but it should reinforce what I said both in terms of there being overwhelming amounts of research evidence on the subject and that, despite this, far from pushing the issue and meriting some anti-establishment backlash, the establishment actually has not given sufficient attention to it:

"There's still a lot of opposition -- some criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists don't like psychopathy at all," Hare says. "I can spend the entire day going through the literature -- it's overwhelming, and unless you're semi-brain-dead you're stunned by it -- but a lot of people come out of there and say, 'So what? Psychopathy is a mythological construct.' They have political and social agendas: 'People are inherently good,' they say. 'Just give them a hug, a puppy dog, and a musical instrument and they're all going to be okay." - Robert Hare

[STer]

 

Alright sure, someone might want to harm someone else

if you just describe them as malicious you are being very reductionist in your view

it doesn't say anything about the whys and wherefores

of
course they might disagree, "I'm not being malicious, I'm serving
justice, they deserve it!!" or "I'm not being malicous I'm showing no
one messes with me"

"I'm not being malicious I'm being assertive

 

in
fact this comes down to moralistic thinking itself, if you ask anyone
who does want to hurt anyone else why, they always seem to have what
they think is a really great and reasonable justification for it, even
if you think they find it bonkers

it usually comes down to the other person deserving it in some form

 

As I pointed out in my previous long response to Marc, one of the "nice" things here (not nice in that it exists, but in that it makes it a lot easier to solve this debate) is that what you say is not actually true. There are people who are quite open and honest about their desire to hurt others and the enjoyment they take in it. They are simply honest sadists. Certainly, some sadists do not wish to expose their predilections and will make up excuses like you say. But there are plenty who have been open about it. Some are even quite proud. Some even mock and look down on others who don't share their enjoyment of seeing others harmed. And when allowed to speak with anonymity, even more such people will admit to this openly.

There are plenty of people who do harm believing they are helping, as you point out. There are plenty working in the gray areas between altruism and malice. But I don't think there is much debate that there are people who are simply sadistic in the world. And I think we are perfectly justified in referring to such people as malicious and recognizing that they are highly unlikely to respond effectively to the use of NVC.

Again, I'm not saying that strategically it is wise to necessarily tell them your assessment of them out loud to their face. But to simply accurately label them in your own mind or when speaking about this topic is hardly a moralistic judgment that should be avoided. It is just accurate natural science. And it is the first step to devising a strategy that does work optimally.

[LovePrevails]

well, this conversation is clearly going round in circles. We each understand one anothers positions fully and we disagree.

 

bye.

[STer]

 

well, this conversation is clearly going round in circles. We each understand one anothers positions fully and we disagree.

 

bye.

 

I don't see how it's a circle. I am pointing both of you to the truly massive amount of research supporting the neurological basis of these conditions. That's a line pointing in a very fruitful direction, not back in a circle. And it isn't really my position. It's the position that is pretty unavoidable if you actually look at the research. I take it neither of you has done that. I wonder if you are even willing to.

Ultimately, this seems to be more of an epistemological issue. When I am made aware of a huge amount of research supporting something, I look at it and, if it is valid, I actually base my belief on it. If you don't approach forming your beliefs on that basis, then there isn't anywhere to go with the discussion. But it has nothing to do with going in a circle. It just has to do with an unwillingness to go where the conversation has, in quite a linear fashion, pointed.

[STer]

Marc,

I just experienced one of those coincidecnes so perfectly timed that you wouldn't believe it if put in a script.

Just after writing what I did earlier and finishing with the quote from Robert Hare, I came across a tweet from the filmmakers of a movie focused heavily on the influence of psychopathy that features Hare. They linked to an article about how unscientific and misguided the DSM (the main diagnostic manual of psychiatry) is along with the comment that they had heard similar things about psychiatry from who else but Hare himself.

So even the most recognized expert on psychopathy, who has spoken emphatically about how crucial it is that we don't deny its existence, agrees with many of the people you mentioned earlier about psychiatry as a whole. Hare himself apparently agrees with how off base we are with so many of our psychiatric diagnoses. But not with psychopathy, to which he has devoted most of his career.

Psychopathy is different. It is not just another of the vague, amorphous conditions psychiatry often deals with. It is a much more objective condition based on far more precise and clear brain markers. It really belongs more to neurology than psychiatry, I think. The objections you raised, perfectly valid with regard to many other aspects of psychiatry, are not relevant to psychopathy. Hare's stance on both of those issues where appropriate is a nice representation of that.

And if that's not enough to drive the point home, maybe this is:

The guy that the entire article they linked to is about - the one vociferously challenging the basis of psychiatry - is ALSO in that movie that promotes the importance of recognizing psychopathy.

[Marc Moini]

Hi Howard,

 

Thanks for your replies. How do you see us resolving our disagreement here over whether 1/20 people really are different from everybody else in that they get pleasure from hurting others in the reverse of the way everybody else gets pleasure from helping others (giving from the heart as Marshall Rosenberg would say)? I think I'm aware of the type of evidence you mention, and for me it is not convincing, and I know of contradicting evidence (which I have pointed to above). It seems to me the same is true for you. I feel frustrated that something which is so clear to me, you don't understand the same way I do. I guess it's the same for you, right? So what do we do now?

 

I doubt the following will help, but I'll say it hoping it registers with you: I'm not denying that it's possible that someone grows a tumor or has a stroke which damages some part of their brain and then they behave "as a sociopath", but we're not talking about that, right? We are talking about people who have a "mental illness" that did not result from blows to their heads or strokes or tumor, no? Those 1/20 of the population, according to you, not the 1/10000 or less with brain damage from strokes or tumors etc.

 

Best wishes,

Marc

[STer]

 

 

Hi Howard,

 

Thanks for your replies. How do you see us resolving our disagreement here over whether 1/20 people really are different from everybody else in that they get pleasure from hurting others in the reverse of the way everybody else gets pleasure from helping others (giving from the heart as Marshall Rosenberg would say)? I think I'm aware of the type of evidence you mention, and for me it is not convincing, and I know of contradicting evidence (which I have pointed to above). It seems to me the same is true for you. I feel frustrated that something which is so clear to me, you don't understand the same way I do. I guess it's the same for you, right? So what do we do now?

 

I doubt the following will help, but I'll say it hoping it registers with you: I'm not denying that it's possible that someone grows a tumor or has a stroke which damages some part of their brain and then they behave "as a sociopath", but we're not talking about that, right? We are talking about people who have a "mental illness" that did not result from blows to their heads or strokes or tumor, no? Those 1/20 of the population, according to you, not the 1/10000 or less with brain damage from strokes or tumors etc.

 

Best wishes,

Marc

 

 

Marc,

First I didn't say 1/20 get pleasure from hurting others. That 1/20 was an estimate of a group of people with a variety of conditions including psychopathy, sociopathy, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder. These groups overlap some and have in common significant difficulties with empathy. Some people in this group are more extreme than others, with the extreme being severely sadistic. But many people in these categories are not sadists, but simply have difficulties empathizing with others that are likely at some level biological and even in cases where it isn't primarily biological is deeply rooted and not fixable without significant and intense work over time.

Our discussion is not only about sadism where people get pleasure hurting others. It's about the much larger group who are deficient in empathy and therefore will hurt others whether they enjoy doing it or not. Regardless whether they enjoy hurting others or simply do it out of a deficiency of empathy, they are not really amenable to effective communication with NVC alone. There is a deep fundamental basis for the lack of empathy and many times this is biologically based at least in great part.

You did not give me "evidence" to counter the enormous mass of evidence supporting what I said. All you did was mention that a couple people have said they disagree (some of whom aren't even alive and died before a lot of the new research even was done). None of these people you mentioned were even researchers. That isn't evidence, that is opinion and rather irrelevant opinion at that when they weren't even alive to see the studies being discussed here. If you want to counter the evidence I'm pointing you to that would look like you showing me studies that show psychopaths do not have different brain structure and function than others. I would be very interested to see such studies as would everyone in this field. It would be a shocking revelation given the countless studies showing significant differences. I will await some studies that actually show psychopaths to have normal brains, going against the many many studies identifying specific differences in their brains in areas dealing with emotion-processing, impulse control and conscience. If you show me these studies, I will actually show them to some of the experts in this field and see what their response is and I will give these studies a very serious look as my goal is to understand the truth whatever it is.

You also completely ignored everything I said about the fact that I know these people whose opinions you (incorrectly) cited and their stances, even spoke to some of them personally and their views do not apply to these conditions (especially not psychopathy) in the same way that they do to other more vague conditions. I even pointed out that Robert Hare, the world expert on psychopathy, agrees with the problems you raised with other disorders, showing once again that it is faulty to judge psychopathy along with these other disorders as if they are analogous. I also showed you that Gary Greenberg, one of the most vociferous critics you'll find of mainstream mental health, who speaks out constantly about how poor our psych systems are, is nonetheless so supportive of the role of psychopathy that he was in a movie dedicated to the topic. Even people who agree with you about the problems with things like depression, which include me, still understand the reality of these other more neurologically-based disorders where we have much clearer brain differences identified. Some people even think these conditions like psychopathy may play a role in why these other conditions are misused, but that's a whole other discussion.

Nor (as expected) did you go spend time assessing the full weight of that evidence I pointed you to. Saying "I've seen a few studies like that before and dismissed them" is not a credible way to approach truth. If you are interested in the truth in an unbiased way you would look at and take into account the entire body of such research, not cherry pick a few studies you think you can dismiss. Replication and weight and amount of evidence matter greatly in science. And this is not a field with just a couple studies. This is a field with hundreds and hundreds. You seem eager to not look at the full array of research, but just find a couple you can look at and dismiss.

The strokes/tumors issue was simply to establish a base of understanding that there are definitely biological causes for intractable harmful behavior, not at all to say those are the only examples. We now agree that there are biological conditions that affect conscience. Now we can move beyond that to discussing how many such conditions there are and how many people have them. What seems to be holding us up is that you don't understand that psychopathy itself is a condition with brain differences, sometimes even more striking than in someone with a brain tumor. Go look at some of the various imaging studies of psychopaths' brains. The differences are quite significant. There are areas that are almost totally inactive in the psychopath's brain that are very active in normals. There are very large size differences in certain areas. I don't understand how you just dismiss these things. Do you think somene with an amygdala half the size of a normal person is going to react to NVC the way a normal person would?

My feeling here, Marc, is that you emotionally have difficulty accepting that people like this exist and in numbers significant enough to have meaningful influence on us and our world. I do not see a serious desire to find the truth, but a bias toward finding any way to dismiss the evidence, even if that involves never looking at most of it, misquoting a few skeptics who are referring to other conditions as if they are talking about these conditions and pretending that this constitutes counter-evidence to hundreds of highly credible and replicated studies. If you want to believe that these conditions either don't exist or are so rare as to not be problematic, you will no doubt cling to that belief. If you want to know the truth, you will first look in an unbiased way at a much larger sample of the research and you will question it on the merits. Do you find something wrong with the methodology? That's valid. Let me know if you find that. Many of these researchers are accessible and we could ask them questions and see how they defend the work. If you want to challenge the actual science of these studies, that's fair game and perfectly reasonable. But if you want to just dismiss them without even bothering to look at the research itself, I can only conclude that your view of human nature as inherently good in all people (or all but some incredibly small number with certain brain tumors) is almost a religious one that you are not willing to question and that you are not concerned with actual scientific evidence. If that is the case, then there is nothing much to say. Evidence and reason don't influence someone who holds an opinion that was not based on evidence and reason to begin with.

[Marc Moini]

 

Hi Howard,

 

OK, you find that I am not being objective and rational and open to contrary evidence. And you say that your goal is to understand the truth whatever it is. So you pride yourself as being objective and rational and open to contrary evidence, if I understand correctly. 

 

You are stating that people who hurt others are deficient in empathy and not amenable to effective communication with NVC alone, because of their different biology. Right? If so, what if I gave you an example of someone who was behaving very violently in the past, a bully everyone was afraid of in his high school, who solely through learning NVC is now a very peaceful and empathetic person and actually helps others learn NVC? Would that be enough for you to reconsider your stance?

 

Best wishes,

Marc

 

[STer]

 

 

Hi Howard,

 

OK, you find that I am not being objective and rational and open to contrary evidence. And you say that your goal is to understand the truth whatever it is. So you pride yourself as being objective and rational and open to contrary evidence, if I understand correctly. 

 

You are stating that people who hurt others are deficient in empathy and not amenable to effective communication with NVC alone, because of their different biology. Right? If so, what if I gave you an example of someone who was behaving very violently in the past, a bully everyone was afraid of in his high school, who solely through learning NVC is now a very peaceful and empathetic person and actually helps others learn NVC? Would that be enough for you to reconsider your stance?

 

Best wishes,

Marc

 

 

Marc,

I took the time to very specifically explain what my claim was twice now. And yet you do not seem willing to even come close to quoting me correctly. I wonder if you're even seriously reading what I say. I did not say "people
who hurt others are deficient in empathy and not amenable to effective
communication with NVC alone, because of their different biology." That would imply that my statement applies to all people who hurt others. What I said is that probably somewhere around 1 in 20 have a significant condition that affects conscience and empathy and cannot be dealt with without deeper treatment. In many of those cases the issue likely has a biological basis.

There are certainly many people who hurt others that do not have a serious deficiency in their overall capacity for conscience and empathy and who can be reached very well with something like NVC. My point here is that it's important to distinguish which case you're dealing with and not to assume NVC is enough in all cases. I absolutely agree with you that there are people like the one you mention with whom NVC can be very effective. The problem is you do not seem willing to concede that there are also cases unlike that person in which someone cannot be reached effectively using NVC.

So you are really demonstrating my overall point. Many people, when you raise the evidence of conditions that significantly reduce the capacity for conscience and empathy - especially ones involving a deep biological basis - attempt to keep changing the subject and not talk about the reality of those cases. That is what you keep doing here. Did you look at any of the evidence about the psychopathic brain, for instance? There are many, many studies on the subject. Did you go seek to learn about it? Or do you just keep ignoring it?

Here is the bottom line. Most people have the capacity for conscience and empathy, even if they are not currently maximizing that capacity. But a significantly-sized minority have conditions that reduce that capacity in a serious way. For the people in the first category, NVC is very useful. For the people in the second category, NVC is rarely going to be effective. Do you acknowledge that both groups exist? Offering examples of people who fall in the first group does not in any way disprove the existence of the second group. They both exist and it's important to distinguish between them as best we can.

[Marc Moini]

Hi Howard,

 

Thanks for these precisions. I hear that it is frustrating for you that I didn't understand your explanations despite your repeated attempts to explain, because you are looking to be understood, just like I do, and maybe also because you don't want to spend more time on this than is necessary, which I completely understand as well.

 

From your previous explanations it wasn't clear to me whether you made this distinction or not, in the group of people who hurt others, which constitutes a significantly-sized minority of the population (and excluding the small number of people who have suffered brain damage from blows to the head or strokes or tumors, etc.), between those who have and those who don't have biological impairments that make it significantly more difficult for them to being susceptible to being brought over to nonviolence through NVC alone. And you're saying that the group with biological impairments represents about 1/20 (I'm not sure if you mean of all people or of those who hurt others).

 

So in effect, you've answered my question by saying that anyone who does switch to non-violence was simply part of the subgroup without brain damage. Therefore my finding examples of this does not address your point. If I understand correctly.

 

You're also frustrated because you think I have not seriously examined the many studies detailing evidence about the psychopathic brain, I suppose. I've read a few of these over the years, and I do see deep methodological issues in this sort of study. I also did look at the articles Stef references in his Bomb in the Brain webpage (they all--those that don't lead to "page not found" eventually point to articles by Dr. Bruce Perry), and I didn't find anything there that convinces me either. Just now I looked at the top Google result for "pubmed psychopathic brain", which is this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18327824 (yes, the top result is a study from 2008), where the abstract starts with "The biological basis of psychopathy has not yet been fully elucidated. Few studies deal with structural neuroimaging in psychopaths." Not what I call convincing. You say there are "countless studies showing significant differences" of the psychopathic brain. Please point me to the full text for the one you deem is the best and I'll study it in depth. Fair?

 

 

Here is the bottom line. Most people have the capacity for conscience and empathy, even if they are not currently maximizing that capacity. But a significantly-sized minority have conditions that reduce that capacity in a serious way. For the people in the first category, NVC is very useful. For the people in the second category, NVC is rarely going to be effective. Do you acknowledge that both groups exist? Offering examples of people who fall in the first group does not in any way disprove the existence of the second group. They both exist and it's important to distinguish between them as best we can.

 

OK, assuming the second group exists and it is a significant portion of the population, would you tell me why it is important to you to distinguish between the two? For me, if the difference is only that I'll have to spend more time with people in the second group if I want to connect with them (if they want it too), it's not a big deal because I enjoy it regardless, so I'm curious to know what the importance of this is to you.

 

Best wishes,

Marc

[STer]

I'm saying around 1/20 of all people in our society have a condition where the capacity for empathy and conscience is reduced in a significant way that requires deep intervention to possibly address. I don't know exactly how many of those involve a biological basis. But we know with very strong confidence that there is a biological basis in a percentage of those. Superficial tools like NVC are not sufficient to bring about empathy and conscience in these cases and to think it is is naive.

Yes if someone is able to switch to non-violence simply through something like NVC, they were not one of these people with a deeper issue affecting their capacity.

Do you understand the difference between displaying less empathy/conscience than others at some point in time vs. having a reduced capacity? That is the crucial distinction. If the capacity is reduced, then by definition empathy and conscience cannot be elicted strongly without deeper treatment.
 
I am completely confused as to how you are having any trouble finding studies on the psychopathic brain. There are many of them. In fact, there are entire books on it. The fact you were able to find so little shows how small the amount of effort you are putting in to find them is. Again this shows great bias. If you really wanted to find the information you'd have searched far and wide and found lots and lots of studies. You seem quite eager not to find them.

Here are some resources to look at and this is just off the top of my head without even putting in much effort. This only scratches the surface.

I list some of the studies here:

The Biological Basis of Psychopathy (scroll down in this section)


Some more links which discuss or link to relevant studies (one being an entire journal issue focused on just these studies):

http://www.ponerologynews.com/social-neuroscience-special-issue-brain-studies-aggression-violence-psychopathy/
http://www.ponerologynews.com/caudate-putamen-nucleus-accumbens-different-in-psychopaths/
http://www.ponerologynews.com/cnn-dr-sanjay-gupta-boston-marathon-bombings-anatomy-of-violence-adrian-raine/
http://www.ponerologynews.com/wall-street-journal-neurocriminologist-adrian-raine-the-anatomy-of-violence/
http://www.ponerologynews.com/neuroscientist-james-fallon-how-psychopathic-killers-made-prevented/

I recommend these books, both full of well-documented research.

Evil Genes by Barbara Oakley
The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime by Adrian Raine

And just for good measure here are a few links I found with just 2 minutes of searching:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/psychopath-brain-hardwiring-concern-for-others_n_3149856.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/07/us-brains-psychopaths-idUSBRE8460ZQ20120507
http://healthland.time.com/2013/05/07/psychopaths-callous-children-show-dysfunctional-brain-responses-to-people-in-pain/

You must be almost trying not to find these to have any trouble. All I had to do was search for terms like "psychopath brain studies" and tons of results come back.

And this is only focusing on psychopathy without even getting into studies on some of the other conditions. There is so much more relevant data it could fill an entire section of this forum.
 
The importance of this is that the people in this second group, with reduced capacity for conscience and empathy, have disproportionate influence. Even though they are small in number, they are particularly skilled in deception and in rising in power structures. So they have a significant impact on our world. This is an issue of great importance if you want to promote a healthier world. And if you don't recognize the reality of the conditions such people have and think that promoting NVC alone is going to address the problem, you are in effect assuring that they can continue doing what they do without any real resistance at all. This is so much the case that I believe such people would be thrilled about the promotion of NVC since it poses no threat to them and, if people focus solely on it, keeps them from ever facing any serious challenges to their Machiavellian activities.

It's important to understand that even if you don't come face to face with someone like this, you are living in systems they influence and among people influenced by them. So simply trying to avoid them or trying to deal with them face to face in a more effective way, if you can even manage to do that, isn't enough if you actually care about improving systems.

[LovePrevails]

[Marc Moini]

Hi Antony,

 

As I've said before I admire James Gilligan extensive work with prisoners and I respect the understanding of criminology he has attained. Thanks for posting this video, I hadn't seen it before and I find it particularly rich in significant quotes:

 

"People justify their crimes, they couldn't commit them otherwise."

 

"The criminals commit their crimes for moral reasons, and the people punishing people are doing it for moral reasons. As far as I'm concerned both forms of morality are absurd, they're counter-productive, they only serve to rationalize and justify violence."

 

"We need to stop approaching violence as a moral problem and realize that morality itself is the problem."

 

Best wishes,

Marc

[STer]

1) Of course it's wrong to just call someone "evil" when we have no other explanation. This is a far cry, however, from taking into account the loads of research in which we see actual significant brain and genetic differences in certain people, specifically revolving around empathy/conscience, and then label them accurately as having such differences.

 

2) Of course many people offer rationalizations for why they committed a violent act. But we know very well from lots of research that the brain very often does things for certain reasons, which may even be unconscious, and then makes up a story about why it did it. So the fact that a particular violent person tells a story about why they did it doesn't mean that is really the reason at all. If a person lacks empathy, hurts someone else and then makes up a story about why they did it - even if that story sounds reasonable - we don't know anything about the real underlying reasons without further research. And in doing that research, we often see significant biological underpinnings.

 

3) Gilligan focuses on understanding the emotions that underlie violence and says if we do that we've gotten to the root. I disagree. We will really get to the root more when we understand what is going on in the brain when people commit violence. They may well have one thing take place in the brain, then secondarily have an emotion generated that helps them rationalize but is not really the cause. We see this kind of thing in studies of decision-making where people claim to have made a decision for one reason but the researchers can isolate that that was not actually the underlying reason, but just what the person experienced as the reason.

 

4) It's interesting to see the bookends here. Gilligan claims the correctional officers too often jump to labeling someone evil and he has to sort of talk them out of jumping to that. Robert Hare, on the other hand, has spoken emphatically about the exact opposite experience. He was brought into prisons (this is in Canada) to help consult and found people almost completely unwilling to accept the biological bases and going to great lengths to find non-biological explanations. In fact, they did this so much that they often played right into the hands of psychopaths. I'd love to see Gilligan and Hare have a discussion/debate.

 

5) I agree that we should take a pragmatic approach that focuses on protecting potential victims, not punishing people just for the sake of punishment.

[LovePrevails]

I'd like to see that debate between Robert Hare and Gilligan as well.

[Marc Moini]

The conversation with STer has continued partly on the table thread http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/34179-fdr-2221-stefs-mothers-table/page-20 and partly on Rehabilitating Very Violent People (not always a lost cause)

 

It looks like Joseito is no longer a member. José, I'll still be glad to talk with you if you want, I have the impression we were getting somewhere in our discussion.

[Sean1105]

it's not saying there is "no such thing as morality" - it's just saying that thinking of people in terms of whether they are good or bad may be a very inferior way to getting your needs met than thinking in terms of "are they meeting my needs, if not how aren't they meeting my needs, how can I request that they meet my needs without using language (such as moralisitc language) which is likely to put them on the defensive."

 

 There is an interesting notion here. Are we talking about the love of wisdom or Psychology? I myself would be very wary of using Philosophy in relationships. Philosophy seeks truth, wisdom and ways of life. What you describe is more like therapy, counseling or relationship dynamics. For example, I wouldn't recommend a Nihilist to relate to anyone other than himself. Quite a destructive being. But practically relating to people. . . in a philosophic way. . . Let me think a bit. Ok. If we are to talk about the quality of how we relate "not the relationship" to others, we must first talk about responsibility. I am responsible for my actions because I experience the world from my body. I can't say I control my body since "control" presumes absolute control since the word is not qualified. We all know we don't have absolute control over our bodies and recent research tells us our unconscious processes make decisions before our consciousness is aware a decision is even to be made! So control is out. So I'm responsible for my actions since I'm experiencing the world in my body (closed nervous system with potentially nonlocal consciousness). So, I'm responsible for me and the other is responsible for themselves. I can't say I'm resposible for myself and then give someone else the responsibility of being in charge of how I feel. I am responsible for how I feel and the other person should have no part in making sure they are "making" me happy or whatever the case may be. And they are in charge of how they feel so I am relieved of the responsiblity for the maintenance of their feelings. The relating bit comes in when the other is aware of the condition of how we feel. Out of concern, love, hate, obnoxiousness, generocity, compassion (superiority sometimes)  they may attempt to influence the level of comfort we are experiencing (pillow, cup of tea, foot massage etc) in order to let the other person have space and time to sort themselves out. Speaking to each other about their feelings is a great way of learning about the other. Conversations can be made regarding any questions, confusions or clarifications needed. But it is not anyone's responsibility to be in charge of anyone else's feelings. Even if we use the word influence. "Well when you called me a 'twat', that made me feel bad". Great! They may work out some ideas around better communications practices but it would be of the highest prioritiy of that person to vanquish their emotional response to that particular word. Otherwise, you live in a world destined to provoke you at any instance. So there's a personal hygenic property to responsibility. You are responsible for your actions and feelings. Do you wish to give the world responsibility over your feelings? You can't but they can still provoke you. That's why it's imperative to be as hygenic as possible in terms of triggers and semantic responses. This elictis liberation and freedom of expression in my opinion.

[STer]

Sean1105,

 

I find a certain contradiction in what you said.

 

Early on, you point out that we do not have absolute control over our bodies and then even mention the research showing that our unconscious makes decisions before we even know they are being made.

 

Then you go on to say that we are responsible for our feelings.

 

If our unconscious makes decisions without our conscious control in response to factors around us and we simply become aware of them afterward, in what sense are we responsible for our feelings? Many, if not most, of our feelings are things that simply surface to us and we become aware of, not things we choose consciously to feel.

 

And if this is the way the situation is - that we are all vulnerable to our unconscious feelings bubbling up without our control - doesn't it make it even more imperative that we be careful with how we interact with each other?

 

I'm not even taking a stance on these issues. I'm just trying to find consistency in what you said.

[Sean1105]

Hi there!! We are responsible for our feelings in the sense that we take ownership of them. I myself am having a feeling therefore I myself own it. I have the ability to influence what influences me which puts me in responsibility mode for them. So indeed, decisions are made by our minds but that doesn't mean we stop being responsible for them. We are not in control of them (again the absolute control idea) but control is different than responsible.  If someone jumps from around a corner to attack me and I strike that person reflexively, I am responsible for my actions since I'm experiencing the world through my body. I am responsible for what my body does. But I think, if we are prepared to agree, that I was not in "control" of my actions since it was a reflexive mechanism which kicked in. So, with this distinction in mind, I draw the conclusion that indeed we are responsible for our behavior but we are not in control of it. Well how can we be responsible for something we can't control?   Many parents can't contorl their kids, yet they don't forfeit responsibility for them. In the same sense, we can be responsible for something which is outside our realm of control. Does that make more sense?   Thanks for your reply!

[STer]

Hi there!! We are responsible for our feelings in the sense that we take ownership of them. I myself am having a feeling therefore I myself own it. I have the ability to influence what influences me which puts me in responsibility mode for them. So indeed, decisions are made by our minds but that doesn't mean we stop being responsible for them. We are not in control of them (again the absolute control idea) but control is different than responsible.  If someone jumps from around a corner to attack me and I strike that person reflexively, I am responsible for my actions since I'm experiencing the world through my body. I am responsible for what my body does. But I think, if we are prepared to agree, that I was not in "control" of my actions since it was a reflexive mechanism which kicked in. So, with this distinction in mind, I draw the conclusion that indeed we are responsible for our behavior but we are not in control of it. Well how can we be responsible for something we can't control?   Many parents can't contorl their kids, yet they don't forfeit responsibility for them. In the same sense, we can be responsible for something which is outside our realm of control. Does that make more sense?   Thanks for your reply!

I guess it depends on which definition of "responsible" you're talking about.

 

If you mean definition 1, a then perhaps your argument is consistent:

 

"liable to be called on to answer"

 

If you mean definition 1, b, 1 then it is not consistent:

 

b (1) : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent

 

Even if your unconscious is making the decisions and you have no control, you may very well be liable to be called on to answer, especially in a society that doesn't accept that lack of control.

 

But you certainly couldn't be (sensibly) called to account as the primary cause since, in that scenario, you would not be.

 

"Responsible" is one of those words with multiple meanings where I have found it's really important to clarify which definition you're talking about. I've had a number of discussions before that ended up coming down to a failure to agree on which definition of "responsible" we were referring to.

[Sean1105]

 Fair enough. Let me elaborate on what I'm talking about when I say "responsible". We experience the world through our senses. We are aware of our surroundings and can interact with the material world. Now, there are levels of awareness that we experience. We can be very aware of a tinkle on our face but totally oblivious to our decision making process. Most of that is under the radar and even unconscious at times. When I say, "We are responsible for our bodies"  I'm saying we're accountable. Accountable:

1.

(of a person, organization, or institution) required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible. This doesn't imply control at all. And I'll go back to the parenting analogy. We have kids and we're responsible for them but we dont control them. We can influence, suade or even coerce but we will never have complete control over a human being (outside science and technological breakthroughs etc). Not in the practical, day to day world. So what I'm saying, is that we're responsible for our actions (accoutable) but may not be in control of all those actions.  Let's talk about PTSD.  There are reported cases where an ex soldier hears a cap gun go off and immediately attacks whoever fired the toy. Was he responsible for his actions? Of course. Was he in control? Absolutely not. He reacted out of reflex. But if he murdered someone out of reflex he wouldn't go unpunished for what he did. He's still responsible for his body even outside of being in control of it. There are ways of obtaining control over our bodies in varying degrees but it's a matter of one puts in the effort to accomplish that. Well then what about people who dont know they have a latent ability to control themselves in more ways than they thought? Should they be held accountable even if they don't know another option exists?  Yes because again, it's their body. A lot of consciousness research has pointed to "nonlocal" consciousness ideas. That consciousness and the brain are actually separate things. The brain works more like an antenna. That idea resembles mine. We may not have complete control but that does not free someone from responsibility any more than it does a parent who neglects their child throwing a tantrum in the store.  

[Pepin]

A lot of consciousness research has pointed to "nonlocal" consciousness ideas. That consciousness and the brain are actually separate things. The brain works more like an antenna. That idea resembles mine. We may not have complete control but that does not free someone from responsibility any more than it does a parent who neglects their child throwing a tantrum in the store. 

 

Could you provide some resources on this idea?

[Sean1105]

Here is an interesting article. http://www.superconsciousness.com/topics/science/why-consciousness-not-brainThis is also a reasonable article.http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/Thinking_about_Telepathy_Think_2003.pdf Research really must be done on your own too though lol. Those articles should be a good start to finding more. I'm quite unaware of research specifically called, "Nonlocality theory research" it's more of an implication from the results of the experiments which was a "theory" is all about. Anyway, hope that helps!

Here is an interesting article. http://www.superconsciousness.com/topics/science/why-consciousness-not-brainThis is also a reasonable article.http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/Thinking_about_Telepathy_Think_2003.pdf Research really must be done on your own too though lol. Those articles should be a good start to finding more. I'm quite unaware of research specifically called, "Nonlocality theory research" it's more of an implication from the results of the experiments which was a "theory" is all about. Anyway, hope that helps!

[STer]

 

 Fair enough. Let me elaborate on what I'm talking about when I say "responsible". We experience the world through our senses. We are aware of our surroundings and can interact with the material world. Now, there are levels of awareness that we experience. We can be very aware of a tinkle on our face but totally oblivious to our decision making process. Most of that is under the radar and even unconscious at times. When I say, "We are responsible for our bodies"  I'm saying we're accountable. Accountable:

1.

(of a person, organization, or institution) required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible. This doesn't imply control at all. And I'll go back to the parenting analogy. We have kids and we're responsible for them but we dont control them. We can influence, suade or even coerce but we will never have complete control over a human being (outside science and technological breakthroughs etc). Not in the practical, day to day world. So what I'm saying, is that we're responsible for our actions (accoutable) but may not be in control of all those actions.  Let's talk about PTSD.  There are reported cases where an ex soldier hears a cap gun go off and immediately attacks whoever fired the toy. Was he responsible for his actions? Of course. Was he in control? Absolutely not. He reacted out of reflex. But if he murdered someone out of reflex he wouldn't go unpunished for what he did. He's still responsible for his body even outside of being in control of it. There are ways of obtaining control over our bodies in varying degrees but it's a matter of one puts in the effort to accomplish that. Well then what about people who dont know they have a latent ability to control themselves in more ways than they thought? Should they be held accountable even if they don't know another option exists?  Yes because again, it's their body. A lot of consciousness research has pointed to "nonlocal" consciousness ideas. That consciousness and the brain are actually separate things. The brain works more like an antenna. That idea resembles mine. We may not have complete control but that does not free someone from responsibility any more than it does a parent who neglects their child throwing a tantrum in the store.  

To me this is an example where sticking to the original words is unnecessarily confusing. The word "responsible" has too many different meanings so it's better to use other, less ambiguous words.

 

People have varying degrees of control in different situations. In my view, we can only call them to account to the degree that they had control. The two go hand in hand. If you can show that you did not have enough control in a given situation to prevent a particular outcome, then you cannot reasonably be held to account for it. That goes for things involving your body, as well. If a person has a medical condition that reduces their control to a certain degree, then to that degree they cannot be held accountable for their body's actions.

 

The same goes with the example of children. Parents have a certain degree of control over their children, but never total control, as you say. And that's exactly why there are countless times when something horrible happens involving a child, but no reasonable person holds the parent accountable. We only hold them accountable when they had sufficient control to prevent it but failed to. Otherwise, it is not only senseless, but cruel to hold them accountable for something they couldn't have prevented.

 

 A lot of consciousness research has pointed to "nonlocal" consciousness ideas. That consciousness and the brain are actually separate things. The brain works more like an antenna. That idea resembles mine. We may not have complete control but that does not free someone from responsibility any more than it does a parent who neglects their child throwing a tantrum in the store.

 

As far as I know, the question of how consciousness and the brain relate is one of the most confounding in all of science. I've never heard anyone credible in the related fields claim that is anywhere close to solved. We simply don't know at this point. Lots of speculation but nothing solid that I've ever heard of that is reputable.

 

If we have incomplete control, it frees us from behind held accountable to the degree we are not in control. We are only as accountable as how much control we have. This is not an all-or-nothing situation.

 

If a child throws a tantrum in the store, the parent is only accountable for it if they have enough control to stop it. If the parent is tied up somewhere or is paraplegic and can't get there or any other situation where they don't have control, then they are not accountable in any reasonable sense in that moment. You could say they are accountable for having allowed the child to develop that way, but that also assumes they had enough control of the situation to prevent it. What if the child has a medical condition that leads to emotional impulsivity and the parent has tried everything in their power but they can't find a cure for it? Are they accountable then? I don't think so. If they've asserted whatever control they have, as well as sought out help from others who might have enough knowledge to add further control to the situation, and it still isn't enough, you can't really ask for more from them.