Does the Peaceful Parenting Philosophy, Have Sympathy for Miserable Parents? On Louis CK...

[Mike Fleming]

Wow, interesting discussion.  I just wanted to put my own personal perspective on this.

 

I've talked in the forum before how I come from a family with a sadistic, bullying, psychologically abusive mother.  When you are in this situation, you tend to be surrounded in the family circle of friends by similar people.  Not to mention you yourself, are likely to be a victim of bullying or a bully yourself and this affects the friendships you have.  Also, TV doesn't help in this regard.

 

By the time I got to my adult years, it was basically the only way I knew how to be.  But what happened with me, as I started to move into the wider world, I realised something was wrong with my own behaviour as I struggled to connect with people and have relationships.   I struggled for a long time trying to make sense of anything.  I feel like what eventually set me down the road to self-knowledge, the one point in my life that I could identify, was when I met a person at work who was quite happy, someone who didn't feel the need to attack others and all that kind of thing.  And basically I decided I wanted to be more like that and so started finding out more about him, getting to know him better, observing him. That then led me to searching on the internet more and more and gradually I was able to reason myself away from bad behaviour.

 

The interesting thing is I didn't come across that person until my mid-20's.  But I knew something was wrong around 18 or so and was basically just stumbling along until my mid-20's.  

 

So from my perspective, people who are abused, probably realise something is wrong early on, but may not know what to do about it and may just keep going because "it's all they know".  Maybe they don't reach a point where they have the fork in the road or maybe it comes later in life.   

 

I'm not making excuses for abusers.  I, myself, have very little sympathy for my mother.  My feeling is that at some point people get an opportunity to change and it shows the true character of the person at that point.  In that respect, my mother has come up short.  The lies, emotional blackmail, guilt etc just continue regardless.

 

Hopefully, I'm articulating this well enough that people get the point I'm trying to make.  I think abusive people deep down know that their behaviour is bad and at some point have an opportunity to change it.  Unfortunately, there is plenty of things in society, and especially on TV, that basically makes excuses for bad behaviour and gives these people a chance to make excuses rather than changes.

 

EDIT:  just re-reading this, I wanted to emphasize one of the points about my situation is that I didn't realise my mother was abusive until my late 20's.  I just thought that's how mothers were.  I think if you fail to recognise it in your parents then you are almost doomed to repeat it.

[LifeIsBrief]

Beautifully put together responses STer.  I couldn't have put it better myself... obviously, because I tried.  It makes me feel awful for calling you a troll in that one thread where you and I went at it.  I apologize for that, for what it's worth.  My response to LanceD's are they "responsible adults behaving badly, or helpless victims" is... Yes, what can we do about it, to help the children?  The focus has to be on the child, but there are so many examples of people learning and growing after they become responsible adults, that I just don't think it's a good idea to immediately write off every human being who has ever spanked their children.  There is spectrum, or gray area, in play here.

 

Some, like LanceD, and my mother (imho), can progress, realize the error of their ways, and become truly loving and compassionate individuals committed to improving the life of their child... Others, need to be kept away from children at all cost.  Still, you can feel sorry for anyone who's miserable, in my weird buddhish mind.  Some parents deserve jail, some supervised visits, and some forgiveness.  Every parent who abuses their child, committed a horrible act, but people can do something horrible, and still eventually through incredible, almost heroic effort redeem themselves. Deciding who's who, is an incredibly individual, and community oriented task.  It's also one I wouldn't claim to have any special insight to.

[STer]

Wow, interesting discussion.  I just wanted to put my own personal perspective on this.

 

I've talked in the forum before how I come from a family with a sadistic, bullying, psychologically abusive mother.  When you are in this situation, you tend to be surrounded in the family circle of friends by similar people.  Not to mention you yourself, are likely to be a victim of bullying or a bully yourself and this affects the friendships you have.  Also, TV doesn't help in this regard.

 

By the time I got to my adult years, it was basically the only way I knew how to be.  But what happened with me, as I started to move into the wider world, I realised something was wrong with my own behaviour as I struggled to connect with people and have relationships.   I struggled for a long time trying to make sense of anything.  I feel like what eventually set me down the road to self-knowledge, the one point in my life that I could identify, was when I met a person at work who was quite happy, someone who didn't feel the need to attack others and all that kind of thing.  And basically I decided I wanted to be more like that and so started finding out more about him, getting to know him better, observing him. That then led me to searching on the internet more and more and gradually I was able to reason myself away from bad behaviour.

 

The interesting thing is I didn't come across that person until my mid-20's.  But I knew something was wrong around 18 or so and was basically just stumbling along until my mid-20's.  

 

So from my perspective, people who are abused, probably realise something is wrong early on, but may not know what to do about it and may just keep going because "it's all they know".  Maybe they don't reach a point where they have the fork in the road or maybe it comes later in life.   

 

I'm not making excuses for abusers.  I, myself, have very little sympathy for my mother.  My feeling is that at some point people get an opportunity to change and it shows the true character of the person at that point.  In that respect, my mother has come up short.  The lies, emotional blackmail, guilt etc just continue regardless.

 

Hopefully, I'm articulating this well enough that people get the point I'm trying to make.  I think abusive people deep down know that their behaviour is bad and at some point have an opportunity to change it.  Unfortunately, there is plenty of things in society, and especially on TV, that basically makes excuses for bad behaviour and gives these people a chance to make excuses rather than changes.

 

EDIT:  just re-reading this, I wanted to emphasize one of the points about my situation is that I didn't realise my mother was abusive until my late 20's.  I just thought that's how mothers were.  I think if you fail to recognise it in your parents then you are almost doomed to repeat it.

 

Mike,

 

I think you're right that the real test comes when there are a few opportunities at some point to gain perspective on things. But the main thing I take issue with in this thread is how some people keep trying to make blanket statements about abusers as if they are all the same.

 

A person who has the basic capacity for empathy but was taught abuse may meet someone like you did and have a huge wake-up call and realize "I'd rather be like that person." But another person, who is an actual psychopath, may meet that person and say "Man, this guy is another one of those suckers. He could be exploiting people left and right, yet he doesn't. What a fool! If he only knew what he's missing out on."

 

I think it's really important to keep giving people those opportunities to wake up. But it's also important to recognize that when some people repeatedly don't wake up, it's telling you something about them. They are either far deeper asleep or they're not asleep at all, they simply have a different value system.

 

Some people limp because they have a charlie horse. Some people limp because they have a broken leg. Some people limp because they have a genetic degenerative bone condition and their bone structure is weakened at the core. A symptom like limping - or abusive treatment of others - can indicate many different underlying conditions.

Beautifully put together responses STer.  I couldn't have put it better myself... obviously, because I tried.  It makes me feel awful for calling you a troll in that one thread where you and I went at it.  I apologize for that, for what it's worth.  My response to LanceD's are they "responsible adults behaving badly, or helpless victims" is... Yes, what can we do about it, to help the children?  The focus has to be on the child, but there are so many examples of people learning and growing after they become responsible adults, that I just don't think it's a good idea to immediately write off every human being who has ever spanked their children.  There is spectrum, or gray area, in play here.

 

Some, like LanceD, and my mother (imho), can progress, realize the error of their ways, and become truly loving and compassionate individuals committed to improving the life of their child... Others, need to be kept away from children at all cost.  Still, you can feel sorry for anyone who's miserable, in my weird buddhish mind.  Some parents deserve jail, some supervised visits, and some forgiveness.  Every parent who abuses their child, committed a horrible act, but people can do something horrible, and still eventually through incredible, almost heroic effort redeem themselves. Deciding who's who, is an incredibly individual, and community oriented task.  It's also one I wouldn't claim to have any special insight to.

 

Thanks, LifeisBrief. I appreciate the apology. I may be many things, but I'm definitely not a troll. I care a lot about these discussions and I think they're very important.

 

Re-reading the beginning of what you said:

 

"My response to LanceD's are they "responsible adults behaving badly, or helpless victims" is... Yes,"

 

In some cases, it's almost like how light is both a particle and a wave. Some people are both terrible adult abusers and helpless victims at the same time. I think that's part of why it's so maddening trying to know how to feel about them. It's hard to hold both ideas in mind and heart at the same time. And yet, in the end, the most important thing is to focus on the child first anyway, not get caught up in assessing the perpetrator any more than necessary until that's addressed.

 

"Every parent who abuses their child, committed a horrible act, but people can do something horrible, and still eventually through incredible, almost heroic effort redeem themselves. Deciding who's who, is an incredibly individual, and community oriented task.  It's also one I wouldn't claim to have any special insight to."

 

This problem - of identifying who is who among these options - is something that fascinates me. Especially because of the advent of new types of screening tools that offer both possibilities and huge challenges and potential dangers. I think this is going to be one of the big issues in coming decades. Very well said.

[Kevin Beal]

We can hold people responsible for the moral commandments they hold others to, and that goes a million fold if that is toward children. This is basically what JamesP already said, but it bears repeating.

 

There's this idea that it's an injustice to hold parents responsible for things that they were not entirely conscious of and as I've already mentioned, I think it's an incredibly dangerous and vile thing much of the time.

 

We do not help people by telling them they were not responsible. We help people by telling them they are responsible in the areas that they have control. Whether they or not they are repressed in their rages and passions is so entirely beside the point, that it greatly bothers me that it's ever used as a defense. People have control over their repression, absolutely. Therapy would be pointless if this were not the case.

 

To talk about repression like it's determinism is to fundamentally misunderstand it. If you've worked through repression, you know what I mean. You are completely astonished at what you let yourself get away with and you (rightly) feel the guilt or remorse or whatever it elicits because you are responsible for it. A big reason I'm in therapy is because I do not use repression as an excuse and I try and take as much responsibility as is just (and that's a lot more than I ever would have guessed going in).

 

And to defend parents who were abusive to their children because they were swept up in a passion is to have just the most insanely distorted sense of priorities. It's like asking people to forgive rapists because they have to be the most tortured souls to do something so evil. And the comparison is not that far off for a lot of childhoods.

 

This is insane. And I'm using powerful language because it's something that needs to be denormalized. It's rancid and it completely pollutes the people who wield these excuses.

[LifeIsBrief]

I'm just curious Kevin, who is this a response to?  Who is normalizing and excusing?  The last response I gave was "Every parent who abused a child committed a horrible act, but can people do something horrible, and still eventually through incredible, almost heroic effort redeem themselves?"

 

I only mention this, because everything I've written talks about how immoral, and inexcusable this behavior is... but, if a person can never be redeemed, isn't therapy pointless?  It almost seems like you're saying that every person can be redeemed through self work and therapy, except parents who have slapped their children.

 

I also said that some parents deserve jail, some supervised visits, and some forgiveness...  Are you basically suggesting every parent who ever slapped their child deserves jail or eternal shunning?  I'm not saying this to be dismissive, I just really don't understand, and I want to. 

 

I don't think anyone said this was normal or acceptable behavior, except Louis CK, with his "It's not immoral, it's just wrong, it doesn't work"... but even that, isn't that related to the point of your signature?  reason=virtue=happiness... I disagree with Louis on this issue, as I mentioned in my response to Myst, but I disagree because wrong=vice=misery.  Wrong and immoral are the same thing in my mind, so there's nothing worth normalizing about this behavior, it's categorically cruel, immoral, and inexcusable.

[Kevin Beal]

First of all, these are very reasonable questions. Thank you.

 

I'm just curious James, who is this a response to?  Who is normalizing and excusing?  The last response I gave was "Every parent who abused a child committed a horrible act, but can people do something horrible, and still eventually through incredible, almost heroic effort redeem themselves?"

It's not a response to anyone in particular. And my name is Kevin.

 

The typical response to abuse against children by their parents is to look at it from the parent's perspective. It's often pointed out that they are overcome by rages or passions and that they do not mean what they are doing and it's done in haste etc etc etc. The appeal is to sympathy (as you seemingly sincerely have), but none of this has anything to do with either the morality or the culpability. It's just an (incomplete) explanation of the precipitating events.

 

 

 

I only mention this, because everything I've written talks about how immoral, and inexcusable this behavior is... but, if a person can never be redeemed, isn't therapy pointless?  It almost seems like you're saying that every person can be redeemed through self work and therapy, except parents who have slapped their children.

 

No, therapy is not about restitution. It's about self knowledge.

 

 

 

I also said that some parents deserve jail, some supervised visits, and some forgiveness...  Are you basically suggesting every parent who ever slapped their child deserves jail or eternal shunning?  I'm not saying this to be dismissive, I just really don't understand, and I want to.

 

No, that's not what I said. I think I was very clear about what I said. Accidentally stepping on a child's foot is not the same as sexually molesting them (for example). There are varying degrees, obviously.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone said this was normal or acceptable behavior, except Louis CK, with his "It's not immoral, it's just wrong, it doesn't work"... but even that, isn't that related to the point of your signature?  reason=virtue=happiness... I disagree with Louis on this issue, as I mentioned in my response to Myst, but I disagree because wrong=vice=misery.  Wrong and immoral are the same thing in my mind, so there's nothing worth normalizing about this behavior, it's categorically cruel, immoral, and inexcusable.

 

Actually, people say it's normal all the time explicitly or implicitly by appealing to unwise and unconscious motivations as typical and sympathetic. Me, by saying that it's normal, I do not mean that it's excused, just that it's familiar and the counter points less familiar.

 

Have you heard this perspective I'm bringing before? Is it in error in any way? Is it unimportant?

 

I'm simply pointing out something that I think is incredibly important with consideration to the topic of parental culpability. I see places where this perspective is needed in this thread, yes. Specifically where being unconscious is used as an excuse. I think it's a terrible excuse and I wish that I could destroy it as a meme. Make it vanish from people's minds. Unconsciousness is not an excuse. Wherever this perspective may be applied, that's where I wish to inject it into this thread.

And feel free to replace "justification" or "excuse" or whatever you disagree with in my characterization with the appeal to sympathy or however you are talking about this parental culpability if you like. I believe the practical result is the same. It's only a difference in degree.

[STer]

Kevin,

 

You seem to be saying that it's crucial that we focus on the moral culpability and continue to declare that the parents, no matter how unconscious some of them may be, are morally culpable.

 

But when we do this, it just sparks the endless debate about what "responsible" means (it has multiple definitions) and all of these other philosophical topics. My feeling is that all of it can become a distraction from protecting children.

 

It may serve some of our emotional needs to ruminate about the theoretical moral culpability of various abusers. It is cathartic to rail about how immoral they may be. But it does nothing in practice to help the children. It's not like us sitting here declaring the parent immoral has any effect on them. Nor does declaring them relieved of responsibility have any effect on them. What matters is the actions we take in service of the victim, regardless of what you think about the morality of the parent. If the child has cancer, I don't sit around debating if the cancer is moral or not because what difference does it make? The important thing is to intervene, not to make moral declarations about it.

 

Even when it comes to prevention, what matters is understanding accurately the mechanisms behind things, not whether you believe they are moral or not. It is crucial that we learn more and more about what actually physiologically or psychologically is motivating the abuses so we can perhaps learn to better prevent and intervene in them. But this too is different than making moral declarations about it. What we want is insight.

 

The children need protection from the abusers' actions regardless of how culpable you hold the parent morally in your own mind. I think you can hold them completely responsible or consider them helpless victims of their brains and still fight just as fiercely to protect the victims. We can spend hours philosophizing about whether the abusers' brain dysfunction relieves them of responsibility or not after it is no longer a risk to the child.

 

So my point in this thread is that the entire debate about moral culpability is itself a distraction. It's not that it's totally unimportant. But it should be a low priority, especially because it's an eternal debate that will never be solved just by discussion. The only thing that can really solve it is when we can scientifically measure what's going on in the abusers' brains and how conscious they are. Until then, we're all just speculating. I would much rather we spent the energy talking about practical measures to help the victims than debating semantics about whether the person was "responsible" or not.

 

I alluded to this in one of my posts I would really love to bring more attention to here.

 

Promoting Parenting that Facilitates Healthy Neurodevelopment: Zeroing in And Getting More Active?

[LifeIsBrief]

I edited your name before you finished the response, still, sorry about that, really careless.

 

I guess I would just disagree that anyone is using unconsciousness as an excuse.  I would also disagree that an appeal to sympathy, is a justification or excuse.  I'm not appealing to sympathy... Sympathy is natural, any time you see a person suffer.  This is not just a fundament to all religions, and consciousness, it's also fundamental to capitalism if you consider Adam Smiths "Theory of Moral Sentiments" as a supplement to "The Wealth of Nations".  I don't think anyone should have to appeal to sympathy, it just exists, as I understand it.

 

Do you not feel sorry for miserable people?  Do you not have sympathy for them?  I can't even imagine that.

 

Do some people think the behavior, is normal, excusable, and acceptable?  Yes.  As you suggest, that runs rampant. I just don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that it should, that's why I find the response strange.  I think I understand better now.  I just don't understand how anyone could not have sympathy for any one who is suffering, no matter how horrible their actions.  Maybe that's a personal thing, that I've projected as universal.

 

Just as I say this, STer goes on to suggest that responsibility is unimportant, and parents might not exhibit it.  You lost me on that one STer.  I would suggest they have to be both responsible, and worthy of sympathy.  I'm a free will guy.

[Kevin Beal]

I guess I would just disagree that anyone is using unconsciousness as an excuse.  I would also disagree that an appeal to sympathy, is a justification or excuse.  I'm not appealing to sympathy... Sympathy is natural, any time you see a person suffer.  This is not just a fundament to all religions, and consciousness, it's also fundamental to capitalism if you consider Adam Smiths "Theory of Moral Sentiments" as a supplement to "The Wealth of Nations.  I don't think anyone should have to appeal to sympathy, it just exists, as I understand it.

I'm condemning parents for abusing children to whatever degree they do abuse their children. I find disagreement with this in this thread on account of the fact that a repressed individual (ostensibly) lacks choice and thus cannot be culpable for their actions. (This is explicitly stated more than once, not necessarily by you). And frankly, I'm a little annoyed that you either don't see it or don't want to see it.

 

 

 

Do you not feel sorry for miserable people?  Do you not have sympathy for them?  I can't even imagine that.

I already told you that I do. Did you forget already?

 

 

 

Do some people think the behavior, is normal, excusable, and acceptable?  Yes.  As you suggest, that runs rampant. I just don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that it should, that's why I find the response strange.  I think I understand better now.  I just don't understand how anyone could not have sympathy for any one who is suffering, no matter how horrible their actions.  Maybe that's a personal thing, that I've projected as universal.

If you say that a person doesn't have choice on account of them acting as deterministic robots programmed by repression, then you are necessarily excusing that behavior. A person cannot be responsible for what they did not choose. And even more, it would be an injustice on my part to condemn someone for the actions that they did not choose. You get the point.

[STer]

I edited your name before you finished the response, still, sorry about that, really careless.

 

I guess I would just disagree that anyone is using unconsciousness as an excuse.  I would also disagree that an appeal to sympathy, is a justification or excuse.  I'm not appealing to sympathy... Sympathy is natural, any time you see a person suffer.  This is not just a fundament to all religions, and consciousness, it's also fundamental to capitalism if you consider Adam Smiths "Theory of Moral Sentiments" as a supplement to "The Wealth of Nations".  I don't think anyone should have to appeal to sympathy, it just exists, as I understand it.

 

Do you not feel sorry for miserable people?  Do you not have sympathy for them?  I can't even imagine that.

 

Do some people think the behavior, is normal, excusable, and acceptable?  Yes.  As you suggest, that runs rampant. I just don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that it should, that's why I find the response strange.  I think I understand better now.  I just don't understand how anyone could not have sympathy for any one who is suffering, no matter how horrible their actions.  Maybe that's a personal thing, that I've projected as universal.

 

Sympathizing or seeking to understand or just being honest about how much control someone who is abusive has or does not have over their actions does not have to equal tolerating or allowing their abuses to continue. The problem is that these things do go together the majority of the time in our culture.

 

Most of the time, when someone in our culture starts talking about how we need to be sympathetic to the abuser, they do this without mentioning that we need to be even more sympathetic to the victim and that we still need to stop the abuser regardless of any sympathy we may have.

 

So I think that's why some people, like Kevin, understandably react strongly whenever any hint of "seeing the abuser's point of view" is mentioned.

 

But a really mature person does not have these things conflated. They can take an objective look at the abuser's point of view and situation, yet still act with complete concern in service of the victim. So I think it's important to consider the messenger. If a person who is a constant enabler of abuse starts going into the "We need to think about the abuser's point of view" speech, I'd get pretty antsy too. But when it's someone who clearly has even greater concern for the victim and is very clear that the abuse should not be tolerated, regardless of any attempt to see the abuser's viewpoint or assess their situation objectively, I see them as a rather enlightened person.

I'm condemning parents for abusing children to whatever degree they do abuse their children. I find disagreement with this in this thread on account of the fact that a repressed individual (ostensibly) lacks choice and thus cannot be culpable for their actions. (This is explicitly stated more than once, not necessarily by you). And frankly, I'm a little annoyed that you either don't see it or don't want to see it..

 

Kevin, I don't think you're understanding the "repression" issue. In psychology, repression is defined as being unconscious. That's why we have two different words - suppression and repression. If the person is consciously in control of the process, it is, by definition, not repression, but suppression.

 

So this isn't anything ostensible. If they have choice over the matter, then it isn't repression, it's suppression. These are well-defined technical terms in psychology.

 

And it has nothing to do with "excusing" anybody. That's a moral judgment each person has to make. It's simply a fact that if someone is repressing, they are not doing it consciously or by choice because if they were, it wouldn't be repression. I hope that clears that up some.

 

This is explained well in the first part of this page:

 

http://voices.yahoo.com/what-psychological-repression-539296.html

 

"Do you get confused by the difference between repression and suppression? Both are Freudian concepts concerned with removing unwanted or unpleasant memories from one's consciousness. Repression differs from suppression in that it is not consciously engaged. Whereas suppression involves the conscious desire to forget, repression happens subconsciously."

Just as I say this, STer goes on to suggest that responsibility is unimportant, and parents might not exhibit it.  You lost me on that one STer.  I would suggest they have to be both responsible, and worthy of sympathy.  I'm a free will guy.

 

LifeIsBrief,

 

That is an ironic misunderstanding of what I said. What I said is that philosophically debating the meaning of responsibility and how responsible or not responsible the parent is is a distraction precisely because it ends up in...all of these misunderstandings and semantic issues and ends up draining energy better spent focusing on the victim. And you just demonstrated what I mean because here we go again...all because of another misunderstanding

 

This discussion of "responsibility" is 99.9999% of the time just a reflection of two people using different definitions of responsibility. 

 

Dictionary.com lists 7 definitions for the word "responsible". So you can take the same person doing the same thing and say they are responsible in certain senses of the word and not responsible in others. Is this really worth spending time on? Especially when the two people don't realize they're just arguing because person #1 is assuming they're talking about definition #1 and person #2 is assuming they're talking about definition #3 and this is never made explicit? Can you think of any bigger waste of time?

 

At the very least, if you're going to have a discussion of who is responsible for something, make sure and specify which of the 7 definitions of responsible you're referring to. If you don't do that, you're almost begging for miscommunication and pointless misguided debate.

 

Personally, I think I'd rather judge who really cares about child abuse by their actions. I have more respect for the person out there taking action to protect children than any of us, including myself, debating how responsible abusers are in our discussions. In a forum like this, it can turn into some contest of who is more anti-abuse because of how loud and dogmatically they verbally condemn, as if the more black and white you treat the issue, the more righteous you are. But this is no measure of anything. Some of the people out there protecting kids on a day to day basis in ways far beyond anything we'd dream of doing are also not the type to be morally judgmental. They do it out of love and care, not out of trying to show off how righteous they are.

 

Is our main concern protecting victims or is our main concern showing off how much we can verbally condemn the abusers? Not that you can't do both. But which is the higher priority?

[LifeIsBrief]

Kevin, I did not forget that you said you had sympathy for miserable people (by suggesting you were not a psychopath, which makes it clear you understand what I meant by that).  However, when you equate sympathy, with excusing, or lacking responsibility, I feel it contradicts that statement, and creates cognitive dissonance in my brain.  That said, STer's response, clarifies why you would equate those two things.  I hate determinist nonsense.

 

STer, this isn't a misunderstanding... I understand why you would want to avoid the determinist debate, and focus on the child. That's a good thing.  Still, we're posting on a philosophy forum.  I might give you 90% unconscious, but I have to categorically disagree with you, that there's even a .00001% chance, that it's all unconscious, and the parent has no control.  I don't understand how morality can exist at all, in a determinist worldview.  There's a reason that subject went off limits... We'll argue for days, and no I will never agree with you, because from my perspective that argument makes 0.00000% sense.

[STer]

STer, this isn't a misunderstanding... I understand why you would want to avoid the determinist debate, and focus on the child. That's a good thing.  Still, we're posting on a philosophy forum.  I might give you 90% unconscious, but I have to categorically disagree with you, that there's even a .00001% chance, that it's all unconscious, and the parent has no control.  I don't understand how morality can exist at all, in a determinist worldview.  There's a reason that subject went off limits... We'll argue for days, and no I will never agree with you, because from my perspective that argument makes 0.00000% sense.

 

Now you're misunderstanding even further.

 

Free will/determinism is a debate about whether anyone has any free will over anything. I'm not even touching on that here. All we're talking about here is whether some people do some things they don't have conscious control over. I repeatedly said that some abusers are outright psychopaths. They callously abuse people with full consciousness of what they're doing. Some even admit to enjoying it. So I'm clearly not arguing that nobody consciously abuses. Some people do consciously abuse.

 

However, what I am saying is that there may be some that are not conscious of what's driving them or how harmful their behavior is or of why they should stop doing it. I've backed that up in several ways. One, again, is Stefan's own work on the brain damage that can be done by abuse. Surely, there is a point at which the damage is severe enough to lead to unconsciousness in these areas. If you want, I can give even more examples of this, including some stemming from IFS/MeCosystem concepts which Stefan advocates. Another is the very concept of repression, which, by definition, means it is unconscious. I didn't say every abuser is repressing. But if any abuser is repressing, then they are by definition unconscious of that which they repress. In fact, that's the entire purpose of repression is to keep things from coming to consciousness that one's unconscious mind does not feel they could handle facing.

 

This isn't even a controversial point really. Even the most fervent believer in free will doesn't claim we consciously control everything we do. They wouldn't even dream of arguing that a person can't get a brain tumor that changes their behavior in ways they can't control (and then the behavior returns back how it was when the tumor is removed.) We know with almost complete certainty that various events in the brain can change behavior involuntarily in pretty massive ways, including whole personality shifts. These are well scientifically documented. I doubt anyone here would even dispute that.

 

So it's pretty important not to misinterpret this as an argument for determinism as a whole. You are framing it as if I'm making an extreme argument for determinism where there is no choice in the world. What I'm doing is the opposite. I'm refuting the other extreme, that in every case every person has full control of everything they do. Even if we have free will, we don't have complete free will over everything. We just have some free will to some extent over some things.

 

Beyond that, I want to clarify one more thing I'm not sure you understood. I didn't say that the concept of responsibility is unimportant. What I said is that the debate about it - literally having these discussions about it - ends up being a distraction simply because people don't define their terms well, miscommunicate, and rarely ever seem to end up becoming any wiser from the discussion. And yet, meanwhile, they both agree the whole time that abuse must be dealt with. Neither of them are claiming it should be tolerated. Yet instead of supporting each other in helping to reduce it, they end up actually antagonistic all because of misunderstandings over definitions of terms. It's sad honestly to see people who should be great supporters of each other in improving the world end up debating endlessly over semantics. Especially since, if you cut through the difficulty understanding what each other are really saying, they probably agree almost 100% on what really matters.

 

Finally, there is one last important point that must be made.

 

You and Kevin both said something to the effect that "This thing can't be true because if it was true, then we couldn't morally judge someone." Well the truth doesn't really care if you like the implications of it. You can't refute something by saying "That can't be true because if it is I don't get to see things the way I want to." You must adapt your views on things like morality to the facts. The facts don't adapt to your moral views.

 

Science will increasingly show us what is going on in the brain in coming decades. We may never know everything, but we will learn more and more about what drives people and perhaps about what they are and are not conscious of. Some of those findings may drastically alter our views of ethics and morality. If they do, then so be it. It is the farthest thing from empiricism or intellectual honesty to reject a new fact just because it throws your own personal sense of ethics into question. That's like taking Galileo to court because the recognition that the earth revolves around the sun isn't comfortable for your existing belief system. 

 

P.S. Sorry for the tl;dr. This is a really interesting topic and thanks for the dialogue.

[LifeIsBrief]

I'm not going to get into this with you... because first you say you're not arguing pure determinism, then at the end, you say the that science and the facts are going to prove pure determinism soon, no matter what my ethics suggest.  There is an old Buddhist saying "The greater the gap between stimulus and response, the more enlightened the individual".  I'm probably the only person on here who will argue pure free will, and that Sam Harris is a blithering idiot... but I don't have time for that, it would take a book.  I believe you can consciously control almost every decision you make, but it's a skill you need to work on, and most people are too lazy.  The evidence for this is sparse, but I would point to monks who can control their body temperature, heart rate, brain scan results etc.

 

I don't think anything is ever successfully repressed.  It rises to the surface, and your conscious mind will eventually have to deal with it.  I can agree that the argument over responsibility is much less important than protecting children, but you could spend weeks trying to convince me I don't make most of my choices consciously, and you'll never get me to move an inch, because I have overwhelming evidence in my personal experience to suggest otherwise.  Finally, I can't imagine something that would make the government happier than proving that people do not have free will.  This is just a rabbit hole I could spend an eternity writing about, and it's not worth it.

[STer]

I'm not going to get into this with you... because first you say you're not arguing pure determinism, then at the end, you say the that science and the facts are going to prove pure determinism soon, no matter what my ethics suggest.  There is an old Buddhist saying "The greater the gap between stimulus and response, the more enlightened the individual".  I'm probably the only person on here who will argue pure free will, and that Sam Harris is a blithering idiot... but I don't have time for that, it would take a book.  I believe you can consciously control almost every decision you make, but it's a skill you need to work on, and most people are too lazy.  The evidence for this is sparse, but I would point to monks who can control their body temperature, heart rate, brain scan results etc.

 

I don't think anything is ever successfully repressed.  It rises to the surface, and your conscious mind will eventually have to deal with it.  I can agree that the argument over responsibility is much less important than protecting children, but you could spend weeks trying to convince me I don't make most of my choices consciously, and you'll never get me to move an inch, because I have overwhelming evidence in my personal experience to suggest otherwise.  Finally, I can't imagine something that would make the government happier than proving that people do not have free will.  This is just a rabbit hole I could spend an eternity writing about, and it's not worth it.

 

This is becoming so ironic. You started this thread and kept getting misquoted and complained over and over about being misquoted. I came in and mentioned that I also get misquoted a lot and how frustrating that can be and that I understood what you were saying, which had some merit. Now you're misquoting me in post after post Actually you're not misquoting me. You're just failing to quote me and then commenting on things I didn't say. If you actually quoted what I said, you would see that I didn't say what you claim.

 

For example, I did not say that science will prove determinism. You misread what I said there. I simply said science will increasingly tell us what is going on in various situations, what the mechanisms are, whatever they are. I didn't say the mechanisms will prove to be deterministic or not. I'm not even saying the mechanisms in various situations are the same. I'm simply saying that whatever we discover, that's what we need to be willing to adhere to. We can't let our desire to have a certain ethical view override facts. I'm saying facts matter more than what we wish the facts to be, whatever the facts are. That's nothing more than a basic statement about being empirical and objective, rather than biased.

 

The monks you point to, if they can control the things you say, would only extend free will to a little bit more. Even they wouldn't claim they have free will over every single thing they do. More importantly, those monks train for a lifetime to get where they are. And we have no evidence that everyone else can get to the point they're at. That is just speculation. So that example does not prove total free will. Even the monks themselves would not claim it does. And whatever it might prove about how much free will we have over which things, it doesn't prove is true of everyone, just those people. And that's what I've said all along in this thread. You can't make blanket statements about every person in every situation as if they're the same.

 

You claim that you make all your choices consciously, which is a pretty incredible statement if you're a human being, but I won't even argue it because it's unnecessary. Even if it was true of you, that doesn't mean it's true of everyone else, especially someone who was abused to the point of brain damage.

 

Finally, I'm going to emphasize this and hope you actually heed it. I am not arguing free will vs. determinism here. So if you think I am, you can be absolutely certain you're misunderstanding my post and should read it again until you see what I really said. Otherwise, you will be arguing a straw man. If you misinterpret what I'm saying to be that science will prove determinism and it's only a matter of time, then you have not read what I said accurately. Please don't read what I say and then try to argue that I actually did try to support determinism. Instead, I am telling you that is not what I'm saying. And what matters is my intent in what I'm saying, not your possible misreading of it. If I've been unclear in any way, then hopefully that is clear enough.

 

I have been around here long enough to know not to waste time arguing free will vs. determinism here. So you can be quite sure that's not what I'm arguing and never has been.

 

I'm frankly confused by why what I am actually saying is even controversial. All I'm saying is this:

 

Some abusers are not conscious of what is driving them, the harm that their behavior is causing and of why they should stop doing it.

 

I didn't say all abusers, I said some. I didn't say they are totally unconscious of anything, just about those few things. I didn't say they have no free will in life. I simply said they are not conscious of those things listed there. I also am not saying none of them ever will become conscious because some will. But some abusers at some points in life are not conscious of these things.

 

Is your argument that every single abuser is totally conscious at all times of why they are acting as they are, how harmful it is and that they should stop doing it? If so, we simply disagree. I think I could show that isn't the case pretty easily using examples from many, many angles. And I will if you want. But most of all, I just want you to understand accurately what I'm saying, whether you agree or not.

 

And I feel like I need to also state again very clearly that none of this in any way means the abuse should be tolerated. It should be stopped to our best ability regardless of these discussions. In fact, understanding the mechanisms of what underlies the abuse accurately can only help us in doing that.

[Existing Alternatives]

It is so much easier to make excuses for the abusers than face them. This is even more true in relation to one’s parents. Our parents were abused themselves, brainwashed by culture, stressed at work, whatever, but they are still abusers. Most responders here keep going to the extreme examples of serial killers and rapist, because none of us will think twice about cutting those people any slack regardless of their “problems”. Our judgment (yours, mine, everyone else’s) is clouded enormously by the 15-20 years we spent under constant supervision by this people. It requires great degree of self-knowledge, internal strength and moral integrity to be able to stand up and face up to the abuse.

[LifeIsBrief]

I understand your argument.  I disagree.  The main point of contention, is that I would say absolutely, that 0 people, are completely unconscious what they're doing.  Full repression is impossible, for everyone.  We agree there is a spectrum, but I would suggest that everyone has at least 10% control (the vague number I picked for no real reason).  Everyone can get better.  Everyone could choose to be a Buddhist monk and then gain control of more and more of their unconscious mind, until it is nearly total.

 

The reason I suggested that you are arguing for pure determinism, with your last post, is statements like "You must adapt your views on things like morality to the facts".  Maybe I misinterpreted you, but Sam Harris recently wrote a book in which he believes he has proven that there is no free will.  I haven't read it yet, but I have seen numerous hour plus debates in which he defends it, and I see no real facts or evidence supporting his claim.  State science, for the most part, is siding with him in this debate, and I find that to be a terrifying assault on both reason and morality.  It is entirely possible that this is an emotional problem, related to me personally, and my understanding of what he is saying... that's why I don't want to get into it.  I no longer trust our institutions to determine what facts are, because, I find them incompetent.  It's a long story, a boring one, and it won't come to anything in forum posts.

[STer]

It is so much easier to make excuses for the abusers than face them. This is even more true in relation to one’s parents. Our parents were abused themselves, brainwashed by culture, stressed at work, whatever, but they are still abusers. Most responders here keep going to the extreme examples of serial killers and rapist, because none of us will think twice about cutting those people any slack regardless of their “problems”. Our judgment (yours, mine, everyone else’s) is clouded enormously by the 15-20 years we spent under constant supervision by this people. It requires great degree of self-knowledge, internal strength and moral integrity to be able to stand up and face up to the abuse.

 

The problem here is people are speaking two completely different languages. I'm talking the language of objective science. Some others are talking the language of words like "excuses" which have no meaning in science. My concern is understanding objectively what is actually going on in terms of the abuser, what they are conscious of, what they are not conscious of and so on and starting from the best factual knowledge base we can. This is the kind of thing being studied more and more in fields like neuroscience. There have been some interesting imaging studies of sadists, for instance. Many more such studies have been done and will be done.

 

Neuroscientific facts do not excuse or not excuse anything. Those are value judgments people lay on top of things after the fact. The facts themselves just are. I would like to know as many facts as I can about the underlying mechanisms that drive abusive behaviors in different people so we can become better at preventing and intervening. That simple. You have not heard me say one word even relating to "excusing" anybody. Excusing is not an empirical or objective thing. If FDR is about empiricism, then that empiricism should also apply to understanding abusive behavior.

I understand your argument.  I disagree.  The main point of contention, is that I would say absolutely, that 0 people, are completely unconscious what they're doing.  Full repression is impossible, for everyone.  We agree there is a spectrum, but I would suggest that everyone has at least 10% control (the vague number I picked for no real reason).  Everyone can get better.  Everyone could choose to be a Buddhist monk and then gain control of more and more of their unconscious mind, until it is nearly total.

 

The reason I suggested that you are arguing for pure determinism, with your last post, is statements like "You must adapt your views on things like morality to the facts".  Maybe I misinterpreted you, but Sam Harris recently wrote a book in which he believes he has proven that there is no free will.  I haven't read it yet, but I have seen numerous hour plus debates in which he defends it, and I see no real facts or evidence supporting his claim.  State science, for the most part, is siding with him in this debate, and I find that to be a terrifying assault on both reason and morality.  It is entirely possible that this is an emotional problem, related to me personally, and my understanding of what he is saying... that's why I don't want to get into it.  I no longer trust our institutions to determine what facts are, because, I find them incompetent.  It's a long story, a boring one, and it won't come to anything in forum posts.

 

You're right we do disagree. But I think we disagree even further than you think. You write as if all abusers believe deep down that their abuse is wrong and if only they engaged their control mechanisms, which you are sure they all have, they would stop. In fact, the situation is even further the other direction for some. As you surely understand from seeing how some parents react when these topics are raised, some of them actually don't believe their behavior is wrong. They think it's the height of good parenting. They may even believe it's necessary. They may even believe that it's the parents that don't parent the way they do that are the problem. Their motto is "spare the rod, spoil the child." They aren't embarrassed about what they do. They'd actually be embarrassed if their friends and neighbors found out they didn't parent this way.

 

Some of them even probably meet on forums just like this debating in a mirror image fashion how the parents that fail to spank their kids could be so misguided and with some of them claiming that they're sure that deep down somewhere those parents know they really should be spanking them. On almost every article related to spanking that I see, there are lots of comments of people saying that the problem with kids these days is they aren't spanked enough. Do these sound like people who are just failing to control their behavior, which they really know is wrong? Not to me. Do you think they're all faking or do some of them really believe this? I think some of them really believe it, at least at the present time.

 

So this is not just an impulse control problem. It's much deeper than that.

 

It goes beyond even some parents being unconscious that their abusive behavior is harmful to having rationalized it to the point that they believe it's good parenting, even imperative to carry out, and that it would be harmful not to do it.

 

I hear some people say "But there is so much parents can study these days to become a better parent." Yes, but a parent could easily get their hands on several books, talk to many of their friends and family members and have almost all of those resources tell them that they should do things that we would consider very unhealthy. So where is the consciousness? They're actually being told the opposite, that it would be wrong not to engage in these parenting methods.

 

And again, I would say to go watch the Bomb in the Brain series, look at the significance of the impact on brain development that abuse can cause, because I think this is being underestimated. The changes in the brain are significant as Stefan shows in the videos. Then explain to me how a person who is severely abused, if they have such brain changes, can possibly be judged the same way as a normal person. They are basically the equivalent of having a serious head injury (some even literally have head injuries). Yet you talk about them as if they are still basically healthy and in control and aware of what they do. This is just denial of scientific facts about the extent of injury. And yet, if I use the exact same science to argue why parents must not abuse their kids, showing how damaging it is to the kids, then the same people would be completely behind that science. They promote the awareness of the depth of the injuries when it's used to argue to protect the kids. But, as soon as the abused child grows up, somehow they want to act like the injuries weren't that severe after all. It just doesn't work that way. You can't use some facts to make a point when you like their implications and then deny the same facts when you dislike other implications. You have to acknowledge all the implications of those facts.

 

Not sure if there is much more to say on it. But this has definitely strengthened my feeling that these discussions are a sad distraction that end up pitting natural colleagues in improving the world against each other on issues that are tangential and minor compared to the good they could do if they worked together. The reason I posted a link to my old post about becoming more active in promoting healthy parenting is because I think that's where the energy would be better spent. I had hoped when I posted it that a lot of people on this forum, who spend so much time talking about how important it is to reduce abuse, would be inspired to get more active in supporting actual projects out there working on that instead of us just discussing these things on a forum. Instead, the thread got a glowing response or two and then just died. I'm not sure how to interpret this but it surprised me that a call to action in service of promoting healthy parenting more pragmatically was all but ignored in a place so dedicated to the idea of reducing abuse.

 

Well it has been an interesting discussion. If you have more to say, I'll check it out and respond. But if not, hopefully, despite any apparent disagreement on these aspects, you see that in what really matters, a commitment to reducing abuse and protecting victims, we stand together. Disagreements on other issues around that should not separate people from working together on what really matters.

[LifeIsBrief]

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, never goes unpunished, does it STer?

 

I say "We agree that there is a spectrum (because you used that word before), but I would suggest that everyone has at least 10% control".  This is not controversial stuff.  I'm saying that people have conscious minds and they make decisions.  You say you're not arguing pure determinism, but you turn my 10% conscious behavior, into "You write as if all abusers believe deep down that their abuse is wrong".  I never said anything like that, and this makes it very clear that you are arguing pure determinism for "some people".  I said that the combination of suffering and ignorance are the root of abuse.

 

You also go on to complain about how people on this forum are constantly competing in a game to hate abuse the most... but you only do that for the purpose of setting up a new game, the who cares about children the most game, which you claim to obviously win, because you won't sink to our level, and discuss the responsibility of abusers.  This is childish nonsense, and it makes discussing things with you incredibly frustrating.

[Kevin Beal]

...and the more fucked up someone is because of their childhoods, the more we can blame them for doing nothing about it. Everybody knows that there are ways of achieving greater mental health out there. Maybe they don't like therapy, then they could do any research whatsoever into the science. There's something out there for everyone. Even if they don't have the internet, they could interview children about the genuine experiences and their preferences.

 

If you genuinely thought that people weren't responsible, then you'd have no hope for humanity. You'd probably end up being a condescending lecturing contrarian like determinists end up being so much of the time.

 

And I'd go farther than you LifeisBrief and say that yes, absolutely, everyone knows that hitting children is wrong. They know it like they know that the sky is blue. They know it like they know they aren't going to suddenly have gravity reverse on them. Everyone is such a complete genius when it comes to child abuse because they always know a way out of necessary conflict (or grief for that matter).

 

I'm a smart guy, I'm a pretty good debater, know a bit about child development, am somewhat good at lowering people's defenses and whenever I've talked about child abuse to people, they always always always find ways of getting around the truth. I could never hope to completely convince someone and if I did have that as my goal, I would have to give up pretty quickly in the face of the overwhelming futility. The fact that Stef has been able to convince people blows my mind. He's like some kind of magician.

[PatrickC]

Yes, unconsciousness of actions, I can't help feel involves a conscious decision to ignore them, at least to some degree. Whether or not there is some brain dysfunction involved, which is entirely possible. That said, it's difficult to ignore the excuses very conscious people often give them. However, I am of the opinion that it doesn't particularly matter much. Getting away from these types of people has been a very helpful strategy in avoiding as much discourse in my life as was humanly possible. But I would be most happy to fund clever people (to the degree that I could), that think they might resolve those issues without having to personally have a relationship with them.

[LifeIsBrief]

I actually agree with that Kevin.  Every time you hit another human being you immediately feel "Ooh... I wouldn't like it if someone did that to me".  I just think society, brain damage, suffering, and ignorance of a better way, can make people suppress their natural emotions.  The saying "spare the rod, spoil the child", is classic "ends justify the means" nonsense.  In and of itself that is proof that they feel the need to justify something, they already inherently are born knowing is wrong.  Thus, no matter how damaged a persons brain is, I won't let them ignore responsibility.  I simply think that if you can make people deal with these issues consciously, they are capable of change and growth, which may one day lead to redemption, peace, self knowledge, loving kindness, nirvana, whatever you want to call it. 

 

Sympathy for the horrible nonsense they were taught by society, brain damage they experienced, and pain they went through as a child, might be the bridge to forgiveness, which can help incentivize that growth.  Still, that is entirely up to the people they have harmed, and again, I would have no insight into where anyone else's lines might be drawn.

[STer]

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, never goes unpunished, does it STer?

 

I say "We agree that there is a spectrum (because you used that word before), but I would suggest that everyone has at least 10% control".  This is not controversial stuff.  I'm saying that people have conscious minds and they make decisions.  You say you're not arguing pure determinism, but you turn my 10% conscious behavior, into "You write as if all abusers believe deep down that their abuse is wrong".  I never said anything like that, and this makes it very clear that you are arguing pure determinism for "some people".  I said that the combination of suffering and ignorance are the root of abuse.

 

You also go on to complain about how people on this forum are constantly competing in a game to hate abuse the most... but you only do that for the purpose of setting up a new game, the who cares about children the most game, which you claim to obviously win, because you won't sink to our level, and discuss the responsibility of abusers.  This is childish nonsense, and it makes discussing things with you incredibly frustrating.

 

The point is that you are arguing as if this is just an impulse control problem, where everyone deep down knows what they're doing is wrong, and they should just engage their control and decision-making to stop doing it. I pointed out that is not the case. Many people believe what they're doing is right and they engage their control mechanisms to do more of it because of that. So it's not just a debate about whether they have 1 or 20 or 90% ability to decide. It's also a debate about whether they even know what is right and wrong in the situation. I argue that some abusers believe their behavior is actually good parenting. And I'm pretty surprised if people on this forum, who constantly post articles with comments full of people like that, deny that.

 

You've misunderstood what I've said on so many levels I'm not sure what to say at this point. Even when I explicitly repeat over and over again what I'm arguing and what I'm not arguing, you just continue to claim something else. Again, it's ironic since I started posting in this thread to come to your aid, in a sense, because you yourself kept getting misunderstood. But I don't think we're going to come to an agreement. The intent doesn't seem to be to understand what I'm actually saying, but to try to almost insist that I'm saying something else even when I'm not. I have not argued determinism and I certainly didn't set up any new game of anything. My message in this thread is simply to say that we need to be empirical and objective about assessing the behaviors of abusers just as we are supposed to be with other topics.

 

So once again, I'm not arguing for determinism here. If telling you I'm not isn't enough, then it doesn't really matter what I say. You'll read what you wish to read into it. If you can tell me what I'm arguing for, rather than me tell you what I'm arguing for, then there isn't much benefit to me saying anything.

 

Finally, you keep claiming people have this % of control in particular situations. But the one thing I do hope we can agree on is that you're just making this number up out of nowhere. Your claims are not based on empiricism or research or really anything but what you feel or what you'd like to believe. I am arguing for empiricism and objective research on these topics. You are throwing out speculations that are not empirical and objective. And that seems to be the biggest difference.

And I'd go farther than you LifeisBrief and say that yes, absolutely, everyone knows that hitting children is wrong. They know it like they know that the sky is blue. They know it like they know they aren't going to suddenly have gravity reverse on them. Everyone is such a complete genius when it comes to child abuse because they always know a way out of necessary conflict (or grief for that matter).

 

I'm a smart guy, I'm a pretty good debater, know a bit about child development, am somewhat good at lowering people's defenses and whenever I've talked about child abuse to people, they always always always find ways of getting around the truth. I could never hope to completely convince someone and if I did have that as my goal, I would have to give up pretty quickly in the face of the overwhelming futility. The fact that Stef has been able to convince people blows my mind. He's like some kind of magician.

 

Unfortunately, just stating that you believe everyone knows this doesn't make it so. The fact that you debate with people and they manage to find a way around what you see as the truth certainly doesn't prove they know the opposite. And part of why Stefan convinces people about how damaging child abuse is is by pointing out the severe implications for brain development that it has with scientific research behind these claims. But you claim these brain development issues magically have no impact on the person's later views on child abuse, without any research to back that up.

 

None of these claims are in any way empirical or objective. They are statements of opinion.

 

My understanding has been that empiricism and objective research is the standard here. When Stefan talks about child abuse, he cites tons of research. The Bomb in the Brain series is full of scientific information to back up his claims. This thread is notable for the complete lack of facts or evidence to back up claims like "All abusers deep down are conscious of how harmful their behavior is and could just choose to change." If someone else came in making claims on any other topic with such a lack of evidence, you'd be demanding citations. But when we talk about the psychological drivers of abuse, suddenly no evidence is needed, just statements of speculation and anecdotal stories of personal debates with people.

 

LifeIsBrief made it explicit that he doesn't back up what he says with research because he doesn't trust institutions. He seems to be basing his beliefs on Buddhism. If my standard is empiricism and objective research and other people in the thread do not require that standard of evidence, then we're speaking totally different languages. I think we should demand just as much research on which to base our view of abusers as we do to shape our views of how damaging the abuse itself is. If we can't agree on that, then that's fine. But that's what I'm trying to say.

 

So do we agree on a standard of empiricism and evidence? If so, exhibit #1 is the significant brain development changes caused by abuse. If we don't agree on that standard, this discussion is basically pointless.

Yes, unconsciousness of actions, I can't help feel involves a conscious decision to ignore them, at least to some degree.

Do you agree, though, that our personal feelings on this are not sufficient, so we need to rely on deeper research to unearth the truth about this? 

But I would be most happy to fund clever people (to the degree that I could), that think they might resolve those issues without having to personally have a relationship with them.

I'm confused about the last part of your statement. Why the specification of not wanting a relationship with them? Aren't people who dedicate their work to reducing child abuse exactly the type of people you'd enjoy relationships with? I'm just curious because that part of the statement seemed arbitrary and I wasn't sure what is was referencing.

[PatrickC]

I'm confused about the last part of your statement. Why the specification of not wanting a relationship with them? Aren't people who dedicate their work to reducing child abuse exactly the type of people you'd enjoy relationships with? I'm just curious because that part of the statement seemed arbitrary and I wasn't sure what is was referencing.

 

No,  I think you may have misunderstood.. I meant not wanting a relationship with the people they are attempting to help.

[STer]

After all of this discussion, I am now able to boil this whole thread down to the one question I posted above. It seems to be the crux of the entire discussion:

 

Do we agree or not agree on a standard of empiricism and evidence - a requirement for citing at least some form of valid research - when making claims about the motives and capacities of abusive people?

 

If so, great. Let's have the discussion with some actual facts to back up our claims. If not, then people can just state their personal opinions and they are nothing more than speculative in my view. Nothing wrong with that, as long as they are identified as personal opinions and not discussed as if they are well-founded facts.

 

If FDR is about empiricism and objective knowledge, as it claims to be, then I would expect this question to receive a resounding yes, we require backing for our claims. If the response is to eschew the need for such backing, then I must admit I'm confused about what this forum is really about after all. I always thought it was about empiricism and objective knowledge, so if I was mistaken about that, or if that only applies to some topics and not others, then I will have to come to a new understanding of the standards held here.

[PatrickC]

Do you agree, though, that our personal feelings on this are not sufficient, so we need to rely on deeper research to unearth the truth about this?

 

I think it's perfectly reasonable to reject people that are abusive towards you.

[STer]

No,  I think you may have misunderstood.. I meant not wanting a relationship with the people they are attempting to help.

 

Oh I see. If they work directly with abusive people, you'd like to avoid contact with the abusive people themselves. Got it.

[Kevin Beal]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to reject people that are abusive towards you.

Or to other people. If someone were to attack you Xelent, I would reject them absolutely.

 

It would be kind of fucked up if I didn't. Or a sign that I disliked you or something in that ballpark. Not good in any event.

[STer]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to reject people that are abusive towards you.

 

No, I meant do you agree that our personal feelings are not sufficient for making general claims like saying that being unconscious of an action requires a conscious decision to ignore it. Of course, in your personal life, you can choose to reject whoever you want. I'm talking about when people are making claims, as if they are factual, about what is going on psychologically in abusers as general rules. Do you believe it's sufficient to just say "I feel that the unconsciousness is coming from a conscious choice to ignore."? Or do you think we need to base claims like that on research and evidence, not just personal feelings?

[PatrickC]

Just wanted to say to Kevin, good point.. I would certainly support anyone, particularly a friend against abusive behaviour.

 

No, I meant do you agree that our personal feelings are not sufficient for making general claims like saying that being unconscious of an action requires a conscious decision to ignore it. Of course, in your personal life, you can choose to reject whoever you want. I'm talking about when people are making claims, as if they are factual, about what is going on psychologically in abusers as general rules. Do you believe it's sufficient to just say "I feel that the unconsciousness is coming from a conscious choice to ignore."? Or do you think we need to base claims like that on research and evidence, not just personal feeling

 

Our personal feelings are not important of course to those that are sufficiently uninvolved personally to help them.

[STer]

Just wanted to say to Kevin, good point.. I would certainly support anyone, particularly a friend against abusive behaviour.

 

 

Our personal feelings are not important of course to those that are sufficiently uninvolved personally to help them.

 

Xelent,

 

No you're still missing what I'm getting at. In this thread, several people have made statements about the psychology of abusers in general. They've made claims, which they've put forth as factual, about how conscious people are of certain things, how much control they have or do not have over certain things, and about the specific mechanisms by which people become unconscious of certain things. None of these statements was backed up with anything but feelings and anecdotes.

 

For example, in one of your most recent posts, you said that when people are unconscious of an action, you feel it is because they are consciously choosing to ignore it. That is a claim about the nature of unconsciousness of actions.

 

I'm asking if claims like those require backing with evidence. Should a statement like that require citing some research that shows that claim bears out?

 

The issue of how you act in your personal life and who you reject is a separate topic. And I'm also not talking here about the activism discussion about helping. This is about the claims being made about the psychology of abusers in general in this thread. See what I'm getting at now?

[PatrickC]

For example, in one of your most recent posts, you said that when people are unconscious of an action, you feel it is because they are consciously choosing to ignore it. That is a claim about the nature of unconsciousness of actions.

 

Well, in fairness I was only claiming that anecdotally, as I suggested in that post. But to me it matters little to the abused individual, when they are attempting to escape the abuse of others.

[STer]

Well, in fairness I was only claiming that anecdotally, as I suggested in that post. But to me it matters little to the abused individual, when they are attempting to escape the abuse of others.

 

Exactly. And nothing wrong with that as long as it's accurately identified as your feeling and not as an empirically-validated fact.

 

But compare that to some others in the thread who are saying things as bold as:

 

"absolutely, everyone knows that hitting children is wrong. They know it like they know that the sky is blue. They know it like they know they aren't going to suddenly have gravity reverse on them."

 

That is a pretty bold statement to make as if it's a fact without anything to back it up. Everyone knows that hitting children is wrong with that level of certainty? Does a statement like that not require a lot of empirical backing? In a culture where the norm is people believing that hitting children is OK, and where many even think it spoils the child not to hit them? I think it's a rather extraordinary statement to say that they all know it's wrong like they know the direction of gravity.

 

Or another person is saying things like:

 

"Full repression is impossible, for everyone.  We agree there is a spectrum, but I would suggest that everyone has at least 10% control (the vague number I picked for no real reason).  Everyone can get better.  Everyone could choose to be a Buddhist monk and then gain control of more and more of their unconscious mind, until it is nearly total. "

 

Are these not statements that cry out for citation after citation? They seem to me basically made up.

 

I agree with you, and have made the point repeatedly, that this discussion does little to help those trying to escape abuse in the short run and our priority should be on that, not getting tangled into these debates, especially with people who share our ultimate concern for the victims and could be mutually supportive in helping them.

 

In the long run, however, if we are hoping to learn how to better prevent and intervene in abuse, understanding the facts about what drives abusers can be helpful and spreading non-validated speculations about what is driving it as if they are facts is not helpful and may even be harmful by driving us to use ineffective approaches. The reason empiricism is something I value is because I think that when you know the facts about something accurately, you have more power to help improve things with that knowledge. So I want to know as many facts, rather than just speculations, about what is going on inside abusive people as possible. And to consider something a fact, I need some backing to support it. I thought others on FDR felt the same way about what it takes to really consider something a fact.

[PatrickC]

In the long run, however, if we are hoping to learn how to better prevent and intervene in abuse, understanding the facts about what drives abusers can be helpful and spreading non-validated speculations about what is driving it as if they are facts is not helpful and may even be harmful by driving us to use ineffective approaches. The reason empiricism is something I value is because I think that when you know the facts about something accurately, you have more power to help improve things with that knowledge. So I want to know as many facts, rather than just speculations, about what is going on inside abusive people as possible. And to consider something a fact, I need some backing to support it. I thought others on FDR felt the same way about what it takes to really consider something a fact.

 

You know STer,  I find this annoying (for what its worth). My initial post didn't reject any of this. I was merely pointing out that on a personal level you have no reason to engage with your own abuser.. What others decide personally for themselves is entirely up to them of course. And if in the process they improve our understanding of human behaviour, then all the good of course.

[STer]

You know STer,  I find this annoying (for what its worth). My initial post didn't reject any of this. I was merely pointing out that on a personal level you have no reason to engage with your own abuser.. What others decide personally for themselves is entirely up to them of course. And if in the process they improve our understanding of human behaviour, then all the good of course.

 

Xelent, I didn't say any of your posts rejected this. I specifically quoted posts from other people who made claims without any backup as if they were facts. You notice I did not post any of your quotes because you never did that. Your post specified that it was only personal opinion and anecdotal. I used your post as an example of what should happen.

 

I was wondering if you agree with me that the other posts which I highlighted from other people in the thread require more empirical support.

 

Again to be specific, here are two of the claims made in this thread so far:

 

1) "absolutely, everyone knows that hitting children is wrong. They know it like they know that the sky is blue. They know it like they know they aren't going to suddenly have gravity reverse on them."

 

2) "Full repression is impossible, for everyone.  We agree there is a spectrum, but I would suggest that everyone has at least 10% control (the vague number I picked for no real reason).  Everyone can get better.  Everyone could choose to be a Buddhist monk and then gain control of more and more of their unconscious mind, until it is nearly total. "

 

Do you agree that it is reasonable to ask for empirical support for those particular statements and that, if such support is lacking, they should be identified as statements of personal opinion, rather than facts?

[LifeIsBrief]

STer you seem really hung up on "absolutely, everyone knows that hitting children is wrong", and "everyone has 10% control"...  The point of the everyone has 10% control comment, is that everyone has some degree of control... Sure, cut it down .01 if it makes you feel better... Arguing that people have no control, is by definition pure determinism for "some people".  You can't say some people have absolutely no self control, and you're not arguing for pure determinism, those two statements directly contradict one another.

 

How does everyone know hitting children is wrong?  It's called empathy, and sympathy, things written about in every psychological text on the planet.  Also, the foundation of all great literature, philosophy, and world religions.  Where is your empirical evidence that disproves all of human history?  It would have to be quite a lot...  I repeat my last argument, even the phrase you use to describe people who "don't understand", "spare the rod spoil the child" is actually empirical proof that the person saying it, knows that hitting children is wrong.  They use that saying to justify their action.  If they weren't using that statement as a justification the saying would be "beat up your kids cus' it's fun".