Re: Twilight of the Psychopaths
I don't know anything about this alleged doctor Barrett. I thought a couple of his points were worth thinking through (a process he apparantly isn't prone to).But . . . The article is full of non-starters and non sequitors. Here is an example: "The implication, too frightening for even the likes of Marshall and Grossman to fully digest, was that the norms for soldiers’ behaviour in battle had been set by psychopaths. That meant that psychopaths were in control of the military as an institution. Worse, it meant that psychopaths were in control of society’s perception of military affairs."I could buy that the "norms for soldiers' behaviour . . . had been set by psychopaths." It seems an extreme point of view, given the language in which it is proposed, but okay.However, the article uses that claim to issue a further claim: "That meant that psychopaths were in control of the military as an institution."I don't buy that link. The control of the military as an institution does not lie in the hands of soldiers. (The claim does not at all address the possibility that "control of the military as an institution" lies in the hands of people who know how to use psychopaths, but who are not themselves psychopaths. This is an important distinction.)Then the article makes an even bigger claim: "Worse, it meant that psychopaths were in control of society’s perception of military affairs."Again, I don't buy that link. Society's perception of military affairs is not necessarily in the hands of soldiers.Catching on those non sequitors causes me to re-examine the paragraph as a whole, and then I note: "The implication, too frightening for even the likes of Marshall and Grossman to fully digest . . . " and suddenly I get the story, and I think I know quite enough about dr. Barrett. He is the type who knows what is too frightening for others to digest, and who will therefore digest it for them, beaking his wisdom ever so carefully, as a mother bird does her food, into the mouth of his (intellectual) progeny.It would seem that dr. Barrett can't be bothered to tether his claims to clear support. Why? One supposes the answer is related to his superhuman ability to pre-digest the facts for us.I know I have entered through a very small door here, but this article is another one to handle with the long tongs, Greenie.Herring405PS: I have grown mistrustful of sentences that begin with "the implication is . . . " That kind of intro always sends up the red flag for me.
H
Herring405
(view)
I don't know anything about this alleged doctor Barrett. I thought a couple of his points were worth thinking through (a process he apparantly isn't prone to).But . . . The article is full of non-starters and non sequitors. Here is an example: "The implication, too frightening for even the likes of Marshall and Grossman to fully digest, was that the norms for soldiers’ behaviour in battle had been set by psychopaths. That meant that psychopaths were in control of the military as an institution. Worse, it meant that psychopaths were in control of society’s perception of military affairs."I could buy that the "norms for soldiers' behaviour . . . had been set by psychopaths." It seems an extreme point of view, given the language in which it is proposed, but okay.However, the article uses that claim to issue a further claim: "That meant that psychopaths were in control of the military as an institution."I don't buy that link. The control of the military as an institution does not lie in the hands of soldiers. (The claim does not at all address the possibility that "control of the military as an institution" lies in the hands of people who know how to use psychopaths, but who are not themselves psychopaths. This is an important distinction.)Then the article makes an even bigger claim: "Worse, it meant that psychopaths were in control of society’s perception of military affairs."Again, I don't buy that link. Society's perception of military affairs is not necessarily in the hands of soldiers.Catching on those non sequitors causes me to re-examine the paragraph as a whole, and then I note: "The implication, too frightening for even the likes of Marshall and Grossman to fully digest . . . " and suddenly I get the story, and I think I know quite enough about dr. Barrett. He is the type who knows what is too frightening for others to digest, and who will therefore digest it for them, beaking his wisdom ever so carefully, as a mother bird does her food, into the mouth of his (intellectual) progeny.It would seem that dr. Barrett can't be bothered to tether his claims to clear support. Why? One supposes the answer is related to his superhuman ability to pre-digest the facts for us.I know I have entered through a very small door here, but this article is another one to handle with the long tongs, Greenie.Herring405PS: I have grown mistrustful of sentences that begin with "the implication is . . . " That kind of intro always sends up the red flag for me.
