[boombip]

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

The author has found that, in his experience, some (maybe many) victims of continued domestic abuse stay with their abusers because they simply continue doing what they've always done. Or perhaps the abuser "needs them" in some capacity. So the authors solution is to encourage and explain to victims that they can choose a different path in life and that their abusers may in fact not need them at all. It seems the author believes that a lack of self interest can be a contributing factor in continued abuse and that the solution is to increase the victims sense of self-worth and self-determination.

I don't believe that this solution will always be beneficial. Or that domestic abuse is in some way the victim's fault but the author does present an interesting argument for the benefit of asking the question "what do you get out of this relationship?" And has, at least anecdotally, found some positive results from doing so.

[DanBC]

> And has, at least anecdotally, found some positive results from doing so.

Quite a lot of his other anecdote was pure bollocks though. Here's the clearest example:

>> I know from experience that such a man might take an overdose as a form of emotional blackmail: the vast majority of male overdoses in my ward are of men who have beaten their women—the overdoses serve the dual function of blackmailing the women into remaining with them and of presenting themselves as the victims rather than the perpetrators of their own violence. I also know from experience that the Muslim burglar would never actually kill himself.

He's a complete cunt. Men like him did very great harm to their patients.

[nchelluri]

> He's a complete cunt. Men like him did very great harm to their patients.

This is an interesting viewpoint. I didn't get that at all from the reading but the truth is I know very little of psychiatry. It seemed to me to be about empowering people to make good decisions. It's funny how quickly I was to make my own judgement: "This guy knows what he's talking about! Life can be better!"

But then I read your comment and the other one critizing ths guy, thought some more, and wondered if it were possible I was missing some stuff. I know for one I was a little off-put by the reference to 'illegitimate children are wrong' and perhaps he was off-base in this "... would never actually kill himself" thing too. But again, I really have no point of reference. I just know that I am incapable of making a proper assessment of this piece or of the author. I swear the more I read and learn the more difficult it can be for me to actually understand anything.

Anyway, I did some reading on the good ol' Wikipedia and read his talk page.

> What we have here is a pseudoscientist (Dalrymple) making claims in a range of specialist (social-)scientific areas such as addiction, narcissism, and rationalisation/excuse-making without apparent knowledge of the state of the field and in a manner incompatible with the field. He has been mostly ignored by scholars in these areas (source: Google scholar search) and when referred to is criticised. It violates neutrality that he is portrayed without any criticism and with the appearance of scholarly credibility.

Take that as you will... but you made me think, at least. Thanks for that.

[jschwartzi]

How so?