From: Tony Hollick (anduril@cix.compulink.co.uk)
Date: Tue Dec 30 1997 - 01:04:00 MST
This discussion is really disappointing me.
Dr. Alice Miller's book is outstanding, and brilliant. Trailblazing.
Am I failing to explain what it is that she says so well?
Or am I dealing with a know-nothing who can't understand basic English,
and is simply indifferent to resolving one of the world's most difficult
problems? Problems which adversely affect the achievement of extropian
goals and damage present and potential extropians personally? A problem
which can terminate all human life on the planet, given the existence
of some 40 000 nuclear weapons...
To say it again: Dr. Alice Miller advances a hypothesis which answers
the question: 'How would one have to raise a child, for it to grow up to
be a violent adult?'
Degrading dormouse--talk for the dormouse: This is not the same as
advancing a hypothesis to explain all violent adult behaviour.
For 'advanced' dormice: 'necessary condition' and 'sufficient
condition' are logically different ...
Dr. Alice Miller's hypothesis has descriptive power (how things are);
explanatory power (why things get to be that way); and predictive power
(how things will get to be that way); and this is all we can ever ask
from any scientific hypothesis. It has meaning; and it has content,
and -- best of all -- It's empirically testable and _falsifiable_.
Furthermore, the thesis is painstakingly researched, with extensive
quotation and citation, and it is written with passion and clarity and
attention to detail. It's a classic.
Frankly, I don't know what more any scientific thesis is supposed to
offer. Especially in the 'social sciences.'
Dr. Alice Miller demonstrates convincingly that there is no shortage of
evidence -- the blasted German pedagogical writers wrote horrifying
manuals describing in appalling detail how to _torture_ children into
submission and plasticity. Just as the slave-breakers did in the
American South.
And the damaged children and the damaged adults are all around us, for
everyone to see who can bear to look at them. Why is it that I get
this feeling that Lee Daniel Crocker _doesn't want to look_?
Sure, we all have our 'monster-barring' screening and 'touchstone'
theories. Sure, intuituion can be very valuable, not least since it
incorporates tacit or unarticulated knowledge.
What I cannot understand is how Lee Daniel Crocker can be so little
interested in this problem. If he waits until he has children of his
own, it'll likely be too late. He'll either bring his kids up the way
he was brought up; or he'll make a conscious effort to bring them up
differently. If he thinks he can master this subject in a few years,
he's simply living in a dream-world, and will believe anything.
Here's my standard offer:
Buy the book.
Read it. Or even have someone whose judgement you trust read it for
you.
Come back to us, and if you can honestly say the book and the time
taken to read it were wasted for you, I'll refund the full price.
In gold.
And just pass the book on to someone who has a better chance of
understanding it, is all I ask.
/ /\ \
--*--<Tony>--*--
Tony Hollick, LightSmith
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/la-agora (LA-Agora Conference)
http://www.agora.demon.co.uk (Agora Home Page, Rainbow Bridge Foundation)
http://www.nwb.net/nwc (NorthWest Coalition Against Malicious Harrassment)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:16 MST