This was one of your best presentations. Dr. George is a stellar expert. As a practicing attorney, writer, and member of the US Supreme Court Bar, let me point out two problems: First, law and psychiatry/psychology do not "play well" together. Defending many clients including murderers, abusers, etc., I have had to present psychological defenses or explanations in court. But the state by state variations of interpretations of the M'Naghten Rule (was the event caused by a mental disease or defect) make it exceedingly difficult to marry the two. In one case, had my client murdered her parents in NY she would have gotten off, whereas if she had murdered them in NJ, she would have served a life sentence. Second, the Supreme Court has been my area of expertise for decades. Sadly, the six members of the pro-Trump majority are corrupt and unwilling to properly apply precedent. Coney Barrett is a true member of a cult that places her under the direction of her husband. Thomas is corrupt, on the take from Harlan Crowe, and his wife has been a member of a cult for years. Several belong to Opus Dei. The Heritage Foundation with its Christian Nationalist support has also nurtured many of them over the decades. Do not bother to look for self-assessment or changes among the six, sadly.
I want not to upset people. We need every American citizen to walk the streets of their cities in safety. I can’t always get what I want, but I always try to get what I need.
I might check out Dr. George’s Substack. However, you and Dr. George can also “find further strategies to filter misinformation and focus on solutions-driven information” by considering the potential value in asking a simple question: Why are different factions within the scientific community advocates for conflicting interpretations of Benjamin Libet’s famous experiment and its relevance?
Ironically, the scientific community won’t know why a simple experiment can produce a simple and repeatable result — whereas four decades cannot produce a scientific consensus — until someone in the scientific community tries to answer the above simple question.
How long does it take to recognize that an inconvenient truth is an opportunity worthy of further consideration? Max two minutes. How long does it take to misperceive an inconvenient truth as a threat? According to my (idiosyncratic but entirely plausible) interpretation of Libet’s experiment, less than one third of a second. What’s the human brain’s innate/default method for “neutralizing” an inconvenient truth misperceived as a threat? Ignore the messenger.
Does that behavior pattern sound familiar? It should. Has the scientific community been immunized from that contagion? According to the irrefutable evidence documented in my essay, no. How do “I” know if “I” am not a victim of the contagion? By testing “my” assumptions (aka practicing science).
Does my interpretation of Libet’s experiment have the potential to add value to a true understanding of evil informed by thinkers like Hannah Arendt? Yes. Does it also have the potential to add value to the scientific community’s understanding of gaslighting, pathological narcissism, addiction, Trump rallies, the behavior of Trump’s cabinet members, the APA’s unscientific response to Dr. Lee, the MSM’s not-journalistic response to Trump, the “cult” phenomenon, the widely accepted “trickle-down” labeling of an exclusively trick-up economic philosophy, and other contagious, unnecessarily harmful, and risky behaviors?
It depends on whether the scientific community’s collective unconscious does what it has demonstrably done in every generation since the dawn of the scientific revolution: take less than one third of a second to misperceive an inconvenient truth as a threat.
Just saw your interview with Steven Hassan and it was so informative! We need to hear more 👍
This was one of your best presentations. Dr. George is a stellar expert. As a practicing attorney, writer, and member of the US Supreme Court Bar, let me point out two problems: First, law and psychiatry/psychology do not "play well" together. Defending many clients including murderers, abusers, etc., I have had to present psychological defenses or explanations in court. But the state by state variations of interpretations of the M'Naghten Rule (was the event caused by a mental disease or defect) make it exceedingly difficult to marry the two. In one case, had my client murdered her parents in NY she would have gotten off, whereas if she had murdered them in NJ, she would have served a life sentence. Second, the Supreme Court has been my area of expertise for decades. Sadly, the six members of the pro-Trump majority are corrupt and unwilling to properly apply precedent. Coney Barrett is a true member of a cult that places her under the direction of her husband. Thomas is corrupt, on the take from Harlan Crowe, and his wife has been a member of a cult for years. Several belong to Opus Dei. The Heritage Foundation with its Christian Nationalist support has also nurtured many of them over the decades. Do not bother to look for self-assessment or changes among the six, sadly.
I want not to upset people. We need every American citizen to walk the streets of their cities in safety. I can’t always get what I want, but I always try to get what I need.
I might check out Dr. George’s Substack. However, you and Dr. George can also “find further strategies to filter misinformation and focus on solutions-driven information” by considering the potential value in asking a simple question: Why are different factions within the scientific community advocates for conflicting interpretations of Benjamin Libet’s famous experiment and its relevance?
Ironically, the scientific community won’t know why a simple experiment can produce a simple and repeatable result — whereas four decades cannot produce a scientific consensus — until someone in the scientific community tries to answer the above simple question.
How long does it take to recognize that an inconvenient truth is an opportunity worthy of further consideration? Max two minutes. How long does it take to misperceive an inconvenient truth as a threat? According to my (idiosyncratic but entirely plausible) interpretation of Libet’s experiment, less than one third of a second. What’s the human brain’s innate/default method for “neutralizing” an inconvenient truth misperceived as a threat? Ignore the messenger.
Does that behavior pattern sound familiar? It should. Has the scientific community been immunized from that contagion? According to the irrefutable evidence documented in my essay, no. How do “I” know if “I” am not a victim of the contagion? By testing “my” assumptions (aka practicing science).
Does my interpretation of Libet’s experiment have the potential to add value to a true understanding of evil informed by thinkers like Hannah Arendt? Yes. Does it also have the potential to add value to the scientific community’s understanding of gaslighting, pathological narcissism, addiction, Trump rallies, the behavior of Trump’s cabinet members, the APA’s unscientific response to Dr. Lee, the MSM’s not-journalistic response to Trump, the “cult” phenomenon, the widely accepted “trickle-down” labeling of an exclusively trick-up economic philosophy, and other contagious, unnecessarily harmful, and risky behaviors?
It depends on whether the scientific community’s collective unconscious does what it has demonstrably done in every generation since the dawn of the scientific revolution: take less than one third of a second to misperceive an inconvenient truth as a threat.
I don’t have to believe me because all I need to believe is Nobel prize winners Robin Warren and Barry Marshall. Their famous story is number six of seven in https://jamesrcarey.substack.com/p/why-scientists-are-expert-problem.
This was excellent! I'd be fascinated to hear more about how narcissism can be "contagious" for periods and contexts. :)
https://open.substack.com/pub/contrarian/p/not-a-dime-for-ice-lawlessness?r=5dg5ys&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web×tamp=1125.2
This Senator speaks with heart and soul!
💙💙💙