Mykeru
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2013
- Messages
- 315
- Reaction score
- 0
[Referring to LaViolette's inadequate and outdated CV]
What I also find disturbing is that LaViolette has made serveral references to Alcoholics Anonymous and frequently uses "AA Speak" and seems to be basing a lot of her conclusions on the free-floating blaming and willful helplessnes of the recovery movement.
Aside from personal anecdotes (like "as seen on TV": "It really works!", yeah sure) on how AA, NA and the like have helped people, we are also talking about a kind of twitchy cult based on the 20s-era "moral re-armament" babbling of Frank Buchmann where "sin" has been crossed out and "alcohol/drugs/sex/overeating, what-have-you" has been penciled in.
Moreover, like all pseudo explanations including Freudanism, Marxism, and other totalizing systems its completely non-falsifiable, the dogma arranged where there's no situation, positive or negative, that it doesn't cover.
You may have noticed that LaViolette has this "heads I win, tails you lose" system where she is obvious starting from a conclusion (abuse) and there's absolutely nothing that isn't proof of it. That is, if a guy sticks too close to a woman, watches her every move, that's abuse. Likewise, if he is indifferent (or rejects, in Jodi Arias' case rejects) that's abuse too.
The key feature of nonfalsifiable quasi-explanations like Freudianism is that there's no escape: If you marry someone who looks like your mother, that's the Oedipus Complex. If you marry someone who looks nothing like your mother, that's reaction formation and, of course, just a manifestation of the Oedipus Complex. You literally can't sneeze without a "gotcha".
One reason LaViolette is so boring is that once you get a sense of her bias, you already know what her conclusion is going to be regardless of the premises.
lease:
