Jejudo, South Korea
I don't want to call your reading wrong, if it upset you, it upset you. If her credibility is gone, her credibility is gone. But when she uses 'almost inevitable', you seem to be arguing that she's created a strawman here.
Is nobody saying anything like that?
I don't think she's complaining about something like, "Children who grow up abused have a higher tendency to abuse their own children than those who don't," but that that straightforward statement is then manipulated into the torturous "almost inevitably".
I think she's complaining that this happens, but even if it is a strawman, can we at least say that some people interpret it that way?
I do not think she was intending to deceive, but, yes, she intended to provoke. She's pissed off, I would be too if I thought my research was being misrepresented.
Needless to say (I hope), I was trying to provoke as well by quoting that part.
But maybe we can balance this out a bit:
Low self-esteem causes aggressiveness, drug use, prejudice, and low achievement.
It's the other way around. These things cause low self-esteem. But anyway who says high self esteem is such a great thing anyway. Why not accurate self-esteem?
Therapy is beneficial for most survivors of disasters, especially if intervention is rapid.
She's not saying that therapy can't be beneficial, just that in most cases, it may not be necessary. Is this another example of a strawman?
Memory works like a tape recorder, clicking on at the moment of birth; memories can be accurately retrieved through hypnosis, dream analysis, or other therapeutic methods.
No balance here. This is just dumb. But are we in complete control of ourselves at all times. Of course not.
Traumatic experiences, particularly of a sexual nature, are typically "repressed" from memory, or split off from consciousness through "dissociation."
I actually think there is such a thing as repression, it's just not this. In fact, certain types of repression may be good for you.
The way that parents treat a child in the first five years (three years) (one year) (five minutes) of life is crucial to the child's later intellectual and emotional success.
Sure, if a child were completely ignored for five years, it seems clear that that would influence the child later, but the point in question is the pivotal nature of these first years. I have a few hypotheses about this myself.
Now, I probably haven't been as balanced as I could have been, but in the end I think healthy scepticism is a good thing. If it makes people realize the complexities of themselves and at the same time the role of personal responsibility in all of this, then reading this thread might do some good.
Science is not magic. It cannot make our decisions for us, that is something that ultimately we can only do (a leap across the abyss as Derrida might say). Science is often said to be discredited when two scientists disagree with each other. I think that is science at its healthiest.
At any rate, as a rule of thumb, we should take the law of errors a little more seriously: we take the mean of all the different observations and work from there.