Harvey Weinstein, creep or psychopath?

October 25, 2017 • 10:30 am

As always, when I write this kind of column about determinism, and in particular about the behavior of Harvey Weinstein, I must begin by saying that his behavior was reprehensible, immensely harmful, and warrants severe punishment, judicially so if the courts find him guilty of rape or sexual assault. I weep for the women who felt they had to choose between their careers and becoming an unwilling victim of Weinstein’s sexual dominance. And I abhor thinking that women are still subject to this kind of behavior far more often than I, at least, suspected.

But what Weinstein’s behavior wasn’t was something he chose, in the sense that he could have refrained from being a predator.

Given Weinstein’s environment and genes, he could not have behaved other than the way he did. His ultimate punishment must rest on deterrence (to keep others from practicing this kind of harassment), sequestration (keeping him away from women and situations in which he could practice sexual assault) and rehabilitation (if that is possible, and I’m not ruling it out, even if he “reforms” only out of fear of disclosure).

Yet Frank Bruni’s column in today’s New York Times, “The sham of Harvey Wenstein’s rehab“, assumes over and over again that Weinstein could have behaved differently—that he simply made the wrong choices, the immoral choices, repeatedly.

Those of you who are determinists, and I hope that’s most of you, know that’s not true. Weinstein should be mocked, shamed, and punished for what he did, but for the acts he committed, not because we think he could have refrained from his predatory behavior. That behavior has been enacted, and couldn’t have been enacted otherwise. Our opprobrium can, however, keep him and others from repeating it. So yes, you can call him a “creep”—another form of deterrence and shaming—but realize at the same time that Weinstein’s actions were compelled by factors beyond his control. He had no control, since he had no “could have done otherwise” free will.

Bruni is quite concerned to refute the notion that Weinstein had a “sex addiction,” a narcissistic personality disorder, or some other mental illness. Well, I’m not competent to decide whether Weinstein fits any profiles given in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by psychiatrists. Perhaps he had a “power disorder”: an addiction to using his power over women’s careers to force sex upon them. Bruni, however, chooses to diagnose Weinstein as a simple creep, free from any psychopathologies. He, says Bruni, was simply a bad character, a jerk, and the implication of Brunis entire column is that he could have refrained from being a creep:

Our turn toward psychiatry as a Rosetta Stone for wretchedness is on vivid display in discussions about Donald Trump. Aghast critics chalk up his self-obsession to narcissistic personality disorder and his fictions to pathological lying. But while they mean to condemn him, their language does the opposite: A head case has significantly less to be ashamed of and to apologize for than a garden-variety jerk does.

Their language also distorts the relationship between malady and conduct. “The underlying assumption is that if you have a psychiatric diagnosis, you’re unfit to serve,” Maria Oquendo, the chairwoman of the psychiatry department at the University of Pennsylvania’s medical school, told me. But, she added, there are people with narcissistic personality disorder and an array of other clinical designations who “are functioning brilliantly.” Mettle and morals, along with the management of these conditions, come into play.

. . . But to appraise Weinstein’s behavior in full dress as well as in the buff is to recognize that as bunk. There are indeed bad characters. He was among the worst of them before rehab, and I wouldn’t hope for much better after.

Indeed, Weinstein’s “excuses” may be malarkey, or self-serving bullpucky, but make no mistake about it: he did have a psychopathology, even if it isn’t formally defined, or even if we don’t understand how his genes and environment changed his brain in a way that caused him to behave in horrible ways. He was no more able to stop preying on woman than would a true “sex addict” (if there is such a thing).

There is no meaningful distinction (except perhaps for treatment) between Bruni’s diagnosis of Weinstein as a “bad character” and a psychiatrist’s diagnosis of him as having a harmful mental pathology.He did have a harmful mental pathology, but because we can’t shoehorn it into conventional psychiatry, we fob it off as his being a “creep”. Is there a difference that should affect how he’s treated? I don’t think so, except in the unlikely case that he has a brain tumor or clear neurological aberration that can be dealt with medically. And even if he doesn’t, that doesn’t mean he could have behaved otherwise.

The only reason I see that Bruni would write the following is that he sees some meaningful distinction between psychopathology (formal diagnosis) and harmful predatory behavior (a “creep”):

Three times [Weinstein] used the same three syllables — “therapy” — and thus cast himself as a patient at the mercy of an affliction. Perhaps. Or maybe he’s just a merciless tyrant and creep, and to dress him in clinical language is to let him off the hook.

Weinstein is of course a creep, but he’s also “mentally ill”—if we define the latter as having a behavior that he couldn’t control that was harmful to other people and society as a whole. Yes, it’s offensive to hear excuses that sound lame and what may be dishonest pleas that he simply needs therapy and all will be well.  Well, he needs punishment and therapy; punishment to set an example for others and keep him away from situations where he can use power to coerce sex, and therapy to fix his behavior.

Therapy may not work, but why do people write it off so quickly? If he violated the law, he should be jailed (though America’s jails are dire places, and predicated on retributive justice), and whether or not he is jailed, he needs therapy so he doesn’t repeat his behavior.

What Bruni doesn’t realize—perhaps because he is a free-will libertarian and thinks Weinstein could have refrained from his acts—is that there’s no substantive difference between Weinstein and someone who did what he did, but because of a brain disorder. Weinstein had a brain disorder, though it may not be detectable by examining the brain and finding weird wiring or brain tumors. He is a creep but also has a psychopathology. He is responsible for what he did, in that the individual known as Harvey Weinstein harmed a lot of women and must be disciplined, but he’s not responsible for making bad choices.

The kind of outraged column emitted by Bruni can come only from an internalized sense of true “could-have-done otherwise” free will. I don’t care what you call Weinstein’s problem; in the end he had some mental issues that were harmful to others. For what he did, punishment, shunning, and ire are all appropriate, for those reactions themselves may deter others from following in his footsteps, and rehab is also needed, for he may not be beyond rehabilitation. But please don’t tell us, Mr. Bruni, that, given the situations he found himself in, Weinstein could have refrained from what he did. Under any scientific theory of human behavior, that isn’t true.

I’m sure people will get angry and say that I’m excusing Weinstein, for people are retributive in nature and most surely feel that Weinstein could have behaved other than how he did. Yet I’m not excusing his behavior by any means: it was horrible. This is an explanation, and a plea for people like Bruni to take a more scientific attitude and see that we are all victims of our genes and environments. When those factors come together in a certain way (e.g., a career that gives you power over women and a lack of respect for women), they produce a Harvey Weinstein. Saying he’s simply a “creep” rather than a psychopath may make you feel better, but it’s misleading and obscurantist.

h/t: Stephen

p.s. I’m aware this is repetitive, but I’m banging it out at the airport right before boarding.

Wednesday: Hili dialogue

October 25, 2017 • 6:30 am

It’s Wednesday, October 25, 2017, the 298th day of the year, and I’m heading back to Chicago this morning. In all probability, I’ll be cooling my heels at Logan Airport when you read this. So it’s time for another poll!

Posting will be light today as I’ll be traveling, so bear with me until tomorrow late morning.

It’s National Greasy Food Day, so go have a burger and fries in the meantime.

On this day in 1415, according to Wikipedia, “Henry V of England and his lightly armoured infantry and archers defeat the heavily armoured French cavalry in the Battle of Agincourt on Saint Crispin’s Day.” In 1940,  Benjamin O. Davis, Sr. became the first African American general in the U.S. Army.  And on October 25, 1971, the United Nations expelled the Republic of China (Taiwan) and seated the People’s Republic of China as the official delegation from China.

Notables born on this day include Johann Strauss II (1825), Georges Bizet (1838), Pablo Picasso (1881), Minnie Pearl (1912), Anne Tyler (1941) and James Carville (1944). Here’s a nice Picasso featuring a cat:

Cat Devouring a Bird (1939), said to be an allegory of the Spanish Civil War

Those who died on October 25 include Bat Masterson (1921), Virgil Fox (1980), Mary McCarthy (1989) and Vincent Price (1993). Here’s a wonderful version of Fox playing Bach’s Fugue in G Major (“Gigue Fugue”):

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is having an arcane talk with Andrzej. I asked for an interpretation, and Malgorzata said this:

Hili tries to get an additional portion of something delicious. She explains to Andrzej that if she is to follow Seneca the Younger’s idea about creating the past (she knows Andrzej is happy when she learns philosophy) she would need additional energy derived from an additional meal.
Here it is:
Hili: Seneca the Younger argued that we are creating the past.
A: And what about it?
Hili: It requires energy.
In Polish:
Hili: Seneka twierdził, że tworzymy przeszłość.
Ja: I co w związku z tym?
Hili: To wymaga energii.

Here’s a tw**t showing an old Penguin book with a curious cover. The title is embossed over the black bars, but you can’t read it from this angle. From that alone you might be able to guess the book. Matthew, who found the tweet, gives two clues. The answer will be posted in the comments later this afternoon.

A) Its a retro cover so not modern
B) Synonymous with redaction/rewriting of history

And another tw**t sussed out by Matthew: a great example of crypsis (camouflage), an adaptation that Matthew and I much admire. Spot the grasshopper!

A cat tweet found by Heather Hastie (a metaphor for trying to organize atheists):

Also from Heather, a powerful statement from Michelle Obama, apparently made during the last Presidential campaign, about Trump’s attitude toward women. It’s even more relevant today:

 

EDIT: The answer to book quiz above is, of course, ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ by George Orwell. In fact, the title is embossed in the black redacted patches, so if you turn the book to the light you can just make it out. Still a neat piece of marketing!

 

An honorable Republican

October 24, 2017 • 5:00 pm

Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, a Republican, announced today that he’s not running for reelection to the Senate, and gave a heartfelt speech on the Senate floor explaining his reasons. They all have to do with Trump’s odious policies and toxic personality.

CNN reprints his entire speech, which you should either read or watch (below), and it helps restore my faith in humanity. To me, this is the best part:

If I have been critical, it not because I relish criticizing the behavior of the president of the United States. If I have been critical, it is because I believe that it is my obligation to do so, as a matter of duty and conscience. The notion that one should stay silent as the norms and values that keep America strong are undermined and as the alliances and agreements that ensure the stability of the entire world are routinely threatened by the level of thought that goes into 140 characters – the notion that one should say and do nothing in the face of such mercurial behavior is ahistoric and, I believe, profoundly misguided.

Here’s a video:

So far Trump has been kept in check by Republicans like Flake and McCain, by the courts, and by the Democrats. One can hope that Trump’s continued behavior, and the failure of ambitious and coldhearted Republicans to criticize him, will change the composition of the Congress in the next four years.

It’s too late for the Supreme Court.

Food II: Cambridge

October 24, 2017 • 1:30 pm

The Sugar & Spice restaurant, just north of Porter Square on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge, is an excellent inexpensive Thai restaurant, where I often go when in town. Last night four of us went (I have switched domiciles to give everyone an equal chance to either enjoy or avoid my company), and among us tried three dishes. All were excellent, and here they are:

“Crying Tiger” beef with lettuce and a side of sticky rice wrapped in banana leaf (not shown):

Hor mok, described on the menu as “a delicious and truly authentic curry with steamed salmon, shrimp, egg and vegetables in fresh whole coconut”:

And a green curry with chicken:

If you’re in Cambridge around Porter Square (about a 20-minute walk north of Harvard Square), this is a good place to eat.

This morning, staying at Andrew and Naomi’s, I had my usual breakfast: the British cereal Weetabix (Andrew is a Brit), the UK equivalent of Shredded Wheat, but better.  Andrew claims that, averaged over years of life, he’s eaten more Weetabix than any human alive. When he was at Oxford, he eschewed the meal plan and ate Weetabix three times a day: two biscuits for breakfast, four for lunch, and six or more for dinner (he was saving his living stipend for traveling). The only deviation from this pattern was on Tuesday nights, when he got Chicken Madras at a local curry house.

Since that time, back in the Cretaceous, Andrew has continued to eat Weetabix daily: always for breakfast and sometimes for other meals. (He insists that they must be eaten in multiples of two.)

Below: Andrew and his favorite food. I photographed him showing me the proper way to eat Weetabix. (The first photo is hand held under incandescent light and so is a bit blurry.)

Only two Weetabix per portion, please (though you can have additional aliquots of two):

Putting the banana on top, cut with a spoon so as to avoid soiling a knife.

Adding the milk, always before the sugar to avoid dissolving the sugar into the bottom of the bowl. You can see from Andrew’s concentration the solemnity of this operation.

Only then can you add sugar, but within just one or two seconds of having poured the milk. This avoids the Weetabix becoming too soggy:

Then, dig in and enjoy! Make sure that you tilt the bowl toward you when cutting off a bite so that the milk sloshes onto the biscuit at the very last moment, preserving the crunch:

I apparently fail in my Weetabix consumption in three ways: I like to eat three at a time; I like them a bit soggier than does Andrew, thus adding more milk; and I fail to do the crucial bowl-tilting move, which also makes my biscuits marginally crunchier (though they’re too soggy to begin with). Thus, breakfast with Andrew is always a stressful affair in which I’m castigated for bad eating habits.

Lunch, from which we returned a few minutes ago, was at the Hourly Oyster House in Harvard Square. I had fish and chips with a Full Sail Blood Orange wheat beer, while Andrew had a TBLT (tuna steak, bacon, lettuce, and tomato):

A selfie (with Andrew) over the oysters:

Free postprandial coffee in the Biolab: here’s the free espresso/cappuccino setup on the first floor. It’s Harvard, Jake, and coffee is essential for science! Note the bean grinder; milk is in the fridge below the machine:

An official machine!

 

Trump has yet to name a science advisor

October 24, 2017 • 12:00 pm

It’s nearly a year since the election, and Trump hasn’t yet appointed a science advisor. Here’s a comparative graph from the Washington Post:

 

There could be many reasons the appointment is taking so long, said Zuoyue Wang, a historian of science at California State Polytechnic University in Pomona.

“I believe that several factors are at work,” he said in an email. “The deep divide between the American scientific community and the Trump campaign/administration over key issues, including climate change and nuclear arms control; President Trump’s transactional style of leadership and policy-making, which tends to devalue long-term planning which is an important function of science advising; and probably the unwillingness of many prominent American scientific and technological leaders to serve under the current administration.”

At least one person opines that this delay is good since “to do it properly takes time” (my characterization). My view: Trump just doesn’t care since science deals in real truths rather than “alternative truths.”

So much for the efficacy of the Science March.

h/t: Loren

Wellesley College editors try to clarify their support for “free speech”, but fail

October 24, 2017 • 11:00 am

Eleven days ago I wrote about an April 12 op-ed about free speech by the editors of the Wellesley College student newspaper, The Wellesley News. (Wellesley is a woman’s college in Massachusetts that, I think, accepts trans women but no men.) It was a poorly written piece but also deeply confused and confusing, for they not only stated that “hate speech” is not “free speech”, but simply made up the contention that the First Amendment was put in place “to protect the disenfranchised.” Here’s a bit of that editorial; the emphasis is mine.

Wellesley students are generally correct in their attempts to differentiate what is viable discourse from what is just hate speech. Wellesley is certainly not a place for racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or any other type of discriminatory speech. Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech. [JAC: Note the erroneous structure of this sentence: they are saying “shutting down rhetoric” is “hate speech”. What they mean is that shutting down rhetoric is shutting down hate speech.] The founding fathers put free speech in the Constitution as a way to protect the disenfranchised and to protect individual citizens from the power of the government. The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging.

Apparently the editors got a lot of backlash for writing that (and saying that “hate speech” will be met with “hostility”), for six days later they published a second editorial awkwardly called “In continuation of the previous editorial” that tried to clarify their position. A lot of the space is taken up with complaints about the sexist responses they got—stuff like this:

Comments and tweets responding to our article referred to us as having “our pantyhose in a twist over free speech…” and then sarcastically called us “tough broads.” Others told us to “listen to the man in the house” and “get back in the kitchen.”

Well, that’s reprehensible. One should engage with the argument (as I think I did) rather than denigrate the editors’ genders or make sexist remarks. Such is the sad and undeserved fate of women on the Internet who have strong opinions.

However, while trying to argue that what they meant in the first editorial was simply that speech should be met not with violence but with counterspeech—a view I approve—the editors leave the reader confused whether “hate speech” still counts as free speech. First they say this, which I don’t really understand.

Nevertheless, there is something threatening to modern society about women exercising independent thought. Those that are offended by the editorial and thus inclined to write and tweet about events at Wellesley are exercising their First Amendment rights. We are exercising ours by disagreeing. To refuse to continue to engage with our opinion is to be guilty of the same infringement of freedom with which we are charged. The world suppresses women’s voices even while demanding the recognition of uncensored expression.

How can refusal to deal with an argument constitute an “ingfringement of freedom”?

Further, I’m not sure what they mean by saying the “world suppresses women’s voices”, since this editorial is written by women, and women now have a huge voice in American media. One can of course make a case that there is still sexism in the public sphere, as evidenced by certain remarks by our “President,” by the abysmal predatory behavior of powerful men, and by Congress’s attempt to keep restricting abortion rights, but access to women’s voices—their opinions—is easy.

But I digress. Below is the final paragraph of the op-ed, and it’s deeply confusing. You tell me: if they maintain that all speech must be met not with violence or “shutting down” the speaker but with counterspeech, then why even say that there’s “a line between free speech and hate speech”? And how would counterspeech “protect members of the community from language that harms or threatens their well being”? Once that “hate speech” is uttered, the claimed psychological damage has already been done!

We respect free speech at Wellesley. We reiterate that there is a line between free speech and hate speech. We fight not against free speech, but to protect members of our community from language that harms or threatens their well-being. Thus, we respect the right to use speech to challenge other views. We will listen to and dismantle arguments and opinions that threaten a person’s ability to speak freely.

I’d add, as I did before, that the editors should learn to write simple readable language, avoiding words like “transpired” for “happened” and replacing “in order to” with the simple word “to.” These sentences are tortuous (and torturous):

These incidents transpired on multiple community platforms, including email and social media. Our editorial was meant to be a commentary on these specific events, but we refrained from including specifics in order to protect the privacy of the individuals involved.

h/t: BJ