5 ms·

I know this is a late response, but... My concern is that the article felt like that for cases of institutional corruption, the article reasoned, "A, therefore

I know this is a late response, but... My concern is that the article felt like that for cases of institutional corruption, the article reasoned, "A, therefore C" instead of saying "A implies B, B implies C, therefore A implies C." The article didn't adequately give the reader reasoning or context for an anti-institutional slam out of the blue like that. (For religion, a few paragraphs discussing historical examples like the Inquisition or pedophile priests would have both strengthened the argument and smoothed out the narrative.)

anthonyb 17y ago
An even later response :) That section comes right on the tail of discussing how pscyhopathy seems to be an inherited trait, and that there seems to be a lot of evidence, at least anecdotally, for children who have much of the same behaviours as psychopaths. So it doesn't seem that out of place to me. The anti-institutional 'slam' was just them pointing out that a lot of the religious doctrines seem to follow a psychopathic 'rationale', ie. here is the truth, now don't question it. My reading was that it was almost an epidemiological study on psychopaths subverting social organisations (since that's how they seem to work individually). Of course, the article is mostly anecdotal evidence, so it's hard to tell how seriously to take this, but it's certainly food for thought.