As a human being who has always been fascinated by the existence (that can be read as fascination with the causes) of crime, I started out in college as a psychology major. That was in a Skinnerian department in the early 1960s and my weakness in math persuaded me to try political science and then journalism instead. That has a good deal to do with my reaction to the post. Psychology does deal with causes and my career as a reporter causes me to say that even before you can ask about causes of, say, a murder, you have to ask what really happened.
The longer I have chased and compiled facts about crimes, the more I have come to understand that there are almost always vast differences among eyewitnesses, cops, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and reporters about what truly took place in a situation. People misunderstand, they articulate poorly or they simply lie. So the facts of an event get garbled from the outset. They may not even be facts at all. And establishing solid, reliable pieces of evidence is a skill that is being lost, certainly in the field of journalism.
Jason's discussion isn't rendered useless by my observation, not at all. He is a serious student of all the elements that go to make up human behavior. My observation is only a reminder that the world we live in is full of forces that distort our perceptions of who really hit Harry and with what intent. Modernists and deconstructionist have given license to disregard "facts" because they are merely tools of the powerful to oppress the powerless. Until we find a way to judge and verify evidence, we're going spend a good deal of time thrashing around, looking for causation and meaning.
And thanks, Jason, for indexing your work, making it more accessible. The world is awash with information and opinion. Substack adds to that volume every day. I regularly read a dozen essays and post, and then, the next day, can't remember where I saw that "fact" I remember. Often as not I merely want to steal it but at least I try to credit it to its originator.
As a human being who has always been fascinated by the existence (that can be read as fascination with the causes) of crime, I started out in college as a psychology major. That was in a Skinnerian department in the early 1960s and my weakness in math persuaded me to try political science and then journalism instead. That has a good deal to do with my reaction to the post. Psychology does deal with causes and my career as a reporter causes me to say that even before you can ask about causes of, say, a murder, you have to ask what really happened.
The longer I have chased and compiled facts about crimes, the more I have come to understand that there are almost always vast differences among eyewitnesses, cops, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and reporters about what truly took place in a situation. People misunderstand, they articulate poorly or they simply lie. So the facts of an event get garbled from the outset. They may not even be facts at all. And establishing solid, reliable pieces of evidence is a skill that is being lost, certainly in the field of journalism.
Jason's discussion isn't rendered useless by my observation, not at all. He is a serious student of all the elements that go to make up human behavior. My observation is only a reminder that the world we live in is full of forces that distort our perceptions of who really hit Harry and with what intent. Modernists and deconstructionist have given license to disregard "facts" because they are merely tools of the powerful to oppress the powerless. Until we find a way to judge and verify evidence, we're going spend a good deal of time thrashing around, looking for causation and meaning.
And thanks, Jason, for indexing your work, making it more accessible. The world is awash with information and opinion. Substack adds to that volume every day. I regularly read a dozen essays and post, and then, the next day, can't remember where I saw that "fact" I remember. Often as not I merely want to steal it but at least I try to credit it to its originator.
Thank you very much indeed for the cross-post! It was very kind of you. I hope your readers enjoy the article.