Robert Young wrote:
" My experience of what you do is to enter into debates but to do so primarily
to draw people to your point of view. Of course, we all do that, but you
seem to be awfully one-sided, as if to say, 'That's a good idea, because it
is something like mine. Why don't you agree fully with me? if tou don't, I
will hector you until you do agree or until you break off contact.' "

I am disappointed that Robert is unwilling to talk because a central concern of
his writing is the democratic process. One of his very interesting papers
describes how psychoanalysts changed their vote regarding their participation in
a broad organization of psychotherapists in which they felt they did not receive
the privileged position they believed they deserved. Robert's description of
this change implies that some psychoanalysts have the power to change the votes
of many others, a thesis with some similarity to my claims regarding the
American psychoanalytic establishment that tends to suppress the discussion of
heretical new ideas, unless these ideas have the political support of a large
number of analysts (e.g. Kohut's self psychology).

The part of Robert's message quoted above raises the important issue of what
constitutes an argument. It is widely believed that "rationality" consists in
having good reasons for what one believes or does, though there is debate over
whether "good reasons" differ in the natural v social sciences. A "good reason"
is an "argument," which consists of premises, inferential steps, and a
conclusion.

Robert characterizes my messages as "one-sided" and "hectoring," but I don't
believe he or anyone else can cite a single one of my messages where I don't try
to be as fair as possible to the arguments on the other side. He might be
willing to read my recent answers to Chris Mawson and explain to me how they
match his description. Habermas emphasizes the importance of free and open
discussion to the democratic process, so Robert's response to my messages does
not seem to me consistent with his own stated principles.
Eric Gillett, M.D.  [log in to unmask]