What happened after my invitation yesterday:
In response to my letter, he wrote back a lengthy explanation of how he, too, is an expert not only in his domain but in my domain on violence (he was obviously trying to intimidate and to show authority,...
In response to my letter, he wrote back a lengthy explanation of how he, too, is an expert not only in his domain but in my domain on violence (he was obviously trying to intimidate and to show authority,...
... without knowing this would lose credibility with me; only an openness to hear would have confirmed he was capable of dialogue).
Then he went into how I was engaged in unethical behavior by diagnosing him as psychotic. Since my invitation dealt with these subjects, I asked him if he read my email in full.
He said he did, but then revealed how he leaps to conclusions and extrapolates what he wishes to believe: that I suggested he was “severely mentally impaired” (if you go back to my invitation, I say nothing of the sort about him).
He also said calling shared psychosis not a psychosis is a “word game” calculated to mislead lay readers (giving away his strategy?) and that I was using the pretext of psychiatry for my partisan political views (so he uses the pretext of law for his partisan political views…?).
Since he knows little about me, the assumptions he makes are very revealing about him.
Not only did he wiggle his way out of the invitation by reverse-inviting me to Miami—and then saying I was the one who refused—he wiggled his way out of the statement that he filed a complaint at Yale (if writing to the respective deans was not filing a complaint, what is?).
When I pointed out his deflections and stated that my offer would stand, in case he changed his mind, he deflected once again by trying to say he did not reject my offer, but I rejected his counter one. When I called out his “deflection”, he tried to turn it into a “diagnosis”.
So we really learned a lot about his gimmicks. Is he open to a dialogue? Not one bit. Is he confirming my hypothesis? To the dot. Is he really concerned about ethics? You guessed it.
