Skip to main content

The Science of Revenge - James Kimmel ***

In his introduction, James Kimmel tells an attention-grabbing story that surely could only have originated in America. After years of bullying, when he was 17 the local kids thought it would be funny to come over in their pickup one night and shoot his dog. A couple of weeks later, they blew up his mailbox. In Kimmel's words 'I grabbed a loaded revolver from my father's nightstand, jumped in my mother's car and tore off [after them] into the night.' He corners the evil kids, grabs the gun and is about to get out of the car to kill them when the realisation of what he's about to do and its implications hit him.

He might have suppressed his immediate urge for revenge, but he claims it then grew in a general driving force of his life, the reason he became a lawyer. 'Within a decade, my revenge addiction had nearly destroyed me and my family.' It wasn't just his work but 'I threatened retribution against just about anyone for the slightest offense - including my wife and kids.' This is genuinely shocking stuff. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the bulk of the book manages to carry on the impact.

Kimmel first takes us through the science of revenge. When American medical doctors write books they have a habit of putting MD after their name, thinking this makes them a scientific source - I was a bit thrown that Kimmel has JD instead, never having seen the abbreviation, but assuming it was some obscure medical qualification as he is a lecturer in psychiatry, but actually it means he's a doctor of law. The science is vaguely interesting in the 'this chemical affects this bit of your brain' and psychology experiments sense, but much of the research seems firmly in the replication crisis era and very little seems to be the result of large scale, quality trials - I would least expect the limitations of the research to be emphasised.

There are plenty of powerful stories to back all this up - so much of it seems to be based on on American culture, I did wonder if it's not so much the science of revenge as the science of the problems with US culture that should be examined more. (There are examples from elsewhere, but these tend to be less everyday occurrences and more evil regimes.) However, we go on finally to how to kick the revenge habit, leading to Kimmel's invention, the 'nonjustice system for revenge addiction', which is about realising the harm you are doing to yourself by seeking revenge rather than offering forgiveness and mentally putting those you would otherwise seek revenge on though an imaginary trial.

Interestingly, before letting us begin putting this into practice we are told to consult our doctor to confirm it is safe and appropriate for us, and asked to note Kimmel's limited licence disclaimer. That's encouraging. Kimmel does give some academic justification for the system, but it still feels that he is attacking the symptoms, rather than a cause that makes gun control impossible and shootings commonplace.

Overall, an odd book as a mix between social science overview, legal viewpoint and self-help. It wasn't for me, but it should have a genuine appeal for those whose lives are damaged by this culture.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more