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 Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more