Anatomy of malice

Very interesting stuff. Fascinating how the most advanced techniques for psychoanalysis in the late 1940s were Rorschach tests, which are now considered highly antiquated. But even with these tests, their results couldn't be differentiated by unbiased 3rd-party experts when compared to Unitarian ministers. There's just not a lot that can be objectively gleaned from the results beyond being a high/low-functioning person.

I was highly disappointed with the chapter that repeated the same old social psychology anecdotes, myths, & legends that, coincidentally, my previous book thoroughly debunked (Stanford Prison Experiment, Kitty Genovese, etc). Also I liked the melodrama surrounding the psychiatrists and their competing philosophies & books after&during the trials.

It's clear that no one think's they're the villain, and no one thinks they're capable of evil acts, but our material conditions shape our world. We can objectively look at our own government's policies and see the malice clearly. But our government doesn't get put on trial. We've been conditioned to assume that we're “the good guys,” incapable of diabolical evil. Alas.