Originally Posted by MastUndSchotbruch
Very good observations.
It is, indeed, sad to see a clearly intelligent person like Doug revert to the kind of behavior he is exposing here, accusing his rescuers of not being 'human' even though they saved him from certain death after he made (by his own account) questionable decisions. And even after one of them (no less than the Captain of the Kim Jacobs himself) went into the water himself to rescue him. I can see absolutely no fault in the actions of the captain of the Kim Jacobs, if anything, he took too much risk for himself.
I know Doug will strenuously deny it but there is a pretty simple psychological reason for his behavior. Doug is clearly a man with cojones, as evidenced by, among other indications, the very fact that he published a very self-critical and honest account of his actions here. This is certainly a Good Thing, in particularly for endeavors like blue-water sailing. However, the downside is that when he found himself in a situation where he had to rely on others to save not only his life but also that of his wife (who, as he stated, was dependent on him, at least as far as sailing abilities are concerned), it created a deep psychological scar in him. He is now compensating by putting down those that he had to rely on for his survival. Confronted with the undeniable fact that he was helpless and that others had the power to rescue him, his mind constructs that here must be something very wrong with them. Thus the obviously (to others) wrong conclusion that they must be somehow 'inhuman.'
At this stage, he will, no doubt, deny all this and most likely accuse me of 'talking psychobabble,' telling me to 'FO,' or even threaten violence, as he has done in response to many other rational arguments before. We should understand that this is all part of his current mental structure and an (unconscious) attempt to demonstrate that he has not lost his virility despite this traumatic experience in which he found himself helpless and entirely dependent on others. Likely for the first time in his life, as he has overcome great difficulties earlier by his own means.
The process of transcending this state can take months or years. At this point, we should not judge Doug too harshly, he just will have to go through this traumatic process. I hope that Doug will eventually make it.
I guess the way I look at it is the manner in which a "Type A" person really
behaves in such a situation. For example, if the victim turns down the outstretched hand because the rescuer was "doing it all wrong" up to that point, then tells the rescuer how to "do it right" and waits for his next go-round - you have a true-to-the-bone Type A. No doubt. However, I think we can all agree that that's very rare. In most cases the victim gratefully grabs that hand when it gets within reach, regardless of how it got there. There's really nothing left to control at that point.
But then we come to the discussion
of those events...a different world altogether.
In the case of the victim that grabs the hand when offered, outsiders typically want that victim to only be grateful in discussing the events - not critical...as the latter implies ungraciousness. Yet those outsiders rarely apply that same rule to themselves. Their critique is "constructive" - where the victim's is "ungracious". Such is that nature of discussion...the exercise of proving oneself "right". It's really more about the environment than the actions.
Therefore, I think you really have to weigh Doug's critique of the rescue within the context of this thread - which has, as these threads always do, turned into a pretty detailed critique of Doug's actions/inactions by those that don't/can't have all the facts. He's simply doing what we're all doing - critiquing. He just has WAY more invested in his viewpoint than any of us possibly can have in ours.
So, it's really kind of a no-win if you think about it...except for those of us who get to learn from the various comments and viewpoints. There are just too many variables for a simple "right" to be proven.
And all of the above is precisely why you're right that Doug has a serious set of stones to be willing to enter such an environment with such candor.
Personally, I've got no problem cutting the guy some slack. And I think it's a testament both to him and to SN that he's still around fielding comments. All in all, the critiques, from all sides, have been pretty reasonable.