Sarah Bear, Locked and Loaded for 2014

[BaalChatzaf]

..

If this is your understanding of the natural leader, then I simply don't see how one can avoid separating 'natural leaders' from bullies.

And, like you, I hate bullies.

(PS: I can't believe it, I actually agree with We Erred Rand here... well, with WER's basic point, not with WER's uncivil rhetoric)

We share 98 percent of our genetic structure with Chimpanzee who are not cute and comical like Tarzan's Cheetah, but are in fact killer apes. Chimps are nasty brutes and we have an embarassing resemblence to them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael Stewed Kelly wrote:

>>>Weird Rand,

>>>Are you actually making a point, or using the moment to display your reading to the little people?

Honestly, Stewed, it's difficult to do the former without simultaneously doing the latter on a site like this. Apparently, you prefer contributors who dumb themselves down in order for you and other regulars to protect your egos, and keep your fragile self-esteem intact. Sorry if I can't accommodate that. I'm selfish enough to believe that other people's self-esteem is best kept intact by them, not by me.

Of course, if you're trying to find a subtly oblique way of asking for a reading list that you would find both interesting and enlightening, I'd be very happy to accommodate you. Most happy, indeed!

Anyway, you seem to believe that if little Bobby beats the crap out of little Sammy on a playground in order to steal his baseball glove — or simply for the fun of it — that this is the same thing as being a "natural born leader." Quite incorrect. Leadership rests on persuasion, not threat of force.

And the point, of course, is that there are different models of "human nature", Freud's being only one. Golding accepted that model as an accurate description of reality. Do you?

Weird Rand,

I'm glad you kept going, because you helped me to resolve a problem--you.

I gave you a final warning, so there is no final final warning.

Your posts will now be reviewed before going live. I will remove the snark before letting them through.

It's a pain in the ass for me, but that's the way it is.

If you don't like that, I don't mind.

Michael

PS to the others: The reason I don't accept a snarky insult on my name as normal posting behavior is a respect thing, I won't have it here. I admit, what I do with this bozo's moniker might be considered similar, but his moniker is not his name, and it's already an insult against Rand and the community. Besides, this dude is the same who received a restriction before and used a new account to get around it.

He's not here to discuss ideas so much as scratch a neurotic itch. And OL is not a toilet for flushing down other people's shit.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If this is your understanding of the natural leader, then I simply don't see how one can avoid separating 'natural leaders' from bullies.

And, like you, I hate bullies.

Andrew,

A bully is not necessarily a leader. A gang leader is a leader. He's a bully, too, but he's also a leader.

There are different approaches to leadership. Some bully and some inspire and some plod. But at the level of looking at a natural inclination, you merely look to see who naturally gets in front of a group of others and tells them what to do (and gets them to do it) as opposed to who looks for a group leader to tell them what to do.

Here's the problem with this kind of discussion: a lack of precision. It's like the discussions I have seen on innate talent.

The people who argue that these things do not exist look to the developed skill as proof that the infant doesn't have it. It's sort of like looking at a seed of an oak tree and saying leaves are not innate because you can't see them on the seed. Even Ayn Rand was guilty of this kind of thinking at times.

Just because a person is a natural born leader, this is no guarantee that he will become a leader as he grows. Ditto for a person who is a natural born singer. Who knows if such a person will develop into a professional singer?

The innate part is only that--one part.

The only thing these people have going for them is that they will have a far easier time of developing their skills than others. That's why many of them choose those paths. And why not? It's far more satisfying in the early stages to develop something you innately get good at with little effort than something you are terrible at despite your efforts.

This isn't an either-or issue.

EDIT: btw - I will agree up to this point. Francisco D'Anconia, who had innate talent (although Rand would never call it that) for everything he undertook because he leaned all of it with much greater ease than everyone else, does not exist. There were just too many areas he mastered without much effort to be human. If you model him, you are in for one hell of a guilt trip. I speak from experience from my earlier foolish days.

Michael

[caroljane]

Michael Stewed Kelly wrote:

>>>Weird Rand,

>>>Are you actually making a point, or using the moment to display your reading to the little people?

Honestly, Stewed, it's difficult to do the former without simultaneously doing the latter on a site like this. Apparently, you prefer contributors who dumb themselves down in order for you and other regulars to protect your egos, and keep your fragile self-esteem intact. Sorry if I can't accommodate that. I'm selfish enough to believe that other people's self-esteem is best kept intact by them, not by me.

Of course, if you're trying to find a subtly oblique way of asking for a reading list that you would find both interesting and enlightening, I'd be very happy to accommodate you. Most happy, indeed!

Anyway, you seem to believe that if little Bobby beats the crap out of little Sammy on a playground in order to steal his baseball glove — or simply for the fun of it — that this is the same thing as being a "natural born leader." Quite incorrect. Leadership rests on persuasion, not threat of force.

And the point, of course, is that there are different models of "human nature", Freud's being only one. Golding accepted that model as an accurate description of reality. Do you?

Weird Rand,

I'm glad you kept going, because you helped me to resolve a problem--you.

I gave you a final warning, so there is no final final warning.

Your posts will now be reviewed before going live. I will remove the snark before letting them through.

It's a pain in the ass for me, but that's the way it is.

If you don't like that, I don't mind.

Michael

PS to the others: The reason I don't accept a snarky insult on my name as normal posting behavior is a respect thing, I won't have it here. I admit, what I do with this bozo's moniker might be considered similar, but his moniker is not his name, and it's already an insult against Rand and the community. Besides, this dude is the same who received a restriction before and used a new account to get around it.

He's not here to discuss ideas so much as scratch a neurotic itch. And OL is not a toilet for flushing down other people's shit.

It would be a pain Michael, but I doubt you will have to suffer it. Darren's interesting ideas and knowledge could be presented with his UberJerk personality edited out, but I doubt he would be willing to suffer such a division.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It would be a pain Michael, but I doubt you will have to suffer it. Darren's interesting ideas and knowledge could be presented with his UberJerk personality edited out, but I doubt he would be willing to suffer such a division.

Carol,

I'm fine with that.

I don't care about that dude. I do care about the health of this forum.

His attitude is toxic to any social environment. Count on it. He ran out of places where he could be a jerk and get some audience, so he came over here to be a jerk.

Michael

[PDS]

I will say this for the dude: he is wicked smart.

Did he ever send anybody the reading list referenced in post 98?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I will say this for the dude: he is wicked smart.

David,

The hell he is.

He's a snarky academic with too much time on his hands.

A smart person doesn't take book-learning and use it only to troll forums under pseudonyms.

That's a dumbass.

Michael

[caroljane]

I will say this for the dude: he is wicked smart.

Did he ever send anybody the reading list referenced in post 98?

And he can be so funny. Why did he abandon his satire Randroid Belt blog? It was totally unfair, dishonest, libellous and probably actionable, and hilarious.

[caroljane]

PS to PDS: I can't relocate where you said it, but you mentioned parentheticaly somewhere that WSS, JTS and I are Canadians. True for me and Bill but there is actually no evidence on Jerry. He does live in Edmonton, but he has never mentioned the Oilers even once.

[PDS]

I will say this for the dude: he is wicked smart.

David,

The hell he is.

He's a snarky academic with too much time on his hands.

A smart person doesn't take book-learning and use it only to troll forums under pseudonyms.

That's a dumbass.

Michael

Is he actually an academic? That would surprise me.

I realize he is a serial googler, and tries to come across more knowledgeable on every subject than he actually is.

With that said, I think he is a .5-1% guy in terms of brain power.

His IQ is top drawer. His EQ--not so much.

[PDS]

PS to PDS: I can't relocate where you said it, but you mentioned parentheticaly somewhere that WSS, JTS and I are Canadians. True for me and Bill but there is actually no evidence on Jerry. He does live in Edmonton, but he has never mentioned the Oilers even once.

His failure to mention the Oilers is a sign of discretion, not citizenship.

Speaking of which, I am waiting for a new thread on how ass-pimples are caused by smart phones any day now.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And he can be so funny. Why did he abandon his satire Randroid Belt blog? It was totally unfair, dishonest, libellous and probably actionable, and hilarious.

Carol,

How about the sound of crickets chirping?

It's boring to snark to an empty theater.

If the dude wants an audience, study how to get an audience.

Then do it.

Duh...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is he actually an academic? That would surprise me.

I realize he is a serial googler, and tries to come across more knowledgeable on every subject than he actually is.

With that said, I think he is a .5-1% guy in terms of brain power.

His IQ is top drawer. His EQ--not so much.

David,

I meant academic in his approach and argument framing, not in actually holding a university position or publishing in peer-reviewed publications.

As to his IQ, I respectfully disagree and say horseshit.

I think he is driven, not smart. (See here for just one example, but I am not going to do that too often. Who needs to waste a lot of time debunking horseshit that nobody reads?)

A person who is driven will go to great lengths to do whatever he is driven to do and, many, many times appear smarter than he actually is because of sheer effort. The driver in the case of the sockpuppet is a nasty neurosis, but it still works like other strong emotional motivation.

I think you are onto something with that Google stuff. That sounds about right.

I'll give you this. Instead of copy/paste, this dude is pretty good at paraphrasing what he Googles. In Internet marketing, they teach techniques for doing this. They call it "repurposing" content. There are other ways to "repurpose," like transfer from one platform to another (say, make a video out of an article), but paraphrasing is one of the biggies.

Paraphrasing is not all that hard to learn, either. With enough emotional motivation, whether neurotic or otherwise, neither is typing

Michael

[PDS]

The Age of Google has certainly turned a lot of people into bullshit artists.

The Age of Snark has made a number of them think they are clever bullshit artists.

It is always interesting to me, however, how little one is able to hide his true self on forums such as this.

[caroljane]

The Age of Google has certainly turned a lot of people into bullshit artists.

The Age of Snark has made a number of them think they are clever bullshit artists.

It is always interesting to me, however, how little one is able to hide his true self on forums such as this.

Yes. Even the benchmark fraud Victor P could not hide his true (vacuous, nasty, juvenile) self behind his plagiarisms. It is one of the most fascinating aspects of the Internet, on which I came believing I would just exchange lofty impersonal ideas with other cyber entities.