Psychologizing


Recommended Posts

There has recently been considerable discussion on OL of "psychologizing" so I want to start a thread on this topic. Although Phil has been involved in much of the controversy, it is not my intention to target him specifically. I want to focus on general points instead, so I will not be quoting Phil or referring to him by name in my initial posts.

I emphasize this because if Phil responds to my posts, which he probably will, it would be beside the point for him to object that I have not represented his points accurately, that he never argued such and such, etc. Such objections are irrelevant because, although some of the generic arguments I will seek to rebut may resemble Phil's, such arguments commonly appear on elists and internet forums. If Phil regards some of my formulations as straw men, then he is perfectly free to present what he regards as stronger arguments. Again, however, this thread is about psychologizing -- its various forms, when it is and is not appropriate, and so forth. This thread is not about Phil,, and I do not want it to degenerate to that level.

Since I don't want to write a long essay, I will break my thoughts into separate posts. I shall postpone discussing specific theoretical points, such as how to define "psychologizing," until my second post. Here I want to analyze what is probably the most famous instance of psychologizing in the history of political literature, namely, a key passage from Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, viz:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Since my forthcoming book from Cambridge includes a discussion of this passage, I will quote it here to get the ball rolling. I think this passage is fairly self-explanatory, so I will not comment on it until my next post.

[Excerpt from Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism, by George H. Smith. Forthcoming from Cambridge University Press. Chapter Six, "The Radical Edge of Lockean Liberalism." Footnotes deleted.]

...Given this base of support, when may resistance properly turn to revolution? When may we move from resistance against particular laws and seek the complete overthrow of a government? This was a crucial problem for American radicals, who had been involved in resistance activities for thirteen years prior to the Declaration of Independence. Many Americans, even some who approved of resistance, questioned whether the situation was bad enough to justify outright revolution. Therefore, this issue was of great concern to Jefferson, who made it a major theme of the Declaration. This concern is especially evident in the second paragraph.

As we have seen, Jefferson explicitly ties the right of revolution to the violation of inalienable rights. But the violation of inalienable rights justified resistance as well as revolution, so we are still left with the problem of deciding when to turn from limited resistance to unlimited revolution. Jefferson deals with this problem as follows: After stating that governments "should not be changed for light and transient causes," Jefferson continues: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

This passage, which closely follows a passage from Locke, constituted a crucial step in justifying revolution. Radical Republicans acknowledged that no government is perfect and that even the best governments may sometimes engage in inappropriate or unjust activities. Although resistance may be appropriate in such cases, especially if inalienable rights are involved, revolution is not justified when dealing with incidental and unconnected violations. Governments must commit unjust acts as a matter of policy in an effort to deprive citizens of their freedom, or, as Jefferson says, "to reduce them under absolute despotism."

Here, of course, we encounter the problem of mind reading. We cannot enter into the thoughts of rulers, so how can we know if they intend to establish despotism? Jefferson summarizes the typical answer to this question when he says, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism...." In other words, we infer the intentions of rulers from their actions. If we have empirical evidence of a continuous and systematic violation of inalienable rights, then we may reasonably infer a deliberate design to violate those rights. At a certain point, it simply becomes unreasonable to excuse such violations as the honest mistakes or the misunderstandings of well-intentioned rulers.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

> ..the problem of mind reading. We cannot enter into the thoughts of rulers, so how can we know if they intend to establish despotism? Jefferson summarizes the typical answer to this question when he says, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism...." In other words, we infer the intentions of rulers from their actions. If we have empirical evidence of a continuous and systematic violation of inalienable rights, then we may reasonably infer a deliberate design to violate those rights. At a certain point, it simply becomes unreasonable to excuse such violations as the honest mistakes or the misunderstandings of well-intentioned rulers. [GHS] [emphasis added]

1. I completely agree with George on these underlined points. Jefferson is verbally precise as usual when he uses the verb 'evincing'. Providing evidence for is not the same as absolute proof. Historically, one piece of evidence was the aftermath of the French and Indian War. After needing the colonies to fight the way, Britain's policies after the war would have kept the colonies weak by blocking expansion beyond the Appalachians. There were a number of things they did which seemed consistent with the 'design' of doing this and with the idea that a weaker people, smaller in numbers or riches would be easier to keep in line (and of course Britain was divided; the Whigs were much more on the lines of greater colonial freedoms). One was trying to set things up so that another power and/or the Indians would have everything past the Appalachians. Another, of course, was mercantilism itself. The idea that the purpose of the colonies was to provide the Empire with raw materials not to be a direct competitor - and to be politically subservient and without representation. It wasn't yet clear that Britain would eventually emerge as a 'liberal' nation, at least not to the Americans. So Jefferson was right to worry. And it was not 'mind reading' or inappropriate speculation sans reasonable evidence.

As for the broader question of whether - or when - 'inferring the intentions of rulers from their actions' in other cases is psychologizing in the sense Rand intended - or simply unwarranted in another way, that depends on historical context and consistency of evidence.

2. More broadly, there is also the knotty question of a possible difference between inferring intentions to -act- and inferring -internal motivation-...but that's a larger subject and distinctions have to be made. Example: If you are a stranger and we have had a shouting match over a bad call in basketball and, seeing you screaming and turning red, and you walk up to me with an unusual grimace and cock your fist back, I am justified in inferring there is an excellent chance you -intend- to hit me in the next few seconds. That would not be psychologizing or 'mind reading'

3. On the other hand, if I were to infer that you were hostile to people generally, needed them to agree with you all the time, had a psychological need to dominate of manipulate, that would be psychologizing or mind reading.

Why? Because basically psychologizing or mind reading involves claiming knowledge you do not possess.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

I'm not sure if I'm right about this, but I think Rand defined "psychologizing" as (my phrasing) "the use of pop-psychology as a substitute for argument," or (to use a shorter, catchier phrase) "debate by diagnosis."

She strongly differentiated between "psychologizing" and "psychology."

For example:

"Person X doesn't have a rational case for Proposition Y. Person X's belief in Proposition Y is because when he/she was younger, Person X was bullied at school and as such has adopted Proposition Y as a defense mechanism to get revenge on the bullies."

This is an example of Psychologizing. It is also a complete logical fallacy, because even IF Person X's belief in Proposition Y came about because of school bullying, none of that proves that Proposition Y is incorrect (and I'd argue that it doesn't prove the belief to be insincere either).

A more fun example of Psychologizing is the entire body of Freudianism (or, more correctly, the use of Freudian ideas in pop psychology today).

"Person X only acted in manner Y because person X wants to fuck his mother before defecating on his father. This is due to having arrested development in the anal stage, where his mother praised him excessively for being able to defecate. This deepened his attachment to his mother and made him associate "triumph" (by winning his mother's affection) with feces. Thus, by defecating on his father he resolves his Oedipus Complex."

[Yes, this is a satire, but I don't think its an overly-exaggerated one given Freud argued a desire to make money is a sign of being anally retentive]

Now, the quote from the Declaration of Independence doesn't seem like an instance of Psychologizing at all. It doesn't diagnose any specific psychological complex or speculate at length on the inner workings of the King's mind. It doesn't even name the King. Whilst it is inferring a motive, it doesn't engage in psychological character assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> ..the problem of mind reading. We cannot enter into the thoughts of rulers, so how can we know if they intend to establish despotism? Jefferson summarizes the typical answer to this question when he says, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism...." In other words, we infer the intentions of rulers from their actions. If we have empirical evidence of a continuous and systematic violation of inalienable rights, then we may reasonably infer a deliberate design to violate those rights. At a certain point, it simply becomes unreasonable to excuse such violations as the honest mistakes or the misunderstandings of well-intentioned rulers. [GHS] [emphasis added]

1. I completely agree with George on these underlined points. Jefferson is verbally precise as usual when he uses the verb 'evincing'. Providing evidence for is not the same as absolute proof. Historically, one piece of evidence was the aftermath of the French and Indian War. After needing the colonies to fight the way, Britain's policies after the war would have kept the colonies weak by blocking expansion beyond the Appalachians. There were a number of things they did which seemed consistent with the 'design' of doing this and with the idea that a weaker people, smaller in numbers or riches would be easier to keep in line (and of course Britain was divided; the Whigs were much more on the lines of greater colonial freedoms). One was trying to set things up so that another power and/or the Indians would have everything past the Appalachians. Another, of course, was mercantilism itself. The idea that the purpose of the colonies was to provide the Empire with raw materials not to be a direct competitor - and to be politically subservient and without representation. It wasn't yet clear that Britain would eventually emerge as a 'liberal' nation, at least not to the Americans. So Jefferson was right to worry. And it was not 'mind reading' or inappropriate speculation sans reasonable evidence.

As for the broader question of whether - or when - 'inferring the intentions of rulers from their actions' in other cases is psychologizing in the sense Rand intended - or simply unwarranted in another way, that depends on historical context and consistency of evidence.

2. More broadly, there is also the knotty question of a possible difference between inferring intentions to -act- and inferring -internal motivation-...but that's a larger subject and distinctions have to be made. Example: If you are a stranger and we have had a shouting match over a bad call in basketball and, seeing you screaming and turning red, and you walk up to me with an unusual grimace and cock your fist back, I am justified in inferring there is an excellent chance you -intend- to hit me in the next few seconds. That would not be psychologizing or 'mind reading'

3. On the other hand, if I were to infer that you were hostile to people generally, needed them to agree with you all the time, had a psychological need to dominate of manipulate, that would be psychologizing or mind reading.

Why? Because basically psychologizing or mind reading involves claiming knowledge you do not possess.

Forget intentions. Go by consequences. The intentions of others cannot be observed, they can only be inferred. The consequences of what others do or allow to be done are objectively observable, therefore actionable.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism, by George H. Smith. Forthcoming from Cambridge University Press.

Congratulations, by the way, on getting a book published by Cambridge University Press.

That's a major professional achievement and breakthrough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II

PSYCHOLOGIZING: SOME BASIC ISSUES

I now want to sketch some of the problems that attend psychologizing. Let's begin with the entry for "psychologize" from the American Heritage Dictionary:

v. tr.

To explain (behavior) in psychological terms.

v. intr.

To investigate, reason, or speculate in psychological terms.

Note that these definitions are value-free. That is to say, they do not stipulate that to psychologize is either desirable or undesirable, good or bad, justified or unjustified, and so forth. Consider these two sentences:

a.You are motivated by the desire to know the truth, not by the desire to score polemical points.

b. You are motivated by the desire to score polemical points, not by the desire to know the truth.

Both a and b are instances of psychologizing in the strict sense, because both attempt to explain your behavior in psychological terms by attributing motives to you. The only relevant difference is that motive a is flattering, whereas motive b is not; indeed, the latter would normally be taken as an insult.

One problem here is that "psychologizing" has taken on negative connotations in internet exchanges and debates. If I say that you are motivated by a desire to know the truth, whatever the cost, you would be more likely to thank me for the compliment than to tell me to stop psychologizing. But if I say that you are motivated by a desire to score polemical points, you would probably get annoyed or angry, and then tell me to stop psychologizing.

There are several other problems as well:

The desire to know the truth and the desire to score polemical points are not necessarily incompatible. Both motives may operate in the same situation, but at different levels. You may have an abiding desire to know the truth; this may be your foremost general concern. Nevertheless, in a particular argument, your proximate motive may be the desire to score polemical points.

We rarely act on the basis of single, discrete motives. Our motives are often "mixed" on the same level, with one motive more dominant than others. Or (as in the preceding paragraph), they may operate at different levels.

These psychological complexities, though important in some concrete situations, are not fundamental to the present abstract level of analysis. I will therefore proceed to some other issues that have great theoretical significance:

1. Is it possible to know another person's motives?

2.If this is possible, then what kind of evidence is needed to establish a psychological claim about motives with at least a fairly high degree of probability, if not certainty?

3. Assuming we can answer these two questions satisfactorily, we will then arrive at the most complicated question of all: Under what circumstances does the attribution of motives (i.e., psychologizing) play a relevant role in discussions and arguments?

(To be continued, when I feel like it....)

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, the quote from the Declaration of Independence doesn't seem like an instance of Psychologizing at all. It doesn't diagnose any specific psychological complex or speculate at length on the inner workings of the King's mind. It doesn't even name the King. Whilst it is inferring a motive, it doesn't engage in psychological character assassination.

This is an unduly narrow conception of psychologizing. To adopt it would eliminate, by definition, most of the interesting problems and questions, for no one would ever defend psychologizing in your sense. Yet psychologizing (in the generic sense discussed in my second post) is sometimes both relevant and justified in discussions and even in debates. To stipulate at the outset, with a narrow definition, that psychologizing is always unjustified will get us nowhere.

My approach, in contrast, will enable us to draw fine distinctions that we might otherwise miss. There needs to be some serous clarification on this issue, and this is why I am undertaking my analysis. Without such clarification, the cycle of "You are psychologizing! -- No, I'm not! -- Yes, you are! -- No, I'm not!" will go on forever, with no resolution.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, my post #2 wasn't of value as a contribution to this discussion?

Nothing of value there to respond to? In either the historical case of Britain's "designs" or in the two examples of the angry basketball player?

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, my post #2 wasn't of value as a contribution to this discussion?

Nothing of value there to respond to? In either the historical case of Britain's "designs" or in the two examples of the angry basketball player?

I don't follow. What are you objecting to?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

This is a matter that I have given some thought to in the past. I look forward to seeing your more detailed perspective on it.

Part of the problem I have with the term "psychologizing" is that it has never been employed neutrally, as you've proposed to do on this thread.

For instance, I've never heard an academic psychologist use the word "psychologize"—and never read it in a published article from such a source. The same academic psychologists will talk frequently of inferring, hypothesizing, theorizing, even speculating.

Ayn Rand explicitly defined psychologizing as the making of unwarranted inferences about other people's motives (more specifically, about the workings of their subconscious minds).

Unfortunately, she frequently exemplified the very tendencies that she deplored in her article on the subject. She even exemplified them in her article on the subject.

Another problem, IMHO, is that in the same article she attempted to draw a line between philosophy and psychology where it can't be meaningfully or usefully drawn.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

This is a matter that I have given some thought to in the past. I look forward to seeing your more detailed perspective on it.

Part of the problem I have with the term "psychologizing" is that it has never been employed neutrally, as you've proposed to do on this thread.

I was surprised to find that Merriam-Webster and American Heritage both give neutral definitions of "psychologize," and neither mentions the derogatory connotations. (I haven't checked, but some dictionaries probably do.) This is when I decided to use it as a generic, value-free term -- but in the final analysis, this doesn't really matter so far as the substance of my arguments is concerned.

If I were to restrict the meaning of "psychologize" to an inherently illicit procedure, then I would simply employ another term, such as ""psychological analysis" for the generic and neutral procedure of attributing motives. I can't see how this shifting of terms, so that "psychologizing" becomes an illicit subset of psychological analysis, would affect my overall analysis in the least.

I prefer to use the dictionary definition for the generic term, because it avoids a needless proliferation of labels. Moreover, if we understand that psychologizing may be legitimate, depending on the context, this saps the word of its magical power. No longer will it be acceptable to invoke the demon-word "psychologize" indiscriminately. Instead it will be necessary to specify the type of psychologizing that one has in mind, and to explain why it is inappropriate.

As I suggested in a number of posts written during the past 2 or 3 months, and as I will try to explain in subsequent posts on this thread, I think psychologizing (in the generic sense) plays a role in discussions and arguments that is not only legitimate but indispensable as well. I realized, however, that I cannot adequately explain or defend my view without sketching a broader conceptual framework. This is my first attempt to do this. It is not as if I am presenting a revised version of an earlier paper. What you read in the various parts (which I have titled in boldface to set them apart from incidental posts like this one)will be first drafts similar to every post I write, except I am giving a lot more thought to the structure before I write anything down. The general procedure I am using here is the same procedure I have used for decades when confronted with terms that are badly in need of clarification.

Anyway, I started to write Part III, but decided that I need to get some sleep first. I have found that I need to be extremely focused to make this sort of "conceptual analysis" work. At this stage, the more sparse the analysis, the better it tends to be.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> .. psychologizing may be legitimate...No longer will it be acceptable to invoke the demon-word "psychologize" indiscriminately. ...explain why it is inappropriate. [GHS]

In an Objectivist discussion environment we all use the word in the non-neutral sense that Rand explained. I've seen it used that way over and over on Objectivist boards and in every conference I've ever attended. Other than by Objectivists the word is seldom used at all: I first heard it from Rand and basically haven't heard it or read it used in other senses since.

So, no you're completely wrong: We don't need to write a long essay each time explaining how we mean it. I certainly don't intend to. No one has that kind of time. Nor is there much confusion among those who are talking about Objectivism among themselves.

Your attempt to define away the issue is an attempt to rob Rand's term of its (non-magical) power and get people not to never use the very legitimate criticism of "psychologizing".

It's as if you didn't believe that Objectivists' use of "being rationalistic" was valid, so you decided to go to the dictionary to prove that outside of Objectivism rationalism is used to mean the use of reason. And that way you could undercut a very important thinking tool Objectivism has developed.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> if we understand that psychologizing may be legitimate, depending on the context, this saps the word of its magical power. No longer will it be acceptable to invoke the demon-word "psychologize" indiscriminately. Instead it will be necessary to specify the type of psychologizing that one has in mind, and to explain why it is inappropriate. [GHS]

In an Objectivist environment we all use the word in the non-neutral sense that Rand explained. The other way is seldom used at all.

So we don't need to write a long essay each time explaining how we mean it.

Your attempt to define away the issue is an attempt to rob Rand's term of its power and get people not to use the very legitimate criticism of "psychologizing".

It's as if you didn't believe that Objectivists' use of "being rationalistic" was valid, so you decided to go to the dictionary to prove that outside of Objectivism rationalism is used to mean the use of reason. And that way you could undercut a very important thinking tool Objectivism has developed.

Thanks for dismissing my arguments before you have even given me a chance to state what they are. Typical. Someone who would do this is an intellectual lowlife and has no business preaching civility to others.

If you want me to begin with the premise that psychologizing is always wrong, then what is the point of writing an exploratory article on the question of whether psychologizing is always wrong? No matter what I say, I must reach the conclusion that psychologizing is always wrong.

I do not reject Rand's point about what she calls psychologizing. She is absolutely right about the substantive point. I have never denied her point, and no one with half a brain ever would deny it. Her point is commonplace and can be found in countless books on logic and philosophy. It is not, and has never been, the contested issue. I have been writing this article in order to identify what, for me, is the contested issue. The fact that I have chosen to use the standard meaning of "psychologize" is a matter of convenience for me. This choice to follow the standard meaning instead of Rand's stipulative definition. has absolutely no bearing on the substance of what I wish to say. You would soon see this if you could keep your knee from jerking for so much as a day.

If you are so concrete bound that you cannot substitute "psychological analysis" or a similar term when I write "psychologize," -- i.e., if you are unable to distinguish a concrete word from an abstract concept -- then you should stay away from philosophy altogether and stick to your juvenile obsession with what you call civility.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an Objectivist discussion environment we all use the word in the non-neutral sense that Rand explained. I've seen it used that way over and over on Objectivist boards and in every conference I've ever attended. Other than by Objectivists the word is seldom used at all: I first heard it from Rand and basically haven't heard it or read it used in other senses since

Phil:

In the interests of fairness, would you please modify the above.

George's approach to this issue with the denotative definition is a solid and rational approach to argumentation/discussion of this issue.

For example, I ran a simple search of the word on the search engines that I use and that is not Google.

Here are just samples of the use outside of Objectivism:

The Psychologizing of Modernity: Art, Architecture and History

Ellen Kenner: Psychologizing and the art of smearing

Psychologizing the Semantics of Fiction

The Psychologizing of Modernity Art, Architecture and History

Psychologizing the Abortion Debate What can psychology say about the abortion debate?

Psychologizing the Gospel Fr Patrick Henry Reardon

These were all in the first ten (10) results and I doubt whether any are objectivists!

I stopped with the last one because it was Father Patrick Henry Reardon which I thought was hilarious.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil has just reminded me why I set him on "ignore" a while back.

If the notion of "psychologizing" promulgated by Ayn Rand and subsequently taken up among movement Objectivists is muddled, then the current usage to which Phil appeals is ... muddled.

By parity of argument, if the notion of "rationalism" sometimes used by Rand and members of her inner circle, and subsequently elaborated by Leonard Peikoff and various of his epigones, is muddled, then the current usage to which Phil appeals is also ... muddled.

I maintain that they both are, but it's "psychologizing" that's the topic here.

Because I don't hear psychologists using the word "psychologize"—with either a neutral or a pejorative meaning—my preference is to speak of inferring someone's motives, analyzing someone's psychology, analyzing someone's motives, or making psychological judgments, where George is speaking of psychologizing.

But this isn't even knee-high to a hill of beans. George has made his meaning clear.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

Ellen Kenner's name sounded familiar. And rightly so—she's a Florida newspaper columnist who acknowledges Ayn Rand as a major influence. Even quotes Rand in this particular column.

The other examples do indicate a neutral or near-neutral use of "psychologizing," albeit in the sense of "applying modern psychology to" or "subsuming under modern psychology."

I'll bet that none of the writers are psychologists, however.

And the piece on the semantics of fiction is saturated with postmodernist jargon, which would be enough to scare most people away from any of its specialist vocabulary.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

Ellen Kenner's name sounded familiar. And rightly so—she's a Florida newspaper columnist who acknowledges Ayn Rand as a major influence. Even quotes Rand in this particular column.

The other examples do indicate a neutral or near-neutral use of "psychologizing," albeit in the sense of "applying modern psychology to" or "subsuming under modern psychology."

I'll bet that none of the writers are psychologists, however.

And the piece on the semantics of fiction is saturated with postmodernist jargon, which would be enough to scare most people away from any of its specialist vocabulary.

Robert Campbell

Robert:

Interesting. I did not look into any of them, just gave them as an example of the pervasive use of the word in other than Objectivist circles.

Thanks.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On an intimate forum such as this one, I think it is almost impossible not to psychologize (in the narrow sense) about each other.

It actually adds to the interest, in forming some sort of profile of other posters' character.

It works both ways. For example, I'm aware that I probably give away more than I think, because I post in 'stream of consciousness' style, without much structure - and, though I hope I make my points, a whole lot more information about me slips through sometimes than I probably realise. <_<

Some write the same way, while others are invariably academic and contained; but knowing something about the person, by reading between the lines, comparing it to their explicit statements, and correlating the two, widens my pleasure and understanding.

Actually, though disparaged Objectively, I relate 'psychologizing' to inductive thinking: one can pick up much useful knowledge about the human condition, through similar generalised pattern-recognition.

With important provisos that one, a. does not act upon that 'knowledge' without further evidence, and b. keeps it privately to one's self - psychologizing has a certain validity.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it that long ago that I began Part I of this article with this warning?

There has recently been considerable discussion on OL of "psychologizing" so I want to start a thread on this topic. Although Phil has been involved in much of the controversy, it is not my intention to target him specifically. I want to focus on general points instead, so I will not be quoting Phil or referring to him by name in my initial posts.

I emphasize this because if Phil responds to my posts, which he probably will, it would be beside the point for him to object that I have not represented his points accurately, that he never argued such and such, etc. Such objections are irrelevant because, although some of the generic arguments I will seek to rebut may resemble Phil's, such arguments commonly appear on elists and internet forums. If Phil regards some of my formulations as straw men, then he is perfectly free to present what he regards as stronger arguments. Again, however, this thread is about psychologizing -- its various forms, when it is and is not appropriate, and so forth. This thread is not about Phil,, and I do not want it to degenerate to that level.

I thought Phil would be considerate enough to at least let me finish my article before he made this thread All About Phil. I thought he could wait a day or so instead of telling me what my basic tactic would be, i.e., that I would emerge victorious over Rand by sneaking in the standard dictionary definition of "psychologize."

Of course, I never even planned to mention Rand, much less criticize her, since her points are largely irrelevant to what I wish to do. But since Phil magically knows what I intend to do and wishes to head me off at the pass before I can hatch my nefarious scheme, this thread has become All About Phil before I was able to get past my introductory remarks.

Truth is indeed stranger than fiction. If a novelist were to incorporate Phil and his egomaniacal antics into a novel, many readers would object that the character is too fantastic and unbelievable even for fiction.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil has just reminded me why I set him on "ignore" a while back.

How does one activate the "ignore" function?. If I am to finish this article within the next day or so, it would be best if I were to wish Phil into the cornfield for a while.

Is the "ignore" function thread specific, or will he disappear from my screen on every thread?

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_C34g5mz1ZQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Oh, to be this kid for just five minutes! I think Phil would look good with his head bouncing around on a spring neck. And the pointy cap would would fit his head perfectly. :lol:

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, are you for real? I hardly made this thread "all about me". What I did is solely argue against points that -you- made.

> Thanks for dismissing my arguments before you have even given me a chance to state what they are.

I'm responding to points you've already -very clearly- made. (Plus you said you would continue "if you feel like it". Hardly sounds like I'm interrupting you in mid-sentence or that you necessary will even continue.) Plus when someone plans to make a whole series of posts on an issue, he has to expect to be questioned as people absorb the points. If you really haven't fully presented your argument yet? Why can't you just say "hang on; I'll get back to you."

Instead what you did is -launch an attack- on me for daring to ask or criticize!

To repeat my main points:

1. The term psychologizing has a clear meaning when discussed by Objectivists on forums such as this.

2. This is not an academic forum. We don't need to redefine it each time.

3. To do so would make conversations unnecessarily awkward and clumsy.

Was that post or my other long, substantive one about history and the two examples of an angry basketball player "all about me"?

Where exactly did I make this thread "all about me"? Can someone point that out? If you just make a criticism is that making something all about you?

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, are you for real? I hardly made this thread "all about me". What I did is solely argue against points that -you- made.

No, you instantly turned it into your response to his Jeffersonian illustration which was his basis for his denotative definition. He then was going to employ that definition to develop his thesis on the concept psychologizing.

> Thanks for dismissing my arguments before you have even given me a chance to state what they are.

I'm responding to points you've already -very clearly- made. (Plus you said you would continue "if you feel like it". Hardly sounds like I'm interrupting you in mid-sentence or that you necessary will even continue.) Plus when someone plans to make a whole series of posts on an issue, he has to expect to be questioned as people absorb the points. If you really haven't fully presented your argument yet? Why can't you just say "hang on; I'll get back to you."

Which no one wants you to do, not did he request that you respond. You took it upon yourself, once again.

Instead what you did is -launch an attack- on me for daring to ask or criticize!

A response to your intrusion which he specifically asked that you not launch is not an attack.

To repeat my main points:

1. The term psychologizing has a clear meaning when discussed by Objectivists on forums such as this.

2. This is not an academic forum. We don't need to redefine it each time.

3. To do so would make conversations unnecessarily awkward and clumsy.

No one wants you to repeat them.

Was that post or my other long, substantive one about history and the two examples of an angry basketball player "all about me"?

Yes. You asked.

Where exactly did I make this thread "all about me"? Can someone point that out? I did.If you just make a criticism is that making something all about you?

Phil:

Could you please. I am begging you, allow the man to develop his point. This is of interest to me, Robert and I am reasonably sure others.

I would ask any others who are interested to add their statement publicly.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> allow the man to develop his point

When someone has a long and complicated argument and presents premise 1, premise 2, premise 3 and there may be more coming, it's a good idea if you disagree with premise 1 to *mention it right away*. Otherwise it will get lost in the shuffle. Or I'll forget it. And often people simply won't go back to posts from days ago.

Adam, let me state the obvious that this is an *open discussion forum*. It's not like having an in person conversation where someone can interrupt you and drown you out. No one has the right to say shut up and don't criticize me.

Mention what comes to mind now rather than later. People can handle it!!!

If you don't find what I have to say to be intelligent or thoughtful or of value, than I encourage you to "ignore" me just like Robert Campbell just said he does.

That having been said, I will probably just wait a bit longer for further comments. Other than on the matter of definition.

> He then was going to employ that definition

I don't think George is correct about the dictionary definitions -- his very first premise.... I've researched a few. And that, the issue of dictionary definitions needs to be mentioned now.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> nor did he request that you respond....your intrusion

!!

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my philosophy is this is a *discussion forum*. No one has the right to say shut up and don't criticize me. Mention what comes to mind now rather than later.

True, and I have the right to put you on Ignore.

Bye-bye, Bozo.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now