The title says it all. Is everyone bored?

Holiday Doldrums. Post election fatigue. Wait until Jan 20.

Ba'al Chatzaf

A lot of vitality has been sucked out of OL in the last six months for at least several reasons not all of them having to do with the site itself. SOLOP is doing much better in spite of the fact it's hardly worth reading if you don't live in New Zealand. I miss a lot of the female posters who have left.

--Brant

It's the site itself and all the other Oist 'chat' sites. It's more than six months. The level of discourse has steadily dropped over a period of several years.

Not only women but many other thoughtful posters have drifted away, not getting much feedback or the kind they wanted.

OL is doing just fine.

I haven't pushed publicity because I am devoted right now to making this marketing thing work and offering it to Objectivists for free.

The site will be doing a hell of a lot better later when I open up on SEO.

As for long threads of bickering and personality conflicts, I not only don't miss them in this post-election economic-meltdown hangover phase (even Robert Bidinotto took a break from his blog), they are a real time sucker.

There are many, many, many wonderful and useful threads on OL chock full of valuable information, some of which is not published elsewhere.

To those contributors, I want to say I love you all. I have great plans in store for you (with your consent, of course).

Michael

> SOLOP is doing much better

Brant, why do you think so?

Whenever I go over there, there is usually the same single digit number of regulars and only slightly more 'guests' [many are bots or web crawlers]. Seems as though a lot of the alleged "heavy traffic" on these Oist sites is from the millions who have read Rand and googled Objectivism or Ayn Rand and know nothing about the site except it shouts the word Objectivist:

They come in.
Take only one look around.
Find "inside baseball" allusions. Or personal disputes and score-settling (sometimes even by the moderators or owners who are abusing that function).
Find an enormous lack of benevolence.
Are turned off.
Never come back.
(And may even be turned off on Objectivism or on it as being able to build a community.)

OL, Solo, and Ror [I'm less familiar with the ARI-oriented sites] certainly have not seen a steady flow of new blood, fresh and alert new regulars. That's the only thing that tells you much.

Just ignore all the fancy "web traffic" monitoring. If the monitoring is not phony inflated b.s. and if it really proves there are enormous numbers of "hits" on Solo and OL and RoR, the fact that no new blood comes as a result of all those hits and visits is a stunning indication of how ineffectual or even **destructive** these websites are in terms of repelling new people who come in hopeful but don't know much about Objectivism.

Phil, it's just a reference to the Alexa traffic ratings. SOLOP is a backwater.

--Brant

Phil,

Actually you have an accuracy problem again. If people are "repelled" as you just claimed as a "stunning indication" of fact, they wouldn't keep coming back. Just because many visitors don't post, this is no indication that they are "repelled." On the contrary, since they keep returning, this is an indication that they are attracted.

To be clear, "repelled" people go away and stay away. Attracted people come and return. At least I learned it that way when I was really, really young. This couldn't have changed over the years. It just couldn't...

Say it isn't so!

(Maybe I've been in Brazil too long...)



Michael

> many visitors...keep returning,

What is your proof of this? Do you have numbers? Why do the 'currently online' numbers always show ~ 2-6 regulars and less than a dozen visitors? Hardly massive.

>this is an indication that they are attracted.

Not necessarily. People slow down to gawk at a car wreck.

Phil,

Where is your proof of the numbers you report? I don't do SEO for the forum yet. (I thought I said that already.) So the numbers I see are the same ones you see. We obviously look at different times, and what I see varies greatly throughout the day.

As to people stopping by to look at train wrecks, there's that accuracy problem again. Nobody "slows down to gawk" when they visit a new website from where they were. They have to come to the website because they want to.

Insult if you wish, but I do wish you displayed more precision. This constant use stolen concepts in order to bitch bodes ill for Objectivist epistemology. It's middle-school kind of flaming.

Michael

> Nobody "slows down to gawk"...They have to come to the website because they want to. [MSK]

Michael, in terms of building a successful community, where have the following people gone (so many of the interesting ones, many of the better posters): Wlliam Scherck? Laure Chipman? Bob Bidinotto? Jim Heaps-Nelson? Ellen Stuttle? Robert Campbell? Bill Nevin?

Any clue as to why they are not posting on OL?

Any insights at all?

All roads lead to Michael? Look, Phil, you are asking too much of people--you want them to change and perhaps change in a way they couldn't if they wanted to. You yourself have been hosed down enough by people with a similar attitude to viscerally know what I am talking about. Michael made this place and he intends to transform it in a way not yet clear to me. He's busy in a bigger world and I assume most who left are too. There are hundreds of OL members who don't post anymore if they ever did in the first place.

--Brant

Did they leave because they suddenly got busy? Not what I've heard.

It's all Michael's fault. There. I hope that's enough to put a cork in this.

--Brant

Some of us are just waiting to see what the next thing to happen might be. I happen to like this web site, though I get a little tired of the infighting sometimes. I see some very smart people on here that have made me think and learn: what more can you ask of a web site?

Also I get a little scared sometimes; the people that Obama is getting in his administration seem New Dealish...now there is talk of a health care 'czar' (Tom Daschle). As though there haven't been enough czars already.

Phil,

Good Lord! This dude is a rabid Branden hater. He has never posted to OL as far as I know and I seriously doubt he would ever want to. His saving grace is being knowledgeable about Bollywood.

There goes that accuracy problem again.

I thought you actually knew something about the Objectivist subculture...

Michael

David,

Thank you. Your comments reflect emails I receive, although I have not received one from you.

btw - There are some really good things coming. I hope you will like them.

Michael

Brant,

Phil is disgruntled, not objective, as his constant accuracy problems evidence. He has a grudge-like agenda at the moment and shows no interest in things of real value here on OL. It's a choice, but it's his choice. As with all here, he speaks only for himself.

I have no intention of throwing him off the site like other sites have done—Noodlefood and Solo Passion. He has spoken well of Betsy Speicher and was once involved in a venture with her, but I have yet to see him post on her forum. So I suspect a problem there, too.

For someone who points a lot of fingers, he has a lot of acceptance problems of his own in our little subculture.

I find him amusing, but not in a mode flattering to him: comic relief as a foolish nag who hangs around groups like a stray mutt with a funny bark. I realize you find that distasteful. I just can't help myself...

Woe is me! Am I a BAD PERSON?



Michael

PS - Cognitively, I respect Phil. He is intelligent. Normatively, I have difficulty respecting many of his choices and values. I am not judging him from his words, but instead from his acts. And consistency-wise, too often he commits alleged sins he points out in others, often in the same breath.

There.

I just gave Phil an attention fix.

Entropy.

--Brant

At the risk of sounding cliche...

Can't we all just get along? Isn't that one of the tenets of Objectivism, if applied correctly?

Infighting is nothing more than a distraction from the true intent of websites like this one. I've been here almost 1 year and have learned immensely from most folks here. I enjoy this site because it's like a fruit tree, where I can pick at my leisure. Somehow, some squirrels got up in it and starting casting nuts around...lol.

Michael, keep up the great work. I have no plans of leaving anytime soon.

~ Shane

Phil's ObjectiVision is still all gassed up and idling on the side of the road, waiting for Phil, anytime he's ready, to give up his preferred spot in everyone else's back seats and take the driver's seat himself.

J

I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you mean Phil Coates? The guy's an ivy league philosopher with ideas way beyond my comprehension when he writes formally. Informally on Rebirth of Reason, I have found some errors in his postings and posted on them, but I find him basically a pretty nice guy, fun to read, interesting in his approach. Is that the Phil you mean?

It is hard to say why "people" do this or that, the undefined collective being a basic problem there. Myself, I might suggest that of the millions who enjoyed reading something by Ayn Rand, most find little to write about for themselves and perhaps not so many new and interesting ideas here as we who do write like to think.

I will suggest this, however. You are going to give away free your brilliant marketing ideas. That says a lot. If any of these Objectivist sites could even pay for their own webmasters that would be validation of the capitalist ethic we all espouse. Basically, these forums are the Objectivist equivalent of Al Gore's Mansion.

Myself, I actually do write for a living and I really do write about the ideas we toss around here. As a musician yourself, Michael, you understand why I get up at 5:00 AM and start my working day with a little "keyboarding."

I'm pleased that my opening post got such a good response. I do enjoy OL and it's someplace I visit at least twice a day.

Phil,

For what it's worth, I'm a bit weary post-election (and spending more time reading stuff at Realclearpolitics, to try to get a better handle on what soon-to-be-President Obama will be up to).

In the absence of Jim Valliant, no one is willing to mount a semi-serious defense, either of his book or of the joint takedown of Chris Sciabarra. Mr. Perigo's efforts have been so formulaic and so feeble that Neil Parille's posts on SOLOP are no longer eliciting a response, even from the most faithful of the remaining Perigonians.

And I'm approaching the end of a fall semester, trying to get letters of recommendation done for students and talk proposals done for conferences before the deadlines hit.

Clemson University has been through two big budget cuts and will soon be meeting up with a third. Our department will be not be able to rehire two Lecturers who have been teaching a lot of classes for us. Everyone from the President on down to the parking enforcers is getting hit with a "5 day furlough" (i.e., a 2.5% pay cut). No one thinks the "furloughs" will stop at 5 days; 10 or 15 is more likely before the academic year is out. When the pay cuts hit 5% some of us will be declaring a class day or two to be an unpaid furlough day. This could get a little ugly.

On top of which, our department is still having some trouble at the Chair and Dean level, and the administrators above the Dean level are preoccupied with being able to meet payroll. As the chair of the Tenure and Promotion Committee, I'm trying to make sure that professors in our department are being evaluated by appropriate standards, not by those that some administrators are trying to impose.

It's a lot worse in some other universities, and we'll make it through this, but I have less time for online discussions now.

Robert Campbell

Michael,

The very same. He is both what you say and what I say, each surging at different times. I find the "ivy league philosopher" a bit of a stretch, but I agree that he is intelligent.

Which Phil appears must depend on the position of the moon in relation to Aquarius or something.


You don't know if they are brilliant until you see if they work. But you do raise an interesting point, both about the expectations of people who use a service for free and about the capitalist ethic. If you look at this strictly through the lens of scarcity economics or a zero-sum approach, your comment would be a harsh criticism of the online Objectivist world.

But the information revolution is changing the way we process information, including economically. I call this abundance economics. The reason I am going to give a really valuable information package away for free is more than just a single reason and it is perfectly in tune with the capitalist ethic:

1. I will be attracting customers for the stuff I sell. This is an important point. Have you seen pictures of a crowded bazaar? Hordes of people packed together along with hordes of merchants displaying similar wares for sale. The only way the merchants have to attract attention is to outshout their neighbor ("Get it here!" Best low prices!" etc.) The Internet is a bit like this. The only way to attract attention is to use psychological triggers to gain the momentary interest of individuals, then provide some real value to them for free to keep it. What that value is varies. It could be a simple way to buy what people want, with sound information and without their having to jump through hoops (and you know what they want through targeting research), on up to free reports, courses, services, and other products.

Seth Godin (marketing guru and owner of Squidoo) has a wonderful term he coined called "permission marketing," which is one of the most effective selling methods on the Internet. Basically it boils down to, "If you want my free stuff, you will give me permission to offer you my other wares, but you can opt out at any time and still keep the free stuff." This is different than commercials on TV, which are intrusive. It's is a win-win situation and Godin's success is solid proof. (If you are interested, Google his name. There is a very good lecture he gave to a Google meeting online.)

2. On a general social level, you can't sell well to people who are broke. Since we are in an economic catastrophe, but the effects have not really hit the general population yet, I foresee a whole lot of broke people in the future who are not broke now. It makes sense to teach people a new way to make money. There will be that many less broke people in the market. Also, many will continue buying from the person who gave them this knowledge out of gratitude.

3. It is not very PC in the Objectivist world to say this, but I actually like to help people. I feel other people's pain when I witness it. If I can do something to stop it and the solution is within my reach, I usually will do it. There are obvious limits, but that is my gut feeling. It brings me great pleasure to see a person get up from the knockdowns life throws at all of us. I get a special pleasure out of knowing that it was my hand that helped a person get up. I learned from my drug experience, from those who gave me a hand when I was in a place no human being should ever be in, that the main thing I want in return from a person I help is for him/her to pay it forward, to help another get up.

There is more, but that is the gist of it.

btw - All this is very selfish. The thinking and learning I did to arrive at these conclusions were my own and the pleasure I get from watching other people grow (especially while I do, too) is all mine.

Michael

> As the chair of the Tenure and Promotion Committee, I'm trying to make sure that professors in our department are being evaluated by appropriate standards [Robert Campbell]

Robert, in this and in the rest of your post, with your concern for your school, department, colleagues, profession, it sounds like you are someone who is very conscientious about his work.

Another possible cause for the dearth of participants, women in particular, is the lack of bad boys. Women like bad boys; they want to "fix" them. Women say they want providers, but studies have shown that during ovulation (i.e., when it really matters) they prefer the abusive macho types. Now, unfortunately, Objectivist Fora preferentially attract well-adjusted provider types, (for example, Phil) not those sexy lone wolves. The closest you get are some anarchists, but they are not really Objectivists, galtgulch being a perfect example. His posts simply reek of testosterone, but his heresy is just a bit too offputting. What we really need are more people with orthodox cojones, like Kyrel "Andre" Zantanovitch. Studs like him will bring in the ladies, and the ladies will bring in more men. With an alpha man like him around, the rest of us beta males will have plenty of scraps for the picking.

Crap. I have yet to encounter a woman of grossly low self-esteem on OL. Or a man. This is cultural anthropological BS. I assume you're being humorous.

--Brant

Another possible cause of the dearth of participants, men in particular, is the lack of dumb women. Men like dumb women; they want to "educate" them. Men say they like bright women, but studies have shown that when and if they decide to be truthful, they prefer the dumb clinging vine type. Now, unfortunately, Objectivist Fora preferentially attract intelligent and independent grown-up women (for example, Judith) not those simpering, "oh you big wonderful man!" baby doll sexpots. There used to be a couple of them on Solo, but they were not really Objectivists, not being intelligent enough to understand it without the help of a big wonderful man; they spent most of their time flirting, but this was too offputting to the beta males they didn't flirt with, who ultimately drove them off. But if we can attract a few of them here, that will bring in the big wonderful men; such men will bring in many more such women. With more of these women around, the beta males will finally have scraps for the picking. .

Barbara

Sexpots? Let me think. Yes!!! Michael, get some sexpots in here, so Objectivism--and OL--can conquer the world! At last! The secret ingredient! GREAT SEX!!! Men, don't waste your money on Viagra. Come to OL! Porn! Why didn't we think of it before? Porn for freedom! Women! Get your hunks on OL! And don't forget to ovulate!

--Brant

.
Excellent riposte, Barbara. Wow! It is women like you who represent the most supremely elegant aspects of the Objectivist world.
.
-Ross Barlow.

Until recently I have not visited OL (or any other Objectivist e-list) since around the time of the last June solstice. I took a vacation from all things Objectivist for a while, and I might elaborate on this more later on a different thread. But it is good to come back and see old friends engaged in earnest discussions, fruitful information sharing, endless quibbling and nitpicking, etc. I have always felt at home here.
.
-Ross Barlow.

LOL! (Literally, my jaw hurts.)

> Women like bad boys; they want to "fix" them.........Now, unfortunately, Objectivist Fora preferentially attract well-adjusted provider types, (for example, Phil) not those sexy lone wolves. [Ted]

Hey!! How the f**$% did I get dragged into this? Minding my own well-adjusted business and all... :-)

Further, how -dare- you say that I am not a sexy lone wolf type?

HHHOOOOWWWW!!! Arf, arf.


...Bad boys, bad boys,
Whatcha gonna do
When they -come- for you???

If they're hoping to pick up a man on SOLO they're really dumb.

BOO!

Chris! I'm sorry I didn't get your PM! My email usually notifies me when I get PMs here, but apparently this time it didn't. Just lettin' ya know I haven't died quite yet. How are you folks?

Side note: I think that people can sometimes be repelled, leave, then come back later to see if things have changed.

Kori; It's good to see you back. Hope all is going well.

Robert; I suspect that your duties at the university are very hard and I can see why you haven't been posting.

Hey, its good to see some of you back. Hugs to Kori, Robert and Ross. I know I've been pretty bad about not keeping up with the discussions. I do check in every day, but my time is limited and I tend to skim and seldom have much to add to the discussions. I'll admit that I dare not venture into art and music because I don't want to be attacked for my tastes. I'm a Beatlefreak... deal with it.

Sometimes, and this happens on any O'ist site, people are constantly put on the defensive for stating an opinion, and on and on it goes, splitting hairs, presenting evidence and such. I also really got sick of a couple of very disrespectful people who seemed to be on a campaign against Michael and OL. So I guess you would say that I've been kind of laying low and just doing my own thing...working, watching Beatles videos on youtube, tending to my websites, practicing my ukulele and popping in occasionally to take a look.

I'd actually like to see more humor, recipes, happy birthdays and other lifestyle stuff going on along with the intellectual stuff and setting the record straight about PARC. I think that would brighten up the post-election blues.

Kat

Kat; It is enough to know you are nearby. Do you have any special recipes for Thanksgiving?

Speaking of Thanksgiving, one thing I could absolutely live on is deep-fried turkey. I'm originally from Maine (love the lobstah), and my wife is from Louisiana. Always a fan of variety in food, I was blown away by this southern spin on turkey.

~ Shane

That is the diet that killed Elvis Presley.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Baal; With all due respect I don't think it was Elvis's diet that killed him but the drugs.

Shane; Do they have lobstah at Thanksgiving in Maine? It's an interesting idea.

Deep-fryed turkey is lowering the bird into a vat of super-heated peanut oil on top of a propane burner. It's an excellent way of cooking if done right. I did it last year but won't this year. I spent an extra hundred bucks on the equipment and the oil. It's a way of keeping the bird juicy. Just don't eat the skin.

I think Elvis was killed by his peanut butter and banana sandwiches.

--Brant

Chris,

Not usually, but nothing would stop anyone from adding it. Lobster is readily available year round. But there are folks that do incorporate lobster or swap it out with the turker for a change.

Baal,

Primarily, drugs killed him. His figure was attributed to the fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches.

~ Shane

The peanut oil can get quite expensive. But MAN, the taste is out of this world! Recently, I had a deep-fried turducken.

~ Shane

Well, yes. I should have thought that was obvious.

But I did come accross this study while browsing Fox News. Funny
how the obvious becomes news when someone decides to dress it up in
scientific garb.

A study, done by researchers from Harvard University and Ontario's
McMaster University, found women are attracted to deeper voiced
partners, which experts claim indicate dominance and good genes, the
Daily Mail reported.




Watching Seinfeld should be enough to earn you a PhD in sociology and cultural anthropology.

Ted, in so far as there is validity to your theory that women prefer "bad boys," there are rather good reasons for it. And if you look at literature, the reasons are clear. So often, the villians are infinitely more interesting, colorful, and independent than the heroes. For instance, in A Tale of Two Cities -- a book I'm very fond of -- it's Sidney Carton, to my mind, who is the main attraction, not the colorless and conventionally-virtuous Charles Darnay. Or think of the vapid Marius versus the complex and driven Javert in Les Miserables -- or the lovelorn Phoebus versus Archdeacon Claude Frollo who renounces God for Esmerelda in The Hunchbackof Notre Dame -- or the maddening Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady versus the pining ,vacuous Freddy -- or (don't tell anyone I said this) the dashing Ragnar versus John Galt. And too often, unfortunately, life imitates art.

Barbara

Well, truly, I wouldn't even have called it my theory since that post was meant entirely in jest. But I do find there is truth in it. I prefer "bad boys" and tomboys myself - much more atttracted to Jodie Foster than some big-haired passive type. I deny the dichotomy though. (Your post in response to my jest reminded me of Roark telling Wynand he'd "be glad to" design conventional architecture for him.) I think the brainy and responsible types can also be the bad boys in the right circumstances and right ways. As for Galt, his character violated Rand's dictum that one should show and not tell in fiction. Everything he did until Part III was told in exposition, not dramatized action. Francisco was my type. And Dominique. Dagny and Danneskjold came in close second.

Me neither!

galt

I want to give a small update on this. As I was setting up everything, I had the delight to encounter a compatible partner in my Internet marketing stuff. (He is not from the Objectivist or libertarian world.)

We are organizing a hell of a lot of things that have nothing to do with the course I want to provide for Objectivists and libertarians, so this unexpected benefit will probably delay release of my course until soon after the holidays.

Still, I will see if I can get up a taste of what is coming before Xmas.

Michael