Smith, Rand, Altruism


eva matthews

Recommended Posts

I think that "Eva" is someone with a big grudge against Rand, Objectivism, and Objectivists.

An Objectivism-related list with a small membership and few regular posters isn't a good venue for satisfying narcissistic cravings if those are the only factor.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"She" lives vicariously through her online persona. Any praise and approval the persona receives is experienced by the narcissist as well.

But this poster wasn't receiving praise and approval and wasn't trying to get positive reactions, instead to insult Rand and the membership and arouse censure and disagreement.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that "Eva" is someone with a big grudge against Rand, Objectivism, and Objectivists.

An Objectivism-related list with a small membership and few regular posters isn't a good venue for satisfying narcissicist cravings if those are the only factor.

Ellen

Wasn't she on another site, before getting banned and coming here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that "Eva" is someone with a big grudge against Rand, Objectivism, and Objectivists.

An Objectivism-related list with a small membership and few regular posters isn't a good venue for satisfying narcissicist cravings if those are the only factor.

Ellen

Wasn't she on another site, before getting banned and coming here?

Yes, the other site is also an Objectivism-related site, a pretty doctrinaire site, and has few active posters. (It used to have a lot more posters than it does now.) "Eva's" theme song on that site, as here, was contra-Rand.

Ellen

ADD: "Eva" wasn't banned on the other site, Rebirth of Reason, but was relegated to the "Dissent" forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given all the goofball posts, I'm still not sure that we are not dealing with either a troll or a prankster.

George,

When my paranoia muscle twitches, I start to imagine this kind of poster (of which Eva is an archetype) is a paid member of the government (or Soros machine) sent to disrupt forums, social media, news curators, etc., where freedom is discussed a lot.

After all, this is an explicit policy preached by Cass Sunstein, who was Obama's regulations czar--see here:

Conspiracy Theories

by Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule

January 15, 2008 Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03

U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 199

U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 387.

From the abstract (and it gets far worse in the paper itself):

Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups.

I don't imagine the people who worked with Sunstein (above, below and around) were ignorant of this idea and/or disapproved of it. (Sunstein has tried to deny he remembers writing this. Heh.)

Of course, for people from this quarter, conspiracy theory means right wing and libertarian. They try to cover their asses by denying it, but essentially (in practice), it means that. For example, I don't imagine they are infiltrating sites where man-made global warming is preached and anti-right wing conspiracy theories abound.

A dork and troublemaker who disrupts a discussion site by low-class taunts, unintelligible arguments, etc., can create just as much "cognitive infiltration" as reasoned discourse. And the name-dropping is good for Google-food (meaning these oddball posts will compete with serious ones in the search engine results where the site comes up--a keyword is a keyword is a keyword to the spider-bots). At the very least, new readers get turned off immediately on arriving at the place.

Was this the case with Eva?

Damned if I know.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

The result was the same either way, though.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A dork and troublemaker who disrupts a discussion site by low-class taunts, unintelligible arguments, etc., can create just as much "cognitive infiltration" as reasoned discourse. And the name-dropping is good for Google-food (meaning these oddball posts will compete with serious ones in the search engine results where the site comes up--a keyword is a keyword is a keyword to the spider-bots). At the very least, new readers get turned off immediately on arriving at the place.

Was this the case with Eva?

Damned if I know.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

I agree with you that Eva's effect was disruptive, but in a small trollish way, not as part of a campaign. No operating goals were reached, no minds were changed, and I don't think search results featuring Eva's misspelled rants will be tempting to anybody.

That said, your antennae are working well: I too get a chill at the creepiness of the Sunstein suggestions ... especially in light of what already has happened, the ever-inventive ways governments snoop, intrude and massage in all media. What's also glaring is that costs are not even hinted at.

Here's an extract from Glenn Greenwald's "Obama Confidant's Spine-chilling Proposal" at Salon: he quite trenchantly hangs Sunstein/Progressive/Democrats with the rope they measured out for Bush-era actions of the exact same sort ...

Initially, note how similar Sunstein’s proposal is to multiple, controversial stealth efforts by the Bush administration to secretly influence and shape our political debates. The Bush Pentagon employed teams of former Generals to pose as “independent analysts” in the media while secretly coordinating their talking points and messaging about wars and detention policies with the Pentagon. Bush officials secretly paid supposedly “independent” voices, such as Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher, to advocate pro-Bush policies while failing to disclose their contracts. In Iraq, the Bush Pentagon hired a company, Lincoln Park, which paid newspapers to plant pro-U.S. articles while pretending it came from Iraqi citizens. In response to all of this, Democrats typically accused the Bush administration of engaging in government-sponsored propaganda — and when it was done domestically, suggested this was illegal propaganda. Indeed, there is a very strong case to make that what Sunstein is advocating is itself illegal under long-standing statutes prohibiting government ”propaganda” within the U.S., aimed at American citizens:

Covert government propaganda is exactly what Sunstein craves. His mentality is indistinguishable from the Bush mindset that led to these abuses, and he hardly tries to claim otherwise. Indeed, he favorably cites both the covert Lincoln Park program as well as Paul Bremer’s closing of Iraqi newspapers which published stories the U.S. Government disliked, and justifies them as arguably necessary to combat “false conspiracy theories” in Iraq — the same goal Sunstein has for the U.S.

As explained in a March 21, 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service, “publicity or propaganda” is defined by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials, (2) purely partisan activity, or (3) “covert propaganda.” By covert propaganda, GAO means information which originates from the government but is unattributed and made to appear as though it came from a third party.

[...]

It is this history of government deceit and wrongdoing that renders Sunstein’s desire to use covert propaganda to “undermine” anti-government speech so repugnant. The reason conspiracy theories resonate so much is precisely that people have learned — rationally — to distrust government actions and statements. Sunstein’s proposed covert propaganda scheme is a perfect illustration of why that is. In other words, people don’t trust the Government and “conspiracy theories” are so pervasive precisely because government is typically filled with people like Cass Sunstein, who think that systematic deceit and government-sponsored manipulation are justified by their own Goodness and Superior Wisdom.

Back to Eva, I tend to think she/he is a self-generated "troll" and not much more. I don't think that 'cognitive infiltration' corps would select such an ill-equipped persona to do battle. Ultimately a cognitive warrior/infiltrator would perform much better than an "Eva" whose output did nothing to alter debate or assumptions about major issues.

All this said, I consider the most likely folks to try to 'cognitively infiltrate' are actually self-selected. They are ride-alongs or recruits to a volunteer mental militia, so to speak. One might even consider that Objectivism's evangelical effort (if only the half-million Atlas Shrugged delivered to schools) is a kind of action similar to cognitive infiltration, an attempt to countermand a reigning conspiracy theory (it's all capitalism's fault). Maybe Objectivism -- at least by manifold appearances via internet forums -- is both an incubator for cognitive infiltration and a target of volunteer cognitive saviours. But a designed target for professionals? Not yet.

I have come across this month a kind of openly funded and directed cognitive infiltrator on Twitter. Some of you may already heard that the US State Department has Twitter handle to engage the maddest of the mad in Syria, the jihadis: @ThinkAgain_DOS. How much money this has cost the US taxpayer?

A bit more up-front than this (Guardian report of military contracts let for social media drone and clone):

A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.

The project has been likened by web experts to China's attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet. Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.

The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to users of social media as "sock puppets" – could also encourage other governments, private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

I lean in the direction of your opinions about scope and the idea of self-appointed Internet Tarzans and recruits of some sort playing ideological warfare.

But I'm not ruling anything out. Not professional activity. Not simple trollishness.

There's a lot of crap swirling around and it all doesn't have to be the same kind.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest andie holland

Everyone,

Having just read Smith's 'Altruism', I do have several questions to ask him. In the regrettable context of my bud's aggressive tone and automated reply to the contrary just for the sake of stirring up a hornet's nest, I inquire:

1) Smith uses characters taken out of a novel to illustrate his distinction between altruistic and selfish people. Is this a realistic method? After all, my reading of Atlas (at the encouragement of Eva, btw) shows the characters as rather ideal types--ire Galt represents heroic rational egoism, etc..

There are no real people mentioned, nor any type of psycho-social profile drawn from real life studies to demonstrate that these two types really do exist.

2) The statement that altruism somehow caused the Russian revolution, etc, must be supported by far more than just a declaration as is.. Rather, an involved study. For example, Lenin was hardly someone to fit into the 'altruistic' profile, rather, more of a Galtian oriented to power for self-gratification.

Finally, I do take exception to the correcting of Greek transliteration into English. Anbiguities resound throughout both Youtube and supermarket,

'Dalaras', is commonly spelled 'nt' for D, as the real Greek 'D' is more a 'dthe'. Also, 'Oi' for plain 'ee' on yogurt...etc...

The bottom line is that it's not 'gibberish' if it's understood. "agapion demeicho, outhern emi" is phonetically correct. If you don't believe me, google up the finale-song from Kieslowski's 'Blue' and see for yourself. Or rather, sing along:" Ean tis glossis, ton anthropon lallo kai ton angaylom..."

Picking fights for the sake of fighting was the object of Eva's study, Reidy's piccaune Wikisearch being the best example.

Now that Smith has been asked for a response in a far less agressive tone, perhaps he'll answer accordingly. Where, exactly, is justification for saying that altruism and rational egoism exist as real-people based typologies?

Where, on a larger scale, has there ever been an altruistic state? Rather, don't all entities combine both schemes of redistributon and personal incentive?

Thanks, Andie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone,

Having just read Smith's 'Altruism', I do have several questions to ask him. In the regrettable context of my bud's aggressive tone and automated reply to the contrary just for the sake of stirring up a hornet's nest, I inquire:

1) Smith uses characters taken out of a novel to illustrate his distinction between altruistic and selfish people. Is this a realistic method? After all, my reading of Atlas (at the encouragement of Eva, btw) shows the characters as rather ideal types--ire Galt represents heroic rational egoism, etc..

There are no real people mentioned, nor any type of psycho-social profile drawn from real life studies to demonstrate that these two types really do exist.

2) The statement that altruism somehow caused the Russian revolution, etc, must be supported by far more than just a declaration as is.. Rather, an involved study. For example, Lenin was hardly someone to fit into the 'altruistic' profile, rather, more of a Galtian oriented to power for self-gratification.

Finally, I do take exception to the correcting of Greek transliteration into English. Anbiguities resound throughout both Youtube and supermarket,

'Dalaras', is commonly spelled 'nt' for D, as the real Greek 'D' is more a 'dthe'. Also, 'Oi' for plain 'ee' on yogurt...etc...

The bottom line is that it's not 'gibberish' if it's understood. "agapion demeicho, outhern emi" is phonetically correct. If you don't believe me, google up the finale-song from Kieslowski's 'Blue' and see for yourself. Or rather, sing along:" Ean tis glossis, ton anthropon lallo kai ton angaylom..."

Picking fights for the sake of fighting was the object of Eva's study, Reidy's piccaune Wikisearch being the best example.

Now that Smith has been asked for a response in a far less agressive tone, perhaps he'll answer accordingly. Where, exactly, is justification for saying that altruism and rational egoism exist as real-people based typologies?

Where, on a larger scale, has there ever been an altruistic state? Rather, don't all entities combine both schemes of redistributon and personal incentive?

Thanks, Andie

If I took "characters out of a novel," this was because they were Rand's novels and her characters, and my L.org series was concerned solely with explaining Rand's ideas, not my own. The same applies to your comments about altruism and the Russian Revolution. Most of my L.org posts have been essays on intellectual history, not essays that express my personal opinions. Note that the title of my series is "Ayn Rand and Altruism," not "George H. Smith and Altruism." Nor is it "A Defense of Ayn Rand's Ideas About Altruism." I only injected my personal opinion when noting how many of Rand's critics have misrepresented, indeed butchered, her ideas.

You asked where there has ever been an "altruistic state." In Rand's sense of the term "altruism," there have been many. Indeed, I cannot think of a state, including the American state, that has not appealed to the supposed "duty" of the individual to sacrifice his self-interest (to a greater or lesser extent) when the good his society (or nation, or whatever) requires it. What do you think the traditional justifications for taxation, military conscription, redistribution of wealth, etc. have consisted of?

As for the issue of transliterations from the Greek, I said nothing about that.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go away, "Eva."

--Brant

please don't quote the previous post

a sock puppet for a sock puppet

I, and I'm sure many others, share the same suspicion you do, given that "Andie" posted less than 2 hours after joining OL, and given that she labors under the same misapprehensions that "Eva" did. I don't think anyone on this list, other than "Eva" and "Andie," fails to understand that to explain the ideas of another person does not imply agreement with those ideas. But I figured that I would give Andie the benefit of the doubt, albeit a doubt so substantial as to verge on certainty.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sissy, btw, maintains that my association with Objectivite sites is intended to draw attention from 'right-wing loonies'. Little does she know how loony 'loony' is, unless she's cyberstalking.

Most guys on campus are leftish, and I refuse to discuss politics on anything resembling a 'date'. This she finds frustrating because she really liked my ex, thinks i'm far too demanding, and, frankly ,is kinda pissed at me for having dumped Jeff in May for Paris, herself, and the two Holland sisters ( 4 best buds all, and guys weren't invited along!).

The threesome knows you well. You've been written into Karen Holland's novel, mentioned as a shining exemplar of American Fredissimo in Andie's work in Madrid, and the subject of deep content analysis over at lit, where sissy reigns as resident diva-poet cum laude, sophomore that she is---the new Sylvia Plath.

Stasis in darkness

Then the insubstanceness of you.

Pour of more into wineglass!

Deconstructing Fred's prose--

How fun it's become.

Eva

Presumably "Andie Holland" is the other Holland sister.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, we have a discrepancy as to the summer sojourns:

[sissy] is kinda pissed at me for having dumped Jeff in May for Paris, herself, and the two Holland sisters [...].

First, this past summer was that of the familial split. I went to Paris, Sissy to London and Momndad to Athens, Budapest (family)then on to Russia. [....]

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go away, "Eva."

--Brant

please don't quote the previous post

a sock puppet for a sock puppet

I, and I'm sure many others, share the same suspicion you do, given that "Andie" posted less than 2 hours after joining OL, and given that she labors under the same misapprehensions that "Eva" did. I don't think anyone on this list, other than "Eva" and "Andie," fails to understand that to explain the ideas of another person does not imply agreement with those ideas. But I figured that I would give Andie the benefit of the doubt, albeit a doubt so substantial as to verge on certainty.

Ghs

Oh, I don't mind you replying. You're the only poster on OL who always has something intelligent to say.

--Brant

I'm at 37.65% myself--the wonder is I ever have anything intelligent to say (seven Olers will now rush in to tell me to buck up; there's hope!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this said, I consider the most likely folks to try to 'cognitively infiltrate' are actually self-selected. They are ride-alongs or recruits to a volunteer mental militia, so to speak.

 

William,

 

Here is an interesting interview with Sharyl Attkisson, the CBS investigative reporter who left recently because she felt the company was no longer showing interest in her efforts.

 

Sharyl Attkisson: There Is Coordination Between Reporters And Politicians

Real Clear Politics Video

 

 

Although the bulk of the interview is about Attkisson and her relationship with CBS, why she left, etc., there is a part in the middle where she said she is writing a book about the extent the media has been corrupted, including social media. She said people would be appalled at how far the fake accounts, trolling, etc., have spread. That this is the norm now, not the exception.

 

She didn't use these words and I don't want to listen to the interview again just for this post, so take what I said in the following light: if I understood her correctly (which I think I did), what I said is the gist of it.

 

Although OL is really small potatoes in this arena, I'm certain we are on some hostile radars out there. Since a reasonable amount of content is constantly generated on OL, even though we don't do SEO and other Internet promotion, we do get into a lot of first places for search terms on Google and Bing, and a crapload more on first pages of SERPS. 

 

Michael

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