Objectivist Contradictions

[Selene]

Subject: Escalation, Psychologizing and Criticizing Personal Traits

On another thread I mentioned how incivility often escalates from slight factual disagreement to outright name-calling, insults, food-fighting. In this case, Brant is psychologizing: He is taking about a bad mental process, without having actual evidence that that explains posting activities. Brant should have just stuck to the ideas in this case. Not mind-reading. Or motivations-reading.

And this is not psychologizing, how?

If it is not, please define psychologizing.

Adam

[sjw]

(B)Shayne then overreacts and overstates the charge as 'gross irrationality' and an 'insult'. i) It's not: Every one of us from time to time will dig in our heels stubbornly and emotionally, not admit something that we should if we weren't so 'vested' in it. Rationality means dealing with those things over time and when we calm down admitting them. ii) An 'insult' is not the same thing as a mistaken view of someone's psychology or motivation...or even psychologizing.

I did not overstate my case. Brant said I was too invested in my ideas to be able to rationally deal with criticism ("too much invested in them to properly use such feedback"). This is an insulting, unsubstantiated, sweeping, and absurd attack. Anyone making a remark like that to me should consider himself lucky if they get off as easy as Brant did here.

Shayne

Edited March 12, 2011 by sjw

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: Escalation, Psychologizing and Criticizing Personal Traits

> he had already too much invested in them to properly use such feedback so there was too much digging in his heels [brant]

> I take this statement of Brant's as a serious charge of gross irrationality..I don't take kindly to it...As far as I can tell he crossed the line first with the insult [shayne]

I didn't mean to accuse Shayne of "gross irrationality" and shouldn't have posted that sentence and I apologize to him for that. Things will be completely different from now on respecting him and myself.

--Brant

edit: by the last I mean I'll not be reading or replying to any more of Shayne's posts

Edited March 13, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

edit: by the last I mean I'll not be reading or replying to any more of Shayne's posts

That was already clear. It was also clear that by "apology" you meant that you were right and I was wrong, and that you weren't going to bother to identify the moral principle behind your assessment.

Shayne

Edit: You're wrong Brant, but I forgive you anyway.

Edited March 13, 2011 by sjw

[George H. Smith]

edit: by the last I mean I'll not be reading or replying to any more of Shayne's posts

That was already clear. It was also clear that by "apology" you meant that you were right and I was wrong, and that you weren't going to bother to identify the moral principle behind your assessment.

Shayne

Edit: You're wrong Brant, but I forgive you anyway.

Here is a tip that you probably won't like: When someone apologizes, especially on an internet forum where apologies are rare, simply say "Thank you" and move on. Grumpy postmortems are almost always a bad idea, unless you want a virtual guarantee that no one will ever apologize to you again.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Subject: Escalation, Psychologizing and Criticizing Personal Traits

> he had already too much invested in them to properly use such feedback so there was too much digging in his heels [brant]

> I take this statement of Brant's as a serious charge of gross irrationality..I don't take kindly to it...As far as I can tell he crossed the line first with the insult [shayne]

This is an example of how escalation often works on this list (and in public issues more broadly): On another thread I mentioned how incivility often ramps up over a serious of posts. It starts from slight factual disagreement and by the end of a thread has become outright name-calling, insults, food-fighting.

(A) In this case, Brant is psychologizing: He is taking about a bad mental process, without having actual evidence that that explains posting activities. Brant should have just stuck to the ideas in this case. Not mind-reading. Or motivations-reading. (B)Shayne then overreacts and overstates the charge as 'gross irrationality' and an 'insult'. i) It's not: Every one of us from time to time will dig in our heels stubbornly and emotionally, not admit something that we should if we weren't so 'vested' in it. Rationality means dealing with those things over time and when we calm down admitting them. ii) An 'insult' is not the same thing as a mistaken view of someone's psychology or motivation...or even psychologizing.

,,,,,

Related Issue #1: It's legitimate to talk about someone's bad cognitive process when they are clearly there in the text. (I often do. I am doing some writing on 'thinking errors' and I will greatly outrage thin-skinned people when I point them out -- but that's their problem not mine.) As four examples: if one says someone is being rationalistic, overly angry, not paying attention, or being sloppy in presentation or argument (and he has evidence, and it's an important issue to discuss itself - in the sense that it gets in the way of rational discussion a lot). And those are legitimate sources of attention and important issues. And they are not the same as insults or discussing motives. But separate them and use them as pointers for improvement as very important issues and sources of error. But be clear of the distinction: don't just say them in an attempt to lash out or deflect or in an unsubstantiated 'floating' manner.

Related Issue #2: There is also a sense in which criticizing personal traits is a deflection/tangent from discussing a serious issue. If you are losing a debate or are bored and want to change the subject to "Why are you so angry about this? You should be more calm" for example. When the context is such that someone's outrage (if civilly expressed) is not relevant and is introduced mixed in with the arguments about the matter under discussion.

(Each of the issues i've underlined would require more discussion and examples.)

This is the kind of post that really gets my goat, Phil. You psychologize as much or more than anyone else on OL. So spare us the lectures, please.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> You psychologize as much or more than anyone else on OL

George and Adam, you really need to learn what the word psychologizing means. It doesn't mean drawing any conclusions which are psychological in nature.

[Philip Coates]

Here's what really gets -my- goat. I make a very detailed post raising a whole host of interesting issues interrelating the things I underlined:

escalation

psychologizing

overreacting

bad cognitive processes

thinking errors

deflections or tangentiality

civil expression

...and all I get, all someone finds of interest to comment on is a one-liner on whether I do one of these things (leaving asid the ridiculous statistical comment that I do it more than anyone else).

Not a word on the other large issues I raised.

I feel like I'm casting pearls before swine who are unable to grasp the points I'm making.

Not a single fucking intelligent comment on the points I made!! Jesus Fucking Christ!!!

Edited March 13, 2011 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

Here's what really gets -my- goat. I make a very detailed post raising a whole host of interesting issues interrelating the things I underlined:

escalation

psychologizing

overreacting

bad cognitive processes

thinking errors

deflections or tangentiality

civil expression

...and all I get, all someone finds of interest to comment on is a one-liner on whether I do one of these things (leaving asid the ridiculous statistical comment that I do it more than anyone else).

Not a word on the other large issues I raised.

I feel like I'm casting pearls before swine who are unable to grasp the points I'm making.

Not a single fucking intelligent comment on the points I made!! Jesus Fucking Christ!!!

Your remarks qualify as escalation, overreacting, deflection, and incivility. They may even exhibit a bad cognitive process, but I cannot be certain about this, since I'm not sure whether any cognitive process was involved at all.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

edit: by the last I mean I'll not be reading or replying to any more of Shayne's posts

That was already clear. It was also clear that by "apology" you meant that you were right and I was wrong, and that you weren't going to bother to identify the moral principle behind your assessment.

Shayne

Edit: You're wrong Brant, but I forgive you anyway.

Ghs

Sigh. The posts can get quoted. If I had been "right" I'd not have apologized, not to you, not to anybody. I don't care to deal with the way you deal with something that makes you angry. Anger per se is not the problem. "Brant, you really pissed me off when . . . because . . . " means we have something to talk out and I'm with the obligation to explain myself. Ball's in my court. You kept the ball. I'll not let this happen again, even though the obligation would have been a difficult one I wouldn't have shirked it. If I was willing to take a chance, I'd have said, "Shayne, you really pissed me off . . . ", but I don't have the luxury of putting a ball in your court, especially since we'd now be talking about two different ways of being wrong, one for me and one for you. If you now jump at this and demand, "How was I wrong?" you'll have missed the whole point, which is this conversation has not gotten there and will not get there. You spiked it and I'm letting it stay spiked. It's a matter of what I can afford.

--Brant

Edited March 13, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

> You psychologize as much or more than anyone else on OL

George and Adam, you really need to learn what the word psychologizing means. It doesn't mean drawing any conclusions which are psychological in nature.

To "psychologize" is to attribute certain motives or pyschological problems to someone instead of dealing with his statements and arguments. You do this all the time.

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

> You psychologize as much or more than anyone else on OL

George and Adam, you really need to learn what the word psychologizing means. It doesn't mean drawing any conclusions which are psychological in nature.

To "psychologize" is to attribute certain motives or pyschological problems to someone instead of dealing with his statements and arguments. You do this all the time.

Ghs

Is there any thread where blah, blah, blah is not the topic of blah, blah, blah . . . ?

[Selene]

Subject: Escalation, Psychologizing and Criticizing Personal Traits

On another thread I mentioned how incivility often escalates from slight factual disagreement to outright name-calling, insults, food-fighting. In this case, Brant is psychologizing: He is taking about a bad mental process, without having actual evidence that that explains posting activities. Brant should have just stuck to the ideas in this case. Not mind-reading. Or motivations-reading.

And this is not psychologizing, how?

If it is not, please define psychologizing.

Adam

Phil:

I know that you condemn speed reading posts, so perhaps you blinked while you were typing, but could you please answer the above in red.

Adam

[sjw]

Is there any thread where blah, blah, blah is not the topic of blah, blah, blah . . . ?

Not that I'm complaining, but it seems like prior to a few months back you liked to come in and blah blah blah whenever I was making an on-topic point. I'm glad that you're not doing that anymore, but perhaps you can reflect back to what you used to do and figure out why the threads sometimes go blah blah blah...

But all that aside, you do make a good point.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

> You psychologize as much or more than anyone else on OL

George and Adam, you really need to learn what the word psychologizing means. It doesn't mean drawing any conclusions which are psychological in nature.

To "psychologize" is to attribute certain motives or pyschological problems to someone instead of dealing with his statements and arguments. You do this all the time.

Ghs

Is there any thread where blah, blah, blah is not the topic of blah, blah, blah . . . ?

Yes, threads where you don't post anything.

Ghs

[sjw]

You spiked it and I'm letting it stay spiked. It's a matter of what I can afford.

--Brant

No one spikes it like GHS, as the last several posts show...

I wish you well Brant.

Shayne

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Probably As Clear as I Can Make It

I don't usually waste posts trying to defend myself - especially if I feel my adversaries are willfully misunderstanding, so I'm going to presume honest error and simple inattention on the matters below-->

> Your remarks qualify as escalation, overreacting, deflection, and incivility...To "psychologize" is to attribute certain motives or pyschological problems to someone instead of dealing with his statements and arguments. You do this all the time. [GHS]

CATEGORY CRITICISM:

Some people ignore the difference between a general (category or statistical) criticism and one directed at specific people.

1. If Ayn Rand says: "The world has many people who are guilty of evasion and there are outright evil people out there" - that is not psychologizing, or insult, or personal attack. It is a legitimate and arguable psychological claim.

2. If Ayn Rand says: "Leading philosopher X is an evader and evil", that (assuming no direct evidence) is psychologizing, insulting, personal attack. And is not a legitimate psychological (or moral!) claim.

CRITICISM OF SPECIFIC CASES:

Moreover, when the criticism is specific and aimed at a particular person, George and others ignore the distinction between (1) a criticism of evident action or events:("Your post is rationalistic and sloppy" or "You have here overreacted and inappropriately attempted to attribute motives") and (2) a psychologizing attempt to read minds or infer deeper character("Your post proves you are an evader and are willfully dishonest" or "My opponent here proves himself to be evil".)

Edited March 13, 2011 by Philip Coates

[sjw]

Subject: Probably As Clear as I Can Make It

I don't usually waste posts trying to defend myself - especially if I feel my adversaries are willfully misunderstanding, so I'm going to presume honest error and simple inattention on the matters below-->

> Your remarks qualify as escalation, overreacting, deflection, and incivility...To "psychologize" is to attribute certain motives or pyschological problems to someone instead of dealing with his statements and arguments. You do this all the time. [GHS]

CATEGORY CRITICISM:

Some people ignore the difference between a general (category or statistical) criticism and one directed at specific people.

1. If Ayn Rand says: "The world has many people who are guilty of evasion and there are outright evil people out there" - that is not psychologizing, or insult, or personal attack. It is a legitimate and arguable psychological claim.

2. If Ayn Rand says: "Leading philosopher X is an evader and evil", that (assuming no direct evidence) is psychologizing, insulting, personal attack. And is not a legitimate psychological (or moral!) claim.

CRITICISM OF SPECIFIC CASES:

Moreover, when the criticism is specific and aimed at a particular person, George and others ignore the distinction between (1) a criticism of evident action or events:("Your post is rationalistic and sloppy" or "You have here overreacted and inappropriately attempted to attribute motives") and (2) a psychologizing attempt to read minds or infer deeper character("Your post proves you are an evader and are willfully dishonest" or "My opponent here proves himself to be evil".)

The problem with all this Phil is that it's too abstract. The problem here relates to something drawn from these categories:

1. Brant posting critical remarks without thinking.

2. My intolerance with thoughtless personal attacks whether intended or not.

3. Brant's intolerance with my intolerance.

If you want to be critical Phil, you should address yourself to whether or not Brant deserves to be criticized for posting very critical remarks that he did not think through first. You should next address whether or not I should be tolerant of receiving unjustified nonsense as criticism. And finally it may be relevant to address whether or not Brant is justified in being intolerant in the face of my intolerance. For instance, one might perhaps conclude that the rational solution for Brant is to refrain from making critical remarks if he can't afford to invest the time in making sure they are both fair and coherent.

But Ted is probably right. Blah blah blah.

Shayne

[Philip Coates]

> The problem with all this Phil is that it's too abstract.

But Shayne, Rand's statements -- along the lines of "The world has many people who are guilty of evasion and there are outright evil people out there" -- are abstract and general.

Are they hard to follow (or not useful)?

Edited March 13, 2011 by Philip Coates

[sjw]

Phil, given your avid interest in the topic of civility, I don't know why you don't just write a comprehensive essay on the subject with numbered points, and then if you think some point applies, just link to it and specify the relevant numbers.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

CATEGORY CRITICISM:

Some people ignore the difference between a general (category or statistical) criticism and one directed at specific people.

1. If Ayn Rand says: "The world has many people who are guilty of evasion and there are outright evil people out there" - that is not psychologizing, or insult, or personal attack. It is a legitimate and arguable psychological claim.

2. If Ayn Rand says: "Leading philosopher X is an evader and evil", that (assuming no direct evidence) is psychologizing, insulting, personal attack. And is not a legitimate psychological (or moral!) claim.

Your analysis has a number of problems, but let's deal with a specific comment that you recently made. I have italicized the most relevant part.

*** There are others on this list who get into long foodfights, use personal attacks and insults, but in the four people I have named it seems a major personality trait: They seem to feel a need to do it regularly as if they were still chasing childhood demons or dealing with adolescent attackers. (I debated including Brant, SJW, MSK, or Ted on the list, but each of them seems to do it less frequently or perhaps more when provoked as opposed to getting off on it or having it psychologically as a dominant personality dysfunction: the unfortunate thing is this large a list constitutes now the *majority* of the most frequent posters -- which is why I refer frequently to the decline of the list.)

Do you regard the italicized portion of your remarks as psychologizing? If not, why not? Please enlighten us.

Ghs

[Xray]

CATEGORY CRITICISM:

Some people ignore the difference between a general (category or statistical) criticism and one directed at specific people.

1. If Ayn Rand says: "The world has many people who are guilty of evasion and there are outright evil people out there" - that is not psychologizing, or insult, or personal attack. It is a legitimate and arguable psychological claim.

2. If Ayn Rand says: "Leading philosopher X is an evader and evil", that (assuming no direct evidence) is psychologizing, insulting, personal attack. And is not a legitimate psychological (or moral!) claim.

I don't think 2) is a case of psychologizing.

"Evil" is a very emotional term referring to moral judgement.

In 1), this moral judgement is expressed in a general form without giving names, whereas

2) specifies the targets the of the moral judgement by naming them.

Imo 1) and 2) are both examples of moralizing.

More on contradictions:

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

Ayn Rand

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aynrand163204.html

Contradictions do exist.

For example, they exist in the form of mutually exclusive statements. Exposing one of the statements as wrong does not mean that the contradiction is "wrong", for the term "contradiction" merely refers to the fact that two things contradict each other.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

> Your analysis has a number of problems [GHS]

No it doesn't.

> ... but let's deal with a specific comment that you recently made.

Let's not. Let's deal with the post I just made.

(Rather than 'deflect' my criticism by poring through all my other posts for something that you'd like me to defend which you can claim is pyschologizing -- thereby putting me on the defensive and being able to change the subject from my point that many people here psychologize, use insults, constantly engage in food fights, personalities, etc. instead of discussing ideas.)

Edited March 13, 2011 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

> Your analysis has a number of problems [GHS]

No it doesn't.

> ... but let's deal with a specific comment that you recently made.

Let's not. Let's deal with the post I just made.

(Rather than 'deflect' my criticism by poring through all my other posts for something that you'd like me to defend which you can claim is psychologizing -- thereby putting me on the defensive and being able to change the subject from my point that many people here psychologize, use insults, constantly engage in food fights, personalities, etc. instead of discussing ideas.)

I am dealing with your post. Your principles are so general and commonplace that they don't mean much until we see how they apply to particular cases. The devil is in the details.

It seems obvious to me that the passage I quoted fulfills your criteria for "psychologizing." Here it is again:

*** There are others on this list who get into long foodfights, use personal attacks and insults, but in the four people I have named it seems a major personality trait: They seem to feel a need to do it regularly as if they were still chasing childhood demons or dealing with adolescent attackers. (I debated including Brant, SJW, MSK, or Ted on the list, but each of them seems to do it less frequently or perhaps more when provoked as opposed to getting off on it or having it psychologically as a dominant personality dysfunction:

This is not a generalization. You are talking about the "dominant personality dysfunction" of four specific people, including me.

Now, if your remarks qualify as psychologizing, then I understand what you mean by the term. But if your remarks do not qualify as psychologizing, then I don't understand what you mean by the term, and I would like you to tell me where I went wrong.

If you think you were psychologizing in the quoted passage, then just say "yes," and I will move on to a more general critique of your post. But if you disagree with me, then I don't understand you, and you will need to explain your conception of psychologizing in more detail.

This is a simple and straightforward question. Please don't psychologize by telling me what my motive for asking the question supposedly is.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> I am dealing with your post. Your principles are so general and commonplace that they don't mean much until we see how they apply to particular cases. [GHS]

No you're not.

I took the trouble to work out some quite simple 'particular cases' which you persist in ignoring:

"1. If Ayn Rand says: "The world has many people who are guilty of evasion and there are outright evil people out there" - that is not psychologizing, or insult, or personal attack. It is a legitimate and arguable psychological claim.

2. If Ayn Rand says: "Leading philosopher X is an evader and evil", that (assuming no direct evidence) is psychologizing, insulting, personal attack. And is not a legitimate psychological (or moral!) claim. "

You said my analysis in post #167 had "some problems". Oh really? Put up or shut up.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Philip Coates