Objectivist Contradictions

[Philip Coates]

Or perhaps it was the rest of my post #167 that had "some problems"?

But you didn't say what's wrong with the following other than those two cryptic, unsubstantiated words -->

"... 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".) "

(Again, put up or shut up.)

[Philip Coates]

> 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...being able to change the subject [Phil]

> Please don't psychologize by telling me what my motive for asking the question supposedly is. [GHS]

I should NOT have made that snarky crack about George's motives:

I can't be certain of them and shouldn't speculate or claim certainty. (See how easy it is to psychologize?! Dammit!!! I'm sorry when anger or my suspicious nature lets that sort of thing slip in.)

Edited March 14, 2011 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

> 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.

I am attempting to figure out if we are talking about the same thing when we use the word "psychologize." There is no point in going further until I can figure this out. Why won't you answer a simple question about an application of your own principles? What are you afraid of?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

> 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.

My criticisms of your general points will depend on how you answer my question. If you won't respond honestly to an honest question, then I have no reason to think that you will respond honestly to any other criticisms or questions I might have. So answer my question or quit wasting my time.

Here it is again: Do you think the following passage fulfills your criteria for "psychologizing"? And if not, why not?

*** 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:

There is no problem if we agree that this passage meets your criteria for psychologizing. It seems like a clear cut case. But if we disagree, then I really don't understand what you mean by "psychologize," and you will need to provide a more detailed explanation.

This is very simple, Phil. I'm not trying to trap you or rub anything in. Should you refuse to answer my question one more time, then there is a lesson to be learned here as well, and I will deal with that in subsequent posts.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

> 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....

When someone is questioning or criticizing your position, you don't have a monopoly on choosing the particular cases. My question deals with a real case, not a hypothetical. If you cannot even apply your own principles to the simple case I proposed, then your principles are worthless.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> you will need to explain your conception of psychologizing

Okay:

***Ayn Rand, “The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing,’” The Objectivist, March 1971, 2.--> "Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence."

Rand's is the sense commonly used and pretty well-understood by Objectivists: I would broaden it slightly to say any "explaining" rather than just condemning or excusing. For example, when Rand called Kant "evil" - because she wasn't talking about his actions but about his intent, his inner motivations. And without sufficient evidence (unlike in the case of calling Hitler evil).

Note Rand's intellectual precision: Psychologizing is about -specific- individuals (see my example #2 below).

,,,,,,

Your turn:

I took the trouble to work out some quite simple 'particular cases' in post #167

"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 [above] had "some problems". What were they?

Why won't you answer a simple question about an application of well-understood language? What are you afraid of?

I'm not trying to trap you or rub anything in.

Should you refuse to answer my question one more time, then there is a lesson to be learned here as well.

[jriggenbach]

> I haven't read or listened to very much of Rand, mainly just Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, and some of her TV interviews (youtube). From what I've seen/heard, I don't see any contradictions. I'm not trying to defend Rand as perfect. Quite the opposite. I'd like to hear her contradictions, and how they affect Objectivism in general.

My suggestion is to study the philosophy and learn what it says first. Galt's speech is just an introduction. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is the place to start. Take your time to let it and all its implications sink in. Don't be in a hurry to 'jump' to the next topic without having had time to fully consider the implications of the preceding.

I suggest you rely on skimming secondary sources, so you can make sure to have the time to study Chinese culture.

JR

[George H. Smith]

> you will need to explain your conception of psychologizing

Okay:

***Ayn Rand, “The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing,’” The Objectivist, March 1971, 2.--> "Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence."

Rand's is the sense commonly used and pretty well-understood by Objectivists: I would broaden it slightly to say any "explaining" rather than just condemning or excusing. For example, when Rand called Kant "evil" - because she wasn't talking about his actions but about his intent, his inner motivations. And without sufficient evidence (unlike in the case of calling Hitler evil).

Note Rand's intellectual precision: Psychologizing is about -specific- individuals (see my example #2 below).

,

Your turn:

I took the trouble to work out some quite simple 'particular cases' in post #167

"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 [above] had "some problems". What were they?

Why won't you answer a simple question about an application of well-understood language? What are you afraid of?

I'm not trying to trap you or rub anything in.

Should you refuse to answer my question one more time, then there is a lesson to be learned here as well.

You are as evasive as anyone I have ever seen. You won't even answer a simple question about your own principles, if it proves a bit awkward for you. Can there be any doubt in anyone's mind that you would have answered my question if the passage had been written by anyone other than you? Of course not.

I asked the question for the following reason. You wrote:

"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." (My italics.)

Your qualifier "assuming no direct evidence" immediately caught my eye, for it raises the question of what constitutes "direct evidence."

I suspected that you don't regard the passage I quoted by you as psychologizing, because you probably think you have "direct evidence" for the claim you made. And if that was the case, then I wanted to know what kind of evidence you had in mind.

If you had answered the question in this way, I would have raised a more general criticism, namely, that most people don't psychologize except on the basis of what they believe is convincing evidence. Hence your qualification would transform virtually every instance of psychologizing into what you call a "legitimate psychological...claim."

But since you would rather evade my question than answer it, I have no way of pursuing this problem in more detail.

We now have another question before us: In calling you evasive, am I psychologizing? Nope, not by your criteria, according to which I have made a "legitimate psychological claim." Why is this? Because I can cite "direct evidence" for my claim, i.e., your repeated refusals to answer a straightforward question that is directly relevant to the issue at hand. If your continuous efforts to avoid my question don't constitute "direct evidence" for evasion, then nothing does.

As Ayn Rand put it, "The world has many people who are guilty of evasion...." You are one of those people. And, to repeat, by your standards I am making a legitimate psychological claim here, given my direct evidence. I not psychologizing, at least not in any illicit sense of this word.

Ghs

[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.

Since Phil is so eager to hear my criticisms of his statements, I will happily oblige him. I have already mentioned one problem relating to his qualifier "direct evidence." I will now mention another problem. (Since Phil refuses to answer my questions, I will assume he has no interest in participating in this discussion and talk about him in third person.)

The above passage exemplifies the mole-like perspective that Phil typically brings to his rules about list etiquette. He utters pious platitudes, while exhibiting no awareness of their complexities. Consider the distinction that Phil draws above between general psychological claims and specific instances of psychologizing.

The form of a psychological claim -- i.e., whether it is general or particular -- is frequently irrelevant. General claims become highly specific when they are included in a reply to a particular person. Suppose that, in a response to Phil, I note that "many people are intellectually dishonest." And suppose I clearly mean to include Phil in the category of "many people." Although the form of my statement is general rather than particular, the context clearly indicates that I am referring to Phil specifically.

If you review Phil's posts, you will find that this is one of his favorite tactics. He will frequently make general psychological claims that, given the context, obviously refer to a specific person or persons. He will then claim that he is not psychologizing, because his general observation per se does not mention any specific person.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> "The world has many people who are guilty of evasion...." You are one of those people. [GHS]

In that case, we're done here.

Get lost, psychologizing, insulting asshole!

[George H. Smith]

> "The world has many people who are guilty of evasion...." You are one of those people. [GHS]

In that case, we're done here.

Get lost, psychologizing, insulting asshole!

But I had direct evidence, Phil! What about my direct evidence? I was making an effort to apply your own criteria. How did I go wrong? Was my direct evidence really not evidence at all? You wouldn't answer my question, so, not having the guidance of your wisdom in this matter, I did the best I could.

There is no reason to fret, however: I will still point out some additional problems in your initial post. This is what you repeatedly asked for, after all. (I believe "Put up, or shut up" were the words you used.) I hope you take my constructive criticisms to heart. They may help you become a more civil person.

Ghs

[Selene]

> "The world has many people who are guilty of evasion...." You are one of those people. [GHS]

In that case, we're done here.

Get lost, psychologizing, insulting asshole!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hey!

Isn't evasion merely a "category criticism"?

Sort of like escalation, psychologizing, overreacting, bad cognitive processes, thinking errors, deflections or tangentiality, civil expression, and so forth?

Funny how it can get awfully personal...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

> I haven't read or listened to very much of Rand, mainly just Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, and some of her TV interviews (youtube). From what I've seen/heard, I don't see any contradictions. I'm not trying to defend Rand as perfect. Quite the opposite. I'd like to hear her contradictions, and how they affect Objectivism in general.

My suggestion is to study the philosophy and learn what it says first. Galt's speech is just an introduction. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is the place to start. Take your time to let it and all its implications sink in. Don't be in a hurry to 'jump' to the next topic without having had time to fully consider the implications of the preceding.

I suggest you rely on skimming secondary sources, so you can make sure to have the time to study Chinese culture.

JR

This was the first time I had heard of the marinating approach to studying Objectivism.

--Brant

I think you meant Chinese cooking?

[kiaer.ts]

[George H. Smith]

Hey!

Isn't evasion merely a "category criticism"?

Sort of like escalation, psychologizing, overreacting, bad cognitive processes, thinking errors, deflections or tangentiality, civil expression, and so forth?

Funny how it can get awfully personal...

Michael

Yes, Phil has warned us about escalation. Now he has provided a practical illustration of escalation.

This makes at least two times that Phil has called me an "asshole." He probably regards this as justified retaliation -- as we all do when we use insults --but one would expect better from a preacher of civility. This is rather like taking lessons in nonviolent resistance from a disciple of Gandhi who punches you in the mouth every time he gets angry.

"Why did you punch me in the mouth, Master?"

"Because you deserved it, you asshole!"

I don't think I've ever called anyone an "asshole" on OL. This is not because I don't think there are some deserving souls out there; rather, I object to the term because it is generic and bland. It is an insult for all occasions, an insult of first resort used by lazy, unoriginal people who cannot think of anything better.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

There actually is a larger issue here. Phil has stated somewhere that he came up with this "asshole" approach over on SLOP as the way to automatically respond when the goading got too thick. It's like a canned response to a situation. Pavlovian.

Ding.

Salivate.

In other words...

Threshold on remarks against Phil (ding)

Asshole!

The point is that this is a REaction, not an action. It is done by a person who leans more towards being a creature of circumstance than a creator of circumstance.

Having lived what I have lived, I believe I know something about this. And I believe the roots are in Objectivism (but not for all people attracted to Objectivism).

It's how social skills are presented in Rand's works. She gives us countless images of people who have social skills, but they are predominantly sleazy suck ups, manipulators, power mongers and overall bad guys. Then she (or better, NB with her adherence) gave us the concept of social metaphysics. There are many other examples of Rand bashing social skills, but this is a post, not an article, so I'll just leave them to be mentioned in an organized fashion if I should ever write that article.

The overwhelming message she transmits (even though she sometimes says the opposite) is that, for a true intellectual and producer, learning how to get along in a social setting is a total waste of time at best, and those who do it usually do it for ulterior motives. This is really sad, and I say that as a person who endured years of pain because I bought into that view hook, line and sinker.

I think she knew the problem intimately, too. One of the most powerful passages in Atlas Shrugged (one that got to me hard when I first read it, at least) is the following. It's Dagny in Galt's Gulch.

"Well, that's one clue to the nature of our secret," said Akston. "Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be left waiting for us in our graves—or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth."

"I know," she whispered.

"And if you met those great men in heaven," asked Ken Danagger, "what would you want to say to them?"

"Just … just 'hello,' I guess."

"That's not all," said Danagger. "There's something you'd want to hear from them. I didn't know it, either, until I saw him for the first time"—he pointed to Galt—"and he said it to me, and then I knew what it was that I had missed all my life. Miss Taggart, you'd want them to look at-you and to say, 'Well done.'" She dropped her head and nodded silently, head down, not to let him see the sudden spurt of tears to her eyes.

This is an excellent portrayal of how badly we all need approval, even rugged individualists (and even Ayn Rand). Notice the "sudden spurt of tears" when Dagny finally got approval. Don't you think Rand cried when she wrote that? I can't say this as something I saw, but I have no doubt she did.

Believe me, those tears did not come from the qualification (approval from those she pre-qualified as being worthy of her respect). They came from a deeper part--the human need for approval in all of us. Obviously, to a person committed to reaching for the highest, approval from someone already up there is more valuable than that from a normal person, but that does not negate the value of getting it from a normal person, nor the need for it.

Here in O-Land, we get a lot of people who are starved for approval, but never became competent at people skills. So instead of getting approval, they constantly get entangled in bickering. I believe they were terribly hurt when they were growing up and they never learned what makes people tick. Ayn Rand's works give them a sense that there is nothing wrong with them, but there is something very wrong with everyone else instead.

It took me the longest time to ask the following questions: What if there's nothing wrong with me, but nothing wrong with others, too? What if it's just a matter of learning a skill that I have no natural talent for?

I can happily say that in my experience since then, these were the right questions to ask.

It is a skill you can learn and, no, you don't have to suffer because so many people are rotten.

Before I started studying this, I used to do like Phil does. I would deliver my criticisms of others in the frankest terms I could devise and get surprised when my pearls of wisdom were not received as the perfect voice of reason descending from the heavens to enlighten and improve the lives of my targets. On the contrary, people would get pissed.

So I would devise canned responses and rules to follow when I didn't know how to react--sort of like Phil's "asshole" procedure.

The stupidest one I ever came up with involved something I wanted, not criticism of others. I once read that women like to be called pretty and around the time I read that, I was sweet on a woman. This was back in Brazil. I was in the orchestra back then and she worked in the administration. I was totally incompetent at romance, but I tried it--one day I mustered up my courage and told her how beautiful she was. She almost melted. Thereafter, I made it a point of going to her every day like clockwork to tell her the same thing. Some days I was in a hurry to get to rehearsal, so I would run in to the office, and say it as I was running back out. It didn't take long for her BS meter to go into the red and she started avoiding me.

Now I think it's funny. What a dork I was! Talk about social ineptitude!

When I look at Phils' posts, I get the same feeling, but it's a tender feeling of recognition, not derision and mockery. I want to tell him to relax, it's OK.

If you look at his posts and read any book out there on leadership, any book at all, you will see how he does the exact opposite when he interacts on forums. If he is anything like I was (and I believe he is because I see identical behavior from my own past in his actions), he wants people to approve of him. And it stings when they don't, especially when they criticize him right back, but he doesn't allow himself to acknowledge that sting.

This is my opinion, of course. But I see all the signs and know the terrain really well.

Probably the biggest sign is the adage I learned in AA and NA, that the definition of insanity was to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

When you tell Phil, "If you do XXXXX, you will get YYYYY result. Just look at every time you've done it. And it will keep happening." Do you know what he does? He does XXXXX again! And he gets indignant when YYYYY happens.

Social skills are not hard to learn, but you have to accept the rule that nature to be commanded must be obeyed. In my past--and in Phil's current behavior--I see a quest for finding a way to automate the behavior of others. And that's the wrong way to go about it. Even persuasion gurus (like the ones I have been reading recently) all say you can never automate the behavior of others at will. That's not the way people tick.

You have to find out what people want and help them get it. Then they will usually be more than glad to do what you want them to do. Persuasion is more complex than that, but that's really the extent of the core secret.

I believe in Phil. I've often said I like him, and I do. Moreover, I believe one day he will read up on all this and wonder what the hell he was trying to do all these years. From what I see for now in his posts, he is condemning himself to a lot of grief because he has not yet checked the Objectivist premise of social metaphysics. In short, suck-ups and scumbags exist, but not all people who get along well with others--and take pride in their skill at it--are suck-ups and scumbags.

It's a skill anyone can learn. Even Phil.

If I learned it, I know he can.

And it's a great skill to learn.

Just because con artists are good at it, that doesn't make it a bad thing to master. (Whoever heard of a con artist who constantly pissed people off by criticizing them in the wrong manner? They have to be likable and great at people skills in order to do what they do.) Con artists are good at counting money, too. So, for that reason, should we look down on people who count money well and refuse to learn how to do it?

Michael

[Philip Coates]

It's sort of weirdly entertaining to listen to you two dudes critiquing me for what you are both primary instigators of.

(It's like two guys who repeatedly keep setting the house on fire sanctimoniously complaining when the fire department was too slow.)

Edited March 15, 2011 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

Social skills are not hard to learn, but you have to accept the rule that nature to be commanded must be obeyed. In my past--and in Phil's current behavior--I see a quest for finding a way to automate the behavior of others. And that's the wrong way to go about it. Even persuasion gurus (like the ones I have been reading recently) all say you can never automate the behavior of others at will. That's not the way people tick.

The best advice is the old Stoic maxim to worry only about those things that are within one's control. We cannot control how others respond, but we can control how we write posts.

Phil's rules of civility are boilerplate maxims that have been around a long time. But what Phil fails to understand is that Internet forums like OL differ dramatically from conventional forms of social interaction (including letter writing), so the standard rules rarely work, especially when there is no moderator to enforce them. People say things to one another on OL that they would never say in person.

You really can't judge what a person is like overall if you only know him or her via internet exchanges. For example, people who have never met JR might be surprised to learn that he is actually very amiable in person, and people who have never met me might be surprised to learn that I am normally easy-going, and rarely acerbic, when discussing ideas in person.

I have a theory about why all this is so, but much of it is obvious, and the details would probably bore everyone. But this theory had led me to formulate three commonsense guidelines for posting:

(1) Lie to others, if you like, but never lie to yourself. (This has many implications, some of which I will explain if anyone is interested.)

(2) Think about the reaction you want while writing your post, and then adjust the tone and style of your post accordingly. If you want a serious reaction, then write a serious post. If you want an angry response, then craft the appropriate zingers. Etc., etc. You will usually get what you want.

(3) Forget about convincing anyone of anything. You might change someone's mind, but the odds are against it; and if you write posts with this expectation, you will end up frustrated.

I daresay that these simple guidelines will yield better results that all of Phil's ponderous rules of civility put together.

Ghs

[sjw]

This is an excellent portrayal of how badly we all need approval, even rugged individualists (and even Ayn Rand). Notice the "sudden spurt of tears" when Dagny finally got approval. Don't you think Rand cried when she wrote that? I can't say this as something I saw, but I have no doubt she did.

I don't see that as being about approval, but as about crossing from a world where injustice reigns to one where justice reigns. The "good job" is just a sign that you're surrounded by just people.

Shayne

Edited March 15, 2011 by sjw

[sjw]

(1) Lie to others, if you like, but never lie to yourself. (This has many implications, some of which I will explain if anyone is interested.)

Why would you lie to others?

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

(1) Lie to others, if you like, but never lie to yourself. (This has many implications, some of which I will explain if anyone is interested.)

Why would you lie to others?

Shayne

Deception is a tactic or strategy of war.

Think of FUSAG which fooled the Nazis into thinking that the Allies were going to cross the Channel at Callais.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

(1) Lie to others, if you like, but never lie to yourself. (This has many implications, some of which I will explain if anyone is interested.)

Why would you lie to others?

Shayne

I didn't say you should lie to others. I was merely stressing the priority of self-honesty over honesty to others. We are under no obligation to tell everyone the truth about everything, and in some cases lying to others may serve a useful purpose. But I cannot think of any situation in which lying to oneself produces good results.

Ghs

[sjw]

(1) Lie to others, if you like, but never lie to yourself. (This has many implications, some of which I will explain if anyone is interested.)

Why would you lie to others?

Shayne

I didn't say you should lie to others. I was merely stressing the priority of self-honesty over honesty to others. We are under no obligation to tell everyone the truth about everything, and in some cases lying to others may serve a useful purpose. But I cannot think of any situation in which lying to oneself produces good results.

Ghs

I can't think of a situation where lying to members of this forum would produce good results, which is why I asked.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

It's sort of weirdly entertaining to listen to you two dudes critiquing me for what you are both primary instigators of.

(It's like two guys who repeatedly keep setting the house on fire sanctimoniously complaining when the fire department was too slow.)

Would you like to call me an "asshole" again? Maybe that will make you feel better.

Ghs