Objectivist Contradictions

[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

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

Shayne

Then you have no reason to lie.

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

Then you have no reason to lie.

Ghs

But evidently I have reason to wonder when you're lying and when you're not.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

George,

You just can't please some people.

Here I thought I was discussing a "category criticism" in the finest Coatesian tradition--in my own voice and formatting, though.

Do you think a fundamental premise of the Coatesian "category criticism" excludes using Phil's behavior as an example? That doesn't sound very rational.

But I cannot deny my eyes. He sure gets pissed when you use him as an example in discussing a Coatesian "category criticism," but he doesn't seem to get pissed at all when he uses other folks as example...

Michael

[sjw]

But I cannot deny my eyes. He sure gets pissed when you use him as an example in discussing a Coatesian "category criticism," but he doesn't seem to get pissed at all when he uses other folks as example...

Michael

He's got you there Phil.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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,

Would you spurt tears over this? Dagny did (and I have no doubt Rand did).

(No ill slant at all intended.)

Michael

[sjw]

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,

Would you spurt tears over this? Dagny did (and I have no doubt Rand did).

(No ill slant at all intended.)

Michael

I wouldn't cry over being told "good job." Waking up one day in an actually just world? Maybe I'd cry, and maybe I'd have a good laugh at those who would now be crying for different reasons.

Shayne

[jriggenbach]

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.

Interesting and thoughtful post, Michael. And I believe you have understood some things about Phil. But I suspect you know Phil only through the Internet. Am I right? You've never met him in person?

I met Phil in person originally. It was sometime in the '90s, I'd say about 15 years ago. I liked him immediately. I still do, despite the fact that I take potshots at him fairly frequently. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that I take potshots at the individual he becomes when he participates in a list like this one. He's very different in person. He has excellent social skills. He used to come to parties at our apartment in San Francisco between 1996 and 2006, parties at which he would be surrounded by Rothbardian libertarians who strongly disagreed with his views on foreign policy and military matters, but he was always congenial and amiable and extremely likable. Arguments often became heated, but I never spoke with any of our regulars who told me s/he was pissed off at Phil or had come to think badly of Phil or anything of the sort. Everybody liked him. He never came across as a schoolmarm; he never preached civility or took people to task about not taking his advice on how they should do everything they do.

In another message on this thread, George Smith wrote that "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."

These statements are absolutely true, and they lead me to my one serious criticism of your post, Michael. I don't think it's strictly true that Phil has a problem with social skills. His social skills in person are at a very high level. It's his alter ego, the Phil who posts on Internet discussion lists, whose social skills (like James Taggart's manners) don't stick to him very well. Perhaps the same might be said about me.

JR

Edited March 15, 2011 by Jeff Riggenbach

[Brant Gaede]

The important thing to understand--I've heard--about JR--so I've intuited too--is his icebox is full of beer.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

These statements are absolutely true, and they lead me to my one serious criticism of your post, Michael. I don't think it's strictly true that Phil has a problem with social skills. His social skills in person are at a very high level. It's his alter ego, the Phil who posts on Internet discussion lists, whose social skills (like James Taggart's manners) don't stick to him very well.

Jeff,

You're right.

I have met Phil in person and he is as amiable as you say. I remember him laughing a lot.

(And I have no doubt you are a sweetheart in person.)

As to posting on the Internet, a personality change for the worse seems to be a universal problem. There's oodles of literature on this and it is certainly not restricted to Objectivist and/or libertarian forums.

I believe there's a lot more to it than just hiding behind a computer like a coward, though. That is a temptation, but not the whole shebang at all.

When we discuss things face to face, we have a lifetime of doing that as conceptual referents. Communicating with others semi-instantaneously, but also semi-permanently, like what happens on an Internet discussion forum is a whole new ballgame. I believe this newness (relatively as compared to a lifetime of communicating with others in another form) might bring out something inside us that we learned to keep a lid on at school and in family as we grew up.

In other words, I believe it is possible we didn't change our will as we adapted socially, we merely aligned our behavior before others. (I use "we" generically here.) So with this new Internet opportunity to express ourselves to others before an audience, but without the traditional constraints, it all comes out.

The reason I don't think a Mr. Hyde appears when we use the telephone is that on a forum, our words are available to everyone from that moment on and we have no control over who reads them, whereas talk on a telephone is usually private and goes down the wormhole of time. Moreover, on the Internet this semi-permanence is for a discussion, not a published work like an article or book. That reality changes things a lot.

Also, and almost as an aside, I am just now going through a work by Wyatt Woodsmall on emotional intelligence. He breaks emotions down into three modes (each with a full range of intensities): acute emotions (which we experience at the moment), chronic emotions (which we habitually feel, including moods), and social emotions (the masks we use before others). Face-to-face, we see a person's social emotions, and sometimes his acute ones if he surges for some reason. Much more rarely do we get to see his chronic emotions--unless we live with him or have other close long-standing contact.

The Internet derails this by offering a different communication reality. We don't have our standard social feedback that habitually prompts those social emotions to kick into gear when we post on a computer. So we tend to post what comes to mind, not what we have learned is acceptable.

All this is added to the innate insecurity of using a relatively new way of communicating (habit-wise and technical-wise), which makes almost everyone grumpy at some time or other.

At any rate, i believe my comments above about the need for approval, etc., are basically correct, but should be thought of while making room for your observation and a few other thoughts on this thread.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Just for the record, in person I'm really nasty.

--Brant

real nice on OL

[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

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

Shayne

Then you have no reason to lie.

Ghs

But evidently I have reason to wonder when you're lying and when you're not.

Shayne

I'm lying now.

Ghs

Addendum: Suppose a prostitute, drug dealer, or other purveyor of victimless crimes joined OL. It would be understandable if they lied about their profession.

I was thinking mainly of "white lies," however. On occasion (though not on OL that I can recall) I may have said that I liked a post or an article more than I really did. Why would I lie about this? Well, if the writer was a student, I might not want to discourage him or her.

Ghs

[Jonathan]

I have met Phil in person and he is as amiable as you say. I remember him laughing a lot.

My view is that Phil probably uses different methods of bluffing and of trying to control people in different circumstances. Perhaps when he's talking out of his ass at a gathering of friends or fellow Objectivish libertoonians, he finds that he can get away with more, and appear to be more intelligent than he is, if he's congenial and simply behaves as if he's confident that he knows what he's talking about. In small, personal gatherings, the odds of successfully bluffing are probably pretty high, but online, more people are going to be following along, and therefore you're likely to have more diversity of knowledge and expertise, not to mention the fact that, unlike at a party (at least back in 1996), anyone can instantly look up any false claim online and prove its falsehood, so congenial bluffing just isn't going to be as effective online as it is in person. So apparently Phil resorts to the hectoring schoolmarm tactics in online forums, and to the hypocrisy of scolding others for incivility while being much more rude himself, because he feels that doing so is the best way while using this particular medium to bluff and take attention away from his lack of knowledge?

J

[George H. Smith]

The reason I don't think a Mr. Hyde appears when we use the telephone is that on a forum, our words are available to everyone from that moment on and we have no control over who reads them, whereas talk on a telephone is usually private and goes down the wormhole of time. Moreover, on the Internet this semi-permanence is for a discussion, not a published work like an article or book. That reality changes things a lot.

I don't think it is fair to say that internet exchanges tend to transform posters into Mr. Hyde, assuming this is what you are suggesting. (For the sake of verbal economy, I will use OL as an example of a typical internet forum, even though it is not typical in some ways.)

A major problem is that we cannot see or hear the subtle but crucial indicators on OL that we experience in face-to-face encounters. Consider this simple sentence: "I think you are wrong." When spoken, this sentence can mean a number of things, depending on which words are emphasized. For example, it can mean "I think you are wrong," which may signify an uncertain opinion. Or it can mean "I think you are wrong," which may signify a more certain opinion. Moreover, when a person speaks this sentence, his tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language can communicate a great deal that might get lost in written exchanges.

Because of these factors, I think posters tend to write using a "stronger" language than they would normally use in personal conversations. And of course our inability to pick up on the nuances that we would see and hear in face-to-face conversations frequently leads to misunderstandings.

A lot more could be said about this and similar problems, but (as I said in a previous post) most of it strikes me as so obvious as to barely merit mentioning. Suffice it to say what I said before, namely, that forums like OL are a genuinely new type of communication to which some of the old rules of social interaction cannot reasonably be applied.

Btw, the problem I noted above is one reason why I use italics in posts far more than I would in conventional writing. I also use them because of the natural tendency to read posts quickly, with the result that no one sentence seems more important than any other. When I began to post regularly on internet forums eleven years ago, I used caps instead of italics for emphasis, since the formatting needed for italics was not available. I stopped doing this when someone pointed out to me that caps are the internet equivalent of shouting.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't think it is fair to say that internet exchanges tend to transform posters into Mr. Hyde, assuming this is what you are suggesting.

George,

As a standalone cause-and-effect thingamajig, that is not what I was suggesting. As I further stated, " We don't have our standard social feedback that habitually prompts those social emotions to kick into gear when we post on a computer. So we tend to post what comes to mind, not what we have learned is acceptable."

In other words, if a Mr. Hyde is in there somewhere and he has been "hiding" (groan) during face-to-face communication (i.e., hiding behind "social emotions"), he will appear in a new setting where learned constraints are not present.

Also, if a person is a sweetheart on the Internet but gruff in person, that should appear, too.

If you like I can find some stats and stuff on this. I come across them once in a while in my Internet marketing studies. I just have not noted them down, so I would need to look a little.

Also, there are some very interesting studies on how much we communicate through our facial expressions. Paul Ekman's work comes to mind. This guy traveled the world over and photographed people from as many cultures as he could, all in different emotional expressions. Later he boiled universal facially expressed emotions down to about six categories and later added some more fundamental emotions that are not expressed on the face. His work is used a lot by cartoon producers and by facial recognition software companies.

In fact, the face is an infant's primary form of communication with its mother and father until language abilities grow. In one study I just saw recently (in something I was looking at), infants avoided crawling across a glass surface made to look like they will fall if they do, but when the mother's face showed expressions of "Come on," they came without hesitation. And when the mother's expression transmitted fear, they did not come at the prompting of another person.

On a forum, this lifetime of facial communication referents is not available. The only facial expression you see is the avatar, that is if the poster is using a picture of himself or herself.

This is probably one of the reasons YouTube exploded in popularity. We want to see faces and things in motion when we communicate because we grew up and learned it that way in our intimate surroundings.

Michael

[sjw]

Michael, I think the explanation is far simpler.

When people say stupid things in person, it's said and usually forgotten. When they go ahead and write those stupid things down, then it's not. In person, someone can say an idiotic thing, and then it's common to gloss over it and move on. But in writing, people can just read and re-read that stupid thing someone said as if it's just being said over and over and over again.

This fact throws the distinction between the virtue of rationality and the vice of irrationality into sharp relief. It really tests the integrity and rationality of the person who said this stupid thing. They can either recant, or dig in their heels. When they dig in their heels, then messes happen. What you end up is with flouncy behavior, ad hominems, and piles and piles of rationalizing pseudo-intellectual verbiage.

Shayne

[sjw]

Michael, I think the explanation is far simpler.

When people say stupid things in person, it's said and usually forgotten. When they go ahead and write those stupid things down, then it's not. In person, someone can say an idiotic thing, and then it's common to gloss over it and move on. But in writing, people can just read and re-read that stupid thing someone said as if it's just being said over and over and over again.

This fact throws the distinction between the virtue of rationality and the vice of irrationality into sharp relief. It really tests the integrity and rationality of the person who said this stupid thing. They can either recant, or dig in their heels. When they dig in their heels, then messes happen. What you end up is with flouncy behavior, ad hominems, and piles and piles of rationalizing pseudo-intellectual verbiage.

Shayne

And speaking of "Objectivist Contradictions", I think that what the Ayn Rand Institute has institutionalized is the flouncing method of cowardly irrationalist evasion. Would they (and their petty little ARI-sanctioning bloggers and forum owners) ever squarely face criticisms from people in their own general orbit, such as people like David Kelly, Nathaniel Branden, or me? No. They'd rather deal with easier arguments, like what they get from socialists, conservatives, and communists. They hide behind the rationalization that they don't want to "sanction" evil. The real truth is that through their own lack of pride, which is their own moral cowardice and refusal to check their own premises, they are absolutely wallowing in it, and it is disgusting.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

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

I finally got around to reading this.

It's not moral perfection, it's moral difficulty. If anyone comes at me with a moral hammer after the moral bottom line that is my life because I made a posting on OL I shouldn't have because I was fatigued from not enough sleep, I'll blow him off. The bitter lesson of my life is learning that the stronger you are the bigger price you pay even though there's a lot left over. I don't have a fuse, I don't have a circuit breaker, not in my life. Not true on the Internet. Unfortunately for you and me you got them mixed up for me and I blew you off.

--Brant

reset

[Xray]

At any rate, i believe my comments above about the need for approval, etc., are basically correct, but should be thought of while making room for your observation and a few other thoughts on this thread.

Your comments about the need for approval are hundert per cent correct. Every human being seeks approval and appreciation by others in various ways because we cannot survive without the group. This is the psychobiological basis of the human need for appreciation and approval by others.

Higher developed animals living in groups exhibit the same behavior, e. g. by grooming each other.

You gently pat your dog and it gets the message that it is in a safe place where it is welcome and appreciated.

Approval lies already in such everyday actions like a co-worker greeting you in the morning. Just imagine a situation where, on our entering the work place, no one greets us. Instantly we would become worried, alarmed and ask ourselves what's wrong.

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.

It looks like quite a few people suffered emotional hardships in trying to adapt to standards of behavior provided by a philosophy whose founder had wrong premises regarding the psychological needs of man.

For it is precisely this group aspect which is almost completely left out in Objectivism.

As humans, we strive both for individual freedom and for the approval by others; the task is about productively balancing the two. Any ethics which is to work with human nature has to take both these factors into account.

An ethics which disregards the human individual's yearning for personal freedom will result in collectivism; the opposite, an ethics solely concerned with superman-type individuals to whom rules of the human community don't apply (the Nietzschean-type of fallacy) will result in disaster as well.

Rand told NB that she knew so little about psychology. Her ethics reflect this too.

Imo the reason why with the Objectivist ethics cannot work is that it contradicts fundamental elements of human nature.

Another Objecitivist contradiction is that its fundamental premises can contradict each other.

In Objectvism, it is postulated that 'faking reality' is incompatible with the moral principles of the rational man.

Problem is that faking reality is often the rational thing to do.

For example, Rand's decision to "fake reality" in keeping the affair between her and NB secret was the rational thing to do. For "rational" goes to assessment of suitable means to reach a goal.

The decision to keep the affair secret was based on a rational assesssment and analysis on Rand's part, because making it public would almost certainly have resulted in hell breaking loose, both in public and among the followers.

The problem in basing an ethics on "rationality" is obvious. It raises the question whether a term like "rational" belongs in the realm of morality at all.

For "rational" goes mostly toward evaluating adequate means to reach an end. For example, it is irrational for a person to expect to become an opera singer if this person can't carry a tune. The irrationality lies in failing to realize that his/her means to reach the desired goal are inadequate.

Just for the record, in person I'm really nasty.

--Brant

real nice on OL

Good one, Brant.

Have you forgotten your real nice invitation on OL to taste from the cask of Amontillado in your cellar? ;)

But kidding aside, JR's remarks about the "alter ego" were quite interesting.

Imo one's personality will always shine through in a forum discussion where one takes part in regularly. And should an alter ego be involved, this alter ego is part of the personality as well.

But there are personality traits which will remain constant. For example, a person who has no sense of humor won't suddenly develop one online.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Xray

[caroljane]

But kidding aside, JR's remarks about the "alter ego" were quite interesting.

Imo one's personality will always shine through in a forum discussion where one takes part in regularly. And should an alter ego be involved, this alter ego is part of the personality as well.

But there are personality traits which will remain constant. For example, a person who has no sense of humor won't suddenly develop one online.

XRay,

I agree with all of your excellent post and especially with this last part.

However impersonal the discussions, personalities always emerge vividly. That is part of the fascination of internet forums.

"Like all geniuses, he had no sense of humour". Thornton Wilder made this remark about one of his characters in The Eighth Day, which was about a family of geniuses. His point was that humour serves no purpose in the higher workings of the advanced mind towards an intellectual goal. Of course we know that real geniuses are often so funny that they could do standup. But as is well-known, Rand's sense of humour was so minimal that she felt it was an area she needed to develop, so she worked at it. I think that is one of the saddest things I ever read about her.

For the rest of us, there are people with no sense of humour, but few of them are so self-aware as to admit or even believe it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Your comments about the need for approval are hundert per cent correct.

Xray,

Oh God.

When you start agreeing with me, that doesn't bode well.

btw - I'm lifting the 5 post minimum. Although I disagree with much of what you say, you have become a positive part of this community. Please don't flood discussions with gazillions of posts like before. Your present posting manner is very attractive.

Besides, the last thing on earth I want to do is reinstate the restriction to keep balance on the forum for the other members and readers.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Your comments about the need for approval are hundert per cent correct.

Xray,

Oh God.

When you start agreeing with me, that doesn't bode well.

btw - I'm lifting the 5 post minimum. Although I disagree with much of what you say, you have become a positive part of this community. Please don't flood discussions with gazillions of posts like before. Your present posting manner is very attractive.

Besides, the last thing on earth I want to do is reinstate the restriction to keep balance on the forum for the other members and readers.

Michael

If I were to agree with you 100 percent, what would I get?

Setup lines as good as this are rare. Do not waste it!

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

LOL...

Nobody knows what goes on backstage, do they?

(Actually, nothing. But now that I said that, the tongues shall wag. )

Michael

[Xray]

btw - I'm lifting the 5 post minimum. Although I disagree with much of what you say, you have become a positive part of this community. Please don't flood discussions with gazillions of posts like before. Your present posting manner is very attractive.

Besides, the last thing on earth I want to do is reinstate the restriction to keep balance on the forum for the other members and readers.

Thank you for lifting the 5 post restriction, Michael.

I have a question: what do the little asterisks called "User Rating" in the upper right-hand corner of one's profile stand for?

Edited March 20, 2011 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have a question: what do the little asterisks called "User Rating" in the upper right-hand corner of one's profile stand for?

Xray,

That's an automatic thing that came with the forum software so people can anonymously vote on how they rate the poster's overall value.

I will probably disable it if I ever find the time to discover how.

I don't think it is a good idea.

Michael

[RightJungle]

Michael,

Replying to your post #192

Michael Stuart Kelley: “….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?”

Michael, none of us have any natural talent for virtually anything that we do. We love a thing and apply perfect practice to it until we look like a genius at our chosen activity. Such an approach to talent and skill is basic Objectivism. If we keep that in mind, anything we set out to master actually becomes easier because we are not expecting our natural talent to come along and rescue us from our beginner’s ineptitude. It is exactly this “stuff of Objectivism” that makes it so valuable to us.