Branden's High Points (misleading title by OP)

[Philip Coates]

(condensed post from another thread)

Subject: New thread on Branden's virtues and major contributions

I've started to read some of Branden's books more than once and stopped: I wasn't finding him to be an original or profound thinker or, where he was saying important things, to be saying more than he already said when he was associated with Rand. (In addition, yes she had faults, but the times when he was vicious or unfair to her when he was the person whose actions were reprehensible, also turned me off. Someone would have to be enormously brilliant for me to overcome my distaste in reading him - especially if I find others in positive psychology or cognitive psychology saying what he does as well.

Also, in my initial readings, IIRC, he seemed to think everything centers around self-esteem or reduces too much to self-esteem issues:

It doesn't.

What motivates me to read someone is if I've read a topnotch review that covers all the bases: This is his best book; avoid this; in book A, here is what his high points are; here is what he explains that you can't find elsewhere.

No one has done or wants to do that kind of work in a "professional" review that a published writer would do? I understand that time is limited, but then they can't be too upset that sometimes their author gets read less than they would hope: there are lots of -great- readers out there.

To make it easy I'll start this thread right now, called "Branden's High Points". (I actually would like to see some hard-edged quotes and page references*** and would follow up if they are fleshed out.)

(ASIDE: We'll see how close OL'ers - as a labor of many hands - get to professional, thorough, or with examples.My very strong guess is that -- unless [Dennis H] or Campbell or even some non-lazy but well-read and thoughtful non-psychologists decide to roll up sleeves -- it ain't gonna happen on this website. And that thread will just be another "black hole".)

***if this material, including actual quotes and references and not just "hand-waving" appears elsewhere in the catacombs of OL or on the Internet, the author could simply cut and paste.

[Philip Coates]

(not expecting much from this thread)

My guess is that the people intellectually qualified (( Hardin? Bissell? Campbell? Boydstun? Heaps-Nelson? GHS? Ted Keer? - I don't know if they have read and digested most of NB's entire body of work )) don't have (or choose to invest) the time** or are no longer reading this website.

And for everyone else (1) it will be vague or non-detailed "hand-waving": "well, you obviously haven't read this entire book"..."go comb through entire threads A and B, NB's brilliance is in there somewhere."

Or a poster (2) will claim NB "revolutionized" X without actually taking the time to explain that in more than just the form of an arbitrary claim.

And then a poster (3) will aggressively claim that you're a fool if you aren't already aware of what he doesn't intend to clearly explain.

I further predict (4) that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE will take the time to produce the best quotes or page references the way a moderately professional review of a body of work should.

** actually, the time invested might be enormously productive and integrative!

A 'review essay' on someone's body of work, drafted and refined here (or on a better discussion site), could be a feather in someone's cap as a professional publication!

Thoughtful "review essays" as a form are rare enough --- and require enough actual specific knowledge, as opposed to blue-sky or opinions only blathering --- that magazines and journals and their readers are often very interested.

[PDS]

Nice, preemptive insults of your audience, Phil.

[Philip Coates]

Big difference between "insult" and strong, forceful criticism.

Let's just wait and see whether they are true again this time. Any bets?

[9thdoctor]

I further predict (4) that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE will take the time to produce the best quotes or page references the way a moderately professional review of a body of work should.

You don't think anyone will take the time to do professional work for free? Especially after being asked pretty please with sugar on top? Well, I have to give you credit here for being absolutely right about something.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is this a thread about NB's high points or Phil's opinion of OL's low points?

I find it extremely odd to start a thread called "Branden's High Points," subtitle it, "New thread on Branden's virtues and major contributions," and not only not include a single high point, instead, it starts with a strong insinuation that NB has no high points or any major contributions, and flat out states that he is not an "original or profound thinker."

James Valliant couldn't have asked for more.

Given the substance of the text in the opening two (not one) posts by the same author, an honest title would have been "Is there Anything of Value at All in Nathaniel Branden's Work or is it All Second Rate?"

I wonder when critical thinking will become valued among people who claim to be Objectivists.

This thread stinks so far, and it was born as a stinker.

Michael

[PDS]

Born as a stinker, and intended to be a stinker, I am afraid.

My main criticism of NB is that he went on strike too early and stayed on strike for too long. At least I hope he has been on strike.

[Xray]

To make it easy I'll start this thread right now, called "Branden's High Points". (I actually would like to see some hard-edged quotes and page references*** and would follow up if they are fleshed out.)

Would you agree that NB's article "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand"? contains many of "Branden's High Points"?

http://nathanielbran.../ayn/ayn03.html

[Dennis Hardin]

Let’s take a brief step back in time, to July 13, 2010.

Philip Coates July 13, 2010

(Replying to my prior post referencing a quote from Branden)

That's a wonderful quote.

You are going to make me regret not having read as much of Branden's work as I should.

Why should you, if you had not found him to be 'original or profound'?

Here’s the quote, for anyone who is willing to consider that NB might have something 'original and important' to say:

You ask, "How do I bring love into my life?" My answer is that I focus day after day principally on what I care most about in this world -- on what I most respect and admire. That is what I give my time and attention to.

Since my highest priorities are my marriage and my work, I give the greatest part of my time and energy to them. With regard to my wife, I frequently communicate to her my awareness of all the traits and characteristics in her that I so much love, respect, appreciate, and admire.

We all want to be seen, understood, appreciated. I call this the need for the experience of psychological visibility. I strive to make my wife feel visible to me.

I also spend a great deal of time thinking about the things I love. I am keenly aware of how much there is in life to appreciate and enjoy. I dwell on that every day. I do not take anything good in my life for granted.

I am always aware of our mortality. I know that if I love someone, the time to express it is today. If I value something, the time to honor it is today.

[Brant Gaede]

It's possible that nobody knows Branden and his high points better than I do. And that's my last contribution to this thread*.

--Brant

maybe Dennis, heh

*not quite

[Dennis Hardin]

Nathaniel Branden does a pretty damn decent job of speaking for himself. Because of the insulting way this thread was started, I’m going to take the approach Ayn Rand used on

in 1979.

A woman in the audience began by saying: “I used to agree with you, but now I’m educated.” Miss Rand refused to answer her question because of the obvious insult but said, “I want to answer the preceding question. Doesn’t anyone want to ask it politely?”

For anyone reading this thread who is sincerely interested in understanding the essentials of Dr. Branden’s groundbreaking approach to psychology and psychotherapy, this article was published in the Spring, 1994, volume of Directions in Clinical Psychology.

Working with Self-Esteem in Psychotherapy

(If the article does not load right away, click on the "impatient?" link on the wayback page.)

Here is an excerpt from the Editor’s Preface:

It is generally accepted that strengthening a client's self-esteem is a fundamental goal of all psychotherapy. However, what is not commonly acknowledged is that it is impossible to work on self-esteem directly. As the author explains, self-esteem grows through insights and experiences gained in therapy and translated into action in the world; the client gradually experiences a sense of growing competence and worthiness, and begins to value his or her abilities. In this lesson, Dr. Branden provides a working definition of self-esteem: the experience of being competent to cope with life's basic challenges and of being worthy of happiness — self-efficacy and self-respect. Without positive self-esteem, psychological growth is stunted and resilience in the face of life's adversities is diminished. The higher a person's self-esteem, the more ambitious, open, and honest he or she will be, and the more constructive his or her relationships with others will be.

Dr. Branden describes what he terms the "six pillars of self-esteem" — the practices of: (1) Living consciously; (2) self-acceptance; (3) self-responsibility; (4) self-awareness; (5) living purposefully; and (6) integrity.

Dr. Branden's approach presents us with a valuable focus and a number of specific techniques to use in helping clients gain positive self-esteem and recover positive self-esteem when, for whatever reason, it has been lost. He has developed a unique sentence-completion program to stimulate insight and integration. In this lesson, he describes how this program can be used either as homework exercises or in individual or group sessions to identify goals and make action plans; understand how one's beliefs about oneself can impede or facilitate these goals; and, through this experience, help the client achieve an understanding of his or her value.

It is not a long essay, so hopefully those who are too lazy to read an entire book will be able to follow it through to conclusion.

And here is a very simple piece of advice from Dr. Branden on achieving happiness which I have always thought was invaluable. In a way, its utter simplicity is what makes it invaluable. It is from his essay: Reflections on Happiness.

. . .Begin each day with two questions: What's good in my life? — and What needs to be done? The first question keeps us focused on the positives. The second reminds us that our life and well-being are our own responsibility.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I apologize to those who participated in this thread, but I have to put it in the Garbage Pile where it belongs.

This is solely because of the incompetent and/or manipulative manner with which Phil started it.

I'm also editing the title so skimmers will not get a warped impression.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I changed the title from:

Branden's High Points

to

Branden's High Points (misleading title by OP)

OP, for those who do not know, is a common online abbreviation for original poster.

Michale

[Jonathan]

I'm also editing the title so skimmers will not get a warped impression.

"Shitstain Leaves His Scent Again" would be a good title.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Phony Baloney Excuse-Making From "the Usual Suspects"

Michael, Jonathan and others - by moving, relabeling** the thread, and by responding in your 'injured' tones, those of you who responded are proving yourselves to be the usual bunch of incompetents you always are.

The only person who actually posted something about Branden's work was Dennis.

So I guess my "insulting" prediction that you dudes wouldn't come up with much seems so far pretty much on target?

(And, no, I wouldn't have seen a wealth of perceptive, industrious, diligent posts detailing the high points of Branden's corpus if I had worded the original post more 'diplomatically'.)

**which is actually unethical 'editorial opinion' about someone else's views

[Philip Coates]

You dudes seem to have missed the point that the best way to shut me up about incompetence and laziness on this list and at the same time to show how brilliant Branden is would be to simply do this:

"a topnotch review that covers all the bases: This is his best book; avoid this; in book A, here is what his high points are; here is what he explains that you can't find elsewhere".

As I said, ain't gonna happen on this board due to the overall decline of thoughtful, articulate posting standards....

"Mommie, Mommie, he just said we are inarticulate and not thoughtful!!"

...OH! The mud-throwing! The *shameful* insult!!!!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Whatsa matter Phil?

Your little game didn't work?

The best thing about the Garbage Pile is that it allows a record of this crap to be preserved, but properly identified, instead of just deleting it and later being told it never happened.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Phil is a troll--an ironic one to be sure given his Objectivist orientation.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

A) This is my favourite thread since I last posted. I like it for these reasons:

1. Phil started the thread (it usually means ideas are being test-marketed)
   
2. Phil seemed to be asking for help from his peers, sincerely and honestly seeking help
   
3. Phil doesn't know if Nathaniel Branden's written works (he mentioned books) are worth the trouble of finishing, and has some stipulations (fair!) that recommendations for the works include quotes, and be structured like a review.
   
4. Phil seems sincerely interested in finding out if Nathaniel Branden is worth reading.
   
5. He is not kidding. He would like to cut to the chase and read the very best reasoned and reasonable, recommendations. He mentioned the folks he would be happy to read if they wrote such a thing.
   
6. There may have been a concealed offer, or a hidden contract (this is most intriguing) ... it seems to me that if You The Reader do this professional job of touting specific Branden works, then He The Teacher would give you something back in exchange for your labours.
   

Now, to a Stephen Boydstun or a Robert Campbell or a Roger Bissell or a George H Smith, this must be intriguing (let us hope they see this appeal; MSK, do you think we could perhaps help Phil out with this? I know a way to send a 'backstage' note to all of these folks! I could send them each a quick note showing them Phil's posts** and Phil would get what he needs (and we get to see what will be traded).

B) And you know, this might be the perfect time to do some Quid Pro Quo right here ...

I would like someone to perhaps summarize for me the Coates High Points, or maybe even provide a professional-level review of one of his (published or unpublished) works.

I believe that Phil gave a talk at TAS/TOC in the recent past, on Heros ... this was no doubt one of the most polished and professionally-designed presentations Phil has put forward -- and we know from reading short reviews of it here and on SOLO and RoR that it was a good one. It would be great if someone, anyone, could take some time out of their lives to do some work for me. Heavy, intellectual and social work:

a) convince Phil that the TASTalk would make a great 'introductory sampler' to Phil's thoughtful and important work.

b) convince Phil that it would not go against Objectivism to make this sampler/example available in written English.

c) help Phil in the copy-editing, formating, HTML-ing and so on.

Phil, what was the name of that paper/presentation, please? I did a Google and found it several weeks ago, but haven't found the old postings at atlassociety.org or here at OL yet.

C) [ pending ]

D) I recommend to Phil that he befriend someone in his area that has a large Objective-ish library, someone who has the back issues of the Objectivist, and who has all Branden's books and who has all Branden's articles ... to sort of prepare himself to possibly extend his reading. Perhaps one of Phil's friends in the movement could come out of the shadows and offer free range of the library they have.

E) I also recommend Phil at least describe the parameters of the trade he would consider for the work required.

________________________

** no doubt they will thrill to know that they are considered the cream of the intelligentsia here on OL (with reason, I think), all having published and debated and edited books, articles, journals, or submitted to scholarly publications. I do not think they mind that a distinction is made between them and the Degenerates.

[Edited for about half an hour -- I can only afford to post a few times a week]

Edited December 29, 2011 by william.scherk

[Jonathan]

[Edited for about half an hour -- I can only afford to post a few times a week]

Bill,

If you have time to play on the internet, you have time to do more important things. So, would you mind running to the store for me and picking up some potato chips and Diet Pepsi? While you're there, I think that my dry cleaning is ready, across the street from the Rainbow Foods. In exchange for your help, when you return I might tell you how well I think you performed these errands, and offer some tips on how to do better next time.

J

[PDS]

[Edited for about half an hour -- I can only afford to post a few times a week]

Bill,

If you have time to play on the internet, you have time to do more important things. So, would you mind running to the store for me and picking up some potato chips and Diet Pepsi? While you're there, I think that my dry cleaning is ready, across the street from the Rainbow Foods. In exchange for your help, when you return I might tell you how well I think you performed these errands, and offer some tips on how to do better next time.

J

J: you forget to preemptively advise Bill that he is a dumbshit, prior to asking him to run said errands.

[Jonathan]

J: you forget to preemptively advise Bill that he is a dumbshit, prior to asking him to run said errands.

The reason that I didn't preemptively insult Bill is because I think that he is one of the few people here on OL who are intellectually qualified to fetch my chips, soda and dry cleaning. He's my own personal Stephen Boydstun.

J

[PDS]

J: you forget to preemptively advise Bill that he is a dumbshit, prior to asking him to run said errands.

The reason that I didn't preemptively insult Bill is because I think that he is one of the few people here on OL who are intellectually qualified to fetch my chips, soda and dry cleaning. He's my own personal Stephen Boydstun.

J

Everyone should have one. A chicken in every pot, etc.

[Philip Coates]

William, thanks for your benevolent response in post 19.

> Phil, what was the name of that paper/presentation, please?

It was called "Heroes and Role Models". I think I gave a first version of the talk at the Silicon Valley Objectivists in the Spring of 2006 and then the final version at The Atlas Society Summer Conference that year.

> convince Phil that it would not go against Objectivism to make this sampler/example available in written English.

I plan to write it up as a formal essay - it's actually ninety percent there already. And I would have offered something like this to an Objectivist magazine or JARS-like journal, say, 10 years ago, but I've become less and less interested in an Objectivist or objectivish audience. (I have a nice abstract and outline plus my speech 'bullets', but you can probably understand why I'm not strongly motivated to post them here.)

> Edited for about half an hour -- I can only afford to post a few times a week

The work shows. Your post was very clearly and logically written and organized.

[caroljane]

J: you forget to preemptively advise Bill that he is a dumbshit, prior to asking him to run said errands.

The reason that I didn't preemptively insult Bill is because I think that he is one of the few people here on OL who are intellectually qualified to fetch my chips, soda and dry cleaning. He's my own personal Stephen Boydstun.

J

Everyone should have one. A chicken in every pot, etc.

I definitely agree. My multitalented chip fetchers can also produce delicious coq au vin.