slpresley

Michael I think you getting the hang of it! LOL. Excellent. But you'll have some competition. Look at these websites I found. Stefan Molyneux is a big hot guru in the libertarian movement but some people have a problem with him. I heard his talk last year at Libertopia. He actually said if you can't convince your friends to become libertariasn, you should drop them. I was dumbfounded. Everybody else seemed to be ga-ga over him. http://zeitgeistmove...-is-not-a-cult/ http://liberatingmin...-defooed-parent http://www.fdrliberated.com/?p=1060 http://liberatingmin...aud-he-is#32133 Here is the websitefrom which the quotes on fdrliberated were drawn: www.freedomain.blogspot.com/2005/04/are-people-just-stupid.html

Thanks to George providing me with the Secret Decoder Ring, I figured out how to do the links right. Don't know how I missed it; I looked, really I did. So here they are again: Stanley Milgram Sharon Presley professional site Sharon Presley political site Psychology of Liberty Reading List Other resources for reading about authority

Thanks Michael. Yeah, it was pretty cool studying with Milgram. I learned a lot. He was dissertation chairman for my study of political resisters to authority. He was fascinated by how many I was able to find. He knew I was a libertarian anarchist and knew about Laissez Faire Books but he still didn't realize how many such people were out there. I used to tell people that it as easy, there was a whole building full of them at 339 Lafayette (home of the War Resisters League and many other protest groups). If any of you would like to read the published article based on my dissertation (from Journal of Research in Personality), send me a request at slpresley@sharonpresley.com and I'll send you a pdf. I guess I should post it on my website. My academic stuff is at www.sharonpresley.com and my more political stuff is at www.sharonpresley.net. [ I used to have sharonpresley.org but I let it go because damned if I want an organization centered on me! ] I haven't updated the .net in a while but it has a lot of my old stuff on critical thinking and also, lots of purple. Re: Bullying. This is an issue I discuss in my book. You're right about bullies--they look for weak targets who will give them the power rush they crave. They typically pick on those they perceive as weaker. So my advice? Don't look or act weak. But fighting back doesn't work either. It just gives them a thrill. If it's the police, as you say, just be calm and reasonable. If it's some other kind of bully, then you have the option of just walking away. If it's your boss--well, that's complicated and I suggest some books that are helpful. One good one that I plan to review soon is Monster Boss by Patricia King.

As it happens, I'm going to forgo this topic anyway. Still, if I were not, why should I bother? You've already decided that, as far as you're concerned, I deserve no such respect. Steve I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't mind if you comment. The others may dump on you for other reasons but since I actually know you, I don't feel the same way.

This is an interesting version of the tune, because Gabriel has audience members doing exactly what he tells them to do. I assume the irony was intentional. Ghs Gabriel is a very smart, insightful guy. I imagine he did in fact see the irony. The question is--did the audience? If I'd been there, I might have yelled out something. However in all fairness, no one is being harmed in this situation. In the Milgram experiment, people did believe that the guy in the other room was being shocked. BTW Gabriel gave another version of why he used the number 37 to Milgram's biographer, Thomas Blass. It doesn't make as much sense to me and I can't help but wonder if he changed his mind somewhere in the process. You can find that and other info at http://www.stanleymilgram.com He claims it stands for the 37% who broke off early in the experiment and refused to continue. But the other interpretation fits the song better. Blass's bio, The Man Who Shocked the World is very interesting. Because I was one of his graduate students, Blass interviewed me for the book. A lot of what I said got chopped out of the final version by the editors but I am in there.

Thanks, George. Milgram commented on that very point about links in a chain in his book Obedience to Authority. He thought that one of the most important characteristics of modern society was the compartmentalization that allowed diffusion of responsibility. No one person could say--it was me who killed another human being. The experimental variation in which the actual subject does not pull the toggle switch but instead merely tell the person operating the toggle switch that leasds to the shock whether the "learner" got the answer right illustrates that very well. When the subject doesn't actually pull the switch him/herself, the rate of obedience goes from 60% to 92.5% Peter Gabriel, the rock singer, even did a song about that study, called "Milgram's 37" [ each variation had 40 subjects; 37/40 = 92.5%].[bTW I was in Milgram's office when Gabrial or his assistant called Milgram to get his permission to use his name. When they got off the phone, Milgram asked me "Who"s Peter Gabriel?" I'd like to think that I had a hand in getting that song published because I said some very positive things about Gabriel. Don't know for sure--didn't have the presence of mind to ask] Re: Milgram's politics: He was a liberal Democrat. Though he thought anarchism was impractical, he was fascinated by my views and didn't think I was a kook (like one other prof did). He wanted me to take his course on "The Individual and Authority" precisely because of my views. BTW one of the profs on my dissertation committee--Edgar Borgatta--was very sympathetic; in fact, I met him when we both audited a class on anarchism at CUNY. Only that one prof was a jerk. But my committee and my profs didn't care.

Thanks, George. If you try to veer off-topic, just remember what George said before--I might smack you around But seriously, I do want to talk about authority not all those other topics the other thread went off into. Perhaps this is because I'm a psychologist...<P><p></p><p> I once confronted Murray Rothbard about his statement that psychology was irrelevant to libertarianism (in the Libertarian Forum, c. 1971), asking him --What about the Milgram experiment on obedience to authority? His answer? Dead silence. Then he walked away. Fortunately most libertarians today will at least acknowledge the importance of that study and the Zimbardo/Stanford prison simulation study as well. There is now in fact an extensive literature on obedience to authority. Some of the most important books are listed in the reading list I am developing [ see http://www.rit.org/authority/psychfreedom.php ] There are some links to discussions of the Milgram and Zimbardo studies at http://www.rit.org/a...y/authlinks.php My article on the research since those 2 studies can be found at http://www.rit.org./authority/authority.php The literature on the personal characteristics of those willing to resist authority is somewhat smaller. My short article describing that research can be found at the previous link.</p><p></p><p> There is also a relatively extensive literature on free will and determinism. A few of the older books can be found on my reading list above. Some newer titles are mentioned on the new Facebook "Psychology of Freedom." Oddly enough, it's my page. That link is https://www.facebook...235576059799050 </p><p></p><p> OK, who's going to say something next? Questions? Comments?</p><p></p><p><br> </p>

I intend to discuss the actual topic of this thread (ahem). Imagine that! First of all, I am very grateful to Jeff for such a complimentary article. It is indeed an honor to be mentioned together with Nathaniel Branden. Several years ago at a libertarian conference in New Hampshire, Nathan gave me a fantastic compliment when he told me that my essay, "Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Individualism: A Feminist Psychologist's Perspective" in Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, was his favorite in the book. I'm trying to live up to that testimonial and continuing to explore the relationship between psychology and liberty! Last year I gave a talk at Libertopia titled "The Psychology of Freedom." The purpose of the talk was to briefly point out some of the considerable research literature in psychology concerning the conditions of freedom: why people thrive under conditions of freedom and autonomy, why obedience to unjust authority occurs and the conditions that encourage it, and other related issues. I talked about the research on individualism and freewill and the social psychological research on obedience to authority. I discussed forensic psychology research on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony and the polygraph, and the bias in the judicial process in favor of the death penalty. I also commented on more positive optimistic research: the vast literature on helping behavior, the neuroscience work that shows us that the brain is flexible and plastic even into old age. I ended with a few comments about the applied psychology work on "Positive Psychology" --optimism, self-esteem, etc. I'll be putting the video from Libertopia on YouTube soon, as well as writing up the talk. In the meantime, a reading list based on the talk can be found at http://www.rit.org/psychfreedom.php [ If you want to explore the rest of the site (Resources for Independent Thinking), start with http://www.rit.org because there is something wrong with the flash button links on some of the pages--we're working on it]

I suggest you try out the ignore feature, you're going to find that at least one person's posts just aren't worth reading, let alone responding to. It's not going to get better. Believe me, we all know by now that this guy's a moron. Oh, I think you're entirely right in your assessment. But I didn't want to disappoint George after he warned this guy that he didn't want to tangle with me . Re: ignore feature. I'm on it.

A call for censorship from George? Wow. I didn't criticize Sharon. I merely observe that anarchists generally have plenty in the category of having a high regard for their own opinions, and that the last thing they need, generally, is something that would further encourage that aspect of their mentality. What I have observed that they are weak in is in the area of epistemology, not psychology -- unless we are talking about the anarchist's tendency to have an overly high regard for his own opinions. Does she talk about that in the book? If so then I'm all for it. Incidentally, I think this is an area where the Randian/Peikovian tradition deserves compliments. In their tradition, they focus not only on psychological issues, but on epistemological ones, even to the point of being self-critical of harmful epistemological trends they noticed within their own movement (e.g. the Peikoff lecture on rationalism). Shayne Shayne You have no idea what the book is about so why are you going on about it in such a pompous way? Perhaps you should investigate before you put your foot in your apparently copious mouth. My book is not a bunch of prattling about epistemology nor is is it some yada-yada about how great anarchists are. IT'S NOT POLITICAL AT ALL. It's simply a practical book about how to deal effectively with authority and experts in a wide range of areas such as lawyers, physicians, customer reps, teachers, police and so on. It offers a practical toolkit of techniques to, as the subtitle says, "avoid being intimidated, manipulated and abused" by experts and authorities. It was written for a general audience, though even anarchists could learn a thing or two. Those interested in learning more about my book, including who endorsed it [e.g., Micahel Shermer, Peter Breggin] and the Table of Contents, can look at www.standuptoauthorities.com. Tomorrow I'll come back and discuss the actual topic , namely psychology and liberty.

This is a good example of how Wendy distorts history in order to exaggerate her own importance, even in regard to insignificant matters. Does it ultimately matter who came up with "Voluntaryist" as the name for a libertarian periodical that few libertarians have read or ever will read? Or does it ultimately matter who introduced the label "voluntaryism" into the modern movement? No, not really, but here is the true story that you will never hear from Wendy. On my use of the term "voluntaryism," see some of the references here: http://books.google....&q=voluntaryism On my use of the term "voluntaryists, see some of the references here: http://books.google....q=voluntaryists When I thought of the idea of starting a non-political libertarian newsletter, one that would explore alternative strategies, I naturally suggested the title "The Voluntaryist," and I suggested that we use the label "voluntaryism," given that I had just finished and published an article in which those labels played prominent roles. Why? Well, for the simple reason that the terms were not already in use, and they had something of a libertarian pedigree. Contrary to Wendy's dumb assertion, however, the terms were never part of the "libertarian mainstream." As I said before, this stuff is pretty minor -- and is precisely because it is so minor that Wendy's fuzzy and deceptive account is so petty. Why didn't she simply say that I suggested the labels "voluntaryism" and "voluntaryist," and that she and Carl agreed? But, no....Wendy had to steal even a meagar morsel of fame, giving herself credit for "re-introducing the term Voluntaryist back into the libertarian mainstream." What a sleazebucket this woman is. Ghs When someone writes a good history of the libertarian movement [Radicals for Capitalism is not it--more errors than a politician has lies; leaves out too much), George will be remembered more than Wendy. I know many people who respect George, far more than respect Wendy. I've been around the modern libertarian movement since practically its beginning (I became active in 1964) and George has been WAY more influential than Wendy. Meanwhile she is digging herself in deeper and deeper, staining her already tattered reputation.

You have a point there. And Neil smiles too much and Wendy not enough. Bad choices.

Though it is only indirectly relevant (being British and 18th c) to my book in progress on American women resisters to authority in the 19th c., I'd love to read it. I've bookmarked it to come back to later. What a remarkable essay for the 18th c. I'll have to comment on it for the Association of Libertarian Feminists. I wonder if it had any influence on Mary Wollstonecraft.

Correct. Jim said later that he didn't realize I wrote ATCAG until after he made his "beater of women" remark. And, as I have noted before, I am absolutely certain that he doesn't know Wendy or Brad. On A2, before he signed the retraction, Jim asked if I would sign his copy of ATCAG if he traveled to meet me. This was a conciliatory gesture, obviously, but I guess I was not in a conciliatory mood. I replied that I would sign his copy of ATCAG only if Jim cut his own throat so I could use his blood as ink. Jim misread my remark, as is his wont, and then complained that I had threatened to slit his throat. For this and other reasons, I think Jim shoots off replies very quickly, frequently without giving his posts much thought, and without reading the post to which he is responding very carefully. Ghs And this guy is supposed to be a lawyer? Yikes! Did he graduate at the bottom of his class? I thought lawyers were supposed to pay attention to detail. Or maybe he is humor challenged. Very angry people often are. Then he must have a really hard time on this forum, which appears to be full of jokesters and wiseacres, and I say that fondly.

This is what happened to the last guy dumb enough to take a swing at Sharon. <a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/beaten up/dagame1987/beaten_up.jpg?o=2" target="_blank"><img src="http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb44/dagame1987/beaten_up.jpg" border="0"></a> Ghs And don't any of you forget it!

Hey, Michael, you could get a job as a psychologist! I like this analysis! And haven't we all (weird all of us) seen plenty of this?

Well, if that's true, Brant, so much for my theory. Never trust the experts. Maybe he has a thing for Wendy? Or maybe he's just a hateful person who needs to spew against someone. One thing is for sure though. Anyone who spews like that against someone he doesn't even know reveals more about himself (or herself in the case of the W) than it does about the person to whom the hate is directed.

I thought JimO was a genuinely disinterested party. He profited from this imbroglio? Until now my theory has been this: Except JimO messed up the anonymity part. A good theory but unlikely. People are not hateful like that for no reason at all. However I should note that all these posts are confusing to a novice like me and I got the names mixed up. Richard is the one I was referring to with the comment about stealing. Jim [the lawyer? Have I got it right this time????] --I think he is just envious of George. Some losers really hate those who are well-thought-of. For that matter, he may envy George's sexual past---let me not get too Freudian here--though there are times when Freud gets it right. Whatever may be the reason, he was NOT disinterested, not with that rant. Alas, I can't conjure up such a delightful drawing and can only do it in pitiful words but I see it as more like this: Messed up, weak ego plus a dash of sexual frustration plus envied target = venomous spewing with a dash of reaction formation. Oh dear, here I go with that Freudian stuff again...

And here I thought it was just because I am a terrible typist...

What do you think drove Jim to attack you like that initially? What could have been his motive? Here's my speculation (though George can guess better than I can): guilt and psychopathology. People who spew viciousness seemingly out of nowhere have issues, as they say. People with "issues" take them out on other people because they are unwilling to confront their own problems. So I see projection at the very least. If he feels guilty about stealing from George but is seriously messed up psychologically, he might very well turn on George like a rabid dog and accuse him of being the true bad person when in fact... I can also imagine several other Freudian scenarios if I am the least bit encouraged... ADDED: Ah gee, got my names mixed up...duh...this speculation is about Richard, not Jim. For my mildly Freudian analysis of JIM, see later post in reply to Nine Doctors [who must be a Dr. Who fan???]

New slogan for the rabid fundamentalists: Extremism in the pursuit of idiocy is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of stupidity is no virtue.

I missed all this while I was gone. This is hilarious, George. Weird All, move over...

What do you think drove Jim to attack you like that initially? What could have been his motive? Jim's accusations grew out of a mini-flamewar that we had on LL2, one that lasted the better part of a day. It began when Brad showed up on LL2 and posted my original 1998 email to Wendy -- the same one Brad had posted on OL earlier -- in which I say that I might take legal action against Wendy. I responded by reposting my OL reply, in which I said I was extremely angry at the time and had followed up within a few days with a public pledge never to initiate legal action against Wendy. I also posted my pledge on LL2, which I had already posted on OL. Jim, who knew zilch about this controversy, somehow got it into his head that I had previously lied on LL2 by supposedly claiming that I had never threatened legal action against Wendy. I never said this, of course, so I challenged Jim to quote the LL2 post where this passage supposedly occurs. Jim then beat all around the bush, telling me to reread the earlier posts, referring me to cascading posts that contained nothing about this matter, etc. I kept pushing Jim to produce any evidence that I had lied, until he finally hit the breaking point and burst out with his accusation that I was a liar, a failure, and "a beater of women." The "beater of women" remark came of the blue, and this is what convinced me at the time that Jim had been communicating with Brad. This turned out to be a mistaken conclusion, as I have said before. My change of mind was heavily influenced by an offlist email that JR sent to me. Jim later backtracked with qualifications, stating that he wouldn't be surprised to learn that I had physically abused Wendy, given what a liar and reprobate I obviously was, and that he believed I was a beater of women, even though he couldn't prove anythng. I had discussed Wendy's allegation a little earlier on LL2, and Jim -- who is known for flying off the handle with reckless accusations, though I didn't know this at the time -- simply picked up any garbage he could find and threw it at me. You would think an attorney would show more good sense than this, but there you have it. Ghs Wow, I'm away from my computer for a while (on a business trip) and all hell breaks loose. Amazing what kind of pond scum can surface. This so-called lawyer slinging around the nasties WITH NO PROOF. Jeez, I'd hate to be his client. The other one sounds like a loser too. If they weren't shilling for Wendy, then they are even more pathetic. I can only speculate but it doesn't take a psychologist (which, as it happens, I am) to realize that these two guys must have some real psychological problems. Why are they viciously attacking someone in ranting terms with no recourse to actual evidence???? People who have evidence don't need to rant and call names. They can just quietly state their case. But these two sound like nut jobs (to use a nonclinical term ) The lawyer sounds like a pathetic wannabe who is envious of George's talent and esteem in the libertarian movement. Sorry, buddy, YOU are a loser. George is hot stuff, not you. As for the other guy, he sounds like a psycho to me. Like we should put any credibility in either of these two wackos? I don't think so. But I preach to the choir here. I can only reiterate what I have said several times before. If I thought for a nanosecond that George would beat up a women, I would fling him to the wolves. Though, at this point, I'm thinking I'd like to punch someone out...But no, I won't--well, not physically anyway. On a more serious note, Wendy's accusation is surely a sign of her malice and desperation and anger (partly for other reasons not stated here). It is a despicable act that any libertarian should be ashamed of. Too bad she doesn't have the grace to be ashamed. As for Brad--what a dupe. He'll believe anything she tells him. Pathetic. And what a waste. As I have said before,. Wendy has made some important contributions to the libertarian cause. What a shame she had to stain it with her uncontrolled malice and ego. How will you be remembered in the future, Wendy ? Not quite the way you wanted to be remembered, huh? And you brought it all on yourself.

Can you believe this shit? I've been dealing with this overt and extensive plagiarism since 1998, and I still have trouble believing it at times. Un-fucking-believable. To say that Wendy McElroy has the literary ethics of a snail would be an insult to snails. Ghs Speaking of ethics, here is an interesting aside that I have only mentioned in the ALF (Assn. of Libertarian Feminists) Newsletter till now. When Wendy put together her second anthology, Liberty for Women, she did not ask me to contribute. No matter that Wendy, Joan Kennedy Taylor and I were the leading libertarian feminists at that time (and now). She hates me and wasn't about to ask me to contribute. She asked Joan to write a pro-choice article (even though abortion is MY issue, not Joan's [see www.alf.org./abortion.php. Article copyright 1979!]. However, when Joan took my position, the editor at the Independent Institute (the publisher) told her to change it to their party line and she refused. They pulled the article and this GUY wrote the article with his party line. In contrast, later when ALF had a panel at FreedomFest in 2002, Joan and I asked Wendy to be on the panel, even after what she had done to both of us. Who is the petty one here?

If you go to the LFB page on Wiki, there's a photo of Muller and me taken at that time. I edited the LFB Catalog and Review for 5 years.