john42t

My dog has emotions too. Are its emotions "automatic results of value-judgemnts integrated by its subconscious? Is the dog's mind 'subconsciously judging itself' when the animal expresses joy at being fed and taken for a walk?

As for man's emotional and cognitive mechanisms being tabula rasa at birth, research contradicts this:

Example: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/10531533

"At birth" is probably to read as "at the start", whenever exactly that is.

As to the dog, yes. You're strict but fair to your dog, feed it well and show that you appreciate it. The dog judges you to be a highly valuable pillar in his life. The subconscious will emit the corresponding feelings of trust and love when you are there or the dog contemplates you (which I believe they are capable of).

If your behavior to the dog is unpredictable, your punishments and rewards handed out irrationally and the dog is often starving or locked up alone for a long time, the dog's subconscious will be programmed with resentment for you (and probably also distrust of other humans).

It's no different from what happens in the human case. The only difference is that the value judgements of human beings are much more complex, as man's reliance on reason is so much greater.

I have a funny example for this in cats: My girlfriend's mother's cat vet advised her to pick her up a few days after an unpleasent treatment, rather than right away. That way, the cat wouldn't link that treatment to her owner and the object of resentment would remain the vet alone.

If the cat was more rational, she would know who she really ought to be angry with!

Without any mind, no matter how simple, the cat could neither love nor hate. The very minimum is the identification - who-hooo, Randroid alert - of anything that could be the subject of love and hate.

Man, dogs, cats and chimps all have the same "depth" of emotion/feelings. It is just that humans make a better job of determining what they are - with reason.

My dog has emotions too. Are its emotions "automatic results of value-judgemnts integrated by its subconscious? Is the dog's mind 'subconsciously judging itself' when the animal expresses joy at being fed and taken for a walk?

As for man's emotional and cognitive mechanisms being tabula rasa at birth, research contradicts this:

Example: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/10531533

"At birth" is probably to read as "at the start", whenever exactly that is.

As to the dog, yes. You're strict but fair to your dog, feed it well and show that you appreciate it. The dog judges you to be a highly valuable pillar in his life. The subconscious will emit the corresponding feelings of trust and love when you are there or the dog contemplates you (which I believe they are capable of).

If your behavior to the dog is unpredictable, your punishments and rewards handed out irrationally and the dog is often starving or locked up alone for a long time, the dog's subconscious will be programmed with resentment for you (and probably also distrust of other humans).

It's no different from what happens in the human case. The only difference is that the value judgements of human beings are much more complex, as man's reliance on reason is so much greater.

I have a funny example for this in cats: My girlfriend's mother's cat vet advised her to pick her up a few days after an unpleasent treatment, rather than right away. That way, the cat wouldn't link that treatment to her owner and the object of resentment would remain the vet alone.

If the cat was more rational, she would know who she really ought to be angry with!

Without any mind, no matter how simple, the cat could neither love nor hate. The very minimum is the identification - who-hooo, Randroid alert - of anything that could be the subject of love and hate.

Man, dogs, cats and chimps all have the same "depth" of emotion/feelings. It is just that humans make a better job of determining what they are - with reason.

John,I am curious - is it only public school teachers who merely want to "look as if they're teaching something" without actually doing it, or is this an intrinsic characteristic of most teachers, in your view - even in private schools?

It's in fact most teachers.

Few schools are private these days in the sense I mean. That sense would be: Entirely funded by tuition, all of which funded by the parents themselves rather than government-funded scholarships, no government intervention in the teachers qualification requirements, no government intervention in the curriculum.

In the 19th century, England had private schools. Today, there's just shades of gray. And private, independent teachers, for example in music.

I hammer on the public part because it's the idea of public education that dragged the private ones down. Not so much the institutions as the idea.

I do believe there are good teachers, I had some. My history teacher at a public school, my maths professor at a public university.

Their bitterness was proof of their awareness of their situation. Trapped in a system that allows no distinction, there was nothing they could do to stop the descend. But it was their choice, and it is their price to pay.

The word "proof" (it really means test) is a derivation of a proposition according to agreed upon rules. For example a proof in non-Euclidean geometry is based on the axioms of the geometry which are not a priori. Of course logic is used to go from one step to the next. But "proof" can also pertain to inductive argument or demonstration which means the the conclusion is sufficiently probable to justify holding it. But what Is "sufficiently probable". That is not a logical absolute, rather it is a convention which involves an agreement among parties.

Meaning that if you're alone in the world, there can be no proof of anything.

Let's assume it is part of the larger goal to get away with it and the bank robber successfully reaches this goal, then, going by your above principles, he would have acted rationally and therefore be a moral person since you equate the rational with the moral.

Actually anyone succesfully achieiving a goal would then be both rational and moral, no matter what the goal (see my above question to you, to which you replied with "yes").

See how fast one can land in ethical quicksand if one equates the rational with the moral?

I don't believe that this is possible, so we're talking about a ficticious world.

It's like saying: Let's assume that there is a God who will punish you unless you sacrifice your son, would it then not be rational to comply?

The answer is yes. But meaningless.

I would interest me whether one can at least agree on certain ethical principles universally valid for our current civilized society?

I'm looking for statements to which it is difficult to object, like "It is of high ethical value not to inflict unnecessary suffering onto others". Would such 'pathocentric ethics' serve at least as a fundament?

This is the core of our differences. I severely reject such a fundament and the fact that they have been universal to most societies is the reason why it took mankind so long to get where we are. It's a fundament similar to the ones of Communism (in the end we're all equal), of the dark ages (the worst will be rewarded) and of all the rest of what's wrong with the world.

If it's any consolation to you, I don't intentionally cause unnecessary suffering to others. But I don't think many do.

If it's any consolation to you, I believe a world free of wars, free of crime, free of poverty, free of sick malice is desirable. I believe most think so.

Those things are so trivially common opinion, there's no need to even spell them out.

But I am convinced that your premise (which is very common, even here on OL), are supporting the evil, not the good.

This core premise, the "do-gooder" premise if you will, is what I fear more than any religious nuttery.

This is of high importance to make clear. Otherwise the straw man of rational morality being "doing what pleases you anytime" gets shoved at us. As usual.

Excuse me telling you stuff you know very well, but I get weary of strawman arguments.

The difference you make is important to oneself, but dangerous in communication with others. When you talk about virtues of integrity and honesty, others all to easily assume that you promote them for their own sake.

They will then agree with you, although there's no actual agreement.

The primary, fundamental part of morality is rationality. If someone considers a robber career, it should be argued how that will destroy his life rather than any lectures on how it hurts others - that is the honest way of dealing with people. Contrast this to the crap that is taught to innocent children.

Those who teach children that virtues are to protect others from them don't misunderstand Objectivism. They sometimes understand it very well in that regard, and deep down they fear it to be true.

"Are you scientifically literate? ...You may have an opinion on climate change, evolution education, stem-cell research, and science funding. But do you have the facts to back up your opinion? This quiz will test your basic scientific literacy." -- Christian Science Monitor

This is actually a reasonably good and fair test of general knowledge that most people would have been exposed to or should have been. Not much was 'trivial pursuit' or junk knowledge like "what is the 87th element in the periodic table?" It is more like: "What element is diamond made out of?"

31/50, most of my weakness being in chemistry. All of my chemistry knowledge post-dates schooling and is almost entirely from wikipedia.

Ironically, much of what I got right was also not real knowledge, the questions are giving a lot of hints.

I have some concerns about your praise of the questions other than that though. Although "What element is diamond made out of?" is something that even I would consider fairly standard, it doesn't say much about the persons understanding. I know plenty of people who score high on tests like this but still don't know the first thing about it.

Here are some suggestions for alternative questions, although it's difficult to put them in a practical quiz:

- The three-phase current connectors for your oven (in Germany anyway, don't know about the US) are 3 for each of the phases, one for earth and one for zero (excuse my English here, I'm guessing the terms). Should the zero cable be thicker than the others?

- If you're taking a bath and someone throws a plugged-in hair drying in, would you be in any danger?

- What is the difference between a crystal like salt and a crystal like a diamond?

- If you can play a concert flute, can you transfer your training to the alto flute or is that a completely different instrument? (question accompanied by pictures of both)

I would say those questions are not more difficult than the one in the quiz. In a way, they are easier, because they don't depend on any knowledge about how things are called in a particular language or who invented what.

But they are not well in line with how science is taught, and I remember having debated them with fairly knowledgable people. It's weird how easy it is to throw professionals off-balance with fairly basic stuff as long as it's not covered by the classic text books. (The first question is probably covered in engineering, but not physics.)

And of course none of this has anything to do with opinions on climate change, evolution, stem-cell research or science funding.

That would be like saying: "You might have an opinion on the existence of God or funding of churches, but do you have the knowledge to back it up? Participate in our bible quiz..."

Christians fundamentalists don't only reject some corollaries, they often reject the very foundations. And to some extent, in a different way, so do I.

Patience was probably not Ayn Rand's strong suit. Nor was she empathetic toward a sixteen-year-old genuinely seeking a helpful answer.

[...]

Other authors were more polite and empathetic toward this young person; [...]

As Dennis pointed out, I don't believe that 16-year-old was genuinely seeking a helpful answer, and she had been empathetic to others who were seeking that. Those others weren't prompted by their teachers to do so and have read her novels.

Let's face it, this was a school project, wasn't it? So a 16 year old was asked to spam writers - or something to that end.

So what the student was seeking was to comply with the irrational demands of public schooling. What the teachers were seeking was to look as if they teach something in order to justify their sustenance.

What the other authors were likely to seek was to look good in a climate where that's all that counts, although probably not all of them.

However there are other kinds of definitions: definition by ostention, definition by stipulation, definition by example and definition by analogy.

And my computer science professor used to claim that a proof is a social process.

In both cases there is no common agreement what they really are.

In the case of definitions it's also two meanings in one: a) the meaning of a word and b) the way to precisely communicate that meaning.

I for one am more than happy if people accept there might be a difficulty in a). Often enough someone would give or accept a definition and then would proceed to use his (or even more often her) hard-coded, unadmitted and incommunicable definition as if no other meaning was conceivable.

Beyond that, Rand undoubtedly resented the fact that she was one of 150 writers being surveyed. If McAllister had written a personal letter to her specifically addressing the symbolism in her novels, I am certain she would have responded very differently. Her generous, lengthy responses to fan letters in The Letters of Ayn Rand clearly indicates this.

Not only did she think his “questionnaire” was poorly thought out (even for a 16 year old), she was angry about the fact that he would expect her to write an explanation when he gave no evidence of having read any of her works. She probably felt that his questionnaire was not only carelessly worded but disrespectful.

Yes of course, I didn't think of that.

The ant hill example is quite good though to refute Rand's "ought from is" claim. Her theory is that if e. g. a fish is to survive, it "ought to" live in water. This is wrong. The fish must live in water if it is to survive. The alternative of choice suggested by the "ought to" does not exist.

The alternative choice does exist. It can also die. This is the *whole* point of the idea of the mystics: That they are working on death-premises.

Rand's trying to borrow from biology in order to transfer an "ought from is" to her moral system has failed because it was built on a wrong premise.

Why she needs the "ought to" for her ethics is quite obvious: For to demand that people morally "must" do this or that would go against the idea of individualism. A moral "must" is also too close to the idea of moral duty.

The idea that an individual *must* work for a living goes against the idea of individualism?

And this is close to the idea of moral duty?

I do ask myself though how a catalog of moral values and virtues (accompanied by the requirement to "pronounce moral judgement") can do without the idea of moral duty. (?)

This is a different kind of duty. It's the kind in "Nature, to be commanded, is to be obeyed." It's the kind where the software developer *must* comply with the language rules or else his code won't compile. It's the "tyranny of reality".

This has nothing to do with duty-ethics.

I'm sure that there are some "Objectivists" who don't get this and are honest for honesty's sake, diligent for diligence's sake and condemn people as a sacrifice to Rand or Objectivism as an end in themselves. Rand was not promoting any of this and they are as mistaken as you are.

Actually I take that back - you are less mistaken because you only think Objectivism to be impractical rather than trying to live the impractical. That is much better.

I've lied, I've been lazy, I've been a coward, I betrayed values I held dear. And I should have known better.

I regret many things, but only because I see a connection between those things and my happiness.

To make that abundantly clear: I regret those things in exactly the same way that I regret programming errors I made. The intensity of the regret is proportional to the damage caused, but there is no conceptual difference. In both cases I appreciate what I learned from the mistake. And if there was no damange I have nothing to regret.

The catalog is justified point by point and each point stands and falls with the justification. Rand lied in her life (to get out of Russia, if that accusation is true). She accepted medicare, thereby jeopardizing independence (if this accusation is true). She often failed to pronounce judgement when she wanted to profit from people.

None of these "violations of the catalog" are in any way a contradiction to her philosophy and I have no reason to assume them to be anything but perfectly selfish.

I wonder what she meant by "and it is not true". Hawthorne's characters can't be seen as symbolic? It's been a long time since I read "the Scarlet Letter". Did Rand read it?

More likely that this definition can be understood.

Not sure why she should be so grumpy here. It's not a definition, but I don't see how the students usage of the word symbolism is particularly ambiguous or flawed either.

Somebody got an idea why she snapped?

I just searched this topic for "freedom" and got zip results. Maybe that intimates what's wrong with the entirety of Phil's approach--no real content.

--Brant

Ayn Rand's Wikipedia article mentions 12x reason, 5x egoism, 5x selfishness, 10x capitalism, but not once freedom.

Nor does her own description of the essence of Objectivism:

"the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

or what she wants to advocate:

"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."

Of the terms she uses here, "capitalism" is the one closest to freedom.

[...] her rejection by the father she loved, by the first man she loved as a girl, [...], her failed reunion with her sister [...]

Don't know about any of this. Can somebody recommend sources?

I have no doubt that there are many who'd be horrified by this - who are really not as extreme as my portrayal - who sincerely believe that they are 'doing good'. Compassion feels good, after all. 'Built-in' by Mother Nature. Additionally, who of us would refuse someone in trouble or pain?

But there's a superiority aspect to such people professing compassion that emanates as sanctimony, which is distasteful as well.

I think a lot start out innocently and become evil on their way, like Catherine Halsey in the Fountainhead:

That's the problem. People set out to do good on an irrational premise with the best intentions - but they will not be thanked for it. They can't be thanked, all they do is to render themselves worthless. When they slowly begin to realize this it leads to evasion and resentment.

In the Fountainhead, our the dialog goes on:

That is the choice they have. If you already wasted half your life it might seem impossible, so some chose to be nothing.

[EDIT: Thanks for the link, Alan.]

Interesting theory... but "quality-oriented sexuality" doesn't necessitate prudishness. Prudishness is a quantity-oriented sexuality with an ideal quantity of "very little at most."

The Puritans didn't believe in "sex for the worthy" but rather "sex only within the bonds of monogamous marriage for the purposes of reproduction."

I agree with all of this, but I've one more thing to consider regarding Puritans.

People find each other's preferences something between alienating and repulsive (when they differ). That explains to some extent the bad reputation sex has.

Based on this premise it's easy to see how an ideology advocating prudishness would appeal to quality-sex-inclined people living in a quantity-sex-inclined society: You can still dream of your perfect wife that is going to be yours completely. If you are used to know women as sluts and are sexually frustrated yourself, that might increase the appeal for such an ideology.

Oh, I just realize that also implies another premise of mine that the late Catholic Zeitgeist the Reformation grew out of was sexually promiscuous - I don't know that for sure, but I bet it was, at least in comparison to the Puritan one.

All I'm saying is that a lot of our culture's typical language about sex seems to betray an implicit belief that "sex is bad." The only difference being "sex is bad so lets not have it" vs. "sex is bad but I'm horny so lets have it anyway."

Not in Europe. And even America has a mixed message on the topic.

There have been many discussions about this here at OL. The problem with the equation is that "rational" is a cognitive, not a moral category.

If you equate the moral with the rational, then the immoral is the irrational, right?

But is a person who e. g. acts irrationally an 'immoral' person?

And is a person acting rationally to achieve a goal a 'moral' person, no matter what the goal?

3x yes.

But in that case you would have to call e. g. a bank robber 'moral' if he achieves his goal: succesfully carrying out a perfectly prepared bank robbery.

Which is a rational goal if it's part of the larger goal of going to prison.

Which is a rational goal if it's part of the larger goal of being lonely, alienated, poor and raped.

Which is a rational goal if it's part of the larger goal of dying.

Which it isn't.

You regard being cognitively mistaken about facts as immoral then? For this follows from your premise:

"There is no moral category beside the rational/cognitive" (john42t)

Would you consider being cognitively mistaken about facts as irrational?

If so, I'll follow you with my definition with morality.

I'm unsure about my preference.

And I was tempted to suggest that you use Occam's razor and drop either the term morality or rationality if you regard them as interchangeable.

I need to use the word "morality" because its accepted meaning is "what one ought to do" (or so). Rationality is defined by a different essential. Dropping the words would make it more difficult for me to communicate that I consider those essentials to yield the same concept.

I can feel myself into almost anybody, that has nothing to do with being nice to them or not.

I think it is important to differentiate intuition from empathy. Being able to realize what makes others tick, to guess their thoughts: this is intuition. Intuition need not necessarily lead to empathy. For example, con artists are often highly intuitive (which is why they know exactly how to manipulate others), but they are unempathetic because they don't care the damage and hardships they inflict on their victims.

dictionary john-xray xray-john

john............xray

____________________________

empathy.........intuition

sympathy........empathy

There have been many discussions about this here at OL. The problem with the equation is that "rational" is a cognitive, not a moral category.

If you equate the moral with the rational, then the immoral is the irrational, right?

But is a person who e. g. acts irrationally an 'immoral' person?

And is a person acting rationally to achieve a goal a 'moral' person, no matter what the goal?

3x yes.

There is no moral category beside the rational/cognitive.

"Rational" very often goes toward assessing and choosing adequate means to achieve a goal. For example, to believe one can climb Mount Everest wearing sandals is irrational because sandals are an inadequate means to achieve the goal.

The attempt is likely to result in tears, potentially death. So it was indeed immoral.

But this has nothing to do with being 'immoral'. Nor was I 'moral' in rationally realizing that I just don't possess certain faculties, like e. g. a talent for sewing.

If that realization is correct, it's also moral.

I know it sounds weird and I'm not normally a fan of using peculiar definitions, but the term "morality" is probably the most important of all those you would have reason to fight over. I can't surrender that one.

Let's try it this way: Name one deed you'd consider immoral that doesn't involve someone else. If you can't, it implies you restrict the term to dealings with other people. Morality would depend on others, which is the altruist premise.

[EDIT: "Sometimes I have the feeling that poster Calvin (Dglgmut) is pulling our leg with questions like in the above quote. " If he's trolling, I'm impressed.]

To put it in extremes: The better sadist is the one with empathy.

Good retort, with an element of truth to it.

Another, worth a thought, is: empathy is for those lacking in morality.

Errr... do you mean that in a good sense? As in: if you don't know what's good for you at least you don't hurt anyone because empathy leads to compassion?

If so, I would have thought we agree that it won't work as that is precicely what the do-gooder is about. And those are the worst.

I know you were joking in some way, but I don't know exactly in which.

Ms Presley supplies the connotative aspect in which it is (I think) misused : "empathy leads to sympathy".

Of all premises I consider irrational, I fear and reject this one the most.

The main problem is it's reverse application: non-sympathy must imply non-empathy. It's a cornerstone of the cliche belief that a majority holds about the rich/powerful/arrogant: That they don't share/yield/humiliate themselves because they are flawed, rather than because they have actually very good reasons not to sympathize with the majority of people.

Without that premise, Communism would have been impossible. Large parts of leftism rest on that pillar alone.

Frankly, I believe that you've either got empathy/compassion, or you don't. Seems to me, it's a baseline human response that can't be taught.

It is right and proper to sense it - and act on it sometimes. Usually, in the interim period, before you know pertinent facts about a person, and situation, objectively.

It is never a moral demand and expectation of one.

There is not the least contradiction between rational morality and our humanist instincts.

Couldn't agree more.

And I'm mighty suspicious of people like B-C, pushing "empathy"..

I still didn't find the link to the article by B-C suggesting that, can you help me out here?

I imagine having a turbo-charged eight-cylinder engine at one's disposal at birth: the human brain possesses the faculty (aptitude) of cognition.

However, there is no certainty and guarantee that one can design and build the rest of the vehicle, learn to drive it skilfully, and win at Le Mans.

Rationality requires purpose, choice and effort.

Faculty is the "potential" of the engine, which does not contain the potential of driving it - or, the engine contains no concepts or "conceptual memory", of what it is 'supposed to be' ... and achieve.

The designer/engineer/driver/navigator decides, according to reality and his life.

(Stretched the metaphor as far as I can!)

We two probably still have a slightly different model that reflects in our choice of words. "Faculty" and "engine" seem interchangable to me.

Also, I wouldn't say I drive that engine... I *am* that engine. The thing that is most fundamentally me is the rational/cognitive faculty. Of course I'm also my legs, but it's possible to lose them and go on. It's possible to lose eye sight and go on. It's possible to lose various instincts and go on. Everything else that is vital could conceivably be replaced by advanced technology. But the rational faculty, or it's memory to be precise, is the thing that defines me in such a way that losing it would be nothing less than death by any reasonable standard.

That Rand used "rational faculty" is surprising to me. I have found her extremely precise on words and terms.

Hmmm...

Of course she was precice, at least compared to any other philosopher (which isn't difficult), but you still have to make an effort of digging into what she actually understood by various words. The cool thing about her is that she would take a word and arrive at the best possible definition that reflects current usage or connotation and practicality. If practicality isn't possible, the word would go into her anti-concept bin. That resonates very strongly with what I've been doing all my life and I usually approve of her choices.

But then neither rational faculty nor cognitive faculty nor rationality have a accepted meaning that is exact enough for our purposes.

"Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism;

but at birth, BOTH are 'tabula rasa'. It is man's cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both." [VoS]

Put that way, you could believe she really meant that you can't feel pain unless the mind has an opinion about it. She didn't mean that, did she?

Am I fooling myself? Do I believe that she didn't mean it because I want to agree with her, but couldn't otherwise?

We have here a problem with terminology and assumptions. You are assuming that empathy and sympathy are unrelated. In fact developmental psychologists assert that understanding the emotions of others (empathy) leads to sympathy (caring about others) and the research is on their side. Normal children do learn to sympathize when they are taught to empathize. Very young children are "egocentric," that is, they literally see things only from their literal perspective. Once the parents have them focus on the fact that other children feel the same pain as they do, then the normal tendency in normal children is to also feel sympathy. They are in fact being taught to sympathize. The research is also very clear on the fact that on average those who are not to empathize will be less likely to care what happens to other people. They are more likely to be socially inept and/or bullies.

The fact that an abnormal person can to some limited extent also understand what others are feeling (pain) and likes it and doesn't sympathize in no way speaks against what I have just said. Sadists and psychopaths are broken people. Their actions do not speak to the situation of normal people.

Since this forum deals with Objectivism, may I ask how you would assess Howard Roark's psychological health in the light of

1. His inability to empathize with most of his peers and
   
2. his (apparent?) ability to empathize with Dominique and
   
3. his sadism towards Dominique?
   

Also, would you confirm that you assume the normal to be the good?

I do think you should correct "rational faculty", 'cos now it is springing up all over. Objectively it's a contradiction in terms.

Xray was right - I do agree with her sometimes - that a faculty can be innate. It is an 'aptitude' after all. But she somehow missed your central point that rationality is tabula rasa. This is 100% true.

Rand used "cognitive faculty", not ever as far as I know, "rational faculty".

Rationality isn't any better in my opinion. If it's an "aptitute", how can it be tabula rasa? Tabula rasa is the memory for the faculty.

I'm talking about the conceptual memory that is blank.

Rand used the term rational faculty, but I don't think she was *that* picky about words. It's clear what she meant anyway for anyone who uses the interpretation that makes sense rather than one that is so obviously wrong that you'd have to believe Rand was a moron to consider it.

I wonder if Baron-Cohen deals with the true psychopaths (the term that clinical forensic psychologists prefer) because, as the article points out, they basically cannot be rehabilitated. Now if we are talking about ordinary folks, sure, there are ways to increase empathy. Developmental psychologists talk a lot about this--the authoritative method of childrearing that I mentioned above is one--when a child is small, you can teach them about empathy--for example, "Suzy, it's not nice to hit your little brother. Remember how much it hurt when your older brother hit you?" Explanation and teaching, modeling by example--all good ways. But lots of parents don't do that.

I don't get it.

How is empathy making any difference to Suzy? I can feel myself into almost anybody, that has nothing to do with being nice to them or not. Surely Suzy's empathy will only lead to a stop on hitting her brother unless she also sympathizes with him.

To put it in extremes: The better sadist is the one with empathy.

Boy, does she have a mouth, too. She delights in running liberals crazy with some of the most entertaining and creative put-downs on the political spectrum. Here's a cute one from Demonic: [...]

I watched most of the interviews with her available on YouTube. I appreciate her tactics, it's entertaining and effective.

Maybe I'll give the book a try but it sounds like the kind of book I won't get through.

Thanks for putting me straight on Condel. Obviously I had no prior knowledge of him, but allowed my prejudice against the principles behind the EU to rush ahead of me. I just felt he could have gone further. By your recommendation, it appears he does an honest job generally.

He used to be liberal/leftist, and I think Condell is a good example of where people in Europe go when they put the pieces together themselves, rather than being influenced by libertarian or Objectivist ideas that are largely restricted to America.

It's not enough, like you say. But as long as his opinion is only one voice in the bag, I strongly appreciate it.