Robert Baratheon

I do like the idea of listing potentially harmful social manipulations and evaluating resolution techniques because I think illustrative examples are the best way to learn. I don't have anywhere near enough knowledge about your relationship, but false accusations of "racism" are extremely common when interacting with progressives. Asserted moral superiority, especially when it comes to "social justice" issues like disadvantaged social interest groups, is one of the keys to progressive power. They use these assertions as a club to discredit and browbeat their political opponents when it suits them. Although I don't think he's really a progressive, Michael Marotta falsely accused me of racism in one of my early threads. The way I've been handling such false accusations, as I did in that thread, is by demanding evidence to support their claims. This can be even more powerful if you get them to agree from the outset with the principle that people should be able to support their claims with evidence. When they can't support their "racism" accusation with anything you've actually said or done, call them on their bullshit. If they repeat the accusation, demand evidence and call them on their bullshit again. Repeat until they stop the behavior.

If you've been following my other threads, then you know that we share an interest in this topic (and feel free to jump in yourself). But I have to agree with Michael: manipulation isn't the fundamental issue here - power is. Specifically, what types of power do people hold, and how do they choose to use it? If power is used for mutual benefit, or even for the benefit of the powerful without harming the powerless, then I consider this to be a good (legitimate) use of power. You list lying as an illegitimate form of manipulation, and it certainly can be, but it is not necessarily so. If you really self-examine on the issue, you must realize that you lie to yourself and others all the time in the course of everyday life, either outright or through selective omissions. Don't feel guilty or resent others for it - human beings are complex social animals that have evolved to interact precisely this way, in fact, it's necessary for a polite and functioning society. Can you imagine if we always told others exactly what we thought of them? One suggestion I have is not viewing everyone in a "con-man" framework, but instead as a player in a game they did not create, just like you are a player trying to survive and succeed yourself. As you mentioned, some players use their power at your expense and can be very dangerous, which is why it's important to develop your own skills and take precautionary measures. I agree with you and Michael on the prescription - the key to being an effective player is learning about different types of power and practicing defending yourself when necessary. What snapped me out of the self-defeating Holden Caulfield mindset from my highschool period (everyone is "phony") was reading Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. If you're having difficulty seeing the positive sides of social manipulation, I would highly recommend reading this book. It's also a great how-to guide for avoiding conflicts and achieving positive outcomes, especially in the professional and friendship contexts.

A similar attribution issue arose yesterday in President Obama's public remarks on the death of Nelson Mandela. In his speech, Obama said that Mendela "belongs to the ages." A powerful sentiment that was originally expressed by Edwin Stanton at the death of President Lincoln. I know that Obama was attempting to pay tribute to Lincoln (and Stanton) with his remark, but the problem is the vast majority of listeners wouldn't realize that the remark was borrowed and would simply credit Obama with it rather than realizing the important context. I think Obama's retort would be the same as Moralist's - that attribution would have diminished the remark in context - but this excuse carries with it a great danger of swallowing the rule. I also think it was in poor taste to take the quote - which has until this point exclusively been associated with the death of President Lincoln - and apply it to the death of somebody else, even an important historical figure like Mandela. Now the quote is "shared" by the two figures. Would it be appropriate for the next President to redesignate it again, and so on, until it becomes just another platitude for any historical passing?

I’m taking a break from my hiatus because this nicely ties into the discussion on limits of philosophy that was torpedoed by Michael’s silverback charge into my now derelict thread. If all goes well, perhaps we can continue where we left off before the disruption. My definition of a moral philosophy is a code you choose to live by. If the code is “living honestly,” that’s an admirable but vague concept that can mean many different things. It immediately raises the questions: what does "honesty” mean, and is it honesty with oneself or with others? What happens when a situation dictates dishonesty? Finally, does notifying others that you hold honesty as an absolute value make you a target (or a sucker)? One experience that made an impression on me was an online emotional intelligence quiz on which I scored poorly. While the quiz itself was just so much social media bullshit, I did take one of its points to heart, which was that some social interactions dictate a specific, and sometimes severe, emotional response, which many lack the social ability to elicit in time. I’ve come to think of social contexts as minigames or applied trades in the larger arena of life. Romance is one important context, career is another, friendship and status are others, and so on. Each minigame requires a specialized skillset to succeed in it, and these skillets can derive from innate ability or practice. The value of resources like pickup-artist literature, or How to Win Friends and Influence People, or even fictional works like the Sopranos, is not that they are categorically true or false, but that they can improve our skillsets in these areas. One skillset I’ve been experimenting with is explosive anger or aggression in situations that can benefit from it. For example, at the supermarket yesterday, I suddenly realized a man in line behind me was mocking me for expressing frustration with the self-checkout process. I decided to “do what Tony Soprano would do,” and with a forceful held-at-a-distance gesture, I told him to stay out of it. Taken aback, he stuttered and stammered for a moment, but then rejoined by muttering threats to me under his breath. Going back about my business like he was a minor annoyance, I told him to “go take a walk,” which he did. In the past, I would’ve responded much more passively or not at all, failing the EQ test that life was giving me. On the other hand, in the professional context, Dale Carnegie is still my King James Bible and desk reference. Having just accepted a competitive job offer, this is one skillset I feel I’ve successfully incorporated into my life. In other specific social settings, however, I realize there is still much to be learned. A successful code has to be flexible to survive in the world – a quality I’ve often felt objectivism lacks. My code, in its most simple form, amounts to using the power available to you to leave the world a better place than you found it. I approach this from an overall libertarian values perspective, but I realize that progressive soldiers on the other side aren’t constrained by this morality, and halting their relentless assault on our liberties may require breaking some eggs.

Glad you had fun, Michael, with... whatever this was. I think everyone here was really just fine until you threw your little tantrum over my "preaching," which I suppose is your latest pop-psychology kick that we should all be fascinated in. Your solution to my grievous offense was - imagine that - preaching to all of us about it in post after repetitive post. Would you say the tenor of this thread was improved by your string of catty retorts and analysis? Did it have the effect you hoped it would have? I'm going to engage in some capitalist morality of my own and vote with my feet - away from your blog, permanently. For a self-described business guru, it's puzzling that the concept of not disrespecting your patrons never sunk in. I have some premises to check anyway. Thanks for the lecture.

No argument there. Nobody is making that argument. What was that about bullshit?

What is this if not a sermon complete with biblical proselytizing? What blatant hypocrisy and projection on display. "A thief believes everyone steals." - E. W. Howe

whYNOT - Thank you for contributing to the discussion. I think you understood my rhetoric was intended to encourage spirited debate and not to "preach" to you, which I have no desire to do and don't think would be effective in any case. Getting back to your post, in the same way Nozick's "utility monster" embarrasses utilitarian orthodoxy, I think the reality of tyrants living lavish, hedonistic lifestyles and dying comfortably with many progeny embarrasses Randian orthodoxy. The staunchest Objectivist will declare such tyrants "irrational" or "altruistic," but a plain understanding of evolutionary principles tells us they are neither. A "softer" Objectivism that holds capitalism as a moral ideal but also allows for exceptions can survive these counterexamples and thought experiments. Brant - I have a working knowledge of Objectivism, but I'm the first to admit many here are more studied on the subject than I am. I posted this thread in the hope that their knowledge could become mine through a back-and-forth of ideas - not to "preach" to or convert anyone. Michael is talking shit, which is what we have left of an otherwise interesting thread after his "contribution."

I fully intended to be done here until reading Michael's "note for the reader," which is such a sloppy and disingenuous representation of this thread that to not refute it with the plain language of what transpired would leave me twitching like a hooked fish and unable to function for the rest of my day. Inaccurate representation of others is a HUGE pet peeve of mine, and the prescription in the online setting is always going to the transcript. If only our outside lives were so simple! Here's what Michael alleged transpired in his "paraphrasing": DISCUSSION PERSON: "Honesty is a virtue" PROFESSOR KNOW-IT-ALL: "Oh really? How so? Dishonesty is the virtue to strive for. Calling honesty a virtue is absurd." DISCUSSION PERSON: "WTF?" PROFESSOR KNOW-IT-ALL: "It's about context." Now let's go to what was actually said: RB: "The ideal is capitalism, but in reality there will always be people who don't subscribe to the rules. These people don't limit their behavior to what Ayn Rand finds acceptable, and, therefore, if they're only smart enough not to get caught, they have an advantage over those who constrain themselves to Objectivist philosophy." whYNot: "[A]n Objectivist doesn't steal because of capitalism -although it's a moral system, capitalism/individual rights is not a morality - he doesn't steal because he is rationally selfish. Constraining or liberating, that is the question." RB: "That's absurd. If I know I can steal and get away with it, it's in my rational self interest to steal." RB: "It may or may not be in one's rational self interest to steal and will depend heavily on the circumstances. It's just as silly to assert that thievery is always irrational as to assert that it is always rational. My point is much more narrow - since no philosophy or code can be 100% correct and account for all factors, there will inevitably be circumstances in life in which it is advantageous (sometimes for all parties) to break capitalist/objectivist/libertarian tenets. A lack of flexibility for these circumstances may place individuals at a disadvantage or risk exploitation by those who aren't so morally constrained." Now that we have the actual conversation before us instead of embellishments and characterizations, let's clear the record and we can all be on our way. Inaccuracy #1: Michael asserts whYNOT was extolling honesty as a virtue, i.e. a moral standard. Transcript: whYNOT stated that the Objectivist argument against stealing did NOT depend on capitalist morality, and was instead a matter of rationality. Inaccuracy #2: Michael asserts that I advocated dishonesty as a virtue, i.e. a moral standard. Transcript: Nothing like this can be found anywhere in my statements. In fact, I acknowledged numerous times that capitalist morality is the ideal and dishonesty is tantamount to breaking the rules. Inaccuracy #3: Michael asserts that I bait-and-switched posters by first ignoring important context and then jumping to it as a "gotcha" counterpoint. Transcript: I led with context and used it as a theme throughout the discussion. I explicitly asked posters how to cope with situations (i.e., contexts) in which inflexibly following a philosophy can place one at a disadvantage to those who aren't constrained. So who is the one preaching and bullshitting here? If we accept Michael's statement that "words have cognitive meaning on a philosophy forum," then shouldn't we stick with people's actual statements instead of "paraphrasing" them on the basis of hidden agendas and psychobabble?

No, I introduced a discussion topic because I was interested in hearing people's thoughts on it. You're choosing not to engage on the pretense of "preaching" or "propaganda" or whatever your psychology flavor of the month is. Sometimes there is no hidden agenda, Michael. Take your own premises and shove them. I'm done here.

That's absurd. If I know I can steal and get away with it, it's in my rational self interest to steal. RB, This is preaching at its worst. And it's piss-poor preaching to boot. It's preaching with snark and going for the cheap profundity of trying to be shocking with banality. It's superficial and argumentative for the sole purpose of hot air. That is not a "snippy Randroid cliche" (which phrase is also preaching). You can expect no better than this from me for that crap. Like I said, you're too involved in enlightening us idiots around here to contemplate anything like checking your own premises. Michael Is that what this is all about? Holy moley. Michael - I've gone back and removed from my post the two words ("that's absurd") that seem to be causing you heartburn. You could have resolved this on your own by simply ignoring the characterization and responding to the substance of my posts. I'm genuinely sorry for any hurt feelings I might have caused through my use of the word "absurd." I thought this was a forum of big boys and girls who could handle such pointed language. You could just as well replace it with "I disagree" and the meaning would be the same. I suppose if I created yet another thread on how amazingly consistent and empowering objectivist philosophy is, then that would not be counted as "preaching." I arrived here believing this forum was interested in examining limits and applications of its philosophy. My apologies.

RB, How on earth could I do that? You're in preacher mode. Your mission is to enlighten me and the others around here so we can avoid our "absurdities." I won't even try to cut through that fog except to say there are some serious premises that need checking in your position. And I'm saying that for the benefit of the reader since I am pretty sure you have a ways to go before you will be open to checking any premises in your toolbox. At this point, expect disagreement from me, not discussion. Michael Michael, In my opening post in this thread, I wrote the following: "How does Objectivism relate to these themes, and what does it have to say about the powerful using organizations for their own ends? What is the prescription for it? Is Objectivism, or Libertarianism, a code of conduct that can be exploited by those who aren’t constrained by its tenets?" These are all open-ended questions that facilitate discussion. Disagreeing with some of the responses and explaining why I disagree with them doesn't mean I'm in "preacher mode." If you don't want to substantively respond to any of these questions, then that is your choice, but I expected better from you than a snippy Randroid cliche.

I'm specifically asking about situations in which it is in one's rational self interest to violate another's rights - or at least break the rules of the capitalist system in which you live - and about situations in which the moral boundaries of objectivism interfere with your ability to compete with or defend yourself from people who aren't objectivists.

I'm not making a categorical statement about thievery. It may or may not be in one's rational self interest to steal and will depend heavily on the circumstances. It's just as silly to assert that thievery is always irrational as to assert that it is always rational. My point is much more narrow - since no philosophy or code can be 100% correct and account for all factors, there will inevitably be circumstances in life in which it is advantageous (sometimes for all parties) to break capitalist/objectivist/libertarian tenets. A lack of flexibility for these circumstances may place individuals at a disadvantage or risk exploitation by those who aren't so morally constrained. In the regulatory world, we address this problem by allowing people to request a variance (which are almost always denied). For one's own moral code, I suppose you could write yourself a variance if the situation required it.

Michael - Why don't you enlighten me? Is the purpose of life to minimize energy expenditure? Being dead requires less energy than either option. In any event, there are many circumstances in which a moral shortcut is easier than following the rules. I outlined two such examples above.

Greg is a fundamentalist, and as such, any argument with him quickly becomes a reenactment of B'rer Rabbit and the Tar Baby. If you are walking home tomorrow and a satellite crushes you from space, Greg will argue it was your fault for not tracking its movements or buying sateliite protection services. There is no point in engaging such obstinance on any level.

If I know I can steal and get away with it, it's in my rational self interest to steal.

The ideal is capitalism, but in reality there will always be people who don't subscribe to the rules. These people don't limit their behavior to what Ayn Rand finds acceptable, and, therefore, if they're only smart enough not to get caught, they have an advantage over those who constrain themselves to Objectivist philosophy. "YOU CAN'T STEAL CUZ CAPITALISM" isn't a persuasive objection when somebody is walking off with your television. Here is an example: I recently found $20 cash on the counter in a Starbucks. It obviously had fallen out of somebody's pocket in the hustle and bustle of the ordering line. The law says the money still belongs to whoever dropped it, so the capitalist imperative was for me to report it to the police or store owner. That would have taken a lot time and effort, and I knew that realistically a) it was very unlikely to find its proper owner if I did report it, and b) somebody else would likely keep it if I left it there and walked away. In light of this, I decided to keep the money and buy something nice with it. Pragmatism won out over idealism because the ideal didn't conform to what the situation dictated. Similarly, I can go to the store and spend $100 on the latest word-processing software or I can download it for free at my convenience. Gee, that's a difficult one.

Was your personalized invitation lost in the mail?

SB - Thanks for the link. I got about halfway through it on the commute today. It offers an interesting perspective and raises valid points, but in my opinion, it focuses far too heavily on formative upbringing and not enough on the evolutionary and genetic role that men and women have filled for millions of years. This hour-long podcast on the gender differences has influenced my views more than any other source: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/11/baumeister_on_g.html If you accept Baumeister's genetics argument, men are where nature likes to experiment by rolling the dice, accepting an astronomically higher failure rate for a chance at game-changing evolutionary success. A genetically dominant woman can produce a handful of children, but a genetically dominant man can produce thousands, propelling evolution forward much more quickly. Presumably, this is why men are statistically more likely to be wild successes or dismal failures in life than women (e.g., 9 out of 10 CEOs are men, but so are 9 out of 10 homeless and incarcerated, killed by violence or at work, etc.). Men are nature's risk takers, experimenters, warriors, empire builders, etc. Of course within any variation across billions of individuals, there are going to be loads of exceptions, which is why generalizations shouldn't be taken to too far an extreme (something Pleasureman's blog seems to be guilty of, upon first impression).

Tony Soprano is one of the most socially intelligent characters of all time, and the side characters are street-smart in their own ways, but for the most part, you're right - that's the nature of their violent, live-in-the-moment world. Of course, there is a difference between dumb characters and dumb writing. I'm surprised you feel there aren't powerful women in the Game of Thrones series, although it is emphasized more in the later books, which the show hasn't covered yet. The show is mostly faithful to the novels, but I'd recommend reading them as well because Martin is a very talented writer. Daenerys begins her journey the way you describe, but she ends up in quite another position. In light of the title, I don't think it's a spoiler to point out the fifth book is more about her than any other character. Many of the women rule from behind the scenes with their husbands or sons as front-men. This is another theme of the series that I enjoy - there are different types of power and many paths that can lead to it.

Deanna, Did it bother you that all the major Sopranos characters were male and the few female characters were subservient to them? I've been rewatching the series, and I was just this week wondering to what extent female viewers would feel alienated or repulsed by the hyperaggressive, male-dominated atmosphere the show revolves around. I've been paying a lot of attention to power dynamics in my personal and professional life, so in addition to being entertaining, the interactions between the characters have given me food for thought. Game of Thrones has a lot of powerful female characters, which might be one reason it's been popular with both sexes.

My two favorite fictional series, Game of Thrones and The Sopranos, both explore the topics of power dynamics and codes of conduct. In each series, characters roughly fall into three categories: the powerful, agents of the powerful, and the powerless. A theme that runs through both series is that a code of conduct places one at risk of being dominated by powerful individuals or their agents who aren’t similarly constrained. Something that has always fascinated (and repulsed) me is how powerful individuals tend to corrupt organizations by installing their agents (often friends or relatives) in the place of merit-based hires, arbitrarily subverting organizational rules to reinforce their power, and self-servingly appropriating organization funds rather than investing in the organization or its members. I’d go so far as to say that I've never witnessed first-hand an organization that did not fall prey to these unpalatable human tendencies. How does Objectivism relate to these themes, and what does it have to say about the powerful using organizations for their own ends? What is the prescription for it? Is Objectivism, or Libertarianism, a code of conduct that can be exploited by those who aren’t constrained by its tenets?

Andrew, From the limited information in your profile, it's safe to say that, at a minimum, we have a lot in common. I could have written your post any number of nights when I was in college, feeling socially frustrated and lonely. I knew I had some kind of social problem that other people didn't have, but at the same time I could never quite put a finger on it. I'd make friends and acquaintances easily enough at first, but then as I got more comfortable with them and the barriers came down, they'd start slipping away and I'd get frustrated. At the same time, I kept getting into conflicts with people, but each conflict seemed justified at the time for this reason or other, and I brushed it off as there just being a lot of difficult people in the world. I wasn't wrong about that much, but what I didn't see was that my behavior was as much to blame as theirs was. A chance occurrence saved me from a life of constant frustration and loneliness, which was, after going through most of the other titles on the audio book shelf in my college library, I happened to take out How to Win Friends and Influence People (audio version) on a whim and listen to it in the car on my way to classes in the morning and evenings. I got a difficult-to-hear but much-needed dose of reality from that book and that was the turning point for me. Forget most of the self-help and get-rich-quick bullshit you hear about today - most of it is a book and lecture-tour racket patterning itself on the valuable insights of Carnegie, who is the real deal who started it all. Don't listen to the people here telling you that there is no problem with yourself either, which is implicitly just telling you to keep suffering. You deserve to be happy, but the world isn't going to change for you, so that means taking things into your own hands and making some big personal changes. Approach the problem skeptically and scientifically, because that's how Carnegie approaches it. The book isn't a sermon; it's a textbook and guide manual on how to be genuinely liked by others and get along with them, just as you would read a chemistry book on how molecules are composed and interact with each other. It has real-life examples and problems that are fascinating to read through. As those who read the book quickly realize, it's not about manipulation or being fake either - it's realizing the concrete things you do that drive other people away and learning how to correct them. This isn't The Secret being showcased on Oprah; it's more like an episode of Kitchen Nightmares for your personality, social life, and career. Do yourself a major favor and check the book out of a library today, buy it, or if you're so technically inclined, download it online. I like the audio version personally because you can listen on a jog or a long car ride. Please do this and report back. I hope you get your ass kicked by it, because that was the best thing that ever happened to me.

I don't know about that. They are people I "work with" everyday, so that's what they'd say if asked. My point is they might lack the first-hand knowledge or skills to know whether I'm IN FACT a good writer/editor/researcher/etc., but they've all promised in advance to say that I am. This may be out of kindness, their friendship to me, an overestimation of their own knowledge or ability, the human desire to be useful, or some combination of the above. Addendum: Many people are delusional about their friends and tend to exaggerate their positive traits and abilities. I'm not sure how to separate such worthless references from objective appraisals of workplace skills. For example, I had a ex-girlfriend with some very major personality flaws, but she surrounded herself with people who were always complimenting her and validating her bad behavior. The logic went something like: she is my friend, and I'm a good/talented person, therefore she MUST be a good/talented person also. I think if an interviewer asked any of her references whether she could solo pilot an F16 fighter jet without any formal training, they would answer that she could and had done it many times before.