Robert Baratheon

I provided three coworker references to one job for which I'm currently in the running. A few days ago I got an e-mail telling me how vitally important it was that the reference information was correct, and they required me to confirm the references because they WILL be calling them, etc. So far, nothing. My three references are really just workplace friends. They don't know much about what I do or whether I am any good at it, but they've all promised in advance to give me great recommendations. I think a lot of people will provide great references for anyone because they consider it a nice thing to do, they want to win favor with the person, or they don't want to create conflict by declining. This is the problem I would have as a hiring manager - how do you know the references aren't just full of shit? All it really proves is the person has three friends, or found three generous people in the world. There may be more value in speaking with someone's current supervisor as a reference, but that can unfairly create an awkward sitation for the applicant. Also, some bosses are liars/psychos and will say horrible things about the applicant out of vengeance or jealousy. After all, the candidate is leaving that job for a reason - it could be the management. I was only a reference for somebody once. He was a friend of mine, and I didn't really know if he was a good worker or not. I basically told the interviewer he wasn't a mass murderer. He got the job.

Michael, I'm intellectually sold on the sugar/carbs hypothesis as an explanation for many of our diseases of civilization. For me, it's a quality-of-life issue. Right now I try to eat reasonably healthy to the point where I'm not getting fat, as well as try get a decent amount of exercise. The reason I haven't gone whole-hog paleo diet or sugar-quarantine is because it would mean never going out to a restaurant again, which is a big part of my social life and personal enjoyment. Although I realize they are outliers, some people eat junk and live to 100, and some people eat well and check out at 50 regardless. That natural variation, and the possibility of spending my whole life depriving myself of everday food enjoyment and then dying young despite it all, having wasted all that time and effort and hapiness, is enough to make me question any kind of deprivation lifestyle. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts and rationale.

Does anybody have any insight or stories about "references"? Out of the hundreds of jobs I've applied for (and in some cases been selected for), I have never had a single reference of mine called. Why do employers routinely ask for a references list if they don't intend to call them? Also, is there any real value in the exercise when they do call references? It seems like anybody would be able to find a couple of buddies or coworkers to sing their praises, regardless of whether they are actually any good or not.

Michael - The first two seasons are phenomenal. The show lost its way in the third season, but stick with it and it finds its path again. I like Game of Thrones better, but there is no reason to pick one or the other - watch both. Alias seemed contrived to me, so I never bothered. When the leads are too made-up and gorgeous, it ruins the immersion effect for me for starters. I wouldn't have cable if I lived alone.

I used to spend a lot of mental energy hashing out the particulars of anarchist societies, but I've come to realize that such discussions do more harm than good. We're very unlikely to reach such a point in our lifetimes, and it serves to reinforce statist thinking by focusing on the most abstract and extreme libertarian examples, front-loading the analysis with details. Cut government spending by 10% and hold it there for a year. If society still functions, cut spending by another 10% and hold it for another year. People might realize the world doesn't end without bureaucrats micromanaging every aspect of their lives. Dive straight into the shallow end and you'll hit your head and drown.

There is always some higher truth or all-inclusive way of living that only the cult leader fully practices and understands. Greg employs his own version of the psychology by reducing all of life's problems to self-inflicted wounds and prescribing simplistic solutions from his own new-age hybrid of Christian spirituality and Objectivist self-reliance. Contradictions in the framework are resolved through increasingly tortured layers of circular reasoning, baseless assertions, and knee-jerk moral judgments of others.

For those who haven’t seen the show Breaking Bad, Walter White is a mild-mannered chemistry teacher who, through a series of unfortunate circumstances, finds himself the unapologetic ringleader of a brutal criminal enterprise by the end of the series. I’ve been thinking recently about how well-intentioned people like Mr. White can find their identities gradually eroded and wind up in a place they never would have chosen or predicted for themselves. One way this can happen to us is through “cognitive capture,” where a corrosive social or moral environment slowly warps even those who are initially hostile to its influence. A personal example is from my college years, when I worked in a year-long paid internship for a megacorporation with large government contracts. A group of us started together as gung-ho productive workers who would often forgo our lunch break to finish reports on expedited schedules. It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly where the transition began, but it must have been sometime when we left the plant and arrived back 15-30 minutes over our allotted lunch hour. Corporate procedure dictated that we inform our supervisors and mark the time down on our timesheets as unpaid, but it was just so much easier if we allocated it to one of our megaprojects and made up for lost time later. The incident didn’t change much at first, except weeks later it happened again, and then again, and there were never any observable consequences for our escalating transgressions. Months later, it had developed to the point where we would come in, goof off for the full 8 hours, and go home without having accomplished anything at all. Now you, the reader, may assert, “That wouldn’t have happened to me!” But consider that we ALL started out as reliable, hardworking employees, and we ALL ended up as Walter Whites of corporate productivity. Another example was a friend of mine who entered military service as a strongly independent libertarian. I remember asking him how he reconciled his politics and contrarian personality with his career choice, and whether he feared the outcome of his experiment. He replied that he could always retain his individuality by rejecting those aspects of the organization he despised while adopting the positive traits he admired. Years later, I found that he had been totally converted to institutional thinking and had adopted the habit of angrily denouncing any who challenged America’s defense spending or foreign policy on the basis that they lacked inside information and were in no position to question experts on the ground. My hypothesis is that the mind operates like a velociraptor from the film Jurassic Park, systematically testing the electrified fences for weaknesses that can give way to an easier existence. When we're placed in an environment with holes in the fence, and especially others to show us the way through, it can wear down our natural boundaries and incentivize habits that we never would have adopted on our own. I’m interested in hearing other examples of people “breaking bad” from their personal moral codes, and in thinking about ways in which we can prevent this degenerative process from occurring in ourselves and others.

I had a cartoonish view of Italy before I visited - everybody sitting around in cafes and restaurants on the piazzas wining and dining. It was actually quite difficult for us to find good places to eat. Most people just made their own food, and the restaurants were absurdly expensive - 5 euro cover to sit down, 3 euro for water, and 3 euro for bread before you even order your meal. We had maybe three or four options within a mile walking distance of our hotel in Rome, and none of them were that spectacular. Stay in New York, Boston, or DC and you'll have what, 100 choices? We had some great food in Tuscany, but we had to travel hours to the farms to get it.

I recently took a trip to Europe - Germany, Italy, Greece, and Turkey specifically - and the standard of living of the average European is like being poor in America. I was in (reverse) awe at how inefficient their societies are, despite being touted as socialist paradises by American progressives. There were very few product choices, everything was small, and prices were universally expensive. Owning a home is out of the question for the vast majority of Europeans. Going out to eat at a mediocre restaurant cost a fortune - they nickle and dime you for everything over there. Spending all your disposable income on 3-euro bottled water quickly becomes old as well. One thing that surprised me was the amount of graffiti and trash. It's a myth that Europe is cleaner than the United States. Oh yeah, they have homeless people too - lots of them. Europeans also don't seem to share the American concept of personal space. When I was in Greece and Italy, people would literally come stand or sit right next to you and talk loudly on their 1990's mobile phones or blow cigarette smoke in your face. I tried giving them the "are you kidding me?" look, but they didn't seem to recognize that either. I was very happy to arrive back in the United States. I was working at the White House when all the Keystone Pipeline protesters were being arrested for civil disobedience. A group of Chinese tourists came up to me and asked, extremely concerned, what was going to happen to them. I told them they'd have their photos taken at the police station and be released. I think they thought they were being sent to the salt mines.

Michael, I don't know what article you read, but there are some real haters on that list. The Canadian woman and the Indian woman in particular can STFU and GTFO. The central complaints seemed to be our lack of universal healthcare and perceived excesses of the American lifestyle. There seemed to be a lot of jealously regarding big houses and abundance of food. The Russian people on the list who had to live under communism or the post-communist kleptocracy seemed like they "get it." My economics professor told me after he gave a lecture in post-communist Romania, the students there thought he was joking about being able to order things from stores and not have them stolen by the truck drivers or one's neighbors.

Although you might not have meant it literally, Kacy never bullied me per se. I don't think that's his nature. He did feign friendship at a time when I didn't have many friends, during my high school years. As soon as I outgrew his tutelage and stopped accepted his lessons wholesale, he was no longer getting his narcissistic fixes from me and switched over to the put downs and dismissals that have continued ever since. I've been weightlifting quite a bit since high school, mentally and physically, and this forum is part of my beach now. Despite what he's said to the contrary, Kacy's presence or absence from this forum does not determine whether I will recreate here. If he chooses to walk by my blanket, however - having said the things that he's said - then he's going to get some sand kicked in *his* face by me, at least until he sets aside his ego and attempts to make amends for past wrongs. EDIT: None of this is to say I'm fabricating discussion points solely for purposes of retribution. As stated earlier, I'm telling the way things are. The difference is I've turned off the niceties and selective omissions that are a part of everyday human interaction, which those who offer respect get the benefit of and those who regularly disrespect me do not.

A lot makes sense now. It seems Greg has quite the history as a new-age preacher in online forums, and his experiences have all ended similarly.

Nicely said, on both counts. All I can offer are my own insights and opinions. Take them or leave them as you will. Before departing, however, I will retrieve one last piece for consideration: "To answer your question - yes, I most certainly have another purpose. In fact, I would be very happy not to have one single further instance of these interpersonal comments. I'd be very happy to just discuss ideas, positions, and formulations. I'd be happy just to ask questions and provoke discussion on hot-button topics." This statement was made by Kacy right before he quit OL in a huff several months ago. If we take him at his word, then what is the hot-button topic of this thread that Kacy created? What important questions is he asking? What ideas, positions, and formulations did he expect people to share? Nothing of the sort can be found because it's a personal thread about him, so I responded in kind on the personal level. Now he's upset that I didn't stick to the script he provided us. Well, tough noogies there. Here's another nugget from the same thread: "RB registered here for one reason and one reason only – to troll and harass me....I don't suspect he'll stick around when his only real incentive for being here is removed." What's notable here, beside the fact that (as usual) he was dead wrong in his analysis and prediction, is that as far as Kacy is concerned, I only exist in relation to him and his adventures - just like all the other commenters here only matter insofar as they are willing participants in his script. Kacy never asks about their own personal experiences or thoughts because he doesn't care about them. However, it's only natural that you would be absolutely fascinated by his life and his thoughts about it. You are dealing with a narcissistic personality. Being used is another way of putting it. And now you also can never say that you haven't been told.

Blue and clear this morning in Virginia. One can see for miles from the right vantage point.

I don't understand - why offer them anything at all? Employers today get hundreds of applicants for every vacancy they post. They are firmly in the driver's seat and can accept or reject candidates as they please. These aren't walk-ins off the street. They are people applying for a posted position with a full job description, and typically a predetermined salary or pay range. Why the big secret production over what that range is? Is it really just not wanting to throw out the first number? If that's all it is, then why the great offense taken when applicants behave similarly, to the extent where they even use it as a disqualification of the candidate?

Brant, Normally I would agree with you, but as you say, there is a broader context and pattern of behavior that changes things. In any event, these topics aren't anything Kacy hasn't publicly introduced for comment here or on Facebook many times before. You're free to throw in your own improvisations as long as you aren't threatening the premise of the story being told. It's when you start to notice dangerous cracks in the foundation of the set that you are quickly shown the door. The Last Psychiatrist describes narcissism as follows: "The narcissist believes he is the main character in his own movie... his friends are always supporting characters, that can be called at any hour of the night, that will always be interested in what he is wearing, or what he did... When two narcissists go out, they just wait for the other person's mouth to stop moving so they can talk about themselves... The narcissist reduces everyone else to a type, as it relates to himself; on the other hand, the narcissist, as the main character in his movie, has an identity that he wants (i.e. he made it up) and requires all others to supplement that identity." So it's Act Two here on Objectivist Living, and you are all being called. The hero of the movie has returned home from his important and dangerous mission, and he wants his ticker tape parade. We, the supporting characters, are expected to supplement his identity as a complicated but incorruptible peace-loving warrior who cuts against the crowd and stands alone for principles of liberty and self-determination, as a Roark-like example for others to follow. Some of us have more specialized roles to play. For example, Brant is the marine "brother" - the only one who can understand the trials and tribulations he has faced. I didn't like my role as the naive protege, so I rejected it. Only the show *must* go on, so I've been recast as a villain who exists only to cast aspersions on the hero. I don't particularly like that role either. If we accept TLP's explanation, a narcissistic injury is when the narcisist is called on his own bullshit, either explicitly or by a confluence of outside events. He gets a glimpse that maybe the script of the movie he's writing isn't very realistic, or some people think it sucks and don't want to be part of it - they have their own movies to be in anyway. There is only one way that narcissists respond to a narcissistic injury, and that is with rage.

Brant and Stephen - There is wisdom in what you say. Although I realize it's become something of a cliche to say it, I do believe World War II was a defensive and necessary war. Some kind of action was required in Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but nation building in the middle east is a fools errand. I'm specifically not faulting Kacy for his choice of military careerism. Suffice it to say that it was something he felt he had to do, and he did it. By the same token, I'm not going to line up to kiss his ass merely because he wears a uniform instead of a suit. He seems to feed on that kind of compulsory admiration, which is implicitly the point of this thread, but I was never one for platitudes. Kacy has publicly bragged that he'll be able to retire young with a military pension and never have to worry about money again. It's possible you aren't as familiar with his story as I am. The U.S. Government lifted him out of a very tight spot in life - a spot for which he had only his poor life choices to blame - and the taxpayer has paid his way in full ever since for no visible return on investment. Despite this plain reality, he will loudly assert to all who will listen - up close and personal style - that he is a Randian producer living fully according to his code of self-reliance and bootstrapping. Then he'll go to amazing lengths to rationalize U.S. military presence across the world as consistent with principles of non-aggression and limited government. It's a dog and pony show, and I refuse to pay the price of admission.

Within the intellectual framework and moral code Kacy claims to hold, yes. And the defensiveness, the need for affirmation, and the layered rationalizations are exactly the same as those displayed by Carmella before the psychiatrist confronts her with the hard truths about her own hypocrisies. I'm not arguing against blood money or military service per se. In fact, I'm not sure it's possible to avoid participating in the collectivist system anymore, which is by design to make us all complicit in it. I'm arguing against self-deception - lying to yourself about who you are, why you do what you do, and the real effects of your actions. It doesn't seem like you suffer from this particular problem. It also sounds like you took the psychiatrist's advice, so to speak.

One thing I've noticed is advertised positions never list a salary or salary range anymore. The field is always left blank. This Monster.com article has an "HR consultant" complaining about applicants who ask about salary and benefits in the first interview, like it's a major faux pas or an insult to her profession. Why the cloak and dagger routine? The whole purpose of a job is to receive payment for one's labor. If the salary and benefits being offered are too low, there is no purpose in conducting an interview in the first place. It would be a waste of everyone's time. What is so offensive about asking what a position pays?

Kacy, If you want to be a military lifer, sell yourself a bunch of bull about "defending freedoms" sailing around the world, and retire young on taxpayer money, you can live that life. People will buy you beers and thank you for your service. They might even let you call yourself a libertarian in their presence. I tell you the way things are. One thing you can never say is you haven't been told: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lx2GUqFkg

I had a three-person-panel interview on Friday with a well-known Washington, DC institution. The interviewers were smart, savvy people who had been successful in business, so I was surprised when they took out a list of painfully cliched situational interview questions that I was required to answer on the spot. There were 10-15 questions in this section of the interview, and each question required me to admit some kind of personal shortcoming or explain how I resolved a generic workplace problem. I have to believe the interviewers knew the questions demanded a degree of dishonesty. I'm wondering now if that's the true probative value of such questions: if a candidate can lie well enough to you to preserve appearances, he can lie well to others on behalf of the organization. If you can't get any dirty laundry from the candidate in such a power-imbalanced setting, he presumably knows not to air the organization's dirty laundry in public. In other words, they may be looking for a certain type of dishonesty.

Kacy, The United States should be World Police now? Not a very libertarian position. Strange to hear you, of all people, using it as a justification of massive taxpayer expenditures. Your explanation is precisely what somebody who is rationalizing his income would say when confronted with a values contradiction. That fact alone should get you asking some hard questions. Your most frustrating quality, to those who know you and value intellectual honesty, is that you are never willing to consider those hard questions. To hear you tell it, you're always doing exactly what you're supposed to be. Sorry, but I have a hard time believing anyone is that lucky or good.

Probably not enough. Questionable return on a multi-billion-dollar taxpayer investment.

What motive would that be?

How many enemy combatants did the ship kill?