Reconsidering Rand's Ethics

[Selene]

Adam,

Sometimes, when I make a clever post, I'd like to have that acknowledged rather than always just ignoring it or deflecting and instantly trying to "one-up". Not just me, that's a general human 'conversational' relating to people thing:

Notice how on another thread today I showed appreciation for your interesting work on researching some things in Atlas Shrugged.

Phil:

Thank you for the compliment. The Diana question about bread was discussed on this forum a while ago, I believe. However, I will attempt to be more attentive to your clever postings.

Believe me, there was no attempt in my heart, mind or soul to one up your post.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... just that some of the sharper minds in Oism [not just ARI people] don't post often. Right or wrong, they find the chaff to substance ratio too high for them.

Phil,

I agree with this so long as you are saying forum posting and posting comments on blogs in general.

Sometimes you find a "sharper mind" like Tibor Machan who feels at home at a specific place (RoR in his case). And that's perfectly fine. I don't believe he does not stray from there because he rejects other forums. I think it is more of a limit measure he puts on himself so he doesn't get entangled in too many discussions.

The problem with interactivity on an Internet site is that it is open to all comers. When you go on one, you either accept that reality and learn how to deal with it so that it does not suck up all your time or you suffer.

Since this is a specific skill, and there is no real school where you can learn this skill yet (as the Internet is relatively new in human intercourse), I believe people who are more devoted to writing books and staging lectures stay away in general so they can get some work done.

This is one of the several reasons I always say if a person comes to OL and posts, that is good for OL. If a person stays away, that is good for OL. What is good for the member is good for OL. And even if a person does not become a member, that is good for OL.

Call it my rosy colored glasses.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Tibor Machan has no toleration for being taken to task on an Internet forum. That's why he's on R of R. I think Rowlands protects him on that matter.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

This is shaping up to be the greatest Phil take down ever. I've done Phil take downs, so I know the best when I see it. This should have its own thread, so it can be conveniently referenced. Can't wait for part 2.

You jest. We would have to have separate Dogpile On Soandso topics. It would no be fair to Phil to have a thread like that devoted only to him. Everybody gets snitty and superior sometimes, me notably, so I would feel an awful hypocrite if there were a Mexican Wrestling style topic on him but not on me.

So, in the meantime, I will update what should be <a href="http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10167&st=0&p=125703NB">my one and only takedown of Phil forever and ever amen</a>. When that last NB is affixed, I will delete it and try once more to be the reasonable fellow I pretend to want everyone else to be.

Edited February 21, 2011 by william.scherk

[Philip Coates]

> I agree with this so long as you are saying forum posting and posting comments on blogs in general.

Michael, I certainly don't think it's unique to OL. But I do think it's a universal problem on (unmoderated) Oist boards and on "ideological" boards in general:

Strong sets of ideas attract people with big mouths, chips on their shoulders, easily offended themselves, people with poor social skills, people who are abrasive, people whose posting length is inversely proportional to how many new ideas they have to convey....or combinations of the preceding.

They are seldom driven away themselves but they can empty a room almost as fast as a rabid skunk with leprosy.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Like I said before, my stats don't support your opinions.

Intelligent people come and so do the others.

That's just the way it is, not the way anyone thinks it should be.

I wager that other Objectivist and libertarian forums log the same (even a place like SLOP).

The Internet age is not the same as when it was possible for a select few to control access to the media. We are now witnessing how people act and interact when they have free transit to come and go as they please--and even remain anonymous if they please.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Strong sets of ideas attract people with big mouths, chips on their shoulders, easily offended themselves, people with poor social skills, people who are abrasive, people whose posting length is inversely proportional to how many new ideas they have to convey....or combinations of the preceding.

Is this a refutation of Objectivism?

-Brant

heh

[James Heaps-Nelson]

> I agree with this so long as you are saying forum posting and posting comments on blogs in general.

Michael, I certainly don't think it's unique to OL. But I do think it's a universal problem on (unmoderated) Oist boards and on "ideological" boards in general:

Strong sets of ideas attract people with big mouths, chips on their shoulders, easily offended themselves, people with poor social skills, people who are abrasive, people whose posting length is inversely proportional to how many new ideas they have to convey....or combinations of the preceding.

They are seldom driven away themselves but they can empty a room almost as fast as a rabid skunk with leprosy.

Phil, you've talked about what drives people away. Maybe you should focus more on what attracts people. The old SOLOHQ had a formula that worked. Regular articles of a readable length on several different topics, young organizers who ran it, a collection of spunky personalities and it took on a set of underdiscussed problems in Objectivism.

I can tell you what brings me here off and on, sometimes more off than on. There are/have been a collection of really bright scientific people here who are willing to get their hands dirty with Einstein, quantum mechanics and other thorny scientific areas and show how Objectivist thinkers are underdeveloped along this dimension. In my experience there is nothing more motivating to bright people than to have their hat handed to them in substantive debate by people who know more than they do. That has happened occasionally for me when Boydstun, Kolker, Dragonfly, Ust, Stuttle, Campbell, Wissler and yes sometimes even Michael Kelly and others have contributed.

The problem you are running into is the "what now" phenomenon in Objectivism. People spend some time with it, sometimes considerable time and they either disagree with something or they get to the end and say "what now" and the answer isn't going to be to take another Peikoff lecture (which reminds me a little of reading a Siegbert Tarrasch book on chess. If you only use the Ruy Lopez, The Queen's Gambit and the Giouco Piano all will be well) or to go to another TAS seminar and have a bull session about this or that psychological theory, complexity theory, neuroscience or the like and its only once a year with little coordinated follow through.

So here is my suggestion, you've come out of the Peikoff orbit from way back and have a lot to contribute, but stop trying to save this or that forum or lecture people on their behavior or complain about this or that poster, it only encourages them, causes them to get defensive and puts you in the strange position of being an Objectivist pedagogical scold. I know that's how Peikoff used to do it, but in a lot of ways he's an idiot. Just put your own material out there and trust that it will make the world a better place which I can see is a big part of your motivation.

If you want to know where Objectivism has to go next, take a look at its almost unique nature in the humanities as a system built on axioms. Then take a look at the complicated entities and systems that underlie the axioms. Complex systems can be characterized by boundary conditions, unpredictable behavior in certain regimes and multilevel feedback. Those are things that have to be fleshed out. Objectivism has some very solvable lacunae and they have nothing to do with various personality pathologies. Sure the road will be smoother if those things go away, but give people a little breathing room and don't sweat it if things don't go your way, people will surprise you sometimes.

Jim

Edited February 21, 2011 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Giving People the Response They Earn

Jim,

I think your advice to take a positive attitude, focus on positive contributions is sound, and I do that elsewhere.

But I've found that not to work on boards which have descended to the level of this one. So I simply use it largely as an outlet to 'vent' on. (You yourself were driven away and got in some food fights from time to time here, if I recall.)

I have zero belief that the most frequent participants here or on SoloP are open or receptive, based on several years of experience in each place. My tone here has gotten *steadily and inexorably more negative* over several years. But that's just here.

And it's what the 'frequent flyers' here pretty much deserve: I'm hardly a turn the other ass cheek kind of guy.

If there were a more receptive group 'lurking' here who are open to long thoghtful, positive posts, I'd have hoped to see that from their responsivenss and followup posts when I do that. I don't know if you've noted it, but I've made many of exactly the kind of posts you refer to that I gave a good deal of thought to:

You spoke of the sciences or post on serious topics: I made some points just this week on why I believe the Michelson-Morley experiment does not disprove the existence of the ether. No response. And I made this week a post arguing that the dispute over whether the choice to live is a moral one or a pre-moral one is simply an issue of formulation. No response.

Now if this were a serious place and the retinue here were prone to thoughtful, non-snarky, non-hostile, non-belligerent response in good faith, they could have still disagreed with either of my arguments and posted why I was wrong.

That I would have respected.

Note also: I'm far more positive when I have posted on RoR and I am involved in another, much more positive (and much larger) Oist project and communinty organizing website where I haven't had a single harsh word for anyone.

And I'm far more positive and respectful here when I'm dealing with people who disagree with me in a generally polite, serious, and respectful tone ...such as yourself, Ted Keer, Roger, Jerry Biggers, Robert Campbell...even though one of us might lose our temper on occasion and there are strong disagreements between myself and most of the listed people.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If there were a more receptive group 'lurking' here who are open to long thoghtful, positive posts, I'd have hoped to see that from their responsivenss and followup posts when I do that.

Phil,

It's a choice and you play too many games.

If you insist on dishing out crap to people, you are not going to be taken very seriously. Nobody has a crystal ball to predict when you are going to be in a bad mood.

If you want a role model--one right her on OL and right under you nose--for the reaction you wish, please look at the participation of Stephen Boydstun. High quality stuff. Almost no bickering. And, believe me, he has some loyal fans.

You might want to ask yourself one day why that happens with him and doesn't happen with you. (I guess it's just everybody else's fault, right? Yeah, right.)

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Ankle Biters and Trying to Get Even

> why that happens with him and doesn't happen with you

One big reason is because SB doesn't criticize people. Oists don't take any criticism very well. What I've noticed happen is that if I criticized something you or ND or Brant or Adam did or said, it will lodge itself with you as a small kernel of resentment. And the person will look for any flaw to find in anything I say "to get theirs back".

Getting even is something we learn early.

So, yeah, they are definitely looking to "take me down" in a way they would not have been if I had never criticized their grammar or logic or writing or taken them to task for being mean-spirited.

I'm a pretty outspoken guy. On everything: Including people's mistakes as I see them. That's the real reason I am resented and have a handful of 'ankle-biters' waiting to pounce.

And of course, it's a vicious cycle. It escalates my outspokenness and willingnes to criticize. Which escalates the attempt by yourself and others to try to outargue me, take me down, find a flaw, etc.

And to not give credit or acknowledge it when I make a really good post or point - on literature or science or philosophy or ethics or computers or movies: "I'm not gonna give that son of a bitch Phil the satisfaction."

(By the way I'm not the only person this 'escalation' happens with - Shayne, X-Ray and others get into it with particular other people. And the 'grudges' stretch across post after post. No one bears a grudge longer than an outraged Objectivist.... )

Edited February 21, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

By the way Michael, you made a comment about my being 'in a bad mood'. That's not it. When I criticize something in a post it's because I honestly believe it is wrong or mistaken. And think it's an objectively important thing to mention.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Right, Phil.

Like I said. It's everybody else's fault, isn't it?

Those nasty little folks just won't accept your virtues, so you are helpless to change the situation.

Yeah, right.

This kind of victimization gets irritating to me at times.

If you want to criticize Objectivists of a certain kind, getting even is not my number one beef. Yammering about feeling persecuted for being virtuous while persecuting others is.

They always blame someone else for their own shortcomings and prance about bashing other people and other people's stuff with a sense of morally inflated entitlement--totally uneaerned at that.

I say that is the reason Stephen doesn't get flack and you do. He doesn't do that.

Anyway, he's too smart and busy with important things to even be bothered. Like I said, he's a good role model if you are really after the reaction you claim you want.

I don't believe you really want that, though. I think you're after something else. And I'm calling you on it.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Subject: Ankle Biters and Trying to Get Even

> why that happens with him and doesn't happen with you

One big reason is because SB doesn't criticize people. Oists don't take any criticism very well. What I've noticed happen is that if I criticized something you or ND or Brant or Adam did or said, it will lodge itself with you as a small kernel of resentment. And the person will look for any flaw to find in anything I say "to get theirs back".

Getting even is something we learn early.

So, yeah, they are definitely looking to "take me down" in a way they would not have been if I had never criticized their grammar or logic or writing or taken them to task for being mean-spirited.

I'm a pretty outspoken guy. On everything: Including people's mistakes as I see them. That's the real reason I am resented and have a handful of 'ankle-biters' waiting to pounce.

And of course, it's a vicious cycle. It escalates my outspokenness and willingnes to criticize. Which escalates the attempt by yourself and others to try to outargue me, take me down, find a flaw, etc.

And to not give credit or acknowledge it when I make a really good post or point - on literature or science or philosophy or ethics or computers or movies: "I'm not gonna give that son of a bitch Phil the satisfaction."

(By the way I'm not the only person this 'escalation' happens with - Shayne, X-Ray and others get into it with particular other people. And the 'grudges' stretch across post after post. No one bears a grudge longer than an outraged Objectivist.... )

Phil,

One thing I recommend you do is to read Games People Play by Eric Berne. When you understand that this digging in and grudge-holding behavior is basically a cyclical psychological pattern, you're not going to be so adamant about criticizing it. Getting even for many people is not a matter of justice, but a transactional psychological payoff (as in I'm a virtuous person I gave them what they deserved). One of the problems Objectivism has is that there is no outlet. Giving people what they deserve (negatively) sounds good in theory, but many times a better result can be achieved by not feeding into a negative cycle. When you understand some of the basis for people's behavior, you can more easily stop the itch to react. It's not that you condone the behavior, it's that you realize you that you don't have to react and that by not reacting you often get a better result.

Also, in my experience, Objectivism sometimes glorifies what John Gottman calls Great Stone Face behavior. When people get into this mode they basically treat each other with contempt and don't interact. Objectivists often rationalize it as earned negative judgment when more often they simply got into a bad pattern with somebody.

Also, I wouldn't put getting even as a consciously learned behavior. Sometime when we were between 3-8, we internalized that there is survival value in making someone regret that they messed with us. You say getting even is learned. I say it is subconscious survival behavior. You aren't going to "unwire" it from somebody by pointing out how irrational it is. So when you go out of your way to criticize somebody with a thin skin, it's a little like going out of your way to step on a rattlesnake. When it bites, you shouldn't be surprised and at some point you realize you don't have to go step on it to preserve justice.

Jim

Edited February 21, 2011 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Brant Gaede]

By the way Michael, you made a comment about my being 'in a bad mood'. That's not it. When I criticize something in a post it's because I honestly believe it is wrong or mistaken. And think it's an objectively important thing to mention.

Unconscious disingenuity. Sometimes this is true, usually it appears not to be.

--Brant

Edited February 21, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: Ankle Biters and Trying to Get Even

> why that happens with him and doesn't happen with you

One big reason is because SB doesn't criticize people. Oists don't take any criticism very well. What I've noticed happen is that if I criticized something you or ND or Brant or Adam did or said, it will lodge itself with you as a small kernel of resentment. And the person will look for any flaw to find in anything I say "to get theirs back".

Getting even is something we learn early.

So, yeah, they are definitely looking to "take me down" in a way they would not have been if I had never criticized their grammar or logic or writing or taken them to task for being mean-spirited.

I'm a pretty outspoken guy. On everything: Including people's mistakes as I see them. That's the real reason I am resented and have a handful of 'ankle-biters' waiting to pounce.

And of course, it's a vicious cycle. It escalates my outspokenness and willingnes to criticize. Which escalates the attempt by yourself and others to try to outargue me, take me down, find a flaw, etc.

And to not give credit or acknowledge it when I make a really good post or point - on literature or science or philosophy or ethics or computers or movies: "I'm not gonna give that son of a bitch Phil the satisfaction."

(By the way I'm not the only person this 'escalation' happens with - Shayne, X-Ray and others get into it with particular other people. And the 'grudges' stretch across post after post. No one bears a grudge longer than an outraged Objectivist.... )

If you were a troll, Phil, I'd let the crap you post--it's not all crap by a long shot--float by to its natural destination. It's just because you are sincere and smart that I don't let you get away with it. It has nothing to do with getting back. In fact, it has nothing to do with changing your behavior. If that's not hopeless it might as well be. Re the quote function. It has to do with not sanctioning through silence your many misrepresentations about many people, including myself, usually by making generalized statements. It has to do with keeping the record straight.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Subject: Saving the World 101

For those of you out there who want to save the world or improve it, here are some practical suggestions about the basics you need to dominate before you will be able to have any affect at all on people.

Let's start with the credibility issue. Find a blackboard and write the following phrase 200 times a day for two weeks:

I will never do the opposite of what I tell others to do.

I will never do the opposite of what I tell others to do.

I will never do the opposite of what I tell others to do.

I will never do the opposite of what I tell others to do.

I will never do the opposite of what I tell others to do.

(... and so on)

Nothing destroys your credibility more than telling people you don't control to do one thing and acting as if this doesn't apply to you. Not only does it destroy your credibility, people resent it. Nobody admires a hypocrite except other hypocrites.

Now let's understand the metaphysics of improving the world. But first, make sure you have done the previous step for two whole weeks. Most people who want to save the world are really, really hard-headed. So two weeks (at a minimum) are needed just for the idea to penetrate into their heads. I would even recommend a full month or two before moving on.

Anyway, after that, write 200 times a day for two weeks the following phrase:

Denunciation doesn't improve anything without attraction.

Denunciation doesn't improve anything without attraction.

Denunciation doesn't improve anything without attraction.

Denunciation doesn't improve anything without attraction.

Denunciation doesn't improve anything without attraction.

(... and so on)

The message of this one will probably be lost on the aspiring saviors of mankind at the start. So be sure to leave your mind open while you write on the blackboard and see what seeps in.

Once again, if two weeks doesn't do it, do another two weeks. then another and another until the idea is clear, i.e., that people choose to improve, they don't improve by decree. You cannot will people to choose what you want them to choose. You can attract them to improvement by setting an example and letting them come by their own choice, but that's all you can do. That's the only way the human spirit works. Anything else is manipulation and you can't manipulate people into being spiritually better.

And you certainly cannot denounce people into becoming better. That's just another form of manipulation. You denounce to destroy, which is the proper use of denunciation, not to improve.

That's a mouthful, I know, but after a couple of weeks writing the phrase above, what this means should at least be a faint glimmer. The only thing I can say to the earnest moral crusaders who have difficulty with this is that it gets better over time. You will understand if you keep at it.

Now the last step for the 101 class. If you get this one right, you are ready for great things. And the sky's the limit. Write the following phrase on the blackboard 200 times a day for two weeks.

If I want to change the world, I must start by changing myself.

If I want to change the world, I must start by changing myself.

If I want to change the world, I must start by changing myself.

If I want to change the world, I must start by changing myself.

If I want to change the world, I must start by changing myself.

(... and so on)

Sadly, some of you will never pass. You will refuse to believe that this is it. You will become bitter as the years go by and your own mark on the world stays minuscule. But others will pass--and many of them will not even need to write phrases on a blackboard. They are the ones who will change the world for the better.

Michael

[sjw]

You spoke of the sciences or post on serious topics: I made some points just this week on why I believe the Michelson-Morley experiment does not disprove the existence of the ether. No response.

I missed that one, could you post a link?

Now if this were a serious place and the retinue here were prone to thoughtful, non-snarky, non-hostile, non-belligerent response in good faith, they could have still disagreed with either of my arguments and posted why I was wrong.

That I would have respected.

As I've said before I think Phil has a point in there somewhere. I think it would be nice if one could start a thread here, have a rough and tumble debate, but without the hostile, snarky, stalking, belligerent personal attacks. Ironically though Phil lists as one of the guys he likes as one of the worst offenders I've seen here (though he seems to be better behaved of late).

So I have to conclude that if Phil were moderator, he'd be completely incompetent at it. And I've never seen any heavily moderated forum that was actually moderated justly. The best kind of moderation happens on Facebook, where if you get some irrational asshole who likes to stalk you in every thread, incessantly changing the subject from that of the thread to some new personal attack, you just unfriend him.

I don't like at least part of what Phil is complaining about any more than Phil does. If he thinks it's better elsewhere, he should go elsewhere. But he keeps coming back here to complain. Why? That's the part I don't understand. Maybe he's concluded OL is the best alternative but doesn't understand why that is so, or why OL would be destroyed if it adopted Phil as moderator.

Shayne

[Selene]

Shayne:

Einstein Method, Rand Misunderstanding

Post #11 is one of Phil's posts.

Adam

[George H. Smith]

I'm a pretty outspoken guy. On everything: Including people's mistakes as I see them. That's the real reason I am resented and have a handful of 'ankle-biters' waiting to pounce.

I have yet to encounter anyone, in whatever setting, who calls people's mistakes as he does not see them. Who is an ankle-biter and who is not is a matter of perspective. Moreover, in your case there is the question of whether you have any vital organs above the ankles worth going for.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I'm a pretty outspoken guy. On everything: Including people's mistakes as I see them. That's the real reason I am resented and have a handful of 'ankle-biters' waiting to pounce.

I have yet to encounter anyone, in whatever setting, who calls people's mistakes as he does not see them. Who is an ankle-biter and who is not is a matter of perspective. Moreover, in your case there is the question of whether you have any vital organs above the ankles worth going for.

Ghs

I have yet to experience my first ounce of Phil resentment, but I think he's trying to talk about me as well as all hoi intellectual polloi here on OL.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> ...In your case there is the question of whether you have any vital organs above the ankles worth going for. [GHS]

Up yours, asshole.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

> ...In your case there is the question of whether you have any vital organs above the ankles worth going for. [GHS]

Up yours, asshole.

Said with the searing wit and originality I have come to expect from you, Phil.

As you observed in an earlier post, "Oists don't take any criticism very well." My first thought upon reading your comment was "Who does?" -- but maybe you had a point, after all.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

> ...In your case there is the question of whether you have any vital organs above the ankles worth going for. [GHS]

Up yours, asshole.

Said with the searing wit and originality I have come to expect from you, Phil.

As you observed in an earlier post, "Oists don't take any criticism very well." My first thought upon reading your comment was "Who does?" -- but maybe you had a point, after all.

Ghs

Phil might have said, "Up yours with The Empire State Building, asshole!"

--Brant

be thankful for small favors

[George H. Smith]

> ...In your case there is the question of whether you have any vital organs above the ankles worth going for. [GHS]

Up yours, asshole.

Said with the searing wit and originality I have come to expect from you, Phil.

As you observed in an earlier post, "Oists don't take any criticism very well." My first thought upon reading your comment was "Who does?" -- but maybe you had a point, after all.

Ghs

Phil might have said, "Up yours with The Empire State Building, asshole!"

--Brant

be thankful for small favors

Okay. That's not quite up to the standard of Rostand's Cyrano, but it will do in a pinch.

Ghs

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uyCEqpMupIc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>