Psychologizing

[Philip Coates]

> Wouldn't it be better to simply say that wielding the flashing saber of insult ends up driving away the substance of discussion? And the morale of those who try to undertake it?

I'd agree with Greybird, here. I think this is a short way to name the central point.

All of us occasionally lose our temper. Debating whether an angry or bitter broadside at someone (I call someone an ass; he calls me an evader who is hypocritically, cynically trying to dodge facts) is a mild insult, an ad hominem, psychologizing or some combination is a secondary, technical issue.

It tends to obscure or distract from a central point:

One who -regularly- does such things is doing something damaging to clear, thoughtful discussion. And it seems to fairly constantly happen not just on OL or SoloP but it periodically erupts in the wider Objectivist community, creating more embittered, warring factions. Threads and alliances are regularly derailed by this sort of thing. To the extent that we have ongoing "tong wars" when certain people encounter each other on a thread and thoughtful points or posts get buried or lost while we sit on the sidelines, eat popcorn, and watch the bloodletting.

You may think this is all very entertaining. But insults, ad hominems, psychologizing, and other forms of personal attack damage the purpose of keeping the discussion on the track of the facts and issues and arguments: Not on the supposed personal defects of your opponent. In a wider arena, they also damage the goal of keeping people from fighting the ever-expanding power of the state by being preoccupied with personal squabbles, with perpetuating feuds and hostilities and enmities and name-calling. And then outsiders pick this up and write articles in Slate saying see, they're just a bunch of cultists. Whether it be Peikoff psychologizing about McCaskey or Rand moralizing about Kant, or a minor 'swipe' at somebody on SoloP, it's all a focus on the personalities.

I don't think it really justifies the sarcastic term the 'civility police' to point out these things, do you? It's not as if these issues have not severely damaged Objectivist circles or limited our success in changing things or getting a respectful hearing, is it?

Edited March 25, 2011 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

One who -regularly- does such things is doing something damaging to clear, thoughtful discussion....

I think you do things all the time that are "damage to clear, thoughtful discussion." In fact, I honestly believe you are one of the worse offenders on OL in this regard. But you don't see it, do you? You regard yourself as normally a model of civility, probably because you may not engage in explicit name calling very often. But you psychologize incessantly -- I don't know anyone who does it more than you -- and you engage in other tactics that can be extremely offensive. (I will give you examples, if you like.)

And here we have the main problem. Civility is largely a matter of subjective perception. Your offensive tactics have been pointed out to you before, and not only by me. So what do you do when this happens? Do you engage in self-reflection in an honest attempt to improve yourself? No, of course not. Like other people, you defend yourself by proclaiming your innocence, or you explain that you were justified, or you simply ignore the complaints. Then you go on your merry way and lecture others about their faults.

Unless you show a serious interest in improving your own manners, then why should anyone listen to you? And before you proclaim that I have committed an ad hominem fallacy here, let me assure you that I have not. The kind of criticism I have presented here is not an ad hominem fallacy, even though I have directed my criticism against a person. If you don't understand this, I will explain why.

Ghs

[Jonathan]

Wouldn't it be better to simply say that wielding the flashing saber of insult ends up driving away the substance of discussion? And the morale of those who try to undertake it?

Does it drive away the substance of discussion? I don't think it does. I think that those who feel they've been insulted often use it as an excuse to exit a discussion to which they were incapable of bringing substance in the first place. Insults and substance usually coexist quite well together. I think that most discussions here on OL which have included insults have been much more productive and substantive than the discussions in which schoolmarms and other civility police have shown up to nag, lecture and otherwise attempt to control others. That is what drives away substance and destroys discussions. I think the whole civility thing is often just a tactic used by those who have nothing to add to a discussion and want to shut it down because the side they support is losing the argument.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Well, George, Phil has made a great effort to tamp all that down lately.

--Brant

[Xray]

What if Billy C. tells you that he uses ad hominem as a synonym for "insult",

quoting to you an excerpt from articles like the following.

"The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ad+hominem

Here we agree. When people complain about an ad hominem, in many cases all they really mean is that they have been insulted, by whatever means and for whatever reason.

That's correct.

Suppose someone calls Billy Civility a "jackass," and he replies, "Ad hominem!" If, by "ad hominem," Billy means to say that he has been insulted, then he has given us a valuable piece of information, and our keen observer deserves our gratitude and an appropriate reaction:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/g6GuEswXOXo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The linguistic discipline of pragmatics focuses on the speaker's goal in using various speech acts in certain situations, it focuses on what the speaker wants to convey, what he/she wants to imply without saying so directly.

So when Billy C. replies to the person who has called him a "jackass", with "This is an insult!", Billy's goal is not to convey that he has been intellectually able to successfully identify "jackass" used in this context as belonging to the category "insult" - what Billy wants to convey is that that the person who called him "jackass" has violated a rule of conversational conduct, that he disapproves of this, and that the person is to stop it.

[To P. Coates]:

Some time ago you responded to one of my posts by calling me an asshole. Okay, this was obviously an insult. If I didn't like your insulting language, I had a number of options. I could have asked you to stop using insults; I could have refused to deal with you any longer; I could have insulted you back; and so forth.

But suppose I responded by saying, "To call me an asshole is an ad hominem." What might I have meant by this? Well, if I were using "ad hominem" to mean any kind of insult, then my original statement, "To call me an asshole is an ad hominem," would simply mean this: "To call me an asshole is an insult."

What are the odds that in calling asshole an ad hominem, I merely mean that asshole is an insult? This is not very likely, to say the least. For what would be the point? Do I regard you as so dense as not to understand that asshole is an insult?

Same example as above. Pointing out "a**hole" as an ad hominem (used as a synonym for "insult" here) is an indirect way of telling the debate opponent that a rule of conversation has been violated by using this term.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

Well, George, Phil has made a great effort to tamp all that down lately.

--Brant

Are you serious? If so, take a look at Phil's post #12 on this thread. I made it clear in my response that I regarded this post as very insulting:

Thanks for dismissing my arguments before you have even given me a chance to state what they are. Typical. Someone who would do this is an intellectual lowlife and has no business preaching civility to others.

Even the level headed Robert Campbell remarked, "Phil has just reminded me why I set him on "ignore" a while back."

So what did Phil do after this? Did he apologize? Did he even consider the possibility that I had a point of any kind? Nope. He responded with a preachy defense in #21 . Here he claimed that "what you did is -launch an attack- on me for daring to ask or criticize!"

Things got worse later, after I remarked how civil this thread had been since Phil had been sitting on the sidelines. Phil claimed that the only incivility had occurred when I was uncivil to him. He didn't even mention post #12. Since he had judged his own post acceptable, there was no reason to bring it up. It dropped down Phil's memory hole, and the only thing left was my angry response to Phil.

This is about as sleazy at it gets. Phil has not even slowed down.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Wouldn't it be better to simply say that wielding the flashing saber of insult ends up driving away the substance of discussion? And the morale of those who try to undertake it?

Does it drive away the substance of discussion? I don't think it does. I think that those who feel they've been insulted often use it as an excuse to exit a discussion to which they were incapable of bringing substance in the first place. Insults and substance usually coexist quite well together. I think that most discussions here on OL which have included insults have been much more productive and substantive than the discussions in which schoolmarms and other civility police have shown up to nag, lecture and otherwise attempt to control others. That is what drives away substance and destroys discussions. I think the whole civility thing is often just a tactic used by those who have nothing to add to a discussion and want to shut it down because the side they support is losing the argument.

J

While this is true--and you yourself can be quite factually blunt if not brutal--I think the culture of an intellectual meat grinder drives away a lot of people who'd otherwise contribute a lot of value to a discussion, or dissuades them from posting in the first place. This in turn helps drive them away from ideas to some extent. But this all reduces to both the nature of the Internet where many naturally take off the gloves and say a lot they wouldn't say to someone face to face and the nature of the corrupted Objectivist sub-culture, basically ruined by its irrational Randian axis going all the way back to the great mind telling the world what was what starting in 1957, when it was necessary, to today when it's deadly. One person only had the chance to stop this, but instead of stopping it Leonard Peikoff reaffirmed it in 1986 in response to Barbara Branden's biography of Ayn Rand. I can see why and how he took her side in 1968, but do not admire his lack of effort to reclaim his own life as an autonomous, individualistic human being. That refusal to reconsider makes me suspect any innocent motives he may have had for what he did back in 1968. Will someone please tell me how being the King of Objectivism is compatible with Objectivism?

--Brant

[jriggenbach]

The linguistic discipline of pragmatics focuses on the speaker's goal in using various speech acts in certain situations, it focuses on what the speaker wants to convey, what he/she wants to imply without saying so directly.

Translation into plain English:

The linguistic discipline of pragmatics focuses on mind reading.

Helpfully,

JR

[Xray]

Moreover, if I merely wished to point out that asshole is an insulting term, then why wouldn't I just say this? Why bring in the Latin expression ad hominem at all, if all I meant by this was insult? Why wouldn't I simply say, "Asshole is an insult"?

Ad hominem sounds 'erudite' and may thus be used by a speaker to create a psychological distance to an attacker perceived as crude.

Suppose Bobby Blunt starts calling Polly Polite vulgar names in a forum debate, Polly might reply: "In case you have forgotten about it, here is a link to the TOS of this forum. It might interest you what it says about ad hominem attacks there."

Exactly, Sir George. Call it what it is.

In many cases 'ad hominem' is philosophical political correctness for a goddamned insult.

(I've thought.)

Latin is great, but Anglo-Saxon is honest.

Nicely put.

The linguistic discipline of pragmatics focuses on the speaker's goal in using various speech acts in certain situations, it focuses on what the speaker wants to convey, what he/she wants to imply without saying so directly.

Translation into plain English:

The linguistic discipline of pragmatics focuses on mind reading.

Helpfully,

JR

Requires absolutely no supernatural powers.

When my husband tells me "Here is the bill from the plumber", the implication of the speech act is that I'm to handle it (the financial paperwork being my job).

Edited March 25, 2011 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

Pointing out a**hole as an ad hominem (used as a sysnonym for "insult" here) is an indirect way of telling the debate opponent that a rule of conversation has been violated by using this term.

How do you know what Billy Civility intended? He is my character. I made him up, so I determine his intentions.

Btw, what "rule of conversation" is violated by using an insult? I don't have that rule book, so maybe you could quote the passage for me.

One problem with your general approach is that you fail to take into account the complex dynamics of an internet forum. Suppose a bunch of us were at a conference. If someone insulted me (and this has happened at conferences), I would just walk away and not deal with the person any more. I have done this numerous times.

This is the most effective way to deal with insults, but if Phil did this on OL he wouldn't have any dialogue at all with many of the more interesting posters. So he continues to initiate dialogue with them.

If Phil doesn't like the way I treat him, then he should refuse to deal with me. Period. This is his choice. So why doesn't he choose to cut off communication with me? Well, I suspect this is because he knows that if I don't engage him on certain issues, no one else will, at least not in any detail. So it comes down to this: If Phil wants to continue discussing issues with me, then he will do so on my terms or not at all. If Phil finds this condition unacceptable, then he should cut me off. I frankly wouldn't care, because I don't get much of intellectual value from Phil's posts. There are posters on OL that offer a lot of value and whom I would miss if we didn't communicate, but Phil isn't one of them.

I frequently respond in a civil manner to people who disagree with me. Just look at how I have fielded criticisms on this thread, most recently in my response to Steve (Greybird). He criticized my use of "irrational," and I conceded his point. I do this sort of thing quite often, despite my reputation as a polemical debater. But there are certain people -- and Phil is one of them -- who seem to think that I should take them a lot more seriously than I do. Why don't I treat Phil with more respect? Because he has not earned my respect. If and when he does, I will treat him differently.

It is scarcely coincidental that I am typically civil to some people and typically uncivil to others. I don't work from the harebrained assumption that all people are intellectually equal and should be treated equally. I discriminate on OL, just as I would discriminate at a conference or other face-to-face encounter. If some guy I don't respect insists on telling me at a conference how I could have improved my talk, I might tolerate him for a minute or two, but after that I will lower the boom. And if you think I can get sarcastic on OL, you should see me in person.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Well, George, Phil has made a great effort to tamp all that down lately.

--Brant

Are you serious? If so, take a look at Phil's post #12 on this thread. I made it clear in my response that I regarded this post as very insulting:

Thanks for dismissing my arguments before you have even given me a chance to state what they are. Typical. Someone who would do this is an intellectual lowlife and has no business preaching civility to others.

Even the level headed Robert Campbell remarked, "Phil has just reminded me why I set him on "ignore" a while back."

So what did Phil do after this? Did he apologize? Did he even consider the possibility that I had a point of any kind? Nope. He responded with a preachy defense in #21 . Here he claimed that "what you did is -launch an attack- on me for daring to ask or criticize!"

Things got worse later, after I remarked how civil this thread had been since Phil had been sitting on the sidelines. Phil claimed that the only incivility had occurred when I was uncivil to him. He didn't even mention post #12. Since he had judged his own post acceptable, there was no reason to bring it up. It dropped down Phil's memory hole, and the only thing left was my angry response to Phil.

This is about as sleazy at it gets. Phil has not even slowed down.

Ghs

Yes, I'm serious. I probably read more threads he posts on than you do. He's really trying to change his posting style and you need to back off just a little and give him some slack, not in any particular you may respond to but with broad, evaluative, condemnative moral generalizations about how he posts. He's not a dragon and you're not St. George to him. You are St. George when it comes to ideas. The first is silly, the second is heroic. I've never seen such an admixture in any one person. I can understand why you can't turn it on and off respecting the intellectual status of whom and what you are addressing and do admire your egalitarian attitude--you'd argue with a squirrel who can come with a sentence--I can only point out what's going on.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

The linguistic discipline of pragmatics focuses on the speaker's goal in using various speech acts in certain situations, it focuses on what the speaker wants to convey, what he/she wants to imply without saying so directly.

Translation into plain English:

The linguistic discipline of pragmatics focuses on mind reading.

Helpfully,

JR

She'd call it "empathy" except she likes to flesh it out.

--Brant

[Xray]

She'd call it "empathy" except she likes to flesh it out.

To flesh it out, I use concrete examples.

I would use "intuition" instead of "empathy" here though.

But given the context of many speech acts, only a person suffering from a lack of intuition will misunderstand what a speaker wants to convey. When John and Jane enter a room with the window wide open and Jane says "It's cold in here", the implication is that she wants the window to be closed.

How do you know what Billy Civility intended? He is my character. I made him up, so I determine his intentions.

I chose to borrow Billy from you and to endow him, for demonstration purposes, with some other intentions. I seriously hope you won't get in a Howard Roark-like mood over this ...! (ducking).

So here's Billy back to you, safe and unharmed from his little visit to Ms. Xray's mind. Next time I'll play it safe and create my own character though. But I must admit I found the name "Billy Civility" so cute that I couldn't resist using it too.

Btw, what "rule of conversation" is violated by using an insult? I don't have that rule book, so maybe you could quote the passage for me.

Every communciation occurs in a specific context, and as for which rule of conversation (or better: conversational conduct) has been violated by an insult on a forum, the "rule book" in this case are the TOS of the forum. Virtually all forums have passages in their TOS making clear which conduct they don't tolerate.

Here are OL's posting guidelines:

2. The practice of good manners is a value sought and encouraged on this forum. Obnoxious and offensive behavior is not welcome. Excessive profanity, trash talk, bigoted remarks and such should be avoided. Should members start insulting each other (flame wars), the site owners will take discreet measures to resolve the issue. If this fails, harsher measures will be used. This should not be seen as a harness on anyone’s intellectual ideas and expression. It is merely a standard for behavior between posters and the bar is fairly high on this forum.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=355

There exist forums with stricter rules, but in all cases the frame of reference, the "rule book", are the TOS of a forum.

In everyday life, we also observe countless unwritten rules of conversational conduct which we have internalized. Of course there also exist people who violate those rules.

Ghs: One problem with your general approach is that you fail to take into account the complex dynamics of an internet forum.

Oh no. In fact the opposite is the case. I'm fully aware of those dynamcis, having posted on quite a few internet forums for years.

I'm interested in studying the dynamics because I'm interested in human nature as such.

Suppose a bunch of us were at a conference. If someone insulted me (and this has happened at conferences), I would just walk away and not deal with the person any more. I have done this numerous times.

At a conference, you can't just put the other person on ignore like on the net. Nor can you postpone your reply like on a forum where you can go through an insulting post again after your anger has abated. Being insulted in a direct face-to-face situation is very stressful, which is why "fight or flight" reactions are more likey to kick in.

So my guess is you chose to walk away because you wanted to avoid escalation.

And if you think I can get sarcastic on OL, you should see me in person.

My diplomatic reply is that one would probably never get bored in your presence. ;)

But kidding aside, I don't have any problems with the way you post. Nor do I have any problems in exchanges with Phil.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

Well, George, Phil has made a great effort to tamp all that down lately.

--Brant

Are you serious? If so, take a look at Phil's post #12 on this thread. I made it clear in my response that I regarded this post as very insulting:

Thanks for dismissing my arguments before you have even given me a chance to state what they are. Typical. Someone who would do this is an intellectual lowlife and has no business preaching civility to others.

Even the level headed Robert Campbell remarked, "Phil has just reminded me why I set him on "ignore" a while back."

So what did Phil do after this? Did he apologize? Did he even consider the possibility that I had a point of any kind? Nope. He responded with a preachy defense in #21 . Here he claimed that "what you did is -launch an attack- on me for daring to ask or criticize!"

Things got worse later, after I remarked how civil this thread had been since Phil had been sitting on the sidelines. Phil claimed that the only incivility had occurred when I was uncivil to him. He didn't even mention post #12. Since he had judged his own post acceptable, there was no reason to bring it up. It dropped down Phil's memory hole, and the only thing left was my angry response to Phil.

This is about as sleazy at it gets. Phil has not even slowed down.

Ghs

Yes, I'm serious. I probably read more threads he posts on than you do. He's really trying to change his posting style and you need to back off just a little and give him some slack, not in any particular you may respond to but with broad, evaluative, condemnative moral generalizations about how he posts. He's not a dragon and you're not St. George to him. You are St. George when it comes to ideas. The first is silly, the second is heroic. I've never seen such an admixture in any one person. I can understand why you can't turn it on and off respecting the intellectual status of whom and what you are addressing and do admire your egalitarian attitude--you'd argue with a squirrel who can come with a sentence--I can only point out what's going on.

--Brant

Would Phil agree that he has been attempting to change his posting style? To admit this would be to concede that there was something wrong with his earlier style, and I cannot imagine Phil admitting this. So if Phil does not agree with you, whom should I believe? And if he does agree that he has been attempting to change his posting style and would like a little slack, then let him say this himself. Then I will cut him some slack. (Why do I get the feeling that Phil has been chatting with you offlist?)

Phil will respond to this post, and I bet I can predict what his line will be. There will some tripe about how he is always attempting to improve his communication skills, and that he has been focusing on this recently, but at no point will he say that there was anything specifically wrong with his earlier style. Care to give me decent odds?

Btw, on one occasion Phil called me an "asshole," and on another occasion he told me, "Stick it up your ass." I have never said anything like this to Phil. Earlier today Phil conceded, in effect, that has has occasionally succumbed to outbursts of anger. Okay, but I never got an apology for either of these flagrant insults. Do you suppose the new and improved Phil will apologize now? (I don't care, of course. I just like to push his buttons, but it would still be the right thing for him to do.)

Ghs

Addendum: I follow a lot more threads than you think I might. I just like to limit my contributions to a handful at a time.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, Phil, have you been trying to change your style?

--Brant

I generally avoid off-line chat and have never done so with Phil

[jriggenbach]

Moreover, if I merely wished to point out that asshole is an insulting term, then why wouldn't I just say this? Why bring in the Latin expression ad hominem at all, if all I meant by this was insult? Why wouldn't I simply say, "Asshole is an insult"?

Ad hominem sounds 'erudite' and may thus be used by a speaker to create a psychological distance to an attacker perceived as crude.

Suppose Bobby Blunt starts calling Polly Polite vulgar names in a forum debate, Polly might reply: "In case you have forgotten about it, here is a link to the TOS of this forum. It might interest you what it says about ad hominem attacks there."

Exactly, Sir George. Call it what it is.

In many cases 'ad hominem' is philosophical political correctness for a goddamned insult.

(I've thought.)

Latin is great, but Anglo-Saxon is honest.

Nicely put.

The linguistic discipline of pragmatics focuses on the speaker's goal in using various speech acts in certain situations, it focuses on what the speaker wants to convey, what he/she wants to imply without saying so directly.

Translation into plain English:

The linguistic discipline of pragmatics focuses on mind reading.

Helpfully,

JR

Requires absolutely no supernatural powers.

When my husband tells me "Here is the bill from the plumber", the implication of the speech act is that I'm to handle it (the financial paperwork being my job).

So you're unable to detect the difference between knowledge and a guess that's probably correct. Why am I not surprised?

JR

[George H. Smith]

Wouldn't it be better to simply say that wielding the flashing saber of insult ends up driving away the substance of discussion? And the morale of those who try to undertake it?

Does it drive away the substance of discussion? I don't think it does. I think that those who feel they've been insulted often use it as an excuse to exit a discussion to which they were incapable of bringing substance in the first place. Insults and substance usually coexist quite well together. I think that most discussions here on OL which have included insults have been much more productive and substantive than the discussions in which schoolmarms and other civility police have shown up to nag, lecture and otherwise attempt to control others. That is what drives away substance and destroys discussions. I think the whole civility thing is often just a tactic used by those who have nothing to add to a discussion and want to shut it down because the side they support is losing the argument.

J

While this is true--and you yourself can be quite factually blunt if not brutal--I think the culture of an intellectual meat grinder drives away a lot of people who'd otherwise contribute a lot of value to a discussion, or dissuades them from posting in the first place. This in turn helps drive them away from ideas to some extent. But this all reduces to both the nature of the Internet where many naturally take off the gloves and say a lot they wouldn't say to someone face to face and the nature of the corrupted Objectivist sub-culture, basically ruined by its irrational Randian axis going all the way back to the great mind telling the world what was what starting in 1957, when it was necessary, to today when it's deadly. One person only had the chance to stop this, but instead of stopping it Leonard Peikoff reaffirmed it in 1986 in response to Barbara Branden's biography of Ayn Rand. I can see why and how he took her side in 1968, but do not admire his lack of effort to reclaim his own life as an autonomous, individualistic human being. That refusal to reconsider makes me suspect any innocent motives he may have had for what he did back in 1968. Will someone please tell me how being the King of Objectivism is compatible with Objectivism?

--Brant

You are making far too much of this. You make it sound as if OL is a cesspool of insults, and that simply isn't true. Arguments sometimes get out of hand and a flamewar ensues, but people lose interest and it burns out. This is the natural course of things. When a thread catches fire and I'm not interested in the people fueling it, I just skip over the nasty posts, and at times I stop following the thread altogether.

OL produces a remarkable amount of intellectual substance on a variety of subjects. This is why I returned to OL over a year ago. We tend to take the familiar for granted, so veteran members may occasionally lose sight of what a high-caliber forum this is. If people would stop bitching about incivility and focus on writing more posts with intellectual substance, this change alone would mitigate many of the problems.

That people say things on OL (and other forums) that they wouldn't say in face-to-face conservations has been mentioned a number of times. A major reason for this phenomenon is that exchanges are often aimed at third parties as much as at the individuals involved in the exchange. Every time you post on OL you are, in effect, broadcasting to the world. What I have characterized as "third party arguments" (in "Atheism and the Virtue of Reasonableness," a lecture I originally delivered in 1978 and which was reprinted in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies) have different characteristics than two party arguments.

I will repeat what I have said before, namely, if someone is truly interested in improving the quality of discussions, he or she should start with himself or herself. I am aware of some things I do -- which have nothing to do with my polemicism -- that can inhibit people from joining in, and I need to remind myself of these things from time to time. I will even state publicly what the worst one is, if anyone is interested. I suggest that others also try to follow Voltaire's advice and tend to their own gardens first.

Ghs

[jriggenbach]

We tend to take things for granted, so veteran members may occasionaly lose sight of what a high-caliber forum this is. If people would stop bitching about incivility and focus on writing more posts with intellectual substance, this change alone would mitigate many of the problems.

As Ludwig von Mises has pointed out, George, division of labor is an essential component of a prosperous society. Each of us specializes in the work that he is best equipped to do. Some of us are better equipped to whine about "incivility" than to contribute substantive posts.

Helpfully,

JR

[George H. Smith]

Well, Phil, have you been trying to change your style?

--Brant

I generally avoid off-line chat and have never done so with Phil

Okay. My conjecture, as you may have guessed, was aimed at Phil, not you, and I'm not even sure how seriously I meant it. The very possibility that Phil had enlisted a Green Beret to go to bat for him was too tempting for me to pass up. Bur I probably should not have made that remark.

You may have noticed that I will respond cordially to Phil, even in the midst of a brush war (i.e., something less than a flamewar), when he is being cordial. I did this on this thread when Phil congratulated me on getting published by Cambridge. And I did this on another thread when Phil said he would change his Amazon comment. I respond like this in the hope that it will bury the current bone of contention.

If you want to look at a model of what not to do, look at the thread about my Amazon review after Phil agreed to make the change and I thanked him. This would have been a natural place to forget about the past and move on, but Phil persisted in claiming that he was right all along, in exchanges with (I think) JR. He insisted that there was nothing condescending about his original wording, even after he had changed it. I stayed out of that one, but I was shaking my head in bewilderment. Phil had gotten some kudos for agreeing to make the change, and I couldn't figure out why he didn't stop while he was ahead. No one was trying to rub anything in. On the contrary, I think I called his action "gracious," or something to that effect.

Years ago I got involved in an extremely nasty exchange on the subject (I think) of free will. Then I got an offlist email from a trusted friend that read: "George, have you been reading your own posts?"

This is all that was said. I didn't argue or make excuses, because I knew my friend would not say this unless I had gone over the top. I got the point immediately, backed off, and the flamewar quickly died out. The fact that the email was sent offlist had a lot to do with my reaction. Had the same thing been posted on Atlantis, I might have gotten defensive and made things worse.

Ghs

[Jonathan]

While this is true--and you yourself can be quite factually blunt if not brutal...

Sure, I can indeed be blunt if not brutal, but my bluntness and brutality are usually only in response to the same. I generally prefer polite conversations, but when someone who is arguing with me starts telling me that, say, my aesthetic responses to something are a "rationalization," an indication of a cognitive disorder, or proof that I'm evil or whatever, as far as I'm concerned, they're asking for it -- they're deserving of having their ideas and methods of argumentation brutalized.

In addition to that, I think that there are a lot of Objectivish-types who don't seem to grasp and retain an opponent's argument if it's presented politely. I've demolished a lot of O-ists positions on aesthetics. When I've done so politely, the O-ists have frequently returned weeks or months later repeating their same old arguments and false information as if they had never had the discussion with me. When I'm very polite, they often times don't even seem to remember anything about any of the points I've made. On the other hand, when I bluntly or brutally take them to task for their rude and uninformed judgments and opinions, they tend to remember my points, and to not repeat their falsehoods and lame arguments. Sometimes you need to really sting certain Objectivishists to make it stick.

J

Edited March 25, 2011 by Jonathan

[Brant Gaede]

While this is true--and you yourself can be quite factually blunt if not brutal...

Sure, I can indeed be blunt if not brutal, but my bluntness and brutality are usually only in response to the same. I generally prefer polite conversations, but when someone who is arguing with me starts telling me that, say, my aesthetic responses to something are a "rationalization," an indication of a cognitive disorder, or proof that I'm evil or whatever, as far as I'm concerned, they're asking for it -- they're deserving of having their ideas and methods of argumentation brutalized.

In addition to that, I think that there are a lot of Objectivish-types who don't seem to grasp and retain an opponent's argument if it's presented politely. I've demolished a lot of O-ists positions on aesthetics. When I've done so politely, the O-ists have frequently returned weeks or months later repeating their same old arguments and false information as if they had never had the discussion with me. When I'm very polite, they often times don't even seem to remember anything about any of the points I've made. On the other hand, when I bluntly or brutally take them to task for their rude and uninformed judgments and opinions, they tend to remember my points, and to not repeat their falsehoods and lame arguments. Sometimes you need really sting certain Objectivishists to make it stick.

J

I'm not complaining about you. I remember when Phil suddenly and without good reason came onto a thread and remarked about J just being J. WTF? And you let him have it and he deserved every bit of it. I don't even object to the fact that you called him a "nutjob schoolmarm." What he did was much worse than that.

I don't believe there is an Objectivist esthetics, btw, any more than there is an Objectivist psychology or physics.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Brant,

If Phil is seriously making an effort to change his posting style, there is one simple thing he could do that would score a lot of points with me. He could start using the quote function, instead of reproducing snippets. I can't tell you how many times I have gotten frustrated and annoyed while scrolling up in an attempt to find the post to which Phil was responding.

Some time ago Phil posted a justification for his procedure. He made it sound as if he was doing OLers a favor, even though many have complained about it. In addition to the inconvenience, I also dislike it because it easily permits Phil to focus on one sentence, or even a sentence fragment, without providing the broader context.

So why doesn't Phil make this simple change, given how many people have requested it? And why does he insist that he uses this procedure to make things easier for others, when virtually no one finds it easier? This is "typical Phil." If we don't find something more convenient, then he lectures us about why we should find it more convenient.

There is something very strange going on here....

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George,

I'm not sure if I'm right about this, but I think Rand defined "psychologizing" as (my phrasing) "the use of pop-psychology as a substitute for argument," or (to use a shorter, catchier phrase) "debate by diagnosis."

She strongly differentiated between "psychologizing" and "psychology...."

After running a search on my Objectivism Research CD-R, this is the closest thing to a definition that I found:

Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence.

{My italics.]

The part I have italicized is the key. Rand does not object to psychologizing in the broader (dictionary) sense if she thinks there is sufficient evidence for it.

Moreover, note that Rand here refers to "psychological problems," not to the attribution of motives. These are much different.

Ghs

[Jonathan]

I'm not complaining about you. I remember when Phil suddenly and without good reason came onto a thread and remarked about J just being J. WTF? And you let him have it and he deserved every bit of it. I don't even object to the fact that you called him a "nutjob schoolmarm." What he did was much worse than that.

Yeah, and as I often do, after letting Phil have it, I then tried to steer the discussion back to the substance that had been discussed on that thread, which I think is actually the essence of "Jonathan being Jonathan."

I don't believe there is an Objectivist esthetics, btw, any more than there is an Objectivist psychology or physics.

Well, aesthetics is a branch of philosophy, where psychology and physics are not. There is an Objectivist Esthetics, and I think it has a lot of value despite the fact that it's also quite a mess.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

If Phil is seriously making an effort to change his posting style, there is one simple thing he could do that would score a lot of points with me. He could start using the quote function, instead of reproducing snippets. I can't tell you how many times I have gotten frustrated and annoyed while scrolling up in an attempt to find the post to which Phil was responding.

Some time ago Phil posted a justification for his procedure. He made it sound as if he was doing OLers a favor, even though many have complained about it. In addition to the inconvenience, I also dislike it because it easily permits Phil to focus on one sentence, or even a sentence fragment, without providing the broader context.

So why doesn't Phil make this simple change, given how many people have requested it? And why does he insist that he uses this procedure to make things easier for others, when virtually no one finds it easier? This is "typical Phil." If we don't find something more convenient, then he lectures us about why we should find it more convenient.

There is something very strange going on here....

Ghs

I find it completely dumbfounding. You can use it in the very simple way I do by hitting the "Reply" which brings up the entire post you wish to quote out of and highlight all the material you don't want and delete it, then make your comments below.

--Brant