Psychologizing

[George H. Smith]

Reputation.

Give that boy a prize!

Ghs

[caroljane]

Reputation.

Give that boy a prize!

Ghs

Multum in parva, Mikee. Yes.

There is also the need to feel in some contact with a larger group when engaged in single combat. The unknown reader who may understand and agree with you; the known minds on the forum whom you respect and have become friendly with; the ghosts of the past and demons of the present whose evils you are still fighting.

[caroljane]

Reputation.

Give that boy a prize!

Ghs

Multum in parva, Mikee. Yes.

There is also the need to feel in some contact with a larger group when engaged in single combat. The unknown reader who may understand and agree with you; the known minds on the forum whom you respect and have become friendly with; the ghosts of the past and demons of the present whose evils you are still fighting.

[George H. Smith]

Reputation.

Give that boy a prize!

Ghs

Multum in parva, Mikee. Yes.

There is also the need to feel in some contact with a larger group when engaged in single combat. The unknown reader who may understand and agree with you; the known minds on the forum whom you respect and have become friendly with; the ghosts of the past and demons of the present whose evils you are still fighting.

Nicely put. Ludwig would have been proud....

Ghs

[caroljane]

Reputation.

Give that boy a prize!

Ghs

Multum in parva, Mikee. Yes.

There is also the need to feel in some contact with a larger group when engaged in single combat. The unknown reader who may understand and agree with you; the known minds on the forum whom you respect and have become friendly with; the ghosts of the past and demons of the present whose evils you are still fighting.

Nicely put. Ludwig would have been proud....

Ghs

Thanks, I hope so. It was only recently that I learned von M was a 20th century person. I knew he was an eminent economist, but because of name association I assumed he was a contemporary of Ludwig van B.

[Robert Campbell]

George,

I'm pretty sure we were talking about the same thing.

The presence of an audience affects the length of the exchanges. It also affects the way they are framed.

Robert Campbell

[caroljane]

Brown pinks like George and black reds like you never seem to get along. I see it over and over again.

I would like to refute Brant's laughable misperceptions of name colours, but obviously he is not open to reason. I mean, the man believes he is blue and white when he is obviously bronze and slate grey/green.

Phil is gorgeous in blue and white.

Phil looks trim, radiant and dignified in his blue and white. Like another singular soul, if he were turned out of the OL kingdom in his petticoat, he is endued with such qualities that he could live anywhere in Objectivism.

[caroljane]

Well, except maybe Ninth's place.

[Philip Coates]

> My [Phil's?] tactic here would be sleazy because it is dishonest. [post 95]

> you [Phil] do things all the time that are "damage to clear, thoughtful discussion"...you are one of the worse offenders on OL in this regard. [post 102]

> you psychologize incessantly -- I don't know anyone who does it more than you [post 102]

> Phil's post #12 on this thread [was] very insulting [post 106]

> he had judged his own post acceptable..the only thing left was my angry response to Phil. This is about as sleazy at it gets [post 106]

> he [Phil] has not earned my respect [post 110]

> I just like to push [Phil's] buttons [post 114]

I'm getting really tired of this.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

My tactic here would be sleazy because it is dishonest. If I merely wanted to point out that you have insulted me -- a point that no one would dispute -- then I should have said this.

Of course, Phil's post looks much better.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Selene

[Mikee]

Reputation.

Give that boy a prize!

Ghs

Multum in parva, Mikee. Yes.

There is also the need to feel in some contact with a larger group when engaged in single combat. The unknown reader who may understand and agree with you; the known minds on the forum whom you respect and have become friendly with; the ghosts of the past and demons of the present whose evils you are still fighting.

"Much in little" [i looked it up]. Thank you.

We are traders, traders in information and ideas. Disagreements are expected and create the energy needed for new ideas and the refinement of old ideas. Some people take disagreements as insults because they are not here to trade but for narcissistic reasons. The traders wish the narcissists would just go bugger off.

I guess its mostly a mix and you just have to take the bad with the good.

I love Mises.

GHS: I'm nearly as old as you, the cat is young. The picture is titled "Cat in Pool" which I thought was appropriate because I feel like he looks when I participate in these forums.

[George H. Smith]

> My [Phil's?] tactic here would be sleazy because it is dishonest. [post 95]

> you [Phil] do things all the time that are "damage to clear, thoughtful discussion"...you are one of the worse offenders on OL in this regard. [post 102]

> you psychologize incessantly -- I don't know anyone who does it more than you [post 102]

> Phil's post #12 on this thread [was] very insulting [post 106]

> he had judged his own post acceptable..the only thing left was my angry response to Phil. This is about as sleazy at it gets [post 106]

> he [Phil] has not earned my respect [post 110]

> I just like to push [Phil's] buttons [post 114]

I'm getting really tired of this.

That's an honest reaction. I'll stop doing it then.

Ghs

[caroljane]

Reputation.

Give that boy a prize!

Ghs

Multum in parva, Mikee. Yes.

There is also the need to feel in some contact with a larger group when engaged in single combat. The unknown reader who may understand and agree with you; the known minds on the forum whom you respect and have become friendly with; the ghosts of the past and demons of the present whose evils you are still fighting.

"Much in little" [i looked it up]. Thank you.

We are traders, traders in information and ideas. Disagreements are expected and create the energy needed for new ideas and the refinement of old ideas. Some people take disagreements as insults because they are not here to trade but for narcissistic reasons. The traders wish the narcissists would just go bugger off.

I guess its mostly a mix and you just have to take the bad with the good.

I love Mises.

GHS: I'm nearly as old as you, the cat is young. The picture is titled "Cat in Pool" which I thought was appropriate because I feel like he looks when I participate in these forums.

Along with avatars, username choices are interesting too.

Over on archn blog I have conversed with an Xtra laj, a Generic Viagra (I advised him to shell out for the name brands and thankfully he has gone away) and a Mad Behemoth (he has recovered from madness and is now just a Behemoth). And that is a mild leisurely place like a library lounge, devoted to Popperian criticism of Rand's philosophy and bitching about family members who have discovered Rand and stopped coming to Sunday dinner.

Young people should think well how they want to be symbolized. There seem to be two Capitalist Swines on Oonline, as M Marotta has reported, and the Galts, Roarks and Prometheii abound,but weird number combinations and flat-out boasting like "the Ultimate Philosopher" will not wear well as time goes on and you have to see that name every time you post. And you will post many times, if you get addicted like me. There's no fool like an old fool.

[George H. Smith]

I'm nearly as old as you, the cat is young. The picture is titled "Cat in Pool" which I thought was appropriate because I feel like he looks when I participate in these forums.

This is good to know. I thought the picture might be titled "Wet Pussy," and I was afraid to ask for details.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Along with avatars, username choices are interesting too.

Over on archn blog I have conversed with an Xtra laj, a Generic Viagra (I advised him to shell out for the name brands and thankfully he has gone away) and a Mad Behemoth (he has recovered from madness and is now just a Behemoth). And that is a mild leisurely place like a library lounge, devoted to Popperian criticism of Rand's philosophy and bitching about family members who have discovered Rand and stopped coming to Sunday dinner.

Young people should think well how they want to be symbolized. There seem to be two Capitalist Swines on Oonline, as M Marotta has reported, and the Galts, Roarks and Prometheii abound,but weird number combinations and flat-out boasting like "the Ultimate Philosopher" will not wear well as time goes on and you have to see that name every time you post. And you will post many times, if you get addicted like me. There's no fool like an old fool.

What is the source of your nick, Daunce Lynam?

Ghs

[caroljane]

On sentences never written before, here is one, an actual topic here on OL that I just came across:

Is Donald Rumsfeld an alien from outer space who eats human flesh?

Well, is he? Has it been proven that he isn't? I would have gone into the thread but I was afraid that you and Phil were debating the question.

[George H. Smith]

On sentences never written before, here is one, an actual topic here on OL that I just came across:

Is Donald Rumsfeld an alien from outer space who eats human flesh?

Well, is he? Has it been proven that he isn't? I would have gone into the thread but I was afraid that you and Phil were debating the question.

You don't really want to get me talking about Phil again, do you? I just promised not to say any more bad things about him, so he may be in shock for a while. This is not a good time to make weird suggestions.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

And you will post many times, if you get addicted like me. There's no fool like an old fool.

Fools come in all ages, and some young fools are the worst. The bad thing about getting old is that foolishness can sneak up on you gradually and then reveal itself in force, all at once, and take you unawares. There is that first awkward moment when people overlook or excuse what you did because of your age. This is your official notification that you are now an Old Fool.

Ghs

[Xray]

That was not my lectern, Phil. I used it at an ISIL conference in New Zealand.

Avatars with the poster behind a lectern certainly have an impressive effect. When my husband saw your avatar for the first time, he asked: "Is that a professor?"

I replied: "No, that's the Smith who wrote Smith's Wager." (I had printed out Smith's Wager for him, he thinks the argumentation in it is very convincing, although he himself is no atheist).

"Ah, the Atheism-Smith!" he replied. That's his nick for you, no disrespect on his part, on the contrary, he has studied many atheist authors in great detail, Feuerbach being among his favorites.

(I suppose JR would find fault with the many commas in the above passage not meeting Strunk-and-Whitish standards, but I'm off the hook since I can always claim non-native-speaker mitigating circumstances).

But I digress, so back on track:

I suggested he (my DH) also read your ATCAG and Why Atheism, but he said his English has become too rusty. I replied that Smith is not difficult to understand because he has a very clear writing style.

(I suspect my DH is just a bit on the lazy side here and would conveniently prefer that I translate for him what it says in the books.

A thing I have actually done with the (considerably shorter, it's a mere few pages) Smith's Wager, which I translated to him while we were sitting at the Saturday morning breakfast table ...).

Phil is gorgeous in blue and white.

See what one gets from innocently 'avataring' a picture of one's head in Perigo's Cozy Corner's?

One gets brazenly transvestited online by roguish photobucketeers like that ND here! ;)

If Miss Marple were posting here, she would probably tell me to have good strong cup of tea after that shock ...!

Edited March 26, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

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.]

[…]

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

George,

That is her official definition.

Her article on "psychologizing" extends the notion to attributions of motives.

I think this will become clear once you start working through the examples she gives.

In any event, the extension is unavoidable.

To see this, consider moral judgment—a function that Rand invested with considerable importance, and that in this article she contrasted with "psychologizing"—and ask whether you should be judging Danny Dipschitz's particular action in a particular context as a deliberate violation of a moral principle, or deliberate adherence to a moral principle.

Or whether you should instead judge it in terms of Danny's psychological problems, supposing him to have some.

Or whether you should both judge it both morally and as an expression of a psychological problem.

Can you do any of these things without making inferences or drawing conclusions about Danny's motives?

Robert Campbell

Robert,

Given the number of first hand reports on record of Ayn Rand's own psychologizing (in the 'motive' sense), one has to conclude that her admonitions against it were "Do as I say, not as I do."

Up to a point, fair enough. Few people can be as clearsighted as she was, and as consistently.

Additionally, I have been considering 'psychologizing' as being predominantly induction as applied to the psycho-epistemology of a person: taking in a vast amount of data and 'tells' about someone, and drawing a general conclusion.

Rand was the master of inductive thinking,imo, and normally could also back it up with brilliant deductive logic and empiricism. But when it comes to judging a person, obviously there are pitfalls, for her and anyone else. Not allowing benefit of the doubt, dogmatically adhering to first impressions, (then rationalizing further data to 'fit') - and other injustices.

When she got it right - whether on principles, or about a person - she was devastatingly right. The few times induction let her down - in her judgements on aesthetics, for example (though the core concepts are an original work of genius), or more often with individuals - were the exceptions that prove the rule.

What do you think? Am I off-base with these thoughts?

Tony

[Philip Coates]

> Phil is gorgeous in blue and white. [Xray]

I'm gorgeous in any color.

[jriggenbach]

I suppose JR would find fault with the many commas in the above passage not meeting Strunk-and-Whitish standards, but I'm off the hook since I can always claim non-native-speaker mitigating circumstances).

JR believes that comma use is a largely optional matter. Some writers use them far more often than others. There's nothing intrinsically wrong about using lots of commas, though I personally prefer a style in which they are minimized.

And the only comments you will ever hear from me about Strunk & White will be satirical, having to do with its absurdly inflated reputation. It's useful in many ways for a beginning writer, but even then should be taken with about a half pound of salt. The fact that E. B. White wrote in a certain style does not mean that style should be emulated by everyone. There's more than one way to write any given thing. It's Phil who's obsessed with the supposed wisdom of Strunk & White.

JR

[Xray]

> Phil is gorgeous in blue and white. [Xray]

I'm gorgeous in any color.

That's how myths can grow legs on the net, for it was the brazen photobucketeer ND who said that, not me:

Phil is gorgeous in blue and white.

(hastening to add: This does not mean I don't think you look gorgeous in blue and white or in whatever other color, it was just to set the record straight in terms of the correct quote.)

Edited March 26, 2011 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

> Phil is gorgeous in blue and white. [Xray]

> I'm gorgeous in any color. [Phil]

> it was the brazen photobucketeer ND who said that, not me {Xray]

Close Enough for Government Work. (as the Japanese nuclear plant designer said to the board of inquiry.)

Jeff's comments about Strunk and White, however, are not CEGW and there will be a board of grammatical inquiry convened any day now.

(Notice the -mandatory- commas around the "however", above.)

Edited March 26, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

> Phil is gorgeous in blue and white. [Xray]

Close Enough for Government Work. (as the Japanese nuclear plant designer said to the board of inquiry.)

Phil:

No, it shows how important for truthful attributions the quote function is to the threads.

Out of curiosity, what is your aversion to using the technology that Michael and Kat provide for us here?

Adam