Serious Students vs. Degenerate Objectivists

[Philip Coates]

Ron: "What did you get on the geometry test?"

Phil: "i got 100%".

Ron: "I got an 80. Mrs. Hatch gives very hard tests. I guess you were just born with more of a math brain."

Phil: "Ron, the last homework we had, how many of the problems did you do?"

Ron: "Oh, I did the first six or seven and then I stopped. They were all easy and all pretty much the same."

Phil: "Ask me how many I did."

Ron: "How many?"

Phil: "I did all of the 17 odd-numbered problems that were assigned. Then I did the 18 even-numbered ones just to make sure I understood everything and all its applications.

Ron, the reason I always get the highest scores in our math class and I'm number one in the state math contests is not because I'm smarter than you. And it's not because I was born with more of a natural aptitude for math. I do better because I work five times harder than you."

....

I was struck this past week at something Stephen Boydstun had said on this board. He has always seemed to be one of our more industrious "high effort" members. He took pages and pages of notes at one of the Peikoff courses, if I recall. He was one of the few. In course after course, I was furiously scribbling away (more recently typing) and I looked around the room vainly trying to find anyone else doing the same. Not much luck. Person after person was just relaxed, smiling, nodding in agreement. And after a summer seminar, when our Oist club tried to have people give little mini-summaries of the lectures or courses which most impressed them, pretty universally they didn't remember very much and what they told us was on the order of "It was good". Or a one-liner like: "He advocated X and denounced Y."

Nowadays, when I go on Oist websites or boards, I find person after person who expresses disagreement on point Y when Oism never advocated Y or who says (Ronlike) "Nah, I didn't need to do that much work. I don't need all those courses. It was all obvious after I read Atlas and (one of) the non-fiction collections of essays."

I'd define a "degenerate Objectivist" not as someone who is morally degenerate but as someone who has over the years or decades slipped away or distanced himself from the true aspects of this philosophy or from making the effort to continually rigorously apply it. It's not a moral issue, because it can just be a mistake. (Ron was a hard working guy. Like me he got into an Ivy League college. He worked is ass off, I suspect and became a doctor. Ron actually thought he understood the geometry chapter after doing half of the homework assignment. He didn't. Not fully. Not in the thorough way I always did in my math classes.)

It's hard to do a scientific study, but there seems to be a correlation between those who have slipped away from Oism -- either in terms of a) living their lives according to it -or- b) considering themselves Oists in philosophical fundamentals and those who didn't take all those courses, read and take notes on every single book, or put that much effort into getting 100% mastery of every issue, application, or wrinkle.

The natural human tendency is to slack off after doing the first 6 or 7 problems at the end of the math chapter.

And then either to be satisfied with 80% rather than 100% - or to make ... and sometimes believe ... some sort of excuse or rationalization or have some sort of defense mechanism about it.

[Mikee]

What is your purpose in making these observations?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If approval by others who are not degenerate is the point and whip, I am most definitely a degenerate Objectivist.

By choice.

Not by lack of knowing the official canon. That I know well.

What's more, I'll take a person who thinks and chooses for himself--and will not betray his first-hand soul--any day over a person who tries to fit his life into a set of rules designed by another person, and used by even others to whip him in line when he strays.

I wasn't too good at church, either, back when I was a child and believed in Christianity. It was for the same reason, only I didn't know it back then.

And, God, did I ever want to believe and find a prophet to follow back then. But my damn mind kept turning back on, always at the most awkward moments.

Sort of like today...

Michael

PS - I think the term "degenerate Objectivist" is totally obnoxious because it smacks of an attempt to intimidate people. The next thing you know, someone will suggest excommunications and witch hunts.

[sjw]

When I was in college, I remember my friends remarking: "How do you always do so well on the tests? You never take any notes." From their observations, all I ever did was sit there.

While they were furiously taking notes, I was listening and thinking. I was trying to think of what the professor would be saying next and why, and if I could not predict or understand his next move then I would consider my understanding lacking and intensely focus while trying to understand his explanation. It is a great discomfort to not understand something, and some discomfort to not be able to predict it (where there was some logic in the flow of one idea to the next), so I would remember my fault and work on it later.

My question is: How can they do so well while wasting their time taking notes? Actually, I think they made up for it by working harder than me after class. (Concerning homework, I and my high-achieving friends would of course both work through all the assigned problems).

Shayne

[sjw]

I think part of these note-taking friends' problem is that they didn't really trust their own mind's ability to understand. If they were to stop using the crutch of note-taking and instead try to understand, they'd be afraid that they'd forget something. Which leads to the rather perverse result that they waste part of their mind trying to take notes, which brings their mind down to a more concrete level, and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

A young, healthy mind is a miraculous thing. It's amazing that once it really understands something, it can reliably remember it later. So notes are typically unnecessary, and even distract from the lecture. (Notes are of course needed for miscellaneous random facts that have no logical connection to one another.)

What I would advise a chronic note-taker to simply trust his own mind, and focus more on understanding, and less on being a recorder. Also, I am not saying that no notes whatsoever should be taken. A sparse set of notes that remind one of the content covered can be a useful map when there is no textbook - a single word or so here and there. Also, occasionally a philosophical lecture will contain quotes that are worthy enough to record exactly as they are spoken, but this is rare.

The goal of learning is to be able to re-synthesize a first-handed understanding of the content as needed, not to be able to regurgitate. So the best mental stance is to approach a subject that is comprised of principles this way, every step of the way. (Obviously, a method such as this won't work very well for something like history, which is rich in random facts).

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

What is your purpose in making these observations?

It’s just typical Phil garbage. It’s his way of asserting his superiority. Pathetic second hander social metaphysician crap, to put it in Objectivist terms. Look through some more of his stuff, try the “Objectivist egg heads” thread, you can’t miss the pattern.

[George H. Smith]

What is your purpose in making these observations?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Ron: "What did you get on the geometry test?"

Phil: "i got 100%".

Ron: "I got an 80. Mrs. Hatch gives very hard tests. I guess you were just born with more of a math brain."

Phil: "Ron, the last homework we had, how many of the problems did you do?"

Ron: "Oh, I did the first six or seven and then I stopped. They were all easy and all pretty much the same."

Phil: "Ask me how many I did."

Ron: "How many?"

Phil: "I did all of the 17 odd-numbered problems that were assigned. Then I did the 18 even-numbered ones just to make sure I understood everything and all its applications.

Ron, the reason I always get the highest scores in our math class and I'm number one in the state math contests is not because I'm smarter than you. And it's not because I was born with more of a natural aptitude for math. I do better because I work five times harder than you."

....

I was struck this past week at something Stephen Boydstun had said on this board. He has always seemed to be one of our more industrious "high effort" members. He took pages and pages of notes at one of the Peikoff courses, if I recall. He was one of the few. In course after course, I was furiously scribbling away (more recently typing) and I looked around the room vainly trying to find anyone else doing the same. Not much luck. Person after person was just relaxed, smiling, nodding in agreement. And after a summer seminar, when our Oist club tried to have people give little mini-summaries of the lectures or courses which most impressed them, pretty universally they didn't remember very much and what they told us was on the order of "It was good". Or a one-liner like: "He advocated X and denounced Y."

Nowadays, when I go on Oist websites or boards, I find person after person who expresses disagreement on point Y when Oism never advocated Y or who says (Ronlike) "Nah, I didn't need to do that much work. I don't need all those courses. It was all obvious after I read Atlas and (one of) the non-fiction collections of essays."

I'd define a "degenerate Objectivist" not as someone who is morally degenerate but as someone who has over the years or decades slipped away or distanced himself from the true aspects of this philosophy or from making the effort to continually rigorously apply it. It's not a moral issue, because it can just be a mistake. (Ron was a hard working guy. Like me he got into an Ivy League college. He worked is ass off, I suspect and became a doctor. Ron actually thought he understood the geometry chapter after doing half of the homework assignment. He didn't. Not fully. Not in the thorough way I always did in my math classes.)

It's hard to do a scientific study, but there seems to be a correlation between those who have slipped away from Oism -- either in terms of a) living their lives according to it -or- b) considering themselves Oists in philosophical fundamentals and those who didn't take all those courses, read and take notes on every single book, or put that much effort into getting 100% mastery of every issue, application, or wrinkle.

The natural human tendency is to slack off after doing the first 6 or 7 problems at the end of the math chapter.

And then either to be satisfied with 80% rather than 100% - or to make ... and sometimes believe ... some sort of excuse or rationalization or have some sort of defense mechanism about it.

Hell of a thing to say about Ayn Rand.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

When I was in college, I remember my friends remarking: "How do you always do so well on the tests? You never take any notes." From their observations, all I ever did was sit there.

While they were furiously taking notes, I was listening and thinking. I was trying to think of what the professor would be saying next and why, and if I could not predict or understand his next move then I would consider my understanding lacking and intensely focus while trying to understand his explanation. It is a great discomfort to not understand something, and some discomfort to not be able to predict it (where there was some logic in the flow of one idea to the next), so I would remember my fault and work on it later.

My question is: How can they do so well while wasting their time taking notes? Actually, I think they made up for it by working harder than me after class. (Concerning homework, I and my high-achieving friends would of course both work through all the assigned problems).

Shayne

I once saw Ayn Rand take notes over 40 yrs ago on 3 x 5 cards at a legal lecture given by H.M. Holzer.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I think part of these note-taking friends' problem is that they didn't really trust their own mind's ability to understand. If they were to stop using the crutch of note-taking and instead try to understand, they'd be afraid that they'd forget something. Which leads to the rather perverse result that they waste part of their mind trying to take notes, which brings their mind down to a more concrete level, and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

A young, healthy mind is a miraculous thing. It's amazing that once it really understands something, it can reliably remember it later. So notes are typically unnecessary, and even distract from the lecture. (Notes are of course needed for miscellaneous random facts that have no logical connection to one another.)

What I would advise a chronic note-taker to simply trust his own mind, and focus more on understanding, and less on being a recorder. Also, I am not saying that no notes whatsoever should be taken. A sparse set of notes that remind one of the content covered can be a useful map when there is no textbook - a single word or so here and there. Also, occasionally a philosophical lecture will contain quotes that are worthy enough to record exactly as they are spoken, but this is rare.

The goal of learning is to be able to re-synthesize a first-handed understanding of the content as needed, not to be able to regurgitate. So the best mental stance is to approach a subject that is comprised of principles this way, every step of the way. (Obviously, a method such as this won't work very well for something like history, which is rich in random facts).

Shayne

True of some and some things and not for some others and other things.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

My step-mother became a NY lawyer going to night school while working a full time job. She passed the bar on the first try about 60 years ago. Her notes were extensive and highly detailed..

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

"And then either to be satisfied with 80% rather than 100% - or to make ... and sometimes believe ... some sort of excuse or rationalization or have some sort of defense mechanism about it. " ===>

A. Defense Mechanisms:

PLAYING DUMB -- Post #2, Mikee: "What is your purpose in making these observations?"

PHONY, EXAGGERATED, OR FALSE COMPARISONS -- Post #3, MSK: (A) "I wasn't too good at church...find a prophet to follow". (B) "someone will suggest excommunications and witch hunts."

B. Logical Errors or Excuses/Rationalizations:

FALSE ALTERNATIVE -- Post #3, MSK: "I'll take a person who thinks and chooses for himself...over a person who tries to fit his life into a set of rules designed by another person"

SUBSTITUTING A DIFFERENT CONTEXT -- Post #4, Shayne: "I was trying to think of what the professor would be saying next and why...[while others were] wasting their time taking notes"

UNWARRANTED HYPOTHESIS/PSYCHOLOGIZING -- Post #5, Shayne: "note-taking friends' problem is that they didn't really trust their own mind's ability to understand"

FALSE UNDERSTANDING OF NOTE-TAKING -- Post #5, Shayne: "focus more on understanding, and less on being a recorder...[don't] regurgitate."

C. Willful or "Humorous" or Psychologizing/Insulting Distortions:

WILLFULLY SARCASTIC DISTORTION OF NOTE-TAKING -- Post #6, George H. Smith: humorous video making fun of guy who takes notes on picky, stupid, inappropriate or 'social metaphysical' stuff.

PSYCHOLOGIZING ABOUT MOTIVES -- Post #7, "Ninth Doctor": "It’s his way of asserting his superiority."

PSYCHOLOGIZING ABOUT MOTIVES -- Post #8, George H. Smith: humorous video making fun of an animal who tries to puff up his own importance.

. . .Conclusion: Why am I not surprised at all these ways of twisting, dodging, sliming and insulting the messenger, saying anything to not have to admit a single one of the points I made from this group of hostile clowns (GHS, ND) and unclear or 'defensive' thinkers (MSK, Shayne)?

Hmm...Does the shoe pinch too tightly? :-)

Defense mechanisms to not allow into consciousness something truthful but unpleasant???

[sjw]

I once saw Ayn Rand take notes over 40 yrs ago on 3 x 5 cards at a legal lecture given by H.M. Holzer.

--Brant

Like I said, random facts. Also, if you disagree with parts of the lecture, that counts as random facts since there's no where in your own mind to place the idea relative to a principle.

Shayne

[sjw]

True of some and some things and not for some others and other things.

--Brant

Which is precisely what I said. Why do you feel the need to correct what is already perfectly correct?

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

"And then either to be satisfied with 80% rather than 100% - or to make ... and sometimes believe ... some sort of excuse or rationalization or have some sort of defense mechanism about it. " ===>

A. Defense Mechanisms:

PLAYING DUMB -- Post #2, Mikee: "What is your purpose in making these observations?"

PHONY, EXAGGERATED, OR FALSE COMPARISONS -- Post #3, MSK: (A) "I wasn't too good at church...find a prophet to follow". (B) "someone will suggest excommunications and witch hunts."

B. Logical Errors or Excuses/Rationalizations:

FALSE ALTERNATIVE -- Post #3, MSK: "I'll take a person who thinks and chooses for himself...over a person who tries to fit his life into a set of rules designed by another person"

SUBSTITUTING A DIFFERENT CONTEXT -- Post #4, Shayne: "I was trying to think of what the professor would be saying next and why...[while others were] wasting their time taking notes"

UNWARRANTED HYPOTHESIS/PSYCHOLOGIZING -- Post #5, Shayne: "note-taking friends' problem is that they didn't really trust their own mind's ability to understand"

FALSE UNDERSTANDING OF NOTE-TAKING -- Post #5, Shayne: "focus more on understanding, and less on being a recorder...[don't] regurgitate."

C. Willful or "Humorous" or Psychologizing/Insulting Distortions:

WILLFULLY SARCASTIC DISTORTION OF NOTE-TAKING -- Post #6, George H. Smith: humorous video making fun of guy who takes notes on picky, stupid, inappropriate or 'social metaphysical' stuff.

PSYCHOLOGIZING ABOUT MOTIVES -- Post #7, "Ninth Doctor": "It’s his way of asserting his superiority."

PSYCHOLOGIZING ABOUT MOTIVES -- Post #8, George H. Smith: humorous video making fun of an animal who tries to puff up his own importance.

. . .Conclusion: Why am I not surprised at all these ways of twisting, dodging, sliming and insulting the messenger, saying anything to not have to admit a single one of the points I made from this group of clowns?

Hmm...Does the shoe pinch too tightly? :-)

Defense mechanisms to not allow into consciousness something truthful but unpleasant???

It won't work Phil; for one reason: Objectivism never was the perfect philosophy delivered by perfect philosophers for the benefit of hoi polloi if they would only spend 40 years studying it diligently, supposedly like Leonard Peikoff (and you?) did. So when did you come to the conclusion it needed to be mastered and explored and applied into its every wrinkle?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

True of some and some things and not for some others and other things.

--Brant

Which is precisely what I said. Why do you feel the need to correct what is already perfectly correct?

Shayne

Bully for you. Now that the same thing has been said two ways who could fail to understand it?

--Brant

edit: uh, now I'm not so sure we did say the same thing--let the other readers decide

[Philip Coates]

> It won't work Phil; for one reason: Objectivism never was the perfect philosophy delivered by perfect philosophers for the benefit of hoi polloi if they would only spend 40 years studying it diligently, supposedly like Leonard Peikoff (and you?) did.

Brant, first, thanks for being the only person to take what I had to say seriously and without hostility. The "snark pack" could learn from that. (They won't, of course.)

To respond to your objection, do you not recognize serious value in Objectivism which merits careful study? Many points which are applicable to living a better life, improving yourself, changing the world for the better?

Wouldn't any one of those would merit at least as much diligent study as a geometry text...whether it is a hundred percent correct, or 90 percent or 80 percent. Certainly any of those a lot better than the other 'philosophies' we find around us. And a philosophy is of VITAL importance.

> So when did you come to the conclusion it needed to be mastered and explored and applied into its every wrinkle?

1. If by "every wrinkle", you mean all of Rand's personal views or her views on psychology, never.

2. If you mean every attempt to apply it to current events, often I find it misapplied.

3. If you mean the fundamental philosophy in its major branches, it was only after years of aggressive questioning. And that tended to follow making sure I understood every basic point - from metaphysics, from epistemology, from ethics, from politics, from esthetics**.

**I disagree on a couple points in the esthetics having to do with the nature of art.

[sjw]

Phil is in an important sense correct, there is a lot of value in those lectures on tape, in the writings, etc. The problem is that he made his case in a completely incompetent way. Which undercuts his case.

Brant picked up on a major portion of the incompetence in recognizing that what Phil was arguing for was overly authoritarian. The Objectivist material, which is indeed very valuable, must be examined in a purely first-handed way, coming at it with the expectation that errors will exist, perhaps even fundamental errors. I could go on but this is Phil's job.

Shayne

[Mikee]

Evidently you can't explain your purpose. Did you have a purpose when you studied five time harder than your classmate in order to get "100%" on your test? Just to beat your classmate? What good are your 100% math tests from the past when you can't figure out basic physics problems decades later? And you still need training wheels after getting past the basics? Perhaps you don't realize this but knowledge is infinite, your brain and your lifetime is finite. Purpose is everything. Purpose and focus. It doesn't matter if you get "100%" on a test if it has little bearing on your goals or you don't have a goal. What do you really want? Or is your purpose some twisted form of altruism? Or are you just a second-hander?

[studiodekadent]

I get wary of anyone trying to play the "More Objectivist Than Thou" game.

And that's all I have to say on the subject.

[Brant Gaede]

> It won't work Phil; for one reason: Objectivism never was the perfect philosophy delivered by perfect philosophers for the benefit of hoi polloi if they would only spend 40 years studying it diligently, supposedly like Leonard Peikoff (and you?) did.

Brant, first, thanks for being the only person to take what I had to say seriously and without hostility. The "snark pack" could learn from that. (They won't, of course.)

To respond to your objection, do you not recognize serious value in Objectivism which merits careful study? Many points which are applicable to living a better life, improving yourself, changing the world for the better?

Wouldn't any one of those would merit at least as much diligent study as a geometry text...whether it is a hundred percent correct, or 90 percent or 80 percent. Certainly any of those a lot better than the other 'philosophies' we find around us. And a philosophy is of VITAL importance.

> So when did you come to the conclusion it needed to be mastered and explored and applied into its every wrinkle?

1. If by "every wrinkle", you mean all of Rand's personal views or her views on psychology, never.

2. If you mean every attempt to apply it to current events, often I find it misapplied.

3. If you mean the fundamental philosophy in its major branches, it was only after years of aggressive questioning. And that tended to follow making sure I understood every basic point - from metaphysics, from epistemology, from ethics, from politics, from esthetics**.

**I disagree on a couple points in the esthetics having to do with the nature of art.

I don't get it. I understood your "3" the first time I read A.S., x-esthetics. The novel made my views on human rights work for me respecting a philosophy I found congenial and made me much more into an intellectual. Apropos rights, I asked myself when I was a young teen what is the right for someone to violate my rights? None. There was no consideration of ethics save contained in that proposition. The simplicity I now enjoy regarding Objectivism, and what-have-you, came from years of trying to make Objectivism work regarding psychological, social and political reality, but I didn't get there studying Objectivism the way you are championing, but by taking in the whole world in-so-far as I could regarding human being and trying to make all work regarding what I regarded as right and true philosophy, whatever that philosophy might turn out to be. I'm still working on this.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I get wary of anyone trying to play the "More Objectivist Than Thou" game.

And that's all I have to say on the subject.

Gracious. No need to be wary only awarey.

--Brant

[anthony]

While they were furiously taking notes, I was listening and thinking. I was trying to think of what the professor would be saying next and why, and if I could not predict or understand his next move then I would consider my understanding lacking and intensely focus while trying to understand his explanation. It is a great discomfort to not understand something, and some discomfort to not be able to predict it (where there was some logic in the flow of one idea to the next), so I would remember my fault and work on it later.

Shayne

Interesting, sounds familiar.

I have never been able to take notes if my life depended on it, and can't read them if I did.

First, having a highly unreliable memory, and then a short and unpredictable attention span, I had to also focus intently (called "hyperfocus" in ADHD parlance) to go straight to central principles, and quickly absorb them before dreaminess sets in.

It has its merits - the principles 'stick', and then one has to do plenty of follow up thinking to expand them - but I wouldn't recommend it unless there were no other way.

Tony

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually, I wasn't being hostile.

I'm just really antsy about allowing this kind of namby-pamby stuff grow on OL without contesting it, i.e., without making a statement to the contrary to put it into context.

Objectivism is not a religion, but after reading Phil for years, I judge him to be religious about Objectivism.

He is thoroughly engaged in the Puritanical idea of being his brother's keeper--and if that doesn't work, being a martyr for it (which is a way of coping with all the rejection he has received over the years for doing that crap).

The problem is, "I am my brother's keeper" comes from Christianity, not anything Rand ever wrote.

Michael