Sarah Bear, Locked and Loaded for 2014

[We Erred Rand]

Selene asked:

I still would like to know what it does for a living

I'd be delighted to answer!

I clean latrines at a transgender escort service in a major city in "Middle America" inhabited by the "rural poor."

And although your picture doesn't do you justice, I can't help but inquire:

Haven't I seen you before? Are you one of the regular patrons? Or are you one of the irregular "gurls?"

(Hope you enjoy those studies I linked to. Greatly looking forward to reading your usual pithy, trenchant analysis.)

[studiodekadent]

We Erred Rand, on 05 Apr 2013 - 17:40, said:

Post ommitted owing to extreme use of personal insults

I'm going to address the one factual matter here. Consulting my own copy shows you are indeed correct about the order in which these events happen, my fault. Yes, I made an error as to the order of events.

Even so, the fundamental point I am making is that in Atlas, Rearden experiences a character arc. A significant part of this character arc is the rejection of Protestant-Work-Ethic-style premises.

The scene with Dagny and the ruby, irrespective of the order in which it occurs, is still an example of Rearden being totally okay with indulgent, luxurious consumption (frowned on by the Calvinist/Reformed/Lutheran school of thought). This is in tension with his earlier disdain for Francisco's playboy antics - again, we are seeing two contradictory premises in the character.

The character arc shows Rearden eventually rejecting the Protestant-Work-Ethic (which demands unceasing labor as an end in itself). Whether or not he actually ends up spending the gold ingot on his own personal consumption is in fact irrelevant since Ragnar is a character who doesn't have any 'bad premises' - his approval of personal consumption can basically be read as an approval of it directly from Ayn Rand's mouth.

Again, Dagny and Hank both have lessons to learn. Their character arcs consist of their bad premises (Rearden's own Protestant Work Ethic/Self-Denial/Sex-Guilt, and Dagny's excessive optimism/belief that the system can be fixed from within) being challenged and eventually removed.

And the character arc of Hank clearly identifies that Hank's rather Calvinist-like attitudes are flaws which are eventually fixed (via his relationship with Dagny, incidentally).

Whether the bar of gold or the ruby happened first isn't in fact relevant to this pattern.

[Selene]

Selene wrote:

*Out of curiosity, how does on control for having been "bullied?"

The author explains how he controls for it. By "control" he means, a question that can be answered by a respondent, and then quantified as part of the pool of raw data. He explains it immediately after the sentence you put in red bold and underlined.

Additionally, I controlled for having been bullied*, ...

the measure for which was asked as follows: “While growing up, children and teenagers typically experience negative interactions with others. We say that someone is bullied when someone else, or a group, says or does nasty and unpleasant things to him or her. We do not consider it bullying when two people quarrel or fight, however. Do you recall ever being bullied by someone else, or by a group, such that you still have vivid, negative memories of it?”

Apparently, you did not understand the gist of my statement.

The current politically correct bullying protocols that have been injected into a failed education system and today's female dominated parenting protocols have created a completely subjective system of children who cannot cope with the normal dominant and submissive personalities of maturing.

The definition of bullying is completely subjective, and, essentially invalid for measurement as stated by this study.

Additionally, the invalid use of special ed I.E.P.'s and the state's imposition of invasive psychotropic medications that are disproportionately used to control boys from their normal state of hyperactivity are completely destructive.

In fact, the long term effects on boys leads to higher drug addiction, brains that are severely diminished, depressed and self-destructive. Additionally, these drug induced states lead to fear levels that encourage a sense of being bullied.

Therefore, that definition used in the study makes it more highly suspect to an objective critique.

By the way, thanks for stepping into the argumentative snare that I set for you.

=========================================================

As to your continued personal, juvenile and ad hominum attacks, I pity you. You have a mind that is quite adept and loaded with knowledge.

Why you have such internal rage in your argumentation just reduces folks respect for you.

Be safe.

A...

[We Erred Rand]

Selene wrote:

The current politically correct bullying protocols that have been injected into a failed education system and today's female dominated parenting protocols have created a completely subjective system of children who cannot cope with the normal dominant and submissive personalities of maturing.

The definition of bullying is completely subjective, and, essentially invalid for measurement as stated by this study.

That would also apply to any definition of "bullying", including your use of the phrase "normal dominant and submissive personalities."

The point, of course, is to define the term clearly, and in such a way that participants in the study understand it and can answer the question. Terms do not require "medically objective" definitions to be valid; they just need to be defined and understood by the research team, the study participants, and by those reading the final results.

>>>You have a mind that is quite adept and loaded with knowledge.

Thanks! Like you, I'm "arrogant and accommodating" when necessary.

[caroljane]

You are right about Adam! Boy, is he ever.

Anon

[Selene]

That would also apply to any definition of "bullying", including your use of the phrase "normal dominant and submissive personalities."

The point, of course, is to define the term clearly, and in such a way that participants in the study understand it and can answer the question. Terms do not require "medically objective" definitions to be valid; they just need to be defined and understood by the research team, the study participants, and by those reading the final results.

Incorrect. There is clear neurological, scientific and psychological evidence which includes several thousands of years of common sense [in the Aristotelian sense] that there is a significant, natural difference in the "temper" of men and women.

Boys naturally fall into dominant and submissive classes. There are leaders [A types] and followers [the rest of the alphabet types]. None of those distinctions involve "bullying" by the studies "criteria."

For example, the utter incomprehensibility of the study author's criteria that:

We say that someone is bullied when someone else, or a group, says or does nasty and unpleasant things to him or her. We do not consider it bullying when two people quarrel or fight, however. Do you recall ever being bullied by someone else, or by a group, such that you still have vivid, negative memories of it?”

This is patently absurd.

Finally, by the study definition, you are a bully, correct?

A...

[Selene]

Additionally, provide me with five (5) objectively observable criteria that would show an independent observer to determine that bullying was occurring between the following interactions:

a) two individuals are "ranking" on a third individual; and

b) two individuals are fighting with a third individual.

A...

[We Erred Rand]

Selene opined:

>>>This is patently absurd.

The participants in the study didn't think so. And that's all that matters.

Selene opined:

>>>Finally, by the study definition, you are a bully, correct?

Just "dominant."

[We Erred Rand]

Selene wrote:

>>>provide me with five (5) objectively observable criteria that would show an independent observer to determine that bullying was occurring...

The only thing an independent observer observed in this study was the raw data, comprising answers to questions by the study participants. It wasn't up to the researchers to observe the study subjects in their daily lives in order to determine "objectively" if something "objectively definable" as "bullying" was occurring or not. The only thing that matters is whether the subjects believed themselves to have been the victims of "bullying". That's the basis on which they will answer the question; i.e., what the subjects believe about their own experiences, not what the researchers believe about those experiences.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually, on this believe thing, what I've learned from marketing is that people don't just believe something about what they experience, they believe they believe something about it.

And they are often mistaken on both counts.

This is one of the things they teach you on interpreting the results of focus groups (and, going more granular, why direct response marketers think focus groups are a total waste of time for their purposes).

You have an actual belief (shown by behavior), a perception of the thing or issue that causes the belief, then a belief about the perception.

People tend to live in their minds within the stories and characters they adopt, not within reality. Discover, then address the story in a manner they like and you've hooked them, irrespective of the product or issue.

It's hard to get them to snap out of it if you want objectivity from them. Hell, it's hard to snap out of it no matter who you are, even when you're trying to get someone else to snap out of it.

That sounds crazy, but that--all of it--is what I see when I try to suspend my beliefs and deal with someone else about a topic.

I don't think it's a shame people talk past each other constantly. I think it's a miracle of the human mind that we understand each other as much as we do.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Boys naturally fall into dominant and submissive classes. There are leaders [A types] and followers [the rest of the alphabet types]. None of those distinctions involve "bullying" by the studies "criteria."

Adam,

I'm going to have to register a very strong disagreement with this proposition.

That said, given your personal kinks I am not surprised that you believe in such an hierarchialist, pack-animalistic meta-anthropology. Ayn Rand wasn't the only person with the ability to philosophically rationalize their fetishes after all.

This leader/follower dichotomy is pretty much the entire approach to power relations which Rand thoroughly attacks in The Fountainhead (irrespective of Rand's little kinky 'rape' scene). Where does someone with no desire to either lead others or follow others (Roark types) fit? Where do those that reject the heirarchy fit? Those that make their own decisions for themselves, without making decisions for others? Are we freaks, or superhumans? Or perhaps both?

You think people (your post mentions men particularly but it seems true of both genders, see Queen Bees and Wannabes for more) are naturally 'born' in dominant or submissive classes. I dissent - I think it is quite clearly a matter of socialization, premises and choices. The fundamental choice being whether one wishes to think for oneself or relinquish that oh-so-torturous-responsibility-of-having-to-think is quite clearly the most relevant 'choice' here.

Yes, I accept that there are evolutionary remnants of pack-animal drives in human beings. But these are the worst, most primitive, disgusting and craven parts of what MSK often calls the Lizard Brain, and they enable the most vile and brutish behavior man is capable of (see E. S. Raymond's "The Myth of Man The Killer" here - http://catb.org/~esr/writings/killer-myth.html ).

But let's take this conversation back to a personal note - if your theory is correct, than the multitudes of bullies I endured were just naturally acting out their bio-psychological type and that the torturous cruelty I suffered wasn't really their fault. You are absolving them of their moral responsibility. Not only that, but you are suggesting that they have natural 'victims' (quite frankly, if such a creature exists they are subhuman). And, if your theory is correct, either 1) I am in denial (your choice as to what) or 2) I do not exist. Or perhaps you were stating your theory in highly condensed terms and your actual meta-anthropology is far more nuanced than this. If so, please inform me.

But as I see it, your meta-anthropology seems to be that of LaVey, not Rand.

Either way, this is off topic. If you want to continue discussing this subject with me, I'd invite you to PM me on it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

Just a quick comment.

It's entirely possible for a person to have a natural bent and a moral compass at odds with each other. The automatic disposition comes from the lower parts of the brain and the moral compass comes from the frontal neocortex. And there's a lot of emotion that both can tap into in between. If they are conflicting, then the emotional range and surges will be interesting, to say the least.

A natural disposition does not absolve anyone of moral responsibility. None. It does explain his strengths and weaknesses, though, (including those of character) and what he needs to work on the most in order to improve.

So it is possible for a person to have an inclination to be a bully, yet temper this inclination with a chosen reasoned code of values. In such a case, he still might lean toward being a hot-head and short on patience when others don't obey him, but he won't allow it to descend into violence.

I would argue that this is the reason we need constant periodic contact with moral inspiration (like they do with churches). The aware part of the mind needs to "eat" so to speak. It needs to harness the lower parts of the brain and that is hard work. And, like with food, you don't just eat a meal once and then you are done with eating for the rest of your life. After a while the food gets used up and you need to eat again.. I believe this happens--up to a point--with messages of inspiration and moral considerations.

As for young males in group, especially adults, this is an interesting topic. There is archaeological evidence that, in our prehistoric ancestors, young adult males were violent when in group. They also set about on violent raids. Weapons are often found among the skeletal remains, And look at any street gang for further evidence.

Once again, this does not absolve anyone of moral responsibility, but this inherent disposition (when not tempered by morality) across various cultures is a reality. That's where education comes in--to rechannel the aggressiveness. And it is one of the reasons why moral education is so important.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Andrew,

Just a quick comment.

It's entirely possible for a person to have a natural bent and a moral compass at odds with each other. The automatic disposition comes from the lower parts of the brain and the moral compass comes from the frontal neocortex. And there's a lot of emotion that both can tap into in between. If they are conflicting, then the emotional range and surges will be interesting, to say the least.

A natural disposition does not absolve anyone of moral responsibility. None. It does explain his strengths and weaknesses, though, (including those of character) and what he needs to work on the most in order to improve.

So it is possible for a person to have an inclination to be a bully, yet temper this inclination with a chosen reasoned code of values. In such a case, he still might lean toward being a hot-head and short on patience when others don't obey him, but he won't allow it to descend into violence.

I would argue that this is the reason we need constant periodic contact with moral inspiration (like they do with churches). The aware part of the mind needs to "eat" so to speak. It needs to harness the lower parts of the brain and that is hard work. And, like with food, you don't just eat a meal once and then you are done with eating for the rest of your life. After a while the food gets used up and you need to eat again.. I believe this happens--up to a point--with messages of inspiration and moral considerations.

As for young males in group, especially adults, this is an interesting topic. There is archaeological evidence that, in our prehistoric ancestors, young adult males were violent when in group. They also set about on violent raids. Weapons are often found among the skeletal remains, And look at any street gang for further evidence.

Once again, this does not absolve anyone of moral responsibility, but this inherent disposition (when not tempered by morality) across various cultures is a reality. That's where education comes in--to rechannel the aggressiveness. And it is one of the reasons why moral education is so important.

Michael

MSK,

I agree to an extent. I concede there are evolutionary remnants of lower drives, absolutely. I also agree they don't absolve people of moral responsibility.

Would I go so far as to say, however, people are "wired" one way or another (this is the specific contention of Adam's I find most objectionable)? I wouldn't - I think the pack-animal-drives put people into a rank-order on a contextual basis.... person A can be at the top of an heirarchy composed of A/B/C/D whilst at the bottom of one composed of A/X/Y/Z, etc. etc. Sure, someone's other capabilities and capacities will factor into this, but I don't think the "software" (so to speak) comes in "leader" and "follower" versions. There's one version - other factors determine where someone ends up.

But again, these drives are (in today's word) ultimately dangerous and counterproductive and quite frankly I consider them loathsome. And I think we basically agree here, although I use more vitriolic terms. Like you said, I agree in fostering a moral culture which encourages rational values rather than pack-animal primitivism.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

There are natural born leaders. Read Lord of the Flies for a good example among kids. It's fiction, but it's true to human nature.

These natural leaders don't necessarily become strong ones as that depends on a lot of additional factors, but some people come with an outgoing temperament, as an example of a standard,component of normal leadership, while others are introverted, which is found more in followers than leaders. There are lots of factors like that.

These aren't sentences for life, they are merely pieces of the whole. How's this for a question? What do we have that makes us who we are? Genes or volition? I think that's the wrong frame.

How about both? That's more realistic.

I hold it's a mistake to attribute one factor as the be-all and end-all of behavior.

I often see people in O-Land making claims about volition that are not realistic. They are exaggerated. The more scientific-leaning folks make the same error from the other end. They claim that determinism is all and volition is a myth. If you allow yourself to get caught up in that false dichotomy, especially the polemics and bickering between the two, you end up missing the true extent of volition and how to increase it, and the true extent of what comes prewired and how to channel and develop it.

One thing is clear to me about leadership. On the volitional level, a person who starts thinking first-hand is hard to rule unless he gives his consent. A person who chooses not to willfully engage his rational mind and volition, except sporadically, is a natural follower.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

MSK,

I'm going to refrain from giving a full discussion of your post and the issues it raises, principally because it is off-topic for this thread. But I will note some broad areas of agreement and disagreement.

First, we are both biosocial interactionists who accept free will. In other words, we both agree that Nature, Nurture and Volition are all relevant factors that need to be taken into account. On that, we agree, however we may differ as to the "balance" between the three factors, and maybe we disagree as to the way the factors interact with each other. However, roughly speaking we're in the same camp.

Second, I think the concept of "natural leaders" is often extremely fuzzy and unclear in the first place and the notion deserves some extensive interrogation. Issues like Expertise Vs. Authority (see Sharon Presley's work on the subject), contextual positioning within an hierarchy, differentiating between assertiveness and dominance, and the role of prejudices and biases in the concept all play a role. For instance, physical appearance plays a huge factor - a shorter man with an assertive nature is often called "pushy" or "bossy" while a taller man with an assertive nature is often called a "natural leader."

I'm not alleging you disagree with my second point. I'm simply pointing out we're dealing with a complex and multifaceted notion here.

Thirdly, I think we should be careful especially as to how this notion can be abused. From rationalizing (or appearing to rationalize) school bullying (which is one of the reasons I disagreed with Adam) to the Fuhrerprinzip, you can't doubt that there is a significant level of danger in the notion. This only further demands it be handled with care.

Finally, as to your point re. serial evaders being easily controlled, we absolutely agree here. Thought Does Not Bow To Authority and all that; intellectual independence is the root of all genuine assertiveness. But what I will suggest is that so-called "natural leaders" are not necessarily any less evasive or psychologically or epistemologically dependent/flawed/parasitic/screwed up than a so-called "natural follower."

Anyway, whilst this discussion is technically off-topic, I think we have general common ground and are mostly wrangling over finer details here.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

I agree we mostly agree and are merely focused on the facets where we have encountered trouble.

Here is one I want to mention. I don't like the term "evaders." It cuts too broad a swath. It's used frequently as an insult in the subcommunity, so it is not much value to me when I am in identification mode. The "insult" use automatically comes with a moral condemnation that I believe misidentifies the matter--at least one half of the matter.

Here's a question.

How does an evader know he is evading?

I contend if you use that term for people who do not consciously engage and direct their awareness, the answer will be he can't. Such a person is not equipped to do meta-cognition (thinking about how he thinks as he thinks).

But there are people who know better. They have an agenda, whether it is bigotry, maintaining privilege, keeping or getting goodies they have no right to, etc., who actually do evade in the insulting sense. They simply refuse to think about the moral downside of what they do in order to keep their advantages. For these people, the process of coming out of it is simply to choose to do so. They know they are wrong. They just refuse to think about it.

For others, like people who have suffered trauma, people who have watched way too many covert persuasion messages (like marketing or propaganda), people who have grown up in an environment where a strong core cultural story is accepted by everyone (like religious cultures), people who have been outright brainwashed (like cult members), etc., the process of getting their mind to look at things it has been trained to ignore over a long period of time is more like waking up. Nobody chooses to wake up. It either happens on its own or someone/something else interrupts the sleep. And, depending on the depth and amount of influence, some of that sleep is almost on a coma level.

When I judge people who I believe are not taking something important into account as a habit (where I am pretty certain I am on the right side of the issue), I try to be careful on this point.

I treat the person who chooses evasion with a lot more hostility and moral clarity (of the condemning sort) than I do the person who is intellectually asleep. I try to craft my discourse in such a manner that it will have an effect on getting the person to see. (I try to get that result. That doesn't mean I am always, or even often, successful. The mind of the other person is part of this attempt and there are no guarantees in communication. Another mind is in play.)

I use two different approaches. To put it in metaphorical terms, I shove a mirror in the face of an outright evader and say, "Look, dammit!," but I nudge the person who is asleep and gently call his name.

Since I am a happy sort, I usually do both with a lot of good vibes. Not always, but mostly.

(btw - Good vibes are good for you, physically good for you. This is backed up by science. Knowing that, I do it as a moral choice. I don't have an inherent resistance like chemical imbalances in the brain, trauma, etc., so it has been pretty easy to cultivate. I certainly feel better interacting with others in a happy manner than in a snarky or gloomy one. Frankly, I am having a ball in life. )

And, I try--as much as I can muster my awareness--to discern when I am the one who is asleep or choosing not to think. I can't choose to wake up when I'm asleep, so to speak, but I can make my mind be willing--in general--to wake more readily than normal when prompted from the outside.

This means owning up to being wrong when I figure I am. That's a simple habit, but not an easy one. The brain is wired to inherently resist it. And you only compound the inner tension if you are committed to achieving moral clarity (like I am). So it's hard, but I believe the rewards are well worth the effort.

Something just occurred to me. I didn't think of it as I wrote that post, but it popped into my mind this instant. If you want to know the reason I use flexibility to the rules when dealing with people on this forum and why I have focused more on working through ideas than teaching them, I unwittingly gave a very good explanation.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Selene asked:

I still would like to know what it does for a living

I'd be delighted to answer!

I clean latrines at a transgender escort service in a major city in "Middle America" inhabited by the "rural poor."

And although your picture doesn't do you justice, I can't help but inquire:

Haven't I seen you before? Are you one of the regular patrons? Or are you one of the irregular "gurls?"

(Hope you enjoy those studies I linked to. Greatly looking forward to reading your usual pithy, trenchant analysis.)

I knew it!

So long, it's been good to know you.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Believe it or not, I think there's an actual person worth knowing underneath all that childish crap.

I'm giving it a little extra time to see if the person emerges, but I realize that OL is not a rehabilitation center or kindergarten.

So there are fast-dwindling limits to my patience.

(I learned that one the hard way with you-know-who, and also the crazy lady.. )

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on 07 Apr 2013 - 02:56, said:

I contend if you use that term for people who do not consciously engage and direct their awareness, the answer will be he can't. Such a person is not equipped to do meta-cognition (thinking about how he thinks as he thinks).

But there are people who know better. They have an agenda, whether it is bigotry, maintaining privilege, keeping or getting goodies they have no right to, etc., who actually do evade in the insulting sense. They simply refuse to think about the moral downside of what they do in order to keep their advantages. For these people, the process of coming out of it is simply to choose to do so. They know they are wrong. They just refuse to think about it.

For others, like people who have suffered trauma, people who have watched way too many covert persuasion messages (like marketing or propaganda), people who have grown up in an environment where a strong core cultural story is accepted by everyone (like religious cultures), people who have been outright brainwashed (like cult members), etc., the process of getting their mind to look at things it has been trained to ignore over a long period of time is more like waking up. Nobody chooses to wake up. It either happens on its own or someone/something else interrupts the sleep. And, depending on the depth and amount of influence, some of that sleep is almost on a coma level.

When I judge people who I believe are not taking something important into account as a habit (where I am pretty certain I am on the right side of the issue), I try to be careful on this point.

I treat the person who chooses evasion with a lot more hostility and moral clarity (of the condemning sort) than I do the person who is intellectually asleep. I try to craft my discourse in such a manner that it will have an effect on getting the person to see. (I try to get that result. That doesn't mean I am always, or even often, successful. The mind of the other person is part of this attempt and there are no guarantees in communication. Another mind is in play.)

I use two different approaches. To put it in metaphorical terms, I shove a mirror in the face of an outright evader and say, "Look, dammit!," but I nudge the person who is asleep and gently call his name.

MSK,

That is a very good approach and I agree. Some people's cognitive capacities ARE damaged, and denouncing them and condemning them is not going to lead them to virtue. I agree with you that a more productive approach is to encourage thought rather than preoccupy oneself with condemning evaders. There is a lot to say for trying to bring good into the world rather than spend one's time just taking evil out of it.

That said, in the context of what we have talked about, I find it unsettling to believe that some people are "naturally" predisposed to not think for themselves (and are therefore "natural followers"). I agree people can be cognitively damaged into such a state, absolutely. But "naturally" seems to imply that, well, some people just "can't help it." They CAN'T "get better."

That said, you are a biosocial interactionist so I think you would agree with me that there is no such thing as a truly helpless case.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

The following only applies to the unchosen unaware, not the bad guys who know better.

Why do you call them "damaged"?

Would you call a young bird who has not yet tested its wing "damaged"?

It takes some people a long time to grow into their reason, especially in terms of meta-cognition.

That's why I like the metaphor "asleep."

Once they wake up for the first time, they tend to spread their wings and fly on their own.

It's a beautiful thing to witness.

Michael

[We Erred Rand]

Andrew,

There are natural born leaders. Read Lord of the Flies for a good example among kids. It's fiction, but it's true to human nature.

Michael

No, it isn't true to human nature; it's true to one specific model of human nature, namely, Freud's model. William Golding accepted Freud's mechanistic division of the human psyche into an Id, an Ego, and a Super-ego, and the characters in the novel are modeled after that division. The novel isn't just fiction; it's allegorical fiction, with the characters being symbolic representations of abstractions.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Weird Rand,

Are you actually making a point, or using the moment to display your reading to the little people?

Heh.

You don't like fiction for this point?

OK.

Go to any kindergarten playground, then, and observe.

Or better yet, go to the streets of any ghetto.

Observe what kids so when they are unsupervised.

Observe the gangs and the young-ass natural leaders who scrap to get to the top of the heap by popping caps into their rivals..

There.

Reality.

Oops.

For that, you have to use your own eyes and brain, not soak up and goose up the opinions of someone else. So maybe that approach will not interest you.

Michael

[We Erred Rand]

Michael Stewed Kelly wrote:

>>>Weird Rand,

>>>Are you actually making a point, or using the moment to display your reading to the little people?

Honestly, Stewed, it's difficult to do the former without simultaneously doing the latter on a site like this. Apparently, you prefer contributors who dumb themselves down in order for you and other regulars to protect your egos, and keep your fragile self-esteem intact. Sorry if I can't accommodate that. I'm selfish enough to believe that other people's self-esteem is best kept intact by them, not by me.

Of course, if you're trying to find a subtly oblique way of asking for a reading list that you would find both interesting and enlightening, I'd be very happy to accommodate you. Most happy, indeed!

Anyway, you seem to believe that if little Bobby beats the crap out of little Sammy on a playground in order to steal his baseball glove — or simply for the fun of it — that this is the same thing as being a "natural born leader." Quite incorrect. Leadership rests on persuasion, not threat of force.

And the point, of course, is that there are different models of "human nature", Freud's being only one. Golding accepted that model as an accurate description of reality. Do you?

[studiodekadent]

Andrew,

The following only applies to the unchosen unaware, not the bad guys who know better.

Why do you call them "damaged"?

Would you call a young bird who has not yet tested its wing "damaged"?

It takes some people a long time to grow into their reason, especially in terms of meta-cognition.

MSK,

I think you slightly misunderstood me here. I wan't talking about those who were the unchosen unaware. On them, I agree with everything you said.

I'm saying that if you argue that some people are "natural followers," which you described as being "naturally inclined" to not think (note that I'm not saying you believe these people actually exist), then I cannot see how one cannot see such a person as, well, 'faulty' in some way.

I, on the other hand, don't believe some people are "naturally inclined" away from thinking. I think they can be socialized away from it (by religion and other forces), but this process can be reversed.

Go to any kindergarten playground, then, and observe.

Or better yet, go to the streets of any ghetto.

Observe what kids so when they are unsupervised.

Observe the gangs and the young-ass natural leaders who scrap to get to the top of the heap by popping caps into their rivals..

If this is your understanding of the natural leader, then I simply don't see how one can avoid separating 'natural leaders' from bullies.

And, like you, I hate bullies.

(PS: I can't believe it, I actually agree with We Erred Rand here... well, with WER's basic point, not with WER's uncivil rhetoric)

[We Erred Rand]

studiodekadent wrote:

>>>PS: I can't believe it, I actually agree with We Erred Rand here... well, with WER's basic point

Amigo, you show uncommonly good sense, as well as good taste. I approve!