Robert Ringer wisdom on respect

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a two-part article by Robert Ringer on humor prompted by the Don Imus firing.

The Subjectivity of Humor, Part I

The Subjectivity of Humor, Part II

Although I fully agree with him about humor, the following remark in Part II about respect jumped out at me.

... make a personal commitment never to lower yourself by demanding the respect of others. Even if someone accedes to your demand, you can be certain of only one thing: Whatever respect that person outwardly displays toward you will be insincere. Deep down inside, he will resent you.

The truth of the matter is that you have no right to someone’s respect. Respect must be earned. And to earn respect, you first have to respect yourself — something over which you have complete control. The nice thing about it is that from self-respect flows the respect of others — as a natural consequence.

There is something important to be thought about here as regards the thin-skinnedness of many Objectivists. I wonder whether those who are most vocal in demanding respect from others really do not respect themselves very much. And if that is so, it is a good idea to ask why.

Is it because they are faking it on many issues as they go along?

I'm serious.

If I had to point to the greatest danger in Objectivism (getting it wrong, that is), I would have to point to the mechanism of faking it. Certainty is expected of life and knowledge in Objectivism. Moral certainty most of all. This is promoted very heavily in Objectivist social circles and online forums.

So when a person feels uncertain about an issue (and God forbid, an Objectivist fundamental), he feels guilty and is afraid of disapproval. He keeps his doubt to himself and covers up his uncertainty with faking it. This makes him lose respect for himself. And that makes him real grumpy about demanding respect from others.

I speculate, but I think this is good speculation.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Here is a two-part article by Robert Ringer on humor prompted by the Don Imus firing.

The Subjectivity of Humor, Part I

The Subjectivity of Humor, Part II

Although I fully agree with him about humor, the following remark in Part II about respect jumped out at me.

... make a personal commitment never to lower yourself by demanding the respect of others. Even if someone accedes to your demand, you can be certain of only one thing: Whatever respect that person outwardly displays toward you will be insincere. Deep down inside, he will resent you.

The truth of the matter is that you have no right to someone’s respect. Respect must be earned. And to earn respect, you first have to respect yourself — something over which you have complete control. The nice thing about it is that from self-respect flows the respect of others — as a natural consequence.

There is something important to be thought about here as regards the thin-skinnedness of many Objectivists. I wonder whether those who are most vocal in demanding respect from others really do not respect themselves very much. And if that is so, it is a good idea to ask why.

Is it because they are faking it on many issues as they go along?

I'm serious.

If I had to point to the greatest danger in Objectivism (getting it wrong, that is), I would have to point to the mechanism of faking it. Certainty is expected of life and knowledge in Objectivism. Moral certainty most of all. This is promoted very heavily in Objectivist social circles and online forums.

So when a person feels uncertain about an issue (and God forbid, an Objectivist fundamental), he feels guilty and is afraid of disapproval. He keeps his doubt to himself and covers up his uncertainty with faking it. This makes him lose respect for himself. And that makes him real grumpy about demanding respect from others.

I speculate, but I think this is good speculation.

Michael

Michael,

I think beginners with Objectivism need space with the philosophy. It's new and exciting and they want to know things right now. The reason people are sometimes frustrated with Objectivism is that it isn't something you're going to understand right away. I can remember retaining a belief in God almost a full year and a half after reading Atlas.

The other problem is that it isn't natural for people to function 24/7 at a high level of focus even if they do understand something. The way human neurology works is that we have a six layer neocortex that retrieves memories and performs pattern recognition. As things become more automated the response comes from a lower and lower level of the neocortical hierarchy. So it is natural that newcomers to Objectivism or even longtime Objectivists who haven't studied a particular issue in depth will probably either come back with the "wrong" answer or have to think hard about it.

I think the wrong approach is for people to try to "deautomate" faulty learned patterns. Part of the crankiness you sometimes see in Objectivists is a clash between consciously held beliefs and previously stored and automated patterns. They don't want other people to introduce any more cognitive dissonance than they have already. The Objectivist emphasis on resolving contradictions oftens overloads our cognitive bandwidth. So you don't even have to be uncertain about issues to have them cause you heartburn. The right approach if you are having trouble with an issue is to try to unpack it, digest it and hit it from as many different angles as possible.

I remember Richard Feynman describing how sometimes when he would work on something new in physics he had a state which he called an ape-like state where he was just kind of groping about for understanding. People simply need to allow space for that feeling and have confidence that it will go away over time. I don't think most Objectivists are "faking it". I simply think they sometimes try to stuff ideas into their heads before they are really ready for them. I used to have periods where I would take a "walkabout" from Objectivism. Sometimes a couple months, sometimes a couple years where I simply worked on other things and didn't worry about Objectivism at all. When I would come back from those "sabbaticals", I always found that some of the things I had puzzled over suddenly made sense and some of the things that I had taken for granted were called into question.

Sometimes people want to just socialize with other Objectivists. They start in on a conversation and if it turns to ideas there is a sort of pressure to have something to say even when you don't. I think the solution to that is to try to create a very low pressure environment for people to hang out and let their hair down. Some of the most successful Objectivist club meetings my brother used to organize were games nights. Everybody had fun and people could talk about ideas if they wanted to, but they didn't have to. One of the things I think Objectivist Living does very well is present a welcoming, low pressure environment for beginners.

Jim