[Previous] Fear of Future Employers | Home | [Next] Silence vs. Stupidity

Standards

Different standards is one of the primary reasons people don't like me. I have higher standards and expectations for them than they have for themselves. They can write explicit contradictions in the space of one paragraph and feel like they exceeded their standards and expect congratulations. Then I criticize instead. I think they should seek so much better in their lives. They don’t like that because they are trying to be content with what they are, or a little more, rather than striving for way better.

L did some political activism and got in a newspaper. (Something like a publicity stunt involving no serious or important ideas.) L got a brief quote included, in which she claimed to be for free expression and contradicted herself.

On Facebook, F saw this as a great and impressive accomplishment, despite admitting that L did indeed contradict herself and that there was room for improvement.

No one should be impressed. Here is some of the criticism I explained:
why so impressed by the prestige of a bad newspaper? what do you expect this stuff to accomplish?

Wynand owned bad newspapers, and you know how that worked out. you merely got an article in one. so what?

by designing a portion of your life so it could more easily be picked up by a bad newspaper, you lived their values. you let them have some control over you.

when Hayek won a nobel prize, that was not a symbol of success, it was a symbol of his depravity.
Rather than argue against any of this, L Facebook-liked the paragraph about Hayek which pointed out that getting into the newspaper was depraved by her. L also wrote a comment defending me against haters (not F) and asked them to stop.

F expressed the concept that higher standards would be nice, but are unnecessary. F thinks L’s message was good enough.

It has been claimed to me that F is an Objectivist. I wonder how she read, “PART I NON-CONTRADICTION” (Atlas Shrugged).

How can F accept contradictions – and expect me to accept them too and still be impressed? By having much lower standards in life than I do. By having lower points of comparison, lower expectations. F's standards are not low compared to the typical person, but they're low compared to mine or Ayn Rand's.

F compares L to something like a typical member of her social circle. In this, L exceeds expectations, despite the contradiction and other problems. So F is impressed.

I think that typical person is stupid and incompetent. F thinks of that more like average intelligence, or perhaps above average. This is a clash of standards and expectations – do you compare to your idea of the average person in society or to objective standards for what it takes to think well, be highly effective in life, etc?

F does not expect to ever meet a John Galt or Ayn Rand on Earth. F doesn’t look for that. F doesn’t compare people to that kind of standard. F has a circle of friends who contradict themselves regularly, and F contradicts herself regularly, and F thinks that’s all there is and that’s how life is. F is content with that. Greatness might be for some rare other person who is outside of F’s life.

F is by no means the worst example of any of this. Plenty of other people have similar ideas, and some of them are worse. And plenty of people have lower standards than F. This is not a comparison of F to her conventional people.

I compare to things like Ayn Rand or Howard Roark. Those are my standards. Why not? It’s good to aim high. L should aim high. People could be so much better than they are, but most won’t even try for it.

L is struggling to aim high. L has, like most people, some second-handedness. L likes and seeks praise like F and others hand out for L’s conventionally-impressive-but-actually-immoral “achievements”. F and many others are making this problem worse and are encouraging L to have low standards and to destroy herself.

This is a sad waste of potential, talent, and capability. F thinks she’s kind by never even imagining L in the same realm as great men. F praises mediocrity as if it was greatness because her standards are set that low. This does no moral person any favors.

“What is kinder—to believe the best of people and burden them with a nobility beyond their endurance—or to see them as they are, and accept it because it makes them comfortable? Kindness being more important than justice, of course.” (Ellsworth Toohey, The Fountainhead)

Justice is what matters and what actually helps people. Expecting the best of people is the right thing to do. Encouraging them to take comfort in accepting mediocrity is depraved.

F, stop trying to drag L down (and stop dragging down everyone else too). Stop encouraging her to play in the mud, instead of do things that have any connection to greatness. When you do that, you are part of the irrational mob that plays a large role in the destruction of most human beings.

A big part of L wants to be great. Any friend of hers would encourage that. Criticism is helpful. Encouraging higher standards is helpful. Arguing with people who do that, in favor of standards so low L already meets them, discourages seeing greatness as the normal, natural and expected. It spreads a destructive sense of life.

Standards are not a matter of taste. Objectively, people like Mises and Popper are around the minimum necessary to accomplish much for the cause of reason. Even Rand wasn't very effective. E.g. ARI is bad. Where is any big positive influence by Rand on more than a handful of people? Rand helped a lot of people a little. It's something. It's not that much. It's nothing like making TCS or liberalism or reason actually be popular. L, and others, ought to aim for accomplishments more like that. (Or at least aim to learn enough to make an informed decision about whether to do that.)

L's recent political activism is not on the path to greatness. It’s going the wrong direction. It’s self-destructive. It’s making things harder in her future, not easier. She's taking time off learning ideas worth spreading to get some non-intellectual attention. She's on path to be a mini Gail Wynand – similar themes on a much smaller scale.

If you think some standard – e.g. non-contradiction – is too high or otherwise wrong for a situation, argue your case. Say why it's not achievable, and say what the standard should be (e.g. what contradictions are to be allowed).

Remember to look at standards in terms of whether they will achieve particular goals, not whether they are beating other people. You could easily do way better than your friend, but still fail badly at your goal.

People like F think if they agree with Ayn Rand that contradictions are bad, they are on her side. Then they set standards dramatically lower than Rand did – e.g. they accept many contradictions as good enough. That isn't agreeing with Rand. That is being Rand's opponent.

It's like when someone says "I like reading Rand, that's on my todo list," but they prioritize it low enough it doesn't happen. Then deny they are rejecting Rand.

Considering something (reason, non-contradiction, liberalism, TCS, etc) nice, but then not expecting much of it, is a way to pseudo-agree with its advocates, but not actually substantively agree. It's a way of evading disagreement and preventing learning the full issue. By sweeping conflict under the rug, it prevents the persuasive truth-seeking resolution of that conflict. This sort of irrationality is really common.

These people, who are half on the side of reason – but with low standards (like allowing explicit contradictions in a single paragraph) – are an example of the men in the middle that Rand spoke of in Atlas Shrugged. For example, people who won't chose to take non-contradiction seriously or to oppose it:
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice.

...

"You, who are half-rational, half-coward, have been playing a con game with reality, but the victim you have conned is yourself. When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it's picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil.

Elliot Temple on October 5, 2015

Comments (330)

I think this works if you're sort of using the events as an allegory, but if you're talking about the specific events it would help to be more specific, since anyone reading right now just has to take your word for it that, for example, L's activism was "something like a publicity stunt involving no serious or important ideas."

The publication itself may have contained no serious or important ideas (I'm not sure; I haven't read it), but its purpose is to further the idea that "offensive" ideas should be permitted, regardless of how trivial they are. As you pointed out, the idea "ideas should be exchanged freely" is still an idea, so it would be contradictory to say something that literally means: "This publication doesn't support any ideas. This publication supports the idea that ideas should be exchanged freely." The latter is a meta-idea, but it's still an idea. Similarly, even if the contents of the publication are trivial, the meta-content is not, therefore surely the publication itself and the activism behind it are not trivial.

In the case of the contradiction: I think the wording of the statement was contradictory but the idea it expressed was not. Sometimes people use fuzzy language that, despite its fuzziness, still makes for the effective communication of true things. It would be better to use clear language to ensure clear communication, and we should all strive for this because, more often than not, fuzzy language leads to fuzzy communication, and it's important to form good habits. In this case, though, I don't think the communication was fuzzy. (Shoot, being whisked away, not able to wrap this up properly. Will try to check back for responses but you know how to contact me if I seem to have forgotten to check. :) )

F at 1:46 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3412
I think it's pretty obvious that Elliot is extremely jealous.

Anonymous at 2:02 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3413
> I think it's pretty obvious that Elliot is extremely jealous.

As usual, guy claiming something is obvious doesn't explain it at all, doesn't argue, doesn't give specifics, doesn't say anything that someone could refute or counter-argue against. (Even if he's mistaken, there's nothing to say back to him, besides the general point that his comment is a fallacy quality argument.)

Anonymous at 2:26 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3414
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice."

Absolutely absurd. There are infinite sides to every issue. Infinite ways of attempting to deal with a problem and the vast majority of ideas will be put forward. I think this quote demonstrates your major failing. You create this idea that there is merely Choice A or Choice B when there are infinite that you don't consider because of your assumptions. Rather than engaging in an argument about assumptions, you ignore this and take them as granted when others do not. You need to improve on this.

"Different standards is one of the primary reasons people don't like me."

I agree, though it would be better to say that people have different values to you.

"L's recent political activism is not on the path to greatness. It’s going the wrong direction. It’s self-destructive. It’s making things harder in her future, not easier. She's taking time off learning ideas worth spreading to get some non-intellectual attention. She's on path to be a mini Gail Wynand – similar themes on a much smaller scale."

Mistaken, the magazine contains a metaidea. The fact that it may lead to the publication of ideas not worth of any value/bad ideas doesn't mean that the magazine isn't of greater value. The magazine promotes the idea that ideas should be able to spread freely.

"Objectively, people like Mises and Popper are around the minimum necessary to accomplish much for the cause of reason."

Mises was bad for the cause of reason and made the same rationalist mistakes as pretty much every economist before the 1980s.

Anonymous at 2:44 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3415
Clicked too early, The mistake he made was not factoring in human irrationality which makes all systemising of the economy so difficult. Muh behavioural economics fam.

Anonymous at 2:45 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3416
> The publication itself may have contained no serious or important ideas (I'm not sure; I haven't read it), but its purpose is to further the idea that "offensive" ideas should be permitted, regardless of how trivial they are.

That purpose is a story they tell after getting censored, to look good.

Yet the culture at their Facebook group is to censor people they don't like or find offensive.

For example, Jacob said to me, shortly before banning my speech, "could you try being less needlessly obnoxious?"

Note that "obnoxious" is a synonym for being offensive.

See how unserious a free speech activist he is? He was, a few days ago, trying to get rid of offensive speech, not permit it...



They haven't been taking the free speech thing seriously or doing basic steps like trying to explain free speech to their membership. They don't study free speech, they aren't interested in my essays about it, they don't write their own essays with other thought-out ideas about it, and their actions grossly contradict it.

What they set up at OO is a very typical group, where the rules are bent to protect the in-group with higher contextual social status, and get rid of new members or outsiders with challenging ideas. Most of the details of this are publicly available to anyone who cares to read them.


> activism behind it are not trivial.

one could absolutely do serious activism on this issue. the issue is fine.

OO/NO just aren't, don't know how to, and aren't trying to find out.


> I think the wording of the statement was contradictory but the idea it expressed was not.

State what you think the non-contradictory idea was.

Elliot at 2:51 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3417
"That purpose is a story they tell after getting censored, to look good."

Was the story before, I can confirm this.

Anonymous at 2:56 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3418
> The magazine promotes the idea that ideas should be able to spread freely.

Why do you believe it does that, when OO censors ideas like Objectivism for being offensive? (see e.g. the Jacob quote in my prior comment)

> There are infinite sides to every issue.

Is two plus two four, yes or no?

While you're welcome to say "yes because..." and then go off on infinitely many different tangents, there is a meaningful sense in which this issue has two sides. And there is an important error with the guy who says "well maybe it is and maybe it isn't" or otherwise seeks a middle position.

> I agree, though it would be better to say that people have different values to you.

What values do you have in mind? Do you think their different values are *defensible*? If so, can you state and defend a few typical examples?




The bromide about Mises needs fleshed-out arguments including Mises quotes and specific criticisms.

Please don't quote Rand and me with identical formatting and no source.

Elliot at 3:03 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3419
> Was the story before, I can confirm this.

Source? They literally do things like tell ppl on OO to stop being offensive and then ban them.

Anonymous at 3:03 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3420

Is this greatness

This is a very people orientated idea of greatness. Why measure greatness by how many people you persuade? And if that is the goal, L being in a national newspaper is a good thing, and the only downside is her magazine lacked ideas worth persuading people of (unless it didn't, in which case it's all good).

Anonymous at 3:15 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3421
Elliot claims he isn't jealous, and yet obsesses over it.

Convincing.

Anonymous at 3:19 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3422
"Why do you believe it does that, when OO censors ideas like Objectivism for being offensive? (see e.g. the Jacob quote in my prior comment) "

OO and NO are two different things.

"Is two plus two four, yes or no?"

Yes. I shall try to communicate better by not including something like this next time but you didn't deal with anything else I said. Unless what you mean is that is always the question of 'Is X a good thing to do or a bad thing to do', in which case I agree with you.

"What values do you have in mind? Do you think their different values are *defensible*? If so, can you state and defend a few typical examples?"

I think my value is defensible. I think there are certain aspects of their values that are defensible even if their aspirations are below what they actually achieve. My only value is 'Prudence'. Prudence is the only value that matters as all other good things come from it. To recognise that which is good requires prudence. Everything else is a subset of prudence.

"The bromide about Mises needs fleshed-out arguments including Mises quotes and specific criticisms."

Make it into another thread and might, it would distract from the mainstay of this conversation but the fundamental point is that whilst the Homo agens is better than Homo economicus in terms of understanding people. Austrian economics, in all of its forms, doesn't research into how people actually act. It's basically a case where it has just become a less extreme form of rationalism.

Anonymous at 3:28 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3423
oops, sorry F, I forgot you clarified one of these points on FB. F gave two options:

> "We're campaigning for *all* views to be listened to."

or

> "The only particular view we're campaigning to be listened to is the view that all views should be listened to."

to resolve the contradiction in:

http://versanews.co.uk/2015/09/30/no-offence-magazine-banned-by-ousu-over-fear-it-will-cause-offence/

> We’re not even campaigning for any particular view to be listened to. All we’re doing is campaigning for events and magazines like ours to not be shut down. For the free exchange of ideas.

F's wordings don't work. The idea that all views should be listened to is a positive duty on everyone to listen to everything anyone says. That would take FAR more than 24 hours per day to accomplish.


The reason L went wrong, and it's hard to fix, is because there are major philosophical mistakes here.

The purpose of saying "not even campaigning for any particular view" is to try to dodge the normal two-sided debate, and sneak her views through without discussion. It's actually a way to try to circumvent and bypass normal rational discussion in which one admits one is advocating something and then debates why it's good.

You see this again in the false claim that this is "all" they're doing. They are doing lots of things at once. By hiding the other things they are doing under the rug, more debate and discussion of those ideas is dodged.

And it's ridiculous to believe that ALL the magazine says is "please don't shut down magazines like this". It says other things, e.g. it breaks some taboos because they think taboo breaking is good. (Right or wrong, that is another idea they've got, which the magazine is about, which is not merely their magazine not being shut down.)

And even the thing about not being shut down is dishonest coming from people who banned various speech from their discussion group because they were offended. They aren't actually against shutting down anything like theirs in general, they are merely mad when they and stuff they like get shut down, but they are fine with censorship of the various things they want censored.

Claiming the free exchange of ideas consists of not shutting down their magazine, and ones like it, is quite an attack on any legitimate concept of free exchange of ideas. The free exchange of ideas would also include not shutting down magazines rather unlike theirs.

Broadly, the purpose is to claim to represent the free exchange of ideas, and to deny there is any other side to that issue (by saying they aren't taking stands on any of the issues that have sides, they aren't saying anything controversial or debatable – which is roughly what L actually meant). This delegitimizes the opponent's of free speech, and their ideas, and also any other groups which favor free speech but in a different way than L does. (There is a huge amount of room for debate about how the free exchange of ideas should work, and it's actually currently a majorly controversial issue – people differ on aspects of it like hate speech or political campaign donations for the purpose of getting a message out.)

None of these many errors in a short quote are accidents. They are misconceptions. They are due to L thinking about these topics incorrectly. She's doing irrational stuff most people would do to try to advance her agenda. It's standard stuff, but it's also bad.

The reason she contradicted herself is because she was trying to accomplish something dishonest. Her statement was actually contrary to the spirit of the free exchange of ideas: she was trying to push some of her favored views out of the realm of controversial debate with sides.

The contradiction and other errors come from these deeper causes, not momentary carelessness.

Elliot at 3:30 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3424
> OO and NO are two different things.

It's the same people, and their actions at OO tell you what they think, how they operate.

Anonymous at 3:32 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3425

Jealousy:a good criticism

You're right to criticise L for being impressed by this, and it's a good thing if your relationship is cool with open criticism. But your use of language sounds like you have other motives because you sound too forceful/aggressive. This might sound unimportant (people should care about ideas not tone, right?) But here's how it can matter:

If it sounds like you're bullying someone, no ones going to feel comfortable engaging with your ideas because they might unintentionally be ganging up on a bully victim by agreeing with you. Even if they disagree with you, by ignoring potential abuse they might be adding to the abuse. Most people are nice and don't want to encourage bullies. (It also invites white knighting).

It takes little effort to chill your language out and make your criticisms sound less personal, and there are benefits to you because people will feel relaxed about taking you seriously so the quality of ideas you hear back will improve.

Anonymous at 3:34 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3426
>>> There are infinite sides to every issue.

>> Is two plus two four, yes or no?

> Yes. I shall try to communicate better by not including something like this next time but you didn't deal with anything else I said. Unless what you mean is that is always the question of 'Is X a good thing to do or a bad thing to do', in which case I agree with you.

You seem to have missed the point. You made a statement as part of your argument. I'm arguing it's mistaken. This is the part where you concede or counter-argue, but you did neither.

If you do concede, you should then update your previous argument not to contain the mistake and then, after you fix it, I'll reply again. (You may find, when trying to fix it, that your mistake was minor. But you could find it's actually hard to fix. It can go either way, and the possibility there's no simple fix is one of the reasons it's important to try fixing it yourself.)


> My only value is 'Prudence'.

Do you have a written piece that explains this in a serious way?


about mises, you can discuss here:

http://curi.us/1725-mises-values-philosophy

or in the open thread:

http://curi.us/1785-fallible-ideas-unformatted

i don't expect you to. i've run into lots of people who don't like Mises, and IME they never actually argue their point much.

Elliot at 3:38 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3427
> You're right to criticise L for being impressed by this, and it's a good thing if your relationship is cool with open criticism. But your use of language sounds like you have other motives because you sound too forceful/aggressive.

L has stated her appreciation of my criticism.

The language issue is one I've been discussing for years. You are saying very common ideas I've heard many times before. If you want to advance the discussion, I'd recommend going on FI and then asking why I (and others) disagree with some of those common ideas. I don't see how you'll make progress on this topic without first learning my side. I know the standard side and my side, but you only know one, so you are not in a position to even try to judge if I'm right.

Elliot at 3:42 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3428
I do agree L(ulie) has low standards. If she had high standards she'd not be your friend.

Anonymous at 4:01 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3429
>but you only know one, so you are not in a position to even try to judge if I'm right.

Stop using pretend "secret reasons" to be a dick m8.

Anonymous at 4:23 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3430
You disbelieve that anyone would think something through over a period of years and many discussions, and have reasons you don't understand. Even when they have well over a million written words in public.

What a sad way to approach the world.

Anonymous at 4:27 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3431

Oversimplifying

> > "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.
> > The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice."
> Absolutely absurd. There are infinite sides to every issue. Infinite ways of attempting to deal with a problem and the vast majority of ideas will be put forward.

Anonymous thinks that Rand oversimplifies, and by extension he thinks that Elliot oversimplifies too.

> I think this quote demonstrates your major failing.

But Anonymous himself oversimplifies (among his other mistakes).

People disagree with Elliot a lot. I've got my own disagreements with Rand and Elliot on the sides quote in question.

But like Anonymous does here, people often oversimplify their disagreements with Elliot as just a few "major" things. Like, if Elliot would just get on board with X (and maybe Y and Z), well, then everyone would be really happy and super impressed with him, we'd all be best buds, unicorns would fart rainbows and The Force would be balanced.

And since it's so bloody *obvious* Elliot is wrong about X, Y, and Z, why doesn't he just get with the program?

Um...no.

People are complex, and Elliot is no exception. I like a lot of his ideas but also have tons of things I still disagree with him about, including the urgency of resolving those disagreements.

Regardless, don't lie to yourself with the idea that but for a few "absurd" things we'd all be on the same page. Not even close.

PAS

PAS at 4:28 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3432
L is a social whore.

She's rolled around in garbage then run out in public demanding attention with her stink, without anything of value to offer those that notice.

Anonymous at 4:29 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3433
> L is a social whore.
>
> She's rolled around in garbage then run out in public demanding attention with her stink, without anything of value to offer those that notice.

How can L and other people with problems like this do better? Any advice to help them? Any detailed-and-thorough-yet-simple-and-short explanations of the philosophical issues in a way they could understand?

Anonymous at 4:31 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3434
Have substance, have integrity, be a real person rather than putting on whatever fake construct gets people to notice. That fake is an illusion, a made-up lie unconnected with the person.

The only people who like fakes are fakes, because they don't understand what real people who have integrity are like, they don't understand what it's like to be a Roark. They can't even imagine a Roark being real, and think people like that are impossible ideals that no-one should ever strive for.

She should decide on values she thinks are good based on objective judgement, rather than being sucked in by whoever pays enough attention to her that she joins their frame and loses objectivity. She knows what objectivity is, she knows what rationality is, but she abandons them at a moments notice.

She should find the thing she loves that she *doesn't* need other people involved in to find passion for the subject. Find a thing she loves to do for the sake of doing it. Get great at that, maximise her skill at that, create great things with that skill. If she can be objective and rational about it she *will* create great things, that's inevitable for anyone who pursues truth for it's own sake.

That greatness will speak for itself. Worthwhile people will see it and value it.

Then, if she really cares that much about people liking her, at least then they will like her because of *her* values rather than someone else's that she borrowed.

Anonymous at 4:50 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3435
Also, be more optimistic. Don't give up. Greatness is hard.

Anonymous at 4:57 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3436
> The idea that all views should be listened to is a positive duty on everyone to listen to everything anyone says. That would take FAR more than 24 hours per day to accomplish.

Agreed that it would have been better to clarify this. I don’t think she intended that meaning, though I also don’t think people would read it this way, but I’m less sure of that than I am of the idea/metaidea contradiction being understood.

>The purpose of saying "not even campaigning for any particular view" is to try to dodge the normal two-sided debate, and sneak her views through without discussion.

This is definitely a pretty common tactic. I’m not entirely sure that she was using it here, though, since the alternative would be to argue why each of the ideas expressed in the publication is good, when the point of the publication is to create a forum for ideas rather than to endorse those ideas.

>And it's ridiculous to believe that ALL the magazine says is "please don't shut down magazines like this". It says other things, e.g. it breaks some taboos because they think taboo breaking is good.

I think “they think taboo breaking should be permitted” rather than “they think taboo breaking is good.” Though if we’re going to be extra specific, it’s unlikely that they think taboo-breaking of any kind should be permitted. Just that breaking taboos against speech should be permitted. I think this falls under the umbrella of “please don’t shut down magazines like this.” (Something like “voicing unpopular opinions on or mocking taboo subjects should be permitted in magazines” being the overarching statement.)

>And even the thing about not being shut down is dishonest coming from people who banned various speech from their discussion group because they were offended.

OO and NO *are* two different things, even if there’s overlap. We've been discussing L’s statements, and L disagreed with OO’s decision and stepped down as mod, so you can hardly say that L is being dishonest when she says she thinks speech should be free.

>Claiming the free exchange of ideas consists of not shutting down their magazine, and ones like it, is quite an attack on any legitimate concept of free exchange of ideas. The free exchange of ideas would also include not shutting down magazines rather unlike theirs.

There’s been no indication, to my knowledge, that NO supports shutting down magazines of any kind.

>The contradiction and other errors come from these deeper causes, not momentary carelessness.

This is quite possible, but I’m unconvinced and err on the side of charitable interpretations. If evidence arises of deeper logical/moral problems, I’ll update my opinion.

F at 4:57 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3437
L should just terminate her life, really.

Anonymous at 4:57 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3438
No. She's still better than like 95% of people.

Anonymous at 5:02 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3439
That's not a rational argument to keep her alive.

That 95% of people, in your view, are inferior to her does not validate her existence.

Anonymous at 5:08 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3440
What do you expect? You made no argument for her to die. I can't argue with nothing but you want me to put creativity into arguing with your uncreative assertion.

If you make an assertion it's unreasonable to expect anything more in return. Expecting more implies you expect your interlocutor to do you a favour and put creativity into something that you don't care about enough to argue about.

So are you arguing with optimism? Are you arguing with problems are soluble? Are you arguing with the beginning of infinite and unbounded growth of knowledge? Fucking up a bunch of times like L has doesn't do anything to refute those ideas.

Anonymous at 5:12 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3441
Has anyone stopped to think how nasty this must be for L to read. Christ.

Anonymous at 5:19 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3442
Yes.

But truth is more important than her feelings. Lying to her wont help her improve.

Anonymous at 5:23 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3443
The idea that there is only ever one correct answer to everything is overly-simplistic.

Anonymous at 5:30 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3444
Even if truth is multifaceted, L has still failed to grasp it.

Anonymous at 5:32 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3445
> Agreed that it would have been better to clarify this. I don’t think she intended that meaning, though I also don’t think people would read it this way, but I’m less sure of that than I am of the idea/metaidea contradiction being understood.

The version L wrote could not be read that way. Only F's rewrite could.

> the alternative would be to argue why each of the ideas expressed in the publication is good, when the point of the publication is to create a forum for ideas rather than to endorse those ideas.

L could have said more like: we think free speech is good and we have some arguments and some demonstrations.

(having ONLY demonstrations is a bad idea because they don't speak for themselves)

and if they actually wanted a serious forum for ideas, it'd be online and include somewhere the public could say stuff, not just be a paper magazine crippled by things like word count limits. the format was chosen for prestige and attention.

> I think “they think taboo breaking should be permitted” rather than “they think taboo breaking is good.”

L thinks lots of taboo breaking in speech is good, not merely permissible.

The point there was the magazine contains other content, so L's statement about "All we’re doing" is false.

> We've been discussing L’s statements, and L disagreed with OO’s decision and stepped down as mod, so you can hardly say that L is being dishonest when she says she thinks speech should be free.

L temporarily banned someone for speech L found offensive, which L delegitimized as non-speech. Because she doesn't understand free speech generally. She made several other mistakes too, and has yet to distance herself from Jacob and his anti-free-speech ideas.

Nor is she making an active effort to learn what she's talking about (the concept of free speech, the nuances, etc, which is not at all trivial) prior to doing advocacy. She says speech should be free without making the effort to find out what that means.

> There’s been no indication, to my knowledge, that NO supports shutting down magazines of any kind.

When L said, "All we’re doing is campaigning for events and magazines like ours to not be shut down. For the free exchange of ideas." the second clause was a restatement of the first. It means basically that "events and magazines like ours to not be shut down" IS "the free exchange of ideas". She made them equivalents – it has a totally different meaning than if she put an "and" to say they were campaigning for two different things. She presented them as one and the same.

This means: the free exchange of ideas consists of not shutting down magazines like theirs.

But that's wrong. The free exchange of ideas, rightly understood, includes other stuff too, such as also not shutting down dissimilar magazines. Which L excluded from the definition of free exchange of ideas.

> This is quite possible, but I’m unconvinced and err on the side of charitable interpretations. If evidence arises of deeper logical/moral problems, I’ll update my opinion.

Have you read a good chunk the last decade of L's stuff to check, e.g. all of her public philosophy related emails? I have.

Seems like, without much familiarity, you're making positive claims for L she doesn't make for herself.

L wants to improve on her logical and moral problems, rather than claim to already be good enough. Everyone's got problems. It's about making progress – aiming for higher standards one doesn't meet today – not trying to be charitable by saying someone already meets good enough standards.

Anonymous at 5:35 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3446
> Has anyone stopped to think how nasty this must be for L to read. Christ.

L appreciates it. She has said so in public. Stop projecting your ideas onto her. She doesn't share all your flaws about disliking critical discussion.

Anonymous at 5:36 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3447
> The idea that there is only ever one correct answer to everything is overly-simplistic.

Do you have a nuanced essay explaining your point?

Anonymous at 5:36 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3448
> Stop projecting your ideas onto her. She doesn't share all your flaws about disliking critical discussion.

Looks like you're projecting your own irrationality there, buddy. I'm all for critical discussion just not this pseudorational form that is designed to conceal psychiatric disorders.

Anonymous at 5:42 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3449
> psychiatric disorders

eagerly awaiting your criticisms of Szasz.

oh, wait, what's that? you don't know what you're talking about and don't care to ever study the field and contribute to it?

Anonymous at 5:51 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3450
> They can't even imagine a Roark being real, and think people like that are impossible ideals that no-one should ever strive for.

a good example of standards that should be (much) higher

Anonymous at 5:57 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3451

L is better than you

Everyone has infinite potential. We're universal knowledge creators.

But, realistically, most people aren't going to amount to much. Most people don't want to think, and it's really hard to change that.

The reasonably expected potential heights someone might reach within the next 100 years – best guess today – is much lower than infinite.

L is a good pick for #2 at this (after me). It's not a clear choice, but she's competitive and could be reasonably debated for #2. And after L and a few others, there is a HUGE gap to virtually everyone.

If you disagree, GIVE NAMES in addition to arguments.

The point is: whoever thinks L should kill herself should be more introspective. She outclasses the hell out of you. Why don't you kill yourself? You'd do orders of magnitude worse if you ever convinced me your ideas were worthy of extensive critical scrutiny.

Elliot at 6:06 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3452
Elliot, completely summed up:

http://psychcentral.com/disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder-symptoms/

"Narcissistic Personality Disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of grandiosity (either in fantasy or actual behavior), an overwhelming need for admiration, and usually a complete lack of empathy toward others."

Anonymous at 6:09 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3453

Psuedorational

> I'm all for critical discussion just not this pseudorational form

What's psuedo about it? I could see applying "hyper" instead - the form of discussion favored by many on this blog is rational to a much higher standard than most people think is useful and are capable of. In that sense, it is indeed hyperrational.

But I think if you could actually point out a way in which it is pseudo (fake) rationality, people would change.

PAS at 6:11 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3454
It's fake because you never lay down any premises, and tend to assume your conclusion could never possibly be wrong. You engage in a lot of circular logic because of that.

Anonymous at 6:15 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3455
You aren't being specific about missing premises. There has been years of discussion surrounding the premises in TCS, ARR, epistemology, liberalism, and other areas.

Anonymous at 6:16 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3456
The very first post on this page was a whole load of assertions, with very little argument. Saying "it's rational - trust me!" is no argument.

Anonymous at 6:17 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3457
You still aren't being specific with either criticism or requests for more information.

I think part of the problem is lots of people assume there's no meat behind what you say (unaware we have literally millions of words of discussions about this stuff), and don't ask for more details.

But we can't give all the details upfront b/c it'd be extremely long, and it's very hard to guess which details a particular person wants.

So there needs to be more back-and-forth: you give constructive comments on which parts you want more info about, indicating which gaps to fill in, and why. Then someone gives you a brief answer helping fill things in. Then you ask another question or give a criticism of a specific sentence (not vague broad general thing), then get another answer. etc. repeat MANY times.

that's how discussion should work in general. it reduces miscommunication and helps focus things on the right areas instead of making lots of guesses. it keeps things interactive, so it's an actual discussion instead of a lecture to an audience.

Anonymous at 6:23 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3458
You should be able to sum up the basic tenets of what you're talking about.

Anonymous at 6:25 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3459
sum up the tenets for what issue? pick something.

Anonymous at 6:31 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3460
The relevant issues, of course. To what we are talking about in this thread.

Anonymous at 6:32 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3461
There's a blog post dealing with multiple issues, then 50 comments dealing with a variety of different topics. people have been talking about lots of different things.

you have to pick an issue you want to know about, and name it, and then someone could tell you more about it.

Anonymous at 6:33 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3462
it'd be extra great if you used a quote!

Anonymous at 6:34 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3463
I am referring to the entire first post.

Dissecting passages into small quotes tends to remove them from context.

Anonymous at 6:41 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3464
What do you want to know about it?

Point out one spot where you thought there was a gap, some missing background premise you aren't familiar with, and I'll supply it.

Ask a question that about a topic and I'll tell you about that topic.

But I can't answer a nothing, a complete refusal to give your query any form, substance or shape.

Anonymous at 6:43 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3465
There are a million things someone might think were missing from the first post, or might not understand, or might have a question about, or disagree with.

I have no idea which things you think are missing, or didn't understand, or have a question about, or disagree with.

Anonymous at 6:44 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3466
I cannot guess, out of those millions of things, which to say more about for you, from what kinda perspective, with what kinda emphasis. You have to tell me that. You have to provide some meaningful statements about what you want. Otherwise I'm right where I was when I wrote the post in the first place and chose not to add anything more, and it's not a discussion.

Anonymous at 6:46 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3467
Sum up the basic tenets behind it. It was my point in the first place...

Anonymous at 6:49 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3468
You aren't listening.

Anonymous at 6:50 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3469
No, you're not answering the question. I refuse to break it down into bitesize chunks because I don't want it removed from context.

Assuming it was trying to make some sort of overall coherent point, that can be reduced into a basic argument, with the tenets behind that argument being laid out.

Anonymous at 6:53 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3470
Aiming higher will help you achieve more.

Anonymous at 6:55 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3471
Define what that means in context.

Anonymous at 6:55 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3472
The blog post already has some information about that.

You want more and better. But you're no more specific than that completely generic demand which gives zero guidance about what to add.

And you completely ignore explanations about these issues. You don't want to learn how to communicate, discuss, think, etc

So, you're doing it wrong and you're closed minded to learning how to do it better. So we seem to be stuck because you just repeat the same *nothing* over and over.

Anonymous at 6:57 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3473

Misdiagnosis

> Elliot, completely summed up:
>
> http://psychcentral.com/disorders/narcissistic-per...
>
> "Narcissistic Personality Disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of grandiosity (either in fantasy or actual behavior), an overwhelming need for admiration, and usually a complete lack of empathy toward others."

Even if NPD wasn't complete bullshit as a "disease", Elliot clearly wouldn't qualify on the second point. He not only lacks evidence of a need for admiration, he actively seeks to thwart people with bad ideas from admiring him and regularly criticizes prestige-seeking activities rather than pursue them himself.

PAS at 7:00 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3474
I can read the blog post. I'm asking you to define what you just summed up with some context, since I already established that the blog post is a load of assertions.

You seem to dodge questions on your own logic an awful lot. It would surely be simpler to just answer the question?

Anonymous at 7:05 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3475
"I want more and better information of some sort! Give me?" is not a question, it's a zero.

Anonymous at 7:09 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3476
Define what ["aiming higher will help you achieve more"] means in context.

It very much is a question. I'm not asking to be diverted to read something else - you can define the basic idea of what it means, with some basic definitions.

This is what I have been getting at the whole time.

Anonymous at 7:16 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3477
In what context? What do you not understand about aiming higher?

do you know what achievement is? do you want me to write an essay on what achievement is? do you know what a standard is? should i wrote about that? do you know what context is? should i write about that? do you not know what help is and want information about that? do you not know how to read and want tips on that? i have no idea where you're running into trouble – and that's just with a short sentence, let alone a whole blog post.

I don't know what you want, and you just repeat yourself endlessly. You don't try to explain yourself or how you think about our disagreement (as I do). You don't try to get us unstuck. You just repeat the same demand without thinking or effort.

I keep offering you written explanations if you will ask for a specific one. I haven't tried to direct you elsewhere.

I absolutely would direct you elsewhere if it was appropriate. But you asked for something short. So I'd only direct you to read something else if it was short enough and fit the issue.

Anonymous at 7:20 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3478
I want to know what you mean by the phrase "aiming higher will help you achieve more". For starters, by defining what you mean by 'higher' and what you mean by 'achieve'.

Yet you keep going on and on about how you don't know what I'm asking you. Can you not simply explain it?

Anonymous at 7:26 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3479
We have a disagreement that is causing us to get stuck.

So can we set aside the thing that isn't working and discuss the thing that's getting us stuck? Make sense?

I think you're used to speaking to people who are more similar to you than I am. So they usually know what you mean – or pretend to. I don't know you and am not able to guess what you mean without you telling me. It will take a different sort of communication than you're used to in order to deal with a person who is different than you normally talk with. Fair?

As one example of a difference, you are assuming that words should be defined and that's a good way to begin a discussion. That's a very common view, which I, with Popper, consider false. I'm guessing you'll just demand I do it anyway, rather than being willing to discuss approaches to discussion. What do you think?

Anonymous at 7:29 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3480
So you ask me to ask you a question, and when I do tell me the question I asked you was wrong.

If you're not willing to proactively explain, and you won't answer questions, how are we meant to have a discussion?

Anonymous at 7:32 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3481
Some questions are vague, confusing, badly formed, ill-defined, self-contradictory, misconceived, or otherwise unsuitable for a *direct* answer giving the questioner what he wants and intended.

Can you see that in general?

Anonymous at 7:40 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3482
You already know what achievement and higher mean, and you could consult a dictionary if you didn't. You want something else, but you aren't saying what.

Anonymous at 7:41 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3483
Yes I can see that in general. However, you haven't explained at all how my question was any of those things. I feel like we're going to go into an infinite regression of you always telling me that you don't know what I'm asking, or that what I am asking is badly formed. That isn't productive, and no-one learns anything.

I also (obviously) know what both of those words mean. I'm asking what they mean in context, which is a very different question.

Anonymous at 7:44 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3484
Why do you think the context (what context, exactly?) changes the meaning?

Anonymous at 7:47 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3485
Your total unwillingness to put any of your own thinking into the discussion, and ignoring most of mine, is why it's not going anywhere.

Anonymous at 7:48 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3486
The context of the argument being made, of course.

If I say "I'm going to kill that sonofabitch", the context dictates whether it is meant figuratively or literally.

Anonymous at 7:49 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3487
That plus you put active effort into sabotaging whatever I try to get it unstuck.

Anonymous at 7:49 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3488
> The context of the argument being made, of course.

this does not explain it.

i did not use those terms in a special way. they do not have a special meaning here. i don't know why you think they do.

Anonymous at 7:50 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3489
"Achieve" requires context by its very nature. To achieve what?

Come on, this is basic stuff.

Anonymous at 7:51 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3490
Achieve whatever, in general. It's not about any particular achievement.

Anonymous at 7:52 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3491
> of course.

> this is basic stuff.

i understand that you're frustrating, but this specific kind of flame is very destructive to discussion (much worse than calling me an asshole or bitch), and you should stop.

Anonymous at 7:52 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3492
i meant "frustrated", not "frustrating"

Anonymous at 7:52 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3493
So "aiming higher will help you to achieve more" was nothing more than a trite statement about self-confidence?

I somehow doubt that's what you meant. What did it mean in context?

Anonymous at 7:53 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3494
it's a simple statement about how setting low goals or standards keeps achievement down when you stop there.

if you find it so trite, then go ahead and move on to a part of my post/ideas you disagree with or have an issue with, and tell me what part that is...

Anonymous at 7:54 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3495
You yourself said it summed up the entire argument. I'm going off what you said here.

If it didn't sum up the entire argument adequately, could you tell me something that does?

Anonymous at 7:55 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3496
one thing the post is about is showing how various practical real-life examples fail to live up to fairly simple principles/ideals. knowing some philosophy is one thing, applying it to real life is another.

Anonymous at 7:55 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3497
> So "aiming higher will help you to achieve more" was nothing more than a trite statement about self-confidence?

the quote in the quote marks is not accurate. it's absolutely not OK to type in from memory what you think i said, and present it as a quotation.

(and, related, i did not say i was summing up the entire post)

i need you to try harder and more seriously. tell me you recognize this is a substantial mistake, and your fault, and you are going to try to do better and put more effort into the discussion, or i'm done.

Anonymous at 7:58 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3498
But it doesn't explain that at all. It simply asserts that L is contradicting herself.

The best I can see is the point that L is "taking time off", without any real substance being given as to how that is the case, except for the assertion that the newspaper is bad.

Anonymous at 7:59 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3499
"it's absolutely not OK to type in from memory what you think i said, and present it as a quotation. "

Why? What is relevant about small differences when the meaning is the same?

Anonymous at 8:00 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3500
"i need you to try harder and more seriously. tell me you recognize this is a substantial mistake, and your fault, and you are going to try to do better and put more effort into the discussion, or i'm done."

No. That would be you taking time off.

Anonymous at 8:01 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3501
http://versanews.co.uk/2015/09/30/no-offence-magazine-banned-by-ousu-over-fear-it-will-cause-offence/

> We’re not even campaigning for any particular view to be listened to. All we’re doing is campaigning for events and magazines like ours to not be shut down. For the free exchange of ideas.

L's contradiction is that the free exchange of ideas is a particular view they are campaigning for.

More analysis of L's quote at: http://curi.us/1791-standards#c3424

Anonymous at 8:02 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3502
If you spit on scholarship that much, then there's better people for me to talk to.

Anonymous at 8:02 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3503
So your argument is that by saying they're not campaigning for a particular view, they are in fact campaigning for that particular view?

That ignores that you can have discussion and meta-discussion, and that is implicit in L's argument. The campaign to have no particular view advocated for is a meta-discussive point, which advocates no particular (ordinary) discussive point.

Anonymous at 8:06 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3504
"If you spit on scholarship that much, then there's better people for me to talk to."

If you waste your time focusing on irrelevant details, you won't have time to focus on everything else.

Anonymous at 8:06 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3505
I get the impression that you will come up with any reason to avoid talking to someone on anything other than your own terms. That is very bad scholarship.

Anonymous at 8:09 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3506
Meta-ideas are ideas. Meta-views are views. Trying to relabel stuff like this, and put speech into different categories, is one of the main kinds of things people use to destroy free speech in the first place. Regardless, as written it's a contradiction.

Link me a quality essay/book/whatever explaining misquotes are irrelevant to discussions, or otherwise giving a thought-out well explained treatment of your views on discussion. If you don't know of any, come back when that exists.

Anonymous at 8:13 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3507
They are, but where the views are being applied is what matters. They do not claim to personally support all views or that their magazine has no (or every) philosophy; they claim that they will, however, publish any view. Including views that are against free speech.

Publishing something, and using it as the philosophy behind your magazine are not the same thing. That is not a contradiction. This is where you fall down by failing to grasp the context of the things being said.

"Link me a quality essay/book/whatever explaining misquotes are irrelevant to discussions, or otherwise giving a thought-out well explained treatment of your views on discussion. If you don't know of any, come back when that exists."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paraphrase

Anonymous at 8:18 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3508
When people will look at this in 100 years all they will see are ramblings of a madman who destroyed everything good that ever came his way.

Anonymous at 8:20 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3509
> they claim that they will, however, publish any view.

They told me they won't.

Elliot at 8:39 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3510
If No Offence was serious or substantive, why does their FB page (or anywhere else) lack a single serious explanation about what they think free speech, why it's good, etc? Where are the arguments? Where is the quarter-decent explanation of what they are about and why?

Where is the substance they want to promote, which they could direct the current attention they are getting to? There is none.

They rushed to print before bothering to figure out and write down ideas. They don't have or care about ideas.

They think the idea part of this kind of thing is trivial and goes without saying. Free speech! Good, right? Sounds great. Let's do that! And that's the end of the thinking, and it's time to start making something in dead tree format because of social reasons.

Anonymous at 8:51 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3511
What if we aren't able to attract any good submissions? Will we just publish shit? Will that work?

Just get some attention before anyone can read it. Don't put it online. Don't let them read it. Get it judged before anyone sees the submissions.

What happens when they find out though?

Tell them they are just offended. It's not a quality issue, they are just prudes who irrationally cling to taboos. We're promoting diversity of ideas and ideas people don't like. Who needs quality for that? That's not the point.

But wouldn't it be better to offend people in a thoughtful and productive way?

Shock value gets more attention for us. People don't want to think. Just say shocking people is a principle, and never write a quality argument for that, just mock people who disagree. We're good at mocking. We can do it!

Anonymous at 8:55 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3512
Doesn't it actually harm the cause of free speech to be thoughtless retards and then claim to be the representatives of free speech?

Isn't that like Hayek getting attention as a representative of capitalism, and helping keep the best ideas about capitalism out of the public debate?

Anonymous at 8:58 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3513
Associating free speech with being stupid and offensive just for the heck of it gives free speech a bad name.

Logically and on principle, low quality speech and offensive speech can be defended in certain ways. If people were much more rational and knowledgeable, this would be fine.

But if they were like that, and understood that, then free speech wouldn't need the advocacy. They'd already get it.

We aren't there yet.

For people who don't get it, No Offence basically volunteers to be an example of some of their fears about free speech. Without any real attempt to explain to them why they should like it, or do any of the stuff that would persuade them.

The concept seems to be: if we're 100 points of offensiveness, and lots of people get mad at us, then everyone else will see it's safe to write 80 points of offensiveness, because the haters are busy with us. This is ridiculous. Showing people you'll get bad reactions for this type of stuff will not encourage them to do more of it. And you can't distract all the hate and make it safe for everyone else.

And they aren't going to change the debate merely by shouting loudly. That's not how you advance the cause of reason. Reason needs rational advocacy, not thoughtless yelling in hopes people will somehow start liking substantive disagreement better. No Offence doesn't seem to grasp that you can't productively advocate reason without rational thinking. They don't even mention reason. Jacob's probably an irrationalist, come to think of it.

Anonymous at 9:13 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3514
No Offence doesn't try to bridge the gap to people who disagree, or explain their misconceptions. It does what they would experience as being yelled at. No Offence have no empathy (or understanding of the logical structure of resolving disagreements).

They are trying to change the world by social, rather than intellectual, methods. Without bothering to think through intellectually what would be good to change the world to. And, ironically, in a socially offensive and tactless way.

Anonymous at 9:16 PM on October 5, 2015 | #3515

no principles, no ideas

Jacob Williams, OO/NO leader, to Elliot on OO FB:

> if you make any more offensive personal remarks I'll remove you from the group. Even if you don't, you're causing people completely needless upset by arguing in this deliberately offensive way.

so he's against stuff he finds offensive, and plenty willing to censor over it...

Anonymous at 1:45 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3518
Hypothesis: If Elliot and Lulie procreated, the resulting progeny would be unparalleled in its rationality.

Have Elliot and Lulie fornicated yet?

Anonymous at 1:56 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3519
> They don't even mention reason. Jacob's probably an irrationalist, come to think of it.

Jacob may even accept this, given his penchant for tradition.

Anonymous at 1:57 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3520
Rationality isn't genetic.

Anonymous at 2:00 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3521
> Rationality isn't genetic.

Not wholly, but there is a genetic (i.e. racial) component.

Anonymous at 2:02 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3522
Why is this person, who thinks it's bad to upset people by arguing in a deliberately offensive way, making a deliberately offensive magazine which upsets some Oxford student union people?

makes no sense. unless you come to a conclusion like: he's a retard with no principles.

Anonymous at 2:02 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3523
> Not wholly, but there is a genetic (i.e. racial) component.

sources, arguments, etc?

are you familiar with FI/BoI/Objectivism and how you're contradicting them and what it'd take to address them on this topic?

Anonymous at 2:03 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3524
race is correlated with culture.

culture matters.

so, race being correlated with IQ or whatever doesn't prove what you want it to.

Anonymous at 2:10 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3525
"They told me they won't."

OO is not NO. NO will publish anything.

Anonymous at 3:25 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3527
NO has no peer review mechanism. It is unadulterated freedom.

Anonymous at 3:30 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3528
"They don't have or care about ideas."

This is an invalid inference.

When you have a lack of information, how can you validly claim they don't have ideas? Especially when those ideas are plain to see on their Facebook page.

When you make unsubstantiated claims, you appeal to literature that you never sourced. When others do you never give them the same benefit of the doubt.

Anonymous at 3:30 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3529
According to L, pegging is the most rational sexual activity.

Anonymous at 3:33 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3530
These leaps of logic without any substance to back them up, that conveniently lead to the conclusion of NO being bad, simply based on the predication that an entirely different thing (OO) is bad, is what leads to the conclusion that there is jealousy here.

This is bad scholarship Elliot. They're unproven, asserted claims. You cannot claim victory because you have a lack of information either.

Anonymous at 3:34 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3531
Scholarly is not synonymous with rational. There are many cultural Marxist scholars that are deeply irrational individuals.

Anonymous at 3:35 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3532
Rationality is not synonymous with scholarship either.

Rationality has to be qualified - it's not simply an unqualified good towards an undefined or vague end. This is Objectivism's main problem.

Anonymous at 3:37 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3533
> NO has no peer review mechanism. It is unadulterated freedom.

Lie.

There are criteria on accepting submissions. Stuff that's incomprehensible wont be included. Stuff that's illegal to print wont be included.

Anonymous at 3:56 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3536
> This is Objectivism's main problem.

Define Objectivism; this is a very vague use of the term.

Anonymous at 3:56 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3537
> Rationality is not synonymous with scholarship either.
> Rationality has to be qualified - it's not simply an unqualified good towards an undefined or vague end. This is Objectivism's main problem.

Qualified by what standards? Do you think there's an authority on what is rational, and that it's impossible for something to be rational without meeting those standards?

Anonymous at 3:57 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3538
Qualified means 'aimed towards a particular end'.

At least look up what terms mean first, if you don't really understand them.

Anonymous at 4:00 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3539
(Note: that is its meaning for "rational". In general, 'qualified' in thi sense means that it requires some specificity to garner what is being referred to.)

Anonymous at 4:01 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3540
>> They can't even imagine a Roark being real, and think people like that are impossible ideals that no-one should ever strive for.
> a good example of standards that should be (much) higher

And even Roark made mistakes and had flaws. Even aiming for Roark is aiming to make mistakes.

Anonymous at 4:02 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3541
Aim to *exceed* Roark.

Anonymous at 4:03 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3542
>> "i need you to try harder and more seriously. tell me you recognize this is a substantial mistake, and your fault, and you are going to try to do better and put more effort into the discussion, or i'm done."

> No. That would be you taking time off.

He's trying super-hard to help you overcome your mistakes. But he can't rescue you from yourself (like, literally, even if he tried, it would just be fake progress for you).

But you're so stuck in your preconcieved framework that you can't think outside of it.

Anonymous at 4:07 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3543
> As one example of a difference, you are assuming that words should be defined and that's a good way to begin a discussion. That's a very common view, which I, with Popper, consider false. I'm guessing you'll just demand I do it anyway, rather than being willing to discuss approaches to discussion. What do you think?

What's wrong with this method?

I think a lot of people have arguments cos of individual nuances in how they understand words, and end up having a huge argument about it that could have been solved just by making sure they're arguing over the same thing in the first place.

Anonymous at 4:16 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3544
> L thinks lots of taboo breaking in speech is good, not merely permissible.

Yes, it's doing things just cos people think they shouldn't be done. People think you shouldn't set yourself on fire, rob people, steal stuff, verbally abuse people in public, open the gates to publishing any trash.

It's rebellion for the sake of it, aimless and impotent, not trying to create anything just trying to destroy taboos on whim.

It's also second-hand, living by what other people think is taboo is just as bad as living by what other people think is acceptable. The fact the judgement of other people is relevant makes it second-hand, whether used for positive or negative purposes.


If that's her ideal, of taboo breaking being objectively good, then does she actively try to be irrational when she knows better? If society were largely rational and considered irrationality a taboo (honestly so, rather than the fake pretence to rationality), would she be irrational just for the sake of rebelling against rationality?

If not, she's confused about what she's really trying to do.

Anonymous at 4:33 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3545
"He's trying to super-hard to help you overcome your mistakes."

I can legitimately disagree with him. He's hasn't yet explained why paraphrasing is a problem.

Anonymous at 5:07 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3546
NO explicitly say they won't publish anything on their FB page, so maybe learn to read instead of calling Elliot stupid.

Anonymous at 6:37 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3547
About definitions, start with http://fallibleideas.com/definitions

Anonymous at 6:40 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3548
Not publishing something on your Facebook is not relevant if they never claim that is the place in which they support any free speech.

Anonymous at 6:46 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3549
Are you illiterate? NO has a facebook page which states criteria limiting what they publish in the magazine.

Anonymous at 6:52 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3550
Where? I see nothing limiting what they will publish, apart from a vague reference to length.

Anonymous at 6:59 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3551
nothing non-controversial, nothing inciting violence.

Anonymous at 7:01 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3552
Quote it.

Anonymous at 7:05 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3553

Oh baby, you're so money supermarket

Hey Anonymous guy...there's something about plastering someone's blog with gratuitous hostility that is....I don't know just so sexy and virile. You're amazing! Tell me, who is next on your nuisance hitlist? Take me with you.

Heavy Metal at 7:18 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3554
>> "He's trying to super-hard to help you overcome your mistakes."
>I can legitimately disagree with him. He's hasn't yet explained why paraphrasing is a problem.

He never did. He said it's bad to lie and quote someone as saying something they haven't.

See there I'm paraphrasing him and maybe I'm wrong about my understanding, but I'm not putting it in quotes and asserting that I'm quoting him. If I were to put that in quotes I'd be lying, since he didn't say those words.


Heavy Metal:
> Hey Anonymous guy...there's something about plastering someone's blog with gratuitous hostility that is....I don't know just so sexy and virile. You're amazing! Tell me, who is next on your nuisance hitlist? Take me with you.

Which anonymous guy?
Who do you think is being hostile?
Which ones do you think are guys?
If you're going to respond to something like that, uses quotes for context.

Anonymous at 7:34 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3555
> About definitions, start with http://fallibleideas.com/definitions

Right. Yeah don't go into the argument and start off with definitions as a matter of course. Define things if it becomes apparent that there is some consistent misunderstanding related to word use.

I didn't understand you at first, made a mistake and thought you were arguing against defining things at all. My bad.

Anonymous at 7:40 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3556
>Qualified means 'aimed towards a particular end'.

No it doesn't. Qualification is a description of the qualities of a thing. Often used to refer to a specific set of qualities (eg being qualified for a job, having the set of qualities one needs for that job).

I qualify you as not understanding qualification.

Anonymous at 7:55 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3557
OO has a stall in the Examination Schools with a banner that reads: "OPEN YOUR MIND – they sure do have a funny sense of open-mindedness!

Anonymous at 8:01 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3558
That is not what it means when you say a word has to be qualified with something.

Just because you don't understand a word does not mean you get to tell people they are using it wrong.

Regardless, this is semantics and distracting from the main point.

Anonymous at 8:04 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3559
why did you bring up semantics if you don't want semantics?

like if you actually want to proceed forward then, rather than pointlessly bringing up semantics (then claiming after bringing it up that it's distracting from the point), why don't you just explain yourself in different words?

seems like you don't know what you want, or at least you don't actually want to make actual progress and maybe want something else

Anonymous at 9:47 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3563
Qualify

[ with obj. ] make (a statement or assertion) less absolute; add reservations to: she felt obliged to qualify her first short answer.

Anonymous at 9:59 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3564
> Just because you don't understand a word does not mean you get to tell people they are using it wrong.

I get to tell people they are using it wrong whether they like it or not, whether I'm right or not, "get to" is a free speech thing. I get to say whatever the fuck I like. Free to be wrong, free to say things that are wrong.

Tho I'm not. You asserting I'm wrong doesn't make it so. You're just words on a screen, and no one cares how much authority you try to speak with.


I think what you're *actually* trying to say, and lie about to try to look good, is something like:
"You're wrong and I'm trying to silence you by telling you authoritatively that you are categorically wrong and so have no right to speak about this or disagree with me. RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!"

You're trying to apply social pressure, lying about your authority over the freedom of speech of others, claiming that people shouldn't be allowed to speak if they're not already proven right, and just... awful. Awful, awful awful. It fails on anyone who's actually able to think.

(btw lying here is a really bad way of trying to look good, people here will notice you lying about reality and point it out, also no one thinks you look good here anyway because this place doesn't work on social validation)

Anonymous at 10:00 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3565
yeah, bringing typical social tactics here doesn't work well. will get you called out.

Anonymous at 10:06 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3566
Ok lete's get some context, this all started here:
> Rationality has to be qualified - it's not simply an unqualified good towards an undefined or vague end. This is Objectivism's main problem.

You copied this definition of qualify from a dictionary:
> Qualify
>
> [ with obj. ] make (a statement or assertion) less absolute; add reservations to: she felt obliged to qualify her first short answer.

I defined qualification like this:
> Qualification is a description of the qualities of a thing. Often used to refer to a specific set of qualities (eg being qualified for a job, having the set of qualities one needs for that job).


I don't know what distinction you're trying to draw between these two. How do you think they're different in a way that is meaningful to the conversation and context of what we're talking about?

Anonymous at 10:10 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3567
you're mixing up different people. i can tell b/c i pasted that dictionary definition (trying to be helpful) but did not write the criticism of Objectivism.

Anonymous at 10:12 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3568
i think he means rationality isn't a pure or unlimited good, he wants limits on it, and Objectivism is bad for embracing rationality wholeheartedly. he wants rationality to be less absolute and allow for some reservations, limits.

Anonymous at 10:13 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3569
"I think what you're *actually* trying to say, and lie about to try to look good, is something like"

Stop psychoanalyzing people when they disagree with you. It's manipulative and won't work here.

You were wrong about the word. Accept it and move on. You're very good at distracting from what is being talked about to try and score points against your opponent, and derail the conversation from what is relevant in the process.

Anonymous at 10:37 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3571
"why did you bring up semantics if you don't want semantics?"

You objected to the word "qualify" on semantic grounds. You brought it up.

Anonymous at 10:38 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3572
Qualify:

[WITH OBJECT] Make (a statement or assertion) less absolute; add reservations to:
"she felt obliged to qualify her first short answer"

Are you seriously incapable of looking this up?

Anonymous at 10:39 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3573
I get the impression this whole thread is one giant ego trip for Elliot, who has no idea how people work.

He's dodged questions repeatedly and consistently, and seems to enjoy going off on tangents rather than coherently discussing a single point.

Anonymous at 10:40 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3574
Love the way he calls what his opponents do "social tactics", yet is blind to the fact that he does the same himself, only far, far more extreme.

Anonymous at 10:42 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3575
> you're mixing up different people. i can tell b/c i pasted that dictionary definition (trying to be helpful) but did not write the criticism of Objectivism.

Ok

*shrugs*

he can still answer the question on what he thinks is wrong with my definition or give his own definition or something



> i think he means rationality isn't a pure or unlimited good, he wants limits on it, and Objectivism is bad for embracing rationality wholeheartedly. he wants rationality to be less absolute and allow for some reservations, limits.

I was thinking something similar.

Seems like trying to have an agenda to rationality, sets goalposts on it, make it some rigid formal structured thing. But then he can get stuck at the goalposts because he "reached the goal" as if there's then nothing more to learn.

So he thinks there are things rationality can't do? It needs limitation because he thinks there's some flaw with it?

Anonymous at 10:50 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3577
yeah. he's just as much an irrationalist as someone who thinks a few houses are haunted is superstitious. (most houses obey reason, physics, but there's limits on that and in a few cases superstition is right)

Anonymous at 10:53 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3579
"reached the goal"

Rationality is a tool. It's not a long-term goal you strive towards, at least in its conventional sense.

"So he thinks there are things rationality can't do? It needs limitation because he thinks there's some flaw with it?"

This utterly misunderstands what it means to "qualify" rationality. It has to be qualified by saying "rational to what end?" What is it achieving? Something is not simply rational with no other context to it. It doesn't make sense to say so, unless you can explain that what you mean by rationality is something very different to its ordinary usage.

Anonymous at 10:53 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3580
Conventional people misunderstand rationality as something like intelligence, authority, or being right.

Rationality is actually about error-correction, about the means of making progress.

Making progress towards what end? Any end. Rationality is generic, not tied to a specific end. It's general case, not special case.

Anonymous at 10:55 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3581
"Conventional people misunderstand rationality as something like intelligence, authority, or being right."

This is not what rationality means except as a shorthand, and it's not the sense in which I'm using it.

"Rationality is generic"

Agreed. That's why I said it's a tool and has to be qualified. You aren't really arguing against what I'm saying there.

However, you haven't really answered the question on what it means for a *person* to be rational. That's a very different question.

Anonymous at 10:57 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3582
"making progress"

Towards what?

Anonymous at 10:59 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3583
one can make progress towards many, many different things. rationality is about the methods of doing that. what to make progress towards is up to you (they aren't all equal, and making progress towards figuring out what are good goals is wise)

Anonymous at 11:01 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3584
"rationality is about the methods of doing that"

I agree. Still doesn't answer my question on what it means for a person to be rational though.

"they aren't all equal"

By what value system are you judging this?

Anonymous at 11:03 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3585
there are lots of value systems. i'm judging by mine. if you want to propose one in which they are all equal, you're welcome to try it, but be prepared for criticism.

> I agree. Still doesn't answer my question on what it means for a person to be rational though.

i hadn't tried to, i answered "Towards what?"

a rational person is something like: someone who knows a lot about rational methods and is good at using them.

this isn't very important. what's much more important is how reason works, not what sorta skill level and knowledge makes you count as "rational"

Anonymous at 11:05 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3586
"i'm judging by mine"

I know. Which is why I asked what value system you are personally judging them by, and didn't simply state "there are lots of value systems".

So I ask it again: By what value system are you judging this?

"this isn't very important. what's much more important is how reason works, not what sorta skill level and knowledge makes you count as "rational""

I disagree. This conversation seems to be focusing on "irrationalists", psychoanalysis and declaring people to be irrational. It seems to matter a huge amount to people on this board whether someone is or isn't rational.

Anonymous at 11:08 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3587
> "why did you bring up semantics if you don't want semantics?"
>
> You objected to the word "qualify" on semantic grounds. You brought it up.

I didn't make you reply to it. That was your choice. I'll gladly talk about semantics. If you don't want it, don't do it.



> "I think what you're *actually* trying to say, and lie about to try to look good, is something like"
>
> Stop psychoanalyzing people when they disagree with you. It's manipulative and won't work here.

So do you think I was wrong about that assessment?
Or are you just gonna demand I don't point it out when I think someone is being fake? That demand only helps fakers.



> You were wrong about the word. Accept it and move on.

No. I'm trying to understand the situation, actively trying to find out where the conflict of ideas is, and you're demanding obedience.

I said:
> How do you think they're different in a way that is meaningful to the conversation and context of what we're talking about?

I'm trying to understand what the important difference is and understand what you're trying to communicate (lol or maybe this is a different anon idk). I'm not just going to change my mind because you demand it.

Ok so the person that said this:
"Rationality has to be qualified - it's not simply an unqualified good towards an undefined or vague end. This is Objectivism's main problem. "
I will hereafter refer to as Anonality.

I'm trying to understand how my definition in some way misrepresented what Anonality meant by having to qualify rationality. Anonality could just explain what sort of thing they had in mind by "qualified" and that would probably show the conflicts. But unless Anonality is gonna do that, we're kinda arguing over semantics for no reason (which is where it *does* get a bit boring for me).



> I get the impression this whole thread is one giant ego trip for Elliot, who has no idea how people work.

You're mistaken about how much Elliot is involved in this.

Anonymous at 11:08 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3588
"If you don't want it, don't do it."

If the only thing you give me is semantics, and I want to continue this conversation, I have to talk about them. Especially when you seem to misunderstand what I mean by the word.

"No. I'm trying to understand the situation, actively trying to find out where the conflict of ideas is, and you're demanding obedience."

The only thing I'm demanding is that you don't assert that a word means something differently from the meaning I used. Especially when I can show that the meaning I used is in a dictionary.

"I'm trying to understand how my definition in some way misrepresented what Anonality meant by having to qualify rationality. Anonality could just explain what sort of thing they had in mind by "qualified" and that would probably show the conflicts. But unless Anonality is gonna do that, we're kinda arguing over semantics for no reason (which is where it *does* get a bit boring for me). "

I am "Anonality". I have, on numerous occasions now, explained what I mean by it.

Anonymous at 11:12 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3589
> So I ask it again: By what value system are you judging this?

it doesn't have a name that'll just tell you everything. it's kinda like Objectivism and TCS mixed together. you can read about it on my blog, on my email list, etc. tons of info about this available. if you have a question or criticism, go ahead.

> I disagree. This conversation seems to be focusing on "irrationalists", psychoanalysis and declaring people to be irrational. It seems to matter a huge amount to people on this board whether someone is or isn't rational.

well, that's other people. i disagree and stand by my comments about how you should focus on understanding what reason is, how it works, etc, not on deciding who to call a "rational person".

compare to firefighting. how much do you have to know about firefighting, or work in the profession, or whatever, to be called a "firefighter"? and repeat for many other issues like being a salesman, or a charismatic leader, or a programmer, or a math guru. answer: who cares? the labels are there to help us communicate, they should be our (generally pretty approximate) tools, not something that causes us trouble.



[quoting other anon]

> You're mistaken about how much Elliot is involved in this.

can confirm

Elliot at 11:17 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3590
"it doesn't have a name that'll just tell you everything. it's kinda like Objectivism and TCS mixed together. you can read about it on my blog, on my email list, etc. tons of info about this available. if you have a question or criticism, go ahead."

Can you just summarize its basic tenets? What does it value?

Anonymous at 11:28 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3592
> If the only thing you give me is semantics, and I want to continue this conversation, I have to talk about them. Especially when you seem to misunderstand what I mean by the word.

If I'm misunderstanding one way of explaining and I'm not responding in a way you find interesting, but you want to keep talking about it, you could try explaining it in a different way.


> I have, on numerous occasions now, explained what I mean by it.

Let's try a different angle. What end do you think rationality should be defined towards? Do you think it's like a tool, that needs to be built for a purpose, like a piece of machinery? That when you then want a different purpose you need to make a different tool?

Anonymous at 11:34 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3593
the BIG thing is valuing rationality itself. valuing the means of correcting errors. this is more important than what's done with it. it's like Popper's "Who should rule?" thing, where the point is you want a rational system a lot more than you care about the current ruler. BoI talks about this too:

> SOCRATES: I also see why you urge me always to bear human fallibility in mind. In fact, since you mentioned that some moral truths follow logically from epistemological considerations, I am now wondering whether they all do. Could it be that the moral imperative not to destroy the means of correcting mistakes is the only moral imperative? That all other moral truths follow from it?



what ELSE do i value?

to some extent i think that's something you can figure out later. if all you want to do is maximize the number of squirrels, you'll be ok. you'll do tons of rationality stuff, powering up, learning, gaining wealth, gaining knowledge, gaining generic means to accomplish anything. and then you'll be able to come up with some better goals a million years from now, when you're way wiser. http://www.curi.us/1169-morality


but that's not the whole story. another aspect is: our culture has values, we learn values in childhood, we HAVE values, in fact, in reality. many from tradition. and then we make some adjustments, try to solve some problems.

i value integrity. honesty. life. logic. fun. common preferences. not suffering, not being TCS-coerced.

i value wealth, capitalism, liberalism, freedom. i value quality arguments/ideas/criticism.

i value pride, heroism, accomplishment. making an airplane is good. making a road is good. making an iPhone is good.

no doubt i forgot lots of things, but that'll give you some flavor to start with.

Elliot at 11:35 AM on October 6, 2015 | #3594
Sure, (almost) all of those things have value to me as well. I entirely agree.

However, I'm failing to see how seeking validation from others is a bad thing as a result of those things.

Anonymous at 12:02 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3597
Why are you avoiding the things you disagree with, rather than telling elliot what you think he's wrong about?

> I entirely agree.

You contradicted yourself.

Anonymous at 12:05 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3598
That is pedantry at its most extreme, and achieves absolutely nothing. The meaning of my sentence is perfectly clear.

What isn't clear, though, is that you understand Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations.

Anonymous at 12:08 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3599
> However, I'm failing to see how seeking validation from others is a bad thing as a result of those things.

this would be better if phrased as a question and without a comment about failing. nothing went wrong yet. let's go one step at a time!


ok so, seeking validation from others is contrary to judgment stuff with rational methods where you look at the issues objectively to see what's true. it's contrary to going by the content of ideas rather than the source. it's contrary to resolving disagreements with explanations and criticism, rather than by the weight of different authorities on each side.

Anonymous at 12:09 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3600
> i value [...] heroism [...]

Heroism is often used to refer to altruism/sacrifice, which I'm sure you don't mean, but not sure what you *do* mean.

I guess it's something like being brave, maintaining integrity despite intense adversity?

Anonymous at 12:15 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3601
Heroism, as I mean it, is an Objectivist concept. Here's some examples from FH:

> “So you see, Mr. Roark, though it is to be a religious edifice, it is also more than that. You notice that we call it the Temple of the Human Spirit. We want to capture—in stone, as others capture in music—not some narrow creed, but the essence of all religion. And what is the essence of religion? The great aspiration of the human spirit toward the highest, the noblest, the best. The human spirit as the creator and the conqueror of the ideal. The great life-giving force of the universe. The heroic human spirit. That is your assignment, Mr. Roark.”


> “You’re a God-damn fool. You have no right to care what I think of your work, what I am or why I’m here. You’re too good for that. But if you want to know it—I think you’re the best sculptor we’ve got. I think it, because your figures are not what men are, but what men could be—and should be. Because you’ve gone beyond the probable and made us see what is possible, but possible only through you. Because your figures are more devoid of contempt for humanity than any work I’ve ever seen. Because you have a magnificent respect for the human being. Because your figures are the heroic in man.


> “Howard Roark built a temple to the human spirit. He saw man as strong, proud, clean, wise and fearless. He saw man as a heroic being.


> The Banner ran articles on men martyred by society: Socrates, Galileo, Pasteur, the thinkers, the scientists, a long, heroic line—each a man who stood alone, the man who defied men.





“Can’t you be human for once in your life?”
“What?”
“Human! Simple. Natural.”
“But I am.”
“Can’t you ever relax?”
Roark smiled, because he was sitting on the window sill, leaning sloppily against the wall, his long legs hanging loosely, the cigarette held without pressure between limp fingers.
“That’s not what I mean!” said Keating. “Why can’t you go out for a drink with me?”
“What for?”
“Do you always have to have a purpose? Do you always have to be so damn serious? Can’t you ever do things without reason, just like everybody else? You’re so serious, so old. Everything’s important with you, everything’s great, significant in some way, every minute, even when you keep still. Can’t you ever be comfortable—and unimportant?”
“No.”
“Don’t you get tired of the heroic?”
“What’s heroic about me?”
“Nothing. Everything. I don’t know. It’s not what you do. It’s what you make people feel around you.”
“What?”
“The un-normal. The strain. When I’m with you—it’s always like a choice. Between you—and the rest of the world. I don’t want that kind of a choice. I don’t want to be an outsider. I want to belong. There’s so much in the world that’s simple and pleasant. It’s not all fighting and renunciation. It is—with you.”
“What have I ever renounced?”
“Oh, you’ll never renounce anything! You’d walk over corpses for what you want. But it’s what you’ve renounced by never wanting it.”
“That’s because you can’t want both.”
“Both what?”
“Look, Peter. I’ve never told you any of those things about me. What makes you see them? I’ve never asked you to make a choice between me and anything else. What makes you feel that there is a choice involved? What makes you uncomfortable when you feel that—since you’re so sure I’m wrong?”
“I ... I don’t know.” He added: “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” And then he asked suddenly:
“Howard, why do you hate me?”
“I don’t hate you.”
“Well, that’s it! Why don’t you hate me at least?”
“Why should I?”
“Just to give me something. I know you can’t like me. You can’t like anybody. So it would be kinder to acknowledge people’s existence by hating them.”
“I’m not kind, Peter.”

Anonymous at 12:18 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3602
> That is pedantry at its most extreme, and achieves absolutely nothing. The meaning of my sentence is perfectly clear.

Here's the meaning I understood from your sentence: You're trying to fake agreement with Elliot and avoid exposing your disagreement by downplaying it. Pointing out your contradiction was part of me telling you that.

Anonymous at 12:18 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3603
"You're trying to fake agreement with Elliot and avoid exposing your disagreement by downplaying it."

The meaning was "I entirely agree that there are many things which I valuable. Most of those things that you list are things that I, too, consider valuable."

Your misunderstanding what what I said does not allow you to infer that I am somehow lying. That is a large leap of logic, and completely irrational.

Anonymous at 12:26 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3604
Correction:

"which I find valuable" ---> "which are valuable" in the previous post.

Anonymous at 12:26 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3605
> Your misunderstanding what what I said does not allow you to infer that I am somehow lying.

Lol. You're trying to tell me what I'm allowed to infer. Do you think you can impose rules on how I think? How would you enforce those rules?

If you say something that is contradictory I'm going to think you're making a mistake. Contradictions are mistakes.

Either you just contradict yourself systematically (I don't know why you wouldn't want to correct that mistake, if you knew about it surely you'd fix it? so seems like you're lying to yourself about your mistakes to avoid that), or you're trying to say something without really saying it and hide it behind pleasantries (ie faking).

So in what way is my reasoning irrational?

If you have a good explanation that doesn't include you being a liar, I will gladly concede, but I can't think of one.

Anonymous at 12:55 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3606
> Heroism, as I mean it, is an Objectivist concept. Here's some examples from FH:
> [...]
> “I’m not kind, Peter.”

:)

Anonymous at 1:08 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3607
"You're trying to tell me what I'm allowed to infer."

That's another ridiculous leap of logic. You're not very rational, for someone that claims to be.

Anonymous at 1:11 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3608
Did he claim to be rational? Where?

You should use quotes better to show what you mean!

Anonymous at 1:12 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3609
"If you say something that is contradictory I'm going to think you're making a mistake. Contradictions are mistakes."

Except the statement was not a contradiction. That you thought it was, and seem unwilling to admit that you misinterpreted what statements were referring to what, shows you're letting your ego get in the way.

I get the impression you aren't used to dealing with being wrong. You're very irrational about it.

Anonymous at 1:12 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3610
> Sure, (almost) all of those things have value to me as well. I entirely agree.

Saying *almost* then *entirely* does contradict.

curi at 1:14 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3611
They are referring to different things, as I have already explained at this point.

You are being too hasty in your reading, and seem unwilling to back down.

Anonymous at 1:15 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3612
Referring to unquoted, unspecified prior explanation is such a common tactic of scoundrels with no arguments. It blocks further progress in the discussion.

Straightforwardly, you do not entirely agree (covers everything i said in the comment) if not all the values (one thing i said in the comment) have value to you as well.

And stop assuming that other comments by other people are me, and blaming me for them.

curi at 1:18 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3613
I don't care what comments are made by who. I'm picking up on your needless pedantry that seems to serve no purpose.

Re-read my statement where I say that the 'almost' and 'entirely' refer to different things. At this stage I can only assume that you are intentionally refusing to see things from my point of view, and are trying to force your way of seeing things onto me, which makes no sense when the conversation is about what I meant in the first place.

This is not a good way to argue. In fact, it's a very bad way to argue.

Anonymous at 1:24 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3614
> I don't care what comments are made by who. I'm picking up on your needless pedantry that seems to serve no purpose.

But that wasn't me...

Refusing to quote or link or specifically-reference-in-a-findable-way the statement you mean is a way of shutting down discussion.

curi at 1:26 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3615
Can you really not scroll up and see the comment where I clarify what was referring to what?

I feel like your constant focus on quotes, when often there is only one thing that could be being referred to, which is simultaneously very easy to find, shuts down discussion by making the argument about how the other person is arguing, and not what they are arguing.

It would do you well to stop insisting people do things on your terms. It is reducing their freedom to argue in the way that they wish.

Anonymous at 1:31 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3616
i don't know what comment you mean, there's hundreds of comments, so link it.

Anonymous at 1:32 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3617
http://curi.us/1791-standards#c3604

Along with the clarifying comment just below.

Anonymous at 1:32 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3618
> The meaning was "I entirely agree that there are many things which I valuable. Most of those things that you list are things that I, too, consider valuable."


when you write a contradiction, but meant something else, what you wrote is still a contradiction.

Anonymous at 1:33 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3619
Do you realise that was curi, not me, previously?


The fact that you explained what you *meant* doesn't change what you *said*. What you *said* is still a contradiction.

The fact you didn't *mean* it to be a contradiction does not mean it *isn't* a contradiction. Your *intent* is not the same as your *action*.


> That you thought it was, and seem unwilling to admit that you misinterpreted what statements were referring to what, shows you're letting your ego get in the way.

I interpreted them correctly. You expressed them incorrectly.

So psychologising is ok for you to do? Hypocrit.

Anonymous at 1:34 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3620
"What you *said* is still a contradiction."

What I said was semantically ambiguous. You would know this if you understood how logic worked.

However, my clarification should have undermined everything that you were saying and you should hold up your end of the bargain that you would admit you were wrong if I could show you were.

"I interpreted them correctly. You expressed them incorrectly."

That is not how language works. Sorry.

Anonymous at 1:36 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3621
"when you write a contradiction, but meant something else, what you wrote is still a contradiction."

It was not an inherent contradiction. You are assuming it was.

Anonymous at 1:37 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3622

I'm leaving, I have a headache

This place is disorientating me...I just spent what felt like years scrolling up and down trying to work out how to differentiate comments to individuals. What aren't I see. I no like. And now I have a headache so GOODBYE. Pity...the argument between [can't find a name] and [can't find his name either] had some features that I found myself engaged by. Some other time maybe.

Heavy Metal at 3:05 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3623
Do you have a suggestion for how to improve this?

Anonymous at 5:32 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3625
> I'm leaving, I have a headache

anadin extra

> This place is disorientating me...I just spent what felt like years scrolling up and down trying to work out how to differentiate comments to individuals. What aren't I see. I no like. And now I have a headache so GOODBYE. Pity...the argument between [can't find a name] and [can't find his name either] had some features that I found myself engaged by. Some other time maybe.

it shouldn't matter who is who. the internet is awesome that way that allows you to see what is actually happening, it's ideas arguing with each other.

Anonymous at 6:24 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3628
>> They can't even imagine a Roark being real, and think people like that are impossible ideals that no-one should ever strive for.
>> a good example of standards that should be (much) higher

> And even Roark made mistakes and had flaws. Even aiming for Roark is aiming to make mistakes.

Roark found and corrected his mistakes (like helping Keating, for instance).

It's not about never making mistakes. But wanting to actively correct them. To actively prefer criticism to praise.

Anonymous at 7:42 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3643
What if ... all of these comments are just Elliot (me) talking with himself (myself)?

Anonymous at 10:50 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3645
How do you people imagine Elliot btw? I imagine him thus - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRn_FlDKITU

Anonymous at 10:51 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3646
> What if ... all of these comments are just Elliot (me) talking with himself (myself)?

They would still be different ideas talking to themselves. It would still be interesting.

Characters in a book are different idea sets created by the same person.

Anonymous at 10:52 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3647
http://curi.us/comments/show/3452

> L is a good pick for #2 at this (after me). It's not a clear choice, but she's competitive and could be reasonably debated for #2. And after L and a few others, there is a HUGE gap to virtually everyone.

Why L at #2? Cause she was TCS raised? You got people with far more potential, philosophically, on FI list. Alan, for instance. You're devaluing people who had less chances in their childhood to be great but learned tons as adults, like Rami.

L in spite of TCS also seems to have been raised to be second-handed some. For instance, she was praised tons for the flag stunt at the website "The World" by her parents and other adults that raised her and their friends. Praising her told her it was important to do things her peer group approved of.

She wasn't equally praised for doing art and she doesn't seem to have lost an interest in (so I'm assuming she was given no criticism about pursuing art). Yet she could be a far better artist than she is now, for instance. Why isn't she? Maybe she genuinely doesn't care that much about art above all other things she is learning, so progress seems slow as she is learning tons of other stuff. But she doesn't seem to have an equal interest in other stuff as she doesn't talk about other subjects publicly.

I could also be much better at art and I should perhaps care more why I am not working on it. Not sure what's keeping me back yet.

Anonymous at 11:54 PM on October 6, 2015 | #3649
Alan is conflicted and hasn't resolved a ton of stuff. Where does he stand on DD for instance? He hasn't stated publicly. Not that L is better in that regard either.

Anonymous at 12:35 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3652
> The reasonably expected potential heights someone might reach within the next 100 years – best guess today – is much lower than infinite.

That's a silly thing to say - we are always at a beginning of infinity. There is no "much lower" than infinite.

> L is a good pick for #2 at this (after me).

Pick for what? Getting closer to infinity? Impossible so you better state more precisely what you mean

> It's not a clear choice, but she's competitive and could be reasonably debated for #2. And after L and a few others, there is a HUGE gap to virtually everyone.

If you mean no-one alive today will make more progress within the next 100 years than yourself or Lulie, then you are saying none of children of the world alive today will amount to anything greater. Bullshit.

p.s your comments are not iPhone friendly.

Anonymous at 2:59 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3654
It's just a giant ego trip for Elliot. There's no getting through to him.

I'm convinced the vast majority of posts here are him.

Anonymous at 6:08 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3655
> That's a silly thing to say - we are always at a beginning of infinity. There is no "much lower" than infinite.

34254 is much lower than infinity.


> Pick for what? Getting closer to infinity? Impossible so you better state more precisely what you mean

Getting to 34254, as opposed to someone else getting to 2134

> If you mean no-one alive today will make more progress within the next 100 years than yourself or Lulie, then you are saying none of children of the world alive today will amount to anything greater. Bullshit.

There is no particular child alive today (or as yet unborn) that you'd be wise to bet on against L.

Anonymous at 9:00 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3658
> p.s your comments are not iPhone friendly.

What do you mean?

Posted from my iPhone.

Anonymous at 9:09 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3659
That would be GREAT if L ends up being #2. Then she could explain things lots better than she does right now. The rest of us would benefit hugely from that and she'd be a great help to us.

Anonymous at 9:45 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3660
i figured out one issue with iPhone was the big box where you write comments was larger than the screen width, so you'd get horizontal scrolling. i fixed that. tested on at 6+ at least. hope that helps.

Elliot Temple at 10:05 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3661
> 34254 is much lower than infinity.

You don't understand the concept of infinity.

Anonymous at 10:09 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3662
you don't understand the concept of communication.

i'm guessing you mean something like: 34254 IS much lower than infinity, and so is 234234234234.

so what i said is TRUE. but you think it's irrelevant or misleading or something, and you haven't explained your position at all. you're trying to skip steps, skip ahead.

Anonymous at 10:11 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3663
> 34254 is much lower than infinity.

No it isn't. You're talking like infinity is a number. You're misleading people. 2134 and 34254 and not such that one is much lower to infinity than the other and to say both are "much lower" is not even an approximation.

Anonymous at 10:21 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3666
When you assign a guess at someone's potential within 100 years, you don't come up with infinity, you come up with something else. Some finite number.

Clear? Do you have any objection to the substance? I don't see how these wording complaints change anything about the conclusion.

Anonymous at 10:32 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3667
> Alan is conflicted and hasn't resolved a ton of stuff.

What stuff has he not resolved that L has?

> Where does he stand on DD for instance? He hasn't stated publicly. Not that L is better in that regard either.

If they are equal in that regard, why mention it?

Why L at #2 and not others? What has L done so special? She doesn't even post on FI that much. She doesn't write philosophy in public that much. She joined in with mocking Ayn Rand and never took it back.

Anonymous at 10:38 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3669
> She joined in with mocking Ayn Rand and never took it back.

source please

Anonymous at 10:40 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3670
South Park S19E02, from 2 weeks ago, makes fun of Donald Trump.

I like Donald Trump and consider lots of the episode's content false.

But I also thought it was super funny and shared it with people.

Do you object to that?

I don't think that particular Ayn Rand mocking was funny or well done, though. I wouldn't share it positively.

Anonymous at 10:52 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3673
I have information which is not in the public record about all the FI community candidates.

If you want to estimate L at #10 by her public remarks, go right ahead. It doesn't really matter, does it? #2 or #10, who cares?

If you want to put L at #50, it still doesn't really make much difference. That's really high. (Though I'd love to see a list of the 49 names you have ahead of L). #50 would not be someone who should suicide, or be called 95th percentile.

The important thing is to understand the structure of the world, not to debate the exact numbering.

It's hard to GIVE NAMES that compete with the FI community people. There's a big gap from FI standards to elsewhere. FI has some extremely valuable, crucial game-changing knowledge which no one else knows about.

Elliot Temple at 11:11 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3674
I was pointing out an error in what you said. You're trying to trivialise it by saying I'm objecting to your conclusion and that it was a "wording complaint".

Other comment saying you don't understand infinity was not by me. I think only that you need better habits expressing ideas about infinity.

Anonymous at 11:11 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3675
ok, i take the point about being careful with statements like "35 is lower than infinity" or otherwise making direct comparisons between a number and a non-number.

Treating infinity as a really large number is fine as an approximation for lots of purposes. Like in this case, I don't think it affects the conclusion, it works. But it's not precisely right.

thanks.

Elliot at 11:15 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3676
Apple dictionary for "infinity"

> 2 Mathematics a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ?).

By this definition, 3 is lower than infinity, and infinity is a number.

The dictionary is wrong, right? Does anyone have a defense of the dictionary?


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infinity

> : a very great number or amount

even more wrong. anyone disagree?

Anonymous at 11:17 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3677
I don't want to know numbers, but why you consider L a potential #2. It wasn't your opinion of her a few years back. What changed? Why don't we know?

Anonymous at 11:20 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3678
> I have information which is not in the public record about all the FI community candidates.

Is it a violation of their privacy to say you hold private data about them?

Anonymous at 11:57 AM on October 7, 2015 | #3680
Infinity is not a number.

Anonymous at 12:53 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3681
L's FI participation was limited for some years because she was stuck on some philosophy issues. She recently got unstuck. And showed she has a bunch of greatness still in tact, that years in the dark could not destroy it.

Anonymous at 1:11 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3682
How did she show that?

Anonymous at 1:15 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3683
Discussions. (not public)

Anonymous at 1:16 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3684
How can we evaluate that if discussions are not public?

And why are they not public?

Anonymous at 1:19 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3685
Very poetic, but not very explanatory.

Anonymous at 1:26 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3686
> How can we evaluate that if discussions are not public?

you can't. so what? what do you care?

Anonymous at 1:30 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3687
What philosophy issues was she stuck on? What was the solution? It might help others to know.

Anonymous at 1:39 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3688
you'll have to ask her that

Anonymous at 1:43 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3689
OK, L if ur reading I'm asking

Anonymous at 1:46 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3690
> South Park S19E02, from 2 weeks ago, makes fun of Donald Trump.
>
> I like Donald Trump and consider lots of the episode's content false.
>
> But I also thought it was super funny and shared it with people.

why did you find falsehood super funny?

Quoting Elliot to me a while ago:

> the group [http://aynrandart.deviantart.com/] looks dumb, but who cares?
>
> the meme thing [http://aynrandart.deviantart.com/art/AYN-RAND-MEME-200751674] is terrible. really hateful of rand and unintellectual.

Anonymous at 1:57 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3691
watch the SP ep and see for yourself i guess. or criticize it after watching. (idk how funny it is if you aren't familiar with the show, though)

have you asked L if she's changed her mind or would retract the comment? maybe she forgot about this.

Anonymous at 2:01 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3693

curi.user and curi.user

> curi.user and curi.user

OO is watching us, the freaks

Anonymous at 2:01 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3694

curi.user and curi.user

> curi.user and curi.user

OO is watching us, the freaks

Anonymous at 2:02 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3695
>> How can we evaluate that if discussions are not public?
>
> you can't. so what? what do you care?

i want to judge by myself. why you want us to go by your judgement?

there's nothing #2 about her second-handed behavior described in this post, then you say she is #2. there is no reason to believe she is #2.

you are just fascinated, like many ppl, that she was like the 1st TCS child. this had to be the most second-handed child on earth, due to the harm of all this attention given to her.

Anonymous at 2:07 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3696
> watch the SP ep and see for yourself i guess. or criticize it after watching. (idk how funny it is if you aren't familiar with the show, though)

i don't like the show and i'm not familiar with trump or american politics or care about details like that.

it should not matter. i'm asking, why do you find something that is bad, funny? rand would not approve.

> have you asked L if she's changed her mind or would retract the comment? maybe she forgot about this.

L is a liar. it doesn't matter what she says, but what she does.

Anonymous at 2:09 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3697
Is being pegged by L a #2 activity?

I used to think so, but I started to change my mind on the basis that it is important to disregard social conventions that hamper experiments in living.

Anonymous at 2:15 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3698
what's with the crude highschool crap? what's the point of it?

Anonymous at 2:27 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3699
what's with calling stuff like pegging insults "highschool"? why the ageism?

Anonymous at 2:28 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3700
because it's the truth. it's the kind of stuff kids start doing in highschool, the age when they start getting broken.

Anonymous at 2:33 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3701
the kid who doesn't do it gets diagnoses autism and gets homeschooled. it's not ageism, it's cultural fact.

Anonymous at 2:33 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3702
is pegging even that widespread an activity? i always thought it was quite rare

Anonymous at 2:34 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3703
where did you get the idea that elementary and middle school kids are not broken?

montessori breaks 3 year olds. you can find videos of them doing this on youtube.

parents start breaking kids before that.

Anonymous at 2:36 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3704
is 'breaking' a euphemism for violent anal sex here?

Anonymous at 2:39 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3705
> OO is watching us, the freaks

You would only know this if you watched OO. Your lack of self-awareness is staggering.

Anonymous at 4:31 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3706
> the kid who doesn't do it gets diagnoses autism and gets homeschooled

You don't know what autism is.

Anonymous at 4:32 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3707
I find it absolutely horrifying the way you guys are treating L as if she was some piece of meat to be rated according to abhorrent standards.

I think OO should help her not mock her.

<b> Justice </b> at 5:57 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3708
If Alan didn't have a ton of unresolved problems he would have made much more visible progress much more quickly over the last decade. He lacks spark.

Anonymous at 6:04 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3709
The only ones here dissing L are OO ppl straining to be offensive to try to get Elliot to delete/ban them.

Anonymous at 6:20 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3710
why do those faggots think I'd ban them just for being retarded niggers?

curi at 6:22 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3711
> There is no particular child alive today (or as yet unborn) that you'd be wise to bet on against L.

Argument please.

Anonymous at 11:43 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3730
Name please.

Anonymous at 11:51 PM on October 7, 2015 | #3731
ur saying it is ok using some large number as an approximation to infinity in your argument about potential heights ppl might achieve in the next 100 years. It's not ok.

What about the idea that in order to achieve infinite potential for progress a jump to infinity must occur? In your conception we're just incrementing towards some large number most of us won't even get anywhere near to.

Anonymous at 12:30 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3733
> why do those faggots think I'd ban them just for being retarded niggers?

Why are you such a child?

Anonymous at 4:14 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3735
All people have the same ultimate theoretical max potential.

But people differ and the best guess at shorter term results varies. Some people are better than others.

Anonymous at 8:26 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3740
you pretend to criticize lulie then you praise her saying she is the best person in the world after you. this is not having high standards for people.

Anonymous at 10:15 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3743
> There is no particular child alive today (or as yet unborn) that you'd be wise to bet on against L.

this is interesting. what happened to liberty? she was raised tcs too. tcs didn't work out for her?

Anonymous at 10:17 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3744
> If Alan didn't have a ton of unresolved problems he would have made much more visible progress much more quickly over the last decade. He lacks spark.

what kind of progress did alan miss? i can't tell.

what about justin? and erin?

what progress has elliot made? he has pretty much remained at the same level.

Anonymous at 10:21 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3745
>> the kid who doesn't do it gets diagnoses autism and gets homeschooled
>
> You don't know what autism is.

i know. it's bullshit. a fake disorder.

the diagnosis criteria is as genuine as those "discover what mr man you are" tests.

it's not even the case the kids are different. the parents are just encouraged to notice those behaviors which are common human behaviors in everyone and to preserve them.

it's an issue of status too.

Anonymous at 10:23 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3746
> i know. it's bullshit. a fake disorder.

Got something academic to back that up?

Anonymous at 10:30 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3747
> you pretend to criticize lulie then you praise her saying she is the best person in the world after you. this is not having high standards for people.


how would having higher standards change the ranking order of how good people are?

Anonymous at 10:36 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3748
Psychology from 1961? Seriously?

That's 50 years out of date in a field which is barely 100 years old.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-myth-of-thomas-szasz

Anonymous at 10:49 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3751
If you're surprised, you haven't been paying attention. The page you're on right now says:

> I'm an American, atheist, classical liberal, and philosopher. I like Ayn Rand, Karl Popper, William Godwin, Edmund Burke and Thomas Szasz.

Anonymous at 10:52 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3753
> http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-myth-of-thomas-szasz

i read through the beginning looking for arguments and it was pretty boring, slow to get going. then i came to:

> One can hardly be surprised if Szasz has assumed the role reserved for all failed revolutionaries — a marker of backwardness against which to measure our enlightenment, his name a synonym for error. The disease model of mental illness is now so central to American medicine and culture that the most common response to Szasz — aside from utter disregard — is typically something like: “Just look around — anguished teenagers, depressed adults, distracted children. Only a fool would believe that mental illness is a myth.” Indeed, to the modern psychiatric mind, rejecting the legitimacy of mental illness is not just an error but an act of inhumanity, leaving the sick without the hope of a cure. The Szaszians of the world are not just fools but monsters.


does the article get better and give arguments? or does it side with the responses it considers common? (ignoring szasz or saying to look around and calling him a fool)

could you quote a part, maybe around one paragraph, you think is particularly good?

Anonymous at 11:01 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3754
Saying you find it boring and that you can't spot the argument just makes you look like a lazy scholar.

Anonymous at 11:08 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3755
>> i know. it's bullshit. a fake disorder.
>
> Got something academic to back that up?

lol at you caring for authority of academia. and the concept of "backing things up"

Anonymous at 11:21 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3756
> lol at you caring for authority of academia. and the concept of "backing things up"

What does this even mean?

Anonymous at 11:24 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3757
> how would having higher standards change the ranking order of how good people are?

criticizing and then praising doesn't work. you criticize her for seeking attention then give her attention.

what she did makes her a second-hander. a second-hander can't be a number 2. you are either a second-hander or a roark.

lulie is a fake who sometimes imitates the motions of a roark out of a desire to impress you.

btw, she came for me for help for her art. she procrastinated making it until deadline and then she asked ME, the person who you constantly put down as a zero and a villain for help.

Anonymous at 11:27 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3758
you suck at logic and didn't even try to answer the question.

Anonymous at 11:29 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3759
> you are either a second-hander or a roark.

This is why you people are so obviously autistic. You don't understand that things work in degrees.

Anonymous at 11:33 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3760
> you people

who? females?

Anonymous at 11:37 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3761
People who make comments in that kind of spirit, who seem to be common on this forum. Quite obviously.

Anonymous at 11:40 AM on October 8, 2015 | #3762
>http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-myth-of-thomas-szasz

This article doesn't make any arguments. It simply claims that Szasz is wrong without explaining why.

Anonymous at 12:37 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3764
> This article doesn't make any arguments. It simply claims that Szasz is wrong without explaining why.

Explain. Give quotes.

Anonymous at 12:52 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3767
> It is hard to doubt the reality of mental illness, especially when the suffering of affected individuals is so complete and the impairment so extreme, when psyche and identity are crippled almost beyond repair.

This is a blank statement, which doesn't explain why people have a bad life should be explained by mental illness rather than personal problems. An argument against would first state his position, and then explain something that somebody claims is wrong with it. I have seen attempts to do this with Szasz's position, although those attempts are no good. This article doesn't rise to the standard of attempting to argue.

Anonymous at 1:07 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3771
That is not the entire thesis of the article's argument. Stop trying to pretend it is.

Try harder. Give quotes. This is poor scholarship.

Anonymous at 1:09 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3772
This guy is ridiculous. He won't quote or explain or write substance. Someone did post a quote from the article with a question and comment, and got flamed and given no answer to the question.

Demanding quotes, but flaming people who do use quotes, is a bad approach.

Anonymous at 1:20 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3773
> Demanding quotes, but flaming people who do use quotes, is a bad approach.

The quote has been misrepresented as the entire thesis of the article, which it isn't. That is why I want something more substantial.

Anonymous at 1:28 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3775
> It is hard to doubt the reality of mental illness, especially when the suffering of affected individuals is so complete and the impairment so extreme, when psyche and identity are crippled almost beyond repair.

why do you think suffering is evidence that mental illness is real?

suffering happens when life problems are unsolved.

> You don't understand that things work in degrees.

a light is either on or off. a dim light is a light that is still on.

Anonymous at 1:42 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3778
a better example: a person is either dead or alive.

not a degree.

Anonymous at 1:43 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3779
> a better example: a person is either dead or alive.

There exists a case of x, therefore x applies in all cases?

That's the worst logic I have seen in a long time.

Anonymous at 1:48 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3780
> why do you think suffering is evidence that mental illness is real?

Define what 'illness' means, in the generic sense. Then we can see whether your definition can apply to the mental and physical, or just the physical (or neither).

Anonymous at 1:52 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3781
> Psychology from 1961? Seriously?
>
> That's 50 years out of date

"our of date" is dumb reasoning. what matters is if it's right or wrong.

for instance, if you want to learn how to pain realistically in old, you'd be smart to learn from the masters before before 1850 because art after that stopped valuing technical realism.

in the middle ages, if people wanted knowledge, they had to look for "out of date" greek knowledge. like it was done in the renaissance.

Anonymous at 2:16 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3782
an illness is a malfunction.

being mistaken, being stuck, suffering, having problems one hasn't yet solved, is not a malfunction. is normal human condition.

Anonymous at 2:18 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3783
Define what it means for a body to have a malfunction.

(These definitions matter a lot.)

Anonymous at 2:19 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3784
>> a better example: a person is either dead or alive.
>
> There exists a case of x, therefore x applies in all cases?
>
> That's the worst logic I have seen in a long time.

you said "things happen in degrees"

without examples of such things.

in attempt to criticize that a person is either a roark or a second-hander. thinking there is something in the middle that is neither.

i gave examples of things that don't happen in degrees. to try to make you understand why there is not such thing as a "in-between" between roark and keating.

in morality, there's no degrees. ideas are either right or wrong.

a maths sum is either right or wrong.

a person is either a roark or a second-hander. being a bit second-handed is not being like roark at all.

Anonymous at 2:22 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3785
> Define what it means for a body to have a malfunction.

it functions badly.

> (These definitions matter a lot.)

why?

explaining your assertions matters a lot too.

Anonymous at 2:24 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3786
> without examples of such things.

Gray is a degree between black and white. There are examples of these things all over the place.

> ideas are either right or wrong.

Incorrect.

> a maths sum is either right or wrong.

Also incorrect in some cases.

Anonymous at 2:25 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3787
> it functions badly.

Physical things have a function but minds don't? Why is that?

> why?

Because unless you're very careful, your definition of 'illness' will end up excluding all physical illnesses as well, or it will include mental illness (which is something you presumably don't want to do).

Anonymous at 2:29 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3788
> > http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/t...
>
> i read through the beginning looking for arguments and it was pretty boring, slow to get going. then i came to:

lol, i looked at the header and rolled my eyes. wtf is this.

"the threat of human cloning"

ppl, so many real problems to solve. like childhood cancer. n 2 killer of children.

Anonymous at 2:29 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3789
>> it functions badly.
>
> Physical things have a function but minds don't? Why is that?

i never mentioned physical things or non-physical things.

a human mind is fallible for everyone by definition. it HAS to be fallible or it's not human.

it's part of it's function to be fallible.

a body has certain standards of functioning, though. you strain a knee, it doesn't work as well.

as for the mind, there is no such thing as a "healthy mind" as we are all fallible and very dumb. we know very little, we make tons of mistakes.

>> why?

Because unless you're very careful, your definition of 'illness' will end up excluding all physical illnesses as well, or it will include mental illness (which is something you presumably don't want to do).

how did I do so?

Anonymous at 2:31 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3790
>> it functions badly.
>
> Physical things have a function but minds don't? Why is that?

i never mentioned physical things or non-physical things.

a human mind is fallible for everyone by definition. it HAS to be fallible or it's not human.

it's part of it's function to be fallible.

a body has certain standards of functioning, though. you strain a knee, it doesn't work as well.

as for the mind, there is no such thing as a "healthy mind" as we are all fallible and very dumb. we know very little, we make tons of mistakes.

>> why?

Because unless you're very careful, your definition of 'illness' will end up excluding all physical illnesses as well, or it will include mental illness (which is something you presumably don't want to do).

how did I do so?

Anonymous at 2:31 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3791
> it doesn't work as well.

Doesn't work well at what? How do we know what its function is? There are things it does well, sure, but how does that make it its function?

> a human mind is fallible for everyone by definition. it HAS to be fallible or it's not human.

Fallible at what? It has to have a function to make a mistake at.

> how did I do so?

If you read what I said, I said you have to be careful not to do it. I didn't say you had done it already.

Anonymous at 2:35 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3792
>> it doesn't work as well.
>
> Doesn't work well at what? How do we know what its function is? There are things it does well, sure, but how does that make it its function?

The function of the heart is to beat. etc. the knee is to bend so you can walk. don't want to go on too deeply about this, don't see the point.

>> a human mind is fallible for everyone by definition. it HAS to be fallible or it's not human.
>
> Fallible at what? It has to have a function to make a mistake at.

at find the truth. at creating knowledge.

Anonymous at 2:42 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3793
i damaged my knee now it hurts all the time. why didn't i fall all the way down the cliff. it would have been better.

Anonymous at 2:43 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3794
> The function of the heart is to beat. etc. the knee is to bend so you can walk.

How do you know this?

> don't want to go on too deeply about this, don't see the point.

The point is that you have to know the function of something to say that it is performing it badly.

Anonymous at 2:53 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3795
>> The function of the heart is to beat. etc. the knee is to bend so you can walk.
>
> How do you know this?

science. conjecture and refutation.

Anonymous at 3:17 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3796
> science. conjecture and refutation.

We can say whether or not something is good at something through science and conjecture. How does that give us its purpose?

Or do you believe that being good at something is what gives it its purpose?

Anonymous at 3:19 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3797
we learn the truth by conjecture and refutation.

there is no refutation that biological illnesses are indeed illnesses.

there is a refutation that mental illness is an illness.

the end.

Anonymous at 4:02 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3798
So because you can't answer my question you assert yourself correct?

Anti-scholar.

Anonymous at 4:06 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3799
> we learn the truth by conjecture and refutation.

How do you know that the purpose of the heart is to beat? It's a very simple question.

Truth, conjecture and refutation does not give us the purpose of the heart. It simply tells us what it is good at.

It is not "the end" because you've just realized that your definition of illness covers neither physical nor mental illness, and as such is an inadequate definition of the word altogether.

Anonymous at 4:11 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3800
> It is not "the end" because you've just realized that your definition of illness covers neither physical nor mental illness, and as such is an inadequate definition of the word altogether.

i realized nothing like that.

Anonymous at 4:15 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3801
> i realized nothing like that.

Your last answer was no argument. It was an assertion, using the word "illness" without explaining what you meant by it.

I ask again: how can you determine the purpose of something through conjecture and refutation?

Anonymous at 4:16 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3802
i'm not interested in your questions. i want to hear your crit of my crit that mental illness is not an ilness.

have one?

Anonymous at 4:23 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3803
> i'm not interested in your questions. i want to hear your crit of my crit that mental illness is not an ilness.

I can only answer it if you answer my question. It's telling that you keep dodging it.

IF it's not a problem, why don't you answer them? How do you determine the purpose of something through conjecture and refutation?

If you can't answer that, it means that your definition of illness (that something isn't fulfilling its purpose) is meaningless, and therefore biological (physical) illnesses aren't illnesses either.

Therefore, it's pretty important for you to answer the question. The burden of proof is on you, because I've laid out my reasoning if you're unable to provide an answer.

Anonymous at 4:26 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3804
lol elliot is too stupid to see how the questions are relevant to his own crit

Anonymous at 4:31 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3806
it's james carter arguing with his boyfriend jacob williams

Anonymous at 6:13 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3808
nobody on this blog has any standards ...

Anonymous at 11:53 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3813
elliot just got school by an anon, and his only response what that they were gay

fucking lol

Anonymous at 12:26 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3815
An illness is a change in the structure or chemistry of a part of the body that has effects that the people commonly deem to be bad, and for which people seek help. Mental illness is defined and diagnosed in terms of behaviour, not any sort of change in the body. So mental illness is just a way of labelling and stigmatising behaviour that psychiatrists deem unacceptable, it is not an illness.

Anonymous at 2:20 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3817

Conjectures and refutations

> how can you determine the purpose of something through conjecture and refutation?

Guess a purpose. Submit the guess to criticism.

If the guess survives criticism, it is deemed the truth as best we know. Else false as best we know.

Rami at 3:11 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3827
> Guess a purpose. Submit the guess to criticism.

> If the guess survives criticism, it is deemed the truth as best we know. Else false as best we know.

Good. We're getting somewhere.

However, it doesn't make that purpose *the* purpose of the object; it only shows that, if it were its purpose, that it would be good at that purpose.

Therefore, do you accept the proposition that purposes of things are social constructs? Including body parts.

Anonymous at 3:31 AM on October 9, 2015 | #3832
> The reasonably expected potential heights someone might reach within the next 100 years


To clarify, I meant: consider reasonably expected potential heights. Then score someone by the highest one. Like, looking at the highest peak that's reasonable, not some kind of the average result.

Elliot at 11:21 AM on October 10, 2015 | #4123
> not some kind of the average result.

Yes. That still doesn't mean you can rule out literally every child born in the next 100 years.

You don't know anything like enough information to make that call.

Anonymous at 12:12 PM on October 10, 2015 | #4124
>L is better than you
>Everyone has infinite potential. We're universal knowledge creators.
>
>But, realistically, most people aren't going to amount to much. >Most people don't want to think, and it's really hard to change that.
>
>The reasonably expected potential heights someone might reach within the next 100 years – best guess today – is much lower than infinite.
>
>L is a good pick for #2 at this (after me). It's not a clear choice, but she's competitive and could be reasonably debated for #2. And after L and a few others, there is a HUGE gap to virtually everyone.

I don't know what standards you're rating you and L by. Without knowing that it's hard to criticise your idea. It would be criticising a nothing.

If I'm understanding correctly, the specific thing you are rating yourself and L by is capacity to be a universal knowledge creator. I guess that's something like: knowing how to avoid typical bad ideas, having good ideas about how to create knowledge, etc. Is this accurate? Could you explain more?


Also the whole rating people #1 and #2 seems second-hand, you're comparing yourself to people and saying that you're better than then without any substance that I can see. What value does rating people like that have?

Anonymous at 1:14 AM on October 13, 2015 | #4149
> If I'm understanding correctly, the specific thing you are rating yourself and L by is capacity to be a universal knowledge creator.

No.

> What value does rating people like that have?

A value here is standing up to people telling L to kill herself or dramatically misunderstanding the implications of criticism.

Anonymous at 9:11 AM on October 13, 2015 | #4153
> Yes. That still doesn't mean you can rule out literally every child born in the next 100 years.

You don't have to rule them out. It's a best guess, not a guarantee. If you can GIVE A NAME that is better to guess than L, go ahead. If you can't, then that means something.

Anonymous at 9:12 AM on October 13, 2015 | #4154
>L is a good pick for #2 at this (after me). It's not a clear choice, but she's competitive and could be reasonably debated for #2. And after L and a few others, there is a HUGE gap to virtually everyone.

Why would it be good to be #2? Wouldn't something like #5 be better, then you'd have more people ahead of you to offer more criticism so you could learn more and make faster progress?

As long as you learn enough to successfully have a BoI, paths-forward lifestyle, learn to deal with static memes, learn to avoid TCS-coercion, understand and control your emotions, continually solve problems and make progress, etc, wouldn't it be *worse* to be #2?

Doesn't it suck to be #1? #2 wouldn't suck that much, but still not as good as like #5 or whatever.

It's a lot harder to solve problems and make progress when there are so very few people above you.

Also, do you think L's competitiveness is a good thing? Do you think being competitive, and trying to beat out others and "win" by being #2 is a good thing? Do you think she (or anyone) should STRIVE for that?

Were you competitive and did you strive to be better than DD?

If there's a competitve (beat out others in order to WIN) aspect to what you are saying, it seems secondhanded.

P at 11:37 AM on October 13, 2015 | #4164
> Why would it be good to be #2? Wouldn't something like #5 be better, then you'd have more people ahead of you to offer more criticism so you could learn more and make faster progress?

One doesn't have a choice in the matter. It's not good to be #5 by the method of sandbagging. It's better to know all you can, be as good as you can at learning, etc. And the better other people are, also the better.


> As long as you learn enough to successfully have a BoI, paths-forward lifestyle, learn to deal with static memes, learn to avoid TCS-coercion, understand and control your emotions, continually solve problems and make progress, etc, wouldn't it be *worse* to be #2?

I think it's totally wrong to be like "I'm making rapid enough progress, I won't try to make my progress more rapid than this". The more rapid your progress, the better. Do all you can. Don't hold back.

And anyway there's no one in the world who could be like "my progress is rapid enough" and it wouldn't be RIDICULOUS. Including me. I don't think that. That'd be damn stupid. I want to be better. There's more to strive for.

> Also, do you think L's competitiveness is a good thing?

You're misreading. I think you misread "good pick" above – which doesn't mean it's a good thing. And here you misread L being competitive in a category – objectively, to an external observer – as somehow commenting on L's personality, motivations or goals.


> Were you competitive and did you strive to be better than DD?

No.


> Doesn't it suck to be #1? #2 wouldn't suck that much, but still not as good as like #5 or whatever.

Atlas Shrugged:


"It's so wonderful," said Dr. Stadler, his voice low. "It's so wonderful to see a great, new, crucial idea which is not mine!"

She looked at him, wishing she could believe that she understood him correctly. He spoke, in passionate sincerity, discarding convention, discarding concern for whether it was proper to let her hear the confession of his pain, seeing nothing but the face of a woman who was able to understand: “Miss Taggart, do you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It's resentment of another man's achievement. Those touchy mediocrities who sit trembling lest someone's work prove greater than their own—they have no inkling of the loneliness that comes when you reach the top. The loneliness for an equal— for a mind to respect and an achievement to admire. They bare their teeth at you from out of their rat holes, thinking that you take pleasure in letting your brilliance dim them—while you'd give a year of your life to see a flicker of talent anywhere among them. They envy achievement, and their dream of greatness is a world where all men have become their acknowledged inferiors. They don't know that that dream is the infallible proof of mediocrity., because that sort of world is what the man of achievement would not be able to bear. They have no way of knowing what he feels when surrounded by inferiors—hatred? no, not hatred, but boredom the terrible, hopeless, draining, paralyzing boredom. Of what account are praise and adulation from men whom you don't respect? Have you ever felt the longing for someone you could admire? For something, not to look down at, but up to?"

"I've felt it all my life," she said. It was an answer she could not refuse him.

Elliot at 11:46 AM on October 13, 2015 | #4165
>I think it's totally wrong to be like "I'm making rapid enough progress, I won't try to make my progress more rapid than this". The more rapid your progress, the better. Do all you can. Don't hold back.

I agree.

However **as long as you are constantly pushing yourself and doing all you can**, then even if objectively you are #5 or #10 that would be a GREAT position to be in.

Better than being #1 or #2.

I wanted to make this point.

>I think you misread "good pick" above – which doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Well, I wanted to clarify that. And yes, that's my point: #2 does NOT mean it's a good thing.

Why did you bring up L's competitiveness? Competitiveness seems good if a person thinks of it as competing with themselves and constantly wanting to improve. But otherwise, I don't see the value and I think it can bleed over into secondhandedness.

P at 12:05 PM on October 13, 2015 | #4167
if you're equally good as you are today, and someone else were magically better, so your ranking goes down (but your skill does not go down), that'd be good for you, yes. that'd be awesome.


> Why did you bring up L's competitiveness?

it means there's like several people who are competitive (close) picks for #2, it's hard to pick rather than having a everyone be separated by large, clear gaps.


i checked the dictionary and i thought the definitions sucked. but i still think one of the meanings is basically: close in quality/skill/goodness.

m-w has "as good as or better than others of the same kind". i think they're just dumb and should have written more like "as good or better or only slightly worse..." which is the meaning i wanted. i don't think you only say something is competitive if it's equal or better – if it's slightly worse that's also competitive (especially because slightly worse overall, in general, for most contexts or for a cultural default context, still allows for being better in some aspects).

Anonymous at 12:20 PM on October 13, 2015 | #4169
>> If I'm understanding correctly, the specific thing you are rating yourself and L by is capacity to be a universal knowledge creator.
>
>No.

So what does it mean? Heights of what? Heights of knowledge created? Truth created?

Claiming to be #1 at something is meaningless if the thing is not defined. Not defining it is blocking criticism.

Anonymous at 12:01 PM on October 18, 2015 | #4218
heights of all the good things.

not answering something you didn't ask is not blocking criticism.

you brought up some nonsense, so i contradicted.

if you don't understand what i said, can you quote the part you're having trouble with and ask a question that's more meaningful than "i don't get it. write it again" – which gives no guidance about how to write it differently than the first time.

Anonymous at 12:07 PM on October 18, 2015 | #4219

What do you think?

(This is a free speech zone!)