[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

Messages (30 of 330) (Show All Comments)

>> 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 | reply | quote

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 | reply | quote

> 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 | reply | quote

>> 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 | reply | quote

> 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 | reply | quote

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 | reply | quote

So because you can't answer my question you assert yourself correct?

Anti-scholar.


Anonymous at 4:06 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3799 | reply | quote

> 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 | reply | quote

> 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 | reply | quote

> 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 | reply | quote

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 | reply | quote

> 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 | reply | quote

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 | reply | quote

it's james carter arguing with his boyfriend jacob williams


Anonymous at 6:13 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3808 | reply | quote

nobody on this blog has any standards ...


Anonymous at 11:53 PM on October 8, 2015 | #3813 | reply | quote

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 | reply | quote

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 | reply | quote

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 | reply | quote

> 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 | reply | quote

> 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 | reply | quote

> 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 | reply | quote

>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 | reply | quote

> 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 | reply | quote

> 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 | reply | quote

>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 | reply | quote

> 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 | reply | quote

>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 | reply | quote

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 | reply | quote

>> 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 | reply | quote

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 | reply | quote

Want to discuss this? Join my forum.

(Due to multi-year, sustained harassment from David Deutsch and his fans, commenting here requires an account. Accounts are not publicly available. Discussion info.)