Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Aristotle and the science

    The essential question remains unanswered: Has Aristotle essentially favored or retarded science?
  3. Is "groupthink" an anti-concept?

    It seems that the social psychologists in the '70s were puzzled by groups of very intelligent men who made seemingly horrible, stupid decisions. Note that, originally, "groupthink" applied to the best and brightest professionals in the government and military. We're talking about CIA agents, military intelligence officers, President Kennedy and his advisors, etc. And later it was applied to smart and successful businessmen responsible for catastrophes like Enron. There was never an assumption that the "groupthinkers" were mouth-breathing, bottom-of-the-barrel, non-thinking idiots. Janis was dealing with a real conundrum: what went wrong with the decision-making and how do we solve it? Unfortunately, I suspect that his solution was to evade objective inquiry and focus on another construct called "concurrence-seeking," which apparently people do when they want to feel group solidarity. The implication, I suppose, is that group members don't realize they are "concurrence-seeking," so regulations must be put in place to counter this psychological tendency. For example, army intelligence employs a practice called red-teaming, which is a separate group whose purpose is to attack the main group's position. Kind of like a required devil's advocate. As an Objectivist, I believe the root problem is most likely the collectivist-altruist philosophy driving every move the group makes, not some imagined notion of "concurrence-seeking."
  4. Grames, the point is that there is no -rational- reply to discussions on race. Using a phrase made by neo-Nazis ("it's okay to be white") would willfully ignore the clear philosophical roots. Part of their means is to use benign-sounding phrases without calling for critical thinking on race. They would rather claim "white pride" is just as valid as "black pride". The rational reply is to say the deep errors of racial pride, and pointing out the arbitrariness of race as a classifier. No one here would say there is an original sin of a race - we'd all rather eliminate racism. You're good about epistemology, but it looks like you are taking one bite out of the alt-right message until one day you'll be the Heidegger of Objectivism. You posting an image without explanation suggests you are throwing away rational discussion on race. Wouldn't you rather engage an argument or tell us your own position?
  5. Truth as Disvalue

    Inquiring minds are waiting.
  6. Private Property-Who Does It Belong to Anyway?

    You guys are amazing!
  7. Private Property-Who Does It Belong to Anyway?

    Supreme Court of Connecticut decision affirmed. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. As if the desire for more cows justifies cattle rustling. The arrival of Atlantis presupposes a context in which the consent for the transfer of a domain is acquiesced by its particular eminent.
  8. Private Property-Who Does It Belong to Anyway?

    No, Atlantis does not exist. Do you think it should, in some form? I do....
  9. Private Property-Who Does It Belong to Anyway?

    Very interesting answer. Of course you got the clear insight into this question. Problem is how do we fix it? Atlantis does not yet exist, or does it?
  10. Private Property-Who Does It Belong to Anyway?

    Many people like to believe that America is a free country that respects individual rights. Those who are a bit more knowledgeable realize that this isn't true but believe that it once was. But neither view can survive an examination of the facts. We always have been subjects, not citizens, and no amount of rhetoric -- or willful blindness -- can change that fact. See slavery. Disenfranchised people, especially women. Taxes, Eminent domain. The contingent and limited nature of rights, as interpreted by the Supreme Court -- in contrast to the absolute nature of government powers, as interpreted by that same court. I could go on for a long time, just listing subjects, never mind elaborating on them. Indians. The internment of the Japanese -- ratified by that court. The near nullification of habeas corpus. Oh never mind.... Lying local governments is the least of our problems..... In any case, to answer the topic: No, you don't own your property, the government does in every way that matters. See the Kelo decision.....
  11. Yesterday
  12. Private Property-Who Does It Belong To Anyway? If you recognize that a person has the right to live their own life then you must out of necessity recognize the right of a person to hold, give away, remove, regulate or sell private property as an owner sees fit. These two principles (the right to life and property) are inseparable. They have been the preeminent trait of American ideals since the founders of the nation signed the document of independence which separated us from the innumerable morose philosophies of the rest of the world. To deny these two principles of rights renders such persons as a meer stewards of the state. You may have bought you home, car, furniture etc. with your own money but the state may dispose of these possessions whenever or wherever it desires (without warning or permission) as is the case of millions of people living under rights denying totalitarian regimes. Let me provide a small example from a fictitious little town located somewhere USA. This town has a project going to replace worn, corroded and leaky sewer pipes within city limits. In order to lay new pipes the town must dig 6~10 to the right a main road intruding on private property. However most of the public would agree that the town has the right of egress to repair, prevent and eliminate public hazards with these limits. What the public would not agree is while performing this project, the city destroys homeowners driveways, expensive fixtures, garden beds and other private outways without a promise to repair any damage performed by the project.The damage stands for months with the public involved asking for but not getting any relief. The most they receive are vague promises that the town administration will deal with the damage caused at a later date...so on and so forth. Here is the problem: does the town own the right to your private property to ignore your requests for relief? If so does the town consider you just a steward in the way of “their” property without said rights? Are your taxes you pay on your property just a way to invade your wallet without care or responsibility? If so then the charter of rights Americans are said to have is just a sham, a trick and a “slight of hand” you.” This is what is called “creeping statism”, the kind when you wake up some time in the near future wondering what happened to you your family your property and your country! If private property turns out to, as it seems today, be but an annex to the state then the whole institution of Americanism falls by the wayside! Somehow we have lost our way and now serve a new principle that we, the people are servants of the government and not the other way around. Is this the kind of America that we and our children have to look forward too! I sincerely hope not, for me, for you, for our small fictitious town and for America!
  13. The Law of Identity

    Interesting points, I don't know, we need further discussions on these points
  14. I don't think of "group" as identifying anything other than "non-individual." "Group" is only used because more than one person is required to create a big enough buzz to influence passive acceptance.
  15. The Greatest Salesman On Earth

    Haven't ordered (or looked in the local brick -n- mortars), but I did locate this as further motivation.
  16. Is "groupthink" an anti-concept?

    ...kind of. It still needs to be checked in some (or many) ways against what you already know from your own experiences and thinking. Presumably the server of a valid conclusion has already integrated the material properly, and presents it in such a way that the recipients can integrate it on the basis of their own experiences and thinking.
  17. Is "groupthink" an anti-concept?

    How about this.... "Groupthink" suggests that a man's opinion is not worth taking seriously because the group to which he belongs is deemed irrational. Since he is part of the irrational group, he must be irrational too and not open to reason. The term "groupthink" would therefore function as a replacement for moral evaluation of an individual's mind. Indeed the social constructionist would need such a concept in order to judge another's rational faculty, because being a subjectivist he has no way of knowing what that other individual is thinking in his own head. But that person's thoughts are clearly manifested in his group's actions. So if his group acts irrationally, that means he's no good too.
  18. Those are good questions. "Groupthink" is just a version of what Rand termed "blanking out." If we could figure out how to get people to stop doing that, the world would be even more amazing than it already is. ...kind of. It still needs to be checked in some (or many) ways against what you already know from your own experiences and thinking. If you find a source of information with a great track record, you still only know the conclusions which you can prove to yourself. In fact, you had to prove to yourself the reasons the source has had a great record.
  19. Is "groupthink" an anti-concept?

    Is it actually passive acceptance if you have to identify the loudest, longest, most socially acceptable idea? How do you determine what's socially acceptable if you don't care about the truth? And why bother if you're not even interested in consideration?
  20. How Valuable Is Your Attention?

    How much of your attention have you invested in issues that are really important to you? How have you cultivated the organization of your attention? How much of your attention is invested in knee jerk reactions? How much attention is invested in things that are not important? How much attention have you invested into self awareness? How much attention have you invested in things that ought to be more important to you? How much context can you hold?
  21. Is "groupthink" an anti-concept?

    In the battle for the mind, how does "groupthink" factor in? Each individual mind needs to do the work independently to arrive at a valid conclusion. The exchange of ideas can help to reduce the amount of time to discover valid conclusions, or conversely it can hinder reaching a valid conclusion. In order to streamline the process, those committed to such a task need establish the veracity of their idea(s) prior bringing them to the table. When a valid conclusion is served properly, it can then be consumed on the basis of its own merits.
  22. The Law of Identity

    A is A helps draw the focus to defining exactly what A is. It is natural human curiosity to perceive a barrier and challenge it. I am a human, my plumbing will work with the plumbing in either bathroom. At times the line to the women's is too long, and if I feel safe I will slip into a vacant mens restroom. I won't however go into the mens bathroom at a sleazy bar because of the risk that an ape with his frontal cortex offline will get the wrong idea, also it stinks of beer piss. Can you define why restrooms are segregated in the first place? Safety. I have met trans people in the women's bathroom and never felt threatened. If you want a little perspective... every male I have known who has ever walked around in women's clothing has much more empathy toward women's safety than the average man does. You can choose to believe Trans people are immoral for defying their "true" identity, but I think the identification of human is much more a priority than the lesser identification of male/female. If you believe being a trans person disqualifies their self from being defined and treated as human please elaborate. What about your own self identification is challenged when another person identifies differently? i.e why is white maleness so threatened by the increasing self assertions of the other 6 billion people on the planet? Will you make it your mission to harass any trans person who takes an interest in objectivism? Should a trans person who is interested in objectivism refrain from making it known?
  23. For this same reason sexual harassment and sexual assault shouldn't be uttered in the same breath.
  24. An article in today's National Review Online takes up this point. The author says that treating all offenses alike (Franken's along with much worse acts by Clinton and Moore) risks aiding the feminist line that virtually everybody (everybody male, anyway) a rapist.
  25. I use groupthink to mean: Passive acceptance of the loudest, longest, or most socially acceptable ideas with little to no consideration nor care about the actual truth, independent of whether discovering the truth would be easy; Lack of consideration with no care. It doesn't matter from whom the ideas stem, the key is that they fall on deaf ears. Effort to convince with new ideas is futile, because the groupthinker is not interested in consideration.
  26. In 1972 social psychologist Irving Janis coined the term "groupthink" to describe a psychological phenomenon in which a person accepts irrational decisions in the name of group loyalty. Put another way, some collectives make bad choices when their members value group harmony over expressing unpopular positions. This is particularly the case when the most vocal elements are also the least intelligent. While the basic idea sounds plausible, I'm troubled by its usage. Janis used it to attack major military decisions, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion and not protecting Pearl Harbor in WW2, which he considered monumentally stupid and clear examples of "groupthink" at work. It seems like the word "groupthink" is typically used to disrupt or stop consideration of other explanations for such bad decision-making. In fact the label "groupthink" is applied based on an assessment of the final outcome and not on the persuasive arguments and choices made by those originally involved in the decision. And if someone begins talking about those arguments and choices, he is accused of wasting his time on "groupthinkers." It smells like an anti-concept to me. There is also this belief that engaging in debate with "groupthinkers" is not productive. But this assumes that all of the members in the opposing group are happy with their group. I submit that the most intelligent ones are probably not very happy if they have to submit to the dumb ones. And it might be worth trying to find and recruit them.
  1. Load more activity
×