Alfa

As Objectivism notes, everyone leads his life by a philosophy whether he knows it or not, and Rand wasn't the first or last person to favor most aspects of Objectivism. That means there are plenty of people who will jive with you without necessarily identifying why. Then, even after you might think or say, "Wow, we both like this, like doing that together, like how we respond to this and that around each other, perhaps/likely because of these reasons," most moments apart from those explicit identification moments will be enjoyed by how they are naturally experienced. You'll usually just laugh with someone and enjoy it, without identifying explicitly why and only then enjoying youself.
Many people are compatible with Objectivists without identifying as such explicitly themselves. It might help to think of it another way, too: Would you automatically become involved with someone romantically simply because she identifies as an Objectivist?

That's false. Most of the so called pick-up artists are former socially awkward geeks. Now that it's become a business, it's a hodgepodge of sound advice, snake oil and bullshit.
 
 
 

No, I don't agree with that. You will get a lot more women by being a douchebag and treating them like dirt. Especially the really good looking ones.
That doesn't mean you should be a douchebag. It just means you should never think that being nice is a good way to get a woman to like you, more than as a friend.
Everyone can be nice. It's easy. Even cows are nice. It doesn't really mean anything, until you put in context of a strong and confident person.
First off, be proud of who you are. Learn to not give a shit what others think. As long as you're happy with yourself, that's all that matters.
Don't ever lie, cheat, hide or apologize for who you are. Be open and honest - let them take it or leave it.
Should you approach every random girl you find attractive? Well, would you want to? Personally, I wouldn't have time for much else than chasing girls I find attractive. However, it's good to have the balls to do it when you really want to approach someone.
What to say? See, this is really difficult to teach. You need to find things that are true to who you are. Look around for tips and pick out a few that you like, just outside your comfort zone, and go for it. With time you'll learn to wing it.
Personally I just say any stupid thing that comes to mind, try to crash and burn and then somehow make it work. While someone else might get slapped I get them to laugh.

I think it's kitsch. His style looks copied from Maxfield Parrish, but he lacks Parrish's technical proficiency.

I completely agree.
 
You just need to own that story. Be proud and refuse to take any shit for it.
 
In my book you deserve a high-five and a "good job, sir!".

That's utter nonsense. There's nothing in having dominant/submissive roles that makes orgasms the main focal point. The original post however is almost entierly focused on one single aspect of physical stimulation and female orgasms, so who's really making it a focal point?
 
(Caveat: Orgasms ARE important, but sex is not a race to the finish line)

I'll do my best to try to describe what I have done.
 
First and foremost, your carreer is the most important thing in the world. Be ruthless about it. If you already know what's being taught at school you should haul your ass to the library and get at least 20 books on your favorite subjects. Even better, check out the course litterature for college courses you're planning to take.
Make it a point to alway venture into the unknown. Always learn something new and always take on problems you don't know how to solve.
 
When you set high standards for yourself and always strive for excellence, people will notice. Some will not like it. They'll feel threatened and see you as being arrogant. The good ones will be attracted to your drive and passion, and even if they don't understand you they'll support you.
 
Also, you can sell yourself on more than just a personality level. For example, I love to banter, argue, tease and flirt. I do it all the time. People love me for it. It's fun. But, if that's all you have to offer you just become an empty shell.
 
I've done all that at my job. I started at the bottom, just to get a foot in. I saw the opportunity with taking on tasks that were so far above my pay grade it wasn't even funny. Proved to my boss that I could handle it. Got promoted, and learned that I absolutley love solving legal problems and that i'm exceptionally good at it. Read everything I could find in the library, started taking courses at the University. Got promoted again. And, thanks to my employer got admitted to law school. Now I even have some senior lawyers asking for my input at work...
 
There are some who have found that offensive and think that i'm an arrogant prick, which is funny considering i'm a very friendly person. I've made a lot of friends though. Most of them don't really get what drives me, but they're good.
 
With such people I just try to have as much fun as possible. Banter, argue, tease and flirt. We can go out and party like rock stars or take a road trip through Europe. They're not intellectuals though, even if we can have some more interesting conversations.
 
Aside from just having fun I always share my passion for different things. I can talk art, movies, litterature or whatnot. Or share my excitement over some legal matter, which usually just makes people smile and shake their heads.
 
That way I also met one of my best friends. She came in as a new recruit to our team, and she immediatley proved herself to be very intelligent and driven. We're fighting like siblings over the most difficult cases we can get our hands on, arguing over legal matters or having more philosophical discussions We share the same profound excitement over what we do. Friends like that are hard to come by, but they're worth more than everyone else combined.
 
You will find that most people are not like you. It can be an empty and lonely feeling at times. Do the best of the situation. They may not be able to provide you with what you desire the most, but that should not stop you from having fun. Try to direct the conversations towards things you like.Or the interactions towards how you want them to be. Also try to take some interest in others, see what's beneath the surface. Promote the good you see in them.

I'll do my best to try to describe what I have done.
 
First and foremost, your carreer is the most important thing in the world. Be ruthless about it. If you already know what's being taught at school you should haul your ass to the library and get at least 20 books on your favorite subjects. Even better, check out the course litterature for college courses you're planning to take.
Make it a point to alway venture into the unknown. Always learn something new and always take on problems you don't know how to solve.
 
When you set high standards for yourself and always strive for excellence, people will notice. Some will not like it. They'll feel threatened and see you as being arrogant. The good ones will be attracted to your drive and passion, and even if they don't understand you they'll support you.
 
Also, you can sell yourself on more than just a personality level. For example, I love to banter, argue, tease and flirt. I do it all the time. People love me for it. It's fun. But, if that's all you have to offer you just become an empty shell.
 
I've done all that at my job. I started at the bottom, just to get a foot in. I saw the opportunity with taking on tasks that were so far above my pay grade it wasn't even funny. Proved to my boss that I could handle it. Got promoted, and learned that I absolutley love solving legal problems and that i'm exceptionally good at it. Read everything I could find in the library, started taking courses at the University. Got promoted again. And, thanks to my employer got admitted to law school. Now I even have some senior lawyers asking for my input at work...
 
There are some who have found that offensive and think that i'm an arrogant prick, which is funny considering i'm a very friendly person. I've made a lot of friends though. Most of them don't really get what drives me, but they're good.
 
With such people I just try to have as much fun as possible. Banter, argue, tease and flirt. We can go out and party like rock stars or take a road trip through Europe. They're not intellectuals though, even if we can have some more interesting conversations.
 
Aside from just having fun I always share my passion for different things. I can talk art, movies, litterature or whatnot. Or share my excitement over some legal matter, which usually just makes people smile and shake their heads.
 
That way I also met one of my best friends. She came in as a new recruit to our team, and she immediatley proved herself to be very intelligent and driven. We're fighting like siblings over the most difficult cases we can get our hands on, arguing over legal matters or having more philosophical discussions We share the same profound excitement over what we do. Friends like that are hard to come by, but they're worth more than everyone else combined.
 
You will find that most people are not like you. It can be an empty and lonely feeling at times. Do the best of the situation. They may not be able to provide you with what you desire the most, but that should not stop you from having fun. Try to direct the conversations towards things you like.Or the interactions towards how you want them to be. Also try to take some interest in others, see what's beneath the surface. Promote the good you see in them.

Focus on the good in people and shared values.
 
Some of them may be good to have as drinking buddies, or for talking sports. Others may offer a more interesting intellectual exchange.  If you're lucky you'll find a few that are exceptionally good within their chosen field (those people are worth their weight in gold almost no matter what).
 
Next, you should lead by example and promote your values (note, promoting your values does not mean showing Atlas down their throats). Ask yourself how you like to interact with people and what kind of social environment you like to be in. Show that to the people around you and guide them towards that. Show them whats important to you, what makes you tick, your passion and enthusiasm for whatever excites you.
 
Those who share something in common with you will gravitate towards you

It's a false dichotomy to say you can either be nice and friendly, or you can create sexual tension. You can do both. You should be friendly to all people, because it's in your self interest to be a friendly kind of person by default. I've had and continue to have a lot of good fun with sexy play partners and have been nice to every one of them from the get-go. 
 
I don't think I'm saying anything different than you are, or disagreeing with you. I just wanted to emphasize that point.

I think it's a mistake to assume that a "true friendship" is necessarily platonic. Sexual attraction does not have to get in the way of friendship. You can either choose to put that aside and not act on it, become "friends with benefits" or it could also lead to a romantic relationship. Those are all viable options depending on context.

For instance, i'm attracted to my friend. She knows it, because i've told her so. Why would that be a problem? Both are cool with it, plus she's got her husband and I can always find somone else to sleep with.

If you find two people of the opposite sex that are attractive and like each other there's always going to be some sort of sexual attraction. However, there's always the option to just deal with it appropriately.

I was not reffering to when you kissed her. That was the good part. You wanted to kiss her, so you did. Well done. The problem is accepting her "let's just be friends". The proper response would have been: "Um... no.". Don't accept being just friends when you want more. Just tell her straight you want her.


Her confusion, which I doubt, is not your responsibility. If you have an issue, real or inveted, with her behavior, then raise that issue. What you did was you felt(notice the word felt) ignored and pissed. Instead of talking to her you ran away, got drunk and hooked up with another girl.

When you don't show her what you want and don't raise issues you're having with her, she's not going to trust you. That's why she thinks you're dishonest.

The right thing to do is to let her know whats going on with you. Don't put the responsibility of it on her, like "you're causing me to feel this way". Just tell her whats going on: "I feel pissed and ignored". And why wouldn't you put her on the spot 4 days after you kissed? Let her know where you stand on that issue.



Good. Now also notice that the mistake was linked to the previous mistakes. You failed to be straight and dodged the issues, which led to a very poor decision.

I'm not trying to beat you up about it. What's done is done. But, there are important lessons to be learned so you can avoid future mistakes.


Why did you feel that way? She tells you kissing was a mistake and that she wants to be just friends with you. Would it be dishonest not to tell her you kissed someone else? Why? You're just friends, right...?

If you're thinking about it just as friendship you wouldn't have any issue with honesty here. So what if she finds out later? You're just friends!
Atleast I don't tell my female friends when I kiss someone Or, well, sometimes I do but that's because I like to tell them about good events in my life. The issue is, just as aequalsa put it, that you betrayed yourself - not Francis.

I'm not saying it was wrong to tell her. If you wanted to tell her, that's fine. However, there was more to tell. You regard her as more than a friend, something you failed to communicate earlier. That would have been the right thing to tell her: "I hooked up with Julie and we kissed. Now I feel bad about it. I was pissed because I felt rejected. The truth is I really like you and want to be more than just friends".

I was not reffering to when you kissed her. That was the good part. You wanted to kiss her, so you did. Well done. The problem is accepting her "let's just be friends". The proper response would have been: "Um... no.". Don't accept being just friends when you want more. Just tell her straight you want her.


Her confusion, which I doubt, is not your responsibility. If you have an issue, real or inveted, with her behavior, then raise that issue. What you did was you felt(notice the word felt) ignored and pissed. Instead of talking to her you ran away, got drunk and hooked up with another girl.

When you don't show her what you want and don't raise issues you're having with her, she's not going to trust you. That's why she thinks you're dishonest.

The right thing to do is to let her know whats going on with you. Don't put the responsibility of it on her, like "you're causing me to feel this way". Just tell her whats going on: "I feel pissed and ignored". And why wouldn't you put her on the spot 4 days after you kissed? Let her know where you stand on that issue.



Good. Now also notice that the mistake was linked to the previous mistakes. You failed to be straight and dodged the issues, which led to a very poor decision.

I'm not trying to beat you up about it. What's done is done. But, there are important lessons to be learned so you can avoid future mistakes.


Why did you feel that way? She tells you kissing was a mistake and that she wants to be just friends with you. Would it be dishonest not to tell her you kissed someone else? Why? You're just friends, right...?

If you're thinking about it just as friendship you wouldn't have any issue with honesty here. So what if she finds out later? You're just friends!
Atleast I don't tell my female friends when I kiss someone Or, well, sometimes I do but that's because I like to tell them about good events in my life. The issue is, just as aequalsa put it, that you betrayed yourself - not Francis.

I'm not saying it was wrong to tell her. If you wanted to tell her, that's fine. However, there was more to tell. You regard her as more than a friend, something you failed to communicate earlier. That would have been the right thing to tell her: "I hooked up with Julie and we kissed. Now I feel bad about it. I was pissed because I felt rejected. The truth is I really like you and want to be more than just friends".

Well, instead of going to the school for skanks it seems a much better idea to go out and find a sweetheart to practice with.

I would put it a little differently. Anger is "only" an emotion. It can be based on either good or bad premises. When the reason for anger is justified it can be a useful fuel for action.
I agree that supressing/repressing your emotions is bad. However, so is getting overly emotional and acting without clear thinking.
Slightly off-topic:
I have indeed just passed the first phase in the recruiting process. I must say i'm pleasantly surprised by that. The next step is to pass a personality test. This is based on allocating points on a series of statements. Each step has 3 statements and 6 points to allocate. The statements go something like: it's important to work in a good enviroment, have challenging tasks and think outside the box.
Sheesh, is that kind of crapola common in todays market?

Yes, it's immoral to lie. By lying you are evading reality, in this case your boyfriends character. You seem to know what his reaction will be like, while trying to avoid the consequences of telling him the truth. Think about what effect that attitude will have on your relationship in the long run.

I suggest you tell him straight. Then deal with it. Either you'll come to terms with each other, or it will cause a break. The important thing though is that you deal with each other as who you are, and not how you wish the other person would be.

Yes, it's immoral to lie. By lying you are evading reality, in this case your boyfriends character. You seem to know what his reaction will be like, while trying to avoid the consequences of telling him the truth. Think about what effect that attitude will have on your relationship in the long run.

I suggest you tell him straight. Then deal with it. Either you'll come to terms with each other, or it will cause a break. The important thing though is that you deal with each other as who you are, and not how you wish the other person would be.

How so?

Do you mean that because I have loved and had sex with others in the past, all my future relationships will be lesser than they could have been? That's certainly not how I value things.

Here's what Ayn Rand has to say about it:

"Like any other value, love is not a static quantity to be divided, but an unlimited response to be earned. The love for one friend is not a threat to the love for another, and neither is the love for the various members of one’s family, assuming they have earned it. "

"Love is the expression of one’s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another. "

Notice the last part, "the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person...", i'd say that love itself is not the currency. The currency is virtue, and love is the response to that. It's not a limited respons either, it's not like if you are surrounded by a lot of virtuous people that suddenly you would not have the capacity to love all of them, or that somehow the love gets watered down.

However, one thing that would diminish the meaning of love is if there's a lack of virtue - which of course is a problem with promiscuous people.


Do you know what her emotional state was like, and how do you know it? Also, are you implying that she let emotions cloud her judgement?

Another thing that really rubs me the wrong way are statements like "if Ayn Rand had lived... she would have...". That's pure speculation that makes it sound like she would have taken your side "if only...". A more honest and straightforward way to put it is; "I think she made a mistake here. Period.".

Personally I havent read that much about the break with the Brandens. One thing I do know however is that Nathaniel Brandens own homepage is filled with dishonesty, misreprestations and straw-man arguments of Objectivism. That makes me sincerly doubt the mans integrity and what a fine Objectivist he is.

Sounds like good advice, thank you! I'll take some time to think about the broader context, and reconsider my attitude.

In this case I might add that going over my bosses head is the reason why I still have my job. The short version of it is like this:

I'm back with an employer i've had several times in the past. I've always loved working there, and they've loved having me. However, there have been different things coming in the way of a more permanent contract - a question of timing, more than anything else. This time though, the timing was right and I made it very clear to my (new) boss that I wish to stay after my contract runs out. The answer I get from my boss is that he would love to have me stay there, but unfortunately they have deals with the union saying that they need to have a formal recruiting process, where everyone can apply for the job. The next time for that would be a few months ahead.

Just before my contract ran out I learned that it wasn't quite as i've been told. And to add insult to injury they were taking in a bunch of new guys, people who are not even dry behind the ears and whos mistakes i've been fixing for months. I don't think it was out of dishonesty I got that answer from my boss, but simply because he doesn't understand the rules. There are in fact obstacles like a formal recruiting process in the way. However, they could have extended my current contract. My boss should also have talked to the guys higher up in the hierarchy, but since he failed to report they were completely taken by surprise when I talked to them and showed interest.

When I found out I went straight to one of the executives and my bosses boss. The next day I had an extended contract, they put me on an additional training program and I was told that at the end of this they would have a very informal recruiting pretty much intended to get me in.

I was very happy about this until I found out they changed the deal. As it looks right now they would rather take in new people than me. I don't quite fit their profile, despite the fact that i'm performing superlatively, and the first step of the recruiting process is done by external consultants who won't consider any references(i.e the fact that I have an excellent track record is not worth sh*t in their eyes).

This friday I confronted my boss with this. When confronted he was cringing, couldn't look at me, and gave his standard answer whenever something important comes up; "Oh, um... i'll have to look into this, but you know I have so many things to do so I don't know when i'll have the time...". I made it very clear that I expect him to do his job and that I want answers yesterday. I don't think we will be friends anymore. It's fine with me, though I do wish things will go smooth.

What i'm going to do now is to deal with the others. So far i've gotten a very positive impression of them, so i'm hoping it will be smooth and uncomplicated. I just need to be careful not to take out my frustration on them, and handle any problems calmly.


I'm usually just your friendly neighbourhood spiderman. I prefer to just do my thing while being nice and friendly to others. Should conflicts arise they are usually not important enough to fight over, so in such cases I just let my disagreement be known and leave it at that. However, if it's important and someone crosses the line I charge forward and never back down. I such cases I just don't care who's in my way - it's not in me to fear anyone, and certainly not an undeserved authority.

I think the problem is that i'm focusing very strictly at what I see as being at stake. This job is my highest value, i'm very proud of what i've achieved there, and it matters to me in more ways than just being a job. I've met some truly amazing people there and grown tremendously over the years, so I feel at home and at peace when i'm working. I've done other things in the past, had other jobs, and i've enjoyed them alot. But at the end of the day, all i've wished for is to get back there, grab a cup of coffee and sit down at my desk and get to work.

So, when i'm facing this kind of BS, that's what I see as being at stake. Hell, it's even more than that. I have plans on going through law school while working there, and it's a perfect place to be for a law student. Not only am I dealing with legal matters every day, there are also excellent carreer opportunities there.

That's why I get so upset. But as you accurately point out, what would I really get out of it? Reasoning is the best way to deal with people.

Here's a topic I thought i'd never make. I'm usually calm and collected, and if I loose my temper I still keep it under control. Lately though, some events have brought me to righteous anger of biblical proportions. If I don't get a hold of myself this could in turn damage my relationships with some people.

I don't wish to go into any detail about the actual events. It's too complex and rather irrelevant. In short though, because of incompetence and bureaucracy I could be loosing my job soon. Not because of anything i've done. On the contrary, i'm extremely good at what I do and appreciated by everyone I work with. However, i'm getting screwed by incompetent bosses and bureaucratic management. It's nothing personal against me, i'm just the guy taking the consequences of their mess.

I love my job so this is very important to me, which is also why i'm so furious. I intend, of course, to take this as far up in the hierarchy as I have to - hopefully finding someone that can be reasoned with.

To do this though, I need to keep my head clear. And hell, yesterday I was pretty much reading my boss the riot act and issuing orders. Not very diplomatic, though he's one less obstacle in my way.

The problem is when dealing with others. I need to keep my head clear even if they give me trouble. But, how do I do that? I mean, hell, just thinking about some of the things makes me shake and want to rip someones head off. And that's pretty darn bad if you want someone to listen and convince them of how good you are.

So, do you have any good advice to offer? How do you handle situations like this? Should I try meditation or horse tranquilizers, or what?

You call that weak 2D skills? Wonder how your 3D drawings look like then...

Great job!

Can you post the reference?

So I just finished "Humor in The Fountainhead," from Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, and its caused me to think some more about humor, a subject I hadn't given too much serious thought to. My purpose here is just to share some thoughts and hopefully hear others' thoughts on the subject.

In the essay, Rand is quoted as making the following two statements:





Upon first reading these, I found myself disagreeing strongly with both of them. My opinion is and has been that the ability to laugh at oneself demonstrates health and good-naturedness. In thinking about it, and reading through the essay and a few more of Rand's statements on humor, I find that these views are actually very easily reconcilable with my own. Consider this statement by Rand:



In the essay, Robert Mayhew distinguishes between benevolent and malicious humor. Benevolent humor is basically humor aimed at objects which deserve scorn and ridicule, while malicious humor is aimed at objects which deserve respect and reverence. Thus, benevolent humor belittles the metaphysical importance of bad things, while malevolent humor belittles the importance of good things. Now, humor which is aimed at one's own achievements, or more generally one's own positive values, is obviously malicious humor. Laughing at oneself in the sense of laughing at these things is indeed bad. However, in thinking about it, that is not at all what I picture when I think of 'the ability to laugh at oneself.'

Consider someone who slips and falls, or misspeaks in some absurd way, or makes an obvious error in a presentation. In all of these situations, I am inclined to think of the person who can 'laugh it off' as good-natured. I would contrast this with the image of the person who, when something like this happens, blusters and attempts to 'save face.' Obviously, this second person is primarily concerned with others' impressions of him rather than the actual error or accident. Such second-handedness is clearly not an appropriate attitude.

But what is the first individual doing? First of all, he is acknowledging the reality of the accident or mistake. Furthermore, he is (in Rand's characterization) belittling its importance by laughing at it. Self-deprecating humor, in this case, is not aimed at ones values, but rather at one's mistakes. This form of humor is indicative of genuine self-esteem; the person in question is acknowledging the reality of his own thoughts and actions (an essential first step for genuine self-esteem) and is able to casually dismiss errors with a laugh. There is no attempt to pretend for the sake of others' opinions that the error was not made; rather, it is acknowledged and then moved on from.

In my experience, the majority of instances of self-deprecating humor fall into this latter category of laughing off a mistake. Thus, while it is true that actually cutting oneself down with humor also undoubtedly occurs, the everyday understanding of 'laughing at oneself,' (at least what I think is the prevalent understanding of it) is a healthy practice, one which should be celebrated.

Not at all. I think most Objectivist are very well meaning people. They are just misinformed and misguided. So your claim that we are just trying to demonize you does not hold true for me. I'm saying when ideas start to fail in practice for someone, even if they are correct ideas, it can push that person, depending on their circumstances, into behaving in erratic ways. For instance, would the killer have shot up all those people if Giffords had lost re-election?

I'm not here to demonize you. I am here to say things Objectivism would interpret as blasphemous and then defend them. I think the basic edifice of Objectivism is based on certain untruths. Namely, that we are all "entitled" to the full results of our
"production" and no other adult is regardless of their situation. There are situations where you or I are NOT entitled to the full production of our "effort" regardless of how much we worked for it or how little others were involved in their acquisition.

I think this practice Objectivists are advocating of proclaiming the totality of everything they acquire from the Earth whether through inheritance or effort as "mine" is ego driven, not reality driven. The reality, again, being we are here to survive as a species and group, not just as individuals. We are a family. Families don't cut others off because they are unable to work (or even unwilling) to exert effort as we are. Work itself, employment by others, is a relatively newly introduced construct to the Earth only to be found in humanity. There is no "employment" in the other animal species and still in some pre-modern human tribes. They all, whether alone or in cooperative groups, just go about collecting what they need for themselves from what is directly provided by their natural environment. Humans are the only species that have corrupted this natural fulfillment of survival needs by introducing a "middle man" (a dependency) between ourselves and the natural world. This practice of going through a "middle man" to obtain what we once could acquire ourselves directly from our environment has overtaken the planet and, whether through corruption of the environment or corruption of our minds, has removed us as individuals further and further from direct contact with our natural supplier, the Earth.

Absolutley, I think he's one of those guys who make it look like and actual sport and not WWE wrestling. He seems to always be respectful and gracious. It's like...

Outside the ring:


And inside the ring: