The Proper Means of Communication

[DonAthos]

Till now, I think I've tried to make the case that some means serve conversational ends (such as persuasion) better than others, and that among these means are "tact" (or "diplomacy," or "civility") and, though I did not name it in my last post, I would add "patience."

There is more that could be said on these topics -- and I plan on saying more over time -- but for now I just wanted to say that I think that learning how better to hold discourse is not an incidental topic. I think it's an important subject, for those who want to live in a world more characterized by reason.

Those who have recently remarked on the size of this forum in particular... I think that these subjects are related. I believe that insufficient attention paid to the context of conversation -- why and how we talk to one another -- has had an effect on the growth of the community. Speaking more broadly, I think this subject speaks to the penetration of Objectivism in the wider world.

Objectivism has reason and reality on its side. Of all philosophy and religion, Objectivism has the remarkable advantage of being correct. If I were in business and I had the best product on the market (the only product in its category which actually works, no less), but I was failing to achieve any significant market penetration, I would start to wonder about my marketing and sales efforts. Are we doing a good job in communicating the message? I would ask. Can we do better?

I ask the same question of Objectivists, insofar as there is any interest in communication. To be clear, I don't insist that any man has the job of changing the world. But if Ayn Rand had any interest in showing others that there is a better way -- and I would argue that she did -- then I suspect that there are some of us who likewise have a similar interest, and who occasionally take some action to achieve it. When we do take action, can we do better?

I say that we can, possibly in a few ways, and through this thread I say that we can do better by looking at how we communicate. I think that incorporating greater tact and patience in discourse will serve our persuasive ends and, speaking broadly, help to make the world a better place for us to live in.

[Devil's Advocate]

For my part, I will attempt to practice brevity and remaining on topic

[Plasmatic]

DA

"Equal game"

I mean that in the sense that it is meant in relation to hunting. Hunting bear out of season or during squirrel season, or on anthers property, is not equal to hunting during bear season on your own property etc..

Edit: this relates to Hebdo. His cartoons weren't being posted in mosques but in his own venue. That is the heart of the difference.

Also, how do you square Ms. Rand's comment:

I want to be known as the greatest champion of reason and the greatest enemy of religion.'"

With your interpretation of Ms. Rand's comment about militant atheism? Edited January 24, 2015 by Plasmatic

[Plasmatic]

Probably a necessary discussion would be on the topic of "Truth and Toleration" and "Fact and Value" as relates to the OP.

[Repairman]

Objectivism has reason and reality on its side. Of all philosophy and religion, Objectivism has the remarkable advantage of being correct. If I were in business and I had the best product on the market (the only product in its category which actually works, no less), but I was failing to achieve any significant market penetration, I would start to wonder about my marketing and sales efforts. Are we doing a good job in communicating the message? I would ask. Can we do better?

 

This is the most significant remark I've seen so far, regarding the promotion of an idea as important as Objectivism. That is why one of my earliest statements on this thread made clear the importance of being correct from the beginning. Facts can be flawed; apologies can be made. But if the subject is one that merits a thorough airing, it is best to be on the right side of the argument, and to have the convictions of knowing it. Objectivism is an idea that ought to be more popular. But it can't be sold as a typical commodity. It is an idea that is not going to be welcomed by the majority of people for reasons discussed on other threads. It's not for everyone. I do hope that will change soon, before it's too late.

[Devil's Advocate]

DA

"Equal game"

I mean that in the sense that it is meant in relation to hunting. Hunting bear out of season or during squirrel season, or on anthers property, is not equal to hunting during bear season on your own property etc..

Edit: this relates to Hebdo. His cartoons weren't being posted in mosques but in his own venue. That is the heart of the difference.

Also, how do you square Ms. Rand's comment:

With your interpretation of Ms. Rand's comment about militant atheism?

 

Thank you for the clarification, and I square Ms. Rand's comment as consistent in spirit with those expressed earlier in Paine's Age of Reason and several of Jefferson's remarks about religion in general and its relationship to reason in particular.

[Eiuol]

Admittedly, my experience with Objectivists are limited, but my general observation is that they're either extremely kind and patient people, or people with nasty social habits and trying to "win". Now, this is on the Internet, and context may impact how one appears. Even still, behaviors I've seen on FB, this forum, reddit, etc, are like that. Poor behavior isn't justified in either case, even if it's only one context. Sure, the entire Internet has such people, but to me it seems that Objectivists are at major risk for nasty social behavior towards those who disagree. Then ride up the moral outrage to justify that behavior, hiding behind "judge and prepare to be judged" as a free pass to melodrama, or for turning into a diva when judged back (vicious circle), or for simply being mean.

If we want to talk about communication style and means of communication, we all need examples of the bad. Without fear of it being a "hate off". In recent memory, there was RobertBoratheon I'd say as a combative poster. And Nicky wins the forum record for the combative type and terrible or even unwillingness for tact. Again, I'm not saying that to get people or even Nicky riled up, I'm saying it to present a notable example of why this comes up as a topic anyway, and as a way to be honestly critical.

In any case, Objectivism doesn't have an "advantage of being right", so we can't compare it to a product. The ideas may  be wrong, or right. That's not really the point. Communication needs quality of rhetoric too in order to get a message to be evaluated as right! Especially as an egoist philosophy, if the interaction is stressful, annoying, or mean, there's really no point left to engage in for anyone's sake.

Another issue is interest, though. Politics is big as a topic, so that part may appeal. But how do you get a person to care about egoism primarily?

Perhaps relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle

[DonAthos]

Probably a necessary discussion would be on the topic of "Truth and Toleration" and "Fact and Value" as relates to the OP.

I hadn't considered that there would be any particular relationship between what I've been talking about and those essays. But presumably you have something specific in mind?

Again, I defer to you as knowing that material better than I, and likely by far. The only thing that occurs to me off the top of my head is to say that I'm not talking about "sanctioning evil," or deciding to talk to people that one would not otherwise morally talk to -- or at least, I don't think that's what I'm talking about. Rather, that once one has made the moral decision to engage in discourse, or argue persuasively, that one should suit his means as best as he can towards those ends.

But maybe you mean something else? I await your insight.

 

Objectivism is an idea that ought to be more popular. But it can't be sold as a typical commodity. It is an idea that is not going to be welcomed by the majority of people for reasons discussed on other threads. It's not for everyone. I do hope that will change soon, before it's too late.

I disagree that Objectivism is not for everyone. You're right that it will not be welcomed by others -- initially. But that's always the case for some new idea; it must first overcome initial resistance. For if everyone were already Objectivists, we'd have little to talk about here, and those who aren't yet Objectivists surely must have some reason for their current beliefs.

But what we know is that, despite what they currently may think, it would yet be better for them to abandon false ideas and embrace true ones.

The Rand quote Plasmatic provided, "I want to be known as the greatest champion of reason and the greatest enemy of religion," is a powerful one. As far as I can tell, Objectivism is the greatest enemy of religion (because it is the greatest champion of reason). This does not make it the greatest enemy of the religious, however, or even an enemy at all, when properly understood. For Objectivism proposes to the religious that all is not yet lost, and that there is a better way.

Reason is man's greatest benefactor, to a man.

 

Admittedly, my experience with Objectivists are limited, but my general observation is that they're either extremely kind and patient people, or people with nasty social habits and trying to "win". Now, this is on the Internet, and context may impact how one appears. Even still, behaviors I've seen on FB, this forum, reddit, etc, are like that. Poor behavior isn't justified in either case, even if it's only one context.

My own experiences, both online and in person, are not very dissimilar. From further experiences in other communities, I have come to regard Objectivists as by-and-large having a "rep" for... somewhat surly behavior. It is an obstacle I find I often have to overcome in conversation.

Who we are, and how we behave -- even here -- radiates.

 

Sure, the entire Internet has such people, but to me it seems that Objectivists are at major risk for nasty social behavior towards those who disagree. Then ride up the moral outrage to justify that behavior, hiding behind "judge and prepare to be judged" as a free pass to melodrama, or for turning into a diva when judged back (vicious circle), or for simply being mean.

If there are hidden (or explicitly held) premises which lead some Objectivists to conclude that there is some virtue in being mean, I hope to draw those premises out in this thread.

Obviously Objectivists have some point of disagreement with all those who are not Objectivists. There must be some way of expressing and exploring the majority of such disagreements, in the context of discourse, with civility if not bonhomie. I think this is vital for persuasive efforts, for all of the reasons thus far cited.

 

If we want to talk about communication style and means of communication, we all need examples of the bad. Without fear of it being a "hate off".

While I appreciate your fearlessness, I'd really rather this not descend into an exercise in fingerpointing -- or, yeah, a "hate off."

And though I'm sure we all have personal examples which come to mind when we speak of "rudeness" or "incivility," I'm equally sure that we're all guilty of those things from time to time. Or if not, I know that I am at least. Furthermore, my current perspective on these matters has been dearly won, and especially over the years I've spent as an Objectivist. I haven't always embraced tact, and thus I've been able to observe firsthand what a difference it makes, both to my internal experiences and to the effects I've seemingly had externally.

But I'm perfectly willing to implicate my former self if that means being a better soul from here on out, and I'd likewise like to extend the same courtesy to anyone else who might agree. I suspect that this sort of invitation is best served by discussing these matters in the abstract. Because if I'm right, then this doesn't necessarily come down to the "good Objectivists" versus the bad apples; we can all come to appreciate what is good, and embrace it, in reason.

No time like the present for being better.

[Repairman]

 

I disagree that Objectivism is not for everyone. You're right that it will not be welcomed by others -- initially. But that's always the case for some new idea; it must first overcome initial resistance. For if everyone were already Objectivists, we'd have little to talk about here, and those who aren't yet Objectivists surely must have some reason for their current beliefs.

But what we know is that, despite what they currently may think, it would yet be better for them to abandon false ideas and embrace true ones.

 

Don, if everyone were an Objectivist, there would still be matters of disagreement. And that's why this forum remains a personal choice of time for me. I fully agree there are people with other beliefs, much more popular beliefs, such as duty to others. I believe it is in the nature of some people to be more altruistic than others. For such people, they will not only resist, but insist that Objectivism is wrong, even of they don't understand it. As for the advantage of being right, I believe it is, for reasons Ayn Rand uses in her explanation. At best, I can only put it to practice. I have little ambition to advocate for it, unless the person with whom I'm in a conversation appears intelligent enough to handle the truth.

[DonAthos]

Don, if everyone were an Objectivist, there would still be matters of disagreement.

Yes, you're right. To clarify, I was speaking specifically to the immediate context of persuading a non-Objectivist of Objectivism. I didn't mean to imply that there are no disagreements among Objectivists (to which this forum stands as ample proof).

[Plasmatic]

Repairman said:

I have little ambition to advocate for it, unless the person with whom I'm in a conversation appears intelligent enough to handle the truth.

Ms. Rand once wondered in her journals if honesty was central to intelligence. I'm convinced it is. The problem seems to lay in the reliance of honesty on self esteem. With so little being cultivated in children its a huge battle to undo so much psychological injustice. Insecurity is the largest enemy of truth.

Edit: what makes an inquirer under heavy emotional stress evaluate the intellectual content of what is conceived to be a threat and interrupt that signal of unfactual emotion for the beauty of the light of understanding, is self esteem-respect.

If anyone wants to tell me how to best improve the above edit syntactically is welcome to PM me. Its a huge run on...

Edited January 25, 2015 by Plasmatic

[Repairman]

Plasmatic,

I'd be happy to help you clarify your statement above, but I have to admit, I don't understand its intended meaning. Perhaps I could clarify my statement.

 

I believe Objectivism, and/or the teachings of Ayn Rand could be of enormous benefit to the world at large. But the world really is too large for this old man to save. I have a continuing exchange of ideas with a few friends and my son, wherein I offer an Objectivist point of view, whenever appropriate. But the overwhelming vast majority of people I interact with are, shall we say, of the anti-conceptual variety.

 

In my creative moments, I have expressed my views of life as it ought to be, in the AR school of thought. But how far can an intellectual, amateur or professional, extend one's self in the futile act of attempting to persuading those vast numbers of indifferent individuals? They really need to arrive at the levels of higher understanding of their own volition.

[dream_weaver]

As an interjection, the Objective Communication course, referenced earlier in this thread, is being freely offered at the Ayn Rand Institute Campus. Ok, not exactly free. It will cost you 1965 minutes (32.75 hours) to listen to it once.

[dream_weaver]

I wish you didn't take the time to write this explanation.

I'm thankful that you took the time to write this one. I would be remiss if I did not take the time to acknowledge it here.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

How ought we talk to one another?

That depends on why we talk to one another. Even on this thread one can find people playing tennis in multiple metaphorical courts, with wildly different goals. Why dictates how.

I think there's room for some satire in intellectual discourse, though. It clears the air and sort of resets things, when everyone's minds are starting to turn to insults- if it's done right.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Mark Twain once said "It's better to be silent, and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." It's odd how often I'll remember that, immediately after opening my mouth.

[dream_weaver]

Mark Twain once said "It's better to be silent, and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." It's odd how often I'll remember that, immediately after opening my mouth.

Are you sure that wasn't Abe Lincoln? Is the underlying trend, in such a tactic, for the altruistic to try and "shame" the moral into silence by such absurdities?

While a fool may reveal themselves as one under such circumstances, those who ride the fence of moral uncertainty can remain silenced by that uncertainty as well.

 

Understanding the solid footing that a firm philosophical stance on morality provides, can help to distinguish between the Abe Lincolns that may be trying to buy your silence, and the Mark Twains that may be trying to unleash the minds prejudices, thus unlocking the potentials therein.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Is the underlying trend, in such a tactic, for the altruistic to try and "shame" the moral into silence by such absurdities?

Not so much as the moral tend to discover too late that they should've put more thought into their statements than they actually did.

[Anuj]

Mark Twain once said "It's better to be silent, and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." It's odd how often I'll remember that, immediately after opening my mouth.

 

Not so much as the moral tend to discover too late that they should've put more thought into their statements than they actually did.

 

I can make out two statements from the quotes above :

1. Think before you speak and
2. If you've a question or if you are going to speak of something which you don't understand completely, be quiet else risk being labelled a fool.

While I agree with the first, the second looks more of an attitude of a person who is wanting to keep up an external appearance. 

[Anuj]

In the institute where I teach every weekend, every class has a mixture of kids: there are those who do exceptionally well; those who don't care and then those who care but don't understand and yet won't question as they feel ashamed around their friends. Why should asking questions or wanting to gain more knowledge be shameful ? 

 

I think the culprit for such an attitude in kids are parents themselves. Rather than teaching kids to 'question when in doubt' and 'find answers sometimes on their own', parents force their kids to 'obey and listen'. 

[softwareNerd]

I think the culprit for such an attitude in kids are parents themselves... ...

I understand this is an aside, but...

 

Philosophically, both flawed epistemological ideas -- subjectivist and intrinsicist -- obscure the fact that knowledge is acquired. Psychologically, the reason is too close an identification of "my knowledge" with "me": i.e. seeing one's self-worth in what one knows, coupled with not wanting to show one's weaknesses, means not showing what one does not know. Too often, kids are told they're "intelligent" when what they're actually doing is they're studying hard and acquiring knowledge. Calling this "intelligence" masks the real virtue (which is in the mechanism -- curiosity, hard-work, etc.) and makes it seems as if this acquisition is something intrinsic about the child: the way one might praise a kid for being "beautiful".

Edited February 19, 2015 by softwareNerd

[Harrison Danneskjold]

While I agree with the first, the second looks more of an attitude of a person who is wanting to keep up an external appearance.

No; I only meant it in the first sense.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Objectivism has reason and reality on its side. Of all philosophy and religion, Objectivism has the remarkable advantage of being correct. If I were in business and I had the best product on the market (the only product in its category which actually works, no less), but I was failing to achieve any significant market penetration, I would start to wonder about my marketing and sales efforts.

Failing to achieve significant penetration? Explicitly, perhaps, but what about implicitly? Just as people who have never heard of Kant before are prone to expressing his ideas, without realizing it, couldn't those who have never heard of Rand be liable to do the same?

Edit: I mean to point out that Objectivism may be having more of an impact than would be apparent at a glance, yet; not to dispute that its influence could still be improved.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Anuj]

No; I only meant it in the first sense.

 

Alright, you have removed all doubts now.     

[Plasmatic]

I thought I'd post this lecture By Onkar Ghate in this thread because relates to so much of the discussion herein:

https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2015/09/18/charlie-hebdo-the-west-and-the-need-to-ridicule-religion-video

 

Anyone want to comment on Ghate's idea about the need to ridicule religion?