JASKN

You mean, someone who rubs your neck and is polite enough to consider your preference?  Nah.

Wow! that article does not live up to the intellectual standards of the New Yorker.
 
First, the author claims that there's nothing new or surprising about the revelations. According to the author "any marginally attentive citizen" would have some notion of what was going on. Yet, on the other hand, revealing these obvious things rises above the revelation of actual secrets to journalists which the authors says is "normal even indispensable".

Then, as his proof that too much was revealed, he says the Post would not have revealed all of it. Is that proof? And he links to the post article that has no such proof. Perhaps he thinks that by putting a link next to non-evidence, the reader will assume that the evidence actually exists at the link.

Finally, the author talks about Snowden's motives of "ego" rather than "his conscience", as if people who leak are typical staid folk who want not to rock the boat. One must understand, as McArdle rightly points out that "Whistleblowers are Weird". If we find that Snowden simply wanted to embarrass the government, or that he was working with the Chinese, or something like that, that would be news. Stuff that this author throws at him are empty smears, not much different from folk who are saying he is a loner, nerdy, loser who wanted his shot in the spotlight. 
 
Instead of "Snowden is no hero", the article should be titled "I Jeffery Toobin am not a real journalist"

I'm pretty sure a personality disorder cannot apply to a philosophical system.

"In society"? So pertaining to what, law, work, that sort of thing? But in contrast you think that it's improper for an individual in an "interpersonal relationship" (meaning one-on-one?) to deal with another as an individual first? We rather should deal with each other, first, as "members of a class, group, or sex"? So... maybe the problem I'm having in understanding your arguments is down to the fact that I don't know your ethnicity/nationality, your age, your socioeconomic status, etc...?
 
 
Shall I be explicit?

There is nothing different between what you routinely do and any garden variety bigot. You blend well-worn stereotypes together with some number of observations you've made about some of the people you've known, doubtless accounting to the bias of looking for that very thing to begin with, then pretend like it's some general rule, and dismiss out of hand any supposed "exceptions." You reject calls for evidence or proof or rationale, simply asserting that you know what you know... somehow! And then you call into question the character of anyone who questions your methodology or your conclusions.

So you claim to know what women are really like, despite the protestations of women who say that you're wrong about them, and other men whose experiences do not match your own. Brilliant. It's no better than those who talk in the same sorts of terms about what the homosexuals are like, or the Jews, or any other group you could imagine. You've pulled opinions out of your ass and pretend that you've found truth. The fact that this is bigotry is almost besides the point; it is a crime against reason.
 
 
If no two men are masculine in exactly the same way, and no two women are feminine in exactly the same way, and some men are masculine in such a way as to seem feminine, and some women are feminine in such a way as to appear masculine, then...

Then maybe there isn't one size fits all advice that applies to a gender. Maybe we would need to deal with individuals as individuals.

Why do all (or at least many) of your relationship advice posts seem like you're preoccupied with trying to do whatever you can do to tell guys to try to impress women?
 
 
But ARE you her fantasy man? You ... the true you, the way you are, right now? Are you exciting, unusual, different (in a good way) for her? Or are you trying to act like it?
 
 
 
Ok. Fine enough, if that's your sense of humor and way of being fun and lighthearted naturally. No problems there. But the way you're suggesting these things, it sounds like try-hard-ism and gimmickry. If that silly, offbeat sense of humor isn't really you, naturally, then please, please save yourself the embarrassment and don't try to fake it.
 
 
 
But are you? If you are, then why does someone have to tell you to "demonstrate" it to her?
 
 
"Thinking outside the box" sounds like another way to say "try to be something you're actually not." Sounds like a recipe for fakery and a general regret later, on her part, for being fooled into thinking you're all these things you had portrayed yourself to be, but when she got to know you better, you didn't have a quirky and offbeat personality, you didn't think outside of the box, and you weren't her fantasy man, and all you did was waste her time, and yours as well.
 
I think you're better off telling guys to find out whom they are and what they believe in, and  giving themselves full self-approval to be that unapologetically and unfearfully, rather than trying to tell guys to "think outside the box" and try to be some woman's "fantasy man."

This short blog post reminded me of this thread. The way people think of career passions has a slight "primacy of consciousness" tinge. Instead, the way to figure out what you like might simply be: try stuff and see what you like. 

You sound too smart in that letter to be a file clerk! It was well written and revealed that you would probably be over-qualified.

If it were me, I wouldn't say much other than "I'm a quick learner, I'm never late, I care about doing a good job, and I'm easy going." Unless they are explicitly hiring to train into another position, those are the only things entry level hirers really care about. It's almost more of trying to avoid pains in their ass than hiring "perfection."

If you can get your foot in the door and talk face to face, just be pleasant and happy to see them, and answer as simply as possible. Shooting out a bunch of information they didn't ask for or need to know is going to send up red flags that you are going to be someone they have to "deal with" about future things.

Basically, try to convey that you will be the easiest person they can find to fill the position.

Actually, the opposite of what you say here is true -- that's the entire point, the entire notion of an axiom. An axiom can't be explained away, rather it is something from which explanations follow, or on which they are based. In this case, you or other things must exist before anything else can happen -- deduction included. Every idea and action assumes that there is something which exists to have an idea about, and perform an action with. How could you deduce without things existing to deduce about? You can't explain existence, because then you are ahead of yourself and would have needed to exist first before you could figure out an explanation. Thus, existence is axiomatic.

Enough? That cannot be answered without context: i.e. enough for what purpose? I'd reply that Rand did more than enough for her audience, but that she was addressing a lay audience. None of her books, not even "ITOE" is written for an academic audience.
Take one example. You ask about identity. The typical lay-person's implicit use of the idea is very similar to a student of philosophy: and they both act as if it is axiomatic. Take an example: a granny calls customer support to say her computer does not work. They ask her if it plugged in. It isn't. ha ha. But, that's just the intro...

A philosophy student calls customer support and they ask if the computer is plugged in. He plugs it in and he is shocked that it makes any difference! In the past, to turn on his computer, he eats a banana, or fries and egg, or puts on his trousers... ... they've all worked in the past, except that he does not think of it as "working". The absurd notion that one thing leads to another has never been shown to be true.

You get the point: every philosophy student, including you, work and act and question in a way that takes identity for granted... but, only a philosophy student continues to question the very thing he takes as implicit in his every question! Fair enough... if that interests you, have fun with it. Most people are not interested in the obvious.

So let me get this right. You are genuinely interested in learning what Rand's position was, but you are unwilling to to read what she wrote, but you are willing to read a bunch of strangers' summaries of her philosophy?
 
If money is an issue, you can find her writings online for free. You could start here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_objectivist_ethics
 
Or, here's a better format, and you get the whole (short) book. http://www.e-reading-lib.org/bookreader.php/137212/Rand_-_The_Virtue_of_Selfishness.pdf
 
(The Objectivist Ethics is not terribly long, maybe a chapter's length, if you are legitimately and honestly trying to understand her).

How you approach a discussion is important, I have found this to be difficult because you threw a bunch of complicated questions out there without sharing anything about how you thought about those issues. We can't really help you understand our positions unless we understand yours first. This "Answer me and I will be the Judge" format isn't really equitable and anyone could do it to any group of people and it would be frustrating. 
 
I could easily go on a forum about something non-philisophical and do the exact same thing. I would just be ignored as a troll. 
 
So can you just take the attribute question and discuss just that.
 
Maybe you should make a new thread. Please explain what you mean in the fullest detail. 

I once had a classmate who didn't want to read a textbook for lack of time.
 
He also didn't want anyone to give him the fundamental principles because he had no context for understanding them.
 
Yet he expected that asking questions and working through examples would be enough.
 
He didn't do very well in the class.

Sam Harris, who has what at first glance seems to be a moderate view on guns has this to say:
 
 

Am I the only one who is really uncomfortable with how quickly and how completely they have taken complete control of this area, with their unprecedented "lockdown"? Why is the news ok with this happening?

I think this is much worse. An entire city is shut down -- don't you think an entire city could manage to apprehend a 19-year-old kid with homemade explosives? No one has a nuclear bomb here. I think the city was too quick to boss people around with no explanation given to anyone, and I think the people were too quick to comply.

It sounds like you've thought this out quite a bit.  That's awesome. It shows you're taking your life seriously and are honestly trying to discover what will make you happy (ie: your future values). Other posters have mentioned speaking to a doctor- I agree that that will definitely help you. Doctors deal with this stuff all the time! But I'd like to comment on the work issue that you brought up, and about your fear (or what I would call debilitating uncertainty) of the future. Obviously, not everyone is Dagny or Roark. As young children, Dagny knew she wanted to run TT and Roark knew that he wanted to be an architect. But it's extremely common for people to not know what they want to do with the rest of their lives, or where they're going to be 5 or 10 years down the road. Most people take jobs that are a) available to them, and sorta interesting. That's the magic equation: choosing something you like, learning more and more about it, checking out the future options that will be available to you if you continue down this path, then changing the course as necessary.

Thinking that 'the perfect job for you' or 'the perfect man for you' will just fall into your lap is unrealisitc, and ignores the huge amount of trial and error that it takes to discover your passions. Starting at the bottom of the tree, so to speak, in a crappy position, is normal in every field. You have to live with it for awhile, but once you get your foot in the door, you'll be able to set goals for yourself and climb the ladder. Do you want to be in your bosses shoes? How about her bosses? Maybe you'll hate the place you're working at and end up quitting. (No problem, it happens.) Or maybe you'll love it and want to continue in that line of work, or do a similar job at a different location. (Again, no problem- you can do it.) There will be tons of options available to you.. but notice that this is all dependent upon actually applying for and getting a job that sounds sorta interesting to YOU. That's the first step.

PS: Making an appointment with a career counselor at your local university or community college will also be helpful. Seriously, they hear things like this all the time: "This is where I'm at.. but I have no idea where I'm going with it. HELP!!" Their entire job is to explore the options available to you, discuss them with you and see what interests you, and to plan a course of action so that you'll know where and how to begin.
 
I'm very familiar with the thought "Where am I going to be 5, 10, or 20 years from now? What am I going to be doing? Who am I going to be with?!" Honestly, it's scary, because there's absolutely no way of knowing where we'll be or what we'll be doing in the future. But if you can get past that fear (which you can't do anything about, since we aren't time travelers!), you'll find it's also really exciting. There's a whole lot to look forward to.

No doubt, a doctor would probably be a good option. But, in case it isn't a good option for other reasons, like money or time, or even motivation, I'll tell you from experience that it's likely you'll find your way through this by yourself -- well, with the help of things like what you're doing here by seeking words from other kind people.
 
Think of your self-judged miserable life and circumstances as compared to a stick tied to a horse who is dragging it through the mud. You're the stick, your life is the mud, and "Life," everything else that exists, is the horse. The horse keeps dragging that stick, slowly but surely, on and on. He's not going to stop. The stick will just be drug in the mud until the horse reaches the grass, somewhere off, over there. You can be that stick, and make it out the other side pretty much unscathed, with just time and some bitterness with you now that it's done. Inaction, while "not acceptable" in an ideal sense, is a real and possible option. You could literally just stay miserable for a long time and let life drag you through its mud, whatever awfulness is the mud's consistency.
 
Eventually, time (even while miserable) while have given you opportunities to think, which in turn will change how you feel, even if ever so slightly. One of those days, maybe while in the mud, maybe not until life drags you to the grass, you're going to feel like being something other than miserable.
 
At least, that's how it worked out for me, and I'm pretty sure you could do it to. If you muster up enough before then to untie yourself and walk out of the mud, good for you. But if you don't, life will change you whether you like it or not.
 
 
Added at your reply:
You should definitely LOWER your standards. Standards are for people with normal levels of "feel good," so to speak. Wait until you feel better and then reevaluate your standards then. Until then, pick one thing, one single thing, and figure out how to get it. Employment is a decent place to start.

Here's a question: Which is sillier? Someone who believes in God discussing ways to serve him, or someone who doesn't doing the same?

"Fullness" and "Richness" and "Purpose" are all achieved through human values, things like inventing iPhones and playing video games and going on a trip with friends. Only a poor substitute for meaning is achieved by being mostly concerned with something other than yourself, wrought with eventual emptiness, bitterness, and confusion. How could you give your life meaning without actually affecting the particulars of your life?

Speaking as an ex-Christian, I can tell you that the religious solution of god and altruism don't produce their professed results, and once you give that crap up and start sinning instead, you begin getting that meaning you're after. Someone else would probably be better than me at guessing why religion and altruism have managed to keep such a stronghold on civilization.

Without the benefit of the examples, this does not ring true to me. Devices get more complex, internally; but, I do not see device interfaces getting more complex. Even over a decade ago, people used to be befuddled about setting their VCRs to tape a show.
Consider old point-and-shoot cameras. They had a very basic fixed-focus and little control of aperture. Most people bought more complex SLRs when they could afford it. Then, as more complexity was automated, point-and-shoots are back with a vengeance, producing very good photos, while being very simple to use. With a phone camera, you can shoot, and email, and post to an album without even remembering where you kept that damn cord.

Navigating a file-directory, renaming files, and so on was far more complicated in DOS than in early Windows. Now, with drag-and-drop, it is simpler than ever.

Perhaps some exmples from the author would clarify the types of things he is looking at.
I think it is a feature of every generation to think the next generation is not being exposed to all sorts of knowledge. There was a time when 80% of the population knew all sorts about farming; today, that's a tiny percentage. A vast majority of people today do not know how to sew. Forget needle and thread, they have never even used an electric sewing machine! How many westerners have driven a (more complex) manual-transmission vehicle?
Yes, there is value in knowing these things. It grounds other, more abstract, knowledge. It is analogous to tying concepts back to reality. For instance, in our area, middle-schoolers do a shop class where they learn to make some simple things. Something along those lines would be a good lesson. We ought to select a few good examples and teach those to kids. At the same time, we do not want kids to waste their time learning all the things our great-grandparents knew.

Added: People who are specializing in some field, ought to learn more of its history than generalists. So, for instance, a carpenter who uses only electric drills may not need to learn about manual drills, but he may benefit from some other techniques used by a previous generation of carpenters. The same is true in almost every field.

Finally, it is sometimes appropriate to seek out texture (call it complexity) and manual-work as entertainment. Someone might do something "by hand" for the fun of it. For instance, someone might get fun from buying lumber, sawing it down, drawing out plans, et. to build a fence even though you can get them pre-assembled from Home-Depot --- often cheaper than you could do it yourself.

And ...Rationalism is Rationalism.
QED

The point of the question is this: how do the firms determine which scents are masculine and which are feminine? Do they make decisions in reference to objective principles that we can all understand and apply? If so, what are these principles? Or do they simply go by tradition, conventional wisdom, and marketing trials to see what the public at large responds positively to? If the latter is the case, then there is no objective definition of a feminine vs a masculine scent, at least not one being used in the manufacture of colognes and perfumes.



Okay, great. You accept the options that are marketed to you specifically as a shortcut, and then choose within those options. That's great; I do that with most products too. But there are plenty of times that I think that the paradigm presented to me is wrong, and I choose instead to exercise my independent judgment. One would think that sort of behavior would be applauded here. Of course, that is not always appropriate, specifically when there are objective principles underlying the paradigm which is being rejected. In that case, one's 'independent vision' is in conflict with reality. That seems to be what you are arguing here, but in order to do so you must put this particular paradigm on objective grounds rather than simply those of tradition and appealing to popularity and marketability. Can you?

Just because you can't find work right now doesn't mean you'll never find work. The ticket to life really is, "Try, try again." If you can't find what you're looking for, or maybe don't know what you're looking for, keep trying. If you can't find it in time for making rent, find another way to make the money in the meantime -- take any job that will pay the bills, and be a good worker while you're there.

If you don't have a main goal for yourself, keep trying until you find one that you like enough to give it everything you've got. Once you have that goal, and you really, really want it, go for it. But then, of course, you can always change your mind later, or change anything along the way if you need.

Just because you can't find work right now doesn't mean you'll never find work. The ticket to life really is, "Try, try again." If you can't find what you're looking for, or maybe don't know what you're looking for, keep trying. If you can't find it in time for making rent, find another way to make the money in the meantime -- take any job that will pay the bills, and be a good worker while you're there.

If you don't have a main goal for yourself, keep trying until you find one that you like enough to give it everything you've got. Once you have that goal, and you really, really want it, go for it. But then, of course, you can always change your mind later, or change anything along the way if you need.

Slogans are not philosophy.