musenji

Most guys who "don't know what they're doing" will err in the opposite direction, outlined by aequalsa in his last post. Telling a woman you value her, and even telling her why, before mutual value has been established through actions and conversation that doesn't consist of compliments (or "meta" comments of any kind), is the fastest way to make her disinterested as far as romance goes. One idea is that people are aware of the human capacity to "romanticize" things, and people. A guy who overtly compliments a woman on her virtues, is statistically less likely to be a man of value who values her. He is MORE likely to be a man who is somewhat needy or desperate, and clings to the first woman he finds who displays value. Therefore he takes all her positive qualities and ignores the bad ones--or doesn't give himself time to discover them. Women know this, so when a guy starts complimenting them, they figure it's just another desperate lonely guy who "doesn't have a clue". Let alone the fact that there are guys who think that complimenting a woman is a valid tactic for getting her to like them more. It's not expressly thought in these guys' minds, but this is in lieu of demonstrating virtue or value on his part. It's basically like saying "I have nothing to offer you, except the fact that I like you." Even an Objectivist woman would reject a man in this situation. Of course perhaps he does have something to offer her, but usually it comes along with a kind of lonely neediness. So women are very quick to dismiss complimenters. Women of value (particularly good-looking ones) get thousands of compliments, so another point is this: complimenting a woman does nothing to set you apart from all the other guys complimenting her, even if you ARE a person of value...she'll think you're not. [edit] I just read the article. I do think that power games of the specific kind that she mentioned in the last paragraph are pretty sick. But on the other hand, it is true what she said: "Gentlemen, if you put it out there too fast, too soon, and too uncomplicatedly we will basically figure you for a good-for-nothing loser, with obsessive stalker tendencies and nothing else going on in your life. And will dump you quicker than you can say used tampon." This is pretty unfortunate, but it is certainly what I've experienced.

Another way of putting it: Government is for the sake of protecting innocents from people who would initiate force or fraud. Since they do exist, and always will, we need government. Galt's Gulch did not have anybody in it who would ever intentionally initiate force or fraud, nor did it have anybody who would deny it, if it turned out they had done so accidentally.

I started reading the Iliad mostly "just because I should someday". Then I realized it was a way of seeing how these people actually viewed the world--what they considered to be important (that it survived, I imagine, proves they thought it was important). Funnily enough, I thought that the first argument between Zeus and Hera sounded remarkably like the kind of argument you'd expect from a modern "trailer trash" abusive husband and his nagging wife, with their peace-making son interjecting. Obviously the language style was different, but the content and even the cadence of the argument itself suggested this to me! Unfortunately I have not actually read all that far into the book. More recently, I read an old poem about the sea written around 800 AD. The main thing I took away from it was, "Wow, I'm really glad to be alive in the US, in 2012." It sounded like a very harsh life. I probably should read the classics much more than I do. I think what would keep me reading them would be seeing how these people interacted with each other, how they viewed humanity, what things are similar or different about the mindset, from today. And, I like all of the reasons you listed, though I probably wouldn't be a good judge of whether they're valid.

So, I am an amateur classical guitarist. I've been studying the instrument for some time. I have made some tabs and arrangements, mostly of video game music. (Don't sniff just yet!) About a month ago, I made an arrangement that I have been absolutely ecstatic about, because I didn't know it could be done on guitar. Now I've practiced it, and made a video: Hope you enjoy it! If I do anything else that I'd like to present, I'll post it here, too. And feel free to check out the rest of my channel if you like.

One of my favorite scenes in ST:TNG, where there is an incessant small-talker who attempts to chat up members of the enterprise crew. Most of the crew avoid him, or try to slip away, but Data takes to imitating the man, and they strike up a conversation about total trivia. Another crew member says, "I don't know which one to feel sorry for!" ...Just the first half. I wish they hadn't overlaid the clips, but oh well.

4chan: hey guys let's troll the Objectivists

"What's the point of being alive if I can't have a girl like that?" If you need to have her in order for life to be worth living, how did you ever get along all those years without her? Probing questions that I think are important: 1. Have you dated women before? 2. Have you kissed and/or slept with women? 3. Have you made women laugh ("with you", not "at you", of course)? 4. How do you know her? Does she know you? This is VERY important. 5. Are you as enamored of your OWN sense of life? 6. Are you happy with your work life? These are just a few. More information is always helpful. You are fundamentally right in one way: if you keep fawning over her pictures, you will never have her. How do you have access to her pictures, btw? (this ties in with how you know her, and whether she knows you.)

An analogy comes to mind. I have heard several times that if you actually experience throat dryness, then you are dehydrated, and should've had water a while ago. The time to drink water is before you actually feel a dry throat, so that that symptom never occurs. This makes sense to me, though how I ought to know exactly when to drink water, I do not know. Perhaps via the logic of my daily activities. Or perhaps it is a question of awareness--everyone needs to feel thirsty to know when to drink, but some people are more aware of feelings of thirst than others. Likewise, perhaps some people become aware much faster that their thoughts are not relevant to their current activities. Simply focusing on a task that requires one's attention, should theoretically prevent the kind of anxiety I experience when thinking about whatever issue causes anxiety for me. The practice of focusing on the breath should make me more skilled at mental focus in general, and help me to focus on whatever task I attempt. That is another reason I am very interested in meditation--to help me achieve a better quality of focus while pursuing other goals (and this is closer to the line of the rest of this thread, I think). I'm not only distracted by anxiety-causing thoughts; I have a mind that tends to wander in general. This has a negative effect on, for example, my guitar practice and playing. I have seen many instrumentalists say that it is ideal to always be breathing while playing, and to make sure one isn't constricting one's breath or tensing up unnecessarily. This has been a great challenge for me, and one that I do not work on often enough. I think that the ideal would be to keep a clear, calm mind at all times, and to integrate fuller breathing with every single daily activity. So when I think of it, I don't just sit down to meditate--I try to do it while I am actually being productive as well. That is, if I am doing a task that is automated enough that my mind can wander, then it is very good for me, instead of letting my mind wander, to focus on the breath, and posture as well, volitionally releasing any unnecessary tension. The key is, again, thinking of it, and upon thinking of it, having the discipline to do it. It takes effort!

Alfa, I have to say, you talking about breaking all the rules once really got my imagination going. Currently I have a job as a janitor for a couple of different buildings. One of them, a factory, includes a long cafeteria room, probably about 20 by 100 feet, with two rows of four tables placed long-ways down the line. I spray the tables with a cleaner before wiping them down, walking down the line to squirt each one twice. My imagination led me to an image of coming in with shades and a super soaker, pumping up, and spraying every table from the door, haha. I can't imagine, though, what the people would be thinking as I walked to and from the room. :-)

Yeah JASKN, I do remember a thread where you reported your findings after choosing to basically say "okay screw the moralizing, I'm just going to have a good social life for a while and see what that's like." :-) And that thread actually inspired me to do the same, to a degree. One thing that held me back, was the belief that I should be like Rand's heroes, never experiencing any anxiety or care over what people thought of me, and that if I was only perfect like them, I would handle all my social interactions with ease, automatically. This is the opposite of the premise that one has to practice to get better at something. And it was reinforced by the fact that, maybe once a week or once a month, I would have a "Rand moment" where I felt that I had succeeded in being "Rand hero-esque" in my interaction with somebody, AND it had produced a positive result. That was enough to make me feel like it was what I should be doing, and that practicing social success was being Peter Keating and selling out. But ultimately, not having any friends and feeling like I had to do everything myself (without study partners, even) and thinking that I had to be a Rand hero when interacting with my guitar instructor (classical guitar was my major), ended up completely burning me out, and I left college. (Though, to be fair, the last semester I was in a really noisy dorm and it was a genuine battle, trying to get a good night's sleep every night, and that really stressed me out.)

I have anxiety issues. I have also practiced meditation off and on over the last few years. When I get caught up with anxiety, two things are happening: my mind is running with thoughts about the given subject, usually irrational or unjustified thoughts; and, my body is going through some serious fight or flight adrenaline response. What a meditation break accomplishes, is to interrupt this cycle, replacing it with a clearer mind and a calm body. The method is simply to focus my mind on my breath, and to control the breathing. The breathing should be deep, and slow. And my mind should be focused on the sensation of the breath itself, and as little else as is possible. Thoughts may come and go, but if they distract me for more than a couple seconds, I have to start over: you see, the goal is to count to ten breaths without significant thought wandering. That's all, just ten breaths. Maybe 30 or 40 seconds of breathing. It usually takes me 5 to 10 minutes to accomplish this. There is a great value other than a clear mind and a calm body, to be had in this practice. In addition to those benefits, it reinforces that I am the center of my life. Ultimately, I am what matters to me. It is a profoundly selfish experience, which can be illustrated by the biggest hurdle I have had to overcome: the thought that I HAVE to be focusing on the issue that causes me anxiety. It's almost as if I'm afraid that, if I take a break from being worried for a few minutes, the worst will happen. I have to consciously tell myself that no, it's okay--the issue will still be there when I finish meditating. It will wait out there for me. I remind myself that it cannot hurt me in those few minutes, that in those few minutes I would not be able to actually DO anything about it anyway. The end result is that I am taking time out for myself. For ME. It is an act of placing my health and well-being as an utmost value to me, which is utterly rationally self-interested. And this counters the idea that meditation is somehow evading. I'm not meditating all day and refusing to ever take action or think about the issues of my life. What I am refusing is to let my emotions have control of me. I only wish that I would remember to do it every day!

Yeah, small talk is like...the mood-setter. It sets a positive environment in which more significant things can be said. I'm curious, what actually brought you to the point where you were willing to consider the issue, and start a thread such as this? I ask because: When I was in college, I actually "boycotted small talk" for a time, to the degree that I would not even answer the question "how are you", because people "didn't really mean it" and "didn't want an honest, thoughtful answer". It did not bode well for my social life. I wish I would have learned faster, opened my mind up sooner. It took years of loneliness for that to happen. Second question, since I glanced at your profile: how did you come to read almost exclusively non-fiction about Objectivism, rather than the fiction first?

When I was kid, I got the following prank from a magazine: Wrap a rubber band around your place's kitchen sink spray nozzle such that it is turned on, and the first person to turn on the water will get a healthy dose of aqua to the body. Obviously this only works if it's a separate spray nozzle and not a switchable faucet. It worked pretty hilariously for me.

Inb4 "ambushes are irrational"

You know you can have a cat's front paws permanently declawed, right? I grew up with two such cats. And apparently there are lots of other solutions to be found as well. I know this doesn't address the ethical issue, just thought you might like to know, if you didn't already.

My vote is for innocent fun, though it may depend upon the nature and severity of the pranks pulled!

Hold on. What, exactly, would be your action taken, IF you took the action? Would you say, "Joe, stop this silliness, it's caused by your X problem from adolescence." I mean, that's not the ONLY option, and skilled psychotherapists are ones who can get people to dig down towards their OWN issues, one step at a time. To use a simile, it's like you're a weight trainer, and Joe is sitting on a benchpress bench. You feel like you either have to give him no weight to lift, or 300 pounds. No other option. .......Why not nudge him in the right direction, i.e. figuratively give him 20 pounds to lift? You don't have to make the explicit connection between his actions and his past. You can simply tell him his actions are inappropriate. Or are you saying that ANY response will necessarily trigger a breakdown? I've never encountered such a thing. But then, I'm not a psychologist.

Well, I managed to get to the point where you analyze each specific country, but at that point it got a little too detail-oriented for me. Is there a summary/conclusion planned for the end of the paper?

heh. Don, I've been given number 2 on that list and am STILL offended when I think about it. And I've seen number three all too often in discussions. ([edit] Though I should note, that the incident of number 2 was even more subtle, along the lines of "I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and teach you, since you are clearly ignorant." The issue in question involved detailed information about the way the industrial consumers of petroleum. ...Of COURSE I'm ignorant of that. It would've been pretty random for me to somehow know the facts he spouted. So I made an "error of knowledge", which is fine, but his tone still indicated to me that I was "lacking" as a human being, that I had somehow failed to do what I ought to have done. If you're giving someone the benefit of the doubt, it is rude and patronizing to TELL them that you are doing so.) Relevant: http://xkcd.com/438/ And this one still gets me. It's so simple, so poignant. http://xkcd.com/386/ [edit] Dante, I looked at that thread. Ended up watching the video link at the bottom, a pretty inspiring interview. It's nice to see once in a while that she did receive applause from relatively neutral audiences, and didn't alienate everybody.

Just got to page 46. Loving the paper! Would like to check out that book. I might have to buy it, just to read it, though I can try interlibrary loan. When you refer to "Darwinists hoping to prove their pseudo-science", I assume you mean the idea that some races are better than others? I wonder if there is an extra adjective to separate this kind of Darwinist from the plain old person who acknowledges the truth of evolution by natural selection. (Humans in civilization are not actually subject to Darwinian natural selection.)

Cool! I'm on page 28, and I'm enjoying this read. I've noted a couple of things: Your definitions for "recession" and "depression" are quite...harsh? That's not the right word, because it's not a bad thing. What I mean is, in Wikipedia it says that one year with a GDP of -10% is defined as a depression, whereas you define anything below -1% as a depression. And the percentage space occupied by "recession" is remarkably slim. I take it that this is because the growth overall during that period was so high, that your definitions had to be "stricter"? Though the current rule of thumb is that two down quarters in a row constitutes a recession, I suppose. Did they even keep track of quarters back then? While the numbers themselves don't pop a meaning out at me, your analysis is fascinating (US recovered faster than any other nation, controlled economies demonstrated a lag in rebound, and overall the way that they were outperformed by the more capitalist countries). You state that no country, with the exception of Italy or Japan, had a single bust that came close to the "government-created Great Depression". I anxiously hope that you provide an argument to support the assumption that the Great Depression was in fact government created! Though it would fall outside your timeframe, that's a pretty controversial assumption to throw in without justifying it. :-) Not that --I-- disagree per se. Reading on...

Thank you very much! Out of curiosity, what was the assignment?

I sent my email via PM. Isn't 30,000 words roughly 120 pages in MS Word? I mean, holy cow. Are you really an undergrad?

In my readings of Objectivist literature, I remember a few points made about capitalism's effectiveness on a grand scale. For instance, Rand said that, during the industrial revolution, the freest countries were the ones that progressed the most. I never saw any kind of statistic for this, but it seems intuitively true that Britain and the US did progress the most during this period. Rand pointed out that in Britain (or maybe industrial Europe), the population rose by 300 percent in some period of time, and that this demonstrated how effective it was. I have heard, on the other hand, liberals say that it wasn't about the freedom, it was more about resource availability. The US was a very "untouched" land in terms of resource exploitation, and that is why the US advanced the most during this period. I imagine a counterargument to that might be that resources do not equal progress if you are not allowed to use them freely. To me, a person not versed in the actual history, this is a bit abstract, and "floating". I would be interested in seeing some source that looks in-depth (using statistics--measurements of quantity) at the relationship between resource availability, capitalism, and the progress of a country. Does Economics in One Lesson do this? Or Human Action by Mises? (I have looked briefly at those, but not in depth.) Maybe there are books on the progress of China while it integrated capitalism? Any leads anyone can offer would be appreciated.

The images change too quickly for my taste. I kept hitting pause so that I would have time to actually see them.