Elle

GC I'm happy to do it, I'm just not sure how to do it.

As we continue into ITOE this forum is going to become full of threads on each chapter. I was looking at the moderating functions I have for organizing and I can't see any ability for me to group the posts together (by chapter) unless I merge the topics... which I don't want to do. I was thinking maybe we could pin the threads on the chapter of the week? Any input from users and mods would be great.

So doesn't this contradict the idea that there is no conflict of interest between rational men? For example, if every individual determines that it is in his self-interest to travel by car then why not build wider highways, smaller cars, etc since this decision will create a market and demand for these things? Also, it seems strange to suggest a system in which the "free-rider" will get the greatest benefit. I didn't understand the exact nature of Nash's equilibrium in the film A Beautiful Mind beyond the monstrosity of passing up the best for the mediocre - but using a model like this for trade and foreign policy is a lot worse then applying it to dating (as was done in the film)!

Yeah I have heard many versions but I copied down the one she presented word-for-word last night and that's what I posted. Grrr... I guess this post doesn't accomplish much except to say "if you're taking economics watch out for this one!"

The Prisoner's Dilemna You and your partner rob a bank and you get caught. You are seperated and given the following options (you can not collaborate and it is assumed that you did not determine how you would respond to this situation beforehand): -If you both confess you each get 5 years in jail. -If neither of you confess you each get 2 years in jail. -If one confesses and the other does not then the one who confesses goes free and the one who does not gets 10 years in jail. What would you do? This just irked the hell out of me. In what situation of justice would this EVER be a realistic scenerio? Why is the punishment determined by the confession, as opposed to the evidence? Why do we compare a bank robbery to a business strategy when one is a destruction of value through taking of the unearned, and the other is the creation of value? This damn prisoner's dilemna just keeps coming up. Economics classes have so many problems and I'd be interested to hear from anyone with more of a background in econ - since I am just beginning to study it. Any guidelines for getting through the introductory courses (Macro and Micro) as well as any reading suggestions would be great. Thanks!

Good question. I've cut down, when possible, mainly because drinking lattes is an expensive habit and the occaisonal splitting headache just isn't worth it. However, coffee has helped me function past the point of exhaustion a lot lately - and I am recovering now from that (thanks to some reprioritizing on my part) and I am going to try to new approach (working out in the morning) to increase my real energy level instead of being dependent on a temporary hold-over until I can finally go to sleep.

This confused me since it seems to suggest that Objectivists are altruistic in some other way. I doubt this is what you meant...

Yes, it is amazing here at (community) college how 10% of my grade in some classes is based on attendance!!

I love it too, but I can't allow myself to spend that much... yet.

Carly Fiorina has been one of my business heroes for awhile now and I was surprised to learn that she is no longer the CEO of Hewlett Packard as of Wednesday. Among the many things being thrown around by the media pundits there are: -criticisms by "experts" of Fiorina's "exorbitant" demands for her severance package (at least $21.2 MM) -"Fiorina executed the Compaq merger "in a superior fashion", but didn't have the right execution skills to lead the company forward, Dunn said. HP shares rose more than 10% following news of Fiorina's departure."Source I am just curious what other people in business, or following this latest development in the business world, think of the entire scenerio? I haven't read all the news on this yet - but it seems very unclear exactly why she was dismissed by HP (the common tune is that she wasn't leading the company forward - which I'm not sure I buy as of yet). Another question, who will replace Fiorina as CEO of HP? And where is Fiorina headed now?

You know what really pisses me off is when I get those little $8 settlement checks and I never even filed suit. I rip them up and throw them away - angrily - but it's ridiculous and it makes me mad that my name is even listed as a recipient of that garabage.

My favorite and most beautiful object is the most expensive thing I have ever bought for myself (mine is actually light blue but this is the most accurate picture I could find) because everytime I look at it I am very proud to be able to buy it. It's also a lot of fun to drive.

Oh I'm so glad!

Oooh I saw that in 3D when it came out, I had totally forgotten about it! Time to go re-watch...

Hmm... the governments are made up of Europeans, that might be the problem. edit: Europe used to be great because Europeans used to hold up great values. in one form or another (Renaissance, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution). I realize there are individual Euros who have great values now (as there are people around the world) but the majority is mired in Kantian thought and socialism.

Hey Megan I've been following the discussion and so far so good - I definitely think it would be fun and useful to study other philosophical works this way. Also, you should watch The Miracle Worker since you are obviously enjoying ITOE so much (and this reccomendation extends to anyone who likes heroes, BTW ). It's about Helen Keller and, more importantly, her teacher Anne Sullivan. Try to watch the original black and white version of this film if you can, it's much better than the newer version. I was told once that Ayn Rand liked this film because it was the only one she had seen where "the hero has an epistemological victory".

content edited to add to the new thread

I think you secret got out. He is very nice and helpful; you could probably just PM him about it.

With full time work and school a chapter a week sounds great to me, and will still require a bit of a stretch. I was thinking that we could structure it so that everyone who wants to read along tries to meet a commitment to complete the chapter of discussion during the week and everyone contributes to conversation on questions, essentializing the chapter, and discussing any confusion over the weekend (that works best for me because I have the most time to post on the weekend and also a lighter work/school load). Some of the chapters might end up sparking a great deal of conversation so at the end of each weekend the group could determine whether we want to move on to the next chapter or not. This could be really fun and useful, especially since the thread will remain open for others who are reading ITOE to add to. How do you think we should structure the discussion? Just clear up any confusions or should we figure out some kind of study guide questions that we could try to answer independently and then discuss on the forum? I will contact you later this week when I have time to lay out a more complete idea of what we could accomplish as a reading group. I'm also going to ask Burgess for ideas because I think he'll probably have some good insights for study. -Elle

I'm interested in reading along with you guys, too. Any interest in exchanging emails and working out a time schedule per chapter and then discussing here? Perhaps we can get more people in on this too?

I am not negative to the idea, but I don't think it is desirable and I will explain why. Take into consideration the full context of Atlantis in Atlas Shrugged. A small number of extremely competent, intelligent and rational producers are able to live in an isolated area of the world and be protected by John Galt's invention which vales the valley from planes flying overhead. Instead of buying products sold in a global economy, they produce everything that they use and they are good at it and proud of it. They suffer no interference from other men (government, unchosen society, etc.) but also can not derive the benefits of trading with men outside of Atlantis. They key to this is to remember that it is not in their self-interest to trade with the men outside of Atlantis because the world has fallen to such a state that the producers are on strike against the philosophy of the unearned - altruism. Without this condition, without having the prime movers living and producing in Atlantis, without the ingenuity of John Galt's invention - Atlantis, in the world of Atlas Shrugged, does not need to exist. In addition, without altruism as the pervasive and dominant philsophy of the culture there is no nessecity for these great producers to go into hiding. To draw a parallel to this in reality, the producers are not on strike yet in American and on Earth. Objectivists still have a great deal that is in their self-interest when it comes to dealing with "the rest of the world" (that would be on the outside of this hypothetical Atlantis). Altruism has not taken root in every mind. The minds that would end its proliferation and allow the men of the mind to keep all they have accomplished, instead of being relegated to building it anew, are fighting adamantly to spread the philosophy of Objectivism. As Ayn Rand said: "Those who fight for the future, live in it today." Look around you. I learned about Objectivism less than a year ago and in that short time I have met some of the most amazing advocates of the mind. Most of the time I am completely focused on my goals and occaisonally I look up long enough to be lonely or maybe a bit frustrated with the people I deal with. The most comforting thing is to have met amazing minds and to know that someone, somewhere, right now is thinking about how to make their business more profitable, make their marriage more successful, making their life more meaningful - using the principles of Objectivism. Coming to this site, or reading TIA, or HBL, or the Cybernet, or seeing Yaron Brook on television also inspire and brace me. Objectivism is winning because it is right. Right in theory and right in practice. Knowing this makes wanting an Atlantis impossible for me. I want this world, with all it's achievements. I want the Greeks, the Renaissance, the Englightenment, America, the Industrial Revoltion, the Space Age and beyond into the future I am fighting for today. To give those achievements up and decide to start over would be the hardest decision I can imagine and I don't think the world is in the state where that decision is nessecary. I reccomend you find some Objectivists in the Detroit area to meet in person (and in addition stongly reccomend those of the ARI-suppoting variety if you can find them). You can check at the ARI website for listings of campus groups in your area, that's usually a good place to start. Warm Regards, -Elle

This idea, of being able to determine the probability of dying (or risk), is interesting and important and now it has me thinking so I will relate a story and then some ideas for further discussion. When I was 14 I was riding horses daily and had just been offered an opportunity to exercise a new arrival to our stables a couple of days a week. I arranged to take a "test drive" as soon as possible. Looking back, I know that at this point I had already made a few mistakes that I would pay for later 1) I did not ask my trainer if she thought the horse would be a suitable match for my skills 2) I didn't get much information from the owner about the horse's mannerisms, difficulty, style etc. After riding at a grueling pace in the arena for about 30 minutes I was elated at my ability to manage this animal, pushing the limits of my skills and strength. We had been working on the flat (not doing any jumps yet) and so the owner set up a small, low course of fences for me to take him over. However, as I approached the set of jumps I noticed a change in the attitude of my steed. No longer were the movements elongated and calm - his head was up, his ears were laid back flat and I could see, based on familiar body languge of the animal, that it was not happy with what I wanted it to do. I disregarded the signs are indications that I was making mistakes that were irritating an animal accustomed to more talented riders and adjusted my position and aggressiveness in a manner that I believed would help. I took approached the line of fences a second time but the horse's response was the same. I was irritated, and began to consider the idea that the horse might have been quite spoiled and unaccustomed to working this hard. If I was going to ride this animal on a regular basis it would have to get used to taking the jumps, and so I pushed onward and over the jumps. By the last of the three fences I was struggling to stay on the horse as it bucked and cavorted wildly around wildly; hell-bent on getting me off it's back. I had been in all sorts of emergency situations like this in my 10 years of riding so I remained calm and evaluated a number of factors including 1) whether or not I could make a safe (not fatal) landing if I choose to let myself fall off 2) If it was worth it to stay on (long term - if I would get to ride this horse again) 3) if I knew how to calm the horse down and fix the problem. As the situation escalated I decided getting over the horses back was a must (if I horse rears too high it can willingly fall over backwards in an attempt to crush the rider on its back) so I began scouting the options and decided the soft sand of the open arena - away from any fences or jumps or other impediments - was a good target. I was slammed into the ground and I was very upset with myself because, despite my careful planning, I ended up breaking my collarbone and wearing a back brace the first 6 weeks of high school. However the conclusions I came to were that 1) I wasn't dead and that was most important 2) the horse wasn't worth riding and 3) I had mis-evaluated my skills. That was a longer story than I set out to write but I added all the detail to show the reader that there was a great deal of evidence in reality that I disregarded even thought there was a great deal of thinking going on. It's the same when evaluating anything for risk; if you don’t take a long hard look at reality you get into trouble – but what about in the cases of emergencies, where there simply is not time for deliberation? If you saw a child screaming for help and drowning would you simply run and jump into the lake after it, within seconds of encountering the situation? How does one go about deciding that quickly? I'm going to use my own story of the horse emergency as an allegory for some questions about emergencies, which might illuminate some things about the ethics of emergency situations. I'm not familiar with much on emergency ethics so this formulation is mine and I am happy to accept criticisms based in facts and validated by logic - which is what I have attempted to do. These are my questions: 1. When the option is either life or death what are the essential considerations one must have before they can decisively act? How does an emergency alter a person's hierarchy of values? Should it alter that hierarchy? For example: In the case of an emergency, is it true that one must consider basic needs for man's life before one can consider higher needs (such as spiritual needs)? 2. In an emergency time is generally limited when it comes to decision making, so how is range-of-the-moment thinking to be avoid (especially in situations such as mine where there were only a few seconds of consideration about whether or not to fall off the horse)? 3. In response to the previous question, doesn't long-range planning and thinking greatly reduce the impact of emergency situations? For example: If I had thought long-term and collected more information about that horse I would have had the proper expectations and been prepared to deal with the situation (maybe I would have worn a protective vest or something). ---------- All the arguments that have been made to me, in the case of emergency ethics, focus on pragamatism. That is, they throw long-term thinking and values out the window and instead attempt to argue that either one should - in the case of the drowning child example - either hold the child as an instrinsic value and risk life and limb to save it or disregard the child out of hand because even a 1% chance of injury and/or death is too high to warrant saving another human being struggling to conquer nature. I am not sure that either of these options can be right. I would enjoy your thoughts on this. Best, -Elle

Megan, A team ultimately should, and can, be a group of individuals working together to achieve a common end. You can maintain independence and still provide the "people skills" businesses are looking for. I used to think that "sharing my sand box" meant focusing on making everyone in the team like me and subordinating my mind to other people's ideas and whims. Turns out that I was wrong to assume that "team" was a pejorative. While some businesses may be looking for a "team-player" in the worst sense: the altruistic one, my understanding is that what they are usually really looking for is leadership ability and communication skills. In fact, though you may not focus on them, you may find through some introspection that you actually do have the benevolence, clear communication (rationality sure helps ), and understanding of egoism (the implicit motivator - to some extent - for a great number of people, especially in business I have found) that can make you quite a value to a potential employer. It's just figuring out how to communicate these abilities without making them the focus. If they are hiring you for these qualities and you consider them unimportant, especially in particular regard to the job you want, then you may want to look elsewhere. Hope that gives you a bit to think about. -Elle

I love coffee. However, I have often wondered what benefits and drawbacks caffeine has for my health, since I am a barista and (on average) I consume at least two shots of espresso per day. I have read various medical studies which lean in both directions. There are the benefits of increased focus, energy, and a higher metabolic rate (due to increased heart rate). However, there are also the drawbacks - specifically in the "crashes" of someone who is physically and mentally exhausted by continues to use caffeine to strave off their eventual need for sleep. In addition, I have noticed that my body has begun to develop a tolerance to a certain amount of caffeine and I require stronger coffee drinks and more frequent ones than I used to, to achieve the same effect. Is this the same as with most stimulants? Ex-banana eater made a good point, and I quote: After reading this I tried to decide, what uses of caffeine are immoral, keeping in mind that my life is the standard of my values? I think an example of immoral use of caffeine would be to drink coffee endlessly, disregarding the fact that your body can not function after a certain point without food or proper nourishment. Also, I don't know the scientific evidence but I think that it would make sense for there to be a limit to how much caffeine can be safely consumed in a given period of time. One other side-note is that I used to suffer from chronic headaches, and the doctor said they were actually a response to lack of caffeine - my body was suffering from withdrawal symptoms. He said I had to two choices. Either I could decide to cut caffeine out of my diet completely, bear the withdrawal while it lasts and then be headache free - or I could carry a small chocolate bar in my purse and eat a bit of it to feed my caffeine addiction. When he put it that way it sounded pretty damn ridiculous to me to be so dependent on something, but I admit I didn't stop drinking coffee and now I rarely get headaches because my caffeine consumption is pretty high.

I am a college student, and based on my experiences with classes that started out appealing and ended up sapping my motivation I would say that unless taking this class is crucial to your graduating or filling a requirement (e.g. it's better than the other history options available at your college) that you should get out of it. There are plenty of valid reasons to stay such as furthering your knowledge of the enemy's stance, integrating your knowledge of false philsophical systems with their practical implications in history, etc. However, if you are not a history student you may find that you are better off reading good historical text on your own time and instead dedicating class time to studying things that will further your knowledge in the particular field you are studying. There are great histories and biographies, in non textboook format, that will illuminate on industrial America and the greatness of wealth creators. There are even Objectivist intellectuals who have written on the topic of industrial America. Whatever you decide, best wishes in the endeavour. History is fascinating, don't let anyone try to convince you otherwise.