4reason

Do you think they are more perceptive in all things? Or are you trying to say they're more emotionally intuitive? If you do in fact think they are more perceptive in all areas, I'd be curious to hear your reasons why. Brain scans do tend to reveal that women have more activity in the limbic area(s) of the brain; these are the brain structures where "emotion" is thought to exist. All incoming sensory input must pass through these structures first before going up to the higher structures of the brain (except olfactory stimuli). When we look at brain scans that examine brain activity levels, women do regularly have more activity here, suggesting that emotion plays a greater role in their memory. Now, the question cognitive psychology and neuroscience must answer is which comes first: are women more emotionally perceptive because of this higher level of activity in this part of the brain, or does the higher level of activity in this part of the brain result from the way women are raised; ie, the habits they are taught to abide by? Gender studies of neurological brain differences are really starting to take off, and I, for one, love reading all the new discoveries out there (always being careful to read the details of how each study was conducted, though).

This is quite true and is certainly something that I believe should be strived for in education. In Montessori, at least at the primary level, we bend over backwards to instill what psychology now calls "intrinsic motivation" in the children, be it for education, moral behavior, good hygiend, or what have you. We don't use grades; we don't even tell a child when they have performed a work incorrectly unless they specifically ask (and they don't ask, surprisingly; only some of the 5 and six year olds who have very controlling parents are concerned with whether or not someone else thinks they're "right"). For creativity to really thrive I do think the motivation has to be intrinsic, but that's not to say that extrinsic motivation doesn't have an impact. But one's own thoughts and motives have to take precedence; they have be what REALLY compels one to act. Its hard to act and not compare one's self to others, but one can't--- as Peter KEating did--- let that comparison be what drives us in our decisions. Maybe it helps us evaluate the effectiveness of our decisions, but needing to quelch the differences that exist between one's self and another cannot be our motive. We need to strive to establish ourselves as a unique individual; isn't that what being creative is really all about? It's about being different; straying from the preestablished norm. You can't make yourself different from others if your major concern is making yourself comparable to them. You just have to ignore the comparison in the first place. You can still make the comparison-- just don't do it first.

A valid point; there is great misery to be had if one seeks romance by constantly comparing potential new partners to those of the past. Using that comparison as one's standard of measurement is bound to distort one's perspective, and, well, it's just plain insulting to the new potential person. It ignores the fact that they should be judged by their own merits. Even if they have the same values, they may implement them in very different ways, have very different passions, careers, priorities, etc. While I, too, was initially thinking this topic had strayed a bit from my initial inquiry, the more I thought about it the more I thought that there really is something to this phenomenon. Haven't we all been in that postition at some point in our lives where we, or someone we know, has gone through a breakup and suddenly feel re-inspired to workout and transform our bodies? I can comprehend the neurological/endorphine argument. Exercise feels good, reduces sex, etc. That's a given. So maybe we increase exercise after a break-up as a means of coping with stress and preventing ourselves from slipping into any kind of depression over the situation. Or maybe it is psychological; maybe we do simply want to make ourselves more attractive to be more alluring to potentially attract a mate, again. Here's an interesting point to ponder, though: does the person who initiates the break-up feel the same need to exercise? Or is it just the person who was dumped? Hmm. A comparison of exercise patterns between those two groups might be revealing. After my break-up several months ago, yes, I did increase my exercise. Did it reduce my sexual urges? Yes - but keep in mind I had the unfortunate habit of using sex as a measure for my self-esteem in my previous relationship. So I was probably exercising more to simply maintain that sense of self-esteem. But having recently begun a new relationship I have found that I still have that urge to exercise --- and no, it's not due to any lack of sex anymore So whatever my motivations were before, they have either changed, or I simply had a misunderstanding of what my motivations were in the first place. I have the urge to exercise, but find that I don't get it in as much as I would like anymore, mostly due to the time consumed by the commute it takes for me to visit my new boyfriend (1 hour each way). As much as I like exercising, when presented with the choice, I now choose to drive up to see him rather than staying home and doing some pilates. And exercise does seem to have its own values that even sex cannot replicate, or at least it does for me. Exercise just helps calm my body down and makes me more relaxed when dealing with everyday events. Sex helps me to relax, too but it's a different kind of relaxation. It's a "gee, I love life" kind of relaxation; it's really more of a sense of satisfaction. Exercise prevents tension from building up in one's body; it cuts of that route for stress to affect us. So if sex and exercise both work to relax us, and both help maintain a healthy sense of self-esteem, it makes sense that the absence of one makes one inclined to increase activity in the other. Maybe that's why prostitutes aren't renowned for their exercise regimen

Several members have suggested you reconsider your decision to go back to college, and I can't help but to agree, especially given my personal experience. Believe it or not, you can educate yourself outside of an institution. I am one of those crazy people who thinks that your work should stand up for your character and your ability, not some piece of paper that only, in essence, says, I went to this institution for this long and took all the required classes. Big deal. I earned my BA in history and graduated at the top of my class, but that's not to say that I didn't have my challenges in college. I nearly dropped out my senior year because my honors' thesis just seemed too overwhelming at first. I was fortunate, however, in that for every bad professor I had in college I had two good ones. My mentor for my thesis is especially praise worthy. The emphasis he placed on helping me spot and examine bias in history not only helped me academically with my thesis, but it made history that much more enjoyable and rich for me. I always did well in school, though, so it takes an exceptionally bad situation to make me resentful of the experience. I am what you would call "booksmart," and have always done well when pouring through texts and enjoy it thoroughly. I am always towing around some kind of research in my backpack which accompanies me everywhere, even though I am not in school anymore. Recently, however, I have really initiated efforts to return to school and pursue a PhD in Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience and/or Cognitive Psychology. Just yesterday I met with a professor at the University of Denver to go over my transcripts and what I need to do to achieve what I want. She has become a good friend of mine, having gone through a very similar academic expereince as me, but we both realize that she would not be the ideal mentor for me to study under. What I want to pursue in graduate research just simply does not exist out there; there are no professors who specialize in what I want to do, and this is really proving to be quite the obstacle. The advice I have gotten from faculty, professionals and graduate students in this field is that -- get this-- I would be better off not pursuing the degree and just focus on the knowledge and research. In recent weeks I have been plesantly surprised by how much people are willing to help you and share their research with you simply because they know you're serious about learning: the fact that I am not a student has not proven to be an obstacle., Why, even the professor I met with yesterday offered me a position in her research lab; I just need to figure out a way to make my schedule accomodate that. I have found that most people also like what I have to bring to the table in terms of my experience in educating young children and my knowledge of Montessori and other effective educational methods for young children. I have something to offer them, and they have something to offer me. Degrees aren't part of the equation. There are lots of examples of people who thrive in what they do, and are respected for what they do, even though they don't have a degree that "proves" it. I believe a person should be judged by their merits and capabilities, and the more years I tack under my belt in life, the more I realize that a fancy piece of paper is certainly not the best way to assess a person's abilities. As a fictional example, look at Howard Roark Closer to home, I look at people like my boyfriend, who, despite having no college degree in his field of modern furniture, lighting and design, earns more respect from many clients than they give to others in the field who have all sorts of training. What is his secret? He reads, and reads and reads. Industry publications, manufacturers' product information, design magazines (domestic and foreign), history of design, etc. He also makes efforts to attend and host as many design events as he can. He recently hosted an event devoted to creating innovative, portable, and cheap housing for refugee camps around the world: to give people a sense of property. There were all kinds of people at the event: architects, interior designers, engineers, students, furniture designers, physicists, etc. The humanitarian aspect of it took a back seat as we got carried away brainstorming innovative designs using all the new materials that are out there and underused in design at the moment. He puts himself in situations that help him grow, and I am already beginning to do the same with my own "educational" pursuits. The education I really want is not going to come from any university; it's simply so innovative that people are deeply intrigued but unwilling to commit their resources to it. But everyone, so far, has expressed a great willingness to help me in other ways... More meaningful and effective ways. Presently, I am not entirely sure if I want to formally pursue the degree or not. It's the knowledge and outcome I want, but I starting to think that it is MORE possible without the degree. Creating my own program -- without the constraints of mandatory courses in irrelevant areas-- will be just as likely to help me grow. Is the same kind of approach possible for you at all? What is it, exactly, you want to gain from earning a degree? Is there no ther way to earn prestige? Is it mandatory to get where you want to be?

It is a phenomenal show and I, too, would definitely recommend it. I had the privelege of taking a favorite former student of mine, his twin brother and his younger brother to the show when it recently came through Colorado. I don't know which was more exciting; the show or the 90 minute drive to the arena with three boys under seven in my car. I work with young children everday, and they have an absolute passion for dinosaurs -- girls and boys both -- that I never remember having at that age. I joke with my students, who are all quite the officianados on dinosaurs, when they ask me questions. I say, "Miss Allison doesn't know very much about dinosaurs. When I was in school there were only ten different kinds." They laugh, but I'm serious. There are thousands of different kinds now... and don't you dare use the word brontosaurus in front of one of these kids. (apparently, there was no such dinosaur; paleontologists initially gave it the wrong head). I was corrected on that by a four year old I have a dinosaur encyclopedia I keep on hand for reference so I don't look like a complete idiot on the topic anymore. As to the show, it was amazing, even for someone who is not really into dinosaurs like me. I was just amazed by the craftsmanship and artistry of the whole deal. I believe it took that long to make the figures; the quality is amazing. If you do have the chance to see it, go ahead, whether you're toting kids with you or not.

Of course one values one's self most of all; we're all objectivists here, aren't we? As for kids, I don't have any yet, so when I am speaking of romance and people I value in my life, kids don't play into that conversation just yet.

I would ceratinly agree with this. One of the benefits of honest communication and letting your vulnerability show, though, is that this allows you to have all these new experiences; it lets the other person know what you love and what you would be willing to try. Love and romance are, without a doubt, grounding in honesty. Telling someone that you love them when you harbor doubts can lead them to misunderstand the relationship, and that certainly will not help keep romance alive. Romance in its early stages is always passionate and a lot of romantic words are often exchanged; words that make you fall in love with each other. These early words can and do make you feel adored, accepted and all of those wonderful things. You listen to your love's words with ardent interest; you love that they are sharing all those details of their thoughts with you and you feel safe sharing yours with them. This is a fantastic process; one of the great perks of human romance. It can, however, backfire if one or both parties lacks complete understanding of themselves (and I'm not saying this to you personally, I'm speaking broadly). If one person has a little lack of self-confidence, for whatever reason, and reveals this vulnerability , they feel relieved when that person, nevertheless, tells them that they love them and is willing to accept their potential. This is recipe for disaster in romance, because it builds a long trail of questions and unequal expectations that must be juggled. So, yes, honesty is important. You know I believe that and that I understand why. To all those that don't know, I've been that dumb girl; the girl who holds back what she really thinks and what she really wants as a method of self-protection. Experience has taught me the error of that kind of action, and objectivism helps give me the philosophical grounding to justify why I will never let myself be that person again. People can grow, but one should be more or less complete when they pursue a realtionship. That is what allows the honesty to work... and that is what enables both parties to contribute everything they can to the person they value most in their life.

Heroism is fine to strive for, but the greater part of what makes one heroic is that his actions achieve his values. You say you want to join a just cause - and that's great, but the pivotal question you have to answer is whether or not the Israeli army has such a cause. I will admit my ignorance on the details of what the Israeli army is up to most of the time, but it doesn't seem like the defense of liberty and laissez-faire is their primary objective, nor is it the objective of any army up on this earth. A just army should offer protection to a populace so that they can pursue such values; so if that is what you feel the Israeli army does then, yes, it has heroic potential. If the army, however, basically functions as a puppet of a mercenary government, the heroism that's appealing to you seems like it would be hard to come by. Regardless, it seems like you have listed more reasons to the negative than to the positive. Maybe you could clarify a little more on what, besides the "fighting for a just cause" angle, makes you even have the inclination. What is it the army pursues that seems just to you? Do they act to create a world in which your values could thrive? These are the questions you must ask.

No, not married but I like to think that marriage is no excuse for romance to go away. I've been in a long term relationshp before and took comfort in all the routines and such you've mentioned above, but when it came down to it the romance did go away, and because of that the relationship suffered and ultimately met its demise. I am in the early stages of a newrelationship and it is great; it's everything "new love" is supposed to be. And while I am not naive enough to expect this level of romance to continue forever, I won't be dumb enough not to enjoy it while it is! The key, I suspect, to making romance endure, is having a companion who constantly challenges you; someone you can always try new things with. And it's important to challenge one another in more than one regard. Intellectual stimulation is fun, sure, but is not enough on its own to keep the flame of romance alive. But if you can both contribute novel intellectual, physical, and recreational pursuits, why, I do believe you have enough to keep things interesting and passionate for a very long time. That's the approach I am taking now and believe me life just gets better every day. Seeing someone you love try something new makes you love them all over again; trying something new with them gives you a new perspective on what your relationship is capable of.

I rather enjoy your poeticism; it makes me smile and not in any sort of mocking manner. I smile because I concur. I would certainly have to agree that romance is a very broad abstraction; one that I would even argue some people never fully arrive at due to conceptual roadblocks that they may have erected for whatever reason, be it poor self-esteem, trauma, etc. But for those of us out there who have found romance in our lives, this poeticism of yours speaks the truth. In my life, romance is what makes me relish that first conscious breath of air I take in the morning when I wake up beside my beloved. It is that sensual joy of not having to reach more than your arm's length to find the body of another who wants to always remain at no greater distance from you -- to be within reach, at all possible moments. Romance does indeed elevate the everyday events of life to an almost unimaginable level of joy; it inspires you to transform mundane tasks into new adventures; my personal favorite in this regard is cooking. I love cooking and love sharing that "everyday task" with someone who can bring the same level of passion to the table. It is the ability to completely captivate someone's attention; to catch them staring at you at the most unexpected moments or to savor the joy of them asking you to do the most ordinary task in the most unordinary manner. Romance is a conceptual force, of sorts, upon my conscience; I never cease to be amazed by my ability to always have my love on my mind while successfully conducting all the tasks of my day. Romance is, above all else I believe, a celebration: of life itself. It stems from sharing mutual values and expressing those values in all the wonderful explicit ways that human beings can, be it embarking on a new adventure (like trying snowboarding for the first time) or never quite getting out of bed on the weekend... When you have romance in your life, as I have the good fortune to understand, you simply feel alive. Is it possible to feel alive while alone and set in values, absolutely. But having someone in your life who can not only spot that quality in you but who also LOVES you for it brings a level of vigor to my life that no words can explain. You can indeed get along just fine without it.... but life is so much more enjoyable with it. Romance is not an essential in my life, but it certainly has great meaning. THere's no greater feeling in the world that someone whispering your name in the most romantic of moments simply because there are no words to truly communicate what they want to say. Romance is most powerful when the words "I love you" seem woefully insufficient to convey your passions for one another. In short, romance is not necessarily a compass in my life... but it is an experience that makes the journey of life that much more enjoyable and makes every moment that much more memorable.

I had to laugh. The first wine I tasted was communion wine; I was raised a Catholic before I "deviated" as my grandmothers put it. I remember hating it even then. I always chose to eat just the waffers; the line for the wine was always longer anyway...

I, too, prefer to identify myself as non-religious rather than an Atheist, and I do not necessarily contend that "atheism" is a good thing. I try to avoid making generalized statements like that, especially in religious matters, because it's such a hot topic that people have so many different definitions of. Saying I am an atheist may mean one thing when I say it to another person, and something entirely different to the next. What was particularly interesting about the article, though, was that it went through the stories of people who abandoned their faith; people who were not only highly religious, they were religious leaders. Several of the tales about the "indifference" they encountered when they confessed their failing faith to their religious superiors reminded me a lot of Leonard Peikoff's account of how he got turned away from religion by an honest rabbi (I think it was a rabbi). The religious superiors, in several cases, treated the loss of faith as no big deal. as if to say "That's okay, just keep giving a good sermon every Sunday." It revealed the dirty side of religious leadership, and gave further credence to the notion that religion, at its root, is really about power. It's a way to influence others; to get them to do things that benefit you (tithing in Catholicism, for example). That's what I enjoyed about the article; I don't necessarily contend that the "rise of atheism" is a good thing (esp considering that the article never really clearly outlined what the author's definition of atheism was...) but I am definitely optimistic about its premise that people are beginning to question faith and the institutions of religion in all the right ways.

I always avoided drinking for the longest time because the thought of what that substance had the capacity to do to one's mind frightened me. That's the same reason why I never tried any drugs. Even at my lowest levels of self-esteem in the past, I valued my mind too much to hinder its proper function. Now some alcohol does have health benefits, and knowing that I have only recently (within the last few years) started tryingsome sips of alcohol here and there (probably no more than twelve sips total in my life, though) but find, quite honestly, that I just don't like the taste. It's bitter. Now, does that aversion stem solely from my taste buds or am I inserting some sort of value judgment into it from the get go that prevents me from liking the taste at all? It's probably a combination of the two. I have nothing against people who drink, but I am honestly annoyed and confused by people who get drunk. Really getting to know other people or be comfortable around other people seems like it requires one to understand himself, and I don't understand how hindering one's mind can achieve that. To me, the desire to be drunk indicates some level of unhappiness with reality that one is having trouble coming to terms with. An evasion of sorts, if you will. Then again, I never have been drunk, but know I never will make myself get drunk either -- not even just to see what it's like. I keep trying to find a good red wine that I can tolerate now and then (because that does have health benefits) but have not even succeeded in that yet. And I don't think there are a whole lot of Objectivists out there who do get drunk, at least not that I've seen. Most objectivists I know tend to just sip on a glass or two while they sit back and relax. Maybe that has to do with the settings I interact with other objectivists in, though -- such as group dinners, book clubs, and lecture events. Not a whole lot of room for drunken craziness at those kinds of events; nor do they seem to attract that kind of personality.

I recently read an interesting article entitled "Atheist in the Pulpit" in the current issue of Psychology Today and was a bit surprised at some of the article's claims, one such claim being that atheism is one the rise. The only proof they seem to cite, however, is the rising book sale numbers of atheist texts, such as "The End of Faith" and "The God Delusion." It is an interesting article nonetheless and it is online as well. It goes through the biography of several former preachers who eventually lost their faith and their reasons why... some very interesting insights. I'm not sure how to post a link, but here's the address where you can find the article: http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20071228-000003.xml Shoot. I just realized the link works, but the article is only partially online. (It only shows the first page or so). Maybe it will capture enough people's interest though, and you'll be inspired to pick up the issue yourself.

Having received my BA in History (my emphasis was the American Revolution and the Early National Republic) I, too, was especially appalled at how biased some of my teachers were. Having biased teachers was one thing, but I was more disturbed by how biased some of the textbooks were. The tone in which they speak of the Founding Fathers in many texts -- I can even think back to the texts I used in middle and high school-- is just disgusting. It really is like people don't want heroes... they'd much rather tear a great man to pieces than to really admit he existed in the first place. Ungh! With that said, however, I did still manage to have some great teachers. The greatest course I took, under the greatest professor, was my honors thesis seminar. We spent an entire semester specifically training ourselves to spot bias in history in order to prevent ourselves from letting bias intervene in our own theses. Great stuff. It's good that you're thinking about this topic, though, because the key really lies in YOUR ability to spot where the teachers' bias lies; this will ultimately help you in your education, even if it teaches you nothing more than "everything this person says is worthless." I personally don't mind when a teacher openly shares their opinions, but I think it is imperative they make it clear where fact ends and their opinion/interpretation begins. This should apply to all topics -- even "number-based" topics-- not just history. Possessing judgment is okay, but educators need to clarify what is their judgment versus what is fact, just as they must be willing to accept students' individual judgments as well, and not do something stupid like punish them grade-wise for holding an opposing opinion. The teachers' podium should never function as a pulpit. It's okay to teach students' how to think, but shoving your opinion down their throats just defies the purpose of one's position, at any level in education.

lol... I'm really not very good at starting topics with concise, clear questions, am I? Brevity is not one of my talents... I've always been very verbose, usually to the point where what I am trying to say becomes very unclear. I'm working on that (but thanks for the comment Progressiveman ). Hearing others opinions can help me realize when I am being unclear, so that's another reason why I like constructive criticism: it's strengthening my communication skills. As to your comments KendallJ, he initiated 100%. He asked me to dance, he offered to walk me to the light rail station and waited with me, he asked me for my number, he called me two days later, he asked for a date, he called again before that date and we talked for hours. But then right when I am almost at the rendevous point, he calls and cancels the dinner of half the date, but promises to make up for it by dancing with me several nights later. Then he doesn't show. He texts me later and tells me he is sorry but he was sick, but then in the course of that text exchange he explains that he is sick because he is "pursuing someone at the moment" and that combined with his obligations to his family and friends is exhausting him. So maybe he asked me for my number as some weird sort of courtesy thing, but why follow it up with a call and even a date if you're really pursuing someone else? I just laughed when I received his explanation for being sick because it told me more about him than I think he intended to reveal. It showed he doesn't understand where values come from: if he understood they come from himself (and not from God, being the born-again that he claims to be) then he wouldn't be acting so sporadically. He doesn't know what he wants; that's clear. I just thought it was funny how much he stressed honesty as an important thing for people to have and yet his words and his actions are so contradictory. What was really funny is that after that, he said, but I still owe you, "a promise is a promise." I told him not to bother, I have more dignity than to be someone else's guilt trip. I've tried that before, and it doesn't make one feel very good about themself. It's just insulting to all parties involved. I would much rather have someone spend time with me because they value me as a person. The fact that he initiated the whole thing made me think maybe he did or at least had the curiousity to get to know me, but his ensuing actions clearly indicate he doesn't get me -- or any kind of rational thinking -- at all. I just thought the whole thing was funny, and was curious if anyone had any ideas about how someone like him could justify that course of action yet still pride themself as an honest human being. I guess the whole inquiry is futile; it's really only worth pursuing if we're talking about a rational person in the first place who is able to understand his own role in determining his values and wants. I understand mine, that's why I see humor in the whole situation.

I no longer let others' opinion of me shape my decisions. I'm not proud of the fact that I used to, but I can take pride in my willingness to admit where my character had flaws in the past because I take it as a sign of growth. In general, I really don't care what people think about me anymore... that person walking by may think I'm short, that coworker may think I'm pretentious, that guy I'm dancing with may think I'm ill-coordinated, oh well. I just keep doing what I do, pursuing my own values as I see them. I'm really not understanding how this is being interpreted as an issue of self-esteem. I think it is precisely because I do have a stronger sense of self-esteem now than I've ever had before that I'm having these frustrations. The opinion of people who have no real acquaintance with me do not really matter to me, but the people who explicitly try to seek that acquaintance then follow through with actions that do not match their stated intentions confuse me. That's not to say that I let their opinions "matter" to the point that my self-esteem is on the line; it simply means I think that they do not have that same desire to be honest with someone they're interested in getting acquainted with -- as a friend or whatever-- as I do. I consider it dishonesty not because I think we are all morally obligated to divulge every thought to every person, but more so because they're actions do not match their words. Because their actions do not match their words, I suspect they're holding back on something. But why? Why pursue anything under false pretenses, especially when it acts against one's self-interest? i'm not begging for compliments, nor do I seek recognition and adoration. The fact that I used to at all makes me that much more capable of seeing how that's unnecessary now. People who are capable of seeing my virtues will do so simply by virtue of their own virtues. I can't instill those virtues in them to enable them to do that. When I started the thread I was thinking in particular of one person -- whose actions have since proven he is not a rational person. That's probably the problem; not only is he irrational but he's also an altruist so I don't think he even knows what his true opinions are. I, however, do know what my opinions are, and my opinion in regard to him and this whole matter is: why would one (ie, he) even bother in the first place? I know I would not pretend to like someone more than I did if I was really interested in getting to know them in any meaningful fashion. I would present myself as interested, and just that, and act upon that stated interest. I do consider honesty a virtue, and it is one I now constantly act to achieve and maintain. To me, the fact that he was able to say one thing and act according to another indicates that he does not see it as any way dishonest to misrepresent himself; to misrepresent himself by not telling the whole truth... by leaving something out. Again, a true indicator of a lack of integrity on his part. As to Kendall's comments, I do consider it moral to divulge pertinent information to someone I was trying to establish an acquaintance with, especially when that information affects the foundation of the interest in the first place. I think I confused everyone with my wording in my initial inquiry (ha!, somehow what I left out in terms of clarity in my initial post misdirected the replies... how's that for irony! ). I do NOT consider just any person immoral for not telling me their every thought and opinion of me, but I do consider it immoral for someone who seeks an acquaintance to tell me things that their actions inevitably disprove. We do indeed live in a complex social world full of all sorts of contexts and extenuating circumstances, but I still think it is dishonest to try and start a friendship with someone you're not really interested in starting a friendship with. It just makes a mess of things and wastes everybody's time.... it prevents them both from pursuing their own true values and interests if even just for a moment ( not to mention that fact that it indicates that that person doesn't really know what their values are). It seems like it all could have been avoided had that person simply just been honest with himself, first and foremost. With that not having happened, the next opportunity to right the whole situation would have simply been to say "no thanks" rather than saying "okay" without ever having meant it. Even still, I do still like hearing others' opinions of me, good or bad. I guess that's the "politician" part of my personality. I don't crave their opinions because I need them to base my self-evaluation on ( I have more dignity than that now); sometimes it's just amusing to have something to compare your self-evaluations to.

I think my frustration mostly lies in my wishing people would not hold back their opinions toward me, especially if in holding that opinion back they're just making things more entangled and difficult than they need to be. Maybe the issue of honesty, then, lies on my behalf in calling the other person on what I suspect they want to say. I agree with this notion of weighing the "why's" and the "why not's" of telling somebody something -- I like the idiotic co-worker example. Again, I am not advocating total admittance of everything in one's life to everyone... but when something does directly have an impact on a relationship, be it with a co-worker, friend, lover, etc. donesn't one owe it to himself to speak honestly about it? Especially in cases that are less casual than just a co-worker or peer? I just don't understand why anyone would want to try and start anything up on the wrong foot. I don't disagree with anything you all have said It's nice to know that there are other people out there, besides myself, who take all these factors into consideration, unlike this guy -- and many others out there like him-- who consider themself in the right simply because they don't want to hurt other's feelings. It is important to weigh the pros and cons, and at the very least, as long as you are honest to yourself in your opinions of others I guess withholding information isn't necessarily dishonest. It sure is frustrating, though, especially when you are the one who information is likely being withheld from. But I am a sucker for contructive criticism. I would rather have people tell me exactly what they think rather than fake what they consider to be an acceptable response. I may be unusual in that respect; I'm not sure. That's one of the great things about my career with young children; they're never to shy to tell me when I am doing something wrong! Their honesty makes me smile everyday. Now if I could only get adults to address me in the same way...

Yes, I suppose I did mean "should," as I was referring to thoughts that were relevant to that other person and the relationship between the two of you. I guess I didn't make that clear enough in my initial question. If you are just starting a friendship with someone and you start to sense, hey, I don't really want to pursue this even as a friendship, shouldn't you tell that person? That's specifically what I am referring to because I have the sense that someone I recently met has that view toward me but is too scared to say so for whatever reason. If I were in his shoes, I would simply say "no thanks" and maybe state some reasons why, out of a sense of respect to myself and to that other person involved. That way, I know I wouldn't have to waste my time making that person feel better by not telling them what I'm really thinking, nor would I have to worry about giving them a false sense of what I'm thinking. It just seems easier to be open in that regard. The problem is I think a lot of people do hold back in matters like these because they do no view it as ethically wrong in any way, ie, they don't consider it being dishonest. At the very least, though, isn't it being dishonest to yourself? Or can you still say it to yourself, while holding it back from the other person involved, and still claim the moral highground? I'm not advocating bearing your soul to any stranger you meet, but if you have an opinion, let's say, that's pertinent to that person and the relationship you wish to have or avoid with them, it still seems dishonest to not speak your mind on the matter. At the very least, it shows an extreme lack of integrity. By holding back information that directly affects your relationship-- no matter what it is-- with another person doesn't that mean you're trying to avoid the inevitable reality of the situation?

If you have something you want to tell someone, but don't, for whatever reason, isn't that committing an act of dishonesty? I am of the opinion that it is because by choosing to not speak up you're sort of neglecting --or possibly even trying to evade-- a little bit of reality. You're choosing not to say it because you don't like the implications it would have on reality, for whatever reason. I realize it's not an outright lie, but it still seems like an attempt to escape something. I realize that context matters here; for example, it would be perfectly ethical and not dishonest to not tell an armed robber where you children are hiding in the house. I'm just talking about general social encounters here, and would be curious to know where other Objectivists stand on this issue.

It's worth a shot having your thyroid looked at, at least. There may be other "organ inefficiencies" out there, but thyroid disorders are quite common. After taking myself off of anti-depressants several years ago, I found myself not really depressed, but just tired all the time, and feeling so tired all of the time started to affect my outlook on things. I don't think we, or any doctor, would go so far as to argue that an inefficent organ is what causes a condition like depression or anxiety, but it could certainly hinder one's ability to overcome it. Having a general blood panel run couldn't hurt. Good health provides a great disposition for rational and optimistic thought.

Exactly. If the Constitution did clearly stipulate a defense of man's right to life, this compulsory schooling argument would be able to hold water. With the system as it is, though, it's a futile legal battle.

Using the word "servitude" here would imply that the teachers and administrators are the direct recipients of the fruit of the students' labor. That's not exactly what is going on within a school. While the students' presence and the school's existence does allow the employees of education to benefit, I don't think that the benefit could legally be traced backed to the students' deprivation. Taxpayers' deprivation, maybe, but not the students'. I really do believe it is more a matter of government stepping outside its rightful bounds (though, keep in mind its rightful bounds are, as of yet, not completely stipulated by the Constitution or any of its amendments) than it is a matter of the students being servants of the state. While I agree that you could argue that being told you have to endure being filled with ideas some government bureacracy deemed proper does smack of servitude in a broader conceptual sense, I think it will fail to meet the legal standard which I suspect would require direct proof that they benefited from you and your efforts in a way that you did not. It does seem like their forcing of ideas could cause deprivation on the individual's behalf, but with education having the value that it does in the public and legal system's eye, it would be a difficult assertion to prove legally. However, there are others ways to pursue change in matters such as this besides through the courts (at least initially). Public awareness is a great venue to make philosophical arguments; it is a great place to get people thinking. Once you get people thinking they can begin putting pressures on the system and possibly beget change. Maybe that's the political idealist in me speaking, but it's the only method I'm able to see as plausible. To begin this argument over compulsory schooling in the courts would defeat it from the start. You need to build a philosophical argument against it and use it to appeal to others (ie, not government employees) reason. Then maybe the laws would change in such a manner so as to allow your defense.

A really good book to read, as an adult, along with the Pooh tales is Pooh and the Philosophers. I just started reading it last night, and am astonished at the philosophical interpretations made of every little thing in the tales (such as Honey as the symbol for philosophic truth... for it has always been held to have a sort of "nectar of the gods" quality for much of history). Thus, Pooh is wise and deserves honey. Eeyore is not yet wise, and only deserves (and can only handle) a Useful Pot ( an empty honey jar). I don't know if it's all true, for it's hard to believe Milne had ALL of those things in mind when writing the stories, but I think the author of this book is right to say that there is not one word, action, or comma in Milne's tales that is not deliberate. It is the interactions between the characters that reveal their perspectives on the wrold for what they are, and that is a great implicit introduction to philosophy for any child (understanding that there are different views and that those perspectives can affect one's circumstances). It is also, as I am not ashamed to admit, a pleasurable way for any adult seeking a little light-hearting philosophy to sit back and think while being delightfully entertained all the while. There's also a book called Pooh and the Psychologists out there, but I have not gotten it yet. I imagine it's just as fun.

Keeping the legal definition of "involuntary servitude" in mind, I can see how the law could fail to view schooling as "laboring for another person" and would not, therefore, consider it a direct violation of the 13th amendment. That, however, does not necessarily mean it doesn't violate one's rights in a larger sense than the amendment speaks to, in that making one have to attend school could represent a violation of the individual's freedom to choose his own action (I'm speaking of both the student's rights as well the parents' right to choose for their children). I would consider that violation a form of involutary servitude, but that's an interpretation the law does not make. Of course the interpretation of the amendment, or any part of the Constitution, is always up for grabs depending on the Supreme Court members' inclinations to be loose or strict constructionist of the Constitution. There are a lot of things I would consider involuntary servitude -- such as most taxation and military draft -- that the Constitution, ironically, protects. So while compulsory schooling may indeed represent a violation of one's right to independent action in a greater abstract sense, that's not the interpretation the courts have historically been willing to make. The amendment itself came out of the Civil War, and spoke directly to the position of slavery. Is being forced to attend school where you may or may not be getting the education that you could have otherwise a form of slavery? At the very least, it is the government controlling your time; slavery is, in essence, a lack of control over one's own time and effort. I think compulsory schooling fits the bill, but try getting that past a court. Having to pay for other's children to attend school also qualifies as a form of slavery in my opinion, for it is governmental control over what you do with your money; money you earned with your own effort. By having to attend school (or by being forced to put one's kids in it) you may not be directly laboring for someone else, but the deprivation of control is clear. The question, then, seem to become not whether or not compulsory schooling violates the amendment so much as it is that compulsory schooling represents government overstepping its proper role. It is meant to protect individual's rights, not to strip them away, which is what compulsory schooling seems to do. It tells the individual this is one matter they cannot make their own choice about, just as it also tells everyone in society it is soemthing they have to accept and financially support.