MichaelH

I have been married to a MBTI ESFP* for 16 years, so I've observed an anti-conceptual mentality up close for quite some time. Anti-conceptuals like my husband function on an emotional level. They perceive people's feelings automatically, rather than inferring them consciously from behavior. This makes them naturally very good at social interaction, and jobs that require social interaction. My husband can chat with essentially anyone, at any time, for any reason, and get them to enjoy talking to him. I've seen it happen; it's eerie. He is very good at fixing concrete things. He once rebuilt the wiring in a car completely from bumper to bumper, following the wiring diagram. Because of his experience with engines, he is very good at improvising fixes. He seems to have an extensive mental checklist of "if A is wrong, check X or Y or Z". Once he hits the end of his checklist, he has to look on-line to get more concretes. He tends to bring up irrelevancies and get flustered when asked to define their positions carefully. When a Tesla motors electric car stomped a Porsche in drag races, and the article described it as "faster than a Porsche", he had a fit. "It's not faster than a Porsche. It's quicker than a Porsche." He couldn't elaborate any further than that; his brain had short-circuited for a while. (I think he was trying to say "quicker off the line", but I doubt he knew the top speed of the Tesla.) When he is unhappy about my drivining, he'll say I should stop switching off the cruise control because "the switch will wear out". He is absolutely helpless when it comes to math. He tries, but algebra is not worth the effort required to make his brain work that way. He has an amazing (savant?) ability with money, to compute interest and percentages, probably because he can work with money physically. As for life achievement, anti-conceptuals can go very far in fields that use their strengths. Sales doesn't require a deep conceptual analysis. Neither does politics. (Running for office and running the government require very different skill sets). Anything at a perceptual level: auto repair, simple construction, welding, chef-ing, are all good fits. These fields have skills that are developed over time just like for conceptual jobs. Being anti-conceptual does come with a whole raft of problems. I want to point out that anti-conceptuals can still succeed and make contributions to society. Just don't ask them to plan ahead. * If you're unfamiliar with the MBTI, google "ESFP" and it will give you a detailed personality profile of my husband's type.

At its core, business means meeting other people's needs. A businessperson must be keenly aware of what their client base wants and needs. In fact, that is the primary consideration of someone who wants to be successful in business as a field. Your own evaluation of your product is second to the client's; it's not your opinion that matters here! That means a businessperson must be primarily concerned with what others want, and place their values above his/her own in terms of what is produced. Isn't that the definition of a second-hander? Or is a limited amount of second-handedness appropriate so long as it is used to achieve your own personal values?

KPFA had an interview with a politician from Sacramento this afternoon. A quick recap: the state of California is many, many billions of dollars short of being able to pay its bills. (Current estimates are $21 billion.) Voters made it clear in a recent initiative ballot that they do not want new taxes or budget-shuffling to make up the difference. The state has to cut spending. The governor has suggested completely cutting state welfare, and state-sponsored health care for children. The politician being interviewed was articulate but panicked on the radio; "Spending is down, taxes are down, there's just no more dollars in the chest! Nobody will lend us money!" <snip> "The governor's cuts are draconian! They'll hurt people!" The host asked, reasonably, "Well, then, what should we cut?" The politician almost wailed into the microphone: "I don't know! I don't know what else we can cut! But if we cut this, children won't have health coverage!" The host: "So there's no alternative..." "There's no alternative plan! There's no alternative plan in place!" It's right out of Atlas Shrugged. Things are collapsing, and they can't cope. This person was terrified by "If we cut health care for children, the children won't have health care!" Yes. That's cause and effect. Welcome to being a rational person. (For the record, the host suggested an Obama federal funds bailout, and the politician said it wasn't going to happen.) Attention politicians: welcome to the real world, where actions have consequences. We hope you'll enjoy your stay.

I like to listen to KPFA in the car. It's a good reminder of how socialist/communist minds work. There's lots of feeling-based speakers and second-hander ideas. Today they produced something unintentionally funny. There was a mini-article on the cultural revolution in China. They said, paraphrased: "the Red Guard was made of idealistic students that attacked the elderly and the middle class for their out of date ideas and property, but it [the Red Guard] soon grew into a monster." Because, obviously, beating up old people and property owners was OK.

We already have this in theory. Unfortunately this is quite difficult to do in practice. George W Bush swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Later he's on the record as saying, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" Obama is doing lots of interesting things politically (like the auto industry nationalization) that people really don't think is constitutional.

Art should be made first to satisfy the artist, or at most a group the artist conceives as suitable. When writing, for instance, it is common to have a readership in mind. You are not writing to please the readership, but you will construct and word your story appropriately. If the world in general appreciates your work, so much the better. Keep in mind: most new works are reimaginings or recombinations of existing works. The basic story plots have been established for centuries. Pop music has been recycling the IV, V, and I chords for decades. All western music follows a few variations of chord progressions. And movie plots...heh. The fact that we're literally recycling movies from previous decades tells you a lot about them. The fantasy-novel realm is littered with Tolkein clones, my own attempts included. So if you're not producing something truly novel, that doesn't mean you're not creating something worthwhile. You bring your own perspective and abilities to whatever you create. I mean, my goodness, we've seen pictures of people for centuries, and people haven't changed all that much. Last time I checked, photography as an art was still going strong. Get out there and create!

Thomas addressed the broader point (votes belong to individuals because of their rights) beautifully. However, regarding this particular point of the post: expanding the vote at least allows competing pressure groups to be heard. Limiting the vote ensures a particular group has power no matter what.

The actual rights of an individual are derived from their right to life [Ayn Rand Lexicon]. You're correct that a society can choose to infringe on those rights, but such infringement is morally wrong. Because government is charged with protecting the rights of all individuals, I see no issue with allowing all (adult, mentally competent) individuals to vote. The problem with restricting the voting pool is that it directs government towards protecting the interests of certain groups over others. It was difficult to elect anti-slavery officials, for example, when blacks were not allowed to vote. Limit the vote to taxpayers (property tax?), and you'll see the interests of renters ignored by the government. In a properly Objectivist government, there would be less impact from this, because the government would not create special interest groups the way it currently does. However, even an Objectivist government could have its operation skewed by restricting the voting pool.

A complete analysis of human drives and needs has not, to my knowledge, been completed. You are absolutely correct that the "hierarchy" does not have an Objective basis. My statement that they are listed in the order they emerge was incorrect. However, would you argue that humans do not have these needs? We can observe the damaged manner in which people lacking self-esteem, or food, or friendship behave.

You're correct about philosophy as it applies to children. As to it not being germane to the discussion, my point is that philosophy is not a primary motivator. I believe that point still applies, but I have no problem restricting the issue to adults from here forward. So we're clear, I'm responding to Zip's post: We agree that the ideologies are both based on altruism. However, I believe that answer stops too soon. It explains the "what" but not the "why". The underlying question is: what is the causes people to act to pursue values? Philosophy explains how to act to pursue values. Philosophy can help define values. Philosophy does not provide, however, the impetus to actually move. Humans have specific needs which they are driven to meet. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs enumerates them roughly in the order they emerge. What drives liberals and conservatives properly moves into a discussion of psychology. I've created a new thread for discussion of the psychological aspects. I'll be happy to continue the debate here as to whether psychology or philosophy is the primary.

Continuing from Tryanny: The greater evil behind the liberals, and responding to Zip's post: We agree that the ideologies are both based on altruism. However, I believe that answer stops too soon. It explains the "what" but not the "why". The underlying question is: what is the causes people to act to pursue values? Humans have specific needs which they are driven to meet. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs enumerates them roughly in the order they emerge. What drives liberals and conservatives properly moves into a discussion of psychology. Liberals seem driven by socialism and environmentalism. In terms of needs, I'd say socialism is driven by the need for food and health. The "thought" behind socialism is that, if some people aren't allowed to hoard the productive output of society, everyone will have their basic needs taken care of automatically. We need only look at soviet Russia to see that this simply does not work. Environmentalism is driven by fear that the natural environment is being destroyed. While some of the issues raised by environmentalism are valid, when taken to any length it becomes anti-human. OPAR explains why we have a moral obligation to alter our environment. Conservatives (social, not fiscal) seem to fear their own impulses, especially sex. (There is a great article about this on-line that I can't locate right now.) They consider themselves restrained from rape and murder only because of constant religious instruction. They then project these urges onto others. As far as they are concerned, if everyone in society doesn't go to church and pray regularly, society will crumble into a mass of barbarous behavior. That many people don't and it doesn't never alters their worldview because, fundamentally, their concern is not about others. It's about themselves. What do others think? What drives conservatives and liberals to pursue the ends they do?

I disagree. So some readers do not confuse my view with official Objectivist philosophy, I will mention I am not yet an Objectivist; I just agree with Objectivists on many points. Philosophy cannot be man's motive force. Babies act without the benefit of philosophy. Animals do the same. Animals, even rational animals, are fundamentally driven to meet certain needs like hunger and sex. In OPAR, Peikoff describes an invulnerable robot that has no physical needs or dangers. The robot has no reason to act as it has no values to lose. In relation to man, we would say it has no drives it must satisfy. People can get their philosophy so confused that they act against their life; see the "Why choose death?" thread in this forum. However, even if they do the wrong thing, they are fundamentally trying to meet needs. Philosophy (epistemology) shows us how to understand the world around us. Philosophy (ethics) shows us how to rank and align our desires to achieve a happy, purposeful life. Philosophy does not tell us the source of our desires; as I understand it, that is properly the function of science (biology and psychology).

Hi Mark! You're spot-on about the difference between Objectivism and basically every other philosophy. Objectivism is great because it doesn't require you to think of yourself as fatally flawed, or unavoidably deluded, or bound by "duty" to do things that make you miserable. It starts from what makes us human and builds on our strengths. Welcome to the board!

I encourage you to post when you feel part of a debate is not being addressed, or you think you are missing an important point. It's true that this forum reflects the news of the world and especially the U.S. However, you can get news - and even Objectivist views - without going to the forum. The benefit the forum provides is that it is active instead of passive. When you have to order your thoughts to make a post, when you consider the different issues raised by others, you create your own questions. Those questions reflect your understanding of the world and of Objectivism. The people on this board will help you answer your specific questions. I've found that far more valuable than simply reading/listening to/watching someone else's canned opinion, no matter how well-informed or properly derived. A single sentence that addresses the point you need is worth more than an entire book with the answer buried somewhere inside. To be clear: I strongly advocate reading books, especially Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. You should also use the Search function to see if your issue has already been discussed. But you will - you should have questions, and that it what the forum is for! Welcome!

I've run into this problem with the practice of Objectivism, too. Please do not feel you failed ethically just because you went to McDonald's. It doesn't sound like you had created choices for yourself yet, so how would going hungry have been better? One approach is to brainstorm ways to turn value judgements into actionable solutions. For example: if you recognize McDonald's is not a good choice, look for better choices to make. Can you make something ahead to take with you? Is there an fast-food alternative that might not be as bad? (Panda Express uses real vegetables; there may be smaller chains that make better quality burgers...) If McDonald's is the only thing in the area, could you supplement the burger with a salad or fruit or orange juice? I think you'll find, once you do the brainstorming, it's easier to act in accordance with your principles.

It's going to be fun/scary watching how this pans out. Witness the reaction to this article suggesting CA is going to go bankrupt: http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archiv...big_to_fail.php The comments show everything as viewed through special interest group politics. Why is California having budget problems? It's old people. It's young people. It's immigrants. It's other states sucking up our federal tax money. The question seems to not be how do we solve the problem, but rather, what group receiving government funds do we blame?

One's personal psychological tendencies are not unknowable. You are correct that sexual orientation is not a measurement of action. "Gay man trapped in a relationship with a woman he married to convince himself he was straight" is a common life pattern among gay men. The men may seek same-sex sex outside of marriage, or on the internet, or just be deeply repressed and unhappy for the rest of their lives. They are living against their sexual orientation, and they know it even if they do not act on it. An important part of Objectivism is the understanding that words have specific meanings. If you are sexually attracted primarily to the opposite sex, you are heterosexual. If you are sexually attracted primarily to the same sex, you are homosexual/gay. If you are sexually attracted to both sexes roughly equally, you are bisexual. People on the fringes of these categories are generally free to categorize themselves as they see fit. The words fit the person, not the other way around. The most meaning that could be derived from a lab test would be a moment's idle curiosity: "So I'm a straight person with the brain of a gay person. Huh. That's interesting." As for determinism, other gay people's posts in this thread and on this board should help inform your opinion. Bisexual people are certainly free to enjoy same-sex relationships! However, don't assume all gay people are like you just because they are doing physically similar things.

Point happily conceded.

From the description you've given, you're clearly bisexual, not homosexual. That you choose to act only on your homosexual attractions doesn't negate the heterosexual attractions. Your post highlights a real issue with US and current Western cultures in how sexuality is defined. We try to isolate sexuality into a very few categories. Are you gay or straight? Butch or femme? Top or bottom? Kinsey recognized that sexuality is a continuum, with people ranging from purely homosexual to purely heterosexual. The Kinsey Scale ranks where people fall along that basis. There can be more to the attraction, of course, but it's a good start for broadening the discussion. Sexuality, as Jackethan points out, is a complex subject. In the words of Captain Jack Harkness: "You people and your tiny, little labels!"

You're absolutely right that people deserve the benefit of the doubt. The point of my post is that judgement is not permanent because people can change. As you mention, there's been a social demonization of judgement. Subjectivism runs deep in the US: all societies are equal, all viewpoints are equally valid, who are we to decide right or wrong? A commond objection to judging is that it will make the judged person "feel bad". If you are doing wrong, "feeling bad" is an appropriate response. It should encourage you to change your behavior! And then, once the behavior is changed, the judgement is lifted.

I'd like to expand on the "judge, and prepare to be judged" line. People outside of Objectivism often have the wrong idea about "judging". Especially from a juedo-christian perspective, there's the idea that judgement is a one-time thing and the results are permanent. If you're judged to be a lazy slacker, then you're always a lazy slacker and that's all you'll ever be. But that's not how judgement is supposed to work. It's true that you can only judge people based on their past; that's all we have access to. But past actions do not necessarily stain the present. We are rational creatures with free will, and choose our behavior on a continuous basis. Having done bad things in the past does not condemn you to always be a bad person. It's what you choose to do now that matters, not what you chose in the past. There have been threads about atoning for past wrongs, and that's absolutely appropriate. My point is that having made the wrong choice in the past does not force you to make the wrong choice again. The ability to change your course, the ability to decide, is what makes life distinct from death.

Altruism is the go-to evil for most Objectivist discussions. The Objective Standard has many insightful analysis that end up with the author pointing a finger and screaming "altruism!!!" However, this is because it is a real threat and is the philosophical cause of many, many problems. Current governments are essentially powered by altruism. That it keeps coming up in most discussions is a sign of how intrusive it is as a philosophy, and make no mistake, it is a bad one. Zip has nailed what (in the U.S.) liberals and conservatives are fundamentally trying to achieve. Ghost, you are right that altruism is not the underlying motive. The driving force is the desire to see the world become a better place. (More or less cynical motives can be incorporated - profit, livelihood, the desire to reduce suffering, the desire to see the "evil" suffer, etc.) These desires are the driving force. Altruism is the mechanism used. It is the philosophy that allows a person to take the step from "I think things would be better if..." to "People should be forced to...". There is not a rational person on the planet who has not looked at the world and had that first thought. To never imagine "things would be better if..." would be a sad and literal existence limited by the facts of reality exactly as presented, with no hope for improvement or consideration of alternatives. But without altruism, those imaginings cannot harm others. They can inspire innovation. Using the trader principle or one's own productive work, those thoughts can (in fact) improve the world. It is altruism that takes the desire to improve one's environment and turns it into a power for evil. For a liberal example: the desire to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (Whether this is a worthy goal is a separate discussion.) Using the trader principle, a person can plant trees on their own property, can buy a small fuel-efficient car, and can buy land to preserve in the rain forest. The trader is free to create a donation-funded organization to do those things on a larger scale. If you disagree with the trader, you can ignore their activities. An altruist has the government pass anti-industry laws that limit production, zoning laws that require builders to plant a certain number of trees in parking lots (!), force auto makers to make cars with high MPG ratings, and so on. This results in less employment, higher costs for customers, and malinvestment in production equipment for lightweight vehicles. If you disagree with the altruist, the government will use force to make you comply with their wishes. The trader has made the world a better place and hurt nobody in the process. The altruist has harmed great many people, so much so that their net impact is negative. This is why we say altruism is the cause of evil.

There are side benefits to becoming consistent and not pirating software/music/etc. Among them is the ability to adjust your life's priorities. When I was pirating movies and TV shows, I tended to watch too much. When it's easy to download a dozen movies a week, and there's no incremental cost, it's easy to just sit down on the couch and watch, and watch, and watch. (My spouse is a movie buff, so that was further incentive.) Since I've stopped (generally) pirating, I have more time to do more important things. Many are leisure activities like reading or surfing the web. But it's also easier to focus on work when need be. Others have mentioned the internal benefits. Now that I have the trader principle automatized, I no longer resent having to work for a living. I recognize it as an exchange of value that allows me to earn my livelihood. Consistency makes it easier to react appropriately to challenges. When you're inconsistent, you are habitually responding to a small problem with "This isn't really congruent with my philosophy, but I'll make an exception because [blank]." If you don't train your philosophy to stand for small challenges, how do you expect it to help on the big ones? I'll admit I still have work to do, but the closer I come to being consistent with my stated values, the more benefits accrue. Life is fundamentally more rewarding for a producer than a moocher or a looter, even if the looting was part-time. For those working towards this goal: keep going! For those about to start: it is worth it!

If I put "Atlas Shrugged: Page 35, Paragraph 2" in the background on a menu, would you say I'm not encouraging people to read Atlas Shrugged nor pushing them towards Objectivism? I guess I find it offensive more because it doesn't (IMO) belong in a business transaction. It sounds like the general consensus is: you're dealing with people, and since most people are religious, just expect it.

I was a big fan of a local sushi restaurant. The quality of their sushi is excellent. They are less expensive than the competition and are (in my opinion) better. However, they recently printed new menus with a bible verse reference in the background of every page. It is large type and hard to miss. I was embarrassed to go there with my husband and a friend (all of us are athiests) and have the menu pushing us to pick up a bible when we just wanted food. We left without ordering anything. I don't recall the chapter and verse referenced, but we did eventually look it up on-line and it has to do with honesty in business dealings. I'd appreciate an Objectivist check of my analysis of the situation. I don't have a problem with the business owners being Christian or not. It's irrelevant to my purchase. The religious reference on the menu is the issue. That means: 1. Bringing friends into the restaurant implies I want them to read a bible. (I don't.) So, no eating in. 2. Ordering take-out from the restaurant would be fine because their take-out menu doesn't have the references. None of my friends will be exposed to the new menu, which means what's printed on it is a non-issue. Although #2 feels like I'm hiding something, my other option is spending significantly more for worse-quality sushi. I feel like I'm doing the wrong thing no matter what I do. Do forum members have any thoughts on this?