Eiuol

Yes. Not as a rule, but yes, they certainly can, although I can't speak of frequency. Anyways, you spoke of what you said women respond to sexually. You said men don't respond to the same thing. Presumably, you think men respond sexually to something. So, what do men respond to? Evidence with it too, please. And I'll tell you if I have the same experience.

Sorry, I meant to also ask what you mean by "respond sexually". I mean, that applies to me, if I understand you correctly. What does a man respond to sexually, then? That's called being dishonest. Faking part of a viewpoint in order to see if someone responds to the manipulation. The context isn't being a devil's advocate, but using manipulation in order to see if someone can be manipulated. Flaking or disrupting plans?! Get me to buy her a drink?! When the goal of doing these is to "test", these are also manipulative. As mistakes or requests, these are fine, but not when the purpose is to see what I'll do. I would be wary of any such person, especially in romance. You're right, that is not about understanding character: it's about manipulation.

Character can only be judged over a range of time, otherwise it isn't character. By range of time, I mean multiple interactions and observations beyond single instances. Using single instances to judge character is called the fundamental attribution error, and is considered a cognitive bias. Quick assessments are possible, but those should not be used to judge character. The best they indicate is a lead, a hypothesis. How can you judge if a person is a swag with no substance? Why, just interact with them on several occasions! Quick assessments won't do - unless you want to treat the whole thing as a chess match of who will "win". Observation and interaction is all that can be done. This is a proper method for reasoning about any topic. For your last statement, are you saying males don't respond strongly to a firm, confident, assertive woman? Of course, there is way more to romantic attraction than that, but as a male, I do respond strongly to that. So, since I have one counter-example to your generalization of "unlike a man does", your statement does not hold. Please, use some examples. Concrete examples. Data. Anecdotes even. Until then, even Kevin's OP is assertion without evidence. This definition is extremelyyyyyyy problematic. You already precluded all non-heterosexual relationships at the outset. By only considering heterosexual relationships, you remove a very large swath of other ways of considering romance, namely, considerations that *don't* take into account gender much or at all.

I don't know where this phrase is coming from, given that this is an Objectivist forum. No one is born understanding romance/emotions/personal relationships, so it would make no sense to claim that women don't need any help in understanding romance. You said women invented romance? That may sound pithy, but that viewpoint probably is a result of how romance was treated in ~1920 because the norms from that time period largely stuck around.

A big maybe for Newt, but the rest of them... there wouldn't be a chance I'd vote GOP. If Romney didn't get elected, it's plausible that the Santorum types would garner greater support in 2016. On the other hand, perhaps they'll become even more marginalized by then if Obama is re-elected.

My line of reasoning is similar. I picked Obama because I don't think he'll be worse than Romney, and he's marginally better in some regards. The 2016 election will be more fundamental one I think, so I'd rather that election be "clean slate" without an incumbent.

I do not see why it is good for any person to "test" another person's character traits. Character can only be judged over a wide range of time, and what the other person chooses to do in various situations. No testing is required, because character traits become apparent during normal interactions. If this is what you meant by test, I'm fine with that word, and it certainly applies to anyone in social interactions, regardless of gender. But if by test you mean use contrived scenarios or questions for testing character traits, that is a poor way to figure out character, on top of being inaccurate if any conclusions are made. I know that Kevin is speaking of gender polarity in terms of romantic relationships like you are, but (most of) the points he makes, they apply to both genders in my own experience. That is, except the part I quoted in my post #8.

Alfa, I don't see the need for specifically referencing men or women. Swap all the times you said woman and man, and for the most part, what you said is valid. I mean, if you swapped the words man and woman in your post, do you think anything would become invalid?

The free gas isn't from any private gas stations. The stations are set up by the Department of Defense, and only those have free gas. On top of that, emergency responders are first, so it seems that people just get whatever is left from a supply that would not have been used otherwise. I wouldn't even know an alternative way to distribute that gas if it is not privately owned. Perhaps the best thing to do would have been to provide gas to first responders, and save the rest.

The even more interesting thing to mention is that the writer/director Tim Minear, who wrote a whole screenplay for The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, has worked with Whedon on many occasions.

I said it reminded me of PUA *except* the manipulation. Remove all the aspects of referring *specifically* to men and women, and I'm fine with what Kevin is saying. What I mainly disagree on is the extremely strong generalizations.

I was going to post in your other thread, but I found here more fitting. I am wondering, what other writers besides Rand do you like or admire? I always like to ask that about other writers. For instance, it's not uncommon for anyone interested in Objectivism to also like Robert Heinlein. =P

You misunderstand, I was speaking of independence. "Every woman longs for the experience, however momentary, of being able to set aside her burden — to temporarily abandon external focus, and lose her concern with the outside world — and turn inward, exploring and experiencing the feminine, feeling aspects of her soul." It's this line I'm speaking about. I see that as saying a woman who has given up her independence in a romantic context in a heterosexual relationship is attractive. I also see it as telling a woman "turn on, tune in, drop out." Now, it's one thing to suggest the line I quoted of Kevin's article for something sexual on occasion perhaps, but this the context of a total romantic relationship. A different question I can ask: Why would I want to follow Kevin's advice? I do not mean to appear rude by asking that, although I do view the premises in the OP as misogynistic. While I don't disagree with the idea that some women desire what Kevin describes, why would that be attractive? I see it like what PUAs do (except what a PUA suggests is manipulative): Sure, it may "work" on some women, but why would you want to be in a relationship with the type of woman it attracts? I should add that yes, self-confidence is important, but that is attractive to any psychologically healthy person.

No. In bold letters, it says "every woman". But even if you are right and Kevin just should have edited more carefully, that is a massive generalization, so it is too strong to simply say heterosexual women. The generalization is too wide. This is only *a* concept of women, as a frozen abstraction: identifying a specific concrete which is within a concept, yet labeling the concept as that concrete. I don't know why this kind of woman would be desirable in the first place, that is, the woman who *wants* to be led by a man in a romantic context. If people as a whole should think and act for themselves, why would that suddenly change in a romantic context?

I did not mean to imply you don't respect writing. By the sounds of it now, you have quite a bit of experience. All I meant was that I don't know what your writing experience is. So, if it were relatively low experience, looking into other pieces of media to give your kids might be a great option. But if you have a lot of experience, I'll be curious to see about what ideas you have if you would like to share them. Video games weren't supposed to be insulting to mention - there are many video games which do express heroism and individuality. Also, it's important to note that Rand did not write her books with the purpose of outlining a philosophy. She has said that explicitly. Rather, it's more like what DonAthos is saying about creating pieces of art that may incidentally have very strong themes particularly pertinent to Objectivism.

What I mean is that someone like Beethoven or any other artistic person wouldn't just sit down one day and start working at making something as though it's like doing homework due the next day. From experience, I simply cannot assign myself something like "write for an hour everyday". If I do, my writing just isn't as good. Of course, making something takes time and planning, but when lacking ideas, sometimes it's best to literally do something else. I do not know if this is the case for Richard, that's just advice about writing in general.

I am wondering, are you an experienced writer? I ask because that affects how things are done. In some way, it sounds like you've assigned yourself a task as an inexperienced writer might, rather than pursued of creativity. Perhaps you'd be better off looking for various media that speaks to individuality and values. There are many books and video games around that really reflect that pretty well.

I don't fit your criteria to answer this question, however, I would say the word "gentleman" is an attempt to convey good character. To that extent, it's a pretty gender-neutral term. Yet it also seems to imply dating dynamics on the protective side of things for the male, which may include paying for the meal, holding doors, as some obvious examples. Those things aren't bad per se, but in my opinion, it's best left as an optional act for either partner, and done by either of them at different times. Otherwise, it sounds plain silly to me.

See, this joke really falls flat, because nothing indicates to me why you wouldn't want to stick around an Ayn Rand fan during the zombie apocalypse. What would've been better is to suggest that readers of Ayn Rand fans are already zombies, and go from there. "They want your brainnnnnsssssssss because your rational faculty is your means of survival!" Forget just the Rand part, the whole video wasn't great.

Actually, I'd bet most here would call Norway a mixed economy. To say anything more, I'd need to know about specific policies Norway as implemented that are explicitly regarding social ownership as a policy, rather than just singular instances of social ownership. Even people who advocate for government ownership of roads for the most part argue in terms of social ownership or that roads are too important for individuals to own, but that's not really a policy of social ownership. I don't quite understand this line. This is related to previous questions/posts in here of mine: What, in your estimation, would be an embodiment of Objectivist ethics? What sort of person would this be?

You said questioning Peikoff on this is questioning Objectivism and science as a whole. This is an argument from intimidation to the extent you are saying disagreement with Peikoff is the reason Campbell is wrong here. Actually, you misunderstood what was being said. You *said* you didn't read Campbell's posts (I guess you skimmed what was said briefly), that's why you misunderstood. But you didn't even try for clarification on the first post. My point is, if you want to engage the ideas, explain what is wrong. Civility is good on a discussion board.

I didn't say anything that required further explanation, because I mentioned a fact most people here would know (about how credibility works) and how I personally don't understand Peikoff. Presumably, I am part of his audience, so he should have explained.

Considering that Galt developed the Gulch over many years, I don't find it to be much of a utopia. Galt's Gulch is no Shangri La where there is utter perfection of existence with the finest food and comforts available. As far as anything remotely science fiction, it's not much of a portrayal of utopia. It has nice people and all, each one carefully told about how to come and many of them extremely savvy individuals. They probably wouldn't last long eventually as a secluded place, hence the work of Francisco and Ragnar in working towards an end of undoing the damage of an altruistic code of ethics. I do not find working towards big goals like that as utopianism actually. There weren't any suppositions that the Gulch was what perfection ought to be built out of. It was a place to at least live decently for a time where selectivity is possible. As for human nature, I don't know of any portrayals within Atlas Shrugged where there is suggestion that humans ought to be perfected, or that human nature is inherently good or evil. Perhaps you'd say Galt had no flaws and never made errors. But this is impossible to know in the context of the book. He's just a person pursuing goals, and really doesn't mind going as far as necessary to reach those goals. Regarding Dagny, we see a huge part of her intellectual development. I don't know what you mean by naivete about human nature. I explained in an earlier post why there is not a belief that all people will be rational if only evil people would leave them alone. But if a world is to not collapse into total dystopia, the idea is that it can be improved through education and knowledge - if people choose that. I can't address naivete more than this until you answer FeatherFall's question on the previous page. Regarding Objectivism "disliking" taxes, it's because it's seen as an initiation of force. Lobbying for tax breaks or special treatment is totally unjust to the extent it's advocating "oh, it's an initiation of force for me, but I don't mind if you initiate force on all those other people". Lobbying for any special treatment I would find to be a failure to act on principle - a principle of justice. You seemed to suggest that no one would be able to resist temptation and develop a bias that they are "owed" tax breaks that no one else should get. Still, I think it's overly pessimistic to say "power corrupts". I can think of bad powerful people, I can think of good powerful people. Perhaps some will rationalize, some won't. There is no promise either way.

Lacking sources/citations/mentions of real events suggests low credibility. This applies to any and all articles and op-eds. I have no idea, after reading it, how Obama is "anti-entity" any more than Romney. The whole article I did not find useful, nor would I link it to anyone else who is looking for varied thoughts on the election. No, I wasn't forced to read the article, I chose to read it to see what Peikoff is saying. And he didn't seem to be saying much at all.

Given that Swerve (as stated in his profile) has only read Atlas Shrugged, there is actually a lot that can be construed as suggesting all sorts of interpretations.