deedlebee

Continuing on with the original subject of this thread: I think desire might have been a poor word to use. What I meant by using it was "a willful drive". I do believe that honesty would help in this regard, but someone simply telling you "I wish you knew more so we could talk about something different" probably isn't the best motivator. If a person wants to continue improving himself over the course of his life, regardless of marital status, I'd say he's better off. Additionally, I would add Priority to a successful marriage. Making time to be with your spouse, even when it's difficult (especially if children are involved). Even I, who have been reluctant towards the idea of children was surprised by this point of view. The author however, makes a very strong argument as to why priority towards the marriage is so vital. I'm still curious about this one. Is there anything besides the biological difference?

I have ;> And the way you describe it almost seems like it would fit perfectly into a Monty Python script I remember one particularly funny old SNL skit (though it might have had Chris Farely (sp?) who I generally dislike) where three or four people were in the kitchen eating breakfast. One of the guys takes a swig of milk straight from the carton then revulses and exclaims, "uhg! This milk is sour! Hey Billy (I don't remember the exact names/quote), taste this." So Billy takes a swig of the milk and repeats the exact same response. The first guy then sits down on a chair but quickly jumps up with a yelp and exclaims that there's a loose nail. "Hey Billy, sit on that!" So Billy sits on it, while still holding the milk. Eventually it builds up to where there are four or so things that are bad, broken or hurtful, and they all just continue to do the same thing over and over again, exclaiming to the other to try it. The skit went on too long, but the point was really funny. It reminded me of a time way back in middle school when once a light flickered and more than half the class looked up at it, and a few commented that indeed, it was flickering. Someone had the sense to say, "Like looking up at it will really do anything." I see people act like this all the time. It's almost amazing to me how many useless things people will focus their attention on when given an audience. Likewise a person will find something really horrible and immediately want to share it, but don't realize his behaviour is something he wouldn't want to repeat.

...not what? I hesitate to use an analogy here, but previous posts seem to show that pointing out the ideas behind what constitutes a mistake were perhaps, not given careful consideration by the above poster. By your definition of mistake, all of childhood is a mistake. When a child selects blueberry ice cream with gummi worms and chocolate cookies at the ice cream shop because he is making the assumption "I like all these things. I will probably like them all together", he is not ignoring any fact about himself. He is acting within the context of his knowledge. After he eats it, he may learn that the gummies freeze instantly in the ice cream, and that blueberries don't mix so well with chocolate. No, he probably won't choose that combination again. If he did, that would be a willful mistake. All he did the first time was learn. Make the argument that children are different from adults in their scope of knowledge, but the ice cream is used to illustrate context of knowledge. I am unwilling to accept that every action I might take would be considered a mistake for fear that I don't have a full understanding of this philosophy, of knowing every single bit of information about another person because I might (never) find another who is slightly better, nor am I willing to accept that one should bind themselves to a person who is dead and stop looking till their death. These are not ideas I will accept in a life that I hope to have filled with happiness. You cannot forget the context of knowledge with which the decision was made. It is not irrelevant to the judgment. You are absolutely right. While writing that sentence I thought to myself, "something isn't right, because I do believe that people should have the right to become prostitutes". My statement was poorly phrased. Perhaps what I should have said is, "engaging with prostitutes (or anyone you don't know well) for the sake of casual sex on a regular basis, while failing to search for someone who is an embodiment of your highest values, is perhaps an indicator of low sense of self". (How's that? I'm a bit unsure myself.) I would certainly not lump the examples of the fictional characters in with "everyday" prostitution (or those who use the services). Those are situations where the character is under duress (I'm assuming from the examples as you phrased them. I have not read the stories) and for one reason or another cannot be said to be wholly free in those choices. In hopes of phrasing that clearly I simply mean that their choices appear to be limited. Some values are worth exchanging in certain situations. I would be surprised if it turned out either of those heroines enjoyed the act and then made a habit of it however. (Note to Inspector, these are still not mistakes because they are made within a particular context.) On marriage, I agree, but I would also add "a continuing desire to improve yourself" for both spouses. This would keep the desire level high and be a reaffirmation of love for yourself and the other person. I've seen many marriages suffer from stagnation. It's a fairly sad sight when you see two people staying together based on the memory of "what was", instead of really being passionate about the reality of "what is". (This is not a situation where people have degraded in values.)

I liked the Jeopardy/Galt joke ;> It could be that I'm approaching all this from a different mind set, but is this an appropriate generalization? Do all people that tread the course of transition towards Objectivism feel that their lives are filled (even slightly) with bitterness? When I look back at my past, I see a life that could have been better if I was more aware of these values explicitly. Should I be bitter? I don't see how that is helpful to me in anyway. If events went wrong, I acknowledge that, change and move forward. The only harsh experience I've had so far as a direct result of trying to incorporate Objectivism into my life involved shame, which manifested and disappeared all within three days. I hope this doesn't sound rude, but, as a new student to this philosophy, am I missing out on some kind of crucial suffering? Am I in some kind of denial?

I agree with what appears to be the Objectivist stance here. Meaning, I disagree with Inspector. A mistake in the context of a willfully entered relationship could only be described as such if there was purposeful evasion of values. That does not mean that if a relationship ends, it was not a failure. But that also does not make it a mistake. In my previous relationship (started 8 years ago) I was very similar in values to my then-boyfriend. We had similar interests and outlooks on life. I see no mistake in pursuing a relationship with that context. However, the relationship was a failure and ultimately ended for several factors. (Personal information follows, skip ahead to the next paragraph if you don't care.) He never moved forward in realizing his goals and I "changed" my philosophy. By the end, we were almost polar opposites. Discussions, long talks and explanations... They only proved the relationship was doomed. I was fully justified in leaving to seek out someone whose values matched my own. At the beginning of the relationship, there was no intentional or irrational mistake. Looking back on the relationship, it was not a mistake. It was however a failure. To be very clear, the *relationship* was not a mistake because it was the embodiment of my highest values. You could certainly look back and label it as a mistake if I *stayed* in the relationship, then knowingly ignoring my values. I'd even be willing to suggest that staying in such an arrangement also constitutes a failure, even if it doesn't end. This doesn't even sound logical. I don't understand how this could possibly fit into an Objectivist's view of life. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) This sounds more like the kind of statement that might come from someone in denial, who wished the relationship was still continuing. I certainly don't assert that I *gained* values from my previous relationship. I might be willing to suggest that I became more aware of my own values, but that doesn't sound similar. Gain would imply something you did not previously have. In the context of a relationship, that would mean it came from the other person, whom you have now dumped. No, I can't see how that would make sense. On the other hand, entering into a sexual situation where you know there is a slim to nil chance of continuing into a full relationship seems very reckless. Sex should be cherished, but that doesn't necessarily imply monks. I don't see prostitutes fitting into the "good expression of morality" group. I think there is a large degree of difference between, "I really like this person who I've known for a month, but might possibly move in another month.. Ok, let's have sex" (a situation where you seriously consider your values and his/hers as well as the situation at hand.) and "I've just met this person and I've no clue if his/her values are similar to mine to any large degree... but I made her laugh so I'll have sex" (a situation where you ignore your (and the other person's) values, thus making the situation irrelevant.) Personally, I'm the cautious type*. But situations may vary for each person. It would be unreasonable to set hard standards of time and degree of knowledge into some kind of manual. (This is why I agree that certain fictional characters are fully correct in pursuing relationships then later move on). Humans certainly aren't omniscient, but that doesn't mean we can't use degrees of certainty when choosing a relationship. Also, I think this is said perfectly. *One last thing. I saw in other threads and some articles that Miss Rand believed in love at first sight. When asked why this was the case, the answer I have seen is, "She saw Frank". I do not find this answer very helpful What I would like to ask though, is that, if love at first sight is an accepted idea, then wouldn't that imply that a decision to sleep with someone the first day you've met him/her is perfectly justified? What I don't understand is how so much, in terms of knowing explicit values and ideas could possibly be conveyed with a single look. Wherein lies the romance?

That must be a really horrible feeling. I've been trying to soften the eventual blow with my own parents for the time (at some unknown point in the future) when I choose to get married. While in high school, I attended my cousin's marriage (she's much older than I am.. by about 15 years I think). The weird thing was that my cousin and the groom were technically already married. They had a civil ceremony. My uncle was apparently so disturbed by this fact that he paid for a second wedding to be held in a church. At some point during this vacation, my own father relayed his hopes for me to be married in a church... you know, in that fatherly tone that sounds like, "and if you don't, you'll be disowned". I hate churches. I find them very disturbing places to be. As such, in addition to being an atheist as well, there's no way I'd ever hold my wedding in one. I know the discussion will come up at some point so I've been trying to ease them into both ideas. I haven't attended church for probably a decade, I've had discussions about the view that one's self should be the biggest motivator in a person's life instead of some constantly-forgiving god, and I've probably also hinted at ideas that I think would be nice for a ceremony (that are obviously lacking the church/religion thing.) I really don't see this approach, of easing them into these ideas with sort of a step-by-step program as dishonest. Though if asked directly by them tomorrow if I believed in a god I would simply answer no. Perhaps a more gradual approach could be considered for you in the future? It may give your family and friends time to digest smaller bites and allow them the much-needed reflection when one comes into contact with opposing viewpoints.

1. Ayn Rand (100%) 2. Kant (61%) 3. Jean-Paul Sartre (58%) 4. Aristotle (56%) 5. David Hume (54%) 6. John Stuart Mill (54%) 7. Nietzsche (54%) 8. Stoics (48%) 9. Plato (47%) 10. Cynics (46%) 11. Thomas Hobbes (46%) 12. Aquinas (45%) 13. Prescriptivism (43%) 14. Jeremy Bentham (40%) 15. Spinoza (40%) 16. Epicureans (37%) 17. St. Augustine (36%) 18. Nel Noddings (29%) 19. Ockham (23%) I'm rather worried about my results, excluding the number one slot. Looking through these responses, I've seen a few people with Kant high up. What could be the reason for this? Was there a particular question that was too ambiguous? I really don't like Kant!

This reminded me of the Woman President thread and article. I'm not specifically interested in bring that up in this thread, but would you (or anyone) happen to know if Miss. Rand (or any prominent Objectivist scholar) wrote anything regarding Queen Victoria's relationship with Prince Albert? I recently saw a piece of fine art and learned a bit about their story. I was very touched :>

I would like to re-ask a question I posed earlier. The responses I received with regard to the femininity/masculinity were wonderful, thank you. I still find myself hesitant with the term "worship". Perhaps it's because of all the negative association with religion, but I don't have much experience with it in any other context. Is it offered in strictly a sexual context or is it an encompassing view of how a woman might view a man? If it's the latter, why doesn't this apply in reverse? His drive and ambition is certainly something to admire and to desire him for. But doesn't the man also admire and desire the woman for actively perusing her goals? This is where the worship term seems uncomfortably lopsided. So, is it strictly confined to the sexual arena, or does it branch out? The idea that I keep seeing is one that says "sexually, a woman receives what the man gives" but then is followed by explanations such as "this does not mean she is submissive to his every whim, or can't be aggressive during sex" and follows with "this is purely a biological function, and while important, does not impact a female achievements or morality in a way that is lesser to males." but is attached to "this is a male role-model, one of strength, and a woman's role-model is of a strength worshipper." Does this actually mean then ... that in a "proper" relationship, the man is somehow always greater in achievements and abilities than the woman, and that any deviation from this is somehow corrupt? I apologize if it seems like I'm repeating myself but this issue is just too important to feel confused about. I'm aware that my personal feelings and experiences seem to model the role models put forth, but I'm not totally clear on this concept. I don't know what to think about saying "I'd want to worship him" to myself. --------- What follows is my reply to DPW and the side thread regarding introductions. My previous statements = blue DPW's previous statements = green What I’m not going to debate is the effectiveness of what I posted because I have the first hand evidence to back it up. And I have the first hand evidence of experiencing lines and tactics you have suggested, being a female and all that. If you want me to explicitly qualify my statements by saying "these are based on my personal experiences", fine. Your statements are the exact same thing. I'm well aware that neither of us is running a controlled lab experiment AND that each situation will be different due to personalities and context. What you seem to object to is a guy becoming conscious of his behaviors with respect to the goal of attracting women. I'm not objecting to a man being aware of his actions, much less, working on improving them. What I (repeatedly) suggested in my post was that intelligent women would see through these suggestions you offer. They're trumped up come-on lines. What I have personally* (see disclaimer in above paragraph) experienced with men is that I am most attracted to them in natural situations where conversations act as the introduction. For folks that enjoy the more intellectual pursuits of life, this is a matter of dealing with cold feet in social situations. If you have no male friends, it's time to make some. A friend of a friend at a party met during conversation will spare you from having to create illusions of (no) interest. What do you mean by “games”? Which “games” did I advocate playing? And how is it insulting for guys to learn how to be men and how to treat women a way they enjoy being treated? 1) The games of refusing to hold conversation with her, pretending you're not interested when you obviously are, wasting her time by creating fake hurdles.. Again I'll ask, what kind of woman do you think you're going to wind up with who is actually deceived by this? 2) It's not insulting at all for a man to improve himself, to learn more about the dating dance. I don't believe I ever made such a wild accusation. What I said, is that for an intelligent woman, being approached with obvious tactics is an insult to her character. I'm certainly not suggesting that self-improvement should be shunned or those men who don't know what to say should shut up and go home. What perhaps was not clear in my sentiment was the idea that if a guy finds himself resorting to these tricks, then maybe it's possible he's looking for women in the wrong place. One of the things I notice immediately about Objectivist men is their intellect and communication among his friends. There's a man I want to scope out for a long while at a party My point was that these behaviors will not cause a woman to desire you. Being NICE will not cause her to desire you. To create attraction, you have to behave in ways that subcommunicate attractive personality traits. No, I wouldn't fall to my knees in a shuddering orgasm if my date opens the door for me. But what this behavior does demonstrate (to me* see above) is perhaps deeper than you might have considered. A gentleman always scores points. "He held the door, not walked right through and let it slam on my face. He's aware of me." That's not kowtow to your new queen. It scores points in the back of my* head that will eventually accumulate when it comes to more serious things. "Will he pay attention to my sounds and motions in bed, or just keep pounding away?" Additionally, a man who knows how to handle himself in social situations (that are not directed towards his date) is a powerful signal. Does he know how to leave an appropriate tip? Does he dress appropriately for various restaurants? Does he curse and scream expletives at the cab driver? Does he know how to get the waiter's attention without throwing a dinner roll? These are important! Uncertainty in dealing with others is a strong turn-off. These are areas where these men should shine. You understand how (and why!) to treat others in certain ways. That’s why so many amazing guys, in and outside of Objectivism, spend Saturday night alone while a bunch of jerks are sleeping with attractive women. I want that to change. I couldn't agree more. If you disagree with my advice, that is your right. But then the ball is in your court: you go help that lonely guy find a girl. I am not a dating service, nor do I advocate hitting on 40 women a week. I would however, go to great lengths to help my friends do just this. But this is not about finding the right punch line. It's about having the qualities women find attractive and knowing (see? explicit behavior isn't bad!) how to put them in her line of site. As far as the “who lies more?” opener, first of all, it’s not a negative question. It’s an engaging question. Second of all, it would not be apparent to you that I wanted to talk to you. ... it allows me to engage a girl in conversation without setting off her “he wants something from me” alarms. If you saw me, you’re subconscious evaluation would be along the lines of, “Here’s a guy who talks to everyone because he enjoys it, not because he’s trying to get somewhere with them.” Of course, you wouldn’t verbalize that thought…you’d be too busy laughing and having a good time talking to me. I find it negative because it's such an obvious starter to a rant. Personally* that's not the kind of conversation I want to be in with a stranger. Frankly, it's because I could really care less. My subconscious evaluation would be exactly what I said. I'd wonder why you were asking me such a totally random question. Warning bells go off. You can have your data, and/or you can hear a female say "I would find this uncomfortable". So no, I don't think I'd be laughing. However, I will agree with you that communicating the verbal nuances of interaction with text is a tricky thing. Still, I'd rather not have a stranger approach me* with a "rantable" question. Let me make a suggestion. Don’t tell us how you think you would react to something. I KNOW what response I got from that line, and it wasn’t a polite half-hearted chuckle. Keep in mind that teasing has a lot to do with the context and with vocal tonality, etc., so it’s difficult to communicate over the Internet. Second, do you really think you should tell us what you think works best? Have you approached hundreds of women? I have. I know what works because I’ve TESTED these things over and over and over again. This is not guesswork on my part. Don’t confuse guys by telling them what you think your own personal preferences are. Unlike the women you apparently meet in bars that are having a great time with their girlfriends, I have not approached hundreds of women. The reason I'm offering my opinion of your statements stems from the fact that 1) I am a female 2) I'm also very interested in Objectivism. Your response is, frankly, incredibly condescending, and I certainly don't hope you tell your potential dates that you're not interested in what they think about their own, personal reactions. One final factor. 3) I'm in a long-term relationship with a man. He did none of these things and I'm incredibly happy. I don't believe that posting a reply on a forum equals a dictate on the way all men should act, but I do believe a response is within the bounds of civil conversation. That is of course, unless, you did write your post as a dictate no female should ever reply to. I don't believe this however. Look, it’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about. The fact is this: if you show interest in a girl who has so far done nothing but look good, she will not respond to you ... Once again, the thing that apparently bothers you is not that I do this, but that I’m conscious of doing it. Well, okay, fine. But if I have to choose between being non-conscious and celibate versus being conscious and sleeping with the most beautiful (inside and out) girls I could ever imagine meeting, I’ll take the latter option. Again, I'm offering you (male interested in Objectivism) my responses (female interested in Objectivist males) to the ideas you propositioned. If I said "I don't think I'd like that restaurant", would your reply be, "You don't know what you're talking about"? If all you do is say "You're lovely" then stare at the girl, yes, you will be dead in the water. But the response would be exactly the same with almost every comment. I advocate engaging in conversation, and demonstrating restraint with topics. I don't advocate acting like a stoic monk with a girl who's obviously aware that you're interested in her. Be aware of your actions. There's no need to drift through motions like a zombie, and conversely, there's no need to act like ... well, an actor who wants you to think he isn't acting. >>>This is essential: you have to be a challenge so that, when you do show your interest in her, she’ll feel as though she earned it. -DPW There's an important difference between setting up the illusion of causing someone to "feel the difference" and a situation where a woman understands why this man is a value. Tricking, manipulating or insulting her down to this false sense seems like the best way to practice evasion. "I'm not all that great, but if I make her think she has to climb mountains to get to me, ...." Don’t lash out at me just because you don’t understand or don’t like what I posted. My entire point was not that you should put on an act in order to make a girl think you have value. My post was aimed at guys who DO have value but are lousy at communicating that fact to girls. Really you should be thanking me. Yes, I didn't like what you posted. (And this is also in response to the question JMeganSnow asked me.) But I did understand it. Simply, do you want the woman to merely "think" she has won you based on fake games you've created, or do you want her to know that she adores you and admires you for the man you ARE? I want men with value to be wonderful in all aspects of their life, but I don't want to see them insult their sense of self, and the woman's intelligence in the process. The behaviors can't exactly be separated from the man and it should go without saying that I like men ;> It's not specifically that the behaviors are artificial (or consciously contrived), but that the sincerity behind them is so obviously lacking. So much so that it would make me* doubt the intentions and possibly the values of any one that used them. Bringing me a rose is contrived but it's certainly wonderful too. Putting me down because you think it will cause me to "think" you're some hard to get, disinterested fellow is insulting to my intelligence. Contrary to whatever label you choose to put on this process, most women are probably still aware why you're talking to her. Whether you choose to play out the gentleman or the jerk is up to you and your "experience". This reminds me of a quote from a person who went by the handle Servo. My point here is simply that women are aware that they are being "hit on", whether the conversation is about biology, smiles, scarves or the way your buddy bob turned out not to be such a great friend. Don't insult yourself and her by pretending this isn't the case. In practice, (an example of how to translate values into appeal) this means you can't deny this fact either. It should be put into a very crucial perspective. Why don't women with whom you have no experience shrug off compliments? Right, because you have chosen to focus on the one thing that is widely regarded as a prerequisite to sex. (Beauty/attractiveness) We love these compliments, but we probably won't believe them until we get to know you and your values. It doesn't mean you pretend not to really like her or pretend that she's really not all that pretty. If you're unsure of this territory, feel free not to cross it for a while. Keep the banter on topics that *both* of you can relate to. This is why I highly suggest meeting women in situations that can reflect your interests most clearly. Parties with friends are prime opportunities to be involved in a non-personal talk with several people. You'll have the chance to ask her something specific about a topic she has already commented on. You'll have the chance to demonstrate, indirectly, some of your ideas, the fact that you are a socially appealing man and spurn on her interest, all without creating a situation by which you're lowering the entire idea of communication to a test. And I agree with JMeganSnow again when she suggested, Tips and tricks are hard to put into a users manual specifically because of the variety of situations one can run into. It may be that the best approach will take you more than 20 minutes of your four hour hit-parade. For example, let's say you have a bunch of fantastic Objectivist guys (such as part of a university group), but who are relatively dry in the department of female-friends. Instead of heading out to bars, why not try social gatherings with folks invited from classes or other areas where you've grown to know (just not personally) them? These don't have to be women you personally are particularly enamored with. But you could invite them with a bit of flair, tell them it's just a Friday night gathering, bring friends if they like.. etc. But you can't stop there. You will actually need to plan how this would work so that you don't end up in a situation where the girls are on one side of the room, the guys on another, and lots of pointing and giggling is going on. As people arrive, take them around for quick introductions (Name, how you know them, something interesting..) Throughout the course of the night, you may need to plan new conversations to keep things from becoming awkward, and you'll definitely need to keep an eye out for anyone who looks bored. Hopefully, you get the idea. Think of this as just a casual setting, the purpose of which is just to meet new people. Everyone knows why guys would want to meet girls (and vice versa), but that doesn't mean you give her a thong shaped invitation ;> Also, if the first party is a flop, don't give up! Think about what happened over the night. Were you able to keep peoples interest or were you constantly tuning a girl out so you could get into a political argument with Phil? Did you plan enough activities that allowed folks to find things to do besides stand around? Did you take the proper time to make sure strangers had enough to chew on for conversation before you left them to the wolves? One really fun event that I attended at university was a guys dorm that wanted to go out and see a remaked Star Wars film. The whole dorm was going, and they advertised it. So lots of other people (women too) went along. It was a really fun night! I think a lot of people made casual hellos as well. Just because they weren't bedding down with them by 3am doesn't mean it was a waste of an event. If you approach introductions with the stance of "how can I woo her, or get her to woo me, in such a way that ensures maximum clothing removal tonight," it will be obvious. If you approach it with the idea that this is a person with whom you can talk to several times, you'll have a greater chance to show off more of your "true" personality. Seriously, you don’t understand how many great Objectivist guys struggle with this issue. It is presumptuous of you to condemn me for actually giving them a way out of that state, without you offering them a better way. I never once suggested that men (of any philosophical following) don't have trouble with the first moments of a conversation. However, just because you offer A alternative does not automatically make it the best one. This is where that seemingly vague "be yourself" information comes in. I can't imagine a truly worthy, intelligent woman not seeing through little plots and schemes to make her think a man is somehow better than he is. Just like you wouldn't pretend to be busy and have a limited schedule (while you're actually just sitting around playing video games), actually being a busy person shows her that you have important values in life that consume part/most of your life. THAT is attractive. At the risk of repeating myself, my starting premise was that I was talking to Objectivist guys who have everything going for them, but nevertheless can’t succeed with women. If you don’t think they exist, you are simply wrong. I know they exist because I have met a bunch of them. So you can stand on your soapbox if you want and tell us how you think the attraction game should be played, but let me tell you straight out: your soapbox is made of sand. Wonderful little irrelevant insult, but I don't believe that anywhere I suggested that men who have trouble with introductions don't exist. Nor did I suggest that they couldn’t get help from anyone. I also didn't suggest that they couldn’t plan things out. Men of all sorts exist. Successful and romantic flops. I'm not really sure why you suddenly decided to assert I think otherwise. >>>Wait…actually…no, I’ve seem some pretty good smiles. You have like the fourth best smile. I’m going to call you number four.” -DPW Yes, I can certainly see how insulting a woman is really going to turn her on. Once again, stop telling us what you THINK works. I’m telling you what DOES work. Objectivism tells us that we should base our views on evidence, not guesswork. Well, I have the evidence to back up my claims that the things I advocate work. Where’s yours? P.S. That line is not an insult. It's playful. This has to be my favorite. I know someone else addressed it as well. Somehow you believe that reactions to your actions don't matter because of your empirical data. My evidence is the same as yours. You tested these ideas out, you got results that work for you. I've had these tactics tried on me and I pretty much loathe them. It's certainly not guesswork to be aware of my own reaction. If you choose to invalidate a female's reaction to your advances, you're really no different than any other barfly out there. I have attempted to counter your ideas with my experiences of what has worked on me. If your tactics work for you, great. I still don't know why you have a need to hit on 40 women a week, or why, if a relationship is really your goal (maybe it's not) with so much success you have racked up, why you aren't in a relationship. Perhaps it's just your suggestion to "get out there and be social", which I certainly would agree with. Don't wait for it to fall in your lap. This is what happens in novels to lucky men. My evidence that I can disagree with you is based on the fact that these tactics have been tried on me and resulted mostly in cold shoulders. Further, because I am actually in a relationship, I can say with some degree of certainty what actually did work with me. From what I understand however, you (DPW) seem to discount this validity because 1) I haven't been in thousands of relationships, and 2) it involves my feelings on the matter. I don't suggest that any ideas here are necessarily easy. I only put forth the idea that some of what was suggested can be perceived as insulting, childish or foolish. Like all play-by-play advice, your mileage will vary. The point is that you should try different situations (not just lines) to find those that best suit you. For DPW, this is apparently bars. For myself, it is involvement with discussions in non-party settings. Just find the situation that works best and think about your actions. Success is not guaranteed immediately because of the diverse players. If failure happens though, consider the setting as much as your own behavior.

I have to admit that I am totally shocked that so many people think that the dating advice given by DPW is good, much less rational. Yes, I cheated too. Honestly, I spent a good deal laughing as well. The first question that arose to my mind was, "What kind of woman does he think he's going to nab by playing these outrageously manipulative, counter-productive games?" Do you really think the woman who is intrigued by the insult that she is FOURTH on your list is someone with a strong sense of self-esteem? I can't seem to get over the idea that this advice is geared toward an Objectivist male who has apparently given up finding someone who is genuinely intriguing. From my own experience of men who play games like this, it's incredibly easy to spot this kind of immaturity. It's also highly insulting. While working as a waitress one year, another one of the girls told me that one of the guys thought he really liked me. My response was immediate, and more than likely perceived as bitchy to everyone else. "This isn't middle school. If he likes me he can tell me himself, not pass a note." (On a side note, for some reason the quote tags were not working in my preview, hence all the italic green.) Of course, when people do give us specific advice, it’s usually bad. I’m sure you remember your mom’s words: be nice, open doors, compliment her, etc., etc. It just goes to show that what attracts women, and what women think attracts women are not always the same. -DPW Because I'd really hate to be around a man who, in this day, still knows how to be a gentleman. The two examples cited here do not throw up the "let's be friends! He's such a jerk for holding the door". It's quite the opposite. It's romantic. It's the degree to which you act on these ideas that make a difference. An appreciative smile, or a sincere comment on her attire is perfectly fine! If it's not sincere, then don't bother. Gushing prose about her loveliness and rolling out red carpets is not appropriate in the first week(s) of dating, because the woman will think you aren't being sincere. There has been no reason for her to believe you in such a short time. Approaching. ... I do NOT mean a pick up line. What you want is a conversation starter. “Hey, I need a female opinion. Who do you think lies more, men or women?” Or just start telling her about something interesting that happened to you that day. Whatever. The point is that you want to engage her interest without hitting on her. No compliments! -DPW If a man came up to me and asked such a negative question, for apparently no other reason than to talk to me, I'd really be concerned about his state of mind. What sorts of responses would you get from such a question?? "Well, I really think men lie more because my last boyfriend said he was always at the office late but it turns out he was actually sleeping with my best friend...." Conversely, this idea that a complete stranger suddenly wants to hear about your weird day is equally strange. Contrary to popular belief, not all women (and especially not those who I really think are strong willed, intelligent women) want a man to act like Oprah's guest host. There is nothing endearing about being the "bitcher" or indulging someone you've just met to spill hate-filled memories. This reminds me of a good line from the movie Six Days, Seven Nights. Trapped on an island and being hunted by pirates, Harrison Ford's character says, "Don't women want men to be all mushy and emotional and teary?", to which Anne Heche's character responds, "No! We want them big, angry and armed!" (*not an exact quote, but very close) Do men really enjoy hearing about the negative in a stranger's life? It certainly would not be enjoyable to me. And again, with the compliments, so long as it is appropriate to the context (you've just met her) it's certainly welcome. Conversation. ... What’s your major? ... Blah, BORING! ... Your job is to engage her by being interesting. -DPW This is such an odd attitude that I'd like to say that it seems totally hypocritical to what I understand to be an Objectivist's sense of life. A girl's major, if she is interested in all of those wonderful qualities you have, is one of the best topics you could start with. I don't know why this doesn't seem obvious. If she values the aspects that ultimately set you, as an Objectivist male, above the rest of the uninteresting dating herd, she's more likely to value herself as well. A major is a course of action one takes because they have a particular passion in life. This seems like an excellent question to start with, if you know how to follow it up. "So what's your major?" "Biology" "Really? That's great. What field are you hoping to go into, or are you thinking about heading to med school?" It's the perfect opportunity (and one not degrading or insulting to any degree) to see if this is a woman of passion! I love talking about my future career and all the hopes I have that will extend through my major. A man who would find the topic of futures too boring to approach is perhaps the type that might refer to my career as "her little hobby". Remember, you can’t say, “I have pride,” but you can tell her about a close friend who didn’t treat you the way he should have, and how, even though it killed you, you ended the relationship. ... Ask her if she could have one personality trait that she currently lacks, which would it be? -DPW Again, why start with something so negative, how messed up your life is, or worse, how much of a loser she is? This totally baffles me. I'm certainly not suggesting that these are forbidden topics for all time, but in the first week or so it should be a positive experience. Not a discussion about your lousy friends, or how much of a coward she is. The reason people engage in "resume" talk is because it's a way to find out what activities and ideas you have in common. If you really are using it as silence-filler, then just move onto more interesting questions, like movies, favorite vacation spot, best book.. etc. It doesn't have to be a gripe session. Teasing. ... The other day, I was sitting next to this girl in my history class, and she had this scarf around her neck that had all these crazy colors. “Hey, put that think away. You’re hurting my eyes. No, no, I’m serious. Like, instead of giving our Army guys armor, we should just send them that scarf so they could blind all the Iraqis.” -DPW Teasing is nice, but it's also dangerous territory. This scarf comment makes me immediately think, "What is this guy's problem?" It would elicit, at most, a polite half-hearted chuckle. I think to works best when you have already established some common ground. Qualifying. ... In fact, you really shouldn’t show any explicit interest at all until you qualify her. Your goal here is to set up some hurdles she has to clear in order to gain your interest. -DPW Why would you purposely play games like this? Doesn't the fact that you have to make up these elaborate schemes tell you something? This is so totally counter-productive, especially if you think she's going to be a challenge. If you have to design an activity that keeps her away, chances are if she's intelligent, she'll see right through this. This sounds like it should be found in a woman's magazine as part of a 10-step process. Most people who loathe the idea of dating feel as such because of silliness like this. Wooing someone may be a dance, but that doesn't mean you set out to step on feet on the way. This is essential: you have to be a challenge so that, when you do show your interest in her, she’ll feel as though she earned it. -DPW There's an important difference between setting up the illusion of causing someone to "feel the difference" and a situation where a woman understands why this man is a value. Tricking, manipulating or insulting her down to this false sense seems like the best way to practice evasion. "I'm not all that great, but if I make her think she has to climb mountains to get to me, ...." This is where that seemingly vague "be yourself" information comes in. I can't imagine a truly worthy, intelligent woman not seeing through little plots and schemes to make her think a man is somehow better than he is. Just like you wouldn't pretend to be busy and have a limited schedule (while you're actually just sitting around playing video games), actually being a busy person shows her that you have important values in life that consume part/most of your life. THAT is attractive. ... (By the way, nine out of ten times, she will tell you, “I kissed my girlfriend.”) -DPW I just have to ask .... are you sure you're in the right bars? Wait…actually…no, I’ve seem some pretty good smiles. You have like the fourth best smile. I’m going to call you number four.” -DPW Yes, I can certainly see how insulting a woman is really going to turn her on. There's probably enough auxiliary doubt going through anyone's mind at different times in their life that they probably aren't looking for additional reasons to question their self-esteem. I understand this is supposed to be an attempt at humor, and not necessarily to be taken literally, but must you really direct it to this new person? This would probably be safer once you know the girl more, but to a relative stranger? Perhaps humor is best when it's something you both can identify with, and not just a disguised ribbing. -Be mysterious and hard to get. Remember, you don’t have to answer all her questions. In fact, often it’s better not to. -DPW For all the work you propose in actually meeting someone, how is this not contradictory? If a girl asks a question you think is better left to a time when you know her better, simply say so and possibly explain your reasons. But claming up and refusing to have a lively conversation with her is practically insulting. This tactic is probably best rephrased as "Use limited answers to spur on more interesting conversation, or to nudge topics in different directions." Besides, if you're willing to follow all the above advice (of the original poster) why would you blab on about your annoying friend, then not answer a question about the situation? I'd view this as insecure, insane, or stalker-ish. -Misinterpret her words and actions as her trying to hit on you. And then tell her it’s not going to work…you’re not that easy! -DPW Ditto the previous lady who commented on the transparency of this suggestion. -Be selective. Demonstrate that you have high standards. -DPW YES. "Be yourself"! Show her you have high standards by the choices you make, the way you act and how you communicate. Don't tell her, make her play a game, or put her in a competition where the highest bidder wins. This is the best piece of advice in the entire post. Please gentlemen, demonstrate your wonderful Objectivist sense of life! -Be decisive. YOU pick the movie. YOU pick the restaurant. YOU tell her what to wear. -DPW Great, wonderful! But I advise caution on that last one. Unless you actually know something about her wardrobe, her sense of style, and her ideas about fashion in public, please do not think it is in any way sexy to say to a new girl "and wear something really strappy, black, and leave out the panties." If you have no clue what women are wearing these days, I suggest a trip to the mall. Not a glance through magazines. Look at the variety of shops and try to match up those styles with the woman you are interested in. Don't go suggesting something that might be found at Hot Topic or 5-7-9 if she's an American Eagle kind of gal. If you know how to push the right buttons, you can put girls into a sexual state without setting off their defenses, and no matter what rules they’ve set down for themselves, they will sleep with you. -DPW ... If a woman truly exhibits a desire to be with you AND a sense of hesitation, you need to be cautious. Slinking your way past "defenses" is like a trip through a minefield. If you sense a type of hesitation, it's probably best that you find out a bit more about her (that doesn't mean asking explicitly) before proceeding. This also doesn't mean that you're not being masculine, but this is exactly where consideration and thoughtfulness come into play. The best stage you could set at this point, is one in which she verbally asks for something sexual from you (which you have still initiated!). I.e. you arouse her to a point that allows her to crave what you're offering. Not that you're standing around tapping a foot or anything. Be sensual, be desirable, but do not force or sneak your way past barriers. One wrong step could set off an extremely traumatic event. What if she put up defenses because she is frightened? Because she's just broken up with someone? Because she's emotionally unstable? Hesitation, recognition of barriers does not mean a man shouldn't reach out for the woman. It doesn't mean that he waits around while she gets everything absolutely perfect in her life. It doesn't mean he shrugs it off as some silly little female "thing" either. Find out possible reasons for these barriers, then move forward. I can't imagine that many things feel more disgusting in life, than realizing you've been "played" into sex before you're ready. Don't be that man. If I have somehow greatly misinterpreted any of the above statements then I would ask for clarification. As I mentioned in previous posts, I'm very concerned with trying to understand the masculine and feminine roles as they apply to those interested in Objectivism. I simply think that it's one thing to plan out a date, think of intelligent things to say and to display a strong character. It's quite another to play silly games, trick, insult or put a girl at arm's length because it will "get her". If a man needs to resort to these ideas, I would greatly question the kind of woman he has chosen to pursue, and perhaps the values he himself ultimately has.

Mr. Delaney, thank you for your reply. I will start by saying that I have read some of your ideas on your personal website and do not agree with all of them. (But a point by point is best saved for a PM.) However, your post still made me smile with thought. Yesterday I was thinking about my entire relationship with my current boyfriend and I realized I had left out the initial pursuit in my analysis of my actions. I remember now, very distinctly, the great lengths he went to get my attention and keep a conversation with me after we had initially met. (It's actually a very charming story but perhaps not totally relevant here.) It was after this point that I had thought to put the beginning. I pegged the important perusal moment at the moment deeper feelings were revealed, but that doesn't detract from that very, very important initial "chase". I don't think there's anything wrong with a candid discussion with another person over whether a relationship should continue at a much more serious, long-term level. That doesn't seem like an issue that should be exclusive to the man or the woman. In essence, there is(was) a very difficult barrier for the two of us to deal with and had to be seriously considered. (Even then, he brought up the topic! I seem to be much too forgetful lately.) I think this sounds like a compliment ;> If so, it's a nice reassurance. (If not, I'm not sure what to say either.) I genuinely adore everything about this man and highly respect his choice to bring Objectivism into his life. He introduced it to me at a later part of our courtship because he noted that I seem to have an intrinsic sense of life close to this philosophy. I read the books when I'm able and gladly listen to the lectures. But this whole concept, the way it is continually worded causes me to throw up flares and caution signs. I dislike the doubts I have towards all this, because fundamentally many ideas seem so right. In the past however, I've dealt with other men who used similar or exactly the same terms in wholly different ways. It should be obvious that I disliked these interpretations by the fact I am no longer with them ;> Still, I take sex and love very seriously, and I'm honestly afraid that I may mistake the intentions of my wonderful boyfriend by misunderstanding the language used. This is not to say that I believe Objectivists use terms in similar meaning with a group that would interpret it in an extreme or destructive way. I simply want to pin down, in words and thoughts, what exactly is going on. I suppose for some, there would be an option to stop bothering with trying to explicitly explain the psychology and ideas behind all this, and just to "trust and enjoy", but for me, I'm simply not settled once a question lodges itself in my mind. I dislike (or am confused) the idea that I am not entirely feminine because I consider my boyfriend to be a value, one of the highest in my life, and that my actions to please or continue interesting him is somehow insulting or degrading to his masculinity. Is this just a case of point by point evaluation per case? What is not clear to me is at what point do my actions cease being feminine (and insult him, lead/push too much) or can be considered "worship" (and praise him, not "do too much", letting him lead).

If I may, I would like to continue this topic. I too find myself put off by the seeming imbalance on the ideas of romance but have been desperately striving to understand them since my first encounter. (I'm very interested in Objectivism and happen to be dating an Objectivist) I see value in many of the viewpoints expressed, but I don't know how to interpret statements like the above. Am I lacking in femininity just because I had the courage to "pursue" my current boyfriend? (In essence, I had to let him know that I was actually available. I will explain further, if necessary.) Does this diminish his masculinity in some way? Additionally, does my continual work to improve myself, and my continual interest in him, (my pursuit of him) diminish the worth of the relationship? I have no interest in men that do not know what they want, but I have no problem with letting a man know what I want either. If I take action to pursue a man, am I just acting like some unattractive feminist, or am I showing strength of character? (Or something else entirely) Yes, I want to be pursued, but I'm not content with just sitting back being wooed. I want to show him how much I desire him as well. Is it incorrect to say that he is a value to me? Does suggesting this idea degrade him in some way? Would it be incorrect, or in some way lessen the meaning, to replace "worshipper" with "one who adores"?

Thank you for your correction. It is perhaps irrelevant, but I might have mentioned above that my major is not history, and certainly not economics. Still, I would prefer to be correct in my language and understanding.

I have to take two U.S. History courses as part of my core curriculum before graduating. The university I currently attend only allows Juniors, Seniors, Masters candidates and Doctoral candidates. All this means is that there is no "basic" course, as those are almost always saved for the freshman level. Looking at last semester’s offerings of special history topics, it seems I missed out on a class called "Big Business". The same gamble probably applied to that as well. As it is, I struggled to find another class to switch to, but none that would fulfill this requirement fit into my schedule. In fact, none of the remaining courses I need to take will fit in this semester. So I'm going to deal with this class as best I can. In reading our main text, Standing at Armageddon, the author uses percentages for such obvious bias that one expects to read, "those horrible rich people!" at any moment. In one example, it cites income and living expenses for a Native American Coal Miner in dollars and cents in a way that seems to be suggesting everyone should feel sad. Sure, it might not have been pleasant to earn $58 per month, but what I wouldn't give to be able to save 28% of my income after expenses. (Total income $58.94, gross expenses (rent, groceries, power/coal) $42.40. p xxii) The text never gives the reader information as to what earnings would be worth in today’s market. The only conclusion I can arrive at is that the author expects the text to be read with today’s price index in mind (which of course is absurd). I ignored the author’s statements about how the wealth was not evenly distributed, because this is a given fact in any free market, correct? Any attempt to force equal distribution is obviously a grave infringement of rights, but (and I apologize if this is an impossible hypothetical) what would happen if, within a truly free market, somehow the wealth was distributed almost completely equally (say, everyone was within $1,000 of one another)? Are there any Objectivist texts that deal with the possibility of similar situations?

I'd like to first learn about the major events that occurred during this period, as I would with any history class. Unless the undercurrents of a society came to the front of the stage, such as women earning the right to vote, it seems almost like avoidance to start with information about how daily people lived (which supposedly is the case with the historical fiction book, Ragtime). In my Ethics class last semester, I was able to more clearly understand each of the various systems, and their flaws (and why those flaws were so important/dangerous, not just "mistakes") because of my beginning studies with Objectivism. But as I am not a student of history, I'm worried that it may be too cloudy to figure out the essentials from the rest. For example, she started with a movie about the last Indian tribe who were moved onto a reservation. Certainly, the U.S. did make and break treaties with them, but was this event a pivotal moment in the 1870's? I'm not sure, but her approach is geared towards that assumption. A. West, last semester I had one professor who was an out-and-out socialist and "taught" a course in which she expected us to participate in discussion concerning our opinions of the text (which I almost always disagreed with), but forced us to write papers *using* the philosophies and ideas of the authors we had to read. I used much the same tactic, playing by her rules without caving to corrupt ideas. While it was something of a challenge, the course was ultimately of no use to me, except to waste my precious time. I flat out wrote that I would not integrate the ideas "taught" in the course in my future. For the amount of work she expects from us, combined with the other 5 courses I have scheduled this semester, I'm worried that the same thing will happen. A class/teacher I despise will suck up my time away from my better courses and leave me still lacking what I had hoped to learn. But your advice is still helpful, so I do thank you. And to everyone who posted. Your comments are quite appreciated.

I recently began the spring semester at my university. This particular school is heavily liberal but my previous semester proved that objective content is possible. (That the university is liberal is not my reason for attending, but without droning on about personal information I will just mention that it is not possible for me at this time to switch schools.) I'm very excited about this semester as I have a wide range of classes, many of which deal with classical subjects. I was also looking forward to one of my U.S. History requirements. We have a relatively small choice at this school, so I was very happy to enroll in the following: Growth of Industrial America Early growth of industrial capitalism and America's social and political response to it from the Civil War to World War I. Especially considering that an overwhelming percentage of the history courses at this university focus on special interests (predominantly feminism in multiple forms), I thought I had hit the jackpot with this course. I had my first class on Tuesday. The professor started with an introduction and her personal feelings towards history. She was dismayed that when she was growing up, they only studied a few (central) figures and that she was glad to have the opportunity to teach "social history". She then proclaimed that we'd have a lot to read and went over the various books. Personally, I love reading. I am, however, greatly concerned at her topics. I am not a student of history and admit that I do not know it as well as I should. But of course, that's why I'm taking these courses. As our major textbook, she assigned "Standing at Armageddon" by Nell Irvin Painter. Other texts include titles such as "Herland", "Ragtime", "Major Problems of the Gilded & Progressive Era", and "Farewell, My Nation: The American Indian and the United States". To top things off, she referred quickly to "the robber barons" and then proceeded to show us a movie about the White Man killing Indians for unjustified reasons and the breaking of various treaties. While I'm well aware that these topics may be a part of U.S. History, I really wanted to pack up my books and leave in the middle of all this. I don't think there's much hope of getting any essential information about this time period, regardless of what her course outline says. If there is anyone on this board that is versed in this period of history, I'd like to ask if you think it's remotely possible, given this information, that this history course will be of any use, or if I should follow my "instincts" and just run as fast as I can [Edit: Apologies for the horrible spelling error in the topic. Would a moderator be so kind as to fix it?] [OK - GC]

I gave one of these to my boyfriend. (He doesn't live in the U.S. ... yet!) He was very pleased with the image as well

Good point There is something about the culture and history I like quite a bit (but won't attempt to explain here) and the language is a challenge I don't want to miss. I'm enjoying little moments of "oh! I get it!" as I progress. As for Houston, the worst thing about it is the weather. My commute is unusual because of my personal situation. I've had jobs that were less than 10 minutes away in the past ;> Dallas is just as nice (though I'm not sure their arts/theater districts are as large, and definitely not their medical centers). So far, there isn't a major city in Texas that I've visited that I have not liked. (I've not been to El Paso.) And hello !

And certainly not while driving 50 miles each way Luckily, I've arranged my schedule so that as much as possible, I avoid rush hour. Thank you for the welcome and happy "fall, finally"!

Bring on the Cajun spices! This is an excellent plan!

Thank you again to everyone for such a warm welcome! Oldsalt, I was not born in Texas. However, I was moved here at the age of 2 1/2 and have been here ever since. (Incidentally, I am trying to learn Japanese!) Unfortunately, some of us (or at least I) can no longer do this. The same person who banned Dr. Speicher, also banned me. But like oldsalt mentioned, it has moreso spoiled my opinion of that particular person, than of Objectivism. His actions then have caused me to be very quick to dismiss his particular posts, but they have not pushed me away from learning more about Objectivism. I have continued to read Miss Rand's works and articles that have been so helpfully suggested by the members of this board. (Between my studies, I'm reading the Fact and Value article by Dr. Peikoff, and a counter-argument by a man named Charles Pigden on Elizabeth Anscome's theory of "ought", which, as it has turned out so far, is helpful to understanding the F&V article. All very interesting.)

I'll keep that in mind, but my usage is technically correct. I used it only as a title of courtesy, not to infer girlish or neo-feminist ideas. As per the etiquette of respecting one's wishes, that will certainly be kept in mind. dictionary.com "Ms"

If the behaviour that I witnessed is an everyday occurance, I'm sure that would be a depressing statistic. As much as I like forums, I have to admit that I "grew up" online at talker communities (similar to MUDS but without any roleplaying). I greatly enjoy real-time conversations, especially on topics with participants who have a great deal of knowledge. I don't believe that anyone should be forced to put up with purposeful insanity or rudeness, but as I don't believe that was the case, the experience left a sour taste in my mouth. The forum and the chat channel have been my first experience to speak with Objectivists outside my personal relationship. No one in my family has even heard of Ms. Rand*, and some of my friends have had such horrible experiences with self-proclaimed hedonistic "objectivists"** that they have no interest in studying the subject further. At any rate, I'm not about to let power-mongering rudeness shun me away from a topic I desire to learn. Mr. Speicher, thank you for your comment. It has certainly improved my disposition! Cheers! ---------- *Knowing it would be a subject of controversy, I decided not to get into conflicts with my parents with my reading material. However, one weekend we went to the beach, and as I was greatly enjoying The Voice of Reason, I took it along as my book of choice. During the afternoon, my mother saw me reading it and said, "Doesn't she write dirty books?" .... It couldn't have been possible for her to be suggesting that the philosophy was "dirty", since in a prior conversation, she had stated that she never heard of Ms. Rand. A moment's reflection popped out a rebuttal that I almost regret. "No, that's Anne Rice" ("Almost", because I don't really have a problem discussing sexuality with mature adults.. then again, she is my mother ) **One of my friends in particular seems to have a bad track record of running into (and occassionally dating) these folks. Even with my limited knowledge of the philosophy, it seems that anyone who uses the justification of "I'm going to do whatever makes me happy" to explain Objectivism and excuse atrocious behaviour (such as sleeping with people outside an exclusive relationship), hasn't thought much about it.

Very nice work This reminds me a bit of George Winston's piano work. (I absolutely love his Plains album) For improv, I think it has quite a bit of character. Good theme variation and overall structure Thank you for sharing.

This is slightly off topic :> I had the privilege of attending a Montessori school through grade 5 and I loved every minute of it. Our school had a 6th and 7th grade, but I due to special circumstances*, I was unable to continue the program. I remember the 6th graders were reading Lord of the Flies, and it struck me as sad, and funny, that the public school kids read that same book only in 10th grade GT (gifted and talented) English. The Montessori program was fantastic. I was doing Algebra, and critical analysis of stories by 3rd grade, and creative writing in 4th grade. (I don't consider this to be extremely advanced, but while in public school, I found I was always well ahead of my peers.) I was fascinated by everything I could get my hands on, and I have retained that love of learning to this day. Even through the trials of horridly boring high school lectures where science teachers are football coaches and can't do more than read from a book, I was still interested. It seemed as if everyone else who had suffered through public education was like a zombie to me. They had no passion for knowledge... they just hated life, hated school, and hated information. There is now a very small percentage of schools that are attempting to use the Montessori method for middle school and high school aged students. Here in Houston, we have the first accredited high school (School of the Woods) of this kind. At any rate, I highly recommend the Montessori alternative to religious private schools (provided they are, as PirateF stated, accredited with one of the two organizations). It definitely had a lasting impact on my life. In the future, I hope to work in a Montessori school as well *(special circumstances: my mother was the head of school for a few years before moving on to finish her masters. When she left the job, I had to go too.... even though I begged to stay )