Get Over Yourself!

[dan_edge]

By [email protected] (Dan Edge) from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Or: Selfishness vs. Self-Centeredness in Meeting New People

For Objectivists, selfishness is a moral ideal. It is proper for man to act in his own self-interest, and his own happiness ought to be his highest moral purpose. But when it comes to interpersonal relationships, some Objectivists misconstrue the meaning of “selfishness” to mean “self-centeredness.” When meeting new people, or in building relationships, they tend to ignore the values of others. This misinterpretation of the Objectivist ethics implies a failure to recognize the great potential value of other rational beings. One who commits this error can develop and reinforce a social ineptness that cripples his ability to develop relationships.

To illustrate my point, I will take a simple example that everyone can relate to: meeting new people. How does the (rational) selfish man get to know a new person? How about the self-centered man?

[before one can get to know new people, he must be around them. One will not meet many people by sitting around his apartment all day, every day. Some self-centered men never get to the point of meeting new people because they believe that they ought to be entirely “self-sufficient,” with no need of friendships or romantic love. But I will leave this issue aside for now, and focus on the method that a selfish vs. self-centered man uses to get to know new people.]

The self-centered man (implicitly) believes that his own thoughts, interests, and values ought to be the focus of any effort to develop a new relationship. When he meets a new person, his objective is to tell that person all about himself. “This is what I do for a living, this is what I’m passionate about, these are my interests, etc.” Of course, he will listen to what the new person has to say, but that is not his primary objective. For the self-centered man, the natural course of conversation is: I tell you as much as possible about myself, and you tell me as much as possible about yourself. The self-centered man evaluates new people, not on the basis of their values, but on how they respond to his values. For him, that is what getting to know people means.

As anyone who has met this kind of person will attest, the self-centered approach can come across as aloof, snobby, rude, or disinterested. One gets the impression: “This person is not at all interested in getting to know me, only in telling me about himself.” The self-centered man does not treat new people as potential values. Potential values are to be probed, investigated, and evaluated. How can one evaluate a new person if he makes no effort to discover that which he is evaluating? Though he may not intend it, the self-centered man sends the message that he does not see new people as a value (except as receptacles for information about himself). Not surprisingly, this turns people off.

Since many aspects of one’s personality become automatized, the self-centered man may get the feeling that he is socially awkward, but he doesn’t know why. Social ineptness due to self-centeredness can build on itself, as one automatizes the impression that new people do not value him properly. If the above example describes how you get to know new people, then I advise you to reevaluate your methodology. If one takes the self-centered approach in meeting new people, then he is more likely to be a self-centered friend and a self-centered lover. A friend who doesn’t take stake in your values is not a friend. The lover who is uninterested in your interests is a shitty boyfriend.

How then does the (properly) selfish man approach meeting new people? Because he views other human beings as potential values, he aims to explore the nature of those values. His objective is not to talk about himself, but to explore the values of others. He tries to make the new person comfortable, asks questions, and strives to relate the new person’s values to his own. Of course the selfish man will talk about himself, but that is not his primary focus. Assuming that the new person is also selfish, the probing questions will go both ways: “So what do you do when you’re not working?” “I enjoy reading adventure books like The Three Musketeers. How about you, what are you into? Etc, etc.”

If it turns out that the new person is a dud, then the selfish man has lost nothing. But if the new person is a potential friend (or lover), then he has taken the first step toward treating this person properly as a value. Such an attitude is obvious to others, and is most often greatly appreciated. If you have ever met a man who tried his best to make you comfortable, showed interest in your interests, and strived to relate your values to his -- then you know what I’m talking about. These selfish men are the very definition of social aptitude. They are the men who make friends, influence people, nail the interview, and get the girl. The selfish approach also can become automatized in the subconscious, giving one a feeling of confidence in his social interactions.

The selfishness vs. self-centeredness misunderstanding is fairly common among Objectivists. It’s an easy error to make, but it can be a difficult one to rectify. If you value relationships, make sure you take the selfish approach. And get over yourself already!

--Dan Edge

Edited October 8, 2008 by softwareNerd
Removed 'style' tags

[01503]

I read this on my OBloggers RSS feed earlier today. Fantastic article, Dan! Keep up the good work.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I note here the use of "self-centered" as a replacement for a common misuse of "selfish". I've been wondering how to describe the concept so mislabeled. Thanks. (And of course the larger point is a good one too!)

[Juxtys]

I've always had a problem with this. It is pretty difficult for me to find values in other people. It might be because they don't have the same values as I do or because I'm self-centered. Althought I don't exactly know which one. Are there any tests to know it?

By the way, that article is great because it made me think about whether selfish or self-centered I am.

[KevinDW78]

Ironically, I see the "self-centered" description fitting me perfectly before I discovered Rand and Objectivism a year ago. Since then, I have begun to see myself shifting into the "selfish" description.

[JASKN]

It might be good to add that the way one shifts from self-centered to selfish is to become convinced that other people actually are valuable; to degrees, of course, but almost everyone holds legitimate value. I see a self-centered person as not really being convinced of that, viewing "new people" as more abstract than an actual value to be pursued.

[brian0918]

Whenever people talk to eachother, I always notice this. People always talk past eachother and have no interest in what the other person is actually saying. It's always bugged me but I could never put it in words. Great work Dan!

One thing I've noticed about myself is that if I talk to someone who is self-centered, I knowingly become self-centered myself, as if in defense of my own interests.

[BlackInMind]

Awesome article! And I agree with Brian in saying that when meeting someone who fits the self-centered description I also tend to wind up interacting that way, in a sort of defense-mechanism.

[Tenure]

I find it is best to apply the same principle one applies to any activity or pursuit in life: direct your action based on your values. For example, in a conversation, the goal is... well, I'd say it's both about strengthening the relationship (or creating one) and increasing knowledge. I'm a bit confused over which leads, because I find that a strengthened relationship leads to one revealing more knowledge, and the more you know about someone (potentially, assuming it isn't "I killed your father") the stronger that relationship grows.

Anyway, the goal is to attain a value, and you want to do this in reference to your other values. When you make a sandwich, your goal is to attain the value of a tasty sandwich, but you also keep in mind other values, like your diet or whether you can afford to use such lavish condiments. In a conversation, you want to gain the values of having that conversation, but you do it on the basis of what you care about. So, I might ask someone about themselves (the less I know them, the more esoteric the question) and then start narrowing my question towards something I care about.

If they're a professional writer, and I'm interested in writing myself, I might ask them about what they write, why they do it, how they select a subject, writing advice, etc etc. A lot of conversations though, aren't with people who reflect your main interests. However, the principle still applies. They may be a professional writer, and you're a professional, Olympic wrestler. You ask them why they write - they say, because they want to capture the glory of man in written form. For you, that is why you wrestle, to show off man at his peak and best. So you ask him about what he likes about man, what drove him towards that passion, and onwards.

I mean, I'm no expert in this field, but I find this works very well. Asking people about themselves, but not just random questions, "Do you like... pastrami?" (unless you're a cook who specialises in raw meats), using a focused technique, aimed on finding out things about them that could be of value to you. This is like trying out a new hobby or sport. You give it go, you find out the rules and skills behind it. You say, 'Hmmm, do those interest me?' You try it out, you see where it goes, you pursue the different avenues and see what you're comfortable with.

Like I said, it works for me, but I need to think about this some more.

[dan_edge]

Thanks for the comments, everyone. Any feedback is good, but this kind of positive feedback makes me feel all squishy inside

JAKSN wrote:

"It might be good to add that the way one shifts from self-centered to selfish is to become convinced that other people actually are valuable."

That's a good point. I thought about adding a paragraph about that to the article, but it was already mostly finished by then, so I didn't put it in. I actually made a small change to the article in the editing process to account for that point. In the draft, I had a sentence in the introduction that went like this:

"When meeting new people, or in building relationships, [self-centered men] tend to focus completely on their own values, while ignoring the values of others."

When my wife Kelly read it over, she noted that, for the selfish man, other people are a value. So the issue is not that the self-centered man focuses on his own values -- he ought to do so -- it's that he doesn't include other people in his value hierarchy. So I changed the sentence to this:

"When meeting new people, or in building relationships, [self-centered men] tend to ignore the values of others."

This places focus on the fact that the self-centered man's error is that he ignores the value of other rational beings.

Thanks again to everyone who responded to my post.

--Dan Edge

[EC]

Ah, I see my "problem". I am self-centered. My goal in any conversation is to find what value someone else possesses so that I can "exploit" it for my own gain. I'm very rarely interested in others qua other people. I rarely find people that have the correct values, so my normal response is to mostly ignore them until they wake up with something interesting to say or that I find of value. While this doesn't make me a very popular person, I don't see how it is a negative?

[softwareNerd]

... ignore them until they wake up with something interesting to say or that I find of value. ... , I don't see how it is a negative?

Look at this from a bird's eye view and you might see two interesting people ignoring each other, each waiting for the other to "wake" them up, but neither ending up doing so. The point is not to seek value where your judgment is telling you there is none. That was not Dan's point. The context that he is assuming is where one is meeting someone of potential value.

[EC]

Look at this from a bird's eye view and you might see two interesting people ignoring each other, each waiting for the other to "wake" them up, but neither ending up doing so. The point is not to seek value where your judgment is telling you there is none. That was not Dan's point. The context that he is assuming is where one is meeting someone of potential value.

Okay, then that makes more sense. I like Dan and most of his ideas, but "getting over yourself" just hit me as "wrong" for lack of a better term.

[dan_edge]

Hi Eric,

The "Get Over Yourself" title is tongue-in-cheek. It was meant to be provocative and poke fun at the common (and fallacious) blending of the terms "selfish" and "self-centered." Kelly objected to the title, saying it wasn't clear, and maybe she was right.

I agree with Darius's assessment of your comments. Though I would add: everyone you meet could be a potential value. The challenge is in learning how best to identify and harness that value.

--Dan Edge

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

When my wife Kelly read it over, she noted that, for the selfish man, other people are a value. So the issue is not that the self-centered man focuses on his own values -- he ought to do so -- it's that he doesn't include other people in his value hierarchy. So I changed the sentence to this:

Can't say I know you personally, but congratulations! I hadn't realize you got married.

I think your ideas are generally true. There are times when one must not present oneself in order to understand the other person. In other words, one can be too pushy in relationships -- i.e. trying to push Objectivism onto them, instead of finding out that they are rational, at least to some degree, even if they don't have an explicit philosophy.

I'm reminded of something Dr. Peikoff said in one of his romance tapes. He said when dating a girl he would launch into metaphysics and epistemology to find out if she was rational or not, and he didn't get anywhere, in any sense of the term

I also think some guys, including myself at times, takes the role of offering himself up for consideration, and wants the girl to choose him, when in actuality, it works the other way around better -- the guy is choosing to pursue the girl works best. Of course, if a guy gets a come-on, for friendship or romance, it is best to get to know each other, instead of giving them a laundry list of values and seeing if they conform to them or not.

Observation of the other person is much better than having a kind of acceptance list or test. Of course, however, this requires open communications, which can be hard to find in any type of interpersonal relationship.