I'm new here and need advice

[PKD]

Are there exercises that help you care less what others think? I am often trapped in arguments with idiots and end up giving them power they don't deserve just by replying to them. It's just so annoying, when complete morons think they are better than me and walk away thinking they've convinced the world that 2+2=5.

I'm not good at debating so I probably should not try to, but the deeper undercurrent is that, like Howard Roark, I simply should not CARE.

Having grown up being taught by my parents that other people's opinions were the most important thing in the world, I'm concerned. I'm now a parent myself and while I'd love to raise my child as an Objectivist, I feel that I need to become stronger or I will not be able to teach by example. I need to fight my conditioning. I'm here to learn and if anyone has any tips that would be great.

-PKD

[aequalsa]

Are there exercises that help you care less what others think? I am often trapped in arguments with idiots and end up giving them power they don't deserve just by replying to them. It's just so annoying, when complete morons think they are better than me and walk away thinking they've convinced the world that 2+2=5.

I'm not good at debating so I probably should not try to, but the deeper undercurrent is that, like Howard Roark, I simply should not CARE.

Having grown up being taught by my parents that other people's opinions were the most important thing in the world, I'm concerned. I'm now a parent myself and while I'd love to raise my child as an Objectivist, I feel that I need to become stronger or I will not be able to teach by example. I need to fight my conditioning. I'm here to learn and if anyone has any tips that would be great.

-PKD

It depends a little on how you mean that you "care what other people think," but it might be easier to improve your knowledge of objectivism and debating skills, then to remove your empathetic response. If I were hellbent on it and in your situation, I would try to pay attention to the emotions that I experience in those situations.

For example, I love debating, but the only time I feel really emotionally compelled to is when I hear someone broadcasting their incorrect views to other "innocent" people(think green peace stalkers). Then it seems only proper that the other side should be heard so I feel something varying between indignation and rage as a result. When I look at those, i find that they derive from a direct attack on my philosophical values, so acting to defend them is appropriate. At this point, the issue becomes, can I protect my values and how? If I think it is a subject that I understand well enough to provide a good case, then I might make the attempt, or if it is a fairly meaningless interchange and a good chance to practice debating, I would choose to also. If not, I make the realization that my interjection will only serve to damage my side more and I refrain.

So it sounds to me like you hear something you are pretty sure is wrong but lack either the factual knowledge at your fingertips or the ability to keep your opponent on principle. Knowledge is just knowledge, and not generally as useful since piling up facts and statistics doesn't increase understanding and is a harder place to compete if you are not currently studying the subject or in possession of a photographic memory. The best tool I have for keeping people on principle is to drill them down to their core premises(which are typically pretty shallow, philosophically) and then require them to explain what those are based on and point out and push them to resolve contradictions in their thinking. Bystanders especially like this last part. If you get them to say an apple is an orange and people watching laugh, it means you won/are winning in their minds.

[PKD]

It depends a little on how you mean that you "care what other people think," but it might be easier to improve your knowledge of objectivism and debating skills, then to remove your empathetic response. If I were hellbent on it and in your situation, I would try to pay attention to the emotions that I experience in those situations.

For example, I love debating, but the only time I feel really emotionally compelled to is when I hear someone broadcasting their incorrect views to other "innocent" people(think green peace stalkers). Then it seems only proper that the other side should be heard so I feel something varying between indignation and rage as a result. When I look at those, i find that they derive from a direct attack on my philosophical values, so acting to defend them is appropriate. At this point, the issue becomes, can I protect my values and how? If I think it is a subject that I understand well enough to provide a good case, then I might make the attempt, or if it is a fairly meaningless interchange and a good chance to practice debating, I would choose to also. If not, I make the realization that my interjection will only serve to damage my side more and I refrain.

So it sounds to me like you hear something you are pretty sure is wrong but lack either the factual knowledge at your fingertips or the ability to keep your opponent on principle. Knowledge is just knowledge, and not generally as useful since piling up facts and statistics doesn't increase understanding and is a harder place to compete if you are not currently studying the subject or in possession of a photographic memory. The best tool I have for keeping people on principle is to drill them down to their core premises(which are typically pretty shallow, philosophically) and then require them to explain what those are based on and point out and push them to resolve contradictions in their thinking. Bystanders especially like this last part. If you get them to say an apple is an orange and people watching laugh, it means you won/are winning in their minds.

I think you are right, thanks for the reply. As for the last part of your reply, I wish I didn't CARE whether I "win" the argument because it earns me nothing. Roark would not have wasted a single nanosecond thinking about whether he had impressed bystanders.

The last time this happened it was on a comments board. I'm going to paste some of that discussion here, names changed.

Retard: "Ayn Rand is flawed as all hell, as usual."

Me: "Elaborate, please"

Retard: "Selfishness is needed for surviving yourself but basically sucks in large group cooperation by definition. Did you really need me to point this out to you? Are you 10 years old or something?"

The strange aggressiveness of the retard took me by surprise.

Then I made a mistake:

Me: "I am guessing you're older than 10 but not very intelligent. Which is why you not only failed to explain why "Ayn Rand is flawed" but also demonstrated to be a second-hander, since your sense of worth is dependent upon trying to put down a complete stranger. And that's pretty much what I got from you, so you might want to actually READ Rand before saying she is flawed. Or not. Makes no big difference to me. "

This was a mistake because accusing someone of 'not reading' something is a non-factual argument. I don't know for sure that he hasn't read it. I also accused him of doing exactly what I got suckered into doing: attempting to put down a total stranger.

Retard: "'Elaborate, please' 'Makes no big difference to me.' I rest my case. Your a moron running around in your own hypocrisy. Perhaps you haven't actually taken the time to read her works. Please, educate yourself. Have a nice day.^^ "

My final post was:

Me: "My first comment came because I was wondering what, in that video, prompted you to say she was "flawed". Once I saw your reasoning had nothing to do with the video and I understood the kind of person you were, I saw you had nothing intelligent to say one way or another. I've actually read her works. I also know you can't differentiate "your" from "you're" which indicates you don't read much or are of moderate literacy. If you really think you are better than me, your life is your punishment."

I can't believe I get suckered so easily. Makes it hard to believe I'm striving to be a rational man ;-)

-PKD

[K-Mac]

It sounds like you need to know when to hold em and know when to fold em. This guy wasn't worth engaging.

[musenji]

I'd say your error wasn't just in saying he hadn't read Rand, but also in acting like from one action you automatically know his entire psychology.

If you really wanted to engage him, you could've avoided the psychologizing and just called him out on his argument from intimidation, a known fallacy. You can point out that that's weak, without making overgeneralizations.

And since he's just claiming by fiat that selfishness is bad in groups "by definition", maybe ask, "what definition?" Ask him to elaborate further, again. And yeah, if he just resorts to name-calling again, do heed this comic:

http://xkcd.com/386/

[K-Mac]

http://xkcd.com/386/

I love that one!

[dadmonson]

You should read this book, PKD; http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Ayn_Rand/Anthem/index.html

Don't worry, it's legal.

Edited April 24, 2009 by dadmonson

[Chris.S]

I'd just like to reiterate what aequalsa said. It's a lot easier poking holes in a flawed argument than fighting against it. Break their argument down to the core, and eventually they'll be tripping over themselves to cover up. And like the cartoon implies, arguing on the internet is meaningless.

However, I do find it easier to articulate a position in writing than talking. Often I create extremely long and involved replies, only to not post them because I like the practice. So you could go that way too.

And lastly, Roark cared very much for people he was friends with, ie shared values with. He cared so much about them that he had to let them suffer the consequences of their actions (Wynand, Dominique). He especially cared if these people suffered injustices (Mallory). It was when he helped people evade reality (ie Keating) that those people ended badly. But what he didn't give a crap about was random, foggy, uninterpretable words by people such as your internet nemesis or Toohey.

[PKD]

Hi, thanks for the replies, I'm going through each one with a lot of thought. I loved the comic, by the way. ;-)

K-Mac, you are correct, he wasn't worth engaging. Retards seldom are. But I didn't really know that for sure until his reply to request for elaboration. Going from there, musenji is right that I should've addressed the actual argument.

dadmonson, why Anthem in particular?

Chris, thanks for the advice. Also, one thing I've never been clear on is why Roark even bothered to help out Keating. He was a transparently worthless character.

-PKD

[JMeganSnow]

Also, one thing I've never been clear on is why Roark even bothered to help out Keating.

It's explained in the novel if you read it closely enough, but I'll give you the short version here: Roark was so in love with his profession that this sometimes translated into excessive benevolence. I think the relevant quote is along the lines of "he forgot everything except that here was a building and he could save it" when Keating brought Roark an assignment for "suggestions". It was never for KEATING'S sake, but always for the sake of the BUILDING that he was willing to help.

If you look at what Roark found himself forced to do (blow up the monstrosities that resulted from his benevolence), you can see the error you are making. You don't care one whit about these people you argue with--you care about the truth. What you're forgetting is that the truth is the truth regardless of what nitwits say and that there's nothing for you to gain by trying to "save" the truth from anyone and everyone.

Edited April 24, 2009 by JMeganSnow

[Jill]

Me: "I am guessing you're older than 10 but not very intelligent.

I can't help but laugh, that was witty. It's sad that ageism is still normal nowadays, it boggles the mind. It really is the last prejudice.

And yes, it was a mistake to reply in those terms. You took the meta bait and failed to explain what was important which was why selfishness doesn't suck in large group cooperation.

I would give as an example the making off of a video game I like, how each person was selfishly doing their own favourite thing to contribute to it, the artist lady who loved horses was modelling the horses, etc.

[PKD]

If you look at what Roark found himself forced to do (blow up the monstrosities that resulted from his benevolence), you can see the error you are making. You don't care one whit about these people you argue with--you care about the truth. What you're forgetting is that the truth is the truth regardless of what nitwits say and that there's nothing for you to gain by trying to "save" the truth from anyone and everyone.

Hi, JMegansnow, thank you so much for that perspective. It really helps me see more clearly. ) I'm actually in the process of re-reading the Fountainhead, which I admit I haven't read since 1997 when my then-wife was studying Objectivism.

-PKD

[estheticidea]

I know the experience of feeling you are being jerked around by an antagonistic arguer. The most helpful thing for me has been to ask: "what role do I want myself to play, for my own sake?" and to realize that my primary role is to be an observer. In other words: I am here to learn something interesting, and I can study the behavior of this person, if there is something I can gain from it (maybe there is a potential item of personal growth: I can introspect!). The crucial thing to keep in mind is: this person, and anybody listening to him, is fully responsible for forming his own opinions. There has to be some initiative toward uncovering truth at some level, or else you are studying an example of dishonesty. Just like you would be studying a raindrop fall from a leaf, as an observer you have to let the action happen without feeling responsible for it. The bad opinion, or the lie, or whatever is a fact of reality driven by a cause outside you; accept that you have no influence over that cause, and study it. Very often this attitude of observing is your most powerful influence. It's the power of Howard Roark's quiet, self-contained demeanor.

[khaight]

One high-level thought. People have free will. That means you can't force someone else to agree with you. There is no argument so potent that it cannot be evaded. This means that, fundamentally, your failure to change the mind of an irrationalist doesn't reflect badly on you; it reflects badly on them. If you think "If only I'd been smarter, or more articulate, I could have convinced them somehow", you are linking your self-esteem to something that is outside your control. And how does that make sense? Your self-worth is not determined by other people's choices. (If you can identify specific errors, omissions or flaws in your arguments, that's a different situation -- a learning one. Figure out what you didn't understand, or left out, and work to be better next time.)

It's valuable to identify whether, when you're in a discussion, your opponent is basically intellectually honest or dishonest. Never waste time trying to convince a dishonest opponent. It's only worth interacting with a dishonest opponent if there is an audience of honest onlookers, and in that context your goal isn't to change the mind of the dishonest person. It's to demonstrate his dishonesty to the honest in the audience. Give him rope and let him hang himself. Asking simple, reasonable questions that push the dishonest person into asserting contradictions is a useful tool here.

You should also make an honest assessment of your own intellectual 'weight class'. Don't pick a fight with someone you have reason to believe is significantly better informed or who has significantly superior debating skills. (I'm thinking of college undergraduates who try to debate their professors in class. That's generally a losing strategy.)