Personal Dilemma

[Uberzilla]

I hate to do this but my options are limited. I will try to be succinct but I do not like talking about personal things. Note that I do not consider myself anything other then a valuer of objective knowledge.

I was just out and saw an incredibly beautiful woman, but I have become a hermit. There are exacting objective reasons for this: Value exchange. For people to interact there has to be some sort of value exchange. That is, at least enough to produce the desire to interact.

I value knowledge. I respect those who can correctly gather it, whether new, or existing and utilize it efficiently. I have never cared about social standards … only objective ones (about the nature of what man is and the nature of existence).

When people try to interact with me (some with an incorrect presumption that I must need a friend) it annoys me. I do not feel the need to socialize in almost all regards.

The only exception is spending time with women, though because of the value exchange it ends up being only a sexual thing. Then they get mad at me when I do not develop any feelings toward them. I could explain that I do not allow unchecked feelings. In other words, I do not feel before analyzing the situation. If they do not offer the value I defined above, ie.efficiency of knowledge, I can not feel. At least the way they do (blindly).

I have grown sick of interacting with people and their undefined, ignorant and manipulative ways.

Hence the decision to be a hermit. I can put up with the wacky things people make up when they learn that I am a hermit. People need to fill in the blanks and are willing to make things up when unable to get the truth.

However, the following delema is I am ashamed to say, seemingly beyond my ability to resolve.

Alright, finally I get to the delema. I still have this irrational desire to be with a woman, knowing full well that I would have to end my hermit existence and fit into society to a far greater degree than I do now. So I would have to endure that which I loathe in order to be with a woman who can probably offer limited value exchange.

Massive pain, for some pleasure.

So back to the beautiful woman. What do I know about her other than her physical excellence and beauty? She demonstrated bi-lingual mastery that is out of the norm. The combination was enough to get me thinking about this and tremendously frustrated. Frustrated because I found her attractive (potential pleasure). Pain knowing the price; Fitting in more (socially). I have found peace in solitude!

So there it is. Sould anyone think they have an answer and wish to spend the time.

[BurgessLau]

Sould anyone think they have an answer and wish to spend the time.

Answer? What is the question?

Then they get mad at me when I do not develop any feelings toward them. I could explain that I do not allow unchecked feelings. In other words, I do not feel before analyzing the situation.

Emotions are automatic responses to values. The only way to not feel in such a situation is to either suppress or, worse, repress emotions. The latter is a serious psychological problem because emotions are crucial to the life of an objective, rational person.

For anyone new to Objectivism, I recommend closely studying the “Emotions” entry in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, pp. 141-144.

[…]I have found peace in solitude!

What about happiness, assuming that is your ultimate purpose in life? And, if it isn’t, why not?

I too have found peace – and happiness – but through objective selection of friends, romantic and otherwise.

[Uberzilla]

Answer? What is the question?

Emotions are automatic responses to values. The only way to not feel in such a situation is to either suppress or, worse, repress emotions. The latter is a serious psychological problem because emotions are crucial to the life of an objective, rational person.

It has been a while since discussing something with someone of precision. I should have defined things better. I fail to develop the kind of response they are seeking from me, because they do not ultimately have the values I seek.

It would seem logical to me that it would work both ways. That there is a value mis match therefore you go on your way … no harm no foul.

I also check the context of any given situation if there is any question about my own response. But I will check the Rand book on the suggested topic.

What about happiness, assuming that is your ultimate purpose in life? And, if it isn’t, why not?

Can not be anything but happiness. Though I prefer the word satisfaction, as people generally seem to think transient drunken moments at parties, or feeling part of a community, are the stuff of happiness.

I too have found peace – and happiness – but through objective selection of friends, romantic and otherwise.

This is good.

For me the solitude allows me to focus at a level I can not achieve with the distraction of typical social environments. Though I can only imagine that should you find like minded companionship it would not interfere with your focus, but rather energize.

That said; thanks for the time. I have since figured out the contradiction that was causing my frustration. I should have waited before posting out of frustration.

[Lemuel]

(Sorry if this response seems long-winded …)

I have never cared about social standards … only objective ones (about the nature of what man is and the nature of existence).

“Social standards” is pretty vague, but given the tone an content of the rest of your post, I’m guessing that you don’t care for the small talk, social graces, and other surface-level behaviors people display within a social context. If so, that’s your choice, but don’t complain about its lack of results. Be a “hermit”, cut yourself off, and go about your business … but those “social standards” exist for a reason.

Your perceptions about someone new that you see may give you some information about them, but not everything. You have to discover them, just like they have to discover you, and that takes time. We live in a society that is very irrational at times, and people who know their value must remain guarded. To approach an intriguing stranger means testing the waters a bit. Given the context (such as a publc place), this might involve a degree of small talk, etc. If it’s a colleague, and the context is more focused than a chance meeting in the dairy department, “breaking the ice” is a lot easier.

If you want to get to know people, open up to them, be receptive to them opening up to you, but won’t accept those “social standards”, then you need to put yourself into more focused social situations. Bars and clubs? No. Your “context” will depend on your interests. (I like classical music, so I attend a lot of college recitals. They’re free, usally very good, and before, after, and during intermission there are opportunities to meet people who share my interest.)

When people try to interact with me (some with an incorrect presumption that I must need a friend) it annoys me. I do not feel the need to socialize in almost all regards.

So, what would you have done had the beautiful woman approached you, and made a comment about the weather, just as a tactic to keep your attention for a minute? Would you have thought how boring, weather happens, big deal, or yes, I saw the news too, lady; what of it? .. or replied yeah, it’s nasty … good thing we’re not in Florida! Did you know anyone in New Orleans? Would you have gracefully led her to introduce herself, dropped a few seeds of interest in her ear, then created a context where you could spend time together? Or would you have scared her away with a swashbuckling display of epistomological syllogisms?

A romantic relationship is not a means to an end. It is an end in itself. True, the aspect of value-exchange applies, but sex isn’t the only value. There’s companionship, the ability to soften the sting of disappointments, to sweeten triumphs, and mutually alleviate loneliness. If you don’t want those things, and the only value you’re seeking from women is sex … Well, there are women who do that kind of thing, but don’t expect an insightful, analytical mind to dazzle you in the afterglow.

The other alternative? There are a number of online dating services where you might find someone as socially averse as you present yourself to be. Good luck with that haystack.

The only exception is spending time with women, though because of the value exchange it ends up being only a sexual thing. Then they get mad at me when I do not develop any feelings toward them.

Reversal of cause and effect. Finding love through sex is about as probable as winning the $350 million powerball with your first lottery ticket. Get to know women, let them get to know you, put yourself in a context where you will meet women of good character. Form a relationship, play its nuances like a symphony, build the tensions, savor their releases, discover her values, show her yours … do so gradually … and celebrate your value to each other with sex. This is proper to a rational existence, and is the method to gain that value of real romantic intimacy and companionship … the shotgun approach isn’t effective.

I could explain that I do not allow unchecked feelings. In other words, I do not feel before analyzing the situation. If they do not offer the value I defined above, ie.efficiency of knowledge, I can not feel. At least the way they do (blindly).

Bull. You have to feel at least something to have sex with these women. Forgive me for being a bit crude, but if it’s just a chemical drive, there are less involved ways of satisying those desires. Are you such a slave to hormones that you must manifest their express energies before understanding “the situation”? There’s “feeling” there … I’ll bet they need futher checking, otherwise you’re sleeping with women while being completely numb.

I’m not sure what you mean by “efficiency of knowledge”, but if you’re looking for an intellectual mate, find the intellectual you desire first, then use charm and grace to make her your mate … and you hers.

I have grown sick of interacting with people and their undefined, ignorant and manipulative ways.

There are plenty of people out there like that, but they make up the minority. “Undefined”? Move on, let them figure it out (value gained: patience). “Ignorant?” Maybe they’ve never been shown an alternative to “their” truth … a little benefit-of-the-doubt and patience will go a long way (value gained: authority). “Maniuplative?” Avoid these people, and your “radar” won’t work, leaving you easily manipulated; sharpen your perception of it, and you survive, (value gained: survival). But call a duck a duck: people are sometimes nice to one another because they’re nice people; be nice in return (value gained: you’re remembered). Only a true paranoid reacts to a cheerful Good morning! with What do you want from me?

There’s no doubt you’re a smart person. But your fundamental choices in this regard are A. bow up, learn the oft-treacherous subtleties of social interaction, and gain the value of having friends, maybe even a lover; or B. cut off from the world, remain aloof and cold, and gain the value of being left alone. Either way is a choice, and whatever your choice, live with it.

Objectivists aren’t supposed to be Mr. Spock. You can be warm, kind of spirit, generous with yourself, and still be acting objectively, intellectually, and very much in your self-interests. It’s not automatic knowledge, though … it takes hard work and practice.

[Uberzilla]

For the heck of it I stopped in to check the physical fitness thread, and was about to move on. I saw someone had posted here so … Though I already found the answer I was looking for, I decided to respond. First up; thanks for the time.

(Sorry if this response seems long-winded …)

“Social standards” is pretty vague, but given the tone an content of the rest of your post, I’m guessing that you don’t care for the small talk

mia culpa

Your perceptions about someone new that you see may give you some information about them, but not everything. You have to discover them, just like they have to discover you, and that takes time. We live in a society that is very irrational at times,

I would say that, as most people are not capable of consistent objective thinking, any society (collection of individuals) is irrational.

Would you have gracefully led her to introduce herself, dropped a few seeds of interest in her ear, then created a context where you could spend time together? Or would you have scared her away with a swashbuckling display of epistomological syllogisms?

If only a spoon full of sugar would make the syllogism go down… Hmm I am not sure what is worse? That joke, or the fact that that song is still stuck in my head.

A romantic relationship is not a means to an end. It is an end in itself. True, the aspect of value-exchange applies, but sex isn’t the only value. There’s companionship, the ability to soften the sting of disappointments, to sweeten triumphs , and mutually alleviate loneliness. If you don’t want those things, and the only value you’re seeking from women is sex … Well, there are women who do that kind of thing, but don’t expect an insightful, analytical mind to dazzle you in the afterglow.

Bull. You have to feel at least something to have sex with these women. Forgive me for being a bit crude, but if it’s just a chemical drive, there are less involved ways of satisying those desires. Are you such a slave to hormones that you must manifest their express energies before understanding “the situation”? There’s “feeling” there … I’ll bet they need futher checking, otherwise you’re sleeping with women while being completely numb.

I am too private a person to fully address this. So here is a brief explanation. I feel more sexual after an accomplishment (the stuff of life). So combine a celebratory feeling with the fantasy of what my ideal woman is and I make it work. Sure, it is absolutely no substitute for the real thing, but sometimes making do is better than nothing.

Objectivists aren’t supposed to be Mr. Spock. You can be warm, kind of spirit, generous with yourself, and still be acting objectively, intellectually, and very much in your self-interests. It’s not automatic knowledge, though … it takes hard work and practice.

If received a $100 dollars for every time “Spock” or “Vulcan” came up when people have addressed me…

Back on a serious note; thanks for the time spent.

[Dismuke]

When people try to interact with me (some with an incorrect presumption that I must need a friend) it annoys me. I do not feel the need to socialize in almost all regards.

I don’t mean to be out of place - but have you ever been tested for Asperger’s Syndrome? It is a neurological condition that can manifest itself in a number of ways - sometimes physical, other times mentally.

I know a lady whose daughter-in-law has Asperger’s and had no idea of it until she was diagnosed well into adulthood. The daughter-in-law is a highly intelligent and extremely focused woman who has done very well in her career. But she is utterly incapable of holding very strong emotions towards other people. She is completely “self centered” in a way that is different than what Objectivists usually mean by the term in that she does not feel the need for any sort of psychological visibility from other people and is not able to empathize with the need by people in her life for such visibility from her. As a result, her marriage is very dysfunctional. She loves her husband in an abstract, intellectual sort of way. But she as much told him that if the marriage ever broke up, she would have no strong emotional reaction over it - and has even offered him a divorce. Sadly, he actually loves her and refuses to leave her despite the fact that he has a personality type that craves the sort of attention and emotional intimacy that she is simply not capable of giving him. To make matters worse, he wants children very badly - and she has the intelligence and good sense to realize that she would make a terrible mother plus the fact that motherhood has no appeal to her whatsoever.

I should emphasize that I know very little about the syndrome - only what I have been told about it from this lady I know as well as the fact that people with milder forms of it are often not even aware that they have it. And, of course, I have never even met you, Uberzilla. So it is very possible that I am completely off base on this. However, when I read your posting, it very much reminded me of the stories I have heard about the daughter-in-law. If it turns out that you do have Aspergers, my understanding is that there is no “cure” for it. For people who have it, it is simply a metaphysical part of their nature. But I would think having a formal diagnosis might be helpful because one could then have a better understanding of how one’s own mind functions in contrast with other people and have the opportunity to learn how other individuals with it have learned to work around it to achieve fulfilling lives.

[Unconquered]

I don’t mean to be out of place - but have you ever been tested for Asperger’s Syndrome?

I wasn’t going to say it, but I actually had the same thought.

[Uberzilla]

I wasn’t going to say it, but I actually had the same thought.

Well I knew I should not have posted this. Especially without putting it into full detailed context.

I want to laugh, but so far in my online adventures in different forums (in debates) has demonstrated to me that people calling themselves Objectivists have been far better at making points than others. So I will consider your post to be sincere. Here I must also point out that I have never considered myself an Objectivist. It is a label that keeps getting pinned on me in debate forums. Having run into Objectivists in debates in Atheist forums I have developed some respect for these individuals. That is what led me to try to post this here. As stated in the first follow up to the first persons response, the problem is solved.

To try to bring an end to this monster, I will add a little more to the context.

I am ruthless about assessing value.

I consider the potential relationship between men and woman to greater than any other. As such I hold it to a far greater standard than any other. Miss Rand pointed out in her books that a man can not really have what he can not earn. Very true. To really have something, you must be able to really grasp its nature and value to be able to earn all of it. If you can not you are just a primitive holding onto something in ignorance.

Relations are the same.

One sure sign of primitive behavior is an attempt at manipulation. Manipulation is a form of power gaming used to aquire what someone can not earn in an up front honest manner. Look around you. How many people make an honest attempt to be strait forward vs. those who think the ends justify the means.

So it is simply this. Many many years ago I reached a point of full contextual understanding of what it means to be honest vs. manipulative. Independent vs. dependent. At that point I realized that in order to earn the level of woman I was able to conceive, I had to make some really hard decisions that would (in a particular context) cost me. It mattered little in the face of what I knew to potentially be out there. In fact shortly after that critical point in my life I read, the first of three Rand books, Atlas Shrugged. From the first Metaphor of the mighty tree, that turned out to be hollow and rotted, I was hooked. More over it was confirmation of what I had already understood.

One last bit. Life is too short to waste on compromised relations. I am in a position to accomplish many things. Things that, as a child, I never dreamed of. I am very selfish about this. Add to that the fact that I do not have enough life left to get to even a third of the things I can.

Call me a Vulcan, if you wish, but it is incorrect to think that I am incapable of feeling.

[Dismuke]

Well I knew I should not have posted this. Especially without putting it into full detailed context.

I want to laugh, but so far in my online adventures in different forums (in debates) has demonstrated to me that people calling themselves Objectivists have been far better at making points than others. So I will consider your post to be sincere.

Since Phil was merely seconding the points I raised in my posting, I probably should be the one to respond to this.

My raising the possibility of Asperger’s was not meant to be any sort of slight or insult. Having Aspergers is not a moral issue and is no more a mark against a person’s character than is being born color blind. Since I do not know you I have absolutely no way of knowing whether the possibility of your having it is valid or laughably ridiculous - and it is certainly none of my business one way or another. The only reason I bothered to mention the possibility is because the person I spoke of in my posting was not even aware that she had it until she was a married adult. If one has such a syndrome, I would think that knowing about it would be very helpful to both the person and the people in that person’s life.

Call me a Vulcan, if you wish, but it is incorrect to think that I am incapable of feeling.

People with Asperger’s are capable of experiencing passion and feelings. It is just that they do not have the same psychological need for social interaction and social intimacy that the rest of the population has.

I also think that the people who call you a Vulcan are rude and inconsiderate.

You wrote:

When people try to interact with me (some with an incorrect presumption that I must need a friend) it annoys me. I do not feel the need to socialize in almost all regards.

The only exception is spending time with women, though because of the value exchange it ends up being only a sexual thing. Then they get mad at me when I do not develop any feelings toward them. I could explain that I do not allow unchecked feelings. In other words, I do not feel before analyzing the situation. If they do not offer the value I defined above, ie.efficiency of knowledge, I can not feel.

Unless there is an explanation for it such as Asperger’s, it is not usual or normal for most people to feel no need to socialize and to be content to live as a hermit. What most people seek in their relationships with other people is not “efficiency of knowledge” but rather individuals who share their values, their concrete interests and have a sense of life compatible with their own. For example, I have met a number of people who have had an outstanding “efficiency of knowledge” who, despite their obvious intelligence, I found to be extremely boring to be around. I respect their intelligence - but, like most people, what I value in other people is their overall personality. And another crucial thing that most people seek in their relationships is for the other person to value and/or love them back. If you feel no psychological need for other people that you value highly to love and value you back - well, that is highly unusual and is something that you might want to investigate.

I would say that, as most people are not capable of consistent objective thinking, any society (collection of individuals) is irrational.

I disagree profoundly. My experience is that the majority of people, here in the United States at least, are basically well meaning, rational and of decent character. They may have accepted by default many bad premises from the irrational philosophies they grew up with - but that doesn’t make them irrational. If society, as such, was irrational, I am afraid we would all still be living in caves and eating bugs.

Now, I will grant that, while there are plenty of decent and rational people out there, it is not necessarily as easy to find such people who share one’s particular values - especially if one’s values and tastes are outside the mainstream of contemporary popular culture. Sometimes, in fact, it can be very difficult. But it is a huge world and there are plenty of wonderful people in it - and with the advent of the Internet and forums such as this one and countless other online venues, there now exist ways for one to actually find and meet such people. To suggest that most people are irrational and manipulative - well, I just don’t see it in my dealings with people. And even if such people did constitute the majority - there is no doubt that there still exists a very sizable minority of people who are decent and rational. There is no need in any contemporary Western society for a rational person to have to live like a hermit or to be without friends for prolonged periods of time. If one finds oneself in that situation, I submit that the problem most likely rests with one’s self and not with the state of society. (Unless, of course, one has Asperger’s, in which case one would not consider it to be a “problem” to begin with.)

At that point I realized that in order to earn the level of woman I was able to conceive, I had to make some really hard decisions that would (in a particular context) cost me. It mattered little in the face of what I knew to potentially be out there.

I would caution against putting yourself in a position where the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. If you can conceive of some sort of checklist driven “ideal woman” - well, I hope you find her. But the odds of that ever happening may not be so great. There is nothing wrong with seeking out other people in a deductive manner - i.e. looking for people who conform to certain pre-established criteria. But you expand your odds significantly by being open to also conducting your search in an inductive manner. By that, I mean when you come across people of good character, be open to the possibility that they might have personality traits which you did not take into consideration when you were conceiving your ideal. You never know - perhaps you might end up meeting a certain lady who will inspire you to significantly modify what you consider to be ideal.

[JMeganSnow]

To suggest that most people are irrational and manipulative - well, I just don’t see it in my dealings with people.

Everyone that I know (myself included) has the occasional brief moment of irrationality or being manipulative; I consider this equivalent to a short-circuit or hiccup and not really worth worrying about. It usually amounts to them saying something unfortunate or out-of-context, but 99% of the time they don’t act on it, so it’s all good. A fair number of times when you think someone may be acting irrationally it turns out that they know something you don’t (or you know something they don’t, and it would be beyond rude to try and tell them that they ought to substitute your judgement for theirs).

I know some people who are the reverse of this; they have occasional moments of rationality that they don’t act on. It’s extremely disturbing. And of course there are all sorts of gradients in between.

I’ve noticed that a lot of people are subconsciously manipulative. Guys especially do this to me all the time. I’m extremely sensitive to it and I hate it when people refuse to admit that, say, they shouldn’t have assumed I was lying when I told them I’d have a look at whatever thing they wanted me to do later. I say, if you assume that polite statements are untrue and sincere requests for your opinions are “traps”, you deserve what you get. (In this case, an extremely P.O.'d Jennifer)

[Uberzilla]

Hmm, well, I need to end this and bail for a while. I have many things to do and little time…especially in the immediate.

All of this definitely reinforced the fact that full situational context is critical to any serious matter. In this case it can not be done here.

If there is a syndrome for seeing full situational context in any given situation, as well as people’s motives (when interacting) too quickly. Then count me in.

I will say this I am not fimiliar with the syndrome you purposed and I am not much for such things as they are seldom contextually anchored.

JMEGAN; I think that is a more realistic observation.

Anyway thanks. Time to tune out for a while.

I do recommend one thing and that is roaming through many forums and debating the multitude of people who are not capable of making critical observations and consequently unable to put together proper concepts or rational arguments. If you really push people, I am affraid you will find there are not very many truly rational ones.

[RationalBiker]

If you really push people, I am affraid you will find there are not very many truly rational ones.

This assumes that many of us here have not already done this and subsequently came to different conclusions. As such, what matters then is who has correctly identified reality. Also of importance would be one’s interpretation of “truly rational”.

[Uberzilla]

This assumes that many of us here have not already done this and subsequently came to different conclusions. As such, what matters then is who has correctly identified reality. Also of importance would be one’s interpretation of “truly rational”.

1. My presumption was that Dismuke has not. As stated in one of the above posts I have met a few Objectivists in other forums. You have taken this out of context.

2. You have inserted yourself claiming to be the representitive of many others. Because of the way you entered this I have to question your motive.

Of what you wrote the last sentence and the bolded portions are the ones I will go along with.

I really have to leave this now as it is not productive.