The following is a transcript of a Discussion on IRC channel #GeekSpeak, held on Friday, March 29, 1996. This transcript is for personal use only. Copyright 1996 by Tom Wright and Pankaj Saxena. All rights reserved. My topic is "Good Objectivist Material". *** Joins: TomMiovas (tmiovas@192.245.137.2) That's what I call someone who _might_ be a good Objectivist when he learns about Objectivism or someone who _is_ a good Objectivist. (A lot of people who claim to be Objectivists really don't have what it takes). *** Joins: npandya (~npandya@arcturus.oac.uci.edu) [npandya] 27, grad student, physics, UCI Forst I'm going to ask you what signs YOU think might make someone g.O.m. and then I'll give you my answers. =First. What do YOU look for? The floor is open. An active minded, intelligent, honest person A doubter of any unsupported thought Honesty, value-orientation. Phil: What are the _signs_ of an active mind, intelligence, etc. Someone who wants to achieve happiness. Betsy: I look at their values and how they get them. I look for someone who considers reason to be an absolute (had a msg that this didn't go to channel). Well...we can come back to the question: I think the biggest thing for me was a sense of the individual nature of justice. Sorry--someoen at the door :) Not into following Betsy: Sense of life. Boy, you're really on the track here. It'd have to be someone who doesn't rationalize things, and is honest and direct. What do you look for _concretely? Betsy: But primarily, I want a person with an awesome sense of life. If I see that, then I'll look into what they value. Honest, acts on his own judgement. Asks pertinent questions in every subject Betsy: How seriously they take their work .. if they take issues seriously and grapple with them rather than accepting tradition at face value ... Betsy: Someone who is excited by the truth. Erik: everyone thesedays says their not into following Absolutely, Betsy: A concrete sign is that the individual works hard and appreciates the value of work for self-betterm ent. Someone who can say: I'm not sure, but can also say I'm certain, discriminately Antioch: Most of those people are following the fad. Antioch: You raise an inportant issue -- the difference between what people SAY and what they DO. Which is more important if there is a conflict? TomM: Nice A person who will seriously consider an idea, concretely that usually translates to someone who says "hold on, let me think about this for a moment" during a discussion Independent thinkers are G.O.M. People who can arrive at ideas logically. Antioch: Claiming not to be following and actually shying away from following are not the same. Betsy: And actions speak louder than words .. Betsy: What they do. Betsy: What they DO.. True but it take quite the commitment at times to tell the difference +s What would be an example of an action that you have encountered that marks someone out? Claims apart from substantiation are worse than worthless. Right on! What people DO is mos important. What do people who are g.O.m. do? *** Joins: Tommy (tmiovas@fohnix.metronet.com) *** Quits: jes (Read error to jes[dialup-16-b-19. gw.umn.edu]: Connection reset by peer) Betsy: They defend their own rationally-c hosen values. They say "I don't understand" when they don't They would do what they believe in for a reason, as opposed to following whims because they "feel like it". Kuz: I'll get to that next. TomR: Can you be more specific? Betsy: they try very hard to make their actions match their ideas, and they often get frustrated when the two don't match. *** Tommy is now known as TomMiovas I should have said they pursue them too. I'd say: They try to act realistically .. they have strong values and act on them.. I look for freethinkers. People who demonstrate an ability to think apart from the crowd. People who take a moral stand. People who act with integrity. They act on their rationally chosen values. Somebody, if you catch them doing something wrong, will not resent it being pointed out. People who understand essentials Eric: good! :) That's a good one, EricT Ok. Some very good answers. And they're on the track. When argueing with them the find one thing more important than winning - the Truth they Betsy: How? By providing an example? Let me put all of the things you've said into essentials here. The two main ways of distinguishing one person from another is in terms of the 2 main concerns of psychology. Burning desire to keep consciousness focused on reality? Not to engage inevasion They are (1) psycho-epistemology and (2) motiviation -- or a person's characteristi c approach to (1) facts and (2) values. Psychology? But doesn't Oism view philosophy as primary? Observe that all of the things you've been mentioning fall into one or the other. *** Quits: JeffreyH (Leaving) Betsy: If thoose two are bad in a certain person they need O'ism the most. philosophy as such is a derivitive of epistimology Fredrik2: Can they obtain it? Betsy: Very interesting, I never made that explicit connection before Betsy: That's still pretty broad... Kuznicki: An _individual_ person's psychology is the result of the philosophy he practices (and not necessarily the one he preaches). Since the fundamental choice is to focus in order to think, require someone who focuses and engages their mind. Errors may occur in thinking, but a person who focuses has a chance of oversoming them whereas a person who evades does not. Kuz: Hardly, unfortunatly. overcoming Fredrick2: it's not a question of need...it's a question of who desires to be rational...and who finds rationality to be a value. Betsy: Or both? Fredrik2: From your standpoint, *they* dont need Oism at all: You should concentrate on others. thinrichs: philosophy is not a derivation of epistemology, but one needs to have a valid psycho-epistemology in order to grasp objective philosophy Philosophy is an abstract system. Perhaps you could say a person's psychology is to philosophy as a particular piece of art is to it ... a concrete manifestation Kuz: TomM: Ok, I get your point. Fred: Unfortunately, people who need Oism the most have problems which prevent them from understanding and applying it properly. Any particular psychology is a view of how a person see's himself in relation to reality I would say good Objectivist material is someone who will not resent the quite possible fact that Objectivism will change their standards and old friends may have to go. Betsy: Isn't that just an instance of justice? People who can make the most of Oism, have to already be pretty close in the 2 aspects I already mentioned. I agree One has to start with a valid psycho-epistemology and motivation to validate it rationally Of course, there could be a few exceptions, but on the whole I agree. It is very common to see a person who is very good in one of the two aspects, but bad in the other. Like a ratiobnal thinker with repressed values. THAT's very common. So is philosophy something innate? That's my biggest concern about the direction of this discussion. Innate, no. Necessary, yes. * Antioch has left: Automatically set away. Betsy: Or a "good hearted" person with a disaster for a mind? *** Joins: jes (~jes@dialup-12-c-42.gw.umn.edu) Kuznicki: no, it's not innate...howev er, good Objectivist material will almost consider Objectivism to be recognized when they first come across it. Kuz: Not at all. People can always change, but if they lack the right appraoch, accepting Oism can be difficult or impossible. I certainly didn't accept Oism right away--It was very difficult for me, being raised Catholic. for some of us, it resonated not such a struggle Betsy: What is the right approach? Also, there are so many people who are ripe for Objectivism who are yet to be introduced that it is a waste of time to concentrate on people who will not like it. *** Joins: Gillian (dolee@slip129-37-152-68.on.ca.ibm.net) HardCandy: yes, that's what I mean...one has to have almost gotten it implicitly first. [Gillian] INTEREST: Profit *** Quits: npandya (bye) *** Joins: AisA (~conway@ip118.phx.primenet.com) /cl Kuznicki: Though raised Catholic myself, I accepted the Objectivist sense of life immediately, but had to struggle to grasp the metaphysics (i.e. that god can't exist.) Kuz: I'll bet you had the essential attributes of g.O.m. even when you were a Catholic. Kuznicki: But I think I was g.o.m because I always wanted to understand...to find the truth, not just to accept what I was raised with on faith. Also, I wanted to be happy. Jim_N: That was true with me too. Betsy: Will you explain the two 'details' at lenght? It is not a person's ideas that matter at all. It his psycho-epistemology -- his APPROACH to ideas. I gave up catholicism when I discovered values. I quickly realized that catholicism was a direct attack on them. As a Catholic, my favorite theologian was Aquinas--He would have been gOm too, I bet. Fred: I'll get to that. Good Objectivist material will also be open to ratioanl criticism, even though it is difficult to maintain at times. Most people who are *not* gOm probably got that way growing up, by choosing to give up; children are generally less corrupted this way. I was extremely irrational before I began taking o'ism seriously, and any attempt to convince me otherwise probably would have failed. Then I started reading heavily, and my perspective changed. I don't think any one person could have explained it to me, however. BetsyS: I first read The Fountainhead and fell in love with Roark. Everything that he did was SO right--I couldn't believe that someone could exist with complete, consistant values like that. consistent I thought someone like that was totally impractical at first. Betsy: How would you describe the good psycho-epistemology ... more concretely but in essentials? In terms of psycho-epistemology (p-e), I look for a good WORKING relationship with reality. Is a person realistic and "with it" on a day to day basis> SeanS: i didn't take to Roark right away (due to Catholicism)...but Atlas made it all better ;) BetsyS: I can agree with this...So many people seemingly don't care about reality. I've never understood that. [There was a net split here] SeanS: I actually considered toohey to possibly be the hero of the story. ??????? Is a person _curious_? Do they get upset when things don't make sense? I think a server just crashed. Oop! Netsplit. Tom: I didn't take too well to Atlas, but I really "got" TF. :) *** HAL9001 sets mode: +o Ghaki Yup TomM: Your statement doesn't make sense to me ;) What do you mean? you mean people who belive the world is an ordered place and thereofre things SHOULD make sense? My favorite in Atlas Shrugged was Hank Rearden ... Betsy: let's say we identify someone with a seemingly appropriate P-E...what have you found to be the best way to approach that person? I find it a bad sign if someone has a significant break with reality like treating something that is false like it were certain. I think Tom is talking about what he believed *before* he understood o'ism. Goodnight everyone. In most respects I dealt with people the same way he did; and reality another. *** Parts: NathanJ (~nateinet@cnc80161.concentric.net) *** Quits: Gillian (Ping timeout for Gillian[slip 129-37-152-68.on.ca.ibm.net]) *** Joins: Gillian_ (dolee@slip129-37-152-79.on.ca.ibm.net) HC: That's a whole 'nother topic. phil2: I was heavily Catholic at the time (and preparing for priesthood), so naturally, i gravitated towards altruistic tendencies. [Gillian_] INTEREST: Profit TomM: I agree that I almost saw Toohey as a hero--at least most conventional fiction would have portrayed him as one, and I expected just that. Betsy: is it on tonite's agenda? Tom, a priest, whoa Frerik2 : Yes, I think so. TomM: Was it the Catholic education? It does that to most of the philosophically inclined students. When a person has a good working relationship with reality, he tends to be successful in what he goes after -- in his studies and in his career. He's realistic about his abilities, about the difficulties of a job, his own limitations, etc. I was good in math. Kuz: It was all of it...the education, hanging around priests, being an alter boy, etc. *** Gillian_ is now known as Gillian Just as a question, how many ex-Catholics are present tonight? *** Joins: TomR (flunky@ppp2-21.INRE.ASU.EDU) * Ousey raises hand [TomR] You can observe a lot just by watching. :P I didn't have a religion. I was raised Jewish. I wasn't a Catholic, but I was New Age, does that count? How many were atheists at any early age? (<10) Judaism is a religion, Betsy. Like the Democrats are a party? Atheist at age 15 phil, 15 16 18 Kuz: I'm an x-catholic. Yael: not necessarily... phil2: I was an atheist at 10. Yael: Not in my (Jewish) neighborhood. 17 phil2: I was, a socialist and atheist. HC: huh? Kuz: I went to Catholic school, but I don't think I ever bought into the religion. Took part in church (parental demand) but always atheist. Ok, interesting, thanks Yael, it's like being Episcopalian... Atheist at 18 I wavered between atheism and very weak theism until solidifying my atheism at 16. It took me a while to become an atheist: about 18. I don't remember ever seriously believing all the religious stuff. *** Clay sets mode: -k recruit Top get back to the topic ... What other signs are there that someone is (or is not) a _practicing_ realist? *** Joins: Antioch (birk0029@maroon.tc.umn.edu) [Antioch] the rechargable hand-grenade Is it merely a coincidence that many Objectivist intellectuals are Jewish? *** Clay sets mode: +k recruit My parents had me go to all kinds of religious functions at all kinds of different religious organizations. They didn't know about concept formation theory. Tom: yes. Practicing realists don't evade or rationalize. Betsy: they are evasive practice denial I actually started going to a youth group on my own in high school and junior high ... Betsy: I get worried when I see people make claims that they *will* become multi-multi-millionaires without already being well on track, as one example of non-realistic sluff off hard truths I think that someone shows that they are a realist by planning and long-term independent action. Somebody who doesn't treat matters of fact as a tedious chore, to be put off for as long as possible. Do practicing realists accept new and radical ideas easily? What can you expect that way? Another thing that realists do...they always get stuff done, as opposed to constantly talking about it. People who steer away from Hard Choices raised catholic, atheist in 6th grade. wavered into agnosticism during high school. They will accept new and radical ideas if the evidence supports it, regardless of how many others have accepted it. Rational people carefully think through their ideas, don't change easily They need to have ideas explained to them, but they don't accept things right away without evidence. Kuz: Excellent! The ability to plan long-range successfully is one of a practicing realist's special abilities. They demonstrate they are not so worried about what others think of them phil, if they're rational why would they change":-> They are open to new ideas *that can be explained*. EricT: In other words rationally independent. They are first-handers. Yael: In most regards--in some areas I question fanatically--in others I accept what someone says too easily. I was trying to figure out Catholicism up to my introduction to Rand, when I discovere there was nothing to figure out OK Betsy: Corporate downsizing before re-engineering=non-realist Betsy: That question begs the value of the new ideas SeanS: But are those ideas you accept *radical* or *new* Betsy: You can expect lots of investigatio n and thought from the realist - especially if the new idea seems to conflict with existing information. BetsyS: For example, I'm one of few college students I know with an investment portfolio. Kuz: :) BetsyS: No, I'm *not* rich...yet. "Realist" implies pramatism...I prefer to find persons acting rationally, long term, and who don't resent intelligent know-it-alls, Kuz: You're probably one of the few with enough money to invest. ;) Jay: Realists ask a LOT of questions. TomR: You'd be surprised. How many college students have 100s of Compact Discs? *** Joins: Ron (6212@204.141.125.64) Kuz: That is impressive. However, because someone doesn't have a good long-term plan doesn't mean they are not long range, but that they haven't learned the methods of achieving long range success. They are looking for those methods though, usually. They ask "Why" a lot realists=pragamatists? Young children are realists. investment portfolio. in college? some of us have to also pay for college Most importantly, someone who bases his thinking in terms of priciples derived from the self-evident. Kuz: That didn't describe me as an undergrad. :) I've noticed that most people I consider rational know what they want to do, have known it for a while, and are working toward it...hard. TM: The media claims to be "objective" in the same way pragmatists claim to be "realistic." Antioch: It's quite modest so far, but it's the practice that I want more than anything, so when I get real money I'll know what to do with it. Eric: Exactly..."realist" is rather a psuedo-term these days. "Realist" except for connotations of pragmatism is the "everyday lingo" for: Rational person I think you get the point I am making about psycho-epistemology and practicing realism in everyday matters. Now I'd like to cover MOTIVATION. Betsy: Right. Those questions are needed especially to integrate the new knowledge with existing knowledge. *** Kuznicki is now known as Kuz Kuz: ahh. and a tip-o-the hat Antioch: Pardon? Tip-o-the hat? Motivation to happiness, by facing the fact that values are obtained by remaining in the realm of reality. I found that g.o.m are people who know how to see the contextual nature of knowledge, who don't have out of context absolutes. They know where their knowledge applies, and where it doesn't. *** Quits: Ousey (Ping timeout for Ousey[ivyland3 02.voicenet.com]) The result is a burning desire to integrate facts, to achieve values. EricT: yes, someone who thinks values means rational values only. *** Joins: Toni (~vatcher@ip076.phx.primenet.com) *** Quits: Dino (later all) Motivation is what I meant when I said, people who know what they want, and are working towards it. (and of course, acting on the resulting knowledge) Let Betsy speak .. A person who is g.O.m. has a characteristicly ACTIVE approach toward values with a characteristically observable result. *** Joins: Ousey (jdousey@ivyland302.voicenet.com) [James D Ousey] Master of the ASCII Arts! Yes, the have a spring in their step. All people with this good approach to values have something that those who may be rational but repressed, or with a malevolent universe view lack. A great sense of being able to achieve values. A sense of wanting to achieve values People who actively pursue values have a LOT OF VALUES. They have a complex PERSONAL hierarchy of values. As Ayn Rand put it, they have a "favorite everything>" BetsyS: That's just it: The world doesn't owe them anything, but nearly anything can be obtained. There motivations as being seemingly possible. Motivationallly, someone who thinks, at leat at first, that *all8 persons will be open to Objectivism...and hopefully won't get crushed when they find out differently. Betsy: So one concise summary unifying the two is that a successful, happy person is g.o.m.? I like the concretization of the "favorite everything." :-) Phil: g.O.m. are usually very happy in ways that may not always be apparent. They may not always seem successful. Like Roark at age 22. phil2: Or a person who wants to be successful and tries to figure out how It depends what you mean by "successful". I think Roark was a success at 22. Betsy: Ok ... Achieving values Unfortunately, many successful persons avoid issues of morality, so one must be careful with that determination. BetsyS: You've mentioned the clear cases -- a person who actively values and has lots of values. But is there a minimum range of value persuit. At least one person I considered g.o.m wasn't initially an incredible valuer, but did have certain narrow areas of values. Mike from TF might not have seemed successful to some people, but he was. Peter Keating seemed successful, too. I think it is a good sign if a child has a favorite stuffed animal and a favorite TV show and a favorite friend and a favorite comic strip and a favorite flavor or ice cream. This is the sign of an ACTIVE VALUER. *** Parts: Marker (mcm@blackbear.nji.com) BetsyS: That described me as a child...I had favorites in each of those areas. :) how does someone get in the room? He has the password. Betsy: Would it be accurate to say -- active, and intense and focused, deliberative about the values chosen? Active valuation is also a good indication that the child is not approaching being apathetic about the issue of values; and such apathy leads to giving up. Jim: I look at the _complexity_ of a person's personal hierarchy of values relative to his age. I always hated apathy as a child--I couldn't understand how while I couldn't make decisions yet, people who could didn't appreciate it. It's funn you say that, Betsy ... I actually came accrost TF in search for a GOOD book to read ... Philosophically, he must be interested in applying rationality (at least implicitly) to all areas of life. *** Joins: thinrichs (ircle@206.154.171.81) EricT: It's sad, but many kids give up on valuing as they grow up. They become very hard to reach. Somebody who values a zero is the opposite kind; somebody who looks forward to the end of the work day, hates work, looks forward to spending vacation resting as if work was dreadful, someone who wants to be "free from hunger," Betsy: can you give any examples of how kids "give up on values"? BetsyS: You're right. Junior High and High School was a process of watching people give up on their lives. It was sad. *** Quits: Kpart (Read error to Kpart[ppp21.cac.p su.edu]: Connection reset by peer) I had read, Terry Brooks' Shannara series and liked it very much. When I finished all his books, I was found empty. I searched desperately for a series, book, or author in general that I could get into that much. I wonder if this is what Dr. Peikoff will be talking about ... people without strong values have no motivation to think either (relating ethics and epistemology) Betsy: yes, that's why I mentioned the global approach...someone who has locked himself into a narrow field of consideration may resent the global approach of philosophy. Yael: See my comment. Intense valuing is the motor that drives a rational person's thinking or, as Francisco put it, "What for?" Giving up on values (that is, sacrificing and sharing) is the first step towards giving up on life Kuz: I saw it. Any examples? I had three recommendations from two different people--all for The Fountainhead :). The rest, as they say, is history. *** Quits: thinrichs (Leaving) Sean: Me too, exactly three Yael: Yes. Drug and alcohol abuse, apathy about school. I'd ask 'what about your future,' and they'd say 'what future?' Sean: The great value of _TF_ is that it can reawaken values in a basically rational, but repressed, person. *** Quits: JonA (Ping timeout for JonA[dionysus11 .carroll.com]) Betsy: that's what it did for me! :) Betsy: Because it shows what is possible to man? Eric: Looking forward to the end of the work day may also indicate a higher value placed on getting home to one's family, which is why I work in the first place Betsy: i was severily repressed, and had to approach it from the abstract ideas down. I particularly hate it when a child is bubbling over with enthusiasm for some personal value and a cynical adult advises him to "grow up." Ousey: That's not the example I gave. Ousey: Your family can be of great value to you, you knwo :) MikeT some people just have jobs that they don't like, and they are willing to "suffer" for theyr futur. in rational paiment BetsyS: My parents NEVER told me this! Betsy: It's at least a twofold process, as valuers they are used to acheive there values and they can see the difference between there state of life presently and what it will be like when they has gotten there value. And therefore they act. *** Parts: HardCandy (~Shess@ppp118-sf2.sirius.com) BetsyS: You know general, "Treat everything equal" attitude? Betsy: I think a lot of it has to do with high school, where people tell them that everything they are excited about is "no big deal" Betsy, what about the other end, when a child is being told, "don't grow up" I see that it is much more evil than I thought. Clay: As in "be irresponsible?" That's hardly practicing realism. Clay: I know what that is like, a kid in my school keeps telling me that I'm "growing too fast" and I should "do nothing." *** Joins: Kpart (~wjc@ppp21.cac.psu.edu) [Kpart] Bill Capehart, Research Meteorologist Yael: That's HIS problem. Yael, I was thinking of your E-mail situation w/ that really revolting person Yael: I was an enigma to most people in high school ... selling commercial program to Radio Shack at 16, self negotiating with Tandy attorneys ;) Betsy: I know that. Unfortunately not everyone else does. Adults who tell children, cynially, to "grow up" are playing a cheap power game, simultaneously making themselves appear experts at life, and hiding from themselves the fact that they've turned into a gray thing, only resembling what man can be and ought to be. Clay: It depends on what they mean by "grow up". If they equate growing up with the death of valuing, then they may mean something very good by the phrase, "don't grow up." Clay: the kids who told my friend to not try as hard, so he wouldn't set the curve? Phil: Cool! :) Jim_N: Right on. Growing up isn't bad if it means integrating greater responsibility and choice with the inquisitiveness of children. Clay: However, if they mean becoming more independent by "growing up", then they their intent is bad. Phil: wow and a Tip-o-the Hat then they their = then their To sum up: When I meet someone who shows realism in his everyday appraoch to life and who has his own personal "favorite everything" it doesn't matter if he's a Catholic socialist. He is good Objectivist material. *** Joins: JonA (~jadams@dionysus11.carroll.com) Thanks for the topic Betsy. [JonA] NYC Consultant : Future billionaire. *** SeanS sets mode: -k recruit It helps if he can explain his favorites ok how about this for one people who tell small children constanly to "make-believe " ? People who look forward to stagnating, whether to stagnate by following others, or stagnate by feeling superior by being richer, or being more attractive, or possessing more intelligence, knowledge, etc., are in the same group, diametrically opposed to the active mind, the active valuerer, who understands that happiness requires constant growth, and that stagnation means the end of happiness. You're welcome. This was a lively and intelligent group. May you fill your livesd with people who are g.O.m. :] Thanks for talk, Betsy *** Joins: thinrichs (ircle@206.154.171.81) Thanks Betsy Thanks, Betsy--and also for recommending mIRC--It's great! Betsy: Thank you Betsy. I'm thinking about hwo to go about making friends with people; what avenues to pursue,e tc. ... Thanks Betsy! :) Betsy: Thanks, it was a good topic and a good performance. Betsy: Has that thingy on A.P.O for H.P.O come out yet? without the typos, too :) Betsy, you have to realize that people compartmentalize. the older the person the more likely that they have to this the T. i've heard of perfectly normal intelligent biologists who knows the ins and out of evolution but think that women are inferior at the same time!