Ayn Rand Philosophy, Objectivism, Science, Self-interest

[wufwugy]

Highly recommended. This isn't so much about Ayn Rand, but about related philosophies. Both sections are quite interesting. If you get past the brief intro about her history and don't like new topics covered, it's not for you. The meat starts at 6:00.

Edit: full interview here

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

Note that it's not important to know anything about Ayn Rand to get this. I've never read Rand and probably never will. The topics covered have a lot to do with Enlightenment philosophy in general and how it relates today.

[wufwugy]

A really cool point reiterated at some point in the interview: the smallest minority is the individual. The political activism that focuses on the plight of minority groups strangely tends to disregard the minority status of even smaller groups all the way down to the individual level. By principle, many in American politics care deeply about eliminating mistreatment of minorities, and they should naturally be Enlightenment-style liberty-oriented individualists.

[NightGizmo]

I've never read Rand and probably never will.

Why not?

[NightGizmo]

Thanks for the vids, Wuf. It's been a while since I read Ayn Rand, but I've generally subscribed to her fundamental philosophy since I discovered it in high school. It's good to hear a refresher on her ideas.

[wufwugy]

Why not?

I think I learn better by consuming summaries, bullet-points, and debates on the issues. At some point I will likely pick full-length non-fiction back up and use the Marshall Macluhan strategy of reading every other page (he did this because he found full-length non-fiction redundant).

The culture of modern prose is ever increasing expansion, explanations of explanations of explanations. I don't find it that useful, and I think people naturally glaze over the majority of material they read. When material is unpacked for more succinct mediums, I tend to find the non-essentials and redundancy stripped away, leaving me with the real lessons of the material and what I really need to know to move forward.

[wufwugy]

Thanks for the vids, Wuf. It's been a while since I read Ayn Rand, but I've generally subscribed to her fundamental philosophy since I discovered it in high school. It's good to hear a refresher on her ideas.

Sure. I enjoyed the shit out of the entire interview.

Question: Ayn Rand is often referenced in relation to principles of anarchism, or at least non-intrusion from government into private space. A week ago, you commented on the topic of private roads, saying that you believe they are a bad idea and that government should intervene in this space. If this portrayal is accurate, would you unpack for me how this is consistent with Randian philosophy?

[a500lbgorilla]

"We need to expand the mind and introduce it to all new ideas"
"I fear the emotions of other's minds"

Maybe introduce yourself to the idea of emotions?

[wufwugy]

Back when I took a Greek philosophy course (I had quite different opinions than I do today), I remember thinking that everything today looks like it's pulling from either Aristotle or Plato, and that Plato was wrong and Aristotle was right. It's neat to see the interviewee make the same observation. I don't know if this is orthodox opinion, but I certainly was not taught it explicitly.

[a500lbgorilla]

"The enemy of reason is force"

I thought it was emotions! Reason seems to have a lot of enemies.

[wufwugy]

"We need to expand the mind and introduce it to all new ideas"
"I fear the emotions of other's minds"

Maybe introduce yourself to the idea of emotions?

Wouldn't it be that emotions are not ideas?

[a500lbgorilla]

Back when I took a Greek philosophy course (I had quite different opinions than I do today), I remember thinking that everything today looks like it's pulling from either Aristotle or Plato, and that Plato was wrong and Aristotle was right. It's neat to see the interviewee make the same observation. I don't know if this is orthodox opinion, but I certainly was not taught it explicitly.

Know thyself.

[wufwugy]

"The enemy of reason is force"

I thought it was emotions! Reason seems to have a lot of enemies.

Maybe it would be better to say "an enemy." Historically, force (as well as emotion) certainly appears to be a chief enemy of reason.

[a500lbgorilla]

Wouldn't it be that emotions are not ideas?

Your emotions inform your ideas - they color them. Consider your mind when you're frustrated versus euphoric.

[wufwugy]

Know thyself.

What are you getting at?

[wufwugy]

Your emotions inform your ideas - they color them. Consider your mind when you're frustrated versus euphoric.

Then emotions are a tool for which to help engage ideas; not ideas themselves.

[a500lbgorilla]

Maybe it would be better to say "an enemy." Historically, force (as well as emotion) certainly appears to be a chief enemy of reason.

Well, reason shys away from conflict that hasn't already been pre-decided. Having enemies doesn't factor into the game reason plays.

"Once you've accepted emotion as the standard..." <- quote from the video

We did like 7000 years ago, at least.

[a500lbgorilla]

What are you getting at?

That comes from Socrates and Plato. And it's a great starting point. Know yourself and you can begin to know others.

[a500lbgorilla]

Then emotions are a tool for which to help engage ideas; not ideas themselves.

Emotions are a tool, but very different from one that you use. They're more like one that your genes use to navigate you.

[wufwugy]

I'm not sure if I agree with "know thyself." Maybe "know" means something different in Greek. My "thyself" is a dilemma. When it comes to answering the questions "what do I want?" or "who am I?", I find the response as "Gee, I dunno..."

The closest I can get to making sense of it is "be thyself."

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm not sure if I agree with "know thyself." Maybe "know" means something different in Greek. My "thyself" is a dilemma. When it comes to answering the questions "what do I want?" or "who am I?", I find the response as "Gee, I dunno..."

Me too. But I'm also of the school of thought that tackling the idea of God is worthwhile for learning about the world, so why not tackle the next in line?

[a500lbgorilla]

He is arguing from reason against cocaine. Cocaine is one of the great demonstrations of the weakness of reason. Go ahead and smell some.

[wufwugy]

He is arguing from reason against cocaine. Cocaine is one of the great demonstrations of the weakness of reason. Go ahead and smell some.

I think it shows the difficulty for people to act upon reason.

[wufwugy]

Found this, the whole interview. New material starts around 43:30.

[a500lbgorilla]

Yeah because we just don't reason. We're cognitive misers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_miser

[wufwugy]

The question and answer at 45:50 is awesome. It's about Microsoft being coerced by government to lobby the government for special treatment.

"The government knocks on the door and says 'give us a handout or, when we write the regulations, we're gonna screw you.'"

[NightGizmo]

Question: Ayn Rand is often referenced in relation to principles of anarchism, or at least non-intrusion from government into private space. A week ago, you commented on the topic of private roads, saying that you believe they are a bad idea and that government should intervene in this space. If this portrayal is accurate, would you unpack for me how this is consistent with Randian philosophy?

I still strongly believe in the metaphysics and epistemology of her philosophy, but I diverge from her beliefs in other categories. For government, I generally believe that the role of government should be limited, but I also believe that there are some areas that are best handled by a government vs. the markets (healthcare is one example). And I also believe that there are some areas of the markets that need some regulation to protect the public from exploitation, incompetence, or outright theft (e.g. banking, natural monopolies).

So to answer your question -- my viewpoint is not consistent with Randian philosophy.

[a500lbgorilla]

Yeah because we just don't reason. We're cognitive misers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_miser

Alright, I'll walk that back a bit. People do reason, but they need space and time to do it. And there's always something that's trying to corner you and hurry you up.

[NightGizmo]

Yeah because we just don't reason. We're cognitive misers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_miser

So that invalidates the goal of being rational and using reason? Just because it's difficult to use reason all the time doesn't change the fact that you should use reason whenever possible.

[a500lbgorilla]

It does certainly limit expectations.

While you should use reason whenever possible, that doesn't mean you will.

[wufwugy]

Great explanation on how there isn't a risk of societal takeover from companies gaining greater economic power at 49:02.

[NightGizmo]

Regarding emotions: I forget if this is something explicitly covered in one of Ayn Rand's non-fiction books or something I cobbled together on my own, but...

Emotions are essentially hardwired reflexes. Certain input (external stimuli, maybe just internal thoughts) triggers those reflexes, which causes emotions and then causes a cascade of mental and physiological effects (fight/flight response, panic attack, depression, etc.).

Those hardwired paths can be changed, with effort. You can get over your irrational fears. You can learn psychological techniques to control your panic attacks. You can deal with your own mental issues and improve your anger issues. Ultimately, you can use reason to make your emotions more useful to you.

But emotions are not a substitute for reason or reality. Your emotional response to a situation could be totally irrational and inappropriate.

So there is a problem if you're acting solely on emotions without any basis on reality or reason. If your actions only impact yourself, then that's a bad thing for you but ultimately within your rights. It becomes a problem when people project their emotions onto the decisions of other people, which has become commonplace: "You offended me, therefore you need to be punished." That implies that emotions are valid realities, regardless of how reasonable those emotions/realities actually are.

[NightGizmo]

Back when I took a Greek philosophy course (I had quite different opinions than I do today), I remember thinking that everything today looks like it's pulling from either Aristotle or Plato, and that Plato was wrong and Aristotle was right. It's neat to see the interviewee make the same observation. I don't know if this is orthodox opinion, but I certainly was not taught it explicitly.

Ayn Rand wrote about this at length. She considered herself an intellectual heir to Aristotle, and modern philosophers as descending from Plato. She even titled the three sections of Atlas Shrugged using concepts from Aristotle.

[a500lbgorilla]

Regarding emotions: I forget if this is something explicitly covered in one of Ayn Rand's non-fiction books or something I cobbled together on my own, but...

Emotions are essentially hardwired reflexes. Certain input (external stimuli, maybe just internal thoughts) triggers those reflexes, which causes emotions and then causes a cascade of mental and physiological effects (fight/flight response, panic attack, depression, etc.).

Those hardwired paths can be changed, with effort. You can get over your irrational fears. You can learn psychological techniques to control your panic attacks. You can deal with your own mental issues and improve your anger issues. Ultimately, you can use reason to make your emotions more useful to you.

But emotions are not a substitute for reason or reality. Your emotional response to a situation could be totally irrational and inappropriate.

So there is a problem if you're acting solely on emotions without any basis on reality or reason. If your actions only impact yourself, then that's a bad thing for you but ultimately within your rights. It becomes a problem when people project their emotions onto the decisions of other people, which has become commonplace: "You offended me, therefore you need to be punished." That implies that emotions are valid realities, regardless of how reasonable those emotions/realities actually are.

There's also a problem if you pretend that you're acting on reason fully divorced from emotions. As difficultly as those pathways could be changed, those neurons won't migrate, and they won't degenerate. And for all the new connects that you're making to find waylays and detours around those emotional centers, their dendrites and axons will only grow so long. And that's ignoring all the key-pass chemicals that rush into the brain from time to time, all those hare-trigger hormones that a fired off to keep you safe from tigers and get you ready to validate your purpose.

Don't pretend that you can separate yourself from the world, your body, and what it needs to do to survive.

[wufwugy]

I love the line that ends the interview: "The job of the government is not to legislate people out of their stupidity; the job of the government is to allow people to suffer the consequences of their stupidity.

[a500lbgorilla]

I love the line that ends the interview: "The job of the government is not to legislate people out of their stupidity; the job of the government is to allow people to suffer the consequences of their stupidity.

Because it's laughably wrong?

edit I'll answer your question before you ask it. The gov't is interested in continuing to govern, it doesn't care about the stupidity scale.

[wufwugy]

Because it's laughably wrong?

edit I'll answer your question before you ask it. The gov't is interested in continuing to govern, it doesn't care about the stupidity scale.

It was the founding principle of the American government. People forget that.

I think maybe you misread my point. Our democratic voters have deeply internalized the idea that governments exist to legislate morality and behavior, and our modern government has internalized the concept as well. The American government never perfectly reflected the concept of freedom expressed in the quote from the video, but it was intended to and it used to to a much greater degree than today.

[a500lbgorilla]

It was the founding principle of the American governments. People forget that.

But the American gov't was built to change and has evolved as circumstances have demanded of it.

A free market, a perfect democracy, those are great when everyone is basically equal and pushing off from the same starting line, but as time is allowed to move forward, the natural distribution of abilities will see organs grow that change the rules of the game.

You can't enter into the mobile phone market without a fuckton of resources. Even if you deregulated the market, if any small actor managed to gain some legs, they'd be smooshed or consumed by the monoliths of the industry. Because that's where free markets take us. Someone is more able than the rest, everyone pays into them, eventually, they're competing against those firms that were able to find the resources to mimic them.

In the same way, These Unites States became The United States. In the same way, single cell organisms became neuron-driven organisms.

You keep pretending that the world lives in this virgin, flat state when it's been ruined for far too long.

[a500lbgorilla]

Ayn Rand advocates for a return to single-celled organisms.

[NightGizmo]

There's also a problem if you pretend that you're acting on reason fully divorced from emotions. As difficultly as those pathways could be changed, those neurons won't migrate, and they won't degenerate. And for all the new connects that you're making to find waylays and detours around those emotional centers, their dendrites and axons will only grow so long. And that's ignoring all the key-pass chemicals that rush into the brain from time to time, all those hare-trigger hormones that a fired off to keep you safe from tigers and get you ready to validate your purpose.

Don't pretend that you can separate yourself from the world, your body, and what it needs to do to survive.

I agree with you.

Ayn Rand was arguing against the primacy of emotions and for the primacy of reason. Emotions are not reality; your goal is to use your rational faculty to the best of your ability.

[a500lbgorilla]

I agree with you.

Ayn Rand was arguing against the primacy of emotions and for the primacy of reason. Emotions are not reality; your goal is to use your rational faculty to the best of your ability.

Emotions definitely inform your reality.

I remember coming into work, I woke up angry, I was angry in the shower, and I opened up an email that read something like, "Oh hey, I see your work, where's the rest of it?"

And I was pissed because this motherfucker was taking a go at me for providing him with sufficient but not perfect work.

Thankfully, I went around the office and asked after this character and found out that he was a sarcastic jagoff and realized he was just having a go. In that new spirit I was able meet him and his needs more ably than if I were left to my initial sense.

For me, it's a revelation to see how it is that your current emotional state and your current surroundings inform how you think and how you express yourself.

There will never be a primacy of reason, because I honestly believe we are misers of our critical faculties, because I know I am and I assume everyone follows a similar mold.

[a500lbgorilla]

Alright, I'll put it more clearly.

A primacy of emotions is much more easy than a primacy of reason.

And I have no reason to believe the difficult will win out over the easy.

Let's call it 75/25, feels/reals, at best

[NightGizmo]

At the core of Ayn Rand's philosophy is the Aristotlean metaphysical premise that reality exists, independent of our perception of it. As a consequence of this premise, she believes that the correct way to navigate through life is to use your rational faculty to try to understand the nature of reality and determine courses of action that provide the best benefit to you based on your value system.

You can feel whatever you want, it's not going to change the underlying reality. Feeling emotions isn't wrong -- accepting them as a substitute for reality is wrong.

In your workplace example, you used reason. You used your rational faculties to gather more information, create a better understanding of the situation, and make a more informed decision on what action to take.

[a500lbgorilla]

In your workplace example, you used reason. You used your rational faculties to gather more information, create a better understanding of the situation, and make a more informed decision on what action to take.

To show that I see both your position and the other position.

You can feel whatever you want, it's not going to change the underlying reality. Feeling emotions isn't wrong -- accepting them as a substitute for reality is wrong.

Exactly. But feeling emotions and substituting rationality for them is difficult. For each story I remember doing it right, how many do I have where I didn't do it?

At the core of Ayn Rand's philosophy is the Aristotlean metaphysical premise that reality exists, independent of our perception of it. As a consequence of this premise, she believes that the correct way to navigate through life is to use your rational faculty to try to understand the nature of reality and determine courses of action that provide the best benefit to you based on your value system.

But you cannot navigate through reality independent of yourself. And yourself is given to emotions, as much as you wish it wasn't, and as much as you may train yourself to overcome them, they will always be there for they are easy and immutable.

the correct way to navigate through life is to use your rational faculty to try to understand the nature of reality and determine courses of action that provide the best benefit to you based on your value system.

I fundamentally agree. I'm just speaking truth to where this path has taken me.

[JKDS]

How much of what we perceive as reality is the true reality?

Is our interpretation of reality necessarily tied to our emotions?

[a500lbgorilla]

How much of what we perceive as reality is the true reality?

Is our interpretation of reality necessarily tied to our emotions?

Your interpretation of reality is tied to what you are. Your memories, your current state, your current surroundings, all of these things fill in different blanks.

How much of reality we perceive is true? Shit, man. It's true enough to survive.

[a500lbgorilla]

I wish I could find it, but on one of those Planet Earth/Deep Sea/Beautiful China BBC series, they show some deep-sea fish that breeds red-glowing bacteria behind its eyes. So it has red light vision in a water so deep that red light doesn't exist, so nothing else has eyes that sense red light. It can see in a world of no sight.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Logic needs to be learned. Reasoning skills need to be practiced. Neither can be said of emotions.

[wufwugy]

But the American gov't was built to change and has evolved as circumstances have demanded of it.

The American government was built on particular principles of government and that changing from those principles would be really, really, really, hard.

A free market, a perfect democracy, those are great when everyone is basically equal and pushing off from the same starting line

It is because people do not start from the same line that free markets have benefit. Free markets are the only known system to enfranchise the marginalized and to provide upward mobility. This is a point Milton Friedman often made, and economists agree with it at large.

You can't enter into the mobile phone market without a fuckton of resources. Even if you deregulated the market, if any small actor managed to gain some legs, they'd be smooshed or consumed by the monoliths of the industry.

This is not an effect of free markets. Free markets are a deterrent to this. History and economic theory has been clear on this. The more regulated markets are, the more you get these negative monoliths you're talking about, and vise versa. I've explained the details for why we know this many times, and I'll only do it again if you want to hear it.

Because that's where free markets take us. Someone is more able than the rest

I'll repeat because this is an essential point: The "more able than the rest" is a natural phenomenon of life and reality. The tools and institutions best understood by contemporary man to mitigate the negative effects of this is free markets. The evidence is overwhelming and the theory is rock solid and taught worldwide. My guess as to the reason the idea is not popular outside of the field of economics is because it sounds immoral to contemporary emotional sensibilities. Plus there is no longer a Milton Friedman on primetime every night explaining this, like there once was.

You keep pretending that the world lives in this virgin, flat state when it's been ruined for far too long.

The points I make are because we don't live in this virgin world. Economics models reality, not make-believe. Economists' understanding of the effects of regulation comes from evaluations of reality. The claim that deregulation improves economic dynamism emerges from those evaluations of reality.

[wufwugy]

There will never be a primacy of reason

Does not choosing to work itself show primacy of reason? Does not choosing to slog through four years of college to get a special piece of paper show primacy of reason?

[wufwugy]

Your interpretation of reality is tied to what you are.

Yes, but reality is not tied to what you are. The Aristotelian premise Gizmo discusses can exist regardless of ones perception. This looks to me to be why one can posit primacy (or even just relevance) of reason.

[a500lbgorilla]

Economics may model reality but you've got to admit it doesn't do it flawlessly. It can't be the only thing that informs your expectations. It's silly to suggest outloud "what if we were just all perfectly rational?" like this guy is.

The virgin world point is this idea about free markets being the absolute best solution. They are when the situation warrants them, but they can't always be created and they'll never last. My analogy was following the evolution of life - the free market of single celled organisms have become the mega-firms of flora and fauna. In the same way, markets will evolve into mega firms that can't really be honestly competed against.

Plus, a free market still has to exist in the greater world of nation-states.

Yes, but reality is not tied to what you are. The Aristotelian premise Gizmo discusses can exist regardless of ones perception. This looks to me to be why one can posit primacy (or even just relevance) of reason.

Oh absolutely. But you will never be anything other than yourself. You're enabled and limited by what you are. You can never interact or understand nature in any context other than as yourself.

Which is why its important to understand how the truth of the world changes as it's translated into your human understanding. This process is the precise reason why a primacy of reason will never exist. We just don't do that.

The only thing that understands nature in perfect terms is the reality of nature itself and your brain ain't the universe.

The evidence is overwhelming and the theory is rock solid and taught worldwide.

Just go ahead and share it then.

[a500lbgorilla]

I love this analogy of the free market of microbes. Climate change could be seen like regulations.

[a500lbgorilla]

Logic needs to be learned. Reasoning skills need to be practiced. Neither can be said of emotions.

[JKDS]

Does not choosing to work itself show primacy of reason? Does not choosing to slog through four years of college to get a special piece of paper show primacy of reason?

Emotions heavily guide both of these decisions. Depression and hopelessness is key to ppl choosing to give up a job search. Given how many ppl go to college for not "in demand" degrees and how many dont study very hard, emotion is likely the driving factor here too.

[JKDS]

Logic needs to be learned. Reasoning skills need to be practiced. Neither can be said of emotions.

I don't think the first or third point is true.

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't think the first or third point is true.

I think people are born with a natural logic, but it's not proper logic.

I definitely think emotions can be learned about, but that they're ubiquitous in the nervous process of life.

[MadMojoMonkey]

disclaimer: OMFG I'm so sick right now. My head is spinning. I tried to put together a coherent post, but I nearly deleted it, all the same. I didn't delete it because I think there's some decent points, but I also feel like I'm meandering around and not getting to the point, which is eluding my cloudy head. Grain of salt reading this one.

Logic needs to be learned. Reasoning skills need to be practiced. Neither can be said of emotions.

I don't think the first or third point is true.

Let's make sure we're talking about the same things, then.

From wiki "Logic":
in 2007 Mossakowski et al. commented that "it is embarrassing that there is no widely acceptable formal definition of 'a logic'".


Logic - a set of rules and forms which evaluate consistency in a progression of ideas
learn - to acquire understanding through experiences
reasoning skills - the ability to think up a logically consistent connection or lack thereof between idea A to idea B
practice - to intentionally focus on and try to acquire or develop a skill
emotion - (IDK, this is tough) An inherent biochemical response to stimulus. (?)
(It's cheating to call it inherent, then argue that it doesn't need to be learned. *sigh* I'm open to suggestions so that this isn't so lame. I'm sure we agree on what "emotion" is.)


Even newborn babies seem to have moods. This seems indicative of the presence of emotions right from birth.
Toddlers can talk about their emotions as soon as they learn words. It is not impossible that adults have imprinted this sense of feelings onto the children who are simply learning by mimicking their environment. However, the broad spectrum of personalities and emotions which are expressed and how they are expressed is again indicative of something more than a learned behavior.

Contrast the near complete absence of logic from toddlers. Toddlers don't even understand causal relationships or temporal qualities of a story, i.e. thought process. When a toddler tells a story, they bounce from fact to fact in a seemingly random way, ignoring the chronology of events and obfuscating any point they are making.

On the point that emotions don't need to be learned or practiced:
You can teach someone a new word which describes an emotion, and that person can tell you if they've ever felt that. That person may be more aware of said emotion and may start to feel it more now that they've heard of it. In that sense an emotion may be learned. However,

While you can practice your emotions, and even guide yourself to a new emotional response to the same stimulus, this is not at all requisite to have emotions. It is not clear to me that an emotion can be taught.

[JKDS]

I agree that we are born with terrible reasoning skills (and logic by whatever definition). But where I disagree on this point is that I think we still have them at birth. How else could we learn, if we didnt have an innate set of reasoning to understand?

At the same time, we're born with shit emotional control. Tantrums over spilled milk, babies crying for no reason, etc. But, adults have been shown to exhibit such shity emotional control and understanding too (med school student and the uber fiasco). On the other hand, you have Obama who is facing the extreme stresses of the presidency...yet hasnt thrown a tantrum yet.

Both logic and emotion are things that need to be understood and developed. We can't be throwing tantrums as adults, and we can't rarionally believe the Mayans are coming to kill us in 2012.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not talking about emotional control, I'm talking about emotions. Everyone has emotions, and those emotions guide their behavior and choices. Not everyone can logic. Many people are averse to algebra, which is simply a language based on the rules of logic.

No one has to be taught to throw a tantrum. Everyone has to be taught how to syllogism - accepting that all learning is self-learning and some people are self-taught.

"How else could we learn, if we didnt have an innate set of reasoning to understand?"
If reason is an application of thought which is logically consistent (you didn't counter-define that term, so I'm running with it), then I think it's evident in the existence of religions (as an easy example) that reason is not a quality all people have.

People learn all manner of things in illogical ways. People come to false conclusions because they can't recognize a fallacy. People believe contradictory things because they can't reason a more consistent belief set. Or if they can, they are emotionally attached to their false beliefs and justify their beliefs based on illogical motivations.

E.g. I believe people are good, and that it's a fair policy to assume strangers have good intentions. Even if it were conclusively shown to me that this is false, I would continue to behave in this way, out of my emotional belief that it makes the world a better place for everyone (mostly me) if I am not a jerk.

[NightGizmo]

Economics may model reality but you've got to admit it doesn't do it flawlessly. It can't be the only thing that informs your expectations. It's silly to suggest outloud "what if we were just all perfectly rational?" like this guy is.

I agree with you on this point, which is why I've diverged from Ayn Rand's ideas on economics and government.

I think we're pretty much in full agreement on the actual ideas, but we disagree on some definitions.

Objectivist metaphysics: basically, "reality exists independent of your perception and wishes". This is the bedrock of all the rest of her philosophy system. If you don't agree with this, the rest of the discussion isn't worth having.

Objectivist epistemology: Building on her metaphysical premises, this defines how people sense, perceive, and interact with reality and thought. There is an entire book on this topic, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, (it's dense but really interesting). The point of the book is that by perceiving reality and using our minds (especially logic and concepts), we can get to know reality. And knowing reality gives you control, as long as you follow the rules of reality ("nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed").

Objectivist morality: Building on the metaphysics and epistemology, she then defines the ideals that people should strive for. Which is summed up by "rational self-interest".

Her moral philosophy is stated as ideals, a personal code that you should try to live up to. But humans aren't perfect, so you also have to recognize that you're going to make mistakes, you're going to act irrationally sometimes, and sometimes even your concept of reality is wrong.

In our discussion, you're talking more about the study of human behavior/nature (and I agree with your observations). But just because people can act irrationally doesn't mean that they can't have goals to be less irrational.

[JKDS]

@mmm: are you fairly considering my argument? Extremely devout people are not devoid of reason or logic. Those who cannot do well in math (I disagree that they lack the capability, but that's irrelevant) are not by definition devoid of reason or logic. Each of these kinds of people clearly has some amount of reasoning ability. At the very minimum, they do understand causality...they know they can get to work faster by car, for example. Thats a function of reason and logic. They may not know how to create a "contrapositive" , or even what that is, but I don't think we're restrictions logic to terminology or a minimum level of skill.

Yes, you can learn to have better logic. But this is a matter of study. So is understanding and controlling your emotions.

[wufwugy]

Emotions heavily guide both of these decisions. Depression and hopelessness is key to ppl choosing to give up a job search. Given how many ppl go to college for not "in demand" degrees and how many dont study very hard, emotion is likely the driving factor here too.

I suspect that primacy of reason doesn't discount emotional influence.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm pretty sure that I am hearing your arguments, but not sure they're counter to what I proposed.

I proposed that logic has to be learned. You're saying that adults can do logic. This seems consistent or at least not inconsistent with my proposition.

I propose that reasoning skills need to be practiced. You're saying, again, that people use reasons to do things, even if those reasons are illogical, though often-times people can reason through simple tasks. Again, this doesn't seem inconsistent with the proposition that reasoning skills need to be practiced.

I said that neither is true in order to possess emotions, and I don't see any counter argument from you suggesting such. You are going on about emotional control, and I'm not making any statements about emotional control, so I don't disagree on principle.

I concede that some level of reasoning is present or at least emergent in small children, but I suggest that it is a faulty system which forces false conclusions and over-generalizes and simplifies things... 'cause a 2-year old doesn't place a high value on reason. I'm suggesting that said 2-year old does many things without any active thought process or reasoning, and that all too many adults are much the same.

I'm saying that being impulsive and acting without reason doesn't need to be learned, but self-discipline and reason do need to be learned.


(Forgive me if I'm a bit dense today. I'm just under the weather.)

[wufwugy]

Economics may model reality but you've got to admit it doesn't do it flawlessly. It can't be the only thing that informs your expectations. It's silly to suggest outloud "what if we were just all perfectly rational?" like this guy is.

It models the reality you say it doesn't model as well. All the stuff you're talking about is markets. Whenever there is a price and a quantity, there is a market. Whenever we talk about things that are markets, it is the best idea to use the best models we have that deal with markets.

The virgin world point is this idea about free markets being the absolute best solution. They are when the situation warrants them, but they can't always be created and they'll never last.

Regardless, free markets are better at producing preferred results of abundance and dynamism than less free markets.

My analogy was following the evolution of life - the free market of single celled organisms have become the mega-firms of flora and fauna. In the same way, markets will evolve into mega firms that can't really be honestly competed against.

You can't compete against a market. Competition only happens within markets. Firms compete against firms. The market for coal doesn't compete against the market for natural gas. A lot of stuff that you're saying is not in a market actually is. As long as we're talking about prices and quantities (trade), we're talking economics and should use economics.

Just go ahead and share it then.

The China "miracle," many other emerging economies -- often initialized into BRICS, MINT, PIIGS (you may have seen those before), Hong Kong vs China, and many others. Every economist (except one or two kooks; there are always kooks) claims the growth of prosperity and empowerment of these poor come from neoliberal reforms made by their governments. There are multitudes of "natural experiments" on this that are running now and have been for a while. The Hong Kong vs China one is particularly interesting to some economists because the two territories are as close to the same as we're gonna get with one difference being in their degree of neoliberal reforms. The results are consistent with everywhere else and with the theory.

As for the theory part of your comment, it mostly has to do with how regulations change prices, costs, and quantities in supply and demand models. It's been a while since I've constructed the models themselves, so I don't remember exactly how to show it, but I can give examples. When you introduce a regulation to a market that reduces profits, you reduce its dynamism by reducing entry from new firms and increasing exit of existing firms. The counter is when you eliminate a regulation; entry is increased and exit is decreased. Entry and exit always happens on the margins, so regulations negatively affect the "more able than the rest" the least and affect the "least able than the rest" the most.

It's not a coincidence that the China miracle, where the people "least able" have risen faster and in greater quantities than pretty much ever seen before has come on the backs of the Chinese government's near complete deregulation of street enterprise.

[wufwugy]

It's silly to suggest outloud "what if we were just all perfectly rational?" like this guy is.

I forgot to add that rational behavior in economics is different than the reason the interviewee discusses. Rational behavior in economics is an assumption that people try to maximize their utility. Utility has a different meaning in economics; it's along the lines of "happiness," but it's best to not think of it in the colloquial terms we do. Rational behavior in economics has nothing to do with thoughtfulness. The reason the interviewee discusses is all about thoughtfulness.

[JKDS]

If people are born with some amount of logic though, then it DOESN'T have to be learned. Perhaps this is me being dense though.

[a500lbgorilla]

If people are born with some amount of logic though, then it DOESN'T have to be learned. Perhaps this is me being dense though.

But it's not logic, it's just something that could become logic, protologic. I'm thinking of a time where we were asked what would happen if a ball attached to a thread was spinning around a table in a circle. What would happen if you cut the string? My initial guess was that it would shoot out in a wide curve, but of course the answer is that it goes in a straight line. There are countless times where you have to realize that your intuition is wrong and needs to be changed. Logic is one of those things where you can't be half right. If it's not proper logic, it's not logic.

[a500lbgorilla]

I forgot to add that rational behavior in economics is different than the reason the interviewee discusses. Rational behavior in economics is an assumption that people try to maximize their utility. Utility has a different meaning in economics; it's along the lines of "happiness," but it's best to not think of it in the colloquial terms we do. Rational behavior in economics has nothing to do with thoughtfulness. The reason the interviewee discusses is all about thoughtfulness.

I know this. I also know the idea of utility is nonsense for one simple reason - if ever any rational agent made a choice that didn't maximize his utility, you'd never know. And there's no reason to believe that people must always maximize utility.

[a500lbgorilla]

"The free market is great when you can do it." -me
"Look, when we can do it, the free market is great!" -you

I'd like to add, good evidence doesn't show that you're right, good evidence shows that you're not wrong.

[a500lbgorilla]

I agree with you on this point, which is why I've diverged from Ayn Rand's ideas on economics and government.

I think we're pretty much in full agreement on the actual ideas, but we disagree on some definitions.

Objectivist metaphysics: basically, "reality exists independent of your perception and wishes". This is the bedrock of all the rest of her philosophy system. If you don't agree with this, the rest of the discussion isn't worth having.

Objectivist epistemology: Building on her metaphysical premises, this defines how people sense, perceive, and interact with reality and thought. There is an entire book on this topic, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, (it's dense but really interesting). The point of the book is that by perceiving reality and using our minds (especially logic and concepts), we can get to know reality. And knowing reality gives you control, as long as you follow the rules of reality ("nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed").

Objectivist morality: Building on the metaphysics and epistemology, she then defines the ideals that people should strive for. Which is summed up by "rational self-interest".

Her moral philosophy is stated as ideals, a personal code that you should try to live up to. But humans aren't perfect, so you also have to recognize that you're going to make mistakes, you're going to act irrationally sometimes, and sometimes even your concept of reality is wrong.

In our discussion, you're talking more about the study of human behavior/nature (and I agree with your observations). But just because people can act irrationally doesn't mean that they can't have goals to be less irrational.

Yeah, I agree.

[MadMojoMonkey]

But it's not logic, it's just something that could become logic, protologic.

If even that. proto-reason seems more appropriate.

I'm thinking of a time where we were asked what would happen if a ball attached to a thread was spinning around a table in a circle. What would happen if you cut the string? My initial guess was that it would shoot out in a wide curve, but of course the answer is that it goes in a straight line. There are countless times where you have to realize that your intuition is wrong and needs to be changed.

I don't see what this example has to do with logic. It has to do with background knowledge and predicting an outcome. This is physics, not logic. At most, this is a test of reasoning skills, assuming that the guesser has enough of knowledge of the laws of motion to even reason out the correct answer.

What does this have to do with evaluating consistency of claims made by a set of statements?

Logic is one of those things where you can't be half right. If it's not proper logic, it's not logic.

I agree. Logic is built around the concepts of truth and falsehood, where "given" statements are true by assertion, and the goal is to determine if the conclusion statements are implied by those asserted givens.

I am struggling to imagine how children might possess this capability, but I'm drawing a blank on any examples.

[wufwugy]

I know this. I also know the idea of utility is nonsense for one simple reason - if ever any rational agent made a choice that didn't maximize his utility, you'd never know. And there's no reason to believe that people must always maximize utility.

If this is nonsense, then all science is nonsense. Everything uses fundamental assumptions that are not testable.

Example: fundamental assumption of science: repeatability of phenomena. Nobody can prove this assumption. Every experiment anybody does, its relevance can to other experiments and to descriptions of nature can only be assumed. Nobody actually knows. Rational behavior theory is on par with this; economists assume what appears to be a fundamental "truth" so they can move forward just like chemists and physicists do in their respective sciences.

If we assume that people don't maximize their utility, then, well, I don't know what happens to economics. The field probably becomes nonsensical.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If we assume that people don't maximize their utility, then, well, I don't know what happens to economics. The field probably becomes nonsensical.

Wow. This might actually be the fundamental reason that economics seems so unrefined to me.

I can think of dozens of examples of people NOT acting to maximize their utility right off the top of my head. (Or maybe I still don't understand your notion of utility.)

In science, if even 1 counter-example can be shown, then the assertion is false. It is discarded and sometimes replaced with a new idea.

OK.

So explain suicide to me. How is this a maximization of utility?