Judging other people

[Stephen Speicher 0]

If..."this person is working towards undoing his repression," that is factual evidence to be considered. It would be psychologizing to condemn a person for evasion while ignoring factual evidence to the contrary.

←

So a person who has some knowledge of my psychological situation ought to take that into account. At best, however, that knowledge acts as a mitigating factor that may lessen the severity of the judgment passed on my negative actions, making it less likely that he will continually hold me in a bad light. The knowledge should have little effect on specific decisions he makes in dealing with me - his self-interest should be his overriding concern.

But being aware of that knowledge could very well be to the person's self-interest. I greatly admire a conscientious person who truly dedicates himself to working on solving his psychological problems, and if there is enough value even with the problems, or enough potential value, that knowledge might help me to maintain a friendship that I otherwise would have missed. To wrongly attribute evasion where it does not apply is not being just to both the person and myself.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Since man is fallible, invalid ideas and actions can be the result of errors of knowledge as well as breaches in morality.  To determine which is the cause of the invalid ideas or actions, one references a man's conscious actions.  One looks at his logic and his philosophy respectively.  And one then identifies which is responsible for the invalid result. 

←

There's a much easier way of finding out whether a person came to a wrong conclusion by an error of knowledge. I SUPPLY the knowledge and then I see what happens.

For instance, I was arguing with someone who said Elian Gonzalez should be sent back to Cuba because "his father wants him to live there." I asked him if he knew that Cuba was a totalitarian dictatorship and what that meant, whether Cubans were free to say the truth, and what life was like there compared to the US. He didn't know. (That's American education for you!) He promised to think about it and changed his mind a few days later.

There are other people who, when presented with the facts, flat out tell you they don't care about the facts or there are more important things than facts. That is evasion you can see on almost a perceptual level.

Yet ignorance and deliberate refusal to face reality don't exhaust the possibilities. There are also people who don't know how to think. Their lapses in logic are due to ignorance of logic. In my experience, this is the most common reason most people reach false conclusions. As with ignorance of the facts, my approach is to show them their logical fallacy in a factual way and show them how to correct it. This is amazingly effective with most people.

Very few people are deliberately evasive and immoral. Most or ignorant of facts or unskilled in the art of thinking. If you show people the facts and how to reach the proper conclusion, you persuade most people. The rest are put in a position where they have to clearly and unequivocally evade reality -- and then you know what you are dealing with.

[Janet_Busch 0]

<snip>

I disagree that one can know as facts about another person only that person's words and actions. That would be empiricism. A fact is an existent of some sort. Words and actions are themselves existents, that is, facts. However, the inferences I draw are also identifications of facts assuming my methods are objective and I have sufficient content.

<snip>

[...]I would say that I can identify many facts about another person other than sense-perceptible facts such as words and (other) actions. My identifications might be only possibilities or probabilities, but I have reason for believing that they are identifications of facts of reality.

<snip>

None of this, of course, justifies psychologizing as Ayn Rand defined it -- excusing or condemning for psychological reasons, in the absence of evidence or contrary to evidence -- whether gathered by an amateur or by a scientific specialist, I would add.

←

Thank you Burgess. You have defined an important aspect of judging another.

I don't think it is possible, or desirable, to eschew all concerns with understanding someone's psychology. It is a part of the facts we use to make our judgments about another's character. For instance, the evasion my friend indulges in is such that the only injustice I've seen as a consequence is perpetrated upon herself alone. I would not think the same of her if it was such that it affected others unjustly. It is unfortunate that she will not address the problem. I could conclude that she is a coward for not doing so, but she shows no cowardice otherwise. In fact, she is one of the bravest people I know. I know the genesis of the problem and I can identify some of the overt consequences. I cannot say that I understand the psychological mechanisms at play and I wouldn't attempt to do so--but I do take cognizance that there is a psychological problem. So, even though I have considered this information in my assessment of her character, I wouldn't say that I was psychologizing.

I'm not sure it is possible to completely eschew drawing some conclusions in this area when we think about another person. We naturally draw on everything we observe, and we definitely observe something of person's psychological makeup. We may not know the reasons for what we observe, and it is here that we must not assume that we know what we do not know. That is what I meant when I said that we must not assign motivations and causes.

Ask yourself what it is that tells you that someone is an actual evader, to be judged to be irrational. For me, it isn't simply that I notice that a person isn't saying the right things. I also notice a person's behavior when he says things that make me question his character, such as his demeanor (Burgess mentioned shifty eyes). I know that this isn't some kind of infalible test (a real psychopath, or a con artist, for example, controls such things), but it is a clue to be considered. As a nurse I used such clues all the time when I was assessing a patient (not morally, of course). I don't think I could not do this, anymore than I could not pay attention to my inner alarm. In fact, the more I think about it, it is probably something psychological that my alarm is reacting to. I wouldn't pass a moral judgment on someone based on any one of these things, that requires objective thought, but each is a part of the whole picture I have to think about.

This is a fascinating, and important, subject. Thank you, Brian, for bringing it up. It has certainly made me think (always a good thing).

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Repression is only one aspect of factual evidence; in what people do and say there is much that can be identified. There are often several possible interpretations, if one is on the premise of looking.

You are quite correct. In what people do and say there is indeed much that can be identified. But to identify those fact as evidence of something other than a man's conscious control of his words and actions, as Ms. Rand clearly indicates, is the domain of the psychological specialist and not that of the layman.

You've missed the point. I'm saying that there are other explanations for human behavior, above and beyond that of psychological problems, that are characteristically missed by the sort of mentality who seeks to find evasion under every rock.

Someone else (I forget who) recently mentioned something about the need to judge the good. The mentality that actively seeks out evaders rarely spends time praising the good. Note that on THE FORUM we have a subforum dedicated to the praise of The Good, but none dedicated for condemnation. Good is more important than evil, and those who spend their time relentlessly attempting to uncover evil evaders would be much better off looking instead for something good to praise.

As to the rest of the quote, its a good thing there is no one here who spends his "time reletntlessly attempting to uncover evil evaders." But I am certain if there were, one would try to help him "uncover" his error so he too might see the good, as opposed to ignoring him and just praising the good.

But, as you yourself have intimated (not in these exact words, but in spirit) life, and this forum, are not a session in psychotherapy.

[Brian Smith 0]

To wrongly attribute evasion where it does not apply is not being just to both the person and myself.

I agree. Just as wrongly attributing psychological problems absent of such knowledge is not being just.

[Janet_Busch 0]

HA! I see that Stephen and Betsy said what I was trying to say in my own clumsy way. Oh to be able to think and write like that!

Betsy points out something very important--that most people know nothing of how to think logically. I have that problem because I know practically nothing of formal logic. I'm trying to study it, but this old dog is slow to learn. Very frustrating.

Betsy, I want to say here that, after reading, over time and in several different posts, about the way you handle people, specifically the methods you've developed, that I greatly admire what you do and the way you do it.

[Brian Smith 0]

You've missed the point. I'm saying that there are other explanations for human behavior, above and beyond that of psychological problems, that are characteristically missed by the sort of mentality who seeks to find evasion under every rock. 

No. I didn't miss the point. I have, in fact, explicitly identified at least one alternate explanation apart from evasion and psychological problems. I am sorry you missed it.

But, as you yourself have intimated (not in these exact words, but in spirit) life, and this forum, are not a session in psychotherapy.

Promoting one's values, including one's philosophy, is not psychotherapy. Teaching and learning about all the very complex aspects of that philosophy are not psychotherapy.

And since this is specifically a forum devoted to the discussion of ideas (specifically those related to Objectivism), forgive me for assuming that if a person came here and engaged in logical fallacies or the like, at least one person on the board would be benevolent enough to reason with him, instead of everyone completely ignoring him from the outset.

[Brian Smith 0]

Betsy

Just to let you know, Im not ignoring you. For some reason, my browser did not show Janet and your posts iin my last session, even though they came before Stephen's post (my browser really has problems with this forum sometimes, for no apparent reason).

I started to respond to your thoughtful statements, but my brain is beginning to fry at the moment. I'll catch up with your ideas in the morning.

[piz 0]

So a person who has some knowledge of my psychological situation ought to take that into account. At best, however, that knowledge acts as a mitigating factor that may lessen the severity of the judgment passed on my negative actions, making it less likely that he will continually hold me in a bad light. The knowledge should have little effect on specific decisions he makes in dealing with me - his self-interest should be his overriding concern.

But being aware of that knowledge could very well be to the person's self-interest. I greatly admire a conscientious person who truly dedicates himself to working on solving his psychological problems, and if there is enough value even with the problems, or enough potential value, that knowledge might help me to maintain a friendship that I otherwise would have missed. To wrongly attribute evasion where it does not apply is not being just to both the person and myself.

←

That is still, of course, an example of putting your self-interest first. I might have been somewhat too negative or restrictive in my formulation, but what you describe is exactly compatible with what I meant. As we all know, the context of one's rational self-interest is extraordinarily wide, which is to a great extent what prevents proper self-interest from degenerating into run-roughshod-over-others "selfishness." (The context is also not so wide that self-interest dissolves into all-is-equal, egalitarian selflessness, which would take your example to the point where it forgives everything, but that's clearly not what you meant.)

That doesn't change the fact that in your example you're still putting your own self-interest first, but it is what makes the kind of consideration you describe both possible and in fact in your self-interest.

[Brian Smith 0]

Betsy,

In your last post, you said you have a much easier way of finding out whether a person came to a wrong conclusion by an error of knowledge than the one I identified (looking at his logic and his philosophy). But in the example you provide, the very first thing you do is look at that person's logic.

You said a man gave you an argument about Elian. You said his conclusion was that Elian should be sent back to Cuba. And you said the premise he used to reach this conclusion is that Elian's father wants him to live there.

That is not an example of an easier way than looking at his logic. That is looking at his logic. It is precisely what I said one must do.

Now, after looking at his logic, you took particular steps to try to identify the cause of his wrong conclusion (by providing knowledge you thought he might not have considered, whether due to ignorance, evasion etc, as evidenced by his logic). And, again, such identification is exactly what I said one must do. The only difference is that you identified a particular method of identification, where I did not.

Thus, the process you describe of discovering whether a person's invalid ideas and actions are the result of errors of knowledge or breaches or morality is not any "easier" than my own. It is my own.

--

The other thing said is that "ignorance and deliberate refusal to face reality don't exhaust the possibilities." Yet, as an example of a supposed alternative possibility I might have missed, you provide an example of what you explicitly identify as ignorance (of logic). In other words, you did not identify a different possibility at all.

Yes. It is quite true that a person may have problems with their knowledge or use of logic, etc. And, by definition, if one is trying to identify whether a person's invalid ideas or actions are the result of errors of knowledge or not, the problems with their knowledge or use of logic are included in what one is looking for (which is why I said one must look at one's logic when looking for the answer to this question).

So, again, you have elaborated on my point. You have expanded upon it, and provided more detail. But you have not made a fundamentally different point, which I believe is what you were trying to do.

Now, don't get me wrong, providing examples of particular methods one can use to identify the source of a wrong conclusion - or of what one can look for when engaged in such identification - is certainly useful and can be of help to others. I know I (and apparently Janet at least) are grateful for the tips. But, contrary to your claims, the examples do not provide easier methods or different reasons than those I had already established. They are examples of what I had already established.

==

As a bit of a tangent, one thing you said brings up a new, but related, question. In the first example you provided you said:

I asked him if he knew that Cuba was a totalitarian dictatorship and what that meant, whether Cubans were free to say the truth, and what life was like there compared to the US. He didn't know.  (That's American education for you!)

What moral responsibility, if any, does a man have for either his knowledge or lack thereof?

[Brian Smith 0]

Janet

I cannot speak to the example you provide of your friend, since it does not supply enough information about her or her subconscious mind. Nor do I know the means by which you say you are cognizant of her subconscious mind in order to diagnose her with a medical problem (which is what a psychological problem is). In other words, I do not know the means and method you used to distinguish her actions as the responsibility of her subconscious as opposed to the responsibility of her conscious mind. As such, I cannot make any meaningful statement about her specifically

I will note, however, despite your psychological diagnosis that your friend is not in conscious control of her actions in the specific case, you still identify your friend's actions as an injustice - ie that her actions are morally wrong. In other words, whether or not she has a psychological problem, you are still judging her philosophically, not psychologically.

If indeed she does have a psychological problem, ie, the actions in question are not being directed by her conscious mind, but governed by her subconscious, then how you judge those actions morally? As Ms. Rand states: "It is not man's subconscious, but his conscious mind that is subject to his direct control - and to moral judgment. It is specific individual's conscious mind that one judges (on the basis of objective evidence) in order to judge his moral character." (emphasis in original).

--

Another point - you mentioned something about vices. Again, I cannot and will not speak to your friend's virtues or vices. But I can point out that, just because a person only practices a vice in one part of their life, or only occasionally, does not mean they are not guilty of that vice. No vice is committed consistently. It is not its consistency that identifies the vice, but the act itself. The example I recall Ms. Rand using is related to the virtue of Honesty and the vice of Dishonesty. A man must practice honesty with ruthless consistency to be considered an honest man. But a man need only practice dishonesty on the rarest of occasions to be considered dishonest (eg, a liar). This is true even if he tells the truth all the rest of the time.

--

Lets put all of the above aside for a moment though. I have another question for you. Consider your friend again. If your friend had acted the same in her life, but you had judged her actions to be the result of evasion instead of subconscious processes, would you have treated her any differently? If so, why? Would the values you sought to gain by interacting with her have changed, even though her words and actions had not? If those things had not changed, why would you change?

(As a question which I do not ask that you necessarily answer, but just to consider: if her actions are the result of evasion instead of a subconscious problem, does treating her as if those evasions are beyond her conscious control - rather than an evasion of what she decidedly does not want to think about or deal with - not do a disservice to her? Is that not an injustice? Again, I am not claiming that is the case with her. Nor am I claiming it is one's business to try to correct someone else's evasions etc. So I hope no one will jump to any such conclusions.)

The reason I asked if you would change your behavior towards her, if all that changed was the source of your moral evaluation, is that I think a false assumption is being implicitly smuggled into the questions about judging another person's moral character. Given what at least a couple people have said in this thread, it seems that some people are assuming that if one evaluates another person as morally deficient, one must automatically shun such a person. This is not true. One does not necessarily have to disown or rarely speak to etc, etc etc, the friend who is engaged in an evasion.

The moral evaluation of another person identifies their moral character. But it does not automatically tell you what to do with that knowledge. Because one's values are contextual, one must engage in a great deal further consideration to determine if one will interact with them, and to what degree. And it is one's specific values and the specific context of your life which directs those considerations.

Moral judgment is not an on/off switch. It is not a short-cut to determining one's behavior with others. The identification of vice does not automatically assign only one particular form of interaction with the one so identified - anymore than the identification of virtue automatically assigns only one particular form of interaction with the virtuous. One still has other processes of thought to go through before one can reach any such conclusion.

The man who stops at the identification of moral character and automatically assigns a single response to that identification is guilty of the same error as the man who stops at the identification of a wrong conclusion and automatically assigns evasion as its cause. They both treat it as a short cut in the process of ethical thought.

So we have to make certain that when we try to identify what we can and cannot morally judge, we are not mixing in any separate concerns about what we can or cannot do with that moral judgment once we know how to make it.

--

Ask yourself what it is that tells you that someone is an actual evader, to be judged to be irrational. For me, it isn't simply that I notice that a person isn't saying the right things. I also notice a person's behavior when he says things that make me question his character, such as his demeanor (Burgess mentioned shifty eyes).

As I have already explicitly stated, one does not ignore facts. One does not ignore the behavior of another person. My point is that one does not attribute those behaviors to that which one has no knowledge of - ie the subconscious. Again, I will ask: by what rationally identified means, by what rationally identified method, in what rationally established context of knowledge, and by what rationally established standard of proof does the person who is not trained in the field of psychology use to determine whether a man's "shifty eyes" are the result of a subconscious problem, or simply by his worry at being caught in a lie, or being seen with you when he shouldn't, or any other explanation based on his conscious mind.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

As Ms. Rand states: "It is not man's subconscious, but his conscious mind that is subject to his direct control - and to moral judgment.  It is  specific individual's conscious mind that one judges (on the basis of objective evidence) in order to judge his moral character." (emphasis in original). [...]

Again, I will ask: by what rationally identified means, by what rationally identified method, in what rationally established context of knowledge, and by what rationally established standard of proof does the person who is not trained in the field of psychology use to determine whether a man's "shifty eyes" are the result of a subconscious problem, or simply by his worry at being caught in a lie, or being seen with you when he shouldn't, or any other explanation based on his conscious mind.

←

[bold added for emphasis.]

If one is to judge an individual on his conscious mind, then that invites a central question: What is an individual's conscious mind?

If, philosophically, "consciousness [is] the faculty of perceiving that which exists" (ARL, p. 92), then does it consist of sense-perceptions, as one form of awareness? A particular thought at a particular time, the one thought of which a person is aware introspectively at a particular moment? A memory, a single memory which has emerged from -- wherever memories are stored? An emotion?

Further, what evidence tells us -- or allows us to infer -- the nature and content of a particular person's conscious mind?

At the risk of embarrassing myself, I can describe the content of my conscious mind at a particular moment. (I contend that the conscious mind has no big collection of content, but only a narrow window of content at a particular time.)

First, I am now aware of a flood of sense-perceptions -- for example, the feel of my finger tips on the keyboard, the sound of a locomotive idling at the train station across from my apartment; and the sight (if I look up) of cars crossing the bridge running along the other side of my apartment building.

Second, at any one time, I am introspectively aware of only one thought at a time, though (like the old electromechanical odometers) I sense the previous thought fading back into the darkness and a new thought behind the present one, emerging from the darkness.

Third, at a given moment while I am monitoring (being aware of) my mind, I have a flash of memory -- triggered by looking at the bridge -- of bicycling up the coast of California to Ft. Bragg (30 years ago!).

Fourth, I am aware of an emotion pervading all these other awarenesses, a mild elation that I am able to write all this out without getting lost.

That is it. I am somewhat simultaneously aware (at varying levels of intensity) of the sense-perceptions, the emotion, and one thought or memory -- but no more at any one time. And outside that time there is no content to my conscious mind.

In other words, there is no other content of my conscious (aware) mind for me or anyone else to judge. And how much of that could you judge if you were watching me -- or even from my own words, unless you are assuming I am telling the truth?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

But, as you yourself have intimated (not in these exact words, but in spirit) life, and this forum, are not a session in psychotherapy. 

Promoting one's values, including one's philosophy, is not psychotherapy. Teaching and learning about all the very complex aspects of that philosophy are not psychotherapy.

And since this is specifically a forum devoted to the discussion of ideas (specifically those related to Objectivism), forgive me for assuming that if a person came here and engaged in logical fallacies or the like, at least one person on the board would be benevolent enough to reason with him, instead of everyone completely ignoring him from the outset.

←

Huh? Whatever are you talking about? I'm speaking of a hostile person who finds evasion in others wherever he looks, in every disagreement, one who himself is unable to see this behavior in himself despite being given the evidence. This is a case for psychotherapy.

However, it is rather funny, if not ironic, that you express sarcasm ("forgive me for assuming") towards me on my own forum for lack of benevolence towards some hypothetical person who engaged in "logical fallacies or the like." Not only for many years have I publicly displayed what some have characterized as "infinite patience" in struggling to explain ideas to those innocents who have difficulty grasping them, but some have even roundly criticized me for being overly patient and giving out more than is deserved.

I hope this view that you expressed is not related to my having criticized you on another forum for being too harsh in your dealing with others. Whatever the source of your critical characterization, I do not appreciate having my benevolence in explaining ideas to others being called into question, especially when the public record shows otherwise.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

First, I am now aware of a flood of sense-perceptions -- for example, the feel of my finger tips on the keyboard, the sound of a locomotive idling at the train station across from my apartment; and the sight (if I look up) of cars crossing the bridge running along the other side of my apartment building.

Second, at any one time, I am introspectively aware of only one thought at a time, though (like the old electromechanical odometers) I sense the previous thought fading back into the darkness and a new thought behind the present one, emerging from the darkness.

Third, at a given moment while I am monitoring (being aware of) my mind, I have a flash of memory -- triggered by looking at the bridge -- of bicycling up the coast of California to Ft. Bragg (30 years ago!).

Fourth, I am aware of an emotion pervading all these other awarenesses, a mild elation that I am able to write all this out without getting lost.

That is it. I am somewhat simultaneously aware (at varying levels of intensity) of the sense-perceptions, the emotion, and one thought or memory -- but no more at any one time. And outside that time there is no content to my conscious mind.

←

Burgess, please forgive me for not responding to the substance of your post, but I just want to note that I found your words to be so well expressed and crafted that they are deserving to be a part of some literature rather than what we simply call a post on a forum. You can be quite a writer.

[Brian Smith 0]

Huh? Whatever are you talking about? I'm speaking of a hostile person who finds evasion in others wherever he looks, in every disagreement, one who himself is unable to see this behavior in himself despite being given the evidence. This is a case for psychotherapy.

I am talking about what you had said, not the description you just provided. This is the statement I responded to:

Someone else (I forget who) recently mentioned something about the need to judge the good. The mentality that actively seeks out evaders rarely spends time praising the good. Note that on THE FORUM we have a subforum dedicated to the praise of The Good, but none dedicated for condemnation. Good is more important than evil, and those who spend their time relentlessly attempting to uncover evil evaders would be much better off looking instead for something good to praise.

Someone who "spends their time relentlessly attempting to uncover evil evaders" is not necessarily someone who is hostile, who finds evasion in others wherever he looks, in every disagreement, nor unable to see his behavior when pointed out to him. In addition, it is not necessarily the case that the type of person you originally described is using an improper standard to morally judge others. None of these assumptions was included in the example I cite above and to which I responded.

Since you were identifying a person whose focus was on evil, and pointing out that such a person would be wise to focus on the good instead, I naturally responded by saying to the effect I hope someone here would point that out to him, as opposed to ignoring him.

In response, you rebuked my suggestion with the stern reply that life is not psychotherapy. In other words, in the given context, your words appeared to be an admonishment that one not should engage in a rational conversation with this type of person and point out his error. And that is not a very benevolent position. Of course, your rebuke may be appropriate in the context of the description you gave at the top of post here. But I was responding to the context as it had been given to me.

So it appears our posts are the result of miscommunication.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Betsy, 

In your last post, you said you have a much easier way of finding out whether a person came to a wrong conclusion by an error of knowledge than the one I identified (looking at his logic and his philosophy). But in the example you provide, the very first thing you do is look at that person's logic. 

You said a man gave you an argument about Elian.  You said his conclusion was that Elian should be sent back to Cuba.  And you said the premise he used to reach this conclusion is that Elian's father wants him to live there.

That is not an example of an easier way than looking at his logic.  That is looking at his logic.  It is precisely what I said one must do.

←

The reason why he concluded that Elian should be returned was that he had no idea Cuba is a dictatorship, that Elian's father was not free to speak against Cuba, and that life in Cuba wasn't that different than in the US. Thus he concluded that the only relevant issue was that his father wanted him to live with him. If Cuba were not a dictatorship, that would be a perfectly reasonable conclusion. When he understood what Cuba was, he changed his mind. All he had to do was "check his premises."

Now, after looking at his logic, you took particular steps to try to identify the cause of his wrong conclusion (by providing knowledge you thought he might not have considered, whether due to ignorance, evasion etc, as evidenced by his logic).  And, again, such identification is exactly what I said one must do.  The only difference is that you identified a particular method of identification, where I did not. 

Thus, the process you describe of discovering whether a person's invalid ideas and actions are the result of errors of knowledge or breaches or morality is not any "easier" than my own.  It is my own.

I see. So your first approach is premise-checking and fact-checking, right?

The other thing said is that "ignorance and deliberate refusal to face reality don't exhaust the possibilities."  Yet, as an example of a supposed alternative possibility I might have missed, you provide an example of what you explicitly identify as ignorance (of logic).  In other words, you did not identify a different possibility at all.

I think I did. My point was that there are three possibilities when someone reaches a wrong conclusions: faulty premises (innocent ignorance of the facts, faulty logic (due to innocent ignorance of logic), and deliberate evasion. The most efficient way of assessing a person is to deal with each of them IN THAT ORDER concluding evasion only after everything else has been ruled out and you have forced someone to do it by openly rejecting facts and/or logic.

[Brian Smith 0]

The reason why he concluded that Elian should be returned was that he had no idea Cuba is a dictatorship, that Elian's father was not free to speak against Cuba, and that life in Cuba wasn't that different than in the US.  Thus he concluded that the only relevant issue was that his father wanted him to live with him.  If Cuba were not a dictatorship, that would be a perfectly reasonable conclusion.  When he understood what Cuba was, he changed his mind.  All he had to do was "check his premises."

I understand the reasons why he reached his orginal conclusion. You described the context of it admirably in the original post.. My point was simply, for you to learn all that, and to know what questions to ask him in order to provide him with what you believed would be the necessary information for him to correct his own conclusion, you had to look at his logic first. That's all.

I don't think we are in disagreement on this point, are we?

I see.  So your first approach is premise-checking and fact-checking, right?

My first approach is to learn his argument - ie both his conclusion, and then whatever he used to come to that conclusion. Be it a statement of fact, or an appeal to an emotion (ie "Well, it felt really good.) etc. That is what I mean by look at his logic. Perhaps I should have used the term reasoning instead of logic - ie look at his reasoning and his philosophy?

As I stated in the quote, though, you pointed out a particular method. I did not say that particular method was my own or if I practiced it in every instance. I said the process - the steps - one takes (looking at logic and looking at philosophy) are the same.

If I was unclear on that distinction, I apologize. I was not trying to take credit for any formulation of method you had identified. I was just trying to indicate this method was not outside the process I identified.

I think I did.  My point was that there are three possibilities when someone reaches a wrong conclusions: faulty premises (innocent ignorance of the facts, faulty logic (due to innocent ignorance of logic), and deliberate evasion.  The most efficient way of assessing a person is to deal with each of them IN THAT ORDER concluding evasion only after everything else has been ruled out and you have forced someone to do it by openly rejecting facts and/or logic.

I'm sorry. Since you said that you identified something other than ignorace and evasion, I assumed you meant you identified something other than one of those two things, as opposed to having identified separate divisions under one of those two catagories. And I will agree, the distinction between the types of ignorance is important.

But my point remains. It appeared you were trying to suggest I had missed one of the possibilites. If you were not, then I have misunderstood you, and we have essentially been agreeing with each other without my knowing it. However, if you were making the suggestion I had missed something, I have to disagree. The fact that I did not identify either forms of ignorance is not an indication that I missed one or the other. As I said previously, I simply did not elaborate on what is included in errors of knowledge. Just as I didn't elaborate on what one is supposed to do, or how, when one looks at a man's logic or his philosophy.

Put simply, I just stated the principle. If Janet needed more explanation than that - or clarification - I would have been happy to provide it. Fortunately you provided it for her without her even needing to ask. And you provided it better, I dare say, than I would have. So thank you.

[Brian Smith 0]

Burgess

Yours is a very good question, and I am not ignoring it. All this work is wearing me down though. I may have to beg off responding this evening. But I promise I will respond soon, since I find the topic to be an important one as well.

And I must agree with Stephen, your writing is quite eloquent. Not only that, but I don't think your you have anything to be embarrased about, as you 'risked'. What you described is evidence of quite alot about the conscious mind.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Yours is a very good question, and I am not ignoring it.

←

I no longer expect quick responses (like I did when I was much younger). One of my favorite posts was one by another member of Objectivism Study Group many years ago. The author began by saying, "About seven months ago, Burgess asked ...."

Part of the beauty of philosophizing is that the issues -- being universals -- never go away. Sleep well.

[Brian Smith 0]

 

I no longer expect quick responses (like I did when I was much younger). One of my favorite posts was one by another member of Objectivism Study Group many years ago. The author began by saying, "About seven months ago, Burgess asked ...." 

 

Part of the beauty of philosophizing is that the issues -- being universals -- never go away. Sleep well. 

←

 

Burgess

I laughed at your quote of the other author. That is indeed one of the wonderful things about philosophic ideas - one which is assisted remarkably by this particular medium.

Given the fact that your question is a 'universal' one, I hope you will forgive the additional fact that I am going to put it off again. But, between Stephen's last post and Betsy's last couple posts, a thought occurred to me, in the form of a specific question, which might help with the general topic.

As Betsy indicated, there are three possibilities which can explain a man's wrong conclusions: "faulty premises (innocent ignorance of the facts, faulty logic (due to innocent ignorance of logic), and deliberate evasion."

Betsy ascribes dealing with each of those possibilities "IN THAT ORDER" as "the most efficient way of assessing a person." And she states that one reach the conclusion of evasion "only after everything else has been ruled out and you have forced someone to do it by openly rejecting facts and/or logic."

So my question is: if one has already ruled out faulty premises and faulty logic, how does one rule out evasion as well?

I ask, because that is what one must do if one seeks to attribute a psychological, not a philosophical, cause to explain another man's actions.

Remember, Ms. Rand identified evasion as "the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's consciousness, the refusal to thing - not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know."

So, if one has already ruled out the other philosophic possibilities (the errors of knowledge), how does one rule out a person's having willfully suspended his consciousness - and identify an uncontrollable suspension of consciousness instead? How does one rule out a refusall to think - and identify the inability to think instead? How does one rule out the refusal see - and identify the inability to see instead?

How does one rule out a refusal to know - and identify an inability to know instead?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

So my question is:  if one has already ruled out faulty premises and faulty logic, how does one rule out evasion as well? 

I ask, because that is what one must do if one seeks to attribute a psychological, not a philosophical, cause to explain another man's actions.

←

This is not an important consideration to me when it comes to judging people.

I judge a person in order to predict how he is likely to interact with me. WHAT he is likely to do is the main thing rather than WHY he does it. Someone may be lazy and purposeless because he is anti-effort or because he is suffering from depression. In either case, I can't count on him to get things done. Someone might lie to me because he is a pathological liar or out of neurotic defensiveness, but it doesn't matter because I can't trust him to tell me the truth. Whether someone impacts me negatively or positively, the best predictor of his future actions is his past actions regardless of what caused them.

If a person acts badly but has potential for improving (someone who is young, in therapy. expresses regret and an intention to improve), I will cut him more slack, but I will still be wary. I'll believe things have changed only when I see actual improvement sustained over time.

My concern is not with someone's abstract "moral status." I am selfish and only care about the impact other people will have on MY life.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Given what at least a couple people have said in this thread, it seems that some people are assuming that if one evaluates another person as morally deficient, one must automatically shun such a person.  This is not true.  One does not necessarily have to disown or rarely speak to etc, etc etc, the friend who is engaged in an evasion.

←

I often choose to deal with people who have vices, but I try to know what they are and to protect myself from any effects they may have on me.

Yet there is one kind of person I definitely do not care to deal with and that is a person with no virtues. What for? What's in it for me?

[Brian Smith 0]

I often choose to deal with people who have vices, but I try to know what they are and to protect myself from any effects they may have on me. 

Yet there is one kind of person I definitely do not care to deal with and that is a person with no virtues.  What for?  What's in it for me?

I want to respond to your first post, but I just had to say that this is a perfectly sublime statement, especially in regard to the second statement.

[Brian Smith 0]

I started to reply to the first of those two post, but realized I needed to ask you something about it beforehand.

You say:

Someone may be lazy and purposeless because he is anti-effort or because he is suffering from depression.  In either case, I can't count on him to get things done.  Someone might lie to me because he is a pathological liar or out of neurotic defensiveness, but it doesn't matter because I can't trust him to tell me the truth.

As you indicate, before trying to predict someone's future behavior, you first seek to identify his past behavior. So, when you make that identification - when you identify someone as lazy, or purposeless, or dishonest, etc - do you take into account that this past behavior may be the result of ignorance of facts, or ignorance of logic, or evasion, or a psychological disorder, or a combination of any or all before coming to your conclusion about his behavior?

Or, because you seek such identification for its predictive purposes, do you simply identify the actions for what they are (as your standard of values and subsequent moral code establishes), regardless of those things, because such reasons do not change the past behavior and, therefore, (without some change on the part of the person in question) serve to predict the same behavior in the future?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I mentioned this internet radio interview of James Valliant on another thread devoted to Valliant's book. However, I note that the interview (especially the first 1/3 or so) contains some very interesting material about judging people, presented within the context of Ayn Rand's private thoughts and actions. Some may find the material there, to be relevant to the subject here.