Criticism and Personality: A Juncture for Objectivism

[Scott A. 0]

There are good reasons to examine the psychology of others, and appropriate contexts in which to do it. However, when doing this, especially publicly, one must be very careful in his treatment of the subject, lest he fall into psychologizing. I open this way because I’m going to offer a psychological formulation that relates to the recent and sadly personal arguments that have been occurring online among Objectivists.

For those who don’t know me, I’m a clinical psychologist. However, the formulation is not meant to be a clinical one per se, and I will not be applying it to any particular person involved in the ongoing arguments, as it was not developed on that basis. In fact, the recent arguments are only part of the basis for the formulation, the other parts being my direct experiences with Objectivists online or in-person and my knowledge of psychology, particularly personality.

However, the explanation I’m offering is not unique to Objectivism; it occurs in many different contexts for all kinds of people. It is not an “Objectivist phenomenon.” It is a psychological phenomenon that happens for particular reasons and manifests in particular ways. My reasons for applying it to the recent and personal arguments is that I think it offers a way to understand why it can happen and, possibly, what to do about it.

In brief, I propose that what people take from and especially how they use Objectivism is largely based on what they bring to it, psychologically. Two people with very different psychologies and sets of motivations can nevertheless become serious, knowledgeable, or even accomplished Objectivists. However, the difference between them, in this context, is not primarily concerned with levels of achievement. Instead, it is manifest in each person’s reaction to and use of Objectivism. These things are indicators of a person’s psychology, particularly his self-concept and the personality that is built around it (which includes emotional reactions and behavior).

I think it’s fair to say that people who go on to become Objectivists had very positive reactions to what they initially read and heard. Also, there are probably aspects of Objectivism and the fiction works that everyone loves. However, there will also be a wide divergence of particulars that attract people, and it is here that psychological nuances play out.

Here’s an illustration: call to mind the scene in Atlas Shrugged in which Rearden has to face the judges. He presents no defense but instead names the issues, exposes the fraud of the proceeding and the judges' alleged principles, and wins. Reading this scene can elicit many reactions. However, consider these two in the form of a progression of thoughts two different people (and future Objectivists) might have. (I should note that these reactions might be implicit or at only a peripheral level of awareness.)

Person 1. "Wow, what courage, and how right. How wonderful that the crowd in the courtroom cheered! How intelligent that approach was. Rearden should have won and did! And the judges looked like fools--icing on the cake."

Person 2. "Oh man, Rearden buried those judges. They looked like absolute jerks. Rearden was awesome. That guy is smart and tough. He's unbreakable. And on top of it all, he was right! It was brilliant."

Based on these reactions, it’s obvious that the events of the scene and the characters within them have very different personal meanings to each reader (and by personal I don’t necessarily mean non-objective; instead I mean psychologically significant to each individual). As such, their reactions are suggestive of each person’s underlying psychology, particularly as it relates to personality and the mindset each person brings to the scene as a reader.

First, note what each person is initially focused on or attracted to. The first person recognizes courage and that the cause was right. He may focus on any number of particulars, such as how Rearden makes his points, the underlying meaning of it, the inability of the judges to respond, the proper reaction by the crowd, and so forth. But, overall, he sees the scene as an act of courage for a just cause.

The second person is initially and primarily focused on the humiliation of the judges, which is ultimately justified by the fact that Rearden’s ideas were right and his cause just. While this person may also note any number of particulars, his overarching focus is on a relationship among the characters, particularly in terms of power and status. He is initially struck not by Rearden’s courage, but by the debasement of the judges; Rearden’s courage and rightness are acknowledged, but secondarily and as a justification for the humiliation.

Next, consider the position each person reading the scene assumes in his reactions to it. To clarify, a reader of any fiction work can “identify” with a particular character or mentally put himself in the scene in some way and in some position (this is part of the joy of reading and the mark of a good, or at least personally meaningful, book). So, when considering the two examples, how does each person relate to the event in terms of the position he assumes?

The first person is really like a member of the crowd in the courtroom, and he reacts as they do. He is witnessing something great and responds appropriately. He is a “part” of the scene, in that the characters and actions elicit personal reactions and have meaning to him. However, by assuming the position of a member of the crowd, he maintains an appropriate distance from it all. That is, as a reader, he really is just a witness to the action, no matter how much he might identify with a particular character or enjoy a given scene.

In contrast, the second person is primarily assuming the position of Rearden. He identifies with Rearden, but Rearden’s words and actions have a particular psychological significance to this person that doesn’t seem primary in the scene itself. Specifically, Rearden's primary purpose was to defend himself by pointing out the phoniness of the whole proceeding, not to make the judges look foolish. Yet, the second person reverses this—to him it’s about making the judges look foolish, not about Rearden being right (although he uses this, secondarily, to justify his pleasure in seeing them humiliated). Thus, the second person identifies with Rearden and assumes his position or vantage point, but does so in a distorted way.

In sum, the first person focuses on and revels in Rearden’s courage. The second person focuses on and revels in the judges’ humiliation. The first person is primarily concerned with the qualities of one man, while the other is focused on the qualities of a relationship in terms of power. Each person assumes a particular position within and relationship to characters in the scene—one is a witness to something and someone great that makes him want to cheer, while the other projects himself into the great person’s position so as to watch the judges squirm.

What do these things suggest about each person’s deeper psychological makeup and motivations? How can we understand what these reactions indicate regarding how Objectivism will be understood and used in each person’s life?

One way to approach these questions is to place the issue in the context of personality. In psychology, the concept of personality is extremely important, although somewhat difficult to grasp or explain clearly. For example, try to describe in one word the personality of someone in your life. Okay, try three words. How about five? Were you satisfied in your description, or is there something that these few words just cannot fully capture?

In essence, personality is the sum total of one’s psychology as manifest in a characteristic way of thinking, feeling, and behaving. As this suggests, personality is an expression of the extent to which one’s premises, method of thinking, emotional reactions, and behavior are an integrated whole.

A lot goes into personality. Parents will tell you that their children had particular temperaments as infants and toddlers, and there is good reason to assume some genetic role in this. As the child grows, he gains more and more concepts that help him identify and understand the world around him, other people, and himself. He will observe how he is treated by his family and the people he meets, how they interact with each other, and how he feels in these situations. As his body develops, he will gain a further understanding of his abilities and limitations through a wider, more organized range of actions. In time, he will come to hold, implicitly or explicitly, core premises about himself, others, and reality. He will make judgments about more specific issues on the basis of these premises. He will also come to interact with and treat others in a characteristic way. The expression of his personality in these interactions is usually a combination of unique attributes and qualities of others that he adopts, to some extent, as his own. Throughout all of this, there is also the extent to which each person uses volition to think about and understand himself, others, and the world around him. Those who use volition less are more likely to be pushed or pulled by things other than their reasoning minds, and their personalities will reflect this.

Personality also has a structure or organization. At the core of this is one’s self-concept, which is a set of self-evaluations that, taken together, largely direct one’s focus in life. These evaluations regard our mental and physical abilities and qualities, our position relative to other things and people, and, by extension, our potential. They are based on standards we have accepted, consciously or not, regarding what it means to be good, moral, productive, honest, and so forth.

A self-concept indicates what is possible or open to us based on our knowledge, skills, abilities, and relationships. For instance, someone who believes himself to be ugly, stupid, and clumsy will not see as open to him the same kinds of opportunities as another person who sees himself as attractive, intelligent, and coordinated.

Of course, the specific self-evaluations that compose a self-concept can be wrong, and the standards on which they are based can be unrealistic. For example, although someone might view himself as unintelligent, this might not be true. It could be that genius is the standard he holds himself to, but he’s not a genius. Imagine telling yourself that in order to be intelligent you have to demonstrate abilities on a par with Ayn Rand. Obviously that’s a formula for negative self-evaluations and a poor self-concept.

People can have a mix of positive and negative self-evaluations and/or a mix of realistic or unrealistic bases for these judgments. For example, one person can deeply respect his own intelligence but feel very awkward physically, or vice versa. There may be a basis for one of these evaluations but not the other.

Additionally, self-evaluations can be highly context specific. For instance, how would you rate yourself in math, science, history, English, and so on? Or, how would you evaluate yourself in your relationships with loved ones, coworkers, acquaintances, or strangers? In short, there are many combinations of self-evaluations that can go into people’s self-concepts.

As the core of personality, a self-concept determines the strength and stability of one’s psychology across different contexts. Negative self-evaluations will lessen one’s psychological strength (or confidence) in relevant contexts, and are accompanied by any number of negative feelings: embarrassment, sadness, anger, shame, and so forth. However, as a general description, what a person feels in this case is a hole or void, the sense that something is missing within him. Therefore, most people in this situation will do something to counter these thoughts and feelings, but what they do may or may not help.

People that have multiple negative self-evaluations will feel this void more frequently and deeply. They will not be comfortable with themselves, fear to be who they are, and feel compelled to be something or someone else, especially in front of others. That is, they will put forth what is, to them, a more psychologically acceptable “persona.”

By my dictionary sources, persona basically means the expression of one's personality in public. Of course, a persona can be genuine, false, or perhaps a mix. We all know people who are genuine and others who are phony. However, the issue of persona as relevant to this topic goes deeper. It is actually an issue of adopting a persona in particular contexts that not only allows a person to feel more comfortable, but also to act out and justify irrational desires.

Going back to the examples of the two people’s reactions to the Rearden scene, what does this suggest about persona for each?

For the first person, Rearden is a hero. This certainly implies a desire to emulate various of his characteristics, but emulation is not the primary focus. The first person is not looking to be someone or something else. He may identify with Rearden and want to be as courageous, but he doesn't want to be Rearden. He wants to be himself, and the character of Rearden has helped to clarify what that means to him.

For the second person, Rearden is an icon. He is the embodiment of glory, particularly because he is a conqueror. He can't be beaten, and reason and logic are his weapons. To this person, Rearden is what one must be. He not only identifies with Rearden, he wants to be Rearden. Or, more accurately, this person wants to be what or who he thinks Rearden is, which is defined by his own psychological issues. This is the point at which hero-worship transforms into icon-worship, with all that implies.

In other words, the image and character of Rearden serves as a proxy persona for this kind of person. For whatever reasons, he can't be himself, so he must be someone else. The persona can then be used to rationalize aggressive and emotion-based actions toward others. "After all, if others are behaving immorally, then I have every right to reprimand and, even, humiliate them--that's what Rearden would do." Thus, such a person has, in effect, psychologically donned a mask of Rearden, using that character to live out his own desires or wishes.

To be sure, the heroes in Ayn Rand’s novels demonstrate qualities that any rational person would want to possess. Moreover, people appropriately view Miss Rand as a hero, as well as any number of prominent, leading Objectivist intellectuals. To the extent that the personality characteristics of she and others are attractive, others will have the same desire to possess those qualities. However, the problem is when those characteristics are adopted second-hand as a persona that projects a veneer of righteousness, intelligence, or confidence, but is really meant to cover a weakness of some sort.

Furthermore, note how the issue of relationship in terms of power or status plays out here. People who feel compelled to adopt such personae do so because of the significant advantage they think it gives them in their dealings with others. They have a supposed advantage or edge, a way to be on top, and that position in relation to others is necessary to maintain the façade of competence or brilliance they are desperate to put forth (and feel internally).

As applied directly to the issue of personal attacks among Objectivists, I suggest that Objectivism serves a very different and irrational purpose for some of the people involved. Instead of using it as a means to understand reality and themselves, and to achieve happiness, they use it to be someone or something they are not. They do not use it to improve their lives; they use it to improve their position.

From what I have seen, there are people who have achieved a great deal in terms of understanding Objectivism intellectually and/or applying its ideas to a given field of study. However, I also see strong evidence that they have not applied it to their own psychologies. They have, through the means I’ve described, actually used Objectivism as a shield against personal, psychological issues.

At present, reasonable questions about some type of work by an Objectivist intellectual are met with indignation or an ad hominem attack posing as an intellectual essay. Discussion of the issue degenerates into smear campaigns of the questioner. My understanding is that this has happened before and is part of a larger trend that has been occurring since Miss Rand's death, but has now become more aggressive and vicious. I suspect that this is a “top-down” process in which current intellectuals somehow learned from their mentor(s) that responding to questioners or critics with personal attacks is acceptable. This is not unprecedented. For instance, any academic department will have its own “culture” as manifest in the attitudinal tone that is set by those at or near the top. This has been one of the impediments to Objectivism in academia. However, it appears that there are at least some Objectivist intellectuals who have adopted the same attitude or tone and used it against other Objectivists (be they recognized intellectuals or not).

If those identified as Objectivist intellectuals are to set the tone and direction and this is their method, what does this suggest for the future? Is it worth supporting, or is it better to simply use Objectivism in one's own life and mostly ignore the apparent intellectuals? Of course, it is up to each person to evaluate others independently and make judgments about how and to what extent he wishes to support or participate in different activities.

To me, Objectivism is meant above all to help people live their lives productively, happily, and confidently. Applying it to a given field or avocation can certainly be a primary part of what makes a person happy. However, using Objectivism to project some type of persona that removes responsibility for self-reflection and self-judgment and further allows someone (in his mind) to treat others shabbily does not help anyone, including the person doing it.

The title of “Objectivist intellectual” does not remove the responsibility of judging oneself or the “burden” of responding to legitimate questions or criticisms. It also does not legitimize arrogance and dismissal. Of course, the same holds for those who are not official Objectivist intellectuals but nevertheless pick up on and enact the attitude and tone set by some intellectuals.

Whether one is an Objectivist intellectual, aspiring intellectual, or simply a person who loves the philosophy and fiction books, it is a real responsibility to apply Objectivism’s ideas and principles to oneself. It is not always easy, as one might have to confront some kind of inner conflict, which can be daunting. However, doing so will ultimately make each person happier and more confident, which can only reduce the kind of useless personal attacks so evident recently. I think this responsibility is even stronger for those who are the intellectuals, as they will in large part set a direction and tone for Objectivism generally, and it ought not be one characterized by arrogance, dismissal, or ad hominem attacks.

[PhilO 0]

Thank you for posting this very valuable, much needed essay.

[poojagupta 0]

Thanks Scott, for capturing Personality 1 and Personality 2 so well in words.

[oldsalt 0]

Thank you for clarifying some things in my own thinking, and giving me something new to think about in a couple of areas. I think you've captured the essence of what we've seen. I appreciate your giving us the benefit of your knowledge and experience.

[Arnold 0]

If those identified as Objectivist intellectuals are to set the tone and direction and this is their method, what does this suggest for the future? Is it worth supporting, or is it better to simply use Objectivism in one's own life and mostly ignore the apparent intellectuals? Of course, it is up to each person to evaluate others independently and make judgments about how and to what extent he wishes to support or participate in different activities.

Thank you Scott, for your calm appraisal.

[B. Royce 0]

Very, very interesting, Scott. Personalities 1 and 2 also suggest to me the two basic kinds of humor----that which is intended to make the listener laugh with delight at wit, and that which is intended to make him laugh at someone (what might be called "put down" humor).

[Ed from OC 0]

Fascinating essay! I need to read it through again and take it all in, but I think this is substantial and on the mark.

What interests me here in this note is the idea of a strong emotional reaction tied not to issues of power, but to metaphysical value-judgements, universe premises, senses of life, and personalities as they relate to an emotional sense that the world around them is essentially going in the right, the wrong, or a mixed direction.

This notion relates centrally to Tracinski's "What Went Right?" thesis. I have in mind the aspect of personality that drives one's response to philosophical news. For instance, consider that the FCC, in response to Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction," greatly increased fines for rule violations (of decency, I think it's called). One person might see that, in the context of today's mixed economy, culture, and premises, as just one more obstacle. But I've known a good number of Objectivists who get bent out of shape over such events, as if that single incident portends the end of the world. It's as if the event takes on much larger significance for them.* Certainly, an FCC fine is bad, and indicates terrible philosophical premises at work. But those premises are already in place and at work in myriad ways, so that such events are not, by themselves, radical shifts in the direction of the culture. From a philosophical perspective, I'd argue such conclusions are a particular type of context-dropping: ignoring that the underlying premises aren't changing, that this event is just one more instance, and one more obstacle to deal with. Bad, certainly, but not earth-shattering.

Scott, from a psychological perspective, what are your thoughts on this issue?

*A third version, of Pollyanna-ish Objectivists, are possible, but I've never met them. I've known some happy, successful, and benevolent ones, but I wouldn't call them Pollyannas.

[Scott A. 0]

For instance, consider that the FCC, in response to Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction," greatly increased fines for rule violations (of decency, I think it's called). One person might see that, in the context of today's mixed economy, culture, and premises, as just one more obstacle. But I've known a good number of Objectivists who get bent out of shape over such events, as if that single incident portends the end of the world. It's as if the event takes on much larger significance for them.* Certainly, an FCC fine is bad, and indicates terrible philosophical premises at work. But those premises are already in place and at work in myriad ways, so that such events are not, by themselves, radical shifts in the direction of the culture. From a philosophical perspective, I'd argue such conclusions are a particular type of context-dropping: ignoring that the underlying premises aren't changing, that this event is just one more instance, and one more obstacle to deal with. Bad, certainly, but not earth-shattering.

Ed, your observation of the different reactions to things like the Janet Jackson incident is a great example of what I was trying to describe, and shows how the formulation applies to contexts beyond power and status. The first, general point is that one's reactions to events speak to his underlying psychology. However, a strong reaction as such doesn't indicate psychological problems (and I don't think you are saying that; I'm just making the point clear).

In the case where someone reacts to the Janet Jackson situation as though it's the end of the world, I agree that this is suggestive of something highly significant about that event for the person who reacts that way. The particulars behind the reaction will clarify whether there is a rational basis for it or not. For instance, that kind of reaction from someone who deals directly with the FCC in his work and has suffered some unnecessary hardship(s) because of them would be understandable.

Someone who reacts that way but doesn't have that kind of connection is harder to understand. However, the general principle is that at least some part of the Janet Jackson situation concretized for him an idea or principle that has deeply personal psychological significance. It showed him something that is very important to him (rationally or not) that he may not have even been consciously aware of, and he reacts in kind.

I don't know if that helps to explain what you are asking or not, so please let me know.

[Alon Tsin 0]

Scott,

Thank you very much for a wonderful, thought inspiring article. I think that it raises some very interesting and important issues that were not (to my knowledge) properly addressed until now, and answered some questions I have been having and could not find answers for.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

A decade ago, on an email list that was then THE Objectivist online forum, a list member presented a factual case challenging something David Harriman had done. The several responses on the list seemed like an attempt to obliterate the facts the list member presented by attacking his character and motivation and insulting, demeaning and generally discrediting him. Though I did not personally know the writer, I wrote to him privately to provide moral support for the outrageous way he was treated. But, truth be told, beneath the surface I also experienced a little pang of guilt, since I had seen this sort of behavior before and did not speak out against it publicly.

There have been many such instances since then -- not just public ones but many privately -- where disagreement with or criticism of certain prominent Objectivist intellectuals have been met with hostility, with overt and covert attempts to discredit the messenger in lieu of dealing with the facts, sometimes accompanied by behind-the-scenes manipulation of people.

It has been easy for me to see these goings-on, but not so easy to understand just what makes them possible. I am deeply indebted to Scott for his essay here, for making crystal clear the essence of the kind of psychology that explains many of these cases. I understand that such a psychology is operative in varying degrees among different people, and I am sure that for some other factors apply. But Scott has identified, for me, some key and very crucial elements that explain the actions, both public and private, of some of those from the top on down, from some prominent Objectivists who set the tone to some of the students of Objectivism who mimic and amplify that behavior.

Though I have only touched on the tip of the iceberg, at least I no longer feel those little pangs of guilt for not speaking up. I sincerely wish the many others who have had their own experiences -- those prominent or otherwise -- who I know think and feel many of the same things I do, would speak up a bit too; it would make a difference.

Thank you, Scott, for insights that have helped to illuminate a somewhat darkened corner of my experiences. I am forever indebted to you for that.

[Scott A. 0]

Thank you all very much for the extremely kind words about the essay. I'm very pleased that you have found it valuable and took the time to say so.

[Scott A. 0]

Very, very interesting, Scott. Personalities 1 and 2 also suggest to me the two basic kinds of humor----that which is intended to make the listener laugh with delight at wit, and that which is intended to make him laugh at someone (what might be called "put down" humor).

Thanks, and your appliction of the idea to humor is very interesting and I think correct. Thank you for that insight.

[B. Royce 0]

Scott, regarding Person 2, might it not be the case that some of them, having been severely hurt by irrational people in their youth, focus on the discomfiture of the judges in order to experience revenge? They would then be at a crossroads: to go on pursuing (focusing on) revenge, or to identify those feelings and then allow their feelings of admiration for Rearden to fully surface.

[Scott A. 0]

Scott, regarding Person 2, might it not be the case that some of them, having been severely hurt by irrational people in their youth, focus on the discomfiture of the judges in order to experience revenge? They would then be at a crossroads: to go on pursuing (focusing on) revenge, or to identify those feelings and then allow their feelings of admiration for Rearden to fully surface.

B., certainly the situation you describe is a real possibility. There are also a lot of other possible background experiences that could orient someone toward a negative focus such as revenge or debasement. I think the important thing is what you say, namely, identifying the emotions and premises really at work and successfully resolving them.

Your point that by doing this, the person will be able to allow rational admiration for Rearden to emerge is really important. In fact, it brings up something I might have done a better job in the essay of highlighting, which is the implicit positives of Person 2. Specifically, this person does recognize good qualities of Rearden. As such, he is infinitely better off than the person who would have a negative reaction to Rearden and be angry that he won in that scene. I wouldn't have much hope for such a person. But Person 2 at least recognizes, at some level, the courage, intelligence, and rightness that Rearden demonstrates, and this puts him in a much better position to deal effectively with whatever personal issues he has.

[jedymastyr 0]

...the recent and sadly personal arguments that have been occurring online among Objectivists.

Is this just a general trend or is this occurring with respect to specific issues?

I haven't been following Objectivist discussions recently. I could try reading through a bunch of HBL topics I didn't find particularly interesting, reading through other forums, etc. But, I don't think that would be worthwhile because I don't know where this issue is occurring or how significant it is. I've liked the moderation here and haven't noticed a lot of personal attacks.

If there are specific topics of disagreement, could anyone please point me (and any others who may be in my position) in the right direction to find them?

Scott A., I liked your discussion and found it interesting, even without knowing the specifics you were referring to.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

...the recent and sadly personal arguments that have been occurring online among Objectivists.

Is this just a general trend or is this occurring with respect to specific issues?

In my previous post to this thread I briefly indicated and, so far, only hinted at a history of a certain sort of public and private behavior that stretches back in time. It has been my observation that this is a growing trend and the recent events have just revealed and brought into public focus the level of distressing behavior that has existed more privately for some time.

I haven't been following Objectivist discussions recently. I could try reading through a bunch of HBL topics I didn't find particularly interesting, reading through other forums, etc. But, I don't think that would be worthwhile because I don't know where this issue is occurring or how significant it is. I've liked the moderation here and haven't noticed a lot of personal attacks.

If there are specific topics of disagreement, could anyone please point me (and any others who may be in my position) in the right direction to find them?

The best place to start is in the Response To Charges Against THE FORUM thread. The first set of posts, through post #25, deal with events during the couple of months prior to November 2006. More current events begin in this post (#26), and continue on.

I have allowed Chad's post here in this moderated thread because, as he indicates, there may be others in his position who are not familiar enough with the background to fully appreciate the significance of Scott's essay. However, any further discussion of the details of these events and the ensuing conflicts should be carried out in other more appropriate threads. This thread is primarily to give due recognition to Scott's very important and very insightful essay.

[Vespasiano 0]

There are good reasons to examine the psychology of others, and appropriate contexts in which to do it. . . .

Thank-you so much, Scott A., for your fascinating post. You have described with such clarity some of the things I have been observing both with respect to my own thinking and appoach (and the changes that have taken place in that regard) as well as that of others. There is much to think about here.

[Mercury 0]

There are good reasons to examine the psychology of others, and appropriate contexts in which to do it. . . .

Thank-you so much, Scott A., for your fascinating post. You have described with such clarity some of the things I have been observing both with respect to my own thinking and appoach (and the changes that have taken place in that regard) as well as that of others. There is much to think about here.

I agree with this, and very much thank Scott too.

Three years ago, I realized I had been "using" Objectivism as a crutch and a club whenever it suited me, and I have been trying to retrace my steps since. Although I was more of a mixed case than an out-and-out example of Person 2, facing my hypocrisy in the mirror stung like hell. It's a continuing process, and life is sooo much better.

[jedymastyr 0]

The best place to start is in the Response To Charges Against THE FORUM thread.

...

I have allowed Chad's post here in this moderated thread because, as he indicates, there may be others in his position who are not familiar enough with the background to fully appreciate the significance of Scott's essay. However, any further discussion of the details of these events and the ensuing conflicts should be carried out in other more appropriate threads. This thread is primarily to give due recognition to Scott's very important and very insightful essay.

Thanks for your very professional and helpful response. I have a lot of reading left, but I just re-read Scott's post knowing the general context and this has made it much more powerful and thought-provoking.

[Scott A. 0]

Three years ago, I realized I had been "using" Objectivism as a crutch and a club whenever it suited me, and I have been trying to retrace my steps since. Although I was more of a mixed case than an out-and-out example of Person 2, facing my hypocrisy in the mirror stung like hell. It's a continuing process, and life is sooo much better.

Mercury, I really appreciate your honesty. I bet a lot of people could say the same. As someone pointed out to me privately, there is something quite refreshing about being able to think in clear, moral terms, particularly in an age of subjectivism and relativism. It feels good to know the rightness of your own thinking and the ideas on which it is based (and not just in the realm of ethics). But, as you point out, it is very important to know when one's use of something good serves a possibly not-so-good purpose. Thank you again for demonstrating what it means to be honest and, of course, objective.

[Guest Aaron Michael Morales]

Scott,

As many before me have pointed out, this was a wonderfully articulated observation of two distinct personalities and their subsequent reactions/approaches to any given situation. What I find particularly brilliant about your essay is that this line of logic can be applied to so many different instances and situations in life. Personally, I've found the events on this forum (at least the ones specifically adressed by this post) to be a disturbing trend in many arenas where "debates" are supposed to occur. From politics to academia, often people leave behind a rational discussion and consideration of facts to engage in "smear campaigns" against the messenger(s) of something they either disagree with or simply refuse to take the time to analyze objectively. I look forward to sharing this with friends/colleagues who have been lamenting this form of "argumentation" for several years now.

I think, due to my observations on other forums and online discussions, that perhaps the anonymity of internet communication might exacerbate these situations more than in "real" life, and that, taking that into consideration, perhaps this sense of anonymity intensifies the actions/responses of a person who might otherwise be more objective, or at least less critical, in personal interaction and debate. But, I suppose that plays into your notion of a person wanting to be someone he is not. Internet communication clearly offers vast possibilities for a person of this personality type to "play at" being someone else.

Once again, thank you.

Aaron

[Mercury 0]

Dr. Hurd's commentary, "The Daily Dose of Reason", has this entry today:

Consider the Critic

Be careful when others criticize you. Criticism can be honest, but it can also be motivated by a desire to feel superior. Many people attain their sense of worth by feeling superior to others. They can be quite convincing in their criticisms, only--if you look more closely--there's nothing positive to convey, even though YOU know full well you deserve credit for what you have done well. Before accepting criticism, always first consider the source. Is the critic someone who has accomplished very well, or extremely well, in the area he's criticizing you? If so, then he merits attention--although still not the final say. The final word must always be your own mind. Yes, make sure your own mind draws its conclusions in an objective way, and not simply an "I'm great no matter what" way. Factor in any objectively valid criticism, regardless of who the critic is. But don't ever elevate the critic's mind, and overall judgement, above your own.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

First of all I must say: Thank you for this essay! it was awesome. Smart, well written, and informative about a very important subject.

I have a few questions about the following paragraphs:

Personality also has a structure or organization. At the core of this is one’s self-concept, which is a set of self-evaluations that, taken together, largely direct one’s focus in life. These evaluations regard our mental and physical abilities and qualities, our position relative to other things and people, and, by extension, our potential. They are based on standards we have accepted, consciously or not, regarding what it means to be good, moral, productive, honest, and so forth.

A self-concept indicates what is possible or open to us based on our knowledge, skills, abilities, and relationships. For instance, someone who believes himself to be ugly, stupid, and clumsy will not see as open to him the same kinds of opportunities as another person who sees himself as attractive, intelligent, and coordinated.

Of course, the specific self-evaluations that compose a self-concept can be wrong, and the standards on which they are based can be unrealistic. For example, although someone might view himself as unintelligent, this might not be true. It could be that genius is the standard he holds himself to, but he’s not a genius. Imagine telling yourself that in order to be intelligent you have to demonstrate abilities on a par with Ayn Rand. Obviously that’s a formula for negative self-evaluations and a poor self-concept.

People can have a mix of positive and negative self-evaluations and/or a mix of realistic or unrealistic bases for these judgments. For example, one person can deeply respect his own intelligence but feel very awkward physically, or vice versa. There may be a basis for one of these evaluations but not the other.

1. What is an objective standard for evaluation of one's self? Are some parts of it relate to average abilities of people?
   
2. What is the connection between the factual evaluation of one's abilities and morality to one's underlying feeling of self-worth?
   
3. Why do some people feel devastated when they fail a test, and feel like a failure, while others look primarily at the consequences of this event, without connecting it much to self-esteem? Which one of them is right and which one wrong in his approach?
   

______________________________________________________________________________

About the need to use a persona: Doesn't this imply second-handish-ness? Meaning judging one's own worth according to how one is viewed by others? Or perhaps it is a different kind - in which one judges one's own worth by one's position relative to others (regardless of what they think of him).

It seems to me that the core problem in people who do this is lack of selfishness. A person who has adopted a persona will defend fiercely from realization of the real nature of his actions, when in fact the way to happiness would be 180 degrees around.

A selfish person introspects honestly, and tries to understand himself as good as possible, because he realizes that by understanding his own needs and analyzing his own ideas and premises, he has a chance to improve himself, and as a result to improve his life and be more happy. The "persona guy", on the other hand, would run away from the realization of his inner-nature. He would be too afraid to face the option of emptiness, and because of this he can never actually be happy (but instead he can relief fear of self-worthlessness, and occasionally fake a feeling of self-esteem).

I think this partially explains why most people run from introspection like crazy.

Scott, is there some advise you can suggest, or a method to help a "persona guy" turn around and become selfish?

[Scott A. 0]

Thank you very much for the compliments, ifatart (and also to Aaron Morales). I will address your questions below.

[*]What is an objective standard for evaluation of one's self? Are some parts of it relate to average abilities of people?

The objective standard of self-evaluation is reality, particularly the context of reality in which one is acting and evaluating himself. A self-concept is a fundamental and broad concept--it is the sum total of one's self-evaluations across the entire range of contexts in one's life. However, the self-evaluations of which it is composed are context-specific. And each context has a particular set of circumstances, actions, people, issues, and so forth. As an example, just consider the ways in which your behavior and attitude are different between work and home life. Typically, one doesn't have the same intimacy, either emotionally or physically, with coworkers that he does with his family. Thus, evaluating oneself in terms of, say, his actions at work vs. his actions in a romantic relationship involves very different particulars.

Of course, the fundamental principles are the same across contexts. For instance, if someone strives to be virtuous and moral in his life, he is conscientious and productive at work, while also being attentive and committed to the particulars of his spouse's life (assuming, of course, they have a rational and healthy relationship). The behavior will be different in these two contexts, but will operate on the same premises.

Regarding the issue of whether or not judgments are based on the average ability of others, this is true. Psychology, in many ways, is a normative science. A perfect example is intelligence tests. Such tests measure different types of cognitive skills and are completely based on statistical norms of performance (as are GREs, SATs, etc.). These norms tell us something, but not the full story. There are many extremely successful, happy, and wealthy people who are not, by normative standards, exceptionally intelligent. Thus, basing judgment of oneself on the abilities of others serves a purpose (particularly if one is trying to develop a particular skill that another has mastered). However, when others become a primary and fundamental standard against which one judges himself, psychological problems will result.

[*]What is the connection between the factual evaluation of one's abilities and morality to one's underlying feeling of self-worth?

If I understand your question correctly, I think morality indicates that one is factually evaluating one's abilities, which will ultimately result in a feeling of self-worth. I say "ultimately" because there are certainly instances when reality indicates that one's abilities are not what he hoped. For instance, say some person wants to become a professional athlete, but really doesn't have the ability. In this case, factually evaluating his abilities is a painful thing. He has to realize something about himself that requires him to dismiss a desire or hope. However, if he understands that accepting reality helps him move forward in life, he will not cling to a fantasy and set his life further back. He will move forward, and overcoming that problem will definitely improve his self-worth.

[*]Why do some people feel devastated when they fail a test, and feel like a failure, while others look primarily at the consequences of this event, without connecting it much to self-esteem? Which one of them is right and which one wrong in his approach?

Actually, I think both are looking at the consequences of the event, but assign very different values to it. For whatever reason, the first person sees the failure as devasting, as ruinous to his immediate and, perhaps, long-term future, whereas the second obviously does not see it that way. In the essay, I talk about how psychology plays out in the particulars, and this is a perfect example. That is, in order to understand each individual, we have to understand why the test was either important or not. Also, the "why" can be either rational or irrational. For instance, the first person might have a really good reason to react as he does; maybe passing that test was something truly crucial to his future. On the other hand, maybe he had very irrational expectations and his emotions are based on a distortion of reality. So, the short answer to your questions is that the right approach is determined by the reality of the context and having rational premises, principles, and self-standards.

About the need to use a persona: Doesn't this imply second-handish-ness? Meaning judging one's own worth according to how one is viewed by others? Or perhaps it is a different kind - in which one judges one's own worth by one's position relative to others (regardless of what they think of him).

I think the latter is a manifestation of the former, and the former is a manifestation of selflessness. Selflessness means, psychologically, that one has no core structure to his personality. He has an unstable self-concept. He becomes second-handed, seeking to define himself externally, particularly through others. Implicit in this mental approach is one's position relative to others. The very act of seeking identity through others implies a position or status differential, and the person who does it is "one-down." Such an act acknowledges, implicitly (and often subconsciously), that one sees himself as "less than" another. This is a bad feeling, and unfornuately one primary irrational remedy is to attempt change one's position by being "more than" and "one-up" on others. But note that others are still the standard, not oneself. So, I see it as one kind, but in different forms.

It seems to me that the core problem in people who do this is lack of selfishness. A person who has adopted a persona will defend fiercely from realization of the real nature of his actions, when in fact the way to happiness would be 180 degrees around.

A selfish person introspects honestly, and tries to understand himself as good as possible, because he realizes that by understanding his own needs and analyzing his own ideas and premises, he has a chance to improve himself, and as a result to improve his life and be more happy. The "persona guy", on the other hand, would run away from the realization of his inner-nature. He would be too afraid to face the option of emptiness, and because of this he can never actually be happy (but instead he can relief fear of self-worthlessness, and occasionally fake a feeling of self-esteem).

I think this partially explains why most people run from introspection like crazy.

I agree with everything you wrote. I would only add that I think another reason people run away from introspection is that they have been taught they are full of evil. Whether it be original sin or Freud's sexually perverted id, people don't want to wallow in what they have come to accept as the natural inner muck of their minds.

Scott, is there some advise you can suggest, or a method to help a "persona guy" turn around and become selfish?

First, it's important to point out that the persona issue I'm highlighting in the essay exists on a continuum. For instance, the second person I describe is a more extreme form of something that can still exist in others, but not to the same degree. So, different things will work with different levels of severity. On the most extreme end, such people probably have bad personality disorders, which are very difficult to treat. However, most people don't fall on the extremes.

I think a key is what you suggest in the quote above: they are deeply afraid of something and assume it is something about themselves. Most often, there is nothing to fear, or what there is to fear is not related to them. The key is to help them look at how they are judging themselves across a range of contexts. What are their standards of self-evaluation, and are they rational? If not, are they really just needlessly punishing themselves for crimes they have not committed?

Except in cases of true sadism and psychopathy, most people who belittle others are, internally, demeaning themselves even worse. What you see or experience directly when they attack is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how they punish themselves. Indeed, when someone, unprovoked, belittles another publicly, I believe it is, most often, self-torture made visible. This doesn't excuse it or in any way make it right. In fact, such behavior must be called to the person's attention, publicly if necessary. However, knowing this makes it a lot easier to not take an unprovoked attack personally.

[Thoyd Loki 0]

I have a concept that I use to designate certain areas of my core interests, I call them "self-satisfying-subjects". They being areas of study or speculation that give one pleasure merely in the immersion in them. This is one of them for me. What I'd like to ask is, how far could you participate in this topic given your time contrainsts? I find a thousand questions, and I'd like to put some concretes to see if we can put some flesh on what I find to be a fascinating subject you've started here.