RoR: Forum

I of course agree with the concept of privacy, Andy. On the other hand, how intrusive is it to ask someone if they are doing something they said they do on an amateur or professional basis? Or to ask them what part of their overall background/experience leads them to make such a comment? If I am talking to someone about something, and they ask me what my experience is or is not in that area, I just tell them, best I can. We're not talking about deep personal problems or information here, we are talking about knowledge and experience, and that brings weight to what someone says. If they choose to lie about or amplify that, there is nothing that can be done, and it is unfortunate and their bad. Those who do talk about things such as experience with personal issues or even crises may choose that path, usually to add clarity and honest perspective to their words. The motivation behind such a choice is clearly not limited to the kind of cry that comes with a "victim mentality". It is relevant to the topic, and it is optional. This is particularly so in the case of addiction.

But what is wrong with honesty regarding experience or qualifications, if one makes a comment pertaining to a claim of proficiency in something that can be done professionally or non-professionally? I'm not afraid, or experience a feeling of invasion, if someone asks me about things like that. I just tell them where I'm at with it, be it nothing, novice, amateur, or professional. Your reply seems like you were taking evasive action, where no one would really care. If you said that, for instance, people come to you because you're a pretty stable, reasonably well-read guy and ask you for counsel about all kinds of things, and you try to give your best answer based on your qualifications in whatever area it is, that is one thing, But what you just did was say that addicts have come to you for counsel, and you recommended they stay away from the "therapeutic community". That is like not being a dentist, and telling people to stay away from orthodontists.

If you are a trained therapist or counselor (unlikely, since you are telling people to not use such services), you certainly aren't breaking any counselor-client priviledge by indicating that you do it for a living. You are simply telling people what you do. None of us are all wisdom (as in knowledge combined with experience) to all things. What is so scary bad about telling people what you do or do not do for a living?

I happen to take issue with anyone who tells an addict to not explore professional services or therapy options. It is a dangerous, and unqualified statement to make for anyone, least of all a non-professional. Are you so all that, that you can make a recommendation like you did involving a potential life-or-death issue?
It is difficult enough for a heavily qualified and deeply experienced professional to make good calls.

Now, all that being said, you can surely invoke your right to fully non-disclose anything but what you choose to. You can choose only to proclaim. If anything about what I am saying might interest you, it would be to consider the fact that to do that only makes you less impactful- you can't do it all with words coming out of an empty spot.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 9/22, 10:37am)

(Edited by Rich Engle on 9/22, 10:40am)

(Edited by Rich Engle on 9/22, 10:56am)

Post 81

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:19am

Ethan,

Adam Reed had you right. You are a shit tossing troll.

Because I ... what? Gave you a thoughtful response instead of insulting you?

It borders on the bizarre the offense many here have taken because I have had the gall to post my beliefs with certitude. It is also weird that still more have taken offense because I haven't been perturbed for the most part by the irrational hostility to my posts.

None of this makes sense. This at-the-drop-of-a-hat grievance mongering by you and the others doesn't even have the saving grace of consistency. For instance, I was ridiculed by a prominent SOLOist the other day for being a diabetic! Where was your principled outrage at that? Non-existent, of course, Ethan, because I made it plain I took no offense, so why should anyone else.

That's what baffles me. I ignore real offense given to me, and you want to get your shorts in a twist over imagined offense I've given to others. Have we become so effete that every declaration made must be perfumed with flowery sentiments of deference to another's tender feelings? Is the status of victim now so prized that we'll deform everything not explicitly deferential into an offense?

There is a sickness in the land that is sapping our culture of its certitudes. I touched upon one aspect of this in my article on the New Puritans. They're part of the broader onslaught of post-modernism that makes belief in objective truth, if not a thought crime, a mental disturbance and any sure expression of objective truth an anti-social act.

And that's your real grievance against me, isn't it? I don't mollycoddle people who promote ideas I know to be wrong.

Andy

Post 82

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:44am

Rich,

On the other hand, how intrusive is it to ask someone if they are doing something they said they do on an amateur or professional basis?

You accused me of sandbagging. That's not an innocent inquiry into one's pursuits.

Another problem. You'd probably have fewer disagreements with me if you paid closer attention to what I write. I never said I counsel addicts to avoid professional treatment or the "therapeutic community", as you called it. I said the therapeutic culture, a poisonous philosophy of life that turns a resolvable problem into a life-long obsession. Read my article on the New Puritans if you want to know what I mean by that.

Also, you caused me to raise an eyebrow at the idea that a personal promise of confidentiality doesn't carry the same moral weight as formally privileged communications. Without getting into whether the confidences I hold are of one type or another, I will argue that if anything a personal confidence demands a higher honor than a professional one, if only because the latter is usually part of a set of rules that can breached under certain circumstances. Read any professional code of ethics concerning confidential communications and you'll find a laundry list of exceptions to it.

Finally, you are stymied by the idea that what I have written on addiction would somehow be different if you knew what kind of credentials I paste on the end of my name. How? Either what I wrote makes sense to you, or it doesn't. For example, I am currently reading a book on physics. It never occurred to me until now to even investigate the author's credentials. Why? I still have to think for myself and reason out what he has written. Whether or not he has a PhD doesn't change that obligation I have.

Andy

Post 83

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 1:28pm

Andy,

It would be inappropriate for me to discuss my experiences with addicts and addiction,
You asked:

Why?
For the simplest of all reasons, it's none of your business.

Andy

Umm....then why did you bring it up on a public forum concerning addicts and addiction?

gw

Post 84

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 1:47pm

For example, I am currently reading a book on physics. It never occurred to me until now to even investigate the author's credentials. Why? I still have to think for myself and reason out what he has written. Whether or not he has a PhD doesn't change that obligation I have.

I always check the credentials. Once I read a physics book written by a Dr. Seuss.
He knows his green eggs and ham, but he was way off on quantum mechanics.

gw

Post 85

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 1:52pm

Gary,

Umm....then why did you bring it up on a public forum concerning addicts and addiction?

I'll keep this simple for you: I didn't. I haven't related a single experience I have had in that regard. The only ones obsessed with not having knowledge of my personal affairs are those who either rely to heavily upon authority or the subjectivity of personal experience to determine the truth of a statement.

Andy

Post 86

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 1:53pm

I always check the credentials. Once I read a physics book written by a Dr. Seuss.
He knows his green eggs and ham, but he was way off on quantum mechanics.

Ahh, but have you read his works on chromodynamics? Brilliant stuff!

Post 87

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 2:01pm

Gary,

I always check the credentials. Once I read a physics book written by a Dr. Seuss. He knows his green eggs and ham, but he was way off on quantum mechanics.

How would you know that? Did you just take a credentialed authority's word for it, or did you use your own reason to determine the truth of the matter?

If you think credentials are the key to the truth, then you must have no use for Objectivism. Ayn Rand didn't have a single credential to certify her as an "official" authority on philosophy.

Andy

Post 88

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 2:04pm

subjectivity of personal experience

I would say that personal experience can (and should) inform our concepts regarding things. Apparently some here don't agree. No need to jump off a bridge to know what's going to happen, but we aren't talking about bridges and jumping. Michael has a perspective on this that I don't, so I'm willing to listen to his personal "subjective" opinion. Your experiences with this are "none of my business," so, forgive me if I don't lend as much weight to what you say you "know."

Ethan

Post 89

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 2:18pm

You accused me of sandbagging

Quit whining. That was actually a mild joke not directed at you. Meaning, you very well might have been a couselor. Well, at least the possibility exist(s, ed?).

As in, giving the benefit of doubt of your possible higher experience. You want me to accept this counsel you give for addicts on faith, or mother reason, I'm not sure which. Either way, show me something. This is not a game.

As far as credentials, yes, I would take a very different view if you were speaking from the standpoint of professional (as in, do it for a career, have studied and practiced) experience.

That's how things work with people. I ask for experience, and study. It doesn't mean that you have to be an expert, or highly experienced. You just have to be honest.

I am not a big fan of the ceremonial "evasion" term in O'ism, because it got horribly whored out. "Evasion" is an accusation. "Evasion" is something that we mainly need to study within ourselves.

You can't expect to roll in here like a Big Kahuna without backing up your statements. Show me some skin. I take issue with your arrogance, sir.

Post 90

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 2:36pm

Ethan,

I would say that personal experience can (and should) inform our concepts regarding things. Apparently some here don't agree. No need to jump off a bridge to know what's going to happen, but we aren't talking about bridges and jumping. Michael has a perspective on this that I don't, so I'm willing to listen to his personal "subjective" opinion. Your experiences with this are "none of my business," so, forgive me if I don't lend as much weight to what you say you "know."

No apology needed, because I have said a number of times now that I value my privacy over proving myself to people who think the truth of what I say lies in who I am. Assign as much or little weight to what I wrote because you'd rather rely upon my credentials instead of your reason to assess the truth. I don't know why this is a stumbling block for a lot of so-called Objectivists around here.

As for personal experience, I'll say again that it is root of all of a person's knowledge. That's Objectivist Epistemology 101. You're absolutely right that your personal experience should inform the concepts you form. The fallacy is denying that you can have any objective knowledge of matter of which you have no direct personal experience.

Let's stick with the example of an addict. If you've never been an addict nor dealt with many addicts, you have no knowledge of how it feels to be an addict. That does not preclude you from understanding the role of volition in addiction, because you obviously have exhaustive experience with not just the exercise of your own volition but that of others. You know without a doubt how the irrational exercise of volition can lead to habits that do you no good, if not out-and-out harmful to yourself. So you can apply that certain knowledge of human nature to addiction to understand it without any personal experience of addiction.

Human nature is complex, but it is not a mystery. It's a subject any of us can master if we keep our eyes open (experience) and think (reason).

Andy

Post 91

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 2:36pm

Andy,

How would you know that? Did you just take a credentialed authority's word for it, or did you use your own reason to determine the truth of the matter?

If you think credentials are the key to the truth, then you must have no use for Objectivism. Ayn Rand didn't have a single credential to certify her as an "official" authority on philosophy.

Good Grief! Grow a sense of humor, will ya!

Jody,

I'll check that out after I finish Charles Schultz's "Psychology of Placekickers!"

gw

Post 92

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 2:59pm

Rich,

You want me to accept this counsel you give for addicts on faith, or mother reason, I'm not sure which.

Let's see, I've only written clearly and repeatedly that you must rely upon your reason. Why you remain confused about that at this late point in the discussion is beyond me. If you want to disagree with what I said, then disagree! It's not that hard. You can do it without knowing anything more than what I've written.

Unlike what a number of the sob sisters have said, I don't need to win an argument. I take satisfaction in knowing that I have expressed my thoughts well. That's enough for me. If I learn that someone has gotten a benefit from what I've done, that's a bonus. But I can't live for that. I have to live for myself.

As far as credentials, yes, I would take a very different view if you were speaking from the standpoint of professional (as in, do it for a career, have studied and practiced) experience.

Sure, and so I take it you believe in global warming, Keynesian economics, and the food pyramid that the professionals tell us are the way the world works.

That's how things work with people. I ask for experience, and study. It doesn't mean that you have to be an expert, or highly experienced. You just have to be honest.

Ah, there's a New Puritan for you. The dignity of privacy is an evasion. Without public revelation of your life you are a dishonest person.

Andy

Post 93

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 3:13pm

Andy,

As for personal experience, I'll say again that it is root of all of a person's knowledge.

That's why I asked, "Why?"

I wanted you to expand on your statement, not on your personal life or the lives of any addicts you know. I really wanted a clearer idea of where you were coming from.

And, thank you for keeping it simple for me. How very gracious of you.

You have no idea how much all those multi-syllable words make my brain hurt!

gw

Post 94

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 3:24pm

On further reading, Andy is not a shitbag, or a scumbag, or a jerk, or any of the other low-grade insults hurled at him in this series of posts. I find him rather coolly thoughtful, if unsympathetic. However, I would not want him dispensing advice to any addict whom I've ever known in my life. His observations about addiction are largely correct (he and Michael are dancing around some mostly semantic arguments about "disease") but woefully incomplete for someone battling the psychological and physical ravages of alcohol and drugs. On a side note, alcoholism, if not a "disease," certainly acts like one, with predictable percentages of "infection" in a population, a strong genetic component and statistically unambiguous rates of relapse.

Post 95

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 3:26pm

P.S., that was my 69th post. Don't I get free oral sex or something?

Post 96

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 4:13pm

The fallacy is denying that you can have any objective knowledge of matter of which you have no direct personal experience.

I agree. Listening to Michael's informed perspective doesn't deny that you can have knowlege about addiction without having been an addict. It of course also doesn't mean his experiences are less insightful.

There are lots of "so-called" Objectivists about. Plenty of them enjoy calling others "so-called" Objectivists. There are also a lot of people who enjoy hurling subtle invectives. I think I'm coming to prefer those who come right out and call a pomo wantker a pomo-wanker. Nothing irritates me more than those who enjoy being subtly nasty.

As far as your comment about being insulted about being a diabetic, I didn't say anything becaue I missed that. You see to imply that I wouldn't, but then you must have missed my tendancy to be very just. I, for example, was one of those to sanction your New Puritan article. If, as you imply, I ignore good things from you as I only am out to support the so-called "sob sisters" of SOLO, then I wouldn't have sanctioned you. It also happens that I have spoken to Michael in private about issues I have with his article. So, you are somewhat correct in that I don't like the way you comport yourself on this forum at times. You of course are free to be as big a dick as you like, as I am free to point out my opinion on your penile nature.

Ethan

Post 97

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 5:13pm

Hey, MSK, thanks for the thoughtful article. I appreciate your forthrightness regarding your ideas about what defines addiction and how to tackle it using Objectivist concepts. I will need to chew on it a while to assess its merits. I can see from the many responses that you have managed to stir some praise and criticism. As the controversial millionaire Charles Givens used to say, "If you are not getting criticized, you are not doing anything important." Perhaps we can get together some time and discuss this over lunch. In the meantime, I recommend The Power of Full Engagement which addresses personal energy issues when dealing with challenges including addictions. It has some overlap with your ideas.

Post 98

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 7:34pm

Jamie,

Thanks for the fair-minded assessment. As for your concern about my tone in this thread, may I state the obvious? I am not counseling any addict here. To discuss principles is not the same as putting them into action.

Ethan,

If you want to read things into what I write, go ahead and do so. But it adds a lot of useless noise to the conversation.

That said, I do sometimes poorly word things that invite misunderstanding. You had no obligation to denounce Kat's ridicule of me as a diabetic. I took no offense from her post and hold no grievance against her for it. So I didn't expect anyone to do that for me. I can see how you thought I was upbraiding you for not doing what you had no need to do, but I wasn't. I should've worded better the comparison I was trying to make to set up the next paragraph. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Andy

Post 99

Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 9:28pm