Impersonations and False Identities

Apropos of Roger's recent incarnation a la Artemis Kerridge, I'd like to address the propriety of assuming false identities. I don't think it's a good idea, unless it's clear that it is a false identity (as in the case of Ed Thompson's female personage, which he had openly challenging people to identify). I understand that some folks like to pull these kinds of pranks, but even if, as in Roger's case, it is done to expose a certain bias among the readership, I believe that its duplicity outweighs its practical value. Curiously, this type of charade is almost exclusively the province of men; women never seem to engage in or enjoy this sort of thing. False identities were also assumed on the Atlantis list by Roger (in the person of another femme fatale -- Lilah Kerrug ("Lie like a rug") -- and by several others. It got to the point that you didn't know whom to trust.

In reading Artemis' posts, I soon became suspicious that it was Roger, and asked him about it. He immediately owned up to it, and I then encouraged him to drop the charade and come clean about it onlist, which thankfully he has done. Here's what I perceive as the problem. Prior to my asking Roger whether he was Artemis, I had a couple of conversations with him about her, during which he pretended that she was a real person and that we were discussing this other poster. Now I consider Roger a close friend. Yet in retrospect, I realized that the entire conversation with him was phony, that what I thought was a genuine and honest exchange was nothing of the sort. It made me feel a little creepy. The same thing happened with another poster on the Atlantis list who was also a good friend, and who strung me along for many posts as I argued with a person who I thought was someone entirely different, but who in fact turned out to be my friend in disguise. I would not have known, if I had not also asked him about it. Even then, he was reluctant to admit it, and even got self-righteously upset, when I complained. So the friendship dissolved over it.

If someone who claims to be your friend can carelessly lie to you about something so frivolous, on what grounds can you trust him? Can you take what he says at face value? Nathaniel Branden pulled the same thing on Diana's blog, after she kicked him off. He too assumed a false identity--impersonating his girlfriend--in order to continue posting there against her wishes. But he slipped up, and it soon became obvious who it was.

What you do when you perpetrate this kind of stunt is jerk people around, by deceiving them into replying to someone whom they would not have replied to had they known who it was. It amounts to a kind of fraud, which is never justified, not even to expose people's bias, because you're manipulating them; you're forcing them to act against their judgment, even if their judgment is biased. I understand that Harry Binswanger has a policy against allowing people to post under anything but their true identity. This may be too strict a policy, as a person may not want to reveal his or her real name. As long as he or she doesn't affect more than one identity, thereby deceiving readers into thinking that it is someone other than that person who is posting, I see no problem with a pseudonym. However, in that case, the poster should make it clear that he or she is posting under a pseudonym.

This is not to say that there aren't circumstances under which deception is justified. Physical self-defense is certainly one; protection of confidential information may be another, as when someone has no right to certain information and the only way to prevent him from getting it is to deceive him. However, I don't think that assuming false identities in order to garner a respect that would otherwise be lacking or to provoke a certain response that would otherwise not occur is itself a case of justified deception, as it undermines trust, manipulates others against their will, and subverts one of the key values of friendship, which is honest communication.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 2/07, 6:46pm)

Post 1

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 9:49pm

Bill,

I respectfully disagree with an across-the-board condemnatory approach.

A prank once in awhile is a welcome relief to the fuddy-duddies. I don' like malicious pranks, though, where the intent is pure humiliation (like in the film Carrie, for instance, where a homely girl was made prom queen so that kids could dump a bucket of pig blood on her in front of everybody at her most joyous moment) and I don't like pranks too frequently, as they tend to get old quickly. But a prank like Roger's switched-identity goof every so often adds a bit of pepper to the veggies.

It's a question of lightening up and cutting slack for the mischievous side of our nature.

Roger's a fuckin musician, fer crisesakes. No amount of lecturing is going to straighten that dude out...

Michael

Post 2

Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 11:59pm

Michael, I don't know about you! I know that musicians (let alone trombonist-composers) have to stick together -- but your "what can you expect, he's just a musician!" argument sounds suspiciously like "special pleading." :-) Also, what about Branden? Last time I checked, he was not a musician. What's his excuse? That he's a fuckin' psychologist? (Works for me. :-) Also, bear in mind that Bill drew a fairly clear line between me and his ex-friend, in terms of who readily 'fessed up when asked about the deception, and who didn't. Bill is a forgiving person, but his forgiveness does not extend to unrelenting jerks. If it did, I'd wonder about the value of our friendship!

Now, as for occasional pranks being "a welcome relief to the fuddy-duddies," that, too, is a bit questionable. If you consider that a surprise party is another case of something that partakes of both prank and deception, in terms of manipulation, and that Rand was anything but welcomely relieved when such a party was sprung on her, then it sounds as though you would lump her in with the fuddy-duddies. Do you really want to say that? (At least, she wasn't naked with the dog in the basement with peanut butter on her private parts! :-) (So far as I know...)

I'm really torn, though, about the Branden/Hsieh flap on Noodle Food. (A discussion form which, by the way, seems more to nourish shoulder-chips than neurons.) Diana is certainly entitled to decide with whom she will discuss issues, and with whom she won't, and normally speaking, people's boundaries should be respected. What troubles me is Branden apparently hadn't previously mistreated Diana in any way, yet she decided to abruptly start bashing him and to not talk with him, supposedly based on things he did to Rand 40 years ago and said about Rand 20 years ago. Branden wanted to discuss the matter and get an understanding of how Diana could do such a radical 180, but she stonewalled him and instead threw him out of Noodle Food. At that point, he tried his Helen/Hellen ruse, in an attempt to get her to explain why she was shutting him out. And the rest is hysteria, as they say.

Now, not to excuse Branden for pretending to be someone else, in order to try to manipulate Diana into explaining her stonewalling of him, but in his place, I would have been so outraged and so bewildered that I would have attempted something similar in an attempt to get clarity and closure over a relationship that had previously seemed to be fine. Boundaries, schmoundaries. When participation on a blog is on the honor system, and you're being bashed on that blog by a former associate who is now acting precipitously and harshly toward you and who bans you from speaking in your defense or talking out the disagreement with you, I think that the respect issue is pretty much dead. I mean, it's not like Diana asks everyone to sign an agreement like Binswanger does. She has anonymous people, pseudonymous people, etc., on there all the time, and she doesn't clamp down on any of them, unless they make her too uncomfortable. So, deception is really not an issue with her. Not enough of one to make an issue out of it, anyway.

Well, enough on that. But here's a related issue that could stand another look. Rand, who understandably and reasonably, didn't like people deceiving and manipulating her, built a whole movement based on the philosophy of a man who, along with his chief comrades, engaged in massive deception and manipulation of an entire culture. And not just the bad guys, but also very good people like Dagny, who was their (Galt's and Francisco's) highest value in another person. Now, was this justifiable deceit? Dagny wasn't using force against them. She wasn't violating their privacy. Yet, Francisco lied his ass off to her for years. What is the justification? That it was "for a good cause"? That she would have ruined their plan, if they had let her in on the secret? How can it have been anything other than immoral to treat Dagny this way? And why would or should she trust them afterwards? Yet, what did she do? She unceremoniously dumped Rearden, a perfectly good and rational lover who never lied to or manipulated her, and ran to the arms of Galt, the man who demanded that Francisco, her first perfectly good and rational lover, lie to and manipulate her for the sake of the Strike. Looked at in this way, John Galt seems pretty monstrous to me. More like Toohey than Roark. And Dagny seems more screwed up than Dominique!

But that's my opinion. Bill, Michael, anybody -- what do you think about the massive fraud in Atlas Shrugged, and how the Master Defrauder and Manipulator was rewarded by getting the girl in the end (so to speak :-)?

REB

Post 3

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 1:30am

Roger,

I do believe that Ayn Rand was a fuddy-duddy a lot of the time humor-wise. I'm not afraid to say that. Hell, laughing is good for you - it even helps you to resist cancer. Her statements about humor are perfectly summed up by her response in the new Q&A book:

Q: Humor doesn't play a major role in the lives of your fictional heroes. What is the role of humor in life? Do comedians have a value to an Objectivist? What does an Objectivist find humerous?

AR: That is a dishonest question.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

I couldn't have come up with that one no matter how hard I tried.

But to be fair, she then went off on a long description of how morality is THE critical element in humor. I don't agree with her - or let's say that I partially agree with her. Laughing at the good can be derisive and when it is, it should be trounced. But it also can be just plain good vibes all round, laughing off a minor accident or a playful poke in the ribs. Bumping into stuff is funny sometimes and we all are subject to it.

But for a better example, being the butt end of a joke happens to all of us at one time or another. Those who laugh it off receive three benefits: (1) they laugh, thus cure any possible cancer they may have, (2) they normally forget about the episode shortly thereafter and sleep like babies, and (3) sadistic people are reluctant to continue making them the butt end, since they want to see pain and humiliation, not a bellylaugh. Now those who react poorly with lots of bad vibes will receive three corresponding hazards: (1) they become fuddy-duddies and spoil the good vibes of everyone else in the process, (2) they usually brood and pout long after the event, thus probably contracting cancer and dieing much younger and more painfully than they otherwise would, and (3) sadistic people tend to continue to bait them with increasingly cruel jokes - passing from pranks to outright humiliation and meanness.

You then asked at the end of your post:

... what do you think about the massive fraud in Atlas Shrugged, and how the Master Defrauder and Manipulator was rewarded by getting the girl in the end (so to speak :-)?

I have a theory that Galt actually played trombone, that's why, and nobody knows about it because ARI covered it up when they published the Journals. Oh yeah, Rand also left out the trombone part in Atlas Shrugged because of the Brandens. (I even think Nathaniel played on the sly...)

Michael

Post 4

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 10:39am

I agree with Bill's point. When I created my alter-ego (guessWhoA1), I had the heebie-jeebies about it. I wanted to play a 20-Questions game (picking myself as the subject and challenging others to find me out), but I had much trepidation. This is because I understand the immense importance of trust between rational agents. Without trust, there would be complete chaos -- and life would be "nasty, brutish, and short." With trust, rational agents will benefit from the rationality of others -- and humans will thrive unprecedentedly.

Think of using this type of deception during other means of communication. Think of calling a friend of yours, but through a voice-modifying device that was good enough to impersonate anothers' voice. Think of writing personal letters in anothers' handwriting.

Look at what's at stake.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/08, 10:40am)

Post 5

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 2:16pm

Bill & Ed:

     Agreed; especially when one's 'friend' 'fesses up clearly (by *my* lights) ONLY because they expected to be found out soon (whatever their alleged rationale for owning up).

     Agreed more vociferously, when the friend rationalizingly argues that there's NO difference between, o-t-o-h, being fraudulently-duplicitous to those who didn't deserve such, by secretly operating under dual/multiple names simultaneously (with the Pretense supposedly for an 'experiment' on some stupidly trusting others), and, o-t-other-h, using an alias/'nick' (such as brought up in an other forum about *my* "Morganis"-nick used in an earlier, long-now defunct forum; more on that later), well, what can be expected from such a person at this point?

     Worse, when they attempt to deflect the original subject of the thread by justifying that Rand had others (like 'Frisco) supposedly 'lie' to Dagny by virtue of merely NOT telling her his secret (like, he had some kind of 'moral obligation' to tell her, as I was inuendely implied that I had the same re my elsewhere 'nick'), obviously arguing for a confusion amongst all readers that there's NO diff between 1) keeping a secret that's NONE-OF-ANYONE'S-BUISNESS and 2) actual, disrespectful, undeserved 'lying' to trusted others...then, what can one expect from such a person after this point? --- Can one say 'conceptual Equivocation' in all arguments thereafter...or...Not?

     Some 'defend' these actions with no apology; some misconstrue the nature of them. After seeing repetitions of them enough times since the old ATL, I don't misconstrue any longer. Those who enjoy 'playing "Guess Who?" games on others...without letting those others know that there's even a (can we say mere?) 'game' being played...well, we all have our criteria of evaluations, don't we?

     Consider: what kind of 'friend' performs 'experiments' on their...supposed...friends?
      Does the concept 'con-man' come to mind?
      Beware 'be-friending' a con-artist. --- Talk about misplaced trust.

Mike:

     I visited your site (as you no doubt know by now).

     As two noted cinema-characters had said: "Nice place; lottsa space."   :)

     http://wheelerdesignworks.netfirms.com/Objectivism/nfphpbb

     (Hope I got the 'home page' URL right.)

     As an aside, I've a couple books to recommend in your 'library' forum which I think that you and Kat may (not to mention others) find interesting.

     Now...you regard duplicitous-'nick' useage as a mere 'prank'. Understandable...to a point, re the 'prank.' However, when the prank causes mucho time/energy-wasting (determined by the energy-compensator stuck dealing with the prank, and no one else), it's way more than a prank, whether done to Diana Hsieh, or...I presume...to you. --- One can say, "One person's 'prank' is another's chore-to-deal-with." And, of course, you, Mike, may not mind repeating your arguments over-and-over to the same person again-and-again, in which case, your lack of putting yourself in *my* shoes is understandable...to-a-point. As you may have gathered, however, I-really-don't-like having to repeat something to someone who clearly is expending no honest effort to deal with my points and/or reasons-for-them (beyond picking out a phrase I used and haranguing about ONLY it, or, pretending to be a 'newbie')...even if they do otherwise seem to come across as a personable Mr./Ms/Mrs Charm.

     However, not to worry: I'll neither start, continue, nor attempt to end, any 'personality-conflicts' on your and Kat's site. The place is just too...nice...for that, regardless that others have dragged my very-old "Morganis"-nick into their 'justifications' there...about developments here. *I*'ll keep it all here.

     Needless to say, I've more to say on this...in this thread...later.

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 2/08, 2:21pm)

(Edited by John Dailey on 2/08, 2:26pm)

(Edited by John Dailey on 2/08, 2:31pm)

Post 6

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 6:29pm

I agree with William and Ed. When I read that Roger created a false identity I was immediately disgusted, and my trust in his words has been severely reduced. My likeliness to respond to his posts or read them, and my likeliness to respond to new users posts have all been reduced. It is an injustice.

I thought about creating an anonymous user like Ed did, but I practically instantly rejected the idea because I didn't want people to associate me with creating multiple accounts and multiple names. If Roger had created an account with a name like "anonymous" and did not create false personal information then I wouldn't have been bothered.

Roger consistently misleads others of his true identity. Roger, how can you stand such a statement being true? If I owned the site, I would ban you. I bet if I looked at the usage of the site, there would be a significant decrease in usage after Roger's confession.

Post 7

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 7:43pm

MSK wrote:

I do believe that Ayn Rand was a fuddy-duddy a lot of the time humor-wise. I'm not afraid to say that. Hell, laughing is good for you - it even helps you to resist cancer. Her statements about humor are perfectly summed up by her response in the new Q&A book:

Q: Humor doesn't play a major role in the lives of your fictional heroes. What is the role of humor in life? Do comedians have a value to an Objectivist? What does an Objectivist find humerous?

AR: That is a dishonest question.

Michael responded sarcastically:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL... I couldn't have come up with that one no matter how hard I tried.

The reason she responded that way is revealed in her following comments:

What does an Objectivist find humorous? How in hell would I know? Philosophy cannot give you a principle by which you decide what is humorous. As to the value of comedians to an Objectivist, that depends on what kind of value, to which Objectivist, and above all, which comedian.

The dishonesty here is the idea that humor does not play a major role in the lives of my fictional heroes. You're goddamned right it doesn't. Show me a person in whose life humor plays a major role.

Although it may not have been intended as such, I think that Rand viewed the question as an affront, something like: "What's wrong with Objectivists; they seem to be pretty humorless bunch? What does an Objectivist find humorous?!" If one construes it in that light, her answer is more understandable.

Incidentally, Rand enjoyed comedian Johnny Carson immensely, so to say that she was a fuddy duddy who lacked a sense of humor is not only presumptuous, but also inconsistent with what we know about her personal life. Where did Rand ever say or even suggest, as Michael implies, that humor isn't a value or that laughing isn't good for you? Of course, she never did.

- Bill

Post 8

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 8:50pm

     A very l-o-n-g (Great Zeus, I'm getting tired of explicating things that way!) time ago, when 'cable' was a twinkle in 'the' 3-networks eyes, there used to be a news-anchor/commentator almost on a par with Walter Cronkite. His name was Eric Severeid. His 'style' of editorializing was...'profoundly serious'. Unlike 'Uncle Walt', I still don't remember ever seeing even a glimmer of a smile, whatever he was commentingly-pronouncing his gems-of-wisdom for us TV-watching-plebeians upon.

     Rand referred to his comments about the astronauts of the day, where he commented (something akin to...) "They still put their pants on, one leg at a time, just like the rest of us" (insinuation: they ain't really nothin' special more than us regular folks).

     Her comment on THAT was: "To each their own priorities" (innuendo: in how, and why, one evaluates the worth [whileness] of others).

     'Nuff said.

LLAP
J:D

Post 9

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 11:01pm

Bill:

What I find noteworthy, in your defense of Rand's position on 'humor', is that no one has ever responded relevently to her points about the subject (nm that there's supposedly no humor in her stories; some things are just really too...deep/subtle/[O'ist-oriented?]...for some, to even notice or recognize...or, maybe more accurately, want to identify.)

But then, what's new?

LLAP
J:D

Post 10

Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 11:12pm

Bill,

I know of no place where Rand stated that laughing is bad for you. I was discussing laughter in the context of humor. But before getting to humor, let's look at laughter divorced from comedy. Where on earth are the Randians who consistently demonstrate the following?

"Howard Roark laughed."

I see precious few. Maybe you know some? I would like to know them, since I am that way frequently.

Now, if you look at that Q&A entry where my quote came from, you will find a perfect recipe to curtail your own laughter a great deal. Big time.

And if you look at the people who surrounded Rand and were greatly influenced by her, you will find an undue prevalence of thin skins and people who only laugh in derision or sarcasm at others. They can't stand to be wrong about anything. They are very hostile when they lose control of others and consider a public expression of their own joy as a weakness. (When they get the urge to show joy, most of the ones I know merely talk about it. They don't show it.) Go back to the rest of that quote and you will discover why.

They are afraid. When a person laughs, he is exposing himself in public. He is expressing a pure emotion without any defense. Once you make him afraid to express that emotion and say that his feeling of that impulse is not correct - and I mean morally, not socially, so I mean that his impulse to laugh at times is evil - then you have started him on the way to having a very poor sense of humor. A perfectly neurotic sourpuss in the making.

I don't like the undue emphasis on sarcasm I see either, as it shows too much competition with others and not enough selfish joy in living. (Social metaphysics, maybe?)

This is one area - albeit a minor on - of Rand's nature that I don't buy. I don't mean to be pretentious. I have observed enough to arrive at my conclusions, although obviously I don't know every single detail about Rand's personal life. But I absolutely refuse to give up my own joy to any censor who wishes to brand it as evil.

Sorry. If I slip on a banana peel, I'm going to laugh, unless the fall hurts too much. If I see someone use a playful ruse to show me that my actual ideas become different when I talk to a different person, like Roger did with Artemis, hell, I would laugh it off and correct my weakness. I don't want to be that way. Others may prefer to pout and sulk, but I would laugh and correct myself. Frankly, I would be grateful for the opportunity to see that inner problem. If I don't see a problem, I sure as hell am not going to correct it.

So is branding banana peels evil and being a sourpuss when you slip on one moral happiness? Not for me, bro. I got a life to live.

Michael

Post 11

Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 2:19am

Comedy is often appropriate to Objectivism -- like when it makes fun of an inferior philosophy. Example ...

Skepticist:
I'm getting sick and tired of arguing with Objectivists like you, who champion objectivity -- reality is what you believe it is.

Objectivist:
Then go jump off a bridge while disbelieving in gravity and ... I promise ... that I will never bother you again about it!

RoRoRoRoRoR,

Ed

Post 12

Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 12:57am