RoR: Forum

Post 0

Friday, January 11 - 1:49am

Link

Edit

Leonard Peikoff’s latest podcast (1-7-08) has an interesting discussion with Yaron Brook about the hazards of participation in Objectivist websites. Here is my summarized interpretation of what they had to say:

Peikoff identifies three key problems: (1) Plunging into a variety of issues in which you do not have any special interest tends to detach thinking from personal values, which impairs the motivation to focus clearly and thereby undermines the quality of one’s thinking; (2) Jumping from issue to issue (e.g., music, architecture, sex, etc.) without a strong grasp of key abstract integrations tends to engender superficiality in one’s thinking methods; (3) Frequent posting on websites necessarily leads to “blurting” rather than serious thinking and genuine understanding, and this may “immortalize the chaos in one’s mind.”

Peikoff’ advised that it was fine for people who were isolated to participate on-line as long as they were conscious of these problems and pitfalls. In general, however, “indiscriminate” posting should not be a substitute for face-to-face discussion with other rational minds. Yaron Brook explained that a major problem with Objectivist websites was the absence of expert philosophical guidance. He added that it is extremely difficult to identify who is and who is not an expert---many people pretend to be authoritative when clearly they are not. (Gee. Can't imagine who he might have in mind....) Consequently, most Objectivist web groups display major confusion and rambling exchanges ultimately leading nowhere. He and Peikoff agreed that most on-line discussions involve “the blind leading the blind.”

I believe Peikoff is offering some very useful advice here—particularly for those who are fairly new to Ayn Rand. The web is not the place to obtain a genuine grasp of Objectivism. To do that, an enormous amount of reading, study and independent thinking is required. Internet addiction can stifle the growth of genuine understanding and make it unlikely that a person will ever obtain a first-hand grasp of Objectivist principles.

For those more advanced in their level of understanding, the web can be just as dangerous. Focused mental energy requires a sense of purpose. Random posting in lieu of a constant effort to analyze all aspects of a specific issue will insure permanent mental chaos. The best remedy for a state of arrested philosophical development is to turn off the damned computer.

Post 1

Friday, January 11 - 5:59am

Link

Edit

This is a blurt (oh no!). I'm getting ready for work, not enough time.

If one is only able to learn by accepting authority's word, then of course Peikoff want such sheep to only listen to him. But if on is able to use their own mind to reason what is true, then there is no concern.

If you don't have the prerequisite information on a subject, then you are not capable of using deduction to conclude the correct answers. Do you think that the results of your deduction based on unknown/guessed information is consistent with Reality?

Some people like to blurt with the emotional high. Are you here to seriously debate an issue or to have fun knocking around ideas or calling cheap shots? I agree that the quality of many of the debates on this website suffer from such "blurting". Who wants to take the time to clean this stuff up out of a debate? Don't some people like it? Why don't you make your own forum where you boot anyone who does such a thing?

Post 2

Friday, January 11 - 10:15am

Link

Edit

I wonder which websites Peikoff is referring to. I'm not even permitted to post to websites that are run by people sympathetic to the Ayn Rand Institute. Diana Hsieh has kicked me off of her blog, and Harry Binswanger requires posters to sign a "loyalty oath" and to renounce David Kelley and his merry band of "tolerationists." Sites like RoR and Objectivist Living are persona non grata regardless of what is posted on them, simply because they tolerate infidels like Kelley & Co.

The attitude of the principals at ARI is so touchy and insular, nothing you say is considered acceptable posting on Objectivism if they don't already agree with it. If you don't follow every decree Peikoff issues -- even down to his demand that you vote Democratic -- he doesn't even consider you an Objectivist.

When the folks at ARI loosen up a bit and recognize that people sympathetic to Kelley are sincere, bona fide supporters of Objectivism, and in many cases have a better grasp of the philosophy than he thinks they do, I'll take seriously his complaint about "the blind leading the blind."

If you read OPAR, you'll find enough philosophical problems in Peikoff's presentation of Objectivism to re-evaluate his understanding of it. What websites like RoR and Objectivist Living do, despite their flaws, is permit a free and open exchange of ideas about Objectivism -- which is not something you'll find at the ARI authorized websites, in which the slightest hint of philosophical incorrectness warrants excommunication.

- Bill

Post 3

Friday, January 11 - 10:58am

Link

Edit

Dean says:

I agree that the quality of many of the debates on this website suffer from such "blurting". Who wants to take the time to clean this stuff up out of a debate? Don't some people like it? Why don't you make your own forum where you boot anyone who does such a thing?

I did not intend this post as a criticism of RoR, of which I am actually quite fond. I thought Peikoff had some useful insights here, which anyone can obviously take or leave. A number of people have said similar things about the dangers of substituting the electronic stimulation of the internet for real human interaction, but they have not clarified their antipathy this way. Peikoff pointed out ways in which internet participation might hamper or obstruct the mental processes needed for focused, analytical thought—and made clear that awareness of these pitfalls could prevent this from happening.

It was Yaron Brook, not Peikoff, who brought up the paucity of authoritative guidance as a problem. He seemed to doubt whether this problem could be solved, but still considered that such discussion groups have definite value.

Post 4

Friday, January 11 - 11:26am

Link

Edit

Bill asks:

I wonder which websites Peikoff is referring to...

Peikoff did not distinguish more or less “orthodox” web groups (objectivism online, The FORUM for AR Fans, etc.) from OL or RoR (or SOLOP). His comments were apparently meant to apply across the board to all on-line Objectivist discussion groups. (He also confessed that he had minimal knowledge about them.) I might have expected that some special mention would have been given to Harry Binswanger’s discussion list (HBL), but it was not.

Post 5

Friday, January 11 - 12:48pm

Link

Edit

One thing that I'd like from Peikoff is discussion of a concrete example. Another thing that I'd like from him is a rubric by which these forums ought to be judged.

I do realize that there's some wisdom in what Peifoff said, but honestly, what do you think my chances are for getting these 2 highly-reasonable requests met by him any soon?

Ed

Post 6

Friday, January 11 - 2:12pm

Link

Edit

I’m really not sure, Ed. You could go to his website and send him an e-mail.

Peikoff did not offer a rubric, but here are some concretes that occurred to me:

Examples would include any situation where you answer a tangential question posed by someone on a thread, but you either don’t care much about the issue or don’t clearly see the complex connections involved. You’re discussing objectivity and other participants want to focus the thread specifically on the objectivity of musical appreciation, for example. Or you’re discussing self-esteem and someone on the thread wants to challenge Rand’s view that hero-worship is critical to female sexual psychology, contending that this is inconsistent with healthy self-esteem.

The third issue pertains to what Peikoff calls “indiscriminate” posting, where you get in the habit of frequent “blurting” rather than spending the time to think issues through.

Post 7

Friday, January 11 - 4:50pm

Link

Edit

Hi Dennis,

I get the impression that Peikoff is arguing without experience, which I guess he admits. It comes off as rationalism. Interesting deductions, but they're not well-grounded.

For instance, the idea that there will be blurting is certainly possible, and it could subtract from serious thinking. But there are a few other factors as well. For instance, when you post online, you're putting your comments out for other people to read and saying stupid things looks bad for you. So people generally try to be a little careful. Also, unlike some mediums, forum posts invite replies. If you don't say something this is wrong or unintelligent, people will call you on it. Further, when people do end up debating ideas, you have to work hard to communicate your ideas clearly, to consider why your debate opponent believes what he does, where is the fundamental disagreement, and are you able to make better integrations to clarify the topic.

Or how about the argument that you have no special interest in a topic, so it'll promote poor thinking. I'm not sure that's entirely true, but there are other factors there as well. For instance, you're exposed to many more idea. I find while I'm working on a particular philosophical problem that random forum threads connect to it in various ways. If I'm thinking about how moral principles work, a thread on rights brings up a related issue, and I can see how other people view the issue. By having many topics going on, it provides a wider field of ideas to focus on.

So while jumping from thread to thread could engender superficiality, it also has the possibility of helping you to integrate your knowledge a lot better.

There are plenty of problems with on-line forums, but I don't think these are the major ones. If I were making a list, I'd add:

1.) Since people focus on places where they have disagreements, you spend much of your time going over what you already understand to some extent instead of branching out into very new areas.

2.) Since people are concerned with the public viewing of their posts, they tend not to risk talking about ideas they haven't already made up their mind about, for fear of being wrong.

3.) People who don' understand the issues very well tend to distract conversations by confusing the topic and distracting the more able posters.

4.) Since the posters often have no particular purpose for participating, discussions often lack focus, progress, clarity, or results.

5.) Many posters are simply interested in getting attention, and civility breaks down when they compete.

Post 8

Friday, January 11 - 10:19pm

Link

Edit

More sunshine and rainbows out of ARI. How is anyone inspired by this stuff? There's always a little gray cloud hanging around, ready to rain at any moment.

1) Peikoff identifies three key problems: (1) Plunging into a variety of issues in which you do not have any special interest tends to detach thinking from personal values, which impairs the motivation to focus clearly and thereby undermines the quality of one’s thinking;

He really doesn't think much of folks, does he? We're all so easily confused and prone to fuzziness. Galt forbid an on-line forum might light a new fire in someone. Noooo. We have to keep the old, familiar fires stoked.

2) Jumping from issue to issue (e.g., music, architecture, sex, etc.) without a strong grasp of key abstract integrations tends to engender superficiality in one’s thinking methods;

Puny humans. No one can direct their own thinking effectively. Variety is the father of confusion, don'tchaknow. I thought genuine understanding began superficially. I had no idea genuine understanding happened automatically.

3) Frequent posting on websites necessarily leads to “blurting” rather than serious thinking and genuine understanding, and this may “immortalize the chaos in one’s mind.”

Is Peikoff saying this is a natural outcome, something inherent in human nature, sans a more rigid, $19.95 method? Chaotic thinking is the rule, rather than the exception? Sure sounds like it.

It's not so surprizing that Peikoff would ignore the possibility that on-line forums, particularly this forum, could provide an enormous opportunity to gain real values, and achieve real learning, (knowing how terribly focused he is on all the wrong in the world) but I am surprized he'd go to such lengths to inject an element of doubt into an aspiring mind.

I don't think anyone here would describe themselves as an "expert," but we do have our share of specialists. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those specialists. I'm sure I would have ended up an angry little satellite cloud without them.

Post 9

Friday, January 11 - 10:46pm

Link

Edit

Thanks Dennis, I took your advice.

And Joe, in post 7 you bring up excellent points -- especially the one about connecting several threads (in one's mind) in order to achieve further integration.

I think that an online forum has a specific advantage in placing seemingly disparate issues in a "mind's eye" at the same time. And, if you can perform the necessary level of integration, then you can benefit from the "hyper-"integration which an online forum best provides. It's (debating a wide range of ideas) also a great exercise for the mind. It can help you to think straight (by pressuring you to either actively integrate; or admit of contradiction, and then check your premises).

It couldn't replace reading Rand, but I wouldn't dare go without it, either.

;-)

Ed

Post 10

Saturday, January 12 - 12:14pm

Link

Edit

Given the 'generic' style of the points made, I agree with everything Peikoff and Brook said...technically...re their evaluations of the worth of such discussions and, the 'integration' aspect which, for some c-o-u-l-d be a problem not clearly seeable.

Ntl, I've always seen thoughtful participation in such forums/blogs/whatever as little diff from 'after-class' or 'post-seminar'-cocktail discussions, hence not something to castigate per se; instead it's the 'newbies' who know little about the subjects they randomly jump into who are asking for probs, especially the ones specified. But, this applies to all discussions (whatever formats) about any subject.

LLAP
J:D

Post 11

Saturday, January 12 - 7:49pm

Link

Edit

Joe,

I agree with Ed that you make a number of good points in post #7. Your fourth point seems to deal with many of the same concerns Peikoff wanted to address:

4.) Since the posters often have no particular purpose for participating, discussions often lack focus, progress, clarity, or results.

Lack of purpose engenders a lack of focus, and that promotes muddled thinking, poor integration and indiscriminate blurting—and mental chaos. And no doubt your fifth point about attention-seeking goes a long way toward explaining much of that sort of on-line behavior.

Teresa comments:

It's not so surprising that Peikoff would ignore the possibility that on-line forums, particularly this forum, could provide an enormous opportunity to gain real values, and achieve real learning, (knowing how terribly focused he is on all the wrong in the world) but I am surprised he'd go to such lengths to inject an element of doubt into an aspiring mind.

If you listen to his podcast, I think you will see that all Peikoff is doing is providing a word of caution—and he makes clear that these pitfalls can be avoided if the participant is aware of them. He seems to recognize that such forums can be of definite value for participants at various levels of familiarity with Objectivism, while pointing out that participation can foster destructive habits if one is not careful.

Both Ed and Joe note that, for participants at a certain level of sophistication, on-line forums can actually serve to enhance integration and comprehension. I obviously don’t know it for a fact, but—based on his second point—Peikoff might well agree. His concern about jumping from issue to issue was specifically aimed at those who had not yet achieved such integration.

John’s comment about the specific hazards which extensive on-line participation presents for the novice is probably the point that deserves the most emphasis here.

Post 12

Saturday, January 12 - 8:17pm

Link

Edit

I guess we should scrap the Banter category.

Sam

Post 13

Saturday, January 12 - 11:25pm

Link

Edit

Sam, maybe we just need to ban people who only post in the Banter category. For their own good. :)

Dennis, I agree that my point 4 was similar to Peikoff's, although I think mine was of course better because it had the important qualification. In terms of purpose, I've tried to set this site up to be more purposeful, to avoid the problems mentioned. I've found that very challenging, though.

My criticism wasn't so much that Peikoff's claims were wrong, but that they were one sided and made sense only with very limiting qualifications. Like most fields of knowledge, principles can provide some interesting insights, but there's no substitute for an awareness of the specifics. I think if he had more actual experience, he might have better qualified his statements, or focused more clearly on which problems are in practice very significant. But I didn't hear the original, so I'll let you be the judge of that.

Thanks again for bring up the interesting topic.

Post 14

Sunday, January 13 - 12:08am

Link

Edit

Dennis, you're right. I should listen to the podcast.

Where is it? I'll find some time later today.

Post 15

Monday, January 14 - 6:15pm

Link

Edit

> My criticism wasn't so much that Peikoff's claims were wrong, but that they were one sided and made sense only with very limiting qualifications.

Joe, I thought he did qualify his remarks. And that these qualifications were sound ones (I put asterisks about the part where he is qualifying):

"(1) Plunging into a variety of issues **in which you do not have any special interest** ...impairs the motivation to focus clearly...
(2) Jumping from issue to issue (e.g., music, architecture, sex, etc.) **without a strong grasp of key abstract integrations**
(3) **Frequent** posting on websites necessarily leads to “blurting” rather than serious thinking and genuine understanding..."

He further qualifies it by saying what he was opposed to is **indiscriminate** posting. We all know those people who post every day and on six threads in a row and only have a one-liner or two or an out of focus remark to offer. And we've all seen thread after thread in which no real thinking is done and no new insights and in which, as Peikoff put it, the "blind leading the blind".

While you'd have to parse what he takes to be "frequent" in 3) above, in general I take Peikoff to be saying: Indiscriminate posting can be a substitute for careful, clear, systematic thinking.

He is 100% correct. It very much is so for an enormously high percentage of the people who post on Objectivist lists. We see it every single day.

"Shoot from the hip" posters need to understand, integrate, and practice his advice. There is nothing more crucial than the care and precision of one's thinking.

Joe, the fact that you personally may avoid the mistakes he is pointing out is not a rebuttal to his wider points. The point about beginning to automatize bad mental habits through developing a superficial "posting style" is a subtle but important warning.

Post 16

Monday, January 14 - 8:23pm

Link

Edit

"Boo hoo," cried the big man after he read the Objectivist list.

- OR -

"Boo hoo!" mocked the others, "Don't be such a crybaby."

ARRRRRRRR
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 1/14, 8:26pm)

Post 17

Tuesday, January 15 - 1:40am

Link

Edit

Joe,

You have done a terrific job with RoR. The design is unique in that you can quickly find those specific topics that matter to you, thereby minimizing the temptation to dive in and “blurt” where you may not have that much interest, purpose or knowledge.

Teresa,

Here again is the link. Sorry I couldn’t post it yesterday. I was busy watching the Manning brothers try to engineer the first sibling rivalry Super Bowl.

Phil,

I agree. Peikoff’s advice may have been slightly overwrought, but I think it was nonetheless useful and important.

Post 18

Tuesday, January 15 - 1:59am

Link

Edit

Phil, maybe you didn't read my first post, or didn't get what I was saying. I think these are one-sided points. They offer possible downsides to posting on a forum, but they ignore the upsides which can be much greater. For instance hopping from topic to topic without key abstractions of integration might have negative effects, but what happens if by jumping from topic to topic you actually start to grasp how these various topics are integrated through key abstractions! One of the key benefits of a forum is that you learn a lot in many different ways, especially if you're at all interested in learning. He talks about the theoretical downsides (which I would argue aren't even very significant), but misses the significant upsides. If he had more experience, he'd have better thoughts to contribute.

As for limitations, I disagree with you. The clearest case is #3. Frequent posting does not lead to blurting. It can be, especially if the reason for frequent posting is bad like attention seeking. But it can also be a way to hone your arguments, to think more clearly (especially with good or aggressive feedback), and to try to see deeper so you don't have to waste so many posts. Now if you qualify it with "indiscriminate", well then it's all qualified plenty. If people are posting garbage for no reason at all, absolutely he makes a great point that this can lead to bad mental habits. But I would argue that this is so obvious that it adds nothing at all to the topic. I would also argue that it doesn't lead to bad mental habits, it's already an indicator of existing bad mental habits.

Case #1 uses "special interest", which could mean anything from being interested at all to actually having some long range goal that is being moved towards by that topic. If it means interested at all, then we have another worthless, obvious generality. If you're posting on topics your not at all interested in, you're not going to develop habits of clear and purposeful thinking. Wonderful. I'll write that one down. But what if we take it to mean the more long range interest? Really? You can't benefit from knowledge unless you have some specific goal you're working towards? How does this thread help? How does Peikoff talking about forums serve his long range special interests? Perhaps he's just blurting. But from what I can see, people do benefit from these topics, they do learn new ideas, and they get feedback on their thinking in concrete examples. And while some might not focus very clearly, I don't think it requires some long range goal. Any interest at all in the topic can provide motivation for clear thinking.

And Case #2 has the qualifier "without a strong grasp of key abstract integrations". If this was without any grasp at all, possibly it might engender superficiality in ones thinking. If you have a weak grasp of the abstract integrations, then this is a damn good way to gain a better grasp. And if you have a strong grasp, perhaps you'll find even more. So no, I don't really buy that one either.

I can agree with your statement:

The point about beginning to automatize bad mental habits through developing a superficial "posting style" is a subtle but important warning.

Sure. But one should avoid rationalism by deducing possible effects without looking at the facts to see if there are other factors that counteract those. It's not enough to simply state that you might develop bad habits, even if there are some possible reasons. Some are actually likely to happen, and some aren't.

And given the original post, it sounded like Peikoff was presenting forums as mentally dangerous places, where only experts with special interests can safely frequent. The overall picture was not accurate. Not that they aren't dangerous, but that his reasons weren't even near the top.

Post 19

Tuesday, January 15 - 10:16am

Link

Edit

My impression from Dennis' initial post (before actually listening to Peikoff) was that Peikoff was either against or fearful of online Obectivism forums.

My impression, after actually listening, was quite different.

And I think that a lot of the misunderstanding here comes down to this disparity.

Ed

Web Posting Pointers from Leonard Peikoff