RoR: Forum

Post 0

Wednesday, May 28 - 2:13pm

Link

Edit

Greetings, all.

I return to Rebirth of Reason after an extended absence, so some of you may be wondering where I have been and what I have been doing these past two years.

A large part of my time has been spent managing the financial side of life – monetizing my existing writings and using my writing ability to generate decent sums of money. I have also taken three actuarial exams – each of which required several months of preparation. I have passed two of them, and I am waiting for news on the third. These exams qualify me to work as an actuary – which I plan to begin about a year from now.

I have also worked extensively at modernizing and upgrading The Rational Argumentator, so that publication of new articles and features has become a smooth and fast process – and the site has hopefully become more appealing to visitors. You can visit it at http://rationalargumentator.com/.

Moreover, I have become a fairly prominent Content Producer at Associated Content and worked as an editorial columnist for GrasstopsUSA.com, trying to express as much liberty-oriented rational individualism as I could effectively do while working for a traditional conservative organization.

Having become a much more efficient and successful person than I have ever been, and having consolidated many aspects of my life, I look forward to being able to publish my works regularly at RoR.

Some of my views have altered since many of you knew me last. For instance, I have rejected any opposition to homosexuality as such, in either the legal or the moral sense. I have not yet published an article on my reasons for doing this, but I am planning to write one – and I hope to be able to share it with RoR’s members on this site.

Nor do I any longer support a government role in the institution of marriage. I still consider it a highly important institution, but I believe that it needs to be defined and enforced by the individuals who engage in it. Government management of marriage has resulted in numerous perverse outcomes (such as the ability of one partner to unilaterally expropriate the other) that no supporter of the institution of marriage would ever have desired.

Still, I will not always agree with the ideas of every member of this organization, but my presence here will be confined to expressing those of my ideas which I believe are or could be consistent with its general tenor. If I were a seller of apples and oranges, and you only wanted my apples but none of my oranges – then I would happily sell you just the apples, understanding that attempting to get you to purchase oranges you neither want nor need would be futile.

That said, I look forward to interacting with RoR members regarding my articles and other subjects of mutual interest.

Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II

Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator: http://rationalargumentator.com

Writer, Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html

Post 1

Wednesday, May 28 - 3:24pm

Link

Edit

Welcome back. Given your recent evolution in views, do you still contend that English needs a spelling reform? You were earlier quite vocal in your disdain for the "ph" digraph spelling when pronounced as eff.

Post 2

Wednesday, May 28 - 3:40pm

Link

Edit

Congratulations and welcome!

Post 3

Wednesday, May 28 - 4:06pm

Link

Edit

Mr. Keer,

While I still believe that my proposed reform would be highly rational and would greatly simplify spelling, my prior proposal for instantaneous change overlooked some of the practical aspects of how languages actually develop and evolve.

The fact is, no person has ever been able to instantaneously change a major linguistic convention. The best that individuals have ever been able to do -- as in the cases of Shakespeare and Benjamin Franklin -- is to affect the spellings of specific words that were perceived as particularly egregious in their irrationality. Gradually, this enabled the English language to become slightly more rational than it had been in the past. But nobody has been able to change an entire convention, such as the use of “ph,” overnight.

That said, the English language is heading in the direction I desire. Remember the words “phantasy” and “phantastical”? They existed circa the seventeenth century. “Plough” has become “plow,” and words “thru” and “tho” have in recent years become common usage except in academic papers. (Think of “drive-thru.”) Furthermore, few people write “doughnut” these days. Some businesses have even tried to change “night” into “nite” – a wise move commercially, as it saves money on letters which are put on signs and billboards.

The only sustainable choice we as individuals have is to embrace each new individual word alteration as it comes along – if it seems more rational to us. Then, over the course of decades or centuries, it may be possible to reform the language without many people noticing or experiencing visceral discomfort about it.

In order to have a stronger influence on the language than that, one first needs to attain tremendous cultural influence – which I do not have. Perhaps if and when I get such influence, people will actually adopt a major spelling reform that I will propose – but enough people need to adopt the reform at once in order for a critical mass to form and for the new spellings to be culturally accepted as valid.

Get back to me two hundred years from now, and ask me about the state of the language then. I hope to be around then to comment on what has happened. J

Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II

Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator: http://rationalargumentator.com

Writer, Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html

Post 4

Wednesday, May 28 - 4:57pm

Link

Edit

That explains why I write theatre still rather than theater...
And I'm a yankee. Then again, I like how words look as well as they sound. I never gotten the whole donut and nite thing other than for commercial print and sign work.

-- Brede

Post 5

Wednesday, May 28 - 5:01pm

Link

Edit

I am familiar with the words fancy and phantasm.

The major difficulty with any spelling reform for English is that (in its major dialects) it has some thirty consonants, ten vowels, and the diphthongs of ann[oy], n[ow], and n[igh]. My dialect would need at least 41 letters for a phonemic alphabet. And whose dialect would be standard? The Russian word "gde," spellt "where" in English, is pronounced /weyr/ in my home town, /hwey@/ in some parts of the South, and /we@/ in some parts of England. Also, "simplifying" spellings which retain the Greek, Latin or French conventions might appeal to the illiterate, but it would divorce English from its cosmopolitan roots, and make it necessary to study books printed before the reform as a forrin langwij. I know you had posted at least one article here previously. I accept that you have moderated your views. You may enjoy this thread that was in Banter during your absence: Our Irrational Tongue, or "The Eighth Freer Judgment"

(Edited by Ted Keer on 5/28, 7:57pm)

Post 6

Wednesday, May 28 - 5:44pm

Link

Edit

Noah Webster had problems with it way back then, so is nothing new.......

Post 7

Wednesday, May 28 - 7:16pm

Link

Edit

That's the interesting part about language as it's more than a medium to exchange facts, theories, and knowledge in general. It's partly a history in itself, what words we use, what sayings stay around tell us where our ancestors came from and what they believed (some of which is useful and some that is not). Tolkien knew this, that's why names of people and places in his novels are just as important as the events that transpired as they describe a world that once was or will be (if you follow the appendices through to the Fourth Age and well before the great grand children of Aragorn).

As I'm writing (or I should state, attempting to write...) a story that is set on an alien world, with an alien species as the central focus, I found how I write down place names and character names matter quite a bit to me. Especially names that I can speak easily compared to most other words that are familiar to me. Oddly, much of the phonetic structure that's evolving is somewhat like the languages that are derived from ancient Egyptian, focusing on 'breaks' that make them sound one way over another.

-- Brede

Post 8

Thursday, May 29 - 6:01am

Link

Edit

Mr. Stolyarov:

I'm delighted to see you back. I've always appreciated the style and precision in your writing. I imagine that this is a personal characteristic that will serve you well as an actuary.

You are one of the few people who understood what I was trying to talk about regarding a new way of looking at the idea of stress concentrations in structural members — and you published it in the Rational Argumentator.

Ave

Sam

Post 9

Thursday, May 29 - 6:20am

Link

Edit

I am glad to see you back Gennady Stolyarov II. Language can be very interesting, I for instance often tend to like making some changes myself. One example is follow-up, something I now often write as followup instead. It just feels right to me. I also like to capitalize some words for emphasis - kind of the way German capitalizes all nouns, but not to that extent.

In writing, Stephen R. Donaldson is able to use language to evoke a feeling for an alternate world effectively, such as in his Thomas Covenant series. He is also rather unique in writing existentialist fantasy.

Post 10

Saturday, May 31 - 9:06am

Link

Edit

Hi Gennady,

Glad to see you back. Thanks for the articles too!

Ethan

Post 11

Sunday, June 1 - 9:11pm

Link

Edit

Hi G.S. II,

Congratulations on passing the first two actuarial exams. I know how much studying it takes. If you become an actuary, I think it's a good career choice. That's speaking from personal experience on both points, since I'm a retired one (FSA, not FCAS). You've probably heard it scores very high in occupational rankings, having been #1 in some past rankings.

You are welcome to e-mail me with questions.

Addenda:

I had not heard of "Associated Content" and decided to take a look. I saw and read your article about health care expense, a recent interest of mine for which I wrote a couple of articles for RoR. I agree with the main point about how government intervention has distorted the market, but will quibble with your assertion that "HMOs were a government creation." This is not true. As you can see here, the earliest HMOs arose in the private sector.

Instead, government has strongly spurred the growth of HMOs. Firstly, the tax rules of the WW II era you covered helped the big, successful ones like Kaiser Permanente (link) and the Group Health Cooperative based in Seattle, Washington (link). Secondly, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 (link) required an employer with 25 or more employees to offer an HMO option if it offered traditional health insurance.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 6/02, 4:54am)

Post 12

Monday, June 2 - 1:08pm

Link

Edit

Greetings, all.

Thank you for your kind comments and the general reception I have gotten here thus far.

Mr. Eichert, what you say regarding linguistic changes you implement yourself seems to me to be a good way to get the language moving in the proper direction or at least to introduce more variety to it. Like genetic variety -- which can save a species from complete extinction in the event of a large calamity -- linguistic variety can enable individuals to more readily adapt to situations that require innovative methods of communication. So I am all for individuals using the language in creative, original ways -- provided that those ways make sense by some rationally explicable criteria.

There have been periods in history when numerous alternative spellings for the same words existed. With the codification of language in dictionaries and with a largely monolithic set of academic writing standards, this is more difficult to accomplish, but it is possible -- provided that a critical mass of people exists that embraces each alternative spelling. Alternative methods of citation are an excellent example of how heterogeneity in conventions can persist even once the conventions are codified.

Mr. Keer,

Yes, you are absolutely correct regarding the difficulties posed by variations in pronunciations -- especially w. r. t. vowels. English is one of the messier languages with respect to vowel sounds and spellings (of course, even it does not compare to French in this respect!) -- so it is unlikely that anything but a mild reform of how vowel sounds are represented in writing will be possible. Consonants tend to be pronounced more uniformly across regions and subcultures, however, so changing their spelling might be more feasible, but again, over a long time period.

I did get quite a laugh from your thread on "Our Irrational Tongue."

Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II

Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator: http://rationalargumentator.com

Writer, Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html

Post 13

Monday, June 2 - 1:17pm

Link

Edit

Mr. Jetton,

Thank you for your comments. My eventual ambition is to become a FCAS and to work in the casualty actuarial profession -- but most of the first few exams are co-hosted by the Casualty Actuarial Society and the Society of Actuaries, so I will get to deal with ideas fundamental to both the casualty and the life/health actuarial field.

I will certainly keep you updated regarding my progress and any questions I might have.

Point taken regarding the emergence of HMOs. The more technically correct statement regarding them, then, is that, while government did not create HMOs as such, it did elevate them to the nearly ubiquitous presence they have today. The Wikipedia page you linked states that "In 1970, the number of HMOs declined to less than 40." Then the government propped them up via the HMO Act of 1973, and they began to spring up all over the country.

I understand that my article (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/797383/the_three_big_expenses_health_care.html) could not have done full justice to the causes of the current health care crisis, which is much too complex to be adequately covered in anything more than a full-length book! I tried to provide a general overview and in it, I necessarily had to omit some admittedly important background information and details.

Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II

Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator: http://rationalargumentator.com

Writer, Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html

Post 14

Monday, June 2 - 4:42pm

Link

Edit

G.S. II,

Why did you chose the FCAS career path? I'm merely curious.

I also read some of your article "Reflections on the Spring 2008 Actuarial Exam 3F / Exam MFE" at Associated Content. Fyi, here is an article about how the exams are created and graded:
http://www.soa.org/library/newsletters/the-future-actuary/1992-09/1999/february-march/fut9902.aspx#fa_9902_1

With a quick Internet search I didn't find much on exam pass ratios (#passers/#takers). As I recall, ratios in the 1970's were around 35% for Part 1 and graded up to around 65% for the higher numbered parts.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 6/02, 4:44pm)

Post 15

Tuesday, June 3 - 9:41am

Link

Edit

Mr. Jetton,

I choose the FCAS career path because it would be difficult for me to work in an area of insurance where I would not be fundamentally comfortable with being a customer myself.

I never plan to take out a life insurance policy, because I never want to bet any money on my own death. By my reasoning, no matter what happens if I have life insurance, I lose. If I do not die, I lose a lot of money. If I die, I lose a lot more than my money. To protect my family, I simply plan to live frugally and save a lot of money early on – which can be used much more flexibly than a life insurance policy.

This is not to say that I do not wish to learn the intricacies of life insurance policies; I will have to, even to work in the casualty actuarial profession. But I do not want to make it my primary occupation. Property and casualty insurance make perfect sense to me as a customer, because I will still be around to receive compensation for damage to my property or my person. The SOA also deals with health insurance, of which I am and plan to continue being a customer. But I do not think I will be comfortable working in the health insurance field, because of the extensive government involvement in and distortion of the entire health care system. I just want to stay far away from that entire mess – which is extremely likely to get much messier in the future.

I read the article you linked regarding the grading of actuarial exams. I believe that what was written in the article was accurate and well-intentioned – as is the composition and grading of most actuarial exams. Moreover, the article you linked was written in 1999, and likely reflected a long-standing paradigm for the creation and grading of exams that existed in the two actuarial societies until very recently. I think the Spring 2008 Exam MFE was an aberration from that paradigm in that the questions selected for inclusion were particularly obscure, without precedent, and tangential to the syllabus. Rumor has it (although I cannot verify this) that a new group of exam writers has recently dominated the SOA and are trying to “flex the organizational muscle” and create an impressive, intimidating image of the organization, rather than adhering to a reasonable set of criteria for passing people. Again, I do not know whether this is true or not, and I certainly do not want to lay blame on anyone. I wrote my reflections simply to point out that this exam was a departure from precedent and from the principles that SOA and CAS are supposed to uphold. I hope that future exams will once again conform to precedent and principles.

Thank you for reading my articles and for your feedback.

Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II

Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator: http://rationalargumentator.com

Writer, Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html

Post 16

Wednesday, June 4 - 6:39am

Link

Edit

Hello, Mr. Stolyarov:

Surely you will remember the exchange of notes we had in relation with your position against a woman's right to abortion (See http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0009.shtml#2, http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Schieder/Final_Reply_To_A_Wannabe_Freedom-Denier.shtml and http://rebirthofreason.com/cgi-bin/SHQ/SHQ_FirstUnread.cgi?Function=FirstUnread&Board=2&Thread=780, which also contains the comments of several members of the RoR forum in favor of my defense of Ayn Rand's strong standpoint on this matter, which is one of the central pivots of the practical application of Objectivism).

May I ask you if, in the meantime of your long absence from this pages, you have also changed your position and now support a woman's right to abortion, as proper to any defender of Objectivism?

Post 17

Wednesday, June 4 - 9:14am

Link

Edit

Mr. Schieder:

I have not altered my position regarding the abortion issue. Whether that makes me a proper defender of Objectivism or not in your judgment is up to you to decide. One of the major changes in my worldview, however, has been that I have ceased to care about or consider myself as being the defender of any kind of “-ism.” To me, there is only Truth – and different people and philosophies may have a good understanding of different parts of the truth while lacking such a good understanding regarding others. Aside from lapsing into dogmatism and embracing all of a single particular philosophy uncritically, there exists no de facto alternative to every individual judging every idea on its own merits.

Do not misunderstand me; I like Objectivism and agree with or sympathize with much of what Ayn Rand wrote. But my liking Objectivism does not oblige me to defend either it in its entirety or all of Rand’s ideas in their entirety. My only moral obligation – to my own self – is to defend ideas that seem right to me, at my own leisure and convenience.

That said, I will not discuss the abortion issue on RoR – because that kind of debate is not the purpose of this forum nor is it in my interests to hold such a debate in this time. I would much rather discuss issues where I can elicit widespread agreement here and make some interesting progress. While the issue of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a particular controversial practice is undoubtedly important, it is also well-trodden ground – and I seek to explore new ground and issues that spark less of a visceral reaction in many on both sides.

Does this make me an Objectivist? You decide. The way I explained it at a recent economics conference was that I consider myself an Objectivist in the broad sense, but not in the narrow sense – agreeing with most, if not all, of its basic principles, but by no means holding myself bound to every one of Rand’s writings and ideas. But I am much more interested in actually getting things done than in putting labels on things and people – myself included. Whatever you wish to call me is your prerogative.

Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II

Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator: http://rationalargumentator.com

Writer, Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html

Author, The Best Self-Help is Free: http://rationalargumentator.com/selfhelpfree.html

Post 18

Friday, June 6 - 1:27am

Link

Edit

To state my position in relation with Objectivism and some matters connected: Ayn Rand's writings evidence her deep-seated disdain for contradictions in terms and her profound contempt for authority. Her system, deduced from reality, clearly substantiates that such an integral system can become a fact that lacks contradictions and that reality itself favor it as the correct system of peaceful coexistence for humanity. Hence, Ayn Rand was both able to eliminate contradictions and establish a total integration in metaphysics as well as in epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics.

While what nowadays exists in the so-called "free countries or nations" is a vocal adherence to the rules of individual liberty with some of such liberties allowed (the right to abortion, for example) while many others are either restricted or totally prohibited, Mr. Stolyarov proposes a worsening of these conditions, i.e. a contradiction confronting the rules of personal liberty (Objectivism) with a repressive system (for example: prohibiting females to abort and even punishing them for doing so, a procedure that has a close resemblance to the way in which females are mistreated and degraded/humiliated by many religious systems unfortunately still ruling on the planet).

In view of this, most of the political systems existing nowadays in the so-called "free nations" present a greater consistency against Mr. Stolyarov's proposition, since they effectively adhere to some very personal rights, such as the right to abortion. This turns them effectively into far more defendable than what Mr. Stolyarov puts forward.

Which brings me to the final part of these considerations: Full Objectivism is really an admirable thing, for it allows those who want to personally adhere to its rule to do so, leaving those who don't want it to live as they like as long as they don't try to impose their constraints on those who don't accept them, for such impositions would constitute a break of the Objectivist ethical rule that nobody has a right to initiate an act of violence against another person or persons, for impositions can only be applied by use of violence or the threat of it.

No doubt Objectivism constitutes a thorn in the flesh of those who oppose it either totally or mainly (most of the times they belong to the religious variety). Thus, they constantly try to enter Objectivist sites with the evident purpose of subverting and destroying the new idea. They do not understand Objectivism and, thus, cannot accept it. Fortunately, I have also noticed that Objectivism is so strong a bastion and its defenders so determined promoters that it can neither be hindered nor delayed in its confirmed road to victory!

Post 19

Friday, June 6 - 9:58am

Link

Edit

My position on the matter of abortion is long ago stated. What I do want to say is that I more and more appreciate the ability to deal with and make common cause with people who may or may not be Objectivists, objectivists, or whatever. There is time and room in life for disagreement and argument of ideas. Every single person I work with and know in life (away from the Internet that is) is not an Objectivist. Every single one. I don't require people to pass an objectivist quality test before they can be my friend, or even a loved one. Those who I have discussed my views with sometimes come to agree with me, but often they do not, and that's fine.

What does this have to do with anything? Just this, I'm glad to Gennady posting here. To be sure we have disagreed in the past, but, I will say that he is as honest and thoughtful an arguer as one could wish. I've had cause to apologize to him in the past for my being rude, as he has shown an amazing ability to remain unfazed in the face of personal attacks and rudeness. He always keeps his eye on the target. I learned a lot about remaining calm from watching him argue.

Greetings to RoR Members