RoR: Forum

This is not about the validity of an argument, it is about English usage, and yes, if millions of people use a certain expression it is by definition correct, no matter how illogical it may be in your opinion. Language is not a logical science, it is ultimately democratically determined by vox populi.

The meaning of a term can be corrupted by popular usage, because some people misapply it and because the misapplication is repeated unthinkingly by others. If that happens, it doesn't follow that the person who uses the term logically and correctly is therefore using it incorrectly, because he's been outvoted. Truth is not a matter of consensus, and that includes the proper application of terminology.

That said, I don't find a problem in someone's saying, "I'm 99% certain that X," because there's no other way you could express your state of mind -- how committed you are to the conclusion -- without using "certain" or some equivalent term like "convinced." For example, you couldn't say, "I'm 99% probable that X." You'd have to say, "It is 99% probable that X," which doesn't directly express your state of mind in the way that "I'm 99% certain" does. When someone says, "I'm 99% certain," what he's saying is, "I'm almost certain," or "I'm virtually certain." Certainty is simply another term for conviction. If I'm convinced that something is true, then I'm certain that it's true.

- Bill

Post 41

Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 11:48am

Ok Bill I see what you are saying. If we are to look at the term certainty as a meaning of conviction then I can go along with that. But the term has certainly been corrupted. Although I always have a hard time with people when I ask them if they are sure about something, and they say "I'm pretty sure" to which I always respond, then you're not sure are you? I think it would make more sense to say:

I am certain that X is more likely than not. Or I am certain it's quite likely. Or I'm certain it's very probable.
(Edited by John Armaos
on 8/05, 11:50am)

Post 42

Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 12:50pm

Gentlemen, the word you need is "confident."

When I say that I am 93% confident that an assertion is valid, that accurately (and precisely) defines the perceived limits of my knowledge.

The word "convinced" comes from "vincere" to conquer. We defeat people when we convince them -- which is why arguing is so painful. On the other hand, the truly capitalist mode is to persuade -- to sweeten or soften. (See Dr. Dierdre McCloskey's new book, Bourgeois Virtue, based on several essays by the same name. So, if you are "98% convinced" what you mean is that you are almost defeated, but the enemy has some mopping up of guerilla ideas to do. (:-)

Post 43

Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 1:36pm

Yes confident is the word! Hey look I'm agreeing with Marotta for once!

Post 44

Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 11:21am

Hi John,

If doubts exist in his mind wouldn't that make him uncertain?

I was not referring to the whole person as "certain" or "uncertain," merely to specific ideas he holds. But I was referring to "whole persons" when they have a neurotic (highly exaggerated and emotionally inappropriate) need for order. They lack balance (read, they ignore reality) and this makes them claim that they are certain about "Idea X" when they actually have doubts about that idea. Also, this often makes them loudmouthed and obnoxious when people contest such idea.

On the phrase "absolutely certain," the word "absolutely" was just a rhetorical emphasis.

I am absolutely, 100%, completely, wholly, fully and without-a-doubt certain of all this.

Michael

Post 45

Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 10:26pm

     There are 2 things I'm absolutely, unequivocably, positively, undoubtedly, completely, and irrevocably, and thereby, totally psychologically and logically, 'certain' about (did I miss anything there?): This subject of what properly constitutes the nature of being, and, the use of the term, 'certain', belongs on a totally separate thread, and, should the subject be stuck to there rather than (as in this thread) wandering off into tangents, it would...'certainly'...be a very, very, long, long thread, even without trolls (none of which are here...yet...let me stress!) --- But, being glad to see that certainly and absolutely no one has taken issue with *my* probs re Barbara's 1st point about E-Ds (Evil IDeas) and, getting back to the original subject (ahem!!!)...

     As Barbara continues to her 2nd point,
     2) Consequences as Self-Evident
             She starts off with a great example, one many of us can identify with: the subject of 'the Draft'. She (as I) had a, what I shall call a visceral (for whatever 'reasons'/causes) concern about the subject. Such viscerality indeed can and often does 'blind' one to seeing another's...not perspective...so much as limitations-on-their-perspective; and, this viscerality blinds ourselves also not only in our knowing how, but our even being interested in being motivated to point out their errors (assuming we bother trying to see them). In short, we get wrapped up in our emotions re a 'disagreer', and, choose to let our emotions be our guide in responding. Such results in insults thus subverting if not ending any continuance of rational communication. --- Hey, some deserve such an 'ending'; but, not all do. This is where 'context' becomes relevent, especially in communication (most especially, in text-ONLY comm). (Btw, as an aside, 'context' is a word bandied about too much amongst 'ragers' without much attention really shown by them in actually considering it in their raging.) Unfortunately, methinks debating the meaning of 'context', like 'certain', also belongs on a totally separate thread. It definitely ('certainly'?) deserves it's own for discussion.

            Barbara goes on re what I call the visceralness about how such was the way Rand saw things...and I mean, as Barbara does...really 'seeing' things, not merely abstractly. I have no doubt that Barbara is accurate here. What Rand 'saw', clearly, she also 'felt'; but, the feeling was consequential...and, not antecedently based.

           Barbara concludes with

And so she [Rand] failed to recognize that the consequences so blazingly evident to her were by no means evident or understood by others. Instead she decided they were evading what was so clear to be "seen."

             I have no doubt this was true. But, the innuended implication is that Rand decided falsely/mistakenly. I disagree with the innuendo that this was...predominant or frequent...in Rand's decisions.
             I also have no doubt that when Rand flayed into someone, they...usually...deserved it. Ie: they should have 'thought twice' before inserting their foot-into-mouth.

             Be such as it may, Barbara clearly sees this as the base for too many vocal follower-wannabes of Rand's footsteps...as they see such, anyways. I don't see this as the 'reason' they do so, though, I agree that Barbara's correct that so many ARE not only going down, but actually stressing, this rush-to-advertise-negative-moralizing path.

            I see the 'reason' as being that they are narcissists, mis-identifying (rationalizing?) their own narcissism with Rand's egotism, and seeing Rand's 'selfishness'-arguments as a justification for complaining about all others who...disagree...with their viscerally-based beliefs; viscerally-based, unlike Rand, just as Barbara specified re her experience re the subject of 'the Draft.' I identify there: been there; been that. --- Roarkian 'egotists' these 'ragers' are not, any more than the Eveready pink bunny who never stops drumming. The chronic negativity of disagreers (who regard disagreers with them as 'attackers') is merely a constant defense against a personally-felt 'attack' calling for battle. Btw, does one not notice how often the term 'attack' pops up, and never 'disagree'? The latest buzz-word seems now to be 'smear'...well, Rand used it, so...

            Anyhoo, everything Barbara says about 'opponents' is much more rational than anything these 'ragers' have been saying, hands down, especially in her last paragraph on this 2nd point. I'll leave you to re-check it.

LLAP
J:D

P.S: I know I have more to say on this (not to mention her 1st point)...but I can't think of them right now. Later.

(Edited by John Dailey on 8/05, 11:07pm)

Post 46

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 7:17am

Barbara Branden seems to be the best expert out there on the movement. She should be. She understoods what is right and what is wrong with the movement. I am thankful for this contribution.

One first should think about what rage is and how you deal with it. I have found it helpful to think of rage or anger as a process. There are things which activate the process. When you think of anger as a process, you realize that it is something that has an on switch and an off switch. It's an empowering way to look at anger.

Rand activates the anger processes in people, both her fans and her enemies. Most people either really love Rand or really hate her. Few people are indifferent.

I think Rand encourages the anger processes to a certain degree. Rand's anger was directed at things like the nationalization of her father's pharmacy and the civil war.

But people have happiness processes, too. Just think of Rand's love for the "tiddly wink" music.

It's safe to say that some fans of Rand activate each other's anger processes. This is ultimately what leads to the feuds, the schisms, etc.

The other thing that has not been mentioned here about anger is this: anger is the natural anti-depressant. For many people (and I know this includes me), anger is just a way to deal with disappointment and a way to avoid going into a depressed state. Anger keeps you going and keeps you away from sadness. I think this mostly applies to men, but anger and other aggressive acts are defintely anti-depressants.

Chris

Post 47

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 7:53am

John Dailey (and others) -- Barbara's point (and your appreciation of same) about our visceral feelings and reactions to some injustice or irrationality is an excellent insight. Peikoff, in the "Understanding Objectivism" series, (perhaps his best work) talks about understanding something so well that you see it like a truck coming at you.

That is indeed one of the great strengths of Objectivism; it helps us understand fully (meaning, of course, in context) how principles are manifest in the real world -- the only place they or anything can be manifest!

And to fully understand allows us to make accurate and strong moral evaluations of a situation, social system or actions by individuals.

And if we practice the virtue of integrity, if we condition integrity into our moral habits and character, we will have visceral reactions to things.

But if the goals of our actions are to change minds and situations, we must be able to step back from those emotions and ask, "What's the best way to communicate to someone who does not have my full perspective?" There will be various strategies to raise peoples' consciousness. No doubt the appeal will appeal to logos, pathos and ethos -- the mind, feelings and moral sense of individuals. The point is that we must not assume that emoting in someone's face constitutes an effective strategy. That simply tells someone that you have strong feelings about something. And that might be part of a communications strategy. But it will not be the entire strategy and can indeed be counter-productive.

This is where Lindsey Perigo's praise of anger is wrong. Rational individuals will indeed react with strong and righteous anger to injustice. But how one expresses that anger will depend on one's goal. When I write an op-ed on something about which I feel strongly, I always need to ask myself just what mix of information and emotive words will be most effective with my target audience.

The old saying goes, "Don't get mad, get even." It might be amended to, "Don't get mad, get efficient."

Post 48

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 8:09am

Peikoff, in the "Understanding Objectivism" series, (perhaps his best work) talks about understanding something so well that you see it like a truck coming at you.

That is indeed one of the great strengths of Objectivism; it helps us understand fully (meaning, of course, in context) how principles are manifest in the real world -- the only place they or anything can be manifest!

This I agree with whole-heartedly. Things have become very transparent to me.

But if the goals of our actions are to change minds and situations, we must be able to step back from those emotions and ask, "What's the best way to communicate to someone who does not have my full perspective?"

Again, I agree. There are many who do not see a difference between this and appeasment. There are also those who do not hold to Objectivism and water it down to fit any set of ideas. It's important to understand this and also be able to deal with others with differing views. Ultimately we must recognize that we won't convince everyone, and that we don't have to. If an Objectivist (i.e. Capitalist) government that protected rights were in place, we wouldn't need to worry about peoples views and ideas. They would only effect themselves.

Ethan

Post 49

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 8:33am

It's true that Objectivism helps the understanding of the real world. However, I think a great deal of the psychology does not help much. This is at least part of why there is still some anger and no real way for people to learn how to co-exist peacefully.

Objectivism tells you little about the subconscious and the conscious minds. It tells you little about how these parts interact. Once you gain an understanding of their interactions and can get them working together, life gets easier.

Chris

Post 50

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 9:09am

Chris,

I think it tells you enough, but that's me. Rand explains the basis of emotions and how they come about in enough detail for people to make the necessary changes in their behavior.

Ethan

Post 51

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 9:40am

What have you read, Ethan? I imagine you have read different things. Maybe you just needed different things.

I have read lots of Rand's stuff on it. I have only read one of Nathaniel Branden's books Six Pillars of Self-Esteem. I didn't get much out of it and haven't tried any others as a result. Some people tell me others may be better, but I haven't had much reason to try them.

I am not a big fan of self-help books. They are often vacuous and too abstract. Branden keeps saying: "Have self-esteem. Have self-esteem." If it was easy as buying it at Coscto, everyone would have it.

Maybe I am oversimplifying, but many self-help books come off this way:

SELF-HELP GURU: Back a cake.
ME: How do I do it?
GURU: Just do it.
ME: How?
GURU: You have the tools.
ME: What are the tools?
GURU: You have them.
ME: What do I do with them?

In other words, I am told to do this

The stuff I have studied related to neuro-linguistic programming has been great. It is quite powerful. It's better than a lot of the stuff I have gotten from Objectivism.

Post 52

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 9:46am

I found the title essay of "Philosophy: Who Needs It" to have an excellent explanation of the issue of emotions. As for what to do about it, I went and thought long and hard about it. Now, for the mpost part, when I have a strong emotional response, let's say anger during a discussion, I stop and consider the matter for a second, or even longer. I've stopped dead in the middle of several discussions when my "opponent" expected me to burst out in anger.

There is a time to show anger and a time not to. When your opponent wishes to make you angry, getting angry, no matter how justified, is playing into their hands.

Ethan

Post 53

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 9:52am

But if the goals of our actions are to change minds and situations, we must be able to step back from those emotions and ask, "What's the best way to communicate to someone who does not have my full perspective?"

Mr. Hudgins, I applaud you for the above statement.

Bravissimo.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 8/07, 10:03am)

Post 54

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 10:04am

I have definitely read the eassy, but it has been years. I don't remember all that much about it dealing with emotions. I generally think of emotions as processes and states. It's more empowering.

The anger process is often triggered by what we in the NLP community call an anchor. The best example is that of Pavlov's dogs. The dogs hear the bell, and they go into their "let's-eat" state.

Music is often a powerful anchor. There are certain songs, for me, that bring back memories of past events and people. Once I became aware of anchors, I found ways to collapse and replace them with other anchors.

Some anchors are still good ones. When I see a dog, for example, I turn back into a little boy again.

Several years ago, I watched Monty Python's Holy Grail with some friends. They did not know me as a teenager. I first got to know Python when I was a teenager. As I watched the movie, they could not believe how I was laughing. I was still laughing the way I had laughed as a teenager. They had never heard me laugh like that.

People have anger anchors as well. You may not even remember when they got anchored. But when I realized this, I felt much more empowered when dealing with my emotions.

Chris

Post 55

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 10:06am

Chris,

Check out today's article.

Ethan

Post 56

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 10:16am

Chris :Branden keeps saying: "Have self-esteem. Have self-esteem." If it was easy as buying it at Coscto, everyone would have it.

Chris: You have misunderstood Dr. Branden message.
Dr Branden is saying that you must make the money first, before you can buy it at Coscto.

Post 57

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 10:20am

I stop and consider the matter for a second, or even longer. I've stopped dead in the middle of several discussions when my "opponent" expected me to burst out in anger.

Ethan, that proves that you are not an Italian. :-)) or better, from NZ :-))) or better yet, an Italian from NZ. ;-)))))

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 8/07, 10:24am)

Post 58

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 10:57am

Ethan,

I checked out the article and the two links. Some of it was good. I disagreed with this competely: "emotions are automatic responses to previous value judgments"

Emotions are often automatic responses, but they are not necessarily judgments. They could have simply been the state that was in at the time. Here's an example:

Let's say you were a really big fan of John Lennon. Let's also say that you were a really big fan of Monday Night Football. You started watching MNF in the 1970's and always had fun. Then on 8 December 1980, while you are watching MNF, you hear Howard Cosell tell the world that John Lennon has just been shot.

After that, you suddenly find that watching MNF just isn't fun anymore. Anytime you hear the voice of Howard Cosell, you get really depressed.

This isn't a value judgment at all, but this is how anchors work. This case is entirely possible as well.

I have something like this as well. I was a big fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. On my birthday in 2002, my favorite lady on the show got killed off. Often, I remember my birthday as "the day Tara got killed."

Go here for pictures of the beautiful and talented Amber Benson, who played Tara.

Chris

Post 59

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 11:01am