On a scale of 1-10 in enjoyment, I'd give it a 7 or an 8. You all know my predispositions and can take that for what it's worth. That's better than any of the movies in recent memory (Black Swan, The King's Speech, Sucker Punch, The Town, Dawn Treader) except perhaps True Grit. It's better than most network tv movies, excepting Brave New World (with Steve Schub and Leonard Nimoy). Maybe its on the same level as Stephen King's 1990s version of The Shining. In many ways I liked it better than The Fountainhead with Patricia Neal and Gary Cooper. I think Roger Ebert is wrong - libertarians and Objectivists will generally like it. People who don't like the ideas won't like it. People who are libertarians and don't know it will want to learn more about it. It whets the appetite for rethinking selfishness.
I'm still not sure about the people in between. On the positive side, the cinematography (including Ebert's derided office scenes) and score were beautiful. I was moved by the launch of the John Galt line. Taylor Schilling was beautiful, driven, and calculating as Dagny Taggart (the way I imagined her). The Washington lobbyists are spot on - I know from having met many of them. But somehow the dialog fell flat in several places, and the movie didn't always flow well. John Galt and Hugh Akston, in particular, lacked gravitas. Like others have said, I wish they had taken some liberties and adapted more of the book's dialog for movie purposes - showing, not telling. With more time for the second installment, I hope they do so.
Philosophically, it stayed true to the novel. I wasn't sure what I thought of James Taggart's character when I read the book, and I'm still not sure. He doesn't come across as a real altruist (as he's supposed to), but he also doesn't quite pull it off as a false humanitarian, or someone who wants to help but does a bad job of it. I think the uninitiated will be as puzzled as I was.
Bottom line - if you liked the book, go see it. If you think someone would like the book, tell them to go see it.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Shining Light on Kubrick
I watched Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (1980) for the first time since 1995 recently. Since then, I've become much more sensitized to themes of class and race, and I also saw his swansong, Eyes Wide Shut. Between the two of them, I think that Kubrick wants to say that wealthy white Americans are not the fine people they are cracked up to be. Most of this is unoriginal analysis, as you can tell by doing any number of web searches. Major Spoilers Below
The Shining
The Overlook Hotel is built on a Native American graveyard. You could say the name is indicative of overlooking American history, or perhaps refers to whites overlooking other races. There are Apache tapestries throughout the hotel and Jack Torrance (Nicholson's character) throws his ball against them while thinking about what to write (is he awakening their spirits?). The scene of blood pouring out of the elevator is not in the book, and never made a lot of sense except as a horrific image. One reviewer says it represents the blood of slaughtered Native Americans. You also see the Indian image on the baking soda in the dry goods room a couple of times.
When Jack enters the Gold Room bar for the first time, he drinks to the White Man's Burden - again not in the book, and it makes no sense in the immediate conversation. Jack later goes into the bathroom and talks to the WASPy butler Delbert Grady. Grady explains that his children didn't like the hotel and needed correction. He "corrected" them with an axe. He tells Jack his wife and child must be corrected because they don't like it at the Overlook either. Danny, his son, recognizes the hotel - American civilization - for what it is. He labels it as "redrum," or murder spelled backwards. Scratch just a little bit beneath the surface - or look in the mirror - and you figure out murder has/will take place. American history can barely conceal it. Danny was trying to contact an "outsider" - "a nigger cook." Those who don't like American civilization must be dealt with "on the harshest possible terms," according to Grady.
It is not a white man or a rich man who saves the innocent in this movie, but a black man who dies in the process of saving women and children.
The bathroom is all symmetrical red and white. Jack is wearing blue jeans and a blue shirt - he completes the hotel by completing the color of the American Flag (the shirt is plaid blue and white, and he wears a red corduroy jacket, so he's red white and blue all by himself, too). The flag is also on the hotel manager's desk at the interview - Ullman has a flag next to a cup with a miniature axe in it! At the end of the movie, Jack is seen in the photo of the Fourth of July ball. Grady told him he had always been the caretaker - perhaps a murderous caretaker has always been with and will always be with American civilization.
The vestiges of the parties of the rich are pretty indicting. Ullman said the jet set went to the hotel before they were called a jet set, and that "all the best people" had been there. A couple of the "best people" have disturbing furry sex. Another one kill herself in her bathtub. One says "splendid party, isn't it" as Jack's wife runs through the hotel in terror.
Eyes Wide Shut
Tom Cruise's character, a doctor, discovers a secret society of rich men who have orgies with hookers. When he confronts his contact in this society at the end to ask who they are, his contact (played by Sidney Pollack) says "you don't want to know." These people correspond to "all the best people" in The Shining. They arrive to their orgies at a mansion in limos with expensive costumes. When Cruise arrived at the party, they instantly nod to him knowing he is not of their class. Although he spent a ton of money that night - on a rental costume, a cab, and a prostitute he didn't have sex with - he is clearly outclassed by the orgy attendees.
If it were just the sex, it wouldn't be so bad. But there are several scenes in the movie where the sex is revealed to be deadly. Cruise patronized a prostitute before the orgy scene and later found out she had AIDS. One of the prostitutes at the party who helped Cruise escape is found dead later, and Pollack's character didn't seem concerned - "she got her brains fucked out." At the beginning of the movie at Pollack's party, Cruise is asked to look at a prostitute stashed away in Pollack's bedroom. She had a speedball and Cruise recommended keeping her there for two hours to recover; Pollack is clearly aggravated and wanted to get rid of her before then.
The costumed orgy participants are horrific. Their central room is crimson red and a crimson red figure sits in the middle when he interrogates Cruise. The masks include Picasso cubist masks and sharp beaks; in fact, the man who brings Cruise's female savior away has a beak that looks like a scythe. They warn cruise that there will be the most dire consequences for him and his family if he tells anyone. Cruise has been a good guy - he is shown as a caring figure that heals people. The rich are amoral and hedonistic, and they don't care if indulging their sensibilities lead to AIDS or other kinds of death in the process of having their secret orgies.
There is a gender angle in this too. You witness Cruise's wife on and off set, Nicole Kidman, having trouble with a career and seems to slide back into being a housewife. She can only confront Cruise about her real feelings after smoking a joint. She points out that women are assumed to not be into sex for physical pleasure but disputes that, admitting to an affair. Cruise's daughter is also "indoctrinated" with toys for girls at the end of the movie. Women are clearly for sale - the costume merchant doesn't deal with two older men having sex with his teenage daughter until after he completes the financial transaction with Cruise. Later, he hints that he was willing to sell her sex to Cruise as well.
Pollack scoffs at the end when Cruise turns down an offer to send him an expensive bottle of scotch; Cruise was already bought and forced to cooperate - it's silly to turn it down on pretend pride.
There are lot of loose ends in the story, but these were the things that leaped out at me.
The Shining
The Overlook Hotel is built on a Native American graveyard. You could say the name is indicative of overlooking American history, or perhaps refers to whites overlooking other races. There are Apache tapestries throughout the hotel and Jack Torrance (Nicholson's character) throws his ball against them while thinking about what to write (is he awakening their spirits?). The scene of blood pouring out of the elevator is not in the book, and never made a lot of sense except as a horrific image. One reviewer says it represents the blood of slaughtered Native Americans. You also see the Indian image on the baking soda in the dry goods room a couple of times.
When Jack enters the Gold Room bar for the first time, he drinks to the White Man's Burden - again not in the book, and it makes no sense in the immediate conversation. Jack later goes into the bathroom and talks to the WASPy butler Delbert Grady. Grady explains that his children didn't like the hotel and needed correction. He "corrected" them with an axe. He tells Jack his wife and child must be corrected because they don't like it at the Overlook either. Danny, his son, recognizes the hotel - American civilization - for what it is. He labels it as "redrum," or murder spelled backwards. Scratch just a little bit beneath the surface - or look in the mirror - and you figure out murder has/will take place. American history can barely conceal it. Danny was trying to contact an "outsider" - "a nigger cook." Those who don't like American civilization must be dealt with "on the harshest possible terms," according to Grady.
It is not a white man or a rich man who saves the innocent in this movie, but a black man who dies in the process of saving women and children.
The bathroom is all symmetrical red and white. Jack is wearing blue jeans and a blue shirt - he completes the hotel by completing the color of the American Flag (the shirt is plaid blue and white, and he wears a red corduroy jacket, so he's red white and blue all by himself, too). The flag is also on the hotel manager's desk at the interview - Ullman has a flag next to a cup with a miniature axe in it! At the end of the movie, Jack is seen in the photo of the Fourth of July ball. Grady told him he had always been the caretaker - perhaps a murderous caretaker has always been with and will always be with American civilization.
The vestiges of the parties of the rich are pretty indicting. Ullman said the jet set went to the hotel before they were called a jet set, and that "all the best people" had been there. A couple of the "best people" have disturbing furry sex. Another one kill herself in her bathtub. One says "splendid party, isn't it" as Jack's wife runs through the hotel in terror.
Eyes Wide Shut
Tom Cruise's character, a doctor, discovers a secret society of rich men who have orgies with hookers. When he confronts his contact in this society at the end to ask who they are, his contact (played by Sidney Pollack) says "you don't want to know." These people correspond to "all the best people" in The Shining. They arrive to their orgies at a mansion in limos with expensive costumes. When Cruise arrived at the party, they instantly nod to him knowing he is not of their class. Although he spent a ton of money that night - on a rental costume, a cab, and a prostitute he didn't have sex with - he is clearly outclassed by the orgy attendees.
If it were just the sex, it wouldn't be so bad. But there are several scenes in the movie where the sex is revealed to be deadly. Cruise patronized a prostitute before the orgy scene and later found out she had AIDS. One of the prostitutes at the party who helped Cruise escape is found dead later, and Pollack's character didn't seem concerned - "she got her brains fucked out." At the beginning of the movie at Pollack's party, Cruise is asked to look at a prostitute stashed away in Pollack's bedroom. She had a speedball and Cruise recommended keeping her there for two hours to recover; Pollack is clearly aggravated and wanted to get rid of her before then.
The costumed orgy participants are horrific. Their central room is crimson red and a crimson red figure sits in the middle when he interrogates Cruise. The masks include Picasso cubist masks and sharp beaks; in fact, the man who brings Cruise's female savior away has a beak that looks like a scythe. They warn cruise that there will be the most dire consequences for him and his family if he tells anyone. Cruise has been a good guy - he is shown as a caring figure that heals people. The rich are amoral and hedonistic, and they don't care if indulging their sensibilities lead to AIDS or other kinds of death in the process of having their secret orgies.
There is a gender angle in this too. You witness Cruise's wife on and off set, Nicole Kidman, having trouble with a career and seems to slide back into being a housewife. She can only confront Cruise about her real feelings after smoking a joint. She points out that women are assumed to not be into sex for physical pleasure but disputes that, admitting to an affair. Cruise's daughter is also "indoctrinated" with toys for girls at the end of the movie. Women are clearly for sale - the costume merchant doesn't deal with two older men having sex with his teenage daughter until after he completes the financial transaction with Cruise. Later, he hints that he was willing to sell her sex to Cruise as well.
Pollack scoffs at the end when Cruise turns down an offer to send him an expensive bottle of scotch; Cruise was already bought and forced to cooperate - it's silly to turn it down on pretend pride.
There are lot of loose ends in the story, but these were the things that leaped out at me.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Should teachers like all of their students?
I'd like to preface this post by saying my thoughts are not altogether as clear as they might be on this matter. It also assumes the teacher is in a traditional classroom setting and tries to project how that teacher should behave given that setting. It does not debate the merit of traditional settings vs. other kinds.
When I taught high school, I once had a discussion with the vice-principal that was part of a routine class observation. In this discussion, she said that students will show classroom etiquette if they believe the teacher is "on their side," "wants them to succeed," and believes in their "potential." The supervisor made reference to a teacher at the same school who goes to class with her high school pom poms and cheers at right answers. While I think this would help underrested students wake up, this suggests to me that students are supposed to do well to please the teacher, and not for their own rewards. Of course, me doing this, even with a male cheerleader outfit, would not be a pretty sight.)
This discussion helped me to locate where my disagreement is with the majority of teachers I meet today as well as reasons for not liking many of my teachers growing up. Let me address point by point.
I believe teachers should be on the students side when the students are doing what well, but opposed to the students when they are doing something they should not be doing. Different students behave differently, and so a good teacher is on different students' side to varying degrees. The teacher should want all of their students to behave well and get good grades, but not "like" or "approve" of all students equally. Nothing is more unfair than treating all students equally; it degrades good students for teachers to lavish equal praise on the genius and the troublemaker. Why should any student behave if the teacher will make it equally easy to misbehave, or if the teacher simply says "I'm okay, you're okay, let's all be friends," or if the teachers is going to start every day saying "let's forget all of the misdeeds you committed yesterday and start anew"? This is comparable to telling every basketball player he's material for the Boston Celtics, every poet that he's W.H. Auden, or every drug dealer that he has the best dimebags in town. I'd even go so far as to say that the majority of students cannot be "above average."
Many of my high school teachers really annoyed me by seemingly believing that all people were basically good, kind, and hardworking - even kids bullies and students who cheated. I liked it when teachers took a stand against students like that. All of my teachers growing up were against the death penalty not because it was giving govt too much power, or because some innocent people were put to death, but because all people were basically good. I did not want to go into teaching telling students that life is a big rock candy mountain or that everyone is equal. I wanted to give students the opportunity I never had, which was to have a fair teacher.
There is a countervailing consideration. That is, that most people underestimate their own abilities. By believing in students more than they believe in themselves, they can nourish these abilities, and still have a realistic grasp on reality. However, this needs to be weighed against the need to be fair to students who have already proven themselves. With students are conducting themselves improperly, it also needs to be weighed against the need to make it clear that their past conduct is unacceptable.
Students at my school did what they can get away with. For example, one teacher with no classroom management skills had half the class ask to go to the bathroom (they really went to lunch). Students justified it by saying "everyone else was doing it." If teachers don't punish tardiness or uniform violations, students come to class late and out of uniform.
I don't believe you should cheer as loud as you possibly can for an okay answer when you've heard much better. You should be correspondingly less enthusiastic. I know some students put 15 hours a week into their homework and others who put none. These students should not be treated the same. Students who are nasty should be perceived as nasty by good teachers. I wasn't concerned with students who drink, have sex, do drugs, smoke, listen to heavy metal, swear, or cut school. I think students are nasty when they're interrupting the flow of the class, denying reality, blaming the teacher for their own poor performance on multiple guess open notes quiz, or asking for something they haven't earned.
Let's not raise kids to be moochers and looters by showering them with undue affection.
When I taught high school, I once had a discussion with the vice-principal that was part of a routine class observation. In this discussion, she said that students will show classroom etiquette if they believe the teacher is "on their side," "wants them to succeed," and believes in their "potential." The supervisor made reference to a teacher at the same school who goes to class with her high school pom poms and cheers at right answers. While I think this would help underrested students wake up, this suggests to me that students are supposed to do well to please the teacher, and not for their own rewards. Of course, me doing this, even with a male cheerleader outfit, would not be a pretty sight.)
This discussion helped me to locate where my disagreement is with the majority of teachers I meet today as well as reasons for not liking many of my teachers growing up. Let me address point by point.
I believe teachers should be on the students side when the students are doing what well, but opposed to the students when they are doing something they should not be doing. Different students behave differently, and so a good teacher is on different students' side to varying degrees. The teacher should want all of their students to behave well and get good grades, but not "like" or "approve" of all students equally. Nothing is more unfair than treating all students equally; it degrades good students for teachers to lavish equal praise on the genius and the troublemaker. Why should any student behave if the teacher will make it equally easy to misbehave, or if the teacher simply says "I'm okay, you're okay, let's all be friends," or if the teachers is going to start every day saying "let's forget all of the misdeeds you committed yesterday and start anew"? This is comparable to telling every basketball player he's material for the Boston Celtics, every poet that he's W.H. Auden, or every drug dealer that he has the best dimebags in town. I'd even go so far as to say that the majority of students cannot be "above average."
Many of my high school teachers really annoyed me by seemingly believing that all people were basically good, kind, and hardworking - even kids bullies and students who cheated. I liked it when teachers took a stand against students like that. All of my teachers growing up were against the death penalty not because it was giving govt too much power, or because some innocent people were put to death, but because all people were basically good. I did not want to go into teaching telling students that life is a big rock candy mountain or that everyone is equal. I wanted to give students the opportunity I never had, which was to have a fair teacher.
There is a countervailing consideration. That is, that most people underestimate their own abilities. By believing in students more than they believe in themselves, they can nourish these abilities, and still have a realistic grasp on reality. However, this needs to be weighed against the need to be fair to students who have already proven themselves. With students are conducting themselves improperly, it also needs to be weighed against the need to make it clear that their past conduct is unacceptable.
Students at my school did what they can get away with. For example, one teacher with no classroom management skills had half the class ask to go to the bathroom (they really went to lunch). Students justified it by saying "everyone else was doing it." If teachers don't punish tardiness or uniform violations, students come to class late and out of uniform.
I don't believe you should cheer as loud as you possibly can for an okay answer when you've heard much better. You should be correspondingly less enthusiastic. I know some students put 15 hours a week into their homework and others who put none. These students should not be treated the same. Students who are nasty should be perceived as nasty by good teachers. I wasn't concerned with students who drink, have sex, do drugs, smoke, listen to heavy metal, swear, or cut school. I think students are nasty when they're interrupting the flow of the class, denying reality, blaming the teacher for their own poor performance on multiple guess open notes quiz, or asking for something they haven't earned.
Let's not raise kids to be moochers and looters by showering them with undue affection.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Hayek's Law, Legislation, and Liberty
1. At various points Hayek sounds like a utilitarian, cultural relativist, Rawlsian, and natural rights theorist. Partly, this is because he has an elliptical writing style and writes in almost 100% abstract language with very few examples. He devotes considerable space attacking utilitarianism but he sounds like one himself in several places. His cultural relativism comes across very clearly. He says that one should not interfere with Eskimos who exile a relative to freeze to death after a certain age.
2. Hayek gives undue regard to tradition. He argues that cultural practices might have evolved over time and have a use that no one person articulates or knows now, but probably serve some useful purpose. Therefore, one should proceed with caution overturning any tradition, especially by legislation. This could justify any number of obviously immoral practices - spousal rape, teasing gay kids to the point of suicide, and slavery. Once I read the work of Ayn Rand, I tried to go through my day asking why I did everything I was doing, and I was able to eliminate a lot of unnecessary baggage this way. My life is much better for it and I wish I had been even more thorough. I believe one should stop anything one is doing out of custom if one can't find a reason for it (even if it is just "It feels good and has no harm that I'm aware of"), and then go back to it if one suddenly finds a reason for it later. But Hayek continually blasts at this sort of Cartesian philosophy, which he calls constructive rationalism.
Hayek never provides guidelines as to how quickly to jettison customs once people start doubting them.
3. Hayek's defense of the spontaneous order can lead to the state. Government regulations and bureaucracies are often responses to things that happened in the past and that people can no longer articulate. He doesn't spend very much time at all outlining why coercive measures are worse than other kinds of responses to problems of the past.
4. Hayek writes in favor of state supported minimal housing, medical care, schooling, and a guaranteed income, albeit of the voucher variety. He points out later that voters are seldom willing to fund poor people alone, and measures to help the poor are almost always followed by measures that fund the middle and upper classes, which create a burdensome state that hurts the poor. Even from the point of view of buying off the poor in exchange for cooperation with capitalism, it sounds like the poor are worse off as a result of such measures.
He specifically states he has no quarrel with Rawls at one point, although one of his guidelines of a good society is one in which a member picked at random will have the highest chances of attaining his subjective ends, while Rawls says what matters is that of the least well off member.
2. Hayek gives undue regard to tradition. He argues that cultural practices might have evolved over time and have a use that no one person articulates or knows now, but probably serve some useful purpose. Therefore, one should proceed with caution overturning any tradition, especially by legislation. This could justify any number of obviously immoral practices - spousal rape, teasing gay kids to the point of suicide, and slavery. Once I read the work of Ayn Rand, I tried to go through my day asking why I did everything I was doing, and I was able to eliminate a lot of unnecessary baggage this way. My life is much better for it and I wish I had been even more thorough. I believe one should stop anything one is doing out of custom if one can't find a reason for it (even if it is just "It feels good and has no harm that I'm aware of"), and then go back to it if one suddenly finds a reason for it later. But Hayek continually blasts at this sort of Cartesian philosophy, which he calls constructive rationalism.
Hayek never provides guidelines as to how quickly to jettison customs once people start doubting them.
3. Hayek's defense of the spontaneous order can lead to the state. Government regulations and bureaucracies are often responses to things that happened in the past and that people can no longer articulate. He doesn't spend very much time at all outlining why coercive measures are worse than other kinds of responses to problems of the past.
4. Hayek writes in favor of state supported minimal housing, medical care, schooling, and a guaranteed income, albeit of the voucher variety. He points out later that voters are seldom willing to fund poor people alone, and measures to help the poor are almost always followed by measures that fund the middle and upper classes, which create a burdensome state that hurts the poor. Even from the point of view of buying off the poor in exchange for cooperation with capitalism, it sounds like the poor are worse off as a result of such measures.
He specifically states he has no quarrel with Rawls at one point, although one of his guidelines of a good society is one in which a member picked at random will have the highest chances of attaining his subjective ends, while Rawls says what matters is that of the least well off member.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Rationalism in Objectivist Romance : Common Errors Among Young Objectivists
I had a discussion with a recent college graduate who considered herself a devotee of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Ayn Rand's position on friendship was that one should be friends with others in proportion to their values. Romantic love is friendship in the extreme, sharing life's most intense pleasure with the person one values the most.
My friend believes that you value or disvalue someone based solely on their values, which are chosen rather than inherited. This means that in any kind of friendship, including romantic, their physical attributes, including their gender, should count for nothing. (Many people believe similar things without being Objectivists. Witness how often we hear that we should look past someone being overweight. Or watch the movie Shrek). She is frustrated because she believes that a homosexual male friend should commit to her, but he doesn't want to because he's also attracted to guys - even guys who share his values less than she does. She said that "being a woman or a man is not a virtue...I have dated a number of guys that I was not initially attracted to, but as I got to know them and discovered their virtues, they became more attractive to me." These arguments have had some success persuading this guy to date her.
I give her credit for taking the position to its logical consistency. Usually, I find myself arguing with people that in romance, physical attributes are primary and fundamental. It's not simply the genital equipment - it's also the body features and aesthetic associations with the equipment. Otherwise, we would have sex with a person with similar values regardless of whether s/he were male or female, transvestite or hermaphrodite. Also, if values were the only thing that mattered, all Objectivists would be friends with each other, and they are not. Values and other personality qualities clearly amplify physical attraction, but I would argue that there are serious physical minimums well beyond just having the right gender.
To illustrate a point, I asked my friend how eating food could be a value given that none of us chose to be food-eaters. Things don't become values simply because we choose them; things are values because they stand in a certain relationship to our lives/minds/happiness. Objectivists should not pick values and stick to them just because we picked them; we should pursue what we know through reason and experience with maximize happiness. And no amount of telling yourself that a person should bring you sexual gratification from his/her virtues will actually bring that gratification. I suppose you could go without that gratification because you're obtaining other kinds of values, but that would be a major sacrifice. It's forcing a square peg into a round hole.
In order for objectivism to work, one has to make assumptions about what makes the mind happy. Objectivists think we'll be happier as producers than simple inheritors of fortunes or recipients of nepotism because something about the way the brain works makes us happier as such. Likewise, the brain responds to the physical stimuli of other people, or it doesn't. My friend basically asked me, "have you tried not being consistently heterosexual?" - just as absurd as asking a gay person if he's tried not being gay.
As we continued the conversation, she said "it's ridiculous to have the single most important quality in a mate be something [gender] that is no more a virtue than eye color." I'd say avoiding anal penetration is on a different level of importance to me than the satisfaction of seeing a pleasant eye color, though I didn't mention that to her.
People reward good lookers all the time whether they have the values one wants or not - they're more likely to get good jobs and better mates (at least ceteris paribus), etc. This skews the conditioning we want to encourage good values. But if any particular person leaves looks out of their mate calculus, they are not going to reform the society. What could be more altruistic and futile than doing so?
This is rationalism at its most extreme, because one is ignoring what one feels and forcing oneself to feel what one thinks s/he should feel.
I pursued this argument no further. She was obviously getting testy and in my view, I planted a seed of doubt. The only thing to do is wait and then hand her a box of Kleenexes and some Edith Packer pamphlets when the car wreck happens.
My friend believes that you value or disvalue someone based solely on their values, which are chosen rather than inherited. This means that in any kind of friendship, including romantic, their physical attributes, including their gender, should count for nothing. (Many people believe similar things without being Objectivists. Witness how often we hear that we should look past someone being overweight. Or watch the movie Shrek). She is frustrated because she believes that a homosexual male friend should commit to her, but he doesn't want to because he's also attracted to guys - even guys who share his values less than she does. She said that "being a woman or a man is not a virtue...I have dated a number of guys that I was not initially attracted to, but as I got to know them and discovered their virtues, they became more attractive to me." These arguments have had some success persuading this guy to date her.
I give her credit for taking the position to its logical consistency. Usually, I find myself arguing with people that in romance, physical attributes are primary and fundamental. It's not simply the genital equipment - it's also the body features and aesthetic associations with the equipment. Otherwise, we would have sex with a person with similar values regardless of whether s/he were male or female, transvestite or hermaphrodite. Also, if values were the only thing that mattered, all Objectivists would be friends with each other, and they are not. Values and other personality qualities clearly amplify physical attraction, but I would argue that there are serious physical minimums well beyond just having the right gender.
To illustrate a point, I asked my friend how eating food could be a value given that none of us chose to be food-eaters. Things don't become values simply because we choose them; things are values because they stand in a certain relationship to our lives/minds/happiness. Objectivists should not pick values and stick to them just because we picked them; we should pursue what we know through reason and experience with maximize happiness. And no amount of telling yourself that a person should bring you sexual gratification from his/her virtues will actually bring that gratification. I suppose you could go without that gratification because you're obtaining other kinds of values, but that would be a major sacrifice. It's forcing a square peg into a round hole.
In order for objectivism to work, one has to make assumptions about what makes the mind happy. Objectivists think we'll be happier as producers than simple inheritors of fortunes or recipients of nepotism because something about the way the brain works makes us happier as such. Likewise, the brain responds to the physical stimuli of other people, or it doesn't. My friend basically asked me, "have you tried not being consistently heterosexual?" - just as absurd as asking a gay person if he's tried not being gay.
As we continued the conversation, she said "it's ridiculous to have the single most important quality in a mate be something [gender] that is no more a virtue than eye color." I'd say avoiding anal penetration is on a different level of importance to me than the satisfaction of seeing a pleasant eye color, though I didn't mention that to her.
People reward good lookers all the time whether they have the values one wants or not - they're more likely to get good jobs and better mates (at least ceteris paribus), etc. This skews the conditioning we want to encourage good values. But if any particular person leaves looks out of their mate calculus, they are not going to reform the society. What could be more altruistic and futile than doing so?
This is rationalism at its most extreme, because one is ignoring what one feels and forcing oneself to feel what one thinks s/he should feel.
I pursued this argument no further. She was obviously getting testy and in my view, I planted a seed of doubt. The only thing to do is wait and then hand her a box of Kleenexes and some Edith Packer pamphlets when the car wreck happens.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Should you date activists in the same movement?
America's Future Foundation had a Valentine's Day themed forum on "diving in or steering clear" tonight. A member of the audience pointed out that the Catholic Church has been encouraging people to have sex with other Catholics for thousands of years. Center/right think tanks have several socials a month where you can meet desirable members of the desired gender. And yet, two libertarian women debated this proposition in a panel tonight.
Whether by accident or on purpose, the two people arguing for romance with other activists were males and the two arguing against it were females. Here are the salient points I can recall:
Con
1. Even if you meet an activist from a different workplace at a social like AFF, they might become a coworker. There are a lot of mergers, cross-think tank pollination, and changing jobs in DC.
2. Other women you work with might become enemies if they know you have slept with an ex or are dating someone they are simultaneously dating.
3. Philosophical purity is boring; disagreement makes conversations more interesting.
4. Dating is a numbers game, and there are a lot more men outside of the movement than in the movement.
5. There are more men than women in the center-right movement, which sounds good until you've had the experience of "rabid wolves" and "eager beavers" pouncing on you at the happy hour. A more even balance is actually preferable.
6. It's distracting to you and your coworkers if you're dating someone at the same think tank.
7. You and your romantic partner become seen as a couple rather than as individuals.
8. You miss out on networking opportunities at networking events if you are mainly making sure your date is happy.
9. Gossip is bearable in the relationship but becomes quite painful post-breakup.
10. If you date older men in the movement they have huge egos and if you break up with them, they become angry and accuse you of giving them mono (a joke that fell flat).
11. By dating out of the movement, you help to spread the word.
12. By dating out of the movement, you'll hear about different meet ups, events, activities than you would hear about with someone on the same email lists as you.
Pro
1. Obviously, you share common political beliefs, and you're more likely to share underlying values, than some random person.
2. Dating is tough. Why would you want to restrict yourself from dating any pool of people?
3. You can mitigate damage from gossip and rough break ups by being professional at work and mature/honest with your dates.
4. You have one less thing to argue about. One of the speakers mentioned an argument in the car with a significant other while picking up Karl Rove from the airport. According to him, the S.O. glared at him as if she was contemplating a car wreck for the future of the country.
5. How about spreading the word from libertarians to conservatives, or vice versa? We'll understand each other better.
6. Best case scenario - soul mate. Worst case scenario - water cooler gossip. The ratio of benefit to cost seems favorable. [Of course, worst case scenario is really sexual harassment or some other career damage.]
In the rebuttal, one of the women mentioned that consequences are much worse for females. Women can be seen as social climbers if they date within the movement, whereas men give each other high fives and say "atta boy!" if they date a superior. Men are also much more forgiving of men who have dated/slept with the same woman than women who have slept with the same men.
I thought it was odd that conservatives and libertarians were seen as obviously part of the same movement. I thought the differences were serious enough that they would not see each other as family.
In the last question, a man said that at CPAC, a woman took down his email to add him to an organization's email list. She not only added him but sent a friendly email. One of the female speakers called that "an indicator of interest."
A man in the audience blurted out "Atta Boy!"
Whether by accident or on purpose, the two people arguing for romance with other activists were males and the two arguing against it were females. Here are the salient points I can recall:
Con
1. Even if you meet an activist from a different workplace at a social like AFF, they might become a coworker. There are a lot of mergers, cross-think tank pollination, and changing jobs in DC.
2. Other women you work with might become enemies if they know you have slept with an ex or are dating someone they are simultaneously dating.
3. Philosophical purity is boring; disagreement makes conversations more interesting.
4. Dating is a numbers game, and there are a lot more men outside of the movement than in the movement.
5. There are more men than women in the center-right movement, which sounds good until you've had the experience of "rabid wolves" and "eager beavers" pouncing on you at the happy hour. A more even balance is actually preferable.
6. It's distracting to you and your coworkers if you're dating someone at the same think tank.
7. You and your romantic partner become seen as a couple rather than as individuals.
8. You miss out on networking opportunities at networking events if you are mainly making sure your date is happy.
9. Gossip is bearable in the relationship but becomes quite painful post-breakup.
10. If you date older men in the movement they have huge egos and if you break up with them, they become angry and accuse you of giving them mono (a joke that fell flat).
11. By dating out of the movement, you help to spread the word.
12. By dating out of the movement, you'll hear about different meet ups, events, activities than you would hear about with someone on the same email lists as you.
Pro
1. Obviously, you share common political beliefs, and you're more likely to share underlying values, than some random person.
2. Dating is tough. Why would you want to restrict yourself from dating any pool of people?
3. You can mitigate damage from gossip and rough break ups by being professional at work and mature/honest with your dates.
4. You have one less thing to argue about. One of the speakers mentioned an argument in the car with a significant other while picking up Karl Rove from the airport. According to him, the S.O. glared at him as if she was contemplating a car wreck for the future of the country.
5. How about spreading the word from libertarians to conservatives, or vice versa? We'll understand each other better.
6. Best case scenario - soul mate. Worst case scenario - water cooler gossip. The ratio of benefit to cost seems favorable. [Of course, worst case scenario is really sexual harassment or some other career damage.]
In the rebuttal, one of the women mentioned that consequences are much worse for females. Women can be seen as social climbers if they date within the movement, whereas men give each other high fives and say "atta boy!" if they date a superior. Men are also much more forgiving of men who have dated/slept with the same woman than women who have slept with the same men.
I thought it was odd that conservatives and libertarians were seen as obviously part of the same movement. I thought the differences were serious enough that they would not see each other as family.
In the last question, a man said that at CPAC, a woman took down his email to add him to an organization's email list. She not only added him but sent a friendly email. One of the female speakers called that "an indicator of interest."
A man in the audience blurted out "Atta Boy!"
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Supply and Demand of Dating 20 somethings
The dynamics of online dating are totally different for men and women. In February 2005, long before the Craigslist killer, I proved this to a skeptical friend by doing an experiment on Craigslist. This is old news, but I might as well share it with someone other than my original interlocutor.
I wrote an ad for myself with no photo attached in the "men seeking women" section. Here is the ad, entitled "Renaissance Intellectual Seeks Counterpart."
"I was raised by wolverines since the age of 3 (OK, that's a lie, but they might have done a better job than some real parents). I have been a part time instructor at a college, but I'm starting a PhD program in political science. I'll do whatever it takes to become a college professor: juggling, flame throwing,etc. I like Epicurean delights, cheating death with extensive exercise, hitting the road for some serious soul searching, and sipping a cafe latte while reading a book by Milton Friedman (I can't help it - I was raised by insensitive wolverines). I'll be happy to send a pic if you send me yours. I have light brown hair, thin but toned build, and blue eyes."
In one week, I received 6 responses from women. None of the responses were interesting to me, and half of them had spelling or grammar errors that were deal breakers.
After the week was over, I took the same ad and posted it in "women seeking men." Again, the ad had no photo. I received 43 responses in the next 24 hours, and 83 over the next seven days. If you ever reply to a woman's post (on Craigslist or any personals website where you email as many as you want for the price of one), that's what's you're up against.
I've heard women complaining that men send them pictures of their anatomy or request big breasts in their responses. Old (sometimes married) men with no chance send them pics. I received much higher quality responses. If the pics and self-descriptions were semi-accurate, most of the responses I got were from successful, polite men. One guy looked like a Calvin Klein model. A few of them were bald.
The most interesting responses were:
"Interesting profile, I too was raised by wolves however, and after sever years of hearing about the 3 little pigs and the little girl riding through the Hood I decided to abandon that part. I'll start slow with just a small picture and If I hear from you I'll continue. I have a big one too,Picture I mean.. stop that . lol"
"The wolverine understands strength, understands power, understands endurance, respects the alpha male. The alpha male controls the pack because even if all beta males would attack him at the same time, he would always kill at least one other before being killed. The female with the greatest wisdom, greatest endurance, leads by action or inaction, chooses the which pack’s alpha to follow, holds the ultimate power of the wolverine. Therefore, alpha must be not just strong, but wise and kind to keep her. This alpha is sick, reads craigslist instead of Faulkner, loses meaning of symphonic clause sentences when writhing in intestine pain. No doubt I would have lost the pack for the week, been killed by the betas."
"What do you think? Could two people reading Milton Friedman and Leo Tolstoy be compatible?"
"I dont think i have ever met a woman who was raised by wolves but you sound like one of the more normal cl women who happens to also be raised by wolves."
"Epicureanism? Cheating death? Hitting the road? Very nice. Milton Friedman? A little troubling but the 'insensitive wolverines' joke makes it seem less troubling."
"While I was not raised by wolverines myself (which has left me with a lifelong complex) I was born in IN next to Michigan (home of the Wolverines) and my twin brother and I were almost named Romulus and Remus (who were raised by wolves, as you know) but then my Dad relented at the last minute. It's too bad that is not a joke. I mean, could I make up something like that?"
"as a greek am an antiquity intellectual.. perhaps we can communicate ;) ?"
- This was the entire message. What a scholar!
There are far more men seeking women than women seeking men for this age bracket - not surprising. What I think it proves, though, is that women should be more understanding of men who have a mostly generic personal ad response and send it out to a lot of women. If a woman only dates 6 of the 83 responses she receives from her ad, a man's odds are not very good if he puts all of his eggs in one basket or even a dozen baskets. If women only have relationships with one in 6 dates, that means that men have to write 83 unique responses to a 83 different personal ads.
The ratios are ostensibly even at popular bars and clubs, but men nearly always would like to meet women there, while many women go just to dance, hang out with their female friends, and be seen. Additionally, the lights are dim and the noise is high, so it is difficult to accurately assess how they really look and talk at such places.
I wrote an ad for myself with no photo attached in the "men seeking women" section. Here is the ad, entitled "Renaissance Intellectual Seeks Counterpart."
"I was raised by wolverines since the age of 3 (OK, that's a lie, but they might have done a better job than some real parents). I have been a part time instructor at a college, but I'm starting a PhD program in political science. I'll do whatever it takes to become a college professor: juggling, flame throwing,etc. I like Epicurean delights, cheating death with extensive exercise, hitting the road for some serious soul searching, and sipping a cafe latte while reading a book by Milton Friedman (I can't help it - I was raised by insensitive wolverines). I'll be happy to send a pic if you send me yours. I have light brown hair, thin but toned build, and blue eyes."
In one week, I received 6 responses from women. None of the responses were interesting to me, and half of them had spelling or grammar errors that were deal breakers.
After the week was over, I took the same ad and posted it in "women seeking men." Again, the ad had no photo. I received 43 responses in the next 24 hours, and 83 over the next seven days. If you ever reply to a woman's post (on Craigslist or any personals website where you email as many as you want for the price of one), that's what's you're up against.
I've heard women complaining that men send them pictures of their anatomy or request big breasts in their responses. Old (sometimes married) men with no chance send them pics. I received much higher quality responses. If the pics and self-descriptions were semi-accurate, most of the responses I got were from successful, polite men. One guy looked like a Calvin Klein model. A few of them were bald.
The most interesting responses were:
"Interesting profile, I too was raised by wolves however, and after sever years of hearing about the 3 little pigs and the little girl riding through the Hood I decided to abandon that part. I'll start slow with just a small picture and If I hear from you I'll continue. I have a big one too,Picture I mean.. stop that . lol"
"The wolverine understands strength, understands power, understands endurance, respects the alpha male. The alpha male controls the pack because even if all beta males would attack him at the same time, he would always kill at least one other before being killed. The female with the greatest wisdom, greatest endurance, leads by action or inaction, chooses the which pack’s alpha to follow, holds the ultimate power of the wolverine. Therefore, alpha must be not just strong, but wise and kind to keep her. This alpha is sick, reads craigslist instead of Faulkner, loses meaning of symphonic clause sentences when writhing in intestine pain. No doubt I would have lost the pack for the week, been killed by the betas."
"What do you think? Could two people reading Milton Friedman and Leo Tolstoy be compatible?"
"I dont think i have ever met a woman who was raised by wolves but you sound like one of the more normal cl women who happens to also be raised by wolves."
"Epicureanism? Cheating death? Hitting the road? Very nice. Milton Friedman? A little troubling but the 'insensitive wolverines' joke makes it seem less troubling."
"While I was not raised by wolverines myself (which has left me with a lifelong complex) I was born in IN next to Michigan (home of the Wolverines) and my twin brother and I were almost named Romulus and Remus (who were raised by wolves, as you know) but then my Dad relented at the last minute. It's too bad that is not a joke. I mean, could I make up something like that?"
"as a greek am an antiquity intellectual.. perhaps we can communicate ;) ?"
- This was the entire message. What a scholar!
There are far more men seeking women than women seeking men for this age bracket - not surprising. What I think it proves, though, is that women should be more understanding of men who have a mostly generic personal ad response and send it out to a lot of women. If a woman only dates 6 of the 83 responses she receives from her ad, a man's odds are not very good if he puts all of his eggs in one basket or even a dozen baskets. If women only have relationships with one in 6 dates, that means that men have to write 83 unique responses to a 83 different personal ads.
The ratios are ostensibly even at popular bars and clubs, but men nearly always would like to meet women there, while many women go just to dance, hang out with their female friends, and be seen. Additionally, the lights are dim and the noise is high, so it is difficult to accurately assess how they really look and talk at such places.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)