Mike Larson

Just curious about Stef's thoughts on the Alt-Right?

@Koroviev - "So if I want someone to have sex with me should I rape them?" You are asking the wrong question if you want to apply the golden rule here. The question is "Would you want someone to rape you?" If you want someone to engage with you sexually, then it is not rape if they do so. The golden rule does not promote rape. Perhaps you were just being facetious. "If I want others to treat me poorly I should treat them poorly?" Do you really want others to treat you poorly? And if you are the type of person who sincerely wants to be treated poorly by others, we should probably be discussing root causes of your dysfunction rather than how to best spread goodness and virtue in the world. "[The Golden Rule] also includes the requirement that if someone is abusing you you must continue to treat them the way you want to be treated thus allowing the abuser to take advantage of your kindness and continue to abuse you, often even more." The Golden Rule is not a "require" anyone to be abused in anyway. I'll give the example of Stefan again. Does he get people on his show who are abusive to him? Of course. Does Stefan ignore the abuse and continue as before. No, he stops the conversation, addresses the abuse, and then moves on if the caller agrees to be more respectful. But I have rarely, if ever, heard Stefan respond in a similarly abusive manner. "But if they do not reciprocate then you are under no obligation to continue putting your best foot forward since they have shown they do not care enough about you to do the same." I agree. You are under no obligation to do anything. You can walk away if you want. There are many things you could do to avoid being taken advantage of that don't involve responding in kind. @shirgall - Here's how I would apply the GR. If ever become the type of person who thinks that I have the right steal someones property, then I hope that the other person will not ignore my aggression. I hope the person will remove me as gently as possible, but with whatever force is required, and point me to other means of getting support (through local charities or what not... and he may even help me himself, but I would not demand it of him). I agree that the GR and any other virtuous approach to social interaction completely fail and are useless if a person doesn't at least first acknowldege the NAP as a basic standard. You have to start with that as a foundation. @RoseCodex - "I think the point is, that we shouldn't have standards for people, independent of their behavior and expressed values. The Golden Rule doesn't quite take this into account." I agree that we should adjust our behavior towards people according their behavior and expressed values. But this does not contradict the GR. See my responses to Koroviev and shirgall for examples. "But you also shouldn't treat abusive people exactly the same as nice people". I agree. But that also doesn't mean that the best thing to do is to act abusively towards them. That's all I'm saying. I think it is better to treat them kindly... and that can mean being very firm in your resistance to their abuse. "So, on it's own, The Bronze Rule as you call it, is not precise enough. But Stef's greater body of work fleshes it out in greater detail, so that it should be more clear what is meant." I also agree with this. But I would go further and say that the way Stefan phrases this particular standard is misleading and is not consistent with how he actually interacts with people. And I think if we want to be effective in spreading virtue and stopping abuse, then we should place more value on what Stefan does, and not what he says (in this particular case).

On many occasions I have heard Stefan propose the following standard for social interactions: "Treat someone the best you can when you first meet them, after that treat them how they treat you." (or some variation of that) But I'm not sure that this is the best strategy for a person who is trying to affect positive change in the world... and I don't think it often reflects Stefan's observable approach. Perhaps I just don't understand what he is suggesting in practice. And there are specifics that probably need clarification. For instance, I'm not sure how much effort or time constitutes "the first time" you meet someone. It seems to me you would want to account for the fact that sometimes people are just having a bad day, and they need some space or some help getting through whatever is influencing their negative behavior at the time. A kind word or a thoughtful gesture can often influence the other person's behavior in a more positive direction. And even if someone is exhibiting offensive behavior (which cannot be partly explained by unusual circumstances), is the best response to mirror back their own offensive behavior? Doesn't that just tend to make an already deteriorating situation worse? Rather than allowing the negativity to determine the outcome, couldn't we be more effective at spreading truth and virtue by taking the "high road" so to speak? I've heard Stefan do this many times in his call in shows. There are times when a caller will act rather abrasively towards him. And while Stefan doesn't tolerate this behavior (he usually calls it out) he also does not typically respond with the same negative approach. And often he will succeed in bringing the entire conversation to a higher and more respectable level where true principles at least have a chance of being heard and accepted. I think the impetus for Stef's recommendation is an understandable desire for protection from potential abusers. But treating others kindly or with civility does not mean that you need to accept abuse. It is a false dichotomy to say that you can either treat offensive people how they treat you or else you must accept their abuse. If we want to lift people to a higher level of being, I think the golden rule (for all interactions--not only the initial encounter) is a much better standard to follow.

The "doctrine" that... 1. Individual agency is fundamental to the entire belief system. 2. That theft is immoral. (this doctrine, alone, is sufficient) 3. That patriarchy is the eternal order of existence (which I think is antithetical to statism). Also, Section 121 in the Doctrine and Covenants clearly defines the way in which legitimate power or authority is to be exercised... and that is by love, persuasion, gentleness, pure knowledge etc. (specifically stating that authority is lost the moment a person attempts to lead by means of compulsion). Again, this is in direct opposition to the nature of the state, which is specifically defined by its use of force or compulsion.

The 12th article of faith does not forbid LDS people from being anarchists. This is prudential direction given to LDS members to help them avoid getting killed by the state. The core doctrines of the LDS church are very much in support of the principles of anarchy.

Thanks Shirgall. I also wanted to mention that I think there is an additional reason (besides what has already been observed) why the name "nonviolent communication" is a poor choice of words to describe Rosenberg's approach to relationships. NVC is fundamentally a way of understanding human action that 1) avoids moral judgements (of the category A type), 2) encourages personal responsibility for getting one's needs met, and 3) promotes the idea of giving "from the heart" (closely related to the concept of "no unchosen positive obligations"). Very little of this has to do with tactical strategies of communication. If a person tries to use the techniques or strategies without internalizing the paradigm, it is not NVC as proposed by Rosenberg, but rather a counter-productive exercise in verbal manipulation.

When I first started learning about NVC most of what Rosenberg proposed made intuitive sense to me and I quickly discovered that approaching my relationships from an NVC perspective had significant benefits. However, I was troubled by this idea that moral judgements should be completely avoided. It seemed like he was suggesting that we entirely dismiss the concept of good/evil, right/wrong. There was an apparent contradiction between my prior beliefs about morality and this fundamental principle of NVC. After much consideration, I think I have come to an understanding of NVC and moral judgements that allows me to sleep at night Here is my attempt to square the circle. The first definition that comes up in a Google search is... "Moral judgments are evaluations or opinions formed as to whether some action or inaction, intention, motive, character trait, or a person as a whole is (more or less) Good or Bad as measured against some standard of Good." And here are 2 possible categories of moral judgements, neither of which contradict Google, but which are very distinct nonetheless. Category A: Moral Judgements are opinions formed as to whether some intention, motive, or person as a whole is Good or Bad, where the standard for good or bad is not clearly defined, and often shifts to accommodate the purposes of the person making the judgement. Category B: Moral Judgments are evaluations formed as to whether some action or inaction is good or bad, where... - An action is considered good if it enriches life without violating the non-aggression principle. - An action is considered bad if it diminishes life or violates the non-aggression principle. While NVC considers moral judgements in category A to be "bad" (in the category B sense), it strongly encourages the use of moral judgements defined in category B. Furthermore, since category A judgements have been used so often (and so destructively) in world history and almost certainly in our own personal histories, NVC suggests that we even avoid using the language that is common to category A judgements (particularlarly when we are trying to resolve a conflict with a person that we want to continue a relationship with). So rather than stating that an action was good or bad, NVC encourages us to clearly state the observed action, and then to state specifically how it failed to enrich (or how it diminished) life. This is certainly a moral judgement, but it is delivered in a way that is less likely to trigger the defense system of the other person (a defense system which has likely developed as an automatic response to category A judgements during childhood).

Anger, like any other emotion, is your body's response to your interpretation of your environment. It serves as signal to the conscious mind and, in that regard, is always healthy. I think that the important question is whether or not your interpretation of the stimuli is accurate, and whether or not your chosen response to it is consistent with your values.

You are still talking about localized phenomena (although you are arguing that it could have a significant impact), but you are ignoring the fact that in other areas of the world could benefit immensely from an increase in temperatures. And given that, even in the worst case scenarios, the temperature change is projected to be gradual (maybe 3 or 4 degrees in 150 years), I think you might be underestimating the ability of humans, animals, and plants to adapt to change. I don't know what you mean by "Canada will be as cold as Florida is right now". This is confusing to me. Do you mean Canada will be as WARM as Florida? And which part of Canada are you talking about... Nunavut, southern B.C.... the climates in these locations are extremely different. For Nunavut to become as warm as Florida, you would need a much greater increase in global temperatures than 3 or 4 degrees.

But you are talking about localized phenomena. I completely accept that a rise in global temperature might be unfavorable to some portion of the population. On the other hand, if we look at the combined agricultural production of the entire earth, doesn't it make sense to assume that a warmer, more carbon-dioxide rich atmosphere would be a net positive. Also, wouldn't the net level of precipitation be expected to increase, given the melting of the ice caps and the increased evaporation of ocean water? What about all of the previously uninhabitable land that now becomes habitable? What about all of the previously non-arable land that now becomes arable?

When it comes to global warming, I think we might be focusing our attention on the wrong things. What we ought to do, in my opinion, is to start by asking the question, “Would an increase in global temperature (of even 3 or 4 degrees) be a net negative or a net positive for human life on earth. Until we can convincingly conclude that it would be a net negative, why waste any time or resources searching for a “solution” or even figuring out if the warming is actually occurring. And for those “scientists” who have determined that global warming would be a net negative to humanity, I have a couple of questions. - What criteria are thy using to determine that it is positive or negative? - What time frame are they using? There may be negative consequences based on the current living arrangements of people on the earth today… and yet a warmer earth could be significantly better in terms of vegetation and comfort once people adapt (by moving further inland, for example) to it in the long run. - Also, how do you measure how much a person values something. Like how does a scientist compare the high value that I place on warmth to another person’s value of cheap flood insurance? How do you put that into a mathematical formula that will conclude with any degree of accuracy whether or not global warming is a net negative? It may very well be that an increase in global temperature would be desirable for humanity in the long run. Actually, I think this is one argument against the idea that the "alarmists" are just fabricating the whole thing. If it is true that it is all a big hoax that they have planned out, you would think they would have at least come up with something that is a verifiable danger to scare people with. It’s like trying to scare a child with an invisible fluffy teddy bear. First you have to convince the child that teddy bears are scary, then you have to convince the child that the invisible teddy bear is real. It would be much easier to start with an invisible dragon, don’t you think?

Kevin, I appreciate your defining the term "certainty". It helped to clarify how I was thinking about things. Amazing how simple definitions can do that I think my intention was to express the idea of the fallibility of the human mind (something that I don't think anyone here would argue with). And I thought that this idea somehow contradicted the notion that we could truly know anything. But, of course, the possibility of error and the possibility of correct knowledge are not mutually exclusive. And looking at it from this perspective, the concept of certainty becomes kind of irrelevant... like you said, it's just a subjective experience. Thanks

Kevin, I think I get what you are saying here. But I think it really depends on how we apply the word absolute. I think the statement being discussed is not absolute in terms of certainty, but is absolute in terms of scope (in other words it is intended to be a universal statement about human knowledge). The assertion is that "we can not know anything with 100% certainty". Applying the rule, we can only say that there is a chance (and the implication is that the probability is very small) that the statement, itself, is not true. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the statement is false. Your argument about the assertion being self-detonating would be true only if the original statement was "I'm absolutely certain that we can not know anything for certain". Does this make any sense to you, or am I missing something fundamental?

I think the developmental psychologist, Gordon Neufeld, put it very well when he said... "There is nothing wrong with a child's brain who is diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder... the disorder is with a society who expects children to do the bidding of those to whom they are not attached."

Xtort, Thanks for sharing. Good for you for encouraging your wife down the path of peaceful parenting. I'm sure it has not been an easy task for you to lead her away from some of her more destructive tendencies. It must be very frustrating for you at times. I imagine it would be much easier for you to be fully consistent with your parenting approach if both you and your wife were committed to that standard. It is very difficult to be in a situation where you and your wife diverge on such a core issue. I think that the empirical evidence of the way your son responds to you, compared to how he responds to your wife, is entirely expected and it provides strong evidence for the practical value (although the moral justification aught to be sufficient) of peaceful parenting. It makes me wonder why your wife can't see the value in it. Perhaps she is just (consciously or subconsciously) refusing to deal with cultural and familial baggage that is preventing her progress. In any case, I hope that you can figure out some way of helping her to continue to move toward a more gentle and respectful way of interacting with your son. Sounds like you are on the right track.

These patterns work...

Do the lines and the spaces have to be the same thickness?

Thanks for sharing Marc. I think this is a great example of living consciously. Easy to theorize about, but really difficult to do in practice. I thought this comment was particularly enlightening. I'm curious about what you think are some effective ways to increase your ability to provide for your own needs of comfort, reassurance, and security?

I'm not sure what is meant by the word "aggression" as it is used here. And I'm not familiar enough with right brain/left brain psychology to comment on those claims. In any case, if someone is being a jerk to me, and I choose to show curiosity and empathy in order to understand what needs might be driving his negative behavior, I don't think it necessarily follows that I have psychological damage.

I guess it depends on how you interpret it. Gilligan would not be following the golden rule by tying Mary-Anne to the bedpost because, fundamentally, what Gilligan wants is for others (in this case, Mary-Anne) to satisfy his unmet needs. So the golden rule would suggest that Gilligan should tie Mary-Anne to the bedpost only if it would help to satisfy her unmet needs. I don't want people to do things to/for me that would bring "them" pleasure at my expense. I want others to do unto me things that would satisfy my needs and their needs simultaneously (certainly not at their expense). So, according to the golden rule, that is how I ought to act towards others. Why should I wait to see how someone else treats me before treating them with kindness? Why not take a more proactive approach to life? And how does promoting proactive benevolent behavior toward others preclude the golden rule from being universally applicable?

I highly recommend looking into the writings/lectures of Gordon Nuefeld for information on how to handle these situations. His recommendation would be to "collect before you direct". The idea is that your power to parent comes from your emotional connection with your children. By evolutionary necessity children are "programmed" to reject taking direction from those to whom they are not attached. So his advice is to collect or gather your children before asking them to do something. For example kneel down with them, so you are at their level, show interest in what they are doing at the time. Make a connection with them. Then, once they are feeling attached, you can gently direct them to do what is needed. The level of connection that you have with your children ebbs and flows throughout the day. In some cases, you won't need to do much at all before directing them. In other cases, you might need to spend a fair bit of time. Personally, I have found this approach to be very effective. It doesn't work 100% of the time, but then, I don't want my children to follow my directions 100% of the time. Sometimes what I ask them to do is not necessary in the moment. And sometimes they are engaged in an activity that is very important to them, and they would rather not be interrupted.

I think that the words "subjective" and "objective" are useful as defined by the dictionary... Subjective: relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind. Objective: existing outside of the mind. I think the confusion occurs when you try to assign truth value to either of the terms. When I describe an object subjectively, I'm not making a claim about the object, but rather I am making a claim about how I experience the object, with the full recognition that another person may experience it differently. My subjective claim is not necessarily true or false--that would depend on how accurately my claim represents my true experience. If I make an objective claim, it is not necessarily true or false--that would depend on how accurately my claim describes the object... and my claim could then be validated or invalidated by someone else, independent of my mind. MrLovingKindness, I agree with you in the sense that the words "subjective" and "objective" are almost always used in a way that is either inappropriate or in a way that makes them superfluous. When someone says that their claim is "objective" with the implication that what they are saying is true, then they are misusing the word. When someone says that their claim is "objective", the only information they are giving you is that their claim is about an object, itself, rather than their experience of the object. The claim may be true or false. The implication that objective = true is a misuse of the word, in my opinion. And when someone says that "their subjective experience of an object is X", then they are using the word "subjective" superfluously. They should just say that "their experience of an object is X". The word "subjective" adds nothing in this case. Here are some examples of subjective claims (and this statement is an example of a meaningful way to use the word "subjective"): - I like apples. - the wind is bothering me. Here are some examples of objective claims: - Apples grow on trees. - the wind is blowing at an average rate of 20mph at this location. None of these claims are necessarily true or false, but I think that categorizing them as subjective or objective can be useful.

Another consideration is that according to the homesteading theory of property acquisition, just saying that you own a specific section of land is not a legitimate claim. So even if we granted that the government was an entity that could own land, it could only "legitimately" claim land that it had either homesteaded (or stolen from someone who had already homesteaded it)... in which case we would still have large tracts of land within the country that could not be considered to be owned by the government.

The use of punishment is a way of avoiding the more rational approach of actually dealing with underlying issues. It is much easier (at least in the heat of the moment) to say that a child is being "rebellious" and that he/she must be punished than it is to make an attempt to understand the underlying feelings and needs of the child that are obviously not being met.

I agree that I am, to some degree, confusing objectivity with accuracy. What I also think is happening is that you are focusing on whether or not an assertion deals with objective existence or subjective experience (as its content), in which case, yes, I concur that an assertion can be about either or some combination of the two. But what I'm focusing on is the assertion, itself. And what I'm saying is that because an assertion is a verbal expression of a person's interpretation of existence, it is necessarily subjective in nature (although the content may still be about objective reality). Does this make any sense? And does it even matter? I actually find myself becoming more confused the more I think about it... and that tells me that perhaps I'm missing an important piece of the puzzle.