violet

The main reason I made a topic was to start a discussion. I’m interested, but might not be interested enough to spend twenty hours reading about it in the near future. This forum is quite inactive and I think the reason might be that it is a bit intimidating to post here. It just seems a shame because Stefan has a lot of listeners, and I feel I could discuss things better with a listener than the average person. Yes, it’s true that there is a contradiction in the idea of promoting freedom while maintaining some level of government. But there are different degrees of what is considered ideal. I don’t think Ayn Rand approved of complete anarchism. By the way, I don’t necessarily think of her as a virtuous person. I just find her ideas about the organizing of government interesting. I was particularly influenced by her distiguishing between true altruism and forced altruism. Helping others can be moral, but it is corrupted when force is added to the equation. When there are elections, I tend to be drawn to the libertarian party - not that they have any chance of winning. I just don’t know if I should consider myself a libertarian or not... I know Stefan prefers anarchism, but I don’t fully understand how it would work (more reading to do).

Oh yeah, I think about this - but I never get very far... life is busy. Democracy is held up as a shining star of fairness and the height of civilization. But it definitely has problems. I think of it as quite a leftist idea, really. Everyone has the vote. Everyone is equal. Doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, engaged or disengaged, male or female, etc. I can see the temptations of the orderliness of a system of monarchy and maybe it could work for a while. However, organizing social power along herditary lines seems like a recipe for disaster - it’s all based on a name and not on the merits of the individual person. I imagine a “better” system would be a slightly more limited democracy. People do not get a vote just because they have a heartbeat and are 18+ years old. It seems to me that anyone voting for how government resources will be used should be paying into the pool of resources. So to earn a vote, you would have to be paying “so much” in taxes per year.

I think Ayn Rand didn’t like libertarian movements (of her time anyway). I guess I was just confused because they line up a lot from my point of view. Maybe my definitions have been too simplistic though. Perhaps she was referring to the left-libertarian movements. I’m mostly thinking about it in terms of how a society is governed. From what I know, Ayn Rand believed that government should be involved in dispensing justice, policing, and national defense. All three areas were meant to provide the groundwork for capitalism/voluntarism to thrive, i.e. protection of right to life and property. Does right-libertarianism greatly differ from that? Obviously, I could read more and inform myself that way, but I felt like looking for simple answers on here if I could find them :).

What is the difference between libertarian philosophy and Ayn Rand’s ideas?

You seem to contradict yourself in these two statements. When I think “bad boy,” I consider it to mean low-empathy, high-narcissism, psychopathic, etc. Your first statement fits that and is what I would expect. If you view people outside your family as machines, why would you cry when they cry? If they’re not human to you, how can you empathize? I’ve been interested in this question of “bad boy” preference myself, as I do see it quite often. Personally, I don’t find myself attracted to the psychopathic elements, but I know women that are. My sister is a good example. She married someone I would consider the domineering, power-seeking, low-sensitivity bad boy. I think you didn’t agree with the r/K selection theory suggested, but I believe it has some validity and might be a useful way to start to frame it at least. It seems to me that the extreme “bad boy” type is what r-selection would produce. If there are excess resources available, it’s not necessary to form pair bonds in order to raise children. In such an environment, the man that finds pleasure in sleeping with women one after the other, doesn’t get attached to them, and doesn’t care about the children produced is going to be able to have more children. I know you think it’s not about sex, but in a state of nature, your actions would produce children with many different women. You said that you come from a good family: parents stayed together, lots of nurturing and support. But that doesn’t mean you won’t have genetic personality traits that lead you to act differently. Also, I think culture plays a large part in shaping who we are and, at least in the west, there is a strong push towards more r-selected traits at the moment (in my opinion). My explanation for why a lot of girls go for the bad boy type is this: women are biologically programmed to seek high-status men for obvious reasons. It’s hypergamy and fairly universal among women. However, what women consider to be high status changes depending on what she values. The woman that goes for the bad boy is choosing the “successful” man in an r-selected environment. The west has excess resources, so it increasingly encourages the r-mode. So I’ve questioned why I’m not attracted to this type, and I think the reason is that I don’t follow the culture. I’m very future-oriented and know what it would mean to be with a low-empahty user. The man I plan to marry is very loving and loyal, non-aggressive, and would perhaps be considered a “beta” male by your standards. However, he thinks for himself, isn’t controlled by his emotions or lusts, and competes well in the free market - so he is high-status by my standards. One other thought I’ve had is that feminism is partially behind this. Feminism tells women that they must be equal in every way to a man. There should be no yeidling or submitting to men. But, in my experience, women like submitting - and sexually, most women probably need to do this in order to be happy. The traditional rules include “marry and submit to your husband.” Since the modern women can’t do that, they seek out sexual partners that force them to submit: the high-aggression, psychopathic men that will never love them.

I think that most people agree that murder of humans is wrong. They accept this at the very least because they consider themselves to be human and don't want to be murdered. So they accept the condition that they won't murder in return for not being murdered. The key question is not really whether murder is "wrong," unless you want to be pedantic. The question is: what is the definition of human? Everyone has a different defintion and exceptions to the rule. But arbitrary exceptions are not logically defendable. Personally, the only clear line I can see is living human DNA. If it's genetically human then it's human. Everything else has fuzzy boundaries in my mind. So a zygote doesn't get the special class of human. At what point do they upgrade? At a certain number of weeks? What is the justification for that? Is a preborn baby a different class than a born baby? Should a baby be considered non-human? At what point does a child get protection from murder? If they're low functioning mentally, at what point are they no longer human? What if it varies over time? A baby doesn't have the same mental function as a 10-year-old. What if you suffer a brain injury and your IQ drops from 120 to 60? Are you no longer a human? If the parent of a child is a psychopathic criminal and it can be proven that the basis for it is genetic, should the child be killed? What if they're from a different, "less civilized" culture? It seems slavery was accepted in the past because some people were considered to be a lesser form of human, or non-human. I have questions. If you start creating exceptions, the complexity is endless.

I agree that no-fault divorce laws give women power over men in marriage. Also, as usual, power causes corruption: women can leave good men that are committed to them and suffer no consequences, and that's unfair. The promise of unconditional love forever is completely empty if there are no consequences for breaking the vow. So yes, there's no true marriage any more, as you say. I'm just trying to imagine what the system used to be. Is there a functional way to set it up? I suppose in the traditional system, the man has most of the power. If the woman is interested in taking care of children etc. then she can't be competitive in a free market system. As a result, she becomes dependent on her husband, financially speaking anyway. In this situation, the man has the power, and I imagine it would corrupt some. Perhaps the difference in the past was that people lived within a framework of community, family, religion, and a man that mistreated his wife would be shamed and shunned. There would presumably be social consequences for cheating on or mistreating your wife. I'm not sure we have that framework any more, so a woman might be at the mercy of her husband. What does a fair system look like?

I wasn't actually debating with him about my own views. I tend to keep those to myself. Projection seems possible with this person. He's the type that thinks he's right every time. He's very confident in his reasoning and considers people that disagree with his point of view to lack intelligence or to have this "inductive reasoning" bias. I suppose I just think everyone has bias. Noone wants to believe that their worldview is wrong in some fundamental way because that's destabilizing. It's hard to think through everything completely. Impossible actually.

I expected it to be somewhat stressful, which is why I've avoided it in the past. However, I'm finding that it actually reduces stress for me because I'm not worried about overeating or undereating to any significant degree. I don't make it complicated - just approximate calories for each meal in my head. It's helping me understand good portion sizing. This is very common - it seems women are particularly prone to it: "could I do better?" I read an interesting book about the decision-making process called 'The Paradox of Choice' by Barry Schwartz. He categorizes people into two categories: maximizers and satisficers. The maximizers are perfectionists and won't stop until they achieve the very best or close to it (like you). This type of person suffers terribly because even when they have a good thing, they wonder if there's something better. And if they let go of the good thing, they're not sure if it was the right choice either. Satisficers are people that have standards, but recognize when something is "good enough" and stop looking at that point. This group still gets "great" without the constant anxiety associated with maximizing. I like that. It's similar to a technique I use to get myself going when I'm avoiding. Often, I think I'm afraid of something taking too long and sucking up precious time. So I promise myself that I only have to do a task for ten minutes and then I can stop if I want to. The interesting thing is that often I don't want to stop after the initial time and I just get the task done. If I do want to stop, I will, but then I'll do another ten minutes another time.

This seems like classic feminism to me, or at least it's common in feminist circles. The stereotype of the angry feminist is around for a reason. They view themselves as the oppressed. They are victiminized and angry about it. There is a great injustice against women in their minds. Who's oppressing them? Men, I suppose - or more broadly, the patriarchy. Anger is the natural response to injustice, and it's not a bad emotion, but like a previous poster said, it needs to be constrained by a rational philosophy. They write: "a womans rage is the most threatening force this planet will ever behold." This strikes me as megalomaniacal. Why does the woman hold the most power? What about men's rage? What about the rage of a two-year-old having a temper tantrum? "There has been a strategic attack on our wild selves." Why is the wild self the best self? Are men free to be their wild selves? This is an appeal to emotion. It feels good to shed your inhibition and do what you want when you want. But they might not like the consequences.

Do you try to overcome them? Some of mine: Indecisive or slow to make important decisions › I'm not sure this is a terrible flaw since I think it's good to be careful with big decisions. However, it inhibits my life when I become paralyzed with indecision. I seek to overcome this through journaling and consciously pushing myself to take risks. Social shyness and timidity › I've forced myself beyond my comfort zone in the past. It has taught me how to appear socially comfortable, but I find it difficult to achieve in reality. I think some of this is about being able to accept myself as I am, which ties in with the next flaw. Poor ability to express myself verbally › My vocabulary isn't bad, and I am able to physically speak (public speaking is reasonable). I clam up emotionally and this affects my ability to express myself. I was not encouraged to speak my mind as I grew up. I'm attempting to do better now with people I trust, but it is still difficult. Tendency to use food to deal with stress › I maintain a healthy weight, but still feel negative about overeating sometimes due to emotional reasons. I am coping with this through calorie counting at the moment. Perfectionism and fear of failure › This is something I fight regularly. I have to constantly remind myself that I wouldn't get anything worthwhile done if demanded perfect every time. Procrastination and avoidance › This is better than it used to be. I think Stefan talked about procrastination as being a response to a slave-driver mentality. When I set reasonable tasks and treat myself with respect, procrastination is lessened.

I think a lot of people in the western culture have the student mindset. That's how we're raised. Often, our job for the first one, two, three decades is just to sit and learn and plan life. It's good to learn, and seek true education, but it's not the end goal. Education is meant as a stepping stone to something else: the life you want. From my point of view, you need to set some goals for yourself. What do you want in your working life? What do you want in terms of relationships? How do you want to use your free time? If you can define these things for yourself, you can set goals and try to reach them. I don't think your life is as grim as you think. You have credentials to do more if you so choose. You have a work history, even if it's not the field you'd prefer. There are probably ways you can think of to find friends or a relationship. Looking online might be a good start if you tend to be introverted. You can go to new places if you have the motivation. Define what you want. To give some context, I feel I'm somewhat stuck as well, although I've made improvements over the past several years. A lot of my time is just spent maintaining my life and recovering from the things I "have" to do. I worry about wasted time seeking mindless pleasure. I know what my problem is though: I haven't totally decided how to devote my energies. I feel I'm still "planning" for life.

I work with a very left-wing/big-state person that described today why he thinks "conservatives" are always wrong. His view is that they use inductive reasoning to form improper conclusions. Inductive reasoning = creating a general law from a set of specific cases. I think I could be described as socially conservative. I approve of the idea of monogamy, marriage, nuclear families - I suppose it generally follows the Christian model. I have questioned these things over time, and I was less socially conservative ten years ago. I suppose I've used inductive reasoning to choose some of my value structure. I'm also influenced by deductive reasoning (science), but I think science is very limited at least in the short term. So I have this concern that my basic values are skewed because I'm using faulty reasoning. But doesn't everyone use some degree of inductive reasoning? The world is complex and we can only approximate the right course of action. Right?

It seems to me that the concepts of masculine and feminine are broad categories that are related to the idea of marriage and reproduction. I think your lists approximate these concepts fairly well. When you have a system where a male and female work together to raise a family, masculine and feminine ideals emerge. Masculininty is anything that supports the "father" role: competition, independence, skill-building, resource acquisition, stoicism, rationalism, production, protection. These elements create an environment that is stable, sustaining, and safe, so that the "feminine" can exist. Femininity is anything that supports the "mother" role: working together, acceptance, dependence, home-building, emotional expression, people-pleasing, empathy, gentleness. These aspects are important for raising loving and emotionally stable children. In a culture where marriage doesn't exist, I don't think masculininty or femininty make sense. They're often reduced to caricatures in western society: men should be aggressive and women should be doormats. If you reduce them that much, nobody can reasonably agree with them. That said, I don't think men should be purely masculine or women purely feminine. A man might be equally gentle and nurturing with a child, and a woman might be equally competent and assertive in the world. There's a mixture, but I think it's possible and arguably beneficial to promote masculinity in men and femininity in women. For example, if you tell a woman to be totally independent, never rely on anyone, develop her assertiveness, probably develop aggression to some degree so she can compete in the marketplace, teach her skills that will benefit her in a career, and have her focus exclusively on education and jobs, how well she be able to cope with being a wife and mother? Many would argue that "wife" and "mother" are outdated concepts, and that it's sexist to treat a girl differently than a boy. I think you can also argue that it's appropriate guidance if you value marriage/family. You might also tie in the concept of K-selection versus r-selection. Marriage is a system to maximize stability and investment in children (K-selection). The concepts of masculininty and femininity only make sense in the K-selected model.

The essence of capitalism is that resources/wealth are controlled by individual people and all trade is voluntary. That means that an individual can choose how to serve others in some way in order to gain resources, and also choose how to invest earnings. Choosing to invest resources in your children is therefore not contrary to capitalism. There is a fundamental unfairness in this, but it isn't man-made. It's a fact of life that some parents won't have much to invest, or (less often) won't be willing to invest. It does creates inequality, but what is the alternative? To mandate forced redistribution of wealth is the opposite of capitalism. I would suggest that capitalism is about removing force from the equation, which often leads to equal opportunity situations. The biggest brute doesn't win the resources if you have a system that doesn't allow physical violence and stealing. However, equal opportunity is not the fundamental principle. Most like to see some equalizing though, and that can be done through charity.

I think it's worth looking at studies about attachment disorders. I think the negative aspects of daycare can be directly associated with this part of human psychology. Attachment is essential for human beings because they are so vulnerable and helpless for a such a long time in the early years. Reactive attachment disorder is common in severely neglected children, such as those placed in orphanages. Such children didn't have trusting and loving relationships with caregivers in their life while they were young. It can cause lifelong emotional dysfunction, limited ability to form loving bonds as an adult, and many other serious problems. How is leaving your child in daycare any different than leaving them in an orphanage? It's a similar experience in my estimation. It's just about degree of neglect.

I feel for you. I know how crippling anxiety can be in some social situations, particularly if you're putting a lot of pressure on yourself to do and say the right things. I have to agree with the other people that say that looking nervous can be a compliment. You might want to hide it the best you can, but if some slips through, it's not the end of the world. Essentially, you can't get anywhere unless you try and take risks. You might end up sacrificing a bit of your pride, but you might also end up with a good girlfriend. I guess you should just remember that she's an imperfect person. Don't put her on a pedestal. Just because she likes Ayn Rand doesn't mean she's some sort of goddess.

My point of view (no statistics to back it up though): - Canadians are rather liberal overall - British Columbia is more liberal than some of the other provinces - women are more liberal than the men - younger women are more liberal than older generations - urban centres are more liberal than rural areas So I'd say if you're interested in young, female urbanites around the area of Vancouver, the results seem accurate enough to me. I'm a millennial woman in a largely liberal Canadian city too. It wouldn't surprise me if 99% of the young women identified as leftists and/or feminists. I've had relatively conservative friends, but they weren't white and dated/married within their cultures, i.e. they weren't in the online dating world. EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, the women that are more conservative usually seem to have some kind of wider community around them that is making them so. It's related to religion in my experience, so you see Christian or Islamic women with conservative views. Because they are part of community, they have real-life options for dating and wouldn't need online sources as much.

I'm very much like this as well. I'm currently in a place where I don't want to share myself with other people too much because I feel vulnerable (on an emotional level). I'm also quite an introverted, shy person. Part of it might also be the fact that I seem to have a different point a view than other women my age - at least around where I live. But overall, I would argue that it's a choice on my part. My boyfriend is enough for now. Trying to maintain other relationships at the moment seems like it would require too much energy. I can imagine very much enjoying deep friendships with other women. As an introvert, I would be unlikely to have very many of these relationships though - if I even tried. I think expanding your social circle can be a positive thing if it fits with your life and your needs. I expect I'd try harder if my life was in a more settled place. I sometimes feel lonely without a community around me. I'm rather isolated. I don't think the way you are is unhealthy. But it might not be a bad idea to socialize more if you can see value in it.

To me, it sounds like you are a thoughtful person and that you also prefer commitment and monogamy. If you value these things then virginity is a good. It might not be essential, but it's the perfect state. I don't think it's something that has been socially programmed necessarily. I would argue that virginity is objectively better in a mate (if you value monogamy). Even if she was with only one other man, that man wasn't you and it never can be. She presumably enjoyed her time with the other man. Her first sexual experiences were with someone that wasn't you and that's painful. She'll always have those memories and that tie to the other man and you can't change that. I would view it as an imperfection. That said, it doesn't mean you can't be with her. It's a type of wound that might well leave a scar. But I believe that can be healed over time with effort. It might always be a small regret, but life is often imperfect. The solution in my mind would be to face the pain when it came up, express it, and move towards acceptance over time.

Agree. I don't see why rationality and evil can't go together. Rational just means that you use the rules of logic to get from point A to point B. If your first principles are fundamentally evil then you are rational when you commit evil in accordance with those values. Evil, to me, is about lacking empathy or acting as though you don't have empathy. The non-aggression principle is the standard for good - also called "the golden rule" and "love thy neighbour." I like the idea of considering nature. Fundamentally "good" (empathetic) people cannot harm others without suffering from pangs of conscience (hard-wired empathy). Fundamentally "bad" (callous) people can harm others without feeling any remorse. So, if you are are an unempathetic person, it is rational to pursue evil when it suits you.

I think the only rational position to take regarding a fetus is that it is a person, just as much as any born baby. Before conception, there is no person - after, there is a unique set of human DNA that will develop into a fully formed human given time and resources. To claim a fetus is clump of cells up until a certain number of weeks and then it transforms into a person requires an arbitrary boundary. So I can only rationally conclude that a fetus is a person. However, I have trouble in defining whether abortion is murder. A baby is a special case of human that you don't see in any other stage of life. It requires physical resources from its mother to develop - the biology of it means that the baby simply takes the resources whether the mother wants to give them or not. So even if the baby is a person, it's a parasite. Imagine a hypothetical situation where a 5-year-old child suddenly had to reattach to its mother for nine months in order to live (maybe using some sort of medical equipment). If she refuses this attachment, is she murdering her child? I might call it shameful and neglectful, but not murder. In a real-life situation, you might have a newborn baby. It can no longer take nutrition from its mother as required. Instead, it needs her to feed it. If she refuses to feed it, is it murder? Without intervention, such a situation would only lead to death of the child. Such a mother would be condemned for neglecting a helpless infant, but abortion is largely accepted. So perhaps abortion is neglect rather than murder?

Right, I've seen those monkeys in a documentary. I suppose the way I see it is that monkeys understand cause and effect, but can't take it to an abstract or theoretical level. I think morality requires a big picture view of the situation. It's about understanding the system in which you're living, not just your own particular experience of life. The monkey learns where it can and cannot go based on experience, which is modulated by the social rules in the group. These social rules are not considered at an abstract level, or planned and implemented. Rather, they are a result of instinct: "I want the nice heat in this spring - I'm going to keep this other monkey out because I can - I'm bigger or have other monkeys on my side." The difference in humans is that they can take that same hot spring, and wonder about what it would be like to be that poor little monkey shivering in the snow. And then wonder why they think they have the right to take whatever they want just because they have the power to do it now. They can go beyond the present, and look at other possibilities, forming ideas about morality.

A thought technically exists in a physical form within the mind of the person having it. Just because we can't prove that the thought exists doesn't mean it isn't there. That's like looking at the harddrive of a computer and saying that the picture on it doesn't exist because you can't see it. But if you attach a monitor, it's transformed into a version that you can perceive/prove.

I got INFJ. I typically get INTJ on these tests though, so the 'F' result is a bit surprising. However, it does depend on how you interpret the questions. I think the discrepancy lies in the fact that I am an emotional person, but I prefer to make decisions based on rational thought more than feelings when given the chance. So maybe I'm naturally an 'F' type and a 'T' type with effort. As far as I understand it, the main difference between an introvert and extrovert is in the processing of stimuli. The more reactive/sensitive you are to stimulation in general, the more introverted you appear. So in a low-stimulation environment (such as using a computer in a quiet room where you are free to concentrate on reading or writing text), you can display "extroverted" traits.