An Open Letter to the Alt-Right: Exploring an Alternative Solution

[Azrael Rand]

https://www.minds.com/AzraelRand/blog/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-exploring-an-alternative-sol-887488448523096064

Decided to write down my thoughts on the Alt-Right movement as a whole.  I know that Stefan isn't officially Alt-Right but he's pro reason and pro Western culture so close enough imo. Interested to hear this audiences' opinions on the article.

[barn]

20 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

https://www.minds.com/AzraelRand/blog/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-exploring-an-alternative-sol-887488448523096064

Decided to write down my thoughts on the Alt-Right movement as a whole.  I know that Stefan isn't officially Alt-Right but he's pro reason and pro Western culture so close enough imo. Interested to hear this audiences' opinions on the article.

Hi @Azrael Rand

Welcome to the board and posting!

Why do you think people should read your piece, what's the value in it for them?

Barnsley

 

 

- - - 15.09.2018 - - -

Howdy 'tickety-doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit),

what's the value in your vote? ... ahh, bummer! You always hide in the shadows, we never know...

Thanks, at least it'll make people think about it. It's what I hoped for.

[ticketyboo]

On 9/14/2018 at 5:40 PM, Azrael Rand said:

https://www.minds.com/AzraelRand/blog/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-exploring-an-alternative-sol-887488448523096064

Decided to write down my thoughts on the Alt-Right movement as a whole.  I know that Stefan isn't officially Alt-Right but he's pro reason and pro Western culture so close enough imo. Interested to hear this audiences' opinions on the article.

Quote

what it means to be white

I think the real challenge is that Western culture has so dominated the globe that everyone copies Westerners sufficiently well. They speak Western languages (English, mostly), wear Western clothes, use Western technology, and become part of Western institutions. This is from an American perspective, but everyone learning English has allowed foreigners to come in and get jobs (or welfare) and generally LARP as a Westerner. The elites love this, because it gives them access to more cheap labor, tax livestock, and cheap votes. The language barrier was the greatest barrier to just replacing the people. Immigration is becoming colonization. And so the alt-right rises.

Here's another challenge: the "white" race and "white" culture don't exist. Anglo-Saxon culture exists. Italian culture exists. Irish culture exists. French culture exists. "White"? That's not even a thing. Do you think I want a bunch of corrupt Italians running my nice, high-trust, law-abiding Anglo-Saxon civilization? Hell, no. Or Russians? I shudder to think. But all are "white". "White" was a fiction created to support early immigration into the US. "White" does not exist in Europe.

Americans are doubly screwed by their own propaganda.

"What it means to be white"? The problem is that it doesn't mean anything.

 

[Azrael Rand]

15 hours ago, barn said:

Hi @Azrael Rand

Welcome to the board and posting!

Why do you think people should read your piece, what's the value in it for them?

Barnsley

 

 

- - - 15.09.2018 - - -

Howdy 'tickety-doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit),

what's the value in your vote? ... ahh, bummer! You always hide in the shadows, we never know...

Thanks, at least it'll make people think about it. It's what I hoped for.

Barnsley,

Thanks for welcoming me to the board and for your question. I believe my article offers people a new perspective on how we can begin to solve the problems facing the West. Virtually all of the personalities and groups that oppose and have fought against the left have focused their approach on a reliance of facts over feelings. In my article I make the case for an approach that objectively leverages not just facts but also feelings by embracing the concept of emotional intelligence (sometimes referred to as 4D Chess).

Simply put the article is for you if you understand there to be a problem but don't know exactly how we ought to go about in fixing it.

[barn]

2 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

Barnsley,

Thanks for welcoming me to the board and for your question. I believe my article offers people a new perspective on how we can begin to solve the problems facing the West. Virtually all of the personalities and groups that oppose and have fought against the left have focused their approach on a reliance of facts over feelings. In my article I make the case for an approach that objectively leverages not just facts but also feelings by embracing the concept of emotional intelligence (sometimes referred to as 4D Chess).

Simply put the article is for you if you understand there to be a problem but don't know exactly how we ought to go about in fixing it.

Sold.

Checking it now...

 

 

- - - 16.09.2018 - - -

Howdy 'tickety-doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit),

getting desperate like the last time, huh?

Well, still no argument... like the last month or so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[barn]

Hi @Azrael Rand

"Please feel free to share your feedback or questions.. [...]"

What is your preference? Private message or Public Post, on this platform?

 

 

 

- - - 16.09.2018 - - -

Howdy 'tickety-doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit),

getting desperate like the last time, huh?

Well, still no argument... like the last month or so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Azrael Rand]

Public post on FDR is fine by me. If you prefer one over the other I'll defer to your choice.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Azrael Rand

[barn]

2 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

Public post on FDR is fine by me. If you prefer one over the other I'll defer to your choice.

Thanks.

 

 

 

- - - 16.09.2018 - - -

Howdy 'tickety-doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit),

getting desperate like the last time, huh?

Well, still no argument... like the last month or so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ticketyboo]

On 9/14/2018 at 11:25 PM, barn said:

what's the value in your vote?

Downvoting your attempts to derail every alt-right thread and downvoting your passive-aggressiveness.

 

[barn]

On 09/16/2018 at 10:32 PM, ticketyboo said:

Downvoting your attempts to derail every alt-right thread and downvoting your passive-aggressiveness.

Are you sure? (I know you are wrong but it doesn't matter unless you take your accusations to the test of reason & evidence... me thinks. Or not. That's been always an available option for you. Even now.)

I mean, you could have spent those votes for the last month or so on other stuff... or could have made at least one reasoned argument with some proof at least. You haven't made any here neither. Right?

Would you like to speak of the things you think are proof for you?

 

 

.

 - - - 19.09.2018 - - -

Howdy 'tickety-doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit),

Thanks, I was hoping to highlight that not making any arguments but voting is cowardly. (your choice, it has been...)

[Azrael Rand]

Ticketyboo,

If you've had a chance to read the article I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the piece. Do you also identify as Alt-Right?

[Donnadogsoth]

On 9/14/2018 at 7:40 PM, Azrael Rand said:

https://www.minds.com/AzraelRand/blog/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-exploring-an-alternative-sol-887488448523096064

Decided to write down my thoughts on the Alt-Right movement as a whole.  I know that Stefan isn't officially Alt-Right but he's pro reason and pro Western culture so close enough imo. Interested to hear this audiences' opinions on the article.

Interesting article.  Makes a lot of sense.  Other remarks:

1.  The fundamental experience of white people is not white people as white people, it is an individual white person experiencing life as an individual intersecting with whiteness.  Individualism versus collectivism is a dastardly paradox, one that hitherto the Alt Right has weighed in favour of collectivism.  This is dangerous, not just because collectivism is dangerous but because it defeats the emotional intelligence perspective you are promoting.  We must be free individuals first, freely giving allegiance to whatever group(s) we feel we best identify with.

2.  The number one ethos-killer for the Alt Right is the widespread perception that it represents violence.  This includes (most relevantly for an AnCap forum) the violence of the State used against non-white people.  This is a fifty-million-ton boulder chained to the Alt Right's progress up a 70-degree hill.  If there is to be any sort of racial reordering it will happen not using 1930s methods but through the freely chosen associations and disassociations of free individuals.  No amount of make-up covering the pustules of violent intent will do; the Alt Right ought to completely disavow violence.

3.  The greatest global proponent of free speech and individualism at present is Jordan Peterson.  His stance on free speech and individualism--a real stance, mind you, not just a pose for political effect towards left or right--is shaking people up in a way needed to resist the leftist brainwashing.  He is one of the leaders of the West at this point.  But, it comes at a cost:  the more people believe and act on his insistence on the absolute necessity of free speech and the Western innovation of individualism, the more people will become immunized against the allure of Alt Right violence.  Again, violence is not the solution, freedom is.

So, freedom, individualism, non-violence, and Jordan Peterson.  If that and any compatible principles don't solve the present internal racial political problem of the West, nothing will, and nothing ought to.

[Azrael Rand]

18 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Interesting article.  Makes a lot of sense.  Other remarks:

1.  The fundamental experience of white people is not white people as white people, it is an individual white person experiencing life as an individual intersecting with whiteness.  Individualism versus collectivism is a dastardly paradox, one that hitherto the Alt Right has weighed in favour of collectivism.  This is dangerous, not just because collectivism is dangerous but because it defeats the emotional intelligence perspective you are promoting.  We must be free individuals first, freely giving allegiance to whatever group(s) we feel we best identify with.

My take on the issue you described is that both content of character and race matter, not just one or the other. The genetic traits of the population matter and the moral character of the population matters as well. Human nature includes both aspects of selfishness and groupishness (Jonathan Haidt) therefore, logically, society ought to be organized around both individual liberties and natural in-group preference. Whenever we ignore one aspect of humanity in favor of another problems end up occurring.

Assuming the Alt-Right gained significant political power, which it needs to do for Western culture to reverse the current out-group preference to a more natural in-group preference, it would likely be organized on the political left (white collectivists) leaving the individualists on the political right (whites and non-whites) to balance out the equation, hopefully leaving unassimilable minority groups without significant national political representation. I do believe there's a realistic chance for the Alt-Right to take over a portion of the Democrat party (white collectivists) using divide and conquer tactics if they can embrace emotional intelligence. I'd gladly take a political compromise between natural in-group preference and individual liberties over the current status quo.

18 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

2.  The number one ethos-killer for the Alt Right is the widespread perception that it represents violence.  This includes (most relevantly for an AnCap forum) the violence of the State used against non-white people.  This is a fifty-million-ton boulder chained to the Alt Right's progress up a 70-degree hill.  If there is to be any sort of racial reordering it will happen not using 1930s methods but through the freely chosen associations and disassociations of free individuals.  No amount of make-up covering the pustules of violent intent will do; the Alt Right ought to completely disavow violence

Agree with you 100%. I understand people's impulse to virtue signal and for violence considering current events but strategically you're shooting yourself in the foot and helping out the very enemy you want to defeat. These tactics only "work" when you're in the majority.

18 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

3.  The greatest global proponent of free speech and individualism at present is Jordan Peterson.  His stance on free speech and individualism--a real stance, mind you, not just a pose for political effect towards left or right--is shaking people up in a way needed to resist the leftist brainwashing.  He is one of the leaders of the West at this point.  But, it comes at a cost:  the more people believe and act on his insistence on the absolute necessity of free speech and the Western innovation of individualism, the more people will become immunized against the allure of Alt Right violence.  Again, violence is not the solution, freedom is.

So, freedom, individualism, non-violence, and Jordan Peterson.  If that and any compatible principles don't solve the present internal racial political problem of the West, nothing will, and nothing ought to.

I like Jordan Peterson as well but he's another example of a spokesperson with a razor sharp mind for analyzing and presenting facts but not a whiff of emotional intelligence to speak of (similar to Ayn Rand or Stefan). We need both to be effective.

[barn]

On 09/18/2018 at 1:16 AM, Azrael Rand said:

I like Jordan Peterson as well but (1)he's another example of a spokesperson with a razor sharp mind for analyzing and presenting facts but not a whiff of emotional intelligence to speak of (similar to Ayn Rand or(2) Stefan). We need both to be effective. 

Hi,

Can you objectively prove that? (1&2)

ps. - Additionally, from what I've seen btw, 'EQ' is floccinaucinihilipilification. 'Unicorn stuff' in other words.

 

 

 - - - 19.09.2018 - - -

Howdy 'tickety-doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit),

Here, let me counter your 'sophisticated argument' with an equally 'sophisticated rebuttal'...(presses 'F')... nailed it!

[Azrael Rand]

15 minutes ago, barn said:

Hi,

Can you objectively prove that?

The part about Peterson lacking emotional intelligence (1) or us needing both to succeed (2)?

(1) This one's easy. Someone who's good at employing emotional intelligence usually has charisma. Peterson is like a white version of Ted Cruz; well spoken but socially awkward and hard for the common man to relate to.

(2) For this one I'd point to Scott Adams' book Win Bigly that chronicles Trump's presidential victory over his rivals while utilizing 4D Chess techniques aka advanced emotional intelligence.

[barn]

On 09/18/2018 at 1:32 AM, Azrael Rand said:

Someone who's good at employing emotional intelligence has charisma.

I see. Psychopaths got that too. Would you say they are also highly emotionally intelligent?

Maybe it's your definition I'm not following right... What's your definition?

On 09/18/2018 at 1:32 AM, Azrael Rand said:

The part about Peterson lacing emotional intelligence (1) or us needing both to succeed (2)? 

The part where you claim:

(1)

On 09/18/2018 at 1:16 AM, Azrael Rand said:

Jordan Peterson as well but he's another example of a spokesperson with a razor sharp mind for analyzing and presenting facts but not a whiff of emotional intelligence to speak of

and (2)

On 09/18/2018 at 1:16 AM, Azrael Rand said:

not a whiff of emotional intelligence to speak of (similar to Ayn Rand or Stefan)

 

For the record, I know for a fact (long time listener) that here, one of your examples shouldn't have been mentioned in the first place. But maybe this was a terrible misunderstanding and you'll clear it up, leaving no space for second thoughts...

 

 

 - - - 21.09.2018 - - -

Howdy 'doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit),

Have you missed this before? Still 0 arguments, just random arrows... From hiding... Isn't that coward or perhaps inept, maybe both?

[Azrael Rand]

2 hours ago, barn said:

I see. Psychopaths got that too. Would you say they are also highly emotionally intelligent?

Maybe it's your definition I'm not following right... What's your definition?

I know I still owe you this one and the free will discussion from the PMs but I'll discuss them both here since you mentioned it here again.

My personal definition of emotional intelligence is an advanced understanding of human nature, integrated into a person's mindset, which then can be effectively used to exercise influence (or 4D Chess if you prefer).

I understand your emotional judgement of what you may interpret to be manipulation or deception but I disagree with framing emotional intelligence in this light on both philosophical and strategic reasons.

As a movement, the "right" values facts over feelings. If we value positive outcomes facts are a must however we have to acknowledge that an objective mindset isn't man's default or natural mindset. We're driven by our emotions, not reason, and use our reasoning skills to justify our emotionally motivated actions; see Jonathan Haidt's discussion of the elephant and the rider. Thus when we try to communicate with others that do not share this common mindset (the left) our ideas are rejected by cognitive dissonance and our audience's preexisting world view is reinforced.

Free will operates along the same lines. It's not our natural state of mind but if we do not hold people accountable for their actions society crumbles at the hands of determinism. Free will is a learned cultural mindset that allows us to perceive additional opportunities for applying our reasoning faculty; opportunities that remain unnoticed by our default range of perception. However we cannot say that people are always fully aware of the consequences of their actions; and even if they were aware of the full range of consequences their decisions would still be subject to emotional preference at any given moment.

These are objective facts whether we like it or not. In my opinion one of the philosophical consequences of these facts is a requirement to embrace emotional intelligence in addition to "traditional facts" in order to advocate for our desired outcomes.

From a strategic perspective, we must adopt emotional intelligence for no other reason than the fact that our opponents are experts at employing emotional intelligence. You can't win a war unless you're able to at least match or outgun your opponent.

It is important to realize that while we're fighting for facts and free will these two values will not be enough to lead us to victory; they are the spoils of war we must win back and continue to protect using the most objective means of persuasion.

2 hours ago, barn said:

For the record, I know for a fact (long time listener) that here, one of your examples shouldn't have been mentioned in the first place. But maybe this was a terrible misunderstanding and you'll clear it up, leaving no space for second thoughts...

No misunderstanding here at all. If you're a long time listener you should realize that the criticism Stefan applied to Ayn Rand's body of work was accurate but also that it applies to Stefan's collective body of work thus far to the same extent (objectivism does not account for emotions first, reason second). Human irrationality is an objective fact; ignoring it comes at a price. Being aware that these facts exists is one thing but fully internalizing these facts into your mindset is another.

No hard feelings tough. Remember, "facts over feelings"

[Donnadogsoth]

4 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

I like Jordan Peterson as well but he's another example of a spokesperson with a razor sharp mind for analyzing and presenting facts but not a whiff of emotional intelligence to speak of (similar to Ayn Rand or Stefan). We need both to be effective.

How can Peterson be an effective psychologist, acclaimed teacher, good father, popular writer for laymen, and popular lecturer to laymen, without emotional intelligence?  Am I misunderstanding what you mean by emotional intelligence?  Not everything he does is Maps of Meaning; he's popular because he's a great populariser.  How can that not require a significant amount of EQ?

[barn]

On 09/18/2018 at 4:23 AM, Azrael Rand said:

On 09/18/2018 at 1:37 AM, barn said:

I see. Psychopaths got that too. Would you say they are also highly emotionally intelligent?

Maybe it's your definition I'm not following right... What's your definition?

I know I still owe you this one and the free will discussion from the PMs

and a couple more (to mention a few, as accurately as possible, you can find my rebuttals to each in the PM-s, feel free to copy&paste if you'd like.

After you, I'm also ok with switching from private to public discussion...

You put forward in your pm-s:

 

° groups aren't an arbitrarily created mental concept

 

° group preference over individuals'

 

° UPB isn't the same for everyone

 

° From a strictly Objectivist POV rational self-interest would include "influencing" others using EQ

 

° people's shared sense of empathy equity, therefore people know what the general outline of morality is

 

° God/s can't be proven/disproven

 

° Stefan's book on UPB is a modified clone of Objectivism w/o the state

 

° The morality of Objectivism is based around being a rational individual dedicated to productive values.

 

° Stefan can't acknowledge a role for EQ due to his objectivist cognitive dissonance that dictates that facts always trump emotion even when it comes to persuasion.

 

° facts don't trump emotions (according to your assertion, this is also 'as we all know')

 

° ('blankety' assertion) We are irrational creatures led by emotion not reason and that has implications.

 

° it's hard not to be a relativist

 

° The human brain isn't designed to process dualities like this (black/white school performance, reasons are racial & environmental) it's designed around consistency.

 

° race is the cause of a (me - don't know what kind of) discrepancy in feelings among/between individuals

 

° Whether or not the influencing can be classified as manipulation or objective caring would depend on whether the outcome benefits both parties or just the persuader.

 

° That me... unmistakably female, no doubt. (not like 'perhaps' or 'most likely')

 

... etc.

and several more(imo 'standard' projections) , but they are accusations without any credible base (plus I don't take them seriously), so don't see them of value here. For now.

If you think I wrote something inaccurately, I'm always happy to quote segments from the back&forth. Or don't mind you doing the same.

On 09/18/2018 at 4:23 AM, Azrael Rand said:

My personal definition of emotional intelligence is an advanced understanding of human nature, integrated into a person's mindset, which then can be effectively used to exercise influence (or 4D Chess if you prefer). 

Annnd... how is this different from manipulation?

(sounds insincere approach, utilitarian)

Now I must ask you for a definition of 'manipulation'. Would you give me a definition?

On 09/18/2018 at 4:23 AM, Azrael Rand said:

I understand your emotional judgement of what you may interpret to be manipulation or deception but I disagree with framing emotional intelligence in this light on both philosophical and strategic reasons. 

"Emotional judgement" - did you just labeled my assertion without proof?

The question is why would you not bow here before the reasoned argument I had put forward?

Is it because you think manipulation is a positive for you?

As in: That it's a good thing in general to manipulate people, unbeknownst to them, to get what you want?

On 09/18/2018 at 4:23 AM, Azrael Rand said:

an objective mindset isn't man's default or natural mindset. We're driven by our emotions, not reason, and use our reasoning skills to justify our emotionally motivated actions;

This looks to me another 'blanket assessment'... don't get me wrong, I know it's true for a certain part of the population.

The problem is (I think), that if you keep normalising it, it'll become (or perhaps is) your modus operandi and that includes not making (or trying) rational arguments... Like, declaring what you will find even before you got going.

That's... I can't quite find the right word for it... maybe 'ideologue' ? (You know, the people who are only interested in their own opinion, at the same time being controlled by the very same idea(s)

On 09/18/2018 at 4:23 AM, Azrael Rand said:

Thus when we try to communicate with others that do not share this common mindset (the left) our ideas are rejected by cognitive dissonance and our audience's preexisting world view is reinforced.

Not everyone who disagrees with you does so out of cognitive dissonance. Some do, no doubt about it.

People who are willing to make/bow before superior arguments for example are not ideologues. They enact free-will.

However if you are presented with superior arguments and you do not review your convictions... (the list above I think would be a great starting point perhaps)

On 09/18/2018 at 4:23 AM, Azrael Rand said:

Free will operates along the same lines. It's not our natural state of mind

Why do you think we aren't born with free-will to start with?

Can you objectively prove that?

On 09/18/2018 at 4:23 AM, Azrael Rand said:

These are objective facts whether we like it or not. In my opinion one of the philosophical consequences of these facts is a requirement to embrace emotional intelligence in addition to "traditional facts" in order to advocate for our desired outcomes. 

This is not an argument because it lacks proof and therefore can't be evaluated.

If it's an opinion, sure. Can be.

On a second note (after having said 6+ times), I think it would be a great idea to do some research into the validity of EQ, or use the right words, definition... so far, from what I quoted above, your definition is indistinguishable from the capacity of manipulation. Not good. That terrible actually, in my humble opinion.

On 09/18/2018 at 4:23 AM, Azrael Rand said:

From a strategic perspective, we must adopt emotional intelligence for no other reason than the fact that our opponents are experts at employing emotional intelligence. You can't win a war unless you're able to at least match or outgun your opponent. 

As an individual thinker and a strong advocate for UPB, I highly disagree with 'we must'.

You can't outgun people if you want them to freely choose to follow superior arguments... no I'm strongly against coercion. The natural consequences of one's poor decision should be more than enough incentive for one to re-evaluate. After that, it's really just a binary outcome.

Interestingly, I also think that this process is most certainly diminished by manipulation at any rate. (resentment, pick-axe to trust, double standards)

On 09/18/2018 at 4:23 AM, Azrael Rand said:

On 09/18/2018 at 1:37 AM, barn said:

For the record, I know for a fact (long time listener) that here, one of your examples shouldn't have been mentioned in the first place. But maybe this was a terrible misunderstanding and you'll clear it up, leaving no space for second thoughts...

No misunderstanding here at all. If you're a long time listener you should realize that the criticism Stefan applied to Ayn Rand's body of work was accurate but also that it applies to Stefan's collective body of work thus far to the same extent (objectivism does not account for emotions first, reason second). Human irrationality is an objective fact; ignoring it comes at a price. Being aware that these facts exists is one thing but fully internalizing these facts into your mindset is another. 

(more 'blankety-claims'... very inaccurate at several levels; body of work(2), same extent, these facts(2)

Do you know what the subtitle of UPB is?

 

ps. - If you won't change your mind on 'people are irrational', most likely our discussion will need to come to an end. Until you've re-assessed a few important axioms(generally to acknowledge the existence of free-will, determinism is a dead-end, literally).

I'm putting this forward as my preference and as an argument for the mere foundation of the possibility to having a dialogue with any value in it.

 

 

.

 - - - 19.09.2018 - - -

Howdy 'tickety-doorbell enthusiast' (voter without merit),

Here, let me counter your 'sophisticated argument' with an equally 'sophisticated rebuttal'...(presses 'F')... nailed it!

[Azrael Rand]

18 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

How can Peterson be an effective psychologist, acclaimed teacher, good father, popular writer for laymen, and popular lecturer to laymen, without emotional intelligence?  Am I misunderstanding what you mean by emotional intelligence?  Not everything he does is Maps of Meaning; he's popular because he's a great populariser.  How can that not require a significant amount of EQ?

Traditional intelligence deals with understanding of facts, logic and reasoning whereas emotional intelligence deals with understanding people's feelings. For example someone who's venting may tell you a bunch of stuff that is factually inaccurate. The emotionally intelligent thing to do in this scenario is to empathize with him as opposed to correcting his factual errors. Emotional intelligence focuses on why someone is telling you something (what emotions are driving the conversation) as opposed to what is being said factually and then using this information to respond in an emotionally correct fashion (as opposed to replying with a factually correct answer). If you're looking for a great introduction into basic emotional intelligence I highly recommend the book Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman; your local library should have it in stock.

As far as Peterson goes, from what I've observed he's a very factually and data driven kind of person. I've seen a few of his debates with others and he has a habit of leaving his conversation partners behind with the way he expresses himself. I'm not saying he's a robot but I do think it's a fair statement to make that he values factual accuracy over speaking in a way that's clear for the average layman to follow. Note if you're posting on this board your likely not an average layman :)

[Donnadogsoth]

1 hour ago, Azrael Rand said:

Traditional intelligence deals with understanding of facts, logic and reasoning whereas emotional intelligence deals with understanding people's feelings. For example someone who's venting may tell you a bunch of stuff that is factually inaccurate. The emotionally intelligent thing to do in this scenario is to empathize with him as opposed to correcting his factual errors. Emotional intelligence focuses on why someone is telling you something (what emotions are driving the conversation) as opposed to what is being said factually and then using this information to respond in an emotionally correct fashion (as opposed to replying with a factually correct answer). If you're looking for a great introduction into basic emotional intelligence I highly recommend the book Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman; your local library should have it in stock.

As far as Peterson goes, from what I've observed he's a very factually and data driven kind of person. I've seen a few of his debates with others and he has a habit of leaving his conversation partners behind with the way he expresses himself. I'm not saying he's a robot but I do think it's a fair statement to make that he values factual accuracy over speaking in a way that's clear for the average layman to follow. Note if you're posting on this board your likely not an average layman

Thanks for the recommendation.

Are you saying that Peterson is the inverse of Trump?  If only we could combine them into a single superorganism . . .

[Azrael Rand]

1 hour ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Are you saying that Peterson is the inverse of Trump?  If only we could combine them into a single superorganism . . .

Precisely! I'm sure the Koch foundation will get right on it after they've successfully cloned Ayn Rand

[MahtiSonni]

Hello, everyone.  First timer here.

First, I'm not overly concerned about promoting Alt-right (then again, I don't consider it a movement either.  It is a political philosophy). Simply being honest and not letting people get away with lies in your presence achieves the same. Every other worldview demands accepting one or more obvious lies and thus can't succeed in the long run.

I believe a "white nation state" is another one of those lies. Finns are white, Germans are white and the English are also white, but they're separate nations and will stay that way. Europe can't and won't unify. Not in Europe nor in the US.  Multinational empires don't last.  Nations do.

That said, I also say that the strong horse can and does pull the Overton window. The concerned one does not, as he is paralyzed and won't act.

What I mean here is that every one who unapologetically live their lives according to their principles and voice them, including the 14 words, and thrive, attract others to do the same. It does not matter whether the subject is too esoteric for some to grasp - it didn't stop any ideology in the past so I'd imagine that this time won't be an exception. What matters is that they hear it from as many sources as possible.

Preparing for violence is also strongly recommended.  The left has shown they're willing to use it and not being prepared makes you a victim waiting to happen.

[Azrael Rand]

On 9/18/2018 at 4:31 AM, barn said:

Annnd... how is this different from manipulation?

(sounds insincere approach, utilitarian)

Now I must ask you for a definition of 'manipulation'. Would you give me a definition? 

Objectively speaking they're the same. However if I use the term manipulation people will shy away from it because we are lead by our emotions not reason (proof below). It's my position that we have to embrace this concept due to the philosophical implications of human nature as discussed in a previous post.

On 9/18/2018 at 4:31 AM, barn said:

Why do you think we aren't born with free-will to start with?

Can you objectively prove that? 

Yes I can. The concepts of us being driven by emotion rather than reason, morality as a concept derived from feelings, and a number of other things I referenced during our PMs were discussed in great detail by Jonathan Haidt in his book Righteous Mind. Since you made a reference to Haidt and morality I was under the impression that you had read the book. I highly recommend you get a copy of his book; our PM conversation will make so much more sense to you once you've read the book, I promise. I apologize for the mix-up; that one's on me.

In addition you can also watch Stefan's conversations with Scott Adams on Youtube (video 1 & 2). The idea of irrationality is a recurring theme in their discussions. Stefan doesn't and hasn't as of yet fully embraced this topic (you can frequently see the emotional discomfort on his face while discussing the concept of irrationality with Scott Adams) because of the philosophical implications of accepting these facts; ie they would contradict a number of his previous stances including UPB into which he's invested many years of his life.

Also note that I'm not ignoring your other comments by not choosing to answer them at this point in time. Once you've familiarized yourself with the material listed above we can re-visit these issues.

[barn]

Your definition of EI:

"My personal definition of emotional intelligence is an advanced understanding of human nature, integrated into a person's mindset, which then can be effectively used to exercise influence (or 4D Chess if you prefer). "

 

2 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

On 09/18/2018 at 10:31 AM, barn said:

Annnd... how is this different from manipulation?

(sounds insincere approach, utilitarian)

Now I must ask you for a definition of 'manipulation'. Would you give me a definition? 

Objectively speaking they're the same. However if I use the term manipulation people will shy away from it because we are lead by our emotions not reason (proof below). It's my position that we have to embrace this concept due to the philosophical implications of human nature as discussed in a previous post. 

... That's willingly breaching the NAP.

ie. - 'If I told you I was going to steal your watch, I wouldn't be able to nick it. So I must do it secretly...said the pickpocket '

Manipulation where it's hidden or obscured, is force. Soft version of control without consent, theft... it's the same thing for you but still you call it by two different names ...that's misleading (to put it veeery gently)

People I can't trust (and thereby their ideas as an extension) are for example, believe these are the same. (risk factor, their morality is corrupt)

I think it's bad for you, certainly not going to expose myself to it.

Thanks but I'm out...(it's a free-will thing)

No need to respond to my other questions, no problem.

Ultimately, thanks for your time. It has been instructive.

[MahtiSonni]

7 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

Yes I can (objectively prove we aren't born with free will).

Now there's an extraordinary claim.  I can't wait to see the proof.

[Azrael Rand]

16 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

Now there's an extraordinary claim.  I can't wait to see the proof.

Let me ask you this question: Does the existence of cognitive dissonance not directly contradict the concept of (absolute) free will?

Still recommend reading the Righteous Mind. It's about as good as a read as your first exposure to Ayn Rand if you've ever read any of her books. Certainly one of the most relevant books of our time.

[Donnadogsoth]

18 minutes ago, Azrael Rand said:

Let me ask you this question: Does the existence of cognitive dissonance not directly contradict the concept of (absolute) free will?

Still recommend reading the Righteous Mind. It's about as good as a read as your first exposure to Ayn Rand if you've ever read any of her books. Certainly one of the most relevant books of our time.

Anyone who knows anything knows that humans are partially robotised creatures.  Our brains have circuits that trigger reflexively (reach out for cookie) and have to be trained through experience and the application of will (self-consciousness:  do not reach for cookie).  This will exists in a core of the mind and can theoretically, given time and application, overcome all robotic circuits, though practically this is very difficult.  Without the will there is no person there, just a bundle of reflexes.  I'm not going to die for a bundle of reflexes.  Are you?

[Azrael Rand]

18 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Anyone who knows anything knows that humans are partially robotised creatures.

How 'bout them public schools bro?

 

20 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Our brains have circuits that trigger reflexively (reach out for cookie) and have to be trained through experience and the application of will (self-consciousness:  do not reach for cookie).  This will exists in a core of the mind and can theoretically, given time and application, overcome all robotic circuits, though practically this is very difficult.  Without the will there is no person there, just a bundle of reflexes.  I'm not going to die for a bundle of reflexes.  Are you? 

Like you I support a culture that values self-ownership but it's important to distinguish between what is objectively true vs. an outcome oriented shortcut necessitated by human nature. Knowing the difference is vital, especially when dealing with deconstructionist leftist intellectuals.

[Donnadogsoth]

3 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

How 'bout them public schools bro?

 

Like you I support a culture that values self-ownership but it's important to distinguish between what is objectively true vs. an outcome oriented shortcut necessitated by human nature. Knowing the difference is vital, especially when dealing with deconstructionist leftist intellectuals.

You are still insisting that humans are nothing but robots.  I, too, would like to know how you can prove such a thing.

[MahtiSonni]

4 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

Let me ask you this question: Does the existence of cognitive dissonance not directly contradict the concept of (absolute) free will?

Remove the qualifier and the answer is no.  Our will is free in the sense that we make our decisions, but it can't be absolute, as that would require, for example, freedom from our constraints concerning our knowledge, situation et alia.

I've read Haidt's book years ago.  It was ok.

[neeeel]

3 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

Remove the qualifier and the answer is no.  Our will is free in the sense that we make our decisions, but it can't be absolute, as that would require, for example, freedom from our constraints concerning our knowledge, situation et alia.

I've read Haidt's book years ago.  It was ok.

Is it possible our decisions are also down to "robotic circuits" , to steal Donnadogsoth's term? There is nothing else, no other entity or thing that has input into decisions. Otherwise, you are suggesting a ghost in the machine, a soul. Now there's an extraordinary claim.  I can't wait to see the proof.

[MahtiSonni]

1 hour ago, neeeel said:

Is it possible our decisions are also down to "robotic circuits" , to steal Donnadogsoth's term?

I do not think so.

Quote

There is nothing else, no other entity or thing that has input into decisions. Otherwise, you are suggesting a ghost in the machine, a soul. 

Now there's an extraordinary claim.  I can't wait to see the proof.

Sure, I believe we are souls, inhabiting a body.  I will give proof when I claim to have such and will not comply with strawmen you try to get me to defend.  I tolerate fools better than I tolerate dishonesty.

[neeeel]

9 hours ago, MahtiSonni said:

I do not think so.

Sure, I believe we are souls, inhabiting a body.  I will give proof when I claim to have such and will not comply with strawmen you try to get me to defend.  I tolerate fools better than I tolerate dishonesty.

how is it dishonest to ask you for proof, especially as I just echoed your own words back to you? There is nothing dishonest about anything I said.

 

If something non-physical has an input into decisions  ( and sure, I may have misunderstood or misread what you are saying, in which case, you are free to point it out, rather than do what you actually did), then the only other possibility is non-physical, ie ghost in the machine/soul

[Donnadogsoth]

3 hours ago, neeeel said:

If something non-physical has an input into decisions  ( and sure, I may have misunderstood or misread what you are saying, in which case, you are free to point it out, rather than do what you actually did), then the only other possibility is non-physical, ie ghost in the machine/soul

If we believe in free will then we must also believe in a soul.  That is because, in a material universe all the objects in that universe are governed by physical laws and have no choice in their behaviour.  This includes the atoms that make up our respective brains.  If our entire brain operates in obedience to physical laws, then there can be no choice involved in our decisions.  Everything is the result of the laws.  The only escape that allows free will is the introduction of a supernatural aspect to the human mind, such that the mind is more than the sum of its neurological parts.  That supernatural dimension, uncontrolled by physical laws, is where decisions could originate through acts of will, which are then filtered into the material universe through the geometry of the brain.  Note that this also means that the universe is, in a sense, set up to obey us, because its physical laws will "bend" in the direction of our decisions.  That is, the laws themselves don't change, but allow for multiple outcomes due to the action of free will.