RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Liking People

Wednesday
April 17, 2002

Liking People by Joseph Rowlands

"People are stupid and evil". Does that sound familiar? I'm guessing it does. This is a widespread belief that is promoted by nearly everyone. Those with the biggest interest in promoting this belief are the socialists. They whittle away at liberty by declaring that people are too stupid to be left on their own. Politicians love looking for some idiot somewhere that screwed up, and declaring that all men are like that, and that they must be enslaved for their own good. This makes sense, since their goal is the diminution of rights. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (71 messages)

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 3:19pm

Joe, I have no idea why this article got no posts. It points to a flaw in -most- Objectivists I know, and I'm sure Soloists while agreeing in principle probably screw up in practice as we all do on this.

I have only been reading SOLO a lot the last couple months, and among your generally excellent articles, this is perhaps the most important in the sense of something that Objectivists most need to know.

It is an aspect of benevolence, a subject I gave a detailed practical (as opposed to theoretical)talk on some time back.

And I'm happy to see you made some points I did not cover.

--Philip Coates

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 4:03pm

Thank Philip,

That article, and all of the others around that time frame, were from before SOLOHQ was created. It was originally a Free Radical article, and generated some comments there and on the original SOLO Forum (first on the FreeRad server, then on the Yahoo group). Since then it's been in the archives, so it's not that surprising it hasn't generated comments. Thanks for digging it up and putting it in the spotlight.

Glad you liked it and you found some points interesting.

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 4:33pm

Joseph,

I like this article very much. I referred to it recently in reference to a post of Manfred Schieder's. I think liking people in general and having goodwill towards people is the most important prerequisite for having a productive discussion. If we are to, in general, hold human beings as the highest form of intelligent life in the known universe, it follows that we should, in general, like and respect individual humans, unless and until they prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise undeserving of respect. A simple disagreement, or difference in lifestyle, doesn't meet this standard.

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 7:07pm

One of the happy results of reading Ayn Rand's writings and understanding her ideas was that my cynicism about people in general actually - to my surprise - disappeared. It's a surprise now to find it in others, though it's unfortunately common.

Thanks, Joe, for another reminder that people, in the main, have good qualities and can be appreciated. And thanks to Philip for commenting on it, bringing it to our attention.

Jason

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 8:42pm

Another winner Joe!

This benevolent outlook actually is one of America's strong points and is paralleled in the legal premise of innocent until proven guilty. There is no reason for it to be ignored by Objectivists. Bringing attention to the benefit of liking people must have been fun, albeit probably a little sad because it was necessary.

In Brazil, due to a very mixed outlook on the good/evil of people in general has had an amusing repercussion in the legal realm, which is based on the premise that a person must prove his/her innocence with respect to government entities (and sometimes in general).

This has led to the creation of a widely used document called a "certid�o negativa," which is a document issued by various government departments stating that there are no debts in arrears or unfulfilled obligations on file.

I worked in translations for several years. This was a tricky term because there is nothing similar for it in the USA except maybe a police records check or something like that. When I started translating, most legal translations that I encountered translated this term as "Certificate for the Nonexistence of a Fact" or some other quirky pearl of erudition. I was never happy with it until I finally came up with "Certificate of Good Standing." After putting it in a lot of translations by sheer stubbornness (believe it or not, there was a great deal of resistance to this from Brazilians), I noticed it sort of crept into the translations of others. Now it is the general term used.

So you see? Not liking other people is also really tough on translators!

Michael

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 - 5:42am

Very good Joe.

Justification for bigger government and statism stem in part from the unstated premise that people are stupid/evil. Left to their own devices they could not possibly feed themselves, create their own wealth, or make choices about their childrens education. The notion of original sin also plays a part in this mindset. Government and God are the twin forces which will save us from ourselves.

Liking people is a *result* of having an entirely different premise which is that people are generally intelligent, capable and value seeking.

John

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 7:10am

This the best article I have read on this site to date.

I hope it serves as a reality check to those who, from lofty perches, come here to enlighten us or those who choose to shoot first and ask questions later.

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 10:12am

Joseph, thank you for the insights. You wrote: " Politicians love looking for some idiot somewhere that screwed up, and declaring that all men are like that, and that they must be enslaved for their own good. "

In fact, the Civil Aeronautics handbook for pilots from 1940 is about 1/5 to 1/10 the size of the current edition, depending on which rules apply to you. We fliers all know that every time some pilot screwed up in some way, that way became illegal. The idea was that the CAA (now FAA) could regulate the safety into aviation. The irony is that until about 1950 or so, spins were part of the required basic training for private pilots. Finally, enough statistics were compiled to prove to the FAA that they were killing more people in training than were killing themselves on their own and they dropped the requirement. Of course, they were never held personally accountable for their regulations.

Also, of course, while you excoriate collectivists, "misanthropic Objectivist" is not a contradiction in terms. People come to Objectivism because it allows us to see ourselves as special relative to everyone else. We are Roarks and Dagnys in a world of Keatings and Jameses. What I read in your article is an example of why I grant heavy weight to psychological projection. Even if you are the Gallup Poll, you do not know what "most" people are like. You only know yourself. So, when someone says, "People are..." they are really saying "I am..."

You say: "When they talk about politics, they understand that the politicians are unprincipled whores, willing to sell anything for a buck." However, that is not what polling reveals. Polling reveals that statistically speaking, high school civics works. Voters adhere to personal principles to select among candidates who espouse positions on issues of concern. Once elected, statistically most officials keep statistically most of their promises. When they do not, the voters remind them of it. However, I understand that Joseph Rowlands believes that politicians are unprincipled whores.

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 10:16am

Jason Dixon wrote: "One of the happy results of reading Ayn Rand's writings and understanding her ideas was that my cynicism about people in general actually - to my surprise - disappeared. It's a surprise now to find it in others, though it's unfortunately common. "

Wow, man, you are unusual! Thanks for saying that. It helps to know that all Objectivists are not created equal.

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 10:35am

Joseph, this is a very fine post, and a much-needed tonic for those of us who are too experienced with the misanthropes within Objectivist circles.

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 7:45am

Joe

Excellent points.

I'm interested in why so many Objectivists are held back from enjoying life, unable or unwilling to see value in non-Objectivists, especially with the prevalence of the American benevolent sense of life Joe describes so well.

My thoughts:

1. People who take Objectivism seriously are generally more independent, intelligent and educated than average. These traits have tended to make them somewhat alienated from their peers.

2. Empathy is a trait that is not highly valued in Objectivist circles. Getting into the other person's shoes and getting their full context before relating to them takes time and effort and does not result in a marketable value -- only a closeness to another person. Now it could turn out to be a mistake to get close to that person because they will want to take more than they return. Or it could be a good decision that enriches one's life - one never knows ahead of time.

3. As cited in other posts on SOLO, the lonely hero, fighting against the bad masses is an Objectivist model. And you can't be a lonely hero unless you disdain the masses.

Just my thoughts on what is an extremely important topic. We are social animals, we do need each other.

I was a very active "Student of Objectivism" at NBI from 1965-1968, but went my own way after the split, using what I had learned to guide my life. Cognitively it was terrific, emotionally it tended to be destructive and I had to learn that part elsewhere.

I have re-connected with Objectivism only in the past year or so and am working on a paper on emotion that I think will open up that topic to Objectivists in a powerful way. That is, it will give an empirically-grounded introduction to understanding and working productively with one's emotions.

I am very grateful to have found SOLOhq -- the informality, passion, and breadth and depth of material is addicting!

Thanks to everyone!

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 1:54pm

Thanks for the comments, everyone. Glad you liked it.

Michael says: "People come to Objectivism because it allows us to see ourselves as special relative to everyone else. We are Roarks and Dagnys in a world of Keatings and Jameses."

Using your own methods, that's quite a confession! Interestingly enough, it's the Keatings of the world that would be concerned with seeing themselves as special relative to everyone else.

But unfortunately, the whole method is also a form of projection. It seems you routinely project your own views, methods, and motives on other people. Nasty habit there. And then you also assume that they do too, naturally.

Steven, welcome back to the Objectivist movement. Hopefully SOLO shows that being a hero doesn't require loneliness.

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 2:13pm

That was an excellent post Steven.

George

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 4:25pm

I need to work on my view of other people. Its hard to get out into the world and interact with people when one of your premises is that people in general are incompetent!

Now that I think about it, most of the people I know are competent. Maybe they could be more productive, but hey, I slack off too. Competent people should not be limited by what the government thinks is necessary to be productive and successful!

Some people are incompetent, but I don't think its the government's job to take care of them. Willing people can help them including families, friends, and volunteers.

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 6:49pm

I disagree with Joe's article. People are individuals, and they need to be judged individually, without apriori conclusions such as "people are good" or "people are evil" being applied to them. If you're paranoid about everyone being evil, you'll rarely enter into mutually-beneficial arrangements. If you are trust the wrong people with the wrong things, you'll get burned. Holding false alternatives like this will make vacillate from one error to the other, they are mutually reinforcing.

"People are evil" - so don't even bother thinking about this one, he's not to be trusted. Or, "people are good", so ignore the suspicious behavior or bizarre statements and don't bother evaluating him. The real issue here isn't between benevolence and malevolence; it's between being active-minded or passive-minded. The problem with both of these wrong approaches is that they make you deal with people passively.

The right way is to actively judge people as you deal with them, taking both mental action in integrating your observations about them, and actions such as asking them questions about what they think and why, with the end purpose of evaluating them objectively, to whatever extent is called for given the context of your relationship with them.

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 7:04pm

Shayne

The right way is to actively judge people as you deal with them, taking both mental action in integrating your observations about them, and actions such as asking them questions about what they think and why, with the end purpose of evaluating them objectively, to whatever extent is called for given the context of your relationship with them.

I agree with you. The issue isn't how you deal with people, of course it should be an active evaluative process.

The issue is:

What is the general attitude toward people you carry around with you --

that people are possibly sources of pleasure and value, worth getting to know (and evaluate as you get to know them),

or "I'm pretty sure no one is really worth it (at all, or unless they're a 'card-carrying' Objectivist or ______fill in the blank)."

Another way of saying this: Do you give people a chance to get to know you and you them, to see if it is worthwhile? Do you hold the possibility that they could be of value to you and you to them?

(Edited by Steven H. Shmurak on 4/11, 7:05pm)

(Edited by Steven H. Shmurak on 4/11, 7:08pm)

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 7:21pm

Steven: I think you are doing the same thing Joe did wrong in his article, but it's worse because you explicitly dismiss the cognitive aspects in favor of the emotional. I would say it in reverse: *Of course* you want to treat people as potential values, but the issue is whether you take a mentally-active or mentally-passive approach to it.

Monday, April 11, 2005 - 7:49pm

Steven: I think you are doing the same thing Joe did wrong in his article, but it's worse because you explicitly dismiss the cognitive aspects in favor of the emotional. I would say it in reverse: *Of course* you want to treat people as potential values, but the issue is whether you take a mentally-active or mentally-passive approach to it.

Shayne:

I believe a valid evaluative process involves both cognitive and emotional elements. I do not dismiss either one. People are quite complex and to ignore any source of information about them is to hinder one's evaluative process unnecessarily.

I believe in being fully mental active in evaluating relationships. That includes emotions as one source of data to be mentally active about.

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 7:27am

Shayne,

I think Joe is talking about the result of an evaluation he has already done. Mostly, people are good in his experience. He even cites lots of the things he sees that make him say that (evidence). He has already evaluated and is questioning the evaluation others have come to.

Kelly

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 9:37am

Kelly: I agree that Joe is saying that most people are good. That is exactly what I have a problem with. "Most people are good" -- and therefore you should act in such and such a way. It's the flip side of "most people are bad" and therefore you should act in such and such a way. Both argue for treating individuals in some different way because of a collective evaluation.