RoR: Forum

Hi Merlin,

You said:

Land or machinery don't have disutility. Whoop-de-do!

Actually, it does have some interesting and important economic implications. I didn't to into detail because the point of bringing it up was just to provide the much needed missing context. The funny thing is, I figured as soon as I filled in this context, someone would jump on one of these prior points because now those are the points that don't have their initial context. That's a problem with starting a systematic book in the middle.

But you don't sound like you're interested in more context or understanding the implications. You are dismissive of it, in a condescending way. You sound annoyed. Are you annoyed that Mises made a point that is clearly true? I'm afraid that happens a lot in Austrian economics, which attempts to ground theory in premises that are uncontroversial, building up from there. If you're trying to belittle Mises for saying things that are true, but that you don't understanding the implications of, I'm not sure I get the point. Maybe you're belittling Mises' point so it justifies your initial misunderstanding. If the point that he brought up is stupid, then you can't be faulted for not getting his point? Or maybe you're annoyed with me for pointing out your errors?

I take ideas and the truth seriously. And I can deal with others by either assuming they also take them seriously, or that they are more concerned with appearing right. If I assume they are serious and interested in the truth, then I can offer corrections when they have misunderstood an argument. I can fill in details that they may be missing. Or I can assume they aren't interested in what's right, and consequently won't appreciate new information. Instead of seeing the new information as something that improves them, they see it as a threat to their perceived competence.

So far, Merlin (and Dean and Steve and Ed!), I've been trying to treat you with respect, assuming intelligence and an interest in getting at the truth. Sure, I think your comments were wrong, but I don't think it was because you are stupid or aren't concerned with the truth. I assume you drew a reasonable conclusion from your limited context, and that an initial assumption that the topic was on creativity in general had contributed to the false impression. I assumed that more information would allow you to reconsider the conclusion. I had (optimistically/naively) hoped for a response like "Oh, that makes more sense now!". Or even, "That doesn't seem to address this one concern of mine, so how do you deal with it!". Alas, I get "Whoop-de-do!"

You are right that I didn't understand your economic vs. non-economic distinction. That distinction already exists, and has a meaning, even if it is problematic. You seem to be suggesting an entirely new meaning, but one that isn't clear to me. Nor do I know what the point of your distinction is. You also seem to be suggesting it is different from Mises' distinction.

Post 81

Friday, September 30, 2011 - 5:20pm

Hi Joe,

You wrote, "So far, Merlin (and Dean and Steve and Ed!), I've been trying to treat you with respect, assuming intelligence and an interest in getting at the truth."

I would have preferred that you left my name out of this reply to Merlin. It has a condescending tone where you paint yourself as heroically laboring to maintain a level of respect that we are proving unworthy of. It paints a picture of you struggling to maintain an appreciation for a given level of intelligence and interest on our part, that we aren't proving worthy of. I doubt that you would like to be addressed in this fashion.

Joe, I get it that you have a strong interest, and a strong background in Austrian Economics. I get it that you find others here as lacking in the background needed to make intelligent criticism, but, to me, you have come across as too sensitive, and go from explanation, to attacks on people too quickly.

My suggestion would be that you stop replying to those you believe aren't rising to the challenge of learning what they should.

If you want to keep pointing out what you see as someone's errors in their interpretation of Mises, I'd suggest just going for more neutral language and to summarize. You could have said nothing more than, "Merlin, there is a context you are missing." Or, "Merlin, the economic vs non-economic distinction is already covered in Human Action in chapter..." Or, "Merlin, that isn't what Mises means when he uses that word." Or, "Merlin, we disagree."

I've had occasions to tell people that they have their heads up their behinds when they say something stupid in the area of psychology (where I have a depth of understanding), and my conclusion is that I'm best off when I only make explanations or arguments against stupid comments when I am enjoying myself and I'm not getting angry or attacking. And if I'm getting frustrated it is better to not reply (advice I haven't always followed).

So, that is my condescending advice that you are free to ignore.

Post 82

Friday, September 30, 2011 - 6:19pm

Unsolicited Advice
Everyone take a breather. This discussion has gotten heated. If the other side isn't listening well to you ... then give them some time to cool off. If time doesn't fix it, then try more time. We're a bunch of people who share most all of our important values. No one here is a rights-violating socialist (except for the g-damned trolls we get, now and again). There will be disagreements. This is because reason and rationality are things that feed off of contrast. Let's agree on more of our disagreements.

Ed

p.s. In Buechner's book, a distinction is made between economic and noneconomic activity. A waiter taking your order in a restaurant is engaged in economic activity, a mother (or father) making dinner for the family in the home kitchen is not.

Post 83

Friday, September 30, 2011 - 6:58pm

Hi Steve,

You misunderstood the point and tone of my post. I actually do think that Merlin is intelligent and interested in the truth. As with you and the others. But I was describing why I posted the corrections that I did, and why pointing out Mises' arguments and the missing context was not meant as an attack. It's only because I am not assuming the worst that I bother to go into detail. If I thought otherwise, I would have taken your advice and dismiss you all as wrong without explanation. My corrections are intended to correct, not to dismiss any of you. I thought it needed to be said because of the negative reactions which found offense at me making corrections. I was pointing out why my corrections shouldn't be viewed as an attack, but a show of respect.

You say that I'm too sensitive, and maybe I am, but that opens the question of what is the right level of sensitivity. I can tell you that I am somewhat sensitive because I know how important Human Action is, how brilliant Mises was. It could also because too many Objectivists start off disrespecting both without taking the time to be more fully informed, as if they are entitled to dismiss him as an intellectual inferior. But what does it mean to be too sensitive? Am I too sensitive because I don't accept groundless, disparaging comments? Or because I repeatedly point out misunderstanding based on little effort to understand? Or are we going with emotions? Emotionally, I'm only sad that Merlin posted his whoop-de-do line, since before that point I thought his contributions were valuable and respectful. And maybe a little concerned that he thought I had insulted him along the way. I did get annoyed with your unfair comments about Mises' writing, but even then I might have ignored you except that you kept making additional posts repeating it in even stronger language. I found it annoying because your approach to reading the subject was so casual, not even bothering to read the surrounding context, and then you felt justified in making sweeping disparaging (and unjustified) remarks. Is it overly sensitive to point out an injustice, or to care that it is happening? What would the right level of sensitivity look like?

I guess I could have taken your later advice and said "I disagree", but then it would appear as if my disagreement was about his writing style (which was only part of it, and not the part I was annoyed about). The point I actually disagreed with is that your confusion, which was easily explained by your approach, was being blamed on his writing style.

I could try to reply to your personal attacks about me being too sensitive by pointed out that I've tried to stick to the issues and the informational sources of the confusion. What information was missing or overlooked that would shed light on the subject. But given your reaction to my last post, you would probably assume that I was implying something about someone else. I can only say that sometimes I really am just talking about me and my own actions or approach. Believe me, if I wanted to be insulting, I wouldn't hide behind subtlety.

Post 84

Friday, September 30, 2011 - 7:02pm

Ed, thanks for the example of the economic and noneconomic distinction. I accept that Merlin's distinction is different, but perhaps he can understand part of my confusion.

Post 85

Friday, September 30, 2011 - 7:57pm

Hi Joe,

You asked, "But what does it mean to be too sensitive?"

Mostly you were asking in a rhetorical fashion, but I want to say that I just noticed that you were faster to take offense with attacks on Mises than with other topics. It wasn't intended as a criticism or rebuke - just something I'd noticed. I don't consider it a flaw or failing. Only a thing to be aware of - and your reply shows that you are already aware of that.

I have topics where I'm more sensitive to attacks than others.
-------------

I disagree with the way you characterize my comments, but I don't see that as a topic of much interest or anything I'm going to pursue since I need to spend more time with Mises before I return to any arguments about his philosophical foundations or his writing style.
-------------

Again, it wasn't my intent to make a personal attack on you, only to point out the personal feel some of your statements had. And you didn't come across as insulting, that would be too strong. You were only mildly condescending in tone, rather than insulting. And it would have been better had you stayed exclusively with the particular content and not the other person's knowledge or lack thereof.

Post 86

Saturday, October 1, 2011 - 7:35am