RoR: Forum

Sanctioned -- with reservations.

Defending one's values is fine and dandy as long as you know how to defend them effectively. If not, then "doing nothing" might be a better strategy than "doing something" that is poorly planned and executed. You end up worse in such a case than if you "did nothing."

Ayn Rand had the luxury of blank pages she could fill with verbose drawing room speeches given -- without interruptions -- by the protagonists that left the antagonists speechless. In real life, drawing room exchanges usually take place without a moderator to guide them and can readily degrade into sophistry-spouting, name-calling arguments with each person interrupting the other so much and so often that no one benefits. Sadly, this condition describes most "talking head" news shows today. Moreover, engaging a skilled sophist in such a situation could well only help him as he uses his dishonest tactics to make himself look better to others at your expense.

Charles Givens suggests in SuperSelf that the most effective people "refuse to get sucked into confrontations." In his audio series Success Talk, he describes a sales technique for "overcoming objections" by prospects that validates their feelings without actually conceding the validity of the objection:

"I can see exactly why you might feel that way. You have every right to feel that way."

Notice that the salesman understands but does not necessarily accept the given objection. He also respects the right to live (and to feel) of the prospect. Doing this gives the prospect a certain level of emotional "breathing room" while still leaving him open to further discussion.

My point here is that time and energy are precious and finite and so one must pick one's battles and weapons carefully. Sometimes one may appear to be "doing nothing" when in fact he is selectively foregoing a given challenge to his values out of respect for his own limits. You probably intended to imply this in your article, but I thought this point deserved emphasis.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/18, 9:06am)

Post 1

Friday, January 18, 2008 - 8:56am

Eric,

I found this to be a wonderful piece that was beautifully written.

Thank you.

Ed

Post 2

Friday, January 18, 2008 - 9:16am

Luke,

You made good points to consider for a crucial perspective on the matter. I have a caveat on your caveat, however. Eric's "don't let it go without a fight" theme and your "pick your battles" theme can BOTH be taken to extremes -- one leading to brazenness rather than courage; the other leading to the learned helplessness of elitism, rather than expedience. I have 2 issues with 1 sentence of yours ...

Ayn Rand had the luxury of blank pages she could fill with verbose drawing room speeches given without interruptions by the protagonists that left the antagonists speechless.

The first issue is that, while this luxury that Rand had is the exception, it "need not be a statistical exception" (to borrow a phrase from Allan Gotthelf). As far as having this luxury goes, it's open to us all. Rand wasn't handed an empty book by a publisher telling her to fill it up so that they can start printing. Just the opposite. She had troubles getting published. Troubles she overcame. That's inspiring.

The second issue -- and this speaks to your point about "picking your battles" -- is that she didn't need this luxury (she could do quite fine in an open debate). So, she didn't have much more than we have, and even if she did, she didn't need it. I don't think that you'll disagree with these points, I just thought -- as you did with Eric's essay -- that this point "deserved emphasis."

;-)

Ed

Post 3

Friday, January 18, 2008 - 9:46am

I agree with your post, Ed.

I once belonged to a local freethought group called the Space Coast Freethought Association (SCFA). They have an e-mail list on Yahoo! Groups in which I regularly participated. The main problem with groups like that comes from a lack of anything uniting them beyond a rightful hostility to theocracy and other religious oppressions. They are to metaphysics and epistemology what libertarians are to politics: an eclectic mix not necessarily friendly to reality and reason as Objectivism identifies it. I got into more online squabbles "defending my values" against intrusive, "progressive" sophists on that list that I can count. The hazily defined mission of the group, combined with these squabbles, finally led me to leave altogether in much the same way I left the Libertarian Party years ago and for basically the same reasons.

My point is that, as Eric noted, one way to support one's values is just to quit (or unsubscribe) altogether. In retrospect, I should have seen these problems earlier and not joined in the first place. Live and learn. In any case, as I said, one can waste huge sums of time and energy "defending one's values" in hopeless battles of argumentation when withdrawing makes more sense.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/18, 9:50am)

Post 4

Friday, January 18, 2008 - 11:06am

Luke,

After reading your response, I have to just throw my hands up in the air. It really seems that we are going to have to just agree to agree on this one. I realize that -- had we had any essential differences -- that we might have engaged each other in a fruitful debate. But alas, I fail to rationally discern any meaningful differences in our 2 views on the matter. So I'm afraid that the personal growth and the refinement of one's views, which come from bouncing one's ideas off of another intellect's skull, will just have to wait until another time.

So, while I had hoped that we might have had that special chance to test the robustness of our views, I am willing to settle -- if you will comply -- on a simple agreement with you; effectively ending this discussion on the matter.

;-)

Ed

Post 5

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 4:51am

Ed and Luke,

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback. I agree that it is important not only to "choose your battles" but to determine what strategy is best for defending your values. And often, as you said, silence and non-engagement can be a better use of time and energy than participating in otherwise pointless disputes. I have not always been the best judge of these things, but it's an important idea that merits careful consideration.

Even on forums like this one, we are faced with choices concerning which discussions we will get involved in, and which of them we'll stay out of. Occasionally, when I read a post that attacks something that I value, I'll refrain from posting a comment, because I don't want to dignify the offensive post with a response. I've made it a personal policy to only engage with those who I think are worthy opponents, and where I feel my arguments will be heard. If there is a feud between rival factions, in which both sides show a complete unwillingness to alter their opinions, I will generally stay out of it.

There may be another subtle danger in constructing arguments in defense of your values, and that is the idea that in doing so, you can become more and more intransigent. Every time you make an argument for or against something, you can become more entrenched and committed to your position. Of course, if you are on the right side of the issue, intransigence is a good thing. But we've all seen people who have vociferously defended an irrational position; and with every argument they've made they've become more and more deaf to counter-arguments.

We obviously want to avoid wasting our time and energy and resources on unwinable battles. And we also want to make sure that we don't wed ourselves to a flawed position by constructing arguments in their behalf. Finally, we do want to defend our values when they are attacked. Balancing these things takes a lot of thought.

Post 6

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 8:10am