william.scherk

Via Youtube, a highlight from the upcoming documentary film Bloodied But Unbowed. This highlight clip is me in the flesh nowadays talking about sex and status and community and a wave of nostalgia. William.Scherk, me, was once Bill Shirt, frontman for a couple of Vancouver bands. In the promo clip you can see some vintage footage of the callow youth cavorting on stage and singing the 1979 anthem "Nothing Holding You." Strange to have the old days return in Vancouver. We were once 300 brave villagers battling the swampy, shitty music landscape of the time, banding together for mutual protection and plentiful libations. Those days are gone, but for better or worse, Vancouver's punk-era nostalgia boom continues unabated. The film premieres at DOXA festival on May 13. I am so excited. I am wearing my new pink sombrero (only those who know me on Facebook will get the in-joke). I post this here so OLers who have only seen my snarkouts here can snark right back. ___________

See what happens when we rastle with the rong retch, Brant? Dang cliques and their bullying intimidation party-line demonizing, and their vanity and their, well, whatever. They were mucking up OL with their controlling urges to get rid of other posters. Or something. As Michael noted, if a Stuttle departure is good for Stuttle, it is good for Michael and good for OL, and maybe good for the economy too. She was a fine and valiant discussant, as far as I could tell, but then I guess I am in her clique. Too bad she gave Michael so much 'crap,' and he had to gently tell her that she had gone too far this time. Mistakes were made. Those of you who feel some chagrin at her departure, or feel a chill in the air, it's the best of all possible outcomes, right? I can almost feel the emails humming. Actually, I think I might also take a break from posting at OL and think about whether the chill I feel is due to the weather up here near Fort MacMurray, or to the breeze from the humming emails. Or whatever. Since it doesnt' matter to Michael Stuart Kelly much one way or the other. Or so it seems. See you all around. Don't poke the bear.

This is where I have problems. Here is a screenshot of the posting form in Internet Explorer (Google Chrome renders similarly) -- -- I must be blind, but I can't find the HTML - On - Auto Linebreak Mode. Can you show me where I am goofing up, please, master? By the way, in Firefox (the latest version 3.02), neither the side-panel nor the top posting bar show up -- all in all a bit of a Grrrrrr moment for me, as I thought of myself as technically savvy. Plus ça change . . .

Sorry. Trying to embed a video and can`t quite figure it out. I have tried it with Chrome, Firefox and Explorer. I use Vista . . . which might be the problem. Michael, if you see this, can you point me to some How-To information?

When and if you calm down, I'd be interested in your reaction to my post above. It was posted in good faith, and in recognition of the great value I find at OL.

You are right. That's exactly what Jon did with me with that global warming crap. (You should read that thread.) All I did was return the favor and exaggerate his own nonsense a little. [ . . . ] I observe that people who debate competitively usually turn a blind eye to the strawmen that support them, while criticizing the strawmen that oppose them. I call that a double standard, but that's me. Michael, it is a credit to you that you acknowledge mistakes and note your ignorance. But I don't quite understand some of your statements when they are taken together. One such puzzle is the "quip" about Ellen. You state that if we don't like quips, we should not read your posts. Fair enough, but it sounds like you think a statement like "Ellen is so lovely when she is angry" is something benign and unremarkable. Another puzzle is the "people who debate competitively" line. As I understand it, competitive debate is the rules-based form of structured argument where teams are scored and ranked. Is it possible you are conflating several senses of the word 'debate'? There is formal debate, there is an argument containing opposing points, there is deliberation and consideration, and there is argument plain. You may mean simply that you see some arguments as merely an exercise in domination, an exercise rife with rhetorical tactics, fallacies, and evasion of the opponent's points and implications. In this case, I would simply see a lousy argument, and a psychological righteousness -- a purely tendentious stance. I know you won't answer the question specifically with reference to people on this list -- people who debate competitively -- but I wonder who you have observed besides Jon that fits the bill of an 'out to win' discussant, who ignores so-called strawmen arguments. To my eyes, what Jon was responding to was the 'cute when mad' comment. I have the impression, rightly or wrongly, that your quip was irrelevant and disrespectful of Ellen's difficulties in 'grokking' Paul Mawdsley -- with the context being Mindy's take on Mawdsley's frustrations. Ultimately, I think that you agree that judging an idea or a person requires some careful deliberation and a close attention to what is actually said. Sure enough you once thought, in your ignorance of the meaning of global warming, that the whole globe was getting hotter, from atmosphere to core. You can see how this is funny, and you can see how one might seize on such a statement, fairly or unfairly, because it is hilariously wrong. So, you might also appreciate how that statement would stick in the mind, and later be forked up for derision. Of course, Jon was wrong to state that your ignorance of the term came after discussion. It clearly did not. The hilarious misunderstanding came before you set out to inform yourself on the issues. One hopes Jon will admit this mistake and apologize for the misidentification. But, back to the underlying comment that got Jon going -- your putdown of Ellen, your quip -- and what I believe to be a point that bears repeating. This is what Jon said: No, you don't really suck. But you keep getting in it with Roger and Ellen, for example—on subjects where you just don't know what the frick you're doin'. They've pleaded with you. It's not a big deal. Just slow down. Think about what you want to say. Don't say too much. I'll break it down. Jon figures you sometimes enjoin discussion where you needn't, where your lack of knowledge hobbles you. He also suggests that in these cases you slow down and be more deliberative, that you restrain yourself. Now, I believe you did take in Jon's point (before you went off to correct the record and rail against strawmen one-upmanship). I believe you drew an inference from Jon's remarks -- that you should keep your trap shut and listen to the wise ones; that you are a dummy. Since you respect Jon, as stated, I think you can deliberate on the underlying point. Rather than give the worst inference, you can give the best. You can strip away the combative elements and understand that like anyone here you sometimes get in over your head. Sometimes you strike out at folks unfairly, folks who point out the depth of the issue, folks who say, in effect, "you may not know the issue well enough to debate it effectively, Michael." There is a balance to be struck between the pleasure of discussion and argument and the pleasure of understanding. There is a balance to be struck between your roles as host/convener/owner of the whole site, and your roles as participant and interlocutor on individual threads. I'll reiterate my metaphor of Emperor and Policemen. At OL you are Emperor -- you promulgate the laws and policy, which is as it should be. You also find yourself -- since there is no separate moderator as at OO.net and elsewhere -- as the beat cop, monitoring discussions, chiding, adding your commentary. At times, of course, the patrolman cap gets dislodged, and the beat cop imagines himself the law, the Imperial Entity, speaks in edicts, diktat, ukase. Sometimes all the roles can get mixed up -- the cop arrests, charges, tries, judges and sentences presumed offenders. The Emperor comes out of the palace and gets involved in street-fights. You see? It's hard to be a fair and impartial peace officer when one is a party to a dispute as well as the occupier of the throne. As I have pointed out to you before, the balance is difficult. _________________________________ Back to the underlying issue as I see it. We all have what the French call amour propre, which can be baldly translated as 'self-esteem. This translation misses many senses that pertain, and the sense in which I use it (the Spark Notes entry illustrates the more baleful, problematic sense). To wound one’s amour propre, is to gall his good opinion of himself—to wound his vanity. I'll be straight with you, Michael. It does well for all of us to consider that preserving our self-esteem, preserving our self-image, is centrally important psychologically. When I say of myself, I am fair, I am thoughtful, I am just, I invoke my amour-propre. If I am to have integrity, what I say I am must be what I actually am. My actions must match the press release, so to speak, if I want to be seen to have integrity. Of course, if I said I never play 'gotcha'; winning a discussion is of no importance compared with reaching true conclusions; I don't use strawmen; I don't enter discussions of which I am ignorant; I don't argue fallaciously; I don't care what other people think -- I am setting the bar very very high. I am likely to be caught out, and have my integrity impugned when it happens -- as it must -- that I do play gotcha, that I do argue fallaciously. In which case, my choice is to defend my amour-propre, or to admit mistakes. The higher I set the bar, the more difficult it can be to stand down. Since my self-image is involved, since my reputation is involved, I may from time to time be more interested in preserving my 'face' than interested in admitting error. It's a human thing. Do I respect myself and the truth, or do I frantically seek to preserve my vanity? If there is a large gap between what I say I do and what I really do, I will have a bout of cognitive dissonance (please re-read my post on Carol Tavris for the full context -- we have been round this mulberrry bush before). What choice I make obviously affects my reputation. If a lot of careful, thoughtful people point out that I have made a mistake, and I insist against evidence that I have not, I appear a fool . . . no matter my protestations. The more I protest against the evidence, more fool me. Michael, we do well when we keep to the straight and narrow and admit error. There was a very good discussion on OL in which you did just this: the thread in which you changed your opinion from "I could not say it better myself" to "this is crap and I am mistaken" (the thread on Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design). I note it took one hundred and ten posts before you changed your mind . . . Back to Ellen and your quip. It derailed discussion, in my opinion. It was a remark easily interpreted as flip and evasive condescension. Ellen is a crackerjack mind, a great value to this list, and one of several people here that guarantee my participation. She is like a whetstone to me -- a solid abrasive that serves to sharpen the knife of critical thinking. She is an ally in the search for truth and understanding, and a formidable discussion partner. When Ellen corrects me, I pay attention. Please reflect on what I write here. My remarks are not meant to disparage you or demean the excellent value you provide me by hosting this list. [Edit: spelling and grammar]

The first test is the Moral Foundations Questionnaire Part 1. When you decide whether something is right or wrong, to what extent are the following considerations relevant to your thinking? The second metric is "Whether or not someone did something to betray his or her group." So, when you decide if something is wrong or not, if either extreme was the same to you, then you didn't care one way or the other about group loyalty. Which is simply what it is. If you wanted to know what the context of this test is, have a gander at the essay by Haidt I linked above. Here's a bit from the essay that gives an idea of what Haidt and colleagues hope to measure and why: In several large internet surveys, my collaborators Jesse Graham, Brian Nosek and I have found that people who call themselves strongly liberal endorse statements related to the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity foundations, and they largely reject statements related to ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. People who call themselves strongly conservative, in contrast, endorse statements related to all five foundations more or less equally. (You can test yourself at www.YourMorals.org.) We think of the moral mind as being like an audio equalizer, with five slider switches for different parts of the moral spectrum. Democrats generally use a much smaller part of the spectrum than do Republicans. The resulting music may sound beautiful to other Democrats, but it sounds thin and incomplete to many of the swing voters that left the party in the 1980s, and whom the Democrats must recapture if they want to produce a lasting political realignment.

So, sometimes, when there is an issue of be-pissment on the part of Ellen, and be-musement on the part of Michael, it is because Michael is right and Ellen is wrong. At other times, the be-pissment and be-musement is because Ellen is wrong and Michael is right. And Michael believes that he fully understands Ellen, but somehow she doesn't show signs of understanding him . . . Do I have this more or less correct, Michael? Sometimes when we are told we are wrong, after the rage subsides and the bazookas are put back in the jeep, and the wargame fantasies are dimmed, and all the audience goes home to sleep, sometimes we are wrong but don't know how to admit it.

If you get yourself to YourMorals.org and register, you can participate in a series of online tests that purport to measure your morality on a variety of different scales. Me, I find it fascinating and am going through the tests picking the ones that seem most intriguing. Welcome to YourMorals.org, where you can learn about your own morality while contributing to scientific research on moral psychology. Many aspects of personality are related to morality. Many aspects of behavior are influenced by moral motives. And many conflicts and misunderstandings are driven by differences in morality. But rather than simply telling you these things, we want you to see for yourself. After each questionnaire or experiment you complete, we'll give you an immediate report on how you scored, and what your score means. Here are the top seven questionnaires offered: Moral Foundations Questionnaire - What underlies the virtues and issues you care about? Why do you have the political orientation that you do? Moral Dilemmas - How would you act when confronted with difficult decisions? Identification with Humanity Scale - What groups are you most loyal to? Whom do you identify with most? Domain Specific Maximizing Scale - In what areas of your life do you feel pressure to make the absolute best decision? Perceptions of Politicians - How do you feel about this politician? (For participants in the U.S. only) Feelings About Fairness Scale - How do you feel about different 'unfair' situations? Presidential Candidates and Morality Survey - Which candidates for President in 2008 do you prefer? What do you think about morality and politics? -- if you click this link, you can see how I rate on the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (I hope. I am the green bars in the graph) . . . for background to the kind of research going on here, check the Edge.com article by Jonathan Haidt, "Why Do People Vote Republican" -- a provocative essay from the liberal social psychologist.

It's intriguing to see what John McCain has to say about the financial crisis that has been brewing . . . below are the first few paragraphs from his statement released today. What I find mind-boggling are the financial instruments that seem to have exacerbated the meltdown: CDOs (Collatoralized Debt Obligations) and varied other little-known acronyms. I had assumed that the credit crunch of 2007 was a simple, inevitable result of the housing bubble, and that a shot of foreclosures would put the game back on earth. But I learned that there is nothing simple about finance, and that the debt effect would ripple outward into securities based on that debt. It is surprising to read McCain today -- a fierce partisan of the financial deregulations that began under Carter, accelerated under Reagan, and maxed out under the leadership of Phil Gramm. Today he speaks of greed, as if the freeing of the financial markets had nothing whatsoever to do with the present crisis. Since he has been a player in Washington for 26 years, can he not have seen the so-called greed in action before today? What am I missing in his political statement -- should I be wondering what he thought of the awful things he writes about below -- the abuses, greed, self-interest, corruption, etcetera -- when they were possibly a result of the freedom from oversight that he championed in the past? Remarks By John McCain On Reforming Our Financial Markets ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain delivered the following remarks as prepared for delivery in Tampa, FL, today: If Governor Palin and I are elected in 49 days, we are not going to waste a moment in changing the way Washington does business. And we're going to start where the need for reform is greatest. In short order, we are going put an end to the reckless conduct, corruption, and unbridled greed that have caused a crisis on Wall Street. The working people of this state and this nation are the most innovative, the hardest working, the best skilled, most productive, most competitive in the world. This foundation of our economy, the American worker, is strong but it has been put at risk by the greed and mismanagement of Wall Street and Washington. The top of our economy is broken. We have seen self interest, greed, irresponsibility and corruption undermine the hard work of the American people. It is time to set things right, and I promise to get the job done as your president. Americans put a lot of trust in the bankers and brokerage firms of Wall Street. They depend on the financial service sector to protect their savings, IRA's, 401k's, and pension accounts. But many leaders in finance have proven unworthy of that trust. Government has a clear responsibility to act in defense of the public interests, and that is exactly what I intend to do. We are going to make sure that American's accounts are protected. I pledge that FDIC and SIPC will have all the support they need to fully back the savings of the American people. Too many people on Wall Street have been recklessly wagering instead of making the sound investments we expected of them. And when their companies collapse, only the CEO's seem to escape the consequences. While employees, shareholders, and other victims are left with nothing but trouble and debt, the people who helped cause the collapse make off with tens of millions in severance packages. I have spoken out against the excess of corporate executives, and I can assure you that if I am president, we're not going to tolerate that anymore. In my administration, we're going to hold people on Wall Street responsible. And we're going to enact and enforce reforms to make sure that these outrages never happen in the first place. Too many people on Wall Street have forgotten or disregarded the basic rules of sound finance. In an endless quest for easy money, they dreamed up investment schemes that they themselves don't even understand. With their derivatives, credit default swaps, and mortgage backed securities they tried to make their own rules. But they could only avoid the basic rules of economics for so long. Now, as their schemes unravel in bankruptcies and collapse, it's once again the public who is left to bear the costs. And I promise you that on my watch, we are never going to let these kinds of abuses go uncorrected or unpunished. [from JohnMcCain.com]

Sounds reasonable on the surface. If there are incontestable facts, then only idiots would contest them. Mind you, if a discussion arises in which certain issues are in dispute, then what? Contested issues, good discussion, possible increase in knowledge? Or, exasperated finger-wagging and murky appellations? If we simply let you decree what was common-sense or obvious, where would be the fun? If you wag your finger at us, can't we wag ours back? Oh my. Here we have one of those issues that trigger my own inner Miss Grundy. It's a sloppy, fallacious argument that depends in any way on unnamed 'those dang them folk,' as in the frequent flyers/incessant repeat posters jibes. This is what irks me occasionally about Michael's argumentative style, and it is no less appealing here. I suspect that you will not put names to these charges. Why? Because that would go against, um, Phil Coates' prescriptions for a perfect O-world. Because it is obvious who you mean. Because you were all worked up when you wrote this. Because you generally post in a sloppy fashion when exasperated or in a fit of Grundy. Oh, Phil, this is very weak. If you were only on an non psuedo[sic] list, you would be willing and able to marshall some support for your statement. I am a thoughtful, careful, attentive person, generally, I hope, and I have been following the record regarding Palin. But I disagree with you. Presumably this makes me inane and/or illogical to the Grundy in you. I should also mention that putting three numbered statements in to illustrate your point by analogy does nothing. Your argument goes neither forward nor backward. It doesn't even get out of neutral and off the driveway. If you want to get in the race and have your car win, you have to drive the track. Ultimately, Phil, the aim of your intervention is undercut by when you back away from defending your position. I gotta ask you -- what are you aiming at here, what is the goal? If it is to get people's backs up, and to have people feel like there is a grumpy old Miss Grundy wagging her finger at the bad baaaad members of class, then the goal has been reached. If it isn't your goal, then once we discount the tetchiness and grundyism of others including me, your argument is still sitting in the carport overheating. I must say I like your interventions, finger-wagging and all, when you don't lose your patience and your temper, when your targets are well-identified, your research is thoughtful, your quotes are cogent and your heartfelt emotion is well-married to a fairly-constructed, rational set of statements. As an aside, I like psychologizing. In the sense of hypotheses to be tested. When the hypotheses are reasonable. I reject Michael's attempt to box you in as merely seeking a pontificate or royaume here. I think you want some respect, and don't quite know how to gain it. In any case, you have hijacked this thread. Federal Marshalls are waiting on the tarmac to interview you.

Thanks, Robert, for the note on Catechism Positiviste. I had earlier looked up and read the trio of JARS articles (Robert Bass, your critique, his response) where Comte and altruism were in discussion. Your critique was especially helpful as an argument for retaining or valourizing the original Comtean definition -- although finding his coinage and use of the term is not so straightforward. Many references to Comte's altruism, as cited further up in the thread (Rand, Peikoff, Kelley, Thomas) tell us what Comte meant, but none so far had actually forked up the term in his own words. Several other references online were clear that Comte had coined the term in 1851, but were unclear or contradictory about exactly where one could find the example. I found the full text of Catechism Positiviste at the French National Library, along with many others of his voluminous works, and now have found the full text in English via Google Books (this link takes readers to a results index of appearances of 'altruism'). Your critique of Bass was quite clear and straightforward -- his two pieces I could not get my head around, either due to his woolly approach or to my ingorance. I will take the journey into Catechisme Positiviste and report back once I have emerged. From my initial readings of Comte in French and English, I must say he seems to have been one of those folks whose ability to create a vast system was only exceeded by his obsessiveness and vainglory. The details of the actual catechism of the Church of Humanity are staggeringly precise, and strike me as more than a little bit mad.

Is this the Alex Jones of infowars.com? The promoter of 9/11 truth sites?

Rich, you are almost as loopy as me. I will lay out my strategy in depth a little later. For now you have to make do with this: 1. check the online version/chapters of PARC for errors, systematic or otherwise 2. raise the errors with the author, invite comment 3. repeat -- waiting for Valliant to get back in the game puts both 1 and 2 in suspension, as the chapters so far have been pecked to death already. James had promised before his recent relapse, to usher us into a new tomorrow with a freshly redacted chapter (notes removed, obvious errors and infelicities corrected, a few inline replacement notes inserted). If you are in the mood for a kind of blended experience of horror/hilarity/vertigo/nausea/deja vu/weightlessness/acceleration stress, let me know. James and I had a lengthy exchange over 'equivocation' that brought me to the edge of madness (his). If you dare, Rich, begin the countdown to orbit, here, and read down.

Comte's Religion of Humanity certainly struck a chord in your second country, Michael. Except for an un-consecrated Temple in Paris, the remaining temples of his religion are found only in Brazil! See the odd site from which this photo comes.

Many, though not all, of Spencer's works are available in fulltext versions at the Online Library of Liberty -- for those who are mildly obsessive like me, and hoped to find the original sources . . . Ellen links to a page by the Rad Geek, in order to correct what some see as a misapprehension about Spencer. This conclusion is untrue. Unfortunately, the Rad Geek conflates two differing classes of people that do not actually overlap (the indigent, diseased, weak, feeble, versus the labouring classes). Here is a passage from Chapter 25, Poor Laws in Social Statics [1851] in which Spencer discusses how we must not interfere with the progression of evolution, with the winnowing of the human race. The development of the higher creation is a progress towards a form of being capable of a happiness undiminished by these drawbacks. It is in the human race that the consummation is to be accomplished. Civilization is the last stage of its accomplishment. And the ideal man is the man in whom all the conditions of that accomplishment are fulfilled. Meanwhile the well-being of existing humanity, and the unfolding of it into this ultimate perfection, are both secured by that same beneficent, though severe discipline, to which the animate creation at large is subject: a discipline which is pitiless in the working out of good: a felicity-pursuing law which never swerves for the avoidance of partial and temporary suffering. The poverty of the incapable, the distresses that come upon the imprudent, the starvation of the idle, and those shoulderings aside of the weak by the strong, which leave so many “in shallows and in miseries,” are the decrees of a large, far-seeing benevolence. It seems hard that an unskilfulness which with all his efforts he cannot overcome, should entail hunger upon the artizan. It seems hard that a labourer incapacitated by sickness from competing with his stronger fellows, should have to bear the resulting privations. It seems hard that widows and orphans should be left to struggle for life or death. Nevertheless, when regarded not separately, but in connection with the interests of universal humanity, these harsh fatalities are seen to be full of the highest beneficence—the same beneficence which brings to early graves the children of diseased parents, and singles out the low-spirited, the intemperate, and the debilitated as the victims of an epidemic. There are many very amiable people—people over whom in so far as their feelings are concerned we may fitly rejoice—who have not the nerve to look this matter fairly in the face. Disabled as they are by their sympathies with present suffering, from duly regarding ultimate consequences, they pursue a course which is very injudicious, and in the end even cruel. We do not consider it true kindness in a mother to gratify her child with sweetmeats that are certain to make it ill. We should think it a very foolish sort of benevolence which led a surgeon to let his patient’s disease progress to a fatal issue, rather than inflict pain by an operation. Similarly, we must call those spurious philanthropists, who, to prevent present misery, would entail greater misery upon future generations. All defenders of a poor-law must, however, be classed amongst such. That rigorous necessity which, when allowed to act on them, becomes so sharp a spur to the lazy, and so strong a bridle to the random, these paupers’ friends would repeal, because of the wailings it here and there produces. Blind to the fact, that under the natural order of things society is constantly excreting its unhealthy, imbecile, slow, vacillating, faithless members, these unthinking, though well-meaning, men advocate an interference which not only stops the purifying process, but even increases the vitiation—absolutely encourages the multiplication of the reckless and incompetent by offering them an unfailing provision, and discourages the multiplication of the competent and provident by heightening the prospective difficulty of maintaining a family. And thus, in their eagerness to prevent the really salutary sufferings that surround us, these sigh-wise and groan-foolish people bequeath to posterity a continually increasing curse. This is wonderfully put -- a greater beneficence is shown by the decease and decrease of the 'less fit' when evolution winnows out the weaklings and the failures. This is why Spencer's thought was taken up by the following Social Darwinists. In any case, Spencer's approbation of charity was only extended to the deserving . . . the purifying process would brook no charity to the defective. Contrast this with the words cited by Rad Geek (found in context here), but note first that Spencer is not talking about the mendicant, or other subjects of the Poor Laws which he reviled -- the context is denying the labouring classes political representation. Two distinct items of discussion entirely: It is very easy for you, O respectable citizen, seated in your easy chair, with your feet on the fender, to hold forth on the misconduct of the people – very easy for you to censure their extravagant and vicious habits …. It is no honor to you that you do not spend your savings in sensual gratification; you have pleasures enough without. But what would you do if placed in the position of the laborer? How would these virtues of yours stand the wear and tear of poverty? Where would your prudence and self-denial be if you were deprived of all the hopes that now stimulate you …? Let us see you tied to an irksome employment from dawn till dusk; fed on meager food, and scarcely enough of that …. Suppose your savings had to be made, not, as now, out of surplus income, but out of wages already insufficient for necessaries; and then consider whether to be provident would be as easy as you at present find it. Conceive yourself one of a despised class contemptuously termed "the great unwashed"; stigmatized as brutish, stolid, vicious … and then say whether the desire to be respectable would be as practically operative on you as now. … How offensive it is to hear some pert, self-approving personage, who thanks God that he is not as other men are, passing harsh sentence on his poor, hard-worked, heavily burdened fellow countrymen …. Maybe, maybe not. Is there much beyond the truncated quote from Wikipedia to illustrate this contention? I submit that altruism, as drawn from Comte, is a perfectly serviceable extension of the meaning, and well-within the scope of Comte's meaning. I note, again, that we have read here only what Rand, Peikoff, Kelley and Thomas tell us what Comte meant. A fairer rendition would be to show Comte's usage, I figure -- but that can be lodged in the other thread.

Already done, with no assistance from Brazil. See the LA Times story on animal mayors of US towns: Four-legged mayors Some towns are going to the dogs; others have gotten their goats. In the 2003 mayoral election in the rural Riverside County town of Anza, a 200-pound goat named Opie beat out three human opponents. No election was held in 2004, and Opie has since been put out to pasture. But at least one goat, a donkey and two dogs are currently serving as mayors.

The terrorist might be misinterpreting an old RoR post, here, in which you were briefly detained, or here, where you crossed paths with cops again. He could also be referring to your claim to have been arrested dozens of times for being white in black circumstances.

Very convivial of you, Barbara! Thank you. The operative words in several of the papers I cited range widely: trust, affliative behaviour, pair-bonding, generosity, benevolence, pro-social behaviour, helping behaviour, universalistic behaviour . . . Sure. I put below another small excerpt from the online Science Encyclopedia, re: Comte's definition, which adds another log on the fire. I will put my further Comte musings and baffledom on another thread, though, and hope to tease out some other research for your possible interest here. As you know from earlier exchanges, my primary interest in these matters is human nature. I find it astonishing that a genetic test can suggest who and who is not predisposed to give more in the Dictator Game, and that an aerosol blast up the nostril can make me more benevolent. I really like the idea of a genetic test for Objectivists along with the self-report measures. -- how interesting it would be to check the same genetic variables of the Ebstein et al experiments on a cohort of meat-eating, firebreathing hardliners of the Randian orbit. In the Comtean system, "altruism" stood for the totality of other-regarding sentiments. The new cerebral science of phrenology, Comte said, proved that altruistic sentiments were innate. He heralded this as one of the most important discoveries of modern science and contrasted it with what he presented as the Christian view, namely that human beings are, by nature, entirely selfish (because of the taint of original sin). Comte's hope was that through the institution of a new humanistic religion based on a scientific understanding of human nature and society, civilized nations would develop to a stage where altruistic sentiments prevailed over egoistic ones. Working out how to bring such a society about, Comte taught, was the greatest problem facing humanity. In his view, one of the keys to increased altruism was a recognition of the fact that women, because of their maternal instincts, were more altruistic than men. They therefore should have supreme moral and religious authority (although only within the domestic sphere). Thus the Religion of Humanity, as he called it, encouraged a particular emphasis on feminine moral virtues and the great sanctity of motherhood.

Thanks to the patient drumming of Barbara Branden and Ted Keer, especially the idea that the poor old mug should be afforded respect for the meaning of the word, I asked myself, "Well, what meaning did the old mug give for his word, what job did it do in his system, and what did he have to say about psychology?" I asked myself about psychology because I wondered how the hell he figured the only ethical system fit for human beings was one of those beings in thrall to ideals of altruism, self-sacrifice, the Other -- to higher callings. And wouldn't you know, but the answer wasn't what I thought it would be. For one thing, Comte had disdain for psychology as a science, and omitted it from his didactic model, as its products and processes were deemed inobservable. Sociology, however, he deemed social physics. He had a hierarchy of knowledge and a scheme for its acquisition, holding that one must begin with mathematics, move on to astronomy, then to physics, chemistry, biology and ultimately to sociology. A 'Postiviste' it seems! As 'social physics,' sociology implies a rational, systematic examination of human behaviour, which makes me think that his 'altruism' -- as an ethical mainstay of an ideal society, as a prescription, was at least partly derived from what he saw as evidence of behavioural universals. And sure enough, what was the apotheosis? Well, a church, a rational church, a Religion of Humanity, with its doctrines united under love . . . that most distinctly human attribute and action. A final note on Comte and then an excerpt and a link to wherein my ignorance was breached -- he believed that there could be a 'final science' beyond his uppermost social physics. And this ultimate field of knowledge, built upon the lower orders as a holon is built of its supervening simpliciters, was, well, an abstract morality. The French philosopher and social theorist Auguste Comte is known as the originator of sociology and ‘positivism’, a philosophical system by which he aimed to discover and perfect the proper political arrangements of modern industrial society. He was the first thinker to advocate the use of scientific procedures in the study of economics, politics and social behaviour, and, motivated by the social and moral problems caused by the French Revolution, he held that the practice of such a science would lead inevitably to social regeneration and progress. Comte’s positivism can be characterized as an approach which rejects as illegitimate all that cannot be directly observed in the investigation and study of any subject. His system of ‘positive philosophy’ had two laws at its foundation: a historical or logical law, ‘the law of three stages’, and an epistemological law, the classification or hierarchy of the sciences. The law of three stages governs the development of human intelligence and society: in the first stage, early societies base their knowledge on theological grounds, giving ultimately divine explanations for all phenomena; later, in the metaphysical stage, forces and essences are sought as explanations, but these are equally chimerical and untestable; finally, in the positive or scientific stage, knowledge is secured solely on observations, by their correlation and sequence. Comte saw this process occurring not only in European society, but also in the lives of every individual. We seek theological solutions in childhood, metaphysical solutions in youth, and scientific explanations in adulthood. His second, epistemological law fixed a classification or hierarchy of sciences according to their arrival at the positive stage of knowledge. In order of historical development and thus of increasing complexity, these are mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and sociology. (Comte rejected psychology as a science, on the grounds that its data were unobservable and therefore untestable.) Knowledge of one science rested partly on the findings of the preceding science; for Comte, students must progress through the sciences in the correct order, using the simpler and more precise methods of the preceding science to tackle the more complex issues of later ones. In his six-volume Cours de philosophie positive (The Positive Philosophy) (1830–42), Comte gave an encyclopedic account of these sciences, ending with an exposition of what he regarded as the most advanced: social physics or ‘sociology’ (a term he invented). The sociologist’s job would be to discover the laws that govern human behaviour on a large scale, and the ways in which social institutions and norms operate together in a complex yet ultimately predictable system. In his later work, Comte fleshed out his vision of the positive society, describing among other things a Religion of Humanity in which historical figures would be worshipped according to their contribution to society. Despite such extravagances, however, the broader themes of his positivism – especially the idea that long-standing social problems should be approached scientifically – proved influential both in France and, through J.S. Mill’s early support, in England. [from an exceedingly good introduction to Comte that I wish I had forked up a long time ago, at the blog Compossível, História da Filosofia]

William, what is your point? Three points, actually. First, that the meanings of altruism are varied -- the Objectivist meaning applies to the ethics, doctrine, theory, and usages in biology apply to behaviour. Second, that it will be difficult if not impossible to purge the non-O meanings from scientific discourse. Third, that the research into altruism has something to say about human nature. The first two points seem obvious to me, and uninteresting. The third is what captures my imagination. I guess where I go off the rails here is that I understand the stock Objectivist meaning of altruism: as an ethical doctrine. But it appears discussion of the cited research founders on the fact that the research is not about ethics, but behaviour. It seems to me that insistence on only one sense of altruism leads to a disinclination to look at human nature. If there is any Keer/Comte altruism found in humans, it is bad. There isn't any other kind of altruism found in the human behavioural repertoire. I must be misunderstanding -- it is as if all human altruistic behaviour can only be a result of ugly old Comte's ethics. Thus any and all evolutionary/genetic/game theory studies are irrelevant to Comte's ethics, thus there is nothing to discuss. I find this frustrating in this venue. I think that Barbara means Auguste Comte when she writes Albert Camus. Certainly we all understand that Comte introduced an ethical framework to go with the coined term. But I don't understand how we deal with the problem: if altruism can only properly describe the ethical system introduced by Comte in 1851, what do we do with the extra meanings that have accrued? I don't believe that Ted and Barbara have no interest in the research I have cited. I wonder what, if anything, the studies say to them about human nature . . . To put it in a nutshell, if altruism can only be ramifications of Comte's ethics, how would one study human altruistic behaviour? Does it mean that every time someone sacrifices himself for another, there are only two possibilities? Such as: -- the self-sacrificial human drank the Comtean Koolaid, and bought into an evil body of thought. -- the self-sacrificial human chose to sacrifice himself for a/the higher value, and thus did a good thing. Of course, I could be entirely wrong about this -- but then I need some help in understanding. Are there any other possibilities that occur to the Objectivist? Now, the most obvious sacrifice is that of a soldier -- even without sketching a situation where the soldier dies on a grenade. Did the soldier: -- buy into an evil ethical stricture and thus devalue his own life and survival? -- served to uphold his highest value? If the second possibility is put forward as an explanation, what was the highest value? It can't have been 'others,' for that would make him a Comtean dupe. If anyone with a solid understanding of Objectivism can help me out here, I would appreciate it. Here is a description from the online Science Encyclopedia, under the heading "Altruism - Comte And Sociology, Darwin, Spencer, And Evolution, Utilitarianism, Christianity And Unbelief, Socialism And Economics." I found this to offer a fair assessment of the several meanings of altruism, as operationalized in differing fields -- my question remains: can we only discuss altruism as ideology? Is that the only proper kind of discussion? Are all seemingly altruistic actions, by definition, either Comte-infected or properly selfish? "Altruism" and "altruistic" have been used to refer to at least three different sorts of things: intentions, actions, and ideologies. These three sorts of usage can be grouped under the headings of "psychological altruism," "behavioral altruism," and "ethical altruism." Psychological altruism is any set of inclinations or intentional motivation to help others for their own sakes. Behavioral altruism is defined in terms of consequences rather than intentions: it refers to any action that benefits others (normally with the additional condition that there is some cost to the agent). "Evolutionary altruism" or "biological altruism" is a form of behavioral altruism, since it is defined solely in terms of consequences rather than intentions: it refers to any behavior that reduces the fitness of the organism performing it and increases the fitness of another organism (see Dawkins; Sober and Wilson). Finally, ethical altruism is an ideology stating that the happiness of others should be the principal goal of one's actions. (Ethical egoism, by contrast, states that what the individual should seek above all else is his or her own happiness.) A frequent cause of confusion has been equivocation between the first two of these three possible meanings—between claims about psychology and claims about behavior. The claim that there is no such thing as true altruism, for example, might be intended to convey the view that, psychologically, no one's motives are ever entirely forgetful of self, since we know that we will receive approval and pleasure as a result of our charitable actions. The reply might be that true altruism certainly exists because many people engage in charitable activities at a cost to themselves, but by shifting from the psychological to the behavioral perspective on altruism, this reply fails to rebut the initial claim. Such conceptual confusion and disagreement over the meaning of altruism marked discussions of it from the outset and persist to this day. (Blum provides one useful and concise discussion of some of the definitional and conceptual issues.)

I would like to know if the editorial pruning, once accomplished, would leave your own products trimmed, or if you only ascribe petty competition, oneupmanship and I'm-right crap to the unnamed Other. You are not pretending that you contribute nothing to the drear, tendentious, tribal squabbly state of affairs you have intuited in your domain, are you, Emperor? If so, I must commend you on your beautiful, white, sparkling, pure and marvelous new cloak you sport.

For a hardcore Objectivist, then, usage of the word is restricted to the destructive ethical doctrine of humans. For those foolish, purblind and sloppy biologists, then, their usage of the word is stupid, wrong, etcetera. Fair enough. The only problem with this formulation is that the Objectivist usage is not current, and not widespread.** It will be exceedingly difficult to wean biology and its confreres of their dreadful misapprehensions . . . A useful window on usage are the Answers.com pages on altruism, which start off with a two-flavour descriptive from the American Heritage dictionary, and then proceed through a variety of listings, ranging from psychoanalysis to politics, sociology, religion . . . and a lot more. Comte's 1851 'proper' meaning is cited from the Dictionary of Philosophy, but the scant references to Rand or Objectivism are found only on the ethics page. Quite a project to overturn so many stupid and incorrect people and reference works. 1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness. 2. Zoology. Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives. This begs the question of whether this kind of behaviour is a hallmark of human animals. If not, of course it cannot be inherited. If yes, it simply rules out the possibility of any aspect of this behaviour being heritable. _________________________ ** although it doesn't tell us anything about 'proper' usage, a pair of Google searches on "altruism rand" and "altruism biology" returns over a million hits for the biological reference and only 40-odd thousand for the Randian.

To be fair, not everyone sees an increase in autism, let alone a fresh change in gene frequencies that would suggest a dire new development in the human genome. Generally speaking, we presently don't see an increasing number of autistic people, just an increased number of diagnoses. Moreover, can it be shown that there are three things: 1) an actual proportionate increase, + 2) that the cause of the increase is due to a heritable genetic mutation, + 3) the mutation is liable to become fixed in the genome? Together, these elements would imply something fairly alarming. No one has yet demonstrated that these elements pertain to autism. Look at other examples, this time ones that to my eyes are indeed evolutionary developments, and indeed unpleasant: AIDS/HIV, SARS, Avian flu . . .