0610: "Sheeple"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
brian0918
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:51 pm UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby brian0918 » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:13 pm UTC

3amFriday wrote:What I think when I ride the T: "All these people are going to work (and they don't look happy about it). I'm not! Wooo!"


What I think when riding the T: "I've never seen so many white ear buds!"

User avatar
brian0918
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:51 pm UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby brian0918 » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:14 pm UTC

chrth wrote:I think the comic is simply saying that too many people forget this:

I think Dawkins calls that "compartmentalization".

Flewellyn
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:41 pm UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby Flewellyn » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:23 pm UTC

BlueNight wrote:In my opinion, when people hear that Ayn Rand thinks of selfishness as the highest good, they're thinking of the short-term, petty selfishness that the word "selfishness" ordinarily connotes.

However, the selfishness she lauds is more along the lines of the two little children dividing a piece of cake. One child carefully and methodically does his very best to make absolutely certain the two pieces are as precisely even as he can possibly make them... because he knows the other child will then pick the piece he perceives as biggest. Thus, selfishness enhances the common good.


Maybe. Or maybe it just ends up being petty squabbling, because no matter how careful and methodical the first child cuts the cake, the second child will insist that one piece really is bigger than the other, and that piece will be the one the second child didn't get. I mean, not all children will act this way, but a selfish and petty child sure would. I've seen it happen.

BlueNight wrote:An altruist would cut the cake unevenly on purpose, and then feel self-satisfaction at having ceded a larger portion to another unselfishly... quite unaware that his self-satisfaction is his larger piece of pie, his own reward. As long as he doesn't grumble, both benefit. And yet this is more selfish, because then he can hold it over the one who received the larger piece as a moral debt to be repaid at a later time, when at that time it will benefit him instead of the other.


See, now you're redefining "altruist" behind your back to mean "passive-aggressive manipulator who gets off on a false sense of moral superiority". I hardly consider that a fair definition. In fact, I would say that if your putative "altruist" is consciously planning to hold his "generosity" over the other person later, he is no altruist at all.

An altruist might just say "let's split it" and cut the cake more or less evenly, but not spend a great deal of mental effort worrying if the two slices were exactly even in size. In this example, it's not worth fighting over, especially since both parties end up with cake.


Assuming, of course, that the cake is not a lie.

Birdman1011395
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:07 am UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby Birdman1011395 » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:25 pm UTC

So, I like me some King, would I like Rand?

User avatar
brian0918
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:51 pm UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby brian0918 » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:27 pm UTC

Flewellyn wrote:the second child will insist that one piece really is bigger than the other

He may insist that, but what is his evidence to support that claim? Conviction without evidence - faith - has no place in a morality based on rational self-interest. Altruism on the other hand, seems to gravitate toward faith, whether it be faith in God, Church, or State.
Last edited by brian0918 on Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:31 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Flewellyn
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:41 pm UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby Flewellyn » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:28 pm UTC

athelas wrote:What I've come to realize is that Randall has a certain agenda, or bias. He wants to become known as the "cool nerd," particularly among the SWPL set. As a result, he frequently puts down aspects of nerdiness that do not correspond with the polite, politically-correct sensibilities of that group. (See, for example, this comic, which is factually incorrect but sounds much more soothing than mere truth could ever be).


Well, that's one option.

OR, we could posit that he actually believes the things he's saying through these comics, and is trying to really make something of a point, not just ingratiate himself with a certain "politically-correct" group.

You could give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume he's thoughtful and sincere, rather than superficial and cynical.

Flewellyn
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:41 pm UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby Flewellyn » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:30 pm UTC

brian0918 wrote:
Flewellyn wrote:the second child will insist that one piece really is bigger than the other

He may insist that, but what is his evidence to support that claim? Conviction without evidence - faith - has no place in a morality based on rational self-interest.


Yes, but therein lies the rub: RATIONAL self-interest. Children are not always known for their skills at remaining rational when self-interest is at stake. In fact, people in general are not always known for this. There is a reason why we have to teach logic and reasoning in schools.

Rationality can in fact be defeated by self-interest, as in the phenomenon of rationalization. If you want something bad enough, you can convince yourself that it's good and right to have it or do it, regardless of whether it actually is or not.

User avatar
ritvax
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:19 pm UTC
Location: New York

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby ritvax » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:38 pm UTC

noname wrote:Alt-text: Hey, what are the odds -- five Ayn Rand fans on the same train! Must be going to a convention.

I like Ayn Rand. Nice reference :)



You'd think that Ayn Rand fans would prefer to travel by train... book me a ticket via Taggart Transcon!
I wish I was running VMS v.6.5

User avatar
brian0918
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:51 pm UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby brian0918 » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:38 pm UTC

Flewellyn wrote:Rationality can in fact be defeated by self-interest, as in the phenomenon of rationalization. If you want something bad enough, you can convince yourself that it's good and right to have it or do it, regardless of whether it actually is or not.

You're describing hedonism - getting what you want as an end in itself, with no regard for the source of that desire - whim? fancy? instant gratification? I do not know how you could call that "self-interest" by any stretch - assuming a selfish morality, how is it "self-interested" to evade what is good for the self?
Last edited by brian0918 on Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:45 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
andrewclunn
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby andrewclunn » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:39 pm UTC

brian0918 wrote:
andrewclunn wrote:Enlightened Self-interest leads (quite rationally) to honesty, a desire to learn, concern with long-term consequences, and integrity (Similar to, but different from honesty.)

If one is consciously self-interested one is concerned with the truth, both in terms of how the world works and in regard to the words people speak. One requires a valid standard by which to judge reality, so curiosity about the world naturally follows. There's also something to be said for honesty being in one's self-interest, but I assume that we've all heard of the boy who cried wolf. To say that honesty is the best policy might indeed be a heuristic, as there are in fact certain cases where it pays to lie, but these are by far the exception, not the rule, and if one is concerned with the long term consequences of their actions, then even more so. And when one is consciously aware that they are indeed living for their own happiness, there is no need to misrepresent their motives. To an Objectivist, telling you spouse that you love them because they have a strong work ethic, keep their promises and are upfront and honest when they disagree with you is NOT a cold deconstruction of one's feelings, but a fiercely personal compliment, making clear one's admiration for another. We are in fact, much more wary of individuals who will state that they feel something and can give no reason as to why. Objectivists of course have integrity, because when accused of selfishness, or secretly simply being motivated by it, we state that we make no attempt to hide that it is our motivation. All of Objectivist morality does come from enlightened self-interest, but it is necessary to remember that Objectivist morality is very different from the religiously inspired Humanism that is todays' defacto accepted morality.


I'm sorry but have you read any of Rand's non-fiction? You're arguing for morality from appeals to truth, honesty, and other virtues, and from a practical standpoint (don't want to become a martyr!). This is similar to those who argue for capitalism because "it works" rather than because it upholds individual rights. None of this constitutes an actual grounding for rational self-interest - which is in the nature of a man and the requirements for his survival. Yours is an appeal to emotion, and the only result of this discussion (provided your opponents dissect your responses thoroughly enough) is to present and destroy a straw man version of Objectivism.


Oh, you should not read this post out of the context of the discussion I had been having throughout the thread. Indeed Rand argues a deductive case for Objectivism as her justification. But I feel that science has progressed to the point where one can start also making inductive arguments for Objectivism (Which is what I find is more effective for representing the idea of morality being logically founded in reality, as once that is accepted deductive arguments for morality can then be made.)
I program in languages that would make your motherboard blush.

I also shave with a +2 Occam's razor.

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby markfiend » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:54 pm UTC

See, my problem with Rand is her assertion that total laissez-faire capitalism is a logical result of rational self-interest.

I believe that I am rationally self-interested, and I also believe that it is more in my best interests that the UK continues to have a welfare state than otherwise. The fact that I also believe it is in the best interests of the UK population as a whole is a happy accident.

*Edit: Actually, no it's not an accident. I happen to believe that a population which has the safety net of a welfare state tends to create a society in which it is more pleasant to live than the dog-eat-dog world of laissez-faire capitalism.
Last edited by markfiend on Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
advanced, forthright, signifficant
pronouns: he/him

mynameinc
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:02 am UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby mynameinc » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:55 pm UTC

This comic is a conspiracy between Randall, the Martians, the United States federal government, the CIA, the Soviets, the Russians, the Communist Party of China, Raul Castro, the Islamic extremists, the Confederate States of America, Santa Claus, the Wikimedia Foundation, Oliver North, the last 10 presidents and/or their families, Area 51, the United Federation of Planets, the United States military, NASA, the governments of every Islamic state, the media, giant swimming rabbits from Georgia, and Joseph McCarthy to make us think anybody who knows everyone else are sheep and they, along with a few others, know the truth are crazy, and need to change from their ways.

I, however, will not change Randall, the Martians, the United States federal government, the CIA, the Soviets, the Russians, the Communist Party of China, Raul Castro, the Islamic extremists, the Confederate States of America, Santa Claus, the Wikimedia Foundation, Oliver North, the last 10 presidents and/or their families, Area 51, the United Federation of Planets, the United States military, NASA, the governments of every Islamic state, the media, giant swimming rabbits from Georgia, and Joseph McCarthy! I KNOW I know the truth about the moon landings, the JFK assassination, the War on Terrorism, the 9/11 attacks, the energy crises, the Lincoln assassination, Iran-Contra, Area 51, and the giant swimming rabbit attack! Only a few others do! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

If you will excuse me, I have to go to the hat store down the block, and will be back shortly. I heard they are having a 2-for-1 sale on protective tin-foil hats.

Flewellyn
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:41 pm UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby Flewellyn » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:57 pm UTC

brian0918 wrote:You're describing hedonism - getting what you want as an end in itself, with no regard for the source of that desire - whim? fancy? instant gratification? I do not know how you could call that "self-interest" by any stretch - assuming a selfish morality, how is it "self-interested" to evade what is good for the self?


The whole problem is one of self-deception. It is, as you say, quite possible that what you want is not actually what's good for you, and in such a case you would mistake simple desire for self-interest.

But there's another problem. What is good for one may well be bad for others around that person. Now, I think it's generally the case that, whatever the other moral considerations, harming others is not in your own best interest. But, if you (generic you, here) want something badly enough to start rationalizing about it, it's all too easy to self-deceive, and convince yourself that in fact, this IS in your best interest, because it's what you want, and that the harm to others around you is either negligible, or justified. So the self-interested mindset you posit can lead to justifying harm to others because the results serve your own needs. That is no morality.

User avatar
andrewclunn
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby andrewclunn » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:10 pm UTC

Flewellyn wrote:
brian0918 wrote:You're describing hedonism - getting what you want as an end in itself, with no regard for the source of that desire - whim? fancy? instant gratification? I do not know how you could call that "self-interest" by any stretch - assuming a selfish morality, how is it "self-interested" to evade what is good for the self?


The whole problem is one of self-deception. It is, as you say, quite possible that what you want is not actually what's good for you, and in such a case you would mistake simple desire for self-interest.

But there's another problem. What is good for one may well be bad for others around that person. Now, I think it's generally the case that, whatever the other moral considerations, harming others is not in your own best interest. But, if you (generic you, here) want something badly enough to start rationalizing about it, it's all too easy to self-deceive, and convince yourself that in fact, this IS in your best interest, because it's what you want, and that the harm to others around you is either negligible, or justified. So the self-interested mindset you posit can lead to justifying harm to others because the results serve your own needs. That is no morality.

Are you really making the case that because you think no human could perfectly live out Objectivism, that it is a failed morality? And I assume then that you follow your own moral code to perfection then?
I program in languages that would make your motherboard blush.

I also shave with a +2 Occam's razor.

yaz
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:08 pm UTC

Re: Sheeple

Postby yaz » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:13 pm UTC

Iluvatar wrote:On the subject of sheeple, one sure sign of nutjobbery is when someone proclaims that everyone else is being duped by the man / the establishment / academia / corporate interests / etc, and only they + a few others know the truth. Aspartame, the fed, moon landings, timecube.com, etc.


I never heard of Timecube.com before, and after reading the site for a bit, all I can say is:

Huh?

User avatar
brian0918
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:51 pm UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby brian0918 » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:14 pm UTC

markfiend wrote:See, my problem with Rand is her assertion that total laissez-faire capitalism is a logical result of rational self-interest.


It's not a direct result. Rand starts with morality - rational self-interest. Placed in a social context, this implies the existence of individual rights. The existence of those rights entails that capitalism is the only moral system. You may believe (what's your argument?) that the welfare state is in your self-interest, but because it must invariably violate individual rights, it requires the use of force against individuals, preventing them from rationally pursuing their goals and furthering their values. Maybe they do still further their values, and maybe they - or most of them - don't even notice the effect of this force, but the ends do not justify the means. In other words, no statement affirming the practicality of a system (ie, that "the system works") serves as a moral justification for that system.
Last edited by brian0918 on Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:18 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Monika
Welcoming Aarvark
Posts: 3672
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:03 am UTC
Location: Germany, near Heidelberg
Contact:

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby Monika » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:18 pm UTC

gistick wrote:Who is Randall Munroe?

The writer and drawer of this fine comic.
#xkcd-q on irc.foonetic.net - the LGBTIQQA support channel
Please donate to help these people

rigaTony
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:27 pm UTC

Re: Sheeple

Postby rigaTony » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:19 pm UTC

Iluvatar wrote:I used to be one of the sheeple who thought everyone else was a sheeperson. Now I've seen the light, though, and am aware that people such as I used to be are totally shee- crap!

More seriously, I used to be a Rand fan, but I got better. Still think she's a great writer and I like a few of the ideas, but I no longer self identify as a strict libertarian, much less an objectivist.

On the subject of sheeple, one sure sign of nutjobbery is when someone proclaims that everyone else is being duped by the man / the establishment / academia / corporate interests / etc, and only they + a few others know the truth. Aspartame, the fed, moon landings, timecube.com, etc.




Has anyone here ever read Anthem? If so how can you actually say she is a great writer. To be so INCREDIBLY forward with your message to the point where the story itself becomes obsolete is not the sign of a great writer. She should have written manifestos instead of novels. Now Orwell was a great writer, at least his piece required some interpretation instead of just:

INDIVIDUALISM IS ALL POWERFUL! LOOK HOW THIS PERSON WHO WAS RAISED IN A TOWN IN WHICH PEOPLE DON'T THINK FOR THEMSELVES FOUND A WAY TO NOT ONLY THINK FOR HIMSELF, BUT ALSO OPERATE A LIGHT BULB!!!!!!!!1111!!one!!!eleven!!!


Hey I can write like Ayn Rand.


And that's coming from a libertarian.

User avatar
Beacons!
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 2:17 pm UTC
Location: The Grand Unifying Intermahweb

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby Beacons! » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:22 pm UTC

What? There are other blond-haired, green-eyed, Surrealist, Trance, Classical and Metal listening people out there with an offer to a top 5 world university? Surely not...
Last edited by Beacons! on Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:30 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"Woof!", explained the dog

User avatar
brian0918
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:51 pm UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby brian0918 » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:25 pm UTC

Flewellyn wrote:The whole problem is one of self-deception. It is, as you say, quite possible that what you want is not actually what's good for you, and in such a case you would mistake simple desire for self-interest.

Yes, self-deception is quite rampant. Using reason as a guide in all your actions - being consistent - is quite difficult. I don't claim to be consistent myself.

Now, I think it's generally the case that, whatever the other moral considerations, harming others is not in your own best interest.

Except in the case of self-defense against threat or force, that is true.

But, if you (generic you, here) want something badly enough to start rationalizing about it, it's all too easy to self-deceive, and convince yourself that in fact, this IS in your best interest, because it's what you want

But that's not a rational argument. If you actually said to yourself, "I want this. It's in my self-interest because I want it." - that is hedonism. If you're not actively checking yourself against whim, instant gratification, etc, and just assuming that what you want = what's best for your life, you will obviously run in to these problems. This is all part of what is necessary to being rationally self-interested.

So the self-interested mindset you posit

Hrm? I am not positing what you say I posit. "Desire as an end in itself" - what you here describe and attack - is a straw man of my position.
Last edited by brian0918 on Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:27 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Flewellyn
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:41 pm UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby Flewellyn » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:26 pm UTC

andrewclunn wrote:Are you really making the case that because you think no human could perfectly live out Objectivism, that it is a failed morality? And I assume then that you follow your own moral code to perfection then?


Nope! Wouldn't be so foolish.

Where self-deception comes in, is of course at the point at which we ask "what is good for me to do?" If self-interest is the only criterion, we only have one person to consult: ourselves. And because people are very good at self-deception, this means our only source is suspect.

Moral philosphies which posit that people as a community have something to contribute to the question, well, they have an advantage here; with such a system, we can ask other people. And even empower other people collectively to make rules on the matter.

Perfection is not required; some form of error detection and correction, however, is required.

Flewellyn
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:41 pm UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby Flewellyn » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:30 pm UTC

brian0918 wrote:
But, if you (generic you, here) want something badly enough to start rationalizing about it, it's all too easy to self-deceive, and convince yourself that in fact, this IS in your best interest, because it's what you want

But that's not a rational argument. If you actually said to yourself, "I want this. It's in my self-interest because I want it." - that is hedonism. If you're not actively checking yourself against whim, instant gratification, etc, and just assuming that what you want = what's best for your life, you will obviously run in to these problems. This is all part of what is necessary to being rationally self-interested.


No, no, no, you misunderstand me. The "because" in my statement was not the reason (well, rationalization) that you would use consciously to justify why it was in your best interest. It's the unconscious reason for WHY you would rationalize it thus.

A rationalizing person would not say "Well, I want this, so it's in my best interest", unless that person was sociopathic or hedonistic, in which case, they wouldn't bother to rationalize at all. But the fact of wanting it could well induce the person to make up a rationalization for why it would be in his or her best interest, even if it was not. Especially if it was not.

Sorry for the confusion.
Last edited by Flewellyn on Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:32 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Amnesiasoft
Posts: 2573
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 4:28 am UTC
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby Amnesiasoft » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:31 pm UTC

I hate Ayn Rand.

(But I don't hate vests)

User avatar
brian0918
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:51 pm UTC

Re: Sheeple

Postby brian0918 » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:33 pm UTC

rigaTony wrote:And that's coming from a libertarian.

Which libertarian? The one that supports gay marriage, or the one that opposes it? The one that favors the war on drugs, or the one that grows his own crops? Libertarians are a random group of people who happen to agree on certain key issues, but whose ultimate goals point in opposite directions. They have no foundation for their idea of liberty, so no interest in applying it consistently to every situation. The end result is more of the same, paying lip service to freedom when politically profitable to do so.

User avatar
pinkgothic
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:47 pm UTC
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby pinkgothic » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:35 pm UTC

Flewellyn wrote:Maybe. Or maybe it just ends up being petty squabbling, because no matter how careful and methodical the first child cuts the cake, the second child will insist that one piece really is bigger than the other, and that piece will be the one the second child didn't get. I mean, not all children will act this way, but a selfish and petty child sure would. I've seen it happen.


I think you missed the point there. The first child cuts the cake as evenly as possible so that even if the second child demands the perceivedly bigger slice, they've got a piece that is just as big. In other words, trying to maximise one's own gain regardless of the scenario.

Either that, or I missed the point, which is just as possible. But that's how I read the argument.

BTW, I'm an ethical egoist and as such not entirely aversed to Rand (and unlike many, I really enjoy her prose), but I still laughed at the comic. :P Come on, people, relax. Everything should be open to mockery occasionally. Take it like a man. Woman. Human being.

Also, for the people on the non-Randian side of this, this gem's on page 2:

ducknerd wrote:Hey.
Guys.
I think the alt-text was supposed to make us implicit members of the comic, objectivism being something popular to feel superior to (on the internet, at least). Y'all failed the test. Though by posting this, so did I.
Stuff: own scribblings; favourite mewsic: luxuria & @440; underrated game

rigaTony
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:27 pm UTC

Re: Sheeple

Postby rigaTony » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:36 pm UTC

brian0918 wrote:
rigaTony wrote:And that's coming from a libertarian.

Which libertarian? The one that supports gay marriage, or the one that opposes it? The one that favors the war on drugs, or the one that grows his own crops? Libertarians are a random group of people who happen to agree on certain key issues, but whose ultimate goals point in opposite directions. They have no foundation for their idea of liberty, so no interest in applying it consistently to every situation. The end result is more of the same, paying lip service to freedom when politically profitable to do so.


Do you truly wish for me to explain in great detail both my socio-political and metaphysical views?


Also any libertarian who doesn't apply liberty to all equally, is not a libertarian. Thus when I describe myself as such, I do so with the knowledge of what the word truly means not as a member of the Republican Party.
Last edited by rigaTony on Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:38 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

bray
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:17 pm UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby bray » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:37 pm UTC

brian0918 wrote:If you're not actively checking yourself against whim, instant gratification, etc, and just assuming that what you want = what's best for your life, you will obviously run in to these problems. This is all part of what is necessary to being rationally self-interested.


Best for your life? What does that mean? It sounds like you've just replaced one norm (morality) with another ("best for your life").

User avatar
brian0918
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:51 pm UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby brian0918 » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:39 pm UTC

Flewellyn wrote:A rationalizing person would not say "Well, I want this, so it's in my best interest", unless that person was sociopathic or hedonistic, in which case, they wouldn't bother to rationalize at all. But the fact of wanting it could well induce the person to make up a rationalization for why it would be in his or her best interest, even if it was not. Especially if it was not.

Sorry for the confusion.

Well, since you're defining them as rationalizing a pre-determined choice, then obviously that is not in their self-interest. Of course, in practice one would have to look at the actual arguments made by the person, and decide if they are being reasonable or simply rationalizing apart from reality.

User avatar
brian0918
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:51 pm UTC

Re: Sheeple

Postby brian0918 » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:41 pm UTC

rigaTony wrote:Also any libertarian who doesn't apply liberty to all equally, is not a libertarian.

Obviously, although because consistency is so difficult, and people love to compartmentalize, I would not be surprised if even those who claim to be consistent have their exceptions.

rigaTony
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:27 pm UTC

Re: Sheeple

Postby rigaTony » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:46 pm UTC

brian0918 wrote:Obviously, although because consistency is so difficult, and people love to compartmentalize, I would not be surprised if even those who claim to be consistent have their exceptions.



Consistency is not difficult it just requires vast quantities of thought and application of said thought. Although I do understand what you are saying and agree 100%.

User avatar
brian0918
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:51 pm UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby brian0918 » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:49 pm UTC

bray wrote:Best for your life? What does that mean? It sounds like you've just replaced one norm (morality) with another ("best for your life").

Coming into this discussion halfway through, are we? Well, it starts with examining your values to see if they are overwhelmingly detrimental to your quality of life (chain-smoking, alcoholism, drug addiction for easy examples) or to any other higher values (e.g. endeavors that tear your family apart, if you consider your family of high value to you). Once you have your values worked out, look at your current goals and see if they promote or harm that which you value. Then adjust those as necessary.

As for "replacing morality" with rational self-interest - on the contrary, rational self-interest is the morality.
Last edited by brian0918 on Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:50 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
brian0918
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:51 pm UTC

Re: Sheeple

Postby brian0918 » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:49 pm UTC

rigaTony wrote:Consistency is not difficult it just requires vast quantities of thought and application of said thought. Although I do understand what you are saying and agree 100%.


I'm curious if and how we disagree.

mynameinc
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:02 am UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby mynameinc » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:55 pm UTC

Amnesiasoft wrote:I hate Ayn Rand.

(But I don't hate vests)


Me and you both.

Phasma Felis
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 3:42 am UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby Phasma Felis » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:59 pm UTC

athelas wrote:What I've come to realize is that Randall has a certain agenda, or bias. He wants to become known as the "cool nerd," particularly among the SWPL set. As a result, he frequently puts down aspects of nerdiness that do not correspond with the polite, politically-correct sensibilities of that group. (See, for example, this comic, which is factually incorrect but sounds much more soothing than mere truth could ever be).

I'm curious. What part of the Idiocracy comic do you think is factually incorrect?

Phasma Felis
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 3:42 am UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby Phasma Felis » Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:00 pm UTC

musashi1600 wrote:If I'm thinking about someone else on the bus I'm riding (no trains where I live, for the most part), I'm probably wondering for the (2^n)th time why people sit in an aisle seat while blocking off an empty window seat. I've never understood that.

In my case, it's because the local buses have tightly packed rows, I'm 6'2", and I can only sit comfortably with one knee in the aisle. Also I like to have a seat to set my bag on.

Also this:
Kurasuke wrote:People don't want to sit next to other people on the bus.

User avatar
Apostrophe
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:12 am UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby Apostrophe » Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:02 pm UTC

Anyone else almost read the comic as "Look at these people; amazing how sheep will show up for the slaughter."?

Doctor Horrible + xkcd = ...?

User avatar
andrewclunn
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby andrewclunn » Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:02 pm UTC

This thread suffers from the same issue that a lot of these sorts of threads do. A lot of people discussing Objectivism, only some of which appear to understand it.
I program in languages that would make your motherboard blush.

I also shave with a +2 Occam's razor.

Brad
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:47 am UTC

Re: "Sheeple" Discussion

Postby Brad » Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:05 pm UTC

Tenth Speed Writer wrote:Mankind has more to gain in willingly acting for the good of the community whenever it is reasonable to do so (emphasis: reasonable) than in jumping to either end of the spectrum (philosophical communism v. objectivism).


The word "willingly" is the key here. If you really meant that, then the objectivists and the socialists could all live together in one society with no problems.

rigaTony
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:27 pm UTC

Re: Sheeple

Postby rigaTony » Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:07 pm UTC

brian0918 wrote:
I'm curious if and how we disagree.



I believe the only disagreement we could come across is that you are slightly more Machiavellian in your interpretation of what it means to be human. I see the human mind as being able to overcome prejudice and "compartmentalization," though it is very difficult, where as you see it as next to impossible. Other than that I see us as realists who understand the complex nature of human interpretation and action.


Am I close?

User avatar
DreadArchon
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:29 pm UTC
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Sheeple

Postby DreadArchon » Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:19 pm UTC

tmbg002 wrote:Reminds me of the "Personal Fable" From my first psychology class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_fable

I have the inverse problem. I keep thinking that I should be able to get along with the people around me, and they're all pretty sure that I'm too strange to tolerate. (They don't hesitate to tell me when I try to strike up a conversation.)

I wonder if there's a name for that. When I was young they called it "nerdy," but everyone else who gets called "nerdy" reacts the same way to me, so I doubt it.

This would probably bother me if I ever remembered it; of course, the condition as I stated it wouldn't exist if I ever remembered it, so it's not a big deal. :lol:


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher and 88 guests