On 10/28/2008 06:04 PM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have spent a considerable amount of time in the past few days
> reading, analyzing, and interpreting the works of Nathaniel Branden.
> From my understanding, Branden is well-known as a psychologist and
> for his books on self-esteem.

He is also well-known as a former protege and closest possible
associate of Ayn Rand, founder of the Nathaniel Branden Institute for
Objectivist Studies (during the 1960s) and, at one time, Rand's
designated "intellectual heir".

> During the past few days of my
> studying I have experienced a remarkable amount of self-discovery
> that I would like to share with the group. Prior to my beginning to
> read Branden's work I thought myself to be a successful, socially
> well-adjusted 26-year old male. I still think these things about
> myself, but after reading Branden's work it is apparent to me that I
> still have plenty of work to do in developing myself to be as
> rational and well-adjusted as I can be. As I have found my
> experiences studying Branden's work to be very enlightening and even
> life-changing, I would encourage others who have not yet read his
> work to consider doing so.
>
> Before I get started with my thoughts about Branden's ideas and how I
> have applied them to me I would first like to discuss my thoughts on
> sharing the "personal" information I am about to share. Some of the
> ideas I am about to share may seem to others to be highly personal,
> and a reader might ask the question: "why would Steve share this
> with other people on the internet he doesn't even know". A reader
> might also think: "I would never share such highly personal thoughts
> and experiences as Steve has in such a public forum". Since many
> people who are active on the internet seem to be what I would
> call "overly cautious" of sharing personal information with others,
> these questions are ones I would like to reply to, in hopes that my
> answers inspire readers to reconsider their overly-private
> disposition.
>
> When considering whether I would share these thoughts openly with
> others (or when considering sharing any information with others), I
> ask myself if there is possibility of negative consequences to me by
> sharing these thoughts. Answering this question can be difficult
> sometimes, such as the question: "should one share their financial
> information with others?" By my analysis, there seems to be a number
> of possible negative consequences that I might be more likely to be
> subjected to should I share my personal financial information with
> others. For example, if I had a large amount of wealth and shared
> this information openly with everyone I knew, some people (given a
> large enough sample of people who are aware of my wealth) would
> consider taking advantage of me to obtain some of my wealth. To this
> point I might reply: "well, if I am not being foolish with my
> wealth, and only use it for things that are important to me, no one
> would be able to cause me to part with my wealth without my
> consent". I think this is a valid reply to such an argument.
> However, some of these people, aware of my wealth, may consider
> taking my wealth from me by force. This, of course, would make my
> life more dangerous, much like carrying a large amount of cash around
> on my person, and being flashy with it, in a crowded area. From my
> understanding, doing this would make it more likely that I could be
> harmed for my cash (i.e. for my wealth).

People may also cause you trouble by involuntarily (on your part)
interrupting you more than if you did not share that information. This
is why the Natural Social Contract contains clauses that clearly state
that such unpermitted interruptions are violations.
http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#responsible_harm


> However, from my analysis, sharing personal thoughts and experiences
> is much different than sharing information about wealth. If one
> tries to compare the two pieces of information (about wealth and
> about experiences), only the former can be stolen. That is, the two
> types of information are not comparable in their value to others.

You are somewhat confusing what it is that can and cannot be stolen.
It is true that personal thoughts and experiences cannot be stolen or
even transferred, but that is because they are not physical in
character as are certain types of wealth, which can therefore be
stolen or otherwise transferred. However, *information* is not
something that can ever be taken from a person. It can only be copied
and transferred to another. Rather it is the information about your
physical wealth that can be used to steal it from you, whereas the
information about your personal thoughts and experiences cannot be so
used (mainly because they are not transferable precisely because they
are not physical in nature).

Furthermore, while the two types of information are not comparable in
some characteristics, they are comparable in terms of the lifetime
happiness increasing value to the person receiving them. In this sense
it should be now considered that "information" is a distinct new type
of economic exchange factor, along with goods and services. The
Internet has been the largest factor bringing about this change in the
status of information.


> If someone knows that I have had a certain thought, or experienced a
> particular feeling, they can not use this information to deprive me
> of material wealth.

Certainly they cannot transfer such information from you and leave you
without it as they could material wealth. However even for thoughts
and experiences "deprive" is the wrong word, since people can only use
whatever information you give them to non-coercively try to sell you
goods and services that satisfy your expressed needs, wants and
desires. However, to the extent that such things actually *do* satisfy
those desires and bring you more lifetime happiness the exchanges are
voluntary and should be wanted/welcomed by you. Such attempts to gain
from you will only be able to be negative for you if your wants, needs
and desires are irrational and not fully consistent with the rest of
your life (or if those attempts perpetrate *interruption harm* against
you, as mentioned above).


> On the other hand, a person with possession of this knowledge might
> use this information to illustrate me to others as a bad person.
> That is, if I am convinced of an idea that would result in me being
> harmful to other people, the fact that I hold this idea can be
> communicated to a large audience with the intent to cause others to
> dislike me. Should I be convinced of ideas that are harmful to
> others I should be careful about what ideas and experiences I share
> with others, for I wouldn't want others to hate me (i.e. socially
> preference against me).

First, it needs to be made clear that socially preferencing against
(negative social preferencing) can only occur when a person *acts* on
hir emotion of hatred (or even dislike).

Also some people may consider that some action or even viewpoint of
yours is harmful to them, even when it has no aspect of violation
involved. (See definition of violation in the NSC -
http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#violate ) With respect to
such people, you may well be negatively socially preferenced (they may
show dislike for you, not associate with you and try to influence
others to do the same). However, since their reasons and actions are
irrational in this respect, you should ignore them and not take them
into consideration as much as possible. If you cannot do so and still
continue to have a tolerable level of existence within your current
environment, then you should move to a new environment where you can.


> Then it is good for me I hold no such views! :)

Unfortunately, because there is an enormous subjective disparity
within current society about just which views of a person are actually
harmful to others (largely because of the engendered and promoted
irrationalism of so many people), it is almost impossible for some of
your expressed views to not be considered as harmful by some people.
This means that expressing your views will almost always cause some
people to not want to interact with you and you will end up with fewer
overall people with whom to interact. The positive side of this is
that those people who are left will be the ones with whom you gain
more from interactions and they in turn have their lifetime happiness
increased through exchanges with you. In addition, you also gain by
the fact that the others do not gain from value exchanges with you and
are thereby ultimately lessened in lifetime happiness. You gain in
this manner because the undeserving (the irrational) are reduced in
total value and stature (and, hopefully, in power, influence and
fecundity).


> My question then, for those who are convinced that they should not
> share their personal experiences and philosophies with others,
> is: "are you convinced of ideas that would motivate you to harm
> me?"

This is similar to the illogic of the "Golden Rule". Rather the
question that should be asked is: "Do you think that your ideas
would be considered by me to be harmful". Note that the judgment of
whether or not something is harmful (or beneficial) must logically be
done by the receiver of it. Furthermore, one must carefully
distinguish between simple harm (reduction or lessened increase of
lifetime happiness) and culpable harm (or what in the NSC I call
Responsible Harm - http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#responsible_harm ).
Your example below is strongly about the latter type of harm.


> For example, perhaps you firmly think that your life should be
> spent stealing from others, or that you very much enjoy killing
> people while they sleep. Certainly I would not want to associate
> with you if you hold these views, and I would also communicate to
> those I cared about that it is in their best interests to avoid you.
> However, how many people, that is, what proportion of people hold
> views like this? And even more relevant, if *you*, reading this now,
> hold no such harmful or malicious views, what is the harm in sharing
> them? Perhaps you will make new friends. Perhaps you and I will
> become great friends!
>
> So, I invite everyone reading this to reply to my comments,
> especially should they have personal thoughts and experiences to
> share that relate to what I am about to share.
>
> Furthermore, on the subject of sharing personal thoughts and
> experiences: perhaps a reader would be concerned of being ridiculed
> for holding a certain view or feeling a certain emotion at a
> seemingly inappropriate time. In reply to this idea, I would
> ask: "If you were to share something personal and someone were to
> ridicule you, which one of you would look like a fool to everyone
> else? You, or the person doing the ridiculing?" Of course, the
> plain answer is that any person who ridicules someone else for
> sharing personal thoughts with others is seen by others as an
> inconsiderate asshole. That would be the name for the ridiculer that
> would pop into my mind.

Such an evaluation and naming should be fully acted upon in order to
socially preference against such a person, first of all, and most
importantly, by having no association whatever with hir (unless forced
to by government laws/regulations that cannot be avoided, or some other
immediate necessity of survival, in which latter case one should then
act to eliminate any such necessary association).


> So again, I invite you to share your thoughts and feelings. I
> certainly think we can learn from one another.
>
> ---
> Steve Floyd


Thanks for initiating this set of personal posts.

--Paul

[I add my appreciation too, Steve. It brings to mind a Kitty Reflects entry I
made at MoreLife.org over 5 years ago that I wrote when Paul was first working
on the Self-Sovereign Individual Project. I wrote about some of his own
relationships - http://morelife.org/personal/kittyreflects/kiton030713.html
**Kitty]