George Mason economist Bryan Caplan has some excellent advice on how to increase your "social intelligence." As a teenager and for years thereafter, I had many of the same problems as Bryan and partially overcame them in much the same way. As Bryan puts it, I "at least managed to claw my way up to mediocrity" in this important aspect of life. If you have similar shortcomings (and I suspect many intellectually oriented people do), his advice is well worth considering:
My social intelligence is a lot higher than it used to be. I still wouldn't say that I'm "good with people." But in my youth, I was truly inept. In junior high, I had one real friend, and many overt enemies. Since then, I've at least managed to claw my way up to mediocrity.
A lot of social intelligence is in details and practice. If I could travel back in time and spend five minutes advising myself, though, here are the principles I would try to teach myself.
1. Good conversation is an exchange. The most basic form of social ineptitude is to say what's on your mind, even though you have no reason to believe your listeners are interested. Even more cloddish: Saying what's on your mind, even though you know that your listeners are not interested.
In a useful conversation, in contrast, there is a double coincidence of wants. You have to be interested in what I have to say; I have to be interested in what you have to say....
2. Be friendly. It's not just good advice for libertarians; it's good advice for people. A strong presumption in favor of kindness and respect almost never hurts you, and often helps you. Note that I say "presumption." Don't "wait and see" if people deserve friendly treatment. Hand it out first, no questions asked. You will make friends (very good), avoid making enemies (good), and occasionally show undeserved kindness and respect (only mildly bad).
3. Keeping friends is more important than getting your way. You should think twice before asking anyone for help. If you still think it's a good idea, try to make your request easy to refuse. "How would you feel about..." is much better than "Please, please just do me this one favor!" In the short-run, of course, the pushy approach is often effective. But life is a repeated game, pushing leads to resentment, and your relationships are more valuable than almost any specific victory.
There is a complication, of course. Part of the reason why young intellectuals make these mistakes is that they often don't realize they are doing so. But another part is often the result of having a strong preference for expressing your own ideas and little interest in the things other people want to talk about - especially social chitchat and small talk. If you place a really high value on "hearing yourself talk" and a relatively low value on social popularity, it could be rational to reject Bryan's advice. But if your goal in expressing your ideas is to persuade other people that you are right (or at least worth taking seriously), following the above advice will still be useful. Thought it may be irrational to do so, people tend to discount your ideas if you act like a jerk and give them more credence if you seem friendly and personable. Even if you are the kind of deep thinker who doesn't care much about making friends, you should still make nice if you want to influence people.
air jordan shoes
As all around the world ,air jordan we know Michael Jordan is the super star in NBA .His quotes is one of my favorite ,that is .“I can michael jordan shoes
accept failure, but can not accept to give up.”He always called the god of basketball ,air jordan.He never give up while fierce
cheap jordan shoes
competition .
asking a favor is getting your way?
it's better if you always remember that if someone did you a favor, you owe them one in turn and are prepared to repay it when they ask.
nothing's faster at wrecking a relationship, especailly those casual ones we have at work, than asking for favors while always having a good reason for repaying them when asked.
Chester nods all the way through this, but does not rudely interrupt Randy as a younger nerd would. Your younger nerd takes offense quickly when someone near him begins to utter declarative sentences, because he reads into it an assertion that he, the nerd, does not already know the information being imparted. But your older nerd has more self-confidence, and besides, understands that frequently people need to think out loud. And highly advanced nerds will furthermore understand that uttering declarative sentences whose contents are already known to all present is part of the social process of making conversation and therefore should not be construed as aggression under any circumstances.
Brett: But I was one and twenty, falero lero loo!
NS
Freindship is a 50/50 deal and you have to
give both of those 50's
Never lie to a friend.
Give of yourself 1st if you want people to give of themself
Kids nust be involved in activities outside of their comfort zone and more important away from us. We made sure our two brainiacs did scouts, 4H FFA, church youth group, sports, theater.
Its not difficult just needs conciense effort
When I was a bit older, I conceived of a larger life goal--to learn enough about any subject in the world so that, when meeting an expert in that subject, I know enough to ask an intelligent question. That goal has led to many fascinating conversations.
Seriously? The whole "I'm always right" and "You should listen to me because I'm always right" is not the sign of an intellectual - it is the sign of a douchebag.
People might be wise to remember why Socrates questioned people so mightily - it wasn't because he thought he was right about everything.
"You know what this guy's problem is, he's an asshole, but he doesn't know it. I'm an asshole, but I know that I'm an asshole."
If you are not interested in what the other person has to say, you shouldn't be talking to them.
And, it's not all about you.
I have found several useful techniques for starting conversation when you are standing around at a reception being held in conjunction with a conference and you don't know anybody. It helps to realize that virtually all of the other people are in the same boat. They often are downright grateful when someone actually speaks to them.
One thing is to ask where someone is from and see where that goes. Another is to ask about events in the city where the conference is being held. You almost never can go wrong by asking a question (assuming that you know better than to ask about religion, politics, etc., at the start). A moderate display of a sense of humor can be useful too. What I have learned (occasionally to my regret--I have made adjustments) is that you never know whom you are talking to or who that person will become; hence, you need to realize that you are always giving a live performance, whether you like it or not.
Of course, there's a difference between knowing what you should do and actually doing it, but that's another matter altogether.
Or even more simply, the old Golden Rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" I'm enough of a lawyer to realize that there are some exceptions to that, but I'm enough of a dad to know that it's sound -- and again, very important -- advice 99.9% of the time.
People drawn to libertarian political views tend to have a higher degree of analytic intelligence than social intelligence.
I realize this view might be mildly offensive to some, but it has always been my impression (as a non-libertarian) and I'm curious how the libertarians feel about this view / stereotype.
Understand, I am not committing the genetic fallacy of assuming that once you've isolated the cause of political view, you've somehow discredited that view - just part of my broader effort to what factors cause people to choose various ideologies.
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12750745
This is indeed important, but note that the specific range of distances that are "just right" differs widely between cultures.
It's not precisely on point, but there was an NYT op-ed last week relating to fundamental differences in the psychology of people who self identify as "liberals" and "conservatives."
Relating more to the posts above, I would tend to believe that people who identify as libertarians tend to think of politics and policy in a more analyitical manner. But I really have nothing more to back that up than a personal opinion.
This, on the other hand, would have been information I could have used 13 years ago.
It's similar with asking questions. I will sometimes ask a question, the answer for which is known to me, to draw the other person out, to let them feel that they're in the superior knowledge position.
As with the asking of favors, you need to avoid being obsequious or belligerent.
People do like to be seen to have power, whether or not they actually do have it.
I became the yearbook photographer. I enjoyed photography. There were a lot of technical aspects to it, both in taking the pictures and developing the film, later (chemistry!). That satisfied my nerd side. I also discovered that while my hand-eye coordination was so poor that I could never draw or paint well, I did have enough of an artistic eye to recognize a good photo composition when I saw one, so I could have some art expression.
Being the photographer required me to attend most athletic and social events held by the school. Had I not had that job to do, I probably would have stayed home from the football games and even more of the dances and so forth, because I was just too intimidated by the prospect of all the social interactions required.
Even better, having the job to do was a great crutch. I could start up a conversation knowing in advance that, if I got nervous or an awkward silence arose, I could excuse myself to go take pictures without worrying about giving offense.
This made a world of difference in my life.
There are plenty of nerd-friendly jobs to be had out there. Be the team statistician. Be the treasurer in just about any organization. Even the stereotypical a/v club will force you into at least some interactions.
Ha! What an analytical way of responding to my question. I have no evidence to support my proposition other than personal experience, which is part of the reason I stated it as a mere proposition and not an opinion or position. In other words, I base my (tentative) support for the proposition on my ability to understand and manage men and women, boys and girls, and act wisely in human relations and not on a formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. But then, I'm a liberal :).
I suppose one interesting way to try to study this question would be to survey the views of people who are both intelligent and have mild forms of autism. I do think, from my experiences in law school, that there are a higher number of libertarian lawyers (a profession that tends towards analytic intelligence) than there are libertarians in the broader population. I have no doubt at all that mental health professionals (a profession that tends towards social intelligence) are far more liberal than the general population, although of course there are institutional reasons for that as well (liberal economic policies often mean more jobs for social workers).
1. How do you know whether you are interested without talking with them?
2. There are all sorts of reasons you might want to establish a relationship with someone you aren’t interested in listening to. Back in the dark ages when I went to college the first time, women’s dorms had dorm mothers. It was a really good idea to make a nice impression on them, something few underclassmen understood.
3. The other person may be the only one available to talk to.
4. The other person may not be the only one around. One time at a party I got jumped on by an individual who thought guns were evul and therefore I was too for teaching about them. I stayed polite and countered arguments where I could. Eventually she said everything she needed to and wandered off. Later, as I was leaving, the host apologized. I told him it wasn’t a problem, particularly as I had picked up three new students from among those listening. Well, not quite. There are a lot of very intelligent and well-meaning people who are socially inept. It actually took me a couple of years to learn that if a pretty girl wanted to talk about what my sign meant, I shouldn’t explain that astrology is a myth. Back in the Army the wife of one of my commanders was from New Orleans. Her personal space was about six inches less than those of most of the unit officers. At social events she would ootch forward to say something, they would ease back to answer. I watched her chase military unit commanders all the way across the room.Given that most people who believe in expanding government seem unable to connect a long and broad history of inefficient government actions with the idea that future government actions will probably be inefficient, I’d say they were on average less analytic than those of us who take our lessons from the real world. Given that people who join less-popular causes tend to be less dependent on social acceptance, I’d say they would place less value on social intelligence. The media group I belong to has members who are very social, but not overly analytical. Running the gun club I belong to is like herding cats.
OTOH social intelligence will only carry a friendship so far. In my experience it’s often the curmudgeons who make the best long-term friends. They tend to be more tolerant of differences, more forgiving when I make a mistake, and more likely to step up when it’s inconvenient to them.
Political tags—such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth—are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
Robert A. Heinlein
Right. It's important to learn that the other person doesn't actually give a damn how you are.
Why not? If someone wants to talk about my sign--and, in fact, considers such things important enough to make such things her first impression on me--that's a pretty good indication that I don't want to pursue a relationship with her. Physical beauty doesn't matter if I can't relate to her at a deeper level. (Realistically, though, I'd likely politely say that I don't believe in astrology, and try to get onto another topic.)
Careless:
"But surely I owe you an accurate answer!"
(Failed, btw.)
I also find the first one to be troublesome. It sounds like a bright line rule for someone who can't pick up on social cues. Does it mean one should not bring up unusual topics tentatively to see if there is interest? How about "don't lecture", period. Give the other person a chance to react. Also, what about difficult topics that must be discussed whether the other party wants to talk about it or not?
Correct. Plus, it's funny how these guys who haven't won a Nobel Prize think they need to lecture EVERYONE. Chances are, these "intellectuals" aren't nearly as special as they consider themselves. There are lots of PhDs and lots of professors. Win that Nobel Prize.
If someone wants to talk about my sign--and, in fact, considers such things important enough to make such things her first impression on me--that's a pretty good indication that I don't want to pursue a relationship with her.
LOL at proving your own social retardation. People talk about this stuff because it is F-U-N. I don't "believe" in astrology. I'll still say something like, "Oh; but I'm a Scorpio.... You know what that means!"
It's a joke, dude. Oh, right, but you're so smart that you don't find such things amusing.
How's that Nobel Prize winning research coming along?
Don't be so sure that only people with Asperger's lack the "empathy" and other skills necessary to do these things. In my experience, lots of "normal" people do so as well.
That may explain why a number of young intellectuals make these mistakes, but in my experience, a number of less-young intellectuals make these mistakes, too, and both the young and less-young among them are often well aware that they are that they are "making these mistakes" ... only, when confronted about it, they're more inclined to call it "defying conformist social conventions," e.g., etiquette. That was my experience in several debates with members of the Objectivists Club at my undergraduate institution, as well as with libertarians I knew in law school, including fellow members of the Federalist Society. (I was emphatically not a member of the former, but there were a number of them among the columnists for my undergraduate advocacy journalism newspaper, which was where I first encountered them.)
However, calling it a "strong preference for expressing [their] own ideas" may understate or mischaracterize the matter. It was simply "I'm right, you're wrong, and you need to acknowledge that and stop being irrational," with "irrationality" defined as "disagreeing with anything Ayn Rand wrote." The dismissiveness and contempt for the ideas, beliefs, and values of others was the turn-off, not merely the fact that they were so vocal about it. The only other group I've encountered to show such similar sanctimony has been the most ardent of Evangelical Christians.
In sum: I think that the people most in need of this advice could hear it and shrug it off as inapplicable to them. From their perspective, they're simply trying to enlighten the irrational and misguided, and they have no need to listen to the irrational folderol of people who disagree with them. Libertarians and Evangelicals are both perhaps more susceptible to this than adherents of other political-ideological creeds because their a priori assumptions and policy prescriptions are some of the furthest from the reigning status quo. However, there are people inclined to similar social callousness among all the mainstream parties, as well as among the politically disinterested, too, so this advice remains universally applicable.
A Scout is: trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind...
Oy. A circle of the modern Hell if I ever heard of one.
Rather, to learn how they express that they don't give a damn.
"Hell is other people." Same thought, really.
Or maybe not so odd. Can imagine that those most comfortable with others may not see a problem with organizing things without authority/hierarchy. "Why tell folks what to do? It's obvious how to all get along."
It's useful to keep in mind, however, that there are some social situations where all the social skills in the world won't help you. Where social skills don't even come into play. For example if someone has been falsely accused of something really negative, or had a real smear campaign run against them, or is being "gaslighted", "whitegloved", etc. In situations like that in most cases social skills don't come into play because most people they interact with have already made up their minds. So in those cases it isn't a case of having poor or no social skills, it's a case of social skills not being able to come into play.
This is why empathy is so important! :)
Empathy is certainly very important.
Of course one has to be talking about a situation where empathy is appropriate. If someone were - for example - taking your property, being bigoted and racist towards you, committing crimes, torts, and rights violations against you, etc. one would tend to run out of empathy for the people engaged in those sorts of activities rather quickly.
There's also the interesting question of how internet conversation, robbing one as it does of so many of the customary cues, tends to turn us all into social 12-year-olds, at least until will get adjusted.
Spending some time in an internet forum might actually be a decent way to gain some empathy for what its like to live with Asperger's.
You sound like a decent guy, so I'd recommend perhaps getting out more to meet some different sorts of people, and to at least pretend that you're taking seriously their point-of-view before drawing conclusions. Your ideology seems to be coloring your perceptions somewhat.
Not exactly my strong suit either, I must admit.
As for NYTimes psychoanalysis of "conservatives", that's been going on for a long time. The ill-titled book has a section discussing the practice and its purposes.
People drawn to libertarian political views tend to have a higher degree of analytic intelligence than social intelligence.
A lot of the time yes, but I don't think libertarians in general are as much a bunch of social misfits as you are theorizing. (Yes, I know you were more measured in your characterization, I'm exaggerating because the media stereotype for libertarians IS the comic book store guy from the Simpsons.)
I think your perceptions and the media's perceptions come from several areas:
- A lot of the interaction that people have with libertarians is on the internet, so there are all kinds of complications from that. Text conversations make it more difficult to interpret nuances in tone, meaning, attitude, etc. And there are a lot of liberals and conservatives that enjoy baiting libertarians, so in some cases you may be witnessing someone whose patience has worn a little thin. Or someone that is addressing the same specious and ad hominem insulting argument for the 100th time.
- Next there is the liberal assumption of moral and emotional superiority. In many cases a lot (not all) of liberals assume that they are the only ones that care about poor people, minorities, etc. and that libertarians are just "greedy", "materialistic", "racist", etc. So in their arguments and in their worldview they often assume this moral and emotional superiority. There are many problems with this. First of all this is false and insulting - many libertarians and others care about the same issues. Then the solutions that liberals propose - property seizure &redistribution, higher taxes, higher regulation, bigger government, etc. - can be determined after a fair study of history and economics to generally be counterproductive and in many cases downright harmful. And in addition to that opressive, restrictive, divisive, and generally peace and freedom-destroying. Now when libertarians come out with arguments suggesting those points liberals generally don't argue the economics and history - they usually just revert to ad hominem attacks of libertarians being "greedy", "materialistic", "racist", etc. Which again is incorrect and insulting.
- So libertarians understand what the liberals want to do and to some extent agree with it. (Except for the nanny-state and controlling totalitarian portions of the agenda.) They just get incensed because they feel the solutions that liberals push are incorrect and a lot of economic and historical evidence support them. I'm trying to be diplomatic here - in many cases it just takes some study to realize the proposed liberal solutions are horribly counterproductive. To put it simply - the only engine of economic growth and prosperity is the private economy.(Even the funds to fund government jobs have to be taken from the private economy - and usually those funds would have created more and also more sustainable jobs if left in the private economy.) To increase the hindrances and impediments - to increase taxes and regulation(with few exceptions) - just slows down the private economy and makes things worse. And if an economy happens to be in a depression/recession, delays recovery.
So I think that a lot of the impression that libertarians have less "social intelligence" might come from the same place where a lot of liberals incorrectly assume emotional and moral superiority, when in fact libertarians just don't agree with what they think are ultimately incorrect and counterproductive solutions. (And a lot of history and economics supports them on this. The ultimate in property redistribution is socialism/communism, and time and again that has resulted in stagnation, poverty, declining living standards, often starvation, etc.) Therefore even a libertarian with "off the charts" "social intelligence" would come down on the side of rejecting liberal solutions because they would be deemed counterproductive and harmful. They just might be a little more diplomatic, polite, and persuasive about it.
That Sartre was some people-person.
Ask your close friends what they think you could change about your social skills. Try to be brutally honest with yourself about your flaws. Notice other peoples flaws and relate them to yourself. Do you do the same things that annoying guy you hate does without realizing it?
As you begin to improve yourself you will gain self confidence and not only will people enjoy being around you more, but you will begin to enjoy being around other people. Act, observe, analyze, and most importatnly, mix it up. Try new things. I'll say it again, try new things. How about one more time, TRY NEW THINGS. Its the only way to really learn anything in this world. You gotta get burned before you learn how not to get burned.
A. Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
(1) marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction
(2) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(3) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(4) lack of social or emotional reciprocity
B. Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:
(1) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(2) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(3) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(4) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
D. There is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g., single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years).
E. There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self-help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in childhood.
F. Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia.
Also, there are occasional history of neurology articles in our journals. One described the life of a scientific great (the chemist Cavendish, IIRC) who pretty clearly met the diagnostic criteria for Asperger's (see above).
So, there are possibility's even for those with Asperger's, especially the more intelligent or otherwise talented they are. Also, it should be noted that there are differences from case to case, and one should prognosticate cautiously, especially at so young an age. I hope that things turn out for your son and family than your wife expects.
BTW, about "biologically capable of introspection and perceiving social cues"...Asperger's is a congenital, not an acquired condition. There are, however, acquired conditions other than full blown dementia that may effect those biological capacities to which you allude, with lesions to specific areas of the brain producing distinct behavioral syndromes. If for example, you have a left parietal lobe lesion resulting in prosopagnosia (inability to recognize faces), you will be severally handicapped socially, in part because you will have a much diminished capacity for picking up on social cues.
"That Sartre was some people-person."
Again with the drink through the nose from you. Enough!
I think even the old bastard himself might have gotten a chuckle from that one.
"Don't you think some of it is "learned" from parents or others serving as role models?"
Absolutely, and I also think we might be thinking a little too narrowly about optimal "friendly" behavior, given the variety of behaviors we inherit.
My grandmother had more friends than anyone I've ever known, but she would absolutely talk your ear off. Not in an overbearing way (I got that from her husband), but her mind was always just overflowing with news, ideas, observations, and not rarely, sheer wonder.
And we learned that behavior - at my family reunions, I rarely get a word in edgewise, nor do I miss the opportunity. They're great fun. And we all actually do make, and keep, friends quite easily, including that grandfather, oddly enough.
Honestly, no, I wouldn't consider such a "relationship." I don't doubt others would, but I generally try to avoid cheap flings that won't work out long-term. As I mentioned earlier, I'd probably be more diplomatic than "get lost", but I'd try to steer the conversation toward saner topics and wouldn't generally consider any sort of romantic involvement. If this "proves my social retardation" (as Mike& alleges), so be it.
"If this "proves my social retardation" (as Mike&alleges), so be it."
Not at all. Advancement rather. As for Mike&, I think Dilan's found his wingman.
One last suggestion, remember that people often have very little control over or even awareness of their behaviour and how it is percieved by others. We all struggle with our own unique flaws whatever they may be. Next time you think someone is an asshole, or boring, or weird, don't dismiss that person as not worth your respect or you only diminish yourself.
Thanks for your comments, neurodoc.
Some people are under the impression that those with Asperger's lack empathy. I think this represents a flawed understanding. In general, I think the non-verbal communications differences go both ways, which is to say both reading and sending. Instead of seeing it as a communications problem, most people will see it as a sign of the other person's nature, which often means "lack of empathy".
For me, it's almost like the symptoms of hemisphere separation, only rotated by about 90 degrees, and done without the same skill. My body is off generating non-verbal cues. Most of the time I have no clue what those are unless someone calls my attention to them.
Actually, my feeling comes primarily from many of the libertarians that I've known in the real world, some of whom are close friends of mine. I don't pretend to know anybody online well enough to have a sense of what people are really like, especially since I think many people seek out online conversations to discuss political issues in part because they are looking for a forum where the rules of civilized conversation are less restrictive. That has a bad side, of course - people say stuff that they would never say in real life because it's rude or discriminatory. But it has an upside as well - in a real world conversation, coming down hard on someone's political views is socially uncomfortable and that keeps people from saying what they really feel. For example, in a real world conversation with a libertarian I probably wouldn't feel comfortable discussing the possibility that people with higher analytic intelligence than social intelligence are drawn towards libertarianism, for fear of insulting the other person (although I don't necessarily think of it as an insult - if there are multiple modes of intelligence, then necessarily everyone is going to be higher in one area than another, right?).
I'm not saying that all the libertarians I know are nerds incapable of social interaction. I am saying though that the libertarians I know tend to relate to people in a more abstract way than others, which I see as reflected in libertarian philosophy with it's singular focus on abstract individual rights. Also, coming from a relatively elite law school, it was always fascinating to me how much libertarian politics dominate the conservatives factions on campus. We really don't get a lot of social conservatives at GULC, despite it's Catholic heritage. And it is a view that is definitely colored by my ideological view that libertarianism is a philosophy of alienation from community and common values, useful to the extent that there are situations where the individual needs to have priority over the group, but excessive when it extends that priority over all affairs, especially in economic matters. In that context, I thought it was interesting how many people on this thread identified with this post and Ilya's personal reflection on social intelligence.
Incidentally, of course I do believe that liberal values are superior to libertarian values or conservative values - if I didn't, I wouldn't describe myself as a liberal. I think libertarians are fooling themselves when they don't recognize that libertarianism is, itself, a value system that makes moral claims in addition to legal claims and is not a default or state of human affairs or a value-neutral system. On all sides of all issues, we need to be able to make claims about the moral superiority of one view over another without getting offended.
And remember, that the more you rest your libertarianism on empirical demonstrations of economic efficiency, the more you stray from a true principled libertarianism and into the muddy realm of social science. When you make an argument for libertarianism based on an empirical showing that government interaction with the economy is always harmful (beyond a few narrowly circumscribed interactions that libertarians accept), you're implicitly presupposing an agreement to abandon libertarianism if there is a contrary empirical finding. I find the evidence for the proposition that all nonlibertarian intervention into the economy is harmful to be extremely weak. You also, I think, run into problems arguing against liberals like me who, while I will clearly defend liberal economic values (which I define largely in agreement with Rawls' position that economic justice means doing whatever raises the standard of living of the poorest) are perfectly open to arguments that classic liberal policies are counter-productive.
You are suffering from Aspergers Syndrome.
Congratulations and be sure to apply for those handicapable license plates. It will make parking easier.
I've been thinking about your initial post since last night. I have observed among my students something like what you have noted.
In particular, I see that most of the self-styled libertarians are [male] science students. They are typically what someone else might descirbe as 'nerds,' though I don't like that term. In other words, they are bright and know it, hardworking, focused, and a bit obsessive about their chosen area of study. Other students often show signs of thinking of these guys as 'nerdy' or boring, simply beacuse they are analytical, careful in framing points, and likely to refer to some extra research they did on their own about whatever the topic is [horrors]. Generally, they do seem a bit socially inept.
These young men are often annoyed that they have to take a course in philosophy - partly because it takes time away from their science work and partly because they think it is going to be mushy, silly babble. But when they discover what philosophy really is/can be they are likely to be among the best in the class. And one of the discoveries they make is that libertarianism has deep theoretical and moral roots, as you note.
I'd appreciate knowing the proper response. I really do take it as a literal question - and sometimes it takes a few seconds to decide how I "am" at that moment.
One thing I have done, unconsciously for most of my life, is that I rarely look at the person I'm conversing with. I was probably 40 years old before it occurred to me that this had a distancing effect, and would be a factor in why I found it hard to make friends.
There is a room, and there are 3 boxes and a ball on a table. A girl comes in the room and puts the ball in the box on the left and puts the lid on. She leaves the room. Then a boy comes into the room. He looks in the boxes, and he moves the ball to the center box and replaces all of the lids so that it looks exactly the same as when the girl left, and then he leaves the room. The girl now comes back into the room. At this point you stop the tape and ask your subject, "The girl has been told to get the ball. What box will she open up?"
The non-autistic answer, even from a retarded subject, is "the box on the left" -- because the non-autistic subject immediately recognizes that the girl has no way of knowing that the ball has been moved. The autistic answer is "the box in the middle" because the autistic subject knows that is where the ball is.
Now intelligence is a substitute for all sorts of things, and so an autistic/Asperger person who is smart enough can reason out, perhaps with the help of instruction, that the girl is going to act based upon her own state of knowledge, and what that state is. Whereas everyone else will know it without thinking. That's what "empathy" is, without the perjorative.
Now, of course, for some applications empathy is counterproductive. Proofreader, for example. Knowing what the author meant and subconsciously correcting it is a severe handicap.
For example, in a real world conversation with a libertarian I probably wouldn't feel comfortable discussing the possibility that people with higher analytic intelligence than social intelligence are drawn towards libertarianism, for fear of insulting the other person (although I don't necessarily think of it as an insult - if there are multiple modes of intelligence, then necessarily everyone is going to be higher in one area than another, right?).
Sort of. But analytical intelligence and emotional intelligence are different toolboxes of skills/abilities. If your analytical intelligence tells you one economic system is better than the others (provided you've been exposed to accurate teaching about a particular economic system and economics in general enough to make a meaningful decision) the emotional intelligence just comes in to explain your opinion and the evidence in a more polite, civil, appealing, and/or persuasive manner. And that's if you choose to and/or have time to. That's another variable in the mix - having social skills and bothering to use them are two different things.
And it is a view that is definitely colored by my ideological view that libertarianism is a philosophy of alienation from community and common values, useful to the extent that there are situations where the individual needs to have priority over the group, but excessive when it extends that priority over all affairs, especially in economic matters.
Well the libertarian response to this is that the fundamental individual rights are more important, because they safeguard morality, decency, and humanity. Collectivist philosophies often subordinate individual rights to the point where truly barbaric and immoral things become possible and begin to occur.
And contrary to your contention more often than not collectivist philosopies are ruinous economically when one looks at the medium and long term. Let's take the example of a collectivist society that immediately confiscates all private property and then divides it among all people, rich and poor. What skill sets are rewarded? Being involved with the confiscation and redistribution, or ingratiating oneself to those that operate the confiscation and redistribution.(Because no matter the time or place, human nature being what it is there is going to be unequal redistribution, cronyism, nepotism, etc.) This is fine and dandy in the short term, when the wealth that has already been created and accumulated gets redistributed. But what about the future? You took the property from those that were able to and knew how to create wealth best, what about wealth creation going forward? Those that could create more wealth in many cases won't because it will just be taken and redistributed, so why put in the extra effort and take more risk with no reward? Also wealth creation often requires capital investment, and all the excess capital was just confiscated and redistributed.
On the other hand the free market economy that libertarians favor rewards value creation through the market. So those who create value and wealth will be rewarded and also have excess capital to invest to create more value and wealth to the extent they can. This is ongoing, so one doesn't have to worry about who will create value and wealth tomorrow, market incentives take care of that. The only concern is that one does not hamper the market and the value and wealth creation process too much with high taxes and regulation, as this can slow down or stop the value and wealth creation process.
The examples above are gross simplifications, but they illustrate why collectivist economic systems are usually horrible over the medium and especially the long term. And if you look at it objectively the short term isn't so hot either, because the wealth is just being taken from private owners and amounts to eating next year's seed corn. It's actually a very destructive process that masquerades as making things equal.
I think libertarians are fooling themselves when they don't recognize that libertarianism is, itself, a value system that makes moral claims in addition to legal claims and is not a default or state of human affairs or a value-neutral system.
I've never made claims like that. Libertarianism does carry some values and moral principles with it. I'd need more information on context and specifics, but I probably somewhat agree with this.
When you make an argument for libertarianism based on an empirical showing that government interaction with the economy is always harmful (beyond a few narrowly circumscribed interactions that libertarians accept), you're implicitly presupposing an agreement to abandon libertarianism if there is a contrary empirical finding.
Not quite. With few exceptions the things that government does well can usually be done just as well privately and voluntarily. And of course this all has to be mapped against protecting fundamental individual rights. (Which include self-ownership, self-determination, non-coercion, property rights, choice, etc.)
You also, I think, run into problems arguing against liberals like me who, while I will clearly defend liberal economic values (which I define largely in agreement with Rawls' position that economic justice means doing whatever raises the standard of living of the poorest) are perfectly open to arguments that classic liberal policies are counter-productive.
See the economic examples of a collectivist vs. a market economy above. In the medium and long term a market economy will tend to raise the standard of living among the poorest the most. And also decrease unemployment and raise overall societal living standards the most as well.
I'll vouch for the social skills of ivory tower liberals - your purity of heart gives you an unfair advantage.
Unfortunately, it also gives you an unfair disadvantage protecting yourselves against the depredations of those masters of abstraction in your midst looking to (and often succeeding in) using your well-earned good reputation as a sheep's clothing for their wolfishness: the Progressives who never tire of proclaiming their love for humanity without ever getting around to loving many actual, you know, human beings, or paying much attention to the particular results their general theories produce in practice. There are plenty of liberals out here bearing the brunt of those theories who don't share the ivory tower enthusiasm for said Progressives.
Next time they point you to particularly egregious examples of libertarian/conservative behavior to distract you from their own, check out the pointer as well as the pointee.
As for libertarians in general, you may need to expand your sample size. There are millions of folks out here who don't have much use for abstraction (and thus those Progressives), but will give up their liberty when its pried from their cold, dead hands. I wouldn't underestimate their social skills either.
FYI: "Slippery when wet" and "Caution: Biohazard" produce very different responses.
Nick
Now that is very interesting. And it explains a lot of stuff.
I've seen a lot of people I would have thought were analytical falling prey to the reasoning "I would feel X in that situation, so everybody else should too." I guess it isn't obvious to everyone that we each have our own internal reality and one person's feelings aren't more or less valid than another's. Their perception of reality may not be spot-on, but their response to their perception is valid.
For instance, someone commented somewhere about that wretched case where the woman hounded the 13-yr-old to suicide on MySpace, that he didn't understand why the 13-yr-old didn't just shut down MySpace if it was upsetting her. I thought, right, and the 13-yr-old wouldn't understand why you don't have Lisa Frank stickers all over your pens and notebooks. Well, maybe 13 is too old for Lisa Frank, but you get my drift.
I definitely agree that this is an accurate description of many liberals. They annoy me as well.
I'd say your examples illustrate the way libertarians understand issues in terms of simple, absolute Randish divisions between free markets and "collectivism", which forms an aggressively ideological worldview out of touch with the complexity of the real world.
It seems to be a dark side of the spread of computers that people do not get the same amount of exposure to real people than they used to get.
"I definitely agree that this is an accurate description of many liberals. They annoy me as well."
Then do what I do - stop calling them liberals. You're different.
"It seems to be a dark side of the spread of computers that people do not get the same amount of exposure to real people than they used to get."
I don't know, seems like we have less World Wars these days.
"Desiderius, so can I put you down as being in favor of having kids play with video games, engage in incessant text-messaging, and communicate with others via social-network media instead of dealing with people face to face?"
We miss the social cues online because we grew up with physical ones. They're developing their own virtual equivalents, far as I can make out.
But sometimes they have to deal with real people. One of the people who is active on the same (hockey) message board as I am (and whom I have gotten to know quite well in real life because we live in the same city and I once sold him some tickets) recently expressed admiration for my ability to engage in meaningful discussions with someone like him despite the 35 or so years' difference in age. I have always been able to talk to people of different ages and ethnicities on substantial matters, and I attribute much of this ability to having had so much practice. He said that people of his generation simply cannot do this and will not be able to do this because they don't meet many people in person.
I guess it isn't obvious to everyone that we each have our own internal reality and one person's feelings aren't more or less valid than another's. Their perception of reality may not be spot-on, but their response to their perception is valid.
That's all fine and dandy, as long as they aren't trying to force their perception, or their response to their perceptions, on anyone else. Because there a numerous ways that they could be wrong. That's horrible analytical intelligence in addition to being horrible social intelligence.
Thanks, I appreciate that. Although the truth is, no matter what you call yourself in this world, there will be a lot of obnoxious people on "your side".
I'd say your examples illustrate the way libertarians understand issues in terms of simple, absolute Randish divisions between free markets and "collectivism",
First of all I wasn't exposed to libertarianism through Ayn Rand. I'm not an Objectivist and I haven't even read any of her books yet. Heresy, I know, but I wanted to point that out before you stereotype me further.
Actually I was going simple for the benefit of conversation. (using some social intelligence) We can discuss whatever nuances you like. For example the frequent response by liberals is: "What about {insert European 'social democrat' country here, usually a scandinavian one}? They're socialist and their country is clean, pleasant, well run, reasonably prosperous, etc.?" The answer to that is that according to the Austrian School of Economics (to which many/most libertarians subscribe) those countries are not truly socialist economies. They're considered "hampered market" economies. Basically free market economies "hampered" by relatively high levels of taxation and regulation.
...which forms an aggressively ideological worldview out of touch with the complexity of the real world.
Ahhh, "aggressively ideological" yet "out of touch with the complexity of the real world". A somewhat sophisticated and roundabout ad hominem attack. Yet an ad hominem attack nonetheless. Not as crude as calling me "greedy", "materialistic", a "racist", etc. but I guess you have more "social intelligence" than your peers.
But not only is it an ad hominem attack, it is incorrect. Libertarian philosophy and economic theory is quite in touch with the "complexity of the real world" as you put it. In fact libertarian economists, writers, investors, pundits, etc. were writing about and predicting the current economic problems long before they occurred. (While the mainstream media ignored and ridiculed them.) The same can't be said for liberal and mainstream economists, writers, pundits, etc. - including the big names and Nobel winners. And as I said above I am prepared to discuss whatever nuances you would like about the libertarian view of the world.
So unfortunately this discussion has somewhat gone the way I described in my comment above on 6/18 at 6:44PM - with you resorting to ad hominems rather than discussing the issues. I don't think the problem is with me having little or no "social intelligence" or "emotional intelligence", I actually do have those skills/abilities. The problem seems to be with me not agreeing with you, no matter how politely and sensitively I can put it or how strongly I can justify it with analytical and historical evidence. You "emotionally" feel that you have the right answer, any and all analytical and historical evidence be damned. Unfortunately the answers to economic questions cannot be emotionally determined. True socialism and communism sound good on paper - what could be more emotionally moving than raising the poor out of poverty - but the true result of those ideas followed to their conclusion is oppression, stagnation, poverty, starvation, and often death.
Although the truth is, no matter what you call yourself in this world, there will be a lot of obnoxious people on "your side".
This from the person claiming libertarians are "agressively ideological" yet "out of touch with the complexity of the real world" when they disagree with him. It almost sounds like something out of the DSM-"whatever they're up to" that psychologist/psychiatrists use. That obnoxiousness with a little sophistication and doublespeak, but obnoxiousness nonetheless.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.