"I think it is much more important to reward virtuous behavior with regard to keeping commitments than to banish those who fail to live up to one's standards. I think that kind of negative response leads to people "walking on eggshells" around you."

Well said Jim!

Aaron,

Thanks for the comment! These are thorny issues. I proceed from the assumption that there is value to be gained from most possible human associations. I think that the foremost principle in human relationships of good will is the trader principle. We should adjust our expectations based on gaining value for value.

We weigh any particular disvalue such as a failed commitment against the value we gain from the relationship. Sometimes it's necessary to restructure a relationship to reflect a disappointment or a breach of trust. That is always difficult, but I try to be proportional and measured when I do this.

Jim

As a follow up, I am very wary about asking for ironclad commitments from others in situations outside the workplace. Sometimes it's necessary like when someone is leading a discussion group or people are investing significant time in an activist endeavor. It's often useful to underscore the importance of the occasion and the commitment to you so that people realize what is at stake.

I'm still trying to remember what I was doing at Summer Seminar '99 in Burlington while Bill was giving his prosecutor talk and Phil was talking about Y2K . I respect both Phil and Bill very much and I have attended local O'ist club meetings with both of them.

Bill helped us start up a small club briefly in Hudson Valley and I admired his energy and commitment at TOC/TAS. I've also attended many O'ist meetings and gone to museums and driven around San Francisco with Phil. Both are really good guys.

Jim

James-
Thanks for your comments. I think you have the approach and attitude to deal with a real, common problem but in a way that won't irrationally isolate someone from potentially valuable friendships.

I agree with Bill Perry's original submission, but I disagree on his solution. I think it is much more important to reward virtuous behavior with regard to keeping commitments than to banish those who fail to live up to one's standards. I think that kind of negative response leads to people "walking on eggshells" around you.

I value spontaneity and tend to tolerate some degree of "flakiness", but I recognize it for what it is. I think one way to try out Bill's solution is to test it out in the world. Does it really work to regularly avoid people who fail to keep commitments? I think it is more profitable to take the matter up with them and if you get no satisfaction to simply circumscribe your relationship to something that is mutually beneficial.

Jim

You wrote "Phil challenged me about why I attempted to cut off contact with him, and I gave him the reasons." Phil did not identify himself as the speaker with whom you cut off contact. You did. Phil commented critically on the content of the main article.

Your response was a personal attack on Phil. Not only did you "out" him as the speaker in question, you extended the attack to his debating performance against George Smith and his questioning style. To me, that is "ad hominem" (attacking the man rather than statement, i.e. Phil's original comments on your article) and it sucks.

It was your decision not to talk about the summer seminar problem and to avoid talking to him since - for 8 years! To me, that is the behaviour of child, never mind a mature adult who purports to be a serious Objectivist scholar.

At the end of your article, you wrote "people who say they are Objectivists often don’t apply the ethics to their daily lives". The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind!

I know you did not like what I wrote. Let us review the bidding. I posted an essay about commitments. I used an example, but did not name the other person involved. When Phil Coates posted one negative comment about it I abstained from revealing his identity and criticizing him. When he extended his remarks I decided that enough was enough and unloaded on him.

You can say that it is nasty. You can say that it is boorish--I disagree. Phil challenged me about why I attempted to cut off contact with him, and I gave him the reasons. I certainly agree that it isn't benevolent, and already stated that.

But it is NOT ad hominen. According to Kelley, "An ad hominem argument rejects or dismisses another person's statement by attacking the person rather than the statement itself." (p. 137 _The Art of Reasoning) Neither Phil, nor I did that.

Oddly enough you touch on two things that I will be writing about it the coming months. One of the things that I'm interested in is the difference between rational self interest and self absorption. I will also be writing about Objectivist name calling.

"Self-absorbed" was what I had in mind. I will take your word about Bill. His actions in relation to the Brandens and TOC are irrelevant to my main point.

I continue to be appalled by the continual Objectivist mudslinging. Phil has been on the receiving on my anger for his continual carpring and criticism. On this occasion, I felt the need to defend him against a nasty "ad hominem" attack. A man with Bill's integrity should apologise.

Neil Parille is a typical example of the problem. He is, IMO, a troll who posts here to cause trouble, e.g. taunt or smear James Valliant. Perhaps he thinks that such threads will put off new registrants. If so, he is probably right.

Jim Valliant appears to share my distaste for mudslinging. It is not "kassless" to seek civil behaviour and intelligent debate. We have lot several prominent SOLOists in recent months, partly due to "Hsiehkovian" row that caused the temperature departure of James, Casey and others.

You ask whether TOC has died. It is probably very ill. ARI will always have the benefit Ayn Rand's estate. I am no fan of James Bidinotto but the sorry state (IMO) of TOC should concern everyone here. It is probably a reflection of the sorry state of the Objectivist movement.

... Kenny meant obnoxiously "self-absorbed" in the manner of the Objectivist monologuers I've written about? Whatever, Bill Perry is not nasty and boorish. At least, not in my experience. He was one of the very small number of TOCians prepared to defend me against the Brandbourne smears, and that on the basis of his firsthand encounters with me at TOC-Vancouver, 2004. That bespoke decency and benevolence to me, even if Bill says he thinks benevolence is a marginal virtue.

And never forget, this man had the integrity to leave TOC over its unconscionable reaction to PARC.

(Has TOC died btw?)

Linz

Kenny, could you please elaborate on what you mean by "self-centered"? Objectivism holds the self as the ultimate value and proper beneficiary of all actions. It does mandate a reality-oriented view, thus mandating that one respect the rights of others as well as defending one's own rights.

I find your denigrating use of "self-centered" puzzling.

Perhaps you mean "unduly self-important" instead?

Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com

Bill, especially in his additional comment, comes across as a nasty and self-centred boor. He sums up everything that is wrong with the Objectivist movement. No wonder newbies run off in disgust!

Actually, there is one point on which I'll defend myself: Long, elaborate questions - Usually, I've tried to include context or qualifications or caveats with my questions. It wasn't an attempt to try to show off or impress people, but to ask a more precise question.

The result has been questions which are too complex or long. I've tried to get better at essentializing and simplifying . . . and think I've improved a bit in recent years, asking fewer and shorter questions at conferences, for example.

(Which a more benevolent person might have noticed.)

Well, I guess you told me!!!

I won't get into a personal criticism contest, either (i) defending myself against Bill's critique or (ii) posting a long "critique of Bill".

Actually, Bill, your long and itemized personal attack shows nothing more than a lack of class. It's as if you felt the need to launch a detailed personal and public attack - airing everything but the kitchen sink which you don't like or had heard about to come up with any answer.

It's certainly true that that lack of class is very typical of Oists who get into what might be called "the politics of personal destruction". And that it is a modus operandi here at Solo.

And you are only too happy to play along.

Your point about benevolence is revealing.

HAHAHA!

I know you didn't intend for this post to be funny, Bill, but you've got me in stitches. Absolutely nothing you say here surprises me.

Linz

I did not intend to identify the person involved in this incident. Nor did I intend to trap the person involved. Too many years have passed. I thought that it was a good example to use. However, I need to provide additional context to fully explain my response. I was even going to let this go after Phil's first reply--but not after the second one.

The competing Participant Sponsored Seminar was about the "Y2K" problem. The presenter who told me he was going to change the time was Phil Coates.

Now in the first place I didn't give him the death penalty. While I have attempted to avoid Phil I have responded to him when he has questioned me on this forum. I also responded to him when I worked at TOC. He had a proposal for Objectivist education that I presented to my boss. I happened to like the proposal. I exchanged e-mails with Phil about the proposal. I talked to him on the phone once after I left TOC. But I have tried to avoid him since this incident. This is why.

I first encountered Phil at the 1998 IOS Summer Seminar. He debated George Smith about Anarchism vs. Limited Government. I was in the audience. While I believed in Phil's side at the time (and still do) George won the debate easily. I was not impressed with Phil's showing in the debate. Sometimes this can mean no more than a disparity in debating skill, but in this case I didn't think that Phil listened well to George's argument. I was not impressed with his thinking.

At both the 1998 and 1999 Summer Seminars Phil often participated in the Question and Answer periods after the speakers completed their talks. His questions were long, rambling, and appeared designed more to show off Phil's knowledge than to ask the speaker about pertinent matters.

Phil attempts to excuse his conduct by citing the context of the summer seminar. It is true that a lot is going on and people get tired. That is all the more reason not to make a commitment that you might or might not remember to keep.

Phil also accuses me of a lack of benvolence. Since I don't consider benevolence to be a major virtue--thus disagreeing with David Kelley on yet another point--I don't care about this accusation. I agree my decision wasn't benevolent.

The question in my mind is whether the decision was just, and whether I have missed anything by not seeking Phil out, or reading more of what he writes on numerous forums. (I currently only read what he posts on my SOLO blog, and a few things on other parts of the site, when I see that people I respect are writing about things that interest me.)

So back to 1999. Phil's "Y2K" talk ran long, so I heard the last part of it--mostly his response to questions. I also talked to a friend about the content of the talk. As a result of all these factors I decided not to talk to Phil about what he did. Quite bluntly I didn't find him to be of value to me.

I still don't.

To make it more clear:

There's several things wrong with this - the size of the offense, the lack of attempt to gain full evidence, and the disproportion of the response.

I wrote an essay elsewhere about "one strike and you're out" and the lack of benevolence involved in having that kind of relationship with people. (Obviously if someone picks your pocket or knifes you, you don't need to wait until they have three strikes before you have a permanently negative reaction.)

But other people make all kinds of mistakes - they forget things, hurt your feelings, get so busy they can't fulfill a committment, intend to do x but find they can't, overlook things.

And YOU do too - at least on the order of the example given here. Each one of you reading this.

Context (in this case): summer conferences . . . as anyone who has been to one knows . . . are busy, hectic, things, where people are trying to do a dozen things, not getting enough sleep, talking to new people, packed with lots of events.

> I honestly think he forgot...what did I do about it? ... I have attempted to avoid him (not always successfully) ever since.

What's odd about this, Bill, is that after saying that you think he forgot (as opposed to deliberately choosing to break a promise), you select the "capital punishment' route forever after of not wanting to have anything to do with the person.

From my summary of SUPERSELF by the late millionaire Charles Givens at

http://attitudeadjustment.tripod.com/Books/SuperSelf.htm

comes this section:

Doing Discipline

* Discipline is a choice, not a legacy.
* Focus is the process of keeping your thoughts, attention, and energy totally on the task at hand.
* The loyalty and trust of other people generate the cooperation necessary for achieving your dreams and goals.
* Excuses are only made for failure, never success.

38. Increase your level of effectiveness by learning to maintain focus.
39. Increase effectiveness, earn confidence and trust of others by keeping agreements.
40. Promise only what you can deliver, and deliver what you promise.

Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com

Bill,

I think a simple solution to this for Objectivists is to practice saying no. Another maxim is to underpromise and overdeliver. Another important aspect is to practice discipline.

As for dealing with people who don't keep commitments, well I don't avoid them, but I don't count on them either. I approach commitments from the standpoint of an investor. If I begin to think someone is a bad investment, I simply don't put my money (or time or energy) there. Ellis Wyatt's I simply deal with the Phoenix Durango comes to mind.

Jim

Thanks for posting this. It drives me crazy when folk don't do what they say they'll do. And yes, Objectivists are terrible offenders. It's as though their PS to their stated beliefs is the opposite of Rand's: And I don't mean it!

Linz