Bad error correction methods

In a recent podcast, Elliot Temple described a mistaken approach to correcting mistakes on a philosophy discussion list: when someone had a problem with an email they wrote pointed out to them, they added it to a check list of things to check before sending each email. This quickly gets unwieldy.

This got me thinking of a similar mistake I was making in my Spanish learning. For some time, I was making flash cards for every mistake I made in the course of doing Spanish audio lessons. This was mistaken cuz some of the errors were a bit random (like forgetting to make an adjective feminine to agree with a particular feminine noun one time) and thus not great flash card material. Also even having it on the flash card biases my thinking cuz I know the flash cards are all stuff i made mistakes on. So then I am extra careful doing the flash cards, but still might make a similar mistake when doing the lessons. Also this approach generated too many flash cards.

I got pickier in terms of thinking which mistakes were worth putting on flash cards — stuff that was likely to come up repeated, such as new phrases or grammatically tricky constructions — and the usefulness of my Spanish Flashcards has improved accordingly.

I think the basic error here — the theme unifying the check list example and my flash card mistake — is a desire to make learning and error correction a more mechanical process and remove at least some of the thinking part. That is a fundamental error that will lead to frustration and ineffectiveness. Learning and error correction require active thinking.

P.S. I think this is the first blog post I’ve written entirely from the iOS WordPress app 🙂

Objectivism, Part II: Second-handedness

In my last post I discussed some of the core positions of Objectivism in various subdisciplines of philosophy. In this post I will begin discussing some concepts where I think Objectivism has something especially interesting to say. I have decided that I will do this across multiple posts. I begin below with some discussion of second-handedness. Some of the below is adapted from a previous post of mine on the Fallible Ideas list.

Second-handedness and social metaphysics are two equivalent terms for describing the same concept: a way of living without your own values, where you live according to the values, and for the approval, of other people. The best discussion of second-handedness can be found in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead.

Here is an explanation of second-handers (using the term “social metaphysician”) offered by Rand in The Virtue of Selfishness in the essay “The Argument from Intimidation”:

A social metaphysician is one who regards the consciousness of other men as superior to his own and to the facts of reality. It is to a social metaphysician that the moral appraisal of himself by others is a primary concern which supersedes truth, facts, reason, logic. The disapproval of others is so shatteringly terrifying to him that nothing can withstand its impact within his consciousness; thus he would deny the evidence of his own eyes and invalidate his own consciousness for the sake of any stray charlatan’s moral sanction. It is only a social metaphysician who could conceive of such absurdity as hoping to win an intellectual argument by hinting: “But people won’t like you!”

If you go by things like truth, facts, reason, and logic, you have to see and understand the point of stuff yourself. You can’t, say, be persuaded by a logical argument with no understanding of logic! But if you go the opinions of others, then you don’t have to understand things like logic for yourself. Instead of logic, you can learn things like how to pick up on the opinions of others and rebroadcast them as your own.

Since you don’t think things through yourself, the “ideas” you have are the stuff you’ve uncritically accepted from other people. But if most other people are also second-handers, then it’s just a bunch of people rebroadcasting what’s popular, right? Well, largely, but the ideas still need to come from somewhere. Where? The intellectuals. This gives the intellectuals great power. And some of those intellectuals want to be your rulers.

A community of first-handed people, no matter how “uneducated” and low-status they might be, is pretty hard to rule tyrannically, since they always want to know things like “why?” and “what for?”. But a society of second-handers is much easier to rule. The villain of The Fountainhead, Ellsworth Toohey, explains this in a speech:

You’re afraid to see where it’s leading. I’m not. I’ll tell you. The world of the future. The world I want. A world of obedience and of unity. A world where the thought of each man will not be his own, but an attempt to guess the thought in the brain of his neighbor who’ll have no thought of his own but an attempt to guess the thought of the next neighbor who’ll have no thought—and so on, Peter, around the globe. Since all must agree with all. A world where no man will hold a desire for himself, but will direct all his efforts to satisfy the desires of his neighbor who’ll have no desires except to satisfy the desires of the next neighbor who’ll have no desires—around the globe, Peter. Since all must serve all. A world in which man will not work for so innocent an incentive as money, but for that headless monster—prestige. The approval of his fellows—their good opinion—the opinion of men who’ll be allowed to hold no opinion. An octopus, all tentacles and no brain. Judgment, Peter? Not judgment, but public polls. An average drawn upon zeroes—since no individuality will be permitted. A world with its motor cut off and a single heart, pumped by hand. My hand—and the hands of a few, a very few other men like me.

Being second-handed means delivering yourself into the hands of someone like Toohey. Being second-handed means your mind can’t serve as a check on some philosopher’s bad ideas — instead you become an amplification device for the bad ideas. You become part of a mob.

Lots of people would dislike what Rand describes as social metaphysics in at least some cases. Most people have some recognition of the fact that integrity to one’s values is a virtue and crowd-following is not a virtue. What people don’t realize is how pervasive second-handedness is, including in lots of situations people think of as totally mundane and unobjectionable. Example: when a professor is introduced before giving a lecture at an event, and the person doing the introduction gives a lengthy list of the professor’s honors, awards, books, accolades, etc., that is second-handedness in action. That list of stuff is not providing useful information to would be listeners — they are not seriously deciding whether or not to listen to the lecture on the basis of whether the professor’s publication background seems interesting. Even if they are particularly interested in further reading of the professor’s work, they do not need a recitation of a bibliography that is available online. The purpose of the list is to impress the listeners by telling them how prestigious the person in front of them is, and to flatter the professor by showing a socially appropriate respect for his prestige level. The purpose of the list is that you give more weight to the professor’s statements based on his prestige. By asking that of you, the list is not appealing to your reason, but to your willingness to be awed by demonstrations of social status. The social game to acquire the social status with which to awe others is a full time job that people work at, to the exclusion of more productive activities. And the people that win at it are definitely not the most competent on the merits in their field.

Some other examples of second-handedness in action:
– Name-dropping
– Laugh tracks (asking you to find something funny cuz other people find it funny)
– Advertisements that encourage you to buy fancy cars to impress others
– Social pressure to go to university cuz “what will your parents/people think” if you don’t
– Christmas card family photos (showing off your “perfect” family to other people; or alternatively, showing off how quirky and “weird” you are to other people)

Second-handedness is not just about trying to win over other people by doing stuff they like. It’s much more insidious than that. Second-handedness leads to value corruption, where the people being second-handed take on the values they were initially imitating for the sake of pleasing other people. This can be a much deeper problem than refraining from overt status-seeking behavior, since the issue is not putting on airs to impress others, but what one has (second-handedly) accepted as desirable and good. This shows the dangers of secondhandedness. Your values are about how you live. If you suppress your values and put on airs to impress others, it is much easier to keep that going if you internalize as good the show you are putting on for others. It’s a lot of work to maintain a split in your mind — so in a sense, it’s much easier to be a consistent and thorough second-hander and wipe yourself out of existence.

An example of internalized second-handedness: if a couple is at a “nice” dinner, and one of them spontaneously says “this is really nice, isn’t it?” and they MEAN it, and the other person replies “Yeah, it IS nice!” and they MEAN it, this is seen as a nice thing. It would be portrayed positively on a TV show, even if the judgments about the niceness were the result of uncritically-accepted cultural judgments related to the ambiance and expense of the meal. I have referred to this sort of thing as living for the sake of an idealized “image.”

This is my guess as to what the process is like for those who internalize second-handed values:

  1. A child has their MIND AND SOUL CRUSHED FOR YEARS BY PARENTS AND SCHOOL, and is told that being too into their own interests is weird/a mental illness/will lead to a miserable life etc.
  2. The crushed kid learns to let the judgments of others shape and guide their values (second-handedness).
  3. The crushed kid (now somewhat older) internalizes a bunch of these values and actually wants them now.

One illustration of going from 2 to 3 is this: a girl might initially put on makeup because of the positive reactions it gets from other people, even though she has some problems with it (its annoying, its expensive, it runs off in certain situations, it takes time to apply). But over time it becomes a part of her self image, she actually likes makeup, learns a lot about it, can’t imagine not using it, the drawbacks don’t seem important or even worth thinking about, etc.

Below I quote from Rand’s The Fountainhead, which heavily focuses on the theme of second-handedness. Howard Roark is an architect and the hero of the novel:

Mr. Robert L. Mundy, who came to Roark’s office in March, had been sent by Austen Heller. Mr. Mundy’s voice and hair were gray as steel, but his eyes were blue, gentle and wistful. He wanted to build a house in Connecticut, and he spoke of it tremulously, like a young bridegroom and like a man groping for his last, secret goal.
“It’s not just a house, Mr. Roark,” he said with timid diffidence, as if he were speaking to a man older and more prominent than himself, “it’s like … like a symbol to me. It’s what I’ve been waiting and working for all these years. It’s so many years now…. I must tell you this, so you’ll understand. I have a great deal of money now, more than I care to think about. I didn’t always have it. Maybe it came too late. I don’t know. Young people think that you forget what happens on the way when you get there. But you don’t. Something stays. I’ll always remember how I was a boy—in a little place down in Georgia, that was—and how I ran errands for the harness maker, and the kids laughed when carriages drove by and splashed mud all over my pants. That’s how long ago I decided that some day I’d have a house of my own, the kind of a house that carriages stop before. After that, no matter how hard it got to be at times, I’d always think of that house, and it helped. Afterward, there were years when I was afraid of it—I could have built it, but I was afraid. Well, now the time has come. Do you understand, Mr. Roark? Austen said you’d be just the man who’d understand.”
“Yes,” said Roark eagerly, “I do.”
“There was a place,” said Mr. Mundy, “down there, near my home town. The mansion of the whole county. The Randolph place. An old plantation house, as they don’t build them any more. I used to deliver things there sometimes, at the back door. That’s the house I want, Mr. Roark. Just like it. But not back there in Georgia. I don’t want to go back. Right here, near the city. I’ve bought the land. You must help me to have it landscaped just like the Randolph place. We’ll plant trees and shrubs, the kind they have in Georgia, the flowers and everything. We’ll find a way to make them grow. I don’t care how much it costs. Of course, we’ll have electric lights and garages now, not carriages. But I want the electric lights made like candles and I want the garages to look like the stables. Everything, just as it was. I have photographs of the Randolph place. And I’ve bought some of their old furniture.”
When Roark began to speak Mr. Mundy listened, in polite astonishment. He did not seem to resent the words. They did not penetrate.
“Don’t you see?” Roark was saying. “It’s a monument you want to build, but not to yourself. Not to your life or your own achievement. To other people. To their supremacy over you. You’re not challenging that supremacy. You’re immortalizing it. You haven’t thrown it off—you’re putting it up forever. Will you be happy if you seal yourself for the rest of your life in that borrowed shape? Or if you strike free, for once, and build a new house, your own? You don’t want the Randolph place. You want what it stood for. But what it stood for is what you’ve fought all your life.”
Mr. Mundy listened blankly. And Roark felt again a bewildered helplessness before unreality: there was no such person as Mr. Mundy; there were only the remnants, long dead, of the people who had inhabited the Randolph place; one could not plead with remnants or convince them.
“No,” said Mr. Mundy, at last. “No. You may be right, but that’s not what I want at all. I don’t say you haven’t got your reasons, and they sound like good reasons, but I like the Randolph place.”
“Just because I like it. Just because that’s what I like.”

Mr. Mundy actually likes the Randolph place. That’s his image. The bit about “there was no such person as Mr. Mundy” is telling us that this is an example of second-handedness in action. Mr. Mundy uncritically accepted the vision of this house as a thing to strive for. Roark tries to talk him out of it, but it’s no use. Lots of people, not grasping the concept of second-handedness or its insidious effect on people’s lives, would read this scene and see an uppity architect getting into an unnecessary argument with a potential client. What’s going on is almost more akin to a priest trying to save someone’s soul and then realizing in bewilderment that there’s no soul to be saved.

Ceasing to be an active, approval-seeking second-hander won’t help fully resolve the bad stuff you’ve already internalized as valuing and being good. It’ll help a bit — the bad stuff won’t be getting certain kinds of positive reinforcement from other people if you stop being actively second-handed. But you’ve actually got to go and address your valuations of that stuff directly.

Objectivism, Part I

Update: posted Part II.

I am an Objectivist. I realized I didn’t have an easily linkable summary of Objectivism and what it means to me, and that seemed kinda lame. Hence this post. My method is as follows: provide some quick thoughts on the core aspects of Objectivism as defined by Ayn Rand. This is a quick summary and not a treatise. If you want to learn more, read my friend Elliot Temple’s Learn Objectivism site here. He provides his own quick summary, a number of links to more posts analyzing Objectivism, and some long-form discussion of the most important work in Objectivist literature, Atlas Shrugged.

The core areas I’m going to talk about are Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, and Politics. I’m following Rand’s organization of introducing Objectivism here, and quoting from her description (which I just linked) throughout, then offering my own comments. Note that Rand would sometimes mention aesthetics too but I’m just gonna leave that out. I don’t think aesthetics is as important as the other parts, and it’s an area I know less about and have less to say on anyways.

Objective Reality

Rand said the Objectivist metaphysics is “Objective Reality”, and said “Reality exists as an objective absolute-facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.” What does that mean? To affect reality, you must act, not wish. Your ideas can affect reality in a sense, but not directly — they need the intermediary of your actions in the physical world in order to have an effect. No amount of strong feelings from the Commissar will make socialist economics produce plentiful food, and no amount of prayer will cure cancer. To get the food and fix the cancer, you’ve gotta deal with reality’s requirements, not your wishes and feelings. The independence of reality from things like wishes means that stuff like the “Law of Attraction” described in the book The Secret, which claims that thinking affects reality in a direct way, is false.

The existence of reality as an objective absolute also means that things act according to their inherent properties and the laws of physics, and that all things in reality must have defined properties. So things that are supposed to be unlimited and unknowable, like God, are out. And inexplicable supernatural phenomena which might cause things to act in ways other than in accordance with their nature or the laws of physics, like magic, are also out. And things which contradict our scientific understanding of reality, like ghosts, are also out.


Next, Rand defines the Objectivist epistemology as “Reason”, which she calls “the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses” and which she says “is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.” What does that mean?

Consider “basic means of survival.” Animals have some knowledge in their genes for dealing with reality. We humans need to rely on our reason. If we tried to approximate living like reason-less apes, without technology, electricity, clean food, medicine, etc, many people would die and fewer people would exist. Reason is literally our means of survival. The successful use of reason is literally a matter of life or death.

We need reason to discover the requirements of reality for doing things like building skyscrapers, jet engines, and iPhone factories. All those things require the application of enormous amounts of intellectual effort by people dealing with areas like engineering and supply chain logistics. A modern factory is a monument to the application of reason by human minds.

Things like intuition or divine revelation are not adequate means of dealing with reality. They have serious flaws. People’s intuitions often disagree (a problem I’ve never seen so-called intuitionist moral philosophers address — they appeal to an imaginary universally shared ethics while apparently just ignoring the existence of suicide bombers or something). For that matter, people’s divine revelations also disagree! (God, please clarify!). And even if there were such a thing as divine revelations, how else would we interpret them, other than using reason?

Reason is great because it provides the possibility of reaching agreement. If your revealed wisdom or intuitions disagree with someone else’s, that can be big trouble and lead to conflict. But using reason we can appeal to arguments, logic, criticism, facts — and at the end of the day, if all else fails, leave each other alone in the peaceful liberal societies that reason brings about.


Rand describes her ethics as “[s]elf-interest” and says:

“Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”

Conventional wisdom in our society is that it is moral and good to put others’ interests above your own, to be altruistic, to give up stuff you want to benefit other people, to be your brother’s keeper, to sacrifice, etc. Objectivism rejects all this. It says people should live their own lives, and pursue their own values, according to their own judgment. It says that the person who lays claim to the life of another is a vicious parasite and that a society operating according to the principles of such parasitism will lead to chaos and death. In place of such an orgy of parasitism and death, Objectivism has a much nicer alternative: the Trader Principle — the idea that relationships between individuals should be based on both parties offering value.

Living for other people, according to their values, just doesn’t work. There are everyday examples of this, such as the person choosing a career in order to please their parents and then finding themselves in a career they hate. Or a husband spending tons of money on a kitchen remodel he doesn’t see the point of to please his wife, then getting resentful about it. The thing about it being your life is you are the one that has to live it! You have to spend your time and effort and mental energy figuring out how to deal with the problems that come up in a certain way of living — and do so for something like 16 hours a day! So it’s really important that you spend your life (and wealth) on tasks you see the point of and enjoy, instead of trying to conform to other’s expectations and please others. As Rand’s hero Howard Roark says in The Fountainhead, in one of my favorite passages:

before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.

Resentfulness is a big problem. If you try to live your life for others, or give people resources in order to help people by standards you don’t share, you will often find yourself resentful. Why? There is a conflict in your mind, between wanting to pursue and act in accordance with your own values, and wanting to do what society has taught you is moral and correct. You can force yourself to act according to the societal rules, but you still have the objection or disagreement: you still think the kitchen remodel was a dumb idea and some cliche about how “compromise is necessary for a happy marriage! teehee!” isn’t cutting it in addressing your objection.

The solution to these problems is to live for yourself, according to your own values and judgment, and to limit the scope of interactions with others to situations where the interaction is win-win. This approach clashes strongly with certain standard interaction patterns in our society (such as many people’s friendships and romantic relationships). It definitely does not rule out friendships or romantic relationships, but such interactions look different under the Objectivist ethics than they do in conventional society.

One reason the Objectivist ethics sounds scary to people is they think it’s a license to use others as objects in pursuing your own goals. This is mistaken, and I will address it in my follow up post when I talk about the Harmony of Interests.


Rand names the Objectivist political system as “Capitalism” and elaborates:

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Capitalism is a great system. Capitalism makes earning a living by making a wage possible, since the capitalists need to hire help in order to create their products and bring them to market. Capitalism makes possible the progressive improvement in the productivity of workers via the accumulation of capital and technological development. This improved productivity allows employers to pay more for employees (since increase productivity means more stuff is being produced and sold, there are more sales revenues, and thus more money with which to pay employees). The employers are all in competition with each other for employees, in a kind of auction, and will bid up the price of labor to make sure they have enough to staff their enterprises. This increase in productivity and bidding up of the price of labor is the real source of all improvement in wages and working conditions — not unions and “pro-labor” legislation. Capitalism incentivizes the best minds to produce new products and services for the mass market, which is where the real money is to be made. Capitalism gives each person a vote in what gets produced with their dollars, and even lets them become capitalists themselves via investing in the market. The anti-capitalist propaganda you’ve read is myths — for example, supposed robber baron John D. Rockefeller was a genius industrialist and great man who very much “love[d] the doing.”

Government interference in the economy causes many problems. It causes soaring home prices, tuition rates, and healthcare costs. It encourages people to take out ruinous debt they’ll never pay back. It leads to shortages and rationing. In some cases, including right now in places such as in Venezuela, it literally leads to mass starvation and death. Even though Nazi Germany was actually a socialist state, if we count them separately, socialism has killed way more people than the Nazis did.

Ayn Rand understands the principle that makes all this evil possible: the introduction of force into economic life. The government’s ability to use force is very very dangerous. In some areas, such as providing for the national defense or dealing with criminals, we don’t really have a better alternative, and we need the use of force in those situations to even have a reasonable civilization to live in that isn’t ravaged by criminals and foreign invaders. But when the government starts using its ability to use force in order to interfere with things like paying for university or the price of corn, all sorts of chaos can result.

Rational economic planning requires that everyone be free to plan their own lives according to their own preferences. When this principle is violated, bad things start happening and perverse incentives are created. If the government makes, say, loans available for mortgages cheaper than the market rate by providing a cheap loan guarantee, the first issue there is that the government is using force to override individuals’ judgment about how much lending should be occurring in the mortgage market. Why? Well because the government thinks more people should have access to such loans. Why? Well because the government thinks more people should live in houses they own. Why? And why is the relative merits of buying vs renting something the government is not only taking a position on, but using the force of the state to back up? Why is it diverting resources to this that could be spent by people on building up their small business or educating their kids or donating to anti-aging research?

Another issue is that the normal market mechanisms don’t respond properly when presented with a big pool of money funded by violence. In a free market place, a lender has a lot of skin in the game and wants to mitigate the risk of having a non-performing loan. So the lender will use their judgment and not lend to people who are too risky. This is precisely the “problem” that government-force advocates want to solve when they talk of “expanding access” to loans. They think the judgments of lenders on the free market are too harsh and mean and don’t give the little guy a fair shake. With a government guarantee on the back end, lenders make loans they wouldn’t normally make, and more marginal borrowers take out loans they probably shouldn’t. When it all goes bad, lots of wealth is lost, and somehow capitalism is blamed! 😩

The system where there is some capitalism but lots of exceptions where the government goes around and uses force and causes chaos is often called the mixed economy. So under the mixed economy system, government uses force to gather up a bunch of money, and then uses this money trying to “help” in ways that cause economic chaos. Under socialism the situation is even worse: socialism requires terror and mass murder, as discussed in George Reisman’s book on Marxism which I talk about here. I’m not gonna talk about socialism a lot here, since the mixed economy tends to be more of an active issue of debate anyways. Most people realize that socialism is bad, and even so-called advocates of socialism (with any level of political power in Western countries) mostly want a mixed economy with some more government interference.

Summing up, capitalism is a glorious and rational system compatible with the requirements of human life. A key feature of the political implementation of capitalism is that the government has a very limited role and focuses on protecting people from the initiation of force. The mixed economy involves force and leads to perverse effects, and socialism is great only if you’re the Grim Reaper.

I’m going to end this post here so I can get some feedback, because I’ve already written a bunch. For the next post, I currently intend to talk about some of the following concepts where I think Objectivism has a lot of interesting stuff to say: rationalism, the harmony of interests, second-handedness and social metaphysics, and evasion.