Ayn Rand has some wicked points, chiefly the triumph of the individual over the will of the masses and reason etc. Can't be agued with. But her views on human nature are retarded. She is basically advocating soft fascism with her "steal from the poor, and give to the rich." She believes in the false mantra that the people on the top actually deserve to be there when in fact its the people at the bottom who get them there. No one achieves anything entirely on their own.
notice that was intentionally spelled out in the script to make a point, because if you read atlas shrugged (keep in mind its actually the writing telling you to read that book) its actually a blue print meaning what ideas to infect American business; if you were planning on morally and economically destroying the US within 50yrs
People don't get this scene. Bert thinks he's a producer, but he's simply a member of the idle rich. It's the people like Don the acutal doers, the working class like Don, that make the company not him. This scene is destroying Rand's main point that its the workers need the owner not the other way around.
@dragonlancefire Employers and employees exchange productivity for wealth at an agreed upon value because it is beneficial to each of their selfish and thereby ultimately moral needs. Neither needs anyone. Either is free to go their own way at any time, unless of course government forces a collectivist morality on one or the other. But then free will and freedom is destroyed. You do not understand objectivism at all.
@AtheismCentral There is no we. There is only you,and I and others. You should do as you see fit. If you want to give to the poor by all means do so. Just don't force me to against my will. That really is the bottom line for collectivists like yourself. "Taking care of the poor" is just emotional bait you use to get people to agree to give up their freedom. All you actually care about is forcing your morality on others. You know ....like a religious institution.
@Huboons Thats theory holds ground if civil society is the exclusive sphere of human relations. What of the family is there not a need to benefit members of the family in employment, what of neighbours, collegues, etc. Humans are not atomistic they are social and ultimately deeper than selfishness.
@Seaworldexists its fact, not theory. Any action taken that does not serve your own self interest or places anyone else's life before your own is by definition irrational and destructive to freedom.
@Huboons Collectivism is not forced by governmnet it arises in nature through the family, tribe, community, state. Your theory has not been actualized in the world and is not a fact.
You're wrong. Your interpretation is, to say the least, a bit esoteric. Rand's main point in Atlas Shrugged (and Objectivism more broadly) does not involve second-hand dependency for someone or something to be great. Her main point is that it's the men of the mind who move the world.
Spent my life in advertising (sorry to say LOL), and this show IS absolutely the definitive story of the business during the 50s and 60s. Incredible. But the star of the show, apart from the amazing John Hamm, is certainly the art direction. Not the art direction at "Sterling and Cooper," but the art direction that depicts the atmosphere of not only advertising, but the era itself in this miraculous show.
Sure, you could say that the gesture of giving a gift has value that's separate from the gift itself, but in my experience giving a gift which people really want helps make the gesture meaningfull
Now that I think about it, giving a gift that the person really wants, not money, but an item is probably more effective. The problem is that most of the time you don't know what a person truly wants, or whether he already has the item you're about to give him/her That's why I give money often times
But people don't really want $. They want the things $ brings them. Even people who want $ "for it's own sake", people who you and I wouldn't get along with, really want the intangible benefits of being envied by people who want to switch places with them
I can see how when one Oist gives $ to another, he's saying "I know you know what the moral status of $ is, and I trust that you'll buy something in your self-interest", but frankly, I don't want to have to work that much when I get a gift
"But people don't really want $. They want the things $ brings them"
Im in complete agreement with you there, one of my favorite passages from The Fountainhead is when Roark equates people who care about $ above all things, with other types of "second-handers", because they aren't really after a personal goal, in the things they can purchase with money. Money is a tool, and a wonderful tool especially if you're competent, but it shouldn't be a goal in itself, because that's collectivism
Well, to each his own I suppose. I personally don't mind getting money as a gift, because I spend money on a daily basis, and even without putting any special effort, or thought into it, I can probably put the money to the use that I desire for it the most.
Would you rather get a 50$ gift-card from Target, or an actual 50$?
I'd rather not get either. I'd rather get an actual, useable, end of the line product.
I can't see what you're saying... that $ is a tool just like any other, and so if you enjoy spending money (not b/c you're a 2nd-hander, but b/c you like the challenge of finding the best deal, for example), then that would be like giving a fishing pole to someone who likes fishing
But theres still a distinction there, I think. A fishing guy will fish even if he doesn't need the fish, or even if he...
Someone who enjoys shopping (finding deals, OTOH, still has to concoct some plausible reason for buying the thing. It would be a contradiction in terms to say "I really didn't think anything of this, but I got a great deal on it." "Great", in that context, is meaningless. Its just the pleasure of beating other ppl at shopping
I've had a discussion similar to this one about atheletic competition. Its a complicated, but interesting, topic
Basically, what I'm saying is that just like it would be weird if someone said "I picked this thing out completely at random, but I got a great deal on it," it would be weird for someone else to say "Here, I know you like spending money (that's actually the only thing I know about you for certain), pick something out."
IMO, giving money to someone, when you have had opportunity to find out more about what he will spend it on, is saying "I don't admire you for anything except your ability...
But that statement begs the question: how do you know that about him? Unless you know many other things about him - things which would be great for picking a non-money gift - you couldn't know about his spending habits.
Even if you've got a point, a boss giving an employee a gift is far less likely to know what the guy would like specifically. A check makes sense, coming from your employer as a way of saying "thanks for being diligent, committed, competent" etc I.E. not just the guy's ability, but his virtues as well. Let's just call it a package deal, though I think it's relevant to point out the competence, dedication etc, as a way of saying "you're not only tallented, but you work hard and that's moral"
The gift giver turned a perfectly good compliment into an insult because he wasn't recognizing the actual man. He was just using him to "practice" being an Objectivist.
I was just responding to your comment that the gift giver was "using him to practice being an Objectivist"
All I was trying to say is that just maybe, the gift giver is a sincere fan of Rand, and wanted to spread what he concidered to be a great influence on himself
If the guy wants to credit a certain author which inspired him, and he is saying that he believes I represent the values which the philosopher upholds, then he is being honest and I would probably feel compelled to find out exactly what this philosopher wrote which had such an impact on this man.
Furthermore, if somebody said to me "thanks for your ability" vs "thanks for having moral values" I would probably take the latter as the greater compliment
I don't doubt the guy's honesty. I, however, wouldn't feel compelled to find out what he was talking about. I would feel disoriented - the man was acting out of character. He might be right, but I would still feel dehumanized.
"Thanks for having ability" vs. "thanks for having moral values"? I don't consider the two seperate.
There are people who have ability to be successful, but they have no honor, integrity, morality etc Their ability to succeed in business doesn't stem from a passion for creativity or objective thinking, but rather power lust perhaps.
I agree that such people exist, but persumably, that man wasn't one of them. I have to assume that his boss understood that his employee was not only successful, but that he was successful in a genuine, ethical way. That that's why he regarded him as similar to one of Rand's fictional heroes.
My only point is that, even if true, if the guy isn't aware of the connection, complimenting him for it will have no positive affect on him...
...Enlightening someone, and making someone feel better, are two different things. They don't have to be, no, but when you talk to someone as if he isn't aware, even subconsciously, of his moral value - during the exact time when you're supposed to be showing him that you're aware of it on the same subconscious level - he's going to regard what you say as an insult dressed up as a compliment.
" a gift giving session shouldn't be an educational opportunity. It's condescending and dehumanizing"
I would only agree if you said that it shouldn't be a moral lecture, but an opportunity to expand somebody's knowledge? I don't see what's so rude about that. If he had lectured the guy, I would agree with you The way I see this scene, the giver is thanking the guy but at the same time mentioning a great influence on his own life. I personally often recomend Rand's work to people I like
I agree that that particular scenario did have room for expanding someone's knowledge - without costing the person the emotional gratification of being praised via a gift.
However, I dont think the boss struck that balance. He wasnt subtle about it. He did, indeed, turn it into a moral lecture. $2500 in the 1950s was alot of money. He said, in effect, Im only giving this to you b/c I know something you dont, and thus Im the only one of us who FEELS how good you are. Thats insulting.
Im not sure, I didn't get that interpretation out of watching the clip, but then again I haven't watched the whole episode. I think you may be reading too much into it, but I could be wrong.
As demonstrated by this thread, the praise that goes along with a bonus should be customized to the recipient. @grantsinmypants2 sees no different between "Thanks for having ability" vs. "thanks for having moral values." @Sam26100 does. Each would respond differently. If the giver in this case has correctly assessed the receiver, he will respond as @Sam26100 responded. The right thing to say is more about the person getting the bonus than the person giving the bonus.
My point was that the giver was attempting to tell the receiver "thanks for having ability" by telling him "thanks for having moral values." It fell flat because the receiver didn't regard that as a compliment (or at least not one appropriate to what was being complimented).
I believe he should regard them as the same (ie: I believe that giver's message was correct, and that it will benefit the receiver to hear it), but thats a seperate issue...
However, if he accurately assessed the receiver, it's likely that the receiver would not have taken it that way. We've heard from @Sam26100 that he would not have found it condescending and dehumanizing. I can confirm that I feel the same way. So that's two people that would have taken it as a positive. It just means that part of being a good leader is knowing what drives each person and deal each accordingly, and differently based on what motivates.
I would have taken it positively aswell. The three of us, unlike the man in the video we're actually talking about, are aware of the signifigance of everything the boss was saying.
I also don't doubt that the man, once "takes $1.99 from that $2500 and gets himself a copy", will understand and appreciate his boss' words. However, he'll have to do it retroactively.
One other subtle point, it was not a "gift giving session." This was earned, like a paycheck. It's an exchange of value. This is actually one of the best opportunities that a business leader has to reinforce positive behavior.
That's not a point. You have no basis for assuming that I equate giving gifts with giving the unearned.
A gift is a type of payment. However, unlike writing a check to someone you know nothing personal about, when you give it to someone you do admire personally, you do so for more than just the money he has earned for you
The boss was trying to quantify the emotional pleasure knowing that man gave him. That's fine, but it still doesnt communicate to the man that thats why hes getting it
As far as the recepient of the gift is unaware of the connection, I don't see it as being relevant.
He gave the guy some money, the Rand referral was just a side-mention. The guy may be unaware of Rand's ideas, but why should that stop the older guy from encouraging him from learning a new philosophy?
I think that giving the guy the money was precisely because of Rand. It's safe to assume that b/c its supposed to be the 1950s, the boss was new to Oism. The idea that money is a token of spiritual value was new, and thus had the possibility to be applied in a rationalistic, insincere manner instead of being part of someone's personality (it's still isnt, except amongst few of us).
Also, I would never say that the boss shouldnt encourage him to learn Oism. Just not to do so then and there.
Well money Is widely concicdered the most popular kind of gift, and even by non-objectivists.
The fact is that most people do live by objectivist principles in their private lives, but feign and preach altruism. Survival requires objectivity, and most people inherintly understand that money is a very good gift, since the recepient can choose for himself what he wants to get, thereby making the gift better.
As for learning Oism, he wasn't forcing it on the guy, just recomending
I disagree that $ is a good gift. A gift is, by it's nature, personalized. It's not just about the work you've done for me, but also an expression of what I think about it and how I feel about it. Gifts are unaviodably symbolic. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that the physical object is really just a vechicle for communicating a message...
... Also, I think that the reason most people give money as gifts nowadays is precisely because most people do not practice objectivity in their private lives. They are so tied to altruistic and tribalist concepts - that "the right thing to do" is to give gifts to people who they don't really value because it shows their "benevolence", that $ is the way to create that effect with the least amount of effort necessary.
Well, that's actually been my point from the very beginning. Any conviction - even a correct one - can be done out of a sense of duty if it isn't fully understood.
It was my sense that the boss in this video clip had just discovered Oism, was intrigued and inspired by it, and out of sense of duty to the philosophy, he went out of his way to reward and "compliment" all of the heroes he knew in his life.
He should have checked to see if he actually, completely felt that way first.
I didn't feel that way at all, and if it's true then he should probably read the book again. Seems to me he just really likes the philosophy, and wanted to spread it for the same reasons I spread it to the people I meet: because it's awesome
I spread it to people I meet because I know that it benefits me to live in a world with as many Objectivists as possible. It is the most efficient way to avoiding all kinds of problems that would arise without people being Objectivists, and it also is the most efficient way to get them to be the most productive (which benefits me) with the least investment possible.
I personally like to give money because it lets the person choose what they want to get for themselves, rather than me taking a risk of guessing wrongly, and wasting an opportunity to make the person happy.
Also as an objectivist, I believe that money represents our greatest virtues, I.E. competence, courage, ability, responsibility, time etc, and those things are very much tied into our emotions and how much we value ppl
Well, the obvious question there is: if you really knew/valued that person, how could you guess wrongly? I'm not saying you can read his mind to know exactly the type of thing he most wants/needs at the moment, but within a certain range you should be able to know what would be valuable to him. Money is too broad of a range.
I agree that money CAN be tied into all of those virtues, but even so, money is not an end in itself.
reffering to the 20 minute trailer, not the amazing MM..
bunnymize 2 months ago
gee i think we just saw this whole idiot movie.
bunnymize 2 months ago
; Remember when a hard-bound book was $1.99?
12Zwolf 2 months ago
Ayn Rand has some wicked points, chiefly the triumph of the individual over the will of the masses and reason etc. Can't be agued with. But her views on human nature are retarded. She is basically advocating soft fascism with her "steal from the poor, and give to the rich." She believes in the false mantra that the people on the top actually deserve to be there when in fact its the people at the bottom who get them there. No one achieves anything entirely on their own.
probeef 2 months ago
In another episode Draper gives Don a copy and Don leaves the office and throws it in the nearest bin.
bigleonard1984 2 months ago
these Taco Bell commercials are knock-offs of the Harvey's ones
mat3o2 6 months ago
i hope he bought the book
joaoluizsn 8 months ago
@joaoluizsn He does, but ends up throwing it in the bin.
bigleonard1984 2 months ago
$1.99 for a book
notice that was intentionally spelled out in the script to make a point, because if you read atlas shrugged (keep in mind its actually the writing telling you to read that book) its actually a blue print meaning what ideas to infect American business; if you were planning on morally and economically destroying the US within 50yrs
godscuttingyoudown 9 months ago
Video online since 2009 and no hate comments, just insightful debate on a high intellectual level? With Ayn Rand in the title? I don't believe this!
john42t 10 months ago 9
@john42t lol i don't believe it either...time to read more of the comments
ObamaFansAreIgnorant 9 months ago
she is the one.
kasyapa 10 months ago
People don't get this scene. Bert thinks he's a producer, but he's simply a member of the idle rich. It's the people like Don the acutal doers, the working class like Don, that make the company not him. This scene is destroying Rand's main point that its the workers need the owner not the other way around.
dragonlancefire 10 months ago 3
@dragonlancefire Employers and employees exchange productivity for wealth at an agreed upon value because it is beneficial to each of their selfish and thereby ultimately moral needs. Neither needs anyone. Either is free to go their own way at any time, unless of course government forces a collectivist morality on one or the other. But then free will and freedom is destroyed. You do not understand objectivism at all.
Huboons 8 months ago 17
@Huboons Exactly
MrDpsummers 6 months ago
@Huboons
So we should not give to the poor? Lol free will killed? Your retarded.
AtheismCentral 3 months ago
@AtheismCentral There is no we. There is only you,and I and others. You should do as you see fit. If you want to give to the poor by all means do so. Just don't force me to against my will. That really is the bottom line for collectivists like yourself. "Taking care of the poor" is just emotional bait you use to get people to agree to give up their freedom. All you actually care about is forcing your morality on others. You know ....like a religious institution.
Huboons 3 months ago 2
@AtheismCentral ; * You're retarded. Not 'Your' retarded'.
gregpet1973 2 months ago
@gregpet1973
Obvious spelling Nazi is obvious.
AtheismCentral 2 months ago
@Huboons Thats theory holds ground if civil society is the exclusive sphere of human relations. What of the family is there not a need to benefit members of the family in employment, what of neighbours, collegues, etc. Humans are not atomistic they are social and ultimately deeper than selfishness.
Seaworldexists 2 days ago
@Seaworldexists I have no idea what theory you are talking about.
Huboons 2 days ago
@Huboons the theory that indiviudal needs are met only through the pursuit of selfishness.
Seaworldexists 2 days ago
@Seaworldexists its fact, not theory. Any action taken that does not serve your own self interest or places anyone else's life before your own is by definition irrational and destructive to freedom.
Huboons 2 days ago
@Huboons Collectivism is not forced by governmnet it arises in nature through the family, tribe, community, state. Your theory has not been actualized in the world and is not a fact.
Seaworldexists 2 days ago
@dragonlancefire
You're wrong. Your interpretation is, to say the least, a bit esoteric. Rand's main point in Atlas Shrugged (and Objectivism more broadly) does not involve second-hand dependency for someone or something to be great. Her main point is that it's the men of the mind who move the world.
Soupflakez 4 months ago 2
Mad Men is such rubbish!
MiaoPurrington 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BREAKING NEWS: FOXBUSINESS AND CNBC ANCHORS ARRESTED FOR ILLEGALLY MONITORING PRIVATE EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS.
THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN SOON TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW.
111WLee 1 year ago
@111WLee nonsense.
kasyapa 10 months ago
I love this show, first miles davis kind of blue, then ayn rand, wow.
SadisticMonkey336 2 years ago
Spent my life in advertising (sorry to say LOL), and this show IS absolutely the definitive story of the business during the 50s and 60s. Incredible. But the star of the show, apart from the amazing John Hamm, is certainly the art direction. Not the art direction at "Sterling and Cooper," but the art direction that depicts the atmosphere of not only advertising, but the era itself in this miraculous show.
rickcee 2 years ago
The boss may not know the guy personally, but he can still deduce certain moral qualities just by examining the guy's work
Sam26100 2 years ago
Sure, you could say that the gesture of giving a gift has value that's separate from the gift itself, but in my experience giving a gift which people really want helps make the gesture meaningfull
Now that I think about it, giving a gift that the person really wants, not money, but an item is probably more effective. The problem is that most of the time you don't know what a person truly wants, or whether he already has the item you're about to give him/her That's why I give money often times
Sam26100 2 years ago
But people don't really want $. They want the things $ brings them. Even people who want $ "for it's own sake", people who you and I wouldn't get along with, really want the intangible benefits of being envied by people who want to switch places with them
I can see how when one Oist gives $ to another, he's saying "I know you know what the moral status of $ is, and I trust that you'll buy something in your self-interest", but frankly, I don't want to have to work that much when I get a gift
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
"But people don't really want $. They want the things $ brings them"
Im in complete agreement with you there, one of my favorite passages from The Fountainhead is when Roark equates people who care about $ above all things, with other types of "second-handers", because they aren't really after a personal goal, in the things they can purchase with money. Money is a tool, and a wonderful tool especially if you're competent, but it shouldn't be a goal in itself, because that's collectivism
Sam26100 2 years ago
Well, to each his own I suppose. I personally don't mind getting money as a gift, because I spend money on a daily basis, and even without putting any special effort, or thought into it, I can probably put the money to the use that I desire for it the most.
Would you rather get a 50$ gift-card from Target, or an actual 50$?
Sam26100 2 years ago
I'd rather not get either. I'd rather get an actual, useable, end of the line product.
I can't see what you're saying... that $ is a tool just like any other, and so if you enjoy spending money (not b/c you're a 2nd-hander, but b/c you like the challenge of finding the best deal, for example), then that would be like giving a fishing pole to someone who likes fishing
But theres still a distinction there, I think. A fishing guy will fish even if he doesn't need the fish, or even if he...
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
...do anything with them other than catch them.
Someone who enjoys shopping (finding deals, OTOH, still has to concoct some plausible reason for buying the thing. It would be a contradiction in terms to say "I really didn't think anything of this, but I got a great deal on it." "Great", in that context, is meaningless. Its just the pleasure of beating other ppl at shopping
I've had a discussion similar to this one about atheletic competition. Its a complicated, but interesting, topic
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Sorry, that should have read "I CAN see what you're saying..."
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Basically, what I'm saying is that just like it would be weird if someone said "I picked this thing out completely at random, but I got a great deal on it," it would be weird for someone else to say "Here, I know you like spending money (that's actually the only thing I know about you for certain), pick something out."
IMO, giving money to someone, when you have had opportunity to find out more about what he will spend it on, is saying "I don't admire you for anything except your ability...
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
... to spend money rationally/selfishly."
But that statement begs the question: how do you know that about him? Unless you know many other things about him - things which would be great for picking a non-money gift - you couldn't know about his spending habits.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Even if you've got a point, a boss giving an employee a gift is far less likely to know what the guy would like specifically. A check makes sense, coming from your employer as a way of saying "thanks for being diligent, committed, competent" etc I.E. not just the guy's ability, but his virtues as well. Let's just call it a package deal, though I think it's relevant to point out the competence, dedication etc, as a way of saying "you're not only tallented, but you work hard and that's moral"
Sam26100 2 years ago
Bah, fulfilling. Im falling asleep
Sam26100 2 years ago
All my comments are made based on the clip alone. I haven't watched the show.
jefferygentry 2 years ago
Likewise
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
The gift giver turned a perfectly good compliment into an insult because he wasn't recognizing the actual man. He was just using him to "practice" being an Objectivist.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Or....
He is passionate about the ideas that transformed his life, and gave him purpose,
And...
He wants to spread the joy to other people
Sam26100 2 years ago
"... and gave him purpose"?
He didn't have purpose until Ayn Rand identified that that's what he had?
I empathize with where you're coming from, but there's more to it than what you're allowing.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
I was just responding to your comment that the gift giver was "using him to practice being an Objectivist"
All I was trying to say is that just maybe, the gift giver is a sincere fan of Rand, and wanted to spread what he concidered to be a great influence on himself
Sam26100 2 years ago
I don't understand you
Sam26100 2 years ago
What I mean is this:
I want you to tell me which phrase makes you feel better?
1) "We really did a great job on this project. I couldn't have done it without you."
2) "We really did a great job on this project I couldn't have done it without you. Or, at least, someone just like you."
That's all I'm saying.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
What makes me feel better is honesty
If the guy wants to credit a certain author which inspired him, and he is saying that he believes I represent the values which the philosopher upholds, then he is being honest and I would probably feel compelled to find out exactly what this philosopher wrote which had such an impact on this man.
Furthermore, if somebody said to me "thanks for your ability" vs "thanks for having moral values" I would probably take the latter as the greater compliment
Sam26100 2 years ago
I don't doubt the guy's honesty. I, however, wouldn't feel compelled to find out what he was talking about. I would feel disoriented - the man was acting out of character. He might be right, but I would still feel dehumanized.
"Thanks for having ability" vs. "thanks for having moral values"? I don't consider the two seperate.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
they're separate allright
There are people who have ability to be successful, but they have no honor, integrity, morality etc Their ability to succeed in business doesn't stem from a passion for creativity or objective thinking, but rather power lust perhaps.
Sam26100 2 years ago
I agree that such people exist, but persumably, that man wasn't one of them. I have to assume that his boss understood that his employee was not only successful, but that he was successful in a genuine, ethical way. That that's why he regarded him as similar to one of Rand's fictional heroes.
My only point is that, even if true, if the guy isn't aware of the connection, complimenting him for it will have no positive affect on him...
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
...Enlightening someone, and making someone feel better, are two different things. They don't have to be, no, but when you talk to someone as if he isn't aware, even subconsciously, of his moral value - during the exact time when you're supposed to be showing him that you're aware of it on the same subconscious level - he's going to regard what you say as an insult dressed up as a compliment.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
" a gift giving session shouldn't be an educational opportunity. It's condescending and dehumanizing"
I would only agree if you said that it shouldn't be a moral lecture, but an opportunity to expand somebody's knowledge? I don't see what's so rude about that. If he had lectured the guy, I would agree with you The way I see this scene, the giver is thanking the guy but at the same time mentioning a great influence on his own life. I personally often recomend Rand's work to people I like
Sam26100 2 years ago
I agree that that particular scenario did have room for expanding someone's knowledge - without costing the person the emotional gratification of being praised via a gift.
However, I dont think the boss struck that balance. He wasnt subtle about it. He did, indeed, turn it into a moral lecture. $2500 in the 1950s was alot of money. He said, in effect, Im only giving this to you b/c I know something you dont, and thus Im the only one of us who FEELS how good you are. Thats insulting.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Im not sure, I didn't get that interpretation out of watching the clip, but then again I haven't watched the whole episode. I think you may be reading too much into it, but I could be wrong.
Sam26100 2 years ago
As demonstrated by this thread, the praise that goes along with a bonus should be customized to the recipient. @grantsinmypants2 sees no different between "Thanks for having ability" vs. "thanks for having moral values." @Sam26100 does. Each would respond differently. If the giver in this case has correctly assessed the receiver, he will respond as @Sam26100 responded. The right thing to say is more about the person getting the bonus than the person giving the bonus.
jefferygentry 2 years ago
My point was that the giver was attempting to tell the receiver "thanks for having ability" by telling him "thanks for having moral values." It fell flat because the receiver didn't regard that as a compliment (or at least not one appropriate to what was being complimented).
I believe he should regard them as the same (ie: I believe that giver's message was correct, and that it will benefit the receiver to hear it), but thats a seperate issue...
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
...A gift giving session shouldn't be an educational opportunity. It's condescending and dehumanizing.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
It's condescending and dehumanizing to you.
However, if he accurately assessed the receiver, it's likely that the receiver would not have taken it that way. We've heard from @Sam26100 that he would not have found it condescending and dehumanizing. I can confirm that I feel the same way. So that's two people that would have taken it as a positive. It just means that part of being a good leader is knowing what drives each person and deal each accordingly, and differently based on what motivates.
jefferygentry 2 years ago
I would have taken it positively aswell. The three of us, unlike the man in the video we're actually talking about, are aware of the signifigance of everything the boss was saying.
I also don't doubt that the man, once "takes $1.99 from that $2500 and gets himself a copy", will understand and appreciate his boss' words. However, he'll have to do it retroactively.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
One other subtle point, it was not a "gift giving session." This was earned, like a paycheck. It's an exchange of value. This is actually one of the best opportunities that a business leader has to reinforce positive behavior.
jefferygentry 2 years ago
That's not a point. You have no basis for assuming that I equate giving gifts with giving the unearned.
A gift is a type of payment. However, unlike writing a check to someone you know nothing personal about, when you give it to someone you do admire personally, you do so for more than just the money he has earned for you
The boss was trying to quantify the emotional pleasure knowing that man gave him. That's fine, but it still doesnt communicate to the man that thats why hes getting it
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
As far as the recepient of the gift is unaware of the connection, I don't see it as being relevant.
He gave the guy some money, the Rand referral was just a side-mention. The guy may be unaware of Rand's ideas, but why should that stop the older guy from encouraging him from learning a new philosophy?
Sam26100 2 years ago
I think that giving the guy the money was precisely because of Rand. It's safe to assume that b/c its supposed to be the 1950s, the boss was new to Oism. The idea that money is a token of spiritual value was new, and thus had the possibility to be applied in a rationalistic, insincere manner instead of being part of someone's personality (it's still isnt, except amongst few of us).
Also, I would never say that the boss shouldnt encourage him to learn Oism. Just not to do so then and there.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Hmm,
Well money Is widely concicdered the most popular kind of gift, and even by non-objectivists.
The fact is that most people do live by objectivist principles in their private lives, but feign and preach altruism. Survival requires objectivity, and most people inherintly understand that money is a very good gift, since the recepient can choose for himself what he wants to get, thereby making the gift better.
As for learning Oism, he wasn't forcing it on the guy, just recomending
Sam26100 2 years ago
I disagree that $ is a good gift. A gift is, by it's nature, personalized. It's not just about the work you've done for me, but also an expression of what I think about it and how I feel about it. Gifts are unaviodably symbolic. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that the physical object is really just a vechicle for communicating a message...
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
... Also, I think that the reason most people give money as gifts nowadays is precisely because most people do not practice objectivity in their private lives. They are so tied to altruistic and tribalist concepts - that "the right thing to do" is to give gifts to people who they don't really value because it shows their "benevolence", that $ is the way to create that effect with the least amount of effort necessary.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Maybe you've got a point about giving gifts to people as a matter fulfuilling social expectations, duty, benevolence etc.
I haven't thought of that, I assumed we were talking about giving gifts to people we actually like
Sam26100 2 years ago
Well, that's actually been my point from the very beginning. Any conviction - even a correct one - can be done out of a sense of duty if it isn't fully understood.
It was my sense that the boss in this video clip had just discovered Oism, was intrigued and inspired by it, and out of sense of duty to the philosophy, he went out of his way to reward and "compliment" all of the heroes he knew in his life.
He should have checked to see if he actually, completely felt that way first.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Out of a sense of duty to objectivism?
I didn't feel that way at all, and if it's true then he should probably read the book again. Seems to me he just really likes the philosophy, and wanted to spread it for the same reasons I spread it to the people I meet: because it's awesome
Sam26100 2 years ago
I spread it to people I meet because I know that it benefits me to live in a world with as many Objectivists as possible. It is the most efficient way to avoiding all kinds of problems that would arise without people being Objectivists, and it also is the most efficient way to get them to be the most productive (which benefits me) with the least investment possible.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
I personally like to give money because it lets the person choose what they want to get for themselves, rather than me taking a risk of guessing wrongly, and wasting an opportunity to make the person happy.
Also as an objectivist, I believe that money represents our greatest virtues, I.E. competence, courage, ability, responsibility, time etc, and those things are very much tied into our emotions and how much we value ppl
Sam26100 2 years ago
Well, the obvious question there is: if you really knew/valued that person, how could you guess wrongly? I'm not saying you can read his mind to know exactly the type of thing he most wants/needs at the moment, but within a certain range you should be able to know what would be valuable to him. Money is too broad of a range.
I agree that money CAN be tied into all of those virtues, but even so, money is not an end in itself.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago