Tuesday, January 18, 2011

NoodleFood

NoodleFood

Link to NoodleFood

NoodleCast #53: Live Rationally Selfish Webcast

Posted: 18 Jan 2011 09:00 AM PST

On Sunday, Greg Perkins and I hosted another live Rationally Selfish Webcast where I answered people's questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well.

The live webcasts are held every Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. They consist of me broadcasting on video, Greg on audio, and the audience in a text chat. They're quite a bit of fun, so please join us when your schedule permits!

As usual, an audio recording of Sunday's live webcast is now available as a NoodleCast podcast. To get these podcasts automatically, you can subscribe to the feed in iTunes -- just choose either the enhanced M4A format or the standard MP3 format. They're the same content, but the M4A format breaks each question into its own "chapter."

Whether you watch the live webcast or listen to the recorded podcast, you can submit and vote on questions on the widget on the page for the Rationally Selfish Webcast -- or via Idea Informer. Questions and votes are much appreciated!

The Rationally Selfish Webcast (and Podcast) is available to anyone, free of charge. If you find value in it, I ask that you support our work by periodically contributing to our tip jar. We suggest $5 per episode, but any amount is appreciated.




If you would prefer to send a check, please send it to "Diana Hsieh; P.O. Box 851; Sedalia, CO 80135." Please write "RS Webcast" in the memo field. If you're unable to contribute financially, we'd appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested. You can, for example, "like" the Rationally Selfish Webcast Page on Facebook.

Webcast Segments

These segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of this podcast. Any included links are those referenced in the podcast. (Many thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping me compile these notes!)

Introduction (0:00)

Diana Hsieh: DianaHsieh.com: diana@dianahsieh.com

Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Don't forget to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcasts!

Question 1: Judgments of Actions and Ideas (4:03)

How does one properly judge a person's actions and ideas? I've read that one can judge a person's ideas as good or evil based on whether they are true or false, respectively. I've also read/heard that it's usually better to judge a person's actions since people often aren't very exact in their ideas and in what they say. Should you judge a persons ideas or actions? Or both? And, what is the proper way to judge a person's ideas and actions?

Links: Leonard Peikoff's essay Fact and Value

Money Point: You should judge a person for his whole person -- meaning his thinking, ideas, and actions. But take care to focus on his serious commitments.

Question 2: Judging People Efficiently (19:27)

How can I judge people more efficiently? It would be helpful to be more efficient in judging whether certain individuals are appropriate for a friendship. Sometimes it takes me a long time to decide whether I would like to be friends with someone or not. It takes me even longer to decide whether I would like to be in a romantic relationship with someone. How can I speed this process up? What are some key factors that might help me make these types of decisions more efficiently?

Money Point: Relationships are not all or nothing. Allow the intimacy of the relationship to develop naturally, notice and judge what emerges, and then move closer or back off accordingly.

Question 3: Online Jerks (29:36)

Why are some people such jerks on the internet? Some seemingly decent people become downright malicious bastards on the internet, particularly when posting anonymously. Why is that? What does such behavior say about a person's moral character? How can a person keep his manners, his benevolence, and his cool in full force when online?

Money Point: The possibility of anonymity and psychological distance of online communication often makes being a jerk easy, so watch for those tendencies in yourself.

Question 4: Seeking Popularity (41:03)

Is it always wrong to seek popularity? Because of the character Peater Keating I can't figure out in what context it would be right for an Objectivist to value or desire popularity, if at all.

Links: The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, the good comment by Brad Harper

Money Point: The moral problem with Peter Keating was his second-handed mode of thinking and acting, not his seeking of popularity per se. Popularity can be a rational value, in some contexts.

Question 5: Tattoos and Piercings (45:20)

Are tattoos or piercings -- all of them, or just some kinds -- irrational and/or self-destructive? If so, why?

Money Point: The rationality of body art depends largely on what a person does and why. Given its permanence, a person should be careful that it reflects his values and enhances the beauty of his body.

Question 6: OA: Dating a Pot-Smoker (51:32)

From Objectivist Answers: Is it proper to date a girl who smokes pot? This woman, while not being an Objectivist, has many great qualities like being smart, attractive, funny, pro-reason and pro-man in general. She, however, likes to smoke marijuana. She says that it provides a great pleasure and relaxes her body and mind after a long day of work. What should I do about it? Confront her? Immediately break up with her?

Money Point: Regular marijuana use is a red flag for a person with problems in life, but try having a conversation -- or two or three -- to understand her views and your own. Also, a 30-day pot-free challenge might be very telling for everyone.

Conclusion (59:46)

Diana Hsieh: DianaHsieh.com: diana@dianahsieh.com

Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Don't forget to submit and vote on questions. And if you can, please contribute to our tip jar.

The video for the webcast is only available for those attending live. After the webcast is completed, you can listen, download, or subscribe to the audio podcast.

Podcast: Listen Now

    61:58 minutes
Podcast: Download
Podcast: Subscribe

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

Why Caltech Is Different

Posted: 18 Jan 2011 07:00 AM PST

I recently read a fascinating article entitled, Why Caltech Is in a Class by Itself". Here is an excerpt:
Of the top two dozen or so elite universities in America only one has managed both to avoid the craziness of the post-60s intellectual fads, and to establish something pretty close to a pure meritocracy -- California Institute of Technology, which has not received the general recognition among academics that it clearly deserves...

If you can't meet the stellar performance requirements and show an intense love for science and mathematics, Caltech isn't interested in you and will not lower its standards. When you apply to Caltech the admissions committee is interested only in your intellectual merit and passion for learning. It has little or no interest in your family heritage, your race, or your skill in slapping around a hockey puck...

Perhaps the most striking difference from all other elite universities -- including institutions like MIT and the University of Chicago which forgo athletic recruitment -- is Caltech's complete indifference to racial balancing.

In a state and a region of the country with the largest Hispanic population, Caltech's entering freshmen class in 2008 was less than 6 percent Hispanic (13 out of 236). The unwillingness to lower standards for a larger black representation is even more striking -- less than 1 percent (2/236) of Caltech's 2008 entering freshmen were listed as "non-Hispanic black".

This "underrepresentation" of blacks and Hispanics, of course, was more than made up for by the huge "overrepresentation" of Asians. Only 4 percent of the U.S. population, Asians made up a whopping 40 percent of the incoming freshmen class in 2008, a slightly larger proportion than the 39 percent figure for whites.

Applicants to Caltech are clearly seen as representing only themselves and their own individual merit and achievement, not their race or their ethnic group.
(Read the full text.)

I found the "no legacies" and "no racial preferences" policies especially interesting. Given how rigorous the school is, it would simply be cruel to admit a legacy student or "underrepresented racial category" student who couldn't otherwise handle the academic pace. It also means that if you're a black or Hispanic student at Caltech, everyone there knows you are there because you met the same admission standards as the white and Asian students, rather than being stigmatized with the "affirmative action" label.

And even though I'm a proud alumnus of MIT, Caltech is purer in how it applies its meritocratic principles.

(Via Marginal Revolution.)
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
hit counter