Projection and selfishness
The common definition of "selflessness" is something like, "I am willing sacrifice myself to the needs of others." Its opposite is selfishness, commonly thought of as, "I am the only thing that matters." Despite their claim to the "true" nature of the word, Objectivists' definition of "selfish" is at odds with common understanding. The Objectivist definition is something akin to "I neither require others to sacrifice to me, nor will I sacrifice myself to others."
I had a college acquaintance who believed in three kinds of people: those who were out for themselves at the expense of others, those who were fools and allowed themselves to be taken, and himself. He, of course, was not out to take from anyone, but if he did come out ahead at someone else's expense, well, then they were foolish. He comes close to the Objectivist definition of selfishness, but not quite. He always made sure he didn't get the short end of the stick, and if he erred towards giving someone else the short end, he accepted that outcome. In other words, he had a probabilistic tendency toward the common understanding of selfishness.
Ayn Rand had a lesson that always stuck with me about this: it concerned the aphorism, "you can't cheat an honest man." The point was that con games frequently require convincing someone that they are going to get something for nothing. An honest man realizes the wrongness of the proposition and makes a poor mark. No reasonable person believes that by sending a checking account number by e-mail, that he is going to be the beneficiary of the treasury of some poorly managed African nation.
Kathleen's version of the same lesson is that you can usually trust business people who are rude to you, or at least more so than people who are nice. People who are nice may be trying to figure out an angle by which to exploit you. Rude people are signalling that they can barely stand the inconvenience of talking to you.
Anyhow, I believe that the ultimate irony of this is that this particular friend of mine believed the worst of people, yet he was one of the most self-absorbed people I have ever met. That was my first observation of projection, where you get a look into a person's soul by seeing how they regard the rest of humanity. Someone who always assumes that people have the lowest motives for their actions, especially when other explanations are both available and more likely, probably have low motivations for their own actions. Someone who always trusts other people is probably trustworthy themselves [1]. I try to pursue a trusting but learning position: I think people are basically good and trustworthy, and I'll even give someone a second chance if there is some possible legitimate explanation for a betrayal of confidence, but when someone proves themselves to be unworthy, I don't unconvince easily. This is easily summarized:
-------------------
[1] I'll caveat that by saying that such Pollyannas are morally trustworthy, but frequently fail in the execution. They your trust through blunder rather than intent (what does that say about me?).
I had a college acquaintance who believed in three kinds of people: those who were out for themselves at the expense of others, those who were fools and allowed themselves to be taken, and himself. He, of course, was not out to take from anyone, but if he did come out ahead at someone else's expense, well, then they were foolish. He comes close to the Objectivist definition of selfishness, but not quite. He always made sure he didn't get the short end of the stick, and if he erred towards giving someone else the short end, he accepted that outcome. In other words, he had a probabilistic tendency toward the common understanding of selfishness.
Ayn Rand had a lesson that always stuck with me about this: it concerned the aphorism, "you can't cheat an honest man." The point was that con games frequently require convincing someone that they are going to get something for nothing. An honest man realizes the wrongness of the proposition and makes a poor mark. No reasonable person believes that by sending a checking account number by e-mail, that he is going to be the beneficiary of the treasury of some poorly managed African nation.
Kathleen's version of the same lesson is that you can usually trust business people who are rude to you, or at least more so than people who are nice. People who are nice may be trying to figure out an angle by which to exploit you. Rude people are signalling that they can barely stand the inconvenience of talking to you.
Anyhow, I believe that the ultimate irony of this is that this particular friend of mine believed the worst of people, yet he was one of the most self-absorbed people I have ever met. That was my first observation of projection, where you get a look into a person's soul by seeing how they regard the rest of humanity. Someone who always assumes that people have the lowest motives for their actions, especially when other explanations are both available and more likely, probably have low motivations for their own actions. Someone who always trusts other people is probably trustworthy themselves [1]. I try to pursue a trusting but learning position: I think people are basically good and trustworthy, and I'll even give someone a second chance if there is some possible legitimate explanation for a betrayal of confidence, but when someone proves themselves to be unworthy, I don't unconvince easily. This is easily summarized:
Fool me once, shame on you,
Fool me twice, shame on me.
-------------------
[1] I'll caveat that by saying that such Pollyannas are morally trustworthy, but frequently fail in the execution. They your trust through blunder rather than intent (what does that say about me?).
Labels: philosophy
<< Home