Ayn Rand's views on women

If you're just proposing it, without saying it's a risk, then you're misleading your management. If it's high risk, high reward, they should know that.

They know it's a risk because everything a company does is a risk.

You don't need to tell them unless it's more risk than they expect.

Well you're discussing something else, the point of my post was about office politics.

If you're supposed to act in rational self-interest then my question is what would you do?

You hurt yourself to advance a policy that helps everyone. You don't hurt yourself and sit idle.

Then the question is "do I get more benefit from the policy or the status quo". How something improves the company but hurts me, besides quitting or something, isn't something I'm understanding.

You don't get why humans aren't always rational? :P

You think it an implausible situation that someone can benefit from status quo versus forwarding a good policy? I mean, large corporations and governments should be a pretty damn good example of this.

edited 28th Jan '11 10:01:57 AM by breadloaf

Helping the company still helps you.

It's as much a risk for you as it is for the company. If it helps their profits, your salary goes up, and if it hurts their profits, your salary goes down.

If you knew beforehand your boss was going to ignore your advice and dock your salary, I don't think anybody would bother to give the advice in the first place.

That's my point though. If you knew people would just ignore your advice, as is the case in a vast majority of large corporations and governments, you'd not do anything. If you weren't able to get a job at a place that does care, the situation perpetuates. If there's enough large corporations and governments that sit here and do that, that's what you'd do.

John Galt goes off and orchestrates this intellectual strike but why would you join? Out of rational self-interest that doesn't make sense. Why are you hurting yourself to eventually live in a devastated world where your standard of living would be substantially less than if you had revelled in the decadence. The mentality of the situation speaks of self-sacrifice to build a better world. She seems to betray her own principles in the straw situation she set up in a novel.

Ah, that is a valid criticism.

I'm unhappy anyone claims this as their philosophy in the first place. I'm close to mentally labelling everyone who calls themselves an Objectivist as a person I should ignore.

The problem with "rational" self-interest is that people are really good at coming up for rationalisations for personal desires.

Uh, personal desires are rational self interest. You don't have to rationalize them; whatever you want is by definition your self interest.

No, "rational" self-interest is intended to specifically be self-interest which is all gain and no loss. An interest would be to do a bunch of ecstasy, get drunk and have an orgy with strangers. Rational self-interest would be to understand that being doped up and intoxicated can lead to any number of stupid decisions that can forever ruin my life. Not to mention the plethora of diseases I could turn my body into a petrie dish for.

Of course, if there were no consequences to you, personally, then you should do it.

Is it any wonder bankers love Ayn Rand?

Or more accurately, a self interest which features more gain than loss.

I used the "all gain and no loss" summation because that is supposed to be the ultimate manifestation of reason. Any ape can reason that stealing a fish from a bigger ape could result in a full belly but a blackened eye, but a "rational" ape can reason that hitting the bigger ape with a rock and then stealing his fish is a better option. Reason is all about creating the greatest favorable outcome with almost no drawback.

The problem is that this, in itself, is short-sighted. I'm a Marketing major, and one of the first things I learned about the field is that marketing is not about selling a service to a market—it's about getting that market to give you their money by whatever (legal) means necessary. That means that if I have to show photographs of a Bavarian bodybuilder next to a Stairmaster to make your mind conclude that toned thighs and calves will make you look like Luke Cage, then that's what I'll do. If you're fooled by it, that's your problem. The problem with this, of course, is that anyone can be fooled into thinking anything, and if you assume you can't be then you're exactly the target I'm looking for.

Well, I assume I'm more resistant to marketing because I ignore advertisements. I actually have trouble seeing them as existing as is.

If you believe marketing means "advertisements", then you've already been fooled.

If marketing includes things other than "prices" I guess it doesn't affect my purchasing decisions.

...What? I'm...legitimately confused here.

I, literally, gauge nothing but prices for my purchases. Unless I find a company with problems, in which case I black list them and tell family to not purchase from them. I also tend to black list companies that advertise a lot.

Man, we've moved off topic haven't we?

Yes, but that in itself is a problem. Because marketing does often include prices as the major selling point.

For example, let's say we have Jeans A, B and C. C is the most heavily advertised and most expensive, but they also look the best. A is the cheapest, but they're also not badly made and overall not bad to wear.

So let's say you go with A because they're the cheapest. And yes...I'm aware that I've completely skipped over B.

Let's say B is a completely obscure brand—something which you've never seen advertised, never heard from word of mouth, and they're slightly more expensive than A but are much cheaper than C. But they're also made of the most sturdy material of the three and look almost identical to C. Because you value price most, you'll probably end up with Jeans A, but Jeans B look much better and sell for a much lower price than C. On top of that, they are the most durable and will save more money in the long run.

Basically, what I'ms aing is that lowered prices can be as much a marketing gimmick as the next thing. What this has to do with Objectivism is that "rational" self-interest is nearly impossible to determine with 100% accuracy and is horribly self-aggrandizing. "Rationale" can be applied to almost any decision for any almost any reason, and still be horribly incorrect.

B is what things like Consumer Reports is for. That and product capability aggregators. Course, how company B is expecting to stay in business is beyond me.

Sure, consumer reports for every product or service ever? If you're a parent and you've suddenly run out of baby food, do you check a consumer report before you go out and buy some? Or do you remember, somewhere in the back of your mind, that Gerber is a pretty well-known brand?

There's also the fact that consumer reports can, and have been, doctored or misleading. For example, even if they wrote an entire review stating that there was nothing wrong with Jeans B other than the fact that they were "knock-offs", that ONE WORD would be enough to sway a good number of buyers. It's like referring to store-brand food as "generic"; more often than not, there's absolutely no difference between them and name brands, but the term "generic" has connotations which scare away most.

In essence what I'm saying is, it's impossible to be immune to marketing.

I actually seek out things that are generic or knock offs. If you're making an "in aggregate" idea, then nothing I do will change it.

I'm not really going to push the topic any further, because I've lost track of the point. If I offended you somehow, then apologies. I'm just too tired to go further.