No hate is involved. Not for the player nor for the game. On the plus side I better understand why I have had such a hard time understanding what makes Glenn tick.
We're all hypocrites at one time or another. Every last one of us. The mark of a mature human is realizing it and learning from it, and making amends if necessary.
A scholar or scientist or artist or economist should serve the truth and beauty above all. Many times they are terrible, mean, and amoral when dealing with other human beings. They are lone wolves and frequently are total hypocrites. The rest of us Look at their lives with queasy stomach, but we admire them any how.
Character is an essential part of leadership. Anybody who wants to effectively and sustainably lead a group has to have it. This is especially true if you're asking people to take on a difficult task.
Consider this quote from Bill Russell's book, "11 Lessons on Leadership From the Twentieth Century's Greatest Winner:" "Trust the teller and you'll trust the tale." This is the opening line from "Lesson Seven - Personal Integrity"
Or consider that the first chapter in John Maxwell's book, "The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader" is focused on character. Here are some of the points he made:
1. Character is more than talk
2. Talent is a gift, but character is a choice
3. Character brings lasting success with people
4. Leaders cannot rise above the limitations of their character
Or consider this quote from "The Complete Art of War, Sun Tzu-Sun Pin" as translated by Ralph Sawyer:
"The general must be righteous.
If he is not righteous, then he will not be severe.
If he is not severe, then he will not be awesome.
If he is not awesome, the troops will not die for him.
Thus righteousness is the head of the army."
I could go on, but I hope you get the idea. People won't make sacrifices and follow leaders down difficult paths if they don't believe in them. The often shocking lack of character displayed by the leaders of many of America's institutions is the primary reason why faith in America's institutions is at historically low levels according to Gallup:
To whatever extent King's personal improprieties weakened his stature, the more so for Glenn. As noted in this clip, King's civil rights messages were tangentially related, at best, to his personal failings. With Glenn, his personal failings were exactly what his public messages were about.
(The book was great. I even liked the discussions of Glenn's theoretical economics work.)
Glenn, I finished your memoir a few days ago and I have to say that it's definitely one of my favorite books in recent years. It makes me wonder what Thomas Sowell's memoir would've revealed had he taken the same candid approach to detailing his life that you did in your book.
Like John, I'm also not particularly worked up over the details of your personal escapades. You referenced a quote by your Uncle Adelert regarding the purpose of life. Rather than being a crude expression of masculine bravado, I would contend that your Uncle Adelert actually expressed a profound truth. I recall the late Daniel Dennett making the argument in Darwin's Dangerous Idea that the imperative of our genes was the summum bonum of biological existence, the highest good so to speak. Vernacular wisdom derived from real life African American experience should be held in the same regard as fancy sounding Latin written by a white Anglo-American scholar. Both strike me as equally getting to the heart of the matter.
In my opinion, no reasonable person can fault a man for being amorous of the ladies. The esteemed Bertrand Russell married multiple times and was known for being a notorious womanizer. Russell's legacy is that of one of the great philosophers of the Anglo Analytic tradition. Apart from a handful of overly prudish moral types, does anyone seriously discount the value of his intellectual contributions in light of his personal proclivities? I find the idea hard to fathom given the stature of Russell's genius.
Likewise, Albert Einstein was another notorious womanizer and supposedly indulged in the services of prostitutes. Clearly Einstein was interested in more than just unlocking the deepest secrets of the universe. I'm reminded of an anecdote about the late Richard Feynman frequenting a Pasadena strip club while solving physics equations. By the way, Feynman also experimented with LSD. If many of the most profoundly influential scientific figures in human history have engaged in the kind of behavior that we're moralizing against for the masses, what does that say about whether or not we've accurately diagnosed the problem? Perhaps that's the real hypocrisy. If the result of being a Player is general and special relativity, the photoelectric effect and quantum chromodynamics, then I say maybe we need more Players.
There very well may be a certain level of hypocrisy inherent in advocating for values which one doesn't live up to personally. As I alluded to above though, that merely begs the question of whether or not the entire premise is overblown to begin with. As you yourself pointed out Glenn in a prior conversation with Ian Rowe regarding the importance of marriage, the fact that rates of marriage are correlated with positive life outcomes may not in fact reflect causation. It's very possible that some deeper underlying traits make individuals both more likely to marry and to engage in the sort of positive behaviors and life outcomes that one reflexively attributes to the institution of marriage. As the old statistical adage goes, correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.
There are of course other dimensions to morality and I certainly wouldn't argue the above for someone with a penchant for criminal behavior. In my opinion though, when it comes to matters of sex I think society would be better off shedding some of its Puritanical values. The Game has existed since time immemorial and all the Players throughout history such as Martin Luther King Jr, Uncle Adelert, Glenn Cartman Loury, Bertand Russell, Donald Trump, Albert Einstein and countless others only have my undying respect. As another bit of age-old American wisdom goes, don't hate the Player, hate the Game.
John’s attempt to rationalize it away by saying that a unique individual is different than a group is pretty weak. What is a group, but a collection of individuals who likely consider themselves to be unique. What this boils down to is a lack of responsibility. Society only continues and gets better if the current generation takes responsibility to raise up the next generation. If an individual decides that they’re going to live their best life, a life without responsibility, and that’s okay because society will continue without them, that’s probably true. UNLESS a large portion of society has the same idea. If EVERYONE thinks everyone else will be responsible, then no one is responsible. From a purely logical standpoint it’s true that the content of ones argument should be judged on its merits alone, but if that person can’t even follow their own advice, why would anyone listen to him when he lectures others?
I didn't understand John as himself attempting to rationalize something away, but rather I understood him to be attempting to understanding how a person in Glenn's situation might attempt to rationalizing the conflict between his behavior and his public exhortations away.
It gets a little conflicting. Two people can each be doing what they think is the best for everyone, and end up 'cancelling' each other's efforts. There needs to be some amount of compromise from each individual in order to make for a better group. But that should be a deliberate decision from each individual, not just a case of following the leader.
But, yes, it's hypocritical to have expectations of others that you don't even have of yourself.
I have finished listening to the Audiobook. I can't say that I enjoyed it. I'll leave it at that.
Don't hate the Player, hate the Game.
No hate is involved. Not for the player nor for the game. On the plus side I better understand why I have had such a hard time understanding what makes Glenn tick.
We're all hypocrites at one time or another. Every last one of us. The mark of a mature human is realizing it and learning from it, and making amends if necessary.
I'm about half way through the Audiobook. I don't know why you chose to write an autobiography and frankly I wish you hadn't published it.
A scholar or scientist or artist or economist should serve the truth and beauty above all. Many times they are terrible, mean, and amoral when dealing with other human beings. They are lone wolves and frequently are total hypocrites. The rest of us Look at their lives with queasy stomach, but we admire them any how.
Character is an essential part of leadership. Anybody who wants to effectively and sustainably lead a group has to have it. This is especially true if you're asking people to take on a difficult task.
Consider this quote from Bill Russell's book, "11 Lessons on Leadership From the Twentieth Century's Greatest Winner:" "Trust the teller and you'll trust the tale." This is the opening line from "Lesson Seven - Personal Integrity"
Or consider that the first chapter in John Maxwell's book, "The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader" is focused on character. Here are some of the points he made:
1. Character is more than talk
2. Talent is a gift, but character is a choice
3. Character brings lasting success with people
4. Leaders cannot rise above the limitations of their character
Or consider this quote from "The Complete Art of War, Sun Tzu-Sun Pin" as translated by Ralph Sawyer:
"The general must be righteous.
If he is not righteous, then he will not be severe.
If he is not severe, then he will not be awesome.
If he is not awesome, the troops will not die for him.
Thus righteousness is the head of the army."
I could go on, but I hope you get the idea. People won't make sacrifices and follow leaders down difficult paths if they don't believe in them. The often shocking lack of character displayed by the leaders of many of America's institutions is the primary reason why faith in America's institutions is at historically low levels according to Gallup:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/508169/historically-low-faith-institutions-continues.aspx
To whatever extent King's personal improprieties weakened his stature, the more so for Glenn. As noted in this clip, King's civil rights messages were tangentially related, at best, to his personal failings. With Glenn, his personal failings were exactly what his public messages were about.
(The book was great. I even liked the discussions of Glenn's theoretical economics work.)
Glenn, I finished your memoir a few days ago and I have to say that it's definitely one of my favorite books in recent years. It makes me wonder what Thomas Sowell's memoir would've revealed had he taken the same candid approach to detailing his life that you did in your book.
Like John, I'm also not particularly worked up over the details of your personal escapades. You referenced a quote by your Uncle Adelert regarding the purpose of life. Rather than being a crude expression of masculine bravado, I would contend that your Uncle Adelert actually expressed a profound truth. I recall the late Daniel Dennett making the argument in Darwin's Dangerous Idea that the imperative of our genes was the summum bonum of biological existence, the highest good so to speak. Vernacular wisdom derived from real life African American experience should be held in the same regard as fancy sounding Latin written by a white Anglo-American scholar. Both strike me as equally getting to the heart of the matter.
In my opinion, no reasonable person can fault a man for being amorous of the ladies. The esteemed Bertrand Russell married multiple times and was known for being a notorious womanizer. Russell's legacy is that of one of the great philosophers of the Anglo Analytic tradition. Apart from a handful of overly prudish moral types, does anyone seriously discount the value of his intellectual contributions in light of his personal proclivities? I find the idea hard to fathom given the stature of Russell's genius.
Likewise, Albert Einstein was another notorious womanizer and supposedly indulged in the services of prostitutes. Clearly Einstein was interested in more than just unlocking the deepest secrets of the universe. I'm reminded of an anecdote about the late Richard Feynman frequenting a Pasadena strip club while solving physics equations. By the way, Feynman also experimented with LSD. If many of the most profoundly influential scientific figures in human history have engaged in the kind of behavior that we're moralizing against for the masses, what does that say about whether or not we've accurately diagnosed the problem? Perhaps that's the real hypocrisy. If the result of being a Player is general and special relativity, the photoelectric effect and quantum chromodynamics, then I say maybe we need more Players.
There very well may be a certain level of hypocrisy inherent in advocating for values which one doesn't live up to personally. As I alluded to above though, that merely begs the question of whether or not the entire premise is overblown to begin with. As you yourself pointed out Glenn in a prior conversation with Ian Rowe regarding the importance of marriage, the fact that rates of marriage are correlated with positive life outcomes may not in fact reflect causation. It's very possible that some deeper underlying traits make individuals both more likely to marry and to engage in the sort of positive behaviors and life outcomes that one reflexively attributes to the institution of marriage. As the old statistical adage goes, correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.
There are of course other dimensions to morality and I certainly wouldn't argue the above for someone with a penchant for criminal behavior. In my opinion though, when it comes to matters of sex I think society would be better off shedding some of its Puritanical values. The Game has existed since time immemorial and all the Players throughout history such as Martin Luther King Jr, Uncle Adelert, Glenn Cartman Loury, Bertand Russell, Donald Trump, Albert Einstein and countless others only have my undying respect. As another bit of age-old American wisdom goes, don't hate the Player, hate the Game.
John’s attempt to rationalize it away by saying that a unique individual is different than a group is pretty weak. What is a group, but a collection of individuals who likely consider themselves to be unique. What this boils down to is a lack of responsibility. Society only continues and gets better if the current generation takes responsibility to raise up the next generation. If an individual decides that they’re going to live their best life, a life without responsibility, and that’s okay because society will continue without them, that’s probably true. UNLESS a large portion of society has the same idea. If EVERYONE thinks everyone else will be responsible, then no one is responsible. From a purely logical standpoint it’s true that the content of ones argument should be judged on its merits alone, but if that person can’t even follow their own advice, why would anyone listen to him when he lectures others?
I didn't understand John as himself attempting to rationalize something away, but rather I understood him to be attempting to understanding how a person in Glenn's situation might attempt to rationalizing the conflict between his behavior and his public exhortations away.
It gets a little conflicting. Two people can each be doing what they think is the best for everyone, and end up 'cancelling' each other's efforts. There needs to be some amount of compromise from each individual in order to make for a better group. But that should be a deliberate decision from each individual, not just a case of following the leader.
But, yes, it's hypocritical to have expectations of others that you don't even have of yourself.