What Can You Do, When You Have To Deal With People?

Yes, there is an answer ... quite a few, in fact! Here are five of them, each & all of which can make your life better!

Dr. Robert Stadler ... revealed by Ayn Rand as being inspired by Robert Oppenheimer ... famously asked, in response to widespread irrationality, “what can you do, when you have to deal with people?”

And while Stadler was no hero ... he was, in fact, quite possibly the most evil character in the Ayn Rand canon ... we all know the feeling of being surrounded by, if not evil, then at least bad people, unambitious people, irrational people.

Indeed, Dr. Stadler ... what can one do?

Now, I love me a Top Five List, and that’ll be my framework for this discussion.

Join me in the conversation with your thoughts ... what would you tell Dr. Stadler to do, when he has to deal with people ... what do YOU do, when you have to deal with fools, with knaves, with people who are in your way, but who you have to deal with?

This Top Five might be a Top Ten by the time we’re done, but I’m committed to offering at least five insights you’ll find of practical use, five ideas you can add to your arsenal for living a magnificent Life On Earth … in a world of people who’re sometimes woefully short of magnificent.

In episode #824 of ARC-UK’s “The Daily Objective”, featuring Jonathan Hoenig, the episode was entitled, Are Smarter People Less Emotional?

Turns out, some studies suggest that high-IQ types seem to have a more muted emotional life. (And a few other issues!)

What CAN they do, these Stadler-level intellects, when they have to deal with other people.

Now, let me say this from the outset ... I’m not a member of the Triple Nine Society ... those 2,000 people with an IQ of at least 146 (standard deviation of 15), who score in the 99.9th percentile of the human population.

The morons at Mensa … yes, the Triple Nines regard Mensa’s top 2% of IQ membership as the K-Mart of high-IQ ... well, Mensa did let me in, by the skin of my teeth (or the meninges of my brain) ... so I have a bit of experience with the question ….

… and you do too ... whether you’re technically a genius, or are just the ordinary kind of smarter-than-the-average-bear that comes with being philosophically rational, honest, independent ...

Most Objectivists are unusually smart ... whether in IQ terms, or just commitment to reason terms ... or both.

So you may be familiar with Dr. Robert Stadler’s impatience.

Let me read a bit from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand ... at the point in the novel in which our protagonist, Dagny Taggart, is working to build a branch of the Taggart Transcontinental railroad using a new kind of metal, but has been stopped by statements made by the governmental State Science Institute.

Dagny goes to talk to the Institute’s leading scientist, the man who championed the formation of the Institute, Dr. Robert Stadler. As you may know, this character was largely based on Robert J. Oppenheimer, whom Ayn Rand interviewed in preparation for writing the novel.

From Atlas Shrugged, Dagny speaking to Stadler:

_________________________

“The building of our branch line has been stopped by the statement of this Institute.”

He did not smile and he did not answer.

“Does that statement represent your conclusion about the nature of Rearden Metal?” she asked.

“I have said that I have not read it.” There was an edge of sharpness in his voice.

She opened her bag, took out a newspaper clipping and extended it to him. “Would you read it and tell me whether this is a language which science may properly speak?”

He glanced through the clipping, smiled contemptuously and tossed it aside with a gesture of distaste. “Disgusting, isn’t it?” he said. “But what can you do when you deal with people?”

__________________________

A bit further on, Dr. Stadler is responding to Dagny:

“How can one deal in truth when one deals with the public?”

“I don’t understand you,” she said very quietly.

“Questions of truth do not enter into social issues. No principles have ever had any effect on society.”

“What, then, directs men’s actions?”

He shrugged. “The expediency of the moment.”

_________________________

Later in the conversation, Stadler explains why he allowed the Institute to release the statement denouncing the new metal:

“I’ll tell you, if you wish. It’s the truth that you want, isn’t it? Dr. Ferris cannot help it, if the morons who vote the funds for this Institute insist on what they call results. They are incapable of conceiving of such a thing as abstract science. They can judge it only in terms of the latest gadget it has produced for them. I do not know how Dr. Ferris has managed to keep this Institute in existence, I can only marvel at his practical ability. I don’t believe he ever was a first-rate scientist—but what a priceless valet of science! I know that he has been facing a grave problem lately. He’s kept me out of it, he spares me all that, but I do hear rumors. People have been criticizing the Institute, because, they say, we have not produced enough. The public has been demanding economy. In times like these, when their fat little comforts are threatened, you may be sure that science is the first thing men will sacrifice. This is the only establishment left. There are practically no private research foundations any longer. Look at the greedy ruffians who run our industries. You cannot expect them to support science.”

“Who is supporting you now?” she asked, her voice low.

He shrugged. “Society.”

___________________________

And finally, a bit later:

He came closer; he leaned with one hand against the wall above her head, almost as if he wished to hold her in the circle of his arm. “Miss Taggart,” he said, a tone of gentle, bitter persuasiveness in his voice, “I am older than you. Believe me, there is no other way to live on earth. Men are not open to truth or reason. They cannot be reached by a rational argument. The mind is powerless against them. Yet we have to deal with them. If we want to accomplish anything, we have to deceive them into letting us accomplish it. Or force them. They understand nothing else. We cannot expect their support for any endeavor of the intellect, for any goal of the spirit. They are nothing but vicious animals. They are greedy, self-indulgent, predatory dollar-chasers who—”

“I am one of the dollar-chasers, Dr. Stadler,” she said, her voice low.

“You are an unusual, brilliant child who has not seen enough of life to grasp the full measure of human stupidity. I’ve fought it all my life. I’m very tired.…” The sincerity of his voice was genuine. He walked slowly away from her. “There was a time when I looked at the tragic mess they’ve made of this earth, and I wanted to cry out, to beg them to listen—I could teach them to live so much better than they did—but there was nobody to hear me, they had nothing to hear me with.… Intelligence? It is such a rare, precarious spark that flashes for a moment somewhere among men, and vanishes. One cannot tell its nature, or its future … or its death.… “

__________________________

The expression comes up once more, later, when Dr. Stadler’s theoretical work has been used to create a horrific weapon, Project X, in a scene which is like a horror movie version of the Trinity test at Los Alamos:

___________________________

He felt a single, sudden flash of panic, in which, as in a flash of lightning, he permitted himself to know that he felt a desperate desire to escape. But he slammed his mind shut against it. He knew that the darkest secret of the occasion—more crucial, more untouchable, more deadly than whatever was hidden in the mushroom building—was that which had made him agree to come.

He would never have to learn his own motive, he thought; he thought it, not by means of words, but by means of the brief, vicious spasm of an emotion that resembled irritation and felt like acid. The words that stood in his mind, as they had stood when he had agreed to come were like a voodoo formula which one recites when it is needed and beyond which one must not look: What can you do when you have to deal with people?

__________________________

Okay, so I’m not Robert Stadler.

You’re not Robert Stadler.

But I do know the feeling, of thinking, what can you do, when you have to deal with people? Specifically, irrational people ... not necessarily evil masterminds, but ordinary, irrational, unreasonable, unambitious, immoral people?

(Or as Jim, The Waco Kid, in Blazing Saddles says, “just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know ... morons.”)

__________________________

TIP #1: REFRAMING

Previously, Amy & I had an episode of Five Minutes with Robert & Amy Nasir, on reframing.

“What can you do, when you have to deal with other people”???

Think rather:

What can you do when you GET to deal with people?

Well, that’s a obvious way to reconsider the question ...

But also ... instead of a statement of exasperation, try asking the question as if it’s a straightforward question, asked in earnest ...

... hmm ...

... what CAN you do when you have to deal with people?

Figure out their strengths? What do they have to offer you? What do they have to teach you? (Remember, everyone you meet have something to teach you; find out what it is, and learn it. And someone doesn’t have to be better than you, or smarter than you, to teach you something ... they simply have to have walked a different path than you. And just about everyone has.)

And if there’s absolutely nothing they can teach you, what about the comparative advantage versus their utility?

Consider Yaron Brook’s examples of how this applies even to Artificial Intelligence ... you, and I, have something to offer that geniuses ... or machines ... can’t, or won’t, do ... ... and that’s a value which subjugation or slavery obliterates.

Well, flip that around ... no matter how brilliant and beautiful, awesome and amazing you are, someone … most anyone … has something to offer you.

I don’t always want to brew my own coffee, make my own cheeseburger, and I certainly don’t want to butcher my own steaks ... heck, at my age, I don’t even want to change my own oil anymore ... and though I do find great satisfaction in doing my own auto repairs, there’s a lot I can’t do, and for which I trust my local mechanic more ... even if his IQ ... and even his moral stature ... might be a few points lower than mine.

Sure, ask what can you do, when you have to deal with people ... but be willing to accept the simple, honest, boundless, benevolent answers.

Robert Stadler should’ve done that. He should’ve realized that the answer to Dagny Taggart’s question, “who’s paying for your Institute now?” was, productive men and women ... and he should’ve been struck with a wave of admiration and gratitude, and a determination to take the Institute private so that it could do so honestly, fairly, virtuously.

_________________________________________

TIP #2: Respect The Metaphysical And The Manmade

On Facebook, a friend was expressing his frustration and disappointment with the bad character, the mediocrity, the bad premises and ideas, and the outright immorality of so many people in today’s world ...

It responded, I know the feeling, and as a business-owner, you’ve probably got even better reasons for it than I do.

And you are right to be outraged and disgusted.

But this is a topic I’ve been thinking about, and talking to friends, very wise, and very angry friends, about ... in short, how can I be more Roark, and less Wynand? More Dagny, and less Dominique? More “but I don’t think of you”?

How can I be fully aware of those twin brothers, evil and mediocrity, yet be no more affected by it than is absolutely necessary?

And it’s worse for you, if you’re running a business ... when I was a restaurant manager, and later an IT field technician, my expectations for others were at a lower level; if my peers just do their job well enough that I can do mine, I’m happy. If rules and regulations don’t stop me completely, then I focus on what I CAN still do.

My perspective on the issue of The Metaphysical and The Man-made is that, once I’ve judged the man-made (rules, regulations, the network of roadblocks, and the fools and knaves behind them), I focus on what I can, and must, do about it.

Yes, it’s disgusting, and infuriating ... so be disgusted, and infuriated.

But then ... to quote from Ayn Rand’s essay:

“A man-made product did not have to exist, but, once made, it does exist. A man’s actions did not have to be performed, but, once performed, they are facts of reality.”

Regarding the anger, indignation, and disgust, it’s not a matter of “let it go” ... more “set it aside until the time is right to focus on it”.

Again, I’m just explaining myself, not suggesting that this is an answer to your situation. If any of it is helpful, great ... but you have every right and reason to be angry and disappointed.

Nowadays, this is summed up as It Is What It Is.

A is A

Judge the bad, but then, write it off, like a bad investment or a bad debt. Let it impact your choices, but as best you can, and with tons of counter-evidence from friends and peers, from sports and entertainment, from art and education, history and heroes, don’t let it damage your sense of life.

_____________________

Speaking of Stories ...

TIP #3: Leverage, and Embrace, Comparative Advantage

There are stories and films about people who live at different rates ... for example, Forever Young, Life In A Day, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, even Buffy, The Vampire Slayer or Twilight with their nearly immortal vampires ...

And these stories, in which characters often find ways to connect with those of normal lifespans, and rates of aging, with people who aren’t aging slowly, or alternately, are living forever, give us clues to dealing with people of different mindsets, different IQ’s, different psychologies, different philosophies.

Find common values.

Find values you can exchange.

Capitalize on comparative advantages.

Fill the spaces between ... the spaces between your values, and interests, and even your thoughts and emotions ... fill the spaces between, with your own values, without letting yourself disconnect or become alienated.

(This latter requires multi-tasking ... remaining engaged while also entertaining additional, second-track thoughts and emotions ... which, with effort, can be done. Yes, it takes effort, but then, doesn’t everything worthwhile?)

Robert Stadler should’ve found people who understood, if not the details of what he was researching, and discovering, at least the outline, and the value, of his work.

Stadler should’ve understood that Francisco, and Ragnar, and Dagny Taggart, were allies ... while those who’d champion The State Science Institute were his adversaries, the enemies of the mind.

__________________________

TIP #4: Remember The End.

Realize that life is an end in itself. Life is an end in itself, in each other person, just as in yourself.

Last night, Amy and I saw the Christopher Nolan film, Oppenheimer.

You may have already read my film review on Facebook or X/Twitter. One sentence.

Oppenheimer was a little like a bio of Robert J. Oppenheimer, but, like, if Christopher Nolan had written and directed it.

Still, what was surprisingly absent from the film version of the great scientist was the supposed impatience, the superiority, the desire to have access to means without concern for the cost to others.

Which was nice ... but also, strange.

Still, at least in that sense, one thing we can do when we have to deal with other people is: don’t ever treat them as means to an end. Treat them as ends in themselves.

This is one which the philosopher Immanuel Kant is often credited with ... the idea that rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves, and not merely as the means to the ends of others. I don’t know. I Kant even ... personally, I learned it from life, and art, and eventually, from Ayn Rand.

_______________________

TIP #5: GRATITUDE.

If You’re Not Going To Put Up With B.S., Then You Also Have To Be Grateful For Everything That’s Not B.S.

“The first duty of justice is to acknowledge and defend the good.” — Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

I mentioned that Amy Nasir and I, on our Sunday show, discussed Reframing.

In episode #1 of that same show, from way back on March 8, 2020, we discussed Benevolence, a topic I’m revisited many times.

In that show, we read from Leonard Peikoff’s Objectivism The Philosophy Of Ayn Rand, and quoted Dr. Peikoff on the Moral Virtue and the virtue of justice.

The first duty of justice is to acknowledge and defend the good.

Gratitude.

If you are condemning vice, but you not praising the good, you are missing out. You are missing out on the good. You are missing out on gratitude. You are missing out on joy. And you are missing out on happiness. Don’t do that.

In a discussion of tipping recently, someone stated they always leave the same tip, because who are they do judge whether a server deserves more ... or less ... maybe the server had a bad day or a bad life ... who knows?

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I love coffee. And so, I condemn bad baristas, as well as bad coffee growers and roasters and distributors and sellers.

Now, imagine if, in addition to getting righteously angry every time I got a bad coffee, I was enthusiastically joyful ... and grateful ... every time I received a good cup of coffee.

You can ... and should ... be grateful for the values in your life.

What can you do, when you have to deal with people, Dr. Stadler?

Appreciate them, and the countless good things they bring to you, trade with you, and make possible for you.

So ...

TIP #1 - Reframe

TIP #2 - Respect The Metaphysical And The Manmade.

TIP #3 - Leverage, and embrace, comparative advantage.

TIP #4 - Remember life ... each life ... is an end in itself.

TIP #5 - Practice rational, just, reality-based gratitude.

Five tips ... five answers to the question, what can you do, when you have ... when you get ... to deal with people.

Five tips for a more successful, more joyous, more passionate ... Life On Earth.