Tap It: The NSA Slow Jam is just plain brilliant:
As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity.
Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, please submit it. Then just e-mail me at diana@philosophyinaction.com to make your request.
Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:
What is the meaning and value of a central purpose?
In “The Objectivist Ethics,” Ayn Rand says that “productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values.” I find that confusing. What constitutes a central purpose? How does it function in a person’s life, particularly in relation to other values like a spouse, children, and hobbies? Should I be worried if I don’t have a clearly-identified central purpose?
Is it ever okay to tell a lie as part of a happy surprise for someone else?
This question is from Ryan (age 11) and Morgan (age 8). We bought birthday presents for our brother Sean, and we had to sneak them into the house. We wanted Sean not to know what we were doing. At first, we thought we should make up a story about why we were going back and forth to the car. Morgan thought she should tell Sean she was going outside to swing. But then we talked about how that would be a lie and she decided to go out and actually swing before bringing her present inside, that way there was no lying involved. Should we have told the lie to Sean? Is it okay to tell a lie as part of doing something nice for someone?
Is studying philosophy in academia a waste?
I have a strong interest in Objectivism, and I’d like to learn more about philosophy. However, my experience taking philosophy classes has been horrible. I’d like a class in which (1) I can trust the professor’s objectivity enough to enjoy a lecture, (2) I can agree with the professor’s analysis of a particular topic, and (3) the class and material is taught in an integrated, logical fashion. I’ve not found any of that. When I’ve mentioned my interest in Ayn Rand, I’ve gotten comments like “Well, I think she’s someone to be outgrown.” Do you know of any schools with good philosophy departments? How should I approach studying philosophy in academia? How could I make the best of what’s offered?
How should I respond to panhandlers asking for money?
What are the better ways to respond to panhandlers? I live and work in a downtown area, and am often asked by strangers on the street for money. These requests vary in form from the brief but honest (“Spare some change?”) to the manipulative and dishonest. My stock response is to say that I have no cash, which is almost always true, but somewhat dishonest in that my lack of cash is not my main reason for refusing to give. Explaining my real reasons – I don’t know who this person is, I don’t know how he will spend the money, and I don’t think giving people money helps reduce their reliance on handouts in the future – seems overly harsh on someone who is obviously having a rough time of it already, and takes a long time to boot. I feel like I should acknowledge the request somehow, but I want to effectively disengage from the situation as quickly and safely as possible. Is my stock response inappropriate because it is dishonest? Would it matter if I claimed to have no cash on those rare occasions when I am in fact carrying cash? If I shouldn’t be using my stock response, what can I say to quickly and safely disengage? Also, I get a lot of dubious stories about being stranded downtown without bus fare. I’ve often thought about carrying a few valid, single-use transit tickets with which to respond to such stories. It’s something I can afford, and it would in theory limit how my charity gets used. Would this be a wise or safe course of action?
What’s so special about the seven virtues?
Ayn Rand identified seven virtues: rationality, honesty, productiveness, independence, justice, integrity, and pride. What’s different about those qualities – as compared to other commonly-touted virtues like benevolence, creativity, temperance, or courage? Basically, why are those the virtues in Objectivism?
How can I better identify dangerous or immoral people in my life?
I don’t like to be morally judgmental about personality and other optional differences. In fact, I like being friends with a variety of kinds of people: that expands my own horizon. Yet I’ve been prey to some really awful people in my life. Looking back, I’d have to say that I ignored some “red flags” – dismissing them as mere optional matters, as opposed to signs of moral failures. How can I better differentiate “interesting” and “quirky” from “crazy” and “dangerous” in people that I know?
Does mental illness excuse wrong behavior?
Recently, a friend of mine apologized for making hurtful and unfair comments to me. (It’s not the first time she’s done that.) She said that she’s been struggling with depression, and she’s now on anti-depressants and in therapy. I’m not sure how to take that. I feel for her, yet I also feel like I’m being manipulated into overlooking her bad behavior because she’s “sick.” How should struggles with mental illness figure into explanations and apologies for wrong behavior – if at all?
Are concepts of color objective?
Given that people from different cultures conceptualize colors differently, I don’t see how concepts of color – or at least the demarcation of colors – can be objective. For example, in English, the colours ‘green’ and ‘blue’ have different names because they refer to different concepts. In Japanese, however, the word ‘aoi’ can refer to either light green or blue: they don’t draw a distinction between them. Similarly, English speakers refer to both the sky and a sapphire as ‘blue.’ But in Italian this is not the case: the word ‘blu’ only refers to dark blue, and the sky is the distinct color of ‘azzuro.’ Do these cultural differences undermine the claim that concepts of color are objective?
Should juries nullify bad laws by refusing to convict?
Imagine a criminal case of drug possession, tax evasion, or prostitution – meaning, where the law is wrong because the outlawed activity doesn’t violate rights. Should a rational juror refuse to find the defendant guilty? Would that be morally obligatory or merely acceptable? Does the juror endorse the violation of rights inherent in the law by voting to convict? Basically, shouldn’t the juror use his own independent mind not merely to judge the evidence, but also to judge the morality of the law?
Should a person always care to work or earn money?
Most people need to work to earn their bread, so to speak. They need to be productive – and be paid for that – to survive. However, that’s not true in all cases. Perhaps someone has inherited enough money to provide for his life, or he has won the lottery, or a spouse can provide for the two of them. That person still needs a purpose in life to work toward, but must that purpose be productive, in the strict sense of creating material values? Might the person reasonably choose to spend his time studying subjects of interest to him, without any other goal in mind? Might he choose to spend the rest of his life travelling? Or producing art for his own personal satisfaction? Could such a person live a happy, virtuous, and meaningful life?
Could unwilling people be compelled to govern?
Imagine a situation in which no-one – not a single person – wants to work for the government. This would create a state of anarchy by default because government requires people to govern. Since the existence of a government is necessary for the protection of individual rights via the subordination of society to objective moral law, would compelling some people to govern be necessary and proper?
Criminal law bans actions such as murder or theft completely. Does this imply that these actions are inherently or intrinsically wrong? Is that a problem? Should statues instead be guidelines, rather than absolutes prohibitions? Would that create a government of men rather than laws?
Is it wrong to indulge romantic infatuation?
I am infatuated with a young woman for whom I am not a suitable match, including because I am 30 and she is 16. It is strictly a fantasy; I no effort to pursue or to make my feelings known to her and have no intention to ever do so. However, in private, I am deeply in love with her and practically worship her like a celebrity and collect all her pictures. (I refrain from masturbating to her because doing so makes me feel guilty.) Due to deficiencies in my life that I consider unfixable, I have low self-esteem and have given up on dating for the foreseeable future, if not indefinitely. Do you think my behavior is creepy, immoral, or bad for my own well being?
How should a person judge whether an activist organization is worthy of support or not?
What is the proper process for judging activist and advocacy organizations? Do the standards for moral support differ from those of financial support? What kinds of problems would make you withdraw support from an organization?
How should I respond to my morally corrupt sister?
My 20 year old sister is morally destitute. She is an unapolegetic shoplifter. Her justifications amount to things like: “My shoplifting is not an addiction because I can stop any time I want to,” “everyone does it,” “you have to lie and cheat to keep up with the competition,” “companies account for shoplifters in their business plans so they mark prices higher to compensate for it,” “I’d never steal from a friend,” “I need to steal while I look young and can get away with it because no one suspects me,” etc. Over the years she has stolen hundreds if not thousands of dollars from our parents, too. And justifies this by saying that they’re wealthy and don’t even notice because she does it in small increments. She lies and cheats frequency. She’s accepted money in return for writing a paper for a friend and says of course she would do it again if some one were willing to pay her. She knows what she does is “wrong,” but maintains that this is better than not knowing, at least. (That makes no sense, I know.) I also just found out that she’s selling marijuana because, as she says, she needs a way to support her expensive taste in clothes and makeup. (Stealing these things directly and the money with which to buy them doesn’t cut it, apparently.) She acknowledges that this is, on some level, “wrong,” but does not care. She has no integrity or moral conscience. She’s my sister and despite my horror at these behaviors and the cavalier attitude with which she knowingly does wrong, but she laughs this off and doesn’t care! She does not respond to reason. She is vain, ignorant, and idle. Part of me wants to help her and try to talk sense into her because I care about her and want her to be a healthy person and not have a miserable life, another part of me wants to forget it and let her ruin herself. But I don’t want to stand by and watch that happen, and I also know that there’s only so much I can do to really help her. What is the rational thing to do?
To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)
Share This Post
On the May 19th episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on whether disabled kids should be kept out of the public eye. (My answer was, in essence, HELL NO.)
Shortly thereafter, I received this message in email:
It has been a while since I’ve checked in with you, but I wanted to reach out to tell you that I greatly appreciate your podcast segment on the visibility of disabled children. I have personal stakes in this — my younger brother has down syndrome, and my daughter was recently diagnosed with cerebral palsy — but I’d like to think that even without these intimate experiences, I would never had supported any idea that such people should be kept hidden, or out of the view of others. My brother and daughter have enriched the lives of many, and will continue to do so, for those people around them that are open enough to treat them as individuals. And I am grateful that you have taken the time to speak, in part, on their behalf.
Indeed — and thank you!
On the plane back from ATLOSCon, a young woman with Down’s Syndrome was on the train with me in the airport, then across the aisle from me in the plane. Not only was she not any kind of trouble, but I could tell that her family members enjoyed her company. At one point, I noticed that she seemed to be teaching sign language with the person next to her, and she was quite adept. As I watched her, I was so glad that her family didn’t think themselves obliged to cloister her; given her capacities, that would have been a loss for her and them.
So… if you’ve not yet heard that episode, you can listen to or download the relevant segment of the podcast here:
- Duration: 16:43
- Download: MP3 Segment
For more details, check out the question’s archive page. The full episode – where I also answered questions on individualism versus anti-social atomism, poor communication from the boss, arranged marriages, and more – is available as a podcast too.
Share This Post
On Wednesday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I’ll interview biologist Monica Hughes about “Myths about Evolutionary Theory.” This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 19 June 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later.

Many Americans are woefully ignorant of the basics of evolutionary theory, even while they criticize or reject it. Biologist Monica Hughes will explain the basic claims of evolutionary theory, the evidence for the theory, and dispel common myths about it.Monica Hughes received her bachelor’s degree in biology from Houghton College and went on to pursue master’s and PhD degrees in mycology and forest pathology at SUNY-ESF (State University of New York College of Environmental and Forest Biology). Broadly trained in aspects of plant and fungal biology, she has interned at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew as an undergraduate in horticulture and economic botany, served as a teaching fellow at SUNY-ESF, and received travel and research awards from the Mycological Society of America and Harvard University during her PhD studies. Monica’s research is focused on an obscure but diverse group of insect-associated fungi, particularly co-evolution of the fungi with their hosts, and description of new species: her research uncovered roughly 50 new species of fungi from New Zealand, including several new genera. Since obtaining her PhD in 2008, Monica has worked as a biology professor in the Community College system of Colorado and at Regis University in Denver.
To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.
If you miss the live broadcast, you’ll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Monica Hughes on Myths about Evolutionary Theory. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:
- Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
- Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
I hope you join us on Wednesday evening… and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic!
Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
Share This Post
On Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered questions on the meaning of life as the standard of value, broken relationships, the morality of an armed society, the sex scandals of politicians, and more with Greg Perkins. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading… finally! You’ll find it on the episode’s archive page, as well as below.
Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:
- Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
- Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Podcast: Ethical Foundations, Broken Relationships, Sex Scandals, and More
Listen or Download:
- Duration: 1:11:23
- Download: Enhanced M4A File (25.7 MB)
- Download: Standard MP3 File (24.6 MB)
Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!
You can download or listen to individual questions from this episode below.
Introduction (0:00)
My News of the Week: I’ve been extracting myself from WTFery, and Greg and Tammy did the amazingly hard GORUCK Challenge.
Question 1: The Meaning of Life as the Standard of Value (7:10)
In this segment, I answered a question on the meaning of life as the standard of value.
What does it mean to say that life is the standard of value? In “The Objectivist Ethics,” Ayn Rand says that man’s life is the standard of value. What does that mean? Does that mean mere physical survival? Is it mere quantity of years – or does the quality of those years matter too? Basically, what is the difference between living and not dying?
My Answer, In Brief: While survival and flourishing can be distinguished conceptually, in reality, they are one and the same. Survival in the long term requires flourishing.
Listen or Download:
- Duration: 16:20
- Download: MP3 Segment
Tags:
Links:
- “The Objectivist Ethics” by Ayn Rand in The Virtue of Selfishness
- “Causality Versus Duty” by Ayn Rand in Philosophy: Who Needs It
- Viable Values and Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics by Tara Smith
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.
Question 2: Broken Relationships (23:30)
In this segment, I answered a question on broken relationships.
When is a relationship broken beyond repair? Relationships can be severely strained, fraught with anger and frustration, and perhaps put on ice for weeks or months or years. Yet in the end, the two people can often reconcile in some way, so that they can enjoy a genuine (even if not deep) relationship again. In some cases, however, that’s not possible. Why not? In such cases, must the problem be that one person (or both people) continue to behave badly? Or might reconciliation be impossible between two good people? If so, why?
My Answer, In Brief: A relationship is permanently broken when your trust in the person’s rationality, decency, and goodwill has been destroyed. If that trust has merely been damaged, that might be repaired — but be careful.
Listen or Download:
- Duration: 16:32
- Download: MP3 Segment
Tags:
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.
Question 3: The Morality of an Armed Society (40:03)
In this segment, I answered a question on the morality of an armed society.
Is an armed society a polite society – or a violent society? Author Robert Heinlein famously said that “An armed society is a polite society.” Many liberals, however, fear an armed society as barbaric and violent. Is widespread ownership and/or carry of arms a positive or a negative feature of a society?
My Answer, In Brief: An armed society may be a polite society — or not. Firearms are mere tools, and they take on the moral qualities of the people wielding them. They cannot make thugs in to decent people, nor decent people into thugs.
Listen or Download:
- Duration: 9:43
- Download: MP3 Segment
Tags:
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.
Question 4: The Sex Scandals of Politicians (49:47)
In this segment, I answered a question on the sex scandals of politicians.
Should we stop caring about the sex lives of politicians? In response to the affair and resignation of David Petraeus, many argued that such sex scandals are the absurd consequence of American puritanism. These people claim that sex is easily compartmentalized in a person’s life, such that sexual fidelity has no bearing on a person’s intelligence, character, or suitability for public office. Is that right?
My Answer, In Brief: So long as politicians wield enormous power over our lives and display their marriages as evidence of their good character, people are entitled to judge them for any revelations of marital infidelity. That’s because a politician’s cheating on his or her spouse raises serious doubts about his moral characters, invites blackmail, and risks security leaks.
Listen or Download:
- Duration: 12:04
- Download: MP3 Segment
Tags: Celebrities, Character, Marriage, Politics, Privacy, Sex
Links:
- Stray penises and politicos by David Simon
- Philosophy in Action: Consuming Celebrity News and The Ethics of Open Relationships
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.
Rapid Fire Questions (1:01:52)
In this segment, I answered questions impromptu. The questions were:
- What do you think about the NSA “snooping” scandal?
Listen or Download:
- Duration: 6:18
- Download: MP3 Segment
To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.
Conclusion (1:08:11)
Be sure to check out my blog NoodleFood and to submit and vote on questions for upcoming episodes.
About Philosophy in Action Radio
Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!
Share This Post
I’ve not yet been able to post the podcast from Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio due to yet more problems with Podbean. (If I can’t get it uploaded by noon-ish, drastic measures will be taken!)
Meanwhile, I’ve taken the first steps in closing the OLists. I created OBloggers in May 2007, and the network grew to 13 lists over the years. They were a big part of my life for a while. I’m proud that they helped create a friendly online community of Objectivists, based on shared values. But they’ve been in a coma for some time, and I’ve moved on. So it’s long past time to let them die.
Here’s the email that I sent to all the OLists this morning:
I’m writing to tell you that I’ve decided shut down the OLists. I’ve been planning to do this for many months now, but I’ve been slow to get it done. (Originally, I’d planned to turn some lists over to their managers, but the lists have been so quiet that I don’t see any point in that now.)
The primary reason for the shut-down is that lists have been mostly dormant, largely thanks to the rise of social media. I could have worked to revive them, but due to events over the past few years in the Objectivist movement, I’ve lost interest in my specifically Objectivist projects. These days, I’m focused on Philosophy in Action, and I’m really happy doing that… and I’m pleased to be promoting rational ideas (including Objectivist ideas) to a wide audience.
I’ll leave the lists open for another week or two… and please feel free to post any final announcements or whatnot in that time.
If you want to keep up with what I’m doing with Philosophy in Action, you can subscribe to my one-per-week newsletter that announces upcoming topics for radio shows, posted podcasts, blog posts, and other news.
Finally… many thanks to the OList managers for making the lists possible. We did good work together, and it was a pleasure to work with you!
However, because I want to keep in contact with other paleo Objectivists, so I’ve created a “Paleo Objectivists” group on Facebook. To join, you just have to be a paleo-eating Objectivist.
Share This Post
This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine):
- 14 Jun: Mataconis on Organ Transplants by Paul Hsieh
- 13 Jun: Med Students in the New System by Paul Hsieh
- 12 Jun: Cash-Only Doctors Abandon Insurance System by Paul Hsieh
- 11 Jun: Catron on Sebelius and Lobbying by Paul Hsieh
This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government:
- 12 Jun: Doctors Refusing to Perform Abortions: Philosophy in Action Podcast by Diana Hsieh
- 11 Jun: Bad Ideas as a Cause of Mental Illness: Philosophy in Action Podcast by Diana Hsieh
This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard:
- 16 Jun: Superman’s Moral Ambitiousness by Ari Armstrong
- 16 Jun: Scientists Advance Toward Genetically Perfect Replacements for Diseased Cells by Michael A. LaFerrara
- 15 Jun: The Summer Issue of The Objective Standard by TOS Admin
- 14 Jun: Shale Gas Is Plentiful; Freedom to Produce It Is Not by David Biederman
- 13 Jun: Celebrate Sarah Murnaghan’s Life; Demand an End to Government Death Panels by Ari Armstrong
- 12 Jun: Obama Gets Rights Wrong; Americans Need to Get them Right by Stephen Bourque
- 11 Jun: Cambridge Scientists Dramatically Advance Battle Against Infectious Disease by Ari Armstrong
- 10 Jun: Fox News Defends Free Speech with Moral Clarity by Robert Begley
This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo:
- 15 Jun: Philosophy Weekend: News from Philosophy in Action by Diana Hsieh
- 14 Jun: The Paleo Rodeo #166 by Diana Hsieh
Share This Post
On Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on life versus survival as the standard of value, broken relationships, armed society, the sex scandals of politicians, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 16 June 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later.
This week’s questions are:
- Question 1: Life Versus Survival as the Standard of Value: Is mere survival the standard of moral value? In “The Objectivist Ethics,” Ayn Rand says that man’s life is the standard of value. What does that mean? Is it mere physical survival? Is it mere quantity of years – or does the quality of those years matter too? Basically, what is the difference between living and not dying?
- Question 2: Broken Relationships: When is a relationship broken beyond repair? Relationships can be severely strained, fraught with anger and frustration, and perhaps put on ice for weeks or months or years. Yet in the end, the two people can often reconcile in some way, so that they can enjoy a genuine (even if not deep) relationship again. In some cases, however, that’s not possible. Why not? In such cases, must the problem be that one person (or both people) continue to behave badly? Or might reconciliation be impossible between two good people? If so, why?
- Question 3: Armed Society: Is an armed society a polite society or violent society? Author Robert Heinlein famously said that “An armed society is a polite society.” Many liberals, however, fear an armed society as barbaric and violent. Is widespread ownership and/or carry of arms a positive or a negative feature of a society?
- Question 4: The Sex Scandals of Politicians: Should we stop caring about the sex lives of politicians? In response to the affair and resignation of David Petraeus, many argued that such sex scandals are the absurd consequence of American puritanism. These people claim that sex is easily compartmentalized in a person’s life, such that sexual fidelity has no bearing on a person’s intelligence, character, or suitability for public office. Is that right?
After that, we’ll tackle some impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”
To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.
If you miss the live broadcast, you’ll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Ethical Foundations, Broken Relationships, Sex Scandals, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:
- Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
- Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
I hope you join us on Sunday morning… and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics!
Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
Share This Post
This is just an amazing short documentary about the video taken of a successful crash landing of a reconnaissance pilot in World War 2. These pilots flew into Germany to photograph sites… unarmed and unescorted. Wow.
Share This Post
On Wednesday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I interviewed online marketing professional Trey Peden about “Online Marketing and Privacy.” The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You’ll find it on the episode’s archive page, as well as below.
Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:
- Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
- Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Podcast: Trey Peden about “Online Marketing and Privacy”
What do online marketing companies know about you? How do they gather data? Should you be alarmed by that? If so, what tools can help you protect your privacy online?
Trey Peden is a seasoned online marketing professional who has been designing, building, and refining users’ online brand experiences for over 15 years. He works for Acxiom Corporation – one of the largest marketing data, technology, and services vendors in the world – as a product marketer for their digital marketing suite of tools.
Listen or Download:
- Duration: 1:06:22
- Download: Standard MP3 File (22.8 MB)
Topics:
- Major kinds of online advertising
- The market for advertising
- The data collected on the internet
- The concerns about privacy online (embarrassment, discrimination, manipulation, identity theft, and government)
- The kinds of data collected online
- The industry standards
- Why poorly-targeted ads happen
- The ideal of ad-targeting
- Social media advertising
- The difficulty of marketing effectively
- Protecting your privacy online
- The “creeping” criticism
Links:
- Trey Peden
- Display LUMAscape
- BEHOLD: The First Banner Ad Ever — From 1994
- Bad Contextual Ads
- 30 Examples of Retargeting
- IAB Internet Advertising Revenue Report
- United States Privacy Laws
- NAI’s Draft Code of Conduct
- Blue Kai
- Google Ad Preferences
- Your Ad Choices
- Ghostery
- FireBug
Tags:
Episode Sponsor
This episode is sponsored the incomparable Audible.com.
I’ve subscribed to Audible since 2005. With my “Platinum Annual Membership,” I enjoy 24 books per year for just under $10 per book. I read more books, thanks to Audible. I listen to books while in my car, as well as while cooking, cleaning, gardening, and more. I enjoy books more too, particularly fiction: a good reader adds a rich layer of color to the text.
If you want to try the delights of listening to books, be sure to take advantage of our special podcast-only offer of free 30-day trial subscription. You’ll get a great deal, and you’ll support Philosophy in Action in the process. It’s a win-win – and I love that!
About Philosophy in Action Radio
Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
Remember, Philosophy in Action Radio is available to anyone, free of charge. That’s because our goal is to spread rational principles for real life far and wide, as we do every week to thousands of listeners. We love doing that, but each episode requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to our tip jar. We suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. You can send your contribution via Dwolla, PayPal, or US Mail.


