Ayn Rand and cults generally, In which I have a bet with Jimbo Options

[Peter Damian]

See Jimbo's talk page, and the [[Ayn Rand]] article which I have rewritten. The bet is how long it will stay in its rewritten state. I love the remark that 'Aristotle was sorely over-rated'.

'Aristotle was sorely overrated'. Ha! Wikipediot. Obscure greek Homer 42k, famous american Homer 65k. I would have bought this argument when Wikipedia first began. But as I pointed out above, the project is now mature, and we still find it difficult to attract editors who can write accessible material on more encylopedic subjects. The reason is abundantly clear: the place is infested with cranks, advocates of strange fringe theories, mystics, lunatics of all kinds. No sane intelligent person would go near the place with a bargepole. In any case, I have now re-written the introduction to Ayn Rand that makes it less obviously written by Rand fanatics. Let's see what happens from there on. If the introduction stands relatively unchanged, I lose my bet. If it is torn to shreds and returned to the unreadable ungrammatical state as before, I win, bigtime. Peter Damian (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...es_in_Wikipedia

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[maggot3]

I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life, and even worse, read her awful, awful writing.

Uh, actually, this is kind of off topic for the thread. Oops. This sort of thing is pretty sad. To be kind of on topic.

This post has been edited by maggot3:

[Kurt M. Weber]

I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life,

Please show me a flaw in her logic or premises.

[Moulton]

Los Obliviados y Los Olvidados

I still find it absolutely unbelievable that people subscribe to Ayn Rand's abhorrent views, believe that that nonsense is applicable to real life,

Please show me a flaw in her logic or premises.

When I was just out of college, I had trouble diagnosing the flaw in Ayn Rand's notion of Objectivism. It occurred to me that having scientifically objective models of the world around us was a perfectly valid perspective.

It took me several decades to find the flaw.

When I was in college, my fraternity brothers criticized me for being "cocky". It was a word whose meaning was entirely unclear to me.

What they meant, of course, was that I came across as over-confident in my book-learning, a character trait they found annoying and off-putting. And I found their alienating attitude toward me inexplicably perplexing.

Part of the flaw in Ayn Rand's philosophy can be found in her failed relationship with Nathaniel Branden. Branden, being a psychologist and psychotherapist, was keenly aware of the kind of emotions that his clients routinely dealt with: anxiety, confusion, frustration, despair. His clients were anything but cocksure of themselves. Therapists deal with problems of unfinished Bildungsroman: their clients are very much a work in progress, full of anxiety and self-doubt, endlessly questioning themselves and worrying about their undiagnosed, unanalyzed, and uncorrected shortcomings.

In his second book, People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil, M. Scott Peck recounted his difficulty dealing with young clients whose parents were more like Ayn Rand. He would treat the adolescent children whose parents were obliviously cocksure of themselves, whilst their children manifested the anxiety and self-doubt lacking in their parents.

If you want to glimpse an insight into the chasm between Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand, read M. Scott Peck's book.

What therapists like Branden and Peck sought to develop was empathy — the ability to apprehend the affective emotional states of those who were anything but cocksure, and become a conscientious and loving attendant to their journey of Bildungsroman, their life journey of building their character.

The characters in Ayn Rand's novels appear, like Athena, fully formed from the head of Zeus, skipping over the years of development that educators and therapists attend. Contrast that with the Harry Potter character, whose seven-volume story is entirely one of Bildungsroman, full of the drama of self-doubt.

A good scientist is not cocksure. A good scientist adopts a healthy attitude of skepticism, including a level of Socratic self-skepticism that enables a humble scientist to diagnose the subtle shortcomings of emerging theories (and derivative practices). A good scientist tries every imaginable way to disprove all hypotheses before daring to imagine that any flight of fancy might be an objectively accurate model of the world around us.

This is the recurring flaw of the Randian character — adopting delusional beliefs (haphazard flights of fancy) and arrogantly acting on them without engaging in the rigorous scientific and Socratic process of conscientious self-examination. On Wikipedia, we often see this error when Admins form haphazard theories of mind regarding other editors, and then arrogantly act on those unexamined flights of fancy as if they were the objective truth handed down by Yahweh on stone tablets.

Were a Randian Objectivist to become more like an authentic scientist, he or she would become more like Nathaniel Branden, M. Scott Peck, Seymour Papert, or Sherry Turkle, immersed in the subtle sociological and psychological aspects of cognition, affect, and learning.

It is easy for a young Objectivist to naively overlook the role of emotions in learning and personal growth. In one week, I'll be 64 years old. It's taken me the last quarter century to begin to understand the subtle interplay of cognition, affect, and learning. It's an overlooked subject you won't find explored in Randian Objectivism.

[dtobias]

In one week, I'll be 64 years old.

Will anyone still need you or feed you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Moulton]

In one week, I'll be 64 years old.

Will anyone still need you or feed you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Ask around. It's an interesting litmus test.

About twenty years ago, I discovered that I have a knack for dividing the polis right down the middle. The editor of Artificial Intelligence Magazine had picked up a book review that I had written and posted on UseNet. He requested permission to reprint it in a forthcoming issue of the magazine. Of course I gladly granted him permission. Two months later, he reported that my book review had split his Editorial Board right down the middle. He said he had never seen them that polarized over such a seemingly innocuous item.

For the last twenty years I've been trying to pin down the principal component analysis that efficiently explains what half the potential audience is so violently allergic to.

[Milton Roe]

About twenty years ago, I discovered that I have a knack for dividing the polis right down the middle. The editor of Artificial Intelligence Magazine had picked up a book review that I had written and posted on UseNet. He requested permission to reprint it in a forthcoming issue of the magazine. Of course I gladly granted him permission. Two months later, he reported that my book review had split his Editorial Board right down the middle. He said he had never seen them that polarized over such a seemingly innocuous item.

For the last twenty years I've been trying to pin down the principal component analysis that efficiently explains what half the potential audience is so violently allergic to.

One problem is that you use a lot of historical allusions that the average reader has no clue about.

You might take a leaf from Shelley*, and actually annotate yourself. Heavily.

Milton

*Percy Bysshe Shelley, 19th century poet who knew a lot of classical Latin and Greek stuff, whereas his audience didn't. So he swallowed his pride.

In one week, I'll be 64 years old.

Will anyone still need you or feed you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

A good question that none of us knows the answer to until we get there. When Paul McCartney came home at quarter-to-three in late June 2006 (yes, at age 64), I think Heather locked the door. Bummer.

[Bottled_Spider]

*Percy Bysshe Shelley, 19th century poet who knew a lot of classical Latin and Greek stuff, whereas his audience didn't. So he swallowed his pride.

And, in July 1822, a lot of seawater.

When Paul McCartney came home at quarter-to-three in late June 2006, I think Heather locked the door. Bummer.

Indeed. And the answer to the question "Who could ask for more?" is Heather's lawyers.