Comment author: Lumifer 07 July 2015 06:19:49PM 2 points [-]

I don't know (don't know of, even) any high-profile transgender people.

Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner.

Comment author: Robin 30 July 2015 10:43:45PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: Robin 01 June 2015 01:24:23PM -5 points [-]

Since it's the conclusion I will say it's a very benevolent universe, and I love it. And any struggle was worth it, and how, and I don't regret a minute of it. What I mean that the struggle, or unhappiness, is enormously unimportant. But the positive is wonderful. And if it's the last interview of my life, I hope, I know I will be saying it at eighty. It's a benevolent universe.

Ayn Rand

https://youtu.be/IyEs825hszw?t=53s

Comment author: Robin 26 May 2015 12:14:12AM 1 point [-]

The short example (from somebody who went to college with Scott and took Calc II in the same class with him) is yes. But that's an answer relative to the students of an elite college and only based on the fact that he asked me for to work on math homework with him.

Comment author: Robin 26 May 2015 12:12:25AM 0 points [-]

I hope they've managed to advance past "if somebody criticizes your idea, ban them from the group!" because that's what happened to me after a criticized Comfort Zone Expansion.

Comment author: epursimuove 05 January 2015 11:59:20PM *  12 points [-]

There's pretty unambiguous statistical evidence that it happens. The Asian Ivy League percentage has remained basically fixed for 20 years despite the college-age Asian population doubling (and Asian SAT scores increasing slightly).

Comment author: Robin 09 January 2015 04:10:02PM *  -4 points [-]

It's not unambiguous because it doesn't take into consideration other factors. SAT scores are the only variable mentioned in your article, but they're not the only variable in whether a college accepts a student. They've become a less and less important factor over time.

At some colleges, a low SAT score would prevent you from being admitted by a high SAT score wouldn't increase your chance of getting in. Colleges value GPA, class ranking, letters of recommendation, sports participation, extra-curricular activities, personal essay etc etc. It is possible that Asians have done worse on those other areas and aren't getting screwed by quotas or affirmative action.

Comment author: Vaniver 21 December 2014 03:35:33PM 2 points [-]

This puts Rand within the general consensus of American psychologists.

At the time, or now? Because hypnosis is a demonstrably effective treatment for some conditions, and clearly something is going on- but people vary in susceptibility and most people are familiar with the variety of hypnosis that stage magicians do rather than the type that hypnotherapists do.

Comment author: Robin 22 December 2014 07:43:33PM 0 points [-]

At that time, though I think much of hypnosis can be explained by the placebo effect.

Comment author: MarkusRamikin 20 December 2014 04:35:14PM *  1 point [-]

I remember I liked the characters who understood that a technical understanding of an issue screens off vaguer impressions (like with whether Rearden Metal was safe or not), I liked the individualism, and the idea that you don't have to feel guilty about every obligation which others would like to saddle you with just by their expectations... there were other things, but hard to list right now.

As to the quote, well, I can't speak for the whole community, but here's why I didn't like it. Maybe Rand is referering to a specific situation where she knows Branden's thought processes and her statements are correct. In that case, I wouldn't know. But if it's meant generally enough to be a rationality quote - if it's meant to explain why we get angry at dishonest people - then it's just an unsupported claim. I don't see anything showing that Rand has a model-with-moving-parts understanding of the psychology of anger response, and didn't just make up an answer that fit her preferred moral categories.

And equating dishonesty with both evil AND irrationality rubs me wrong. Rand believed that she's basically solved morality, and rationality only allowed one kind of morality, namely hers. Not just metamorality, but specific values. I believe this is part of what locked her into an inescapable worldview, beyond correction and updating (like what Branden wrote about how, once she decided that Reason's verdict on hypnosis was that it was bunk and had no foundation in reality, nothing could reach her on the subject), because once she decided something was incorrect, it was not just incorrect, but Evil.

I think it more useful to consider rationality (correct reading of reality and decision making) separately from values held.

Comment author: Robin 20 December 2014 06:12:34PM 1 point [-]

Maybe Rand is referering to a specific situation where she knows Branden's thought processes and her statements are correct.

It was about arguing with collectivists (AKA people who were sympathetic to the USSR). Whether she was correct about communism being inferior to capitalism isn't easy to analyze objectively but in a sense history has validated her.

In that case, I wouldn't know. But if it's meant generally enough to be a rationality quote - if it's meant to explain why we get angry at dishonest people - then it's just an unsupported claim

It's supported by her personal experience. It is also largely supported by my own personal experience.

And equating dishonesty with both evil AND irrationality rubs me wrong. Rand believed that she's basically solved morality, and rationality only allowed one kind of morality, namely hers

Only partly true. Her morality acknowledges that man has the free will to think, but assumes that if he thinks honestly he'll come to many of the same conclusions that she does. The only real constraint in Objectivist morality is on the initiation of force.

I believe this is part of what locked her into an inescapable worldview, beyond correction and updating

This is an exaggeration.

(like what Branden wrote about how, once she decided that Reason's verdict on hypnosis was that it was bunk and had no foundation in reality, nothing could reach her on the subject)

This puts Rand within the general consensus of American psychologists. Branden also said that Rand updated on the effects of smoking marijuana.

I think it more useful to consider rationality (correct reading of reality and decision making) separately from values held.

Why? What if you notice patterns in values held and rationality? Should you ignore them?

Comment author: Robin 20 December 2014 06:02:40PM 7 points [-]

I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one. This means that I am an uncompromising advocate of reason and that I am fighting for reason, not against religion. I must also mention that I do respect religion in its philosophical aspects, in the sense that it represents an early form of philosophy.

Ayn Rand, to a Catholic Priest.

Comment author: MarkusRamikin 19 December 2014 08:21:15AM *  3 points [-]

I would like to see some quotes from Rand that would be worthy of upvotes here. But after seeing your efforts lately, I am starting to wonder if my remembered fondness of Rand's writing persists only because I haven't actually re-read anything by her in a decade...

Comment author: Robin 19 December 2014 01:29:23PM 5 points [-]

I'm not entrenched enough in this community to know what's worthy of upvotes and what's not, so I'm selecting quotes that I personally like and seeing how they fare.

Do you remember what you liked about Ayn Rand? I've found that people like her for very different reasons.

Comment author: Grif 19 December 2014 01:39:44AM -2 points [-]

You lost me at "junk heap." There is no conscious choice available to a layperson ignorant of philosophy and logic, and such ways of life are perfectly copacetic with small-enough communities. If anything, it is the careful thinker who is more shackled by self-doubt, better understood as the Dunning-Kruger effect, but Ayn Rand has made it obvious she never picked up any primary literature on cognitive science so it's not surprising to see her confusion here.

Quote from 1971's The Romantic Manifesto.

Comment author: Robin 19 December 2014 01:26:10PM 1 point [-]

You lost me at "junk heap."

Sorry you're so averse to negative descriptions of the average person's philosophy.

There is no conscious choice available to a layperson ignorant of philosophy and logic

Yes there is, they can choose what music, TV, movies, videos etc to buy/view/play.

and such ways of life are perfectly copacetic with small-enough communities

Do you mean communities where the leader knows about philosophy and can order people around?

If anything, it is the careful thinker who is more shackled by self-doubt

It's reasonable to doubt certain things, but if learning increases your self doubt than you're doing it wrong.

better understood as the Dunning-Kruger effect, but Ayn Rand has made it obvious she never picked up any primary literature on cognitive science

She was associated with Nathaniel Branden, a well regarded psychologist. Cognitive Science is a relatively new field.

so it's not surprising to see her confusion here.

I don't think she's confused, she's saying something you disagree with. If you think you've refuted it, I think you're the confused one.

View more: Next