Introspection and morality

[Arnold 0]

Further, why do you value your family members and how do you know that?

Why? Because my spouse and I chose each other and we -made- our children. Also we help each other out, as happens in healthy families. There is little value in being atomic or solitary in one's life if one has good company.

I do not have to search my soul for reasons (which would be useless since I have no soul).

ruveyn

I don't follow this. You embrace some emotions, such as concern for your family. This means you value them right? Thus one concludes that your concern is an emotion tied to your values. Yet, from other things you say, this link between value and emotion doesn't exist. For the sake of consistency you need to investigate this, and that is by analyzing your thoughts - otherwise known as introspection.

[JohnRgt 0]

How do you know you are alive? The same way I do.

Not if you continue to suppress your emotions, Ruveyn.

[System Builder 0]

I avoid feeling as much as I possibly can. Feelings will mislead. Emotion is a third rate form of cognition.

I have a few comments about this.

1. Emotion is not supposed to be a form of cognition, according to Objectivism. Emotions are not tools of cognition at all. They are merely your subconscious mind's automatic reports to you on your own past choices and actions, applied to present stimuli. Only one's conscious, reasoning mind can assess whether or not past habits are validly applicable to new challenges.

2. Do you experience happiness? Happiness is mostly emotional and is (in Objectivism) man's ultimate reward of successful living. If you avoid feeling as much as you possibly can, does that mean you try to avoid ever feeling happy, too?

3. If you do allow yourself to feel happy, do you ever experience any kind of self-doubt about whether you are happy about the right things in life and for the right (life-furthering) reasons? Do you then just suppress the doubt until adverse consequences become too massive to be avoided any longer?

Feelings are an automatic response to one's values. So, shutting them down is illogical and something that you cannot actually do unless you of course have no values. Anger, fear, sadness, compassion and more all come whether you want them to or not. Without questioning why you are feeling those emotions (introspecting), you will most likely be full of contradictions.

Automatic for you, maybe. I am wired differently from you NeuroTypicals. I am an Aspie (Aspberger's Syndrome) and (most likely) a high functioning autistic.

I have values which I came by via hard work. What for you is natural and automatic, I had to learn by the numbers (so to speak). It took me over forty years to pass for human.

ruveyn

Ruveyn, you've dropped a small "bombshell" here that I don't think has fully "sunk in" for most of us. Autism of any kind, including Asperger Syndrome, is clearly a very serious disorder, and of genetic origin as far as anyone knows at present, usually manifesting itself at a very young age (toddler stage or earlier) -- although there is considerable controversy at present about whether or not it might in many cases be the result of environmental factors occurring some years later, such as the Mercury formerly used as a preservative in children's vaccines. You are truly to be congratulated for your own impressive success at overcoming AS after a 40-year struggle! (It is primarily for "Neuro-typicals" that Ayn Rand writes.)

On the other hand, you do seem to have free will, since you consciously strive to avoid feeling, as much as you possibly can. Is that really the only hope you have of being able to cope with your mental condition in a "high-functioning" manner? I also wonder about the validity of consciously asserting mental deficiency as a justification for actions that one performs, or refuses to perform when needed. Such conscious justifications may themselves be evidence to the contrary.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

I avoid feeling as much as I possibly can. Feelings will mislead. Emotion is a third rate form of cognition.

I have a few comments about this.

1. Emotion is not supposed to be a form of cognition, according to Objectivism. Emotions are not tools of cognition at all. They are merely your subconscious mind's automatic reports to you on your own past choices and actions, applied to present stimuli. Only one's conscious, reasoning mind can assess whether or not past habits are validly applicable to new challenges.

2. Do you experience happiness? Happiness is mostly emotional and is (in Objectivism) man's ultimate reward of successful living. If you avoid feeling as much as you possibly can, does that mean you try to avoid ever feeling happy, too?

3. If you do allow yourself to feel happy, do you ever experience any kind of self-doubt about whether you are happy about the right things in life and for the right (life-furthering) reasons? Do you then just suppress the doubt until adverse consequences become too massive to be avoided any longer?

To #1 we are in essential agreement.

To #2 Yes. I may be non-standard but I am as human as you. I enjoy my children, my grandchildren (they are a source of unending joy to me). I also like watching other people succeed in their rightful doings, even if I am not a direct beneficiary. I would rather see something to admire in others, than to detest. On the other hand, I do not get involved in the sorrows of other people (meaning outside my family). I have no duty or obligation to take on the pain of strangers. On the other hand I am obligated not to inflict pain on others, by and large.

And my greatest joy outside my family is solving hard problems. I love solving problems and I love solving them by flank attack. Frontal assault is not my style. On that strategy I will write more later on.

To #3. Of course I derive joy from doing what I do. Since I do no evil, it is joy undiluted by guilt. As to doubt, there is always doubt when working in a situation in which one does not have full control or all the necessary facts. One just soldiers on. Life is like that. We do what we do as best we can. I just use prudence and caution where the hazards are great. I will bet you do the same.

ruveyn

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Ruveyn, you've dropped a small "bombshell" here that I don't think has fully "sunk in" for most of us. Autism of any kind, including Asperger Syndrome, is clearly a very serious disorder, and of genetic origin as far as anyone knows at present, usually manifesting itself at a very young age (toddler stage or earlier) -- although there is considerable controversy at present about whether or not it might in many cases be the result of environmental factors occurring some years later, such as the Mercury formerly used as a preservative in children's vaccines. You are truly to be congratulated for your own impressive success at overcoming AS after a 40-year struggle! (It is primarily for "Neuro-typicals" that Ayn Rand writes.)

On the other hand, you do seem to have free will, since you consciously strive to avoid feeling, as much as you possibly can. Is that really the only hope you have of being able to cope with your mental condition in a "high-functioning" manner? I also wonder about the validity of consciously asserting mental deficiency as a justification for actions that one performs, or refuses to perform when needed. Such conscious justifications may themselves be evidence to the contrary.

My condition is almost certainly genetic, but acquired by noxious substances. I do not consider my "problem" a negative at all. My condition adapts me to function very well in a high tech society. I was fortunate to live during the ascendancy of the computer. So my professional life has been (I am now retired) very much bound up in computers and applications of computers. In that regard, being an Aspie is a definite -advantage-. So I don't have to overcome a crippling condition at all. My condition makes me more fit to do what I do which is solve abstract mathematical and algorithmic problems. There is some evidence to indicate people like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were Aspies, even though the condition had not be specifically identified when they lived and were young.

And one thing for sure. I do not consider my condition a deficiency. I consider it an advantage (like being double jointed, in a way). Or being ambidextrous. I can do things you probably cannot. Of course there is somewhat of a downside. Social things, like reading body language, face language and reading "between the lines" did not come naturally or easily to me. I had to work on that. The biggest disadvantage was producing hostile reactions in neurotypicals. So I just learned to camouflage my differences, not to deceive, mind you, but to avoid unnecessary trouble. That is what I meant when I said I learned to pass for human. I really was human from the start, but of a variant kind. I also had to get used to the feeling I used to have when I was young, that I had wandered away from my real home and found my self, a stranger in a strange land. Well what does one do when one finds himself in a strange country? He learns the geography, he learns the language, he learns the customs and he learns to avoid the hazards.

As to free will, all neurologically complex beings have "free will" to one degree or another. Given that our underlying biological processes are really chaotic dynamic systems (like heartbeat regulation). If we are fortunate, our chaotic dynamic states do not wander too far from an attractor. But it is that which makes it impossible to mechanically predict what we will do in all instances. I think of myself as a complex Turing machine which is not algorithmically predictable. And I can even program myself!

Oh, by the way, the vaccine theory of autism has been pretty well exploded. It is a genetic condition. None of us asked for the hand we were dealt, but we are all obliged to play the hand we were given. That is life. Please understand that Aspies do not generally consider themselves handicapped. We are the next phase of human evolution. We are The Next Big Thing.

ruveyn

[RayK 0]

Further, why do you value your family members and how do you know that?

Why? Because my spouse and I chose each other and we -made- our children. Also we help each other out, as happens in healthy families. There is little value in being atomic or solitary in one's life if one has good company.

I do not have to search my soul for reasons (which would be useless since I have no soul).

How do you know you are alive? The same way I do.

Now the general problem of why we do this or why we do that.

1. I deny the existence of an infinite regress of causes.

2. Therefore at some point, if one digs down, one hits rock bottom: to wit, a causeless cause.

Since one will hit rock bottom sooner or later, why bother digging if one does not need to?

The only time I dig is when I make an error. Then I have a reason for taking the trouble and time to dig. The reason is to avoid making the same mistake twice, which is a waste of time. If I haven't made an error then what is the point of digging? I will not find anything important to me. If I am lucky I will live about 25,000 days so I should not waste time.

You see just compassion as a virtue. I see compassion (generally) as a weakness and a burden and a potential danger, something that a hostile actor might attempt to exploit. If I have no handles, then no one can grab me. (that is a metaphor, by the way).

Also the less baggage I carry the less energy I spend. Why work harder to live than is necessary?

I think I have stated as clearly as I can why I do not do those things you consider necessary and virtuous. I do not consider them necessary and I do not consider them virtuous and there it is, as plain as plain can be. You are deep and I am shallow. That is how it is.

ruveyn

Your soul, in Objectivist terms, is your consciousness. Do you not have a consciousness or is that something that your "Aspie" has allowed you to evolve out of needing?

You have also taken my statements out of context. I have never said that I think compassion is a virtue, it is an emotion that one can feel. Unlike you, if I do feel compassion, I know why I feel it.

So, please answer the question, if your wife was raped would you feel sorrow/compassion for her as she was an innocent victim? And I do not need three or more paragraphs of you attmepting to tell me about your history that I do not care to hear, just answer the question. Also, for you to choose your wife, you had to see in her virtues (unless of course you choose by vices) that you valued and maybe still value, how did you know that you valued those virtues without introspeciton?

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

So, please answer the question, if your wife was raped would you feel sorrow/compassion for her as she was an innocent victim? And I do not need three or more paragraphs of you attmepting to tell me about your history that I do not care to hear, just answer the question. Also, for you to choose your wife, you had to see in her virtues (unless of course you choose by vices) that you valued and maybe still value, how did you know that you valued those virtues without introspeciton?

Of course. She is my friend and I value her. I don't need to dig down to know that.

ruveyn

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Of course. She is my friend and I value her. I don't need to dig down to know that.

What DO you need to do to know that? How do you KNOW that you value her? What DATA is that conclusion based on?

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Of course. She is my friend and I value her. I don't need to dig down to know that.

What DO you need to do to know that? How do you KNOW that you value her? What DATA is that conclusion based on?

It is immediately evident through my senses. And we have been buddies for over fifty years. Is that sufficient data? Sheesh. How do I know I am alive? I don't have to drill down very far to know if I like someone. The way I look at it, every hour I spend introspecting is subtracted from my life. I would just as soon spend the time fishing or riding my bike or even better, playing with my grandchildren.

As I have pointed out. I am shallow. You are deep. I have been shallow for nearly 75 years. Apparently it has not done me any harm. The way I look at, if it ain't broke don't fix and if it smiles at you, smile right back.

ruveyn

[PhilO 0]

And my greatest joy outside my family is solving hard problems. I love solving problems and I love solving them by flank attack. Frontal assault is not my style. On that strategy I will write more later on.

Please do write more about that, including some examples if you can. I would find that many orders of magnitude more interesting than any of the dreary current event posts.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Of course. She is my friend and I value her. I don't need to dig down to know that.

What DO you need to do to know that? How do you KNOW that you value her? What DATA is that conclusion based on?

It is immediately evident through my senses.

No, it is not. Your senses give you feedback about the state of the external world just as a camera "sees" the things it records, but a camera can only take pictures of your wife; it cannot value her.

The only evidence we have of values comes from our built-in pleasure pain mechanism, feelings, and emotions which cannot be accessed by extrospection. The only knowledge we have of values -- whether you realize it or not -- comes from introspection.

[RayK 0]

As I have pointed out. I am shallow. You are deep. I have been shallow for nearly 75 years. Apparently it has not done me any harm. The way I look at, if it ain't broke don't fix and if it smiles at you, smile right back.

You are not shallow, you are illogical.

[JohnRgt 0]

As I have pointed out. I am shallow. You are deep. I have been shallow for nearly 75 years. Apparently it has not done me any harm. The way I look at, if it ain't broke don't fix and if it smiles at you, smile right back.

But by what data and method does one conclude that X approach to life -- X philosophy -- hasn't done one any harm?

[Scott A. 0]

And one thing for sure. I do not consider my condition a deficiency. I consider it an advantage (like being double jointed, in a way). Or being ambidextrous. I can do things you probably cannot. Of course there is somewhat of a downside. Social things, like reading body language, face language and reading "between the lines" did not come naturally or easily to me. I had to work on that. The biggest disadvantage was producing hostile reactions in neurotypicals. So I just learned to camouflage my differences, not to deceive, mind you, but to avoid unnecessary trouble...Well what does one do when one finds himself in a strange country? He learns the geography, he learns the language, he learns the customs and he learns to avoid the hazards.

Thanks for sharing this, ruveyn. I have not worked directly with people who have autism or Asperger's, but have read a lot and wrote a paper on Asperger's in graduate school. Asperger's typically isn't diagnosed until children enter school, as they reach prior developmental milestones within normal time frames. It is in school--when social interaction becomes more prominent and important--that kids with Asperger's have the kinds of issues you list above and are picked up by adults (and other children). The way you have worked with these things in your life is very interesting.

I won't try to convince you to change your mind about introspection, as you seem fixed in your beliefs. However, I would suggest that you have engaged in a lot more introspection than you may think. All of the problem-solving you do undoubtedly involves metacognition--thinking about thinking--which is a form (or particular focus) of introspection.

Please understand that Aspies do not generally consider themselves handicapped. We are the next phase of human evolution. We are The Next Big Thing.

Perhaps you mean this tongue-in-cheek, and I actually hope you do. I can understand (and support) not letting the fact of having Asperger's chronically injure one's self-esteem or hold one back in pursuing values. On the other hand, it is not an appropriate thing on which to base one's self-esteem or, especially, one's status in relation to others. It is not an issue of inferiority or superiority. It just is.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

I won't try to convince you to change your mind about introspection, as you seem fixed in your beliefs. However, I would suggest that you have engaged in a lot more introspection than you may think. All of the problem-solving you do undoubtedly involves metacognition--thinking about thinking--which is a form (or particular focus) of introspection.

base one's self-esteem or, especially, one's status in relation to others. It is not an issue of inferiority or superiority. It just is.

yup. It just is. Like having two arms.

Now as to metacognition, human thought has a recursive structure. There is a degree of self-reference in any complicated thought process. Like trying to remember what you tried to remember and trying to remember what you forgot. That is a structural property of human intellection. However that can be Outward directed as well as Inward directed. I prefer to spend time thinking about what is Out There rather than In Here. I do not believe the "deep me" is all that important or interesting. What is Out There is where it is at. We live in the world and we must spend our time paying attention to and understanding what is Out There. If our biological ancestors had introspected overly much they would have been eaten by predators and we would not be here to talk about it.

As I said, just about the only introspection that I am aware of doing is to recall thinking that led me to make errors. It's purpose is error correction and avoidance of error. I rarely drill down and then only if I have to. The world is a grand happening. Why should I spend one minute drilling down unnecessarily when all the Good Stuff is happening outside my skin? That is like staying indoors on a beautiful glorious day. Out There is beauty and adventure. In Here is murky dimness and error. Drilling down (for me) is like cleaning out a clogged up drain trap. At best it is a necessary yucchy task. I am in the World. The world is not in me.

ruveyn

[Carlos 0]

I avoid feeling as much as I possibly can. Feelings will mislead. Emotion is a third rate form of cognition.

I have a few comments about this.

1. Emotion is not supposed to be a form of cognition, according to Objectivism. Emotions are not tools of cognition at all. They are merely your subconscious mind's automatic reports to you on your own past choices and actions, applied to present stimuli. Only one's conscious, reasoning mind can assess whether or not past habits are validly applicable to new challenges.

2. Do you experience happiness? Happiness is mostly emotional and is (in Objectivism) man's ultimate reward of successful living. If you avoid feeling as much as you possibly can, does that mean you try to avoid ever feeling happy, too?

3. If you do allow yourself to feel happy, do you ever experience any kind of self-doubt about whether you are happy about the right things in life and for the right (life-furthering) reasons? Do you then just suppress the doubt until adverse consequences become too massive to be avoided any longer?

Feelings are an automatic response to one's values. So, shutting them down is illogical and something that you cannot actually do unless you of course have no values. Anger, fear, sadness, compassion and more all come whether you want them to or not. Without questioning why you are feeling those emotions (introspecting), you will most likely be full of contradictions.

Automatic for you, maybe. I am wired differently from you NeuroTypicals. I am an Aspie (Aspberger's Syndrome) and (most likely) a high functioning autistic.

I have values which I came by via hard work. What for you is natural and automatic, I had to learn by the numbers (so to speak). It took me over forty years to pass for human.

ruveyn

Ruveyn, you've dropped a small "bombshell" here that I don't think has fully "sunk in" for most of us. Autism of any kind, including Asperger Syndrome, is clearly a very serious disorder, and of genetic origin as far as anyone knows at present, usually manifesting itself at a very young age (toddler stage or earlier) -- although there is considerable controversy at present about whether or not it might in many cases be the result of environmental factors occurring some years later, such as the Mercury formerly used as a preservative in children's vaccines. You are truly to be congratulated for your own impressive success at overcoming AS after a 40-year struggle! (It is primarily for "Neuro-typicals" that Ayn Rand writes.)

On the other hand, you do seem to have free will, since you consciously strive to avoid feeling, as much as you possibly can. Is that really the only hope you have of being able to cope with your mental condition in a "high-functioning" manner? I also wonder about the validity of consciously asserting mental deficiency as a justification for actions that one performs, or refuses to perform when needed. Such conscious justifications may themselves be evidence to the contrary.

I also want to say congratulations on your hard work, and thank you for writing about your experiences with it. Autism and Asperger Syndrome are very unusual and difficult to understand from my (our) outside perspective.

[RayK 0]

As I said, just about the only introspection that I am aware of doing is to recall thinking that led me to make errors. It's purpose is error correction and avoidance of error. I rarely drill down and then only if I have to. The world is a grand happening. Why should I spend one minute drilling down unnecessarily when all the Good Stuff is happening outside my skin? That is like staying indoors on a beautiful glorious day. Out There is beauty and adventure. In Here is murky dimness and error. Drilling down (for me) is like cleaning out a clogged up drain trap. At best it is a necessary yucchy task. I am in the World. The world is not in me.

We are born tabula rasa. So, if you have a "yucchy" mess to clean up it is primarily the lack of introspection (along with other things) on your part which is the reason for your "yucchy" mess in the first place. But, buidling up that "yucchy" mess has been working for you for almost 75 years so I hope you keep enjoying the buildup of all those 'yucchy" "clogged up drains" in a nonintegrated way.

Without introspeciton how does one apply virtues such as; rationality, integrity, justice, honesty, independence, productiveness, pride and more in an integrated life enhancing way? Virtues are acts that one takes to achive values or in other words vitures are morality in motion. Without introspection how would a person know if an action or another person is good or bad, life enhancing or life threating? Introspection and the applying of virtues are what allow us to achieve happiness and live.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Without introspeciton how does one apply virtues such as; rationality, integrity, justice, honesty, independence, productiveness, pride and more in an integrated life enhancing way? Virtues are acts that one takes to achive values or in other words vitures are morality in motion. Without introspection how would a person know if an action or another person is good or bad, life enhancing or life threating? Introspection and the applying of virtues are what allow us to achieve happiness and live.

How do you distinguish between introspection and just plain thinking?

ruveyn

[Betsy Speicher 0]

How do you distinguish between introspection and just plain thinking?

Both introspection and extrospection are types of thinking. The difference between the two is what you are thinking about.

If you are thinking about something outside yourself like the book you are reading, the traffic you are driving in, the smell of dinner cooking, or your grandchildren, that is extrospection.

If you are thinking about something in your body or mind like how happy you are to see your wife, or why you made a particular mistake, or that you are hungry and your feet hurt, you are introspecting.

Introspecting literally means looking inside while extrospection means looking outside.

[Scott A. 0]

Now as to metacognition, human thought has a recursive structure. There is a degree of self-reference in any complicated thought process.

I'm not sure how you mean "self-reference" here. Metacognition is self-monitoring, analysis, and judgment (in terms of cognition). Self-reference is something else.

Like trying to remember what you tried to remember and trying to remember what you forgot. That is a structural property of human intellection.

Trying to remember something is a cognitive process (action), not a structure. That one has material in his subconscious that can be accessed by conscious awareness speaks to the structure of the mind, but the act of remembering is a process.

I prefer to spend time thinking about what is Out There rather than In Here. I do not believe the "deep me" is all that important or interesting. What is Out There is where it is at.

ruveyn, it is your "deep self" that spends its time thinking about the things external to you. Your self, fundamentally, is your conscious awareness of reality. That's what makes one's "deep me" incredibly important and interesting. You indicate that you spend most of your time focused externally, and I believe you. But it is YOU, your SELF, that is doing that.

I think part of the issue here is that we may have differing understandings of the self. Your comments suggest that you see a split between your conscious awareness and some inner, "deep" self that is almost like another person (and one you don't particularly care for). Am I correct in this?

If our biological ancestors had introspected overly much they would have been eaten by predators and we would not be here to talk about it.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. However, I don't expect either of us will change our minds, so we don't need to debate it.

The world is a grand happening. Why should I spend one minute drilling down unnecessarily when all the Good Stuff is happening outside my skin? That is like staying indoors on a beautiful glorious day.

I agree with your outlook on the world. And there is something to the idea of reaching a certain point or age at which one has introspected enough to make it less necessary, as he has thorough knowledge and acceptance of himself. However, this does not remove the necessity of introspection. Volition doesn't end with self-knowledge, and good choices in reality require good introspection, always.

Out There is beauty and adventure. In Here is murky dimness and error. Drilling down (for me) is like cleaning out a clogged up drain trap. At best it is a necessary yucchy task.

I'm truly sorry to know that this is how you view what's inside you. It is a very Freudian view. I don't agree with Freud's premises about the nature of Man's mind. Certainly there are embodiments of his view, but I hope you are not one of them. That being said, you are free to evaluate yourself in any way you choose, correctly or incorrectly.

[Ifat Glassman 0]

We are born tabula rasa. So, if you have a "yucchy" mess to clean up it is primarily the lack of introspection (along with other things) on your part which is the reason for your "yucchy" mess in the first place. But, buidling up that "yucchy" mess has been working for you for almost 75 years so I hope you keep enjoying the buildup of all those 'yucchy" "clogged up drains" in a nonintegrated way.

Without introspeciton how does one apply virtues such as; rationality, integrity, justice, honesty, independence, productiveness, pride and more in an integrated life enhancing way? Virtues are acts that one takes to achive values or in other words vitures are morality in motion. Without introspection how would a person know if an action or another person is good or bad, life enhancing or life threating? Introspection and the applying of virtues are what allow us to achieve happiness and live.

The answer is that one does not apply virtues.

He says himself how bad his own inner state feels like. He just chooses to continue to evade it.

Notice that he is generally curious, educated and willing to gain knowledge about many different fields, but the question of WHY he feels so bad inside - he prefers to leave locked, and never ever understand it. Does this strike you as rational?

The only thing I do not understand, Reuven, is why do you choose to post here and debate about introspection? By your own admission, your inner state is a murky mess. By your own choice, you do not want to look inside and understand why or try to fix it. You think this is the wise choice to make. What else is left to talk about, then? Why do you want to debate if this is a good or a bad choice if you are already so sure of your position?

[bborg 0]

I see no reason to get personal here. Ruveyn has been very open and honest about his views on this topic, knowing that people would have serious disagreements. And frankly I've seen people post on this forum with far less constructive things to say and said with a lot less respect. It's not right to attack his motives for posting.

[Carlos 0]

I see no reason to get personal here. Ruveyn has been very open and honest about his views on this topic, knowing that people would have serious disagreements. And frankly I've seen people post on this forum with far less constructive things to say and said with a lot less respect. It's not right to attack his motives for posting.

Agreed

[RayK 0]

I see no reason to get personal here. Ruveyn has been very open and honest about his views on this topic, knowing that people would have serious disagreements. And frankly I've seen people post on this forum with far less constructive things to say and said with a lot less respect. It's not right to attack his motives for posting.

I disagree. We have no idea what Ruveyn's motives are as we cannot read his mind. So, if a person (not specifically Ruveyn) comes to this site then they should follow the rules and guidelines set up by Stephen and Betsy Speicher as it was/is their/her site. But, When a person seems to be in disagreement with Ayn Rand on many aspects of Objectivism and ignores multiple attempts to try and understand their reasons for many different things, than one will have to conclude with the evidence that has been given (that person's posts) what one's motives are. When someone seems to be acting in an opposite way then what has been set as the guidelines and rules, then one might set upon that person with words, in other words attack.

"The main purpose of THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans is to discuss and trade knowledge and values -- particularly about Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism -- in an atmosphere of benevolence and mutual respect. To make sure this happens, please observe the following rules and guidelines.

1) You do not have to have knowledge of, or agree with, all of Objectivism, but you should be here because you value Ayn Rand's ideas and want to learn more about them. If your goal is to argue with, "convert," exploit, or insult Ayn Rand, her ideas, her admirers, and/or the Ayn Rand Institute, this is definitely not the place for you. Trolling[*], proselytizing, and flaming posts will be deleted, and those who post them may be permanently banned."

[Betsy Speicher 0]

But, When a person seems to be in disagreement with Ayn Rand on many aspects of Objectivism and ignores multiple attempts to try and understand their reasons for many different things, than one will have to conclude with the evidence that has been given (that person's posts) what one's motives are.

I don't think so. I've known "ruveyn" and interacted with him on the internet for over a decade. He's a quirky character with some strange opinions, but an honest and valuing soul who genuinely appreciates Ayn Rand and is making a heroic effort -- especially for him -- to follow the FORUM rules. He is also 75 years old and quite set in his ways, so don't expect him to change much.