Objectivist Dropouts

[Betsy Speicher 0]

In the four decades that I have been associated with Objectivism, I have seen 80-90% of the people I went to lectures and conferences with, and considered my best friends and teachers, drop out. I have watched and studied them so carefully that I now know what to look for and I can pretty accurately predict who will eventually drop out and why.

Most of the people who drop out of Objectivism were once sincerely devoted to it. Their problem was that, in one way or another, they were seeking something from Objectivism that it could not give them.

What did they want? Many different things. There are as many wrong reasons to affiliate with Objectivism as there are wrong answers to the problem 2 + 2 = ?. Still, there are some common goals and personality types among the dropouts.

THE REBEL

The Rebel is attracted to Objectivism because of what it is against: the authorities and standards that he wishes to reject. Objectivism intimidates his parents, stymies his teachers, and grosses out his minister -- and that's why he loves it. "Who does [Dad, Rev. Mills, the boss, etc.] think he is, telling me what to do?" is his battle cry as he takes up Objectivism with a vengeance.

Eventually, he discovers that Objectivism is for something. Objectivism has standards. Objectivists expect him to actually be and do something specific. "Who does [Ayn Rand, Peikoff, Schwartz, etc.] think they are, telling me what to do?" he cries as he drops out and becomes a libertarian.

THE LOST LAMB

The Lost Lamb just wants to belong and to be loved. He's been rejected by the Peter Keatings, so he seeks validation and acceptance from the people who reject the Peter Keatings: Objectivists.

He tries to fit in by espousing all the right ideas and participating in all the appropriate activities. It does work for a while until someone disagrees with him or doesn't give him enough attention and approval. Then he's shattered.

It's all their fault, he decides. Those Objectivists are too damn judgemental. He drops out and looks for a place to belong and someone who will accept and tolerate him no matter what he is or does.

He may find David Kelley.

THE TRUE BELIEVER

Eric Hoffer wrote about the man who looks for a Great Cause to give meaning to his otherwise meaningless life. It has to have an Infallible Leader whom he can follow and who will shield him from personal responsibility.

A True Believer can be the most dedicated and zealous Objectivist you ever saw. He constantly defends us -- Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, ARI, etc. -- against them -- theists, libertarians, any Lost Lamb he suspects of straying from the Objectivist fold, etc.

True Believers stick tenaciously until they discover, to their horror, that their Infallible Leader may have made a mistake. What did Ayn Rand say about a woman President? Peikoff likes Beethoven? Objectivist leaders are disagreeing with each other?

He doesn't know what to believe or who to follow, so he just gives up and drops out. Great Causes are interchangeable, so you never know where he'll turn up next.

THE EXPLOITER

An Exploiter is attracted by the fact that Ayn Rand was a strong and famous personality with many loyal supporters -- and he wants a piece of the action. The Exploiter seeks followers and paying customers from among the ranks of Objectivists.

Exploiters have included some knowledgeable and intelligent former Objectivist teachers, leaders, spokesman, and wannabe spokesmen, people with a political agenda, as well as the totally clueless proponents of get rich quick schemes and "Objectivist" countries in Costa Rican jungles.

Since Objectivists don't like being exploited, Exploiters don't have to drop out. They are eventually ignored, sued, ridiculed, or kicked out.

----

The Rebels, Lost Lambs, True Believers and Exploiters drop out.

The good news is: the real Objectivists stay.

[piz 0]

In the four decades that I have been associated with Objectivism, I have seen 80-90% of the people I went to lectures and conferences with, and considered my best friends and teachers, drop out. I have watched and studied them so carefully that I now know what to look for and I can pretty accurately predict who will eventually drop out and why.

Most of the people who drop out of Objectivism were once sincerely devoted to it. Their problem was that, in one way or another, they were seeking something from Objectivism that it could not give them.

What did they want? Many different things. There are as many wrong reasons to affiliate with Objectivism as there are wrong answers to the problem 2 + 2 = ?. Still, there are some common goals and personality types among the dropouts.

I wonder how many of us can find something of ourselves reflected in each of your categories. Here are mine:

THE REBEL

The Rebel is attracted to Objectivism because of what it is against: the authorities and standards that he wishes to reject. Objectivism intimidates his parents, stymies his teachers, and grosses out his minister -- and that's why he loves it. "Who does [Dad, Rev. Mills, the boss, etc.] think he is, telling me what to do?" is his battle cry as he takes up Objectivism with a vengeance.

Eventually, he discovers that Objectivism is for something. Objectivism has standards. Objectivists expect him to actually be and do something specific. "Who does [Ayn Rand, Peikoff, Schwartz, etc.] think they are, telling me what to do?" he cries as he drops out and becomes a libertarian.

I was a rebel for most of my life. I didn't like what was around me: in my family, many of my friends, my schools, my jobs - you name it, I rejected it. I was always trying to do what I thought was right, not just being some kind of nihilist, but I had no definable idea why I had problems with the things I did. Objectivism gave me the means to figure it out. I might have eventually become a rebel within Objectivism, because at first I thought it was just another set of pronouncements from on high. Then, among so much else, I read this:

"Consider the reasons which make us certain that we are right," said Hugh Akston, "but not the fact that we are certain. If you are not convinced, ignore our certainty. Don't be tempted to substitute our judgment for your own."

Problem solved.

THE LOST LAMB

The Lost Lamb just wants to belong and to be loved. He's been rejected by the Peter Keatings, so he seeks validation and acceptance from the people who reject the Peter Keatings: Objectivists.

He tries to fit in by espousing all the right ideas and participating in all the appropriate activities. It does work for a while until someone disagrees with him or doesn't give him enough attention and approval. Then he's shattered.

It's all their fault, he decides. Those Objectivists are too damn judgemental. He drops out and looks for a place to belong and someone who will accept and tolerate him no matter what he is or does.

He may find David Kelley.

If anything, I suffer from this. I have had a tendency to take criticism and disagreement very hard, and very personally. I've improved a lot over the years, especially the last few. Anyway, even when I've been disappointed by fellow Objectivists (real and otherwise), I've never found a reason to fault the philosophy, so if I "leave" (not that it's at all likely), I'll just become an Objectivist loner.

THE TRUE BELIEVER

Eric Hoffer wrote about the man who looks for a Great Cause to give meaning to his otherwise meaningless life. It has to have an Infallible Leader whom he can follow and who will shield him from personal responsibility.

A True Believer can be the most dedicated and zealous Objectivist you ever saw. He constantly defends us -- Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, ARI, etc. -- against them -- theists, libertarians, any Lost Lamb he suspects of straying from the Objectivist fold, etc.

True Believers stick tenaciously until they discover, to their horror, that their Infallible Leader may have made a mistake. What did Ayn Rand say about a woman President? Peikoff likes Beethoven? Objectivist leaders are disagreeing with each other?

He doesn't know what to believe or who to follow, so he just gives up and drops out. Great Causes are interchangeable, so you never know where he'll turn up next.

Having accepted an implicit altruist base for what amounted to my philosophy before finding Objectivism, I bought into the idea of being part of something bigger than myself. When I first learned that there was an "Objectivist movement," shortly after I found Objectivism, I thought that might be my "bigger" thing. It didn't take long for me to learn better, and it's no longer any part of my thinking.

On another front, when I first found Objectivism I suffered from the fanaticism of the convert, so in that sense I was a real True Believer. Man, was I obnoxious! I got over it. Interestingly, I got over it not because my passion diminished, as I suspect is usually the case with converts, but because as time went by I integrated more and more of a philosophy I at first accepted essentially on faith (because I knew it was right with no clue why yet). Objectivism itself taught me that that initial militant phase, and accepting anything on faith, was the wrong way to go.

THE EXPLOITER

An Exploiter is attracted by the fact that Ayn Rand was a strong and famous personality with many loyal supporters -- and he wants a piece of the action. The Exploiter seeks followers and paying customers from among the ranks of Objectivists.

Exploiters have included some knowledgeable and intelligent former Objectivist teachers, leaders, spokesman, and wannabe spokesmen, people with a political agenda, as well as the totally clueless proponents of get rich quick schemes and "Objectivist" countries in Costa Rican jungles.

Since Objectivists don't like being exploited, Exploiters don't have to drop out. They are eventually ignored, sued, ridiculed, or kicked out.

Hell yes, I want customers! Buy stuff at my store! Go, now!

Oh, right, that's not what you meant by exploitation. OK then: I despise followers and and I wouldn't know how to use philosophy (or anything else) as a scam even if I wanted to, so no problem.

By the way, you're not suggesting that New Utopia is a con game, are you?

The Rebels, Lost Lambs, True Believers and Exploiters drop out.

The good news is: the real Objectivists stay.

Here I am, coming up on my 10th anniversary. Can't imagine going anywhere else.

[KurtColville 0]

That's an interesting post, Betsy. Would you say that that's an exhaustive list? I'm trying to think of other types, but can't off the top of my head. Oh, one might be the person to whom Objectivism's emphasis on logical consistency appeals, because they use it to one-up people in arguments. Their interest in Objectivism is that it provides them with the intellectual ammunition to beat people up with debates. They view getting in and winning arguments as such as a primary value and get a lot of self-esteem from doing so. I don't know -- they could be part of "The Rebel" class. There's a definite tinge of social metaphysics in them. Maybe they could be called "The Pugilists".

What about categories of those who stick with Objectivism and come at it from very different angles? I'm always amazed at folks who grew up devout theists or socialists, and who somehow had the intellectual honesty and love of life to shed all that weight.

[PhilO 0]

By the way, you're not suggesting that New Utopia is a con game, are you?

There've been a number of hopelessly unrealistic attempts along those lines. At the same time, there are also very small countries in the world that have international recognition, including as recently as Israel in 1948. No country will be made by stupid Libertarians who think they can "contract" their national defense to the sovereign government of another actual country, or who considers the issue of a government unimportant, but fortunately humanity is not limited to such failures, nor is it limited to those who consider it some grim necessity to tolerate irrational societies and their duty to die with such societies if they cannot change them from within, like some band playing on the deck of the Titanic.

[bborg 0]

I wonder how many of us can find something of ourselves reflected in each of your categories. Here are mine:

I think you're being hard on yourself. It sounds like you were someone who knew something was wrong with the world, and you were excited to find others who agreed with you. Most of us had altruist premises we had to get rid of.

I don't know if my motivations fit anywhere in the categories. I was in high school and felt a bit like an outcast. I had stopped going to Church with my family, I was reading more and didn't connect with my friends anymore. I was more introverted, wrote more in my diary and would often times go walking to think to myself. I especially liked going out to the field behind my school, where I'd have privacy and I could talk out loud. Even though I wasn't going to Church, I did believe in God (mainly I just thought Church was useless) and tried to work things out with him on a personal level. In hindsight, I think maybe I was a little crazy. At first, in the very beginning I mean, what appealed to me about Objectivism was that it gave me a purpose, a fight. I had wanted a reason for feeling lonely, some reason for the way I was. It basically was a substitute for the purpose I never got from God. It feels bizarre to write that and I didn't think about it that way until now, but looking back that's how I felt.

But, to give myself credit, I could have chosen any other belief system to be my "cause". Objectivism was the only one that made me feel that way. Actually although I rid myself of God long ago, I think it wasn't until last year that I was finally able to free myself of that rationalistic, duty-bound purpose to "fight for a cause". For a long time I even felt like it was OK if I wasn't happy if it meant I was "in the fight", which was so ridiculously contrary to Objectivism I don't understand why I didn't see it. And I couldn't motivate myself to do what I'd convinced myself that "fight the fight" meant (go back to school in philosophy), so I was just going to waste the rest of my life away feeling disappointed with myself. It's no wonder that my life got better once I corrected that...

[Arnold 0]

A good summary Betsy, that I think can be expanded on. It reminds me of when I was a child, and naively thought that the cause of conflict in the world, was a lack of understanding, and that if we used reason, we would understand each other. My point being that I had to learn that just because one uses reason, one should not forget that there are many motives for doing so. This is what you point out.

The simple motive of wanting to understand the world around us, and our place in it, is not as common as I once thought, although I didn't think it was as high a percentage as you have found.

I think that this essay is important, because it addresses indirectly the other question of why the uptake of Objectivism is slower than we anticipate. My own thoughts are that self deception, a major dishonesty, is the source, not a lack of intelligence. One doesn't have to be intelligent to be honest.

[Rose Lake 0]

A good summary Betsy, that I think can be expanded on. It reminds me of when I was a child, and naively thought that the cause of conflict in the world, was a lack of understanding, and that if we used reason, we would understand each other. My point being that I had to learn that just because one uses reason, one should not forget that there are many motives for doing so. This is what you point out.

The simple motive of wanting to understand the world around us, and our place in it, is not as common as I once thought, although I didn't think it was as high a percentage as you have found.

I think that this essay is important, because it addresses indirectly the other question of why the uptake of Objectivism is slower than we anticipate. My own thoughts are that self deception, a major dishonesty, is the source, not a lack of intelligence. One doesn't have to be intelligent to be honest.

It's interesting that you say this about self-deception. I was wondering what the common denominator is among those who remain Objectivists, who seem to me to be quite a varied group. And the one thing I came up with, though I wasn't sure that it's right is: Those who remain Objectivists are incapable of lying to themselves, at least on the scale that would be necessary to reject such fundamental truths, once they have been understood. And maybe for most (all?) who leave Objectivism, they never understood it, and if there are others who did understand, they are lying on the scale necessary to deny the fundamental truths that they previously knew. Is a lie on that scale possible? It must be, if we take it for granted that, say, N.B. understood the fundamentals of Objectivism (however, I don't know that I can be sure of that).

But I should just say that by "understand" I might mean something different from what is conventionally meant. I mean understanding "all the way down" as Ayn Rand put it. This, normally, is accompanied by emotional changes, which follow the intellectual ones. I wonder if those who leave Objectivism never understood it "all the way down," which requires a certain competency at introspection, whether one had to learn this as a new skill or not.

I mean, I think there are plenty of highly intelligent people who, nevertheless, do not introspect well, i.e. who do not understand themselves. And it seems to me that understanding one's self in relation to Objectivism is necessary, to the degree that it is possible to any individual, in order to remain an Objectivist.

This is VERY much a thought process, as opposed to something that I think I know, btw.

[Paul's Here 0]

In the four decades that I have been associated with Objectivism, I have seen 80-90% of the people I went to lectures and conferences with, and considered my best friends and teachers, drop out. I have watched and studied them so carefully that I now know what to look for and I can pretty accurately predict who will eventually drop out and why.

Most of the people who drop out of Objectivism were once sincerely devoted to it. Their problem was that, in one way or another, they were seeking something from Objectivism that it could not give them.

Within my experience, I think that is the essence of the issue. It indicates that there are psychological factors that predate one's conscious decisions about Objectivism when it is first encountered. Even for those that remain Objectivists, it is because Objectivism provides something that they seek. In the latter case, one acquires a fully integrated awareness of one's motivations and the philosophic principles involved. I have seen people reject religion, use Objectivism for a while, and then revert and become Orthodox or more religious than they were before.

I am curious, Betsy, if you think that the categories below are exhaustive or are there other categories that individuals could be grouped into. Could you expand more on the catagories you provided?

[Scott A. 0]

THE REBEL

THE LOST LAMB

THE TRUE BELIEVER

THE EXPLOITER

This is really great, Betsy! Thank you for posting it. By the way, did you post this on HBL not so long ago (past couple of years)?

[Scott A. 0]

Within my experience, I think that is the essence of the issue. It indicates that there are psychological factors that predate one's conscious decisions about Objectivism when it is first encountered.

I agree. If you'll excuse the presumption, this was the basic theme of an essay I wrote on THE FORUM some time ago. Specifically, I wrote:

In brief, I propose that what people take from and especially how they use Objectivism is largely based on what they bring to it, psychologically. Two people with very different psychologies and sets of motivations can nevertheless become serious, knowledgeable, or even accomplished Objectivists. However, the difference between them, in this context, is not primarily concerned with levels of achievement. Instead, it is manifest in each person’s reaction to and use of Objectivism. These things are indicators of a person’s psychology, particularly his self-concept and the personality that is built around it (which includes emotional reactions and behavior).

Philosophy and psychology, within a person, are interwoven. But it can be a complicated fabric depending on the person.

[Paul's Here 0]

-----------------

It's interesting that you say this about self-deception. I was wondering what the common denominator is among those who remain Objectivists, who seem to me to be quite a varied group. And the one thing I came up with, though I wasn't sure that it's right is: Those who remain Objectivists are incapable of lying to themselves, at least on the scale that would be necessary to reject such fundamental truths, once they have been understood.

I don't think that is the case. Most adults who find Objectivism already have a psychological context for their value choices. These choices are not so easily changed or even understood even though the "fundamental truths" may be understood to some extent. It took me many, many years of struggling to overcome psychological habits that I had acquired as a youth. I didn't view the struggle as an inability to lie to myself. I wanted to understand my self and to live a happy life. If I had to name one virtue more than any other, it would be independence, with integrity a close second.

And maybe for most (all?) who leave Objectivism, they never understood it, and if there are others who did understand, they are lying on the scale necessary to deny the fundamental truths that they previously knew. Is a lie on that scale possible? It must be, if we take it for granted that, say, N.B. understood the fundamentals of Objectivism (however, I don't know that I can be sure of that).

Again, I wouldn't call it lying. It's a lack of independence.

But I should just say that by "understand" I might mean something different from what is conventionally meant. I mean understanding "all the way down" as Ayn Rand put it. This, normally, is accompanied by emotional changes, which follow the intellectual ones. I wonder if those who leave Objectivism never understood it "all the way down," which requires a certain competency at introspection, whether one had to learn this as a new skill or not.

That is a interesting point, but it leaves unanswered the question of at what point does this understanding "all the way down" become effective to prevent someone from turning away from Objectivism? If someone is committed to understanding Objectivism but has not achieved "all the way down" at any given point in his development, does this constitute a point at which he might reject Objectivism?

Also, it is important to remember that volition is a principle factor. That someone understands an issue does not determine that that knowledge will be applied to any given issue or context. Errors are possible; and some errors may cause psychological damage that cannot be easily repaired by philosophic understanding.

I mean, I think there are plenty of highly intelligent people who, nevertheless, do not introspect well, i.e. who do not understand themselves. And it seems to me that understanding one's self in relation to Objectivism is necessary, to the degree that it is possible to any individual, in order to remain an Objectivist.

This is VERY much a thought process, as opposed to something that I think I know, btw.

Introspection is absolutely essential to learn so that principles can be integrated into one's psychological premises.

[Red 0]

I wonder how many of us can find something of ourselves reflected in each of your categories. Here are mine:

I think you're being hard on yourself. It sounds like you were someone who knew something was wrong with the world, and you were excited to find others who agreed with you. Most of us had altruist premises we had to get rid of.

I don't know if my motivations fit anywhere in the categories. I was in high school and felt a bit like an outcast. I had stopped going to Church with my family, I was reading more and didn't connect with my friends anymore. I was more introverted, wrote more in my diary and would often times go walking to think to myself. I especially liked going out to the field behind my school, where I'd have privacy and I could talk out loud. Even though I wasn't going to Church, I did believe in God (mainly I just thought Church was useless) and tried to work things out with him on a personal level. In hindsight, I think maybe I was a little crazy. At first, in the very beginning I mean, what appealed to me about Objectivism was that it gave me a purpose, a fight. I had wanted a reason for feeling lonely, some reason for the way I was. It basically was a substitute for the purpose I never got from God. It feels bizarre to write that and I didn't think about it that way until now, but looking back that's how I felt.

But, to give myself credit, I could have chosen any other belief system to be my "cause". Objectivism was the only one that made me feel that way. Actually although I rid myself of God long ago, I think it wasn't until last year that I was finally able to free myself of that rationalistic, duty-bound purpose to "fight for a cause". For a long time I even felt like it was OK if I wasn't happy if it meant I was "in the fight", which was so ridiculously contrary to Objectivism I don't understand why I didn't see it. And I couldn't motivate myself to do what I'd convinced myself that "fight the fight" meant (go back to school in philosophy), so I was just going to waste the rest of my life away feeling disappointed with myself. It's no wonder that my life got better once I corrected that...

I think this is quite common and not strange at all. Whatever philosophy one had before finding Objectivism it must have had some psychological effects. So in a way you are not only throwing out the bad philosophy but there's also a bad psychology to take care of. This also makes it possible to discover Objectivism for all the wrong reasons but stay with the philosophy for all the right reasons.

Somewhere along the road it's just a choice of either evading or being honest. Evaders are the ones who drop out because they never resolve their issues. Honest people eventually(because it will take time) recognize their mistakes, however stupid or messed up they might be, and fix them.

---

Regarding the different categories for drop-outs i'd like to add one:

The infiltrator

I don't know if these people really are interested in the philosophy to begin with, maybe some are, but what they find is not what they expected.

What i'm reffering to here are often very intelligent people who quickly grasp the philosophy, and soon they are looking at themselves in a mirror(which shows the darkest depths of their own psychology). This person sees exactly what he is and he does not like it, but what he truly hates is the fact that the philosophy allows others to also see it. That's why his motivation is destruction.

Often these people start by just questioning the philosophy. At first it seems innocent and the questions are often very intelligent, so it's easy to take the bait. Over time though you start to notice that the purpose of the questioning is not to find answers but to create doubt, something which they will use to slowly try and tear everything down. They seem like honest and rational people, friends even, but eventually their maelvolence gets exposed.

Thought I should mention them because they are the really bad ones.

[bborg 0]

I think this is quite common and not strange at all. Whatever philosophy one had before finding Objectivism it must have had some psychological effects. So in a way you are not only throwing out the bad philosophy but there's also a bad psychology to take care of. This also makes it possible to discover Objectivism for all the wrong reasons but stay with the philosophy for all the right reasons.

Thanks, and no doubt that's true. It still feels weird, looking back though. I wouldn't say I was drawn to Objectivism for "all the wrong reasons"; the one I named here was bad, but there were also very good reasons. I think actually caring what the truth is, not permitting "gray areas" in knowledge or judgment, was the biggest reason I stuck with it.

Still, you bring up a good point. How possible is it for people falling under Betsy's categories to change?

[piz 0]

How possible is it for people falling under Betsy's categories to change?

I think it's extremely difficult for any of Betsy's four types to change. (The same goes for The Infiltrator, if we're adding that category.) What I see in common among them is no desire to change: each has something deeper than Objectivism that led them to (nominally) accept it, and failing to (or being unwilling to) root out and correct that deeper, invalid premise, of which each might not even be aware, is what leads to their dropping out. They want Objectivism to be what they want it to be, not what it is, and when it doesn't match their desires they leave. What they never understand, and either never become aware of or never want to understand, is that, since Objectivism is reality-based, what fails to conform to their desires is reality itself--they engage in a form of primacy of consciousness. They also never understand that they're never going to find something that does what they want (i.e. defies reality), so they'll spend their lives being disappointed by whatever they latch on to.

For example, I could easily have become a Lost Lamb but, while I've always had too much need for acceptance, what's been even deeper for me my whole life is the desire to know what's true. That's why, whenever I've felt disappontment with particular Objectivists, I either discovered that the fault was mine or that their errors or sins were not the fault of the philosophy. If a desire to be accepted had been my base, I'd have been gone in the first month, after writing an impassioned letter to Dr. Peikoff, full of the wonder of what I had just discovered in my first reading of Atlas Shrugged, only to get a terse reply from some assistant telling me that Dr. Peikoff was too busy to respond to such things. A true lost lamb would have been crushed by the "rejection" and given up because he hadn't been awarded the metaphorical hug he was looking for. I admit I was bothered by it (I had a lot more Lost Lamb in me back then), but I moved on and I'm still here.

Other than online I haven't had many interactions or friendships with Objectivists, so I can't give examples of actual Objectivists I've known well enough to evaluate thoroughly. But I have seen this in some of the people I am or used to be close to. Nothing ever really makes them happy, and they continually jump from project to project, or idea to idea, or relationship to relationship, looking for that impossible "something" that will make their life what their wishes say it should be. It's always something external that they want to fill the hole in their soul, without their having do do anything to achieve or earn it. Like Lillian Rearden, they want something outside themselves to determine what their happiness should consist of, and then for that something to grant it to them, continually and free of charge. Unlike Lillian, they never identify this to themselves so that they can state it as openly as she does to Hank. So they flit from disappointment to disappointment, never figuring out why their lives are so miserable, and blame everyone and everything but themselves for their unhappiness.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

That's an interesting post, Betsy. Would you say that that's an exhaustive list?

Not at all. Those were the most common types I have seen that were attracted to Objectivism for the wrong reasons. There are others. In addition, there are people attracted to Objectivism for the right reasons who have problems due to psycho-epistemological issues like rationalism or motivational issues like repression or a malevolent universe premise.

What about categories of those who stick with Objectivism and come at it from very different angles? I'm always amazed at folks who grew up devout theists or socialists, and who somehow had the intellectual honesty and love of life to shed all that weight.

There are many different optional ways a person can approach Objectivism since it is a philosophy applicable to all people and to all their dealings with reality. How any particular person approaches it is a matter of personal history and motivation and I find it fascinating to see all the different ways people have found and integrated Objectivism into their own lives.

[Red 0]

I think this is quite common and not strange at all. Whatever philosophy one had before finding Objectivism it must have had some psychological effects. So in a way you are not only throwing out the bad philosophy but there's also a bad psychology to take care of. This also makes it possible to discover Objectivism for all the wrong reasons but stay with the philosophy for all the right reasons.

Thanks, and no doubt that's true. It still feels weird, looking back though. I wouldn't say I was drawn to Objectivism for "all the wrong reasons"; the one I named here was bad, but there were also very good reasons. I think actually caring what the truth is, not permitting "gray areas" in knowledge or judgment, was the biggest reason I stuck with it.

Still, you bring up a good point. How possible is it for people falling under Betsy's categories to change?

I think that weird feeling is a healthy sign. If i look at myself I first found Objectivism when I was 16, and I think I read Atlas when I was 17 or 18. So it's about 10 years since that first introduction. And you know, looking back at when I was a teenager sure feels a bit weird. Some things I can be proud of and others i'd rather forget(like my horrid fashion sense ). But you know, that just shows that a lot of things have happened since. I actually don't even have to look that far back at all, the last few years is enough, and I think that's absolutely fantastic. It's just growth and development, and what would life be without it? And see, if I was not like that back then I would not be who I am today.

Regarding the reasons for being drawn to Objectivism I think it's good to recognize the good ones too. I have given it some thought and found something that could be interesting - perhaps you can relate to the same thing. I have always valued truth, honesty and justice. Now I bet that's something everyone here can relate to in some way, but... have you thought about what made you choose that in the first place? For me the most fundamental aspect has always been that I want to lead a good life, and by trying to figure out what good means all else has followed.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

By the way, did you post this on HBL not so long ago (past couple of years)?

Yes, I did. I actually wrote that a long time ago and have posted it in several places.

[Lady Brin 0]

The good news is: the real Objectivists stay.

Thank you for this great essay Betsey. It answered several questions I ponder from time to time.

I may not possess the qualifications to be a real Objectivist, but I am proud of myself for continuing, hopefully both rationally and objectively, my studies.

[bborg 0]

I think that weird feeling is a healthy sign. If i look at myself I first found Objectivism when I was 16, and I think I read Atlas when I was 17 or 18. So it's about 10 years since that first introduction. And you know, looking back at when I was a teenager sure feels a bit weird. Some things I can be proud of and others i'd rather forget(like my horrid fashion sense ). But you know, that just shows that a lot of things have happened since. I actually don't even have to look that far back at all, the last few years is enough, and I think that's absolutely fantastic. It's just growth and development, and what would life be without it? And see, if I was not like that back then I would not be who I am today.

Well mainly I feel weird about it because some of my beliefs back then were so irrational, like God. I realize that most people in the world believe in a supernatural force, but to think that once I believed in it is so odd.

Regarding the reasons for being drawn to Objectivism I think it's good to recognize the good ones too. I have given it some thought and found something that could be interesting - perhaps you can relate to the same thing. I have always valued truth, honesty and justice. Now I bet that's something everyone here can relate to in some way, but... have you thought about what made you choose that in the first place? For me the most fundamental aspect has always been that I want to lead a good life, and by trying to figure out what good means all else has followed.

Interesting question. I watched the Disney Channel when I was a kid and they used to run the old Zorro TV show (made in the 50s or 60s I think). I loved Zorro, he was my favorite fictional hero growing up. My mom made a tin foil sword for me so I could dress up as him for a couple Halloweens. One year I dressed up as a secret agent or something to that effect, with a trench coat, fedora and cap gun. Even used some face paint to make a mustache. So I could trace my current values to my childhood in the form of concretes like that. Why I was attracted to those things I couldn't really say. To introspect now would give me evidence of my values now, not then.

[Red 0]

I watched the Disney Channel when I was a kid and they used to run the old Zorro TV show (made in the 50s or 60s I think). I loved Zorro, he was my favorite fictional hero growing up. My mom made a tin foil sword for me so I could dress up as him for a couple Halloweens. One year I dressed up as a secret agent or something to that effect, with a trench coat, fedora and cap gun. Even used some face paint to make a mustache. So I could trace my current values to my childhood in the form of concretes like that. Why I was attracted to those things I couldn't really say. To introspect now would give me evidence of my values now, not then.

I loved Zorro too! However, I think only watched the new series from the early 90's. There was not only Zorro, but also the lovely Patrice Martinez who played Victoria - she was just so beautiful.

Other heroes I had were Charlton Heston(don't know how many times i've seen Ben Hur), The Three Musketeers(first real book I ever read) and characters like Aragorn and Gandalf from The Lord of the Rings. Then there were less obvious ones like Hercule Poirot and the Marlboro man(though I never liked smoking).

I think I know what that attraction comes from. Remember how evil is hating the good for being good? Well, what about loving the good for being good?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

How possible is it for people falling under Betsy's categories to change?

In my experience, it is very unlikely for those who seek the wrong things from Objectivism to change for the better because they want what Objectivism cannot give them and do not value what Objectivism can offer. It is only to the degree that they begin to pursue rational personal values that Objectivism can affect them for the better.

The Rebel is essentially a nihilist who wants to use Objectivism as a weapon against authority figures and Objectivist values are not something he appreciates. While I have seen many Rebels become libertarians, they don't tend to stick around Objectivism very long.

The Lost Lamb may eventually find himself and build genuine self-confidence if he begins to pursue meaningful personal values. I have seen about a third of Lost Lambs do that, usually with the encouragement of friends or of a good therapist. This also happens, but less often, with the True Believer because he wants to avoid personal responsibility -- especially cognitive responsibility -- and so easily accepts things on faith without ever thinking.

The Exploiters stick around as long as they can impress people or make a buck. Because Objectivists eventually get wise and reject them, Exploiters usually begin to peddle their own modified version of "objectivism" in order to win over those attracted to, but not rationally committed to, our philosophy like Rebels, Lost Lambs, and/or True Believers.

[Brad Aisa 0]

One interesting psychological/sociological observation is that people tend to fulfill the expectations set out for them. In business school, we looked at case studies of companies managed in a way that assumed the people were responsible, capable individuals who could rise to great challenges, vs. paternalistic ones with strict hierarchies of control. The companies that expected the most from people got the most, and those that expected the least got the least. I've even observed this in two diametrically opposite companies I worked for: one in which our boss gave us great autonomy and independent authority, and expected (and got) a lot from us, and another, in which the boss also formed the entire executive committee and micro-managed even the smallest of decisions--what a horrible place to work!... I almost felt my spirit evaporate when I came in every morning -- I've never worked at a place with so many people who seemed so utterly demoralized and lacking in self-esteem. Some seemed to be so completely defeated, it seemed that despite evidently hating their work there, and feeling themselves capable of more, they just stuck there.

Is there a lesson to be learned from this about an appropriate culture of Objectivism? Shall we great each newcomer with our list of carefully categorized ways in this person is likely to be a Loser and Failure? Shall we reinforce our view of each not-completely-perfect newcomer, with each new shred of confirmatory evidence, until we are quickly convinced of their near-certainty of failure, and then treat them accordingly?

Or can we build a supportive culture that establishes high standards and assumes people will meet them, providing support and encouragement for them to do so?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Is there a lesson to be learned from this about an appropriate culture of Objectivism? Shall we great each newcomer with our list of carefully categorized ways in this person is likely to be a Loser and Failure? Shall we reinforce our view of each not-completely-perfect newcomer, with each new shred of confirmatory evidence, until we are quickly convinced of their near-certainty of failure, and then treat them accordingly?

Or can we build a supportive culture that establishes high standards and assumes people will meet them, providing support and encouragement for them to do so?

"We" has nothing to do with it. Individuals treat other individuals in accordance with their own expectations and standards of justice.

Personally, as a manager in business and as someone who likes to help those new to Objectivism, I treat people with respect and expect good things of them until and unless I have evidence to the contrary, but I know darn well that not everyone does as I do. Although I would wish it we different, others have their own issues, it shows up in how they treat people, and there's usually very little I can do about it.

[JMartins 0]

Four-five years ago (before I discovered Objectivism) I was extremely changeable. I would watch old speeches and documentaries on Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and proudly proclaim myself a Conservative one day, then watch various material from the von Mises Institute and the Libertarian Party, as well as John Stossel documentaries (still love those), and proclaim myself a Libertarian the next. I switched back and forth between considering myself a Conservative and a Libertarian more times than I'd care to remember, because I was extremely easily influenced by inspiring material. I'm convinced that the same goes for a lot of young people who are attracted to Objectivism after having read Atlas Shrugged. Their level of inspiration is maintained as long as they're reading Objectivist litterature, though when the day comes that they decide to read something else, such as Hayek, Rothbard or Friedman, they are equally inspired by that and declare themselves Libertarians instead.

There's also the misguided realists, who lack conviction in the efforts of the Ayn Rand Institute, and figure that in order to experience liberty in their own lifetime, they must support the "full force of the liberty movements", including the Campaign for Liberty, the Libertarian Party, the Free State Project, the Mises Institute, the Cato Institute, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Democratic Freedom Caucus, and so on. They don't recognize that most of those groups are counterproductive and only serve to make capitalism more disreputable, whereas all those groups, and society in general, will benefit and shift in a positive direction through the influence of pure Objectivism.

Finally I believe that many people who have gained a good understanding of the philosophy and sincerely wish to learn more, are ultimately turned off by the fact that so many Objectivists advocate bombing Iran. This is probably a big factor in making people support the Cato Institute rather than the Ayn Rand Institute. Most people are inclined to lead by example, set a good standard, and only intervene in foreign affairs if "absolutely necessary". By their definition of "absolutely necessary" it may already be far too late however.

[Brad Aisa 0]

(on "inspirational" literature etc.)

Well, I would say that a lot of people on reading something like Atlas Shrugged really only get an overall sense-of-life view, along with a variety of concrete conclusions, but not yet a more fundamental understanding of the basic principles of Objectivism along with its predominant philosophic methodology. So people claim to be "fans" and may claim to "agree with" Rand, but in practice, don't understand her ideas that well, and continue to advocate philosophically contradictory ideas. I have a close professional acquaintance who falls smack-dab in that category--he is brilliant (otherwise) and *thinks* he "agrees with" Rand's ideas, but, for example, advocates the mixed economy as the "practical" golden mean between capitalism and socialism!

There's also the misguided realists, who lack conviction in the efforts of the Ayn Rand Institute, and figure that in order to experience liberty in their own lifetime, they must support the "full force of the liberty movements"...

ARI does many good things. I have encountered people who seem to think it should essentially be *the* essential conduit for philosophic change.

I think there is plenty of room for debate on the topic of how to seek social and political change. One predominant theory seems to be the "university trickle-down" theory, whereby change must come in universities first (particularly in philosophy departments), then will trickle down elsewhere.

I personally think it would be prudent to not have too many preconceptions about what is the "right" or "best" way to approach this, and to try lots of things, and then evaluate their efficacy and focus more effort on things demonstrated to work better. This is an inductive approach, rather than a top-down deductionist approach.

Finally I believe that many people who have gained a good understanding of the philosophy and sincerely wish to learn more, are ultimately turned off by the fact that so many Objectivists advocate bombing Iran. This is probably a big factor in making people support the Cato Institute rather than the Ayn Rand Institute. Most people are inclined to lead by example, set a good standard, and only intervene in foreign affairs if "absolutely necessary". By their definition of "absolutely necessary" it may already be far too late however.

I have first-hand experience of someone who was immensely put-off by a lecture on foreign policy by an ARI official. To my mind, his objection stemmed from the predominant contemporary doctrine of "just war", which is an immensely pernicious and impractical moral and military doctrine. THAT is the kind of idea that needs to be fought--you can't win an intellectual battle by accepting the premises of your enemies, or apologizing for your own.