Peikoff’s View of Objectivist Forums and Blogs


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

Peikoff's View of Objectivist Forums and Blogs

Peikoff touched on Objectivist forums and blogs in his podcast dated January 7, 2007: Podcast6.mp3.

He read several questions that were emailed to him and Yaron Brook participated in the podcast. The question about Internet groups is given below:

Q: What is your opinion of the Objectivist clubs and advocacy groups on the Internet? Your opinion, I know, would vary depending on the policies of any particular group. But all things being equal, do you consider this an effective and rational way to spread the right ideas?

Summary

Here is an overview of Peikoff's answer (in my understanding):

1. He stated clearly that he does not follow these groups and only gets some sporadic information about them from second-hand accounts that are told to him.

2. As advertising for Rand's works and Objectivism, Internet groups are OK. He said that a person could even get some good information and leads from these groups.

3. However, he also said that the potential intellectual harm a participant receives is greater that the values such participant spreads unless he is selective in what and how he participates.

4. Peikoff gave 3 main problems that need to be guarded against:

a. On the Internet, a person detaches his thinking on interesting problems from serious thought and practices superficial examination. This is mainly due to indiscriminate participation. He implies that this could form poor thinking habits.

b. People automatize talking off the top of their heads and encourage superficiality by disassociating the what and why of their topics from serious contexts. He specifically mentioned the problem of jumping from one topic to unrelated topics (and so on) without context and stated clearly that only an older person (like him) who is trained in correct thinking can do this without risk.

c. He emphasized the distinction between serious writing and email. Serious writing involves formulating an idea, and editing and correcting it. Email merely involves blurting out whatever is on a person's mind at the time. On the Internet, he mentioned that often people blurt out something and think they have established a position, but they have "simply immortalized the chaos in their own mind."

5. He did say that if you are alone and lonely, but think you can be diligent against these problems, go ahead and participate.

6. Yaron Brook entered at this point and they discussed the problem of experts and authorities. However, this part was not as clearly stated as it could have been. Here are the main points:

a. Brook mentioned that it is difficult to identify experts and authorities and there is no way to evaluate them.

b. Peikoff stated that no one needs someone to intimidate him into submission, but likened Internet groups to the blind leading the blind. However, I was unable to understand his words correctly. They sounded like
"exahol
leading the blind" and after repeated back and forth listening, I have no idea what "
exahol
" means. (I am only spelling phonetically what I understood that he said.)

c. Peikoff thinks that it is fantastic that people provide an Objectivist view on these forums and that they defend Objectivist views is even more fantastic. All this takes place in "another dimension."

d. Peikoff suggested to Brook that ARI make some kind of project to provide guidance. He gave the example of his own 2-5 hour discussions with the Collective when he was young that went nowhere, only to take the problem to Rand and have it explained instantly.

e. Yaron mentioned that if the forums are focused on a specific topic and not a mish-mash of subjects, and there are experts around, the forums could be a positive.

f. Peikoff mentioned that there needs to be a way to identify who is an expert because there are too many self-proclaimed experts.

End of summary.

I think I got it all correct conceptually and my apologies to Peikoff and Brook if I misrepresented anything. Now, here are my thoughts.

Criticism

Surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with much that is stated here (principally the spirit from the angle of philosophical competence), although I do have some criticisms. Let me start with the criticisms.

1. Peikoff started out by saying that he has very little knowledge of these groups, yet constantly used the term "most people" and other related phrases to describe his observations. How does he know what "most people" do if he has very little knowledge of these groups? This is a bad habit I see in many Objecivist arguments and it is frankly irritating. Either you know or your don't know, but it is strange at best to say you don't know much about something, then go on and on about what most people do with respect to the topic you don't know much about.

2. I had an uncomfortable feeling listening to this podcast, sort of like listening to people at the turn of last century defending the horse against the automobile. I don't think either Peikoff or Brook understand Web 2.0 very much (forums and blogs fall within this concept). For the sake of information, I uncovered an excellent introduction to Web 2.0 and posted it here: How Web 2.0 Works.

I will get into this more below, but one thing both Peikoff and Brook ignore is that persuasion in Internet social environments depends exclusively on discussion and presentation of ideas. There is no way to set rules limiting access to a certain topic or body of information. If someone does this on one site, another opens up. If one site becomes stifling and members are intimidated into thinking in a certain manner, most people simply go elsewhere. Cliques can be formed with Web 2.0, but there is no way to treat this resource like a book or closed club/organization that will block off access to information. This access is too easy for anyone and everyone and there is no reversing it.

Instead of ignoring the nature of Web 2.0 and complaining about the dangers of it not being a book or closed club/organization, there are enormous opportunities that could be explored. Far be it for me to claim what Peikoff or Brook should think, but I do believe they should look into Web 2.0 from a different angle. They might be surprised by what they see.

3. There is an implication in the remarks of both Peikoff and Brook that the only purpose of an Objectivist forum or blog is to spread Objectivist ideas. This is wrong. That is the purpose of ARI and TAS. That is the purpose of some Objectivist forums and blogs, but not all (and especially not OL—more on this below).

(cont. in next post)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(cont. from post above)

4. As with other things ARI, I get the strong impression that they want to control the thinking of people, especially about Objectivism.

Peikoff mentioned the risk of intellectual damage, automating superficiality and so forth. It is very obvious to me that a person runs the same risks just by talking to other people or watching TV with a remote control. Where is the difference? The plain fact is that people must choose to discipline their thinking and this choice is theirs alone. Some do it well and others do not.

I have yet to see anyone intellectually damaged by forum life or who was a good thinker, then automated superficiality in his thinking because of posting on a forum or blog. The superficial people were superficial when they showed up. Maybe this has happened in the manner Peikoff warned, but I have not seen it.

I have seen a far worse problem—forum posting is strongly addicting to some people and these individuals leave aside important values in their lives to live almost exclusively in an Objectivist cyber-world. Now that's a problem. There are some others, too.

5. I guess the issue of establishing criteria on the open market of who the Objectivist experts and authorities are is a huge problem for those who are used to a closed environment with strict hierarchies. There is nothing I can say to this except that if they want a more controlled environment out in the Internet world, their only solution is to keep wanting. It ain't gonna happen.

6. Peikoff made an interesting statement about people immortalizing the chaos in their own minds by posting on forums and blogs. But that's not a bad thing. That's actually a good thing. A person learns by making mistakes. Having proof of his foolishness is a great teacher.

And this works both ways. So-called experts and authorities also immortalize their statements, even their dumber ones, thus it becomes extremely difficult to airbrush their words if they later change their minds. No more false images in this environment. I can't think of anything better to keep someone honest than to make a consultable memory of his pronouncements. This turns control over to reality where it belongs, and away from the desires and whims of individuals who would like to rewrite history.

Agreement and other thoughts

I could nitpick some other problems I see here, but I want to go into some other more substantive issues that were raised by this discussion and some of my agreements.

1. Back to Web 2.0. When I started posting on SoloHQ, I was completely enamored by the blog/forum combination of the software. What I mean is that articles and new content appear and scroll down the front page over time as new content is posted. This is integrated with a full forum instead of the standard "comments" for discussion. This structure is well suited to organizations that have as mission "to save the world."

But what if you don't want to save the world as a priority? What if you simply want to live in it as a primary value, and improve some things as a secondary value? In this case, the emphasis should be on forum participation, not on the scrolling content (which can be used as a form of preaching).

This was something I sensed when OL started. I didn't have the words back then but I knew I did not want OL to become an RoR or a Solo Passion (or any number of other Objectivist sites). I wanted to live and discuss Objectivism among Objectivists and Objectivism-friendly people. I didn't give two hoots about forming activism groups or staging conferences and so forth. If some day an OL conference should ever happen, it will be a social event gathered around ideas, not an activism event promoting a movement to save the goddam world. I know there are others who feel as I do. They post on OL.

Notice that for the longest time we did not have a scrolling front page and that the portal (when it was finally installed) has mostly turned into some kind of advertising space for certain ideas and services. This was not done on purpose. It just turned out that way because OL is Web 2.0 focused. It is not focused on being the philosophical equivalent of a church like so many other Objectivist sites are.

So, in this sense, I agree with the spirit of Peikoff and Brook when they express concern that a person seeking philosophical guidance will find a poor version of it on forums and blogs. They will. Forums and blogs are usually limited by the knowledge and habits of their owners.

If someone wants to study Objectivism, the very best place to start is the works of Ayn Rand and then branch out from there. If a person wants formal instruction in the philosophy, the best place to get it is at specialized courses where it is taught. ARI is one of the organizations that provide this. It is a good place for a student to learn Objectivism, despite the social pressures of "us against them" that I have seen go along with the package. Old Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden courses are available on CD, so it is possible to learn Objectivism in the manner it was taught at NBI when Rand was alive. Other Rand-sanctioned courses (mostly by Peikoff) are available and so are bound versions of The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist. Whether one comes down on the open system or closed system approach, the minimum needed to learn the philosophy is to be familiar with the original sources.

These places are where Objectivism should be learned. Forums and blogs are for other things. As Peikoff stated, you can get information and leads on them. But I want to emphasize that they are not primarily for education. In fact, I will go even further. I think that using them for activism as a primary purpose is to waste the enormous opportunities of their potential—ones that even end up spreading the ideas as a result in a far more effective manner.

Here is an example. What spreads Objectivist ideas more: a small group of snarky individuals taking neurotic potshots at each other in public or someone doing Galt's speech on You Tube in multiple installments (see This is John Galt speaking..." PART ONE, and so on for the other parts)?

2. The problem of self-proclaimed authorities on Objectivism is enormous. I call these dudes "guru wannabes."

As for myself, I own an Objectivist forum, but I admit I am not the world's foremost authority on Objectivism. I know the philosophy pretty well, but there are some technical areas I am still learning. And frankly, I am an "outside the box" person. My mind works that way and I am happy with it as it is. This is how I create things. I would never want to become a hardened category Objectivist. I only have one life and I do not want to live it that way.

Does this lead to mistakes and some pretty awkward statements at times? You bet it does. There is no other way to live outside the box. I wear my mistakes as badges of honor when I look at the good things I create. Without the mistakes, I never would have arrived at what I achieve.

I hope Peikoff and Brook's words stung the "guru wannabes." They certainly need stinging. Notice that the more desire a guru wannabe has for an unearned intellectual status, the more intolerant he is of being accused of dishonesty or having his Objectivist views contested. There is a reason for this. He is a fraud and he knows it. Real Objectivist experts are far and few between (but several post regularly on OL). They are the ones who actually read the literature as their foundation, not just a selection of Rand's works. (And they understand what they read, but that is another issue.) When someone claims the guru wannabe has hidden motives or is wrong about something Objectivist, this hits too near home for comfort. He has to keep the cover in place so he can keep fooling people. Thus, he goes ballistic, hoping that nastiness will cover the lack of truth.

Not all Objectivist experts agree with each other and I believe that's a good thing when the thinking goes deep. But that is not what I am talking about here. The guru wannabe would entertain guru status even if he never heard of Objectivism. He would have another system of thought to use. Objectivism makes sense and the power structure of the official organizations is fragmented, so it is easily suited to the designs of guru wannabes. An Objectivist personality cult is certainly easier to do than starting, say, a fringe type of Baptist Church.

Anyone who goes to an Objectivist forum or blog hoping that he will find a replacement for reading Rand and the standard works in order to learn Objectivism deserves what he gets. Forums and blogs are for social purposes around a theme, not for replacing study. Good resources can be offered, but this is secondary to the purpose.

3. Both Peikoff and Brook lamented the problem of how to identify the experts. I say, turn this around and use a bit of common sense. Survey the interaction of the so-called expert with others knowledgeable in the philosophy and pay attention to what they think of him. See if his arguments make sense. See if he quotes passages from the literature and analyzes the fundamental ideas, or just proclaims some principle or other as law and goes on from there. Do it like you would identify experts in any area. Common sense.

To completely turn this around, I think the person who wants to learn about Objectivism should make himself an expert. After all, nobody taught Rand. From what I have been able to observe, she did not have a genius-level IQ. She simply took ideas and reason seriously and committed herself to producing written works. A student wanting to become an expert does not even have to produce written works. All he has to do is want to learn and go to the literature when in doubt. Look up stuff. And most of all, he should question the literature when he examines it to make sure he either understands it or disagrees with some point and knows exactly why.

These are some of the ways to identify experts and even become one. I am sure this particular point can be explored in more depth.

4. Blurting. There is the problem with blurting. A person is able in an Internet group to blurt out anything that comes to mind and this causes some great inconveniences at times.

I agree with Peikoff that blurting and serious thinking are two very different things. Also, we all know about frequent blurters with nothing but nastiness as their main content and we call them trolls. Both expert and troll have the same blurting power. There are some other problems. I even agree that blurting can become a bad habit thinking-wise. It is very difficult to cure this habit.

But I think this is where the forum or blog owner sets a "tone" that is picked up by regular posters and becomes self-correcting. If the owner constantly blurts out nastiness, other members will, too. If the owner sets an example of honest inquiry and reasoned thought, others will emulate him (at least the intelligent will).

There is one good thing to blurting, though, if it is done honestly. A person who suddenly blurts out something can have evidence of a weak tendency in his communication skills or even thinking that needs work. He also gets challenged by the more intelligent members when he doesn't make sense. So blurting qua blurting is not bad. It just needs to be understood as such. (And blurting nastiness is ALWAYS bad, even when I do it.)

Spontaneous blurts can be extremely charming, though. Some of the finest moments on OL were blurted out.

Although I agree and disagree with different aspects of what Peikoff and Brook discussed, I am glad they brought all this out into the open. This needs serious thought. I particularly think Web 2.0 needs to be understood and learned properly so it can be used competently in the Objectivist world.

I might have more to say later, but this is a pretty good start.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, OK, this is off the top of my head, but for myself, I often write offline and then post.

Also, Ayn Rand said that the way to write is directly from the subconscious. Let it flow. Discussion and debate demand something deeper. Again, for myself, when someone disagrees with me here or on RoR, I do not reply right awa, but sleep on it. So, there is that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I agree with a good deal of your post, but I strongly disagree with two of your statements:

1. "If a person wants formal instruction in the philosophy, the best place to get it is at specialized courses where it is taught. ARI is one of the organizations that provide this. It is a good place for a student to learn Objectivism, despite the social pressures of 'us against them' that I have seen go along with the package."

I think you underestimate the pressures that go with the package. I would never suggest to a young person that he or she go to ARI for instruction in Objectivism. The pressures are not merely "us against them" -- which is relatively harmless in view of the infinitely more dangerous and destructive pressure to become a true believer, convinced that all wisdom resides with Rand and ARI and that wisdom is to be found nowhere else. This, plus many of the ideas that are part and parcel of the ARI teachings, such as that Objectivism is a closed system, meaning that its students can hope for nothing more than to endlessly chew the ideas they've learned, but can contribute nothing original -- and the Peikoff stricture that most human errors are moral errors (I cannot offhand think of anything more destructive to teach young people -- or old people) -- make ARI a source of instruction to be avoided like the plague. Many individual articles and many individual ideas emanating from ARI are worthwhile and important, but everything they produce has to be read with great care and a highly critical eye, which are attributes young people, at best, are only beginning to develop. The ARI ideal and the proof of its success is the student who thinks it unnecessary to read, because he already knows everything worth knowing, who finds it unnecessary to expose his convictions to challenges and debate, because those who disagree with him do so only because they are evil, who does not grasp what it would mean to respect someone who does not agree with him, who is narrow, pedantic, insulated from reality which he sees only through a fog of floating concepts, who is cold, dogmatic, hypercritical and obsessed with the evil of most of the world.

2. "From what I have been able to observe, she [Ayn Rand] did not have a genius-level IQ."

I have met a great many talented and brilliant people over my lifetime, but Rand's intelligence was of a wholly different order than the most brilliant and talented among them. I've never seen a definition of genius that quite satisfied me, but if I wanted someone to know what genius is, I could not do better than to say: "Sit in Ayn Rand's living room, and listen to her speaking for five minutes." Hers was a mind -- and forget her mistakes, they are not relevant to the capacity of her mind -- of such power and range, of such stunning first-handedness, of such an awesome ability to deal with the widest of abstractions, that I never have seen its like nor do I expect that I ever shall. This was genius.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. "From what I have been able to observe, she [Ayn Rand] did not have a genius-level IQ."

I have met a great many talented and brilliant people over my lifetime, but Rand's intelligence was of a wholly different order than the most brilliant and talented among them. I've never seen a definition of genius that quite satisfied me, but if I wanted someone to know what genius is, I could not do better than to say: "Sit in Ayn Rand's living room, and listen to her speaking for five minutes." Hers was a mind -- and forget her mistakes, they are not relevant to the capacity of her mind -- of such power and range, of such stunning first-handedness, of such an awesome ability to deal with the widest of abstractions, that I never have seen its like nor do I expect that I ever shall. This was genius.

Barbara

I'm sure she did have such an IQ IF the test had been given in Russian.

My Father had a genius level IQ and greatly impressed those who came in contact with him with his brain-power, but he was not a genius. He could have been one if he had had the character. He did some incredibly creative stuff when he was a young man. Now, he never developed the math part of his brain but read just about all the literary classics so we can say here is a man we can match up with Ayn Rand as far as general orientation and sheer brain power. What was the difference? Ayn Rand was concerned with philosophical viability and truth and finding that truth, my father was a power-lusting, revenge oriented second-hander. If "The Fountainhead" had been written about a philosopher of genius called Ayn Rand instead of an architect called Howard Roark, John Gaede would have gotten the Peter Keating role, only his betrayal would have been greater because it wasn't being a painter he should have been but his very own philosophical profession and his much greater brain-power. The key to (creative) genius--and no creativity means no genius in my book no matter what one's IQ--in philosophy is truth seeking. The constant questions of what works? What is true? What is just? What is right? How should things be? Why? Why not? Without this one builds castles in the air, even works that might be of a genius except they will eventually all fall down.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara,

I can live, and live well, with both disagreements. I see them more as clarifications of what I was trying to say than outright opposites. (I am thinking in concepts right now and not just words, which can have different meanings depending on the contexts.)

Obviously "all wisdom resides with Rand and ARI and that wisdom is to be found nowhere else" is not a good thing to learn, and this applies to any closed structure anywhere. That is a recipe for cult. I would never endorse this. Also, your characterization of ARI students is something I have observed in many of them (not all) through their words on the Internet, so it is definitely something to watch out for if anyone chooses to learn ARI's closed system approach in the closed environment it offers.

My idea was more aimed at the educational lectures and books ARI has produced—the ones that present the orthodox approach to the public at large, especially through ARI's web store. If someone wants to learn this approach (but without all the finger-pointing at others as evil, etc., and I think it is valuable to learn what this approach is and is not), ARI's publications and resources are a good place to get it. But I still prefer Rand's own works and the other resources I mentioned.

As to Rand's genius, when I mentioned genius-level IQ, I was thinking along the lines of learning new skills kind of genius. My idea was that Objectivism is something anyone can learn without a lot of suffering and boredom. No great mathematical, scientific, artistic (etc.) aptitude is required. I don't know if Rand's IQ was ever measured, but I do not recall her having ease at acquiring new skills. You reported that she was studying algebra at the end of her life. A genius-level IQ of the kind I was talking about would have had that mastered in infancy.

But if it were possible to measure integrative capacity, handling wide abstractions and "first-handedness," I am not only willing to let my comment be modified by yours, I find yours inspiring. In that sense, of course I hold Rand to be a genius. I would never want to imply otherwise and I often try to look for connections in the manner I read she did. In this respect (analyzing essential issues), I try to emulate her.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

of such power and range, of such stunning first-handedness, of such an awesome ability to deal with the widest of abstractions, that I never have seen its like nor do I expect that I ever shall. This was genius.

I have no right to add anything except my thanks and appreciation.

W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

of such power and range, of such stunning first-handedness, of such an awesome ability to deal with the widest of abstractions, that I never have seen its like nor do I expect that I ever shall. This was genius.

I have no right to add anything except my thanks and appreciation.

I agree with Barbara's sentiments as well. I would also add that a good part of Ayn Rand's power was earned, and she has made it possible for you to follow in her footsteps to a significant degree. She seemed to naturally think well, but that doesn't mean that those of us who didn't can't learn to do what she did.

I think Barbara's "stunning first-handedness" is rich with meaning, because that is part of the key to Ayn Rand's epistemology. To be first handed means, importantly, not to accept any idea without grasping its meaning. How to grasp its meaning or detect that you're in danger of accepting an idea without really understanding it is not a trivial thing. Which takes us to Barbara's statement of Ayn Rand's "awesome ability to deal with the widest abstractions". Why could Ayn Rand do this? Look at her epistemology, both at ITOE, and at Peikoff's attempts at reconstructing her inductive method (the Objectivism Through Induction course). The practice of connecting abstractions to concretes, and importantly, of being able to actually be able to separate out what really are the concretes and abstractions, it can be learned.

I think that is the most important thing anyone can get out of Objectivism is to earn their intellectual independence on the deepest of levels, just as Ayn Rand did. That is what Objectivism is useful for. Not as a religion, a system of thought frozen in time to worship like so many "Objectivists" do, but as a good example of proper thinking that you can learn from, and then move on. And by "move on", I mean both to use what you've learned to pursue your own values, and to question those things in Objectivism that really don't make sense and come up with your own answers.

The most dangerous thing you can do to your mind is to accept Objectivism as a frozen system of thought that you have to either accept in total or reject. It is an instance of mostly right thinking, treat it as something to help exercise your mind and make it grow. It is merely a tool, and not a completely perfect tool either.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Thanks for your thoughtful review of Dr. Brook and Dr. Peikoff's remarks.

I agree with Barbara that the Ayn Rand Institute is not a good place for students to learn about Objectivism. Not only because of the religious atmosphere (complete with monitoring for deviationism, and suspicions about heresy), and the sharply delineated hierarchy of authority figures to whom deference is constantly due. Also because much of what is taught is Leonard Peikoff's interpretation of Ayn Rand, to the exclusion of interpretations by others who knew and worked with her, or by others who didn't know her, but have made a careful study of the Randian corpus.

One thing I hadn't much thought about before I started researching the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion: there were areas in Objectivism where, I am now convinced, Rand's own thoughts were substantially unfinished. She had insights and made pronouncements, but it fell on others to work them into some kind of system. With arbitrary assertions, Nathaniel Branden made the first pass at working the notion out systematically, then Leonard Peikoff took over, using nearly all of the same vocabulary but making a different and notably stronger set of claims. At the end of the day, I still have no idea what Ayn Rand herself thought about arbitrary assertions. Judging from some rather strange things that Dr. Peikoff has said, I don't think he really does either. No way is any instructor at the Leonard Peikoff Institute going to clue the students in about ideas that Rand left to others to systematize; it would be totally contrary to the myths of origin that Dr. Peikoff has circulated.

I also agree with Barbara that Rand had an extraordinary intelligence (not always extraordinary in adaptive ways, as in her extremely slow assimilation of a lot of written material). Rand distrusted IQ testing and denied that her insights were due to anything beyond diligence and ruthless intellectual honesty--but had she been given a standard IQ test, I'm sure she would scored more than 2 standard deviations above the mean, if not in the "genius" range. When she was on, she could quickly recognize implications of positions that most others would fail to see, maybe after years of trying to make sense of the same position.

Again, I don't mean to endorse any myths of origin. Maybe she did come up with the kernel of her theory of concepts in 30 minutes, as the story goes. That would be remarkable, but possible to a person of unusual talent. What she didn't do is "validate" her entire theory through introspection--in the same 30 minutes, as one variant of the myth has it--because introspective evidence is insufficient to test such a theory.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara:

"Hers was a mind -- and forget her mistakes, they are not relevant to the capacity of her mind -- of such power and range, of such stunning first-handedness, of such an awesome ability to deal with the widest of abstractions, that I never have seen its like nor do I expect that I ever shall. This was genius."

What she said.

That was worth the whole thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a Web 2.0 jargon word I think useful. Even if we don't incorporate it, the concept is spreading out there in the real cyberworld (graaack, what a statement!).

The concept is "evergreen information."

"Evergreen" means solid information that is good for all time. This implies that most of the information shared on the Internet is temporary, unpolished, etc., and that most of the people presenting and consuming it already know that.

This is one important aspect of the reality of Web 2.0 that I believe Peikoff and Brook do not take into account. That is why they think a person rus the risk of intellectual damage by participating in Internet discussion groups. They think he will approach the information in a forum or on a blog with the same attitude that he will in studying a book or writing a research paper. They are stuck in the past, trying to apply observations that are appropriate for one context to another while ignoring the nature of the new context (and the nature of how people deal with it).

People nowadays know there's a lot of crap out there and that they must take what they read and view with a grain of salt, unless they trust the source. If they trust the source and the information is not temporary (like a stock quote), the information is "evergreen." They know it is be be learned as the real deal. They don't need to be told that by anyone, either, nor do they need to be as diligent as Peikoff said (although they do need to be diligent).

I guess it depends on your view of mankind. People can be both stupid and clever, but in my view, they are mostly not stupid. Each mind-owner is perfectly able to decide what is good information and what is not. He learns just like everyone else learns.

On the dark side of human nature, we have porn, scams, spam and whatnot all over the Internet, but on the bright side, we have shining information rising to the top (like the TED lectures, just to give one very small and limited example) for everyone to use. And people use it! They have decided that it is the best information available. No one has decreed this. People have used their own minds to decide, individual by individual.

But human beings are curious creatures. The same person who will be inspired by a scientist presenting inroads in DNA research will also get duped into losing his shirt at an online casino or fall off into a flame war full of foul language and very little thought. When has mankind ever been different character-wise?

:)

I actually think there will be a gradual general improvement in human character with the Internet, but nobody will contol that improvement. It will take place individual by individual. Certainly no church or philosophical organization will control the improvement. And even more certainly not any organization hell-bent on "saving the world."

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree with Barbara that Rand had an extraordinary intelligence (not always extraordinary in adaptive ways, as in her extremely slow assimilation of a lot of written material). Rand distrusted IQ testing and denied that her insights were due to anything beyond diligence and ruthless intellectual honesty--but had she been given a standard IQ test, I'm sure she would scored more than 2 standard deviations above the mean, if not in the "genius" range.

I seriously doubt that. She may have been an extraordinary personality and a great writer, but her arguments contain too many elementary errors and are in no way comparable to the output of real geniuses, like Ramanujan, Feynman or Witten. As Michael observed, a real genius doesn't have to struggle with elementary algebra, he'll reinvent it himself. I even suspect that she would have done rather poorly on some parts of the IQ test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shayne, you wrote: "I think that is the most important thing anyone can get out of Objectivism is to earn their intellectual independence on the deepest of levels, just as Ayn Rand did. That is what Objectivism is useful for. Not as a religion, a system of thought frozen in time to worship like so many 'Objectivists' do, but as a good example of proper thinking that you can learn from, and then move on."

I agree. I learned many things from Ayn Rand, for which I shall always be grateful, but the most important thing I learned from her -- partly from observing her and trying to grasp what her mind did when dealing with ideas that no one else's mind seemed to do -- was to think with a clarity that I probably would never have quite achieved without her. And that -- to think clearly -- is the gift of life.

Robert, you wrote: "I also agree with Barbara that Rand had an extraordinary intelligence (not always extraordinary in adaptive ways, as in her extremely slow assimilation of a lot of written material)."

Rand's slow assimilation of written material had a very specific source, which had nothing to do with the presence or absence of intelligence. It began to happen fairly late in her life, when she had become unable to turn off her critical faculty, even for the length of time required to read, say, a paragraph or two. So she would read a sentence, perhaps two, of a book or article, stop, and analyze and critique it, consider the psychology of the writer, the implications of what she'd just read, etc. Obviously, this slowed down her reading immensely, and in fact made reading distinctly unpleasant. I'm sure this was the reason why, as she grew older, she turned to reading light mysteries, which did not require that laser-like critical analysis.

Michael, you wrote: "I do not recall her having ease at acquiring new skills. You reported that she was studying algebra at the end of her life. A genius-level IQ of the kind I was talking about would have had that mastered in infancy."

One of the fascinations of observing her mind at work was precisely her ease at acquiring new skills. Ask philosopher John Hospers how he introduced her to highly technical issues in philosophy, and how she mastered them as quickly as he could present them, and immediately saw worlds of implications in them and further avenues to pursue.. Ask Robert Efron how he introduced her to issues of technical physics, and how she explained to him, an internationally respected physicist, implications of those issues he'd never been aware of.

As for her study of algegra, she had not studied it in her Russian schools and had had no particular reason to learn it since then. Even a genius does not master a field of study unless he sees a reason to do so. During my last visit with her, a few months before her death, this woman, already seriously ill, still grieving the loss of her husband, told me about her study of algebra. The study was not an end in itself; in part, it was a means of extending her philosophical understanding. I wrote the following in The Passion of Ayn Rand:

"In the hours of that golden afternoon, as the light from the window softened the stern planes of her face, Ayn spoke of Frank with love and longing and despair. 'After he died,' she said, 'I couldn't write at all, not for a long time. I wasn't motivated to do anything.... Then I realized that I needed to do something that would be only for my own personal pleasure, something purposeful that I would do only because I enjoyed it. So I've begun taking lessons in mathematics. I have a private tutor who comes once a week to teach me algebra. It's wonderful! He can't believe how quickly I'm learning -- he said he's never seen anyone move so swiftly. And it leads me in fascinating philosophical directions -- there are so many intriguing connections between algebra and philosophy.'

"I listened to her, astounded, as she had always had the power to astound me. At the age of seventy-two, her concept of personal pleasure, of an exciting new activity, was to study algebra and to define its relationship to metaphysics and epistemology."

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree with Barbara that Rand had an extraordinary intelligence (not always extraordinary in adaptive ways, as in her extremely slow assimilation of a lot of written material). Rand distrusted IQ testing and denied that her insights were due to anything beyond diligence and ruthless intellectual honesty--but had she been given a standard IQ test, I'm sure she would scored more than 2 standard deviations above the mean, if not in the "genius" range.

I seriously doubt that. She may have been an extraordinary personality and a great writer, but her arguments contain too many elementary errors and are in no way comparable to the output of real geniuses, like Ramanujan, Feynman or Witten. As Michael observed, a real genius doesn't have to struggle with elementary algebra, he'll reinvent it himself. I even suspect that she would have done rather poorly on some parts of the IQ test.

What are "two standard deviations above the mean" in an IQ test score? Curious.

I have no idea where this "struggle with ... algebra" comes from. If you're studying it in your mid-seventies it's not going to be nearly as easy as when you were twelve, all other things being equal. I believe Rand had some exposure to algebra as a school girl, but her real interests were elsewhere. Petr Beckmann, who was something of a math genius I believe (I cannot validate that not knowing enough math), told me that with one exception all algebra was "easy." And he only referred to that exception after he said "easy" and thought about it a little more, meaning the exception wasn't so hard for him. (He greatly disliked teaching and was glad when he could retire from it. I think it was because his students didn't begin to be up to speed with him.)

--Brant

edit: I did think she must have studied algebra because Barbara wrote in "Passion" that she studied mathematics (p.35).

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peikoff stated that no one needs someone to intimidate him into submission, but likened Internet groups to the blind leading the blind. However, I was unable to understand his words correctly. They sounded like "exahol leading the blind" and after repeated back and forth listening, I have no idea what "exahol" means. (I am only spelling phonetically what I understood that he said.)

I heard "the halt leading the blind."

People automatize talking off the top of their heads and encourage superficiality by disassociating the what and why of their topics from serious contexts.

[ . . . ]

He emphasized the distinction between serious writing and email.

But how does a person talking into a microphone differ from a person poking at a keyboard? I suggest there is a distinction Peikoff does not recognize. The propensity to outline, edit, shape, refit, revise and support with careful references is an argumentative stance, and one that is more difficult in speech than in electronic communication. I get the feeling that Peikoff understands all forum/blog/discussion to be blurt/poke.

"Well, first of all I don't follow any of those groups, so . . . I only have the vaguest knowledge of the little bit that is reported to me."

I don't believe he is drawing the distinction where it should be, in work, rather than in medium. In fact, when asking the question "How do you know?" and "How do you know if you are wrong?" of this podcast, I get no answers from the verbal encyclical. In an electronic exchange (as with an exchange of open letters, or a point counterpoint in any literature (scientificic, scholarly, technical, etc) the difference is in the quality of the work, not necessarily the medium.

"But on the whole I think that the potential harm that you get intellectually from such groups is greater than the values you put out unless you're very selective."

Hark the herald clichés sing. Glory to the uninformed king.

It also seems as if Peikoff is stuck in the wax recording era: how does his scratchy podcast stack up, with its popping Ps and its lo-tek honky-tonk piano intro, aqainst the intellectual competition? Does Peikoff understand that there is a massive electronic commerce in spoken word discussions, both in audio and video podcast form? I mean, if he gets his information second hand, where is the excited, engaged young person in the ARI big tent who not only has access to the throne room of Peikoff, but also to the leading edges of the information world?

"Indiscriminate participation [ . . . ] I don't think is at all helpful [ . . . ] unless you're like me, you're old, you've done it for fifty years, you automatically know where the connection is [ . . . ] you're going to be talking without much of a context [ . . . ] you're going to automatize talking from the top of your, um, head, without bringing in a wider, uh, context. So that's already two bad things.

Dissociating by the method [ . . . ] from why you're doing it and what you know that's relevant.."

Why does Peikoff yacking on second hand information trump a reasoned exchange of opinion, complete with citations, examples, a structured argument and much followup . . . ? This podcast of Peikoff just seems so unresearched and one-dimensional as to be of low vatue in the marketplace of thought.

"I do some email, and I cringe when I do it, but I figure, 'this is email, so it's not like a published work'."

Boing!

"So I just let it go, 'cause there's no other way to do it."

Boing!

"But if I seriously wanted to formulate a thought, I would have to write, and then edit, and then look at it, correct it, and then I would know exactly what I think.."

Golly. And so would we know exactly what he thinks -- except for the numerous sound recordings in which he tells us what to think, and his less numerous writings, and of course his email which is presumably not seriously formulated thought.

Yikes.

Further, what experience with communication of thought does Peikoff rest upon? His next book isn't due until he is 102, and the rest of the bulk of his wisdom is in, um, sound recordings and electronic benedictions and cajolings and utterances.

I just can't shake the image of Peikoff in detachable collar, sitting by his Victrola, going over his older work on the newfangled copper cylinders.

(as an aside, I hear Peikoff speak and I hear Preston Manning reverberate in my mind.

In real life Our Preston took voice coaching just to sound less like a hick on speed. Just on esthetics alone, I wish The Heirarchy could find a more melodious voice less apt to barking.)

[ . . . ]

Peikoff suggested to Brook that ARI make some kind of project to provide guidance. He gave the example of his own 2-5 hour discussions with the Collective when he was young that went nowhere, only to take the problem to Rand and have it explained instantly.

This is a ludicrous suggestion in context. How can one guide a ten-thousand-strong herd of cats with such teeny commands as can be emitted from Mount Ari? Seriously, if they were capable of guidance, the legions of guides would already be active. Mount Ari has vaults of gold, as do the vaults of Peikoff Peak. What on earth do they do with their money if not use modern technology to spread the Word?

"I make a very sharp distinction between writing, which requires understanding, and email which requires blurting out."

Boing!

[ . . . ]

Instead of ignoring the nature of Web 2.0 and complaining about the dangers of it not being a book or closed club/organization, there are enormous opportunities that could be explored. Far be it for me to claim what Peikoff or Brook should think, but I do believe they should look into Web 2.0 from a different angle. They might be surprised by what they see.

I agree, but I would simplify. Get Peikoff his own wireless computer, enroll him in an 'Internet for Seniors' program, and let him educate himself. The thought that he supports his judgements on second-hand information -- that some no-less-unengaged associates let him know what the informational weather is . . . [boggle].

"People just blurt out and think they have made a distinction.."

[ . . . ]

Peikoff mentioned the risk of intellectual damage, automating superficiality and so forth.

Ludic, again. He is spouting off the top of his head, with little first hand knowledge. It is like getting sea-swimming instruction from someone who has never been out of the careful confines of his backyard pool. Whatever his insights, they are generic.

"I am not saying you need somebody cowing you into submission, but that in a lot of these cases [ . . . ] one of them will say something as the Objectivist view which is fantastic, and the other thinking he's defending the Objectivist view is even more fantastic, and the whole thing is just in another dimension. If you could have one of these [ . . . ] maybe through the Institute, you could have some guidance.."

[ . . . ]

3. Both Peikoff and Brook lamented the problem of how to identify the experts.

This just screams irony at me. On the one hand he has David Harriman MA instructing him on physicks and on the other hand he cannot name even one name that he takes counsel from with regard to the internets. No examples, no names, no references, no incisive mise-en-scene, no comprehensive vantage, no evidence of technical astuteness in analysis . . . identify the experts (who have Objectivist imprimatur) who are properly instructed in Peikoffism, more likely.

"It's certainly not a substitute for, you know, thinking with one other person say, or two, where you have the same orientation and you stop and you know your context, etcetera."

[ . . . ]

I agree with Peikoff that blurting and serious thinking are two very different things. Also, we all know about frequent blurters with nothing but nastiness as their main content and we call them trolls. Both expert and troll have the same blurting power.

??? Well, one tends to learn from one's elders. And elders can certainly blurt up a storm, given the provocation. I wish Peikoff and Brook good luck in finding enough whale-oil to light their search lanterns, and enough mules for their wagon-train of discovery.

Ye gawds, the podcast is thin on ideas, thin on examples, definitely an irrelevant aside. Can't these towering thinkers give more thought to the wax cylinder of posterity:

(Brook:) "[if they are focused on a topic [ . . .] if there are specialized forums with experts it seems to me there could be a positive."

(Peikoff:) "I guess they could be if there's a way of identifying who is an expert 'cause there's a lot of self-proclaimed experts.

I think I can't do much in fifteen seconds, so we will bring today's lesson sermonette to a close. ."

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a. Brook mentioned that it is difficult to identify experts and authorities and there is no way to evaluate them.

b. Peikoff stated that no one needs someone to intimidate him into submission, but likened Internet groups to the blind leading the blind. However, I was unable to understand his words correctly. They sounded like
"exahol
leading the blind" and after repeated back and forth listening, I have no idea what "
exahol
" means. (I am only spelling phonetically what I understood that he said.)

Peikoff said "the halt leading the blind."

Interesting post you have there. I just listened to the recording, and although the outline you report is correct in my view, I will say that I got more of a sense that Peikoff has a dismal view of internet groups from listening to his post than I got from your post. I think this is more of a matter of tone.

Of course, I almost always get some sort of dismal view when I listen to Peikoff. Sometimes he has interesting insights (in my opinion, more in his early course on history of philosophy and his first course on Objectivism than in his later work), but he always seems to be in mourning/lament for the age in which he lives.

Whatever happened to a benevolent sense of life?

Alfonso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally found out what animal this mysterious "halt" was that could lead the blind. After much searching, I came across "lame people."

Therefore, Peikoff's statement could be correctly paraphrased as "lame people leading the blind."

I think "blind leading the blind" would have been a more apt saying for what he intended. Lame people can see. Their eyes are not lame. Their legs are. They can perfectly well lead the blind and everybody get where they want to go with no problem.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally found out what animal this mysterious "halt" was that could lead the blind. After much searching, I came across "lame people."

Therefore, Peikoff's statement could be correctly paraphrased as "lame people leading the blind."

I think "blind leading the blind" would have been a more apt saying for what he intended. Lame people can see. Their eyes are not lame. Their legs are. They can perfectly well lead the blind and everybody get where they want to go with no problem.

Michael

I think Peikoff said it the way he meant it. "Blind leading the blind" if of course the well-worn Biblical phrase, which he alludes to while avoiding perfect replication. I think the idea here is that those with one infirmity lead those with a different infirmity - but with the same eventual outcome as the blind leading the blind in the Biblical version - both men fall into a ditch.

In the case of the internet phenomenon Peikoff was discusing - those with delusions of grandeur and self-images built based on how many followers they can claim (the halt) leading those who are second-handers wrt ideas, and look to have ideas poured into their minds with no need for processing (the blind).

That's how I understand what Peikoff said.

Alfonso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly,

I put "genius" in scare-quotes because IQ testers will say that anyone with a high enough IQ (150 or 160 are typical lower limits) is a genius.

But genius, as most people understand it, is obviously not reducible to IQ. To put it in plain language, you can be extremely smart without being particularly creative. Ramanujan, Einstein, Feynman, et al. were extremely creative, not just extremely smart.

Also (and this pushes us outside the limits of conventional intelligence testing), most genius-level capabilities are specialized. Ramanujan, for instance, was highly creative in certain areas of mathematics; I gather from my (very limited) knowledge of his life that he wasn't highly creative at anything else. Mozart was highly creative in music; nothing special otherwise.

Brant,

Standard IQ testing procedures assume a normal distribution (a bell curve) of scores in the human population, with a population mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Two standard deviations above the mean yields an IQ of 130. That's higher than the IQ's of roughly 98% of the population, but "genius" level IQ (see disclaimer above) is more than three standard deviations above the mean.

Barbara,

You've confirmed what I meant to imply about Ayn Rand being a slow reader. Her slow reading was a consequence of other unusual cognitive abilities. But of course it came at a cost--like not being willing to put the time in to read John Rawls' book.

I'm not claiming comparable scale here, but I read articles in academic psychology very slowly, compared to nearly anything else I read. It's because I'm constantly trying to figure out what's being assumed, or what the unstated implications might be. I can read a novel in French (a language that I didn't learn till my teenage years, and that I have to use different brain centers to process) faster than most psych journal publications in English.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly,

I put "genius" in scare-quotes because IQ testers will say that anyone with a high enough IQ (150 or 160 are typical lower limits) is a genius.

But genius, as most people understand it, is obviously not reducible to IQ. To put it in plain language, you can be extremely smart without being particularly creative. Ramanujan, Einstein, Feynman, et al. were extremely creative, not just extremely smart.

Also (and this pushes us outside the limits of conventional intelligence testing), most genius-level capabilities are specialized. Ramanujan, for instance, was highly creative in certain areas of mathematics; I gather from my (very limited) knowledge of his life that he wasn't highly creative at anything else. Mozart was highly creative in music; nothing special otherwise.

Brant,

Standard IQ testing procedures assume a normal distribution (a bell curve) of scores in the human population, with a population mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Two standard deviations above the mean yields an IQ of 130. That's higher than the IQ's of roughly 98% of the population, but "genius" level IQ (see disclaimer above) is more than three standard deviations above the mean.

Barbara,

You've confirmed what I meant to imply about Ayn Rand being a slow reader. Her slow reading was a consequence of other unusual cognitive abilities. But of course it came at a cost--like not being willing to put the time in to read John Rawls' book.

I'm not claiming comparable scale here, but I read articles in academic psychology very slowly, compared to nearly anything else I read. It's because I'm constantly trying to figure out what's being assumed, or what the unstated implications might be. I can read a novel in French (a language that I didn't learn till my teenage years, and that I have to use different brain centers to process) faster than most psych journal publications in English.

Robert Campbell

Well, James (DNA) Watson had a purported IQ of 125. William (transistor) Shockley's was in the low 130s. Both these men are generally considered geniuses. Shockley considered himself a second or third level (as he put it) genius. I think the average PhD has a 140 IQ. Durk Pearson's IQ wasn't measurable, but I hesitate to think of him as a genius. That might be because he's so up there and I'm not.

An IQ test score is considered an objective measurement of (some types) of intelligence because it's a number that can be compared with other numbers. I understand IQ tests were developed and/or first extensively used as a quick way of determining who was officer material and who wasn't in WWI.

I think that someone who isn't a genius can create something of genius. I think genius can even be a flash in the pan. But when you get to the top of the heap it's just staggering, especially with the math and science guys closely followed by the classical music creators. Wow! As for Ayn Rand, I think she was absolutely a genius who peaked in the 1940s with "The Fountainhead" and the first years of writing "Atlas Shrugged." But I then think she effectively got stuck inside her own creations. As Nathaniel Branden said (regarding "Atlas"): "and wasn't coming out." (Not necessarily an exact quote.) You aren't a genius if you've created nothing to show for it. I think that that is the common thread in considered genius.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the fascinations of observing her mind at work was precisely her ease at acquiring new skills. Ask philosopher John Hospers how he introduced her to highly technical issues in philosophy, and how she mastered them as quickly as he could present them, and immediately saw worlds of implications in them and further avenues to pursue.. Ask Robert Efron how he introduced her to issues of technical physics, and how she explained to him, an internationally respected physicist, implications of those issues he'd never been aware of.

Hm. That is not the way Hospers talks about his and Ayn's exchanges in his written "Memoir," published by Liberty. Instead he describes frustration at their approaching philosophical issues so differently and at his never getting very far with her understanding what he was trying to convey, also with the sloppiness of her verbal habits. Did he say something like your report in a taped reminiscence?

(I have the Liberty Memoir, but lack time right now to provide quotes. I'll type some in later.)

Re Efron's opinion of her perspicacity in grasping "issues of technical physics," I would like to see direct quotes from Efron on that. The report does not square with that of persons I know who are knowledgeable about physics, including Larry, and who had some exchanges with her. None of those persons had near the length of interaction Robert Efron did. I'd be extremely curious to hear details of what Efron reported, and of what he talked with her about. (Also, of course, Efron is not a physicist, so I wonder how much he knew/knows about "issues of technical physics.")

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my gosh, it's going to take me quite a while to digest this thread, all in one day this was! Heavens. That reader-thing-component in my head is going to blow a fuse.

First blush on this, though, having digested the sypnoses given of the LP/Yarbourough podcast thingie... Cutting to the quick.

I agree with MSK's first read; there are functional concepts about forums being pointed out by LP (mostly). But this, to me, is assumed. You have to participate and develop experience with something if you are going to talk about it in any kind of reference-to-reality fashion. So, the mere fact that the general statements expressed even, in the admitted lack of experience, have any validity speaks well. But that just isn't the rubber hitting the road. It's the difference between getting in your muscle car and doing a burnout down the street, vs. having seen someone do it. So, between that and the whole nature of 2nd hand info (the old "telephone" game taught to kids illustrated how info dilutes), this is a problem. It reeks of armchair quarterback, and that has some serious limits. It gets into the woulda shoulda coulda category. How can a person commentate on an activity if they have little or no realtime experience engaging in said activity? Yuck.

Then, the thing about voice in writing. Now, MSK just put up a very nice thing about conversational tone in writing, and from what I see LP pretty much is at odds with that whole approach. Well, that's how I write, it's where my Kung Fu arises, and on that one he can, forgive me, kiss my pah-tooty. Just because he's afraid of doing looser stuff, freewrites and that, doesn't mean that I'm going to stop. I think it's funny, stopping to consider, that the man is infinitely more educated than I but for the fact I, and a heck of a lot of people around here can run circles around him in that dept. He couldn't freewrite his way out of a paytoilet because he doesn't practice. That's like saying only writing classical is good: no swing music or jukejoint stuff. Sorry, cupcake, I try to work in many different modalities.

But overall, at least he (they) kind of see things<---me trying, hope against hope, to find the positives. After that, though, belly up to the bar and hold forth with the opinions from Upon High: back to the armchair, boys. Load up on some chips and wait for the next game. Ptui. It smells like dead people in here, mom. It smells like Grandma used to before she...

rde

Not on my watch.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

~ I have little experience with killing humans. This does not forstall my having views on those who do.

~ Unless we must quibble about what number going by which test given in which decade is relevent to using the term 'genius,', then it's best we go by the usual generic meaning...which includes the fact that one's really talking about one's impression and not a checklist score. --- Given that, I'm not aware (as hinted by Campbell re Mozart, et al) that being a genius automatically meant that one was an inherent math-wizard (like, oh, 'Rainman') nor that there was never any 'struggle' with subject 'X'.

~ Re Ramanujan, he was a genius in math like Fischer was in chess...and like Newton was in alchemy. Ramanujan had his mystic side also. Other than physics (and inductive arguments), Feynmann was good only at bongo-playing.

LLAP

J:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara,

The "genius" category in Robert Campbell's explanation of IQ testing (a category of measurement) is all I meant with the phrase. We are using different meanings for the word "genius." I do not know if Rand had an IQ of, say, 150 or 160. One could reasonably ask, does it matter in light of her cognitive abilities and insights?

My use of this kind of statement probably comes from the fact that IQ testing was really big in Virginia public schools when I was growing up. It left an impression. I think the basic concept in many people's mind of the word "genius" is an IQ test score.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now