I noted, rather stupidly it turns out, in a thread called Shyness at Objectivism Online, that "evidence-based" psycholtherapy, such as CBT, DBT etc, was a testament to some of Rand's prescience (i.e., her insistence that the emotive-rational hinge was key to mental strength and moral compass).
In the back of my mind (on the old grey chesterfield with the aging fellow who does my research, watching Trailer Park Boys and eating Cheetos) was the voice saying, "Who was that guy that kinda agreed with Rand in the early days, but took a poke at her later on? Huh? Oh well. He he he. Bubbles. He He He."
Albert Ellis, the news tells us today, dead, the guy who grooved with and later pilloried Rand. I'm glad the old guy on the chesterfield didn't remember the name or I would have seemed pompous and ill-informed, instead of merely pompous. I had no idea.
I had no idea he was so SCATHING in his criticism of Rand's latter excesses, I had no idea he had debated Nathaniel Branden on stage regarding Objectivist psychology, nor that he had published a freely available 248 page clang!er against the 'religion' of Rand -- "Are Capitalism, Objectivism, and Libertarianism Religions? Yes!"**
How can I have missed the Ellis connection and its deeper ironies? In any case, I seem to have killed the thread over there at our sister site OO, not least because one of the self-identified shies there seemed to be saying that actually being with other human beings was necessitated but once a year, with the phrase, "So the question is rather: should I spend huge amounts of time and trouble so that I can enjoy a situation that confronts me maybe once a year? It's like curing your fear of bugs so that you can enjoy eating live spiders. What the heck for?"
Now, how can I answer that. Hard enough to post inoffensively at OO anyways.
Fans of Randiana will download the Ellis book, as I did, after registering at Lulu.com
Here's two brief snips from his introduction.
When I first read The Fountainhead in the early
1940’s I thought there was something compelling
about the philosophy of Ayn Randor what is now
called objectivism. Not that I didn’t have
misgivings; I did. [ . . . ] But her
individualistic outlook made some real sense to
me; and it influenced me somewhat as I developed
my method of rational emotive behavior therapy
Frankly, I enjoy polemics. Pitting my thinking
against that of other bright people is
challenging and rewarding. I trust that I do not like this
kind of thing for socalled egotistical reasons:
to knock my opponents down and impress others
with what a “worthwhile” person I am. But I do
enjoy a good, noholdsbarred discussion. I think
that people such as Ayn Rand and the Nathaniel
Branden are worthy, enjoyable opponents. So
lets zestfully get on to the fray!
. . . and on that cheery note, who else died of Randian note? Great friend of gays, old whatsername . . .
** his chapter titles are, ahem, revealing:
Chapter 5: Assorted Evils of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism
Chapter 6: Why Objectivism is a Fanatical Religion
Chapter 7: Ayn Rand’s Religious Absolutism and Need for Certainty
Chapter 8: Definitional and Fanatically Religious Thinking
Chapter 9: Ayn Rand’s Intolerance of Opposing Philosophies
Chapter 10: Ayn Rand’s Deification and Hero Worhsip
Chapter 11: Objectivism’s Unrealism and AntiEmpiricism
Chapter 12: Ayn Rand’s Condemning and Damning Attitudes
Chapter 13: Other Fanatically Religious Characteristics of Ayn Rand and
Chapter 14: The Religiosity of Ayn Rand and Objectivists