The psychology of choosing an Objectivist Forum.

[gary williams]

This is just an itch in my head :idea: , but.......

SOLOHQ has basically broken up into 3 new sites!

Is it just me or does anyone else find it interesting to see who goes to which site, since "the breakup?"

I am finding the psychology of the different "cliques" facinating!

Some have joined more than one site, which is to be expected, but it is in watching the posting "loyalty" that I find interesting.

It is the "who posts where" that I find curious!

Anyone have any thoughts?

gw

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Gary,

I too, have my own observations. I wouldn't say that SoloHQ split into three - more like two and a half or so!

Frankly I received this as a present from Kat and I started with a certain misgiving. As time goes on, it is going slow, but the quality level is high. It will probably start being much more dynamic after our first book project gets finished and hits the market. But overall I am pleased.

Both Solo and RoR have dropped back a bit in intensity because both Joe and Linz complimented each other in ways that are not present on both sites yet. Still, both are fighting for reason and liberty, which is a hell of a lot more than you will find in Sunday School. Thus I post at both and have even kept my position at Solo.

I see no way to answer your observations publicly without getting into remarks that could be taken as insults to either Joe or Linz, irrespective of intention, so I will refrain from doing so.

I have no wish to insult either, nor harm their work. Because of them, I met wonderful people, especially Kitten and Barbara and so many others, (including you too!), and I was able to start a stage of my life as a writer. I can only thank them.

One thing I am offering here is a haven for studying the work of both of the Brandens without all the acrimony and insinuations and just plain meanness against them that are present at the other sites, albeit more intensely on one site than another.

Here we will learn from the Brandens and learn about the Brandens. There is much, much, much value that is being squandered and disparaged by others that we gladly claim for our own. Only good things will come of this.

We will also be providing Corners for discussing the work of other major writers on Rand and Objectivism (we just set up a one for Chris Sciabarra and others will follow in due time).

Many people do not post here yet, Gary, because it is all so new and there is not yet much going on. But we are being read. And I suspect that our readers are extremely high quality, just like our small member list. And I hope we can become and stay good enough to inspire the loyalty of most.

I can give you one psychological profile without reservation, though. Those who post here and read here are highly intelligent, are of good will and are interested in the ideas presented.

What more could we ask?

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Gary,

It is a long and odd history when you look at the various O'ist sites. I remember years and years back when I first got on the Internet, I went on to (never mind), all full of excitement about meeting more of "my people". Holy heck, I got my nuts shot off and I'm not even sure what I did! I slinked off. I think I got put on moderation once for something mundane.

For the longest time, I stayed hunkered down at Nathaniel's site (now on Yahoo, before that it was on his actual site). We used to have pretty good traffic going through there for a Yahoo site, but things just dropped off all of a sudden (I have a theory why, but I'll keep it to myself)There are some great discussions in those archives. Nathaniel is very forthcoming about answering questions, and it seems he really likes it when new people ask him things. The thing about that site was that we would get very, very off the topic of self-esteem. It used to get really out there.

I'm very excited about this place, because I know who's behind it, and who has already showed up. This is special.

[gary williams]

Rich said,

"I'm very excited about this place, because I know who's behind it, and who has already showed up. This is special."

I say,

"Ditto!"

gw

[gary williams]

MSK,

I was not insinuating anything negative about anybody. The context of my post was simply watching the choices people make. (Observation)

First, there are three new sites.

Second, it is WHO goes where!

Third, lots of folks go to all three sites. (No problemo!) Its the loyalism to who runs which site that I find interesting. And why they are choosen.

I guess my point is - these three are all Objectivist sites, but I am watching who is objective. And who is sycophantic.

Isn't it odd that some "Objectivists" need....leaders?

And, by the way, BB chose this site. (That is why I say...THERE ARE THREE SITES!!!)

gw

[Kat]

Actually there are four new sites. We can't forget about our friends at TOC. I visited them in DC a couple of months ago and they truly are wonderful people doing good work spreading the ideas of Ayn Rand. They have graciously let us use their materials on basic Objectivism.

The internet is a mightly big place, but the Objectivist world is a fairly small world. I want this site to be a hangout the best, the brightest and the coolest of the Objectvist Nouveau. So far, so good.

Kat

[escott]

Nouveau indeed

[Selene]

From the mouths of Rich "babes"!

"I'm very excited about this place, because I know who's behind it, and who has already showed up. This is special."

Michael, as you know, I inquire as to my experience "gap" in the Objectivist movement and Gary's post works real well.

Thanks Gary

Boy for a cold heartless o'ist site, I am thanking a lot of folks today.

And yes it is a "special" place.

Adam

[syrakusos]

Boy for a cold heartless o'ist site, I am thanking a lot of folks today.

And yes it is a "special" place.

Adam

I post more work to RoR than to here because the presentation layer at RoR is more public. Also, inertia is a strong factor because I was an old SOLO subscriber before the splits. Immediately after the split, I went to SOLO-HQ, but did not stay. The level and quality of discussion was too low and too personal, far too ad hominem, even for Objectivists. It's too bad, because I really like reading Adam Reed's work. I find him insightful and creative. He is truly a genius. But he is mired there and it presents too much resistence for my own sensibilities.

I tried Noodle Food, but the user interface (presentation layer) was not easy to navigate and I could never get a handle on the discussions or even the topic subjects.

After a few years, I came here, based on a post over on RoR. I liked the BBS software which I know well from numismatic discussions (CoinTalk, CoinPeople, Forvm Ancients, etc.). Also, the table of contents promised a wide range of active subjects. I liked the fact that MSK has no dungeon ("moderation to Dissent"), but miss the opportunity to vote for nicely crafted work via the "Sanction check mark."

Now, I go back and forth between RoR and OL depending as much on the purpose of my post as the subjects that I read. I just placed a long Article on RoR about the ethical foundations of criminology. Such an essay would be out of place here: too long and not visible to the passing reader. On the other hand, the contrarians here, Dragonfly, Semanticist and Baal, provide interesting perspectives that did not come to the fore on RoR. Same people; differernt consequences. Culture may be intangible but still real in its affects.

The same is strongly true in the case of MSK himself. Unlike the other three, he is clearly an Objectvist, at least in the main and to the extent that it matters as judged by essentials. Nonetheless, I found the argumentation on RoR surrounding him to be disturbing and disappointing. I was happy to see that he made a place for himself here. There is much precedent for that if you think about Henry Ford not being content to work for Thomas Edison -- their lifelong friendship notwithstanding -- or the far more acrimonious, contentious and litigious "Robert Shockley and his Fairchildren."

Edited April 19, 2009 by Michael E. Marotta