Ayn Rand and Social Intuition

[Paul Mawdsley]

My response to Bob here is an example of non-linear thought in action. Talk about going off on (non-linear?) tangents! I couldn't post this in the thread I was responding to because it veers so far from the intended topic.

The process of figuring what is true (relative to the postulates of a theory) is often a non-linear non-logical process involving images and analogies.

[...]

The two aspects, discovery and justification both involve intuitive processes. Expermimental design and strategy is often a "right brain" excercise, rather than a linear derivation from basic principles.

The non-linear "right brain" activity seems to be very much associated with creativity and intuitive processing. It is fundamentally generative and holistic. The linear "left brain" activity is very systematic and deductive. It is fundamentally focused on particulars and is reductive. The latter processes are more associated with the "conscious mind." I wonder if this tends to bias those with a respect for the systematic aspects of discovery and justification to accept reductionist worldviews. Conversely, I wonder if it tends too leave more generative and holistic worldviews in the hands of those who have little respect for the systematic aspects of discovery and justification. A bias in programming.

It's unfortunate that most generative and holistic approaches wind up in some type of mysticism or some sort of social metaphysical primacy. I guess that's part of Ayn Rand's attraction. Her fictions present a generative and holistic worldview without falling into mysticism or social metaphysical primacy. Unfortunately, I don't think her non-fiction captured the essentials of her generative and holistic epistemology. Also, while she built third person models of social dynamics, she lacked genuine first person social intuition from within. Her lack of social intuition, while it was partly responsible for her not assuming the primacy of the social realm, it also kept her ignorant of how social images were generated in her and flowed through her.

This is where lies the greatest weakness of Objectivism. Its founder and many of her followers have underdeveloped social intuition. It's a defining feature of the system. My guess is that people who are socially intuitive in first person images are not generally captured by Rand's spell (most of them have their own challenges though). Rand and many of her followers appear ignorant of how first person social images are generated in them and flow through them into the authoritarian, moralizing and "rage" behaviours that have so become associated with the Objectivist movement.

Paul

[UncleJim]

My response to Bob here is an example of non-linear thought in action. Talk about going off on (non-linear?) tangents! I couldn't post this in the thread I was responding to because it veers so far from the intended topic.

The process of figuring what is true (relative to the postulates of a theory) is often a non-linear non-logical process involving images and analogies.

[...]

The two aspects, discovery and justification both involve intuitive processes. Expermimental design and strategy is often a "right brain" excercise, rather than a linear derivation from basic principles.

The non-linear "right brain" activity seems to be very much associated with creativity and intuitive processing. It is fundamentally generative and holistic. The linear "left brain" activity is very systematic and deductive. It is fundamentally focused on particulars and is reductive. The latter processes are more associated with the "conscious mind." I wonder if this tends to bias those with a respect for the systematic aspects of discovery and justification to accept reductionist worldviews. Conversely, I wonder if it tends too leave more generative and holistic worldviews in the hands of those who have little respect for the systematic aspects of discovery and justification. A bias in programming.

It's unfortunate that most generative and holistic approaches wind up in some type of mysticism or some sort of social metaphysical primacy. I guess that's part of Ayn Rand's attraction. Her fictions present a generative and holistic worldview without falling into mysticism or social metaphysical primacy. Unfortunately, I don't think her non-fiction captured the essentials of her generative and holistic epistemology. Also, while she built third person models of social dynamics, she lacked genuine first person social intuition from within. Her lack of social intuition, while it was partly responsible for her not assuming the primacy of the social realm, it also kept her ignorant of how social images were generated in her and flowed through her.

This is where lies the greatest weakness of Objectivism. Its founder and many of her followers have underdeveloped social intuition. It's a defining feature of the system. My guess is that people who are socially intuitive in first person images are not generally captured by Rand's spell (most of them have their own challenges though). Rand and many of her followers appear ignorant of how first person social images are generated in them and flow through them into the authoritarian, moralizing and "rage" behaviours that have so become associated with the Objectivist movement.

Paul

By what method have you observed this thing you call "social intuition"? What permits you to make the claim that it is a defining feature of Objectivism?

Objectivism is merely a tool. Its value is that it allows one to explain what they know to exist. In doing so it reveals the level of development of their intelligence.

Objectivism observes 1) what one is, 2) where one lives and 3) what these say about how one must behave to be considered a properly functioning human-being [what one is] right here on earth [where one lives]. This (of course) includes those times when one is socially engaged.

[Guyau]

A closely related issue has been raised by Elizabeth Nonemaker:

We all know that the best life is a (rationally) self-centered one: do what you gotta do to make you and only you happy - get that career you wanted, that house, that book, that trip around the world, that adorable puppy, and screw all those other losers who say you should think more about the opinions of other people or that your money would be better spent buying a rosary to give to a mother in Africa. It's about you and your wants. But we also all know that, as incredibly awesome as your personal success is, it can also quite dreary unless you have someone to share it with (in the same way that having a significant other would mean nothing if you had achieved nothing from your own life - if your "love" with that person was unearned).

So, my query is, what exactly is it that makes worthwhile social interaction so essential to happiness?

You have someone to understand you, yes; you have someone to share your life with, yes - but if life is about success and individual achievement, can't you accomplish that all without someone's understanding or sharing it, and enjoy it fully? If that's what brings happiness (and it does), why is it not complete happiness if it's all alone? What is it in being with rational people that makes life seem meaningful (or so I would imagine)?

(Note - I'm not in any way saying that Objectivists "theoretically" shouldn't need others' company; I'm honestly wondering exactly why it is that we do so much.)

Enlighten me!

Recent works:

Others in Mind

Social Origins of Self-Consciousness

Philippe Rochat (Cambridge 2009)

Predicative Minds

The Social Ontogeny of Propositional Thinking

Radu Bogdan (MIT 2009)

These two essays integrate pertinent scientific research with Rand’s thought:

“Why Man Needs Approval”

Marsha Enright (Objectivity 1991)

ABSTRACT

It is argued that the desire for positive responses from others is engrained in both our animal nature and our rational nature. This is the story of the profoundly social and emotional nature of intelligent human being. From interactive smiling in the crib, to sharing visual attention, to acquisition of language and registration of the feelings and intentions of others, to full-grown independent mind, this is how we are woven. This is the tapestry of our symbolic consciousness, our individuality, and our sociability, the tapestry of our wings for creation, romantic love, and happiness.

“Intuition, the Subconscious, and the Acquisition of Knowledge”

Kathleen Touchstone (Objectivity 1994)

ABSTRACT

Part 1

The sense of intuition under scrutiny here is what is variously called intuitive thought or subconscious thought. In The Act of Creation Arthur Koestler makes the case for a large measure of subconscious thought in creative endeavors, with special focus on the creativity in major scientific advances. In Koestler’s picture, intuition is a means of knowledge.

Ayn Rand champions the view that reason is the only means to knowledge. Intuition has no part. By reason she means our conscious conceptual faculty that logically identifies and integrates the evidence of the senses.

Touchstone reconciles considerably these two contrasting views by looking into their different conceptions of intuition. She examines the testimony of many great creators concerning the role of the subconscious in their achievements. She dissects Koestler’s characterization of such feats and assimilates their subconscious phases into the operation of sovereign reason in the acquisition of knowledge.

Questions of the reality and nature of the subconscious, and its role in creative thought, leads Touchstone to an examination of contemporary scientific research on dreams. She then surveys the research on cerebral lateralization (left brain, right brain) occurring in numerous elements of cognition, conscious and subconscious.

Part 2

Touchstone assimilates further research on cerebral laterality pertaining to perception, memory, learning, emotions, language, spatial skills, dreams, hypnosis, and creativity.

Looking forward to Barbara Branden’s book.

[Guyau]

In his Objectivity essay “Formation of the Concept of Mind” (1993), Paul Vanderveen argued that attainment of the concept of one’s own mind is essentially linked to attainment of one’s concept of other minds. Issued last fall was Our Own Minds by Radu J. Bogdan, who is also author of Predicative Minds, noted in the preceding post.

From the publisher:

In Our Own Minds, Radu Bogdan takes a developmental perspective on consciousness—its functional design in particular—and proposes that children's functional capacity for consciousness is assembled during development out of a variety of ontogenetic adaptations that respond mostly to sociocultural challenges specific to distinct stages of childhood. Young human minds develop self-consciousness—in the broad sense of being conscious of the self's mental and behavioral relatedness to the world—because they face extraordinary and escalating sociocultural pressures that cannot be handled without setting in motion a complex executive machinery of self-regulation under the guidance of an increasingly sophisticated intuitive psychology.

Bogdan suggests that self-consciousness develops gradually during childhood. Children move from being oriented toward the outside world in early childhood to becoming (at about age four) oriented also toward their own minds. Bogdan argues that the sociocultural tasks and practices that children must assimilate and engage in competently demand the development of an intuitive psychology (also known as theory of mind or mind reading); the intuitive psychology assembles a suite of executive abilities (intending, controlling, monitoring, and so on) that install self-consciousness and drive its development. Understanding minds, first the minds of others and then our own, drives the development of self-consciousness, world-bound or extrovert at the beginning and later mind-bound or introvert. This asymmetric development of the intuitive psychology drives a commensurate asymmetric development of self-consciousness.

[BaalChatzaf]

In his Objectivity essay "Formation of the Concept of Mind" (1993), Paul Vanderveen argued that attainment of the concept of one's own mind is essentially linked to attainment of one's concept of other minds. Issued last fall was Our Own Minds by Radu J. Bogdan, who is also author of Predicative Minds, noted in the preceding post.

From the publisher:

In Our Own Minds, Radu Bogdan takes a developmental perspective on consciousness—its functional design in particular—and proposes that children's functional capacity for consciousness is assembled during development out of a variety of ontogenetic adaptations that respond mostly to sociocultural challenges specific to distinct stages of childhood. Young human minds develop self-consciousness—in the broad sense of being conscious of the self's mental and behavioral relatedness to the world—because they face extraordinary and escalating sociocultural pressures that cannot be handled without setting in motion a complex executive machinery of self-regulation under the guidance of an increasingly sophisticated intuitive psychology.

Bogdan suggests that self-consciousness develops gradually during childhood. Children move from being oriented toward the outside world in early childhood to becoming (at about age four) oriented also toward their own minds. Bogdan argues that the sociocultural tasks and practices that children must assimilate and engage in competently demand the development of an intuitive psychology (also known as theory of mind or mind reading); the intuitive psychology assembles a suite of executive abilities (intending, controlling, monitoring, and so on) that install self-consciousness and drive its development. Understanding minds, first the minds of others and then our own, drives the development of self-consciousness, world-bound or extrovert at the beginning and later mind-bound or introvert. This asymmetric development of the intuitive psychology drives a commensurate asymmetric development of self-consciousness.

How can one access "other minds". All we can access is the external behavior of others, objective scans of their bodies and interiors (to some extent). Not a mind in sight. As to our own "minds" they stay our own. No one else can access them.

All we have of other people is their external manifestation.

Ba'al Chatzhaf

[kiaer.ts]

How can one access "other minds". All we can access is the external behavior of others, objective scans of their bodies and interiors (to some extent). Not a mind in sight. As to our own "minds" they stay our own. No one else can access them.

All we have of other people is their external manifestation.

In your case, about the lack of evidence for your own mind, I'll take your word for it.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Ted Keer

[basimpson22]

Very interesting topic. To Robert/Baal: what do you mean that by this statement? "all we have of other people is their external manifestation."

Our minds are very accessible, especially through facial expressions, body language, etc. You could say that our bodies manifest what our mind is thinking. So when you say that all we have of other people is their external manifestation I am able to see where you are coming from. I encourage you to look up videos on the study of facial expressions, or you could read BLINK. This book goes into detail about being able to immediately know one's emotions through examining which combination of facial muscles are activated. Although the research was done in a 'deductive' manner (an objective process), i believe i would also be correct in saying that people have a natural intuition when it comes to reading people's facial expressions. So you say "all" we have of other people is their external manifestations well i would say peoples' external manifestations present us with a very generous amount of insight.

[basimpson22]

By what method have you observed this thing you call "social intuition"? What permits you to make the claim that it is a defining feature of Objectivism?

Objectivism is merely a tool. Its value is that it allows one to explain what they know to exist. In doing so it reveals the level of development of their intelligence.

This doesnt seem very objective. This seems like a blind defense of ones concept of objectivism. "by what method have you observed this thing you call "social intuition"." Isn't social intuition a tad bit self explanatory. Well, depends on how one defines intuition I suppose. Off the cuff I would define it as subconscious reasoning or the ability to reason without applying conscious thought or deduction. In that case, yes, it's self explanatory. You say "objectivism is merely a tool. Its value is that it allows one to explain what they know to exist. In doing so it reveals the level of development of their intelligence." Well, I disagree with that statement. An extreme example would be an autistic child. Many of them are extremely gifted intellectually yet they may not possess the ability to explain their thought process to others. I would also encourage you to read BLINK. It talks about intuition and going with your gut feeling. There are a many number of people who can make decisions or observations that are inexplicable. In the book is an example of a tennis coach who knows as a player strikes a ball if it will be a fault I think over 90% of the time. It could've been a higher percentage but i think you see my point.

You ask what permits him to make that claim. Well, what permits you to ask him that question? What are your credentials? Are you a certified objectivist? Did Ayn Rand annoint you herself?

One more thing. I agree with the statement that "Objectivism is merely a tool". Yes, it is merely a tool, not a way of life.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Aristocrates

[kiaer.ts]

Very interesting topic. To Robert/Baal: what do you mean that by this statement? "all we have of other people is their external manifestation."

Our minds are very accessible, especially through facial expressions, body language, etc. You could say that our bodies manifest what our mind is thinking. So when you say that all we have of other people is their external manifestation I am able to see where you are coming from. I encourage you to look up videos on the study of facial expressions, or you could read BLINK. This book goes into detail about being able to immediately know one's emotions through examining which combination of facial muscles are activated. Although the research was done in a 'deductive' manner (an objective process), i believe i would also be correct in saying that people have a natural intuition when it comes to reading people's facial expressions. So you say "all" we have of other people is their external manifestations well i would say peoples' external manifestations present us with a very generous amount of insight.

Bob fancies himself both a scientician and an autist, which means that things which are obvious and certain to a pre-schooler deserve less respect in his book than the rather false and unobvious ravings of Skinner and Goedel.

[basimpson22]

Objectivism observes

In social situations the one observing is often the one left out

Edited March 11, 2011 by Aristocrates

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob fancies himself both a scientician and an autist, which means that things which are obvious and certain to a pre-schooler deserve less respect in his book than the rather false and unobvious ravings of Skinner and Goedel.

Kurt Goedel (in spite of being Nutsy Fagin) was the greatest logician of the 20th century, perhaps the greatest logician of all time (thus far). Skinner was another case entirely. Goedel put the stake through Hilbert's program of proving arithmetic (and therefore the analysis of real and complex variables) to be consistent. No absolute proof consistency exists.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Bogdan suggests that self-consciousness develops gradually during childhood. Children move from being oriented toward the outside world in early childhood to becoming (at about age four) oriented also toward their own minds. Bogdan argues that the sociocultural tasks and practices that children must assimilate and engage in competently demand the development of an intuitive psychology (also known as theory of mind or mind reading); the intuitive psychology assembles a suite of executive abilities (intending, controlling, monitoring, and so on) that install self-consciousness and drive its development. Understanding minds, first the minds of others and then our own, drives the development of self-consciousness, world-bound or extrovert at the beginning and later mind-bound or introvert. This asymmetric development of the intuitive psychology drives a commensurate asymmetric development of self-consciousness.

One gets the impression that Bogdan regards intuition as some kind of hindrance (?) because it can lead to "self-consciouness". But not every manifestation of self-consciousness (like e. g. extreme social shyness) has mere intuition as the cause. The cause of extreme shyness is often an exaggerated fear of being judged by others.

Intuitive persons can also be very successful in the 'outside world', as salespersons for example.

It would interest me whether Bogdan has addressed the problems of individuals who don't have developed the capacity of intuition. Who for example can't show empathy because they don't know how others feel?

How can one access "other minds". All we can access is the external behavior of others, objective scans of their bodies and interiors (to some extent). Not a mind in sight. As to our own "minds" they stay our own. No one else can access them.

All we have of other people is their external manifestation.

You are reading this too literally. "Access other minds" minds means that, going by a person's external behavior, one draws inferences as to e. g. how they are feeling, what makes them tick, etc.

If for example, Jim's wife snaps at him over some small stuff, Jim can draw the inference that she is in truth upset over something else, with the small stuff having a mere 'trigger' effect.

For example, after a more 'relaxed' day at work, on arriving home, I'm not particulary bothered when I see that my family members haven't picked up after themselves. But on more 'stressful' days I'm more likely to criticize them for being sloppy.

Very interesting topic. To Robert/Baal: what do you mean that by this statement? "all we have of other people is their external manifestation."

Ba'al has Asperger's, and has often mentioned here himself that "Aspies" can have problems with figurative speech because they tend to read literally.

In social situations the one observing is often the one left out

A skilled observer can accomplish the task with the others not even realizing that they are being observed.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Xray

[basimpson22]

In social situations the one observing is often the one left out

A skilled observer can accomplish the task with the others not even realizing that they are being observed.

I completely agree with you.

[BaalChatzaf]

Very interesting topic. To Robert/Baal: what do you mean that by this statement? "all we have of other people is their external manifestation."

Speech, writing, "face-language", "body-language", physiological indicators. The immediate indicators are skin electrical resistance and conductivity, blood pressure, heart/pulse rate, breathing rate. More indirect indicators are blood chemistry, brain electrical activity, rate of interaction with radioactive tracers (basis of the PET scan), MRI and such like. As technology improves more external indicators are available for objective observation. The quasi subjective external indicators are descriptions of behavior in social interactions. At no point do we ever see, perceive or measure a "mind". Every external indicator is a physical effect of physical causes.

As to speech, writing, body-language, face-language and voice tone, as you know these can be faked. Forgers, imitators and actors do it for a living.

Does this answer your question? This is the best I can do for you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Guyau]

. . .

Recent works:

Others in Mind

Social Origins of Self-Consciousness

Philippe Rochat (Cambridge 2009)

Predicative Minds

The Social Ontogeny of Propositional Thinking

Radu Bogdan (MIT 2009)

. . . Integrating pertinent scientific research with Rand’s thought:

“Why Man Needs Approval”

Marsha Enright (Objectivity 1991)

ABSTRACT

It is argued that the desire for positive responses from others is engrained in both our animal nature and our rational nature. This is the story of the profoundly social and emotional nature of intelligent human being. From interactive smiling in the crib, to sharing visual attention, to acquisition of language and registration of the feelings and intentions of others, to full-grown independent mind, this is how we are woven. This is the tapestry of our symbolic consciousness, our individuality, and our sociability, the tapestry of our wings for creation, romantic love, and happiness.

To those works, we should add:

Social Neuroscience

Todorov, Fiske, and Prentice, editors (Oxford 2011)

[BaalChatzaf]

Objectivism observes 1) what one is, 2) where one lives and 3) what these say about how one must behave to be considered a properly functioning human-being [what one is] right here on earth [where one lives]. This (of course) includes those times when one is socially engaged.

I rarely see Objectivists (of the self declared variety) or "students of Objectivism" behave as though this were the case.

If what you say were literally true, Objectivism would be the ideal philosophy for Aspergarians (or Aspies, as we call ourselves). By the numbers, by the book, by the Axioms. Unfortunately anything that straight-forward rarely works out in the real world.

Ba'al Chatzaf