Neil Parille

New biography of Rand coming in August: Amazon.com WWW.AMAZON.COM

Speaking of books, Yaron said the other day that he doesn't know why the Milgram Knapp bio has taken "longer than I hoped or expected."

She has interesting things to say when it comes to Objectivism. When she talks about other things such as religion she should be used with some caution.

I don't know much about this area of law, but people make millions of videos like this every year - excerpting another video interspersed with comments.

Valliant sent Vocab Malone a cease and desist letter over this. Vocab told me he's not budging.

No reply from Ben Bayer. Interesting that as usual no mention in the video of PARC.

A recent interview with Harry and Ben Bayer. I'm not good at time stamping. It starts at 46:20 Hi Ben, Enjoyed the discussion, interesting anecdotes and observations. I wanted to point out that Harry misrepresents Barbara's biography on her final meeting and phone call with Rand. As Harry says, Rand and Barbara met in Rand's New York apartment in 1981. According to Barbara, after the meeting, she sent Rand a letter stating that she was writing Rand's biography. When Rand didn't respond, Barbara called her. Rand refused to talk. Barbara says she was certain that this was most likely due to Rand's disapproval of the prospective biography. Harry doesn't mention the letter and implies Barbara first sprang the idea of the biography in the phone call and asked for Rand's assistance. He says Barbara claims that the final conversation was of a ""I'm sorry that things didn't work out" variety. That's not what she writes. (The existence of the post-meeting letter telling Rand about the biography is confirmed by Cynthia Peikoff in 100 Voices) Feel free to share this with Harry. I don't think he'd open one of my emails. Regards, Neil

James flips out again. Go to 2:02.40 James S. Valliant Author of Creating Christ enters Paradigm Shift TV 314 - YouTube

Here is something else from Valliant. He and Rabbi Singer repeat the probably false claim that Christians settled on December 25 as Jesus's birthday because there were December 25 Sun God celebrations. I've sent Valliant the documentation that this is likely false, but he repeats it here as if it's not controversial. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32F7vPCKlOA&t=240s

The debate between Craig Biddle and Stephen Hicks concerning Open versus Close Objectivism took place last month in Belgrade, Serbia. Biddle took the Closed position and Hicks the Open position. I enjoyed the debate and thought each side presented his position well. There wasn’t the rancor that one might expect for what has often been a contentious issue. For background on the Open versus Closed controversy see here. Biddle took a reasonable approach. Ayn Rand died in 1982 and the positions she set forth in her books and essays constitutes Objectivism. He conceded that there are philosophical topics that Rand didn’t discuss – such as propositions and the problem of induction – but what she did discuss constitutes Objectivism. Any extension of Objectivism outside of this is not part of Objectivism no matter how consistent it might be with Objectivism. He also said that if Objectivism were open, then one would never know what precisely Objectivism is. Is it Rand’s Objectivism plus Peikoff’s extensions or Objectivism plus Hicks’ extensions? Biddle, however, went on say that there were aspects of Rand’s thought that are incidental and shouldn’t be considered Objectivism, such as her opposition to homosexuality and a woman president. He even said that these positions are in effect contrary to Objectivism because a consistent application of Objectivism would lead to the opposite conclusions. This assumes that there are essential and non-essential parts to Objectivism.* Rand never said this, much less provided guidance on how one separates the essential from the non-essential. Consider taxation, which Rand considered immoral. Ideally, government should be funded by voluntary contributions. Is this incidental to Objectivism? One could make an Objectivist argument for taxation. Contrary to anarcho-capitalism, for Rand government is necessary. If government is necessary then shouldn’t it insist that citizens provide support via taxation (which in Rand’s view would be small)?* Hicks compared Objectivism to a science, giving the example of Newtonian physics. Hicks said one could still call himself a Newtonian post Einstein because Einstein’s physics is at most a modification of Newton’s physics. He said one should look at Objectivism as a method for discovering philosophical truth. He asked whether some of Rand’s ideas might need to be revised in light of later science. He gave the example of Rand’s theory of concept formation which is potentially subject to revision because of recent findings in neuroscience. Rand, however, seemed to look at philosophy as in effect the master science. Taken to an extreme, this implies one can’t properly understand contemporary findings in science outside the interpretive lens of Objectivism.*** Hicks conceded that there is a core to Objectivism and one can only go so far in rejecting this or that teaching of Objectivism and still consider oneself an Objectivist. Unfortunately, the debate format – lengthy presentations from each side – didn’t allow for much back and forth on this question, which seems to be the essence of the controversy. I’ll close with a few comments: 1. One factor not discussed is that Rand died in 1982. Not only that, but some of her most important members of the “Second Collective” are still alive such as Leonard Peikoff (Rand’s self-identified “intellectual heir”), Harry Binswanger and Peter “Don’t let the door hit you in the back” Schwartz. If Rand had died in 1882, the question of Open versus Closed Objectivism would probably be discussed no more than Kant’s contemporary followers discuss whether his system is open or closed. 2. The Ayn Rand Institute – which has the support of Peikoff and which will inherit the rights to her books – is well-funded. The ARI has staked out a claim that it is the expert on Rand’s thought and its contemporary application. Not surprisingly, the ARI is the leading advocate of the Closed position. (However, the ARI has no problem claiming that Rand would have despised Donald Trump or serially rewriting Rand’s posthumously published material.) In fairness to Biddle, he is not on good terms with the ARI so no one should question his sincerity. 3. I don’t know what Rand would have thought about this; however she was rather zealous in guarding her thought. As Nathaniel Branden wrote pre-split, “In the future, when Objectivism has become an intellectual and cultural movement on a wider scale, when a variety of authors have written books dealing with some aspect of the Objectivist philosophy – it could be appropriate for those in agreement to describe themselves as ‘Objectivists.’ However, at present, when the name is so intimately associated with Rand and me, it is not. At present, a person who is in agreement with our philosophy should describe himself, not as an Objectivist, but as a student or supporter of Objectivism.” ____________ *I am indebted to Scott Schiff for this and other insights. **Rand seemed to concede as much. In “Government Financing in a Free Society,” she suggested that the state could impose a “voluntary” surcharge on contracts which parties would not be forced to pay. However, if they didn’t pay, the government would not enforce the contract. This sounds as voluntary as paying the Mafia protection money. ***Hence the perhaps apocryphal statement attributed to Peikoff: “Philosophy has a veto over physics.” Note that Peikoff opposes Big Bang cosmology because it was first developed by a Catholic priest and has, at least to some, theistic implications.

Thanks. I've mentioned that in the past but forgot it for some reason.

Thanks for the comments. Most of the criticisms of IQ here are addressed in R. Warne's recent book: In the Know.

I posted this over at Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature Blog. Wonder if anyone has thoughts. _________________ [Introductory Note: the following is an important article by ARCHNBlog contributor Neil Parille. One thing to bear in mind in relation to the subject of intelligence is that the correlation between measured intelligence (i.e., IQ) and societal outcome success is one of the highest correlations ever measured by social science. The persisting skepticism of intelligence in orthodox Objectivist circles constitutes, as Neil explains in this essay, the legacy of Rand's blank slatism.] One thing I’ve noticed over the years is that Objectivists are, like apparently a fair percentage of the population, skeptical of intelligence tests (which I’ll call IQ tests). A while ago I heard Ayn Rand Institute president Yaron Brook claim that IQ tests are “B.S.” (he didn’t use the abbreviation). Perhaps less surprising is that Objectivists are generally skeptical of the contention that intelligence is a highly heritable (put colloquially, genetic) trait. As I’ve mentioned before, there is quite a disconnect between what psychologists know about intelligence and what the average person believes. Here is what probably close to 100% of experts in the field of intelligence research believe: 1. There is such a thing as intelligence. Some people are better at math, have a bigger vocabulary and are better at solving problems of all kinds. 2. IQ tests reliably measure what we consider intelligence. 3. Intelligence is a highly heritable trait, probably in the 50 to 80% range.* 4. IQ correlates to a variety of life outcomes. Higher IQ people on average commit less crime, have less illegitimacy, have lower rates of drug use, etc. If you don’t believe me, here are three prominent left wing intelligence researchers. Here is Rand’s definition of intelligence: “Intelligence is the ability to deal with a broad range of abstractions. Whatever a child’s natural endowment, the use of intelligence is an acquired skill. It has to be acquired by a child’s own effort and automatized by his own mind, but adults can help or hinder him in this crucial process.” It is occasionally said by Objectivists and others that there are kinds of intelligence or aspects of intelligence that aren’t captured or measured by IQ tests. This idea was made popular by Harvard University’s Howard Gardner in his book Multiple Intelligences. Gardner listed among other types of purported intelligence musical ability and athletic ability. Most would consider these things skills. In any event, this dubious theory doesn’t undercut the consensus view of intelligence. For example, if you consider playing baseball a form of intelligence, it is still the case that given two equally gifted baseball players the one with the higher IQ will tend to be a better player. Put differently, nothing has been identified as a form of intelligence which inversely correlates to IQ. Leonard Peikoff was asked in 2016 what Ayn Rand’s IQ might have been. He responded that he didn’t have any idea because IQ was not a topic in the Objectivist community during Rand’s life. He said that he didn’t know whether IQ tests were valid. I recall, but can’t find the podcast, where Peikoff was asked if Rand believed intelligence had a genetic basis. His response was that Rand didn’t think it mattered because we don’t use all of our brain power (or words to that effect). This is a common claim but, if one thinks about it, is untrue. If someone has an accident and loses twenty percent of his cognitive functioning, he is unlikely to increase his mental ability to his pre-injury level by more effort. It does seem that Objectivists who are informed on these issues accept the consensus. Edwin Locke is a prominent Objectivist psychologist and an expert in the field of motivational psychology. In his 2017 book, The Illusion of Determinism, he accepts that intelligence is genetic in the 50 to 80% range. He sees egalitarianism behind the multiple intelligences theory, e.g., “we are all equally smart, just in different ways.” In his 2020 Objectivist Conference talk he discussed IQ tests and accepted their validity. Harry Binswanger said in a couple podcasts that he thinks IQ tests measure intelligence and intelligence is at least moderately heritable. I imagine that many Objectivists have a hard time accepting the high heritability of intelligence for a few reasons: First, it conflicts with their blank slate view of human nature.* As Rand famously said, man is a “being of self-made soul.” In her essay “Racism,” Rand defined racism as “the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry.” Taken to the extreme this means that every person is born with the potential to be a Newton since Newton’s genius must have been unrelated to his “body chemistry.” (But note that in her definition of intelligence Rand referenced a child’s natural endowment.) Yet if intelligence is highly heritable then nature places a limit on human ability. The average IQ is 100. It takes an IQ of 115 to be an accountant and an IQ of 130 to be a Ph.D. research scientist. It follows then that the average person will not be able to become an accountant and the average accountant won’t be able to become a physicist. Second, an additional reason is the correlation between intelligence and desirable life outcomes. Put differently, people with an average IQ of 110 will have an easier time navigating the difficulties of life than people with an average IQ of 90. Some people are just born to be more successful than others. Although high IQ people can make a mess of their life, the Bernie Madoffs of the world are the exception. Third, Objectivists, like Rand, contend that achievement is largely a question of proper epistemology. In Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Rand considered the world’s problems to be largely caused by an inability to solve “the problem of universals” (which she considered to be synonymous with a theory of concept formation). I’d rather have a good theory of concept formation than a bad one, but there is no evidence to believe that Objectivists develop scientific breakthroughs at a higher rate than others. Fourth, if intelligence is highly heritable, then what about other traits such as political beliefs, personal honesty or industriousness? Evidence shows that there is at least a moderate genetic component to these as acknowledged by up and coming Objectivist psychologist Gena Gorlin. _______________________ *This is established by studies of identical twins separated at birth and adopted into families with different socio-economic status. The IQ of an adopted child correlates to the IQ of the biological parents than the adopting parents. **I’ve heard Objectivists say that Rand’s view of man being a blank slate is limited to the rejection of innate knowledge and isn’t necessarily related to the nature/nurture debate. On the other hand, I’ve corresponded with at least a couple prominent Objectivists who claim that males are not innately more aggressive than females notwithstanding that this is observed everywhere and persists even when attempts are made to raise boys and girls equally. See James Q. Wilson’s Crime and Human Nature.

Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Objectivist Schisms: an Overview by Neil Parille AYNRANDCONTRAHUMANNATURE.BLOGSPOT.COM As observers of Objectivism know, schisms are a perennial part of the world of Objectivism. In particular, the “official Objectivism” going ...

And again in 2019 they reprinted the article new a new introduction: Why Ayn Rand Would Have Despised a President Trump NEWIDEAL.AYNRAND.ORG Donald Trump is the type of anti-intellectual, authoritarian mentality that Ayn Rand warned us against in Atlas Shrugged.

Apparently, the ARI forgot about this: The Anti-Intellectuality of Donald Trump: Why Ayn Rand Would Have Despised a President Trump ARI.AYNRAND.ORG No one can speak for the dead. But as an expert on Ayn Rand’s philosophy, I’m often asked what Rand would have thought of President Trump, especially now, on the one-year anniversary of his election and... My wager is that were Ayn Rand alive today, she would condemn the whole Trump phenomenon. Far from seeing him or his administration’s actions as even partially influenced by her ideas, she would see Donald Trump as the kind of political figure whose rise she had foreseen and warned us against.

Of Schisms, Public and Private NEWIDEAL.AYNRAND.ORG Why does the Objectivist movement experience conflicts and schisms? Why do some Objectivists and Objectivist organizations refuse to work with one another? Why is there infighting? Why can’t we all just get...

Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Taking Ideas Seriously AYNRANDCONTRAHUMANNATURE.BLOGSPOT.COM [Neil Parille continues where he left off in 2009.] Ayn Rand was quite explicit that ideas are what matter and, in particular, it’s abstract...

My guess is that the truth is closer to what Fahy said in 2005 (no role for Peikoff) and not what Valliant said in 2021 (practically co author).

Addendum After I sent this post to Greg, I re-listened to the video (which starts at 19:28). Valliant said that it was his intention to publish Rand's diaries "in raw form." However, when he began the editing process with Peikoff, he had already written some of the commentary on the diaries. When PARC was published these notes were integrated into Rand's diaries, presumably with Peikoff's approval. This certainly contradicts what Fahy said about Peikoff having no role in the content of PARC. It would be truly unfortunate if Peikoff was responsible for the insertion of Valliant's hectoring and borderline slanderous notes (e.g, "Bullseye, Miss Rand," comparing Nathaniel to a "junkie" and a "drug addict," having "the soul of a rapist," calling his girlfriend Patrecia a "fraud," etc.).

I just relistened to Valliant's interview. He reinterated that Leonard said he'd never read the books. No claim that he changed his mind. Also, Valliant said he (Valliant) wanted to print Rand's diaries without comment but it was Peikoff who encouraged him to put in comments, which they worked on together. I find this hard to believe.

I've submitted this to the ARCHN blog. ________________________________________ As long-time readers of the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blog might remember, one of the strangest incidents in the recent history of the Objectivist movement was the publication in 2005 of The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics (PARC) by James Valliant. This book took aim at Barbara Branden’s 1986 biography of Ayn Rand, The Passion of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden’s two memoirs. It is also noteworthy for including Rand’s diaries from the time of her break with Nathaniel Branden. These diaries were provided to Valliant by Rand’s heir, Leonard Peikoff. PARC is, to put it mildly, a rather bizarre book. Even on face value, much of what Valliant says doesn’t support his claim that Branden books are lies from beginning to end. To take a typical example, Valliant attacked the Brandens for throwing a surprise party for Rand to celebrate the publication of Atlas Shrugged. This was no less than a plot “control Rand’s context by deception.” The book is also incredibly sloppy. Page after page contains numerous misrepresentations of the Branden books and other source material. For example, in the book’s summary of a two-paragraph interview of John Hospers, I counted five misquotations. * PARC was initially greeted with enthusiasm by ARI-inclined Objectivists. But shortly after the publication of the book, I and others began critiquing the book. My 2008 critique took 81 pages to detail all the misquotations, copying errors, and false attributions in a book of 190 pages (the diaries begin at page 191). Things got worse for Mr. Valliant in 2009 when Jennifer Burns and Anne Heller published biographies of Rand. These biographies, while occasionally correcting the record (for example Rand didn’t get her name from a typewriter) were on the whole supportive of Barbara Branden’s biography and used it extensively as a source. Indeed, in some sense they were more critical of Rand, arguing that Rand’s mental health was compromised by decades of amphetamine use. (Incidentally, Branden had said this was unlikely.) PARC is now out of print, the only book containing Rand’s posthumous material to have such a status.** Curiously, former ARI chairman Yaron Brook has on recent episodes of his podcast attacked the Brandens and their books, but did not mention PARC. Following the publication of PARC, there was a great deal of back and forth among me, Valliant, and others about the book. Valliant was incapable of acknowledging the huge number of misquotes and misrepresentations of his source. One of the most humorous aspects of what I dubbed “the PARC Wars” was Valliant’s taking to Wikipedia to insert favorable mentions of his book in various articles, something contrary to Wikipedia’s rules. When the proverbial poop hit the fan, Valliant, you guessed it, said it was his wife who was responsible for the insertions. Valliant made other bizarre claims, most notably that Durban House, the book’s publisher, was “independent,” when in fact “Durban House” published a review of dissident Objectivist David Kelley’s The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand (which took aim at Leonard Peikoff’s essay, Fact and Value) on Amazon. The review sounds suspiciously like something a ARI zealot would write. In defense of his book, Valliant has said it was “heavily edited.” Over the years, Valliant has refused all requests to name the mystery editor. However, in October 2021, Valliant said Peikoff helped him edit PARC. This appears to contradict what Valliant’s friend and collaborator Casey Fahy said on the Rebirth of Reason website in 2005. "The repeated claim that this book represents the 'official' position of the Ayn Rand Institute is particularly amusing to me. When Valliant, a good friend of mine, wrote Part I of the book, he knew that the Ayn Rand Institute took a dim view of even mentioning the Brandens. When he published that part, on my own website, we both believed that doing so would jeopardize what relationship he had had with Leonard Peikoff. I can personally vouch for the fact that Jim did not consult with Peikoff or anyone else associated with ARI about the content of his book—at all, ever. As proof of this, when Dr. Peikoff did make Rand's papers available to him, Peikoff told Jim that his first reaction to the very idea of the project was, and I quote, 'Am I gonna have to pick a fight with Valliant now?' And, it was reading those original essays alone that convinced Peikoff to make Rand's notes available. Period." In the comment section to the same article, Valliant and his wife (the "Magenta Hornet") posted and failed to correct Fahy on this apparent mistake. Best I can tell, Peikoff has never said he was involved in the editing of the book. Valliant also implied in October interview that he and Peikoff were rather close friends, something that he never hinted at. In 2009, Peikoff was asked about Valliant (and Diana Hsieh). His response: "Now I have another question from the same person about two individual objectivists with a public profile. In a long question, he wants to know what I think of them, do I agree with them and my answer is I thoroughly approve of the intellectual battle waged by Jim Valliant and Diana Shay Shaw [Hsieh]. I admire the work of both to the extent that I know it.” Indeed, one note in the book is inconsistent with Peikoff’s having been the editor. One of the most sensational claims in Branden’s biography is the contention that Rand’s husband was driven to alcoholism because of Rand’s affair with Nathaniel. Valliant denies this, giving Peikoff’s rebuttal for some of Branden’s evidence. According to Valliant, “This is the author’s best recollection of Leonard Peikoff’s statement in response to a question on the subject given during a conversation at his home in California in 1991 . . . .” We may never know the truth about this, but Valliant’s claim that Peikoff is the mystery editor raises a couple question. First, Peikoff said that the time The Passion of Ayn Rand was published that he would never read the book (and this would presumably apply to any future memoirs of Nathan Branden). Editing a critique of books that you’ve never read and were written by people you despise strikes me as an ethical problem. And, as anyone knows who has ever written or edited anything for publication, the highest percentage of mistakes concern citation errors and copying errors. An editor who refuses to read the books in question and thus could not check the source material would be an incompetent and almost useless editor. Second, say what you want about Peikoff, he is a good writer. It’s hard to imagine him not catching some of the obvious mistakes, non sequiturs, and repetitions, particularly since he knew the parties and was involved in the various disputes which the Brandens are supposedly lying about. As an example, Valliant says that Rand never had any contact with the Brandens after the 1968 break. However, Rand and Barbara Branden met in 1980. Peikoff must have heard about this meeting. (It is mentioned in Peikoff’s then-wife Cynthia’s interview in the ARI sponsored oral history, 100 Voices.) It’s hard to know what to make of all this. Perhaps Valliant is telling the truth and that during the promotion of the book Peikoff did not want PARC to be seen as an authorized response to books he would never deign to read. Needless to say, nothing in Valliant’s defense of PARC provides reason to give him the benefit of the doubt either. * When confronted with the various misquotations, Valliant said is standard procedure to paraphrase sources, even when using quotation marks. ** Valliant said in the 2021 interview that he is working on a revised edition of PARC which will critique the 2009 biographies of Rand.

I'm skimming it. Harriman says that young earth creationists believe all the fossils are fakes or plants. I've never heard a YEC say that.

Is Harriman asked about his dishonest editing of The Journals of Ayn Rand?