Sharon Presley on authority

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John.

Teenagers don't need a sick family environment to become rebellious or go through teenage angst.

That's a normal phase of growing up. And it's easy to take advantage of this. (Look no further than Madison Ave.)

I don't speak for Sharon, but I believe her interest in this--libertarian-wise--is her awareness of how cult behavior can tarnish a good message with the public at large. In other words, it is not a good thing to be associated with, or defend, a cult leader if you wish to spread your message.

As a human being, I suspect she is bothered by all this on a common decency level. I know I am.

As to the proof you ask for, there are plenty of links that have been provided--not just from one person. May I suggest some reading?

Michael

[QuestEon]

To all--I still have concerns that I'm hijacking this thread. Is so, please let me know and I'll zip it!

To John, hiya! I'll be glad to try to answer your questions, although some of them may be based on mistaken premises.

To QuestEon: (EDIT: deleted "and Molyneux-detractors" to stress that I'm curious about QuestEons opinion in particular)

I just re-read An Essay by Stefan Molyneux, the last time I read that was some time ago.

Just remember, for the record, what you linked to was the portion of his essay that I included in this article. My article does link to his entire essay, however. The Digital Ethnography guys just sloppily copied and pasted from my article to theirs.

I'm wondering where Molyneux-atagonism comes from: His demeanor (about which I know next to nothing first-handed) or his opinion about the sick nature of modern family realationships.

If it's the former, it might help to make it more clear what the criticism really is. If Molyneux is simply a domineering bully, it would be beneficial to separate this accusation from his message.

If it's the latter, I largely agree with Molyneux (on the family issues, not on his libertarianism). I don't have a very strong opinion on Molyneux personally and even less on his community - but the contents of this article strike me as a very likely description of how parent-offspring relationships very often are.

(bold/italics mine)

Very often? What does that mean? Usually? Thirty percent of the time?

I know you weren't trying to do this but it is within the indefinite spaces of phrases like "very often" that Molyneux is able to deliver one message to his internal followers and another to the outside world. However, I pay attention to the specific language Molyneux uses with his followers. In fact, he closes the essay in question by saying "nearly all parents are horribly bad." That's not very often--that's close to 100%! And he wasn't just going for effect, either. I have offered consistent, pervasive corroboration that Molyneux believes nearly everyone has been badly raised. Further, he says there is no way one's parents can ever make amends for it.

In addition, in Molyneux podcasts--which I quote extensively on my site--he specifically says you were badly raised even if you don't believe it.

For example, try this one:

From Podcast #211 (Childhood Prisons):

28:50…Our childhoods—our collective childhoods were prisons. And I know I’m going to get even more emails about this…’Oh, I had a good relationship with my mom and dad.’ ‘Oh, they were fine.’ ‘They were this’ and ‘They were that’…

No. I’m sorry. I gotta tell you, and I hate to say it because I don’t mean to be a bully, but you’re wrong.

FreeDomain Radio is a constant, non-stop persuasion that your parents were bad.

In particular, children are told that they should keep relationship with their parents for reasons other than their personal benefit: It is considered normal/moral/decent. I don't think I'm the only one who wasted quite a large amount of time and energy in relationships that I really, really, wanted to get out of since I was very little and did not nearly as early as I could have - for little reason other than allegiance to a moral imperative of questionable character.

This is the argument most people outside of FDR or new to FDR get. And it all makes some kind of sense. No one is obligated to stay in a destructive relationship. John, if it was a positive move for you to separate from some or all of your family members, then you'll get nothing but support from me.

But I don't think you're going to be able to reasonably explain away the constant FDR flood of personal chats, books, podcasts, and forum conversations all designed to persuade FDR members that their relationship with their parents was destructive.

Remember, even that is only half the argument. As I have demonstrated, Molyneux believes you should not associate with statists (of any kind) or religious people. It would be dishonorable of you to do so. Well, guess what? Nearly all parents are statists and/or religious!

There are a couple of extraordinarily large smoking guns here that people rarely question. The first is what in the world is going on when a 40+-year-old man keeps having personal "convos" with 17-, 18-year-old kids about their "lousy" parents? Never, ever, ever to suggest ways to repair the relationship but always on how to end it? Is he really a saintly guy just tryin' to help out? Seriously?

The second one is why does no one ever question Molyneux's authority in these or any other matters? I don't mean why don't people question his opinions (some do)--I mean why don't more people question the notion that he is an authoritative voice? When it comes to psychology, he read a few books on psychology and went to therapy once. I strongly suspect that his "theories" are strongly influenced by Alice Miller and pop "recovery" psychologist John Bradshaw. So why are his opinions on psychology considered substantive?

One of the reasons I'm fascinated by him is that he put up a Web site and started knocking out podcasts and a bunch of people got right in line. And yet I can walk into any bar and find someone who is more knowledgeable about raising adolescents than he is. It is truly remarkable. I did write an article about that. It's called The Three Persuasions of Stefan Molyneux. Part of the article is about the FDR constant anti-parent persuasion. But the third persuasion is Stefan Molyneux's ability to persuade people he has a clue about the parent/adolescent relationship. I submit there is absolutely no proof that he does.

...Aaron...XOmniverse...

I see your points and I think to some degree you may be suggesting that I'm stacking the deck or misrepresenting some critics. (I don't think I am) But instead of arguing that point, I'd rather focus on yet another monstrous smoking gun when it comes to Molyneux critics. As I say in my article on Molyneux criticism, there just aren't that many. I included the few I could find. The paucity of serious criticism of Molyneux, pro and contra, speaks volumes.

Molyneux dismisses all contemporary philosophers (including Rand) in comparison to himself. He has released a podcast declaring himself the salvation of philosophy and believes that his book UPB is the cure for the "ethical cancer" that has plagued mankind for centuries. Yet many volumes have been published regarding Rand and objectivism. Despite Molyneux's accomplishments--after scouring the Web--I was able to find only a couple guys on YouTube.

One can talk about Molyneux antagonists all day long, but the biggest antagonist of all is the deafening silence of critical review. Serious philosophers don't think he's worth the time.

If the accusation against Molyneux is one of being a cult leader, I would like to hear how one can attract adolescents into a cult without something being seriously sick about the family relationships beforehand - or is the premise that even healthy adolescents are incapable of judging for themselves?

I rarely have "cult" conversations regarding FDR on-line anymore. They are rarely productive. However, for the record, I have never called Stefan Molyneux a destructive cult leader. I do have an ongoing series on my site that is examining the argument step-by-(painful) step.

Destructive cult groups and Undue Influence groups work in ways that are counter-intuitive. As a result, most people ask reasonably-sounding questions like yours, but your premises are completely wrong. We can't have the conversation until you truly understand destructive cults.

Destructive cults recruit and compete for the same people that Fortune 500 companies do. A cult member is most likely to be highly intelligent, strong-willed, and come from a close-knit family.

Don't go to FactNet or someplace similar and get a list of "10 signs of destructive cults" or whatever. Those lists are easy to judge subjectively. If you're really interested and want to become well-grounded in destructive cults, I'd start by reading "Cults in our Midst" by Margaret Singer. She was the groundbreaking authority on modern day cults and I learned a great deal from that book. I have read several others since then and have talked with two cult extraction experts. I put what I learned in this four-part series: The C Word.

If the accusation against the man is one of holding wrong opinions, I would like to see that separated more cleanly from the ad-hominem.

I agree with that. I'm not sure how to easily answer it. My analysis of Molyneux has been a long, slow journey. Partly because I'm a tedious fact-checker and partly because I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree. Not too long ago, someone on Liberating Minds asked me "where does the "good" Stefan Molyneux end and the "bad" begin?" It's a similar question to yours; i.e., how can we separate the various parts of SM so we don't condemn his thinking because of his behavior?

I gave my usual long-winded answer in this thread (it's the sixth post down).

Finally, I don't think there is ad hom on my site. Sometimes I get snarky in the section I call Quickies!, but I try to stay in bounds. I immediately correct anything that isn't factually accurate.

I don't need ad hom. All I need to do is quote.

Best,

Q.E.

[john42t]

Hi QuestEon,

thank you for your detailed response.

Your stance on Molyneux remains difficult for me to judge, which only means that you could well be both honest as well as correct. This was also the impression I got a year ago when I was briefly scanning over your site.

You write things such as "I see your points and I think to some degree you may be suggesting that I'm stacking the deck or misrepresenting some critics." And you're right - the fact that you still answer me in a way that doesn't suggest any resentment on you part means more in my book than any of the actual arguments. It's a rare quality and I very much appreciate it.

My main cause of defence (or rather suspicion of ulterior motives in critics) is my extremely excentric view on the intellectual world. I disagree with Molyneux on most issues. I'm sure he'd call me a statist (or even a fascist) but I relate with him in terms of his antagonism towards "the experts" in the fields of philosophy and psychology. I see something of a parallel to the hostility Rand evoked in those. It doesn't matter so much whether you're right or wrong to draw that hostility on you - it's enough to have a strong, unusual opinion and to be successful in some sense.

The only two cases in which I've come to appreciate insights of psychologists are Nathaniel Branden's self-esteem wave and the ADD wave by Hallowell and Ratey. Both waves have evoked antagonism from a majority of established psychologists, further strengthening my suspicion that there is something terribly wrong with that profession.

With philosophers I'm even more critical. You write "Serious philosophers don't think he's worth the time." which implies that there is such a thing. I believe that all serious philosophers should be in harsh opposition to virtually all philosophers in human history, just like Rand was (and Molyneux is). In my book, it's not that difficult to be a decent philosopher since the whole profession is rotten.

There is one more point I want to raise which is rather important.

You criticize his whole aim of addressing adolescents talking about their family relationships and his profit motive. I believe this is going to be a business model with quite a futue. Although I don't think nearly all parents are bad, I do believe that a lot are. There certainly is demand for the service Molyneux aims to offer. It is exactly this demand that is at the core of his success. One comment before yours Michael talked about "teenage angst" you grow out of. Where does this angst come from? Has this angst always been there or is it a result of the developments of the last two centuries, in particular (public) schooling and collectivism?

I believe that there is quite a significant amount of psychologically damaging treatment of children by both parents and educators that is covered up. The reason for the cover-up is evasion: people want to belong, so they try hard to see agreement with the majority when little is warranted. When I look at my problems with my own parents, it's rather simply that my parents were not on my side. To a large extent, they were on the side of society and aimed to meet the demands that they perceived society expects of them. I have no reason to believe that my parents were particularly unusualy in that regard.

So if the rest of your criticism of Molyneux is valid, and I'm inclined to believe it is, that still makes me wish there was another guy like him with the same business model but more honest, less rigorous and less culty.

[Xray]

[to Sharon Presley]:

Since this forum deals with Objectivism, may I ask how you S. Presley would assess Howard Roark's psychological health in the light of

1. His inability to empathize with most of his peers and
   
2. his (apparent?) ability to empathize with Dominique and
   
3. his sadism towards Dominique?
   

Also, would you confirm that you assume the normal to be the good?

Good questions.

[john42t]

Good questions.

Thank you. I thought of them all by myself!

[BaalChatzaf]

Howard Roark might have been autistic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Howard Roark might have been autistic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I've always had this gut feeling about Roark, but then I don't not know enough about autism in its various forms to have been certain about it.

[slpresley]

Ms Presley supplies the connotative aspect in which it is (I think) misused : "empathy leads to sympathy".

I prefer the convention that most people use of calling the other people on a thread by their first names. If that seems too informal for you, then just call me Dr. Presley.

Frankly, I believe that you've either got empathy/compassion, or you don't. Seems to me, it's a baseline human response that can't be taught.

Tony

Tony, you are of course free to believe whatever you want. I prefer to base my beliefs about human behavior on actual psychological research. Forty + years of research on childrearing methods support the idea that empathy can in fact be taught. Martin Hoffman, a prominent developmental psychologist, has been studying empathy for many years. In his view (and in the view of many other developmental psychologists), childrearing methods are very much related to the capacity for empathy, which then leads to sympathy and then compassion. Children who are explicitly taught to be more empathic by comparing the other child's feelings to one's own (e.g., Don't hit your younger brother. Remember how you felt when your older sister hit you? it didn't feel good, did it? etc) are far more likely to have high levels of moral reasoning that reflect concern for others than child who are not taught empathy. Here is one brief summary of Hoffmann's research on childrearing and the consequences of teaching empathy:

"Does discipline hinder or help moral development?

While research has not provided clear-cut answers, it has shown that some approaches to disciplining children are more likely to increase pro-social and altruistic behaviour that other approaches. In 1970, Martin Hoffman reviewed childrearing literature to determine whether discipline techniques used by parents had an effect on moral development. Hoffman tested two types of discipline:

- Love-oriented discipline – which involved withdrawing affection or approval

- Power-assertive discipline – which involved physical punishment and withholding privileges.

He found that neither worked. Parents who used power-assertive discipline were actually found to have children who were morally immature. Hoffman found that the discipline strategy that seemed to foster moral development was inductive discipline.

Inductive reasoning is a non-punitive discipline where an adult relies on cognitive reasoning to control or change a child’s behaviour. This includes –

· Giving the child explanations of why they need to change their behaviour, eg. showing the harmful consequences of their behaviour

· Using conformity-inducing agents that appeal to the child’s pride, wish for mastery, to be grown up and concern for others.

· Emphasising the feelings of others and needs of others to make the child more “other-oriented”.

· Pointing out the nature of consequences – “If you smack the cat, it will hurt the cat, and that make me sad”.

· Pointing out the needs and desires of others – eg. “Take that spider away; it is scaring your sister”.

· Explaining the motives of others – “He was only trying to help you.”"

That is, TEACHING the child empathy.

[slpresley]

[to Sharon Presley]:

Since this forum deals with Objectivism, may I ask how you S. Presley would assess Howard Roark's psychological health in the light of

1. His inability to empathize with most of his peers and
   
2. his (apparent?) ability to empathize with Dominique and
   
3. his sadism towards Dominique?
   

Also, would you confirm that you assume the normal to be the good?

Good questions.

I don't in fact consider Roark to be a paragon of psychological health. Rand used the sadism scene as a theatrical device but if anyone thinks that is healthy, I'm glad you're not my neighbor or my lover. Rand was trying to make a point (though stretching it a LOT IMO) but people who acted like that in the real world would be considered a bit disturbed.

Anyone who mistakes Rand's characters and their behavior for what real people in the real world would do is a bit naive. They may be archetypes and models for some, but they are still archetypes, not real people.

As to Roark's attitudes toward others, well, are we talking about his attitude toward the losers and creeps in the story? No one is required to have empathy or sympathy for everyone. Did he have an empathy for people like Eddy Willers? I don't remember actually but if he didn't, then no, I would not consider him psychologically healthy. Is he obligated to do anything about any empathy or sympathy he might feel? That's a different question.

Confirm that to be normal is to be good? I was unaware that I said anything of the sort so I can hardly confirm it. No psychologist would say anything of the sort. To be "normal" in clinical psychological terms means to be free of obvious psychopathology. That is not the same as being "good." That's a much more complicated question.

[Selene]

Did he have an empathy for people like Eddy Willers? I don't remember actually but if he didn't, then no, I would not consider him psychologically healthy.

Sharon:

FYI: Roark was in the Fountainhead. Eddie Willers in Atlas Shrugged.

Your conclusion about empathy for an Eddie Willers, Cheryl Taggart or Tony "the Wet Nurse," are correct.

Automatic empathy is not moral in most discriminating persons opinions.

For example, there is no empathy in my soul for a Jerry Sandusky, if what is alleged is true.

Adam

[slpresley]

John.

I don't speak for Sharon, but I believe her interest in this--libertarian-wise--is her awareness of how cult behavior can tarnish a good message with the public at large. In other words, it is not a good thing to be associated with, or defend, a cult leader if you wish to spread your message.

As a human being, I suspect she is bothered by all this on a common decency level. I know I am.

Michael

Thanks, Michael. Yes I am bothered on a common decency level. But it's much more than that, I am quite distressed at the preposterous claims he makes that are not based on actual psychological evidence.

Let's look at some of them:

He claims all parents are bad, that nearly everyone has been abused, and "everyone" needs therapy. Unlike Molyneux, I actually AM a psychologist. I taught developmental psychology, social psych, psych of women, critical thinkking, and research methods for many years, and have also taught abnormal and many other courses. The actual research shows nothing of the kind. When he does present research (and he doesn't always do so) he is highly selective about what he reports and misrepresents much of it. For example, in talking about how bad physical punishment is for children (true), he neglects to mention that the kind of childrearing that is most likely to result in a psychologically healthy child who is morally mature and nonauthoritarian also includes firm behavioral guidelines that are enforced by nonpunitive consequences. IMO he does this because he wants to savage parents who dare to tell their child what to do.

Here's part of my discussion from my Facebook page on another podcast of his:

""What Molyneux says about abused women –that if they have children by an abusive husband, they are “severely disturbed” –is totally without any research foundation whatsoever. They are not psychotic or any other category that constitutes “severely disturbed.”

Unlike Molyneux, I am actually a psychologist and taught Psychology of Women for over 20 years. I know the research about domestic violence considerably better than he does...

The actual profile of female victims of abuse is likely to include low self-esteem and a belief in the stereotypes about women and their roles—that it is their duty to please the man, be what he wants her to be, etc. This is unfortunate but hardly constitutes “severe” disturbance. Some of them may have mental health issues but “severe” issues like psychosis are rare. Most are just mentally beaten down.

What Molyneux is doing here is an example of the “mother blaming” that clinical psychologist and researcher Dr. Paula Caplan has analyzed so well in her book “Don’t Blame Mother.”

It also shows NO compassion for women who are the victims of abuse. I find this appalling and sickening. What does he advocate? Shunning them too? Oh, like that will really help them or their children. His view of domestic abuse is warped and not supported by research. His bad experience as a child does not qualify him to pontificate on this subject.""

From another thread:

"...at the most recent Libertopia, [Molyneux] said (and this is a close paraphrase):

"We have discovered the root of all evil and it is child abuse."

Fortunately there was an open mike q and a. Here's approximately what I said: "I've taught developmental psychology for many years and I've also taught forensic psychology. This is not what the experts in these fields say. Psychologist Robert Hare, the leading expert on psychopathy, believes there is a genetic component to psychopaths and sociopaths, who are certainly evil people. And not all psychopaths have abusive or dysfunctional families. Psychologists believe that complex behavior has complex origins, not just one factor." His assertion is utter nonsense."

Molyneux's claims about psychology are mostly bogus. He makes these wild-eyed claims for a number of reasons IMO. It serves to make him like the great guru and font of wisdom, it enables him to twist things around to suit his ideology and thus to manipulate naive young people (who constitute most of his fans), and to make himself look like a clever and innovative thinker (which he is not).

And to those others of you on this thread who disdain "psychology" as you understand it. Maybe you don't understand it at all. I don't really care what a few oddball clinical psychologists may have said somewhere. The information in my developmental, social psych, psych of women and other texts is based on years of empirical evidence done with careful methodology. I thought students of Objectivism were supposed to be in favor of rational evidence. You don't learn about human behavior by sitting in an armchair theorizing, you learn by doing (or reading about) empirical research. The fact that we don't have all the answers and sometimes in the past have made mistakes doesn't invalid the empirical method. It's the best thing we've got. What else would you suggest? Your opinions? And why should we take your opinions seriously unless you have some empirical evidence for them?

[caroljane]

I subscribe to Baal's theory that Howard Roark may have been autistic, and I think this could apply to other of Rand's characters.Dagny withdrew the apparent empathy she had for Willers at the climactic moment of their relationship. I can think of other examples.

[slpresley]

Howard Roark might have been autistic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I've always had this gut feeling about Roark, but then I don't not know enough about autism in its various forms to have been certain about it.

The term you're looking for is Asperger's Syndrome, a much milder form of autism. I don't know if I would go quite that far. But since he's not a real person but a Randian archetype, I don't care to analyze him very much. However, I don't really consider the character a model of psychological health to hold up as an example of how to act in the real world.

[slpresley]

Did he have an empathy for people like Eddy Willers? I don't remember actually but if he didn't, then no, I would not consider him psychologically healthy.

Sharon:

FYI: Roark was in the Fountainhead. Eddie Willers in Atlas Shrugged.

Your conclusion about empathy for an Eddie Willers, Cheryl Taggart or Tony "the Wet Nurse," are correct.

Automatic empathy is not moral in most discriminating persons opinions.

For example, there is no empathy in my soul for a Jerry Sandusky, if what is alleged is true.

Adam

Sorry but I couldn't think of an example from The Fountainhead. I read it back in the 60s.

Well, more correctly we probably both should say "compassion." We might want to have compassion for an Eddie Willers type or for other innocent people but not Sandusky.

[slpresley]

I subscribe to Baal's theory that Howard Roark may have been autistic, and I think this could apply to other of Rand's characters.Dagny withdrew the apparent empathy she had for Willers at the climactic moment of their relationship. I can think of other examples.

Autistic isn't the right word. I'm uncomfortable slinging diagnoses around and even more uncomfortable when non-psychologists do it. Let's just say that Roark and Dagny weren't very compassionate people. I was pretty pissed off even in the 6os about what happened to Willers.

[caroljane]

I subscribe to Baal's theory that Howard Roark may have been autistic, and I think this could apply to other of Rand's characters.Dagny withdrew the apparent empathy she had for Willers at the climactic moment of their relationship. I can think of other examples.

Autistic isn't the right word. I'm uncomfortable slinging diagnoses around and even more uncomfortable when non-psychologists do it. Let's just say that Roark and Dagny weren't very compassionate people. I was pretty pissed off even in the 6os about what happened to Willers.

I subscribe to Baal's theory that Howard Roark may have been autistic, and I think this could apply to other of Rand's characters.Dagny withdrew the apparent empathy she had for Willers at the climactic moment of their relationship. I can think of other examples.

Autistic isn't the right word. I'm uncomfortable slinging diagnoses around and even more uncomfortable when non-psychologists do it. Let's just say that Roark and Dagny weren't very compassionate people. I was pretty pissed off even in the 6os about what happened to Willers.

You are right, Sharon. It isn't the, or even a right word to apply to fictional characters, and especially characters created to exmplify Rand's view of human motivations.

Still I think the characteristics of autism, as laymen understand them, cast an intriguing light on the black and white, brilliantly lit world of Rand's fictiverse.

[slpresley]

I'm finding the quote system to be very cumbersome so going to use my own way of quoting and discussing this issue.

To john42t: You say "The only two cases in which I've come to appreciate insights of psychologists are Nathaniel Branden's self-esteem wave and the ADD wave by Hallowell and Ratey. Both waves have evoked antagonism from a majority of established psychologists, further strengthening my suspicion that there is something terribly wrong with that profession."

Actually Branden is quite popular among many psychologists and has been invited to many conferences dealing with self-esteem.Your statement that a majority dislike him is flatly untrue and I challenge to support your statement.

Then you say "further strengthening my suspicion that there is something terribly wrong with that profession." And how many psychology courses have you taken; how many books on social and developmental psych have you read? On psych of women or personality? On research methods? Or are you simply wildly generalizing without any substantial support and using merely your own opinion based on a few articles or maybe less than that?

john42t: .QuestEon is entirely right in what he says about Molyneux's view of the family. SM really does say that all parents are bad

And you say: "Although I don't think nearly all parents are bad, I do believe that a lot are." Well, first of all, there's a big difference between "all" and a lot." As QuestEon points out, what you are saying and SM is saying is not the same thing and to moosh it all together is to fail to make rather important distinctions. Secondly, on what do you base your notions that a lot of parents are bad? Research? Or your own opinion? And how much is "a lot"? I think QuestEon has already covered some of this ground rather well.

You say: "When I look at my problems with my own parents, it's rather simply that my parents were not on my side." Well, sure, there are parents who are not good parents. Here's another anecdote: My mother raised me by herself and she was ALWAYS on my side. So what do either of them prove? Nothing. Anecdotes aren't science. I don't think we really know how many parents are "good" and how many are "bad." I do think that parenting is getting better, partly thanks to the psychology you disdain. Developmental classes that suggest to young people that spanking and other physical punishment is bad and reasoning with your child good are making a difference, as are all the popular articles saying the same thing.

So you're going to side with Molyneux because you had bad parents? Wow, that sounds rational to me. NOT. Don't you think you might want to be more discriminating and careful about evidence than that? You sound like your opinions are all based merely on your personal beliefs and experiences. Where do we find that method in Atlas Shrugged?

QuestEon is a lot nicer and more diplomatic than I am. I tend to have no patience with people who don't know what they are talking about and act as if they do. If I'm being too rude for this forum, my apologies. I'll probably be a lot nicer next time.

[slpresley]

Daunce: You say "You are right, Sharon. It isn't the, or even a right word to apply to fictional characters, and especially characters created to exmplify Rand's view of human motivations.

Still I think the characteristics of autism, as laymen understand them, cast an intriguing light on the black and white, brilliantly lit world of Rand's fictiverse."

Well, maybe, but be careful here. Another group of people who lack empathy are psychopaths/sociopaths and we really don't want to go there.

And even if we merely call it "Asperger's syndrome" (technically closer to them than autism per se) I actually don't think that's right either. They understood the motivations of others (which autistic people may not) so in a sense they were empathetic. They just lacked compassion, which is different. But heck, the novels are so black and white and not real-life that, really, what's the point in speculating? As you say, they are fiction and meant to make a point rather than describe real people.

[Selene]

I don't think we really know how many parents are "good" and how many are "bad." I do think that parenting is getting better, partly thanks to the psychology you disdain. Developmental classes that suggest to young people that spanking and other physical punishment is bad and reasoning with your child good are making a difference, as are all the popular articles saying the same thing.

Sharon:

Precisely.

Are you familiar with Lori Gotlieb, she wrote in the July/August Atlantic Magazine here. As she notes:

But in that space between Joan Crawford and June Cleaver, where most of us fall, it seemed like a lot could go wrong in the kid-raising department.

As a practicing therapist, she began getting a steady sequence of patients in their early 20's or 30's who had "great parents." "great jobs" and "great friends," and they were not bullshitting the therapist,they had all those things, but they were depressed, adrift and "just not happy!"

Until, one day, another question occurred to me: Was it possible these parents had done too much?

I do not want to spoil this lengthy article, so one more "teaser:"

"It's like the way our body's immune system develops," he explained. "You have to be exposed to pathogens, or your body won't know how to respond to an attack. Kids also need exposure to discomfort, failure, and struggle. I know parents who call up the school to complain if their kid doesn't get to be in the school play or make the cut for the baseball team. I know of one kid who said that he didn't like another kid in the carpool, so instead of having their child learn to tolerate the other kid, they offered to drive him to school themselves. By the time they're teenagers, they have no experience with hardship. Civilization is about adapting to less-than-perfect situations, yet parents often have this instantaneous reaction to unpleasantness, which is 'I can fix this.'"

I did not raise my children with the "I can fix this" methodology. Additionally, I have always advised friends, clients and strangers to let the child figure it our and be ready to support them with logic and guidance when they make their choices.

I had started a thread here on OL about this pattern of therapy that she observes.

Adam

[anthony]

Sharon,

(Your expertise and experience on empathy being learn-able makes me rethink my

original position.)

I deliberately protest too much when it comes to empathy, but that's not to say I do not appreciate its value.

I've observed it from the inside and outside, and come to conclude that I'm glad to have always been capable of it

(even with the pain it can bring - especially when young, as we all know!), and to see it around me : I just think it's far too arbitrary.

Empathy seems to me untrustworthy and inconstant, in one's self, and others; conceptually,(it seems to me) part instinct,part floating abstraction; often a rationale for imposing one's altruist duty to others (and subsequent guilt when impossible to achieve) - and even - as I've seen sometimes, the justification for terrible deeds. At times it is the last refuge of scoundrels, I feel.

I appreciate (*of course*) that psychologists like yourself will and should study the nature and effects of empathy/compassion - but it is when it is used as a club to beat people over the head by those with an agenda, or, for individuals who presume "holier than thou" moral superiority, that I get quite scathing about it.

Virtues, I firmly believe, are hard-won, rationally-gained, and consciously-held. Objective, iow. They won't let one down, nor others around one. (Which is what was horrifically lacking in Rwanda : rationality, not empathy.)

Genuine caring evolves from thought, and value - not unfocused, arbitrary feelings. Still, in the complex, over all scheme of living, there is no doubt empathy 'fills in' those 'gaps' we experience in focus and knowledge, and should be valued as a part of our humanity... but watch out for anyone loudly promoting compassion as virtue- it is your money or your mind they want!

Tony

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sharon,

I have only dabbled in Molyneux, so what I am about to say might be off. In what I did look at, I have noticed a striking omission in his parent-bashing stuff and in the online discussions of it: what about love?

I find it odd to discuss whether a teenager should leave home and shun his parents and the word love does not even arise. Or if it did, it is not noticeable. I am a person who actually left my parents behind as I went to Brazil for over 30 years. Part of this was due to the beatings I received as a child (hillbilly-style).

During all the time I was gone, it never occurred to me to stop loving my parents. Every time I thought about them, the love was there. I did a de facto separation in the manner Molyneux preaches, but without the intentions or methods he uses. My separation was more a gradual drift than a sudden break. Even though I was far away, I still wrote and stayed in contact often in the early years.

And note, I also left behind the madness of the Vietnam war demonstrations, some really irrational crap I was getting in college, and some other stuff. But the worst parts of my hillbilly family was definitely one of the reasons for me to take off like I did.

There is a facet of love that may interest you as a psychologist. I don't know if others have ever experienced something like the following with the same results I have, but this is what happened to me.

Right before I went to college, I had a summer job working with my father in a chain link fence factory.

I thought that if I was going to go out into the big world, I did not want to take a lot of bad emotions with me. So I decided to relive in my mind, to the best of my ability, all of the beatings and unfair treatment I had received from my parents, and to forgive them, event by event. I was studying the Silva mind control method at the time, so I was pretty good at concentrating and getting into an alpha state where I could vividly drift back in time. (There's a lot that is questionable with the Silva method, but I found it to be good for focusing and things like that.)

So off I went in my mind. I would see my mother's enraged face, the belt coming down on my legs, feel the stinging, and watch the welts forming and blood trickling. I would stay with this for a while. Then I would realize that others had done this to her when she was young. She was merely passing on what she had learned. Then I would forgive her as completely as I could muster, which was pretty complete. Ditto for dad.

This went on for many memories, one after another. For several weeks.

The result?

It wasn't what I expected.

Instead of feeling emotionally liberated, I went into the deepest depression of my life. And I was 18 years old.

I have my father to thank for pulling me out of it. We had to drive for about an hour to get to work. On the way one day, he simply chewed me out royally. He said he didn't know what had gotten into me, but I was acting like a loser and a sissy all of a sudden. That if I wanted to mope around all my life, I wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. He went on like that for the whole trip. He was really mad.

The shock of hearing him talk like that in that context snapped me out of it enough to reevaluate what I was doing. So I decided to stop my mental trips to the past and pushed myself to get interested in preparing for my upcoming adventure on going out into the world on my own. That actually worked.

This all happened before I read Ayn Rand. My introduction to her was during Christmas break of that year. I got Atlas Shrugged on a whim from the library. After I opened it, I read the entire book in two days. I think my forgiveness experiment had primed me well for her message.

There is another outcome that shocked me. I found that as I forgave my parents event by event, my love for them gradually diminished. It never went away, of course, but it lessened a lot. I believe this was one of the reasons I was able to stay away for so long without being torn to pieces by guilt.

Just to put a happy finish on this story, after 32 years, I finally reconnected with them. When I came back to the USA, I lived with them for 3 years before going off again. I was astonished that they had gotten old while I was gone. My main feeling during this time was a tender kind of sadness. A feeling that nothing had to have been this way. Not in their lives and not in mine. But it was serene. I was never fully able to regain the love I had lost in my late teens, though.

I am so glad I didn't encounter a Molyneux back then. My story isn't perfect, but it is mine. Even though my love for my parents diminished, the part that remained stayed strong. And it's good to love your parents. I'm glad it remained in my heart. Nobody can take that from me. Ever. Not even the bad actions of my parents were able to destroy that part. Now, nearing 60, I treasure it. How I treasure it, even as I have grown distant again. I believe I was so vulnerable back when I was young, I would have thrown it all away for the right message.

Or maybe not. I've always been a real hard-head, too.

The important point is that my lot in life did not come with a banquet. It came with table scraps. I'm not complaining. Life does this sometimes. It's the luck of the draw, so I'm just noticing. But if I had followed a Molyneux or other, I would not even have those scraps. I would now have nothing. Frankly, Rand's influence on me almost did the job Molyneux seeks to do to his victims. She was only literature, so it didn't.

But Molyneux is doing the full number on some young folks. If he only knew how much his memory will be hated later on by those who lose it all...

Michael

[Xray]

Howard Roark might have been autistic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I've always had this gut feeling about Roark, but then I don't not know enough about autism in its various forms to have been certain about it.

The term you're looking for is Asperger's Syndrome, a much milder form of autism. I don't know if I would go quite that far. But since he's not a real person but a Randian archetype, I don't care to analyze him very much. However, I don't really consider the character a model of psychological health to hold up as an example of how to act in the real world.

Rand regarded her characters as role models, and verbatim wrote of her character Roark as "The man as man should be".

I don't think she was aware that one could recognize in Roark any psychological deficits/flaws. He represented her personal moral ideal.

Several Randian heroes/heroines show similar character traits as Roark.

[caroljane]

Rand regarded her characters as role models, and verbatim wrote of her character Roark as "The man as man should be".

I don't think she was aware that one could recognize in Roark any psychological deficits/flaws. He represented her personal moral ideal.

Several Randian heroes/heroines show similar character traits as Roark.

Also, didn't she write that there are heroes like her fictional ones in real life, and she knew one It was either NB or her husband Frank, I don't remember which)

[QuestEon]

I have only dabbled in Molyneux, so what I am about to say might be off. In what I did look at, I have noticed a striking omission in his parent-bashing stuff and in the online discussions of it: what about love?...

...I am so glad I didn't encounter a Molyneux back then. My story isn't perfect, but it is mine. Even though my love for my parents diminished, the part that remained stayed strong. And it's good to love your parents...

...But Molyneux is doing the full number on some young folks. If he only knew how much his memory will be hated later on by those who lose it all...

Michael,

Your story was very moving to me. My relationship with my parents is garden-variety at best. Fought like crazy at 18, agreed to disagree somewhere in my mid-twenties, now all is well and we are close.

Answering your question about Molyneux and love isn't easy. But I'll give it a shot.

There's some background about Molyneux that will probably set off all kinds of alarms for a trained psychologist like Sharon. He was born in Ireland and his parents divorced when he was an infant. His father was a successful academic who spent most of his career in Africa. So Stefan had minimal contact with him. Stefan and his brother were left with a mother who, according to Stefan, suffered from mental illness.

Both Stefan and his brother were sent to boarding school at a young age. When he was a little older, his mother moved the small family to Canada. However, she needed surgery for some reason and went back to Europe for both the surgery and recovery. Stefan was 12 at the time. She stayed there for the summer. During that time, Stefan's brother was sent back to live his aunt and cousins, where he stayed there for two years. Stefan was basically left behind in Canada--sent to stay with family friends he barely knew. When Stefan's mother returned, her mental state deteriorated to the point that she was briefly admitted to Clark Hospital (at the time a psychiatric hospital in Toronto). The rest of the time, she was home with only Stefan to care for her. Stefan's brother came home when Stefan was in his early teens. Stefan claims he and his brother "threw his mother out of the house" when he was 15.

Stefan grew up separated from both parents, never forming attachments of any kind to either of them, and blaming them both for everything wrong in his life.

I think would be impossible for him to comprehend your story. I suspect he lacks the empathy to connect with the depth of your experience.

Molyneux has been flailing away at trying to describe/define love ever since, partly because he tries to define love via logic and partly because he has a curious binary way of looking at human behavior.

His shortest definition is this: "Love is our involuntary response to virtue."

Because he is speaking primarily to a young audience, he uses that phrase to convince them that they don't love their parents (no matter what they currently think) and would be unable to love them unless those parents were perfectly virtuous. (And by "perfectly virtuous," he means fully invested in his philosophy of atheist anarchocapitalism.)

In his Podcast #729 (Your Children Do Not Love You), he lays out his argument. Note that although the title and the content of the podcast appear to be directed toward parents, it is not. Despite appearances, this podcast is Molyneux telling his flock why they do not really love their parents.

Fasten your seatbelts.

6:27 Let me tell parents something--if you are listening to this and you have young children or you are pregnant or you are thinking of reproducing--let me tell you something that is the most important thing in terms of philosophy that you will ever, ever, ever hear. You do not have children so they will love you. You do not give birth to children to feel love.

Children do not love you. Children, your children, do not love you. Where there is such a disparity of power, there is no possibility--not even the slightest shred of possibility--that you can be loved. Where there is such a disparity of power and dependence there cannot be love. And that is fine. And that is good. And that is right. And that is exactly as it should be.

God cannot love humanity, except in a pitying, superior kind of way. The idea that a God creates humanity in order to be worshiped is the foundational mythology of parenting--that we have children in order to be worshiped. That we have children in order to be loved. This is so basic to parenting. This IS parenting and always has been and must not be in the future. It must not be in the future.

...where there is hierarchy, there cannot be love.

13:33 Your children attach to you the way a little duck imprints upon a mother duck. The way that a rock falls to the earth. The rock does not fall to the earth because it loves the earth and cannot bear to be away from it and kisses it when it lands. The rock falls to the earth because that's what rocks do in the presence of gravity. Children bond with their parents as best as they can because that's what children do based on attachment theory. Children will attach to their parents by any means whatsoever. And people and parents throughout history the world over and--not for long, I hope--mistake this attachment for love.

15:12 When children attach to parents, parents feel that--after a life in a desert--they finally have been given all they want to drink. And they greedily drain their children dry. Because attachment from children is like reward without effort. It is like love without the need to be virtuous. It is the most dangerous drug in the world. It is the most dangerous drug in the world--to imagine that your children love you when they are young. They don't. They can't.

Molyneux's argument is that children are not able to "decide" whether they love their parents until they are old enough to understand virtue and evaluate the virtue of their parents. Until then, it's all just imprinting.

I always do these long quotes so people can make their own minds up about Molyneux. Personally, what I see is a tragic outpouring from a man who has no clue why people have babies, nor any true understanding of child-parental love, nor any real understanding of child development. (He made this podcast prior to his own wife's pregnancy. However, I'm certain he would tell you that everything with his parent-child relationship is different because they live in a virtuous home governed by ethics.)

Anyway, that's all I got for now.

Q.E.

[caroljane]

Molyneux for all practical purposes had no parents, so he works toward a world where nobody else gets to have parents either.

He's crazier than Breivik.