I know this is going to turn into a train wreck, but maybe we can get some statistics out of it first. Our board’s beloved Ayn Rand fans always seem to be full of advice when someone has a problem in their life. And this advice is usually pretty forceful and distinctive.
But is there any evidence that this way of thinking actually brings any benefits? Do Randians really end up with better jobs and happier lives? Are there any Objectivist communities that have far outperformed others? What nation has come closest to embracing these ideals, and how well have they done?
Hopefully we get a bit more than personal anecdotes here. I’m dreaming of facts and figures. I know it’s a big dream, but we can try.
Let me jump in with the speculation that there may be another causation-correlation explanation to consider when examining data:
It seems logical that those who do better at life are likely to be Objectivists.
I believe that people are more inclined to adopt philosophies that enhance their feelings of self-worth than destroy it. My admittedly murky understaning of Objectivism is that it has strong themes of merit based success - those who do succeed do so because of their strong will, etc., those who don’t succeed are victims of their own laziness.
Yes, this could well be the case. Or, the “power of positive thinking” can be a real phenomenon, especially when averaged over large number of people.
Of course, we have to define “better”, too. I think that for the purposes of this thread, it means basically making more money. There are, of course, many other measures of “better”, so the answer will depend on which definition we use.
If you replace the word “objectivism” with “conservatism”, you’ll find surveys/studies that support the idea that they’re happier. Most of that happiness is correlated to income – some sociologists have tried to re-correlate it to religious observance but the consensus is that the higher income is the cause of higher life satisfaction levels.
Is conservative thinking “better” than liberal thinking from an absolute perspective? That’s impossible to answer. However, the idea that conservatives emphasize self motivation instead of waiting on govt initiatives to solve problems does seem to help that particular individual who believes in it.
When you feel like you’re “in control” of your life, you tend to feel happier.
Again, maybe “conservative” thinking is wrong thinking. Maybe it’s defective thinking. Ignoring that metaphysical aspect, it certainly is a type of “I’m in control of my destiny” type of thinking which leads to personal actions towards happiness.
I think you’re implying that there are 2 opposite (and equally possible) scenarios:
[ol]
[li]Objectivist thinking which leads to better life.[/li][li]Better life leads to objectivist thinking.[/li][/ol]
I only have personal anecdotes (which I realize the OP doesn’t want) but after meeting hundreds of “successful” people, scenario #1 is always the case. It’s never #2…only unhappy unsuccessful outsiders who see the objectivists’ success as “luck” will think it’s scenario #2. Again, no official science cites to back this up… just personal experience.
You’re probably not going to find any kind of sociological study on this. The best we can do is examine what members and former members have to say about the movement. Going by what I’ve read in Nathaniel Branden’s Judgment Day and Jeff Walker’s The Cult of Ayn Rand, the movement damaged quite a number of people’s lives, in large part because their attempts to conform rigidly to such a simplistic philosophy and Rand’s domineering personality. Psychologically and spiritually, she crushed virtually everyone around her, constantly berating everybody for their “irrationality” and “malicious dishonesty.” Rand herself seems to have lived in a deep state of denial. When her alcoholic husband Frank O’Connor died, she explained all the empty liquor bottles found in his art studio by insisting he needed them to hold paint thinner. She insisted Frank was a hero right out of Atlas Shrugged, when everyone else agrees he was a very retiring, unassertive, mild-mannered man. She insisted on keeping her illicit relationship with Branden a secret, which shows what she really thought of its moral nature.
Like I said, you’re not likely to find any statistical information on the subject. But I pity any child raised by parents who adhere strictly to Objectivism.
Be careful. Maybe you’re going off info not presented in this thread. But “self-motivated” and “conservative” have not been shown to correlate more than “self-motivated” and “not conservative.”
Btw, I also wanted to explicitly state that you’ve asking about 2 separate outcomes here about objectivism/conservatism:
[ul][li]Objectivist thinking bringing happiness for the individual.[*]Objectivist thinking bringing happiness for the collective society.[/li][/ul]
The objectivist thinking for the good of society seems impossible to ponder because it’s definitely a minority viewpoint which requires great will and self-confidence. History has never had an isolated society of 100% objectivists. It’s like trying to do a thought experiment about what benefits a society of 100% left-handed individuals would be. Left-handed people and objectivists are minorities and have always been mixed into society.
(Sorry even sven for cluttering up your thread with 3 consecutive posts.)
I imagine there might be the slight problem that those who don’t do well with Objectivism probably aren’t going to stay with it. Those who found it didn’t do much for them are invisible in practical and anecdotal terms.
Another problem as touched on by Ruminator is that Objectivists have never been a majority, as far as i’m aware, so we’re only able to look at their success in the context of a non-Objectivist majority. Were we to find it a great philosophy and everyone were to take it up, it may not be so successful in a society were everyone follows it - which would tend to suggest in turn that any success is based on context, and not the individual, but that’s speculation.
I’d agree with your characterization of what I was saying, although note that the equal possibility is just a good a priori guess to keep an open mind.
On further thought, I imagine this might get down into semantics. I’m venturing a bit out of my depth here, but I will assert (propose, guess) that Objectivism has a collection of tenets. While the collection of tenets may be unique to Objectivism, some of the individual elements will belong to other philosophies or outlooks.
When you speak of the hundreds of successful people (or conduct a study) how do you begin identifying Obejctivists? Is it only those people who adhere 100% to the tenets as identified by A. Rand? Is it people who adhere to some fraction of these tenets?
I imagine that the value of following any particular tenet may vary according to your life situation. For example ‘work hard’ seems nearly universally beneficial. ‘Don’t rely on others,’ less so (e.g. if it prevents you from accepting tuition assistance, or eating food produced by others), as does ‘Don’t pander to hoi polloi’ (see France 1789).
I’m not well versed on what Objectivism’s tenets are, and may be micharacterizing them. My evaluation is also very clearly biased by my personal philosophies.
To conclude, I believe an Objectivist philosophy benefits some people and would hinder others. For those that is benefits there are likely other philosophies which would be equally beneficial.
P.S. I hope this isn’t too much of a hi-jack as I clearly lack any hard numbers or studies on any of this.
And on preview, I agree with Revenant Threshold. Objectivism seems like a particularly poor universal philosophy to me.
I guess it depends on your interpretation of “better”. More successful in business? More affluent? Happier? Healthier? More spiritually fulfilled?
Most of the Objectivists I’ve known were much better off financially than the Average Joe, but I’ve known people who were much happier than the average Objectist who didn’t have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.
This would be a very poor way to analyze the problem. You want to look at a very small, select group of people who were involved in a cult of personality and heavily affected by the personality of the woman at its center, and use that to judge the effectiveness of the philosophy as a whole?
But if you must do that, I’d have to point out that a number of the ‘Collective’ have gone on to great success. Alan Greenspan, anyone? Nathanial Branden is a best-selling author. So is Barbara Branden.
She certainly didn’t want to keep it a secret from Barbara and Frank. In fact, one of the crueler things she did, IMO, was force them to acknowledge it, accept it as good and right, and then constantly wave it in their faces. I think it was this behavior as much as anything that destroyed her little cult.
I’m certainly not an Objectivist, but much of the philosophy has a lot of merit - especially the part that demands that reason and rationality take precedence in one’s life over spirituality and mysticism. But I’m probably more James Randi than Ayn Rand.
I suspect that you’d find that Objectivists tend to do better in society overall than average, but the same is probably true of any sampling of the readers of Skeptic, Reason, the New Republic, The Nation, etc. The kind of people who tend to expend a lot of energy on matters of economics and political philosophy are likely to be above average in intelligence, ambition, and knowledge, and therefore more likely to have good economic outcomes in their own personal lives.
I suspect that your political philosophy has little to do with your own personal successes or failures, which are going to be dictated more by personality and intelligence.
I’m not aware of any statistics on the subject or even a good way to get statistics (except for the studies of conservatives mentioned above). Also, hardly anyone self-identifies as an “Objectivist” with a capital O–I know I don’t, I just like lots of aspects of the philosophy (I don’t see it as a movement or even an organization really).
But if the issue is looked at from a theory angle, I have to believe that someone who will take personal responsibility for the outcomes in their life will more likely end up doing better than someone who doesn’t. Note the “more likely” in that sentence–as some are wont to point out, the world can open its bowels upon someone’s head and drown them in shit no matter how pristine and glorious is their personal philosophy.
Personal accountability is only a part of objectivist philosophy though. Certainly, the outlook would be conducive to financial success; other aspects are not so clear though. FWIG, The unfettered pursuit of happiness is the paramount tenet within the philosophy. While it is also clear that one’s pursuit should not harm others, the definition of harm is never made clear at all, leaving it either then to the rule of law, or the individual. This clear approval of selfishness would also be conducive to financial success as would the loose ethics.
Yeah, I like a lot of the things Ayn Rand came up with, but I also disagree with a good many of them. Plus she was freaking insane. However, I mostly agree with Objectivism’s promotion of the individual as the basic unit of society and the claim that selfishness is not evil, and I think the movement makes a very good foundation for the case against big government, but I do believe in a Deist God and I don’t agree with the abandonment of sexual morality.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
ETA: I’d say I’m happy, too. I probably wouldn’t have gotten into Objectivism in particular if my father (who is not a “capital O” Objectivist, either) hadn’t exposed me to it, though.