# Do Objectivists do better at life? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 2, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-objectivists-do-better-at-life/479620 "2009-01-02T19:13:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Influential\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Influential\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Influential_Panda)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-objectivists-do-better-at-life/479620/21 "2009-01-02T22:50:28Z")
Through sheer coincidence, I’ve been at more than three Ron Paul rallies this year in three different states. I can’t say whether or not his followers, who–I suspect–occupy some space on the Venn Diagram with Objectivists, are happier, but I can say with certainty that Objectivism and the Ron Paul Revolution are a total sausage party. I’d be more interested in finding what percentage of Objectivists are men. ---
**Author:** ![Vox\_Imperatoris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Vox\_Imperatoris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vox_Imperatoris)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-objectivists-do-better-at-life/479620/22 "2009-01-02T23:07:46Z")
> [@Influential\_Panda](#): > > Through sheer coincidence, I’ve been at more than three Ron Paul rallies this year in three different states. I can’t say whether or not his followers, who–I suspect–occupy some space on the Venn Diagram with Objectivists, are happier, but I can say with certainty that Objectivism and the Ron Paul Revolution are a total sausage party. I’d be more interested in finding what percentage of Objectivists are men. That is an interesting observation, and from what I’ve read about the differences in male and female thought (emphasis on the self vs. the group, thinking vs. feeling, etc.), Objectivism does seem like more of a “male” philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![Icerigger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icerigger/32/432_2.png) [@Icerigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icerigger)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-objectivists-do-better-at-life/479620/23 "2009-01-02T23:30:13Z")
Hey, Sam. Years ago you did a parody of an objectivist romance, how the lovers would talk to each other in Rand speak it was funny as hell, do you remember that? I don’t remember the thread do you have any idea where it is? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2009, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-objectivists-do-better-at-life/479620/24 "2009-01-03T01:14:25Z")
Objectivism seems to be a young philosophy. Both young in comparison with other philosophies and young as in embraced by the young. So it might be at a disadvantage when it comes to defining “success,” though I suppose the argument could then turn to why it skews young (if it does). ---
**Author:** ![dre2xl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@dre2xl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dre2xl)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2009, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-objectivists-do-better-at-life/479620/25 "2009-01-03T01:14:32Z")
Wealthier people tend to have an internal locus of control. Of course, that brings up a number of chicken and egg questions… I find that those who are extreme Randians are just like any other closed minded extreme ideologue–often the extreme focus on ideology is a substitute for something critically lacking in that person’s life. Also, an extreme closed-mindedness, perhaps ironically in the case of extreme Randians, implies an inability to adapt. So I suspect the answer to your question is “no”… someone who is hardcore enough to self-label as an Objectivist will, generally, not do better. But, having a general individualist, independent, can-do attitude will open doors. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2009, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-objectivists-do-better-at-life/479620/26 "2009-01-03T03:11:25Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > 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 you see, there isn’t any scientific evidence to go on. So far as I’m aware, there has never been any research by any social scientist on the Objectivist movement. Gathering the information you want would be expensive and time consuming. Personal narratives and anecdotal information are pretty much all we’ve got to go on. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > 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. Well, there are a lot of folks who seem to think Greenspan’s career has been something of a disaster for the country, and in any case he left Objectivism a long time ago. Nathaniel Branden is a best-selling author, but his theories and research don’t seem to have made much of an impact on the field of psychology. Barbara’s success as a writer is tied entirely to her relationships with Branden and Rand. One might point out that a number of Hollywood celebrities are Scientologists. Would their success somehow validate Scientology? > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > 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 suspect it also sent O’Connor over the edge into alcoholism. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > 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. Well, I’m not saying Objectivism is utterly without value. I rather like its emphatic insistence on accepting personal responsibility for who you are and what you do. That said, Objectivism is extremely simplistic and incomplete, and the Objectivist movement certainly has a rather immature, adolescent quality. It’s also fair to say that Objectivism trivializes or ignores the critical social aspect of human nature and society. _The Fountainhead_ gives a lot of back story on Dominique Francon, Ellsworth Toohey, and Gail Wynand, but virtually nothing about its central figure, Howard Roark. Why? Because Rand couldn’t devise a psychologically convincing back story for him, and she knew it. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > 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. In other words, people who have the education and leisure to take an interest in philosophy, as they came from fairly affluent (or at least not crushingly poor) families in the first place. Social class is a critical element of success or failure for many people. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > 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. Unless maybe you make a career of political philosophy. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Plastic\_Ninja](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f07891/32.png) [@Little\_Plastic\_Ninja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Plastic_Ninja)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2009, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-objectivists-do-better-at-life/479620/27 "2009-01-03T04:32:02Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Are there any Objectivist communities that have far outperformed others? I hear that Rapture place has made some advances… I’m really, really sorry. I could not physically stop myself. Objectivism seems to be rather against playing well with others. It might be excellent for encouraging personal excellence at a given discipline, but pure Objectivism does not seem to involve more than one person at a time. ---
**Author:** ![Vox\_Imperatoris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Vox\_Imperatoris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vox_Imperatoris)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2009, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-objectivists-do-better-at-life/479620/28 "2009-01-03T04:42:35Z")
> [@Little\_Plastic\_Ninja](#): > > I hear that Rapture place has made some advances… > > I’m really, really sorry. I could not physically stop myself. > > Objectivism seems to be rather against playing well with others. It might be excellent for encouraging personal excellence at a given discipline, but pure Objectivism does not seem to involve more than one person at a time. I don’t know where the meme that Objectivists (and sometimes Libertarians) cannot cooperate in a community comes from. There is nothing in Objectivist theory that prevents that; interaction between people is simply based on fair exchance between individuals without compulsion by force by any agent or organization. Heck, the book _Atlas Shrugged_ itself has the world’s top industry leaders living in what amounts to a capitalist commune (commune in that it is a small, tight-knit community, and capitalist in that it is based on “to each according to what the others wish to pay him for his services” not “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”). Valete, Vox Imperatoris ---
**Author:** ![Madgolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Madgolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Madgolf)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2009, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-objectivists-do-better-at-life/479620/29 "2009-01-03T05:06:56Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > The Fountainhead gives a lot of back story on Dominique Francon, Ellsworth Toohey, and Gail Wynand, but virtually nothing about its central figure, Howard Roark. Why? Because Rand couldn’t devise a psychologically convincing back story for him, and she knew it. I will argue that in the spirit of Objectivism’s celebration of individuality, Roarke was purposefully written to be not psychologically convincing, but rather as a harsh caricature invented and sculpted as such explicitly for the moral of the story. There is no hint of any secondary societal programming for Roarke to fall back on that the motoring public expects and frankly needs in most works of fiction… as the above poster’s comment clearly begs for. Any backstory would take away from the ultimate message. It _was_ annoying that Roarke was a veritable DOS batch file on feet… with an equally annoyingly scripted sex life (as Rand is wont to provide much to the consternation of everyone except her detractors who endlessly relish the undeniable evidence of crapulence), but the book was long enough. We did not need to add a backstory THEN provide the mechanics to overcome the influence. I humbly believe Rand’s objective was pulled off expertly. As for the OP question… Without luck, Roarke himself may have easily starved to death.. and came close a few times, of course. His admittedly psychologically unconvincing off-the-chart adherence to Objectivist values only topically contributed to the high points in his career. A nifty Venn diagram Powerpoint presentation would make for a whole bunch of Objectivist-void circles in the failure department but the success ones would be indistinguishable from the rest of the population for the most part, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2009, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-objectivists-do-better-at-life/479620/30 "2009-01-03T05:08:37Z")
I have always said that Objectivism will only become a workable philosophy when some future philosopher corrects Rand’s errors (beginning with her epistemology) . . . and removes her as the focus of the philosophy. But until that happens, the philosophy will always be synonymous with its creator, and consequently smothered by the sheer weight of her towering personality. Oh sure, there have been Objectivist intellectuals who have nit-picked at every word she ever wrote, but what’s really needed is a sort of \*tabula rasa \*re-birth, removed from Rand’s work or personality. But you can’t discuss “Objectivists” in 2009 with those of us who were in the movement back in the 60s. The first- and second-generation Objectivists . . . the ones who actually \*knew \*Rand, or who were at least “students of Objectivism” under Branden, were in many ways \*crushed \*under the weight of her influence. Barbara Branden wasn’t exaggerating when she said Rand had the kind of mind that comes along once in a century . . . if that often. I have never encountered anyone else with even a substantial fraction of Rand’s intelligence . . . which only magnified whatever flaws she had (and no, she was not “freaking insane;” far from it). And, for better or worse, that mind was difficult . . . or for some, impossible . . . to resist. That whole first generation of Objectivists, while Rand was still alive and active in the movement, could not possibly exhibit the very virtues that brought them to Rand in the first place: intellectual independence, personal responsibility, creative thought, single-minded respect for reason and devotion to truth. Anybody who genuinely possessed these qualities saw that there was a great deal of fraud in that population. Many people were simply faking it . . . and knew it. But the people who were \*not \*faking it . . . like Leonard Peikoff . . . remained Objectivists with a cap “O,” to this day never deviating one syllable from Rand’s dogma. To me, that’s not “success.” The rest of us took what we could from the movement . . . and there was plenty worth taking . . . and painfully learned to disregard what didn’t work for us . . . and became “recovering” objectivists. I suspect that, all in all, we came out ahead, as far as “successful” lives are concerned. In retrospect, my life would have gone in a very worse direction if it hadn’t been for Objectivism . . . and even worse, had I remained in the movement. But today . . . younger people who didn’t know Rand directly, who couldn’t possibly imagine the power of her presence . . . are able to take what they want from the philosophy without it becoming a personality cult. The lack of a formal “movement” leaves them free to retain their own individuality, without the need for conformity or approval . . . and to use the philosophy to actually succeed in the world. In her 1964 \*Playboy \*interview, Rand was asked whether Objectivism ran the risk of becoming a cult. She replied that the philosophy itself, with its insistence on reason and independent thought and action, guarded against that possibility. In the long run, I believe she was right . . . but it will take her removal from center stage for that to happen. So my answer to the OP is a very non-Objectivist answer: It depends. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2009, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-objectivists-do-better-at-life/479620/31 "2009-01-03T05:09:45Z")
nevermind [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-objectivists-do-better-at-life/479620.md?page=1)