Interesting article on Ayn Rand

[mhaze]

Let me give you an example of what I mean.

Which name is more "realistic": "Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d’Anconia", or "Winston Smith 6079"? Well, surely the former -- some people do have such long names, while still most people aren't referred to by number (as Smith is referred to in the novel a few times).

Yet "Winston Smith 6079" is precisely the kind of name people in Orwell's world of 1984 would have -- the combination of a bland, everyday name with the identifying serial number -- while "Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d’Anconia" is not (alas) meant sarcastically, but as one of Rand's ways to emphasize his, and his family's, prominence and importance. It rings a totally false note; it is ridiculous.

In fiction, Aristotle correctly noted, one should prefer "probable impossiblities" to "improbable impossiblities". Rand's books are one long series of improbable impossiblities.

Sure, like the increase in piracy on the high seas...

No .... wait....

As For Francisco, gosh, I bet he too thought it was ridiculous. Now regarding Francisco's conspiratorial ideas about South American and Mexico nationalizing private industry. Let's see...the book was written in 1957.

• Mexico, petroleum and banking
• Chile, copper mining
• Argentina, airlines, bunches of other stuff
• Bolivia, natural gas industry

Tell ya what I just skip Venezuela...

Nope, no semblance to reality in Francisco's reading of the character and style of takings of Looters.

Let's focus on the ridiculous name. Wait....we'd then be just showing our ignorance of Spanish and South American naming customs.

Esta bueno, verdad?

O es mejor pregunales José Maria De Las Mercedes Acosta, o Carlos Alberto Del CAstillo Cabeza De Vaca, o Juan De Dios Otero Antormarchi, o Juan Carlos De Los Parlotes De Amadeo, o Juana De Los Apostoles Covadonga Contreras, o Maria De Los Angeles Ortiz Del Toro, o Anacleta Zamora De Alvaladejo?

 

[mhaze]

I think everyone understands that in real life decisions are more complex then they are in a novel....

It occurs to me that the opposite is true.

Statler ostensibly doesn't care singly about the merits of Readan metal. He cares primarily about it's effects on the collective, namely the profits allowed to the other metal companies. What he calls the "social effects" of the product. Underneath that is pure greed, he only wants to steal it.

James Taggert argues using emotive hot buttons against Rearden metal, but in fact he's thinking about his "friends" and what would benefit them, as well as what would "benefit the common good".

Thus the novel illustrates the utter failure of complex decision making, where nothing is as it seems on the surface, where there are multiple disparate objectives to be served simultaneously, in unstated and often confused varying degrees.

This is why James Taggert cannot seem to make a decision without getting a consensus from his friends (thus serving the political interests). It may or may not be that he's a fearful and hysterical personality, but it certainly is that his basic decision making process is totally screwball. I believe that Ayn Rand sought to show the effect of mixing up goal sets in behavior, particularly when undying some of those goals was altruism, and the evidence of it was on display in James being continually fearful and indecisive. We can't shrug of James as just being more or less like a "hysterical woman".

Thus, Rand compares the utter failure in business and personal life of such a complex mismash and bastardization of objectives and goals, with the simplicity of an individual using reason and logic, then acting on it in pure self interest with profit driven behavior.

Is real life more complex than that? No, that is the very complexity of which we speak.

.....the world they live in is not utopian, it's dystopian. It's not meant to reflect the real world, it's meant to reflect a dysfunctional system such as the Soviet system Rand fled from.

Again, I disagree.

She portrays a world in which vestiges of capitalism are continually being attacked by collectivist strategies, and in which progressive schemes are being played with, always benefiting some segment of the "approved capitalists", while allegedly benefiting the "common good".

She then portrays the inevitable failure of those schemes, and the great damage to society which they do.

Her novel is a warning against collectivist schemes within capitalism, that dystopia in increasing degrees is the inevitable outcome of such schemes by Looters. So the degree of dystopia in the novel at the start, is the result to that point of prior harm caused by collectivist and progressives tinkering.

Then, more progressive tinkering, more collectivist schemes....voila! More dystopia. Got a dystopian problem? Add another layer of government control, that'd benefit the greater good, but underneath the surface because some people with the right connections would benefit.

Smells like.....TARP....

Resulting in more dystopia, to which yet again, more government control is ostensibly the answer, which in fact is yet again just the looters redistributing.

In other words, collectivism and progressivism IS DYSTOPIA.

 

[Lurker]

"Well, whose opinion did you take?"
"I don't ask for opinions."
"What do you go by?"
"Judgment."
"Well, whose judgment did you take?"
"Mine."
"But whom did you consult about it?"
"Nobody."
​

Such situations I have been in there certainly were the nay sayers and the James Taggert look alikes. I have to admit to simply looking at them and thinking "another JT here we got"...

All we are saying is that to rely on your own judgement over those with specific expertise in the field in question is very troublesome.

As someone who haunted a evolution/creationist website I can recall that many an engineer trusted his own judgement and felt that the science of evolution was bogus. Kind of reminds me of Dagny. Relating this directly to AS we have an engineer who, unless she was a metallurgical engineer specifically, had one semester on materials and there would be no way to discern physical properties solely from "judgement" of structure and treatment. To truly know physical properties one would have to conduct tests - a lot of tests.

I say this as an engineer.

Now, if you set your world up such that all metallurgical engineers are bad guys and your own "judgement" turns out to be correct then go right ahead but it is not supporting a philosophy in our world.

 

[mhaze]

All we are saying is that to rely on your own judgement over those with specific expertise in the field in question is very troublesome.

As someone who haunted a evolution/creationist website I can recall that many an engineer trusted his own judgement and felt that the science of evolution was bogus. Kind of reminds me of Dagny. Relating this directly to AS we have an engineer who, unless she was a metallurgical engineer specifically, had one semester on materials and there would be no way to discern physical properties solely from "judgement" of structure and treatment. To truly know physical properties one would have to conduct tests - a lot of tests.

I say this as an engineer.

Now, if you set your world up such that all metallurgical engineers are bad guys and your own "judgement" turns out to be correct then go right ahead but it is not supporting a philosophy in our world.

LOL.

There are several things that need to be understood here. First, if you are an engineer in any mechanical specialty, then you know who Timoshenko was. The "father of mechanics", wrote "Strength of Materials" and so on. Career from 1915 to late 1970s if I recall right.

Where did he start lecturing?

The St. Petersburg Institute for Railway Engineering ... to 1917. Back then...he developed the finite element method (Raliegh method), theory of beam elasticity, beam deflection and buckling theories.

Where was Ayn Rand from?

Born and lived mostly in St. Petersburg, fled to USA 1926.

When is the AS novel cast historically?

1915-1920.

So you are making the error of applying one view of modern engineering to actions and decision making in engineering a hundred years ago, while missing the close parallels between the actual formation of structural metals analysis, Rand's background, and the industry in which these concepts evolved....which is the technical subject of her novel...railroads.

Secondly and more importantly.

What you and others criticizing Rand in this thread and on this subject miss is that part of the essential plot of the book is this very discussion, of individual versus group decision making, of reliance on one's own capability versus government sponsored research.

Thus (and this has been unstated in this thread to this point, but it has been amusing) what you say no doubt you think is original and perceptive, but it exactly mirrors conversations in the book. Rand said what you said before you said it. Because for a conversation, the duality must be presented. Not just Rand's view but also the alternative, which you express. As I noted earlier:

The twisted, sick premise use of the repetition of propaganda is in the book:

James Taggert to Dagny:"On the air. It's going to be a radio broadcast. You're going to debate with him the question: 'Is Rearden Metal a lethal product of greed?' "
​

.....if you set your world up such that all metallurgical engineers are bad guys and your own "judgement" turns out to be correct then go right ahead but it is not supporting a philosophy in our world.

It is true that in the book the public statements fostering fear of Rearden metal and the many attempts to prevent it's use are actually by "the bad guys", who read the metallurgy reports, knew the metal was actually good, and determined to break Rearden and steal his product. These bad guys operated under the "State Science Institute" and on the surface, talked on and on about how their work benefited the "common good", when actually it only benefited the crony capitalists they were in the pockets of.

But in turn if you knew that a "Metallurgical Institute" or a "State Sciences Institute" was politically influenced and that their statements not scientifically reliable, then you would have zero compunction about disregarding their statements and relying on your own judgement. That would be the only rational course for an engineer concerned strictly with a materials issue, and the resulting process of decision making for maximal profit is obvious. Finally, what you are left with is the issue of clear reason and sound engineering method against contrived and constructed antithetical public sentiment.

So...do you bend over and take it, and sell out to the looters, or stand up and refuse to give away the products of your intellect, risk analysis, and investment?

That's the ethical problem as presented.

 

[Lurker]

So you are making the error of applying one view of modern engineering to actions and decision making in engineering a hundred years ago, while missing the close parallels between the actual formation of structural metals analysis, Rand's background, and the industry in which these concepts evolved....which is the technical subject of her novel...railroads.

You are correct in that modern engineering is probably quite different than engineering back then, especially considering the locale as well. That being said, I doubt metallurgy was taught in non-metallurgy disciplines to the detail needed to obviate testing on your own to know mechanical properties. Sure, we can make inferences from structure but without testing the inferences would be qualitative.

What you and others criticizing Rand in this thread and on this subject miss is that part of the essential plot of the book is this very discussion, of individual versus group decision making, of reliance on one's own capability versus government sponsored research.

You will have to forgive my laziness but I tend to trust government experts in areas where I have no expertise. I don't want to go back to uni just so I can agree with the structural engineers' position on the 9/11 collapses. Now, if I decided to do my own research and came to a different conclusion than the majority of structural engineers that would imply that all the structural engineers, especially those working for the 9/11 commission, are in on the conspiracy, right? I am trusting my judgement that my analysis of the facts is sufficient and accurate.

But in turn if you knew that a "Metallurgical Institute" or a "State Sciences Institute" was politically influenced and that their statements not scientifically reliable, then you would have zero compunction about disregarding their statements and relying on your own judgement. That would be the only rational course for an engineer concerned strictly with a materials issue, and the resulting process of decision making for maximal profit is obvious. Finally, what you are left with is the issue of clear reason and sound engineering method against contrived and constructed antithetical public sentiment.

You know, translating this to our world this would be very reminiscent of the argument that truthers make. I agree with your point if you think the experts in a given field of expertise have been compromised but I am not sure we have any examples of that today. Probably in some areas...

 

[mhaze]

You are correct in that modern engineering is probably quite different than engineering back then, especially considering the locale as well. That being said, I doubt metallurgy was taught in non-metallurgy disciplines to the detail needed to obviate testing on your own to know mechanical properties. Sure, we can make inferences from structure but without testing the inferences would be qualitative.

You will have to forgive my laziness but I tend to trust government experts in areas where I have no expertise. I don't want to go back to uni just so I can agree with the structural engineers' position on the 9/11 collapses. Now, if I decided to do my own research and came to a different conclusion than the majority of structural engineers that would imply that all the structural engineers, especially those working for the 9/11 commission, are in on the conspiracy, right? I am trusting my judgement that my analysis of the facts is sufficient and accurate.

You know, translating this to our world this would be very reminiscent of the argument that truthers make. I agree with your point if you think the experts in a given field of expertise have been compromised but I am not sure we have any examples of that today. Probably in some areas...

As I said earlier, one word suffices: Lysenko.

And nothing is spelled out explicitly in the book to lead the reader to a single possible conclusion. For example, it is not explictly stated "Dagny studied under Timothy Shenko, a brilliant innovative engineer who pioneered the methods used by Rearden to test the metalurgical properties of Rearden metal". The actual extent of metallurgical testing is not stated precisely.

But your argument and point of view is certainly presented, although it is a wolf in sheep's clothing thing, and in actuality, the goals are power and control, and any who believe or promoted the "public safety argument" altruistically are simply useful idiots.

Nobody has said that AS does not remain highly controversial. I have only sought in this thread to correct misunderstandings and outright errors as to its content, which seem to have been long standing.

Are blue ribbon commissions and government panels impartial?

Again, one phrase suffices. Warren Commission.

When you discuss conspiracy and truthers in the context of AS, I'm not very impressed for a simple reason. The actions of Randian heros are oriented toward their own profits. Those occur if they correctly understand all the factors involved, including political, scientific, engineering, marketing, and business, including risk factors.

That is all there is. There is no detour or interest into side issues. Factors influencing profits and loss are simply understood, then ignored or acted upon as need be. It is understood and expected that collectivists and looters would use legislation and regulation to steal or extort profits, to whatever extent they could under the existing social fabric, including doing so by subverting government agencies and commissions to influence results to their advantage.

There is no shortage of examples of such things today, but Rand does not stop and dwell on these matters. The movement forward of the plot is based on the main characters moving around, over and through these obstacles placed in their way, to achieve their goals, which is their self-interest.

 

[Lurker]

Mhaze,

I agree that the potential to profit will generally motivate people to make decisions in their own best interests. My only caveat is how Dagney's decision seemed to have been presented in AS. She relied on her knowledge of engineering which I pointed out would be inadequate by itself to make a decision on the merits of a new metal.

Now, it is entirely plausible Dagney had more data than what was presented in the book.

A second point about AS. Rand has essentially created a world where the conspiracy theory has won and is in power. It is remarkably similar to what truthers say about Structural Engineers - that they are all compromised in some way or another and thus part of the conspiracy. Whether this makes for good fiction or not is debateable but I think Skeptic makes a strong point of the applicability of the philosophy in transferring it from a fictional book to a real world.

 

[mhaze]

....My only caveat is how Dagney's decision seemed to have been presented in AS. She relied on her knowledge of engineering which I pointed out would be inadequate by itself to make a decision on the merits of a new metal.

Now, it is entirely plausible Dagney had more data than what was presented in the book.....

I think we all agree on the bolded part. You could consider Dagny as running a very large corporation, like Boeing or GE or something. She had within it all necessary resources, whole departments of engineers. This is noted in the book.

....A second point about AS. Rand has essentially created a world where the conspiracy theory has won and is in power. It is remarkably similar to what truthers say about Structural Engineers - that they are all compromised in some way or another and thus part of the conspiracy. Whether this makes for good fiction or not is debateable but I think Skeptic makes a strong point of the applicability of the philosophy in transferring it from a fictional book to a real world.

LOL. Every time someone on JREF wants the lazy way out to criticise something, it is done by just drawing an analogue to truthers or conspiracies. Unfortunately, that's transparently a cop out from understanding or actually thinking the matter through.

It's not in question that the analogy is "made up", it is. What should be in question is whether the made up analogy has some degree of accuracy with reference to the plot line and concepts of the book.

Basically, my answer is no. And as to the larger argument, that there is nothing to learn from the book that applies to the real world, my answer there is no, also.

Below are key aspects of that plot. The rejection by an individual of oppressive control and manipulation from the collective, and the move toward self interest instead of falling for false arguments promoting the common good.

from wikipedia

The book explores a dystopian United States where leading innovators, ranging from industrialists to artists, refuse to be exploited by society. The protagonist, Dagny Taggart, sees society collapse around her as the government increasingly asserts control over all industry (including Taggart Transcontinental, the once mighty transcontinental railroad for which she serves as the Vice President of Operations), while society's most productive citizens, led by the mysterious John Galt, progressively disappear.
​

from AS

. . . so many people are vanishing without notice. I hear there's hundreds of them roving around the country. The police have been arresting them for leaving their jobs-they're called deserters-but there's too many of them and no food to feed them in jail, so nobody gives a damn any more, one way or another. I hear the deserters are just wandering about, doing odd jobs or worse-who's got any odd jobs to offer these days? . . . It's our best men that we're losing, the kind who've been with the company for twenty years or more. Why did they have to chain them to their jobs? Those men never intended to quit-but now they're quitting at the slightest disagreement, just dropping their tools and walking off, any hour of the day or night, leaving us in all sorts of jams-the men who used to leap out of bed and come running if the railroad needed them

. . . . You should see the kind of human driftwood we're getting to fill the vacancies. Some of them mean well, but they're scared of their own shadows. Others are the kind of scum I didn't think existed-they get the jobs and they know that we can't throw them out once they're in, so they make it clear that they don't intend to work for their pay and never did intend. They're the kind of men who like it-who like the way things are now.


​

 

[Lurker]

Every time someone on JREF wants the lazy way out to criticise something, it is done by just drawing an analogue to truthers or conspiracies. Unfortunately, that's transparently a cop out from understanding or actually thinking the matter through.

It's not in question that the analogy is "made up", it is. What should be in question is whether the made up analogy has some degree of accuracy with reference to the plot line and concepts of the book.

Basically, my answer is no. And as to the larger argument, that there is nothing to learn from the book that applies to the real world, my answer there is no, also.

I agree things can be learned from the book. My concern is what exactly. I also agree this may not be the author's main point but let's look at my point again:

1. You state that a premise of the book is to trust your own judgement - to be self-sufficient.
2. A new metal arises purporting to be superior to incumbents.
3. The experts in metallurgy all say it does not work
4. The experts have all been co-opted by the government
5. Dagny determines the metal will work as advertised - trusting her judgement.
6. Dagny shows the world she is right

Now, #4 is exactly what truthers say so when I make the claim that Rand has created a Dystopia that echos truther worldviews it is because it is exactly true. For Dagny to be correct in trusting her judgement then #4 must be true which is what truthers say about structural engineers.

All that being said, the plot of AS does not hinge on this, it just makes Rand's point in this regard a bit less transferable to our world.
2.

 

[mhaze]

I agree things can be learned from the book. My concern is what exactly. I also agree this may not be the author's main point but let's look at my point again:

1. You state that a premise of the book is to trust your own judgement - to be self-sufficient.
2. A new metal arises purporting to be superior to incumbents.
3. The experts in metallurgy all say it does not work
4. The experts have all been co-opted by the government
5. Dagny determines the metal will work as advertised - trusting her judgement.
6. Dagny shows the world she is right

Now, #4 is exactly what truthers say so when I make the claim that Rand has created a Dystopia that echos truther worldviews it is because it is exactly true. For Dagny to be correct in trusting her judgement then #4 must be true which is what truthers say about structural engineers.

All that being said, the plot of AS does not hinge on this, it just makes Rand's point in this regard a bit less transferable to our world.
2.

That could be I don't really follow so called "truthers" theories. But surely truthers don't predicate their theories on self interest.

In general, though, virtually any innovative and radical product introduced would be met by entrenched resistance from the status quo, both in public and in government. For example, the personal computer was seriously resisted by those whose interest either power, or financial, or otherwise favored mainframes. Every business and institution in which personal computers were introduced struggled with this issue, some on one side, some on the other.

There isn't anything new with regulatory agencies colluding with favored businesses to restrict competition or new competitors or their products.

In this section of AS, the Dystopia emerges be where Statler, head of the State Sciences Institute (where the public pronouncements against Rearden metal have came, and where supposedly the government study of the metal was done) shows his true colors, and demands the rights and processes of Rearden metal be "Gifted" over to him. There is a breakdown of private property rights at that point, where the moochers and the looters take whatever they want from the producers.

In our world new inventions may be basically stolen in the patent process by the government if they have military application, but not otherwise. Actually, come to think of it, the US government would only have to have noted the application of Rearden metal to tank armor to take the patent rights, then they could have used it any way they wanted. So our Dystopia is slightly different than Rand's.

 

[hgc]

In general, though, virtually any innovative and radical product introduce would be met by entrenched resistance from the status quo, both in public and in government. For example, the personal computer was seriously resisted by those whose interest either power, or financial, or otherwise favored mainframes. Every business and institution in which personal computers were introduced struggled with this issue, some on one side, some on the other.

Not sure that the PC analogy works so well for your argument here. IBM, the leader in the mainframe business, essentially created the PC mass-market. All the struggle to adopting PCs into business was in getting people used to working with equipment of a type they had never used before, not power struggles. The PC was eagerly adopted by businesses, government and any other kind of institution, due to the productivity gains it brought.

What other examples of technology innovations being resisted by the powers-that-be have you got?

 

[mhaze]

Not sure that the PC analogy works so well for your argument here. IBM, the leader in the mainframe business, essentially created the PC mass-market. All the struggle to adopting PCs into business was in getting people used to working with equipment of a type they had never used before, not power struggles. The PC was eagerly adopted by businesses, government and any other kind of institution, due to the productivity gains it brought.

What other examples of technology innovations being resisted by the powers-that-be have you got?

Not at the first it wasn't.

What other examples? Data communications. Combo of ATT and US government kept data speeds at acoustic coupler rates of 300 baud until what, 1980?

I'm quite certain it was for "the public goooooodd".

 

[lomiller]

As I said earlier, one word suffices: Lysenko.

Lysenko decided the scientific community was wrong and his ideas were correct and was willing to see people die to overcome expert opposition and see his ideas realized. He’s acutely a pretty good example of how Rand’s “heroes” would turn out in real life.

 

[mhaze]

Lysenko decided the scientific community was wrong and his ideas were correct and was willing to see people die to overcome expert opposition and see his ideas realized. He’s acutely a pretty good example of how Rand’s “heroes” would turn out in real life.

I'm not sure where to place your comment.

The "WRONG" basket is getting pretty full around here. Lysenko operated his pseudo scientific power base with the active approval of the government. The pseudo science then propagated for as long as the state allowed it. That's in opposition to the way ideas work in a free market, and is nearly the exact opposite of a Rand "hero".

 

[leftysergeant]

Not at the first it wasn't.

What other examples? Data communications. Combo of ATT and US government kept data speeds at acoustic coupler rates of 300 baud until what, 1980?

Citation needed.

 

[INRM]

Her philosophy sounds awfully self-centered in nature...

 

[mhaze]

Her philosophy sounds awfully self-centered in nature...

The antics of LOTS of supposedly altruistic people are in the book, contrasted against pure self interest. It could be argued that the presentation of the former is a caricature, and of the latter the "best case".

But Rand argues that where a society implements policy "for the common good" it inevitably is subverted by special interests, and winds up being for their self interest, thus the altruistic goal can mostly never be achieved, and the result is under utilization and inefficient of capital and a dysfunctional economy, if this is carried too far. Where on the contrary people acting for their own self interest would create the largest prosperity, number of jobs, etc.

I don't have any issue with those generalizations. Yes that would mean that she suggests higher amounts of "self interest".

 

[hgc]

The antics of LOTS of supposedly altruistic people are in the book, contrasted against pure self interest. It could be argued that the presentation of the former is a caricature, and of the latter the "best case".

But Rand argues that where a society implements policy "for the common good" it inevitably is subverted by special interests, and winds up being for their self interest, thus the altruistic goal can mostly never be achieved, and the result is under utilization and inefficient of capital and a dysfunctional economy, if this is carried too far. Where on the contrary people acting for their own self interest would create the largest prosperity, number of jobs, etc.

I don't have any issue with those generalizations. Yes that would mean that she suggests higher amounts of "self interest".

It's hard to quantify, I know, but I can't imagine by what mechanism the special interests arising out of the goal of altruism could outweigh the special interests arising out of goal of self-interest. Sounds like up-is-downism.

 

[leftysergeant]

It's hard to quantify, I know, but I can't imagine by what mechanism the special interests arising out of the goal of altruism could outweigh the special interests arising out of goal of self-interest. Sounds like up-is-downism.

This is why she wrote novels. Her ideas cannot operate in this time/space continuum, so she had to invent an alternative reality.

This is also why most people born with a functioning human conscience consider her works total crap.

As Mark Twain once said "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction needs to make sense."

I have this image of Franz Kafka and Rand meeting in the Great Beyond and Kafka asking her : "Were you thinking?"

 

[mhaze]

It's hard to quantify, I know, but I can't imagine by what mechanism the special interests arising out of the goal of altruism could outweigh the special interests arising out of goal of self-interest. Sounds like up-is-downism.

Not poorly stated.

We all can think of many examples of "altruism" where the person or operation praising "altruism" oddly seems....to be the....recipient of the praised altruistic behavior. Churches, governments, etc.

Rand provides a number of scenarios where people are essentially duped by the altruistic argument "for the common good", when in fact the self interest of a lobbying crony capitalist in bed with politicos and regulators is what is happening. EG, wolf in sheep's clothing.

She then develops the argument that such things are destructive to capital compared to simple investment or spending for self interest.

Secondly, she shows many examples of muddled personal lives and confused goal sets where the individual has altruism mixed up with self interest and tries to reconcile them or serve them one, then the other.

Hard to argue with that. Next is the part where many people take exception or offense.

Rand argues against the very concept of altruism as being an inducement to evil in society and personal behavior, and suggests pure self interest as being the obvious solution.