RoR: Forum

Joe, I wish I had this article (and access to the internet, for that matter) when I first read Rand back in 96.

Many good points made, I just wanted to add and expand on one idea, of learning how to promote the philosophy. I know that when I began "proseyltizing", I could be antagonistic, believing that I had a superior idea and that anyone who didn't see that was either immoral or evasive. It's funny how many people, after having one of those "this book changed my life" moments, suddenly enter the sales and advertising world as a side effect! But without knowing the principles of advertising, we'll selling ourselves short.

In the advertsising field, there are supposed 22 "immutable" laws of marketing". Some of these "laws" are:If you didn't get into the prospect's mind first, don't give up hope. Find a new category you can be first in.

When you're first in a new category, promote the category.

It's better to be first in the prospect's mind than first in the marketplace.

All that exists in the world of marketing are perceptions in the minds of the customer or prospect. The perception is the reality. Everything else is an illusion.

[Re speed to market], If a bullet took five years to reach a target, very few criminals would be convicted of homicide.

If you want to be successful today, you should give something up. There are three things to sacrifice: product line, target market, and constant change.

Brilliant marketers have the ability to think like a prospect thinks. They put themselves in the shoes of the customer.

(Yes, the author of these laws said "sacrifice"...a good object lesson. Objectivists have a better, "superior" definition of sacrifice, but try to convince the author, or the "client" to replace the word or definition of sacrifice...but the traditional view is "protected" by the second rule listed! Instead of working hard to change a mind, recognize this advertising rule and learn a better strategy...)

It's essential to be honest about where your product stands in the heirarchy of introduction. Many superior products fail to sell because they simply were introduced into a crowded marketplace, and the majority of leading brands are also the first introduced (Coke, Pepsi, RC Cola...McDonals, Burger King, Wendies...try gaining a lead in the market with a superior cola, or new burger...but don't hold your breath for number one!)

There's usually room for competition, but the race for dominance is usually fought between the first two products on the market. Sometimes the "third party" candidate makes a bid to climb that heirarchy, as RC Cola once attemped to "go for the jugular." They failed miserably. Burger King, at their peak, recognized their second place status and worked to their strenghts, but slipped down again by "forgetting their place." Etc., etc.

If it's next to impossible to knock Coke or McDonald's out of the top spot, imagine what it's like to "challenge 2000 years of Christianity!" Not only that, but the marketplace of ideas is oversaturated by Judiasm, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Witness the failure of the Libertarian party to grab a significant share of the votes. One can have a superior idea, yet unfortunately, and this is hard for a new convert to O'ism to understand, successful selling is not based on the better product. That's not to say you shouldn't HAVE a superior product, it means that if you want to spread ideas on a large scale, you have to recognize that the current marketplace works on subjective perceptions. It does no good to get angry when the world at large does not budge at the efforts of the newbie to "change the world." Any salesman who thought like the newbie would simply make no money.

To successfully begin an outreach program, Objectivists would do well to remember the above rule that first usually dominates. But, having said that, change the category. Many established brands that made it first die because they don't adapt. Judaism came first, but was replaced by Christianity, the first religion to adapt to individual salvation. Objectivism is not the first system of ethics to the market, but it's the FIRST to give capitalism a moral base, the FIRST reality-based moral system, etc. And play to the competitor's weaknesses. Mcdonalds made it big with Kid's meals, and playgrounds. Burger King tried to copy this, but then switched gears, and played on the reputation of Mcdonals as "kid's stuff," putting their emphasis on serving adults and teens who don't want "the kiddie burger." Objectivism could do something similar.

Most importantly, don't come out desperate. Many eager Objectivist newbies act as if their life depended on converting the world overnight, forgetting about the need to create a demand. The potential convert may need a reality based philosophy, but they don't know that, they may be convinced that there's no need for "New Coke" and stay with "Coke classic."

Anyone remember "New Coke"? "Crystal Pepsi"? "Pepsi Kona"?

Post 1

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 8:07am

Arguably in-reach programs are more important than outreach programs. I know of several individuals who picked up the books, were excited by them, but couldn't hold on to the philosophy even though they a lot of interest - for a time anyway. At my early stage in Objectivism I was unable to provide any direction and I was even ignorant of sites like this on the internet. So, what good is outreach if 'proselytes' aren't retained?

Among others "practical ideas for how to put Objectivist ideas into practice" is an excellent idea for newcomers. I would also benefit from it as I'm sure most Objectivists would. I guess it could be in-reach to inreachers too. It would have certainly given me the direction and knowledge I lacked at the beginning or even now.

I hope that there is a blueprint in the future because, if possible, I would enjoy contributing to the content of the actual product.

Post 2

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 8:56am

This is really good, Joe.

Like you, I feel that in-reach is (or has been) underrated. It occurs when Objectivist folks proclaim: "We shouldn't argue with each other, the REAL problem is out there." I'd say that the really big problem is indeed "out there" -- but that the really big solution is actually "in here." You mentioned things like Quantum Mechanics and the Big Bang, taken as some kind of "proof" against Objectivism. It's dangling stuff like that -- as everyday hurdles for Objectivism to jump over -- that'll forward the appeal of Obectivism.

Good essay.

Ed

Post 3

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 11:59am

These are really excellent ideas - both the need for such a project and the specific issues you would include. I will digest this more thoroughly and try to post some more later. First reactions: the issues of selectivity, keeping the length down, someone who is on the level of or closely familiar with the context of the people reading it are important. And getting 'theoretical' type rather than practical type Oists to actually read it and practice it may be challenging.

I think the need for this sort of thing is enormous given the difficulty of the philosophy and the number of ways people can and do go off the rails.

Post 4

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 5:18pm

Joe:

That was a very interesting read. Although I dislike "silver bullet" type books, I had an image in my head of an "Objectivism in 30 Days" pamphlet while reading the article. But I actually think a series of such paper/electronic pamphlets would fit right into what you're getting at. Or to put it in religious terms, a series of daily devotionals that provide one reading a day on some of the topics you mentioned.

If there are any plans for this type of project in the future, I would love to contribute by providing content or as a guinea pig to try out the product.

Post 5

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 6:45pm

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

Joe, you've almost got an article there! I think you've got a good point that newbies will try to sell the philosophy without actually thinking about the proper method of selling. For instance, they're usually attracted to the philosophy via Rand's fiction, which is a powerful way to convey an abstract worldview in a very concrete and integrated form. It's inspiring.

And yet people will often try to argue with people over philosophical points, thinking that will somehow win them over. They don't realize that it wasn't just the philosophical truths that won them over, but the vision that Rand presented. I've had far more success telling people to read Rand's fiction then trying to convince them of the philosophy in a more piecemeal way.

So that's exactly the sort of thing that would be excellent advise. Give them real suggestions for how they might convince others, and how to approach the whole subject.

Hi Mitchell, you're right that these kind of services/features would be useful even to Objectivists that have been around for awhile. I tried to narrow the articles focus to newbies just because they have some specific needs and the topic is too wide-reaching in general. But I understand that what applies to them probably also applies to other in a gradually reduced way.

And I also believe that the in-reach is important. I figure Rand's fiction is widely read enough that it does plenty of outreach on its own. We can't even hold onto the people who are excited about the philosophy and want to learn more. Some give up quickly. Some go off and focus only on libertarianism or something. Some get sickened by all the fighting and walk away. Some get angry with the world and remove themselves from it. Making it easy for people to adopt the philosophy would mean constantly growing numbers. That'd be real progress.

Ed, glad you liked it. I agree that a lot of what we do here doesn't appear to be useful at first glance, but really has some benefit. It'd be even better if we organized it in a very usable resource.

Phil, you're right that selectivity is a big issue here. This could easily get way out of hand. A guidebook that is 200,000 pages may be glorious, but not that useful.

On the other hand, some of this stuff could just be archived as a resource. The typical "problems" could be set up as an informative website where people can go search when they are confronted by these kind of things. Jeff and I have played around with an idea called "Objectivists on...". It would be an extensive list of topics of interest, and Objectivist arguments about them. Not only would it be a lot of work, but there's the problem that Objectivists don't always agree (can you believe it?). If we had started it years ago, we'd probably have articles about how abortion should be illegal, homosexuality is "unnatural" and therefore immoral, and that America is the most evil country in the world.

So narrowing it down would be great.

Hi Ryan. Nice dog! What do you mean by "silver bullet" type books? I thought maybe it meant a book that tried to solve all the problems once and for all. Certainly that's not the goal. In fact, I could see all kinds of books or guides. I could see websites. Guides to practical living. Guides to better marketing or argumentation. Books that explain the philosophy in a clearer way. Guides to romance and relationships from an Objectivist perspective. And on and on. All could help with the transition.

Guys, I've got a lot of ideas for activism. I wrote this one up because I think it's a pretty interesting set of ideas, and I think there's a real need for it (not sure if that means a real market for it, but at least a need). But I also wrote it up because I don't expect to get to it anytime soon. I've got higher priority ideas that I'm working on myself.

The War Room is actually set up to let participants lead a project. Someone could be set up to create tasks, assign rewards, make a plan of attack, etc. If someone else wants to pursue this, I highly recommend it and will even participate. Just let me know.

--Joe

Post 6

Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 7:52am

Great article and it deals with issues I believe that really needs to be addressed. Just to touch on a couple.

So part of the advice one could give is to not act too rashly. Getting used to identifying values takes some time, and ending longtime relationships because of philosophical disagreements may be a costly mistake. It's too easy to reject a non-ideal world and sulk about how horrible everyone is, and to find philosophical excuses for it. So part of the advice would be how to have patience and work to improve your life in this world, instead of dreaming about living in an imaginary Galt's Gulch.

The second category of ideas relates to how enthusiastic newcomers often feel so strongly that they want to go rush out and convert all their friends and family, even before their own understand is firm. Since the results aren't usually very positive, it's been suggested that maybe newbies should wait until they have a comprehensive understanding of the philosophy before they go about trying to persuade people. While that might ensure better results, I don't think it's realistic to tell excited newcomers that they shouldn't mention this life-changing philosophy to others until they've spent years mastering it.

If a person does not have a good grasp of what they are trying to impart, they will a lot of times run into another who will twist them in knots, leading to embarrassment, frustration and possible abandonment before really getting a good start.

The second paragraph above hits directly on the problem many face when getting involved with a new idea in their life which is exciting. They all too often start attacking beliefs of others rather than using a systematic approach to get their thoughts across. This usually leads to confrontation in which nothing is accomplished.

Instead of trying to counsel the impossible, we could try to provide them the tools they need to be more effective at communicating their ideas. Part of this could be having organized information online that they can simply refer others to. Part of it could be guides to actually communicating the ideas better.

I wonder if a separate forum for the newcomer would not be a good idea; one in which basic articles are posted and where people could post any question or thought they had without fear of someone jumping in their chit or trying to make them look stupid.

One of the main thrusts for a newbie board should be encouraging dialogue in order to facilitate the advancement of the Philosophy.

Thanks for the article.

Post 7

Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 2:12am

There's a word for what you're suggesting, it's called a catechism. The Catholics are big fans of the idea...

Post 8

Monday, March 27, 2006 - 3:27pm

L. W. Hall,

Thanks for the comments. A forum for newcomers might be useful. That's sort of what the Objectivism Q&A is for, but it may be that it doesn't satisfy the purpose.

Unrelated to your comments, I had another idea I didn't put in the article but from my experience would be useful. When I talk to people who are new to the philosophy, they often ask questions about Rand's fiction. For instance, what's with the rape scene? Or why does Dagny kill the guard at the end of Atlas. Or what about Eddie Willers? Why didn't he get to go to the gulch?

The fiction is powerful, but some of the points can be hard to understand. Clarifying those points can be informative to the newcomer, who's trying to see the bigger picture. Obviously this could be a newbie guide project. And since I've been asked the same questions numerous times, I assume it would be of some help.

Post 9

Friday, March 31, 2006 - 10:38am

Joseph,

there is definite merit in an explanation of what Rand was trying to impart in her fiction; I have read "The Fountainhead" and am now in the process of reading "Atlas Shrugged" and to be brutally honest "The Fountainhead" left me with a sense of coldness about it. I did not particularly care for any of the characters in the book although I could respect Howard Roark for his unyielding principles, when Rand wrote his raping of Dominique into the book it ran so contrary to my beliefs it was hard for me to shake it through the rest of the book. For some this could well have been the beginning and the end of any interest in Rand, but I am still plodding along and find much I like in her philosophy even if I still do not care for the book.

With all that said an overview of the book and the analogies she was trying to draw could have been helpful.

Thanks

L W

Post 10

Friday, March 31, 2006 - 11:06am

Try Cliff's Notes?

Friday, March 31, 2006 - 1:25pm

One of the main thrusts for a newbie board should be encouraging dialogue in order to facilitate the advancement of the Philosophy.

I think dialogue is the key word here. I'm much more interested in idea discussion about how different people study Oism differently; what they agree or disagree on while keeping the maturity and politeness and all that jazz. In other words, I'm attracted to boards where critical thought, wise judgement, and benevolence is encouraged. One of the coolest things I've learned in one of my physiology classes was "Take this knowledge and make it your own." I want to see how others have done it, individually, and to share thoughts on it; not necessarily in the form of question-answer (although that's nice), but also along the lines of "Today I thought about...."

Post 12

Friday, March 31, 2006 - 10:06pm

Joe R.,

Great article!

Joe M.,

Great points!

Mr. Hall,

I wish you success in reading the novels and learning the philosophy. There is just one quick point I want to clear up, however, before it confuses anyone else. That is your contention that there is a "rape scene" in _The Fountainhead_. The customs and mores of American society have changed so radically in the last 80 years that some people reading her fiction now, in the 21st century, could easily miss the cues Rand put in her work that the sex in question was consensual.

The scene took place in the context of the posh New England society of the 1920s. This was pre-sexual revolution. It was pre-women's liberation. It was even well before the mild sexual liberation that occurred in this country during the WWII era, so social standards were radically different. From our contemporary point of view, America was virtually a foreign country then.

People in that era were bound by all kinds of rules of behavior that have now been scrapped, especially in regard to class distinctions, romance, and sex. This applied especially to young, unmarried women. There were many things that were simply "not done." For a wealthy young woman to invite a common worker she scarcely knew to come over to her mansion after hours, to "fix her fireplace," is one of those things. (Dominique is portrayed throughout the whole book as a total rebel.) Roark had already seen the fireplace and realized that the damage to it was intentional, and he'd boldly hinted as much to her. So they were on the same page.

Then, when it was time to fix the damned thing, Roark played his little joke (playing hard to get) on her: he sent over the Italian man with the new marble to do the actual work. He was just teasing her to see how much she wanted it.

Later, she went riding on her horse past the quarry and saw Roark. (This scene makes no sense unless you realize that everything she had done with the fireplace was a set up, so that she could lose her virginity to the ruggedly distinctive, well-muscled redhead she had seen breaking rock with a jackhammer.) Here's their dialog:

"Why didn't you come to set the marble?"
"I didn't think it would make any difference to you who came. Or did it, Miss Francon?"

This is Roark's second joke on her. There are at least two levels of meaning to his first sentence. On the one hand, he is just playing her game, pretending that the only reason she wanted him to come to her bedroom in the evening was to fix the fireplace. On the other, he is seeing through her game and playing along with it, in effect calling her a whore. For a common workman to accuse a society lady of being a slut was another thing that was "just not done" in those long ago, pre-Paris Hilton days.

You can see that this is exactly how Dominique interpreted it by the next line of narrative:

"She felt the words not as sounds, but as a blow flat against her mouth."

She responded to Roark by whipping him across the face with the thin branch she was holding. The actual sex scene came three nights later.

Rand famously said of this scene that if it represented a rape, it was rape "by engraved invitation." So, before you use the term "rape scene" outside of scare quotes in conjunction with _The Fountainhead_, please remember that the first violence between Roark and Dominique is when she whips him on the face in a scene that makes no sense unless they both knew that she wanted him.

That said, the type of sex scenes that Rand's heroines seem to enjoy is not much to my personal taste.

-Bill
(Edited by William A. Nevin III
on 3/31, 10:07pm)

Post 13

Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 3:18am

Dominique totally set it up. To me it looked like the set-up was obvious, because I would do it the same way. It's just the difference of understanding the mind/mentality of certain women out there, and the type of man that would pick it up.

Post 14

Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 6:19am

William,

Thanks for the clarification into Rand's way of thinking in respect to the scene being played out the way it did. To each his own, but I could not see myself in agreement with Rand on this particular interaction between a man and a woman. I am by no means a prude when it comes to sex and I see nothing wrong with little wrestling matches and frisky play in fun, however to me this scene crossed the line into physical violence and that is just not my cup of tea. In conclusion though I do not see myself as an arbiter of other people's sex lives and if they both understand the rules so be it.

..................................................................................................

Jenna,

I appreciate your insight from the female perspective.

Post 15

Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 1:00pm

I appreciate your insight from the female perspective.

Exactly, to each his own! Nowhere did it say on humanity's rulebook that (between consenting adults of course) we *had* to have a specific sexual taste.

Post 16

Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 3:03pm

Joseph Rowlands put forward some really good ideas in this article. Thanks for writing it, Joe.

The first general category of helpful advice Joe wrote for newcomers pertained to non-confrontational communications of Rand's philosophic ideas to family and friends. Rand had one bit of advice on this, as it pertains to one's parents. She made the remark in the Q&A of Leonard Peikoff's 1976 lecture series The Philosophy of Objectivism. My notes record her advice as follows:

Don't try to convert your parents. They will always see you as the little one and think they must guide the child. Don't pass judgment loudly, if their ideas are irrational.

When I first read Rand, after a year of college (1967), it was because a cousin-in-law had given me Fountainhead and Atlas through a (rigged) Christmas gift name-drawing. There had been people in my high school who had told me I should read Ayn Rand because I seemed so much in step with some of her salient ideas. I had not pursued it, but thanks to my cousin-in-law, Rand finally reached me.

In turn I was instrumental in bringing Rand's philosophy to other relatives, with salutary effect. It would not have occurred to me to try to convert my parents to Objectivism, but I ended up discussing it in great depth with my father. That was because my folks were naturally horrified that I had become attached to this moral philosophy which left faith, God, and immortality out of the picture. In a while, they could see how thoroughly I had learned Rand's philosophy and my considerable settled agreement with it. So my father left off trying to talk me out of it.

I know that some parents have been introduced to Objectivist ideas which they found clarifying and sound. But I think Rand's advice is a good rule of thumb concerning parents.

Post 17

Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 4:08pm

LW, thanks for confirming my suspicion that this kind of project would be useful.

Jenna, I agree in part with your emphasis on dialogue for a newbie board. I think it's important for people to be able to discuss things admitting that they don't understand the philosophy entirely, and with the intent to explore it. That's beneficial at every level, and is how I modelled the Think Tank forum. My minor disagreement comes form having seen newbies go off on wild tangents trying to solve problems that have already been solved, and generally making a mess of the philosophy. It helps to have someone with experience come in and show how cleanly it can all go together.

Bill Nevin, good to see you. Thanks for the comment on the article, and for putting part of it in action.

I would add that there are a number of other ideas to keep in mind when reading the "rape". Like how Dominique's malevolent universe premise forced her to fight and try to destroy any values so she wouldn't become a slave to them. And consequently, how she had to be "raped", since the only way she could appreciate a value is if she had no choice about it. Later, when the sex becomes more consensual, she sets it up as a duty she has to accept, where she can't turn him away even if she has guests. And how she tries to integrate it into her acts of destruction later by linking it to Roark's defeats by her.

There's other interesting points, like how she at first thought he was some common laborer, possibly a convict. Having read more of Rand's fiction and non-fiction, we're able to see that Rand had her heroes instantly recognize a kind of quality in the other heroes. So again we have Dominique seeking a value, while trying to pretend it's a sacrifice. She wants it to be degrading and humiliating. Roark of course recognizes the truth immediately, and even the reasons for it. He knows the only value she's willing to accept is that which is presented as a sacrifice.

I'm sure there's lots more to say on the topic. It's very well integrated with the rest of the story, and I think would have seriously hurt the book if it hadn't happened that way. I can't imagine Roark buying her flowers, her accepting, having a lovely dinner for two, and making sweet love into the night. Not with her screwed up view of life. And certainly it wouldn't have fit with her later submission/destruction.

Stephen, glad you liked it. And thanks for mentioning Rand's advice regarding parents. I'm sure there are other relationships that equally suffer from this kind of perception.

Post 18

Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 12:04pm

It is interesting, though, how Dominique behaved as if she had been raped immediately afterwards, and how Roark was so wrapped up in his work he was surprised he thought of her at all when getting on the train to go back to NYC a week later. Also, she could not have known he would actually show up and "rape" her.

I do think that for Ayn Rand a woman had to be overcome, which means Dominique had to be taken. Thus "No!" becomes "Yes!" Maybe: "I was 'raped,' but you did it the right way so that's all right after all." In today's PC world no is no, never another way of saying yes. In the "rape" scene Dominique's way of actually saying "No" would have been her indifference, which would have stopped Howard cold.

How would this scene be handled in a contemporary movie?

--Brant

Post 19

Monday, April 3, 2006 - 10:55pm