RoR: Forum

Thanks, RCR, for your comments defending my truth-seekingness. Although...[gallows humor]...considering that you're NB's webmaster, I don't suppose your testimonial will carry much weight with some of the folks here. ;-) Nevertheless, the remarks are appreciated.

Ellen

___

Post 141

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 3:14pm

ES:

"My belief, to summarize, is that her views about 'talent' changed, though without her being aware of the change."

I think another part of the overall issue is that Rand's heroic characters were written in such a way that they could not be but what they were...she wrote her heroes in an idealized manner, just as the Greeks cast their statues in an idealized manner as marble models of "the good". In this way, Randian heroes *were* "born" with most of their greatness innate, and were not so representative of her "blank slate" take on the nature of humanity itself (which, I believe, is one of the reasons why Randian heros fall a bit short as models for real-life behavior). This innate idealism takes it most extreme and obvious form when Rand makes the allusion between Galt and Athena ("sprung from the forehead of Zeus, fully formed and armed").

Also, I think Rand carved out a unique space in her thinking for what she considered "genius" (well beyond how she thought of mere "talent"). I think that for Rand "genius" was the uniquely human realization of a creative integration of genetic/biologic gifts and biases with an active, honest, self-made, *independent* mind.

In an attempt to bring a bit more clarity and cast a brighter light on what Rand's actual views of "genius" and "talent" were, I'd like to present the following illuminating quote from AR herself. I don't know that I've encountered such a clear formulation of what Ayn Rand considered "genius" to be.

"As to Nathan, I thought he was a genius from the first evening. And I really mean genius. In that sense, I have never pronounced that judgment on someone I know, not that immediately, not that objectively...From intelligence alone, it's not yet enough for the title genius. You know what's necessary there? It's a creative intelligence, it has to be an initiating intelligence, not merely philosophical or abstract or quick to understand or being able to deal with abstractions...When you conclude that someone is really a genius, it's total independence, the first hand look of a creative mind, a mind that is constantly active on its own power." (Excerpt taken from Barbara Branden's taped interview of Ayn Rand for *Who is Ayn Rand?*)

RCR

Post 142

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 3:19pm

ES wrote:

"Thanks, RCR, for your comments defending my truth-seekingness. Although...[gallows humor]...considering that you're NB's webmaster, I don't suppose your testimonial will carry much weight with some of the folks here. ;-) Nevertheless, the remarks are appreciated."

Well, there really is no pleasing everyone, now is there. LOL.

:-)

RCR

Post 143

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 3:26pm

RCR:

> Well, there really is no pleasing everyone, now is there.

That, I think, is an incontrovertible truth -- rather on a par with A is A. ;-)

Cheers,

ES

Post 144

Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 10:59pm

Mr. Bob Mac, Cal, R. Christian Ross, and Ellen Stuttle;

Ye' who should paint me into such a corner as ye' have (caps for italics) ...

Rand said that: "it is man's cognitive faculty that determines the CONTENT of both [both the emotional mechanism and the cognitive mechanism]"

recap:
Man is born without innate cognitive content (ie. tabula rasa). After appropriate reflection, I consider this point (about being born without any cognitive "content") to be beyond debate.

=============
No one is born with any kind of "talent" and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired. Writers are MADE, not born. To be exact, writers are self-made.
=============

recap:
No infant is capable of a polemic. And that is all that is said here (read into it what you may).

Ed

Post 145

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 10:02am

... and another thing ...

You guys are faulting Rand for promoting some kind 'egalitarian beginning' (where we all start out with exactly the same potential). But you guys are guilty of failing to integrate that (because it's impossible) with Rand's notion of a Pyramid of Ability:

===============
... the productive genius which has made that factory possible ...
===============

===============
The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes most ...
===============

===============
Such is the nature of the competition between the strong and the weak of the intellect.
===============

Rand clearly didn't hold an 'equal potential' view of man. But, in order for your arguments to even get off of the ground -- this 'egalitarian beginning' has to be assumed.

Ed
[tabula rasa is about actualized content, not mere potentiality]

Post 146

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 10:51am

Ed,

�Rand clearly didn't hold an 'equal potential' view of man.�

Did you read what I posted from Peikoff?

��she thought the only difference between her and most people was a question of honesty. She did not think she had an intelligence beyond that of most people.�

She thought she was no more intelligent than most people. Tell me, how could she think she had been born with a native intellect unequal to most, if she didn�t even think she possessed one as an adult?

Regarding your examples of where she spoke of productive and intellectual geniuses, these are easy to explain within her viewpoint. She never says they were born unequally. While she denied that intelligence explained her own achievements, she needn�t deny that other people really are of great intelligence and that they developed it greatly, in excess of the effort made by everyone else, all of who got an equal start. After all, that is the pattern of how she explains her own success. She says she intensively developed her honesty until it became so great as to become the major reason she could produce Atlas Shrugged and discover Objectivism.

You will easily find lots of Rand quotes of the form: �Each man rising as high as his abilities will take him.� Just keep in mind that she meant �self-made abilities,� and she confirms this explicitly whenever asked, as in the Peikoff quote I supplied.

Some of her characters may appear to have arrived ready-made, but those are novels. Whenever asked explicitly, she reverted to self-made intelligence, honesty, everything�with all matters of competency explained by effort, never unequal beginning.

Jon

Post 147

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 2:38pm

Jon wrote (post 146):

"Regarding your [Ed T.'s] examples of where she spoke of productive and intellectual geniuses, these are easy to explain within her viewpoint. She never says they were born unequally."

I talked about examples from her novels in my post 134 and said that my belief "is that her views about 'talent' changed, though without her being aware of the change." One place where (as I recall, I haven't read the book in quite awhile) she does *explictly* indicate an unequal beginning is a remark of Roark's that Wynand "wasn't born to be a second-hander."

My impression on all my readings of Atlas was that she did have the view of unequal beginnings regarding "ability." And I think it's clear that a lot of other people formed this impression also, since one of the factors in the frequent misperception of her as "fascist" was that she thought of "the men [and women] of ability" as an elite of ubermenschen.

Nonetheless, it's true, as Jon points out, that when asked explicitly, she explained "all matters of competency [or at least those she was explicitly asked about] by effort, never unequal beginning." And this squares with what Allan Blumenthal told me she thought when I questioned him on the subject. (I asked Allan a number of questions about this in private discussions with him before and after his classes, as well as his being asked in class.)

Ellen

___

Post 148

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 2:56pm

Ed bluntly proclaims:

"No one is born with any kind of 'talent' and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired."

That is *quite* a wide, dichotomous net you are casting there, Ed.

Perhaps with your boldly proclaimed theory, you can explain to me how many human beings who are classified within the "autistic spectrum", for example, are capable of the huge variety of cognitive "talents" which they clearly demonstrate, often times much without the conceptual ability to explain or even understand the nature of their own abilities. In many cases it appears, at least, that these people have done little or nothing to *initiate* their talents, they are simply there as a consequence of their specific, overall biology.

Honestly, I don't see how any modern thinker or "truth seeker" can so *ignore* the upfront role that biology has in *biasing* the nature of the volitional human consciousness; to me, it seems a bit like proclaiming the Earth to be at the center of the universe.

RCR

"A theory, to be valid, must integrate all and contradict none of the relevant evidence or data; and this entails the necessity of taking cognizance of everything that *is* relevant."
--Nathaniel Branden, *The Psychology of Self-Esteem*.

Post 149

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 3:03pm

Cal, catching up to a detail of what you wrote in post 131. You say:

"Those "innate ideas" are a straw man that is resurrected time and again. No one really claims that *ideas* are innate."

Actually, the Platonist lineage in philosophic thought does claim that "ideas," if by that is meant universals, are innate. And I expect it was Platonism Rand had in mind as the opposition in what she said in Galt's Speech.

There are still Platonists today, and there are scientific theorists who hold variants of "innate ideas" theories, e.g., Jerry Fodor and colleagues. I'm not familiar enough with Fodor's views to explicate details, but I think that Robert Campbell is. Maybe he'll have time to provide some background on debates in psychological theory when he gets home from the Seminar.

I agree however with your further remarks about the implications of Rand's views in regard to "traits like intelligence, musicality, introversion, extraversion, criminal tendencies etc. etc."

Ellen

___

Post 150

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 3:23pm

RCR:

"No one is born with any kind of 'talent' and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired."

That is *quite* a wide, dichotomous net you are casting there, Ed.

That is in fact a quote by Rand, see my post 77. That doesn't make less false, of course.

Post 151

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 3:56pm

For the last time, I acknowledge that we're born with different levels of potential. Geezus, guys. Read what I write, why don't you. Here's the kicker, though:

Having different (unequal) levels of potential ACTUALLY MEANS NOTHING. It is ALL about actualized potential (and never about potential). Potentiality is metaphysical inferior to actuality -- get it? Read Rand's words on abortion -- if you still don't get it.

And the variation of potentiality within human kind is nothing, compared to the variation in potentiality between man and ape. And since nobody's fully actualizing their potentiality (nobody ever 'maxes out'), we're all operating with room to grow (or room to decay some more). That means that everybody's equally culpable for their own morality or immorality (ie. there's no logical, social-consequence to having a variation in human potential).

Some folks, so full of adrenaline (or sensitivity to it) -- are extremely quick-witted. Some folks aren't. Now, be sure, if you gave me a slow-witted person -- I could, at least pharmacologically, turn them into a quick-wit. But that's just because environment is more important (carries more weight) than genetics is -- ie. nurture supercedes nature.

Ed

Post 152

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 3:57pm

Calopteryx Splendens:

"That is in fact a quote by Rand, see my post 77."

Whoops!

Calopteryx Splendens:

"That doesn't make less false, of course."

Exactly; nor does it change my take on the matter. To my mind, the open-ended question remains: just how do strict physical biology and consciousness relate in the human being? In other words, to what *degree* is the human being born with a "blank slate", and further, to what degree can volition ultimately trump what ever *is* innate in our biology?

RCR

Post 153

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 4:05pm

Hi Ellen,

Good points about her presentation of characters contradicting sometimes what she said explicitly. Maybe her view changed, or maybe that was for fiction writing, so it worked well for drama and she thought it harmless.

My two cents (and don�t anyone accuse me of armchair psycho-blah, blah, blah. It�s just my two cents, I can speculate): I suspect she knew, as we all do, subconsciously at least, that people get unequal beginnings. But she was later uncomfortable with the fact explicitly, because, first: She considered it ultimately pointless. Her focus was always moral, how we should live our lives. In that methodological context the emphasis, all of it, should be on things we have control over. And second, she witnessed the rise of racist fascism through the twenties and thirties. Questions surrounding the natural endowment of some men versus others were put to horrific application under the Nazis. I think it natural that someone living at that time would resist explicitly acknowledging any importance of genes.

Jon

Post 154

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 5:13pm

Ed, in post 144 you �recap� that �Man is born without innate cognitive content� and �No infant is capable of a polemic� as though you�ve recapped the entirety of Rand�s thoughts on the matter.

Earlier, you cited nicotine and meth. Would these be your answer to the question (post 111) that Newman put to Peikoff? If not, then how would you answer?

Post 155

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 5:36pm

Cal, from post 131, stating Rand's views:
"Mozart had no special musical talent, neither had Rand a talent for writing, it was all just a matter of choosing your values and to work at some skill, and everyone could do the same.

I think people are born with certain aptitudes, but I think that a much more important factor is that they have certain inherent passions or interests, regardless of whether or not they have any skills to go along with them. I don't agree with Rand's apparent view that it's a matter of choosing your values. The particular passion, in effect, chooses the person.

For example, since as far back as I can remember, I've had a very intense passion for drawing, and I remember the frustration of recognizing that I wasn't very good at it when I was three years old. I wasn't more competent than others my age. But despite my lack of innate skills, my passion for it was much stronger and much more serious than my friends' interests (in drawing or anything else). I've always absolutely ~loved~ doing it, which made me spend a lot of time at it, which made me get good at it, which made me enjoy it more, which made me do it more, which made me get even better at it, which made me enjoy it even more, etc.

My kindergarten art teacher, seeing what I could do after my first day of class with her, thought that I had "talent" -- an innate ability that others didn't possess -- when what she was actually seeing was the result of hours and hours of focused effort which came from an inherent, unchosen passion for drawing. I suspect that Rand and Mozart were born with an even stronger passion for their particular modes of creativity. And I don't think that Rand could have disregarded her innate passion for stories, ideas and writing, and willed herself to have chosen instead to develop an interest in creating, say, music. Or at least she wouldn't have been as successful -- as "talented" -- at doing anything for which she hadn't already had an innate, intense passion.

J

Post 156

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 6:42pm

Jon,

Earlier, you cited nicotine and meth. Would these be your answer to the question (post 111) that Newman put to Peikoff? If not, then how would you answer?

First, here's Peikoff's personal answer:

I think she was definitely a genius of a kind that comes about very rarely in human history

And I agree with Peikoff on that part, but here's the kicker: when he says "comes about very rarely" -- he's referring to genetics. Not having the more global understanding of how you can make a genius (like I do) Peikoff's answer is deficient. There are 3 key things required, in order to create a genius:

1) being born without a restrictive brain disorder (e.g. microcephaly -- something maternal fish oil prevents)
2) abundant mental stimulation in the first decade of life (when canalization occurs)
3) abundant mental stimulation thereafter (because you have to use it or lose it)

Now, you can "get" abundant mental stimulation from stimulants (Rand used nicotine and -- it is rumored -- Dexatrim). So, I'd say that -- for Rand -- a good 70-80% of her genius; was due to environmental factors.

Ed

Post 157

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 8:21pm

Ed,

There are some bums that occupy the park near my house after dark who will be impressed to learn that you reckon them on the path to within 70-80% of her intellect.

Edit to add a smiley face. Not typographically added, but herein stated.

Jon

(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 7/06, 8:52pm)

Post 158

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 10:57pm

Jon,

Question: Do you think it a mere coincidence that the likes of Freud and Robin Williams were coke users?

Ed

Post 159

Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 11:11pm