RoR: Forum

Luke,

A guy called Dan Edge from an outfit called ‘Objectivist Singles’ once posted to the SOLO yahoo forum an essay called ‘The Morality of Monogamy.’ I posted an essay-length critique pointing out some of the hazards of monogamy and positing polyamory/polygamy/whatever-you-want-to-call-it as a potentially moral alternative. The problem is, it specifically addresses Dan’s essay, so it needs a re-write. One for the to-do list!

Glenn

Post 21

Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 3:17am

I honestly think a major reason why Objectivism doesn't appeal to most women is found in the Myers-Briggs. Typology.
Objectivism appeals to a certain personality type, charactistically those who process information by a set of objective fact based rules. These are the "T"'s. When I was running courses in this, I found that while the other three parameters are pretty much 50-50 spread between men and women, the majority of women fall into the judgement orientation of "F"'s in other words they make decisions according to an internal value set that may have little to do with the objective facts. Most Myers-Brigss Psychologists beleive this is because of upbringing, that as young girls they are encouraged to operate by their feelings. I don't agree. I think it's something more intrinsic.
I dont know if anyone has ever studied the distribution of INTP and INTJ, the most prevalent, apparantly, among Objectivists, (Ayn Rand was catergorised an INTJ although she never took the analysis), but I'd bet my bottom dollar there are heaps more men than women.
Cass

Post 22

Saturday, September 4, 2004 - 7:48am

Cass wrote:

I found that while the other three parameters are pretty much 50-50 spread between men and women, the majority of women fall into the judgment orientation of [Feeling]. In other words, they make decisions according to an internal value set that may have little to do with the objective facts. Most Myers-Briggs psychologists believe this is because of upbringing, that as young girls they are encouraged to operate by their feelings. I don't agree. I think it's something more intrinsic.

I have also read that Objectivism tends to draw those of a particular Myers-Briggs personality type. A SOLO poll supports your assertion that our philosophy overwhelmingly draws NT types. Of course, my own orientation is ISTJ which the poll showed as the smallest percentage that managed to register at all, though it beat the SP types who registered as a null percentage.

When I took the Myers-Briggs course, we learned that the types did indeed split evenly along gender lines except in Thinking versus Feeling, where 55% of Thinkers were men and 55% of Feelers were women. In my opinion, this suggests a cultural rather than genetic influence. I think we need more exploration of the brain structures and consequent cognitive processes of men and women to nail down whether women genuinely "feel" more than men by their genetic nature and not just their upbringing. In either case, I think exploiting the "sense of life" appeal of Objectivism will draw more people than dry technical discussions will.

This poll shows "Friendship Formation" as a top value sought in Objectivist Clubs. I would like to see some suggested readings posted here for cultivating one's skill in this fine art from a viewpoint compatible with Objectivism.

Luke Setzer

Post 23

Monday, September 6, 2004 - 2:07am

whether women genuinely "feel" more than men by their genetic nature and not just their upbringing.

The "F" pole in Myers-Briggs doesn't relate to "feeling" in terms of emotional reactions tho, Luther. It means "the way in which one processess the information provided by perceptions".
For example, in a workshop setting, you can split the "F"s and "T"s into separate groups, and give them a scenario such as "You are on the decision panel at a company that has to reduce staff. You must choose between two people. One is a single person who is of especial advantage to the company because of his abilities, the other is a very good worker, not as good, and has a wife and children".
the "T"s would always choose the best worker, irrespective of anything else, the "F"s would choose the guy with the family to support.
When asked to justify their choice, they would come up with statements like "You have to take other factors into consideration, such as family", ie this is part of their own internal value set. The "T"s still expressed sympathy for the family guy, and came up with suggestions to assist him in getting other jobs, but their bottom line was "what are the facts of the case, irrespective of my feelings about it"
So many male Objectivists - at least those I have talked to, not many admittedly - come across as almost unbearably pompous and closed minded. They promote their objectivist views with a "I'm so completely right theres' nothing left to discuss" manner. That goes for a lot on websites, too. And, in spite of the fact that at its core, Objectivism is a love of mankind and love of life philosophy, it gets presented in a way that many people, especially women, see differently. I know women have told me it sounds, "cold, hard-hearted, and callously indifferent to the problems and heartaches of others".
And one thing I can assure all you single male objectivists here and now - tell just about any woman that animals have no "rights" and that killing them has no moral perspective, and they'll be picking up their bag and heading for the door so fast you wont see the dust. (- : !!
Cass

Post 24

Monday, September 6, 2004 - 10:05am

Cass wrote:

this is part of their own internal value set

The question remains: Whence come those internal values -- those sorting patterns? Do they result from nature or nurture? This question remains for science to answer.

tell just about any woman that animals have no "rights" and that killing them has no moral perspective, and they'll be picking up their bag and heading for the door so fast you won't see the dust.

This suits me just fine. I make no time for such losers. As I say in my Values List description of Pride, "I do not need you. Next!" Perhaps I qualify as one of those "pompous male Objectivists" who believes there is "nothing left to discuss" on this issue. In any case, "ethical vegetarians" who support "animal rights" are out on my list of close friends. I drive away to make room for better.

Shawn Klein wrote a good analysis of animal "rights" in the latest issue of TOC Navigator. Basically, he clarified the distinction between moral conduct and political freedom, and argued that while wanton destruction of animals may be immoral, the government has no proper role to play in how animals get treated. I basically agree with him.

Luke Setzer

Post 25

Monday, September 6, 2004 - 10:25am

That may be so Luther. That's not what I'm saying. I thought you were expressing an interest in why so few women get into Objectivism, and how to attract them to it. As a woman, and one who has been "into" Objectivism for some years, and tried to talk inumerable women into it also, I was offering the results of some years of observations for you to muse on as you choose. Thats all.

Post 26

Monday, September 6, 2004 - 10:48am

Cass wrote:

I was offering the results of some years of observations for you to muse on as you choose.

Understood, and thank you for sharing. I think the "individual-centered" ethics of Objectivism needs accentuating based on the current values system of the prospect. How to do that would serve as an excellent article unto itself and I will not attempt to address it here. Suffice it to say that the current user base of Franklin Covey products would offer a rich mine of prospects if we could access them. There is a Seven Habits Meetup Day we could tap.

Luke Setzer

Post 27

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 8:38pm