Attracting an audience by implying their rationality or irrationality

Through various means, and over the long-term, a writer attracts a particular audience for his writings. Content is one means of drawing readers in. A writer who writes about chess will, all other factors being equal, build an audience of individuals interested in chess. Style is another factor. A writer who writes clearly and integrates his points thoroughly will tend to acquire an audience of clear thinkers.

Another element of style is the writer's treatment of each link in the chain of fact, value, emotion, and action. Rational readers can learn a fact in the text they are reading. When they connect that fact to a value they hold, they will automatically experience an emotion. If the value is a high one, and the circumstances are appropriate, readers will take action. For example, if a writer says, "Smith Company has published my new book, Preventing Dental Problems," then those readers who respect the writer's knowledge and are concerned about their dental health will feel hopeful about their future dental health and either investigate the book further or take direct action to purchase it. The writer has stated a fact, perhaps including expected benefits of knowing that fact; readers connect that fact to their own values, experience an emotion, and take action.

EXAMPLES. Consider two cases, one at each end of a style spectrum. The first is an announcement published in the "Objectivist Calendar" column of The Objectivist Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 1 (January, 1962), p. 4. It says:

The next New York series of "Basic Principles of Objectivism" will be given at the Hotel Roosevelt, 45 St. & Madison Ave., at 7:30 P.M., on twenty consecutive Tuesday evenings, beginning February 13. Registration is now open.

This first case presents facts, and it relies on rational readers to recognize the value. (In a longer announcement, and in a different, more general publication, a rational writer might have identified the benefits of attending, but would still let readers make the evaluation and the decision to act.)

The second case is a composite of insulting announcements I have seen recently:

Gladys Grumbly, the most awesome speaker of the day, will be talking about introspection at the Wilshire Community Center on February 12 at 8 pm. You will love her presentation! You owe it to yourself to go! Sign up now! Don't delay and don't miss this absolutely fantastic opportunity!!! Click on the name below and be certain to Like this page now!!!

This second case insults rational readers. It presents a clichéd and "floating" evaluation ("Awesome"? In what way does it create a sense of awe? In whom? So what?). Further, the second announcement tells rational readers what emotional response, "love," they will feel and further insults rational readers by saying that they "owe" it to themselves to attend, not allowing readers to connect the announcement to their own individual hierarchy of values. Lastly, the announcement degrades its readers by commanding action (using the imperative mood), not merely giving instructions for implementation.

RESULTS. The writer in the first case is writing objectively, that is, writing about facts and allowing rational readers, his only intended audience, to evaluate those facts and take action. The writer in the second case is assuming his robotic readers must be pushed into evaluating, feeling, and taking action.

The writer of the second case will eventually lose rational readers—those who want to evaluate, feel, and take action at their own initiative and in the context of their own personal values. The readers who accept such abuse and remain the writer's followers will tend to be automatons. The writer may then wonder why he has such a seemingly passive and unintelligent audience.

Over the long-term, the writer creates his audience through a process similar to natural selection: Assume readers are irrational, write accordingly, and the rational ones will go away; or assume readers are rational, write accordingly, and they will continue to pay attention to one's writings as the years go by.

Burgess Laughlin

Author of The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, here

A Personal Index for Understanding Objectivism

Leonard Peikoff, Understanding Objectivism: A Guide to Learning Ayn Rand's Philosophy, editor Michael S. Berliner, New York, New American Library, 2012, 383 pages.

In 1983, philosopher Leonard Peikoff, the foremost student of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, presented eleven lectures on "distinguishing the right and the wrong methods for trying to understand philosophy in general and for understanding and validating Objectivism in particular." (Back cover) Michael Berliner, "cochairman of the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute and senior advisor to the Ayn Rand Archives," has undertaken the enormous labor of editing and publishing the lectures. Berliner has produced a book that flows smoothly while clearly conveying its difficult subject matter. The book is a treasure chest of Dr. Peikoff's insights not only into the philosophy of Ayn Rand but also into methods of thinking philosophically.

The book's table of contents identifies the broad subject of each chapter, for example, Chapter Six, "Objectivism Versus the Intrinsic and Subjective." Unfortunately, this first printing of Understanding Objectivism has no index to lead readers back to particular topics. For my own purposes, I have compiled an abbreviated and informal list of the topics that intrigued me. This narrow personal index is not a substitute for a full formal index compiled for a broad set of readers. It reflects mainly my interests. I have listed some phrases as natural whole phrases—for example: "rational self-interest" not "self-interest, rational." The reader should be cautious, also, because I have not yet double-checked the page references for accuracy. Further, listings of page numbers are not exhaustive. Often, I made note of a topic only after seeing it mentioned once or twice.

Despite these defects in this personal index, some readers may find it helpful. If nothing else, it shows prospective buyers of the book the great range of subjects covered—to the benefit of long-term, serious students of Objectivism.

analytic-synthetic dichotomy, 255. artistic choices, 339. axiom, as a precondition, 165.

Binswanger, disagreements with as example of rational people differing,  149, 165. blurting out, as one step in thinking process, 194. Brown, Fredric, as Peikoff's favorite science-fiction writer, 339.

career, choosing, 329-331. cause and effect, 153. chewing, 24, 304-305; purpose of philosophical, 268. circularity, good and bad types of, 280. cognitive necessity, as a guide, 102. commonsense, 221 and 222. compartmentalization, 229 and 274. consciousness, 270. context, 146, 282; defined, 186.

corollary, 151-152. crow epistemology, 198 and 328.

deduction, 63. definitions, 50-58; not the same as the entity defined, 52; depend on one's purpose, 199; purpose of, 215. Descartes, 151. desert island ethics, 189. determinism, vs. indeterminism, 255-256; in rationalism, 220. Devil's advocate, 81. dishonesty vs. dependence, 363-364. dogmatism, 187.

eclecticism, 264. egalitarianism, 354. emotion, being aware of to avoid distorting thinking, 200. emotionalism, righteous, 179. empiricism, 147, 308, 310, 311; symptoms of, 134. ethics, scope of, 135. explicit vs. implicit, 362-363.

fatigue, effects on consciousness, 200. floating abstractions, 211. friends, choosing, 335.

genius, 302; as a requirement for formulating philosophical fundamentals, 205. gun control, 137.

happiness, 104. hierarchical structure, principle of, 138, 145, 157, 222. honesty, 247 and 277; evaluating a movement's followers' vs. leaders', 366. Hume, as a concrete-bound philosopher, 240.

idealism, philosophical, 151 and 213. induction, 63, 286; and deduction, 141; no particular order for performing, 235; problem of , 276. intrinsicism, 245; and self-evidence, 183-184, 190; as Rand's coined term, 175. intrinsicist "Objectivism," 186, 187. irrationalism, 264-265.

James, William, 249. judging others, 344-357.

Kant, as a mixture of bad philosophies, 234, and 308-310.

law of identity, 146 and 196. liberty, 140. lying, 71.

mathematics, 218-219. metaphysics, of epistemology, 201-202. mind, 270. mind/body dichotomy, as root of many philosophcal errors, 25. mirroring reality, fallacy of, 235, 236, 237, and 310. monism, 224. moralizers, 341-342. motherhood, 382. mysticism, 154, 155, 308; defined and related by intrinsicism, 180-181; moving from rationalism to, 232.

Objectivist, serious, 32. objectivity, validating the concept of, 20; essence of, 193 and 194. Occam's Razor, 143. options, 313; in life, 187-188. oscillating between definitions and entities, method of, 54 and 66. outline for writing, not dictated by reality, 235.

partner in life, benefits of having, 381. Peikoff's own experiences with rationalism and other issues, 263, 326, 327, 340, 375 (the movie E.T.), 377, 379, and 381. philosophy, attacks on, 2; meaning of, 17; method for making real, 23, 100, and 101; as an ally in keeping us sane, 382; structured as an X, 161; as a system, 101 and 167. Plato, 185, 310; as an intrinsicist, 189. pluralism, 257. polemics, defined, as a symptom of rationalism, 238, and 242-244. polylogism, 259-260. pragmatism, 249-250, 311. principle, living on, 92-93. proof, 63; as pointing, 64. psycho-epistemology, 359. psychologizing, 361.

Rand, interested in others' reactions to her, 320. rationalism, 54, 59, 147, 308-310; testing oneself to detect, 229; and repression, 59, 322, and 323. rational self-interest, 314. Rawls, John, 354. reason, 154-155. recreation, 336. reduction, 58 and 306. religion as intrinsicism, 189. rights, 138 and 203. Roark as a fictional character combining philosophical and concrete optional characteristics, 320. Russell, Bertrand, as an ex. empiricist, 240.

sanction, 375-376. self-criticism, improper, 191-192. self-evidence, 145, 183, 213 and 283; only at perceptual level, 190-191; improper claims of, 64; as axioms, 81. selfishness, argument for, 164. skyscrapers, loving as optional, 334; analogy for cognitive hierarchy, 158 and 222. Sophists, 247. soul, 270. soulmate, requirement for, 335. spiral theory of gaining knowledge, 31, 101, 136, 198, and 281; exercise for, 167. stupidity, as self-made, 360; Peikoff's definition, 192. symbolic logic, 241. synthesis, as integration, 101. system building, 254.

Tertullian, 265. test of a teacher as cognitive empathy, 357. test of honesty, 357. thinking, structured, 136. tout, living one's life as a, 337. tragic sense of life, 343. trichotomy, 175 and 308; of objectivity, subjectivity, and intrinsicism, 202. 

understanding, 15 and 64; method for, 41; summary of method for, 62; requirements for, 63; elements of, 65.

workaholic, 336. writing and emotions, 237.

Burgess Laughlin

Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, here

BkRev: The Permanent Portfolio

Craig Rowland and J. M. Lawson, The Permanent Portfolio: Harry Browne's Long-Term Investment Strategy, Hoboken (New Jersey), John Wiley & Sons, 2012, 330 pages.

In an October 2, 2011 post, "The Most Important Books in My Life," for the "Money" category, I saluted Harry Browne's Why the Best-Laid Investment Plans Usually Go Wrong: How You Can Find Safety and Profit in an Uncertain World, written in 1987.

I can now suggest another book, published in 2012, as superior: Rowland and Larson's The Permanent Portfolio: Harry Browne's Long-Term Investment Strategy, available on Amazon here. Rowland and Larson work from Browne's time-tested principles, explain them clearly, and show investors (at various levels from beginner to advanced, from small to large) how to implement those principles by buying particular investments from a variety of sources. My Amazon review is here.

The essence of the "permanent portfolio" idea is that our economic and political world is uncertain and volatile, and the best way to protect and modestly grow the assets earned through one's career is to invest in a way that takes advantage of that very unpredictability and volatility. There are four asset classes—stocks in productive companies, gold, bonds, and cash. Each initially takes up 25% of the portfolio. Usually some of the four classes are rising as others are falling. If one of the four 25% sectors rises beyond its band (35% of the whole), then, in the annual review, the investor sells the high performer and places the captured profits into the lowest sectors of the portfolio. (Meanwhile the portfolio continues to grow from reinvested dividends, capital gains distributions, and interest payments.) Over the long-term, the average rate of return has been about 8-9%, that is, about 5-6% above the inflation rate.

After the initial learning period, maintaining the portfolio requires little time and effort—perhaps an hour per year. I know from experience that this approach works. The portfolio grows (I seek 5% above the inflation rate), but with safety and with giving me a sense of peace no matter what the headlines of the day are screaming.

Sentence by sentence, the book is easy to understand. That does not mean the book is a quick read. I read one chapter—or less—each day. The authors present their material in an organized way and always give readers "road signs" for efficient reading. For example, "Level 1" readers (who are beginning investors, or do not want to be bothered with a lot of complexity, or have small initial portfolios) can concentrate on the Level 1 discussions and skim (or skip) the higher level discussions of each investment type. I would say I thoroughly read about half the book (taking a lot of notes), skimmed a fourth, and skipped a fourth.

Here is my salute to this book: Even though I have been following Browne's basic principles for about 40 years, after reading this book I have made some adjustments to my portfolio—adjustments which will probably improve my portfolio's performance a little and make it even more stable over the long-term.

To readers who want to protect the wealth they have earned from their careers, who seek modest growth, and who desire peace of mind in a volatile economy, I suggest reading the book.

Burgess Laughlin

Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, here

Specialized vs. general activism—which is better?

BACKGROUND: THE NATURE OF ACTIVISM. In my view, activism is the idea of working to change the circumstances—philosophical, cultural, social, or political—in which individuals live their lives. Activists for a more objective society work to improve the circumstances in which peaceful, productive, and honest individuals live by promoting reason and breaking down barriers to liberty. An architect designs buildings, and his clients pay him for doing so. The architect becomes an activist when he campaigns to abolish his city government's rights-violating regulations of architecture and construction. He is working to improve the legal circumstances in which architects design buildings.

Serious activism is long-term; the activist for a more objective society knows that influencing other rational individuals can be a slow process. Sometimes change—depending on the starting point and the depth of the problem —may happen only after years, decades, or generations of activism. The movement to end Prohibition of alcohol in the USA worked for thirteen years to abolish a single law.[1] The movement working to abolish slavery in the USA struggled for two centuries to destroy a set of pro-slavery laws and the slave society that had been built on them.[2] Some struggles, such as the war between reason and mysticism, have raged for thousands of years and will never end.

A LASER OR A CHANDELIER OF LEDS? Individuals who choose to be activists face an array of secondary choices. One choice is between general activism and specialized activism. General activism is broad in the scope of issues it covers. On Monday, a general activist might donate to a campaign to abolish a local sales tax; on Tuesday, he might speak to a local club in favor of abolishing narcotics laws for adults; on Wednesday, he might write a letter to a central African country to encourage it to release its political prisoners; and so forth. What makes a general activist general is the range of issues he can intelligently discuss. The generalist may be a full-time activist or one who dedicates a half hour per day, every day, for the remainder of his life. The generalist may operate close to home (carrying a sign while "demonstrating"; writing letters to a local newspaper; organizing neighborhood discussion groups; and so forth). Michael Neibel, a retired gentleman, is an example of a generalist. In his weblog and elsewhere, he comments on a range of issues.[3] 

Or a general activist may work at an international level (speaking to an economics club in London, appearing on national television programs in the USA, writing books, or conducting weekly radio programs reviewing and analyzing news events. Yaron Brook, president of The Ayn Rand Institute is an example.[4]

For some activists, one benefit of general activism is the opportunity to think about and research a variety of subjects. Such an activist, however, needs to be a quick study if he expects to keep up with the flood of news items that are common conversation among his friends or on radio talk shows. He needs to have the mental skills for rapidly identifying a problem (for example, identifying the issue underlying the debate over "gun control"), becoming familiar with the philosophical theory (the right of self-defense grounded in nature), and researching the facts (What kind of weapon is required for self-defense in various situations, while not endangering others?). 

Without adequate thinking and research, the general activist merely sounds ignorant when questioned by friends in discussions or challenged by opponents in debate. Therein lies one of the drawbacks of general activism: having knowledge that is wide but shallow and therefore not persuasive when confronting an opponent who has specialized in studying and debating the subject.

Specialized activism is narrow in scope. A specialized activist chooses one subject, a subject that he expects to master, that is, know so well that he can teach the subject: its fundamental principles, its key issues, and the problems of application. An example would be an activist specializing in a move to abolish federal anti-trust laws in the USA. He needs to know: (1) what those laws and accompanying regulations actually are, by reading and understanding them; (2) who among legislators (and their cronies) sponsored the original legislation and continue to expand it today; and (3) what would be the best plan for abolishing them.

Preparing for specialized activism may take years. During that time, the specialized activist need not be silent. He can: (1) conduct study groups on the issue,  (2) write a weblog that reports his findings as he conducts research, and (3) ask questions in specialized forums, for the purpose of collecting the type of responses he will encounter from the supporters of anti-trust laws.

For some individuals, a drawback of specialization is isolation. Few if any others will share his interest. The specialist may be off-stage for long periods of time while he is preparing. Likewise, years may pass before he acquires a reputation strong enough to attract supporters, financial contributors (if needed), and inquiries from journalists.

Specialization is a matter of degree. One form is specializing in a single, but broad abstraction. An example would be specializing in the promotion of the metaphysical principle of naturalism: We live in one world, the natural world, a world in which all entities have a particular identity and act accordingly.  This specialization is narrow in one way, because it is only one tenet of a philosophy of reason, but it is broad in its potential applications—for example, in the debate about a theory of evolution or in advocating the scientific method—but the activist's continuing focus would be on spreading the principle of naturalism, as a way of laying a foundation for a philosophical revolution.

Another form of specialization deals with particulars. For instance, an activist in the USA might focus on abolishing Social Security. He would need to know its history, its laws, and possible plans for phasing it out. He would accumulate a vast amount of information that he can use to establish his authority on the subject and to illustrate his broader points about ethics.

An example of specialization is maintaining a website—http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org—that collects examples of frivolous or absurd lawsuits, as an effort to make the legal system focus more seriously on the issue of rights.

MAKING A CHOICE. Which approach is better—specialized activism or general activism? A direct response to that question must be another question: Better for whom—the individual activist or the individuals he hopes to influence or both?

First, which approach to activism is more effective in changing a culture? Based on my reading of history, observation of the culture today, and personal experience, I would say both approaches are required for a movement to succeed. In a particular field, such as nuclear power, a specialist is needed to persuade decision-makers (in the industry and in Congress) and decision-influencers. In a division of labor society, a generalist can spread the word about particular issues or the principles that underlie them to the man in the street, the honest but ill-informed man who might vote for a political candidate proposing change toward a more objective society.

Second, which is best for the activist? This is the most important question. I would say that the approach best for the activist himself is the approach that is most likely to sustain his activism for the remainder of his life, given his abilities, his interests, his personality, and his ability to acquire the necessary skills. The activist knows himself. He can discover which approach will give him the fuel to walk the long road ahead.

For me, specializing is the best way to work because it allows me plenty of opportunity to study, which I enjoy, and to create a range of intermediate and long-term products that might have some influence on a few individuals who might, in turn, influence a few others.

The choice is yours. Which do you choose?

Burgess Laughlin

Author of The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, here

[1] For a brief sketch of Prohibition and the movement to end it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States. [2] For a sketch of the history of the movement to abolish slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism. [3] For Michael Neibel's weblog: http://mikeseyes.blogspot.com/. [4] For Yaron Brook, see (a) http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=staff_arc_board, and (b) http://www.amazon.com/Free-Market-Revolution-Rands-Government/dp/0230341691.

Predicting the USA's future: 2013-2017

This post contains notes for a four-year exercise in studying history and in predicting the future. I am collecting predictions of specific, measurable events that will result from the election of either Romney or Obama.

The predictions come only from activists fighting for a more objective world, that is, a world guided by reason alone. If you are submitting a prediction (in the comments thread or in an email to me), please briefly state your form of activism.

EXAMPLES. An example measurably specific prediction  is: "Under Romney's presidency, for the four years, the cost of goods, measured by the current CPI, will rise on average at least 23% per year.

An example prediction not measurably specific is: "Under Obama, the nation faces disaster." This prediction would be acceptable if "disaster" were defined and if specific examples were offered, such as 138 million people dying of starvation or six cities attacked by nuclear bombs set off by Muslims.

DISASTER. My definition of disaster (and its synonyms, "catastrophe" and "calamity") is: A situation -- economic, political, or military -- in which the victims are so injured by adverse events that they are incapable within a single generation of returning to their previous, more prosperous state without help from the outside. For the USA, the War Between the States (the U. S. Civil War) was not a disaster, as defined here; but for Japan, World war II was a disaster -- though aid and guidance from the USA did help Japan become a civilized and prosperous nation. Individuals named below might not agree with this definition.

The following predictions are generally stated in my words (usually working from the predictors' original comments), not the exact words of the courageous predictors.

PREDICTIONS
1. "If Obama wins there will only be one party--the Communist Party." 
(Facebook, Sept. 26, 2012, Charlotte Cushman, a published political writer and a Tea Party activist.)

2. Exponentially rising USA federal debt -- if either Romney or Obama is elected. 
(Facebook, Sept. 30, 2012, Keith Weiner, PhD, Economics, an advocate for capitalism; his discussion of gold backwardation is here.)

3. Calamity in the following forms, with two side effects listed last -- if Obama wins the election. 
- Violent riots in major US cities.
- Federal debt increasing over $1T/year.

- Downgrades of federal USA credit.
- Open discussion about quashing the First Amendment.
- Massive US equities correction, probably globally.
- Nuclear Iran creating a regional nuclear arms race among Muslim countries
- Regional Mid-East war
- China becoming more powerful in Asia
- Gold over $3000 per ounce.
- Impeachment hearings against Obama.
(Facebook, Sept. 30, 2012, Chip Joyce, Sept. 30, 2012, a donor to ARI and a general activist.)

4. Implementation of the following three points of the neoconservative platform, if Romney wins, even though he himself is not a neoconservative: 
- (a) His continuation of the War of Sacrifice against "terrorists," resulting in the death of at least 2,000 more Americans -- soldiers or civilians -- during the next four years. 
- (b) His complicity in the expansion of the national welfare state, in terms of dollars; 
- (c) His calls for support of God and country, but not the country of the Founders. 
(Burgess Laughlin, October 17, 2012, an author whose activist purpose is to expose the state of the war between reason and mysticism in our time in the USA.)

5. Over the next ten years, after President Obama's re-election in 2012:
- The USA equity market will have Fed dollars booms that go bust at least once and achieve no lasting real increases in protected asset value.
- The Fed will try to keep interest rates low. But as they are now [January, 2013] about as low as they can be, long-term Treasury bonds will see no new capital gains. If interest rates do move up, you will see loss ranging from significant to catastrophic.
- The CPI will continue to show losses in purchasing power of at least 2% a year, so at minimum, the cash element of a Permanent Portfolio [described in the book, The Permanent Portfolio] will see a loss of over 20%.
- Gold will show fits and starts, but will trend toward requiring more and more paper dollars to buy it. Thus three of the four sectors of a Permanent Portfolio have no future in today's context. 
- Both the Permanent Portfolio approach [developed by Harry Browne, Craig Rowland, and others] and the value-investment approach [used by Warren Buffet and Bruce Berkowitz] were written for periods in which the economy was less controlled and manipulated. Neither assumed eight or more years of trillion dollar deficits, multi-trillion dollar "stimulus" packages, Dodd-Franks, the coming tidal wave of regulations, or ObamaCare. The context has changed. Ignoring that will be disastrous for investors. 
(Bob Gifford, retired investment advisor, author of the weblog Krazy Economy, here.)

6. At the end of Obama's second term: 
- Gold will be within +/- 20% of January 2013 levels.
- The SP500 will be 50% higher than January 2013 levels.
- The Fed's printing of money will have slowed. 
- "Experts" on TV will have declared the recession over.
- Obama will take full credit for navigating us through the recession.
- These stocks will have doubled: AIG, BAC, JCP, and ACAS.
(Hoyt Chang, a mechanical engineer and part-time investor with no formal instruction in economics or politics. He follows the value-investing strategy of Warren Buffet and others, as outlined here: The Little Book That Still Beats the Market.)

Benefits of Conflicts in Movements?

Like all movements, the Objectivist movement has suffered conflicts. The drawbacks of conflicts are easy to identify, but are there benefits that rational individuals can gain from them?

Wherever two or more individuals associate, conflicts can occur. A movement is a group of individuals, a group defined only by a common goal of changing the world in some way. If all the members of a movement were to act as isolated individuals, conflicts would not arise. However, most members of movements do associate: They communicate; they trade; and they form networks, ad hoc organizations, and institutions. They differ in their senses of life, strategies, tactics, communication styles, personalities, level of knowledge, social skills, level of morality, and degree of mental health. Conflicts arise.

Within a movement, a conflict is a disagreement between two or more individuals that leads at least one of them to devote resources to making a change that ends the disagreement -- one way or the other.

Conflict is not merely the presence of different viewpoints, such as differing opinions about the style of clothing one should wear to a formal dinner for local members of the movement. A conflict, as I am using the term, is a disagreement that lasts long enough and is painful enough, at least to one side, that the aggrieved side takes action to change the situation. The other side reacts. Tension flares.

Example changes one side might seek are: persuading other members of the movement to donate or stop donating to certain projects; convincing members of the movement to adopt a particular strategy or tactic for achieving the movement's goals; and ostracizing a destructive individual from the movement.

DRAWBACKS. The potential drawbacks of conflicts within a movement are clear. Conflicts take attention and resources away from directly supporting the common, defining goals of the movement -- as when time and effort spent gathering evidence about a member's behavior might have been spent advocating the movement's principles to the society outside the movement. Second, conflicts can lead to schisms (refusals to associate), which might reduce the effectiveness of the movement. Third, conflicts can destroy friendships. Fourth, for those individuals who choose to become involved in them, conflicts are emotionally draining and can lead to abandoning the movement.

BENEFITS? Are there any ways in which rational individuals might gain from conflicts? I am basing my answer here only on personal (not systematic, scientific) observation of the Objectivist movement for fifty years, plus observations of other movements for much shorter periods. (I was briefly a participant in the movements against the Vietnam War, against the military draft, and against restrictions on abortion; and for several years, I was a member of the conflict-ridden libertarian movement.)

When disagreements cannot be resolved amicably, I see several potential benefits of conflicts within a movement. First, if the conflict is mainly about ideas, conflict can lead to more individuals within the movement becoming aware of the ideas at issue. Conflicts involving debate over fundamental principles of the movement can help educate members of the movement and thereby make the movement more effective in the long term.

Next, and closely related, is the benefit that comes from considering, discussing, and debating background issues. An example background issue is standards. In a conflict over a particular individual's behavior, what is the proper standard of judgment?[1] Another example background issue is method. If one member of the movement makes an accusation against another individual within the movement, what method should he use to present his accusation? How much evidence does he need to provide? How detailed should his argument -- the chain of inferences connecting the evidence to the accusation -- be for his particular audience?

A third benefit for many members of the movement is learning more about the individuals involved in the conflict. Individuals acting under the stress of a conflict may reveal aspects of their psychology or level of skills that were unknown before. Is a particular individual thoughtful? Does he do the research required to reach an informed judgment? Does he listen to those who might know more than he does? Does he present his evidence, proof, and conclusion for an objective audience or does he appeal to emotionalists? Negative answers to those questions may disqualify some individuals from being leaders, organizers, or consultants -- but positive answers may qualify them for a greater role in future projects.

A fourth potential benefit is greater long-term effectiveness. Quality control matters. A movement that regularly sheds individuals who do not in fact share the defining principles of the movement is a movement that stays focused. With those individuals out of the movement's network, the movement may be able to concentrate more on the key issues that define the movement and less on internal friction.

WHAT ABOUT AN HONEST MISUNDERSTANDING? In all conflicts that I have seen, there are individuals on both sides who act irrationally: emotionalists, moralizers, bomb-throwers, and the arsonists who pour gasoline on the flames of ideational conflicts that degenerate into personal conflicts. Their presence, in itself, is not automatically an indictment of the side they choose to support.

Other individuals, honest ones, sometimes make errors in judgment because of inadequate information or because of flawed methods of judging. Will a movement die as a result of honest errors that lead to a split? It should not. If individuals on both sides genuinely support the defining principles of the movement, then those individuals will continue working toward the original common goals even after an unfortunate and unnecessary split. While there might then be two smaller streams, with little socializing between them, they might be even more effective in changing the society around them. The reason is that after a split there would be two sets of voices calling for essentially the same changes in society. An increase in the number of voices advocating a certain idea will, other factors being equal, improve chances of success.[2]

EFFECT OF SPLITS. From the sidelines, I have witnessed several "splits" in the Objectivist movement. The seemingly most destructive was the split in the late 1960s following Ayn Rand's disavowal of Nathaniel Branden. The Nathaniel Branden Institute at that time was the only institutional voice for Objectivism. It closed at the very time that the communist and other irrationalist movements were marching victoriously around the world. Objectivist social networks fractured, friendships ended, and heated conflict erupted. Yet, through all of that turmoil, dedicated students of Objectivism -- led by the example of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff -- continued working to articulate the philosophy of Objectivism and to change the culture around them. Their successes have accumulated through the decades.

CONCLUSION. Internal conflict itself does not cause a movement to fail. The most rational and skilled individuals in the movement can even gain from conflict when it does emerge but cannot be amicably resolved.

Burgess Laughlin

Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, at www.reasonversusmysticism.com

[1] A comment from Betsy Speicher reminded me of the importance of always asking: "By what standard?" [2] Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate, of the Ayn Rand Institute, make the point about multiple voices, not splits, in their excellent 4.5-hour series of lectures, "Cultural Movements: Creating Change," at aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=participate_arc_activism.

Should a movement have watchmen?

A movement has no gatekeepers. That means there is no way to stop destructive individuals from entering the movement. Yet, there must be quality control at some level to prevent damage to efforts to reach the goals of the movement. To detect dangers, a movement needs watchmen as lookouts.

JOB REQUIREMENTS. The individuals who choose to be watchmen and exercise quality control, in some manner and at some level, are necessarily "self-appointed." Such a function is open to anyone who sees a danger worthy of action and has the skills to take appropriate steps -- which means mainly the ability to present an objective argument proving his charges against other individuals in the movement.

Objectivity means drawing all ideas logically from facts of reality. To be objective, an indictment of one individual by another must present facts as well as an argument leading from those facts to the indictment. The facts must be presented with specificity; pointing in the general direction ("Look at his writings!") is not specific. The argument must cover the steps required to move from evidence to conclusion. The indictment must be clear.

Debates among various watchmen are inevitable and desirable. The accusers are akin to prosecuting attorneys. There are defendants, rightly or wrongly accused. There are also the ladies and gentlemen of the jury: anyone who studies the issues, makes a judgment, and acts accordingly. However, there is no judge to set rules of procedure. Nor is there a bailiff, a policeman, or a jailer.

EXAMPLE APPROACHES. There are many optional approaches available to watchmen who are ready to make charges. Here are two examples to consider for their particular methods:

(1) http://www.dianahsieh.com/ff

(2) http://www.checkingpremises.org/

They are widely separated in time. In some ways, they are different in their purposes and methods. The first consists mainly of an annotated list of links to the author's own discussions on particular topics of false friends of Objectivism. The second, in most (but not all) of its tabbed pages (as of the day I viewed it), also consists mainly of links to other writings critiquing individuals the accusers think are pseudo-Objectivists. (The second site is new and the content is evolving.)

A third effort to consider is an apologia, a coherent essay which offers a defense against charges:

(3) http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2012/01/on-some-recent-controversies.html

I have identified the particular writings above because of their virtues, whatever faults they might also have (which must be judged within the context of each project's purposes). Generally, in the links cited both sources are serious and dignified. They deal with issues, which here means individuals and their ideas. They eschew foul language, "hot headed" outbursts, hyperbole, street talk, and other symptoms of profane culture.

CONCLUSION. Does a movement need watchmen? Yes, to protect the movement's efforts to reach its goals. The responsibility of being watchmen is heavy. It requires diligence in research, thought, and argumentation. It also requires the strength to withstand scrutiny.

PERSONAL NOTE: A BRIGHT FUTURE. I judge a movement by the actions of its best individuals, which includes, in part, their efforts to (1) set an example for rational behavior and (2) discourage violations of etiquette. (By "etiquette" I mean principles and rules of behavior that facilitate trade among individuals in a society.)

I have been a student of Objectivism for fifty years. In looking at the best behavior of particular individuals in recent controversies, on both sides, I see some signs of increasing personal maturity and interpersonal civility -- both of which are prerequisites for the trade of ideas, a trade that strengthens a movement. I also keep in mind a generalization: In controversies, the best individuals in a movement are often quiet until they are ready to make a thoughtful statement, if one is even worth formulating.

In preparing to write The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, I read about conflicts in several movements (such as the movement to overthrow the Enlightenment). Compared to those movements, the Objectivist movement is healthy and growing stronger. For this and other reasons, I am objectively hopeful for the future of the Objectivist movement.

Burgess Laughlin

Author, The Power and the Glory:The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

P. S. -- I "know" some of the individuals involved in the controversy above, but only through the internet. For personal reasons, I dislike a few and I have ceased communicating with them. The issues in the sites above, however, are not personal issues, but issues of individuals accused of misrepresenting or otherwise damaging the Objectivist movement.