Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Was Ayn Rand a psychopath?

Page 3 of 7 [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

23 Sep 2012, 3:09 pm

GGPViper wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
I just like fighting....

Regardless, I doubt that Ayn Rand came anywhere close to being a psychopath. The impulsive aspect (type 2) doesn't make authorship easy....
....


By authorship you mean because she was a writer?
I think successful psycopaths like really good looking high functioning aspies are harder to diagnose.


My scepticism towards labelling Rand (or a lot of people, for that matter) as a a psychopath stems from the fact that the PCL-R consists of two dimensions: A callous/unemotional trait and an impulsive trait. The impulsive trait makes it unlikely that a person would be able to sit down and actually write a book on moral philosophy and epistemology.

I have no knowledge of the first trait considering Ayn Rand, but I assume that actual assessments may be influenced by the political views of the observer..


Does the fact she was not a very good writer change your mind? :)


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

23 Sep 2012, 3:22 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
Does the fact she was not a very good writer change your mind? :)


Good? No. But you have to give credit where it's due, she created a lot more influence with her bad writing than any number of more technically proficient authors have managed with much better written work; just check the bargain section at your local bookstore sometime.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

23 Sep 2012, 3:26 pm

Dox47 wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Does the fact she was not a very good writer change your mind? :)


Good? No. But you have to give credit where it's due, she created a lot more influence with her bad writing than any number of more technically proficient authors have managed with much better written work; just check the bargain section at your local bookstore sometime.


There is a lot of money to be made flattering people.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

23 Sep 2012, 3:29 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
I just like fighting....

Regardless, I doubt that Ayn Rand came anywhere close to being a psychopath. The impulsive aspect (type 2) doesn't make authorship easy....
....


By authorship you mean because she was a writer?
I think successful psycopaths like really good looking high functioning aspies are harder to diagnose.


My scepticism towards labelling Rand (or a lot of people, for that matter) as a a psychopath stems from the fact that the PCL-R consists of two dimensions: A callous/unemotional trait and an impulsive trait. The impulsive trait makes it unlikely that a person would be able to sit down and actually write a book on moral philosophy and epistemology.

I have no knowledge of the first trait considering Ayn Rand, but I assume that actual assessments may be influenced by the political views of the observer..


Does the fact she was not a very good writer change your mind? :)


I care little for the ability of authors to present themselves as good writers. Hume's "A Treatise on Human Nature" was extremely poorly written (I prefer his Dialogues and Natural History of Religion - both conveniently available as one work), but his central argument is still valid.

I could start a discussion on the (lack of) merits of Ayn Rand's work, but to be honest, I stopped reading when I found out that Objectivism assumed that the "Is-Ought" problem does not exist... I see no reason to spend time reading balderdash, quackery and hokum...



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

23 Sep 2012, 3:38 pm

GGPViper wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
I just like fighting....

Regardless, I doubt that Ayn Rand came anywhere close to being a psychopath. The impulsive aspect (type 2) doesn't make authorship easy....
....


By authorship you mean because she was a writer?
I think successful psycopaths like really good looking high functioning aspies are harder to diagnose.


My scepticism towards labelling Rand (or a lot of people, for that matter) as a a psychopath stems from the fact that the PCL-R consists of two dimensions: A callous/unemotional trait and an impulsive trait. The impulsive trait makes it unlikely that a person would be able to sit down and actually write a book on moral philosophy and epistemology.

I have no knowledge of the first trait considering Ayn Rand, but I assume that actual assessments may be influenced by the political views of the observer..


Does the fact she was not a very good writer change your mind? :)


I care little for the ability of authors to present themselves as good writers. Hume's "A Treatise on Human Nature" was extremely poorly written (I prefer his Dialogues and Natural History of Religion - both conveniently available as one work), but his central argument is still valid.

I could start a discussion on the (lack of) merits of Ayn Rand's work, but to be honest, I stopped reading when I found out that Objectivism assumed that the "Is-Ought" problem does not exist... I see no reason to spend time reading balderdash, quackery and hokum...


On this we are on the same page.
I wonder (and this of course is speculation) that perhaps the two dimensions are independent
and a sociopath is just a person that has large amounts of both traits.

A Hare's sociopath is just a impulsive Bastard as opposed to a controlled bastard.
I think both are harmful for society.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

23 Sep 2012, 3:57 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
On this we are on the same page.
I wonder (and this of course is speculation) that perhaps the two dimensions are independent
and a sociopath is just a person that has large amounts of both traits.

A Hare's sociopath is just a impulsive Bastard as opposed to a controlled bastard.
I think both are harmful for society.


The problem with Hare's PCL-R is that is has been constructed specifically for prison populations. One might conclude that this is only a self-selected subgroup which gets high scores on the second dimension (impulsive) and thus get caught, while people who only have type 1 traits tend to avoid prison with a higher frequency.

Hare has written a book "Snaked in Suits" which describes the behaviour of those who fare better than incarcerated psychopaths. I haven't read it, though, so I cannot go into detail about its contents...

Some antisocial individuals (more specifically, type 1 psychopaths) might be beneficial to society, however... in certain situations... The most obvious example is a day trader, but a sniper, for instance, would probably benefit from lacking empathy.

(Alert: Master, your labelling of snipers and day traders as beneficial to society is extremely likely to provoke hostile responses. I, however, am flattered by your recognition of my ability to turn an otherwise unimpressive piece of metal - a .338 round - into an instrument of long range radical brain surgery)



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

23 Sep 2012, 4:38 pm

I actually like the plot of Atlas Shrugged even though I disagree with Rand's politics.
:oops:

She seems bitter (understandably) rather than psychopathic.

I am the proud owner of a first edition of Atlas Shrugged that my grandfather bought when it was first published. He identified with her background, similar to his own.

Not a terribly philosophical post. :cry:



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,904
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Sep 2012, 4:59 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
I just like fighting....

Regardless, I doubt that Ayn Rand came anywhere close to being a psychopath. The impulsive aspect (type 2) doesn't make authorship easy....
....


By authorship you mean because she was a writer?
I think successful psycopaths like really good looking high functioning aspies are harder to diagnose.


My scepticism towards labelling Rand (or a lot of people, for that matter) as a a psychopath stems from the fact that the PCL-R consists of two dimensions: A callous/unemotional trait and an impulsive trait. The impulsive trait makes it unlikely that a person would be able to sit down and actually write a book on moral philosophy and epistemology.

I have no knowledge of the first trait considering Ayn Rand, but I assume that actual assessments may be influenced by the political views of the observer..


Does the fact she was not a very good writer change your mind? :)


The only Rand novel I've ever read was Anthem, which was back in high school. Even at that tender age, I recognized the writing was s**t.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

23 Sep 2012, 5:33 pm

GGPViper wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
On this we are on the same page.
I wonder (and this of course is speculation) that perhaps the two dimensions are independent
and a sociopath is just a person that has large amounts of both traits.

A Hare's sociopath is just a impulsive Bastard as opposed to a controlled bastard.
I think both are harmful for society.


The problem with Hare's PCL-R is that is has been constructed specifically for prison populations. One might conclude that this is only a self-selected subgroup which gets high scores on the second dimension (impulsive) and thus get caught, while people who only have type 1 traits tend to avoid prison with a higher frequency.

Hare has written a book "Snaked in Suits" which describes the behaviour of those who fare better than incarcerated psychopaths. I haven't read it, though, so I cannot go into detail about its contents...

Some antisocial individuals (more specifically, type 1 psychopaths) might be beneficial to society, however... in certain situations... The most obvious example is a day trader, but a sniper, for instance, would probably benefit from lacking empathy.

(Alert: Master, your labelling of snipers and day traders as beneficial to society is extremely likely to provoke hostile responses. I, however, am flattered by your recognition of my ability to turn an otherwise unimpressive piece of metal - a .338 round - into an instrument of long range radical brain surgery)


I remain agnostic on the idea that day traders are beneficial to society.
I can think of a way that they are that does not involve a less than healthy dollop of spooky economic theory without a sprinkle of empiricism .

to think Snipers are beneficial requires a faith in military strategy I do not have.

Snakes in suit was an interesting book but read a bit like a manual for training HR directors.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

23 Sep 2012, 5:54 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
I remain agnostic on the idea that day traders are beneficial to society.
I can think of a way that they are that does not involve a less than healthy dollop of spooky economic theory without a sprinkle of empiricism .


Someone has to clear the market. I consider it hypocritical to point fingers at those doing the "dirty work" of the market mechanism while I am enjoying its benefits.

JakobVirgil wrote:
to think Snipers are beneficial requires a faith in military strategy I do not have.


The average modern (as in NATO) sniper might kill a lot more people than the average soldier (some reach three digit counts)... But the average sniper probably doesn't even know what collateral damage (like killing women and children) is... since such outcomes are within the realm of "missing".

I might have become a sniper myself, if a university education hadn't been so obvious (high grades). When you can take down targets at 500 metres with ease when only using mechanical sights, you might be the type...

... I don't consider myself a psychopath, however... I lack the impulsive part... But the "off" switch is available...

JakobVirgil wrote:
Snakes in suit was an interesting book but read a bit like a manual for training HR directors.


That just confirmed every prejudice I have ever held against HR.



AspieRogue

24 Sep 2012, 1:45 am

AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:
You know, she might be one of us! She might be on the spectrum.





NO.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,904
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Sep 2012, 2:00 am

AspieRogue wrote:
AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:
You know, she might be one of us! She might be on the spectrum.





NO.


Seconded - - with a vengeance!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Vulture
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 86

24 Sep 2012, 10:49 am

She was nothing more than a mentally damaged political activist. She had enough education and not enough sense.

She was probably so pissy and hateful of poor people because when the Russian peasants and the recently educated among them were tired of being starved and shot to death by the bizarrely wealthy her family was on the wrong side of the equation.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,904
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Sep 2012, 10:55 am

Vulture wrote:
She was nothing more than a mentally damaged political activist. She had enough education and not enough sense.

She was probably so pissy and hateful of poor people because when the Russian peasants and the recently educated among them were tired of being starved and shot to death by the bizarrely wealthy her family was on the wrong side of the equation.


Very good description of the woman.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

24 Sep 2012, 11:34 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Vulture wrote:
She was nothing more than a mentally damaged political activist. She had enough education and not enough sense.

She was probably so pissy and hateful of poor people because when the Russian peasants and the recently educated among them were tired of being starved and shot to death by the bizarrely wealthy her family was on the wrong side of the equation.


Very good description of the woman.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The irony is, any society run and ruled by the people she respected wouldve fallen to pieces.

Given the state of the current world, and the power stake of the afforementioned people explains a lot about the situation we now find ourselves.

The wealthy and business savvy seldomly have any tangible skills.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Sep 2012, 12:05 pm

thomas81 wrote:

The wealthy and business savvy seldomly have any tangible skills.


Right. Thomas Edison knew nothing about electricity. Ed Land knew nothing about optics. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniac knew nothing about computers. And the founders of Pixar knew nothing about optics and fractals.

ruveyn