Ayn Rand

Post Reply New Topic

I am not sure if this may have been brought up at some point earlier in time, but I was wondering if any of you who know who Ayn Rand is see any Aspie characteristics in her personality. I am a huge fan of her Objectivism philosophy and views on the government, as well as her novels, but I didn't watch a single interview of hers until very recently.

For those interested...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMTDaVpBPR0&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEruXzQZhNI&feature=related[/youtube]


The way she talks to Mike Wallace just seems quite... Aspie-like. She seems to say everything in a matter-of-fact sort of way. Hard for me to explain. But she just seems like his questions about her strong interest are stupid and like their answers are obvious. Also her facial expressions...

Ah...

I really don't believe in "diagnosing" people posthumously (or diagnosing fictional characters), but this really stood out for me.
I tried to Google it, but not much came up.


Any thoughts?

I've watched the interview on The History Channel quite a few years ago, and she does come across to me as very aspie like.

I don't wanna think about it. I have read Atlas Shrugged, from cover to cover, and I think the book is there purely to be mocked Zero Punctuation/Mystery Science Theater 3000 style.

Rand did quite a bit of clucking about "free will". I'd like to know how some of my fellow atheists/materialists rationalize their belief in free will. Perhaps a belief in free will was excusable for an atheist/materialist in 1959....but in 2010? Considering all we've learned about genetics, neuropsychology, epigenetics, etc....since 1959, atheists/materialists really ought be extremely skeptical in regards to the idea that humans have free will.


Any objectivist today who parrots Rand's philosophy to the letter is about as anti-reason as you can get. How can a contemporary objectivist view themselves as a being in possession of undefiled reason if they insist humans have free will in spite of the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever which would support the idea? OTOH.....there is plenty of evidence which suggests that biological determinism is the fundamental governing agency in terms of human behavior rather than the age-old ghost in the machine known as free will.


I cannot take modern objectivists seriously until they stop insisting that humans have free will or until they radically redefine the term so it means something far different than it's traditional definition.



As far as whether Rand had Asperger's or not....I doubt it. I just think she was an egomanical, eccentric and quarrelsome kook who deceived herself and many others into believing her mind had reached a level unacheived by any other thinker before her. Extreme libertarian ideas like hers are, for the most part, only taken seriously by a handful of people in the United States. This is not to say these ideas are either wrong or right in and of themselves. Rather...it is to say that objectivists don't strike me as people who are perfectly rational and logical for reasons I already mentioned. If their ideas about free will strike me as patently absurd, why should I take any of their other ideas seriously?

the Fountainhead was interesting to me.

Ayn Rand was post-humously diagnosed with Narcisisstic personality disorder.

Maybe.

She comes off as a bit of a philistine to me though.

I liked Ayn Rand's book Anthem. It's a short novel about a future society, where individuality was banned, and practicing it was punishable by death. Ironically, its technology is very primitive, such as using candles for lighting, because much of the knowledge was lost over time.

I don't think she was an aspie, I just think she hated all the double-talking society does; not unlike just about everyone here. Plus, she and the characters in her books didn't have time for or interest in the 90% socialization crap that runs the working world.

Yeah- what a terrible person. </sarcasm>
Seems like a lot of aspies are very intimidated by her, though.

To date, I've only read Atlas Shrugged. I enjoyed it, though I am of mixed opinion on her personal philosophy. It definitely has the some lines which I find to be very Aspie-like and easy to relate to. I don't know enough about Rand to comment on whether or not she had Asperger's herself, however.

I've always found the posthumous diagnosis of any mental or neurological condition suspect at best and utter bollocks at worst. We have trouble getting an accurate diagnosis when we can have face to face interviews and testing. How are you going to be accurate when all you have are second and third hand accounts and the publicly available writings and body of work of the individual?

"Einstien had Asperger's". Yeah. Whatever. This is invoked as an emotional prop to hold up some specious argument about the "specialness" of autism. Autism is what it is. I don't need some bleeding heart to tell me autistics "can do great things - just look at Einstein". All that really does is set up false expectations and an unrealistic or even damaging concept of autism among NTs. If you are on the spectrum then you need to be a savant or you are just leeching off of society (I know people that think this way regarding disabilities). If we can't compensate for our "deficiencies" by being brilliant in something then we are shunted to the edges of NT world.

Rand's characters are social outcasts, but because they find their interests more important than a social life, they just don't care. They also stick to their principles no matter what, and place a lot of importance in doing the things they love(their work).
They're aspies, but without the !fail.

Ugh...this is precisely why I hate objectavism and why I can't get along with most people to follow a conservative point of view. She says that altruism is a bad thing and essentially suggests that "every man should be out there for himself". That is stupid! We are social animals! We build social hierarchies because it is within our nature to preserve our species! Being able to work in groups is a survival mechanism so it only makes sense that we'd want to be altruistic. No, every man is NOT for himself. Even though self preservation is a crucial part of our genetics, we are (or supposed to be) genetically wired to be altruistic (Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkin's). A community can only be made when everyone pitches in and when people can't pitch in, we help them. When we take care of people, society is much better, our species thrives and our wellbeing is restored. Don't believe me? Ask Norway.

She and people like her suggest that socialism is evil but all I'm hearing is "Wahh" Im a rich little piece of s**t! I don't wanna pay my taxes! You poor people who can't afford to pay for your own education and healthcare don't matter to me because it's all about MEEEEEE! Sure, if the tables were turned, my opinion would totally dissolve, but in the mean time, boo hoo, poor me!! !! !! !!".

As for her being an aspie, I have no clue, but I really don't care.