Saurabh

Let me re-phrase my question in that case, as below: How can we make a Deductive case that Independent (and Rational) Decision-Making is a key driver of Human Achievement?

Please ignore my fictional Inductive reasoning cases. I can - if I think hard - come up with real examples as well. But, that won't help me. My question is: How can we make a Deductive case?

Guys, I am interested in finding the answer to the following question: How can we make a Deductive case that Independent (and Rational) Decision-Making is a key driver of Human Excellence? For instance, I can make an Inductive case using a fictional character - Sherlock Holmes. This man took his own decisions on what to Study to become an ace detective consultant. He used both Independence and Rationality. For instance, he did not go only by what was being taught in Detective courses. He, by his own judgement, studied about Soils, Poisons, etc to master his craft. Later on, he was able to use this 'wide' knowledge to connect the dots and solve criminal cases. Howard Roark is another example. So, can anyone on this forum offer good reasoning to support (or even refute) my question/claim? Thanks!

[Mod note: Merged with an earlier topic. - sN ] Guys, I am keen on knowing Ayn Rand's views on The science of Psychology. I got a few glimpses while reading Journals of Ayn Rand (Page 667 onwards), but want to know if there is a more detailed source anywhere (even if not written by AR). My purpose is to eventually be able to detect/diagnose a person's following aspects: Source of Motivation, Sense of Life, Philosophy, Values, Virtues, Mental problems (Conflicts, Confusions, etc), etc. I want to be able to do this as one of my goals is to be a "Problem Solver for Individuals" (I can elaborate more if needed). Thanks!

Hi, I don't clearly understand what you are implying. Could you clarify? Thx!

These are very good questions - making me think more clearly. I would answer by defining what I mean by Dependence. I mean Dependence in Decision-making on matters pertaining to one's life. Now, I would certainly need to depend on a qualified doc's advice for an illness of mine. But I would not want to accept the advice based on his authority, and without critiquing it using my common sense. This is my survival strategy. As an example, a doc in India prescribed antibiotics for my 2-year old son for Viral fever. I did some google research and realized the antibiotics are not needed for viral infections. I questioned him back next day. He gave me a vague reply - saying that we typically give all medicines in India to be comprehensive. I used my common sense that a medicine that is 'anti' 'biotic' should not be used indiscriminately. I also collected evidence that indiscriminate use actually lowers body resistance over time. So, I decided to go against the doc's advice. I found another doc who agreed with this logic, and has been treating my son better (whenever required). The point is: I would rely on experts (as that is consistent with virtue of productiveness due to division of labor). However, I would not accept someone's expertise without applying my own basic reasoning. There are enough examples of experts screwing up the world (LTCM, Sub-prime crisis, Keynesian economics, etc).

Dependence is wrong because it hampers one's long-term survival and happiness. This is because a dependent person needs someone else for ensuring his own existence - and therefore begins to let others decide for him. Now, since man is a sovereign unit and no man can feel other man's pleasure or pain - it is required that man optimize his own long-term happiness (max long-term pleasure, min long-term pain) using his own mind. Independence in thinking and decision-making ensures that man - even if he falters in the short-term - is able to sharpen his mind (rational faculty) gradually so as to be able to take right decisions and thereby optimize his own happiness. I think this is why James Bond chose to stay away from emotion-based relationships as he knew that these would make his judgement weak and would hamper his survival (He was in a zero-sum game).

Thx for the replies guys. Below is what I have extracted from all your replies and from the questions suggested by Softwarenerd: Seeking others as sound-board is good under following conditions: 1. If you use the process for gaining some information 2. If you use the process for adding some new aspect to your thinking that you may have missed 3. If you use the process to let the other person pick holes in your own logic, so that u can improve it Now, based on Softwarenerd's questions, I initially thought that Independence to me actually means not needing anyone else even for 2 and 3 above. And, then I also saw the contradiction (as Claire mentioned) in asking this question on this forum. I have resolved this contradiction for myself, as below: While aiming for Independence, I also need to keep in mind another virtue - Productiveness. So, if seeking a sound-board on 2 above (or asking a question on this forum) increases my productiveness (e.g. by reducing my decision-making time), then it is justified. Obviously, I need to ensure I am being Independent and not dependent on someone's mind.

Hi, I have a question: Isn't it against the Virtue of Independence to seek a Devil's advocate or a Sound-board for your own ideas? The context is below: I often seek some of my friends' help to get my thinking challenged on a key decision of mine. They do the same. But, now I am in a dilemma due to the concern that I may be sacrificing my Independent judgement this way. Does anyone have reasonably thought-out views on the above? Thx!

Guys, Thanks for the replies. I have got the answer to my question from your answers. I must admit that I was not able to understand some replies - but I will re-read the post once I need more clarity. For now, below is what I have extracted: - Hyperlinking (through XML or PPT) is a better way for hierarchical communication. - If I were to re-write OPAR, a better approach would be to just have one front XML page (which presents one line conclusions on 5 key areas of philosophy e.g. Reason is the only means of knowing reality). Then, I would hyperlink each of these 5 statements to sub-pages which elaborate on each of the statement (corollaries, etc). Then, another hyperlinked page that elaborates further. - I would also use both textual and visual representation to increase readability of the pages. - I would also use information blocks (e.g. text boxes) to separate the type of information (e.g. deductive reasoning from inductive reasoning). This way, I think, it will become a lot easier to read the book, and hold it in one's mind. Comments are welcome. I have got what I wanted though..

Thanks for the replies guys. I now need some time to absorb these Please feel free to post though...

I am comparing, let us say, OPAR being presented to the world in a book format (as it is today) to it being presented in a PPT format. My hypothesis is that a PPT format is better. My evidence for this is my own experience. I find it quite easy to read PPTs versus books. This has been the case not only with simple 20-page PPTs, but also with 100-page PPTs where a full strategy work was captured in the PPT (I am an ex-McKinsey Strategy consultant). I could think of following reasons for this: 1) PPT is visual as well as textual 2) PPT (at least McKinsey documents) are very hierarchical. This means that there is a clear conclusion as the title of each slide, and then the body of the slide supports that conclusion. 3) PPT slide is very structured. You can read the information in blocks. e.g. If I were to re-write OPAR in PPT format, I would put two blocks on a slide - one describing abstract theory, and another describing a concrete example. I can elaborate further on the above points, if needed.

Hi, I have a question to people who have read OPAR and agree that Human Knowledge is hierarchical. Is PowerPoint a better medium of written communication - given that Knowledge is hierarchical? My own hypothesis is that human cognition can be made more efficient by this medium. Therefore, it is better to write books and articles in power point. I am seeking reason-based views and relevant information on this topic. Thanks!

Thanks for the replies. I wrote to him today. One of my points was that his Mission (To eradicate Poverty) was irrational. I argued that this mission places one's purpose into others. I also made my suggestion on what a rational Mission would look like. My hypothesis - based on my own quick research and on your replies - is that he is like the heroes of Ayn Rand. (I could see in him the virtues of Rationality, Productiveness with a Purpose, Independence, and Integrity). What is sad is that just like Ayn Rand's heroes (e.g Hank Reardon), he is facing criticism from his wife and society. I wonder if he has read Ayn Rand or not.

Hi, Does anyone on the forum have a view on the value creation done by SKS (and its founder Vikram Akula) in Microfinance sector? My own view (based on watching a few interviews and reading a few articles) is that they are indeed creating value rationally. However, they are facing lot of criticism in India, due to a predominant altruist mentality. This is because they are trying to do both - create value as well as capture their own share of that value (through profits). My objective is to be able to form an objective judgment on SKS and Vikram. I will use this to reach out to him for a professional matter. Many thanks! Saurabh

Let me specify where I am coming from: If we believe statement A to be true, then I think a demonstration by an example will make a very strong case against irrationality. Also, I think the point will be made quite strongly if we link irrationality to 'big' human evils such as wars, terrorism, etc. I wanted to know if any of you is aware of any such linkage shown in any of the Objectivist literature. I fully understand why irrationality is evil for a human being (based on deductive logic used in OPAR). But I now want to see a 'demonstration' of how any human irrationality leads to a 'big' human evil. Please let me know if question is not clear. Below is what the demonstration that I am seeking, may look like: A very common human irrationality is believing in God. This leads them to abandon reason. This leads to ... ... ... Ultimately, this leads to <a big human evil, such as terrorism> ,

I am reading OPAR, and have a question on the relation of Irrationality to Human evils. On page 222 (second para), the author states: Irrationality is the root of all other human evils. My question is - Which of the following is implied by this statement: A. Any act of irrationality leads to human evils. B. Any human evil can be attributed to irrationality. I have no further question if the author's statement only implies B. But if it implies A, than I would like to understand the exact mechanism (may be by an example). I think such an example will be a great demonstration of the consequences of irrationality. Many thanks!

Well Jake, I would not ignore science and scientists for sure. However, I would also not ignore my own common sense. However, I got my answer that my hypothesis does not seem plausible to you guys... Thanks for all the comments!

I guess high blood sugar could have been a factor - he had it in the past. Now the sugar is in control though. Also, I also agree that there is an interplay of various factors at work - such as lifestyle, genetics, etc. However, my hypothesis has originated purely from observing my father's situation over time. I have no other observation to support my hypothesis - which is why I am seeking other examples. Unfortunately, Google has not been very helpful. So, what I would benefit from is your reaction/opinion/examples on this theory of mine below: A person X is better than most people around him (in terms of intellect, diligence, honesty). However, he does not have the right philosophy - he functions mostly by faith rather than by reason (mainly in personal and social life), is led by emotions, and places others before self. His sense of life and conscious way of leading life is different than those around him, and so others often disapprove of him. However, he cannot handle disapproval by others. Since he is motivated by external approval, he is at a loss in such a situation. Over time, he looses motivation to do anything because nothing seems to work. He stops using his mind. As a result, his nerve cells start dying gradually. Also, since he does not enjoy any present moment, his new memory formation is weak. Thus, he increase his risk of catching Alzheimer's. Now, if other factors such as genes and lifestyle also work in the same direction, then he catches the disease. In fact, once my father told me that he found it very enjoyable to play any sport because he knew how to play and win. But, he found (a lot of) social interactions to be painful as he did not understand how people thought and acted.

Hi all, My father has Alzheimer's disease unfortunately, and I am exploring possible root causes. My hypothesis is that one of the key causes of Alzheimer's disease is the loss of active interest in life. There are other genetic and lifestyle related causes as well, but I think that a mental disease must have a relation to the way an individual's mind functions. In this context, could any of you share any examples/opinions with me that either supports or refutes my hypothesis? Current medical research on this disease is all focused on finding out ways to fix the mental 'hardware'. However, I believe that the real treatment lies in fixing the individual's thinking (basically his philosophy, and hence his psychology). This would re-ignite his interest in life and would get his brain working again. I also think that it will be Ayn Rand's philosophy that will be the cure - as it teaches man to use his mind in order to survive, not his emotions (which I believe has been the case with my father). Many thanks for any inputs! Saurabh

Dr Dave, Would you mind telling me what are you implying (in the context of the debate) - and for whom? Thx!

Freestyle, I would be willing to discuss anything as long as it has a logical bearning on the main issue of debate. Whenever you find me irrationally saying - i dont want to discuss sth - please do challenge me. Zip and Freestyle, I may have ten reasons to not want to discuss Gold. I do not want to react to any allegations on why I am not discussing it - unless you show me that it is necessary to reolve the Gold issue to resolve the Land issue. Now, I see following issues raised by you pertaining to the land issue: 1) Productive people will bid for land from whom? 2) Who is in charge of dolling out the property? 3) How to remove the rightful current owners from their property? 4) How can we imagine a transaction when we cannot establish whether or not I "rightfully" own the entire value of the dollar I am to pay? my responses: 1) Prodcutive people will bid from the community of productive people -as the land will belong to this community. When i say belong, I mean that the community will be like a trustee of the land. 2), 3) These are not relevant for the moral issue being debated. There are relevant though for the implementation of my proposal. So, I will tackle is once the morality is established. 4) Let me reply this assuming a barter economy. A valid transaction would be, e.g., rice for wheat. Both of these are produced by manual effort, and (if) charges are paid to the owners of all factors of production. Remember to distinguish between a factor of production (land) and product (wheat, rice, gold).

Zip, How des this follow? All a producer will need to do is to bid for use of land. And they highest bidder will get that right. So, I do not understand your objection - can your clarify? Bob, Which is why in earlier socities it was allowed to appropriate land by fencing it. But, now we need to re-think. My proposition does not require a producer to go and ask everyone for the right. He would just need to buy the right of usage from the market for usage rights of land. Randroid, I did not understand your concern, can you please elaborate? I do not want to debate about Gold right now, as I am not adequately prepared. Can you continue your debate w.r.t. Land and Wheat? 2046, I do not agree with you. One can take factors of production on rent, and still own the produce. Right? Help me undertand why one needs to own the factor of production to own the produce.

Randroid, I do not have a complete answer on this yet. Thanks for raising it. I can, however, answer this question for Wheat instead of Gold. A productive man can own wheat since he created it by his labor and by using natural properties of land. I could use a similar argument for Gold. But, I am still not sure of it - as Gold is finite and Wheat is not. However, my incomplete argument for gold is this: A man can claim some part of ths gold, as he has added some value to the ore. To own the full gold, he will need to compensate someone for the remaining part. Similarly, a man can rightfully claim the value he adds to land through his effort - but not full land - as he did not create the 'original productive powers of the soil'.

Randroid, This seems like a very good question. Before I answer, can you please elaborate on what contradiction you see here? thx!