Objectivism needs "rebranding"

[SapereAude]

Owning a bar I spend a lot of time amongst younger people, college age people with their heads all stuffed full of liberal ideas force fed to them through their public school educations then given a steriod boost of it in university.

One of the things I hear most is "anti-socialism is SO '80s"

"Capitalsim is So out of style"

..and so on and so forth.

and not many of these people are idiots (granted some are)

Most of these kids are nice, respectful, of average to above average intelligence and for kids, pretty fun.

I see it as a problem that Objectivists both in person and online can come off as pedantic, judgemental & humorless.

Now of course as Objectivists and individualists it is natural that our philosophy leads us into perhaps a less than average range of approval seeking behavior- and that is a good thing for me at least.

BUT! We are vastly outnumbered and for better or for worse this IS a democracy. We are currently losing the battle of ideas- and I believe it is not for lack of better ideas but in the presentation of our ideas.

When John Galt addressed the nation in Atlas Shrugged he didn't berate or belittle the listeners.. he appealed to their better natures. It was amply pointed out in AS that the producers basically handed the world to the looters by ignoring what was going on around them. One of the things I believe we can not ignore is the battle of ideas for the minds of those age 15-25. Many of these kids haven't lived on their own yet.. they haven't earned enough yet to know what it feels like to have it taken from you. They're scared that maybe they won't succeed in life so they want a safety net to replace their parents.. not realising that the safety net soon becomes a noose.

It was on my mind so I thought I'd throw it out there.

Maybe those of you that agree will reflect on it and be a little gentler with those that can be taught to care but aren't old enough to know better. Maybe teach instead of throttle in your day to day interaction with non Objectivists.

I think it will be worth the cost of our forebearance.

...and we can always still use the ones that have no excuse for their beliefs as target practice

[softwareNerd]

"A Philosophy for Living on Earth"?

"Anti socialism" would be a poor brand. In fact, anything that stresses politics will not be a great brand. Instead, one would be best served with a brand that stressed that man's "...achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose".

Edited August 13, 2009 by softwareNerd

[IchorFigure]

On the whole in regards to the points you made, I'd say no, I disagree. If what you're talking about is superficial pandering. Leave all of that ridiculousness to the rapping Christian preachers, Greydon Square, or Michael Steele. Reason and truth are the little black dress of man's interests. They will be eternally hip and sexy. On the other hand imagine the kind of people who would not be persuaded by rational arguments but are persuaded by gimmicks and superficial glitz.

One of the things I hear most is "anti-socialism is SO '80s"

"Capitalsim is So out of style"

Do you really want those kind of second-handed fad chasers to be advocating for reason and individualism? I wouldn't. Have you ever been convinced of an argument by someone's bumper sticker? I doubt it. You are too concerned with what a handful of other people think.

However, I think that as a secondary consideration clever things like this do serve their purposes. For example I love the Objective Standard's "Exploit the Earth or Die" banners and avatars. It's succinct and well stylized.

Edit: Are you talking about "branding" or you just think that Objectivists have an unfortunate reputation? I think my answer either way is the same.

Edited August 13, 2009 by IchorFigure

[SapereAude]

No, I'm not talking about "pandering".

I'm talking about being aware of what we put forth.

Educating instead of berating. Objectivists have a reputation of often being impatient, nasty and condescending.

I don't think that it is pandering to look at how we talk to people. Ayn Rand was often described as having nearly infinite patience when instructing people in her ideas so long as they were sincere. Was that pandering?

I guess what I'm saying is "lets not let our message get lost in how we voice it".

It is not pandering to choose to say something firmly but kindly rather than in a condescending and derisive way.

[bluey]

No, I'm not talking about "pandering".

I'm talking about being aware of what we put forth.

Educating instead of berating. Objectivists have a reputation of often being impatient, nasty and condescending.

I don't think that it is pandering to look at how we talk to people. Ayn Rand was often described as having nearly infinite patience when instructing people in her ideas so long as they were sincere. Was that pandering?

I guess what I'm saying is "lets not let our message get lost in how we voice it".

It is not pandering to choose to say something firmly but kindly rather than in a condescending and derisive way.

The first thing is, there is no "we" in Objectivism. "We" are not putting anything forth.

Second, all indications are that Objectivism is gaining ground - sales of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are way up, as one indicator. Why? Not because they're great summer reading - it's because they describe reality accurately, and a lot of people are smart enough to see that. Obviously the trend chasers and wannabes are not the people to look for evidence of pro-individualism. Also obviously, if there were quietly rising undercurrent of rationality across society, there would be a corresponding and loud backlash against it - so you can expect that. Especially at a bar full of students.

As has been pointed out above, no one who's going to jump into Objectivism just because it seems friendly or trendy is going to bother understanding it and is not going to be a good representative of the philosophy anyway. It's far better to have people who are looking for reason find it on their own. Conversely, no one who actually understands and agrees with the philosophy is going to be held back just because it's unpopular.

Third, do you have any examples of Objectivists earning this reputation for being condescending and derisive? Because you can be as "firm and kind" as you want to be, but if you're sending a message your audience is dead set against, they're still going to interpret your words as a personal attack. There's no way around that one. You can see Rand's appearances on Donahue (there are two on Youtube) for a demonstration of that.

All you can do is say it like it is. You can't bribe people into agreeing with you by being likable, it's a losing battle, the socialists will always have the leg up since they are in the business of promising something for nothing. It's like pretending you can reason a two-year-old into choosing broccoli over candy. The difference is that we're talking about adults here and they are fully capable of choosing to think or not - pretending you can sweettalk them into choosing to think is simply neither reasonable nor responsible. You have to choose to interact with people on a rational level, and let them decide whether to live up to that or not.

[Zip]

Hm, the great thing about second-handers is that they can be, and will be led. The ones you have to reach are the thinkers, the individuals. The rest will come along for the ride as sheeple. It doesn't matter that they don't understand, they don't understand what is going on now but they are adept at mouthing platitudes and following the trend. When we get to the point where we are the trend they will be there for us.

You aren't going to get the thinkers with glitz and flash. I agree with the patience part though. There is nothing so off putting as someone who treats you like an idiot because you don't immediately understand what took him years to grasp fully.

[softwareNerd]

The first thing is, there is no "we" in Objectivism. "We" are not putting anything forth.

At risk of side-tracking the thread, "we" is a useful concept. Unlike "I", its referents are not always clear. If I'm with two friends and say "we should go to Florence", the referents are clear enough. On the other hand, when Quo Vadis uses the term, it requires clarification. From the context, I assume he means "we who wish to see Objectivism spread".

The objection, then, is not with the term "we", but with the fact that "we" do not act the way his critique implies.

... do you have any examples of Objectivists earning this reputation for being condescending and derisive?...

I won't get into the meaning of "Objectivist". However, I have seen many examples of people who would like to see Rand be more widely read and who would like to see Objectivism be more widely spread, and yet who mess up badly in trying to achieve this aim even within the limited context of one-on-one communication. Condescension is common among a certain sub-set of such people. Of course, there's nothing to be gained by stereotyping "many Objectivists" as being this way. On the other hand, there's value in discussing the normative: i.e.: what types of approaches are most successful in spreading Objectivism.

All you can do is say it like it is.

One should definitely tell it as it is. However, I don't know what you mean by saying this is "all you can do". The 'telling" definitely usually does not consist of stating some final facts and assume that their truth should simply be obvious.

[SapereAude]

Yes, I am using "we" in the mode Softwarenerd describes.. it was simply a verbal shortcut to what I thought was clear without inplicit statement (my bad, that) that we, who would like to see Objectivism spread/thrive. Of course there is such a thing as "we".. there must be since there is a very nice book called "We the Living".

There is nothing so off putting as someone who treats you like an idiot because you don't immediately understand what took him years to grasp fully.

Zip, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

At the risk of pissing a lot of people off here (I enjoy this forum) can you really deny that there is a lot of pissy condescension when someone makes an error in thought, in judgement, in premise? Here, amongst people who ostensibly at least share many similar ideals and values.

There often seems to be an air of schadenfreude when someone makes an error.. like there are intellectual predators just salivating to point out any mistake in grammar, verbage, usage. This is not to say that errors shouldn't be pointed out and corrected but I find moreso in Objectivist circles than elsewhere there is a certain glee when there is an opportunity to call someone out.

Concrete examples? Well, I've in the past month spoken to three people (just in the past month, many more over the years) who said they enjoyed the ideas put forth in AS and/or TF but when they tried to involve themselves w/Objectivism through groups or online they were treated like idiots for not already knowing what they came to have clarified for them.

One in particular said that when they were being attacked for not already "knowing it all" they said I don't know, that's why I'm here- to learn from you. Then they got attacked for being "second-handers".

Lest I use the deadly "we" again I'll just say this- most of the people I know who embrace the philosophy of Ayn Rand may have always had a certain sense of inner life that set them apart from the herd. BUT! It was AR who clarified, categorised and set out the ideas "we" study and profess to. AR gave the world AS and TF. It was a gift and it was in her rational self interest to give it because she desired to see the better world her ideas, applied, could help create.

In light of that I believe it is in the rational self interest of those who would like to see Objectivism's principles applied more broadly throughout "society" to not treat as spastic mongoloids persons who read AR, cannot grasp or have not yet grasped in all as though by osmosis.

When I talk about "rebranding" Objectivism I'm not talking putting AS in Barnes & Noble displays with Lindsay Lohan in glitter pasties on a pole while a pink poodle on a unicycle swallows swords chucked at it by a midget juggler here people. Although..... maybe....

Just talking about patience. Considering that the spread of the message of Objectivism can be hurt by the sometimes hostile nature of the persons who are seen as representing it. (please note I said seen as representing. I'm talking about giving thought to the face that "we" the individuals who embrace Objectivism put forward to the world.

A good example is Gay Pride parades.

Many homosexuals are decent, hardworking, upright citizens. You would never guess it from looking at a gay pride parade however. You would think they were casting extras for a remake of Caligula.

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to behave.

That would be wrong, stupid and futile.

My intention was only to hold up a mirror and say "next time someone comes to you, online or in person and asks questions about Objectivism that bore you in the 5000th reasking or that you think should be self evident maybe it would be in your rational self interest to ask yourself if you really always "knew everything" or if someone helped you gain your wisdom and knowledge. Maybe it would be in your rational self interest to wait and find out if they really are the moral and intellectual equivelent of a rabid baboon before verbally evicerating them".

[Zip]

Well said.

edit to add...

I'm not claiming innocence here...

Edited August 14, 2009 by Zip

[D'kian]

Yes, I am using "we" in the mode Softwarenerd describes..

But does it depend on what the definition of "is" is? (look at my tagline)

At the risk of pissing a lot of people off here (I enjoy this forum) can you really deny that there is a lot of pissy condescension when someone makes an error in thought, in judgement, in premise? Here, amongst people who ostensibly at least share many similar ideals and values.

There's a lot of that going around. But many newbies earn it when they come up and say "Rand was wrong! Here's the gist of a complicated argument on two phrases I don't understand the meaning of, which prove Rand ate babies for breakfast" Followed by a mostly incoherent, illogical rant, typically without paragraph breaks.

This board also seems to attract pedants of the worst sort, on both sides.

Edited to take out a few typos.

Edited August 15, 2009 by D'kian

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Isn't Objectivism supposed to be reached through research, understanding, and acceptance? I think what you're suggesting here is a form of "converting," but I don't find this to be the right approach.

Individuals will be attracted to our ideas in various ways - some through their political viewpoints, others through their metaphysical viewpoints, and others yet through a more philosophical viewpoint. Pandering to people who aren't truly interested will probably result in them being less interested in Objectivism. Frankly, Objectivism asks a lot of people, whereas the common man who has no problem with the Judeo-Christian society in which we live, will probably not be interested in utilizing his mind as much as necessary. The efforts should be placed on those already disenfranchised and unhappy with the status quo. That way, hopefully the people with power, productivity, and intelligence, will sign on - that would help our movement more than anything.

[SapereAude]

Isn't Objectivism supposed to be reached through research, understanding, and acceptance? I think what you're suggesting here is a form of "converting," but I don't find this to be the right approach.

I think I was pretty clear that I was talking about people who have read Ayn Rand and in their sincere desire to learn more are reaching out to people with more experience and knowledge in Objectivist principle to help expand and/or clarify what they've read.

An example as I stated above:

"three people (just in the past month, many more over the years) who said they enjoyed the ideas put forth in AS and/or TF but when they tried to involve themselves w/Objectivism through groups or online they were treated like idiots for not already knowing what they came to have clarified for them.

One in particular said that when they were being attacked for not already "knowing it all" they said I don't know, that's why I'm here- to learn from you. Then they got attacked for being "second-handers"."

Like I said, while I believe that my posts were clear about the nature of the people I'm suggesting it behooves "us" to be more civil to I will state it emphatically and very clearly now:

People who have read Ayn Rand and sincerely want to know more but have misgivings and/or misunderstandings.

I don't think it is in our rational self interest to treat them like spastic mongoloids for not understanding after a single reading of AS and TF what many of "us" have to understand over the course of many years.

Is that really so unreasonable?

Even the heroes of AR's books needed things clarified for them by others, clung to long held contradictions, made bad choices.

Even The Wet Nurse came to understand.

Sometimes it seems to me that if one isn't as fully formed and integrated as a John Galt when they first make contact with other Objectivists they get descended upon as though by ravening wolves.

I guess the attacks (on persons of average to above average intelligence, who have read at least one AR book and who are sincere in seeking clarification) seem irrational to me for these reasons:

a) if you're sick of seeing the same question asked over&over by several new people why not ignore it?

if you're angry feeling somehow their question wasted your time then why waste MORE of your time attacking them?

b ) if contradiction and misinformation piss you off why be counterproductive? Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness?

Example:

newbie: I really liked alot of what AS had to say about individualism but it just seemed too harsh at times for me? What about people who are disabled? What if their own family can't take care of them... are we really supposed to just let people suffer?

1) ObjectivistWhoApparentlyWokeUpOnWrongSideOfTheBed: Perhaps if your snaggle-toothed crack whore of a mother's pre-natal alcoholism hadn't left you developmentally disabled you would've seen that all that has already been answered. In several of AR's books, and in several other posts here. Now kindly get back to drooling malt-liquor in an alleyway onto your urine-soaked Salvation Army pants so that we, the enlightened, may get back to preaching to the choir.

2) ObjectivistWhoEnjoysLivingInThisWorldAndThereforeWouldLikeToSeePeopleUnderstandHowToLiveInIt: there's a lot of information for you on that here already.. check forum a/b/c. Since you've only read AS, you should check book **. Those explain it pretty clearly so please read them and then ask for any further clarification.

Ok..obviously example one is meant to be an exaggeration for the sake of humor. But the reality is that there really is a fair amount of hostility to newbies (gack I hate that term).

If you couch an answer within insults all someone hears is the insult. That just tends to be human nature.

Insult my mother I didn't hear the directions to the gas station.

I can understand and wholly agree with flogging trolls, idiots and persons with obviously anti-AR agendas. That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about sincere individuals who have a flawed premise, incomplete information or are just too inexperienced to grasp certain things.

I am incorrect that part of the purpose of philosophical forums is to share information?

Am I coming from a faulty premise on that?

If I am not then I have to wonder what is gained by only including a bunch of people who already know everything you know and think everything you think. That almost seems masturbatory to me.

Sure "we" all want to be surrounded by people to look up to so when there's a spate of 16-20 YOs who just read TF or AS it can get tedious. But can anyone here claim to have been born full-formed..with no questions to ask? No faulty premises? No need of clarification, instruction or teaching?

What I'm saying is.. if you don't want to be the one to do the instructing or teaching when someone posts a question to which the answer is seemingly self evident that is perfectly valid. There is nothing wrong with choosing where and how you will spend your knowledge.

What I cannot understand is this: if it is a waste of your time to answer the question why is it not a waste of your time to insult the asker?

By all means ignore those you feel are beneath you.. but if you feel the need to insult them doesn't that betray a certain perversity?

Edited to correct some glaring typos..alas, probably not all of them

Edited August 15, 2009 by QuoVadis

[wynnbrando]

I understand what the original poster is trying to say and think it is a legitimate point to make. And I think he brought it up in a constructive way. A couple of the replies have illustrated what he is getting at here (like condemnation for the use of the pronoun 'we').

Thanks to the original poster.

[Gramlich]

I completely understand where QuoVadis is coming from. When I was first trying to understand Objectivism I got some sass for just trying to figure out some basic epistemology with QED, without any overt attacks on Objectivism. While doing this on the chat board, I got insulted multiple times because there was apparently plenty of material on the subject that I hadn't read and, since I hadn't read it, I was a 'retard.' *cough*Athena*cough*

This, of course, isn't to say I'm not guilty of this either. On multiple occasions, I've found myself getting angry, for no good reason, at people, simply because they didn't immediately understand Objectivism.

This reminds me of one of the gripes I've long had about my Dad. Who would derisively ask "You don't know how to change a tire?" or get angry at some other 'simple task' that I didn't understand how to do, in which the knowledge of said task should've magically fused itself into my brain via my mere existence.

What my Dad and other people who get angry at newcomers don't seem to understand is that knowledge is not automatic. The content of your mind isn't given to you; understanding isn't given to you. These are things you must obtain through cognitive effort. Helping these people who are genuinely trying to make this cognitive effort is the best way in which to get them to understand Objectivism.

[Thales]

No, I'm not talking about "pandering".

I'm talking about being aware of what we put forth.

Educating instead of berating. Objectivists have a reputation of often being impatient, nasty and condescending.

As a rule, liberals are condescending, impatient, nasty and close minded! Just check out how liberals post online.

Really, I’m not that way. I communicate with people at the level of ideas, unless they attack me first.

[SapereAude]

As a rule, liberals are condescending, impatient, nasty and close minded! Just check out how liberals post online.

Of course that is true.

But how is that relevent to how we conduct ouselves?

I know, as an objective truth, that we are better than them.

So why not conduct ourselves better?

Also, please note I am not singling out this particular site or any particular person.

I am speaking broadly both from what I have witnessed myself and also what others have told me about why they gave up on seeking out Objectivists to converse with/learn from.

[softwareNerd]

I am speaking broadly both from what I have witnessed myself and also what others have told me about why they gave up on seeking out Objectivists to converse with/learn from.

I agree that anyone (of the "we") who wants to see Objectivism spread has to be aware the other people can have a very different context without being idiots. I suspect that there's a wide variety of reasons people get a poor welcome. Sometimes it may be through tiredness or impatience, and I think that's sporadic and most mature folk wok their way past that.

The bigger problem is when someone who does not understand Objectivism, tries to explain it in a parroted style, gets called on that, and reacts with rudeness. The solution is not so much to brush up on politeness as it is to brush up on Objectivism itself, and to only advocate for those areas where one is clear enough that one could explain it, and make it concrete, without going through too many layers of argument.

With that said, I think the problem can also be overstated. A fair number of current Objectivists had experiences where someone on a forum was rude and impatient, and though it left a bad taste it did not deter them from pursuing what they thought to be the truth. It used to be that the free forums were cesspools of rudeness where one could barely have a conversation. It's no longer that way. It is still the net, where one will meet all kinds, including those who love being jerks when they're typing anonymously. Still, there's enough benevolence that an honest person typically ends up identifying friend from foe from jerk and ends up conversing mainly with those from whom some value can be gained.

I think many who receive poor welcomes are simply rude themselves, or really don't want to hear what Objectivism has to say. It's easy to blame the messenger. No, that's not all of them, but I've encountered many in the fews years I've helped moderate this forum.

Edited August 15, 2009 by softwareNerd

[Thales]

Of course that is true.

But how is that relevent to how we conduct ouselves?

I know, as an objective truth, that we are better than them.

So why not conduct ourselves better?

Also, please note I am not singling out this particular site or any particular person.

I am speaking broadly both from what I have witnessed myself and also what others have told me about why they gave up on seeking out Objectivists to converse with/learn from.

I do conduct myself better. I mean, I don't even agree with your point, as I have talked with Objectivist for years, mostly on line. Sure, some are hard to deal with, because communication is an acquired skill, but the vast majority are very easy to communicate with. That's my experience.

[Thales]

QuoVadis, you might be interested to listen to the lecture by Yaron Brook on the Ayn Rand Center website. In it he's talking about how Objectivists can influence the culture. He says "be friendly, civilized and focused on values" in communicating ideas. So, you might be happy to know that the big guys in Objectivism are recommending exactly what you want.

It's from the lectures “Cultural Movements: Creating Change”, which was delivered at the Objectivist Summer Conference 2008. It's in the third lecture, second part.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_new

[softwareNerd]

...Yaron Brook... ... He says "be friendly, civilized and focused on values" in communicating ideas.

A focus on values is extremely important for the Objectivist "brand". In the context of a forum, one might be constrained by the particular discussion. In a more flexible context (like the bar described in the first post), where one has more choices on how to present Objectivism, it is best to remember the sub-text you communicate. Don't have your audience write you off as a whiner who knows why everything that everyone else is doing is wrong, and who does not present positive solutions where they can clearly see value.

That's one reason why one should not present Objectivism as being "anti-socialism" (as alluded to in the first post). Objectivism is not primarily anti anything. Also, I think that in appropriate contexts, one should also stress that Objectivism is not all about political philosophy. First and foremost it is a way to live one's life in order to achieve happiness. That is the idea its brand ought to invoke.Think about how you can express that message without making a mainly abstract argument. Think about how you can make it real, personal and interesting. Think about how you can explain how Objectivism has helped your life, and consider how you can communicate this to others.

Edited August 16, 2009 by softwareNerd

[lidryn]

Owning a bar I spend a lot of time amongst younger people, college age people with their heads all stuffed full of liberal ideas force fed to them through their public school educations then given a steriod boost of it in university.

One of the things I hear most is "anti-socialism is SO '80s"

"Capitalism is So out of style"

..and so on and so forth.

So, QuoVadis, I'm surprised nobody picked up on this (context) yet:

you own a BAR? in a college town/area? does this work for you as a venue for engaging the occasional client in some "maieutic"? that would be interesting: "let's go to [QuoVadis]'s bar and talk some REAL philosophy!"

just a thought...

[Thales]

A focus on values is extremely important for the Objectivist "brand". In the context of a forum, one might be constrained by the particular discussion. In a more flexible context (like the bar described in the first post), where one has more choices on how to present Objectivism, it is best to remember the sub-text you communicate. Don't have your audience write you off as a whiner who knows why everything that everyone else is doing is wrong, and who does not present positive solutions where they can clearly see value.

That's one reason why one should not present Objectivism as being "anti-socialism" (as alluded to in the first post). Objectivism is not primarily anti anything. Also, I think that in appropriate contexts, one should also stress that Objectivism is not all about political philosophy. First and foremost it is a way to live one's life in order to achieve happiness. That is the idea its brand ought to invoke.Think about how you can express that message without making a mainly abstract argument. Think about how you can make it real, personal and interesting. Think about how you can explain how Objectivism has helped your life, and consider how you can communicate this to others.

You are very right. The truth is living as an Objectivist and being successful are the best arguments!

[Rudmer]

What I think this all comes down to is the old adage that I can *still* hear my father preaching at me in my head: "What matters is not just what you say, but also how you say it." Communication via writing removes a LOT of subtle signals -- tone of voice, inflection, non-obvious sarcasm, body language, etc. -- that can make or break a conversation, and it's worse on the internet because people tend not to take their time writing and/or reading. With that in mind, I think that it is doubly necessary to avoid coming across as arrogant or condescending when discussing any serious topic over the internet, for those are two attitudes which will either immediately end a conversation or devolve it into useless flaming.

Personally, I am having great success with a calm, gentle-yet-firm, patient-to-a-fault approach. One of my good friends considers himself a die-hard conservative, but from talking with him I've realized that most of his views are in line with those of Objectivism, and all that he needs is someone to help him check his premises and resolve a few contradictions in his beliefs. He holds these beliefs strongly, and reacts very negatively when he perceives that someone is attacking him because of them. So I take great care to ensure that he does not perceive my arguments as a personal attack, that he knows that I respect him because he is in an honest, rational search for the truth -- yet I still point out every logical fallacy, false premise, or bullshit argument that he puts forth and present my own case very strongly. This seems to be working well; one minor issue that he's changed his mind on is the draft, and I see much more revolutionary changes in his thinking on the horizon.

Edited for typos.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Rudmer

[wynnbrando]

The previous posts make some great points. I would reiterate the fact that Objectivism is not just political philosophy. These days it seems like that is the most common arena for the discussion of its ideas, but it does all start and the ideas are most powerful with the individual. If you're interested in sharing with and motivating other people, I feel the best way to do it, as with most things, is to lead by example. If you are a calm, confident, happy individual filled with self-esteem, certainty, and a benevolent worldview, people will respect and want to listen to what you have to say. Ask pointed questions that make people think about their own views, lives, and ideas from a different perspective instead of preaching. The characters in Atlas Shrugged are superb examples of this.

The 'brand' of Objectivists should be simply individuals that love and enjoy life. That is at the root of the philosophy and where the learning and understanding of Objectivism should begin.

[softwareNerd]

Yesterday, I happened to listen to the Q&A that Ayn Rand did after her Ford hall forum lecture titled "Egalitarianism and Inflation" (available free on ARI's Atlas Shrugged site). She was asked about the John Birch society and she mentioned that one could not simply be against communism; one had to be for something.