It is unlikely that pointing out the errors in the book will make much difference, as it seems as if this book was aimed at a particular target market which will likely not heed any criticism, regardless. Given many of the comments, I am pretty sure he hit the target.
Will the ARCHN author heed criticism? Maybe not, but he certainly entertains it on the blog devoted to the book.
The input and comments generally run at a higher rate of intellectual RPM than cranky anti-Rand sites and hit-and-run pieces. What I mean is that the folks who argue on the side of Nyquist and his book have actually read Rand, continue to read Rand (and Randian texts, discussions, journals, etc) and are open to strong challenges.
For example, one of the latest blog entries has a hundred comments . . . and the commentary is useful for students of Objectivism insofar as the critics’s arguments are laid out in detail.
For those who are more advanced, of course the whole point of Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature is irrelevant. What I mean is, if Rand was right about human nature, then Nyquist is wrong, and no amount of discussion can alter the facts.
If Rand was mostly right, or if Rand was almost entirely right, or if Rand and Randian orthodoxy is not the nec plus ultra, then discussion can be fruitful.
Many of the more intelligent contributors to ARCHN’s blog are, of course, fans of Rand, and celebrants of her literary gifts and general cultural influence. Many consider themselves deeply committed to the same values that generally undergird Randian projects and Objectivist principles . . .
I think it is easy to dismiss the ARCHN blog as typical of or exemplary of ‘anti-Rand’ blunders and dogma, then. It might be a fief of Rand skeptics, but unless all criticism of Rand’s conclusions on Human Nature should be dismissed a priori, then engaging with the heathens/gentiles/apostates is surely salutory.
