Objectivism is probably a Delta philosophy

[Hitta]

It makes sense to me because -Ti/+Te and +Fi/-Fe is about freedom from rules, and -Ne/+Ne +Se/-Si is about absolutes.

[UDP]

Pretty soon we're going to start having threads about what style of underwear is alpha beta gamma or delta

[munenori2]

Are we speaking of holding everybody to someone's personal standard of valuation on an institutional level (objective in that sense), or Ayn Rand's Objectivism (capital O)? The latter I say no, not very likely. The former I say not if you understand people or the world they inhabit.

[Elena]

I think Objectivism is a Beta philosophy. Various Betas I know are always telling me I need to read Ayn Rand's books and how her books were very life-changing for them lol. But her writing style always seemed intolerably dense and I couldn't stand her long, excessive prosing about things which seemed too obvious to go into such detail over. So I will never read her of course.

The whole philosophy itself seems like a steretotypical 'Ti gone bad' system of thought.

I remember reading this essay by Murray Rothbard (ENTj) that likened Objectivism to a cult following lol.

[Logos]

I think Objectivism is a Beta philosophy. Various Betas I know are always telling me I need to read Ayn Rand's books and how her books were very life-changing for them lol. But her writing style always seemed intolerably dense and I couldn't stand her long, excessive prosing about things which seemed too obvious to go into such detail over. So I will never read her of course.

The whole philosophy itself seems like a steretotypical 'Ti gone bad' system of thought.

I remember reading this essay by Murray Rothbard (ENTj) that likened Objectivism to a cult following lol.

Well it was life changing for me, and I'm Alpha; I hated it.

[iAnnAu]

Pretty soon we're going to start having threads about what style of underwear is alpha beta gamma or delta

Hmmmm ... Boxers, briefs, thongs, none ???

[Capitalist Pig]

Doesn't objectivism support laissez faire as a means of attaining freedom?

Objectivism's politico-economic framework is contradictory in this regard. They do give lip service to individualism and laissez-faire, by extolling the virtues of capitalism as the most effective and efficient method of production and distribution of scarce resources, and praising man's capacity for reason. Rand contradicts herself by endorsing a minimal State for the ostensible purpose of national defense and the maintenance of law and order. In other words, a monopoly on the use of force.

If you (correctly) dismiss the concept of a "public good" as a myth (as Objectivists do), then there is no logical reason to stop at the privatization of monopolized services such as police, fire rescue, or even the courts.

The essay linked by Elena is very compelling in demonstrating the "groupthink" mentality of Objectivism under Ayn Rand.

[bibliophile8]

This is I think a great article about the benefits and dangers of Objectivism, written by Nathaniel Branden, a very close associate of Rand.

http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/rand.php#

I happen to love her writings and at one point almost joined an Objectivism school. I know her philosophy isn't the answer to everything, but sometimes it feels like it. The above article opened my eyes to a lot of things I had missed in her philosophy.

I think Objectivism is beta. I think the words pay great service to individualism, but Rand's practices were cult-like. And I think she exhibited some Ne PoLR tendencies, as I think Branden mentions in his article. Also, Ellsworth Toohey, the villain in Rand's The Fountainhead is clearly a maniacal, manipulative version of delta values. (Please, deltans, don't be offended.)

[Rick]

Thanks for that good link. Here is an excerpt:

"I don’t know of any other philosopher who has had her ideas quite so shamelessly misrepresented in the media. I was fairly young during the early years of my association with Ayn Rand and objectivism, and seeing this phenomenon in action was a shocking and dismaying experience. Here was a philosopher who taught that the highest virtue is thinking—and she was commonly denounced as a materialist. Here was a philosopher who taught the supremacy and inviolability of individual rights—and she was accused of advocating a dog-eat-dog world. Here was the most passionate champion in the Twentieth century of the rights of the individual against the state—and her statist opponents smeared her as being a fascist."

Another quote:

"The message she has brought runs counter not only to the dominant teachings of religion and philosophy for many centuries past, but, no less important, it runs counter to the teachings of most of our parents. Our parents, who said, “So who’s happy?”; who said, “Don’t get too big for your britches”; who said, “Pride goeth before a fall”; who said, “Enjoy yourself while you’re young, because when you grow up, life is not fun, life is grim, life is a burden”; who said, “Adventure is for the comic strips; real life is learning to make your peace with boredom”; who said, “Life is not about exaltation, life is about duty.”

Then, this incredible writer, Ayn Rand, comes along and says, in effect, “Oh, really?” and then proceeds to create characters who aren’t in the Middle Ages, who aren’t running around in outer space, but who are of our time and of this earth—who work, struggle, pursue difficult career goals, fall in love, participate in intensely emotional relationships, and for whom life is an incredible adventure because they have made it so. Characters who struggle, who suffer, but who win—who achieve success and happiness.

So, there is a powerful message of hope in her work. A powerful affirmation of the possibilities of existence. Her work represents a glorification not only of the human potential but also of the possibilities of life on earth."

I think the mistake Rand made was that she took a philosophy that fit her and her type well (whatever it was) and said that everyone and all of society should live like that.

I think pretty much any philosophy with the suffix "-ism" can hardly be Delta by definition.

....

I can see a lot of support for the LSI typing of Ayn Rand after reading this article.

[mikemex]

I too have the impression that Objectivism is beta. I don't know much about Ayn Rand, but from what I've read, she's far from ENFp, probably INFp.

For example, I think that Socrates, Aristotle and Plato were all beta STs, probably LSI. That Rand considers Aristotle as her main influence and the best work ever written the Organon proves that she at least values Ti. Also, it seems to me that her initial influence from Nietzche (who I see as delta NF) and later disappointment shows signs of a contrary or quasi identical relationships.

[Phaedrus]

I too have the impression that Objectivism is beta. I don't know much about Ayn Rand, but from what I've read, she's far from ENFp, probably INFp.

For example, I think that Socrates, Aristotle and Plato were all beta STs, probably LSI. That Rand considers Aristotle as her main influence and the best work ever written the Organon proves that she at least values Ti. Also, it seems to me that her initial influence from Nietzche (who I see as delta NF) and later disappointment shows signs of a contrary or quasi identical relationships.

Such a bunch of total crap is almost unbearable to read. (What am I doing on this forum? Maybe I really am a masochist ...)

[bibliophile8]

I too have the impression that Objectivism is beta. I don't know much about Ayn Rand, but from what I've read, she's far from ENFp, probably INFp.

For example, I think that Socrates, Aristotle and Plato were all beta STs, probably LSI. That Rand considers Aristotle as her main influence and the best work ever written the Organon proves that she at least values Ti. Also, it seems to me that her initial influence from Nietzche (who I see as delta NF) and later disappointment shows signs of a contrary or quasi identical relationships.

I don't see how you can just classify all three of them as Beta STs. Sure, they were all similar, but they disagreed over important points. Aristotle said that knowledge was out in the world to be empirically studied. Plato was all about internal reflection and abstract ideals.

And how is Neitzche delta? The superman and the abyss? The will to power? That does not sound delta to me at all.

[bibliophile8]

I can see a lot of support for the LSI typing of Ayn Rand after reading this article.

Agreed.

[Phaedrus]

And how is Neitzche delta? The superman and the abyss? The will to power? That does not sound delta to me at all.

I don't claim that Nietzsche is Delta, but the aspects of his philosopy you mention are misunderstood by the public and point no more towards Beta than Delta.

[strrrng]

why would -Ti/+Te and -Fe/+Fi be about freedom from rules. the only aspect of these function pairs that seems to touch on this subject is -Ti, which breaks down systems. what does building structure, minimizing negative emotional interactions or developing positive feelings have to do with freedom from rules?

[mikemex]

I don't see how you can just classify all three of them as Beta STs. Sure, they were all similar, but they disagreed over important points. Aristotle said that knowledge was out in the world to be empirically studied. Plato was all about internal reflection and abstract ideals.

And how is Nietzsche delta? The superman and the abyss? The will to power? That does not sound delta to me at all.

No way to be sure, but it's easy to make assumptions when you know the context in which such characters lived. The ancient Greeks, as a culture, was predominantly Alpha and thus could only allow the two adjacent quadras, Beta and Delta, to flourish. Phoenicians were predominantly Gamma but did not conflict strongly with the Greeks because both quadras are democratic. From that perspective it is easy to understand that, by the time the Socratic school flourished, so did the Epicurean one.

I do believe the Epicurean school is based on a Delta NF philosophy because of this:

By definition, Epicureanism can be considered the philosophy that pleads with the senses. The essential doctrine of Epicureanism is that pleasure is the ultimate good, whether sensual, emotional, or intellectual. However, Epicurus, the Greek philosopher for whom the school is named for, believed that intellectual stimulation was superior to sensual but both were necessary for living a full and happy life.

And it is well known that Socratics were quite opposite ideologically speaking to Epicureans. That's why I assume that one group was Beta and the other Delta.

Now, on Nietzsche:

Epicurus was also a significant source of inspiration and interest for Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche cites his affinities to Epicurus in a number of his works, including The Gay Science, Beyond Good and Evil, and his private letters to Peter Gast.

I think it's far more likely that Nietzsche speaks about Se as a role or PoLR functions than as a member of the ego block. Using the super-ego functions makes one to look agitated and overall unstable.

[consentingadult]

I think the mistake Rand made was that she took a philosophy that fit her and her type well (whatever it was) and said that everyone and all of society should live like that.

As a former 'objectivist' myself, I concur with this view: like most philosophical and political theories, Objectivism is just a rationalization of Rand's own personality.

Now as for her type: I think she's Alpha NT. Maybe I have been projecting my own personality onto her philosophy, but I think two aspects are very essential to her thinking:

1. the emphasis on reason and logic, or, in Socionic terms Ti (not Te, although Rand's characters are usually superhumans capable of everything, which I think is a dead giveaway that Rand privately held grandiose fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience).
2. The rejection of physical force, which is repeated over and over again. "there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—DO YOU HEAR ME? (emphasis mine) no man may start—the use of physical force against others." (Galt's speech). I think this places Se in the super-ego block. My personal idea is that Ne-ego types in particular reject physical force (Se) because they basically do not have the psychology to defend themselves against it, thus rationalize away the validity of Se as a valid biological survival function,and eliminate Se-dominant people in the process (which would probably be sent to concentration camps, which would be funny, since you need Se people to enforce that ;-)). This, btw, also rules out LSI as a type.

I also rule out that she could be Delta NF: another phenomenon we can observe in her works, is the very strong longing for friendship and emotional connection, but not knowing how to accomplish that, so it is accomplished in a very particular way: in her 'view' only types who empahsize Ti (the capacity to reason) and Te (the capacity to competence and the rejection of incompetence) can be capable of true friendship, especially in combination with Ne (the desire to change everything). Thus: Fe in the super-id block. Also, when her literature focuses on situations of friendship, these situations are often very relaxed, people enjoying each others company in a rather inactive fashion, Si, again in the Super-Id block.

Whatever her philosophy, anyone who has studied Rand well enough can see that she herself never reached the mental state of self-esteem (which I think is an Si type of self-esteem) she advocated.

My conclusion: either ILE or LII, typical cerebral narcissistic. Most likely ILE, because her works do not emphasize an Si-hidden agenda, the way we see in LII or EII.

Bottom line: most likely ILE.

(P.S. the same phenomena can be observed in the works of Michel Houellebecq, but in that case it's rather LII instead of ILE)

[Hitta]

The people here are usually very big on the Reinin Dichotomies. How about the subjectivist/objectivist dichotomy?

[Expat]

The people here are usually very big on the Reinin Dichotomies. How about the subjectivist/objectivist dichotomy?

As in, Gamma/Delta is objectivist, so Rand's Objectivism is probably Gamma or Delta?

Wow.

[Phaedrus]

We know for certain that Rand is an NT. Therefore we also know that she is either Alpha or Gamma. She can only be one of four possible types. The big question is which one.

[Hitta]

As in, Gamma/Delta is objectivist, so Rand's Objectivism is probably Gamma or Delta?

Wow.

Correct, Deltas usually believe strong in personal and economic freedom(as do Alphas). In contrast to Alphas though, they believe that freedom is an objective truth(as is most things they believe).

[discojoe]

It's beta or gamma. Lots of Se + logic. I think many people are quick to assume things about Objectivism without fully understanding it bothering to learn a lot about it. I'm not saying it doesn't have its problems, but there's a lot of practical aspects to it.

[Hitta]

We know for certain that Rand is an NT. Therefore we also know that she is either Alpha or Gamma. She can only be one of four possible types. The big question is which one.

We do?

[Phaedrus]

We do?

Yes. At least I do.

[bibliophile8]

I feel a big element of a call to action in Rand's writing, which indicates strong Se. Also, I think it is safe to say that she is a Aristocrat, as she does not necessarily state that all people are equal. I think she makes a very exclusive club and there is no grey area. You are either with her or against her. She often would make huge assumptions and generalizations about groups of people based on a few actions.

Also, someone made a reference to how Rand's fictional relationships are based on spending time together comfortably (Si). I think it is far more important to consider the fact that these moments are few and far between. The emphasis of one's life is work and the activities that revolve around that.

Although Rand preached that government should have a monopoly on force, this is not necessarily indicative of a Se polr. This same sentence could also be an appeal to a system of rules and authority. Aristocratic (Ti with Se). Rand's characters are people of action and initiative, not of idle planning and theory.

Objectivism is beta, not gamma. I think it is more Ti than Te. The emphasis is on individualism, first of all, not something that Gamma is known for.

I think for this discussion to continue, we need to decide if we are debating the Ayn Rand's type, or if we are debating which quadra values Objectivism represents. One would think these would be the same, but I think that Rand may not have been as true to her own teachings as we might want her to be. Oh and screw those old Greek philosophers, they're irrelevant.

[Phaedrus]

I feel a big element of a call to action in Rand's writing, which indicates strong Se.

No.

Also, I think it is safe to say that she is a Aristocrat, as she does not necessarily state that all people are equal.I think she makes a very exclusive club and there is no grey area. You are either with her or against her. She often would make huge assumptions and generalizations about groups of people based on a few actions.

This is a very clear case of a misuse of the Reinin dichotomies. What you are talking about has nothing to do with being an Aristocrat.

Objectivism is beta, not gamma.

Nonsense. She is an NT. Period.

The emphasis is on individualism, first of all, not something that Gamma is known for.

More nonsense.

[Logos]

Yes. At least I do.

Why?

[consentingadult]

I think for this discussion to continue, we need to decide if we are debating the Ayn Rand's type, or if we are debating which quadra values Objectivism represents.

That's assuming the two are different. As Rick suggested, Objectivism might just as well be the rationalization of the needs of her own type.

...but I think that Rand may not have been as true to her own teachings as we might want her to be.

You're quite right: much if her psychological make-up was simply pathological, not healthy. This is why it is possible to type her and her philosophy in the first place, but I know most of you disagree and consider Socionics to be about normal, healthy psychology. If you want to adhere to the theory, you will first need to make up your mind about what's within the framework, and what's not (i.e. what is and what is not type related). I feel most things said in this thread are not within the framework of Socionics, assuming Socionics as about normal, healthy psychology.

[Phaedrus]

Why?

Haven't you seen the videos? Haven't you heard her way of talking and her way of arguing. Clearly Rational (Researcher) NT attitude, temperament, and style. Extremely obvious logical type.

[Logos]

Haven't you seen the videos? Haven't you heard her way of talking and her way of arguing. Clearly Rational (Researcher) NT attitude, temperament, and style. Extremely obvious logical type.

That is not an answer at all, but merely a restatement of your conclusion. You have yet to answer why you believe she is an NT.

[Phaedrus]

That is not an answer at all, but merely a restatement of your conclusion. You have yet to answer why you believe she is an NT.

That is why I believe (or rather believe that I know for sure) that she is an NT. I believe that I can see that she is an NT, and that observation is more certain than any functional analysis anyone can come up with. It is based on V.I. and seeing and hearing her talk in some videos, a reading of some of her novels (Anthem, The Fountainhead, and about half of Atlas Shrugged), her articles in the book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and some other articles I have found on the Internet Internet. She is a clear example of a Rational NT in my opinion.

I haven't made up my mind about which of the four NTs she is, however, because it seems as though you could make a case for either the claim that her philosophy is -based, or another case for the claim that her views on politics etc. are more Gamma in nature. I haven't found the ultimate key to determine which arguments are strongest yet.

[Logos]

That is why I believe (or rather believe that I know for sure) that she is an NT. I believe that I can see that she is an NT, and that observation is more certain than any functional analysis anyone can come up with. It is based on V.I. and seeing and hearing her talk in some videos, a reading of some of her novels (Anthem, The Fountainhead, and about half of Atlas Shrugged), her articles in the book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and some other articles I have found on the Internet Internet. She is a clear example of a Rational NT in my opinion.

I haven't made up my mind about which of the four NTs she is, however, because it seems as though you could make a case for either the claim that her philosophy is -based, or another case for the claim that her views on politics etc. are more Gamma in nature. I haven't found the ultimate key to determine which arguments are strongest yet.

That still does not answer the question by any means, as again, you are just restating your conclusion and using circular reasoning to say "I know that she is an NT because there is evidence for her being NT." But the problem is that you have not really stated any line of reasoning as to why she is an NT or point to any evidence as to how you reached your conclusion, apart from the incredibly useless, "the evidence is in her videos, books, philosophy," and my personal favorite, "you can find the evidence on the Internet." So Phaedrus, please stop trying to cleverly sidestep the question and just walk me through by the hand as to why you think that Ayn Rand is a NT.

[Phaedrus]

That still does not answer the question by any means, as again, you are just restating your conclusion and using circular reasoning to say "I know that she is an NT because there is evidence for her being NT." But the problem is that you have not really stated any line of reasoning as to why she is an NT or point to any evidence as to how you reached your conclusion, apart from the incredibly useless, "the evidence is in her videos, books, philosophy," and my personal favorite, "you can find the evidence on the Internet." So Phaedrus, please stop trying to cleverly sidestep the question and just walk me through by the hand as to why you think that Ayn Rand is a NT.

The line of reasoning as to why she is an NT is difficult to explain, because it is the result of several logical chains and direct comparisons with type examples. An important part of it is in the form of an elimination process.

How can we tell that Rand is an NT? Well, first of all it is based on the assumption that there are observable differences between NTs and other possible four-type groups such as NFs, STs, and SFs. That assumption is based on the assumption that there is something in V.I. worth considering. Then you must collect information about the type groups and their most typical differences. You have to look at many real life examples of people you have typed yourself and compare them with photos and life descriptions of people that other socionists and/or typologists have provided. When you collect more and more information and analyze it, you start to see the patterns.

We can start anywhere, really, it doesn't matter much. We could for example start with the observation that Rand is a logical type. Isn't that obvious? If we know about the typical differences between logical and ethical types, isn't she a clear example of a logical type? Listen to her way of arguing, look at her face while she is doing that -- facial expressions (or lack of them), facial structure (to be compared with pictures of typed persons), look at the premises of her philosophy and the ways she argues for it. All of that together makes it impossible to believe that she is an ethical type, in my opinion.

When we have determined that she is a logical type, we have eliminated eight of the sixteen types. Now we can choose among several pathways. We could try to determine her temperament, we could try to determine whether she is a rational type or an irrational, we could try to spot her use of functions, we could take a closer look at V.I. knowing that we don't have to bother about the ethical types, which makes it somewhat easier, we could try to determine whether she is an introvert or an extravert, we could start to compare with whole type descriptions, etc.

The result of that process (as far as it has proceeded within me), in which it is not easy to explain every detail in the (not always conscious) reasonings, is that Rand is an NT. I could try to answer specific questions that you might have, but you can't expect me to give a complete exposition of all my knowledge of the types and how they all hang together.