Monthly Archives: June 2020

Inaccurate, misrepresented, and even willfully distorted reporting on Ayn Rands ideas has been common in the media since she first gained public prominence. That fact came up in a conversation she had with the editor of The Ayn Rand Lexicon, a kind of mini encyclopedia of her philosophy, Objectivism. The editor, Harry Binswanger, relates that Rand became increasingly enthusiastic about the Lexicon project, in part because it could serve as a corrective and eliminate any excuse for the continual misrepresentation of her philosophy. Rand quipped to him, People will be able to look up BREAKFAST and see that I did not advocate eating babies for breakfast.

But articles that misrepresent, or outright distort, Rands ideas continually find their way into print. Rarely are they worth a response. Two recent articles about Rand one in Salon, the other in the New Republic are different. Its not because of what these articles say about her, but in how they say it.

Both articles raise worthwhile questions at least, nominally. One asks about the appeal of Rands ideas among young people; the other is on the relation between Rands moral ideal of selfishness and President Trump. Both articles, moreover, cite sources, name facts, and even include some actual reporting all in support of their highly unfavorable conclusions. Which is putting it mildly.

These essays are apt case studies of a tribalist mindset.

Whats remarkable about these essays is not that theyre sloppy, error-filled, slanted, or smears. They are. (And Ill indicate a few, though by no means all, of their errors and misrepresentations.) Rather: what marks these essays out is that they exemplify a pernicious mindset, a mindset thats wreaking havoc on our cultural-political life. Its a phenomenon wider than how people engage with Ayn Rand but when shes the subject, that mindset is often starkly apparent.

These essays are apt case studies of a tribalist mindset.

Before we go on, let me acknowledge a concern that some of you might have. Yes, I work for the Ayn Rand Institute; Im writing in a journal published by that Institute; and Im analyzing articles that portray Rand unfavorably. But my main point is not to vindicate Rand, nor to change your mind about her, nor to convince you that these critics are wrong in their assessment (though I believe thats the case).

What I want to show you regardless of what you may already think of Rand, if you have a view at all is that theres a fundamental problem with these articles, a problem that negates their credibility. Theyre not seeking to engage with facts, reach the truth, let alone convince any active-minded readers. Instead, they manipulate seemingly factual information for the sake of affirming and reinforcing a set of prejudices.

The Last of the Ayn Rand Acolytes, by Alexander Sammon, appeared in the New Republic, and it seemingly asks a worthwhile question. The piece contends that The romance of the [Objectivist] movement has lost a good deal of its cachet in an unequal, austerity-battered America particularly when it comes to pulling in the young recruits who were once the backbone of the Rand insurgency. All the kids these days are becoming socialists and communists. Citing a poll about young Americans who are fond of socialism, the writer then wonders if Rands hyper-capitalist philosophy is running out of juice?

There is a really interesting question here about Rands appeal, because it has far outlasted her lifetime and has gone global, reaching well beyond the United States. And its true that her writings resonate powerfully with young people. Why? What explains it? How much, if any, of it relates to her political views? Or her powerful dramatization in fiction of a new moral ideal? Does it vary by individual reader? These are among the questions my colleagues and I at ARI think a lot about. One observation Ive drawn is that these questions are deceptively simple. Answering them takes a lot of data and a serious engagement with the variety of ways that Rands work resonates with particular individuals.

READ ALSO: A Philosopher Looks at Education

But the article is remarkable for its lack of curiosity about its nominal question. The reporter logged a few days at the conference and interviewed a number of people. That on-the-ground reporting, however, was just an opportunity to gather some anecdotes and quotations to reinforce a preexisting view. Notice what the reporter takes as a sign that Objectivism has a serious youth problem, and the conferences organizers were quite aware of it. ARI, which runs the conference, offered a discount rate for those under 30, a talent show, and extracurricular activities like late night jams.

It would be exceedingly odd for an intellectual or political movement to be uninterested in connecting with young people.

What are these evidence of? Take the talent show. It might be probative, if it had been uniquely geared to young people. (No reason is given in the article to believe that.) Or, if it had been added to the program in a panicked reaction to some plummeting interest. (No again). The late-night jam session is an extracurricular event, meaning that attendees, not ARI, spontaneously organized it. That fact doesnt support the point the reporter is trying to establish and arguably, it might be counterevidence.

Finally, what conclusion can be drawn from the fact that people under 30 can register at a discount? One conclusion is that ARI is interested in attracting young people and making it easier, more affordable, for them to attend. But is that unique to the Objectivist movement? No. Student and youth discounts are everywhere (think: movie theaters, transportation). Moreover, it would be exceedingly odd for an intellectual or political movement to be uninterested in connecting with young people.

Thats why, for example, you find the same kind of discount offered by Netroots Nation, which, for more than a decade, has hosted the largest annual conference for progressives, drawing nearly 3,000 attendees from around the country and beyond. In 2019, if you were 18 or younger, you would have paid only $110 (discounted from the full rate of $375) to attend the conference. And thats quite apart from the hundreds of scholarships, covering full or partial costs, that Netroots offered. Is that proof, then, that the progressive movement in the U.S. has a serious youth problem?

Theres no way to reach a reasonable conclusion neither about ARIs conference, nor the Netroots event when this is what is offered as evidence.

What, then, is the actual purpose of the New Republics article? Some of the shoddy reporting provides a lead, because its not mere sloppiness. Its purposeful. Lets unpack just one paragraph, for which the relevant facts are publicly verifiable.

Sammon quotes ARIs chairman, Yaron Brook, saying that the Institutes first program focused on young people, and then writes:

True to that aim, ARI began donating 400,000 copies of Rands novels to advanced-placement high school programs each year. It also awarded big cash prizes for Rand-themed essay contests (in 2018 alone, ardent young Objectivists raked in a cool $130,000 for such broadsides).

In just these 44 words, there are four factual errors, which slant toward a purpose.

(1) The article implies that ARIs first program was giving away copies of Rands novels. In fact, the Institutes first major project, in 1985, was an essay contest on Rands novels. It was in 2002 fully seventeen years after ARI was founded that we piloted an initiative to supply teachers with free classroom sets of Rands novels. That project was born in response to requests from teachers themselves. So far, weve given away more than four million books. Teachers continue to ask for the books, and then tell us about how intellectually energized their students are after reading Rands novels.

READ ALSO: In a Tribal Age, a Voice for the Individual

(3) Students who take part in our essay contests may agree or disagree with Rands view. Theres never been a requirement that they be ardent young Objectivists (meaning that they embrace Rands philosophy), either to take part or to win a prize. Which bring us to the next tendentious error.

(4) To imply that ARI awards prizes for Rand-themed broadsides is factually wrong. The questions we set for the essay contests are designed to prompt students to engage deeply with Rands novels, the plot, the motivations of characters, the books philosophic theme. Whats more, our judging criteria (published online) state that: Essays will be judged on whether the student is able to argue for and justify his or her view not on whether the Institute agrees with the view the student expresses. Take a look at the questions for 2020, and some of the winning essays, to form your own view.

Its a trivialization of Rands philosophy to take her appeal as exclusively about her advocacy of capitalism.

The thread running through these errors, and the article as a whole, is to push a distorted picture of Rand (and by extension, the Objectivist movement). There are three elements in that picture none of them true to the facts.

First, its a trivialization of Rands philosophy, so that her appeal is taken to be exclusively about her advocacy of capitalism and (in Sammons phrase) personal pocket-stuffing. Thats the subtext behind the errors Ive just noted, and many others. Its also evident in Sammons downplaying of the salient fact that the theme of our 2019 Objectivist conference was Rands theory of art.

Second, the movement around Rands ideas is portrayed as something of a quasi-religious, or cult-like, phenomenon of unthinking followers. Third, and this goes to a major purpose of the article, Rand is assumed to be the motive force behind the conservative or right-wing tribe.

This false picture comes out in numerous small touches throughout, but its the opening of the article thats particularly revealing. Sammon claims that the original Ayn Rand clubs in the 1960s were governed by eight rules, only two of which could be mentioned publicly: that Rand was the greatest human being ever, and Atlas Shrugged, the greatest human achievement ever. Then Sammon observes that at last summers Objectivist conference, everyone seemed to be in compliance. For evidence of that, he quotes a 26-year-old attendee. Sammon reports that she was once an avowed environmentalist, but after reading Atlas Shrugged, she has come to believe that the solution is to encourage development.

Put aside those eight rules for the moment (well come back to them), and consider his example of the former environmentalist. Lets assume that shes quoted accurately in the article. Whatever you think of environmental issues, or of Ayn Rand, this is nothing like a coherent argument. Ive met fans of Atlas Shrugged who believe environmental issues call for regulatory controls on development. You can hate Atlas Shrugged, or simply disagree with it, and still think that environmental problems call for more, not less, development and innovation. Thats basically the view Steven Pinker expresses in his book Enlightenment Now, and, whether hes read Rands novels or not, his views on key philosophic, moral and political issues are fundamentally at odds with Objectivism. We could keep going on and on with counterexamples.

Sammons claim cannot convince any active-minded reader. The non sequitur is pretty flagrant. What, then, is the articles opening trying to do? If you already hold a certain prejudice about Rand and about fans of her work, the article will trigger an emotional reaction. It will affirm and reinforce your prejudice. Put into words (politely), its something like: I always knew it theyre a bunch of unthinking worshipers of the dollar and rapacious industry.

READ ALSO: In the Covid-19 Pandemic, Are We All in This Together?

Since that personal and professional rupture between them, Branden had an ongoing, publicly stated animus toward Rand and her ideas, and a vested interest in smearing her and vindicating himself. Theres a further problem, because his own memoir shows him to be a prolific liar, thus casting wholesale doubt over the books credibility. But if you did take it as credible, theres the fact that Sammon even manages to misreport that (dubious) source, regarding those rules in the source article. Brandens quoted words are implicit premises which his organization, the Nathaniel Branden Institute, transmitted to our students. Sammon takes this weird allegation from the grudge-bearing Branden and slants it further.

Sammons article is uninterested in convincing through facts and logic. Its advancing a particular slant, for the purpose of affirming certain prejudices.

But theres an even more significant problem here. Journalists are supposed to be not only critical of what they see, hear, and read, but also concerned with primary sources and first-hand evidence. A good place to look, then, is Rand herself, her published writing, her media appearances, her speeches. Though she was proud of Atlas Shrugged and possessed self-esteem, she would have strenuously repudiated those eight rules precisely because of their injunction to submit to authority. The through line of her writing and speaking is the supreme importance of thinking independently, putting nothing no authority above the judgment of your individual mind. To disregard this counterevidence, and pretend it doesnt exist, is malpractice.

Again: my point here is not to change your mind about Rand or her ideas, but to show that Sammons article is uninterested in convincing through facts and logic. Its advancing a particular slant, for the purpose of affirming certain prejudices.

Which bring us to the third element of the distorted picture of Rand and the movement around her ideas: the notion that Rand is the behind-the-scenes power of our cultures other major tribe, the conservative/right-leaning movement. This trope has been knocking around for years and surfaces in various articles. For those in the grips of this quasi-conspiracist trope, imagine how soothing it would be to hear that the Rand phenomenon is waning.

Has Rand influenced activists, intellectuals, politicians and others who define themselves as libertarian or Republican or conservative? Of course. But that influence is far from straightforward or uniform. For a start, Rand excoriated the conservative and libertarian movements of her own time; she saw those movements, in different ways, as intellectually bankrupt and subversive of freedom. Nor does Rand belong in the vague categories right wing or conservative, given her views. For instance, Objectivism rejects all forms of the supernatural, emphatically including religion; or consider her principled view on a womans moral right to abortion.

One more counterpoint to the trope is that Rands novels have been cited by Hollywood figures who view themselves as sympathetic, if not wholly supportive, of progressive causes. For instance, Angelina Jolie, Mayim Bialik, Emma Watson, among others, have said that Rands fiction had a strong impact on them. The point, then, is that Rands influence is multifaceted, it goes well beyond political issues, and it is unbounded by the conventional left-right framing.

READ ALSO: Discussing Marc Andreessens Rallying Cry to Build

Without appreciating these facts, its impossible to form a view of Rands cultural influence. To imagine that her philosophy underpins the mainline conservative movement is risible. Coming from opponents of her views, that notion is a prejudice.

The writer fashioned a narrative that will be emotionally soothing to the tribalist progressive reader and unconvincing to a critical reader.

Sammon seems dimly aware that the Rand-powers-the-right trope is problematic. But he is uncurious about why that is so. Instead, he mentions several politicians who claim to like Rand, but whose policies deviate from her ideal of laissez-faire capitalism. This is a fascinating phenomenon, and it should trigger dozens of questions for a journalist trying to understand Rands impact and appeal.

For example, if a professed admirer of Rands ideas enters politics but enacts policies at odds with Objectivism, does that mean hes betraying those ideas? Or, could it be evidence that his understanding of them was shallow or incomplete or non-existent? or that what resonated was not at all her political ideas, but perhaps the moral confidence of her heroes? or her depiction of productive achievement as heroic? More broadly, what does it look like for a radical, convention-challenging philosophy to influence an individual? Is it an overnight, all-or-nothing effect or is it subject to gradations, across what kind of time frame?

None of these threads (or many others I could name) is pursued in Sammons article. Theres no attempt to grapple with the actual nature and scale of Rands cultural impact. For Sammon, intent on portraying Rand and Objectivism in quasi-religious terms, there are just pilgrims and Quislings. By the close of Sammons article, theres no answer to the question that supposedly motivated it: Is Rands appeal with the young waning? At most, that question serves as a hook to make the article seem topical. Rather than address that issue, the writer fashioned a narrative that will be emotionally soothing to the tribalist progressive reader and unconvincing to a critical reader. Its message: Stop worrying, the Rand phenomenon and the hated conservative tribe it nourishes is done for.

End of Part 1.

SUPPORT ARI: If you value the ideas presented here, please become an ARI Member today.

Share this article:

View original post here:

When Tribal Journalists Try to 'Cancel' Ayn Rand (Part 1) - New Ideal

I am convinced the end game for pure capitalism is pure socialism. Unchecked, it is inevitable. It turns out the final chapter for Atlas Shrugged was never written. Who knew? Galts Gulch was destined to become a commune for short-haired hippies in penny loafers.

I was thinking of something to write and whether there still might be a Major League Baseball season while a vacuum cleaner robot kept bumping into the legs of my chair and generally driving me nuts. It used to be interesting. Now its annoying, but it does take care of the light cleaning.

This got me thinking. In a headfirst dive into a rabbit hole so wide I didnt bump the walls on my way down, came a thought that someday there wont be anything that artificially intellectualized machines wont be able to do better than humans. I am not talking only manual labor. Im saying trained professional service jobs, too.

After all the databases in the world are connected, can you imagine the legal argument an e-attorney could put together? Your smartphone presents its case to a judgment computer along with your opponents and the completely unbiased verdict from an accumulation of historically perfect knowledge of justice, analysis of all precedence, and application of pure logic is rendered within milliseconds. Theres no sense appealing because the inarguable answer would be the same.

Support Local JournalismDonate

The same for digital doctors. Your watch provides your vitals and body chemistry analysis for a machine to compare to billions of snippets of everyday lives and it knows what you have and how best to cure it before you can pick up a magazine in the waiting room. Surgery? No problem. Perfect diagnosis, precise incisions, and X-ray vision make for great results.

How about fighting fires with drones and bots and transporting patients to the hospital in driverless ambulances with mechanical EMTs on board and computerized lawyers chasing them?

I thought about this on a bike ride that took way longer because of it, and the only job I came up with that might not eventually be done better by a machine is an artist. And, I am not totally convinced of that. Show a computer enough great art and it will figure out what makes it great and then might produce stunningly moving pieces on its own.

At the bottom of the rabbit hole was a package from Amazon. Thats when it clicked. This company went from selling books on the Internet to making it nearly impossible to live our lives without them in it in some shape or fashion almost every day. They did this in less than twenty years. Is it out of the realm of possibility to find them producing and providing every single good or service the world demands with machines and computers before this century is out? I bet yes. Eventually nobody will be left to compete with their gazillion dollar monopoly.

But, thats not even what Im arguing. The interesting thing is that, if Amazon does everything and does it all with machines, what the heck are the rest of us going to do to make our livings? And, even more importantly, if we dont have any ways to make our livings, how are we going to buy all the stuff they produce? Checkmate! We all got nothing.

The only way this ultimate capitalist dream plays out is for Amazon, as its own computerized government, to tax the crap out of itself so that it can give every non-working citizen (i.e. everyone) a monthly stimulus check for doing nothing so that we can continue to buy all it produces (i.e. everything), so its sole owner can continually get richer even after paying income taxes at a rate of around 99.999%.

In this perfectly artificial intelligent capitalistic society, nobody works and everyone lives off government welfare. Since nobody produces anything, everybody gets the same stipend. At this stage, nobody can take down The Company. On the plus side, we get up when we like, recreate every day, eat well, and maintain consumerism since paying us enough to do that is what keeps the worlds solitary business model viable.

Now, I know what you are thinking, because I was thinking the same thing as I cleared the dog hair from the side brushes of my robotic vacuum cleaner this could not possibly be how capitalism plays out. I dont know what to tell you. Like I said, when Atlas passes gas, itll stink.

Roger Marolt is looking for new opportunities as a robot. Email at roger@maroltllp.com.

View post:

Roger Marolt: The road to socialism is paved by capitalists - Aspen Times

From the October 2018 issue: Yuval Noah Harari on why technology favors tyranny

Also in April, Google and Apple announced that they would suspend their rivalry to work with nations of the world to create a new alert system. They would reconfigure their mobile operating systems, incompatible by design, to notify users if they have stepped within the radius of a device held by a COVID19 patient.

The companies have failed to impress some public-health officials with their initial efforts, but their hastily designed program will likely improve with subsequent iterations. It could evolve to function like the official papers that Europeans are always fumbling to present to the authorities in grainy war movies. By documenting your history of social contact, your phone could be used to help demonstrate your fitness to return to the office or board a flight.

The shock of the virus has overwhelmed government at every level. In states facing an unmanageable deluge of unemployment claims, Amazon and Google have stepped in to revamp antique systems so that money can flow with less bureaucratic friction. When Nadella invoked the possibilities of a new alliance, he was alluding to the abrupt shift to telemedicine and virtual learning. Public health and education may be traditional functions of government, but Nadella suggested that his industry should share the burden: We at Microsoft view ourselves as digital first responders.

The blessings bestowed by the online economy in this strange time are indisputable, and we should be grateful for them. But thats not a reason to suspend skepticism of the tech industry as it attempts to make the most of the moment. In the years before the virus, critics began to prophesy that a handful of tech companies would soon grow more powerful than the government. Their scale and influence, and their ability to manipulate public opinion and shape markets, would permit them to reign unimpeded.

That warning, however dark, didnt quite capture the emerging strategy of these firmsa strategy that was in fact taking shape before the pandemic beganor the graver threat they pose. Rather than supplanting government, they have, in essence, sought to merge with it.

Tech executives didnt always yearn to work in league with government. During their years of wild growth and political immaturity, the tech companies sounded like teenagers encountering Ayn Rand for the first time. Like John Galt, the protagonist of Atlas Shrugged, they muttered about the evils of government and how it kept down great innovators. This view of the world smacked of self-interest. Companies such as Amazon, Google, and Facebook wanted to avoid the sorts of regulatory controls that constrained their older, more established competitors.

But if self-interest neatly aligned with idealism, the idealism was real. Googles cofounder Sergey Brin, a refugee from the former Soviet Union, warned about the moral costs of the companys foray into China. He styled himself a purist, and the companys experience in the country ultimately illustrated the logic of his stance: Despite abiding by the dictates of the regime, Google was breached by Chinese hackers, who attempted to steal its intellectual property and peer into the Gmail accounts of human-rights activists. In 2010, after four years of operating on the mainland, Google decamped to Hong Kong.

Excerpt from:

What Big Tech Wants Out of the Pandemic - The Atlantic

The Pitch

When I was in high school, Bioshock felt just about as good as AAA gaming could get.

A polished pinnacle of design and aesthetics, the first Bioshock went all-in on an instantly-iconic setting and embraced themes, ideas and imagery that went slightly beyond what other AAA of its time offered. It had fun gunplay that emphasized exploration and experimentation. It was a shooter that encouraged you to make interesting decisions and find ways to take advantage of your abilities, your opponents weaknesses and the environment around you.

While all of the above are pretty compelling on their own, it was the ways in which Bioshock weaved all these different threads together - a feat often credited to so-called gaming auteur Ken Levine - thats stuck with me. At the time, Bioshock managed to feel cohesive and cinematic without coming across as overly-shallow or scripted.

In 2020, my perspectives on all the above - especially Levine - have changed, but Bioshock - now available on the Nintendo Switch - hasnt.

If you were too young to remember it, Bioshock was a science-fiction first-person shooter released in 2007. The game saw you venture below the surface of the sea to the underwater dystopia of Rapture, a city built atop the flawed objectivism of Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged and powered by Adam and Eve. These addictive substances gave you the power to alter your own genetics and bestow yourself with fantastical mutations like the ability to throw lightning bolts (or bees!) at your enemies.

Without veering too close to the games iconic story moments, the broad-strokes premise of Bioshock involves trying to topple Raptures despotic ruler, Andrew Ryan, and escape from the half-flooded metropolis with your life. Its a blend of survivor horror, imm-sim and first-person shooter. If you like any of those things youll probably enjoy what Bioshock has to offer. That was the case with the original game and its much the same case with the new Switch version of it.

One of the more interesting details worth touching on here is that, while other Switch ports like The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt or Overwatch have had to make severe or significant compromises in order to run on Nintendos handheld, Bioshock doesnt. It first released on the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. The Switch honestly feels like its more than capable for what 2K have thrown at it.

As visually-rich and crisply-detailed as your memories of the first time you played Bioshock might be, the reality is that it hasnt aged all that well when it comes to graphics. Textures look blurry and blocky. Of course, the upshot of this is that squeezing them onto the Switchs smaller LCD display doesnt feel like that much of a downgrade.

The Nintendo Switch version of Bioshock doesnt look like a bad version of Bioshock, it just looks like Bioshock. Whats more, while standards for fidelity have changed since the first came out, the sound and environment design here go a long way to helping keep the games rich sense of atmosphere and tension intact.

If youre wondering whether Bioshock runs well on Switch, fret not.

Irrational Games submersive shooter just might not look as you remember but, otherwise, this is a perfect port. If youre ready to return to Rapture and dont mind sacrificing a little bit of immersion for portability, the Nintendo Switch version of Bioshock: Definitive Edition is easy to endorse.

These days, many modern AAA games commit the crime of being too big. Even smaller releases nowadays are loaded with long-tail challenges and post-launch content designed to keep you coming back. Bioshock predates this trend and, upon revisitation, theres something refreshing about that sense of finality.

Sure, Bioshock 2 and Bioshock: Infinite exist but the story here stands on its own. Levine and co. know when to let the curtains fall and the credits roll.

At the time it was released, Bioshock felt like the pinnacle of what gameplay, art, writing and sound design could achieve by working in unison. And while gaming has moved beyond what Bioshock offered on all these fronts (as have I), the fact that the Switch can recapture that appeal feels so much more like the future of gaming to me than any amount of teraflops promised by the Playstation 5 and Xbox Series X.

Bioshock: Definitive Edition is available on the Nintendo Switch now as part of Bioshock: The Collection, which also includes remastered versions of Bioshock 2 and Bioshock Infinite. You can grab it via Amazon here.

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags Nintendo SwitchBioshock: Definitive Edition

Read more:

Bioshock: Definitive Edition (Nintendo Switch) review: Returning to the circus of value - PC World