Monday, January 11, 2010

Rand and what she's made

I post this video, in particular, for only the first 5 seconds or so. I could have chosen many others; the point is that the vlogger in question has a low opinion of those with whom he disagrees.

It wasn't always that way. Brandon Cropper and I were in college together, years back, in a class or two. It would be an outright lie to say we were friends, and I personally would be very surprised if he remembered me at all. It was pure accident when, last year, I stumbled on his Youtube videos, and had a brief moment of realization that this was the same person who I had shared a class on Existentialism with.

You can imagine how that went, if you watch his large output of videos, on both his current channel and his previous one. Mr. Cropper (his handle of choice) is a vocal, passionate and committed devotee of Ayn Rand and her Objectivist and Ethical Egoist philosophies. He is an ardent foe of what we clumsily refer to as the postmodern, and holds that those who traffic in it and its tropes are worse than wrong, but deceitful, corrupt, vile. So you could expect that a class in French existentialism-- taught by a committed existentialist and populated by undergrads who either accepted the kind of folk relativism popular in all college environs or were too disaffected to challenge the professor-- would not be one that he was likely to enjoy. (That class, incidentally, was taught by Eleanor Godway, a passionate and brilliant teacher; it was among my most important formative intellectual experiences.)

Yet despite the distance between the subject matter and his eventual ideology, I remember Brandon as an engaged and engaging student. He would frequently-- almost always, really-- push back against the reading or against the class's interpretation of it, but never in an aggressive or aggrieved way that threatened the emotional integrity of the class. Even though I was the other most vocal student in the class, and I was the one spouting the constructivist arguments I did (and do) hold to be of use, he was never anything but warm to me-- even if, at times, his frustration towards the professor, the class, and me were all evident. I don't know how much of an intellectual evolution he has undergone, on the level of ideas, since then-- he mentioned Rand frequently then, and was clearly taken with her work.

What is clear, though, is that a frankly incredibly hardening has happened with him since then. He has developed a certitude, and a rejection of any contrary opinion, and a pitched, proud disrespect for anyone who doesn't agree with the entire suite of his intellectual project. In this, he is perfectly typical of the other Objectivists that I have read or interacted with. He is, as far as I understand, quite a popular vlogger among the Objectivist set. The willingness to listen, the curiosity, the belief in the friendship inherent in the exchange of ideas, all seem gone. In their place stand a crude, angry and embittered certitude. Whatever questions he had then he has long since answered now.

And it's this, ultimately, that makes Rand so corrosive, so deadening to the heart of the intellectual project. People far abler than I have prosecuted the case against Rand, and I don't intend to rehash it here. But this tendency of her writings and her philosophy to compel people to slap concrete on the foundation of their own ideas, to build a moat around their intellectual life, to categorize the whole world into the tiny fraction who are worthy and the great horrid mass that are simply not to be listened to in any circumstance... this is the greatest failing of the woman and her teachings. There are a worse things to inspire people towards-- genocide, war, ethnic cleansing-- but still, a philosopher whose greatest contribution is a vast incuriosity is a dismal thing.

And, you know, if you peruse Mr. Cropper's videos for awhile you'll learn that he thinks poor people choose to be in poverty and deserve it, that we should not feed the starving, that the American Indians were a collection of idiots who were rightly colonized by a superior power, that war is often preferable to peace, that religion is a mental disease, that modern cosmology and particle theory are a scientific conspiracy, that we won the Vietnam war, that we are and should be at war with Islam (because Muslims are inherently irrational and hateful), that nuclear armed nations should enforce their advantage in the capacity for physical violence against other nations without conscience, that global warming is a myth, that child labor should be reinstated as it is a moral and rational edifice, that poetry always must rhyme or is not poetry, and his most cherished and frequently expressed idea, that the edifice of modern higher education is in total a conspiracy against the people, perpetrated by educators who knowingly disseminate nonsense, and that this is the reason for his failure to ascend to the pinnacle of intellectual achievement. Some of these can be directly attributed to Rand's philosophy; many can't. But the framework that creates them can indeed be blamed on a corpus that tells people, again and again and again, that the more they are disagreed with, the more it proves their genius; that it is a mark of honor to generate contrary opinion but not to listen to it; that nothing is at last as valuable as an idea that is an affront to the lice, the vermin, the trash.

A friend of mine recently let me know that she was reading Ayn Rand, and was mesmerized by it; and how to respond? To say that the sum of my beliefs stand in opposition to Rand's would be a shocking understatement. To say that I disagree with her would be to fail to express my moral revulsion in the face of her vulgar and ugly project, my horror in the knowledge that such adamant support for ruthlessness, callousness and contempt are not only possible but popular. Yet to tell this friend that she shouldn't read Ayn Rand would be to fail in exactly the way I have identified. No banned books, no forbidden ideas. Even to caution her against what she found there, to deride Rand or her books, before she had read them, would be to break the compact that says that books are to be read first and contradicted second. So what could I do, but to urge that she keep an open mind, and to hope that she enjoyed herself?

There are many things I would like to say to Brandon: to confront him with the oddity of his own frequently unstable economic situation, if his beliefs on virtue and wealth are what they are; to say that there perhaps isn't so much difference between his solicitations for donations for the school he wishes to start and those for charitable causes; to point out that a parents' wealth is the most consistently correlative factor in a child's eventual wealth; to ask how a philosophy that is supposed to be based on Aristotle's logic can contain such rampant argument through assertion; to ask whether there might not be some truth to the inherent destabilization of language; to wonder whether perhaps some aspects of science describe natural phenomena simply too complicated to be dissolved down to broad understandings of "rationality"; to say that rights are meaningless without responsibility; to wonder what to do with the human heart and its yearnings for compassion. But in the face of all this, I'm afraid I would likely be greeted with derision and a closed mind. I don't have to suppose that; he's said it, again and again.

In this conversation, of course, we are disadvantaged. Even after my friend has read and absorbed those works, if she were to take them and run with them as some have-- as Mr. Cropper has-- I couldn't claim certainty, or the mantel of the righteous or rational, in my arguments against those ideas. I couldn't make an appeal to some real and timeless truth. The books themselves, meanwhile, and their many acolytes, insist again and again on this certitude. Against a defiant and explicit "objectivity" we can respond only with the contingent. With the contingent, and with kindness. I have felt a certain affection for Brandon, as I have picked through his videos, even while he is saying things that are frankly repugnant to me. And I would be lying if I didn't say that there are times when he says things that are really perceptive and bright. He's an intelligent guy, with a dedication to his intellectual project I admire. I can't dismiss him, or any other followers of Rand, or risk losing all of them in the way so many of them have lost so many others.

There's a lesson, in all of this, I think, about charity, and about grace. I have frequently failed to involve either in my many debates. I think it is my duty to extend such things to Mr. Cropper, even as he would reject such things from me-- and in the proper way to honor someone else's beliefs when they include not wanting you to honor them, there is another dilemma. The marketplace of ideas is a cold and disorienting world, and I am frequently reminded of how even those who we consider friends and bear affection for can often appear grim and aggressive. The decision to continue to extend the spirit of friendship, and of fraternity, in the face of such divisions is the ultimate refutation of Rand and what she stands for.


paul said...

As someone who read through Rand from age 15-16 and was a mostly devoted follower until age 17, who then went into greener pastures and is now doing philosophy for a living --- the most annoying and soul-crushing thing about Ayn Rand is what a horrible philosopher she is. There simply aren't "arguments"; she makes vaguely Aristotelian and Nietzschean assertions without understanding what metaphysics or arguments are. She is outsider art; she is a Dostoevsky character.

Sonny Bunch said...

Let's leave aside the Rand stuff for a moment, and consider whether or not the difference in venue -- the Internet, talking into a webcam vs. a classroom, talking to real people -- is more responsible for the change in persona than the philosopher he is enamored with. Creating a persona on the web demands stridency and black and whites (or, at least, it is the easiest way to create a persona and gain a following). The same is not necessarily true in the classroom.

Freddie said...

That is true, Sonny, and what I meant to mention, and did not, is that I am not at all of the opinion that Brandon or anyone like him has no reasonable complaints to make about how the educational establishment might treat them. Those arguments are typically overblown, but not baseless, and deserve a friendly hearing. And you're right, of course, about what is necessary to gain a large audience on the Web. So much the worse for us.

I do have to say again, though, that it is very much the explicit and unambiguous dictate of Rand's that her philosophy is to be accepted completely or to be rejected utterly, and that further those who reject it are looters or parasites. The advantage of arguing against Rand is that you very rarely, if at all, need make inferences to make less charitable readings of her work; she has made them all for you.

Ian McCullough said...

Recently, the house next to mine was purchased by the lead singer of a rock band dedicated to Objectivism. The utterly horrific fantasies I imagined have not come about; they are decent, hard working kids and good neighbors if terribly misguided. But it reinforced something I decided about Rand while working in a bookstore - don't judge an Objectivist under 30. Time, and a few kicks in the ass by life, usually takes care of Objectivism. Others harden their resolve like your former classmate.

Morgan Warstler said...

I think you have a weird obsession with this Brandon guy. Otherwise, if you wanted to truthfully critique Rand devotees, you'd go find the best among them and put your brain against theirs.

Just listening to him makes me less impressed with you. THIS is a worthy opponent?

Certainly not you say, Brandon is the archetype Randian...

No he's not. Don't be foolish. He's not even close. You'll find an out-sized percentage of small business owners, hackers, technologists, science fiction readers, CEOs are Rand devotees.

It is honest to simply say this: amongst the individual doers of our society there is a propensity to believe in the philosophical affirmation of doing, in the supremacy of doing.

Also, I'd very much like to see your sourced datasets on this:

"a parents' wealth is the most consistently correlative factor in a child's eventual wealth"

hope this helps.

Anonymous said...

Nice article, but would you elaborate a bit on what you mean when you write "to ask whether there might not be some truth to the inherent destabilization of language" ?

jeff house said...

"Objectivism" is actually "subjectivism". It is one particular subject, Anne Rand, making assertions which she insists you adopt--based entirely on the intensity of her assertion.

If you adopt what she proclaims, then you are a Really Wonderful Person; and, you will be Rich!

As for the no-goods who have no money, or worse, disagree with her, they have no value. |Perhaps they could be deported to camps.

Rufus said...

It is honest to simply say this: amongst the individual doers of our society there is a propensity to believe in the philosophical affirmation of doing, in the supremacy of doing.

It's also pretty much devoid of meaning, isn't it? The people who "do" sure believe in "doing". It's banal, almost to the point of saying nothing in the English language. Projecting meaning onto non-statements is akin to religious charlatanism.

Anonymous said...

Recipe for Objectivism:

Take one portion of Nietzsche and remove all scraps of intellectual integrity and penetrating criticism.

Fold what remains into a thin mixture of middle class philistinism, avarice and generalized dyspepsia.

Mix in a healthy dollop of adolescent narcissism raised to an - almost - metaphysical first principle.

Bake this mixture into an a truly inedible and self-indulgent prose.

Serve as "uncompromising insight" to sad folks who believe that "success" (whatever that is) can be learned from business seminars, motivational speakers and pulp philosophy.

Warning: each serving of Objectivism contains less than 2% daily allowance of most essential intellectual vitamins and minerals

Anonymous said...

I realize that this is early in the year, but this is most certainly the most thoughtful blog post I've read this year--and, in fact, for quite some time. You've put into words what's disappointing about a political philosophy that leads to incuriosity about the world, ideas, and people. I feel that I have no purchase on ideas that are, as you write, so oppositional to my own: where to begin? Your offer of friendship is about the only humane thing one can do in such circumstances.

I'd never read your blog before this, but will continue to do so. Please keep writing.

Morgan Warstler said...

Rufus, you didn't take my meaning.

People who build stuff, start businesses, invent things, hire employees, they are more likely to like Rand because her work recognizes those things are harder to do than other things, like be a journalist, a teacher, a government employee, a 40 hour worker, etc.

My point is that Rand is popular amongst people who work 100 hours a week, not amongst people who are greedy. There are huge swaths of lazy greedy people... those people are not Rand fans, they are socialists.

If you don't see that in your dealings with Rand fans, than you probably are spending a bunch of time talking to guys like Brandon (dude in the video), again my first comment stands, the blogger here needs to compare himself to better libertarian minds.... the fool above is a straw man.

Brian said...

"Rand is popular amongst people who work 100 hours a week, not amongst people who are greedy."

Really? Most business people I know who work that hard don't really have time for Rand or really reading outside of their business field. That's literally 14 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Morgen he's not talking about liberterians. He's talking about Randians I think and they are special kinda of nuts.

Anonymous said...

While this obvservation is gratuitously rude, I'm almost of the mind that adherence to Objectivism (in persons older than 30 or so, following Ian's advice) ought to be added to the DSM as a diagnostic criteria for Cluster B personality disorders.

Jamie said...

This is as perfect a description of what's wrong with Rand as I've seen. Nicely done.

Of course, one of the great ironies of her silly, silly work is that her superficial version of Nietzsche misunderstands and ignores everything that's really challenging and smart about Nietzsche.

You want to find the roots of the philosophical interest in the instability of meaning and in language as the primary object of epistemology? You want to find the first guy to figure out this thing that we sloppily call postmodernism? Go read you some Nietzsche. You start with his "will to power" and its an awfully short trip to Foucault's "will to truth." And that's why Niezche's valuable.

Rands idiotic, insensitive idea of what Neitzche was about (did she know what irony was) is reason enough to dismiss her as a serious thinker or even a serious person.

Many people who are more seriously engaged with philosophy have made this case better than I can. But still. She doesn't even regurgitate other people's work convincingly.

Of course, it could all just be a giant conspiracy that mainstream academic who study literature or philosophy think she's work taking seriously. Yeah, that must be it.

It's like when Fox News people complain about the liberal media. It's pathetic. I admire your generosity in not dismissing these people out of hand. I have trouble mustering up that same generosity. Rand's ideas aren't really more sophisticated than what really smart teenagers think. Lots of smart kids go through a Rand phase. Some of them just don't grow out of it. The idea that we need to take such juvenile silliness seriously is just infuriating, but that's the world we live in. If she were the fringe figure she deserves to be it wouldn't be so bad, but she's sadly influential.

Jamie said...

I just have to point out to Morgan that most teachers work very long hours, and they don't get the kind of compensation that other professions that require similar amounts of education and similar workloads require. Many people who work in higher ed could leave there teaching posts for private jobs and make a lot more money and work a lot less. I know people who've made the transition from academia into industry. Many of us don't because we like what we do. And as a matter of fact, many people in higher ed do a lot of consulting to industry.

The idea in your last post is pretty much the point that original post is refuting. Rand fans, according to you, are hardworking worthy people. All of us who think she's silly couldn't possibly be as hardworking and serious as her fan club.

It's all about moral worth, not about idea. If I was just harder working, I'd see how smart Rand really is.

Come on now. Be serious.

Anonymous said...

As far as Ayn Rand herself goes, my guess is Borderline Personality Disorder seems the most likely disorder, given her traumatic and detached childhood, her need for constant attention, and her pervasive black-and-white thinking.

Anonymous said...

I do not know of Brandon Cropper. But I've read Rand and it seems to me that you have managed to mischaracterize or twist the values that Rand espoused. I do not recall Rand spouting the kinds of broadsides you throw at Cropper: "poor people choose to be in poverty and deserve it, we should not feed the starving, American Indians were idiots rightly colonized by a superior power, war is preferable to peace, religion is a mental disease, child labor should be reinstated as it is a moral and rational edifice, poetry always must rhyme or is not poetry..." I know you are calling out Cropper but let's not tar Rand with any of that brush. To me, Ayn Rand spoke bravely and eloquently to the value and power of the individual. The fact that you find this "repugnant" is interesting.

Anonymous said...

>>Also, I'd very much like to see your sourced datasets on this:
"a parents' wealth is the most consistently correlative factor in a child's eventual wealth" <<

If you're genuinely curious, read Charles and Hurst's paper "The Correlation of Wealth Across Generations" (a web search will easily turn it up). I quote from their conclusion:

Using data from the PSID, we document substantial intergenerational persistence in wealth. The age-adjusted elasticity of child’s wealth with respect to parents’ wealth is around 0.37. These intergenerational relationships are large, especially since we only focus on households who have not yet received bequests from their parents.

I don't have the paper handy, but it's a well-established conclusion that the non-college-graduating children of wealthy parents have higher incomes than the college graduate children of poor parents.

SteveSchalchlin said...

The real issue, if I hear you right, isn't Objectivism or your friend at all. There are several questions here. Beside the basic question of how we treat someone we perceive as "the other."

There is also the question of how we decide that someone else is an "other."

James said...

"While this obvservation is gratuitously rude, I'm almost of the mind that adherence to Objectivism (in persons older than 30 or so, following Ian's advice) ought to be added to the DSM as a diagnostic criteria for Cluster B personality disorders."

Rude? I once knew a smart non-mentally ill objectivist who took a standardized personality test and came back with a diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome. But he didn't have Asperger's syndrome.

He was just smart enough to answer every question with an Objectivist slant...

Morgan Warstler said...

Jamie, don't be ridiculous.

This is why the blogger here says what he says. Because everyone even teachers want to believe they work REALLY HARD.

Of course they really don't. The great great masses, of which teachers are are a part, would crumble under 100 hour work weeks.

The issue isn't why Rand fans are like, the issue I keep pointing out is that the truly hard working tend towards Rand, be they devotees or simply libertarians.

It isn't really up for debate. Show me a someone working harder than than 95% of the others, and I'll show you someone MUCH MORE likely to like appreciate Rand.

Deal with it.

Steve said...

"this is most certainly the most thoughtful blog post I've read this year--and, in fact, for quite some time"

Well said. Subscribed.

Jamie said...

I can't claim that most teachers work 100 hours a week, so I suppose I should concede that point.

Although since very few people work 13plus hour days 7 days a week, I'm not sure what the point is.

Almost nobody works 100 hours a week. My Dad owns a business that has him working 354 days a year. Most week days are 12 hour days. By any reasonable standard, I'd say he works a lot.He doesn't work nearly 100 hours a week.

I'm not really sure why it is admirable to say that you do work 100 hours a week. If you really work those hours and you are doing so for selfish, Randian reasons, then I'm not sure you're a particularly bright person. Unless you really, really love your job.

I'm tempted to say that anybody who works that many hours might deserve ridicule. "Thanks for contributing so much to society chump!" But I'll be nice. All props to the entrepreneur.

I just wanted to stop myself to point out what a silly post this is, but it's your silly point I'm responding to, so I'll forge ahead.

Many teachers do work 50-60 hours a week, which is a bit more than average. A young academic spends most of his/her time on the high end of that number, and they work a lot of nights trying to write publishable material. Academia is in fact very competitive.

Doctors and some lawyers and executive work longer hours. They get paid more too.

Just to be clear, I'm not particularly invested in "who works the hardest." Who cares? I'm on the point because you somehow seem to think it's important.

"The least lazy people love Rand" says you. "That's the silliest thing I've ever heard" says me. "Many higher ed. teachers work longer hours than average (statistically true. . they are in a high percentile. . . we navel gaze so we know silly fact about ourselves), and they think Rand's an idiot" says me. "They aren't in the superduper long hours club. Everybody EVEN TEACHERS think they work hard" says you. "Well, okay, but that point is. . . silly" says me.

Actually, you are kinda making the point for me. According to you, people like Rand because she flatters their view of themselves. People who choose to work really long hours, according to you, think she's great. I doubt that's particularly true (it might be true of some professions), but even if it is, it doesn't speak to the merits of her ideas at all. Is she a cult writer for overachievers? If so, ya'll have fun. But don't expect the rest of us to take you seriously.

The length of this post isn't helping case. Talk bout being unproductive.

Jamie said...

I'm just struck by your use of the phrase "the great masses." Do you wear a cape? Are you looking down from your tower of doom?

Is there an objectivist out there who doesn't perceive him/her self as being one of the exceptional people? How nice for you.

A.R.Yngve said...

So what's the deal with Objectivists objecting to cosmology and particle science? Do tell more. I'm sure we all want to hear every detail of Ayn Rand's Grand Unifying Theory of the Universe.

And please, by all means show us all the available Objectivist research on cosmology and particle physics...

Ah, someone is "working hard" on that:

"Objectivism can not, by its own tenets, accept that the Theory of Relativity is a valid theory, and I personally am working my hardest to come up with an alternative. I'm not a physics student, however, so this is pretty hard. You all seem like smart people, so any help with this would be appreciated."

(Source: )

Yeah, physics is hard. Makes you wonder -- for a whole two seconds -- why the field hasn't been taken over by Objectivism.

But let's be generous here! If Objectivist Physics manages to produce a tangible result, like a spaceship that runs on Pure Willpower, that'd be fantastic. By all means try! I guarantee there will be no scientific conspiracy to stand in the way. Promise!

[Does Secret Handshake of the Global Scientist Cabal]

Morgan Warstler said...

Jamie, I'm not an objectivist.

I said people working long long hours, submerged in something of their own creation, are the kind of people who like Rand.

There are such a group of people, that is a small observable romantic group... great accomplishments are more likely born from this group.

You can poo-poo them, but They contribute greatly to society. You can not grant them their due. But you will buy their products, you will use their inventions, and they will gain greater leverage in the world for their work.

None of this are you disputing. I think you just don't like me pointing it out.

Instead you want to pretend that Rand's fanbase is more like the goof-ball embedded above.

Why lie to yourself? Do you really resent the weirdos who sacrifice everything to see their dream come alive? Do you do the same thing with sports heroes?

Let me say it this way, love of Rand is about someone feeling special, it is about recognizing that their is such a thing as, "special."

People who dislike her, tend to have a real problem with that concept. Do you?

Jamie said...

Do I "resent" people who work hard and achieve stuff? No.

Do I think they are better at political or philosophical thinking, more insightful, or necessarily smarter? No.

Because you work "100 hours a week" and build stuff doesn't mean you are an expert in anything outside of your field. Which is kinda my point. You argue that people who work really hard in certain fields like Rand and I should be impressed by that for some reason.

The political or philosophical opinions of whatever hard working capitalist you'd like to name don't really hold much sway just because they work really hard and are therefore somehow "special." Some of those people ARE special. Some of them are just privileged. It's not really my business to rank people though. What's the point? People generally work hard for motivations other than helping society. And I should valorize that because? (I'm not condemning it either. It's neither here nor there, which is kinda why Ayn Rand is foolish.)

Are some high achieving capitalists "special"? Sure. They contribute stuff. Great. But can we extrapolate any kind of useful political, economic, philosophical ideas from the idea that "hey, Steve Jobs is really good at designing and marketing computers!" Not that I can see.

Does that mean that if I'm a political liberal (I am sometimes, I'm not sometimes) that I "resent" Steve Jobs for having lots of cash? That's stupid and you know it. You won't come out and say it, but that seems to be your implication. "You don't like Ayn Rand because you resent successful people."

I LIKE exceptional people. I find mediocrity and banality stifling. Are workaholics and sports heroes in my "special class" of people. No actually. Artists and philosophers, humanitarians, great teachers, articulate contrarians . . . now we're talking.

I DO like special, exceptional people, which is why I don't like Ayn Rand. She's popular because she's easy to understand and because her ideas flatter the reader. "I'm one of the special chosen smart people." If a 16 year old is capable of really grasping it, it ain't that special. I used to be a 16 year old. How many people go through a Rand phase in college?

One of the big problems I have with your earlier posts (if you haven't noticed) is that you privilege the work that entrepreneurs do over the work that other people do. I picked teachers out of the list because I know more about that. I could easily pick "government workers" who are often smart and hard working as well. I know "government workers" who are highly trained engineers who do highly specialized difficult work. Politics is highly specialized and difficult work. Politicians work insane hours. Are they in the chosen group? Only if you agree with their politics?

Ayn Rand is emotionally gratifying for some people. Some of those people might be very productive people who work really hard.Of course, I'm perhaps conceding the point while insisting that its a stupid point. Fair enough. You win. I'm sure there are some really smart, hardworking people who contribute a lot to society who like Ayn Rand. But only if you concede that there are some really smart, hardworking people out there who think she's a cretin. That doesn't get us very far does it?

Mary Anne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mary Anne said...

I think many of us have had our Ayn Rand 'period'. Kind of marks a stage in the evolution of consciousness. In your comments and the posts that follow I hear what I have come to understand as different perspectives on what is 'true'. Been blogging on this myself to try to intergrate quantum weirdness and what I experience as reality. Am at the point in my own evolution where I 'get' that everything is true and nothing is true.... Neti, Neti. You have your truth, Mr. Cooper has his, I have mine. It has to do with our 'position' in spacetime. A unique perspective.... a holographic fragment. Within us all is some fuzzy awareness of the whole picture, but the details? I think that is what everyone is trying to get at and doing so in whatever way makes sense to them.

Anonymous said...

Anoother anoonymoose said:
"I'm almost of the mind that adherence to Objectivism...ought to be added to the DSM as a diagnostic criteria for Cluster B personality disorders."

It's there, under a broader category:

DSM-IV-TR = 301.81

ICD-10 = F60.8

MrCropper said...

For more on the Objectivist view of particle physics, see David Harriman's "crisis in Physics" and other works.

Mr. Cropper, himself

Anonymous said...

[url=]знакомства для взрослых видео[/url][url=]знакомства в жуковском секс[/url][url=]знакомствами с парами для секса[/url]

[url=]знакомства секс в днепре[/url]
Сьюзан стукнула кулаком по столу:
«Не может быть, что служба уже закончилась! Это невозможно! Да мы только вошли!» [url=]24 днепр секс знакомства[/url]
[url=]секс порно в контакте[/url][url=]знакомства с бисексуалками[/url]
[url=]знакомства владикавказ секс[/url][url=]знакомства для секса в торжке[/url]
[url=]секс знакомства в кунгуре[/url][url=]лучший сайт секс знакомства[/url]
[url=]знакомства секс калининград[/url][url=]интим знакомства в беларусь[/url]

Anonymous said...

[url=]киев знакомства интим[/url][url=]мобильные сайты секс знакомств[/url][url=]интим знакомства ташкента[/url]
[url=]секс знакомства с фото онлайн[/url]
[url=]знакомства в одессе интим[/url]
— Привет, это Дэвид. — Он замолчал, не зная, что сказать дальше. Беккер терпеть не мог говорить с автоответчиком: только задумаешься, а тот уже отключился. — Прости, не мог позвонить раньше, — успел сказать он. Подумал, не рассказать ли ей все. Но решил этого не делать. — Позвони коммандеру. Он тебе все объяснит. — Сердце его колотилось. Как все это глупо, подумал он, быстро выпалил: — Я люблю тебя! — и повесил трубку.
— Мы должны позвонить ему и проверить. [url=]секс знакомства в волжске[/url]
[url=]знакомства для секса для женаты[/url][url=]знакомства в екатеринбурге для секса[/url]
[url=]интим знакомства сургута[/url][url=]знакомства для подростков секс[/url]
[url=]знакомства в набережных челнах интим[/url][url=]интим знакомства кропоткин[/url]
[url=]секс знакомства в кстове[/url][url=]знакомства в нижнем новгороде для секса[/url]
[url=]интим знакомства гродно[/url]

Anonymous said...

— Да, убит.Он стал ждать, когда его компьютер разогреется, и Сьюзан занервничала. Что, если Хейл захочет взглянуть на включенный монитор «ТРАНСТЕКСТА»? Вообще-то ему это ни к чему, но Сьюзан знала, что его не удовлетворит скороспелая ложь о диагностической программе, над которой машина бьется уже шестнадцать часов. Хейл потребует, чтобы ему сказали правду. Но именно правду она не имела ни малейшего намерения ему открывать. Она не доверяла Грегу Хейлу. Он был из другого теста — не их фирменной закваски. Она с самого начала возражала против его кандидатуры, но АНБ посчитало, что другого выхода нет. Хейл появился в порядке возмещения ущерба. [url=]Пресс форма, алмазный карандаш и абразивный круг[/url]
[url=]Фасадная краска ссылка[/url]
— Джабба, мне не до шуток.— Червь набирает скорость! — крикнула Соши, склонившаяся у монитора в задней части комнаты. — Неверный ключ! Все застыли в ужасе. На экране перед ними высветилось сообщение об ошибке:Сьюзан едва заметно кивнула:
— Да ну тебя, Чед, — засмеялась она. — Я гожусь тебе в матери.Чатрукьяну было всего двадцать три года, и он относительно недавно начал работать в команде обеспечения безопасности, однако был хорошо подготовлен и отлично знал правила: в шифровалке постоянно дежурил кто-то из работников его службы… особенно по субботам, когда не было криптографов.
Дэвид Беккер остановился в коридоре у номера 301. Он знал, что где-то за этой витиеватой резной дверью находится кольцо. Вопрос национальной безопасности. [url=]гидробарьер Гидро, гтдро паробарьер[/url][url=]Смотри здесь гидробарьер[/url][url=]фасадная краска Евро Фасад Аква при окраске известковой штукатурки[/url][url=]Газоблок цена, материал читайте здесь[/url][url=]Гидробарьер, gumanenko смотрите на stroyploshadka[/url]
[url=]гидробарьер, регистрация[/url][url=]силиконовый герметик для наружных работ[/url]
[url=]#a#газоблок купить цена#/a#[/url][url=]короед штукатурка минеральная[/url]
[url=]круги отрезные по металлу корундовые диаметр[/url][url=]На сайте stroyploshadka[/url]
[url=]#a#купить газоблок#/a#, контакты[/url][url=]силиконовый герметик прозрачный[/url]
[url=]На сайте stroyploshadka[/url]

Anonymous said...

Компьютерные вирусы столь же разнообразны, как и те, что поражают человека. Подобно своим природным аналогам они преследуют одну цель — внедриться в организм и начать размножаться. В данном случае организмом является «ТРАНСТЕКСТ».Беккер посмотрел на нее внимательнее. К ней как-то не шло сквернословие — как неуместны сточные воды в хрустальном графине. Но, приглядевшись, он убедился, что она вовсе не такая изысканная особа, как ему показалось вначале. Веки припухли, глаза красные, левая рука у локтя — вся в кровоподтеках с синеватым отливом. [url=]sait[/url]
— Может быть, сказала, куда идет?— Es todo? Это все?Коммандер, пытаясь приоткрыть дверь, прижал лицо вплотную к узенькой щелке.
Его дыхание стало ровным.— Да. Шестнадцать.
Но вместо того чтобы нарушить правила, женщина выругала самоуверенного североамериканца и отсоединилась. [url=]sait[/url]