OT: Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”

[blahblahblah]

Dave, you missed the third flaw. Some people are sociopathic cheaters, and many of them never get caught or punished. Also, the personalities that cheat gravitate towards positions of power and, over time, the levers of power become concentrated in the hands of sociopathic cheaters. This is the big failing of communism, too. The fact that Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay bilked people out of billions isn’t a fault of capitalism, it’s a fault of certain sociopathic humans. Laws and enforcement are unfortunate necessities to ensure that as many of the cheaters as possible get caught. Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.

Why does anyone think that *any* system thought up by flawed human beings could ever be perfect? Didn’t they pay attention in Sunday school?

[jficquette]

davelj,

What she doesn’t take into account is the simple truth that not all humans were created equal in abilities.

While a relatively high IQ doesn’t guarantee success, IQ is largest correlating factor to how much people make. Its also the largest correlator for those who commit crime. The average IQ of those in prison is between 70-75.

The Human animal is defined by its intelligence. Whatever defines a species and how the individual members fit relative to that determines how the spoils are divided.

John

[jficquette]

davelj,

What she doesn’t take into account is the simple truth that not all humans were created equal in abilities.

While a relatively high IQ doesn’t guarantee success, IQ is largest correlating factor to how much people make. Its also the largest correlator for those who commit crime. The average IQ of those in prison is between 70-75.

The Human animal is defined by its intelligence. Whatever defines a species and how the individual members fit relative to that determines how the spoils are divided.

John

[jficquette]

davelj,

What she doesn’t take into account is the simple truth that not all humans were created equal in abilities.

While a relatively high IQ doesn’t guarantee success, IQ is largest correlating factor to how much people make. Its also the largest correlator for those who commit crime. The average IQ of those in prison is between 70-75.

The Human animal is defined by its intelligence. Whatever defines a species and how the individual members fit relative to that determines how the spoils are divided.

John

[jficquette]

davelj,

What she doesn’t take into account is the simple truth that not all humans were created equal in abilities.

While a relatively high IQ doesn’t guarantee success, IQ is largest correlating factor to how much people make. Its also the largest correlator for those who commit crime. The average IQ of those in prison is between 70-75.

The Human animal is defined by its intelligence. Whatever defines a species and how the individual members fit relative to that determines how the spoils are divided.

John

[jficquette]

davelj,

What she doesn’t take into account is the simple truth that not all humans were created equal in abilities.

While a relatively high IQ doesn’t guarantee success, IQ is largest correlating factor to how much people make. Its also the largest correlator for those who commit crime. The average IQ of those in prison is between 70-75.

The Human animal is defined by its intelligence. Whatever defines a species and how the individual members fit relative to that determines how the spoils are divided.

John

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]davelj,

What she doesn’t take into account is the simple truth that not all humans were created equal in abilities.

While a relatively high IQ doesn’t guarantee success, IQ is largest correlating factor to how much people make. Its also the largest correlator for those who commit crime. The average IQ of those in prison is between 70-75.

The Human animal is defined by its intelligence. Whatever defines a species and how the individual members fit relative to that determines how the spoils are divided.

John[/quote]

Really? The Journal of Intelligence found absolutely no correlation between IQ and net worth, which is highly correlated with “how much people make.” Here’s the scatterplot:

IQ is merely one form of intelligence – albeit a very valuable one. But the most successful folks I’ve ever met had a very high Social IQ. I’d guess that their traditional IQs were all over the map.

But to your point, I think that Ayn Rand allowed for such differences in genetic attributes. I think she just thought that those less fortunate should be happy to live in a world where they could benefit from those with greater inherent abilities. So I think you’re incorrect on this point.

Which of her writings gave you this impression?

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]davelj,

What she doesn’t take into account is the simple truth that not all humans were created equal in abilities.

While a relatively high IQ doesn’t guarantee success, IQ is largest correlating factor to how much people make. Its also the largest correlator for those who commit crime. The average IQ of those in prison is between 70-75.

The Human animal is defined by its intelligence. Whatever defines a species and how the individual members fit relative to that determines how the spoils are divided.

John[/quote]

Really? The Journal of Intelligence found absolutely no correlation between IQ and net worth, which is highly correlated with “how much people make.” Here’s the scatterplot:

IQ is merely one form of intelligence – albeit a very valuable one. But the most successful folks I’ve ever met had a very high Social IQ. I’d guess that their traditional IQs were all over the map.

But to your point, I think that Ayn Rand allowed for such differences in genetic attributes. I think she just thought that those less fortunate should be happy to live in a world where they could benefit from those with greater inherent abilities. So I think you’re incorrect on this point.

Which of her writings gave you this impression?

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]davelj,

What she doesn’t take into account is the simple truth that not all humans were created equal in abilities.

While a relatively high IQ doesn’t guarantee success, IQ is largest correlating factor to how much people make. Its also the largest correlator for those who commit crime. The average IQ of those in prison is between 70-75.

The Human animal is defined by its intelligence. Whatever defines a species and how the individual members fit relative to that determines how the spoils are divided.

John[/quote]

Really? The Journal of Intelligence found absolutely no correlation between IQ and net worth, which is highly correlated with “how much people make.” Here’s the scatterplot:

IQ is merely one form of intelligence – albeit a very valuable one. But the most successful folks I’ve ever met had a very high Social IQ. I’d guess that their traditional IQs were all over the map.

But to your point, I think that Ayn Rand allowed for such differences in genetic attributes. I think she just thought that those less fortunate should be happy to live in a world where they could benefit from those with greater inherent abilities. So I think you’re incorrect on this point.

Which of her writings gave you this impression?

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]davelj,

What she doesn’t take into account is the simple truth that not all humans were created equal in abilities.

While a relatively high IQ doesn’t guarantee success, IQ is largest correlating factor to how much people make. Its also the largest correlator for those who commit crime. The average IQ of those in prison is between 70-75.

The Human animal is defined by its intelligence. Whatever defines a species and how the individual members fit relative to that determines how the spoils are divided.

John[/quote]

Really? The Journal of Intelligence found absolutely no correlation between IQ and net worth, which is highly correlated with “how much people make.” Here’s the scatterplot:

IQ is merely one form of intelligence – albeit a very valuable one. But the most successful folks I’ve ever met had a very high Social IQ. I’d guess that their traditional IQs were all over the map.

But to your point, I think that Ayn Rand allowed for such differences in genetic attributes. I think she just thought that those less fortunate should be happy to live in a world where they could benefit from those with greater inherent abilities. So I think you’re incorrect on this point.

Which of her writings gave you this impression?

[davelj]

[quote=jficquette]davelj,

What she doesn’t take into account is the simple truth that not all humans were created equal in abilities.

While a relatively high IQ doesn’t guarantee success, IQ is largest correlating factor to how much people make. Its also the largest correlator for those who commit crime. The average IQ of those in prison is between 70-75.

The Human animal is defined by its intelligence. Whatever defines a species and how the individual members fit relative to that determines how the spoils are divided.

John[/quote]

Really? The Journal of Intelligence found absolutely no correlation between IQ and net worth, which is highly correlated with “how much people make.” Here’s the scatterplot:

IQ is merely one form of intelligence – albeit a very valuable one. But the most successful folks I’ve ever met had a very high Social IQ. I’d guess that their traditional IQs were all over the map.

But to your point, I think that Ayn Rand allowed for such differences in genetic attributes. I think she just thought that those less fortunate should be happy to live in a world where they could benefit from those with greater inherent abilities. So I think you’re incorrect on this point.

Which of her writings gave you this impression?

[davelj]

[quote=CONCHO]Dave, you missed the third flaw. Some people are sociopathic cheaters, and many of them never get caught or punished. Also, the personalities that cheat gravitate towards positions of power and, over time, the levers of power become concentrated in the hands of sociopathic cheaters. This is the big failing of communism, too. The fact that Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay bilked people out of billions isn’t a fault of capitalism, it’s a fault of certain sociopathic humans. Laws and enforcement are unfortunate necessities to ensure that as many of the cheaters as possible get caught. Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.

Why does anyone think that *any* system thought up by flawed human beings could ever be perfect? Didn’t they pay attention in Sunday school?[/quote]

Actually I think that Ayn Rand recognized that there were sociopathic cheaters – as you call them – among us. And she recognized, as you do, that such folks seek out positions of power. I think she believed that such folks would have a much harder time lording over the masses under capitalism than under communism, which I think is largely, although not completely, correct. Certainly many of the socialistic characters in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were sociopathic power seekers. So, I don’t think the presence of this human trait was completely lost on her.

[davelj]

[quote=CONCHO]Dave, you missed the third flaw. Some people are sociopathic cheaters, and many of them never get caught or punished. Also, the personalities that cheat gravitate towards positions of power and, over time, the levers of power become concentrated in the hands of sociopathic cheaters. This is the big failing of communism, too. The fact that Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay bilked people out of billions isn’t a fault of capitalism, it’s a fault of certain sociopathic humans. Laws and enforcement are unfortunate necessities to ensure that as many of the cheaters as possible get caught. Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.

Why does anyone think that *any* system thought up by flawed human beings could ever be perfect? Didn’t they pay attention in Sunday school?[/quote]

Actually I think that Ayn Rand recognized that there were sociopathic cheaters – as you call them – among us. And she recognized, as you do, that such folks seek out positions of power. I think she believed that such folks would have a much harder time lording over the masses under capitalism than under communism, which I think is largely, although not completely, correct. Certainly many of the socialistic characters in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were sociopathic power seekers. So, I don’t think the presence of this human trait was completely lost on her.

[davelj]

[quote=CONCHO]Dave, you missed the third flaw. Some people are sociopathic cheaters, and many of them never get caught or punished. Also, the personalities that cheat gravitate towards positions of power and, over time, the levers of power become concentrated in the hands of sociopathic cheaters. This is the big failing of communism, too. The fact that Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay bilked people out of billions isn’t a fault of capitalism, it’s a fault of certain sociopathic humans. Laws and enforcement are unfortunate necessities to ensure that as many of the cheaters as possible get caught. Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.

Why does anyone think that *any* system thought up by flawed human beings could ever be perfect? Didn’t they pay attention in Sunday school?[/quote]

Actually I think that Ayn Rand recognized that there were sociopathic cheaters – as you call them – among us. And she recognized, as you do, that such folks seek out positions of power. I think she believed that such folks would have a much harder time lording over the masses under capitalism than under communism, which I think is largely, although not completely, correct. Certainly many of the socialistic characters in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were sociopathic power seekers. So, I don’t think the presence of this human trait was completely lost on her.

[davelj]

[quote=CONCHO]Dave, you missed the third flaw. Some people are sociopathic cheaters, and many of them never get caught or punished. Also, the personalities that cheat gravitate towards positions of power and, over time, the levers of power become concentrated in the hands of sociopathic cheaters. This is the big failing of communism, too. The fact that Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay bilked people out of billions isn’t a fault of capitalism, it’s a fault of certain sociopathic humans. Laws and enforcement are unfortunate necessities to ensure that as many of the cheaters as possible get caught. Laissez-Faire systems could only work if people were angels, but then of course communism would work great if everyone were angels too.

Why does anyone think that *any* system thought up by flawed human beings could ever be perfect? Didn’t they pay attention in Sunday school?[/quote]

Actually I think that Ayn Rand recognized that there were sociopathic cheaters – as you call them – among us. And she recognized, as you do, that such folks seek out positions of power. I think she believed that such folks would have a much harder time lording over the masses under capitalism than under communism, which I think is largely, although not completely, correct. Certainly many of the socialistic characters in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were sociopathic power seekers. So, I don’t think the presence of this human trait was completely lost on her.

[Author]

Posts