Whenever you hear someone using psychobabble as an argument, just know that they prefer to live by feelings, rather than reason.

Hi Ragnell.

I wrote my post above from memory of seeing discussions on this topic in the past and doing some of my own research (Internet searches) to discover what the hoopla was all about. Simply put, some Rand detractors were insisting Rand had a sociopathic disorder because she scribbled some notes during the Hickman trial that seemed to have sympathy or even admiration towards Hickman. Such was not the case at all. The trial fascinated the whole country at the time, not just from the horror of the crime itself, but because a 20 year old could be so blatant in his defense. Rand simply noted what many others were seeing (hearing or reading actually, since there was no TV) as a possible use in a future novel. It was the "trial of the century", why wouldn't an astute author make some insightful observations and take a few notes? Rand detractors, of course, twisted the whole thing when Rands notes were published.

Surf the Net on various points of the subject and you'll see lots of information pop up.

I would just tell them they were projecting ;)

In a nutshell:

Those brainwashed into self-sacrifice as a social good see anyone asserting "the virtue of selfishness" as a threat to their belief and therefore as evil. Their emotional programming shortcircuits their rational thought process, so they cannot see the continuum from masochistic self-abnegation and desire for maximum suffering that emulates Jesus's sacrifice for the whole human race, to the other extreme of sadistic exploitation and subjugation of others.

Altruists see only the two terminal points of this continuum and are not able to conceive of a rational alternative of neither sacrificing themselves nor accepting/demanding sacrifices from others. The fresh clean air that Ayn Rand provided for rational self-interest, respecting equal rights of others, basing relationships upon mutual benefit, is alien to those steeped in religious dogma and tribal indoctrination of the group owning the individual.

By this analysis, it becomes understandable that the passion to support the tribe will even lead their members to eager suicide for the alleged greater good. And anyone who asserts the rights of an individual to be non-negotiable in the face of collective demand will be labeled an outcast, apostate, traitor and sociopath.

This phenomenon of group rejection of the free radical can be seen everywhere, not just among altruists. Those whose memes don't match closely enough will be rejected, condemned, excommunicated or even executed lest they contaminate the rest of the flock. It is the war of ideas we see all around us.

All the misery and suffering of our species comes from conflicting ideas taking physical action even onto genocide and mutual assured destruction through wars. Such is the power of ideas, and why the world desperately needs John Galt's oath.

Laugh, uncontrollably. Then punch the person in the nose.
Seriously, I'm 74 years old. Don't argue with idiots,you won't change them. And some of the idiocity might rub off on you.

Some people profit from her name in what I would consider a wrong way. I certainly would not include the movies or things like that in that category. I am probably thinking of things that occurred more when she was living. I do not think the people who call her a sociopath are profiting in any way. They have a different agenda.

Do you mean people are profiting by misrepresenting her name and her philosophy? If so, I guess there's some irony there.

The reason one could use this attack is because she seemed detached in interviews and when speaking about an issue this is appropriate. She may have been impatient subconsciously in explaining more sensitively how she arrived at her conclusions. If her remarks are taken out of context they could appear cold. It is a good attack to use to try to destroy the purity of her philosophy. Anyone with any understanding of what she was presenting will not be impressed. I do sometimes worry that people who love her books as I do seem like they have joined a cult. It's almost like they want to look only from her point of view. Every now and then I also think people are making money on her name. It's sad because she gave so much.

Thanks for bringing that up! I've always wondered. But I still don't quite understand the point about admiring his cheekiness. If I can derail my own thread a bit at this point, any more input about Hickman, and why she appeared to hold him in esteem?

I think AR showed compassion through her characters in her book. There were so many examples.

That is how I judge how afraid the left is of someone as well. The more vicious the attack, the more I will look deeper into the object of their attentions. Which means Ted Cruze will be get lots of free advertising from baseless leftist attacks in the near future.

I've seen reference to this a long time ago. The moniker "sociopath" was used to describe Rand regarding her notes on the trial of the heinous murderer William Hickman in the late 1920s. It was a famous case which captured the attention of the entire country, including the attention of Ayn Rand, who made notes for possible future use in a novel. Her notes seemed to hold an admiration for the murderer himself (which she is falsely accused of having), but in fact were noting admiration for the cheekiness of the defendant. Essentially, if evil could have such chutzpah in defense of itself, why can't good? Now, note the trials of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead and Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged. The myth continues to this day but has been debunked decades ago.

Right. The critic either does not understand Rand, or they do not understand the term sociopath. In either case, it is ad hominem, just thrown out in a desperate attempt to avoid dealing with the real issues. In any case, it might be better to answer with a question rather than an accusation. For example, "What about Rand makes her a sociopath?" Or, "Even if that is true, how does that address the issue at hand?"

I've heard so many try to discredit Ayn. From her being a poor writer to she is just a nut case. So claim to have read her work however when asked about certain points you discover they didn't. I usually refer my mind back to Forest Gump stupid is as stupid does.

It is the "attack of choice" because the layman's idea of a sociopath is acting without emotion. The detractors are usually ruled by emotional decisions.

Bravo!

Ha, I like that. Donkee would be at the level of some of the classes and professors...no, put him higher...

Ditto that. I will not watch anything in which Tina Fey appears. I even change channels when her stupid hair commercial comes on. So, if sponsors think they are selling to us, they are missing the train.

Being accused of being "sociopath" (whatever the contextual definition of the moment might be) by leftists looters is a badge of honor.

If whoever you are conversing with calls Rand a sociopath, it is obvious they are speaking from ignorance, never having read anything she has written. If they claim they have, they are either lying or are as dumb as a box of rocks. In either case, they are not worth your time. But if you don't want to appear as if you are acceding, you might answer with just what I said above: "You either haven't read what she has written, or you're too stupid to comprehend what she has written."

I fear your simple statement is correct.

Jan

winterwind - You are indeed a black belt mouth.

Jan

I like that and may use it, DrZarkov. I can see myself talking with one of my liberal friends and when someone called Sarah Palin 'crazy', just pointing out that this was the intellectual's equivalent of calling someone a 'booger'. Or when they said that Rand was a 'sociopath', quietly asking what their definition of 'sociopath' really was and how that correlated with Any Rand's life...and when they could not point to any facts to substantiate their claim, pointing out that they were engaging in intellectual mudslinging.

Jan, hmmm - some possibilities here

Ha! Good story. You could imitate Donkee (Shrek) to have some fun in such classes. "Here I am! Choose me! Choose me!)"

Jan, maybe wouldn't get a good grade