...and why it took 8 years to complete.

I think that is why Ms. Rand wrote a novel instead of a philosophical treatise!

1. They are different words so they have different meanings, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for both of them.

2. The word self doesn't mean "rationally pursuing self interest." "Self" is a term that refers to an existent, it doesn't tell us what to do with that existent. (Note: The definition of self is "A person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, esp. considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action.")

3. (spawned from two) I would argue that individual words should NEVER be prescriptive (tell us what to do with something). Rather, they should be descriptive (telling what is). Even words such as "good" or "bad" don't tells us what to do, only what something is.

Self-absorbed is interesting. I'll have to think about it a little more to consider if it's on the same level as the other two or not. My initial inclination is that it's not. But if that's the case, why? Is it because it's used less?

Maybe... or perhaps that self absorbed. I prefaced all of this with "my non academic definitions". :)

really? I see both of the terms used interchangeably. if you think about the two words like an equation, they should come up with a different meaning. what's wrong with being centered in yourself? wouldn't lots of yoga and meditation types be good with that? The word self could be defined as one rationally pursuing self interest. centered means, you can't easily be knocked down :)

Like...it's ALL about ME. Selfish (self interest) is all about me, but I don't expect anybody else to make anything all about me (just me for me). Self-centered would be me wanting EVERYbody to make it all about me. (I'm babbling, sorry, but to me that's the difference between the two...and it's a pretty big difference if you ask me. One is not demanding of others and the other one is very demanding of others....which leads into “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.")

Yes, that is along the lines of my thoughts. I'm thinking there's more to self-centered though which is more in line with what people mean when they commonly say "selfish."

My non-academic definitions of the two are this:
Selfishness- making my own self-interest a priority (opposite of altruism).
Self centered- thinking everyone should give a shit about you.

well if I were expanding on the theme, I would say that self-centered is not an important word. Words have meaning, and unfortunately, these words are taken out of context so much, I say weed the field for a better harvest. The word is selfish. Own it and take it back. Write it 20 times and use it in a sentence out there in the world. But now you'll know why people are always calm and polite around you. :)

Right, that's why I said I would only submit to an academic journal if I was studying for a PhD. I see no reason to otherwise.

Yes, the Mayo Clinic example is interesting, but like you say, there is only a "slight separation" between the two. My question is what is the separation and why is it important (if it is important at all)?

Sorry, I was joking ala Wizard of Oz. Although I respect some academicians in, say, the Institute, they are a tight club based on meritocracy. Ayn Rand did not have a Phd. in Philosophy. Independent thinking is essential, and liberal arts programs at universities aren't known for churning them out. You might not get your paper accepted by a journal but, if you write well on your chosen topic, you'll have an opportunity to influence people.
Here's my take on the topic. Rand wrote eloquently in the Virtue of Selfishness about the subject and the strong influence of Aristotle shaping her views on the concept. Many philosophers claim she took Aristotle's words out of context and that she ignored concepts such as "altruism" and my favorite, "harmonization." In popular culture, there is slight separation of the two concepts, but the upshot is both are treated as anywhere on the scale from plain rude to a mental disorder and narcissism. Here is my favorite: from Mayo Clinic, if encountering a selfish person, "stay calm and polite at all times." Point is, both words are mostly used incorrectly. A person pursuing virtuous selfishness acts in their own best self interest. A narcissist doesn't behave in their own best self-interest. If you bring in the concept of greed to be a litmus, the same applies. Pursuing wealth at the cost of your own best self interest is not rational and therefore would not meet the litmus for Rand's definition of selfishness.

Haha, I agree generally, but I'm trying to conceive of specific audiences that would benefit greatly from hearing it. I actually think "objectivists" are one of them.

I don't understand your comment.

like if I give you a diploma, you'll finally get that you've got a brain? I can whip one up for you that's kinda fancy.

I'm gonna go with... just about everybody.

No, I doubt I'll ever submit to that--or any other--academic journal unless I go back to school to get a PhD.

Who do you think needs to read it?

I think a clearly defined, rationally argued clarification of these concepts would be very helpful. Getting the people that need to read to actually read it will be the hard part.

Will this be your first submission to the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies that you posted about? :-)