A Business / Organizational Question to Answer

Great post Mike.

---Landon

Post 81

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 1:47pm

> The goal should be not to convert EVERYONE to be genuine philosophical objectivists... We have to be able to persuasively defend the truth of what we see going on in the world without reference to Ayn Rand. Education begins with educating the educators. You can't skip steps. You cannot go from a messiah [Ayn Rand] directly to converted masses. [Mike E]

Mike, I think these are excellent points you are making. (And I certainly would give the think tanks, self-esteem psychologists, writers of books credit as being activists.)

> You haven't answered me directly

Well, isn't indirectly acceptable? I said in post #19 that many good and valid points had already been made and was including your among them, but I wanted to discuss an additional preliminary business/organizational point. [Specifically, looking back at the thread...your list of issues to consider in your posts 9, 18, 26: defining product, market, plan, funding, copyright issues, goal, vision, success, experience...was very important and needs to be part of any successful activism or Objectivist project plan as it goes forward. ]. The only post of yours I disagree with is #40. And my answer is contained in my post #65.

> I still don't get your point

Once again, as I said on this thread: "I was hoping some people would comment on the substance of my post #65. It is long and dense ... I put a lot of work into it. My intention was that people would grapple with the hard issues...I discuss a whole range of issues regarding i) mistakes we have made in the past, ii) some things to be aware of in order for us to become far more successful in the future...take up the challenge of offering some insight on the questions I asked at the end." If you want to refute, disagree, or ask for more on the arguments I raised there -in some detail-, I would love to hear it.

As far as this point is concerned, however -- " I think the "problem" is not about market share or splintering the market but it defining what the goals are in the first place " -- why do you think it is either/or? Why do you think it pointless to be concerned with both?

Phil

Post 82

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 2:08pm

An additional point that I find immensely irritating given the time I've spent posting and explaining:

Several people on this thread and elsewhere seem to think that my suggestions for or criticism of activism or ways of spreading Objectivism is in -opposition- to what Solo and RoR are trying to accomplish. It isn't. Just in logic, if you criticize aspect A of A,B,C,D of how project X is being executed, it doesn't mean you are opposed to B, C, D, and X. Try to be more thick-skinned about criticism, welcome it as a chance to debate and learn, and not view the critic as "the bad guy".

Post 83

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 4:23pm

Phil,

I'm not criticizing you. This is my point of view.

In post #65: "How Many Entrants Can This Market Support? There is a point at which there are too many entrants trying to divide up the pie.."

I'm sure all of the true believers of other world views would say there is no more room for new entrants. That's what we're talking about, a world view? A new renaissance? I'm not sure we can take this question that seriously when our intent in the first place is to change the "mind" of a whole culture.

"But the point is that these changes usually happen -slowly- "

Yes.

"All because of a failure to "Run the Numbers". If I publish a magazine that has 100 paying subscribers or a website that has the same 20 people always doing all the posting or 5 people doing all the activism, is that going to work for me? How long before I run out of patience or capital?"

I'm not familiar with many of these other websites. Prior to SoloHQ I had perused TOC, ARI, Atlasphere, the HPO newsgroup, and several libertarian sites like mises.com. I mostly enjoyed my almost daily read of Dr. Thomas Sowell. What I like about SoloHQ [RoR] was the active participation of many very good writers, and it is interactive. I like being able to participate. I like watching the interaction of young and old, intellectuals, professors, bookstore clerks, musicians, artists, scientists, engineers. They're all here. I NEVER got that feeling on any of the other sites. And there is new material EVERY DAY here. And the archives are there forever. I DON'T CARE IF THERE ARE NOT 100,000 RoR members. To me it is still a success. RIGHT NOW. It is not going to go away. People here are becoming friends and getting real value from this website. I think you especially given your experience as an activist would be especially excited by what's happening here. Of course there is factionalism, but how many times have you heard that organizing objectivists is like herding cats? I really really like Joe's idea of creating intellectual capital. I like the idea that people who may have a significant impact on the world are perhaps hashing out their ideas here.

From your post #81:

" I think the "problem" is not about market share or splintering the market but it defining what the goals are in the first place " -- why do you think it is either/or? Why do you think it pointless to be concerned with both?"

I don't think it is pointless, just that the numbers alone aren't a good judge of the potential success of the project. Think of what intellectual capital is. The constitution, the laws and precedents for law are intellectual capital. They very strongly effect our lives but the vast majority of the population could care less about them. It's the thinkers that matter. If out of RoR comes one great writer it will be a success. If any of the other objectivists organizations have inspired individuals to produce great ideas and great works they were a success also. It's not a numbers game, it's to be able to inspire great things in individuals, who by example will inspire others.

Post 84

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 6:51pm

Mike, your entire post is about the benefits of Solo and RoR and how a successful ideas creating and brainstorming and discussion site can be of value even if the numbers are tiny:

"The numbers alone aren't a good judge of the potential success of the project."

Well, I didn't say they were.

"And there is new material EVERY DAY here. And the archives are there forever. I DON'T CARE IF THERE ARE NOT 100,000 RoR members."

But, once again, my original thread and and posts were not about Solo or the Atlasphere or TOC or any -one- project; it is about the wide array of projects across time of the Objectivist Movement...and considerations which apply in varying degree to varying projects. Moreover, the tiny brainstorming and creating just one great writer website or think tank or ideological magazine can be EVEN MORE successful or have even greater chances of finding and developing that one great writer, if there are more people involved who may develop into that.

"Intellectual capital...It's the thinkers that matter."

The incredibly obvious point is that numbers do matter: If ARI's Books For Schools project gets books into 400,000 hands instead of 40,000, that is many more people from whom a potential genius or great writer can emerge. And we are still waiting for a genius or great writer on the level of Ayn Rand. Hell, I'd even settle for *close*!!!

(And there is also the point that some projects, not necessarily Solo, just fail because there are not enough numbers of writers, supporter, money contributors, subscribers, activists.)

So two reasons why Numbers Do Matter.

Phil

Are we in agreement yet? :-)

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 1/07, 7:13pm)

Post 85

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 8:11pm

Phil,

I agree that more members would indicate a more successful effort. As long as these members truly understood what they were about. In the late 70's early 80's I volunteered for a while at the libertarian headquarters in Berkeley for Clark's campaign. I was distressed by what some of these so called libertarians [which I considered myself at the time] believed in. While I'm counting registered libertarians off of long computer printouts in the different districts and making lists of phone #'s, I'm listening to conversations about "nuking" Tehran. I thought "how does noif translate into encouraging our government to destroy a major city killing tens of thousands of innocents?" Fortunately not all thought the same but I wasn't successful in getting anyone I ran into to talk about John Hosper's or Ayn Rand or Murray Rothbard or Von Mises or Hayek. Just weren't interested. So be careful about getting too creative in getting a "group" of people together. When there's no beer left there may be no people left either. And there are always the nut cases who just want to associate themselves with a losing cause. Or think they're being "bohemian" or something. I ran into the same thing when I looked up a libertarian group in L.A in 1977. I met a guy who actually ran a monthly meeting of libertarians who advocated not letting people with genetic conditions like hemophilia have children "to improve the human gene pool". I got angry with him, told him he was full of shit. I said there may be some disease that pops up in the future that kills everyone EXCEPT the people with hemophilia. Where's your fucking gene pool then? Anyway, I'm a bit jaded by the supposed "quality" of a given group of people calling themselves anything. The average guy in the group may not have the slightest idea what he's there for. Just looking for beer or chicks.

I'm sticking up for RoR because until I found RoR [then solo] it had been many years since I myself was actually fired up about objectivism and Ayn Rand. My philosophy has not changed through the years but I saw little evidence that it was going to "catch on" in any big way in my lifetime. I've always continued to argue for smaller government and individual liberty. I've been successful in getting one or two people to read Ayn Rand, and one friend who previously was quite liberal became fond of Thomas Sowell. This website gives me a chance to converse with other people like me. I appreciate the existence of RoR, I've met [through email] several people who I really like and I hope to someday meet in person. As far as the significance of my experience and relating it to the movement, I can only go back to Nathanial Branden who said the only laboratory for psychological experiment is your own mind. I can only say what has worked for me personally. You have a great deal more experience in "activism" than I do, I respect you, so I have to bow to your experience.

Added on: I missed your edit because I was composing my reply. Good points. Numbers matter, especially if they're contributing money for the cause.

Thanks for making me think and the exchange,

Mike E.
(Edited by Mike Erickson
on 1/07, 8:18pm)

Post 86

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 8:56pm

> So be careful about getting too creative in getting a "group" of people together. When there's no beer left there may be no people left either.

Very true. Quantity without quality is not much use.

> Thanks for making me think and the exchange.

Good. I like lively, civil exchanges: Nothing more frustrating than to write something which took a lot of effort and be met with stony, indifferent silence.

> I'm sticking up for RoR because until I found RoR [then solo] it had been many years since I myself was actually fired up about objectivism and Ayn Rand.

Ah! That's interesting!!

Phil

Post 87

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 9:14pm

Phil,

I have to agree with Mike about staying fired up because of SOLO/RoR. I get to participate in a way that takes up little of my time and makes me feel connected to the Objectivist movement day in and day out.

Even some of the personal stuff and schisms have clarified my thinking about those aspects of the Objectivist movement and helped me to emotionally metabolize a lot of painful things. One thing that has been reinforced is that many Objectivists are not very good at defusing arguments and tend to unnecessarily escalate conflicts.

I don't feel an overall sense of loss from some of the fallings out on this website because if it weren't for this website I wouldn't have gotten to know many of these people at all.

Jim

Post 88

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 9:40pm

Mike said:

Anyway, I'm a bit jaded by the supposed "quality" of a given group of people calling themselves anything. The average guy in the group may not have the slightest idea what he's there for. Just looking for beer or chicks.

Hmm, sounds like you must have hung with some of the same kind of people I did.:-)

Post 89

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 10:37pm

> One thing that has been reinforced is that many Objectivists are not very good at defusing arguments and tend to unnecessarily escalate conflicts.

To say the least.
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 1/07, 10:40pm)

Post 90

Saturday, January 7, 2006 - 10:37pm

Mike,

You just wrote:

When there's no beer left there may be no people left either. And there are always the nut cases who just want to associate themselves with a losing cause. Or think they're being "bohemian" or something.

It's a very wise man who knows his audience...

btw - Excellent post.

Michael

Post 91

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 4:37am

Good. I like lively, civil exchanges: Nothing more frustrating than to write something which took a lot of effort and be met with stony, indifferent silence.

I understand that all too well... feedback has its importance, and not getting it, or getting very few [no matter how many sanctions] is frustrating.

Post 92

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 5:15am

Mike Erickson, I note that the organizations to which you refer in Post 85 reflect political leanings. I can understand why an Objectivist or Libertarian today would consider dropping a nuclear warhead on Tehran given its ties to terrorism -- or oppose it given the overwhelming number of non-terrorists there. I can also understand your distress that someone in 1980 would make such a proposal.

But politics is not really the central theme of Objectivism. Ultimately, the spirit of egoism is. The politics grow out of the ethics, the ethics grow from the metaphysics and epistemology, etc.

I would expect an Objectivist club network to focus on the spirit of living the good life rather than preoccupy itself with politics. In fact, I would want to steer it away from partisan issues like how best to fight terror and toward how best to select one's own dreams, values, roles, goals, etc. If it had a monthly magazine, any political columns would occupy only a small fraction of the material -- and then it would need to show a direct tie back to the good life of the reader.

Political conditions do make a difference in quality of life. But we need to take care not to follow the path of the Marxists who attribute all quality of life to political conditions. People generally flourish or flounder in a free country based on personal philosophy rather than political conditions.

Post 93

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 1:54pm

Good thought, Luke - was always the problem with the groups I had been in - too political, when there was all the rest of the philosophy to deal with...

Post 94

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 4:31pm

Helping people improve their own lives is a key to spreading Objectivism far more rapidly. I didn't read Dean's post #48 carefully enough: It is excellent. Especially on this point: "Teach them how they can get more out of their own lives, and how everyone can get more out of life. Ask them how they are currently doing it. Maybe you'll learn something from them. Maybe you'll have a minor suggestion to offer them...Teach people that they can be worth something to themselves and to others. If they are doing things right, tell them, praise them like it was the greatest thing in the world, like it was one of the most important things to you. Of course, only be genuine. If they are making a difference, tell them, and thank them."

The only difficulty in doing this is most students of Objectivism aren't people persons and would need to enjoy this kind of interaction more and thus find out how to do it in a way that is supportive and not condemnatory or arrogant or lecturing. (Which is why practicing civility on a list like this, even when you are angry or contemptuous is so valuable.) Having this kind of impact usually occurs across time since people integrate or unravel mistakes and contradictions slowly. And your impact will at first occur more with people who know you. But some of it can be put into books or articles: that is why "self-help" books are bestsellers.

Phil

Post 95

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 5:57pm

The only difficulty in doing this is most students of Objectivism aren't people persons and would need to enjoy this kind of interaction more and thus find out how to do it in a way that is supportive and not condemnatory or arrogant or lecturing.

Your actions and others actions change the current state of reality, which impacts your goals, which makes you like/dislike interacting with people. You can use the scientific method to discover the relationship between your actions and the change in reality's state to improve your actions.

(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 1/08, 6:06pm)

Post 96

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 8:00pm

The "splitting up the pie" issue has gotten muddled: A number of people have pointed out on this thread that Objectivism has a potential "pie" of hundreds or thousands or millions of customers or supporters. But that was not in dispute.

Looking well over the horizon is not the point. There is a difference between the *future pie* and the *present pie*

What I noticed in past projects is the "too many Chiefs, not enough Indians" problem. Objectivism right now is a tiny market. We don't have nearly enough readers, rich supporters, writers, great philosophers. Yet what's clear over the decades is everybody wants to run his own project his own way. So they don't usually cooperate or work for another person very long. They want to be in control or differ over strategy. You originally have a small periodical or website which doesn't have a lot of income to be a paying project. Then somebody starts up a competing project on the grounds he can do it better. Maybe he can, but you have to be realistic about whether the current Objectivist customer base... the present pie... is large enough to succeed, to last, to get past the short term. I suspect this problem befell Enlightenment, Objectivity, etc. Now with Solo splitting into RoR, Solopassion, and Objectivist Living and with their already being Atlasphere, ARI and TOC websites and projects, the problem is no one really has time to post or keep up with all of these Oist websites, unless you don't have a day job. It's very hard to get momentum when people keep having splits and schisms. I'm a great believer in the free market and competition...but sometimes it might be better to GROW THE PIE first, before starting up a dozen different publications and websites.

So, for example, if RoR isn't doing things perfectly for you, or you think you can do better, or you'd like to start a newsletter to compete with Free Radical...or you don't like TOC in every respect, you need to stop and think. Realistically assess how many customers you are likely to get if you want to be one-man Chief with very few Indians with you. And if you have enough time and money to not burn out with a hundred people reading you, working with you, posting...or paying you. The reality principle.

While you need to have ambitious dreams, they also need to be realistic given your skill level, experience level, support, and finding. You are required to look at the actual pie, not merely Pie In The Sky, By and By. Most basic preliminary organizational assessment of all: Know your probable current customer base for the first few years - realistically calculate the numbers.

Phil

Note that this discussion is wider than support/criticism of RoR or any particular project; it is about *general principles* --- about strategies and principles for the entire Objectivist movement, past and future?

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 1/08, 9:11pm)

Post 97

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 8:49pm

Phil said:

I need to clarify one aspect of the "splitting up the pie" issue that has gotten confused: The difference between the future pie and the present pie

Very good point.

I took the original question as a question of good business practice if one were going to start a brand new site aimed at the present market, not at improving sites which were already in existence.

If I were to launch such an undertaking I would also look at future potential, but in order to make the site self-supporting in a feasible(to me) amount of time,. today's market and what part of it I believed I could garner would be my first consideration.

I also understand that the *idea* of the site and some thought on what would be included would have came before I started looking at whether it was a viable plan.

Post 98

Sunday, January 8, 2006 - 9:17pm

> I took the original question as a question of good business practice if one were going to start a brand new site aimed at the present market, not at improving sites which were already in existence. [LW]

I think the principles apply to i) learning from the past projects which failed or ran out of steam, ii) to present projects and how to sustain and grow them, and iii) to starting up new ones.

And also to compare Objectivism's support, financing, number of projects with the closest competing movements - the Libertarian and Conservative. We need to study the past "growth curves" or lack of same with other intellectual movements. We have a great deal to learn from their successes. The modern Conservative Movement started in the '50s just like the Objectivist Movement.

What did they do right to get so large in a half century, against tremendous opposition and a liberal and leftist establishment?

Post 99

Monday, January 9, 2006 - 5:56am