what do you think about the following opinion of Rand's?

Could it be that the "prototype thinkers" (the folks who base a concept on a sort of mental "average" of early-encountered specific instances of the concept) are the second-handers of the world, and the folks who do it Rand's way (basing a concept on observable shared features) are the first-handers?

A "prototype thinker" --
who builds a concept for "bird" as a mental database of "what Mommy and Daddy called 'birds' when I was learning to talk: seagulls, pigeons, canaries, etc. -- but not ostriches because they're very different and I didn't encounter them till later on" --
arguably functions in a "second-hand" way ("It's a bird because other people said so") unlike someone who builds a concept of "bird" based on data that he or she can verify independently (the presence or absence of feathers.)

I had a much longer post about this, but it disappeared when I clicked the "Post/Preview" button.

Post 81

Friday, September 25, 2009 - 4:31pm

You can't really call them thinkers, but yes, people who cannot properly induce a concept on their own are not prime movers. But maybe your post was meant for the other thread?

Post 82

Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 5:24am

Yes -- I should have put my post into the other thread.

Post 83

Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 9:36am

Given that:

people who cannot properly induce a concept on their own are not prime movers

How early in life can one distinguish a prime mover from a second-hander? Also, can a second-hander (who has noticed and accepted the fact) do anything to become a prime mover?

Post 84

Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 9:48am

I already addressed that in the proper thread, here, in paragraph five.

Post 85

Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 10:28am

How can second-handers become prime movers? Do the work.

The proper method of teaching any subject is to show the derivation from the premises. In order to learn multiplication it is a mistake, but an all too common one, to have children simply memorize their multiplication tables, that 4 x 5 = 20. What needs to be shown is that if one counts four sets of five objects or five sets of four objects one gets to twenty. I remember the joy I experienced when we derived the gas laws in chemistry from the assumption of point masses in a cubical space with three degrees of freedom in motion. And how we spent the entire year in tenth grade geometry deriving proofs from the Euclidean axioms. That second class was the great discriminator. Those who didn't get it dropped out of the advanced class track. Do the work.

Post 86

Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 11:31am

I'd estimate that most people by adolescence have the cognitive wherewithal to grasp this difference, and some earlier.

I'm a little uncomforatble with the phrase "prime mover," which, as Rand uses it, means a major, world-beater creator, the kind who inhabited the valley in Atlas Shrugged. "First-hander" is more inclusive, something nearly anyone can be.

I second #85.

Post 87

Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 11:52am

What really hurts a kid is when the teachers are all 2nd handers and aren't willing to explain what they often clearly didn't understand to begin with. I struggled with multiplication initially simply because I didn't grasp that meaning of "of," and the teacher forbade us using "times," which made perfect sense to me, but refused to explain to me why "of" fitted.

In English, the teacher in 5th or 6th grade, a Mr. Stewart, had a severe Southern accent, and pronounced "linking" as if it were "Lincoln." I found myself really embarrassed to discover my error some weeks downstream, after puzzling over why a verb form would be named after a president. This particular teacher, however, was an extreme authoritarian who discouraged any questions and ridiculed anyone who dared ask one.

(He was also Assistant Principal, and openly contemptuous of the Principle for being too lax on discipline, and, when the Principal was unable to make it one day, used the opportunity to paddle about half of the boys in the class - for the crime of asking another boy why he had been paddled.)

Several of the parents were upset over this incident, but I recall that most of them, including my own, staunchly backed Mr. Stewart, on the general grounds that no amount of discipline was too much, and, besides, we had certainly committed many other unpunished sins (and we adults have to stick together or risk losing control).

Of course, none of Mr. Stewart's or any other teacher's crazy antics ultimately accomplished more than to teach us that people in power tend to be the very people you don't want to be in power. They generally sought that goal, for all the wrong reasons.

The typical classroom, whether state or private, is a dictatorship enforced via terror, with a constant tension between the teacher, who is trying to survive and meet official expectations, and a bunch of kids, some of whom are trying to learn something, but virtually all of whom consider the teacher to be fair game, based on long experience.

The miracle is that the kids learn anything, much less a rigorously validated conceptualization of the subject matter. And the multiple guess tests are gauged to the method of fuzzy approximations, perfectly geared to a mentality that is based on guessing what is wanted rather than demonstrating the understanding of what is provably correct.

Post 88

Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 12:22pm

No, Peter, everyone who thinks for himself is a prime mover in the full and most meaningful sense of the word.

Post 89

Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 4:23pm

People object to "times" because they see it as the improper third person singular of a vulgar verb, "to times" as if he timeses means he multplies. But the word "times" in three times five is a plural noun, not a verb. Consider "five counted one time is five," while "five taken two times makes ten," and "(taken) three times, five makes fifteen." Duh. If you asked, "What is five three times?" you would not have this problem.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/27, 9:08am)

Post 90

Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 9:03am

Well, you've met teachers as weird as some of mine -- or almost.

Ask me sometime about the high school English teacher who punished a young man for -- correctly -- observing that not all languages follow the word order of English.
The teacher had stated as "fact" -- and as the premise for some grammatical point that she was trying to explain or to prove -- that all languages have identical word order; the student's family spoke Japanese, whose word order differs greatly from that of English. When the student raised his hand and mentioned the inconvenient fact, the teacher replied: "Now that you know better, when you go home and speak Japanese with your parents you need to use real grammar instead of Japanese so-called grammar" and assigned him to write -- and to deliver in class the next morning -- an essay titled "Japanese Grammar Must Be Corrected." He refused, then dropped the course (which meant waiting longer to graduate) and complained to the guidance counselor and principal -- who upheld the teacher's "right" to teach as she pleased. (She lasted there at least a few years longer.)

Re:

paddl[ing] about half of the boys in the class - for the crime of asking another boy why he had been paddled

This reminds me far too much of something I've heard *claimed* about some Objectivist group or other -- that it once expelled people for the crime of asking why the group had expelled someone else. Did this really happen? I would hate to believe it!

Post 91

Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 9:09am

Kate,

You asked, "This reminds me far too much of something I've heard *claimed* about some Objectivist group or other -- that it once expelled people for the crime of asking why the group had expelled someone else. Did this really happen?"

Is there a reason why so many of your questions appear to be fishing for negative information about Rand or Objectivism?

Post 92

Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 11:31am

Subject: Exact and Full Context?

I apologize if this basic question has already been asked and answered in this very long thread:

1. What was the exact question or sequence of questions (full quotation) Rand was answering in the Q&A. [Or did she define her context, her terms/examples in the talk itself?]

Was a particular example of "handicapped" given? Or a particular way of "presenting [it] in childhood" being given as a hypothetical:

"Children cannot deal, and should not have to deal, with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, they may give it some attention, if they're interested, but it should never be presented to them in childhood, ... "

2. Also, could the original poster - or anyone - give her *full answer*. The three dots suggest that only a part is here - we're not being given her entire answer. (Rand seldom answers something in only two short sentence or in a sound bite.)
(Edited by Philip Coates on 9/27, 11:33am)

Post 93

Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 1:24pm

From Kate, earlier in this thread

Re:

I, myself have felt uncomfortable with something in Kate's approach, something that goes beyond just those questionable questions, but haven't been able to put it into words yet.

To anypne who *can* put it into words, please do so here -- I could use the information.

Quite a few people, my whole life long (and NOT just the oddball types!) have consistently told me (in person, over the phone, and in recent years by e-mail) things like
"Something about your verbal style makes me very uncomfortable, for no reason that I can put my finger on. Whatever it is, you have got to change it, but unfortunately I can't tell you just what to change or how, as I don't happen to know -- I just feel it."

This happens in all manner of social situations, and -- before I found self-employment -- it happened with employers (including, or especially, those employers who told me that I met or exceeded every objective criterion they applied in making personnel decisions -- they claimed, often, that my work "just somehow felt 'off' even though it was certainly up to standard when it was actually examined; there is nothing identifiable that you are actually doing wrong" or words to that effect, "but please change whatever it is that you *are* doing.")

This is very possibly a side-effect of Asperger's. Of the many documented symptoms typical of the Asperper's Syndrome is that non-Aspys tend to feel that somehow communication from an Aspy is "off" or somehow "wrong." Aspeys are simply wired differently and things that seem obvious to a non-Aspey may seem virtually incomprehensible to an Aspey - and vice versa. For whatever reason, for example, Aspys typically have difficulty looking someone directly in the eye. My own experience of this seemed to revolve around a feeling of vulnerability - that doing do meant baring my soul.

I recall that in my first year of college, I realized that I was doing this - avoiding eye contact or looking anywhere but the eye, and so I made it a major goal to overcome this - and I did, within a matter of months of practice. To non-Aspys, this behavior must look very suspicious, much as Hispanic girls are often blamed for some crime because they are taught that it is disrespectful to stare someone in the eye.

Post 94

Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 3:29pm

Phil,

Gawd, don't make accusations about a member's cognitive ability. Please? It's so rude.

Post 95

Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 3:51pm

Hi Phil (Coates) -

Rand: [mid-sentence] "...for healthy children to use handicapped materials. I quite agree with the speaker's indignation. I think it's a monstrous thing � the whole progression of everything they're doing � to feature, or answer, or favor the incompetent, the retarded, the handicapped, including, you know, the kneeling buses and all kinds of impossible expenses. I do not think that the retarded should be ~allowed~ to come ~near~ children. Children cannot deal, and should not have to deal, with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, they may give it some attention, if they're interested, but it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something ~they~ have to live down to."

Ayn Rand, The Age of Mediocrity, Q & A Ford Hall Forum, April, 1981

The question can't be heard on the audio. The question directly precedes the three dots and Rand does not appear to speak to the question before that point. "...for healthy children to use handicapped materials" seems to be Rand finishing the questioner's own sentence.

I can't believe there isn't a printed version somewhere.

Post 96

Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 4:30pm

"I do not think that the retarded should be ~allowed~ to come ~near~ children."

Wow, that's scary.

Post 97

Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 4:43pm

Its harsh and an incredible gray area, but is not scary or inconsistent. If you accept the premise (and its certainly up for debate) that premature exposure to a certain type of handicapped person could be extremely damaging to a child's growing sense of life and psyche, then separation is warranted. I think you're going with the "scary" feeling because you're reading this as implying forcible incarceration or segragation of the handicapped. I can't speak to Rand's mind, but applying my earlier stated personal operative premise when interpreting Rand, I look at it in a different light.
The world is full of things that would be extremely damaging to my child if she were exposed to them at her current age (guys in assless chaps marching to celebrate "pride", abortion protest fetal signs, cross burnings, most religious premises, Pro-Obama indoctrination nursery rhymes). In those cases I do not call for the violation of the rights of the people involved, I restrict my CHILD'S behavior and access.

Post 98

Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 5:21pm

Ryan, remember that I was her strongest defender above, and I would still like to agree with you. But I am not an Objectionist. I don't think being a rational egoist means you have the privilege of never having to admit you were wrong. If you pay close attention, Rand's words imply a certain opposition. "I do not think that the retarded should be ~allowed~ to come ~near~ children." Well what about retarded children? It seems that Rand is implying that they really aren't even children. Again, Rand can't qualify herself. This was not meant for publication. It was off the cuff. But it is wide open for a really ugly interpretation.

Post 99

Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 5:48pm