is it true that Rand forbade her associates to read certain things?

Why did you re-post Hari's picture?

Post 101

Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 7:21pm

Ted, you are at times incomprehensible to me. I have absolutely no idea what you meant. I asked a question because.... I didn't understand. How the hell is anyone supposed to take the secret signal of "fesonally" instead of "personally" as a clue to the interpretation of a post that is missing an implied sentence that I still don't understand? But, please, just drop it because clearly there isn't anything there that I need to know and I have not said, or intended to say, or even thought anything regarding these posts you might need to be upset about. Whew!

Post 102

Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 7:50pm

Not every post is a personal insult, or requires a defense, or an apology, or even a response. In my last post I said lighten up, and I meant it. That is all you need to understand, and I most certainly do not mean that in any insulting way.

Here is a funny scene from a movie I just saw.

Post 103

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 5:07pm

Nathaniel Branden has e-mailed me to answer the query that this thread's title expresses. He has given me permission to quote here his response, which I do (in full) below:

Murray Rothbard was a liar. He seemed to revel in it. The things he says about Rand are false and preposterious.

Sincerely,
Nathaniel Branden

Good to know ...

Post 104

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 6:23pm

Satisfied?

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 6:33pm

Sure!

Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 4:02pm

From Ted's post #38:

NB writes:

"Like many other people, she was enormously opposed to any consideration of the possible validity of telepathy, ESP, or other psi phenomenon. The evidence that was accumulating to suggest that there was something here at least worthy of serious scientific study did not interest her; she did not feel any obligation to look into the subject; she was convinced it was all a fraud. It did not fit her model of reality. When an astronaut attempted during a flight to the moon to conduct a telepathic experiment, she commented on the effort with scorn�even the attempt to explore the subject was contemptible in her opinion. Now I have no wish to argue, in this context, for or against the reality of nonordinary forms of awareness or any other related phenomenon. That is not my point. My point is the extent to which she had a closed mind on the subject, with no interest in discovering for herself why so many distinguished scientists had become convinced that such matters are eminently worthy of study."

This is so self-serving and simply silly that it's laughable. Rand was how old, at this point? Sixty? The proof is in the pudding. If psychic powers exist, people will use them to make money. (Unless, that is, acting in one's own monetary self-interest contravenes the rules of the spiritual realm?) The fact that she would waste none of her time on this nonsense is the minimum one would expect of Rand, or any sane adult. And that Branden would take this as an example of "closed-mindedness" speaks volumes about his scientific and philosophical sophistication. These claims are arbitrary. Really, if an astronaut were to pray, would Branden have expected her to take an "objective" interest in that too?

The world is full of magicians and con-men but not one single shred of evidence for psychic ability. Not one shred. Even in the 1940's enough was known about how the nervous system works physiochemically to show that there is no imaginable mechanism for psychic ability, not to mention that all claims for it are arbitrary. Did Branden not take any classes in biology? Does he imagine the existence of unknown cells with unknown properties that make use of some force other than the four fundamental forces of physics? Of course not. He offers nothing but the an astronaut's speculation. Other than the fact that the astronaut is famous, what makes his interest relevant? What a crock.

Actually, if you were to query Dr. Branden, he would cite statistical studies purporting to prove that "anomalous perception" (his term for extra-sensory perception) show a success rate that is better than would be predicted by the laws of probability. He has sent me copies of these studies.

But I agree with Ted. I don't think that so-called anomalous perception can be given any credence short of an accompanying physiological basis for it. The problem is that lacking such a basis, claims to anomalous "perception" cannot be regarded as perception at all (even assuming that the studies purporting to demonstrate its existence have a better outcome than would be predicted by the laws of probability).

Perception always takes a particular form (visual, auditory, tactile, etc) along with their respective organs of perception (eyes, ears, touch, etc.), whereas the studies purporting to demonstrate anomalous perception are conspicuously lacking in a demonstration either of anomalous sensory experiences or of anomalous organs of perception. The subjects in these experiments are simply guessing as to the correct answers, which are always described in terms of one of their existing five senses (usually visually, in terms of sight). This makes their answers, however better than might be predicted by the laws of probability, no different than lucky guesses.

One example that Dr. Branden gave for thinking that anomalous perception might exist is the fact that people sometimes observe their pet dog acting on the expectation that they are planning on leaving, even though they have done nothing to indicate this to the dog. But, of course, the dog's owner can often display subtle cues that reflect his intentions, which the dog picks up, but of which the owner himself is unaware. This is a far more reasonable explanation of the dog's reaction than that the animal may be exhibiting some form of anomalous perception. It is frivolous to suggest that this kind of example could count as preliminary evidence for it.

I agree with Rand that paranormal perception is unworthy of serious study or investigation. I don't think her dismissal of it reflects any kind of scientific bias. Dr. Branden's says that she "had a closed mind on the subject, with no interest in discovering for herself why so many distinguished scientists had become convinced that such matters are eminently worthy of study." One can be a distinguished scientist and be dead wrong about issues that don't involve one's area of expertise. The fact that Einstein was a socialist doesn't prompt me to rethink my support of capitalism one iota. Do I therefore have a closed mind on the subject? I don't think so.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 1/31, 4:06pm)

Post 107

Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 4:33pm

Bill, the pet dog example is exactly correct. I have given a similar example myself here several times. While I was in grade school my father spent a few years working one week out of the month across country. After a few months I became able to predict, uncannily accurately, that it was him and not a neighbor, say, calling on the phone. I did not do so by anything like the time of day. He called on no set schedule. My family noticed the oddness of this. Was it psychic ability? No. It turned out that the first ring of the telephone was shorter when he called. It was hardly noticeable. (Indeed it was only noticed because I was trying to figure out how I could tell it was him calling.) The brain does notice patterns that the conscious mind can miss. That shouldn't surprise us.

Post 108

Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 6:01pm

I've never had any patience with esp, telepathy or psychic phenomena. Usually it is clear that there is predisposition evident in the person's personality that fits the attraction to the esp (a kind of fondness for the unknown as long as it takes a certain form - kind of like a person who likes one conspiracy theory is likely to be more open to others). That and the absence of evidence and the conflict, even contradiction of existing concepts of perception were enough to keep me uninterested.

But, the concept of being subconsciously 'aware' of far, far more than we process consciously - that's a different story. To whatever degree we can acquire more control over what our conscious focus illuminates and can create 'triggers' that will let us know that something we might be interested in is available from the subconscious - that is valuable.

In many ways this is a normal process. Think about how a neophyte in an area where you are an expert doesn't begin to see all that you do - while looking right at the same things. This is training the mind to more actively process things that would otherwise be processed subconsciously and dropped, or not at all.

Branden has always been keenly aware of the extraordinary power of the subconscious. I've never heard him discuss esp, telepathy or any psychic phenomena (for or against). His former wife, Devers, was uncanny in her ability to read psychological characteristics from the tiniest bit of body language. That's not extra-sensory perception, but rather a heightened awareness and more effective use of perceptual material.

The old two-stage model of sensation --> perception is too simplistic. Sensations are filtered by subconscious routines that determine whether or not to trigger the consciousness. And the consciousness can choose to focus more intently on a given area - even to the extent of actually changing how the senses are deployed (e.g., looking at a particular area, and squinting to change focal length). Branden mentioned aggressing on the environment with our senses - which I take to be a more focused and driven use of the senses in pursuit of our goal. It is a tighter connection to reality. There is also so much more sensation to be aware of than we were taught about as kids. Remember that stuff about the 5 senses? Hah! What out our sense of balance, our propioceptors (sense of where our body parts are), sense of time, senses of linear or angular acceleration, pain, temperature.... and those don't include all of the sensations of internal realities. And aren't feelings a form of sensations? A kind of automated sensation of my relationship to value state being subconsciously processed?

Post 109

Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 7:52pm

Yes, all sorts of trained experts have amazing discriminative abilities. Chick sexers are pretty amazing. (Look it up). A trained restaurant cook can cook twenty or more items at once, never once touching the steaks except once to flip them and tell their temperature by sight, with everything grilled, toasted and fried to perfection. Think about your ability to ice skate or ride a bike. There is a feedback between perception and memory that produces amazing feats in trained people, skills that can't be easily communicated conceptually, if at all.

Post 110

Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 8:49pm

Branden claims a lot of distinguished scientists think ESP is worthy of study. I'm wondering who are these distinguished scientists? As far as I was aware, the vast majority of scientists regard ESP as a pseudoscience.

Post 111

Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 10:07pm

It was a fad of the era. Remember he is speaking of the time before the break. Surely you remember In Search Of and Project Bluebook?

Post 112

Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 10:17pm

Steve Wolfer wrote,

Branden has always been keenly aware of the extraordinary power of the subconscious. I've never heard him discuss esp, telepathy or any psychic phenomena (for or against). His former wife, Devers, was uncanny in her ability to read psychological characteristics from the tiniest bit of body language. That's not extra-sensory perception, but rather a heightened awareness and more effective use of perceptual material.

True, but where did you hear that about Devers, and what basis do you have for trusting that conclusion? Any attempt to read someone's psychology "from the tiniest bit of body language" strikes me as presumptuous and inappropriate and verges on psychologizing -- on making snap judgments based on insufficient information. Quoting Rand,

Pretentiousness and presumptuousness are the psychologizer's invariable characteristics: he not merely invades the privacy of his victims' minds, he claims to understand their minds better than they do, to know more than they do about their own motives. With reckless irresponsibility, which an old-fashioned mystic oracle would hesitate to match, he ascribes to his victims any motivation that suits his purpose, ignoring their denials.

A perfect example of this was Branden's claim that Devers could read a person simply by looking at his or her calves. I'm not making this up; he actually said this in all seriousness.

I have less than ideal posture, because my spine doesn't have a normal curvature. As a result, I've been told by some Objectivists that, based on my posture, I must have low self-esteem. Talk about unscientific nonsense! Before making a fair and unbiased judgment about someone's psychology, at the very least one needs appropriate information, properly obtained and validated; otherwise, the judgment is rash and prejudicial. You'd think that Objectivists, of all people, would understand this.

- Bill

Post 113

Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 11:38pm

Bill,

I spent about two and half hours with Devers and Nathaniel and a group of psychology students where Devers had some of us walk, one at a time across the living room. She described psychological characteristics and pointed out the clues she used - the part of the foot that went down first and what that signaled, the stride, where the balance was carried, etc. It sounds like voodoo because I'm not doing a good job of describing it. But if you were there and saw this, you'd understand it was just like Sherlock Holmes - not magic, not ESP, just putting together clues. She is extraordinarily observant and very lacking in any inner insecurities that make her doubt what she sees.

She watched one woman walk and said that it looked like she took ballet when she was young and modeled when she was older. Another fellow she asked him if his shoes hurt him, and when he said yes, she had him take his shoes off so she could see him walk without that distraction. After she did this with a few people and went into quite a bit of detail she had us try it. We took turns trying to describe what we saw and then she corrected or added to what we observed. We were all very pleased with how much more we were able to see. There is nothing mystical about this, nor is it psychologizing. Seeing the expression on someone's face can tell you they are angry or frightened or sad - the exterior provides clues to what is happening on the inside. Our character and time have made played a part in shaping the way we look and the way we move - all quite apart from anything accidental like illness or trauma or unusual wear and tear of a bad day.

I have heard Nathaniel say things that I didn't buy, and the degree of trust he had in Dever's abilities went beyond my own. But I spent quite a bit of time with Devers that year and I have never met anyone more "intuitive" - rather than sit down with her at a poker table, I'd just send her the money and save my gas money.

When I was getting my degree in clinical psychology, there was a woman who taught a class in substance abuse counseling. Her academic credential weren't very impressive but she had been an alcoholic decades ago and lived and breathed this kind of counseling. We walked down the street one day and she pointed out people with abuse problems as we walked down the street - she was able to tell what their drug of choice was by watching the way they moved, skin tone, and other physical characteristics. As I spent more time working with clients I found I was able to see so much more than I had before.

At a psychology conference one of the seminars was about lying. The psychologist, whose name I've forgotten, had a book on the subject, taught classes to law enforcement and was doing research. He had a little over 500 of us in a large auditorium and we were given a form and a pencil and asked to tell which subjects were lying and which were not. We watched filmed vignettes of subjects being interrogated. We voted and our results were tallied. I was quite pleased to find out I was one of only two people that scored 9 out 10 (1 person got all 10).

Bill, all that I can say is that what I've seen is extraordinary, but not in the least mystical or ESP or in contradiction of anything in Western science - just a higher level of perceptiveness and a keenly honed awareness. It isn't psuedoscience, or even science - just observation taken to a higher level. It is surprising to us only because we haven't developed in this area very far and have been running around not knowing that it was possible.

Post 114

Monday, February 1, 2010 - 5:58am

Bill,

Your anecdote about the dog is an example of the Clever Hans Effect (see here). Also, I read once that scientists are often easier to fool than ordinary mortals because they're used to investigating natural phenomena, which is not out to fool them. They look for natural explanations, not tricks.

I was at the 2005 TAS Summer Seminar when Nathaniel Branden was interviewed. I had given part one of a two-part talk on Philosophy of Science, in which I gave ESP as an example of pseudoscience. Then, that evening Branden was talking about anomalous perception as a real phenomena, using Devers' uncanny ability as an example, if I remember correctly. Of course, I had to recant when I lectured the next day! : )

I used to wonder how people could believe in ESP, or any of a number of things for that matter. But the clincher for me was "facilitated communication". After seeing sincere, dedicated people get caught up in this fraud, I am no longer surprised by anything that people choose to believe in.

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 115

Monday, February 1, 2010 - 9:05am

There is nothing wrong with forming tentative conclusions about someone from observing him and his behavior, but these need to be validated before they're accepted as fact. There is a real danger in jumping to firm conclusions about someone from superficial observations.

This is one of the reasons why in a court of law the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Observe that jurors are not to judge the defendant as guilty or not guilty based simply on his or her facial expressions, mannerisms, attitude or personal appearance, but on relevant and substantiated facts.

- Bill

Post 116

Monday, February 1, 2010 - 10:35am

Heh - can you imagine, then, Sherlock Holmes on a jury? [snort, chuckle - do I hear a giggle? surely a 'harrrrumpth']

Post 117

Monday, February 1, 2010 - 10:49am

What you describe in #113 sounds like a well-known fortuneteller's technique: start with a pronouncement so unspecific that it's bound to be true: I see a trip in your future, a recent illness in your family, etc; if you announce it with the right combination of confidence and intimacy, the subject will marvel at your insight and volunteer more information, enabling you to narrow it down progressively, seeming to have figured out each step unaided.

Has this ever been put to a full-dress test conducted by objective outsiders?

The belief that character reveals itself at a glance to the sufficiently adept observer has a long history, not in Objectivism itself, but in Objectivist folklore. You see it in Rand's novels and sometimes in her non-fiction (e.g. McGovern and Monroe), and in Branden's books where he describes his therapy sessions. Heller's biography, with its quotes from Valliant (whom I haven't read) suggests that one reason the breakup with Branden was so painful for Rand is that it was a drop-dead refutation of this: she didn't have psychological xray vision after all. Branden's flirtation with the junkier sciences would seem to be of a piece with this.

Post 118

Monday, February 1, 2010 - 3:30pm

Bill,

You said, "Any attempt to read someone's psychology 'from the tiniest bit of body language' strikes me as presumptuous and inappropriate and verges on psychologizing -- on making snap judgments based on insufficient information."

A psychologist routinely looks at what is in front of him, listens to what is said, listens to the tone of voice, and examines all of the clues in front of him to read psychological characteristics. What else could he do? If the client already had all the answers they wouldn't be there. They ARE the object of his study and he can't look directly into their mind. And no one said that the process ended there.

You said, "There is nothing wrong with forming tentative conclusions about someone from observing him and his behavior..." That is all that was being done.

Bill, with all due respect, it is you who jumped to a conclusion with the accusations of being presumptuous and inappropriate and verging on psychologizing and making snap judgments.

Post 119

Monday, February 1, 2010 - 4:15pm