Hmm, good point. I’d love to hear your take on it.

I actually didn’t know she didn’t believe in evolution, but how does that conflict with her other beliefs? Rational thought is still the best way of acquiring knowledge, selfishness is still the motivating factor for existence, and objective reality is still, well, objective reality. 🙂

In some ways, I think sexual selection had a lot to do with her philosophy. I believe she was one of the first to talk about the natural selection of the wise – smart people joining together, sticking together, and leaving the rest to perish. I guess thats kind of a combination of both sexual and natural selection though (if you can separate them).

I’m also curious why objectivism is superfluous in an egalitarian society. Isn’t egalitarianism the result of objective thought? The belief that all people have the right to think, be free, and hold property. Even in egalitarian societies, people can still be treated unequally. Isn’t objectivism a good way to make sure that doesn’t happen?

Love to hear your thoughts, and please – more politics. I can read nutrition stuff from a bunch of other blogs, but none of them know politics and social interaction like you do 😀

-Armi

Then they must be doing something right!

Yes, I view it as a difference between phenotypic "goals" (please forgive the imprecise use) influenced by our genetic code, and personal goals influenced by our cultural milieu. Those two things are not completely separable, but it's safe to say that in terms of fitness, I'm more concerned with the phenotypic/genetic potential that we all share.

Coincidentally, I just saw this article today which draws on the work of evolutionary psychologist Dr. Geoffrey Miller. It hints at my thinking on the variation in personal goals: Faked Fitness. While the word 'faked' carries pejorative overtones, that's not a value judgment. But I do think our evolutionary drives to show off can lead us astray.

Andrew,

Thanks for providing the additional framework to consider your comments.

As you allude to when you talk about happiness and "The World Series of Exercise," I think the judgement of optimal vs. sub-optimal depends probably depends on individual goals – but I will think about this some more.

…Tim

Ha! See what I mean, Chuck? 🙂

Armi, I've read Atlas Shrugged and some of her theory outside of the fictional works. I do have a few thoughts on objectivism, and said I was going to write a post about it forever ago. Two quick thoughts that I think warrant consideration and elaboration: Strangely, for all of her talk about science, Ayn Rand didn't really believe in evolution. Also, she focuses the human drive for survival as one of the starting points for her philosophy. I think her lack of understanding of evolution is the root of some flaws in her approach — particularly the focus on survival (natural selection) rather than sexual selection.

When looking at egalitarian societies, objectivism seems completely superfluous. However, I can see the attraction considering the evolutionarily novel predicament of a world with 7 billion people.

I'll try to refocus on finishing that piece, and then hunker down for the inevitable backlash. 🙂

Thanks, Armi.

I hear you. At the same time, some of the most popular posts on the site are those relating to HG anthropology applied to political theory. Tricky balance.

I’d really like to see you talk more about the connection between evolution and objectivism. More to the point, the connection between evolution and meta-physics/epistemology. Have you ever read the works of Ayn Rand? Whenever I read her stuff, I often think of how it translates into the evolutionary/paleo method.

Thanks Andrew, Evolvify is my favorite blog 🙂

-Armi