Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

There are lots of successful rationalists.

As an example, Objectivists generally accept the label of being rationalists. And the people at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_influenced_by_A... came under the influence of Objectivism before they were successful.

Some of the more prominent names on that list include Mark Cuban (Sharktank), Alan Greenspan (economist), Penn Gillette (magician), John Mackey (Whole Foods), Gene Roddenberry (Star Trek), Peter Thiel (Paypal), and Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia). And those are just ones who publicly talked about it. How many more achieved success but didn't choose to talk about it?




The article is talking about this rationalism: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LessWrong


There are successful objectivists, but objectitivm is very different from "lesswrong rationalism".

Moreso though, I take issue with this :

>came under the influence of objectivism before they were successful

Not only are there people in that list that were successful since before they were born, but the condition you cite is not necessary to be in that list. You can have been influenced by Rand as a teenager, grown out of it by the time you became successful, and still be in that list, and you can also be part of that list if you were influence by it after becoming successful.

Also, objectivism is objectively incorrect, and unlike rationalism is an anti-materialist ideology.


To whit, Ayn Rand's novels are massive best-sellers, and many other Rand acolytes like Nathaniel Branden also published massive best-sellers. Out of their readers, there are many, many, many total losers and mediocrities. That list is cherry picking given that most of the names on that list do not even pay dues to the Ayn Rand Institute and could not be considered card carrying Objectivists. There have been many successful card carrying Objectivists, but claiming that everyone who read "The Fountainhead" derived their success from Ayn Rand in some way is just silly.


Somebody who was influenced by somebody who generally accepts the label X doesn't really fit the definition of X, do they?

They might, but they might also just like capitalism because it does well for them and find it enjoyable when somebody tells them "and you know what? you're not just lucky, you're right".




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: