Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by xlnt 6595 days ago
Ayn Rand seems to be (significantly) more popular here than in the general population, judging from a dozen or so times I've seen her come up in comment threads. Isn't that more relevant than your personal, negative opinion of her philosophy?

So, out of curiosity, do these "results in evolutionary game theory" have a source?
1 comments
erdos2 6595 days ago
"Isn't that more relevant than your personal, negative opinion of her philosophy?"

No, because it's not only a personal opinion, but a statement that Rand's philosophy of rational self interest is logically invalid ('rational' does not imply 'self interest'; the basis on the reflexivity of identity could fairly be called desperate) and scientifically incorrect. Rand's philosophy is incompatible with findings of reciprocal altruism in evolutionary biology and experimental game theory.

"So, out of curiosity, do these "results in evolutionary game theory" have a source?"

Here's one: "Game Theory Evolving" by Herbert Gintis; see Chapter 11. http://www.amazon.com/Game-Theory-Evolving-Herbert-Gintis/dp...

link
xlnt 6595 days ago
As you must be aware, many smart people disagree with you about Rand, and can back it up with something better than a youtube video. And anyway, you said her philosophy contains certain flaws. That doesn't imply it's not valuable and useful overall, so even if I concede your points, it's not very important. The reasons I like Rand have nothing to do with "axiom of reflexivity of identity" or that other stuff you said.

edit: no online sources? I don't normally pay $35+ because a hostile, anonymous internet commenter said something would refute someone I respect but didn't want to explain the ideas himself.

link
erdos2 6595 days ago
You asked for a source: I provided one. A request for an explanation is something else. I'll give you another source instead: http://www2.owen.vanderbilt.edu/Mike.Shor/courses/GTheory/do...

As for $35, it pains me to mention libraries...it was a source, with a link so that you could see something about the book.

I can't say I know of a single public intellectual or professional philosopher who takes Rand seriously. I do know of a well-regarded mathematical logician who does, but this is an aberration.

link
yummyfajitas 6595 days ago
>I can't say I know of a single public intellectual

Alan Greenspan (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html).

Clarence Thomas (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180289132).

link
xlnt 6595 days ago
your new source is basics, not new results. i just wanted an interesting paper on new results to read. those are normally published online.

your ignorance of public intellectuals and professional philosophers is not an argument against Rand. lol.

link
LPTS 6595 days ago
No professional philosophers take Rand seriously, except for a couple whackos in a couple places.

I understand if your 15 how exciting Rand can be. But to see adults take it seriously is sad.

link