The Entrepreneur Forum | Startups | Entrepreneurship | Starting a Business | Motivation | Success
  • Sell-Me Saturday is Now Live!

    Have something to sell? Want to promote your design service or a YouTube channel? SELL-ME SATURDAY is your opportunity to self-promote anything within the sphere of entrepreneurship on one thread... and at no cost. Go There
    Note: Indiscriminate SEO backlinking to questionable material is not allowed.
  • Join 50,000+ entrepreneurs who are earning their freedom and living their dream.

    "Fastlane" is an entrepreneur discussion forum based on The C.E.N.T.S Framework outlined in the two best-selling books by MJ DeMarco (The Millionaire Fastlane and UNSCRIPTED®). From multimillionaires to digital nomads to side hustlers who are grinding a job, the Fastlane Forum features real entrepreneurs creating real businesses with one goal in mind: Freedom— both financial and temporal.

    Download (Unscripted) Download (Millionaire Fastlane) Register
    Registering for the forum removes this block.

Atlas Shrugged - Week 3: Ch 5&6

Remove ads while supporting the Unscripted philosophy...become an INSIDER.

lludwig

Gold Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Aug 18, 2018
370
1,032
357
New York
“By all of these intentions so far you can conclude he's trying to help others.”

I didn’t conclude that, at all. So every question after it doesn’t make sense to me.
Sure he outright said Taggart Rail is to help others in need, like Mexico.

His actions don’t lead me to believe he cares about his company in any way whatsoever..
You are right on this, he puts the needs of others above everyone else's: himself, his sister, his bondholders, and shareholders.
 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

OP
OP
Primeperiwinkle

Primeperiwinkle

Platinum Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Nov 30, 2018
1,098
3,106
758
Sure he outright said Taggart Rail is to help others in need, like Mexico.



You are right on this, he puts the needs of others above everyone else's: himself, his sister, his bondholders, and shareholders.
Uhhh.. so he says he cares about Mexico while he blatantly neglects everyone in his life including every person who works for TT you mean?
 

lludwig

Gold Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Aug 18, 2018
370
1,032
357
New York
Uhhh.. so he says he cares about Mexico while he blatantly neglects everyone in his life including every person who works for TT you mean?
Yes because in his eyes it's the "right thing to do".
 
OP
OP
Primeperiwinkle

Primeperiwinkle

Platinum Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Nov 30, 2018
1,098
3,106
758
Yes because in his eyes it's the "right thing to do".
Oh. I just thought he was lying to himself about was right so as to protect his fragile ego.
 

scottmsul

Bronze Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Apr 29, 2017
124
354
190
28
Boulder, CO
Elon IMHO is like a James Taggert at least in two areas:
  • His government assistance for his businesses (tax rebates (Telsa), public loans (Telsa), usage of his company services (SpaceX), etc.)
  • He promotes altruism which society very much likes.
Obviously Elon is much much more than that, but that is at least in my eyes why he's well-liked.
I've read his biography, highly recommend it. The guy works around 100 hours a week. He knows his technical stuff and supervises a lot of the engineering work. He's a Dagny/Rearden/Wyatt for sure. If he's gotten help from government subsidies, it's because he's using whatever resources he can get. He's running a business.

On the other side of the fence we have the REAL Jim Taggarts... How about Jamie Dimon? Warren Buffet? Ray Dalio? These are the guys that will still be rich even if they get a central control. The JTs of the world are already large enough that they can comply easily with new regulation perhaps even help draft it while it severely hurts competition. So they support forcing their will on others in the name of economic freedom, the greater good and giving back. Ironically, handouts and government propped up advantages do not equal economic freedom, they equal economic slavery and all they do is take.
I think it's hard to think of real-life Jim Taggarts, not because they're rare, but because they're common and forgettable. I think it's easy to think of companies like TT though. Companies that were once great and innovative, then the technical leadership was taken over by finance/business people. Some examples that come to mind are GE (check their stock from the last 20 years), Boeing (with the 737 Max disaster), Xerox in the 90s (as explained below by Steve Jobs, another PRODUCER):


Article on Boeing:
Boeing’s 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers
Rabin, the former software engineer, recalled one manager saying at an all-hands meeting that Boeing didn’t need senior engineers because its products were mature. “I was shocked that in a room full of a couple hundred mostly senior engineers we were being told that we weren’t needed,” said Rabin, who was laid off in 2015.
On another note, I saw this article today. Reminded me of all the silly rules getting passed in Atlas Shrugged. Probably won't pass, but still, eerily similar to the book?

Climate change: Firms failing to tackle crisis will be delisted from stock exchange, Labour says
 

Bekit

Gold Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Aug 13, 2018
563
2,435
544
Observations as someone who has not read the book before:

I don't feel like anyone is telling me what to think. The points raised by lludwig and csalvato have been illuminating and have contributed to the discussion in my opinion without giving anything away.

But the discussion got a bit uncomfortable, even if everyone involved was having a good time and not offended.

To me it seems like unpacking Rand's concept of selfishness, altruism, etc. is intrinsic to the discussion. This does not feel like a spoiler, as it is fairly well known and essentially part of our cultural lexicon by now. (I had already been exposed to summaries of her ideas before reading the book, without trying. Just by being alive, you run into this stuff along the way.)

If we confine our discussion to the narrative, the characters, and the unfolding of the plot, that will feel stifling, as all of these things are merely a thin veneer over the underlying philosophy, which is the true essence of the book.

@Primeperiwinkle, there seems to be a fair amount of restriction around the idea of HOW we are discussing the book, i.e. the mechanism or model of book discussion that we are employing.

I feel certain that you have a very clear idea in your head of how this type of discussion is supposed to work and the rules around what is and what isn't a legitimate contribution to the discussion. It seems that you've been in these types of discussions before, and you want this one to run similarly to others that you've experienced.

But I'm in the dark, and it seems other people are, too. This is creating a source of frustration both for you and for those who don't know they're breaking a "rule" until they run into one and get told off.

I think it would smooth things out a fair bit if maybe at the beginning of the week 4 thread, you unpack the method or discussion model that we are using.

Something like, "Hey guys, just a bit of background, we are using a model of book discussion called [name] that is centuries old. It comes from [person/place/origin story] and was popularized [when? / more recently] by [so-and-so]. This method has been proven to help people to reflect on what they are reading, draw their own conclusions, and learn the material in an intuitive way. It's more like a process of discovery for each participant than a didactic approach where the teacher gets up and lectures the class about what to think. Some of the underlying principles behind this approach are [this, this, and this]. Here's how the ideal discussion would look: [example or illustration]. So I welcome [XYZ] types of participation, and I would discourage [ABC] styles of contribution. For those of you who have already read the book before and can't "wonder about stuff" because you already know how things will unfold, please try to preserve the mystery for us who haven't gotten there yet. Here's a resource on how this type of discussion works if you want to explore it further. [Link]

Something like that. I feel like you shared some rules in the initial thread, and I think I read them all, but if I'm feeling rusty/clueless about how this is supposed to work, I think others may be, too.

I also want to encourage you. Please don't give up! I hope this continues to be fun for you! You are doing a wonderful job. Someone's comment from a while back that "wow, y'all are reading this book a lot better than I did the first time around" is a reflection that the discussion method seems to be working, even if we don't know precisely what it is.

:Hugs:
 

BellaPippin

Aluminum Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Jul 16, 2015
952
2,112
557
30
Chicago, IL
I'm with @Bekit I've been enjoying it so far, even with the tangent-y discussions in the middle. It keeps me engaged until next Friday and I get to note a lot of things I missed on the first read or hadn't considered. I'm all memey but in reality I'm reading all your convos and learning a lot.
 
OP
OP
Primeperiwinkle

Primeperiwinkle

Platinum Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Nov 30, 2018
1,098
3,106
758
Observations as someone who has not read the book before:

I don't feel like anyone is telling me what to think. The points raised by lludwig and csalvato have been illuminating and have contributed to the discussion in my opinion without giving anything away.

But the discussion got a bit uncomfortable, even if everyone involved was having a good time and not offended.

To me it seems like unpacking Rand's concept of selfishness, altruism, etc. is intrinsic to the discussion. This does not feel like a spoiler, as it is fairly well known and essentially part of our cultural lexicon by now. (I had already been exposed to summaries of her ideas before reading the book, without trying. Just by being alive, you run into this stuff along the way.)

If we confine our discussion to the narrative, the characters, and the unfolding of the plot, that will feel stifling, as all of these things are merely a thin veneer over the underlying philosophy, which is the true essence of the book.

@Primeperiwinkle, there seems to be a fair amount of restriction around the idea of HOW we are discussing the book, i.e. the mechanism or model of book discussion that we are employing.

I feel certain that you have a very clear idea in your head of how this type of discussion is supposed to work and the rules around what is and what isn't a legitimate contribution to the discussion. It seems that you've been in these types of discussions before, and you want this one to run similarly to others that you've experienced.

But I'm in the dark, and it seems other people are, too. This is creating a source of frustration both for you and for those who don't know they're breaking a "rule" until they run into one and get told off.

I think it would smooth things out a fair bit if maybe at the beginning of the week 4 thread, you unpack the method or discussion model that we are using.

Something like, "Hey guys, just a bit of background, we are using a model of book discussion called [name] that is centuries old. It comes from [person/place/origin story] and was popularized [when? / more recently] by [so-and-so]. This method has been proven to help people to reflect on what they are reading, draw their own conclusions, and learn the material in an intuitive way. It's more like a process of discovery for each participant than a didactic approach where the teacher gets up and lectures the class about what to think. Some of the underlying principles behind this approach are [this, this, and this]. Here's how the ideal discussion would look: [example or illustration]. So I welcome [XYZ] types of participation, and I would discourage [ABC] styles of contribution. For those of you who have already read the book before and can't "wonder about stuff" because you already know how things will unfold, please try to preserve the mystery for us who haven't gotten there yet. Here's a resource on how this type of discussion works if you want to explore it further. [Link]

Something like that. I feel like you shared some rules in the initial thread, and I think I read them all, but if I'm feeling rusty/clueless about how this is supposed to work, I think others may be, too.

I also want to encourage you. Please don't give up! I hope this continues to be fun for you! You are doing a wonderful job. Someone's comment from a while back that "wow, y'all are reading this book a lot better than I did the first time around" is a reflection that the discussion method seems to be working, even if we don't know precisely what it is.

:Hugs:
If my behavior has caused anyone distress .. I’m sorry.

I think.. maybe this Friday when the conversation starts up again I will just stick to posting the summary and let you all discuss however you want.

The methodology is based much more on personal feelings and personal insights rather than generalizations or talking points created by third parties, even the author. It’s really rather simple but transformational, once you experience it.

You read the book. You talk about what you read. You talk about what it meant to you.

It’s possible that the type of discussion I want to have just isn’t possible here though I doubt that. I’ve seen it used on The Iliad and Shakespeare and Plutarch and Lolita.

I don’t know. I’m more than willing to give it a couple weeks and listen to you all discuss the themes or philosophy or whatever it is that you want to discuss. I will still be having fun. Just.. quieter fun. Lol.

Please forgive me. I don’t know what else to do at this point. I think me staying quiet is best for a while. Hugs to all of you.
 

Bekit

Gold Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Aug 13, 2018
563
2,435
544
If my behavior has caused anyone distress .. I’m sorry.

I think.. maybe this Friday when the conversation starts up again I will just stick to posting the summary and let you all discuss however you want.

The methodology is based much more on personal feelings and personal insights rather than generalizations or talking points created by third parties, even the author. It’s really rather simple but transformational, once you experience it.

You read the book. You talk about what you read. You talk about what it meant to you.

It’s possible that the type of discussion I want to have just isn’t possible here though I doubt that. I’ve seen it used on The Iliad and Shakespeare and Plutarch and Lolita.

I don’t know. I’m more than willing to give it a couple weeks and listen to you all discuss the themes or philosophy or whatever it is that you want to discuss. I will still be having fun. Just.. quieter fun. Lol.

Please forgive me. I don’t know what else to do at this point. I think me staying quiet is best for a while. Hugs to all of you.
No forgiveness needed, and please let me reiterate - you're doing a great job, we like you, we want you, and you've guided the discussion in a way that truly helps people to think about the book and draw out meaningful topics.

Plus, you're so fun when you're happy and giddy and handing out snacks and throwing napkins and nominating the keeper of the foam swords. If you go TOO quiet, we'll miss out on one of the best parts of this whole discussion!

:HUGS:
 

broswoodwork

Intermediate User of the Flying Guillotine
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Oct 16, 2015
897
2,678
656
Here's another one, ripped from the headlines:

"These funding sources have become a bone of contention among University of Michigan students: "We regret the Administration's willingness to support business moguls whose advancement on gentrification inflicts harm on Detroit residents and believe the largest public university in our state has an obligation to invest in projects which center community members, equity and justice – not profits," they wrote in their petition, signed by 378 people as of Nov. 20." ~ Source: https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2019-11-21/a-proposed-innovation-center-in-downtown-detroit-sparks-debate

The donors, who probably shouldn't have wasted their money attempting to lift Detroit above post- apocalypse status with support for a state run institution, obviously needed to donate in CASH like Rearden, if they wanted this to pan out.
 

ExaltedLife

Silver Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Nov 10, 2015
332
676
272
27
WHAT? How did I miss this? Atlas Shrugged is my favorite novel of all time!

All I can say is KEEP READING! You have no idea what you're in for.
 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

lludwig

Gold Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Aug 18, 2018
370
1,032
357
New York
Here's another one, ripped from the headlines:

"These funding sources have become a bone of contention among University of Michigan students: "We regret the Administration's willingness to support business moguls whose advancement on gentrification inflicts harm on Detroit residents and believe the largest public university in our state has an obligation to invest in projects which center community members, equity and justice – not profits," they wrote in their petition, signed by 378 people as of Nov. 20." ~ Source: https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2019-11-21/a-proposed-innovation-center-in-downtown-detroit-sparks-debate

The donors, who probably shouldn't have wasted their money attempting to lift Detroit above post- apocalypse status with support for a state run institution, obviously needed to donate in CASH like Rearden, if they wanted this to pan out.
And this law for NJ.


A similar law is going into effect Jan 1st for California.
 

broswoodwork

Intermediate User of the Flying Guillotine
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Speedway Pass
Oct 16, 2015
897
2,678
656

BizyDad

Know Thyself
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Oct 7, 2019
339
1,150
349
Phoenix AZ
Oh, we do book discussion all week long now?!?!

And do my eyes deceive me? Did you all turn @Primeperiwinkle into the Dan Conway of the group? She is accepting the will of the group against her own interest. Fascinating.

I stop playing bad cop for two freaking days and look what happens. Well, I don't like it.

The Dagny in me wants to urge her to fight, but it occurs to me that my previous somewhat militant bad copping may be the actual reason she's getting DM's from people not feeling comfortable sharing, and not anything anyone else was doing.

By the end of this post I hope to remedy all these maladies. Let me introduce you to the softer, gentler side of BizyCop.

I have looked forward to a scheduled book discussion like this for a long time (I'm always too busy). And I have looked forward to my introduction to Ayn Rand for a long time (I'm always too busy).

So doing this "right" is important to me.

Notice, this is my introduction to Ayn Rand. Yes it is possible to go through a life of decades and not explicitly be familiar with Ayn Rand's philosophy. And I study philosophy! So don't assume we all know it. Sorry @Bekit , I'm the one. Perhaps Rand's influence is all around me, but it hasn't been made explicit to me. I am approaching this reading with about as fresh eyes as possible.

Which is why I am asking us all to stick to the rules. They are laid out and linked to at the beginning of every week already.

I think part of the problem is many of you seem to think this is a traditional book discussion. You know, where we all read the book and discuss themes of what we read.

But this is a SCHEDULED book discussion. That's a different animal. Keep in mind, this is a proven model for book discussion. I've casually seen a couple happen, but never been an active participant. It's awesome.

We don't read the whole book. We read chapters at a time. You guys all agreed to the rules by joining in. Why are you so gung ho to break them? Did you forget them?

Here are the rules:

-----

1. We read at an assigned pace together.
2. Each week I summarize what the book said then we talk about what we think it means and how we felt about it.
3. We can only talk about that weeks chapters in that thread. There will be a new thread every week.
4. You CAN ONLY TALK ABOUT the chapters we have already read.
5. No spoilers.
6. NO FREAKING SPOILERS OR I WILL CUT YOU!!!

Also "I can’t possibly make this an inviting and flourishing book discussion if everybody just reads the whole book really fast. I want to read it together. WITH you. Not AT you. My intent is to ponder and wonder about the book NOT TEACH. I’ve never read the book and I will not be reading any summaries or cliff notes or websites about it."

------

If this has been difficult for you, please read that again. It seems pretty easy to me.

So what rules were broken? Well, is anyone trying to teach the rest of us? Maybe teaching us about themes or Ayn Rand's philosophy? No? No one is teaching? Ok, let's move on...

A lot of people broke #1. And now its causing issues. What issues? Well, they are breaking rule #2 and #4 and not even knowing it. They are crying innocence. And being defended by those who also read ahead.

Also people are sharing things they read online or read in the past, etc. This isn't the place to give us cliff notes. Copy and paste someone's blog post? No.

Keep in mind, if you make reference to Rand's philosophy or her other books, or even what she meant, then you are relying on things outside these chapters to draw those conclusions. That's not ok.

Why isn't that ok Biz?

Well, as an example, I DIDN'T KNOW AYN RAND'S DEFINITION OF ALTRUISM!

Ok, sorry, lost my head there. Good BizyCop is back. And having been exposed to just 6 chapters of her body of work, which is only what, like 1.79% of her written work, it is way way way to early for me to be able to draw such a conclusion. I had only just started to consider what she actually means about altruism. And along comes someone reading online and citing sources.

@lludwig , my knowing what Rand means by altruism will definitely impact how I approach the rest of this book. You may not have been trying to tell me what to think, but you absolutely did tell me what to think. You left no room for doubt. I can't ignore it, I've already read it.

I won't shoot the messenger, but only because I put down my nerf gun for this post. Mistakes happen, just learn from it.

And you aren't the only one, I'm not trying to pick on you, yours was just the longest discussion, and to me, the best example of what could go wrong trying to discuss.

So what do we do?

First off, this isn't that hard. Here's a vision statement.

To quote @Bekit "For those of you who have already read the book before and can't "wonder about stuff" because you already know how things will unfold, please try to preserve the mystery for us who haven't gotten there yet."

How?

Well, look at how @Kak does it. Pop in, memes or asks a quick question and boom, 3 pages of discussion. Ok we can't all be Kak.

So for one, don't share other people's ideas, opinions, or words.

This includes Ayn Rand herself. Don't speak for her. Speak only for you. Only share your thoughts or feelings. It's in the rules, not that hard.

If you are copying and pasting, it probably isn't your thoughts or feelings. (I hope it is obvious I am not referring to the headlines posts we're sharing, even I did one of those.)

Some other tips:

Ask yourself, do I know this for a fact (about Rand, her philosophy, or the themes of the book)? If it is a fact in your mind, it might cross the line. See you probably only know this as a fact because you have read more than just these 6 chapters. And rule #4 says only discuss the chapters we've read.

For those of you who've read ahead, all hope is not lost.

Look at what @csalvato does. I could make a drinking game out of how many times he starts a sentence with "I think". And I appreciate that. Because I know he knows, but he allows room for disagreement. He isn't saying "This is absolutely what Rand meant based on my research".

But what I would absolutely love to see more is something like this:

"I think Rand has a skewed view of women. They are all either vapid or willfully clueless and are all hopelessly dependent on a man or secretly longing to be dominated by a man. I believe this because of any scene where the mom did nothing interesting, all the women who are basically background characters, and also because Dagny enjoyed being slapped. Is she a supporter of a patriarchal system or just a product of an era? She seems thoughtful, so this seems like a calculated choice."

Present your "facts" not as facts but as your opinion based on examples from the chapters. If you can't use the words in these chapters to make your point, just wait to make it.

Here's a good example of how waiting would have paid off. I think it was @Bertram who wrote that (still a spoiler) Last week there was NO WAY we could have known it so I asked him to change his post and not ruin the mystery for others (thanks again). But if he had just waited and done the same thing in this thread, I wouldn't have said anything because the book has introduced this idea now.

(Edit: my first use of the fancy spoiler code trick obviously failed. I tried to fix it. Meh, I'm new. Y'all will just have to go back to last week to find the spoiler...)

Oh, do you see how I (attempted to) self censor? That's another solution. No one wants to ignore anyone because everyone is sharing way more value in these posts than "rule breaking content".

The people discussing themes are insisting it is there, because they've read ahead so they know it is there. But they do not seem to be really diving solely into the reading material.

Again, to flail at the equine carcass, if you are discussing "the book", or "Rand's philosophy" or worse "what Rand really intended" then you are discussing chapters we haven't read yet. If you refer to "the book", you are basing your comments on facts not in evidence yet. Don't do it until you can back it up with stuff from the chapters.

Just be patient. At some point you'll have enough evidence in the chapters we've read to bring up what you want to bring up. We have 2+ more months of this.:party:

To sum up, if you are sharing something, please phrase it by leaving room for doubt or debate (I think, I believe, it seems like, etc), and hopefully use examples from the chapters to back it up. If you have to cite outside sources, her other books, or are simply regurgitating what you've heard or read "out there" then don't bring it "in here".

Or, as the OP said more succinctly, discuss your thoughts and feelings.

And if your reaction to reading this is "I don't wanna participate" well, that says a lot, and I'd still ask you directly to please participate. Just adjust things a little.

By giving people these tools and tips I hope I am encouraging more people to speak up as opposed to pipe down. We were all invited here under certain rules. Can't we just commit to following them? Is it really that hard?

(Side note, @broswoodwork I tried really really hard not to say spoiler! It was too hard! Couldn't do it. Hahaha.)
 
Last edited:

csalvato

Platinum Contributor
Read Millionaire Fastlane
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
May 5, 2014
1,630
4,731
1,146
35
Rocky Mountain West
it’s also worth noting the axiom: “praise in public, critique in private”

This axiom exists for a reason.

In general, when I’m unhappy with something someone says or does (in this thread or otherwise) a private convo (dm, phone call, etc.) goes a lot farther than a public reprimand and belittlement.

(and i often forget this and need to remember, too)
 
OP
OP
Primeperiwinkle

Primeperiwinkle

Platinum Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Nov 30, 2018
1,098
3,106
758
Oh, we do book discussion all week long now?!?!

And do my eyes deceive me? Did you all turn @Primeperiwinkle into the Dan Conway of the group? She is accepting the will of the group against her own interest. Fascinating.

I stop playing bad cop for two freaking days and look what happens. Well, I don't like it.

The Dagny in me wants to urge her to fight, but it occurs to me that my previous somewhat militant bad copping may be the actual reason she's getting DM's from people not feeling comfortable sharing, and not anything anyone else was doing.

By the end of this post I hope to remedy all these maladies. Let me introduce you to the softer, gentler side of BizyCop.

I have looked forward to a scheduled book discussion like this for a long time (I'm always too busy). And I have looked forward to my introduction to Ayn Rand for a long time (I'm always too busy).

So doing this "right" is important to me.

Notice, this is my introduction to Ayn Rand. Yes it is possible to go through a life of decades and not explicitly be familiar with Ayn Rand's philosophy. And I study philosophy! So don't assume we all know it. Sorry @Bekit , I'm the one. Perhaps Rand's influence is all around me, but it hasn't been made explicit to me. I am approaching this reading with about as fresh eyes as possible.

Which is why I am asking us all to stick to the rules. They are laid out and linked to at the beginning of every week already.

I think part of the problem is many of you seem to think this is a traditional book discussion. You know, where we all read the book and discuss themes of what we read.

But this is a SCHEDULED book discussion. That's a different animal. Keep in mind, this is a proven model for book discussion. I've casually seen a couple happen, but never been an active participant. It's awesome.

We don't read the whole book. We read chapters at a time. You guys all agreed to the rules by joining in. Why are you so gung ho to break them? Did you forget them?

Here are the rules:

-----

1. We read at an assigned pace together.
2. Each week I summarize what the book said then we talk about what we think it means and how we felt about it.
3. We can only talk about that weeks chapters in that thread. There will be a new thread every week.
4. You CAN ONLY TALK ABOUT the chapters we have already read.
5. No spoilers.
6. NO FREAKING SPOILERS OR I WILL CUT YOU!!!

Also "I can’t possibly make this an inviting and flourishing book discussion if everybody just reads the whole book really fast. I want to read it together. WITH you. Not AT you. My intent is to ponder and wonder about the book NOT TEACH. I’ve never read the book and I will not be reading any summaries or cliff notes or websites about it."

------

If this has been difficult for you, please read that again. It seems pretty easy to me.

So what rules were broken? Well, is anyone trying to teach the rest of us? Maybe teaching us about themes or Ayn Rand's philosophy? No? No one is teaching? Ok, let's move on...

A lot of people broke #1. And now its causing issues. What issues? Well, they are breaking rule #2 and #4 and not even knowing it. They are crying innocence. And being defended by those who also read ahead.

Also people are sharing things they read online or read in the past, etc. This isn't the place to give us cliff notes. Copy and paste someone's blog post? No.

Keep in mind, if you make reference to Rand's philosophy or her other books, or even what she meant, then you are relying on things outside these chapters to draw those conclusions. That's not ok.

Why isn't that ok Biz?

Well, as an example, I DIDN'T KNOW AYN RAND'S DEFINITION OF ALTRUISM!

Ok, sorry, lost my head there. Good BizyCop is back. And having been exposed to just 6 chapters of her body of work, which is only what, like 1.79% of her written work, it is way way way to early for me to be able to draw such a conclusion. I had only just started to consider what she actually means about altruism. And along comes someone reading online and citing sources.

@lludwig , my knowing what Rand means by altruism will definitely impact how I approach the rest of this book. You may not have been trying to tell me what to think, but you absolutely did tell me what to think. You left no room for doubt. I can't ignore it, I've already read it.

I won't shoot the messenger, but only because I put down my nerf gun for this post. Mistakes happen, just learn from it.

And you aren't the only one, I'm not trying to pick on you, yours was just the longest discussion, and to me, the best example of what could go wrong trying to discuss.

So what do we do?

First off, this isn't that hard. Here's a vision statement.

To quote @Bekit "For those of you who have already read the book before and can't "wonder about stuff" because you already know how things will unfold, please try to preserve the mystery for us who haven't gotten there yet."

How?

Well, look at how @Kak does it. Pop in, memes or asks a quick question and boom, 3 pages of discussion. Ok we can't all be Kak.

So for one, don't share other people's ideas, opinions, or words.

This includes Ayn Rand herself. Don't speak for her. Speak only for you. Only share your thoughts or feelings. It's in the rules, not that hard.

If you are copying and pasting, it probably isn't your thoughts or feelings. (I hope it is obvious I am not referring to the headlines posts we're sharing, even I did one of those.)

Some other tips:

Ask yourself, do I know this for a fact (about Rand, her philosophy, or the themes of the book)? If it is a fact in your mind, it might cross the line. See you probably only know this as a fact because you have read more than just these 6 chapters. And rule #4 says only discuss the chapters we've read.

For those of you who've read ahead, all hope is not lost.

Look at what @csalvato does. I could make a drinking game out of how many times he starts a sentence with "I think". And I appreciate that. Because I know he knows, but he allows room for disagreement. He isn't saying "This is absolutely what Rand meant based on my research".

But what I would absolutely love to see more is something like this:

"I think Rand has a skewed view of women. They are all either vapid or willfully clueless and are all hopelessly dependent on a man or secretly longing to be dominated by a man. I believe this because of any scene where the mom did nothing interesting, all the women who are basically background characters, and also because Dagny enjoyed being slapped. Is she a supporter of a patriarchal system or just a product of an era? She seems thoughtful, so this seems like a calculated choice."

Present your "facts" not as facts but as your opinion based on examples from the chapters. If you can't use the words in these chapters to make your point, just wait to make it.

Here's a good example of how waiting would have paid off. I think it was @Bertram who wrote that (still a spoiler) Last week there was NO WAY we could have known it so I asked him to change his post and not ruin the mystery for others (thanks again). But if he had just waited and done the same thing in this thread, I wouldn't have said anything because the book has introduced this idea now.

Oh, do you see how I self censored? That's another solution. No one wants to ignore anyone because everyone is sharing way more value in these posts than "rule breaking content".

The people discussing themes are insisting it is there, because they've read ahead so they know it is there. But they do not seem to be really diving solely into the reading material.

Again, to flail at the equine carcass, if you are discussing "the book", or "Rand's philosophy" or worse "what Rand really intended" then you are discussing chapters we haven't read yet. If you refer to "the book", you are basing your comments on facts not in evidence yet. Don't do it until you can back it up with stuff from the chapters.

Just be patient. At some point you'll have enough evidence in the chapters we've read to bring up what you want to bring up. We have 2+ more months of this.:party:

To sum up, if you are sharing something, please phrase it by leaving room for doubt or debate (I think, I believe, it seems like, etc), and hopefully use examples from the chapters to back it up. If you have to cite outside sources, her other books, or are simply regurgitating what you've heard or read "out there" then don't bring it "in here".

Or, as the OP said more succinctly, discuss your thoughts and feelings.

And if your reaction to reading this is "I don't wanna participate" well, that says a lot, and I'd still ask you directly to please participate. Just adjust things a little.

By giving people these tools and tips I hope I am encouraging more people to speak up as opposed to pipe down. We were all invited here under certain rules. Can't we just commit to following them? Is it really that hard?

(Side note, @broswoodwork I tried really really hard not to say spoiler! It was too hard! Couldn't do it. Hahaha.)
Thank you. A thousand times, thank you.

ETA: New week is up.
 
Last edited:

PapaGang

Silver Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Jul 10, 2019
248
638
258
Milwaukee, WI
Hey I have not been able to participate because of a serious family situation, but I plan on joining in on Black Friday.

About Francisco:
There is something about Francisco that tells me he's bullshitting people. It seems that when Rand writes about his actions, there are indicators of hidden motives. He loves to play coy, and that playfulness makes me think he's putting people on. He has already shown his propensity to pull an insane prank on all of the looters who decided that the mines should be seized. That takes a crazy and creative mind to play that game. It was a beautiful chess move.

There is DEFINITELY more to this guy than what is on the surface. I am questioning everything this guy does. His actions do not line up with his eloquently stated philosophy. If I am wrong, I will be very disappointed, because Rand seems to be setting something up. We know something big and frightening and spectacular is going on (Dagney and Reardon's instincts both are set off, but they can't put their finger on what the hell is wrong.)
 

PapaGang

Silver Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Millionaire Fastlane
I've Read UNSCRIPTED
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
Jul 10, 2019
248
638
258
Milwaukee, WI
Ok but let’s discuss the convo between Hank and Francisco. Is it just me or is Francisco sizing him up to later destroy him too??
That's what I thought. He's definitely up to something. He is either going to destroy him, or join him. There are only two options here.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Sponsored Offers

  • Sticky
MARKETPLACE Lex DeVille's - Advanced Freelance Udemy Courses!
Thanks for sharing. I want a course to optimize for other than Google engines.
  • Sticky
MARKETPLACE You Are One Call Away From Living Your Dream Life - LightHouse’s Accountability Program ⚡
Welcome to 2020, I wanted to add in a quick note about gratitude for the new year...


Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe to become an INSIDER.

Fastlane Insiders

View the forum AD FREE.
Private, unindexed content
Detailed process/execution threads
Monthly conference calls with doers
Ideas needing execution, more!

Join Fastlane Insiders.

Top Bottom
AdBlock Detected - Please Disable

Yes, ads can be annoying. But please...

...to support the Unscripted/Fastlane mission (and to respect the immense amount of time needed to manage this forum) please DISABLE your ad-block. Thank you.

I've Disabled AdBlock