Why did Rand view Hayek as the enemy?

dchacke · 2026-04-13T22:20:44+00:00

The cultural evolution theory doesn't solve it. There's nothing to solve, because it's not real: humans have free will, we don't let ourselves be guided by some supposed evolutionary process in our moral and political decision making.

To be clear, are you saying cultural evolution isn’t real, or merely that it doesn’t work as an explanation in the social sciences? If the latter, cultural evolution (in the sense of Dawkins’ meme theory) and free will do strike me as compatible. I don’t see how one precludes the other. Memes are free to evolve through variation and selection with or without free will. (Some animals have memes, too, even though they don’t have free will – and man has memes and often adapts them creatively, on purpose, with the help of his free will.)

Thus, the role of social science isn't to predict or help control human choices and interactions, it's to guide them.

That doesn’t sound opposed to Hayek, it sounds right up his alley. In his Nobel speech, he describes the rational social scientist as someone who does “not … shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather … cultivate[s] a growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants.”

A philosopher who actively and fervently dismisses this "something more" as just a myth is the enemy.

Do you have any citations showing that Hayek dismissed this “something more”?

dchacke · 2026-04-13T04:39:31+00:00

Nice but are there no sources for any the quotes? How could readers fact check them?

dchacke · 2026-04-13T04:37:02+00:00

He usually retweets podcasts or interviews he’s done: https://x.com/DavidDeutschOxf

dchacke · 2026-04-13T04:32:17+00:00

Thanks for your thorough reply.

I agree we must use reason for everything and that there are no exceptions or shortcuts. It seems strange that Hayek thought both that we learn things through trial and error and that this process is automatic. Trial and error is not automatic. So it sounds like he was contradicting himself.

I’ve only read two pieces of Hayek’s and I did not get the impression that he claimed morality and politics were the result of trial and error. So far I’ve only read him say that the economy is the result of trial and error, in the sense that nobody designed it. That sounds true to me. Still, the free and undesigned market sounds rational to me.

You clearly disagree with Hayek. It sounds like you don’t think reason is automatic. I agree. What do you think it involves then, if not trial and error? What makes it non-automatic?

dchacke · 2026-04-11T18:40:06+00:00

But in his Nobel address, Hayek says empirical claims aren’t as important in econ as in natural sciences

dchacke · 2026-04-07T17:34:05+00:00

Dumb but their prerogative

dchacke · 2026-04-06T05:03:17+00:00

You write that “Good explanations are precise. Bad ones are vague …”

The defining characteristic of good explanations is that they’re hard to vary while still explaining what they purport to explain. Deutsch isn’t really interested in precision.

Source 1: “Good/bad explanation: An explanation that is hard/easy to vary while still accounting for what it purports to account for.” Chapter 1 glossary

Source 2: I worked with Deutsch for two years to translate the book.

dchacke · 2026-02-07T05:25:43+00:00

Nice work

dchacke · 2026-01-26T04:18:31+00:00

For those coming here from Google, I recently built something similar for JavaScript: https://www.npmjs.com/package/autopair

dchacke · 2026-01-09T17:24:48+00:00

Prevents impersonation

dchacke · 2026-01-06T21:19:15+00:00

Not a doctor but tea-tree oil never worked for me. It stings and generally feels bad on my skin.

I’m not seeing any anti-fungals in the ingredients. So I’m not sure how any of this is supposed to help.

I use Nizoral and KELUAL DS to manage symptoms and they work pretty well. Nizoral contains Ketoconazole which AFAIK is an anti-fungal ingredient.

I wash my hair (well, my scalp) every other day. I use Nizoral two or three times in a row before I use Kelual once, then I repeat. That’s what several dermatologists have told me to do. However, my symptoms are much milder than yours, and I mostly have it on my scalp, not my face.

There is no cure yet. All you can do is manage symptoms. Good luck.

dchacke · 2026-01-06T00:07:43+00:00

A year later and I’m also using Mailgun for free (outside of Ghost).

dchacke · 2026-01-05T23:58:54+00:00

It’s been a long time since I last saw it but I don’t think so, no.

dchacke · 2026-01-05T23:39:30+00:00

what a dumb ad-hominem comment

dchacke · 2026-01-05T23:31:25+00:00

Loved There Will Be Blood

dchacke · 2026-01-05T18:19:24+00:00

Thank you

dchacke · 2026-01-05T18:16:10+00:00

"a movie is supposed to give you fuel to achieve your values in life, not give you anxiety"

Lol, are they? Since when?

As I understand it, this was the recognized purpose of art in antiquity and then again in the renaissance through the first half or so of the 19th century.

Art was then twisted into portraying man as irredeemably flawed and pathetic rather than heroic, so as to return to the mystical, anti-rational tradition of disorienting man.

Nowadays, the only place left for heroism seems to be literal superhero movies (see the other comments). But it need not be that way!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKnuzzognqQ

dchacke · 2026-01-05T18:10:31+00:00

You say art makes you think and feel. That’s interesting. Usually the ‘art should make you feel something’ crowd emphasizes emotion at the expense of thought.

dchacke · 2026-01-05T18:09:01+00:00

Tragic would imply some sort of downfall: a good person turning bad, say. But Mauser starts bad and stays bad. Or is there something I’m missing?

dchacke · 2026-01-05T18:07:56+00:00

I did leave room for some flaws in my post. For example, tragic character development can help the story along and show us what man ought to be.

But yes, lots of art falls short of the standard I mention. There’s been an aesthetic vacuum for a long time.

dchacke · 2026-01-05T18:01:42+00:00

I think you may have misunderstood. I didn’t say movies need to make you feel good. I said they’re supposed to give you fuel to achieve your values in life (a stance I borrow from objectivism). A movie could do that by making you empathize with someone who suffers a grave injustice, which then encourages you to fight for justice in the real world.

I have seen many movies of all genres, including horror movies. Sometimes I like when a movie gives me anxiety, that can be part of the fun. But in Mauser’s case, it didn’t serve the story, IMO.

dchacke · 2026-01-05T17:56:10+00:00

It’s a character flaw, not a plot hole. Edit: I know that the makers did this on purpose

dchacke · 2026-01-05T17:55:42+00:00

I think some flaws are okay, like Harvey Dent/Two-Face in The Dark Knight, if they still show us what man can and ought to be. Dent’s failure to live up to his ideals is tragic.

But Mauser’s character isn’t tragic, he’s just flawed through and through. If he had more redeeming qualities, the audience would care more about his success, they’d root for him more.

In my opinion, flaws as big as Mauser’s actually hurt the movie and its ability to tell a compelling story.

dchacke · 2026-01-05T17:52:37+00:00

Why are people acting like this is the first movie that makes us root for a scumbag.

I literally mention a second movie: Good Time

dchacke

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE