The indisputably rational nature of "objectivism" is illustrated by the way that its adherents will accuse you of being a nihilist if you disagree with them. Randroidism is, fundamentally, the belief that anybody who doesn't agree with Ayn Rand is incapable of thinking for himself (and is also a nihilist, of course).

The best thing about Randery is that her literary style is identical to socialist realism, except that the particulars of her "philosophy" happen to differ in certain ways (though fewer than you'd think) from that of Josef Stalin. Many of her goals were similar as well: She wanted to create a New Man, who would have the proper consciousness and who would therefore create a new and better society. She created a personality cult similar to Stalin's, though on a smaller scale. She was also fond of conducting purges, though fortunately she wasn't able to execute anybody. Rand thought "Tail-Gunner Joe" McCarthy was on the right track. Both Rand and Stalin were staunch reductionists, and both believed that their respective New Orders (not to be confused with the band) should be implemented without regard to the human cost. They did, however, disagree on a very fundamental issue: Stalin believed that the State should sacrifice individuals when and as needed, for the sake of the common good, while Rand felt very strongly that this function of government should be privatized.
I wish to restate Wharfinger's definition of Randroidism - anyone who doesn't agree with Ayn Rand shows himself incapable of thinking for himself. This can be clearly seen from individuals who quote Ayn Rand as if it was scripture or other holy writ. Just as fanatic Christians will find a passage in the bible that supports their point of view, so will the followers of Randoidism find a passage in the works of Ayn Rand.

With any philosophy or religion, there will be people who regurgitate the dogma they belive. It is difficult for such an individual to see beyond what exists in their world view. A true grasp of any religion or philosophy requires the understanding of the other points of view. Quoting scripture does not show that this understanding is present and thus it is pointless to argue with such philosophasters - they hear and see only what fits what they know.

A Randroid is not an Objectivist.

The reason is that a Randroid does not believe in Objectivism. They believe in some isolated, memorized fragments of Objectivism, not the whole. An Objectivist, on the other hand, has an integrated understanding of the ideas of Ayn Rand.

Randroids are, in fact, resented by actual Objectivists. An actual Objectivist is almost always impressive. The way their minds work is fascinating. By contrast, a Randroid has few ideas that did not originate in the works of Rand, and they cannot apply said ideas to concrete instances.

On the Internet, one way to distinguish between an Objectivist and a Randroid is what we might dub the "Randroid switch." Rand had a crisp, sober writing style that is almost immediately distinct from the writing style of anyone else. Long exposure to Rand's writings will tend to cause a person to write with her style. As a result, the writing styles of Objectivists and Randroids are often identical. However, sometimes, when writing on a topic foreign to him, a purported Objectivist will switch from this style to another - his own. This is strong evidence that the purported Objectivist is really a Randroid. The Randroid was parroting Rand's reasoning up to this point, and reverted to his own writing style when he had to think for himself. By contrast, an Objectivist will continue to write in the same crisp, sober style, because his psycho-epistemology is grounded in an actual understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.