After many years of talking with self declared "Objectivists", and observing contributions to forums I've made the following observation: there are two "types" of Objectivists. I should state here that by an Objectivist I mean a person who subscribes to and generally lives by the philosophy written by Ayn Rand in virtually all of its major premises.

One "type" is what I think of as the self-made Objectivist. These are people who observed the world, made their own deductions, and came to their own conclusions concerning what is truth, honesty, integrity, and justice, formulating their own philosophy for themselves. Then, one day, they discovered Rand's writings, and found a very similar type of mind which had also reached similar, if not identical, conclusions. For many such people of course, much of Rands work plumbed greater depths, or expounded on a wider range of applications, or was written so clearly and succinctly that it provided the sympathetic reader with ammunition for thought and a deeper understanding. But at core, nothing was new; nothing was a "revelation". On the contrary, such people, on first reading Rand often experience a sense of stunned amazement at seeing in her work, ideas, concepts, even phrases they had thought they were alone in thinking. We might call these the autonomous Objectivists.

The other "type" of Objectivist—usually by their own admission—started out with no philosophy, no firm identification of this world and reality. They were empty vessels, seeking to be filled. Certainly, many had enough awareness of reality to reject the other offerings floating around the literature and to favour Rands works, although many had been adherents of socialism or some other modern philosophy. To these Rand's words came as a revelation often causing a "road to Damascus" conversion and adherence to the philosophy of Objectivism.

Now, of itself, there is nothing wrong with this. We don't all have the ability, or perhaps time, literary training, or range of understanding to formulate a philosophy of our own, and receiving guidance and truth from another can be a good thing. The reason why Objectivism is accepted rather than post-modernism, or religion, is probably because the person concerned has awareness and honesty to know the alternative philosophies are at best flawed, at worst fraudulent, and are able to see the value of Objectivism. We might call these the converted Objectivists.

However, there is an unfortunate side effect of this type of adherent. While it does not have to be this way, and sometimes isn't, they usually—almost always—start to see the entire philosophy as a sort of Biblical pronouncement. They refute any challenge to those areas that Rand did not develop so well, or was, in fact, wrong about. Worse, there are those who cannot accept that—great though the philosophy is—it doesn't go far enough, that it needs to be built on, extended, and amplified into areas Rand did not go.

This is perhaps why autonomous Objectivists tend not to hang around the various Objectivists groups and forums. They are aware that while whatever Rand wrote is Objectivism, one cannot alter or add on ones own knowledge and still claim the end result is Objectivism. Moreover, autonomists, who have been thinking for themselves nearly all their lives, tend to avoid group-think anyway.

An aspect of converted Objectivists is that, along with an almost religious adherence to the word of Rand, they also want and need a group to adhere to, so that if any minor variations of Objectivism are proposed, members of the group can support each other. However, I am aware of two subjects which the converted Objectivists will not examine evidence for or against because to do so would bring conclusions which they think are inimical to their philosophy.

One is the often severe transgressions of honesty and integrity of some industries and businesses. Because the concept of production and industrial enterprise are naturally considered good by Objectivists, following as they do from the premises of freedom and creative thought espoused by Rand, the groupies find often torturous gymnastic twisting arguments to approve anything any industrial concern does. Try pointing out that we do not live in a perfect Objectivist society, but one in which industry can, and often does, get into bed with government, use stolen money, and engineer the passing of laws to give them advantages in the market place and you are likely to find yourself being condemned to the lowest rungs of hell—with a few expletives thrown in for good measure.

Another subject which, rather curiously, attracts Objectivist converts, also behaves remarkably like a religion; this is the so called Theory of Evolution. The reason again, of course, is because Evolution is supposedly "science" and science is the product of reason (or was, once). Except much of it isn't anymore but is nearer a religion itself, with a central dogma, guardian priests, and a book of rules the transgression of which leads to censure and excommunication from the "scientific" community. Yet any suggestion to the Objectivist groupies that Evolution is less than sustainable as a serious theory once subject to serious Objective analysis usually brings hysteria. As indeed does the observation that there is no evidence whatsoever for the presence of a "sub-conscious". Rand espoused "science" because it is derived from reason, and to the converted Objectivist, anything labelled "science" must be accepted and supported.

What we are seeing here is a rigidity of thought, an intolerance of dissonance first identified by Adorno T.W. (1950) and Eysenk .H. J. (1970) as being a pre-requisite for a Fascist society. The reason primarily is, whatever the particular "dogma," the adherents, never ever thought it through for themselves. Just following dogma doesn't promote independent thought either, in fact it hinders it, leading to all the horrors of groupyism. That's the problem we have with the so called "Objectivist movement". Rand was correct in her suspicion and contempt of these "converts".

In Atlas, after a law is passed prohibiting anyone from owning more than one type of enterprise, Reardon finds an abandoned mine, and thinks, if he could find a good man, he would buy it for him, and set him up to run it. Then he reflects that, no, he wouldn't—because the only kind of man worth having wouldn't need his help.

There's only one true "Objectivist". That's the one who, without Rand, would have made up his/her own almost identical version for themselves, and did.