"huh, ok"

> Really, I'm just looking for people who won't jump down my throat on a faux pas.

I think you're dismissing the people such as myself that would note you as an idiot without comment and move on wanting nothing to do with you.

Edit: tests and trick questions with people you just met is an ineffective way to navigate the world. My 2c

> Edit: tests ... with people you just met is an ineffective way to navigate the world. My 2c

Do you see the irony here?

I wouldn't personally run the kind of test OP is running, but I think that even in your case the test succeeded: they've successfully separated themselves from someone who is inclined take one aspect of who they present themselves as and immediately put them in a box, label them, and dismiss them. They don't have to know that you're that kind of person for the filter to be effective.

I think most adults have a sensible aversion to that. In fact I'd go so far as saying that this common filter is to social cohesion what determinism is to a programming language. I'm happy to have an escape hatch for novel cases, but there are very good reasons for the common case being common.

Edit: clarification

Isn't it better that we don't interact, in this case? People aren't infinitely malleable - and I have no right to demand behavior from others. So, in my mind, it's better for everyone if we're separated from each other.

Do you hang around people that dislike talking to you? I don't recommend that. I don't think anyone recommends that.

They want to associate with people who would respond with curiosity to a controversial statement, you don't want anything to do with someone who likes Atlas Shrugged and you aren't interested to know more. The filter worked and neither of you waste your time!

> I know they can either tolerate ideas they hate

Your explanation:

> would note you as an idiot without comment and move on

Maybe I'm also misunderstanding what you're trying to communicate, but it sure sounds to me like your motivations are exactly what they're trying to filter out of their life.

I don't think it requires any special insight to understand that a fantastic approach to meeting people is to simply be genuine and honest.

Basically there's no way to find if someone would "tolerate ideas they hate" or not if they refuse to engage with the idea altogether. The second guy in my example looks like he would tolerate these ideas but he won't.

>respond with curiosity to a controversial statement

It's not about being a "controversial statement" (the implication being anyone who reacts against it is a close-minded woke or something like that). It's about "I read it in 8th grade" + "it changed my life and it's still my favourite book". Honestly swap out for any book and it would be equally cringe to boast about how your thinking has not evolved or matured since you were 12.

> you don't want anything to do with someone who likes Atlas Shrugged

No, I don't like anything to do with someone who boasts about being immature in such a crass manner. For that matter, I also don't like anything to do with people who would intentionally lie and manipulate their interlocutor on their first meeting.

> Really, I'm just looking for people who won't jump down my throat on a faux pas.

I think when cactacea says "huh, ok", this is neither inappropriate, or "jumping down someone's throat", or being "way too supportive" -- so I think by tb_technical's stated standards, cactacea has "passed" the filter, but is understandably alienated.

If someone silently puts OP in a bucket and never reaches out again, the end goal is still achieved.

It's not a filter I would choose to use, I'm just saying that OP isn't providing a failure case—the filter is still doing its job there.

Of course the first test is useless, so I suspect they're trying and failing to produce the second test.

Not OP. But I would say the filter is working. If you would treat somebody like an idiot for liking a book you don’t like, I indeed, would want you filtered out of my circle of friends.

It’s the other end of the spectrum from disliking someone because their favorite book is The Grapes of Wrath or A Brave New World. I actually agree with the values expressed in those books, and I can also understand someone not wanting to be friends with me because of it.

But at least if you’re going to have friends with a different philosophy, seems like a better move to reach across to people who believe in community and collaboration over self-interest and individualism. That’s just me, though.

"Someone dropped it off a bridge, hit my abusive step-dad and killed him dead. Soft spot for Ayn Ran ever since, beliefs aside." That's someone I'd want to be friends with.

Yes, a literary work can both be life-changing and not something you agree with.

EG:

I do not at all agree with Marx. Me and others reading his works changed my life irrevocably. Ditto for Hitler.

I was just quoting the actual question in the comment.

Then it sounds like you won't ask someone their favorite book and write them off entirely if they say it's a raunchy romance novel about industrialists?

In addition to the invention of a working mail system, you’ll read descriptions of semaphore towers working in a way that is similar to the Telegraph, except with light rather than pulsed waves over wire. It’s also hilariously funny and deeply philosophical at times.

I recommend it wholeheartedly.

The first discworld book I read was Thief of Time, and I've been hooked ever since

Sounds to me like you failed the test.

Possibility 1: A too-enthusiastic reaction. Filtered.

Possibility 2: A too-negative reaction. Filtered.

Possibility 3: a neutral-enough reaction to not get filtered, but at least some parts of their opinion just shifted toward the negative and wary. If not filtered, at least now distant for some time.

Possibility 4: a neutral-enough reaction because they have low familiarity with the book. Only pairing that passes unscathed.

I’d recommend saying Twilight instead. It doesn’t come with garbage-politics implications (at least, simply liking the book doesn’t)

[edit] hm. But then people being enthusiastic fans of it isn’t as useful a filter. This is tricky. Having it be something big fans of which are usually unpleasant is a benefit for filtering the other people, but sends false negative signals about yourself.

Before I made a judgement about someone making that claim, I'd need to know in what way it 'changed their life'.

i'm with the parent commenter here as i find your response very much telling on how you evaluate things and frankly, more idiotic than someone's life being changed, even by the "intended" interpretation of the book

e.g. would you say that everyone who liked / was influenced by reading "mein kampf" is a nazi?

Who start reading "mein kampf" beside scholar anyway?

People who only read things they agree with means they're blind to the problems with it, and fold like wet cardboard when they try to argue it.

Edit: so if you read and like it there is something wrong with you

I haven't actually started it yet, but I have a copy on my shelf waiting. Along with Das Kapital, Mao's "Little Red Book", etc.

Why? Especially given that I'm closer to a Randian than anything else (I really did like Atlas Shrugged although it's not my favorite book). Well, I feel like if you're going to reject a belief system, or feel somewhat at-odds with followers of a given system of thought or whatever, it's best to have some familiarity with that system of thought. It's just a matter of intellectual honesty.

I mean, looking back over the years here on HN and the various discussions that pop up around Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand. You can tell that a LOT of the people criticizing Rand and Atlas Shrugged have never read the book (or probably any of her other works) and are attacking straw-men.

I refrain from (most) attacks on Marx (and the specifics of what Hitler, Mao, etc had to say) because I don't have the deep familiarity with their material. OTOH, I have no problem saying I have enough general familiarity to mostly reject the thinking of those folks in a sort of abstract sense. The point being, one may read a work that you disagree with (or expect to disagree with) just so you can have an intellectually honest conversation about it, or a deeper conversation that goes beyond a superficial familiarity.

I don't care for the philosophy/politics, but I've read a lot of good sci-fi that I didn't care for the philosophy behind. I like Starship Troopers, which isn't as fascist as some people think but is certainly right-wing. I like Orson Scott Card, regardless of what I think of his opinions on gay people. I like the Culture novels, which are lowkey anarcho-communist. I like China Mieville, and he's an unsubtle hardcore Marxist.

Those are all much better than Rand, but not totally out of the ballpark (I think the Fountainhead is actually much better written than Atlas Shrugged).

I agree with the original thread comment: people who can't separate literary and political merit are usually pretty tiresome in lots of other ways.

Somehow I've missed a whole range of books from 80's through early 2000's.

It's crazy how many people essentially jumped at their throat with obnoxious comments and even outright ridiculing the poster (see the "checkers/chess" comment as an example).

Quite literally the author explained the whole reasoning and they still "failed the test".

I haven't even read atlas shrugged but I guess at this point I'm curious to read it and possibly adopt a similar strategy: it's clearly working way better than intended.

But if you like her long-winded style, have fun! It's a long one.

You can test someone’s general health with an eye exam, but it’s still an eye exam.

I'd be polite, but note you down as either an immature thinker or someone who likes to provoke. With a little more prodding, possibly also one of those people who has to be right about everything, and this is their hill.

I guess I'm on passive radar and you are on active.

I'm not the author of the post you're replying to, but that line of reasoning reminds me of an hiring bias that I read a while ago: avoiding a bad hire is more important than getting good hire.

In this context this could mean that the tb_technical really cares about avoiding people with extreme viewpoints, even if that means missing a few people they might get along with.

> I'd be polite, but note you down as either an immature thinker or someone who likes to provoke. With a little more prodding, possibly also one of those people who has to be right about everything, and this is their hill.

Weirdly enough, to me (as a third person) it seems you're proving tb_technical's point anyway: you still have some strong views on the matter, you just would not express them. Still somebody that, according to tb_technical's writing, they wouldn't like to be friends with. The main difference here is that the feeling is reciprocated by you.

The more comments I read, the more tb_technical's idea sounds good.

That's a defensible idea. Making friends with the wrong people can really mess up your life.

And yet, I keep reading about this epidemic of loneliness...

> And yet, I keep reading about this epidemic of loneliness...

Both things can be true at the same time, this is not a dichotomy.

At the same time, there's a old saying in my company that goes like "better alone than in bad company". Timeless wisdom, I guess.

On this matter, I was recently brought to pondering about the extinction of the so called "third place". The reasoning goes like this: people often used to have three places they attend the most: they home, their workplace, and the "third place".

The "third place" can be pretty much everything, and it's the place where socialising happen: for example, in many sitcoms it used to be some kind of bar/pub/restaurant: the McLaren's in HIMYM, "Arnold's" in Happy Days and another similar one whose name i can't remember in Friends. When I was a kid, it was a public park where we played soccer, and most kids just spent time there.

It seems this is going out of style or something?

Two things I noticed are:

- nowadays spending time in bars/pubs etc can get costly. Might be the general economic downturn, but it seems to be that going at the bar and having a beer or two used to be more accessible in the past (older folks are welcome to chime in and offer their perspective).

- pubs with larger university people tend to be more affordable, but the age band is quite restricted... Not formally, but somewhat implicitly.

Yeah, they're just doing a bit. A fairly tame bit for that matter. There's an expression "giving someone enough rope to hang themselves" that I think fits here.

Depending on crowd and delivery I might not clock it as a bit. But even someone earnestly answering Atlas Shrugged, they know what they're doing and that deserves at least a few followups. Probably a bit mischievous myself. "Oh, that's cool, because I always wanted to find someone I could ask why the statue is doing squats instead of shrugs?"

But by using a negative to judge the response of the other people, the other people could just as easily be judging him.

Now both parties are looking down on each other. When really they agree.

Being disingenuous is just a bad first and only data point to give someone about yourself.

I really like your radar analogy

Or better example:

Person 1: I like Atlas Shrugged (secretly don't but use it as a test when meeting people)

Person 2: Amazing, I also like Atlas Shrugged (secretly don't, but don't want to argue with another Atlas Shrugged fan boy, so just nod head and agree, and just looking how to end conversation and move on).

I've used the same test (simply reference Ayn Rand in a non-disparaging context when topical) and it's fantastic what the results are as far as actually finding independent, open, and prosocial people.

There's a narrow band of people that will actually give Rand a fair shot and treat her objectively without also mentioning that they're also in Mensa and into Agorism (the opposite and ironic red flags of slavishness to Objectivism).

With that narrow band of people you can have any conversation and explore any topic because they have their own thoughts! And I'd rather discover who is and isn't a member of that set early on.

In short, not a bug, will not fix.

So turn away the people really super into Ayn Rand, and also the people that dismiss her to quickly?

Kind of weeding out the Left and Right?

That is a narrow band.

I've seen some pretty smart people that react very negatively to Ayn Rand. Sometimes just as a reaction to the fan-boys of Rand that miss-interpret her and have made such a thin philosophy so popular.

It is possible for people that would give her a fair argument intellectually, but get tired of dealing with the fan-boys and not want to engage anymore.

Unfortunately, Rand has become part of the culture war, so it is hard to find anybody talking about her actual philosophy. But, guess that is the group you are finding.

Everything is so tiresome nowadays.

If somebody said they liked… some books by Heinlein or whatever, there’s a guy with some Political Opinions. But he can write. It is believable, picking a Heinlein book isn’t an obvious political test.

For those who do not know, this is an understatement. The monologue is some 60 pages long.

Learning someone enjoys Rand's writing/philosophy diminishes them in my eyes, but Heinlein is just good taste in scifi.

as such, i found atlas shrugged to be a dull, self-indulgent thought piece that was aesthetically and technically unappealing. however, it is an important work that has influence on philosophies of human politics.

but that's just, like, my opinion, man

Like what if the other party doesn’t take the political bait and starts talking about train sex or whatever?

anyway, yes, political conversations would be far more productive if they discussed train sex over against rand-based political/economic theory

So just because you can't think of another book that has this, it's not well written?

idk I'm no follower of objectivism but Atlas Shrugged is a book you definitely dont forget... and in my classification that makes it good

Regardless of political opinions, that monologue in the middle of Atlas Shrugged is some quite poor writing. TBH if someone said their Atlas Shrugged was their favorite book, I would assume they were making some sort of political statement, which seems like a bit of an intrusion on what otherwise ought to be a fun chat about books.

I was a teenager when I read her books, and these days mostly disagree with her politics. It was a while ago, but I vaguely remember The Fountainhead being a better read than Atlas Shrugged.

Honestly Ayn Rand's sexual politics are more interesting than her economic politics. The books are mostly about masculinity and its definition. The ideal men in her books are immutable flawless beings, and the (good) women learn to define themselves by dating progressively better men.

In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny goes from Francisco d'Anconia (no ambition playboy) to Hank Rearden (ambitious steel magnate that's a slave to the state) to John Galt (genius that refuses to compromise on anything). Dagny achieves fulfillment by collecting personality traits from the people she dates—which ultimately leads to her realization she is the one responsible for her own self-actualization (kind of contradictory lol).

The Fountainhead engages with this more, because the conformist Keating is portrayed as more harmful than the physically abusive Roark.

I'm convinced Ayn Rand defined the "sigma male" and she'll get no credit for it as a woman. She engages with the concept much more than the manosphere, because her sigma males end up poor, homeless, and societally unsuccessful because of their inability to compromise.

Contrast the dream sold to young men on social media, which is "not compromising on anything will make you rich and attractive!"

I don't agree with Rand's value system but she accurately describes what happens to people that hate compromise. The only reason why one would be a sigma is if one prioritizes "being right" over every other aspect of one's life.

I think that is one thing I enjoyed about the Fountainhead, it felt a little more grounded because, even though the main character is this egoist superman guy, we at least are with him as he’s having a bad time.

I just remember Gault being this rumor hiding off in the wilderness or whatever, then he shows up with his sci-fi engine, drops pages and pages of dialogue, and… wins? I forget how it ends for him, tbh.

iirc the Fountainhead has two viewpoints, Roark (heroic architect) and Dominique (Roark's lover). My belief is that Roark is a fake protagonist. It's Dominique who undergoes most of the character growth, as she learns to accept Roark's heroism.

Roark gets kicked out of architecture school for not designing in a neoclassical style, then continually loses jobs or has to fight others to achieve his vision. He's suffering like a protagonist, but it doesn't actually lead to him changing like a protagonist. His struggles are generally the same—trying to design buildings and having his designs criticized/ruined on superfluous grounds.

Contrast Dominique who goes from Keating (mediocrity) to Wynand (societal success) to Roark (self-actualized man). Dominique's the one who redeems herself by the end of the book.

> I just remember Gault being this rumor hiding off in the wilderness or whatever, then he shows up with his sci-fi engine, drops pages and pages of dialogue, and… wins? I forget how it ends for him, tbh.

Galt invented a perpetual motion machine (supposedly not one) but refuses to give it to pseudo-Communist America and spends all his time doing manual labour. Society collapses because Galt starts a movement to make the genius capitalists of the world go on strike, then he makes a speech at the end to flex on everyone as the world descends into anarchy.

The funniest part is the speech has no relevance to the plot. Society would collapse regardless of Galt making the speech. The speech convinces the government to let Galt take over the country to fix it, but Galt tells the government to pound sand.

The ending of the book is a complete societal collapse so Galt can rebuild from scratch.

Ironically Galt shares his strategy with the Argentinian Trotskyist J. Posadas, who wanted the Soviets to start a nuclear war since the destruction of society would allow the workers to rise up.

Never read The Fountainhead.

To see it any other way reeks of entitlement.

I didn't read it until I was well into my 30s, but I very much enjoyed it. Not the best I've ever read, but I have read it a few times now.

I don't agree with a lot of it, and I can't relate to some of the characters personally, I just think it is extremely well written. The characters and their motivations are very well laid out, and we get to go on a journey with them.

Honestly I think of it as a piece of media similar to superhero movies. The practical reality of superheros implemented literally would likely be a complete catastrophe. But watching fictional superheros do acts of good is inspiring.

In fact I'd guess that if you really did talk with tb for a while, you would probably pick up that Ayn Rand is not a fit for the beliefs they convey.

I just know what types of people I like to hang out with - and they're typically people patient enough to put up with my dumb ass.

Your friends deserve better.

Kidding aside friend, I get the feeling you've been hurt in the past and that's really sad. I can't change any of that. But I can tell you that you're a pretty cool person in the present and you can attract other cool people by being authentically you. Consider your list of favourite books - you're fricking cool.

If you're authentically you, you will get burned and that's sad. But in a way, you're burning other people to keep from being burned.

Thanks for this talk - I enjoy you.

The entire comment tree is honestly really baffling to me.

From people claiming I'm a secret fan of Rand, to people claiming I'm antisocial, or a sociopath - it's been a wild ride.

From my perspective, it would be worse to subject myself to people who hate me. And just because I'm not friends with someone doesn't mean I wouldn't jump start their car, or help them out in another way in a pinch.

It's all just so bizarre to me.

Have a good night.

I'm living my life happily surrounded by people I cherish and appreciate - and who cherish and appreciate me.

I pay taxes. I have a lover and children. I hang out with friends, and we all have a good time.

I can't see your viewpoint as anything but being inflexible. Contrary to popular belief lies are an important aspect of the human condition. We lie to others and ourselves.

Maybe they don't.

Fast-forward a decade and I know who Ayn Rand is and her philosophies. I know generally what type of people adhere to her philosophies and they are the opposite of who I would normally associate myself with.

My opinion of my friend has not changed now that I am more familiar with Ayn Rand. It provides additional background for some of the values that my friend has, but does not change who that person is or my ability to be friends with them.

I think that a lot of times it is easy to distance yourself from someone who has opposite beliefs from you, but at the end of the day, I don't think that is the only criteria in determining if someone is worth associating with.

And if I’m drunk I’ll laugh at you.

I found Canticle kinda "meh" personally. It was a great premise, and the 1st third was somewhat interesting, but the rest fell flat for me. I'd say it was a book I wanted to like a lot, but the execution let me down.

I kind of love it.

I have a twisted collection of semi contradictory beliefs that I feel fairly strongly about and make it so I don't really fit in with right wing, left wing, or centrists, though I am really accepting of other people with opposing viewpoints. This failure to fit well in a bucket has caused the loss of quite a few friends, and so having a filter for people who can't tolerate opposing viewpoints is pretty useful.

Nietzche fills this role for me. Thinking he was right is a big red flag. But not knowing of him makes your opinions on philosophy meaningless.

Is there something in particular that feels most egregious about master/slave morality or do you have some reading attempting to reject the ideas?

GoM is an interesting work on his ideas about the historical evolution of social norms and the psychological motivations behind them in many cases; in either it or TGS he says that a really comprehensive work on the evolution of norms throughout human history and different societies in different conditions would be invaluable, and that his work is only sort of a first step on an enormous undertaking. Unfortunately, we never much took it up. Maybe that's inevitable, since Nietzsche in a rare normative moment says the exception should not become the rule; we don't want a lot of people to not take their norms so seriously they reflexively reject serious consideration of their contingent character. If they do, you don't have much of a society.

It's certainly very hard for people to seriously think about these problems. Plenty of very smart people take thinkers like Rawls seriously, where Nietzsche's work clearly shows it to be without any serious foundation. You could of course still make a claim for moral realism, but it requires the acceptance of ideas the same people are usually allergic to.

But even more than that, Nietzsche is full of really incredible ideas and insights worded in clever ways. TGS is brilliant. When someone talks about these subjects I usually gather they didn’t really engage. Those topics are what come up in almost all secondary sources where they are treated superficially or often, like Russell, almost maliciously wrong.

As to the bleak outlook, I don't remember enough (it was a long time ago), but a few years ago looked it up on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz?usesk... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_M._Miller_Jr.?useskin=v... I learned that Arthur Miller Jr suffered from depression and chose to end his life with a firearm in 1996, age 72. I am always somewhat 'on guard' when I read works from people who were suffering with an illness like that, wondering how much of the story is infused with unnecessarily dour material when another, perhaps more upbeat approach, would have served the story as well. I guess I do not want to be dragged into depression by being overly bummed out by Fiction.

What about people who are critical in a way you'll never know? Personally I might check off a "don't ask for book recommendations" box in my head and never mention it to you again

It is surprising that a book can become such a barometer. I liked the book originally, it isn't a bad introduction to some ideas. But even when I was young was able to poke holes in it.

But then many years later, it has become something like a 'flag' or 'rally cry' for certain segments of populating that either haven't read it at all, or have horribly miss-interpreted it, or most likely only idealized it by reading the first half.

As an aside, it kind of seems like Atlas Shrugged actually is your favorite book. You don’t appear to care what others think about Neuromancer or The Dying Earth but you literally require a specific and narrow set of feelings about Objectivism to pass The Test. (And obviously, it is the feelings that you mandate, not the lack of social graces, as you have noted that you don’t mind if others politely stop talking to you even after passing The Test. They do not feel positively enough toward Ayn Rand and as such are not worthy of your time)

Neuromancer is enjoyable, but mostly because I enjoyed cyberpunk inspired media before reading it. Seeing all the influences Neuromancer had on books, movies, anime/manga, and even half life mods was a real treat. That and I empathized with Case - in my youth I was addicted to amphetamines, and it was a really nasty habit to kick.

As for Dying Earth, although the first wizards story is a little bit of a slow burn, seeing the elf sisters come back for their own pieces in the anthology was a real treat. Seeing the disturbed one overcome her sickness and find love was a fun triumphant end for her character arc. I'm also a DnD player, so seeing the early inspiration for the spell slots mechanic was a really cool experience for me.

But, really, what really annoys me about what people like you do is interrogate people for purity. I lost too much time in my youth trying to keep people, who I thought were my friends, like you happy.

That sort of stress isn't worth it. People who act this way are not a positive influence on my life, and I just don't have the time for it. And it's perfectly acceptable not to want to be friends with people who accuse other people of being too chuddy.

It's just gross, man

> I lost too much time in my youth trying to keep people, who I thought were my friends, like you happy.

This is pretty much a summary of John Galt’s long speech.

Also,

https://fablesofaesop.com/the-fox-and-the-grapes.html

Stopped clocks and all that.

It’s the fundamental point of the entire story. Like it is literally the thesis of the 1000 page book.

Guy figures out that there are two tiers of people, good or smart or whatever (John Galt, you) and less good or smart or whatever (me, your childhood friends (???)), and the way to address this is for the Smart Goods to protect themselves from the Dumb Bads through their wily tricks. It is the plot to every ayn rand book

Of course Rand lovers don’t have a monopoly over freedom of association. That said, doing something that looks antisocial and silly from the outside and then responding to the lightest of scrutiny by explaining that you have to isolate yourself in order to protect yourself categorically from anyone that might criticize you (to quote you: “But, really, what really annoys me about what people like you…”) is… a trope. It’s what every Rand protagonist does because she was not a good writer. It is somehow also the sort of thing that people that read and enjoy her books tend to seek to emulate in real life.

Now as for why I do this? This book creates such a wild reaction in people that it's an effective tool for sorting out radicals, purity commissars, and generally annoying people. And it works.

I don't actually care about the book. I don't understand why people care about the book. I care about keeping pains in the ass out of my life. And, let's be honest here, the feeling is clearly mutual with some of these people.

And people here clutching at pearls over a white lie?

People find ways to self select with all sorts of methods. Mine doesn't involve immutable characteristics, and I prefer it that way.

That is a yes to my question, then. You do not know what the book is about but you do know the Correct Feelings that others should have about it.

You’ve clarified that you do not lie to strangers because you need them to feel a particular way about Ayn Rand. It seems that you have voluntarily posted in the book thread, unprompted, that you lie to strangers about something arbitrary as a test to suss out who will and will not be adequately deferential to you.

It is an odd thing to post and then vociferously defend, and it reminds me of a post I saw, “People willingly share things online that you couldn’t waterboard out of me”. That being said, I don’t think anyone is clutching pearls here unless you define literally any criticism at all as such.

You must forgive me for pointing out that it seems like Atlas Shrugged is actually your favorite book. It is simply everything you said before and after our initial interaction that made it seem that way, and you have made it clear that it provides you a crucial value that no other book does, after all .

> That is a yes to my question, then. You do not know what the book is about but you do know the Correct Feelings that others should have about it.

Yes. From past experience I've observed less obnoxious behavior from some humans over others. Obnoxious is subjective. I'm fine with this.

> It is an odd thing to post and then vociferously defend, and it reminds me of a post I saw, “People willingly share things online that you couldn’t waterboard out of me”. That being said, I don’t think anyone is clutching pearls here unless you define literally any criticism at all as such.

But what if I'm lying about lying about my favorite book being Atlas Shrugged? You will never know!

Honestly, I find this all a little ridiculous.

"You admitted that you lie in real life."

Yes. Everybody does. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying. I lie about things that won't hurt people if discovered, or about things to make people feel better about themselves. And it's not fucking weird to say it.

Men have been lying to their wives about how the old dress fits for a long, long time - and if you think the correct answer is the honest one, you're a fool.

Edit: Watching my points go up and down on this one has been interesting! I didn't realize people were so divided on whether or not it's okay to lie and test people as some sort of friendship filter.

But the OP did say by any metric of "best".

And I did post three of my favorites at the end, too!

I'd recommend also "Anathem" by Stephenson

Let’s meet soon

This made me chuckle wryly... :)

In a previous life, I might have been on who got along very well -- at least intellectually -- with those who loved Atlas Shrugged and swore by it as the bible of their lives. Now, with some age and wisdom, it's the exact opposite.

I myself wouldn't use a book as a filter for all things in social life... (for it generates way too many false positives), but I sheepishly admit to doing the same every now and then...

Different strokes, different folks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Different religious texts? Especially if you pick one that is not part of the primary religion of the area you are located in.

A Modest Proposal? Probably the worst choice. Most won't recognize it and the few who do will assume satire in your response. (Also, essays aren't books, but who is counting.)

A certain book by Nabokov?

What about someone who seriously considers the question, but then says that they've read many books but don't really have one they consider the best? Too much of a non-answer?

Its at least a bit interesting that this idea that "Ayn Rand exists as a roundabout litmus test for assholes" is quite weird, one I've never heard before, except from him. To arrive independently at the exact same, weird conclusion, there must be something to it.

But I'm not him.

The obvious followup question is how did it change your life? Under this gambit of yours I wonder how you'd respond?

I'm not interested in Ayn Rand or her bizarre fanboys but I think if someone said that to me I'd honestly be curious enough, not out of empathy but out of anthropological interest, to ask the question

I'm sorry but if someone disregards you at that stage I wouldn't say that they lack "social accumen to not go too hard in the paint early" as you say, rather that they have sufficient experience with difficult people and just chose to willingly ignore you for their own good.

Even admitting to doing this is already off-putting to me.

Whenever I hear about that author the only thing I can think of is her adoration of a strong man in the person of a killer who kidnapped a little girl and propped up half her body in a car to ransom her back to her father then pushed the half a corpse into the street and drove off with the money. Then I think about her retiring on welfare.

> "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"

https://www.alternet.org/2015/01/how-ayn-rand-became-big-adm...

It's not a fair comparison but when someone says their favorite author is Rand I have a similar response as if they had said "Hitler". I can tolerate ideas I hate but see little profit in trafficking too much with sociopaths. Perhaps you don't either else why do you avoid those who are "way too supportive"

This is a really good point, actually, but I am counting on this. What I'm trying to select in strangers is patience (also humor). If someone gives me shade in a silly enough way, everything is permitted.

Also, a nitpick, being friends with someone is solely up to you. If either you or someone else don't like each other, a relationship effectively cannot happen (although, there are exceptions, first impressions can be overcome).

So rather than even trying to predict what someone else is thinking, I just don't try (and pretend it's not a factor). I go with my gut, and most of the time it works out great for me.

I'll add some context though, most of the time I do this in dingy dive bars and small town pubs. People aren't typically very cerebral there, so it works.

I tolerate different ideas just fine, but anyone over the age of 20 who tells me "The best book I've ever read was Atlas Shrugged in 8th grade. Changed my life." will immediately strike me as a person I probably have little interest in being friends with.

My more-depressing interpretation of this is the value comes as an explanation for being written off by others. Rather than being a way to filter others out, a person with multiple socially off-putting habits or a generally disagreeable demeanor can do This One Weird Trick to then point at their cleverness as the reason why they are standing in a room fun of people that don’t want to talk to them.

There is no need for self-reflection if everyone else is simply too gauche to understand how actually pro-social your nakedly anti-social ruse is.