I agree that the value in Objectivism is that by understanding philosophy, you become more successful in life. The virtue of selfishness is not an end in itself. The goal is happiness.

That 70% came to Objectivism through the fiction does mean that they stopped there. Many people do. I posted this link to the Culture of Reason Center (https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...) which, among other offerings, has a series of tests on Objectivism. The few replies were mostly negative comments from people who consider themselves Objectivists. It is like confusing a liking for Christy's Signing of the Constitution with actually understanding the Constitution. Nonetheless, the success of the ARI does show that, by analogy, many people who viewed the painting did indeed later read the document.

Fiction is about "sense of life." Philosophy is more formal than that. It is the difference between feeling good when you view Napoleon Crossing the Alps by Jacques-Louis David and understanding and evaluating both (a) Napoleon's history and (b) the mechanics of esthetics.

Consider the problem of establishing truth. You will not get that from WTL, Anthem, or The Fountainhead. Even Galt's Speech only outlines the solution.

You can respond positively to the moral tone of Rand's fiction, and still make serious errors in philosophy, as many people here do. "What are the three axioms of Objectivism?" Everyone gets it wrong.

My naive non-philosopher view of reading Objectivism from reading fiction is that it's saying your fundamentally own yourself and everything you create and everything someone freely gives you. A common value going back to ancient times that says, "good people should not be selfish and should put other's ahead of themselves" is wrong and corrosive. A healthy person doesn't want people doing stuff for him grudgingly out of a sense of charity. Fully embracing the value of putting others before yourself destroys the human spirit.

My view of Objectivism from hearing casual conversation, before I'd actually read any books, went like this: "Anything that in anyway smacks of being helpful is immoral. Only trades involving tangible value are moral. What you personally want does not matter. Sunstone Circuits started not long before I did, but I'm not making millions a year. It could be they're more innovative at helping customers. The only possible explanation is it's other people's fault: moochers, gov't policy, the banking system, immigrants, really anything except for things I did. Huge institutions created by an evil world are pulling my strings. Life is a box shits; you never know what bad things will happen next. If you notice anything positive happening, you must be a shill for the establishment because the truly righteous are down about everything.

For this reason I thought I hated Objectivism and wouldn't probably get through one book. Based on the fictional books, I'm a full-on objectivist. I've read parts of The Virtue of Selfishness, but I read it in bed, which doesn't work for history and philosophy.

It is saying 70% came to Objectivism reading fiction by Ayn Rand. Is this enough for somoene to know he's objectivist? I'll write another comment about naive views of Objectivism.