Festinger’s Question comes from his famous 1956 book, "When Prophecy Fails." Suppose (1) an individual believes something with his whole heart and soul; (2) he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; and (3) he is then presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, evidence he himself fully accepts as true, that his first belief is wrong. Festinger’s question is: What will happen?

The answer, well documented by six decades of subsequent research, shows people respond to dissonant beliefs by using three key strategies.

First, they can ignore the dissonant belief. In essence saying, I don’t want to believe it, therefore it isn’t true. This, as the psychologists would say, is a form of repression. We Objectivists recognize this as subjectivism, holding the primacy of consciousness to be true, instead of the primacy of existence.

Second, they can reduce the importance of the conflicting belief. This is evident by phrases such as “I’ll think about it tomorrow,” meaning I have more important things to consider. This, as the psychologists would say, is a form of evasion.

Third, they can make the newer conflicting belief consistent with the older existing belief by twisting the evidence, then claiming the beliefs are not really in conflict. This, as the psychologists would say, is rationalization. Michael Shermer calls it “motivated reasoning.”

What Festinger did not expect, was people did not question their beliefs. Quite the opposite. Researchers were astonished to find people became stronger in their irrational beliefs after having been presented with unequivocal and undeniable evidence the subject himself fully accepted as true. For example, if they believed in the flat earth, then were presented with the undeniable evidence of the spherical planet, they became stronger in their flat earth belief.

The most difficult beliefs for people to examine are those beliefs which have been (1) held for a long time; (2) adopted before age of reason; and (3) most often repeated.

This explains why it is impossible to have a conversation on the two subjects one should never discuss socially: Religious and political beliefs, both of which are drilled into children from the time they are born.

One may easily say, “every belief should be open to reexamination upon the presentation of credible evidence,” but attempting to live up to that standard is difficult and takes a concentrated effort.

Which brings me to Ayn Rand.

A tenet of Rand is man was born tabula rasa [Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: Signet. Chapter 1, “The Objectivist Ethics,” p. 28. Sorry, my copy is so old there is no ISBN. Rand also said this in the August 1970 issue of “the Objectivist” at page 3. Yes, I have the original copy I subscribed to and got in 1970.] and humans have no instincts. [Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. New York: Random House, 1957. P. 1013. Again, my copy is pre-ISBN. Hell, even my Spanish copy is pre-ISBN.]

The Theory of Evolution holds humans are not born tabula rasa and we do have instincts. Instinctive behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism to act in a particular manner. An instinctive behavior is a fixed action pattern in which a sequence of actions are carried out in response to a clearly defined stimulus. For example, a dog shaking water from wet fur.

The role of instincts (genetically determined behaviors) in determining the behavior of animals varies from species to species. The more complex the neural system, the greater the role of the cerebral cortex and instincts play a lesser role.

Do humans have instincts? The answer is, in 2016, clearly yes. Humans seem to be mentally “hardwired” regarding many observable activities, such as the False Positive or False Negative responses to signs of danger such as the rustling of shrubs ahead. Is the rustling from the wind or a predator?

Humans tend to elect the false positive, which means we fear the worst, but the rustling is only the wind and we go on to make love and make babies. The species continues. Animals which selected a false negative, the ones who thought it was the wind when in truth the rustling was a predator, were lunch for the predator. They did not make love and have babies. The species ends. Natural selection.

These are dissonant cognitions. As Rand points out in Atlas, if there are two sides, at least one is wrong (both may be wrong, but one must be wrong if the positions are mutually exclusive). How did Rand resolve the problem? She refused to take sides. “I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent.” Ayn Rand Letter, Vol II, No. 17, May 21, 1973. We are talking 1973, not 1873, and Rand does not take a stand on one of the most important discoveries in history. Incredible.

In my research I did not find Rand even mentioned Darwin. I am not the first to discover this omission. Neil Parille, in his essay, “Ayn Rand and Evolution” (http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/P...) presents an interesting explanation of why.

As time went on Rand and her lap dog Peikoff seemed driven more deeply into her tabula rasa and lack of instincts beliefs. This comports with the findings of Festinger. I think she was smart enough to know better but was unable to cope with the evidence due to cognitive dissonance.

This leaves Rand as (1) an individual who believes something with her whole heart and soul; (2) has taken irrevocable actions because of it by publishing her thoughts to the world and her followers; and (3) refused to even examine evidence to the contrary.

What would possibly drive Rand to ignore the theory of evolution, which was the most culturally changing theory in history, placing science before religion and illustrating religion’s claims for creationism to ring hollow?

Did she (1) say I don’t want to believe it, therefore it isn’t true; (2) reduce the importance of the conflicting belief and say “I’ll think about it tomorrow,” meaning I have more important things to consider; or (3) try to make the newer conflicting belief consistent with the older existing belief by twisting the evidence, then claiming the beliefs are not really in conflict; or (4) what?

To me, Rand selected door number 2: “I’ll think about it tomorrow.” In doing so, she reneged on a fundamental principle of her own philosophy: “To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of realty.” Atlas, at pages 1016-1017.

Here us the question I ask the Gulch: In failing to deal with evolution, did Rand abdicate her mind and evict herself from the realm of reality? Or, is there some other explanation for her omission?