Getting off topic. But conceptual reasoning is arbitrarily defined based on other experiences and self-refential so not inherently epistimologically valid. To privilege it over other forms of knowledge and human experience in all situations is paradoxical even within a worldview that is based on reason.

Further clinging to the validity of reason over all other experiences is a rigid mental position that prevents the acceptance of the full range of diversity and beauty in the human experience

It is more appropriate to see reason as tool that has uses in specific scenarios. Rather than some sort of metric for ultimate truth.

People frequently mistake their own prejudices and preconceptions for fact, their intellectual habits for reason, and their observations for objective reality. Combine that with a certainty that 'pure reason' leads one to the best possible decisions, and one can become quite foolish while believing oneself to be wise.

He started "Reason" with uppercase R and used verb "preaching", this means that he probably tried to express some sort of irony and he doesn't really consider Ayn Rand's worldview "reason-driven".

I am neither a detractor of Ayn Rand's worldview nor do I think her views are exclusively molded by reason.

In fact, if anything, I think Reason ( or reason ) - as in the opposite of emotion and sentiment-driven - is a very good instrument to deal with the problems of the world.

It imbues a dose of balance to our thoughts and actions, both of which are sadly lacking in the highly emotion-driven decision-making of the modern world.

We are as much creatures of emotion now, as we have ever been.

Reason does not inform our decision making, as much as it should.

I would agree that the average person is too sentiment-driven. Rational thought is unquestionably beneficial in many circumstances. But I take issue with the absolutist position that reason is always the best tool for the job. When I subscribed to that way of thinking, I was more interested in winning the argument than being compassionate. I saw the world in black-and-white terms, and I was proud of it.

The problem, of course, is absolutism in any form. In answer to your other question, what triggered the change for me was an interest in Buddhism/Taoism and taking a psychoactive substance (LSD) for the first time. I realized that reason is a tool, not a worldview, and it isn't always the right tool for the job. Specifically, it's often the wrong tool for interacting with other people, because it leads to this mindset where you're always judging everyone. If someone says something you don't agree with, they're no longer an equal. If they're homeless and begging for money, it's because they're lazy, or because of some societal factor. Analyzing people through that lens removes their humanity. Some people choose to live that way, but I no longer do.

Rand's reason is reason in name only.

Pretentious naming is something it has the dubious honor of sharing with something for example Scientology ("but .. we're not a religion, it's all scientifical!" was what they started out with).

There are parallels in everything from geopolitics to literature: If you feel the need to be extra explicit about your name, it's should be a pretty big warning to everyone that there are issues with it.