I know Branden is a bit of a bete noir in these circles so I am aware that I am treading on mighty thin ice here ! :-)
Nathaniel Branden wrote in "The Benefits and Hazards of Ayn Rand's Philosophy" that Objectivism encourages (sometimes severe) psychological repression. He shows the example of Ayn Rand heroes who appear to be aloof, disconnected, coldly unperturbed individuals (the prime example being Howard Roark) who do not exhibit any normal human emotions that would accompany loss of lovers, loss of jobs/status etc. His thesis (expounded here: http://nathanielbranden.com/ayn/ayn03.html#repression ) is that many folks, especially young folks are led to believe that they should repress any feelings and that the philosophy of Objectivism teaches this damaging lesson.
My question: is Branden wrong? Why?
Objectivism does not tell one to suppress or repress emotions. Rather, it tells one to investigate the premises that causes the emotion to arise to determine if they are true or not. Once false premises are swept away, what's left behind will be valid and one can and should react to that.
With that said, I can see many reasons why people who do not understand Objectivism would hold the viewpoint that Objectivists are aloof, disconnected, etc. Certainly, it is highly probable that Objectivists end up with less "friends" and family as they go down that path but that's only because they have a better understanding of their own value hierarchy. As a result, they become more selective in terms of who they spend their valuable time with.
Personally, I'd say that Branden was really butt hurt by Rand's moral judgement on him...but that's his problem, not hers and definitely not a problem of Objectivists or Objectivism.