Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

human_murda

Regulars
  • Content Count

    183
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

human_murda last won the day on July 4

human_murda had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About human_murda

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    India
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

1301 profile views
  1. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Well, India is not really consistent in how unregulated the different sectors of the economy are. The IT industry is highly unregulated and most of the rest of the economy is still highly regulated. The deregulation that happened in the 90s was small (but still boosted India's GDP growth a lot). Consider the case of Technopark, Trivandrum. At least Wikipedia says that it was due to the 90s liberalizations. Then, consider the case of Botswana: it has much higher economic freedom than India (ranked at #35, its economic freedom is much higher than the world average, while India is ranked at #130, below world average) and has a much higher per capita income. Finally, you're just looking at how the world looks right now, which wasn't how it always looked. Lower intelligence cannot make you believe that the sky is green or that water is dry. People don't believe in God due to low intelligence. People can't become criminals or believe wrong things simply because of low intelligence. I'm actually pretty set in my mind too, but I mind don't discussing the topic of intelligence. I usually find that the more the detail with which you study something, the more simple and nuanced your position becomes. However, my personal beliefs are probably different from everyone else (and probably controversial). I personally believe that, apart from people who have neurological disorders or parasites in their brain (or suffer from extreme malnutrition), everyone's base intellectual capacity is the same. I think that individual variations in intelligence are primarily due to the use of intelligence and that people's achievements are due to how rationally they approach their work (I'm not talking about monetary achievements per se; that depends on other people as well). One of the prime reasons for my belief is that, if one person solves a problem, I don't see how another person can never solve that problem. Also, the assumption that people of lower intelligence can't solve some problems raises more questions: if there are some problems that people of lower intelligence can't solve, then there must be some problems that humans with the highest intelligence can't solve. Then why do people believe that humans like Einstein would have the capacity to solve every problem in the Universe? Are there some humans that can solve every problem in the world, while there are other humans who can only solve a limited number of problems? People who assume that humans with the highest intelligence can solve all problems in the Universe while humans with lower intelligence can only solve a limited number of problems have to make the above assumption. This contradicts the continuity in human intelligence. There are only two solutions to this problem: (1) All humans are dumb: at some point in the future, humanity will face a problem that not even the most intelligent humans can't solve (2) All humans are smart. Based on the fact humans have been capable of solving every problem that has faced humanity, I believe the latter is true. In summary: Define intellectual capacity as the ability to solve new problems. Assume that human intelligence is continuously varying. Then it's not possible that there are two different classes of humans: (a) one class of humans who can solve every problem in the Universe; (b) one class of people who can solve only a limited number of problems. If all humans belong to the same class/category then there are only two possibilities: (1) Humanity will encounter one problem which nobody can solve at some point in the future (2) All humans have the capacity to solve all problems. Based on history, I'll say that the answer is (2) (there's one way out this problem: to claim that human intelligence is not just different in degree but different in kind, i.e., that human intelligence is not continuous. I think that is wrong too). This is my "proof" that all humans must have the same intellectual capacity (capacity to solve all problems) with the differences being primarily due to the use of intelligence.
  2. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    I failed to mention: this is because of the spread of the English language in India. Perhaps, lack of interest in capitalism doesn't need to have any deep meaning. The reason could be something as unphilosophical as people learning English. Due to this. Not due to IQs. How do you get data about the IQs of different parts/nations of the world (used to build up your argument), if not from Lynn and Vanhanen.
  3. human_murda

    Colonialism/imperialism

    Well, if you want to speak about definitions, a "terrorist fighting for civilization" is a contradiction in terms, no matter what century it is.
  4. human_murda

    Colonialism/imperialism

    Which terrorist was fighting for civilization and how is that relevant here?
  5. human_murda

    Colonialism/imperialism

    Colonel Dyer, responsible for Jallianwala Bagh massacre was most definitely a terrorist (in his own words, his intentions had been to strike terror throughout the Punjab and in doing so, reduce the moral stature of the "rebels"). And the British didn't even lock up this terrorist, simply because he was on their side. Too bad.
  6. human_murda

    Colonialism/imperialism

    And all this is ignoring the racism from the British themselves. But racism is probably the least important part of British rule in India. The lack of social, political and economic freedoms are much more problematic. (Also: forgot to mention the Rowlatt Act in relation to convictions without trials)
  7. human_murda

    Colonialism/imperialism

    In what ways? Should the millions of indentured laborers at the time be thankful too? What about the millions who died in famines in India due to British mismanagement (with similar things happening in Ireland too)? Then, there were the massacres, the division of Indians into various races based on loyalty to the British (giving more power to the higher castes; making the caste system economically lucrative for the higher castes, entrenching it further into the Indian society), subjugation of native newspapers, a stagnant economy (with even lower growth than when India became socialist), lower per capita income, higher taxes (especially for Indian goods, creating a government level monopoly for British goods, killing many native industries). Then, there were various convictions without trials and active attempts to detain Indians from the court system (even the Mughals had more Indians in their courts). Also, personally, I come from Trivandrum, which used to be part of the Kingdom of Travancore, which was a princely state, whose developments had very little to do with the British (and my ancestors were never directly under the British rule, or the Mughal rule, or the Maratha rule). Most of the developments in Travancore is thanks to the king, Sree Chithira Thirunal. He successfully enforced many policies. For example, child marriage was successfully abolished in Travancore, but failed in the rest of India due to British and Muslim opposition. Why should anyone from a former princely state even care about the British? If you attribute your success to the British Raj, then all African Americans can attribute their failures to White slave owners. It goes both ways.
  8. human_murda

    Colonialism/imperialism

    I realize that this is a very old thread, but anyway: I wouldn't. No. The Maratha empire was the predominant empire at the time. How are Muslim countries relevant? The Mughals had very little power at the time. They were also very different from other Islamic empires. Many later Mughal emperors were very concerned with integrating various sections of society, no matter what their beliefs were.
  9. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    The IQ study of various nations gives India an average IQ of 82 (but the data is really old anyways and has a very small sample size). Based on the people that I meet it Kerala, I would disagree with this and say that the intelligence of people in Kerala aren't low on average. Also, Indians living in America apparently have a different IQ (link) and incomes (link). Also, Ayn Rand is gaining more and more popularity in India over time (the number of people who join this forum that come from India should attest to that fact). This is completely random: there's no organization representing or promoting Objectivism in India. Actually this should be sufficient reason to suspect the validity of IQ scores. People who are not clinically mentally retarded show up as mentally retarded in their scores, invalidating the ability of the test to identify mentally retarded people. One way around this would be to claim that IQ scores mean different things for different ethnic groups. This would again invalidate IQ scores: it would mean that IQ scores are not comparable between ethnic groups. Another thing is that Lynn and Vanhanen only collected data for 81 nations, but reported it for 185 nations (link). There are also other problems with his studies. For one he selectively ignored data from Africa showing high IQs (link, link). He apparently discarded data above 75 IQ points. He therefore sought out individuals who were uneducated or illiterate or had malaria (link) to give the test to. Even if this may be done to get a more representative sample, what this means is the IQ scores of different nations are not comparable (since more than one variable is involved). Also, Lynn subjectively (inconsistently) determined what constitutes a representative sample (he didn't look for a representative sample in terms of the distributions of mental health, nutrition, etc). They were very unsystematic. There also seems to be reporting error with his South Asian data (link). More claims regarding Italian incomes and some other links can be found here. It also shows that the various methods that he uses to determine IQ gives inconsistent results (although he reports them as though they were consistent). There's also the question of adoption. Ultimately, IQ tests measure how well you take the test. The question of how that depends on your intelligence is a different one. Even if you're simply uninterested in the test, that would lower your scores; but that doesn't mean you're less intelligent (Western test takers who have heard of the IQ test and want to prove themselves using the test, would be far more eager to take the test than someone who has never heard or it, or who is selected to take the test because of illiteracy). A more accurate test of intelligence that doesn't depend upon your effort would probably require brain scans.
  10. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Isn't liberalism more prevalent among college educated people in USA? (And the cost of college education in USA is possibly one factor in this). Even in India, liberalism and communism are more popular in places that were historically more well-off and educated, like Kerala (and West Bengal). Communism is extremely popular in Kerala, where I'm from (although I'm grateful that I was born in Kerala and not somewhere else in India because it's better off than most other states in India in pretty much every aspect [except unemployment] ). A communist is seen as a man of integrity and principle in Kerala. Thinking individuals usually turn out to be communist, in Kerala (many of my friends are and I would say that they're pretty intelligent. Many of them have read Atlas Shrugged as well). Communist parties (for eg, CPI(M)) are also less corrupt than other political parties in Kerala (although it's not as good in West Bengal).
  11. human_murda

    Manichitrathazhu Movie

    I actually began writing this as a post to compare an Indian movie with 'Black Swan', especially the climactic dance scenes of the two movies (but I wrote too much). There is also an old (1993), malayalam movie (from Kerala, India) which reminds me of 'Black Swan': 'Manichitrathazhu'. It's not a Bollywood movie; it's part of the local, malayalam movie industry (which has lower budget that Bollywood). It's a story of a woman who goes to live in her ancestral house (tharavadu) and becomes obsessed with old village tales about a Tamil dancer (Nagavalli) who got murdered in one of the rooms in the tharavadu. She is bored and lonely (the movie has a song to represent her loneliness): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSHBCtZqK6s She begins to investigate and discovers what used to be Nagavalli's room (beginning of the video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rSs1olQLNM She identifies herself with Nagavalli and becomes obsessed with the authenticity of the story. She becomes increasingly psychotic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f5Psw53aDwmultiple and eventually is shown to have multiple personality disorder. However, the superstitious family members believe that somebody in the house is possessed. The climax of the movie includes a Classical Indian dance (Bharatanatyam), where she completely "becomes" Nagavalli: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrjWtszKPkU I actually liked this dance performance. For one, most Indian movies nowadays almost never employ Indian Classical dance (although most Indian movies have some kind of music or dance). I think this dance also conveys her mental derangement and the emotions that Ganga feels as Nagavalli. The song also switches between her real and imagined self. It's way older than 'Black Swan' (2010), but I thought there were some similarities in the story arcs (and there's a Bharatanatyam dance at the end as opposed to Ballet).
  12. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Lineage applies to both race and family tree. Family tree is just a more detailed form of race. It applies to a scale of 10 - 100 people. Race applies to a much larger scale of millions and even billions of people. They're both the same concept at different scales and aren't mutually exclusive. 'Proxima Centauri' and 'human race' are mutually exclusive concepts. "Family tree' and 'race' aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Lineage can even be defined wrt. species. And what genes do all humans have in common that we don't have in common with chimpanzees? Do humans exist? Nah. That's their entire job.
  13. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Race isn't defined by perception. It's defined by lineage. For example, this random girl (Pooja Gantra) is Indian / South Asian no matter what she looks like, because that's her lineage: Also, some Indians can look black (if you exclude the hair). Again a genetic test would prove that their (recent) ancestry is Indian / South Asian, not African. Besides, there are plenty of genetic tests commonly available (AncestryDNA, 23andMe) that are way more accurate than perception. Finally, there's a reason your perception of different people are usually different. If people's genetics were the same, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart (mostly). The fact that you can tell people apart implies some consistent (although complex) genetic differences between races (race needs to exist [in addition to perception] before you can perceive it. You can't perceive something which doesn't exist). Geneticists probably don't use race because it's probably useless to them. But "racists" definitely need to use genetics as race depends on genetics.
  14. human_murda

    Veganism under Objectivism

    The nature of an entity are all the characteristics that constitute an entity (in definite measures).
  15. human_murda

    Veganism under Objectivism

    You only gave me three options and I picked one. I don't know what more you want from me.
×