Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


human_murda last won the day on July 4 2018

human_murda had the most liked content!


About human_murda

  • Rank

Previous Fields

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1502 profile views
  1. Additional note: it should also be kept in mind that the "80% heritability" figure is not claiming that there is an 80% correlation between genetics and the variation in IQ. They have never measured correlation. Basically, the idea is that if one variable (IQ) is proportional to another variable (genetics), then the variances of these variables must also be proportional to each other. Basically, the 80% figure means that "80% of the variation in IQ could be explained by the variation in genetics" (heritability gives the variance in genetics as a percentage of the variance in IQ. It does not measure correlation). 80% is the theoretical maximum that genetics can contribute to IQ differences (the fact that this is the maximum comes from many of the assumptions involved in deriving IQ heritability). The heritability measure already assumes that there is a 100% correlation between genes and IQ [for identical environments] as well as a 100% correlation between environment and IQ [for identical genetics]. Heritability is just a measure to determine the proportion of the contribution of each of them to IQ differences, under the assumption that a relation already exists (they also ignore covariance between environment and genetics).
  2. That's not how they calculate heritability. An 80% heritability means that 80% of the variation in a trait is due to genetic factors. It does not mean that 80% of a trait is genetic and 20% is non-genetic. It doesn't say that 80% of 120 IQ points is heritable. It says that 80% of a couple of IQ points (say, 3 IQ points) is heritable. Having a high heritability for a trait does not mean that the trait doesn't have a high environmental dependence (there could still be a high gene-environment covariance). That's not how heritability is mathematically defined. There are a lot of other problems involved: for example, they assume that IQ is a linear additive function of two variables (genetics and environment), instead of being a general function of the two variables.
  3. In what Universe am I a minority? As far as I'm aware, "whiteys" are a minority in India. If anything, they were brown knighting for the whiteys.
  4. No, you should take pride in your intelligence, genetic or not. Free will, environment, quality education and nutrition are not mystical phenomenon. Says the genetic determinist (which is the most common form of modern determinism; there's almost no other form of psychological determinism that exists today). Oh, yes. Saying that some races don't inherently have lower intelligence is surely racial supremacy. Immigration = White genocide; White people have less power = racial supremacy of non-White people; Black people are not retarded = White guilt. Tell me more about how I incorrectly assumed you were White.
  5. Of course, but no one knows whether these differences are fundamental. Stupid people can give birth to smart people and vice versa. I don't think the differences in intelligence is that fundamental. "Logic" doesn't imply that the Earth is round or that IQ differences aren't caused by genetics. These are empirical claims (and there's no reason to believe that there are different variants of human intelligence. Humans haven't even existed for that long [yes, dogs evolved pretty fast, but they were artificially bred]. There's no evolutionary pressure to develop lower intelligence). Human intelligence is genetic (humans have the capacity for a conceptual intelligence, dogs don't). That doesn't imply that there are different variants of the "human intelligence gene". The fact that human intelligence is genetic doesn't imply that the differences are genetic (except for large differences like mental retardation). Also, all the "science" is just data fitting. It's not predictive. Heritability is a poorly defined quantity that has failed in practically every avenue, including the supposed genetic nature of IQs and human sexuality. Besides, it's a sham. Iranians and Indians have roughly the same IQ scores by these tests, but don't have the same genetics. Iranians are not Arab and have practically the same genetics as Europeans. It seems like India and Iran are simply lumped together by region, not by genetics. Also, the way they measured Indian IQ is terrible: they gave IQ tests to around 50 people in one corner of India and extrapolated it to 1.3 billion people (not to mention the fact that Indians living in other countries apparently have a different IQ). Besides, the Persian civilization and Indus valley civilization were not made by people with "low" intelligence (although they probably would have scored low on IQ tests). That's just non-sense. Europe had no complex civilization at that point. The differences between different civilizations happened during the industrial revolution (no, the industrial revolution was not genetic). The "science" is not even close to actual sciences like Quantum Mechanics or relativity (or anything from the Physical Sciences). They're not predictive, the gene-IQ correlations cannot be replicated. Don't usurp the prestige of successful sciences to support junk science. Also, finally, the future is not going to be an egalitarian society where all races have the same birth rates. It's not the fault of other races that European birth rate is very low (and low birth rates does not equal White genocide). The birth rates of different races are never going to be equalized, even if there was no immigration. The only egalitarianism is expecting the birth rates of all races to be equal. You can try importing high IQ capitalists from North Korea and China, but I can guarantee you that that's not going to work.
  6. (Forgot to mention: I will not accept that White people are my equals. That would imply that any failures of White people are the fault of Dravidian people. I do not accept Dravidian guilt and hence [in my infinite rationality] acknowledge that White people are retarded. If White people are mentally retarded, their failures are not my fault. If White people are not mentally retarded, their failures are my fault. Conveniently enough, it just so happens that they're actually mentally retarded. It's not my fault that they're retarded. I'm the only one rational enough to acknowledge their retardation while everyone else wallows in guilt. It's not my fault 😭). Anyway, for a serious discussion regarding slavery in America: the White slave owners who lived in the past are partially responsible for the disparities between Blacks and Whites in America today (Blacks and Whites also have different subcultures which also contributes. However, ultimately, the divergence occurred during slavery). This doesn't mean that Whites who exist in the present are responsible or need to be held accountable (the Whites in the past and the Whites in the present are two different groups only connected by ancestry and inheritance). The actions of Whites who existed in the past have ramifications today. The differences between slaves and masters are not going to disappear in a couple of generations. The success of some immigrants in America (including Nigerians) doesn't disprove the notion that Whites in the past are partially responsible for what's happening today (immigrants have a different culture and different mindset than people in America). Arguments such as "some races are mentally disabled on average and that's why they fail" are incorrect no matter how convenient these arguments may be in absolving some idiot's guilt complexes (get rid of the "either they're mentally retarded or I'm guilty" mindset).
  7. I can tell you're so upset. Don't be mad, it's just the way your brain is wired. You can't help it. I see that non-Dravidians can't control their emotions like I can. These are the mental disabilities non-Dravidians must face. They're simply wired differently (if you don't agree, you're intellectually dishonest). I see it now: we're all so different and must simply accept our differences. I don't want to insult anybody. I'm being kind to you. Besides, I'm probably being too charitable by assuming that White people have anything close to my brain. I'm sorry, I was being too altruistic in my intentions by initially assuming that White people don't have mental disabilities. I have since updated my thinking, attained enlightenment and realized that White people are just mentally challenged (if any Dravidian person doesn't agree with me: it's just because you're intellectually dishonest and you're being charitable about the intelligence of White people. If any White doesn't agree with me, it's because you're emotionally upset. These are the totally scientifically accurate psychiatric evaluations for you, depending on which fact you want to believe). There needs to be no more further proof for my lack of emotion (and my intellectual integrity) than my claim that Whites are retarded. I acknowledge that. My claim that Whites are retarded proves that I'm not emotional. Only emotional and irrational Dravidians believe that Whites are intelligent. I'm not trying to insult anybody. I'm not racist. I'm simply intellectually honest, unlike other charitable Dravidians who have been brainwashed to think that White people are like them. I discard all my failures (believing that White people were like me and could think). However, I'm not brainwashed. I'm not like those irrational Dravidians who believe in a mythical White race that can actually think. I'm not emotional. I've been red-pilled. To demonstrate my honesty, intelligence, rationality, sincerity, lack of emotion (and other Dravidian virtues), I acknowledge that White people are retarded.
  8. Anyway, I don't want to insult anybody. Let's talk about the race of mentally challenged people (with a few exceptions) known as White people; Let's discuss this like normal, rational people equipped with emotional mastery and intellectual honesty. If you assume that Blacks have mental retardation, I bet it's a form of attack and you're just emotionally upset. If you assume that any races have significant differences, I bet you're just saying that because that's the belief that fits your narrative. It's the way non-Dravidian brains are wired, you can't help it. I must not assume that non-Dravidians can think. Thinking is a curse that Dravidians must bear. I can't assume that White people can think, because they don't have Dravidian genes. Thus, only Dravidians must be able to think. I must not assume that other people are like me. Hence, it is proved that White people are mentally challenged (if you can't handle that fact, you're just emotionally upset). It's not my problem that White people are mentally challenged. I will not assume Dravidian-guilt by pretending that White people are not mentally challenged, anymore. Overwhelming scientific evidence has proven that White people are not like me. I must strengthen my psychology and steel my emotions and like the Ubermensch that I am (different and wired differently from everyone else), I must just accept the fact that White people can't think like me. I've never been to Europe, but I can smell the mental retardation from here (in a scientific and intellectually honest way, of course).
  9. So, if somebody says that Africans are mentally challenged, they're enlightened robots with no emotion (and are "intellectually honest"). But if somebody says Europeans are mentally challenged, they're emotionally compromised (because that couldn't possibly be true). Good to know. Looks like everyone has preset psychological evaluations for people based on what fact they're claiming: (1) Claiming that Blacks are mentally challenged: The person claiming it must have mastery over his/her emotions, is intellectually honest, is unbiased, has no ulterior motive, etc. (2) Claiming that Whites are mentally challenged: it can only be an emotional response and a form of racism against White people. (3) Claiming that there's no significant or important distinction between races (other than insignificant things such as skin color): The claimant must be saying that because that's what he/she wants to believe. They're trying to fit facts to their idealistic egalitarian fantasies. What's the point in giving out all these psychiatric evaluations with no interest in the actual science or mathematics? (If anyone's still interested, I'll still argue the position that White people are mentally challenged on average with a few exceptions). If you aren't, live long and prosper.
  10. Aww. So sad 🤧. White men are surely the victims in a discussion about the mental disabilities of non-White people. Please cry more.
  11. A bunch of White people debating (to be honest, it's not even a debate. Nobody has brought up the possibility that the Blacks are intellectually superior to Whites. It's still an epistemological possibility that Blacks are intellectually superior and Whites are trying to keep them down, both through actions and through propaganda about intelligence) among themselves whether they're smarter than people from third world countries isn't very interesting. "Oh, looks like we're smarter than everybody aren't we? What a coincidence? Clap Clap. Self-congratulations. Clearly, we aren't biased af". Let me add some spice to it (no, I'm not stereotyping myself). I don't know. He's a refugee in India. He can be as hypocritical as he wants to be. If White people consider themselves superior to me (or my race) and they're exterminated, you have to agree that that's a good thing for me (at least as far as my self-defense is concerned). If White people want to be collectivist as a race, go ahead, be collectivist. At least, I can sleep peacefully knowing that White people are dying (and that's selfish and morally right for me to do so). That's not racist, it's just self-defense (if you're intellectually honest, you would agree that White people would try to destroy me and that it's morally right for me to be happy if they ever die out). Besides, I bet that Dravidians are smarter than Europeans. If a bunch of third world Dravidian illiterates with bows and arrows could come up with calculus and infinite series centuries before rich Europeans, who is smarter? Clearly, Dravidians. Dravidians discovered many other mathematical theorems centuries before the Europeans crawled on their hands and feet pretended to discover the same results (for the first time!) with their inferior brains. It must be the manifest destiny of Dravidians to take over India and eventually Europe. If Mysore (inhabited by Dravidians) had a higher per capita income than London and the entirety of Europe before the British arrived (even the guns produced in Mysore were superior to low IQ European guns), what does that imply? If Dravidians had the highest living standards in the world, what does that mean? Europeans must be lower IQ compared to Dravidians. Capitalism wasn't meant for low IQ Europeans anyway: Europe and America are heading towards becoming unlivable third world countries, as they were always meant to be. Only Dravidians are meant to possess Capitalism. Europeans and Americans have always kept Capitalism for themselves and try to spread western philosophies like Socialism and Communism to the rest of the world. Not anymore. North Indians are genetically closer to Europeans than South Indians are, which makes them have a lower IQ. Their connection to Europeans (and the resultant low IQ) is responsible for their high fertility rates (several times higher than Dravidians), honor killings, low hygiene, cow vigilantism, low per capita income and sucking up taxation from Dravidians. If North Indians, with a bit of PIE blood is like this, what would actual Europeans be like? Probably mentally retarded (you would agree with me if you were intellectual honest ☺️). However, North Indians are inflicted with the curse of being more closely related to Europeans, which causes all their failures (they're born with a disability: their PIE genes). @whYNOT (In the spirit of pretending to be civil while claiming that some races are mentally challenged or born with a disability): Heritability figures are obtained under the assumption that the covariance between the environmental and genetic variables is zero. This assumption is false.
  12. Which genes are responsible for the IQ differences? Are you saying that some scientist out there has figured out a way to analyze the DNA samples of any two individuals in the world and then predicted the difference in their IQ scores with 80% accuracy? Or is it not predictive? If it's not predictive, then it's not science and the "80%" number doesn't mean anything. Were the genes responsible for IQ differences isolated? How did the scientist discover that it's "80%" and not 0% or 3% or 100% (especially if the genes responsible are not known)? What exactly is this "80%" figure for? Can they pull out two random individuals from the street, give them DNA tests and predict what their future IQ scores (or difference in IQ scores) are going to be with 80% accuracy? Or does the 80% result come from data fitting done on racial IQ averages (in which case 80% figure isn't predictive and the result assumes what the experiment is set out to discover)? I want to see the math. Can you link me to a paper or some website where they calculated and came up with the "80%" figure? Also, @Azrael Rand Can East Asians and Jews prevent White people from entering USA because of the low IQs of White people?
  13. @Azrael Rand Another thing that stands out to me is that you have completely replaced Normative ethics with statistics. You haven't stated what non-White people, like me, should do. If capitalism only works for White people, what should non-white people do (and this needs to be answered because Objectivism is concerned with moral imperatives)? Do different races have different codes of morality? Should I, as a low-caste dark skinned South Asian [I hate bringing this up but I guess this is all you care about], just give up on capitalism and follow communism? Should I just start advocating communism because I'm not white? What's the deal? (And as a side question as an Indian: Why is America so race conscious? Even as a low caste dark-skinned person from India, I've never been questioned about my beliefs because of my caste in India [and I don't even know the caste of anybody outside my family]. Why is this so important in America?) Another question about "shoulds" also arises. If somebody has rationally determined that the best way to preserve their life is to move to another country, what should they do? If you're not concerned about what people should or shouldn't do, you're not talking about morality. How does reason, rationality and moral imperatives work in a country with no individual rights (in a country where people are not allowed to act on what they think is right)?
  • Create New...