human_murda

And Nazism is still the identity politics of the right, regardless of what leftists think or whether Venus is too bright in the sky. And why are you bringing up Hitler? I didn't call you Hitler. Don't attempt to invalidate my arguments by pretending that I called you Hitler. And Nazism is the identity politics of the right (and I'm not talking about concentration camps. I'm talking about their principles: their belief that you should build a country based on physiological similarity, that people should stick to their own countries, that immigrants (blacks, jews, gypsies) will destroy countries and a Nationalism based on race, not geography). If you feel insecure about that, that's your problem. What's with assuming that everyone who opposes you is calling you Hitler? How about them right-wing tactics huh ;D If you're going to be a racist, at least be a proud racist and acknowledge that fact, instead of jumping through hoops, worried about what others think.

Interestingly, one of the first videos that pop-up when you search for "identity politics" on YouTube is this. The video attempts to justify identity politics by obfuscating the fundamentals ("all politics is identity politics"). He doesn't seem to understand the distinction between collective rights and individual rights (or maybe, he understands it and tries to hide it). He makes a similar argument: that identity politics is inevitable ("identity politics is going to exist whether you like it or not") since politics is based on your identity/nature. What's the moral stature of people who promise to sell you on "individual rights" through trickery and deceit (and emotional appeal)?. Why try to fight the attempt to obtain collective rights (by leftists) through more collective rights for the right? Does anyone actually hope to achieve individual rights through collective rights? Why does anyone promise others individual rights through collectivized rights for white people (or collectivized rights for supporters of capitalism)? Who is he trying to trick? Certainly not "high IQ" people. This pushing of identity politics towards capitalists should aptly be labeled capitalism for the mentally challenged. Anyone who tries to make the supporters of capitalism believe that the only way to save capitalism is through supporting collectivized rights for themselves [the supporters of capitalism or White people or whatever other group that statistically has a higher chance of supporting capitalism] isn't trying to save capitalism (notwithstanding their protests). With such an obvious contradiction, they're not trying to appeal to your mind. They're trying to appeal to what they think is the irrational within you (emotions, tribal nature, whatever it is). They apparently want to preserve capitalism through the initiation of force (towards immigrants or blacks or whatever other groups that are statistically less likely to be capitalist) and preserve individualism through collectivized rights/similarity/likeness. The mentally challenged capitalists are just going to be fodder for the alt-right. @Azrael Rand Is praising the intelligence of capitalists part of the emotional appeal? Is praising the race that has the highest numbers of capitalists part of the emotional appeal? And why do collectivists even need sanction from Objectivism?

Emotionally pleasing to whom? Different people have different values and different emotions. I'm sure there are some Nazis who would be emotionally pleased to believe that differences between people exist (even when none factually exists). The existence of irrational atheists (or people who became atheists by emotional rebellion against their parents) does not prove the existence of God. The fact that there exists emotional & irrational people who believe in equality (and use it to justify their arguments) does not invalidate their claim. Just because irrational people believe something doesn't mean that's false. Most people have an emotional attachment to their children; doesn't mean it's irrational. There are ridiculously dumb people who believe in capitalism. I don't know why you're so concerned with other people's beliefs/emotions and how you can manipulate them. "I'm smart, therefore I'm right (or vice versa)?". You know, a dog can't believe in Socialism. Because it doesn't have the mental capacity to do so. It does take intelligence to understand and believe in invalid concepts. It's now known that Newton's laws aren't entirely correct. However, you still require intelligence to study Newton's laws of motion. It also takes a good deal of intelligence to study theology, no matter what the "averages" are. As Ayn Rand said: (and if you're going to say that emotions are the chief culprit, then why do the "IQs" of people matter?) You're contradicting yourself: If we naturally assume that other people are like us, then that "precondition" is satisfied regardless of our "tribal nature". Nah, he's right. Having an open mind requires you to enter a debate without having an opinion. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion even if you're not omniscient. (Besides, requiring your opponent to not have an opinion is a weasely way of inserting your own opinion into their mind). You said yourself this (being 100% correct) isn't possible. Not my point (I'm not saying that people have extremes of IQ. I'm saying that differences in IQs, however small, doesn't predict a split in basic intellectual capacity). My point was, at which level of intelligence (or IQ points if you want) does the split between people (those who can solve every problem in the Universe and those who can't) occur. Can people with an IQ above 137 solve every problem in the Universe (and are people with an IQ of 136 or below confined to a limited number of problems)? Where is the split (and if there is no such split, then why does it matter if people have different IQs)? At which IQ point does there exist a split in intellectual capacity required to understand capitalism? The concept of intelligence or even the concept of IQ doesn't contain such a split, which is why I said it doesn't make sense. Not because I "want" it to be true. Thanks for the psychiatric evaluation but don't try to make up what my emotions are. It shouldn't even be part of the argument. Individuals have a right to restrict access to their houses. However, you don't have a right to restrict access to your neighbor's house. 300 million people don't have that right. What you're talking about are collectivized rights (and identity politics, which is its natural consequence). You're more "leftist" than you think (or atleast, you're jealous that you don't get to play by their rules, as you've stated throughout this thread). And don't forget that Nazism is the identity politics of the right (or maybe you already know it).

(As for how race enters into the picture: it's not really relevant. That's not where the problem with the study of intelligence or IQ tests arise).

I would say, not based on the claims of the people who distribute these tests to other people, but based on the structure of the IQ tests themselves that IQ tests could measure (if anything) productivity, not intellectual capacity per se. There are two main characteristics that IQ tests have: (1) they are time-limited (2) they involve questions of similar difficulty. You earn the most points by answering the highest number of questions with medium difficulty in the shortest amount of time. It basically measures productivity. If the test gave 3 novel problems as a 6 hour exam, that would probably test your intellectual capacity (but you would need a lot of subject specific knowledge before attempting such a test). But when the test expects you to answer each (standard) question in 30 seconds, that has very little to do with intellectual capacity and more to do with productivity. Even losing a little sleep would lower your productivity and probably, your IQ scores as well. So, because of the small variations in difficulty of the test, someone who scores high on the test need not be productive across the board. Also, someone who answers slowly might get a low score. So, I disagree with your assessment that a high IQ is necessary for particle physics (for example). Feynman apparently got an IQ score of 126. Someone who scored 150 can probably do more problems of low difficulty (compared to particle physics) in a shorter period of time. So although Feynman might be slightly slower on lower difficulty problems, he'd be orders of magnitude faster on higher difficulty problems. An accountant would probably score higher than a physicist (because of the difficulty levels and because they're used to doing problems of such difficulty extremely fast). Humans today are much more productive than they were 50 years ago, which might explain the Flynn effect (changes in IQ scores across generations). This could also explain why people who score high on the IQ test may achieve more: they may be more productive in their work. It may also explain why Bushmen may score less (although not fully proven because of poor data): they're used to idling around and are not used to highly productive activities. All of this is speculation. I don't think there are actual scientific studies that claim this. Ironically, the study of intelligence doesn't actually use much reason or logic. Most of it is just distributions of data (statistics) with poor attempts to interpret it. They don't even have an actual theory of intelligence (and then claim to be able to measure it). In situations like this, it's better to look at the structure of the test to figure out what it can actually measure than to take someone's claim at face value. (Statistics, by itself, doesn't mean anything. It's just there. The position of Mercury in the sky doesn't mean anything by itself. It's just there. People who attribute meaning to statistics without an actual theory are as good as astrologers. And there are a lot of them). Differences in productivity (i.e., differences in the time it takes to solve a problem) are matters of degree. It may take a dumb cheerleader 10 years to solve a problem (with effort) which took Einstein 1 week to solve. So, while I would say that productivity may differ between people, the ability to solve problems is the same (refer to previous post).

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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

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

They all have the same natures qua humans but as murderers, rapists specifically, no, they don't all have the same nature. So, for example, 6 and 7 have the same nature as positive integers (they're both multiples of one). But as specific numbers, they don't have the same natures (6 is divisible by 3 but 7 isn't). All I'm saying is: a thief is a thief. A thief cannot - NOT - steal. A thief cannot be a non-thief. That is their nature. Why is this so controversial? I'm not saying that morality does not apply to a thief, only that they do not get moral sanction from morality (despite having the physical capacity of reason. Having the physical capacity of reason or being human does not give them a right to steal). (Unless your claim is that a thief, as a human, not as a thief, doesn't "need" to steal and therefore has no right to steal and lion "needs" to kill and therefore can kill. You're replacing egoism with need and need as the basis of rights. Then we're back to the same question: is need a sanction to violate rights?) Also, what are you even talking about? Humans and turtles are living beings. Qua living beings, they have the same natures. But humans aren't turtles and humans don't have the same natures as turtles. Same applies to thieves and entrepreneurs. I said that if you're a thief, the end/goal which you actually achieve cannot be survival because the two aren't consistent. Their conscious goal may be different and they don't have any automatic knowledge.

I'm talking about thieves specifically, so I'm definitely not talking about (iii), so probably (i).

Oh, no. If your goal is survival, you can't be a thief. Thieves require the same range of actions as anybody else, if their goal is survival. But their goal cannot be survival. If you are a thief, ending up in jail, destruction and death is the purpose that is consistent with your nature. I'm not saying that different people have different rights. Only that rights cannot be defined for purposes other than survival (and if your nature is only consistent with goals other than survival, then your nature cannot be used to justify rights). I essentially agree with Ayn Rand: If life is your purpose, you have a right to live as a rational being. If death is your purpose, your nature as a thief is consistent with that. But it cannot be used to justify rights. Yes., but only with reference to a goal. If you're a human and your goal is suicide, what you ought to do will be different. But this idea is so tangential.

Okay, I missed this point

My point is that he won't be a thief if he doesn't. I don't think he would die if he doesn't, just that his "nature" is no longer that of a thief. You're talking in terms of purpose, not natures. You're talking about requirements of survival based on your nature, not requirements of nature. Living beings need not survive (it is not a requirement of their nature. A deer can be killed by a lion and that is fully consistent with its nature). And based on his nature, a thief needs to steal. A thief only needs to steal in order to be consistent with his nature. A thief doesn't need to be an industrialist to be consistent with his nature, for example. Stealing is the only thing they imperatively need to do as far as the law of identity is concerned (everything else is a choice). If you're talking in terms of purpose, of course the answer would be different, but based on nature alone, no. If you say somebody shouldn't be a thief, you can't justify it based on the law of identity ("requirements of nature") alone. Law of identity does not say you shouldn't be a thief.