Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

human_murda

Regulars
  • Content Count

    199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by human_murda

  1. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    (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).
  2. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    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.
  3. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    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).
  4. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    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.
  5. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Aww. So sad 🤧. White men are surely the victims in a discussion about the mental disabilities of non-White people. Please cry more.
  6. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    No. Paper
  7. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    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.
  8. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    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?
  9. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    @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)?
  10. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    They already do. India has a lot of immigrants. So does Pakistan (mainly from Afghanistan after the recent conflicts). There's also a large immigration into Kerala (the state I'm from) as well. Of course, the immigrants should be vetted because of the terrorism problem. Muslims per se aren't the problem (India also has almost as many muslims as pakistan). Of course, India can't really support all these immigrants, but that's a problem with the economy. Many also don't have proper housing. Also, as many have said Objectivism doesn't assume that people are selfish by nature (if people were already selfish by nature, you wouldn't need a philosophy to advocate for selfishness. It would happen automatically).
  11. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Right. If immigrants don't have housing and attempt to live in other people's homes, that's a violation of individual rights and they should be rightfully deported (with the money required for deportation being collected from everyone while they enter the country). This is a restriction on immigration imposed by reality, not by arbitrary constraints. Welfare should be eliminated as immigration isn't compatible with welfare. Democracy should be replaced by a limited form of democracy: a republic, so that immigrants (or people who are born and raised in their respective countries) can't actually change or threaten the nature of the government.
  12. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    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.
  13. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    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?
  14. human_murda

    The Case for Open 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).
  15. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    (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).
  16. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    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).
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. human_murda

    Colonialism/imperialism

    Which terrorist was fighting for civilization and how is that relevant here?
  21. 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.
  22. 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)
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
×