CartsBeforeHorses

When did I ever say "being black causes a person to have a lower IQ?" That is not my assertion, and I never made a causal claim. I'm saying that the two things are correlated. Would you agree with that statement? What the ultimate cause of the correlation is, is unknown. Perhaps, for instance, Africa has a lot of heavy metals in its topsoil such as lead and mercury that hinder mental development. And Africa also happens to be sunny, so people have developed darker skin to shield their bodies from ultraviolet rays. The cause of the continent's geography would be behind both things. But it would still be correct to say that people with dark skin, on average, have lower IQs. Even saying that, though, appears to be too big a fish for people to swallow. If we are truly being objective here, shouldn't we look at the evidence? There is quite a bit of evidence which I have presented which indicates that blacks and whites have different levels of average intelligence. I have yet to see any evidence presented here to the contrary. It's been done before. The difference persists even when controlling for all of the things that you mentioned... while the difference does decrease, it does not go away. Then the tests themselves are derided as being "racist" or "culturally biased," despite the fact that IQ tests do not test for cultural knowledge, they test for abstract skills. Such as, being able to rotate a 2D shape around in your mind. Or the ability to correctly recognize patterns. You can't do a twin study on race and IQ. Twins by definition have the same race if they're from the same two parents. You can only compare race and IQ by comparing different races. Sure it would be a useful finding. It would end the notion that the only reason why blacks haven't succeeded in the United States as well as whites have is because of "white privilege" or "institutionalized racism." Instead, we could actually look at each group and determine their characteristics, instead of just blindly blaming white people. It's okay to be white. It's okay to be black. But the two groups are different from each other in other ways besides just skin color.

Alright, here goes. I will bold my main premises. It is valid to categorize groups of men based on certain traits that distinguish all members of one group from all members of another group. We do this all the time in philosophy, calling groups "socialists" or "capitalists," and "parasites" or "producers." We also do this based on physical traits. Men who are categorized as "obese" are all, every one of them, heavier than people who are "thin." That is a valid concept based on different traits that all men in each group share with each other. It is valid to make generalized statements about each group, based on averages, that goes beyond the term that we use to define the group in the first place. In the case of obese vs. thin, the only thing that all members of each group share in common is a difference of body size. But on average, they also share certain other traits. Obese men have higher incidents of heart disease and cancer than thin men. Does this mean that every obese man will develop heart disease? No. Does it mean that thin men can never develop heart disease? No. But as an objective fact of reality, it is correct to say that obese men have a higher than average level of obesity. Philosophically, it is valid to make a statement such as "obese men are more likely to develop heart disease than thin men" because everything in that statement is a valid concept. Scientifically as well, the statement checks out. Just as with obese men and thin men, it is correct to categorize men into different racial groups based on skin color... that is at least one trait that each group has. If you are black, then you have dark skin. If you are white, then you have light skin. You can call this trait "race" or "ethnicity" or "skin color," whatever floats your boat. I will call them "racial groups" for the sake of this discussion. We can justify going further than skin color by assigning different traits on average to men in each racial group, just as we went further with obese men and heart disease. We can make statements like, "black men are more likely to develop sickle cell anemia than white men" or "black men are more likely to have curly hair than white men." Both of these statements are documented, scientific facts of reality. They are based on genetic traits that are correlated positively with skin color. Not every black man has curly hair, some white men have sickle cell anemia... but comparing group averages is just as valid with race as it is with body size. To say that "it is invalid to categorize men based on certain traits and draw conclusions about the group based on things that are correlated with those traits" is to ignore a scientifically documented fact of reality. Now to the meat of the issue, intelligence. IQ is positively correlated with intelligence, and is at least somewhat heritable. Is IQ an exact variable that measures intelligence precisely? No. However, it goes a long way towards predicting intellectual success. As to the heritability of IQ, Wikipedia says here: "The general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Association report, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late teens and adults." Curly hair and sickle cell anemia are also heritable traits. They are genetic. You get them from your parents... and some groups inherit them more than other groups. Different racial groups inherit different traits on average. Just as black men are more likely to have sickle cell anemia than white men, they are also more likely to have lower IQs than white men. Both traits are heritable to some extent. While sickle cell anemia is 100% heritable, IQ is heritable to some extent between 30-70% according to the APA study that I cited above. Also, without even using a study, we can deduce that intelligence is hertiable to some extent. Smart families produce smart children on average. If it is valid to say this for certain families, then it is valid to say this about larger groups that are interrelated based on factors such as geographic proximity. Black men have a lower IQ score than white men on average. This difference has been documented both within countries, and between countries. Blacks on average score 11-16 points lower in IQ than whites in the United States (within a country). African, majority black countries have a lower IQ on average than European, majority white countries (between countries). Black men have lower intellectual achievement than white men, on average. This is shown in other variables besides IQ scores. It would be foolish to rely on just one variable when discussing intelligence. Again, IQ does not explain 100% of the intellectual variation between individuals. However, looking at things like secondary educational attainment and patent applications, both things which require intelligence, African countries lag far, far behind European countries. The same is true within the United States. The high school dropout rate for black youth is 40% higher than for white youth. At least some of this difference is heritable. IQ is heritable and intelligence is heritable to a certain extent. Certain races are more likely to inherit certain traits than other races. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that some of the difference between blacks and whites in intellectual capacity and achievement is due to heritable factors. To argue otherwise would be to assert that 100% of the difference between black and white intelligence is due to environmental factors alone. That is quite a fantastic claim to make, especially since these differences persist both across international borders (Africa vs. Europe), and within them (the USA).

Actually I do... you should see some of my other posts on O.O. Since this post is about "it's okay to be white," though, then obviously I am going to spend most of my time bolstering the case that it is, in fact, okay to be white. That necessitates talking about race, which is by definition a group characteristic. There is no "race" of one. That's what Russia, South Korea, and Japan have done, so... yes. It depends on which white person. If they had the brain of Bernie Sanders, then no. If they had the brain of Thomas Sowell, then yes. Wait, Thomas Sowell is a black man... yet I'm listing him as an example of an intelligent, capitalist-minded person. Guess I'm not as racist as some of you thought. Reason, and a reasoning process which leads to the right conclusions. Since there is no Reason Quotient (RQ), I am relying on other factors to come to the conclusion that African nations are not organized on reasoned principles. Here is another troubling variable for you... patent applications to the US Patent Office by country. It's not adjusted per capita, unfortunately, but it's worth noting that Nigeria, with 150 million people, sports all of 36 patent applications, while tiny New Zealand (population 5 million) sports 4960 patents. Would you agree that inventiveness is a result of a reasoning mind? If so, how do you explain Nigeria's tiny, tiny number of patents relative to their population size? You are correct that most educated nations, including the United States, are mixed economies. However, mixed economies that incorporate partially capitalist, partially socialist elements tend to succeed better than ones that that have no elements of capitalism at all. Would you agree that GDP per capita is a good way of measuring how capitalist a country is? I would say so, because it measures how wealthy individuals are, and capitalism is the only system capable of creating wealth on any appreciable scale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita You'll notice that, almost without fail, every African country is in the bottom half of that list, while every European country is in the top half of that list.

Not only does he not mention volition, he doesn't mention philosophy either. Not a single reference to the Enlightenment or the Renaissance is to be found in the book. See above, where I paged through the index in vain to find them.

Before I answer people by quote, I think I'll make some basic statements. People are different. Individuals are different. Groups of people are different from other groups of people. Acknowledging that difference is part of acknowledging reality. It doesn't mean that we have to throw around labels at individuals whom it doesn't fit. That is the definition of prejudice... labeling an individual based solely on what group he comes from, or is perceived to come from. I've been labeled as a "race realist" by a few people here tonight. I've had certain arguments implied that I made based on this label--when I never actually made them. Hopefully the irony is not lost on the people who label me, and then proceed to argue with a prejudiced version of what views I must therefore have as a "race realist." IQ wasn't the only thing I mentioned. I also mentioned education. I also said no such thing as "lower IQs by nature." Environmental factors like lower nutrition and a lack of an education system no doubt play a role in Africa's lagging IQ scores. However, to say that the difference between IQs of Europe and Africa is 100% environmental and 0% genetic is quite an extraordinary claim to make. The same would be true of a claim about the difference in intelligence between whites and blacks in the United States, where there is also a pro-white variance in average IQ scores... even when corrected for environmental factors like income, education, location, etc. First, everyone reading should ask themselves... Is intelligence heritable? Do smart people tend to produce smart children, and vice versa for people who aren't as smart? If that is the case for families, why couldn't it also be the case for ethnic groups... much bigger "families"? If your answer is "because that would have terrible implications for my belief system" then you aren't using reason, you're using your feelings. Reality is the same either way. Again, I'm saying no such thing. Please pay attention to my words and not what you want to hear. I choose my words very carefully, particularly around here. I said that on average, African nations have a lower IQ score than European nations. I never said that every black person is stupid, or even that black people are stupid in general. I wouldn't define low-IQ people as "stupid" anyway. There is more to knowledge than IQ... I mentioned education as well specifically for this reason. Nevertheless IQ is a great predictive variable in determining intelligence. None of which you've addressed here. Since I'm being accused on all fronts with this notion that I'm a "race realist," let me address it myself. Knowing an individual's race tells you nothing about that individual other than his skin color. It does not tell you how smart he will be, how fast he can run, or whether he's a socialist or capitalist. For this reason race realism is bankrupt when it comes to individuals. Relying on one individual rather than the hundreds of published studies on the matter is quite the folly. Whether it's "of their nature" or not is not the claim that I made. Also whether by nature or environment, it's irrelevant... what is relevant is simply that they do not grasp capitalism, at least not well enough to implement even the crudest of mixed economies like many western countries and Russia have. How else do you explain a map like this. They don't understand how to make their countries better, or they would have by now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita Africa should be at least as developed as Russia for goodness' sake. I often hear Russia talked about on O.O. like they're the boogeyman of the world. Nevertheless 26 years after communism they're doing quite well for themselves. Meanwhile 50 years after colonialism and most African countries are failed states that you'd never want to live in. I've read Guns, Germs, and Steel and own the book... I found its explanations woefully inadequate. It failed to address the elephant in the room... the reasoning faculties nor the intellectual capacity of the people living in the nations in question. It also failed to address philosophy's impact on the culture, as in the case of the Dark Ages vs. the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Any history book that leaves out these two crucial periods in its telling of the history of the world is no history book worth reading. In fact, I have the book right in front of me, open to the index. No "enlightenment," instead there's a big gaping hole between "English language, geographic history of" and "ENSO." No "Renaissance," instead there's a big gaping hole between "religion" and "resource supply." I am advocating for no such thing. Racism as a belief system treats individuals differently based on their race. No argument that I have made thus far is applicable to any individual based on his skin color. I am discussing group averages, groups of people, not individuals. If you told me that person A is black, and person B is white, you have told me nothing about their intelligence as individuals, nor any other aspect about them as individuals aside from their skin color. Whining and labeling won't change reality.

When did I make the claim that intelligence *alone* determines the success of an individual? It plays a large factor, but is by no means the only one. Please present me with some evidence before you make the claim that Africa suffers from higher levels of natural disasters, or that it lacks natural resources, though. That is something you'd need to verify. Europeans colonized Africa in part due to its vast mineral wealth and fertile soil for growing crops. I don't believe such a study has ever been concluded. The average IQ score of caucasian countries is higher than black countries. White countries on average excel at measures such as GDP per capita, PPP per capita, educational attainment, patent applications, and other such metrics that we could use to measure economic success. You're free to draw your own conclusions.

Love Caravan Palace! Over the Hills is definitely a good one, but my favorite Nightwish song is this: Nightwish - "Planet Hell"

Your argument is essentially: the government has no place regulating childbirth, therefore the government has no place regulating immigration, because both involve adding more people to the United States population. That's a false equivalency. Children are born tabula rasa, with no ideology. Immigrants have an ideology when they come here. That's the difference. Additionally, would you support any immigration control whatsoever? Such as, stopping people with a terrorist background (former ISIS fighters) or stopping people with infectious diseases? If you acknowledge that the government has a bare minimal role in doing these things, then your entire point is moot... it simply becomes a question of how far the government should go in protecting the rights of its citizens from those who would violate said rights.

Both of you are using reasoning amounting to this: Because we have crazy people already in America who kill, there is no issue with allowing religious fundamentalists to come to America who kill. Do you realize how that sounds? That's like saying: Because I am already obese which is a health risk, there is no issue with me taking up cigarette smoking which is a health risk. We have violent psychopaths enough as it is. We don't need to import more of them!

Melanin doesn't make people socialist, any more than a train whistle makes a locomotive move. The two are associated because of other factors. Here, let me help you: A failure to apply reason to the reality of markets makes you socialist. People with lower education and lower IQ have lowered cognitive faculties. As it just so happens, people in Africa on average have low levels of education and low IQ scores. They happen to be black.

So imagine how much worse it would be in a country where most people don't even have a high school diploma, and the average IQ is 75. Wait, you don't have to imagine. Just look at Africa and there's what it would be like. So the average intelligence of either group of people, to you, has no bearing on their success? Best of luck to them. It's in the interests of America if Africa succeeds and becomes a viable trading partner. I'm not rooting against them--far from it. Even if the statement were tribalist, that doesn't make it not true. Is reality racist? Africans on average are more likely to have darker skin than Europeans on average. Africans on average are less likely to have an education than Europeans on average. Why does only one of these true sentences bother you?

Because of IQ, and education. It takes a certain degree of intelligence and education to understand capitalism, and to be successful in a capitalist system. Africans are not as intelligent as Europeans, on average. They are also far less educated on average. This does not mean "every African" and "every European." There are some extraordinarily smart Africans, and some extraordinarily dumb Europeans. Which is why judging an individual before you get to know him is often a futile pursuit, and why racism is a futile pursuit. That being said, intelligence and education play a large factor. Many Africans simply are unable to grasp concepts like capitalism and why it is what Africa needs to be successful. Korea and Japan didn't need that book to see plainly that capitalist countries do better than tribalist ones. They went from war-ravaged countries in the 1950's to global economic powerhouses. Russia went from a communist country in just a quarter century, to being a country with "the world's 15th highest patent application rate, the 8th highest concentration of high-tech public companies, such as internet and aerospace and the third highest graduation rate of scientists and engineers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia Meanwhile Africa is still a hellhole. The answer lies in the intelligence and education of the population.

Yes but why? Why only Europe and not Africa? The virtue of capitalism is easily discoverable by anybody willing to use reason. Japan adopted capitalism after WW2... they didn't even need an enlightenment to do it. They simply saw the value, and saw capitalism as the best way to rebuild their society. The enlightenment was 300 years ago. Africa is 300 years behind. Where is their capitalism? Why have Africans not used reason in the way that Europeans and the Japanese have?

You never answered my question. Why is Africa poor while Europe and the US are rich? As for tribalism, I believe this explains it adequately. Tribalism is the personal identification of an individual with a group regardless of the individual's own merits. I have not engaged in tribalist rhetoric. I am not identifying with other white people. As Obama would say, "I didn't build that." I am simply pointing out a fact of reality that Europe is light-years ahead of Africa. Why?

While I don't identify with tribalism, it is true that people with white skin did create the bulk of the world's great civilizations. Africa is a mess... they could be a global power with all of their natural resources, but instead they're poor as dirt. Why?

Yes it's okay to be white. I don't see anything wrong with that statement, or with spreading it. Its source is irrelevant because the message is good. If a con artist tells you that A is A, will you disbelieve him? Will you refuse to say that A is A because a con artist said it first? Will you refuse to say "it's okay to be white" because a racist said it first? There is a pernicious anti-white bias in the United States. Anybody, especially whites, who challenges the narrative, Obama, or Antifa is called racist. Whites are rejected for college applications in favor of less-qualified minorities. Same with many businesses that practice so-called "affirmative action." What are they affirming? Inferiority? I am on the side of rationality. Objectivists are not always rational. In this case, the right is right and the Objectivists arguing against them in this thread are wrong. Hopefully you mean that in jest. Neo-nazis have the first amendment right to speak their minds just like the rest of us.

A man from deserts afar wrote this as he gazed to the stars: "There is no greater love than that which comes from god above. Pray the Lord your soul to keep do not thine understanding seek." A boy from Georgia read that book but never took a deeper look. If God's love was real inside this boy, Then why did it seem to steal his joy? He could not feel this god above. He did not know the truth of love. Was lost as those around him said, "You'll find your heaven in the end." For years he searched, blind and sad. Was love in this world not to be had? A woman from tundra afar wrote this as she gazed to the stars: "There is no greater love than what a man for himself does. Pull pride and reason off the shelf and let your guidance be yourself." The lost boy, then a man become Knew that his search was now done. He felt the love inside his soul; for his own sake, he was made whole. For the first time since his birth, he could have heaven here on earth. No waiting on a realm unseen, when this world can fulfill man's dreams. There is no greater love than this: to live life here in selfish bliss.

What are the reasons that you deserve to know? I have my reasons, and they're my selfish, private reasons. Not yours to be told directly... but perhaps yours to discover if you look hard enough. I can acknowledge your goodness and the fact that you and others here deserve happiness, even if I disagree with you on immigration or whatever. My original post assumes the goodness in those reading it. Objectivists are good, moral people. Can you pay me the same courtesy and acknowledge the reason that I deserve happiness without having to ask me directly? That is basically you questioning my integrity as a person. Not too polite of you. The thought is in the inception of those mantras. They are a given, accepted in that moment. Just like we are accepting certain premises when we discuss objectivism. We all accept that the welfare state is evil. Why? Well, we could discuss the why, but it would detract from the discussion that results from a prior acceptance of those premises. Such as: how to dismantle it. I could meditate on the "why" I deserve to feel bliss, and the "why" I am an amazing person. I already know that, though. That would not accomplish bliss. Bliss is about feeling content in the moment. Bliss is not about placing conditions on it which have already been answered before a person even sets out to achieve bliss. Bliss is "unconditional" by definition. That doesn't mean that said conditions don't exist at all; it means that they are not the conditions meditated upon. My happiness is not conditioned upon your acceptance or endorsement. I am a selfish individual. I am not a churchgoer. You are not an ayatollah. You do not get to tell me how to experience happiness the "right" way. You have not earned that right. Particularly when you compare me to a reasonless putz: If that jab was just in good fun, then I apologize for not getting it. Playful jabs don't translate well over the internet... that's why emoticons were invented We're all going to die. This planet will be destroyed someday. From that standpoint, nothing that we do is authentic, unless we decide that it is. But nothing is authentic from the standpoint of the universe. I choose not to be nihilistic because that does not serve me. I choose to accept my life as authentic even though the universe does not care one iota about me. I choose to accept my emotions as authentic even if I am able to snap my fingers and feel them. Life is a fingersnap. It's over so soon. It's too short to deny yourself pleasure, happiness, or fun based on some dogma that certain emotions aren't "real" unless you do some ritual to make them real. I'm not in church, and I'm not an altar boy lighting candles. I'm an individual with an individual technique for achieving bliss which works for me. My chair has tears and rips. My backyard is full of cigarette butts and dead leaves. That is not a very blissful thing. Bliss is about a state of mental self-actualization. I have tried this technique and while it does center my mind, it does not achieve bliss as I would like to experience it.

Point taken, trying to distinguish between bliss and ecstasy isn't exactly fun, moreso than it is an exercise in philosophical pedantry. As I am someone who emphasizes fun in many of his posts, I do acknowledge this. That being said, as Objectivists we have the entire universe to enjoy, including the universe of different emotions. We hold ourselves out as experts of happiness and how to attain it, yet as a philosophy we haven't clearly defined an agreed upon definition for the difference between bliss and ecstasy, two different forms of happiness. There IS a difference, and both concepts are valid in my opinion. Acknowledging the difference between ecstasy and bliss is as important as acknowledging the difference between Italian and Chinese food. Both are good, both are food, but they are entirely different types of food with different spices, different presentation, different flavors. We would be remiss if we didn't know the difference but we still called ourselves experts on food. I think that bliss and ecstasy as I have defined them are different enough sorts of emotions to where they can be as easily distinguished (for me) as rage and frustration can be distinguished from each other. They also have different definitions in common parlance. From dictionary.com (Bold added by me) Bliss: supreme happiness; utter joy or contentment Ecstasy: an overpowering emotion or exaltation; a state of sudden, intense feeling. Contentment doesn't describe ecstasy. It is a happy sort of drive towards self-improvement, an immediate call to action. A call to go out and do something. Overpowering doesn't describe bliss. Bliss is exactly the right amount of happy that you want to feel. It feels serene, not overpowering. You really want to linger on bliss or things that make you blissful. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but the difference to ME is as clear as the difference between the two songs that I linked. Both are happy songs, but they are happy in fundamentally different ways. They evoke different feelings, different senses of life. I'll give you a hint: one is an opening song that makes you want to play the game. The second appears later on in a different game, when you are already playing, and it makes you want to savor the moment you are already in.

Good, we're on the same page about that. I'm glad that you don't subscribe to the fallacy of relative privation, where you appeal to a greater problem. Appealing to a greater problem doesn't make the lesser problem go away. That being said, what is your proposal for how we should fight terrorism and prevent events like the one which occurred in New York?

Fair enough. That is how you experience bliss. I would ask you how you experience the emotion of ecstasy, and under what circumstances. And how is it different from your experience of bliss? Do you believe the distinction between the two emotions to be valid? Would you define the distinction differently than how I've defined it?

I say that I deserve to be happy, and mine is the only opinion which matters. Bliss is a very selfish experience. It's sufficient as itself. In a moment, it could happen, we could forgive, and be happy. People often run around from day to day with self-insecurities, or lists of things that we could do better. Lists of ways we're not living up to our potential. Regrets about past actions. Objectivism says that we shouldn't beat ourselves up, that we should acknowledge our flaws but learn from them and move on. Blissful meditation is an application of this principle. It's about letting all of those things go, forgiving yourself, and accepting that in that moment, you are sufficient as yourself to experience bliss in its purest form. My direct experience contradicts what you're saying. Emotions are the result of our premises, either conscious or subconscious. If my conscious premise is that "I deserve to be happy" and I believe it, then I will feel happiness. Focus on what part of existence? Existence includes everything we know, both good and evil. The crow epistemology would tell us that I can't focus on the entirety of existence all at once. So should I focus on the evil? Should I focus on the good? What parts of the good?

Bliss and ecstasy are two specific forms of happiness. Bliss is a serene, tranquil form of happiness, different from ecstasy which is an excited, invigorating form of happiness. Bliss is a feeling of selfish love, while ecstasy needn't involve love at all (though it certainly can). Bliss is a form of introspection, while ecstasy is outwardly focused. Bliss is slow, it takes its time. Ecstasy is fast and energized. When I feel ecstasy, I want to go out and do everything that I can to better my life circumstances. I want to excel at everything. When I feel bliss, I want to just sit down and enjoy the experience purely for its own sake. The difference, I think, is perfectly encapsulated in these two different versions of the same song. This one I would call an ecstatic song. This later version, I would call blissful.

Collective Soul - "In A Moment" Lots of thought-provoking lyrics here. "It's a shame our world responds to life as a puzzle in disguise" "In a moment, it could happen, we could wake up, I'd be laughing. In a moment, it could happen, we could forgive and be happy."

Alright, I know you said that you're out of here but hopefully you will read my final words. We should all focus on problems that are relevant to us as individuals. Only the individual can make that determination for himself, however. I focus on immediate threats to my survival in my working hours, but what I focus on in my free time is entirely up to me. For you, our unjust criminal justice system is your main priority. As it should be, it has affected you personally. However, it would be immoral of me to say, "Well, you might be concerned about this, but nobody else should be because only 1% of the population is ever wrongfully accused in the way that you were." It would also be a fallacy, because as Qui-Gon Jinn says, there is always a bigger fish. There is always a greater problem potentially lurking in the background from the problem that is being discussed. However, that does not make the smaller problem go away. You have not addressed any potential way to stop terrorism which does not result in a police state, and if you do not then your floating freedom project will not last very long, because terrorists, looters, and all manner of ill-intentioned individuals will target it. Anyway, I will be making a larger post on this so hopefully if you don't read this reply, you will read the other discussion.