Sameak

Can you please source some evidence for such a lofty claim? It sounds like you are just calling things invalid because it doesn't support your egalitarian world view. I always found it fascinating how much in common mainstream Objectivists had with the far left. Disregard for biological differences between the races and genders being one of them.

Asian, the 3 main racial groups are Asian, European, and African, however, their can be subraces of said race. For example, for Europeans theres Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean.

Hey guys, I have taken David's advice and am refining my racial theory and how it ties into my Neo Objectivist philosophy so I can make my arguement complete for you. However, feel free to chat amongst yourselves about race realism. I should be back with you folks tomorrow.

They are distinguishable from other races, if they breed together in a specific location they will be distinguishable from other isolated populations. Back then when races formed it was not so easy to traverse natural barriers. I did not bring up continents, someone else asked me why races are limited to continents. I have sourced several studies, what more do you want?

Im sorry about the confusion, I figured this thread might go all over the place considering the topic. Just help me understand how this concept, if true, affects the philosophy and if possible send me a study of that gene theory you mentioned.

If I understand your question correctly, Objectivism holds that concepts must be empirically varified, does my evidence not varify the concept of race?

Military invasion is not regular interaction, and when I say Africans im not talking about the ones in Africa but the whole race, same for Europeans, and Asians. It seems you're getting into the continuum fallacy. Just because the lines maybe blurred doesnt mean race doesnt exist, if this were the case then color wouldnt exist.

What I said has nothing to do with whether one race is superior to another, east asians have the highest IQ and Africans have the lowest this is not racism but fact. Sorry if I misread your last comment. My arguement holds that science has disproven tabula rasa and that certain genes do correspond to certain behavior. I do believe in free will but within the framework that your genes allow.

The race concept and racism are two different things. If you insist on calling me a racist fine, but know this. I reject that name for the same reason I reject the term Suppressive that scientologists give me, Counter revolutionary by Marxists, and Heretic by religious zealots. It's just words you and your collective like to call others just to shut down discourse and bully the opposition.

Yes, as stated earlier to 2046 certain genes do correspond to behavioral patterns. As for Thomas Sowell he is a bright man, but there is eventually regression to the mean where his offspring will eventually regress to the racial average.

Yes but if race is a valid concept and these genetic characteristics and behavioral patterns remain true, how does this affect the philosophy?

I would say on the contrary, I really would like to discuss how the race concept affects Objectivist philosophy, it is really why I came here. As for changing genes you're gonna have to provide me with some studies because this is the first time ive heard of it.

I said it's key, not that intelligence equals virtue quite a distinction.

This is rediculous North America and South America are attached but they're still seperate continents. I stand by my original definition.

Your post doesn't make sense. I provided a link to a study that was done to illustrate to you the differences, im not a scientist, but if you want an answer from me the differences would be a tendency to codependency and low time preference. Are you guys not looking at my links, id say that is a blankout because you people want so bad for your conclusions to be right that you cant stand to have them challenged.

The continent is the dividing line because during those ages you couldnt simply traverse all those natural barriers to intereact with the different races. Its funny how you guys pretend like IQ doesnt matter when your philosophy very much accepts the concept that degrees of use of rational faculty is key to how virtuous you are. Regardless I will leave the results of the study that was done to see how well these races corresponded to geographic locations by number of loci. As for the china consensus I can provide an pdf for that https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/374899

Not much difference, if you said an IQ of 83, which is the median IQ of Africans, vs 119 the differences would be astounding. As for poltical differences and genetics influence on this, well I suggest you view this study here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/

I understand exactly what she means, just reading that paragraph now sends chills down my spine and im reminded of my first time reading it. This is the reason I left the Alt Right, they indeed do believe people should be enslaved to their race. Although that wasnt always the case, it got co opted by National Socialists and other Hitlerites and Fascists, but thats beside the point. My point is thats not my view, my view is that race is real and it affects the whole society. The varying IQ averages and cultures changes the quality of life and over arching values of a nation. Simply compare the differences of homogenous nations like Japan and Liberia and you'll know this to be true.

Its my understanding that Ayn Rand believed that due to the information that was available at the time, is it not true that Objectivism holds reality as its primary source of knowledge? If so, wouldn't the philosophy change to suit the new facts?

There is no concensus definition because this is such a hotly debated topic in the west, although the Chinese largely recognize race so im sure they have a standard definition. The one I gave is precisely the same as the ones for animal breeds and their subspecies.

Question, does this mean breeds and sub species for animals are unscientific? Why are people so elusive about categorizing people into races but not animals or plants?

What evidence? I have seen evidence of the contrary.

I reject that estimate of it. Norwegians and French evolved on the same continent, the others evolved on another. Thus there are major differences, however, yes there are slight differences between the french and Norwegians such as slight IQ differences.

I presume you want a definition? Well I would say that races are populations of people who interbred in a specific geographic location thus are genetically and physically distinguishable. An example of this would be the sub species and breeds of animals like the various types of wolves.

Oh really? Thats a lofty claim when the link I gave you has several even dozens of references of data collected by the scientific community. I would have to say you're a coward and avoiding a relevant discussion.