Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Azrael Rand

Regulars
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Azrael Rand

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.minds.com/AzraelRand

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    When I first listened to the video it was obvious not even 30 seconds in based on the speaker's tone of voice that he isn't neutral on the issue but I referenced it since it does compile a number of relevant points on the issue. Like you said before even among scientists you have the good and the bad so authority in and of itself isn't a sign of credibility. What he says is either true or false regardless of his position/bias. Having said that I don't think the area of disagreement between the two of us is a scientific one as I believe you admitted that it's not impossible for there to be (small) differences. I think the disagreement is based around the moral implications caused by differences that could be judged to be more than just minor. If the only thing different between different races are physical attributes then we should be able to overcome race using cultural controls. But if there are significant differences between the races that aren't just limited to superficial differences then a multiracial society becomes a much harder sell considering our tribal nature. From an objective utilitarian perspective, why would you sacrifice unity, social stability, and cohesion for the sake of ideological consistency (of individualism). If individual rights, limited government and a homogeneous society work why put it at risk for dogmatic consistency? You know people say the same thing about Ayn Rand. I clearly don't agree with Stefan on everything he says; UPB and his philosophy on persuasion being two such instances. But he does cover a lot of different topics and he does so from a perspective using facts, reason and evidence. When he makes a mistake it's easy to catch precisely because he has done a good job of sharing his reasoning with the audience. Having said that if you don't like him then you don't like him, period. Even if you don't really care for him all that much I would still recommend reading the article I wrote as it is really two articles in one; a rebuttal to Stefan's book, followed by the moral case for influence. If you do decide to read it I would be interested in hearing your opinion seeing as you are both an Objectivist and someone with expertise in the field of psychology; you more than any other layman should be able to appreciate the point I'm trying to make. I honestly couldn't say whether the figure is right or wrong and compared to other racial groups I don't really know enough people originating from India to even attempt to take a stab at comparative average IQ. I do know that there are a lot of Indians working in tech which is positively correlated with IQ and I do know that people from India appear to do very well for themselves when they come to the US. You don't hear about corporations offshoring IT jobs to Africa but you do hear about them offshoring them to India. Again none of these observations actually prove anything as there could be other factors involved to account for these trend but you could be right with your assessment. Regarding your analysis of Lynn and Vanhanen, I agree with what Eiuol previously said: There are good scientists and bad scientists. There are likely good and bad scientists on both sides of the argument. Proving the existence of one or more bad scientists doesn't automatically disprove an argument itself. Your reasoning is persuasively correct but not necessarily factually correct. I've never taken an IQ test before (but plenty of regular tests) so assuming everything you said is accurate then all you would need to do is to properly incentivize all the test takers using desired rewards. I don't think you'd need a brain scan to get the job done.
  2. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    The part about requiring effort is correct. You're pretty much quoting word from word from Capitalism the Unknown Ideal. The reason I said that she believed that we were led by reason not emotion is because she believed that by releasing Atlas Shrugged statism and the mixed economy would end within a few years after it's publication. I think Stefan Molyneux mentioned this during one of his presentations about Ayn Rand. I think she underestimated how hard it is to make the "decision" to think when it comes to areas we are fundamentally emotionally invested in. Considering that the median IQ for certain ethnic population is considered borderline retarded by Western standards you would be correct (see the IQ chart in the first video from my previous post). Also worth pointing out is that we are biased towards the world based upon our lived experiences. If you find something easy to do you'd likely assume it's the same way for other people around you as well. Doesn't necessarily mean it's true though. What you're describing worked pretty well for America during its earlier years but not so much more recently. I think so long as we live in an environment where resources are relatively scare, giving people an incentive to understand these principles, and the broader population is at least smart enough to grasp these principles at a functional level in part due to a minimum level of intelligence, incentive structure and persuasive skills of the more intelligent in society, a more rational and free society shouldn't be out of reach. If you were to examine all of the countries the US has tried to export its signature political and economic system to you'd likely find that the experiment worked better for those societies that had a higher average IQ level. African, South American, and Middle Eastern countries fared poorly while European countries and Japan fared much better. Hard to know for sure. Some of the ones that where considered religious may or may not have just gone along with the idea for social appearances. However rationalizing the constitution as receiving a thumbs up from god was good enough to keep the true believers on board with the principles for a time. Almost all of the Christian Conservatives of today still fall into this category. What you're referencing to would be absolute freedoms removed from a frame work built upon acknowledging human nature and advocating for positive outcomes based upon our nature and environment. The ethics I would advocate for would be built around a complete understanding of human nature as opposed to a system that rejects one or more aspects in favor of a dogmatic approach. I guess you could call it Objective Utilitarianism: The greatest good for the greatest amount of people given the constraints of human nature. My local library might carry back issues of NG so I'll check on my next trip. Thanks for the tip. Before going any further I would ask how self-interest itself is defined here in the first place. Are we talking Randian style rational self-interest in which case I would endorse ethical egoism. Compliance with any standard is a choice. The only way to get to psychological egoism is to include emotional self-interest and reflexive action in the definition of self-interest in which case the distinction between the two concepts looses all meaning. That's what I suspected. If you have a chance let me know what you think of at least the first video I posted. Definitely enjoyed the debate with you up to now. Also if you get a chance I'd be interested to hear your opinion of the other article I posted here. Haven't received any feedback for it yet: https://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/31384-refuting-stefan-molyneux’s-the-art-of-the-argument-the-moral-case-for-influence/ Marxism offers different things to different people; this is something I do plan on writing more about in articles to come. For those that are poor it offers food, shelter, and basic medical care. For the materially well to do it offers a cause whose pursuit aids people in their quest for self actualization. For the highly intelligent it offers opportunities to intellectually distinguish yourself by furthering the Marxist doctrine along the lines of the existing incentive structure using new and complex rationalizations. And for those looking to excuse their bad behavior it provides cover. In a sick and twisted way it offers just enough to keep everybody content in the here and now to muck everything up in the long run. As far as Communism and the link to integrity, the only thing I can say about a Communist is that at least he/she is honest about their belief system and doesn't seek to hide it in an effort to deceive others into adopting it. I respect the communist that is willing to give others the last shirt he owns even if I personally disagree with his way of life. Also thanks for providing us with insights into the moral workings of your society. It's interesting to see how different segments of a society rally around different sets of beliefs. All comes down to incentives though if you ask me.
  3. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    & I understand what you're saying. However a factor to consider is that you're referring to behavior studies in general whereas I'm referring to very specific behaviors based on differences in cognitive abilities. Do the lessons learned from a generalized field of study apply equally to the specific subsection we're discussing? There's no guarantee that this isn't an exception to the rule type of scenario. Can't even imagine how you would go about proving that one without directly studying race and IQ and then comparing it to the more generic behavior studies. Having a basic understanding is one thing, whereas fully understanding and appreciating their importance as it impacts society as a whole, especially at the ballot box is another. That sounds very reasonable to me. Like I said before I like scientists that decide to pursue a topic even if studying it has the potential of landing them in the dog house. At last then I know they care more about objective reality and the scientific process than self-promotion. Now if I had said what you said in that quote you would have replied by saying, "so any scientist I quote you'll simply dismiss as a bad scientist because what they're saying doesn't support your side." Admit it ;D Thanks for providing a list of scientists and the book recommendation. The question I have about the book is as follows: Does reading the book in its entirety actually disprove the race realism argument or does it make an indirect case against it similar to the argument you've been making? The problem with this line of argument is that it requires us to assume that certain variables transfer over from the cases discussed in the book to a different case that is similar but not necessarily the same. Don't disagree but if you compare say European countries to African countries in general there is still a distinct enough difference between the two categories to have meaning. Of course race isn't everything, culture matters at least as much. I'm confident I have my bases covered here. Yes and no. I think I have a good enough understanding of your side of the argument and you know where I'm coming from. From what I understand your case is that in order for you to present the next level of your case I'd have to catch up to your level of knowledge in terms of psychology and its history. Seeing as we're doing closing arguments (kind of sort of) I'll present two more exhibits of evidence. Exhibit A follows in line with my previous arguments based on facts, reason, and evidence (includes references) and Exhibit B is an unapologetic appeal to emotion acknowledging the impact of emotion to human cognition. If it's true that certain people are resistant to facts, reason, and evidence at certain points in time in their lives then it makes sense to present this type of evidence once all traditional resources have been exhausted. Exhibit A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TffVVcfnaBE Exhibit B: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1PL3xQu16w
  4. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Yes, that's what I had in mind when using the term. We are selfish by nature, it's how we're born. Someone doesn't teach you to be selfish it's just there. The same is true for our tendency to want to form groups with people with whom we share something in common. We are a selfish and social species. Does this conclusion of yours account for the fact that humans are led by emotion not reason as part of our natural default behavior? Ayn Rand claimed the opposite by science confirmed her wrong. Not at all and I never made a statement to that effect; rather I posted the facts and reasoning I used to arrive at my assertion not once but twice to provide clarity on this matter. Objectively conducted science and scientific discoveries are the most reliable means of understanding objective reality. As Objectivists we must embrace science not reject it; we're in agreement here. The value of science lies in its discoveries that are then verified by others scientists; that's the best way at arriving at the truth; equating truth with assumptions based upon the behavior of a certain number of scientists in a given time period is not what the scientific process is about. This method does not allow us to properly account for the real biases I make reference to. Peer reviewed studies do. Remember that correlation does not equal causation. First they don't, but now they do. I see now how the truth can seem to be unknowable at times. Appreciate the background information but both you and I agree that rat studies are not relevant to a discussion of average human IQ differences seeing as you admit they can't be used to study differences in cognitive abilities such as abstract thought something even the most intelligent rat in the world isn't capable of doing (to my knowledge). What I'm getting from this is that scientists would rather spend time on studying rats than humans because of ethical considerations. Which doesn't do us any good here (other than to potentially highlight the point that scientists would rather avoid controversy). What we're concerned about in this discussion are the potential implication of differences in average group IQ having an effect on abstract thinking, to appreciate concepts such as freedom, justice, free-market capitalism, individual rights, etc ,and the resulting impact on society based on group composition. When and where was this confirmed to be true as it relates to human cognitive abilities including the ability to think in abstracts. Again where's the proof. The fact that scientists don't appear to study this particular subject matter is't a strong argument because it doesn't get us past the issue of bias and conflict of interest. I trust the output of the scientific process more than I do the individual scientists themselves. Not because I think they're bad people or harbor ill will towards others, rather because individuals are subject too subconscious bias as mentioned. I think this is a rational stance to take. If you believe they contain facts that directly discredit the "race realism" case then yes. If the differences are big enough as to impact the average population's ability to think in terms of abstracts then in my opinion it would affect the calculus of how to best organize society around objective truths, especially when we add our tribal and emotional nature to the equation. To be honest I don't even think the average white person is able to engage in abstract thought to the extent required to form and sustain a truly free society. I would point to the fact that the founding fathers felt it necessary to rationalize their ideology using religion and god. If they thought the average person was able to fully understand and respect their conclusions why go the extra mile? But when compared to other populations, the societies whites tend to produce are objectively better than those of other races with average IQ levels below whites. Again please refer to the list of arguments I previously made. As stated before, genetics alone isn't enough; culture also plays at least as much of a role. My intent was to communicate that under an objective system, given human nature, that individual liberties would in certain instances be subject to group considerations based on the fact that we are both selfish and groupish in nature.
  5. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    & So at first you're telling me no matter how good the evidence is I would discount it and now we're down to discussing the differences in meaning between "evidence" and "proof." As previously stated, scientists are not immune from political and cultural influences. Politicians and bureaucrats suppress scientific evidence that doesn't support their views; if you'd like me to list evidence of this I can so on demand. People respond to incentives, and scientists are people. Now I'm not going to claim that scientists not studying the role of genetics on behavior is proof of my assertion because today's culture would consider such research immoral. This is why I listed the following points to support my argument: The only thing you've provided is that scientists don't study genetic influence on behavior anymore because it's not a factor. But what evidence or study/studies made them come to that realization? If you don't know this how can you be sure that this is really the reason they stopped studying it? How do you know this line of reasoning isn't a rationalization vs knowledge of objective facts? This is your original statement and I'm fairly certain that I've already disproven it by making a reference to differences in average behavior based on gender unless you dispute that gender qualifies as a biological group category or that average differences in behavior exist among the genders. As Objectivists we should seek out conflicting information because objective truths are the foundation of our philosophy. Given human nature this is no easy task but considering the alternatives, I think a little (or a lot) of emotional discomfort trumps the consequences of ignoring objective truths as proven by history. I'm not a scientist by trade so I can't guarantee that my usage of scientific terms perfectly matches the acceptable usage of these terms in the scientific community. Let me restate the quoted material in a different way: Do you agree or disagree that tribalism (and selfishness for that matter) are an inherently part of human nature (to some extent) or do you believe that these attributes are entirely social constructs? As for your aside, I believe it supports my case that the tribal aspect is an inherent aspect of human nature. I never stated that tribalism only manifested itself around race. The point I was trying to make here is that individual liberties aren't necessarily absolutes in every instance and based on human nature will have to be reigned in by group considerations (for example taxation used for national defense). Having said that I'm certainly not going to run away from a debate I opened the door to so here goes: The act of acquiring a nuclear weapon in and of itself does not necessarily endanger a neighbors life or property so long as it's transported, handled, and stored in a secure and appropriate manner. Now handling the warhead in a manner that is unsafe would give a neighbor grounds to file a claim in court. Also your scenario presupposes the existence of neighbors. What if said rich individual purchased a remote and unpopulated area of land? You didn't even consider that scenario. Exactly, but that doesn't make it illegal to own a gun in and of itself. It's the inappropriate usage of one's personal property that infringes upon the neighbors rights.
  6. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Understand where you're coming from. Let me propose this, give me your best study and highlight the relevant data, or if that's not feasible, just tell me the study name, premise and conclusion of the study. Do you at least agree with my premise of:
  7. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Providing a link to one such study so I can review what you've reviewed in the past would be good enough for me. At least this way I would understand where you're coming from. When I hear the blanket statement that biological group categories do not account for behavioral differences the first things that comes to mind are behavioral differences between males and females that are due to differences in genetics. So the statement you provided is therefore inaccurate at face value. As humans we are all led by certain needs. Ostracism, the submission of the individual to the group, works because we are social animals. You only need to make an example of one person and the rest will fall in line. The scientific community is not exempt from human nature. Making a blanket statement that scientists don't study X, therefore X is not a factor, is not proof in my book based on the rationale I provided above. However dismissing the scientific process because bias exists is an irrational notion. The proper response to a data set that appears to be an illogical outlier isn't to dismiss it but to do one or more re-tests to validate the original findings. I'm not a relativist; rather I consider myself a realist. If you have data that proves your point by all means share it. If not for me then for the community as a whole. My stance on free will is that it exists but that it isn't absolute. In my opinion culture and one's mindset are the biggest contributing factors to one's ability to capitalize on the opportunities that reality presents us with. I agree. My point isn't to establish a causal link, rather it's to highlight the probability of equal outcomes in nature. I do not reject the premise of Objectivism, a philosophy for man on earth that embraces objective truths rather than dismissing them. I support individual rights but not in the absolutist sense that Ayn Rand did. I do not believe in sacrificing truth in order to create a universal principle where none exists. Taking something that works for a certain set of applications and universalizing it to apply to other applications for "consistency" sake is something I reject. I do not believe that an individual has the right to acquire nuclear weapons as an extension of private property rights for instance. I believe that objective reality ought to serve as our guide rather than reason for reasons previously discussed (bias). I'm not a relativist if that's what you're implying but the fact that we are led by emotion not reason has real life implications. All I'm saying is that sitting down to think isn't a guaranteed way to arrive at the truth 100% of the time. The scientific process is a better alternative. Can you expand on this one; not sure what this means. So not only am I a racist but I also have bad taste in art. You like going for those low blows don't you. ;D
  8. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    How do you know that the elephant is pink if it's invisible? Does the elephant speak as well? If it can speak what makes you believe it's telling you the truth when it claims to be an invisible pink elephant? Or do you possess the ability to see that which others cannot see? What scientific evidence do you have to back this statement up? Alternatively what is the reasoning you used to arrive at this conclusion, other than looking at the study habits of psychologists which are subject to both human irrationality and subjective cultural incentive structures. Would it be rational to draw conclusions on the science of climate change based on the study habits of climate scientists? I agree that people are more likely to study variables that are easier to influence (nutrition, health care, education, objective child rearing) and pander to a dominant culture's moral leanings than to study variables that are hard to influence (multi-ethnic composition of a nation) and make people feel uncomfortable. As humans we like to pick the path of least resistance unless there's a strong enough counter-incentive including a strong sense of free will. If you look at Japan you might come to the opposite conclusion. Eugenics failed because humans are led by emotions and not reason. An obsession on racial purity displaces a society's focus on other equally and/or more important factors. I'm not saying that race matters to the exclusion of all other factors. I'm not saying that race matters but that culture doesn't matter. I'm saying that based on my understanding of human nature both matter. Having an objective mix between culture and ethnic homogeneity appears to be the winning recipe. Objective reality appears to back this up as well if we looks at current day Japan or a majority white United States from years past. Neither are / were perfect, but they're objectively better than say today's USA or Brazil. You've got a point here in that I could have done a better job of explaining my reasoning; I will try to get the job done with this post. I would make the case that emotional investment into a belief system, coupled with confirmation bias, and cognitive dissonance are enough to make something "easy to dismiss" that doesn't align with one's current belief system. If you're an absolutist individualist then you're likely not going to have an open mind on a subject matter that would have collectivist implications; that's just human nature. Naturally the presence of bias doesn't provide or disprove either of our cases but it's something that has to be considered and accounted for. I make this statement because the best way to disprove my case is if you can prove yours. If you can't prove your case then my case could be true. It' as simple as that. If neither side can prove their case then the best we can do, outside of conducting scientific studies (not in my current area of influence), is to look at what reality shows us and to see if we can make sense of the situation using reason followed by a peer review by an unbiased party. What I can currently provide are my observations of reality and my reasoning: Facts: - There are different average IQ values between different ethnic groups. - These differences aren't limited to one geographic area but persist if members of an ethnic group move from one area to another. - Groups of mixed race composition have an average IQ range somewhere between the two original group's average IQ range. - IQ values can vary quite significantly between individuals from retarded to normal to genius level. - Traits other than intelligence vary between various ethnic groups. - It is a fact that people are resistant to facts that contradict their belief system. - Different environments put different evolutionary pressures on its inhabitants favoring certain traits over others. - Correlation does not necessarily equal causation but it doesn't preclude it either. Based on the list of facts above how can someone claim that: - The case for significant genetic differences should be considered to be inferior compared to the commonly held belief by Western nations based on a shared sense of morality. - It should be dismissed without proof even if prevailing beliefs cannot be substantiated. - That nature can produce vastly different IQ values between individuals, yet that averages between different ethnic groups cannot be significantly different even if these groups have historically inhabited different environments with different evolutionary pressures.
  9. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    My focus was squarely on IQ differences. The term human behavior is a very broad term and can be interpreted in any number of ways. Behavior is driven by internal and external factors. Intelligence is one such factor. Certain types of behaviors will likely have little to no correlation to IQ differences while other behaviors can be expected to vary based on differences in IQ and other factors. Based on what you're giving me here it's hard for me to reply with specifics. If you have facts that disprove my assertions please list them. If you don't have any data but a well reasoned argument I'd also be willing to listen to that. But if it's something that can only be understood if both parties share the same feelings on a subject matter then I'm not sure how objective of a case it is to begin with.
  10. My take on Stefan Molyneux's book The Art of the Argument and the ethics of influence. https://www.minds.com/AzraelRand/blog/refuting-stefan-molyneux-s-the-art-of-the-argument-the-moral-903037022715224064
  11. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Not sure that many scientists could secure state or private funding to perform research on a topic like genetic differences in IQ between races. Just from an IQ perspective depending on the groups you can have some stark differences where one group's median IQ would be considered borderline retarded based on Western standards and another group could be one standard deviation above the median white IQ. There are certainly differences between individuals but I don't think the blanket statement of differences are more pronounced between individuals as compared to groups is always accurate. Of course the question of why the values are what they are is an entirely separate debate. It would be interesting to have data to see if any other organs besides the brain were significantly underdeveloped in which case it would make for more of a case for environmental, health and nutrition factors as opposed to genetic differences. Also from a neutral perspective there's no apparent reason why there couldn't be significant genetic differences in IQ based on race, it's just that as a society we'd rather this weren't the case. My understanding of Haidt's work is that we are both selfish and groupish by nature. Environmental factors including culture can and do sway our mindset more in one of the two directions. As humans we are driven by incentives like any other animal. But I think it's unrealistic to completely suppress either tribalism or individualism. Looking at the West in it's current state I think it's a fair assessment that culturally robbing whites of all in-group preference has been a good idea. @ softwareNerd, Added the book to my reading list. Not sure if correlation coefficients are related to the frequent mistaking of correlation for causation but it's certainly a bias we need to be aware of. Since we don't have 100% certainty I have to be open to the truth being any number of potential causes, but from what I've seen I'm leaning towards genetics being a potentially major contributing factor to differences in IQ. Even if it wasn't, the discrepancies are what they are. To not at least consider these factors when looking at immigration policy is irrational and dangerous in my opinion. How do we know that this claim is any more arbitrary than the statement that it isn't related to genetics. To my knowledge there isn't 100% conclusive proof on either side of the argument. Just because you're emotionally invested in one side of the argument doesn't automatically make it true. Doesn't make it false either but unproven is unproven. Where's your evidence? Yes it's natural to dismiss data outside of your common frame of reference, it's a protective mechanism, but that doesn't mean you're necessarily objectively correct in doing so. Good point. Assuming you weren't interested in persuading this person to your side of the argument that's all that's required. As far as individual differences vs group differences I'd recommend looking up IQ distributions for different ethnic populations. There are certain groups that have median IQs that we would consider borderline retarded. Again we don't know for certain to what extent external factors are at play in creating these variances but that doesn't change the fact that these differences exist.
  12. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Doug Morris, I would define it as behaviors or thoughts not in line with judging others based on their merits, content of character, and/or accomplishments. For example avoiding an interacting based on someone's race alone would be tribal in that sense. I guess it would be the same as the old definition of racist thoughts or behaviors before we started factoring in oppression and privilege into the equation. As far as what society would look like, I think I posted this before but it would likely end up being a culturally and ethnically homogeneous society not exclusively organized around either ideology or race but an objective understanding of human nature. As far as the means go, all I think you would need is to allow for freedom of association. From a moral perspective this is certainly the most humane way of allowing society to reorganize itself. On the race and IQ argument I think both of us have done a good job of elaborating on our current positions. Until we get conclusive genetic evidence we won't have 100% certainty so I don't think absolute proof is something either of us should be shooting for. What we can do is to further explore the different shades of gray and to see to what extent they pass the test of reason and evidence. As previously stated, I do recommend checking out Stefan Molyneux's content for a more in-depth overview of the argument. If you don't mind a game of Devil's Advocate, how would you have responded to me if I were a Black Supremacist Advocate and had made the claim that blacks had a naturally higher IQ than whites, not lower or equal, but that environmental factors were preventing the full expression of natural intelligence. What position would you have taken and what type of evidence would you have tried to present to make your case?
  13. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Has this statement been objectively proven to be true on a societal level? I understand that we won't know the answer for 100% sure until either side can show the other side genetic evidence but beyond that what is the rationale for this statement? Based on my understanding of reading his book he argues that humans are both innately selfish and tribal. On the behavioral side, which of the two we are more likely to display at any given time likely depends on the scenario / environment, the time permitted to make a decision (reflex action vs deliberate action) and how all of this interacts with our conscious and subconscious mind. That's me speaking, not necessarily Haidt. So our mindset could be individualistic or tribal depending on any number of factor including genetics. I use the term synonymous with free will or culture of free will which does relate to Objectivist ethics in that it's a component of an individuals rational self-interest.
  14. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    My draw towards Objectivism, despite my doctrinal transgressions, is in its premise, a philosophy for man on earth based on acknowledging instead of rejecting objective truths. That's more than enough for me to self-identify as an (Open) Objectivist. I used to be an absolutist individualist but now I'm part individualist. For example I no longer support the Republican party's immigration platform. Before the change it was ok for me because immigration was moral and the current state was partly/mostly immoral; once the immoralities were fixed the problem would have resolved itself so there was no need to restrict immigration. If I'm correct on the natural aspects of tribalism and race and IQ differences then it completely invalidates my previous stance. If not race what metric would you use? I'm in full agreement that a culture of self-ownership is the best thing you could do for your children, on an individual level, in addition to love, care, and nurture. Someone with a higher IQ but a deterministic or nihilistic mindset will not be able to even recognize a fraction of the opportunities that present themselves to him compared to the person with lower IQ and objective mindset. I'm not disputing this at all. What I am challenging is the notion that a culture of self-ownership is enough to mitigate the combination of our tribal nature together with innate biological differences between the races on the aggregate level as it relates to objectively organizing society. Appreciate your input; this is one of the reasons I chose to post on the board because it is frequented by individuals such as yourself. Once I complete my persuasion piece I would appreciate it if you could give it a look to determine whether or not it's grounded in reality. Neither Haidt nor Enos are in any way associated with Objectivism. I stumbled on both of them as a result of trying to "fix" Objectivism for myself. What I like about both of them is that despite the fact that they're leftists they chose not to bury the evidence when confronted with facts that conflict with their ideological bias. What I recommended these two books for is the data presented in them not the authors political beliefs or conclusions. More specifically I recommended them for proof as it relates to the genetic component of tribalism; as in it's not solely a social construct. Other posters, not you though, alluded to tribalism as a social construct so I posted these two authors in response. Unlike Haidt, I don't think Eno's changed his viewpoint at all after digesting the data. Although he never really comes out and says it, I think he would favor government intervention into communities to enforce or at least "incentivize" complete racial integration of communities. He is a leftist through and through so I agree with you that his view of government is mistaken acknowledging the fact that the two of us aren't in full agreement on how government ought to operate. One of Enos main points is that incorrectly managed diversity leads to decreased levels of trust, civility and voluntary civic engagement required for maintaining what we consider to be a modern society. If tribalism is genetic, and I think you agree that it is (at least to some extent), then would it not be in our rational self-interest to organize in a way that enhances outcomes? So we're either looking at a society that is ethnically homogeneous or diverse where said diversity is objectively managed to maximize outcomes as suggested by Enos. One of these two can be accomplished by re-instating freedom of association (creating ethnically homogeneous areas by choice; currently illegal) the other likely not based on our innate tribal nature. Then, if we accept IQ differences between races, it becomes apparent that there would be additional differences between these two alternatives. So if we choose objectively managed diversity we likely have to accept state intervention into the way communities are organized and we'd have to settle for a lower cultural and material standard considering the lowest common denominator. This obviously isn't a fun topic but that's the reality I'm seeing from my point of view. This is why I didn't claim it as 100% proof but as a good starting point. For additional material I'd recommend checking out Stefan Molyneux's content on race and IQ on his Youtube channel. Although he is no longer an Objectivist he does a pretty good job at presenting evidence in a fair and straight forward fashion (unless he's talking about UPB or any of his other books) and he includes appropriate references for his presentations. To address the quotes from Wikipedia: On racial discrimination: Yes if black children are being raised by whites they would still expect to face discrimination by whites, in addition they would also reasonably expect to face it from blacks because they are being raised by white parents if there were any blacks in their school / social environment. So if social discrimination were an influential factor in IQ formation you'd expect the IQ of blacks raised by whites to be lower all things equal; not the other way around. The measured IQ for adopted black youths was in line with the average black IQ in America so I would assume that discrimination in and of itself does not directly impact IQ. On history and placement differences of adopted children with two black biological parents: The adult IQ of 89 listed is in line with the average IQ for African Americans in the US. A case can be made that what counted was the earlier years not spent with the adoptive white parents. Note however that this limitation only mentions children with two black parents. It did not address children with one black and one white parent which at age 17 scored at 99 compared to 106 for the adopted average white child and 89 for the adopted average black child. Convenience sample: Yes it's not a random sample but they did measure the IQ of the adoptive parents. How do you envisions this to have a potential impact on the study? That's a true statement. However the flip side is also true that you haven't proven your case either (which would have automatically disproven mine). Just because a majority of people believe something to be true doesn't give it a leg up in a scientific debate. As long as there's a way for emotion to attach itself to a belief, people can and will hold a belief to support their emotional well being. The popularity of religion shouldn't be considered a factor in trying to determine whether or not god exists. That's certainly one theory. I personally think it's more realistic to assume that it's due to the financial incentives created by the well-fare state, that require a continued Democrat electoral presence to stay in place. Nicky, since you appear to have a fetish that involves me using Google I felt obliged to comply. Not the biggest fan of Wikipedia but it's good enough to communicate what I thought to be common knowledge on this message board. Please enjoy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_movement I don't think its contestable that lower IQ makes people more susceptible to being scammed all things being equal; let me know if you think that's incorrect. Can there be other factors at play, such as people taking advantage of someone's emotional investment in a specific belief, absolutely, but it shouldn't in any way detract from, all things equal, differences in IQ making someone more susceptible to being taking advantage of. As far as individual variations being more important, I agree with this statement assuming we're comparing individual outcomes and that the people involved don't suffer from low IQ or retardation. However I don't believe this statement to be true on a societal level based on our tribal nature and potential IQ differences between races. While I can't conclusively prove that I'm correct I don't think you can conclusively prove your case either. The best we can do is present the best argument we can given the facts at our disposal while trying to account for emotional biases which I think both of us have been doing thus far. "Ought to" or "ought not to" doesn't automatically equate to "is" or "isn't." See my previous quote from Wikipedia. Sorry pal.
  15. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Was intended as the latter (figure of speech). If I'm reading this correctly, what you're saying is that if whites, Asians, and blacks all had equally good upbringing, environment, nutrition, lack of Marxist brainwashing, etc their IQs would be roughly the same; is that correct? The premise of Objectivism is objective reality as it exists not as we would like it to exist. If you believe that the first is true but are open to facts, I highly recommend reading The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt and The Space between Us by Ryan Enos. If objective reality confirms an innate tribal component to human nature that's an objective fact; the same would of course apply if reality confirms that collectivism is a social construct. It's objective reality that decides what is objectively true, not you, me, or Ayn Rand. If you have a study to share that proves this, I'm more than willing to read it. Believe it or not I started out as a fully individualist Objectivists. If anything I want to believe what you believe. I do very much appreciate you keeping an open mind. I'm not going to claim that it can be proven with a 100.00% accuracy, however when you look at a number of different data sets it creates what I would describe a preponderance of evidence; proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A good starting point would be to look up the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. I would respectfully disagree with that assessment. People that are less intelligent are easier to scam; Marxism is a scam on a societal stage. It only took a few decades for Marxists to win over the black community (they vote roughly 90% Democrat). Marxists have tried to win over whites too, and although they have made significant inroads, over the last century they still haven't converted as many whites percentage wise as blacks. As far as the genetics of tribalism I'd refer you back to the two books I references above; your local library should have them in stock. Collectivism is either a social construct, genetic, or a combination of both. It's desirable to believe that embracing collectivism is a choice 100% subject to free will because it allows us to morally condemn these people, but if objective reality doesn't support this to be true then we have to re-asses our previous assumptions and conclusions. Do you contest the existence of consistency bias or just my application in this specific context. As humans we are driven by incentives. The incentive to make life easier on oneself by creating a universal framework would be a good example imo. I did get a kick out of watching the video you posted. Totally reminds me of Mark Collett, a British Alt-Right activist and Youtube personality. You may also be interested in an earlier article I wrote addressing the Alt-Right: https://www.minds.com/AzraelRand/blog/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-exploring-an-alternative-sol-887488448523096064 It's not that I don't support individual liberties and the NAP, I do, but I don't see how they can be preserved in a society with average IQ of 75-85. That's where the West is heading. I do plan to write more about influence in the future, so stay tuned. It basically boils down to utilizing an objective understanding of human nature as a baseline to one's persuasion efforts. As for the second piece it would most likely be an ethnically and culturally homogeneous society that would permit minorities based on their value set, ability to contribute positively to society, while not throwing off the ethnic composition of the nation. As far as my favorite Alt-Right figure, that would be PhilosophiCat; highly recommend checking her out on Youtube. Do I believe that there's an organized conspiracy among a majority of Jews to destroy white people and the West? No I do not. Do I believe that there are a number of influential and wealthy Jews, and non-Jews, whose efforts are directly contributing the the decline of the West? Yes I do, they're called leftists. I used to believe that these people were solely driven by hatred and wanted to destroy us but I no longer believe that. What is most likely true is that the majority of them think they're doing the right thing based on their perception of reality. If you believe that tribalism is innately evil and is what will undo all of mankind it makes sense to organize and pool resources in a way to mix all existing races into a single unified and peaceful human race. Are there a few Jews that hold a grudge against whites for historical misgivings? Sure, but I don' think that's a plurality of the Jews involved. Also from a persuasive perspective, the worst thing you can do is to subscribe to a highly controversial and far-fetched conspiracy theory. You're directly undermining your persuasive effort and are severely retarding your ability to reach people's hearts and minds. Its was and is both. There was a movement with Ayn Rand at the head and it was plagued with petty and emotional quarrels. That's an objective fact. Agree that Libertarianism is inferior to Objectivism. In my opinion their defining characteristic is a desire to be left alone by others to embrace their irrational selfishness, borrowing just enough from Objectivism to keep it afloat.
×