Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Azrael Rand

Regulars
  • Posts

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Azrael Rand

  1. I'd say you roughly addressed a quarter of my points and ignored the rest whereas I addressed virtually all of your arguments point by point. More sophistry huh, a false equivalency this time around... The two aren't even close. Rape isn't in anyone's rational-self interest whereas maintaining a cohesive society is a pre-condition for individual rights and limited government. There are tribal aspects to human nature whether you like it or not. I have provided more than one resource for this as part of this discussion. I agree that things would be so much simpler if we could just ignore the issue of race and live in a colorblind society, but that isn't the lesson objective reality is imparting on us. I understand where you're coming from. I understand that you most likely don't support the type of illegal immigration we are seeing in the West today and that you approach the issue from a perspective that looks at the ideal state society out to be organized under. But even here you're not accounting for all of human nature. You're selectively accepting the aspects you personally identify with and ignoring the ones you dislike. While understandable, this is not an objective stance to take. As far as the term racism is concerned, there isn't even agreement in the US what the term means. It means different things to different people. To the individualist it means not judging someone solely by the content of character, to the collectivist it means not acting as you ought to based on your race, and to the anti-white activist it means not acknowledging white privilege. The only thing all of these applications of the word have in common is that it is used as a means to demonize your opponent.
  2. You do realize that the philosophy you advocate for was created by a person that rationalized the slaughtering and displacement of native American populations. Were those not rational human beings? Your statement presupposes that what objective reality has to offer us can be conveniently molded into a mental container called a principle. How do you know this to be true?
  3. Hi Vivian, my understanding of the term fan fiction is that an author creates a new story using the work of another author as a backdrop for the story. If you were to write a side story or continuation to another author's work that in my opinion would fall into the category of fan fiction. Are you planning on writing a sequel or side-story to Atlas Shrugged?
  4. You have to chose because humans are both selfish and groupish by nature. The concept of an unaffiliated individual is the product of a world view that only acknowledges our selfish nature but not our groupish nature and therefore is not accurately aligned with objective reality. Looking at r vs K selection / epigenetics, one can conclude that we need a balance between tribalism and cosmopolitanism. The "r" seeks out diverse experiences whereas the "K" values the security of the tribe. Human nature includes both of these subsets and an objective society needs to account for both in order to survive and thrive. As far as grouping tribalism and decentralization as well as world-government and cosmopolitanism, there is some logic behind it as the "r" value diversity and include "outsiders" as part of their personally defined tribe whereas the "K" does not and sticks to and values the tribe they were born into. Extrapolating this difference to the national level will result in the referenced pairings. You may view these as arbitrary divisions but others do not. As discussed above, this is likely a result of epigenetics and not a matter of one person being more enlightened than the other.
  5. If country A adopts a superior economic system to country B's system, then country B is free to adopt country A's system assuming that country B is a moderately free society to begin with. There is no need for the governments to merge in order to offer the citizens in country B a better system. The further government moves away from the people that it's supposed to serve the more unaccountable it tends to become. A good example is the EU & UN that is actively encouraging the destruction of Europe as we speak. America's founding fathers understood this lesson: http://www.ohiohouse.gov/john-becker/press/the-founding-fathers-understood-the-importance-of-states-rights
  6. I don't think that "world government" is in any way, shape, or form a good idea. Diplomacy and foreign policy yes, but a global government establishment absolutely not. Just a bunch of unaccountable sociopaths wreaking havoc on other people's lives. Also as far as Empire Building goes the only thing it's good for is to make a few people in power feel good about themselves by serving what they perceive to be their higher moral calling. The lives, wealth, and resources destroyed in this process are just the cost of doing business for these individuals.
  7. Agreed. I think we've all said our piece and have laid out our arguments to the best of our ability. Good discussion all in all.
  8. So you're calling my motive into question rather than trying to disprove/address my actual arguments... While it would be irrational to state that we aren't emotionally motivated how is it that you know for a fact what my motivations are? Instead of accusing me of something you don't know is true why not bring the same vigor to discrediting the actual arguments I'm posting. Using the word "racist" is an attempt to either silence the debate by shaming someone or trying to get your opponent to switch from offense to defense which helps if you've either run out of arguments on your end or just don't want to put in the effort to actually debate. It appears to me that if you're not going to moderate my posts that your next course of action is to use entry-level sophistry. I expected better of someone that for all intents and purposes appears to be an accomplished Objectivist professional. Note that it is important to engage in these types of debates precisely because we are emotionally motivated by nature. Withdrawing from the argument is withdrawing from the truth, and withdrawing from the truth is withdrawing from Objectivism.
  9. Good to know I'm not the only Objectivist that stumbled across Jonathan Haidt. Agree with you 100% that his work is Objectivst friendly and would argue its a natural transition point from where Ayn Rand left off. Should have been more clear why I referenced Haidt. I referenced him under tribalism based on the case he lays out in his book The Righteous Mind as it related to our "groupish" or "hivish" nature. You're correct in that Jonathan Haidt does not focus on race as it pertains to or social nature. This is where the other author I listed, Ryan Enos, comes in. Like Haidt he leans to the left (although Haidt is now more of a centrist) and doesn't shy away from objective truths just because they conflict with his ideological world view. Enos discussed the topic of what one might call subconscious racism, specifically how it interacts with geographic proximity and the demographic composition of communities and how these variables impact social cohesiveness, social institutions, and civic engagement. His book confirms what has become evident which is that diversity plus proximity equals conflict. He concludes that this will be the case so long as ethnic groups continue to live in their own geographic enclaves. To combat the natural tendency for people to live amongst people that look and behave like themselves he hints at the need for pragmatic solutions from enlightened central planners (obviously not in support of this). I do fully recommend his book The Space Between Us as it is a good transition from Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind. Seeing as the book is a little on the expensive side I'll post a link to a free article that discusses tribalism/subconscious racism in case anyone still believes that "racist" feelings and perceptions are the product of social indoctrination (by a different author): https://www.newsweek.com/biologist-eo-wilson-why-humans-ants-need-tribe-64005 Not a big fan of state intervention into private affairs as this actually runs counter to human nature in a lot of cases. Coercion and true understanding / objective recognition of reality usually don't go hand in hand. I would only advocate state involvement as it relates to immigration policy. Here's why: It is the state's responsibility to guarantee objective freedoms in the form of clearly delineated and understandable rights. Freedoms and rights however cannot exist in a practical sense without certain prerequisite requirements being met. A peaceful society being is one such requirement. Ethnic diversity all things being equal contributes negatively to the establishing and preservation of a peaceful society based on our tribal nature alone. Compounding this fact are differences in superficial and non-superficial characteristics based on race. We all like to say that all that counts is what's in someone's heart, content of character, but how often does a 10 settle down with a 1. Superficial criteria matter even if we'd like to pretend that they don't. Just look at the size of the make-up industry. If we value objectively superior outcomes then we must consider all variables, not just the ones we're comfortable with. Racial or cultural diversity is not a strength rather it's a liability. That's not to say there shouldn't be any cultural exchanges with other peoples', after all some people are born with a tendency to favor diversity over security (r vs K selection/epigenetics) however we need to be sure to strike an objective balance and that includes state involvement in the domain of immigration to preserve our rights and freedoms. I don't think anyone in the Objectivist movement would object to the state being involved in military matters, as national security is a widely recognized precondition for maintaining our freedoms, but the issue of ethnic homogeneity is considered controversial. Why is that? My theory is that it is based upon what I would call racial/collectivist altruism: The wealthiest race, whites, has a positive moral obligation to the less wealthier races. This idea has become the moral mission for all white Western nations. It is the one idea that no white person is allowed to question. It is the one thing that unites both conservatives and liberals alike. And based on the workings of human nature is what will be our undoing if we don't find a way to self-correct.
  10. @ Dough Morris From the perspective of someone that has normal or above average levels of empathy yes. For someone with low IQ and low empathy they're just following what they understand to be their immediate self interest. Agreed. I understand that we, all things being equal, like to view people in terms of their best potential but unless we have in place the means necessary to draw out said potential we're just making things worse as it relates to immigration. I don't blame immigrants for sticking to their own value systems considering today's dominant value system in the West consists of the xenophilia and self-hatred of the domestic population. There's no incentive to change even if said change were theoretically possible. Depends on the society and how the cultural incentive structure is defined for that society. If there's no incentive to think about something the majority of people will likely not think about it. If you have a low empathy population whose only happiness in life comes from the times they are able to spread their misery onto those weaker than themselves I fail to see how things can and will change. The type of thinking we're talking about requires a level of high intelligence, a sense of empathy, and a desire to make the world better place. And then there's the hurdle of having to persuade enough people to change their views to support and realize your belief system which requires a certain level of intelligence and empathy on their part. Depends on which country we're talking about. If you're the head of anything, be it a company, tribe, or country, that requires at least a certain level of intelligence and understanding of human nature (emotional intelligence). I'm not aware of any IQ studies for this specific segment though. As far as how they treat others, that will likely depend on their ability/willingness to emphasize with others so a high IQ doesn't guarantee empathy, it just enhances one's ability to perceive a broader range of moral implications based upon one's sense of empathy. Again this depends on what area of the world we're looking at. I don't think that all Muslims are a-ok with rape, but unless the Muslim community as a whole acts against rape by severely punishing, ostracizing or shunning offending individuals it effectively makes no difference from an incentive standpoint and then you've got yourself a genuine rape culture. My point here was that you have to try to account for all aspects of human nature not just the ones you feel strongly about. Saying you should just suppress your sexual desires, suppress your selfish nature, suppress your tribal urges is not the way to go if you value positive outcomes. This is a tricky one, especially if you have a purely individualist and universalist mindset. It's easier to just say that we're all humans and to stop looking for the truth once you've reached this criteria. However there are differences between the genders and the races. It's important to actually get it right as not to dwell too much on the side of biological determinism and equally not to grant liberties that are beyond someone's capability to handle. It's a fine line but saying we're all equal and calling it a day is objectively incorrect. Yes society works best when we're all held to the same standard, but there are certain biological differences that we have to account for unless we want to suffer the consequences. The inability of the men in the West to properly understand and account for female human nature led to the cultural embrace of feminism which as a result has made both men and women miserable. From a purely Darwinian perspective you could view the wave of Muslim men migrating into Europe as a self-correcting mechanism of nature in response to Western man's inability to correctly handle his women. Ayn Rand never actively embraced the field of study that is influence and persuasion. Unlike those on the left she never used human irrationality to her advantage for obvious reasons. The left however used it to its full advantage precisely because their ideology was so utopian and could not be propagated using reason and evidence so they became the masters of manipulation. This is one of the greatest lessons that can be learned from Donald Trump and that is that both parties can play this game and win. The only way that people will make a fundamental change to their way of thinking is if there's a recognizable incentive to do so. However we're not just at the mercy of environmental factors; we can affect the environment using objective means of persuasion that recognize human nature for what it is not what we want it to be. Donal Trump is living proof this can work.
  11. Thanks for sharing. Having browsed through your summary I'm not seeing much to disagree with and I think these lessons were understood by America's funding fathers. The challenge is ensuring objective knowledge is passed on from one generation to the next without fail regardless of environmental considerations. It seems we can't break the cycle of booms and busts; as soon as we reach a state of material well being the next phase is moral degradation followed by loss of hard earned material gains.
  12. So we're back to insults and name calling again. That's unfortunate, considering I thought we'd be able to move beyond that. So what's next? Do I get to look forward to you moderating my posts again because you disagree with the content of my speech? I certainly hope that won't be the case. I understand how you might interpret my position as an amalgamation of assertions fetched out of thin air but there's actually a little more substance based on the work of numerous social scientists and authors: Us being led by emotion not reason: Jonathan Haidt, Robert Chialdini, Scott Adams, Daniel Kahneman. Groupish / Tribal nature: Ryan Enos, Jonathan Haidt, et al. My key point is that Ayn Rand's Objectivism does not account for human nature in a complete and integrated fashion. Yes we are mostly selfish creatures by nature that possess a faculty capable of reasoning (with certain limitations attached) but that doesn't mean we get to sweep the other aspects of human nature under the rug and call it a day. Not sure why you're comparing me to other thinkers / critics of Objectivism. Either what I'm saying is correct at face value or it isn't. Why compare me to other thinkers as opposed to holding my argument to the objective standard of facts, reason and evidence? If what I wrote above doesn't fully address this concern I would add the following: Why is it the American experiment is failing? Ayn Rand proposed a hypothesis and a solution. Her solution has yet to materialize despite her best efforts. My assertion is that Ayn Rand's solution has yet to materialize because she did not account for certain factors as part of her analysis in properly defining the problem and therefor her solution to the problem was inadequate and ineffective. My train of thought is that if we properly account for the things she did not account for we should be able to formulate an effective solution to the problem we are facing today.
  13. I can answer that by approaching the scenario from the opposite side: If immigration isn't about race then we should just eliminate immigration caps and allow entry to anyone from any foreign country so long as they aren't murderers and rapists. If race and tribalism aren't an issue, then the domestic population becoming a political minority should have no bearing whatsoever on the fabric of society. In my opinion advocacy and insistence on "legal immigration" is a means for conservatives to attempt to justify their white in-group preference without having to publicly endorse racist viewpoints. "We're all for legal immigration" they say, except they're really not when you look at public opinion surveys on immigration. The left of course sees right through this and calls them out on it every time. Why not change the law so everybody can come here so that there's no breach of law? As I stated before I advocate for a social system in harmony with human nature. Selfishness is a defining feature of our inherent nature and freedom is the logical means to account for it. That doesn't change the fact that we are also tribal, but given the selfish aspect of human nature I believe it's best to use culture to account for the tribal aspect assuming where talking about an objective system (I could be wrong here but that's my current view). Of course we haven't achieved the objective system yet so this means we have to work with the tools at our disposal (statism) to try to reach the objective system. Same here, but we're not talking about individual interactions but a variety of potential distributions of more and less intelligent people in society. All things equal, if we increase the number off less intelligent people in society, society will become less free and less prosperous. The fact that more intelligent and less intelligent people can and do prosper (materially and emotionally) based on mutual interactions makes the preceding fact a very hard pill to swallow (emotionally) but that doesn't change the fact that reducing the average level of intelligence in society has adverse consequences. I personally don't mind living by the notion of noblesse obligue to a certain extent so long as our efforts are appreciated and we create a humane society in the process, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Based on human nature, I'm proposing natural in-group preference being a good first draft for drawing that line. If I were a sophist by trade I'd discredit the entirety of your post based on this assertion alone. Free will is possible and it is arguably what makes us humans special but saying that people without free will are a rare occurrence or special case is contrary to the fact that humans are led by emotions not reason. Unless you take active steps to cultivate and maintain it you're essentially just chasing dopamine hits in the here and now. Taking an objective look around you, observing the continuous erosion of freedoms, how could you possibly claim that free will is the norm? The answer to the question is that this assertion wasn't based on an objective observation rather based on wishful thinking (emotional reasoning). That's comparing apples (individual variances) to oranges (group variances). As I stated in my reply to Eiuol's post, decreasing the average IQ in a society has consequences and that's without any consideration to even factoring in the tribal aspect of human nature. Yes we should treat people kindly and we should hold people accountable to a shared standard but what that standard is depends on the population in question. Average IQ, among other factors, impacts this standard. The more diverse the population the more the standard will have to change otherwise you won't be able to enforce it from a practical perspective. If you have a low IQ and low empathy population where certain forms of rape are culturally accepted you cannot legally enforce rape laws if this group of people makes up a significant portion of your population. A society cannot function properly with half of its citizenry incarcerated. Given our selfish nature and human nature in general you can only suppress natural urges to a certain extent and call it a success. We all know what happens when you outlaw sexual intercourse. The Catholic Church being a perfect example to illustrate this point. Or take a look at all the leftist male feminist supporters that treat women as less than human.
  14. Right. You take a more reasonable approach than most in that you don't insist that the averages between races absolutely have to be the same. The only reason something in reality absolutely has to conform to a certain standard (other than objective truth) is in support of a person's emotional investment that relies on a certain assumption being true. Leftists believe in racial egalitarianism and that belief acts as a foundation in their advocacy for anti-racism. Having said that I still think you fall into the same pitfall as the leftists because minor differences by themselves (which you would concede to) wouldn't shake the moral foundation of Objectivism; a tribal component to human nature in conjunction with non-minor differences in characteristics that aren't just superficial however would. And it is the latter two that you would and do challenge. Looking at a society that is objectively organized, I would advocate a solution quite similar to the one your would likely advocate for and that is the freedom of association within the borders of any given country. It's just that based on my current understanding of human nature I think society would look a lot more homogeneous than it does today assuming people were allowed to live their lives according to their own free will. People like Ben Shapiro insist that free-market capitalism would eliminate racial discrimination due to the profit motive. I think the gay wedding cake fiasco alone has proven him false on that assertion. Culture can and will overrule profit motive depending on how strong cultural cohesion and incentive structures are within a society. As far as how we should approach the issue from a practical perspective in our currently unfree society (focusing only on political means for the sake of practicality), I would deport all illegal aliens, revoke birthright citizenship for the children of illegals then deport them, and finally reinstate the freedom association. Obviously there has to be a cultural shift to precede the politics but that's a discussion for another time. Still interested in hearing your opinion on my other article ;D
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. & 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
  18. 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.
  19. & 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.
  20. 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:
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...