Azrael Rand

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?

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.

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.

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.

Sorry about the link, when I did the original post I received an error when trying to use embedded links. Here's the piece I did about Stefan's UPB in quotations:

I agree with this sentiment in that it reflects the need for each individual Objectivists to do what has to get done and not dwell on the past. On the other hand the issue still lingers as ARI and the Atlas Society to this day aren't on talking terms with one another, which indicates to me that our thought leaders still are holding on to emotional resentment and as a result don't have a clear view of what really matters. They'll talk to Dave Rubin but not David Kelley... Not very objective in my opinion. What message does it send to the rank and file when the leadership can't even get it right. So if one group was genetically predisposed towards collectivism and Marxism and the other was not, would you still feel the same way? Of course if humans weren't tribal we could just disregard race and organize purely around ideology; that would solve the problem outright. This isn't how human nature works though. Blacks as a group made a choice to embrace the left in America (and everywhere else). Were there mitigating circumstances? Sure. There were also mitigating circumstances for the Germans that elected Adolf Hitler. Should we hold both groups to the same standard? It matters not if many, few, or any people are taking about genetic differences between whites and Asians. All that matters is whether there are or aren't genetic differences. Majority opinion is not a guarantee for truth. If I asked 100 people on the street what the most potent greenhouse gas was, chances are most people would say its CO2 and they would be wrong. As a white person I have no problems admitting that Asians on average are smarter than whites. We have a different average height, skin color, facial features, etc why would it be impossible for there the be differences regarding average IQ? If blacks on average are quite a lot taller than Asians, why isn't it possible that Asians are quite a lot smarter than blacks on average and that this difference in intelligence influences the way that their respective societies are organized and the amount of wealth (social / cultural and material) they are able to create.

I had a feeling we'd be having the "whole" vs "complete" discussion ;) And yes you're correct on the reasoning for them devoting their time to Objectivism. People are led by emotion not reason, at least that's the natural default. My suggestion that it ought to be based on logic was flawed from the beginning. ARI has a history of being more xenophobic than Japan in its own right. I'd say the usage of the word "embrace" in this context is appropriate. But I understand why you disagree. I don't dispute that it's possible to divide people by as simple an action as giving one group of people a blue jersey and different group a red jersey. However in a scenario where real and meaningful differences do exist, I don't think we benefit in the long run by lying to people and telling them that everyone is the same and that differences in outcomes are caused by unfair play. As for the Japan example, I'm sure you'd agree that the frequency and severity of the university fights between the US and Japan are different. A deviation from the norm doesn't prove false the existence of a norm. I'm glad you're able to come to this conclusion and I strongly agree with your assessment. In reality this isn't how things worked out for the Objectivist movement during and after Ayn Rand's time though. The movement was defined precisely by the shortsighted emotional issues you referenced. When you refer to the history of the races, is this the same thing as the environmental argument? As in if differences do exist between the groups they're solely attributable to environmental factors such as access to superior nutrition, nurture, healthcare, education (lack of progressive psy-ops propaganda targeting minority communities), etc and not differences in genetics? I do very much appreciate your honest answers. Hypothetically if one was to demonstrate meaningful differences between the races using scientific data, do you believe this should influence the way we organize society based on our groupish nature?

Does Craig Biddle count? He describes it as a "whole system of integrated, noncontradictory principles, the sole purpose of which is to teach man how to live and enjoy himself." Link: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/what-is-objectivism/ Thinking about the premise of your question logically, why would these individuals devote a large part of their life to a philosophy that they consider to be incomplete yet unchangeable. Doesn't really make a lot of sense. Considering the institute's history on outreach I think my wording is fair. Maybe not perfect but certainly appropriate. As I stated before, I think the split between the factions is based on our emotional investment in Ayn Rand and her work. We all know how she felt about modifications to her philosophy. In my opinion those of us that chose to uphold and respect this view of hers fall into the closed camp. The other side that, like Ayn Rand, want to use Objectivism to change their environment for the better fall into the open camp. Something tells me that the same people that would object to the misuse / appropriation of the word Objectivism wouldn't object if the same was being done with Marxism. As some have suggested those in the open camp could try to create a new philosophy that retains Objectivism's premise but attempts to correct its conclusions but the first thing we'd be accused of is plagiarism. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I wholeheartedly agree with the general sentiment of your first sentence. I'm personally not in the business of putting Onkar Ghate or Stefan Molyneux out of business. Having said that I do believe people are permitted to have a hobby or two. I do disagree with the latter part where it sounds like you're saying leave the hard questions to the experts and mind your own private affairs instead. Getting it right is everyone's business. There are consequences for all of us if our experts can't cut the mustard. This in my opinion is one of Ayn Rand's oversights: The ability to effectively persuade others is a precondition to a virtuous and happy life within a social environment. I you aren't emotionally invested in Ayn Rand or her work why are you posting on this board? Also there is no ironclad rule that requires one to draw distinct lines of separation in order to be an independent thinker. Not sure where that's coming from. I would make the case that it is rational to view reality as it exists not as we would like it to be. Human nature contains both a selfish and groupish aspect. Only accounting for one but not the other is asking for trouble. I would use a broader brush and say that an inability to objectively account for human nature as a whole leads to pressure-group warfare, societal breakdown, and civil war. Culturally channeling envy into a self-ownership mindset is important for sure, but the same can be said for a racially and culturally homogeneous population. It's not that race matters but that self-ownership doesn't matter; it's that both matter. Japan is less likely to face a civil war in this scenario because they've done a better job of accounting for human nature as a whole compared to the US or other Western nations. Is it an objectively perfect mix? I can't answer that question, but it's certainly better than what we have. It important to remember that a peaceful society is a precondition for a virtuous and happy life; that's the foundation of the Non-Agression Principle. I understand this is a sensitive topic but I would appreciate it if you could answer the following question: Do you hold these beliefs because you have closely studied scientific evidence on the matter or because these beliefs are a part of our society's cultural fabric and you have confirmed this belief with your personal observations first hand. The reason I ask is because the latter scenario is subject to human cognitive biases. It does not mean that I'm right and you're wrong but it does mean the possibility exists.

Not allowed? Who gets to decide that? I understand we both have emotions invested in Ayn Rand and her philosophy. I think this schism goes back to the conflicting views Ayn Rand herself held during her lifetime. She wanted to influence the world with her philosophy but was also unwilling to budge on her views to do so. You and me just picked different sides. I think the same is true for the whole closed vs open debacle. In this way the Jesus Christ scenario you mentioned does have some relevance: We're simply two disciples arguing over how best to honor our teacher's legacy. It was my impression that this is how all the major Objectivist opinion leaders post Rand think. I haven't been keeping up with them more recently, spent more time viewing Stefan Molyneux's content and exploring other authors (Haidt, Adams, Alinksy, etc), but I do know that some things appear to have changed at ARI, for example embracing Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson who aren't officially Objectivists. Maybe they've changes their thinking on this recently? That was Ayn Rand's conclusion as well based upon her interpretation of rational self-interest. Let me ask you this question: If humans are both selfish and tribal, why is it rational to suppress one but not the other? Looking at a real life example of Japan vs the US, which country more closely resembled Ayn Rand's vision of an ideal society. Now ask yourself which country is closest to the brink of civil war in the next 2-3 decades. What makes you say this? I'm certainly not going to disagree with the assessment that a content of character matters, obviously it does, but how do you know this statement to be true at face value? Based on this scenario, what is it going to take for Objectivism to become the moral system of one or more countries? If knowledge is power, and if in theory an Objectivist is a scholar of objective truths, why aren't Objectivists all powerful? My personal conclusion was that we hadn't discovered and accounted for certain truths yet. I'm interested to hear your take on this line of thought. Let me ask this question? If Ayn Rand were alive today and was able to keep up with the scientific discoveries of the day as well as current events do you believe she would have amended her philosophy to be consistent with its original premise based on the feedback given to her by reality or do you believe she wold have stayed the course even up until today. I choose to believe in the former which is one of the reasons I believe in the concept of Open Objectivism.

Hi, Originally posted this article on my minds page earlier today: https://www.minds.com/AzraelRand If you're interested, I also have a rebuttal to Stefan Molyneux's UPB: https://www.minds.com/AzraelRand/blog/an-objective-critique-of-stefan-molyneux-s-universally-prefe-891837573402587136