Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

whYNOT

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

whYNOT last won the day on January 7

whYNOT had the most liked content!

4 Followers

About whYNOT

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    South Africa

Previous Fields

  • Country
    SouthAfrica
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    tony garland
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Occupation
    photography,reading,writing

Recent Profile Visitors

9108 profile views
  1. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Some spectacular racial stereotyping going on. Or else satire. I do not consider IQ an emotional issue.There are facts, one of which is that for every given individual, there are many others who have lesser intelligence and many others who have much higher. I advised getting over this fact and moving on. I'll repeat that one's (and others') IQ is way down on any list of objective priorities. Also there's the fact that, logically, there is at least some inheritable factor of native intelligence due to one's ethnicity. Again, nothing to get upset about or take undue esteem from. However, a lot of people will use these facts for their own agendas, for mass power in particular. They will not admit to it but evidently on the Left today, is the intention to "equalize" what and whom cannot be equalized. I.e. to 'redistribute human resources', one of which they stupidly and superficially assume to be intelligence, tacitly presuming upon a mystical phenomenon as the major cause, along with "privilege", of the gaining of wealth etc. by others. (It figures - most are skeptics and determinists). Therefore, a drive to egalitarianism. Which is ironically just another form of racist/groupist supremacism. Some group/race/collective must be brought down and others elevated. And here's both their sacrificial altruism and collectivism, both more toxic from the Left nowadays than I ever heard from the religious/conservative Right, in modern times.
  2. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Fascinating. Do continue. It all provides fresh insight into racism, in all its manifestations. (And what made you think I am a white man?)
  3. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    To try another way. Surely clear by now, this basic topic does not interest me that much. Where it leads does. You and others want to keep this to the empirical level. While important, that doesn't come even close to the extent of the objectivist method. (To mention what you know, one does not need to be and cannot be, empirically "expert" in each and every sphere - for that you have conceptualism). It may be far easier to stick closely and concretely to the loads of data and narrowing complexities from science (and to make moralizing/emotional pronouncements) than to consider all the ramifications of IQ that rationality, volition and logic will answer, which -- I have maintained, repeatedly - - are the ONLY way to defuse all racism, whether in societies, or within oneself.. "Moral sentimentalism" [DH] merely defers or skates round the problem. There is sense in my posts and you know it. These irritated responses are by those who well understand what I mean.. Logically, take apart my "stream of consciousness" (huh!) if you want. But you can see now what I meant by "upsetting" to some, which you couldn't accept earlier? Why is it that facts disturb? Also important and to be thought over/introspected by Objectivists I'd believe.
  4. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Circumspectly said. Indeed, no one has said much to dispute - or agree - outside of quibbling over inessentials. So what was the fuss about? There is more to discuss about the increasing assault on, and the self-abnegating guilt by, one specific race and specific gender - i.e. white men - wherever they live - racialistically motivated, also. Perhaps this isn't the place for it.
  5. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Thank you for your response. You of course have set up a straw man. I have seen only of the authors who take well into account covariance, never making such a false assumption it is "zero". Not to burst your bubble, and I have alluded to those variables here. (For the rest of your comment about me, that is presumptuous and I take it to be cheap psychologizing).
  6. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Do you know what an analogy is? An analogy is a device and does not need to be equivalent in every respect to the subject analogized and it won't be. By definition, it will not be 'accurate' or "inaccurate".
  7. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Eiuol, I let you earlier bring in "causal factor", your words, without objection. That was my mistake. I never explicitly said causation, except this once, adopting your word. Above again is my quote which properly describes my position on IQ - "...a measurement ... of a function of a biological entity, the brain". You make no response to that? If it was not defined directly by me, it was what I meant throughout and thought was self-evident. So I was imprecise. "Function" (- or "capacity" as I've repeatedly put it) of the performance of the (biological) brain. If we can't get past semantic stumbling blocks - and - accept there is a ~correlation~ of IQ to race, we can't get to the critical moral-philosophical matters of how and why IQ/race is abused, suppressed, moralized and politicized, and by whom. This apparently doesn't interest you as it does me. IQ itself is such a minor matter.
  8. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    There's this wistful thinking (read, primacy of consciousness) abroad that all mankind are "created" equal and must be kept equal. (I consider the Founders' brilliant thinking and intent was not so much deistic as their recognition of man's metaphysical nature, proposing then that citizens then remain equal ~only~ in rights and by the law). But something such as being born with lower or higher advantages in greater or lesser circumstances appears to have quasi-mystical - especially for the secularists - undertones, seeming ~unjust~ in their, well, distribution. We know that if you could equalize everything for the ultimate best in favor of every individual: e.g. All born in a free country, nurtured by caring parents, equally intelligent, well educated, having the same wealth, and so on... except for the reality, we all can see around and even from experience in ourselves. With the strengths/weaknesses of human nature and the volitional rationality being as it is, well before this equalization program was lifted huge disparities would arise from one to the next. Some would 'fail' (in general, material, spiritual terms) where others would 'succeed'. A very good entry in the Lexicon I hadn't read before although well known to others I am sure, cuts into the premises and consequences of 'Egalitarianism'. Most apt today ("a children's fairy tale". Ha! What socialism is, psychologically): The new “theory of justice” [of John Rawls] demands that men counteract the “injustice” of nature by instituting the most obscenely unthinkable injustice among men: deprive “those favored by nature” (i.e., the talented, the intelligent, the creative) of the right to the rewards they produce (i.e., the right to life)—and grant to the incompetent, the stupid, the slothful a right to the effortless enjoyment of the rewards they could not produce, could not imagine, and would not know what to do with. “An Untitled Letter,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 110 Observe that . . . the egalitarians’ view of man is literally the view of a children’s fairy tale—the notion that man, before birth, is some sort of indeterminate thing, an entity without identity, something like a shapeless chunk of human clay, and that fairy godmothers proceed to grant or deny him various attributes (“favors”): intelligence, talent, beauty, rich parents, etc. These attributes are handed out “arbitrarily” (this word is preposterously inapplicable to the processes of nature), it is a “lottery” among pre-embryonic non-entities, and—the supposedly adult mentalities conclude—since a winner could not possibly have “deserved” his “good fortune,” a man does not deserve or earn anything after birth, as a human being, because he acts by means of “undeserved,” “unmerited,” “unearned” attributes. Implication: to earn something means to choose and earn your personal attributes before you exist. “An Untitled Letter,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 111
  9. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    In this agreeable and rational exchange on a contentious topic much is made about primacy of the individual, and it emerges that IQ is not such "a big deal". (Said by Murray himself). I think this is the healthy approach: know about an element of correlation between ethnicity and IQ, and get over it. Also, there is a brief mention of one critic of The Bell Curve, a biologist, who's quoted : "A vehicle of Nazi propaganda in a cover of pseudo-scientific respectability...". It makes you wonder at the objectivity of some scientists who make emotive statements. But there's much more unremarked upon in how many people view race and intelligence, than this common, rather Lefty (I guess) moral vituperation of the supremacist right/Nazis/etc. which we are more familar with. (And I doubt strongly that those fascist-nazis-etc. ever will make a lot of "propaganda" out of any supposed IQ differences and racial inferiority. They are skating on thin ice, since you can bet most of them today are on the lower tail of IQ scores and they probably know that fact. (And their other target, Jews, are widely known to have somewhat higher IQ). So, no, these explicitly racist people, who are being gradually isolated anyway, aren't going to sound off too much about IQ and race!) On the other end, are the egalitarians whom we observe using emotive tactics to manipulate people in another direction. Using 'equality' and 'victimization' of the racial/etc.etc. groups, qua group, in order to foment discord and gain power. They are the implicit racists (/collectivists). Here is the greater danger.
  10. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Obviously IQ is not biological and I havent said that. But it is a measurement, effective, or not, of a function of a biological entity, the brain - and that's different. And the heritabilty of intelligence is established, as in the Wiki piece - for only one result. I gave an example and analogy, well-known, of the many long distance runners from East Africa who lived at high altitude, as have done their community going back to their ancestors. A reasonable correlation can be made, which I did, that the people had developed a genetic predisposition to slightly stronger cardio-vascularity. Again, correlation not causation. These debates move along best without nitpicking.
  11. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    "Causes", "a causal factor", "causal interaction". Where did your "causation" enter, how did you get that idea? You must know those researchers, to the best of my reading, speak entirely of the "correlation" of race to IQ, as I have done. It might seem a trifle or nuanced to one, but this is a field of science which has to deal with means and averages through large population groups, therefore can NOT be "causal", nor especially (the gist of my argument), deterministic. Correlation not causation! btw, in your last para - if - as you seem to accept : " ...IQ differences have been discovered as related [that's better - :)] to race" --- THEN, does it not follow "...that this is evidence that race causes[nope!] IQ differences". ?? You are making too fine a distinction, those statements amount to one and the same.
  12. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    To "spout ideologies with no thought" requires some (anyone here?) to only mimic/disgorge Rand, for reasons she would not have appreciated and often said so, i.e. remaining dependent on her mind, simply making deductions from her principles or concepts - not inducing them for oneself from, right, "the real world"..
  13. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    I came across this one in a search which covers all bases, a conversation Sam Harris has with Charles Murray (The Bell Curve). Well worth the 40minutes. https://youtu.be/1YfEoxU82us
  14. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Hi Tym: Equalization of opportunity - for whom and by whom and what for? That will hardly be a free society. The key is "Laissez-nous faire" - i.e., to find and make one's own opportunities, as one sees fit. Even one's choice to squander an opportunity. One man's opportunity-equalization entails another man's 'un-equalization'.
  15. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    "Experiences" of humanity are unvarying and universal in men's machinations for dominance, only changing by degree, location and timing. Did you ever wonder what was the motivation of those Americans you indicate who too-strenuously oppose such causality? You don't see their (very open) motives? I thought it was clear, the West today is frantic in its guilty quest to "equalize" everything and everybody. What began with relativism and relativist notions re: different ethics, cultures and civilisations, continues with bringing all the cultures, peoples (and so on) down to one level - "equalized": We are no better than you...and cannot know better than you. And so will continue, until eradicating and sacrificing whatever was and is valuable of the West's legacy. Hatred of the good? In the meantime there are objectively better individuals than others, better countries, better systems of governance, cultures, religions ... etc.
×