Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

whYNOT

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by whYNOT

  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.
  16. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Do a search. DNA, ethnicity, intelligence, etc. There is an overload of material by independent researchers which I once went through and don't need returning to. It is you who are rejecting the mainstream discoveries on IQ and race, so rather you whom I should ask to "provide evidence". Here's your opportunity to bring up some contradictory literature and show why and how the theory is unfeasible. Why wait for me? Demonstrate for me what I don't understand. As "repeatedly" as it is demanded of me for studies, if it's important to you and others, why cannot you initiate a counter argument citing just one favorable source? Ball's in your court. And I'm usually the last person to accept "the settled science". If the science integrates with one's generalized observation and logic, I'd say it has merit. About the logic. You missed my point about how incredible it would be if every ethnicity had equal IQ. If early tribal man, in all parts, in much-varied conditions (etc.) HAD developed "equally" as well as autonomously, one could almost make a case for supernatural intervention. The logical deduction seems solid.
  17. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Eiuol, no "good science" that this is a causal factor? Only overwhelming science, tried and tested. You guys feel free to do your research and find any flaws if you can, and present your counter-arguments. I had interest in other (philosophic) priorities here, apart from the IQ science, so won't be joining in. What would be simply incredible, would be findings that every ethnicity had identical average IQ ratings. With that I leave aside this race and IQ story, it's a delicate subject which upsets people and frankly is given too much prominence, but moreso - when it's concealed and denied on the grounds of offending others and/or tacitly proclaiming one might be superior to them. (Why? Do people, particularly Objectivists, believe that there's an intrinsic "equality" in all individual adults - in every respect - which needs to be uplifted? Otherwise, the only option is to sink into racial supremacy? Looks like a false and collectivist alternative, to me. Of course, here one should not have to make the single distinction: equality in rights and before the Law, the only "equality". I don't know about anyone else, but I have never known, seen or met ~any~ two 'equal' individuals, and I expect I never will. The unique singularity of individuals is what one is left with if one pays them attention. And it may be surprising to find that most people aren't so delicate as to take offense at hearing of their -supposedly- modest/lower IQ. It is just not such a big deal. Your remark of my "intuition" caught my eye. How did you arrive at that? Intuition? Ha. Consider maybe, that my experiences, observations and assessments based on the instances of many, many individuals (of several 'races') from my life in African countries, is anything but 'off the top of his head' intuitionism (instinct, rationalism and the like). You would instead know this to be inductively gained knowledge.
  18. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    I think it's important to distinguish IQ, intelligence, rationality, and reason. "The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as man's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action...It means a commitment to the fullest perception of reality within one's power ..." VoS "Intelligence is not an exclusive monopoly of genius, it is an attribute of all men, and the differences are only a matter of degree". CUI SO, untrue to say IQ (directly) measures "the rational faculty". This could be the most critical point. Rationality, the commitment to reason/reality, I think I could eventually detect in many individuals I've met in all walks of life, many ~apparently~ of moderate, or fairly low, IQ. And the reverse - in the apparently intelligent (intellectuals, for instance) who are inconsistently- or anti-conceptual. In the course of events, who cares? Who seeks out others' IQ scores? Why should that be concerning to one in dealings with them? Their dedicated choice or not of rationality is paramount, not so? My supposition is that IQ can at its best measure the capacity, the raw horsepower of a brain. On that metaphor, a four-cylinder engine run efficiently, driven expertly in many conditions and well-looked after, will surpass an 8-cylinder, twin-turbo engine which putters only to the shops never out of first gear, and is abused. In the end, there's little to IQ for people to worry about. As a determining factor for one's life it is diminishingly low--given a volitional consciousness. The "opposition", you mention - both racists and especially, I'm sorry to add, many anti-racialists, make it harder to express any opinion or judgment about others. Reasoned discourse becomes difficult (on what is an overly sensitive topic). The effect lately is clearly the censoring and self-censoring of speech, and honesty and minds.
  19. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Okay. You're describing what one sees, the superficial features of humans, which doesn't rise above a perceptual level of awareness. Are these traits *essential* properties of an individual's personal identity? They are not in this philosophy. But as I said, I think science has a different agenda and has the brief to study "races", their background and physical differences, etc. etc. Yes, which may be interesting and/or useful to learn. I may say for some of today's Leftist, purportedly anti-racists, that I see - they too are extremely aware of racial "traits" (skin color, etc.) A give-away is that old saw: " Some of my best friends are - x, y, or z". Are they then that color blind? Do they have to mention this fact at all? It would seem that superficial appearances matter greatly to them. And I don't have to describe the extra-special treatment, socially and otherwise which members of those races commonly receive from progressivists. This special attention, I hear, is amusing to, or considered dishonest, condescending - even racist, in itself - by e.g. many blacks or Jews, or whomever, on the receiving end. Any form of 'special selection', group-identifying of others, has collectivist premises. You should read Thomas Sowell in his many articles decrying this and Affirmative Action.
  20. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Heritability of IQ Research on heritability of IQ implies, from the similarity of IQ in closely related persons, the proportion of variance of IQ among individuals in a study population that is associated with genetic variation within that population. This provides a maximum estimate of genetic versus environmental influence for phenotypic variation in IQ in that population as environmental factors may be correlated with genetic factors. "Heritability", in this sense, "refers to the genetic contribution to variance within a population and in a specific environment".[1] In other words, heritability is a mathematical estimate that indicates an upper bound on how much of a trait's variation can be attributed to genes. There has been significant controversy in the academic community about the heritability of IQ since research on the issue began in the late nineteenth century.[2] Intelligence in the normal range is a polygenic trait, meaning that it is influenced by more than one gene,[3][4] more specifically, over 500, and is thought to be up to 80% genetic in origin.[5][not in citation given] The heritability of IQ for adults is between 57% and 73%[6] with some more-recent estimates as high as 80%[7] and 86%.[8] Genome-wide association studies have identified inherited genome sequence differences that account for 20% of the 50% of the genetic variation that contributes to heritability.[9] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics, for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood. This phenomenon is known as the Wilson Effect.[10] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores;[11] however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects. Wikipedia
  21. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Hear, hear. On two counts: the 'group' does not exist; and mankind's immense range of superficial, physical features which say nothing of an individual. The metaphysical identity of man supersedes all that, importantly too, giving to philosophers a standard of how to think of, evaluate and engage with others. It is that metaphysics which is missing today and causing huge damage, needless to say, before one even includes reason and ethics. When many people actually believe their own tribal self-justifications, what you get is a self-fulfilling prophecy, I suppose. A qualification on "illusion" - the varying biological natures of man, e.g. ethnicities, is an actuality in some "special sciences", which backs this discussion. The findings and applications of biology, especially the growth of genetics, informs us and is going to have more effects on our lives. This only means being careful (I think) to keep the two, philosophy and science, distinct - and with no contradiction.
  22. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    The intention of IQ was and is a measurement of cognitive function, not so? Of course, not the identical, direct measurement as is height, but indirect -- of one's potential brain capacity - to be precise, of the prefrontal cortex's function. If you'd want (E.g) to measure a person's muscular strength, you would give him increasing weights (i.e. physical resistance) to lift. In the same way, assessing cognitive ability you get hin to perform cognitive "resistance" in the form of standardized tests. You can argue the tests' accuracy and efficacy, but the intention and purpose of the method is clear. If they only give indicators of the degree of intelligence, they would still have some merit, imo. Simple as that, that's what I "think it measures" and how.
  23. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    EC: Are you addressing me? I have repeatedly stressed - over anything - volition and character, reason and choice, actions and individualism. Together, they eliminate most or all of the IQ distinction. And I have repeated that "nurture" (in the broadest sense, nutrition, education, parental value, etc. ) has significance. But IQ is only lent the extra weight it doesn't merit, by those who believe it has *absolutely nothing* to do with hereditary genetics. As if one's brain could be an exception to one's inherited physicality. To not admit to the slight influence ethnic-IQ has, surrenders the subject solidly into the hands a). of race supremacists, or b). of egalitarians, who want all men forced to be equal. Both to be rejected outright for what they'd perpetrate, unopposed.
  24. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Ok, I get it. It took me some while to work out the point I'm supposed to have missed. Is this correct: The runners are black, the basketball players are often black. I should have been sensitive to that in the sports analogy, but only recalled another example of the same . It must be that I'm quite blind to seeing people in such a way, by what I've said earlier were an individual's "inessential" characteristics, after living in three black countries.
  25. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    I think height for basketball is a trite and overused analogy, but the general idea remains. Without - some - above average height, the most coordinated athlete, great in other respects, won't compete well at it. To expand the point, the highlands of Kenya and Ethiopia are known for producing some of the best long-distance runners, and certainly it is true to say that each person's exposure, from youth, to less oxygenated air builds up his 'natural' cardio-vascular system. Also, and debatably, as much or more of an influence is his genetic predisposition: to lean, mesomorphic body-type, stronger heart and larger lung capacity, than average. And then - of course -- comes the x-factor - the athlete's motivation and (hard) effort. btw, just to clear up, I am sure you realise that particular parents do not necessarily have to have a certain "predisposition", physical, etc., the gene may not emerge for a few or many generations, so far back does it go. A study follows about athletic DNA: ("not ... predictive", alone and in isolation - for sure, and we know that; an individual's physicality, and his nurture - and - *volition*, above all, are essential components). Conclusion Current evidence suggests that a favorable genetic profile, when combined with the appropriate training, is advantageous, if not critical for the achievement of elite athletic status. However, though a few genes have now been repeatedly associated with elite athletic performance, these associations are not strong enough to be predictive and the use of genetic testing of these variants in talent selection is premature. Key Points Athlete status as well as many cardiovascular endurance and muscular phenotypes are highly heritable, supporting a role for genetic factors in the achievement of athletic success. The ACE I/I genotype is consistently associated with endurance performance. The ACTN3 R/R genotype is consistently associated with power-oriented performance. Genetic variants may alter injury risk or and/or post-injury outcomes, though more research is needed in this area. No genetic variant has reached the level of predictability for athletic success. The summary from a highly technical article written by Lisa M. Guth and Stephen M. Roth: "Genetic Influence on Athletic Performance".
×