Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jeff Maylor

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jeff Maylor

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  1. Thanks, I appreciate the feedback and the link.
  2. Yes it is true that given enough time, more things might could be changed, but apparently our 70-80 years isn't enough to change dramatically. Also, I agree that a normal person might could learn everything Newton knew, given enough time (although I have my doubts because you have to keep so much going in your mind once you get to the advanced levels). But that issue of how long it takes you is important. IQ - which isn't a perfect measure - depends a lot of speed. So if it takes me a year to learn what it takes you a month to learn ... well you are probably smarter than me.
  3. The offender, so to speak, was Harry Binswanger.
  4. Honestly, you didn't really answer anything. I can look up things in the Ayn Rand lexicon and other sources as well. I'm not so much asking for a parrot as a thinker. Now, if you wish to practice the art of thinking, of dealing with facts and concretes, instead of merely quoting definitions, you may find life more interesting. As a first step, learn to expose yourself to the latest developments in the field you are discussing. And check the unearned arrogance at the door. You have no right to be huffy with anyone here asking honest questions. The challenge to what is commonly referred to as tabula rasa or the blank slate, is not that Man has concepts such as "toothpick" in his mind at birth, we've already addressed that. The issue is in what way the slate and the chalk may come preloaded, not with ideas as such, but with things such as an intuitive sense of physics, a theory of mind, a certain temperament, ability to delay gratification, a certain type and structure of IQ, and how these things may vary from person to person. If there is significant variance across human population in these traits, this could have implications for things like personality development and the potential of some populations to maintain certain political systems. This is what is called an interesting question by human beings, as opposed to parroting other people's quotes. And it could potentially prove a challenge to the way many Objectivists view personality. I was told my an Objectivist Phd and authority (not Peikoff)that genes have NO impact on personality. This seems a rather strong and unlikely claim.
  5. I am trying to find the article now ... this is frustrating ... I had it bookmarked somewhere.
  6. I'm not arguing that we should go to the moon or even Mars. Manned space flight seems unnecessary most of the time. But it was a great achievement on its own terms. The counter-argument seems to focus on the idea that it's not all about technology. It is also about having a large team of highly motivated, intelligent, courageous men (and women) that can work toward a common goal. I don't really look around America and find people like that anymore.
  7. Well I suspect that free will, while it exists, is more limited than most of us have thought. I used to have a very expansive concept of it, but everything seems to point to a crucial but limited role. Some of this may come from getting older and seeing how people struggle to change and can't. I believe Peikoff has said he has never seen anyone actually change personality, to any significant degree, in his whole life. Neither have I. So I can't give a specific answer as to how powerful free will is or isn't, just that it does not seem to be as unlimited as many used to think. Of course, volition would have to be finite, as everything that exists is finite. And as I understand it, Objectivism really only claims that free will is the ability to focus or not. Correct? And sense we can only focus on so much, there are bound to be limitations.
  8. Let me try and be more specific. I'm not denying free will or volition, but what most people mean by 'free will' is probably too expansive. Most people literally cannot make themselves be like Isaac Newton, no matter how hard they try and how good their thinking methods are, they simply don't have the IQ. And while you can choose to ignore pain or anxiety, if you are a person that is in some sense "wired" to feel more anxious, it will probably impact your choice of activities in life. There have been studies that show self-control is finite, meaning that our capacity to 'force' ourselves to do something that is unpleasant is not unlimited. And on that point, this means I wonder about the claim of some Objectivists that every last bit of subconscious programming can be altered, such that a formerly nervous and anxious person can turn himself into an extrovert. Or maybe a more exact way of putting it is this: Are all those feelings and tendencies purely the result of conscious or subconscious programming? It seems like there is a growing evidence that aspects of our temperament are very genetic. I am thinking of all those dimensions of personality covered by the so-called Big Five.
  9. Are you claiming there are languages that do not have subjects, verbs and objects? Are you saying Chinese is an example of one that doesn't?
  10. Great question. Objectivists should investigate this issue more fully, it will bear fruit. There needs to be more exploration of the concept tabula rasa and what it actually means, not airy dismissal of all the science that is rushing forward. It seems to be a quirk of many Objectivists to affect an "arrogant and prideful" demeanor, and act as if they were characters in bad version of Atlas Shrugged. An important issue is the distinction between innate ideas and other factors that affect personality and psychology (and what we are referring to when we use those last two concepts). Clearly, the way many thinkers have used the phrase tabula rasa is not correct. It has been used to promote the idea that Man is a more or less a malleable lump of clay that can be molded into anything, either by his environment or by his own free will. This is clearly not true and certainly not how Rand meant it, but it is necessary to make that point clear in our culture. The Standard Social Studies Model (SSSM) has promoted this idea and it is dominant in the humanities and in education departments. We don't want to be associated with that because that idea is rapidly being undone (and it's false). We also need to make clear that being born tabula rasa (if the concept is to be valid) does not mean being born without a functioning brain that has certain tendencies. There is strong evidence that children have something like a Universal Grammar (so called language "instinct") that helps them learn to speak. This is encouraged by an innate tendency of the baby to babble from an early age and then develops as the child constructs sentences that he could never have been taught. Children born deaf have spontaneously created their own unique sign languages with deaf peers. So there is obviously a capacity and mechanism to do many mental activities that were not learned. So, we can say babies are not born with the concept of "airplane", for example. And babies don't seem to be born with a bias toward the Austrian school of economics. However, babies do in fact have an intuitive sense of physics. This has been demonstrated time and again and is available to anyone who googles for it. Children later develop something a like a "theory of mind" that allows them to think of other living creatures as agents, with a mind of their own. This not something that is merely learned. Notably, autistic children do not have this ability and it is severely limited in people with Asperger's syndrome. No amount of learning changes this. Doubt the "language instinct"? Well ask yourself this, why have we never found a group of humans that has forgotten how to speak? If it is purely cultural, then surely over the last 50,000 years, on all the continents of earth, we would find some group of humans that forgot how to talk. People get separated, children are abandoned, etc. There have been small bands of humans that lost the entire culture of their original group. But none forgot how to talk. And this is despite the fact that for at least the first 45,000 years of human language, it wasn't even written! It was all oral! All the easier to forget. So clearly, there is an inbuilt ability at work. When we begin to catalogue all the things babies and children do, it becomes obvious they are not simply empty computers, blank software waiting to be programmed. If they were, they would most likely never develop at all. And this point becomes more obvious when we reflect on that fact that Man is an evolved animal, not a creature plopped down by God in his present form. We must accommodate the last 100,000 years of human evolution, the fact that ape-men existed for even longer periods of time, and that they surely acted on various unlearned “instincts”. If a puppy has an intuitive sense of physics (and they do), why do we think every last bit of it was bred out of Man? Beyond that, humans have a fear of snakes and spiders that appears innate. Babies will react differently to snake or spider-like images than to sheep or frog images. And does anyone think our sexual urges were “learned”, in the crude sense it is often suggested? Sure, learning influences it – a little. But the images that excite boys at a certain age have little to do with some Skinnerian association. It is hard wired, straight up. Evolution would never have had time for every last individual to learn all these things. The more you reflect on it, it becomes impossible to view humans as merely blank computers ready to be filled. This whole field is fascinating and there are some great books on it. I recommend "The Language Instinct" and "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker, as good starters. In a related field, Evolutionary Psychology is emerging as the hottest topic in psychology, much to the consternation of feminists and socialists. David Buss has several books for the popular audience. If you google around you will find tons of websites.
  11. Well David, I take his arguments seriously and so do many prominent researchers. Methinks Objectivism best be informing itself on the new science of genetics and personality, not haughtily dismissing every new finding with a wave of the hand and implying the person who brings it up is somehow deficient.
  12. Just curious if there are any scientists and engineers (or knowledgeable armatures)out there that have an opinion on whether we still have the ability to successfully go to the moon and return? I have recently heard some engineers say they doubt it, despite all the computer advances over the last 35 years. The crux of the argument seems to be that we could no longer assemble a high quality team of people on a large enough scale to pull it off. We simply don't have them, plus the culture has changed such that the best people would no longer be in key positions. Thoughts?
  13. No, although Obama is bad. I would vote for Wilson or FDR as the worst, since they fundamentally changed the nature of the federal government. Lincoln is a more of a mixed case, but he did some very bad things as well.
  14. I would add that there is a difference between a 'right to live' and a 'right to exist'. A right to live is the right to take life sustaining actions, to pursue a certain course of action. But I don't see how there can be such a thing as a 'right to exist'. To exist is the payoff of a successful living, but it is also an outcome, and there can be no such thing as a right to an outcome. We have a right to pursue wealth, but not a right to wealth. Rand admired the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers when they said Man has a right to the pursuit of happiness, not a right to happiness. We have a right to pursue something, to take action, but no right to the outcome. Does that help?
  15. Please take a moment to take the poll. I am a fan of Ayn Rand and I have an interest in psychology, personality and behavioral traits. In recent years, I have been impressed with growing evidence that aspects of personality may be influenced by biology and genetics. In a fundamental sense, this seems undeniable. We wouldn't even have brains without biology and genes, and without brains it is hard to see how we could have minds. People like Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt have written books that counter the 100% environment only view of personality. This culture only view, sometimes referred to as the SSSM (Standard Social Studies Model), has been dominant in the humanities. This model denies any role for genes. This position seems completely unsustainable. Objectivists usually add the importance of free will to the problem of psychology and personality, but I don't hear much with regard to genes. Twin studies seem to support a big role for genes in personality, at least 50%. This also includes items such as political and cultural preferences. In addition, IQ seems to be between 50% and 80% genetic. This alone is provocative, but in addition there are implications for various human populations on a large scale. Because while it is true that group patterns tell you little about a specific individual, it could in fact be useful information when considering large groups. Studies suggest significantly more individualism among some populations than others. Some groups score higher on conscientiousness, within the same culture, than other groups, and so forth. Of course, culture is important, but there seems to be evidence that some of the variation is genetic. In addition, the burgeoning field of evolutionary psychology seems to offer fresh insight into human behavior. And is there any reason Objectivism would be opposed to this position, from a philosophical view?
  • Create New...