Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Sameak said:

My point is thats not my view, my view is that race is real and it affects the whole society.

Just to be clear: In your view, do race affect the ideas, the faculty of thinking, of an individual?

Do Thomas Sowell share something fundamental in his head with Obama and 50 Cent, that I (as a white) haven't, while I have some different fundamental thinking that I share with Stalin and Steve Jobs, and that Sowell, Obama & 50 Cent haven't?

(Obama, as a mixed, may have mixed premises?)

Edited by gio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What many people ascribe to racial difference are really cultural. One culture may have different values concerning education or life ambitions, such as working hard early in life to create long term values. This would also include attitudes towards working. If people in a culture generally believe that working necessarily involves employer exploitation, that would greatly influence to the attainment of long term goals. Thus different cultures have different levels of prosperity in the same geographical region.

But don’t confuse that with race. Of course, when we are talking about culture, most of the time there is a racial component. But that does not imply intellectual differences by race. Speaking of Thomas Sowell, he wrote a book on this subject. He notes differences in IQ levels over time in the same culture. A hundred years ago a particular racial group had different attitudes, income levels, IQ scores than they do now.

Of course there are many differences between races and not just skin color. Some races may be taller or have different musculature. This of course has no moral significance. But I do not believe there is any evidence or reason to believe any inherent difference in intelligence among different races.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 2046 said:

But what's the point of your argument? Let's put aside the data, because none of us are going to agree with the validity of it, there has been enough scholarly criticisms of your viewpoint no one is going to agree with whatever links you're posting.

Suppose there are two people, A and B. A tests a IQ of 120, B tests an IQ of 119. Ergo what? What inferences, in terms of political philosophy, follow from this?

Not much difference, if you said an IQ of 83, which is the median IQ of Africans, vs 119 the differences would be astounding. As for poltical differences and genetics influence on this, well I suggest you view this study here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wayne said:

 

Of course there are many differences between races and not just skin color. Some races may be taller or have different musculature. This of course has no moral significance. But I do not believe there is any evidence or reason to believe any inherent difference in intelligence among different races.

Indeed, it is true that much of what we call "race" is a social construct, that is, a concept of culture. However, even the last part of what you said is questionable. 

Is skin color, height, or musculature a "racial difference"? What does that even mean? Is "racial" the same as "genetic"? It seems questionable that race just doesn't exist, as in there is no biological basis for distinguishing it, no inherent biological relationship between intelligence, nose size, height, blood group, skin color and certainly not any number of complex human behavior.

Traits considered in common parlance to be "racial" like skin color, facial structure,  musculature, etc., are actually distributed indepedently and depend upon many environmental and behavioral factors, have distinct distributions from other traits, and are rarely determined by a single genetic factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sameak said:

I understand exactly what she means, just reading that paragraph now sends chills down my spine and im reminded of my first time reading it. This is the reason I left the Alt Right, they indeed do believe people should be enslaved to their race. Although that wasnt always the case, it got co opted by National Socialists and other Hitlerites and Fascists, but thats beside the point. My point is thats not my view, my view is that race is real and it affects the whole society. The varying IQ averages and cultures changes the quality of life and over arching values of a nation. Simply compare the differences of homogenous nations like Japan and Liberia and you'll know this to be true.

The differences being alluded to here are still only correlation. While acknowledging the presence of race, it doesn't affect the whole society, per se, it affects and effects individuals within society who individually attach different significance to race. The collective assessment is much more difficult to isolate, given other factors that influence individuals as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sameak said:

Not much difference, if you said an IQ of 83, which is the median IQ of Africans, vs 119 the differences would be astounding. As for poltical differences and genetics influence on this, well I suggest you view this study here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/

So a non answer. Just "differences would be astounding" if it were 83 vs 119. Why 83 vs 119? Why not 84 vs 119? 85 vs 119? 86 vs 119? 118 vs 119? Get it? At what point would it cease to be "astounding"? What inferences follow? Blankout.

When given the opportunity to name whatever inferences you're drawing from a difference you refuse to do it. A key aspect of objective philosophy is clear and concise use of language and insistence on removing ambiguity and linguistic connotation. One would think someone moved to tears by Anthem would agree, but I guess not. Bye then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I don't know why the continent itself is the dividing line. Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and Indian people are all in the same continent, and they aren't called Asian except in a literal descriptive sense. I don't think anyone is arguing against genetic variation, the main issue is what constitutes a race and how big an effect those differences are in the first place. We may and do find significant statistical differences in IQ among populations, but that isn't to say the difference is even enough that different races (assuming we can even define race properly) will demonstrate different behavioral outcomes.

Which controversial events?

I'm not even sure your posts are serious now. This would be easy to look up, and China is part of the scientific community too...

The continent is the dividing line because during those ages you couldnt simply traverse all those natural barriers to intereact with the different races. Its funny how you guys pretend like IQ doesnt matter when your philosophy very much accepts the concept that degrees of use of rational faculty is key to how virtuous you are. Regardless I will leave the results of the study that was done to see how well these races corresponded to geographic locations by number of loci. As for the china consensus I can provide an pdf for that https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/374899PrpZbSl.png

Edited by Sameak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sameak said:

 Its funny how you guys pretend like IQ doesnt matter when your philosophy very much accepts the concept that degrees of use of rational faculty is key to how virtuous you are.

According to Objectivism, rational faculty is volitionnal. If you are talking about a non-volitionnal faculty, then it has nothing to do with what Objectivism deals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, 2046 said:

So a non answer. Just "differences would be astounding" if it were 83 vs 119. Why 83 vs 119? Why not 84 vs 119? 85 vs 119? 86 vs 119? 118 vs 119? Get it? At what point would it cease to be "astounding"? What inferences follow? Blankout.

When given the opportunity to name whatever inferences you're drawing from a difference you refuse to do it. A key aspect of objective philosophy is clear and concise use of language and insistence on removing ambiguity and linguistic connotation. One would think someone moved to tears by Anthem would agree, but I guess not. Bye then. 

Your post doesn't make sense. I provided a link to a study that was done to illustrate to you the differences, im not a scientist, but if you want an answer from me the differences would be a tendency to codependency and low time preference. Are you guys not looking at my links, id say that is a blankout because you people want so bad for your conclusions to be right that you cant stand to have them challenged.

Edited by Sameak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gio said:

According to Objectivism, rational faculty is volitionnal. If you are talking about a non-volitionnal faculty, then it has nothing to do with what Objectivism deals.

Indeed this "virtue=intelligence" is a major distortion of pretty much every virtue theorist in modern philosophy including Rand:

Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality—not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute. (FNI, 178)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

So are you changing your definition of "race"? Originally it was "populations of people who interbred in a specific geographic location thus are genetically and physically distinguishable", and this holds of Norwegians vs. French, so why are Norwegians and French not different races? You presumably know that Europe and Asia are actually a single land-mass, so if you use "continent" as the basis for racial classification, then Koreans and Englishmen are one race.

This is rediculous North America and South America are attached but they're still seperate continents. I stand by my original definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 2046 said:

Indeed this "virtue=intelligence" is a major distortion of pretty much every virtue theorist in modern philosophy including Rand:

Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality—not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute. (FNI, 178)

 

I said it's key, not that intelligence equals virtue quite a distinction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

I think it will be distracting to discuss Gio's question about whether we should call this Objectivism or not. Reality and truth are paramount. If Objectivism is defined as something contrary to that, we should just admit that Objectivism is wrong on some point, and move on. I suggest keeping the focus on the actual issue, and leave "is this Objectivism?" for a different thread.

Recent studies have shown that Darwin's model is a bit Newtonian, and that another source of genetic change can come from individuals actually changing their genes in response to cultural and physical environment. While it is far-fetched to say that "Man is a being of self-made genes" is is no longer kooky. It is plausible to say that a person who is given different cultural and physical inputs from those available to his genetic relatives will actually experience a change in his genes, which will also be passed to his kids.
 

I would say on the contrary, I really would like to discuss how the race concept affects Objectivist philosophy, it is really why I came here. As for changing genes you're gonna have to provide me with some studies because this is the first time ive heard of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

The differences being alluded to here are still only correlation. While acknowledging the presence of race, it doesn't affect the whole society, per se, it affects and effects individuals within society who individually attach different significance to race. The collective assessment is much more difficult to isolate, given other factors that influence individuals as well.

Yes but if race is a valid concept and these genetic characteristics and behavioral patterns remain true, how does this affect the philosophy? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sameak said:

I really would like to discuss how the race concept affects Objectivist philosophy, it is really why I came here.

It doesn't.
The only thing Objectivism has to say about race is that racism is a form of collectivism, and the rest is what the philosophy has to say about collectivism.

/thread

Edited by gio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gio said:

Just to be clear: In your view, do race affect the ideas, the faculty of thinking, of an individual?

Do Thomas Sowell share something fundamental in his head with Obama and 50 Cent, that I (as a white) haven't, while I have some different fundamental thinking that I share with Stalin and Steve Jobs, and that Sowell, Obama & 50 Cent haven't?

(Obama, as a mixed, may have mixed premises?)

Yes, as stated earlier to 2046 certain genes do correspond to behavioral patterns. As for Thomas Sowell he is a bright man, but there is eventually regression to the mean where his offspring will eventually regress to the racial average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gio said:

It doesn't.
The only thing Objectivism has to say about race is that racism is a form of collectivism, and the rest is what the philosophy has to say about collectivism.

/thread

The race concept and racism are two different things. If you insist on calling me a racist fine, but know this. I reject that name for the same reason I reject the term Suppressive that scientologists give me, Counter revolutionary by Marxists, and Heretic by religious zealots. It's just words you and your collective like to call others just to shut down discourse and bully the opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sameak said:

The continent is the dividing line because during those ages you couldnt simply traverse all those natural barriers to intereact with the different races.

Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and many more have traversed most of Asia.

IQ is not a measure of rationality, it is a measure of a factor of intelligence in the context of fluid intelligence. As far as rationality is concerned, we would still want to measure grit, creativity, spatial intelligence, memory capacity, crystallized intelligence, and many other things that contribute to cognitive ability. I should also mention that there are issues even measuring in the first place for people not raised in Western countries. Not because those who brought up in non-Western countries are inherently stupider, but the tasks  aren't really developed for those contexts. in other words, without the support of Western-style education, those in Africa might not do well on IQ tests.

 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't call you racist at all in my previous message. I merely answered the question of what Objectivism had to say about race. But only since your last comment about Sowell, it seems that you are actually racist, because you seems to suggest that some races are genetically superior or inferior to others, and this is the definition of racism. I don't use this word as an insult to silence or bully you, but just as a matter of objective fact, because it's relevant to the topic of relation with Objectivism. Racism is obviously antithetical to Objectivism, there is no question about that. Objectivism is opposed to any form of collectivism, class or race determinism. It does not hold that certain genes correspond to behavioral patterns. It holds that man is born tabula rasa, that all behavioral patterns derive from your ideas, and that every man has the free will to choose his ideas. Some groups of humans (like man / woman) may have different needs, tendancy or inclination (+ physical differences), and it could be the same for races, but it is different than conceptual knowledge. You can disagree: then you disagree with Objectivism.

Edited by gio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sameak said:

Yes but if race is a valid concept and [if] these genetic characteristics and behavioral patterns remain true, how does this affect the philosophy? 

The question is inverted.

What guidance does the philosophy of Objectivism offer for ascertaining the validity of concepts?
What guidance does the philosophy of Objectivism offer for determining the veracity of propositions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectivism holds that even if your ability are limited, that's no problem as long as you use your ability to think to the fullest of your capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, gio said:

I didn't call you racist at all in my previous message. I merely answered the question of what Objectivism had to say about race. But only since your last comment about Sowell, it seems that you are actually racist, because you seems to suggest that some races are genetically superior or inferior to others, and this is the definition of racism. I don't use this word as an insult to silence or bully you, but just as a matter of objective fact, because it's relevant to the topic of relation with Objectivism. Racism is obviously antithetical to Objectivism, there is no question about that. Objectivism is opposed to any form of collectivism, class or race determinism. It does not hold that certain genes correspond to behavioral patterns. It holds that man is born tabula rasa, that all behavioral patterns derive from your ideas, and that every man has the free will to choose his ideas. Some groups of humans (like man / woman) may have different needs, tendancy or inclination (+ physical differences), and it could be the same for races, but it is different than conceptual knowledge. You can disagree: then you disagree with Objectivism.

What I said has nothing to do with whether one race is superior to another, east asians have the highest IQ and Africans have the lowest this is not racism but fact. Sorry if I misread your last comment. My arguement holds that science has disproven tabula rasa and that certain genes do correspond to certain behavior. I do believe in free will but within the framework that your genes allow.

Edited by Sameak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and many more have traversed most of Asia.

IQ is not a measure of rationality, it is a measure of a factor of intelligence in the context of fluid intelligence. As far as rationality is concerned, we would still want to measure grit, creativity, spatial intelligence, memory capacity, crystallized intelligence, and many other things that contribute to cognitive ability. I should also mention that there are issues even measuring in the first place for people not raised in Western countries. Not because those who bought are inherently stupider, but the tasks  aren't really developed for those contexts. in other words, without the support of Western-style education, those in Africa might not do well on IQ tests.

 

Military invasion is not regular interaction, and when I say Africans im not talking about the ones in Africa but the whole race, same for Europeans, and Asians. It seems you're getting into the continuum fallacy. Just because the lines maybe blurred doesnt mean race doesnt exist, if this were the case then color wouldnt exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Sameak said:

I would say on the contrary, I really would like to discuss how the race concept affects Objectivist philosophy, it is really why I came here.

Fair enough, if that's your preference. I think it just creates confusion if you're trying to discuss two very different questions within the same thread: 

  • "what does the science tell us" and
  • "what does the philosophy of Objectivism assume -- if anything at all -- about what science tells us"

Your other two questions were:

  • "What evidence? I have seen evidence of the contrary. "
  • "As for changing genes you're gonna have to provide me with some studies because this is the first time I've heard of it."

Both these are about what science tells us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

The question is inverted.

What guidance does the philosophy of Objectivism offer for ascertaining the validity of concepts?
What guidance does the philosophy of Objectivism offer for determining the veracity of propositions?

If I understand your question correctly, Objectivism holds that concepts must be empirically varified, does my evidence not varify the concept of race?

Edited by Sameak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×