Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Sameak said:

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.

You didn't simply said that, but more: you said it is genetically determined (as in your comment about Sowell). The name for the idea that some races have inherently various degree of ability is: racism. That's a fact. I have a friend who hold the same idea as you, and he has no problem to say he is racist.
 

But actually, in my opinion, like all ideologies that seek to destroy the concept of responsibility, racism is an ideology of loosers which has more psychological than philosophical significance.

Edited by gio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

 

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.

Im sorry about the confusion, I figured this thread might go all over the place considering the topic. Just help me understand how this concept, if true, affects the philosophy and if possible send me a study of that gene theory you mentioned.

Share this post


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

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

You're evading the point. Your original definition has nothing to do with continents. You should read what you actually said " races are populations of people who interbred in a specific geographic location thus are genetically and physically distinguishable". This is pretty much the opposite of any definition of race and its connection to genetics. If populations of people interbreed in a location, they will tend to be genetically and physically indistinguishable. Separation leads to non-interbreeding and greater differentiation. Mountains, deserts and bodies of water lead to separation, as does great distance. There is no problem in traversing Europe to Asia, Asia to Africa, North America to South America. There is not a single fact that indicates that the North / South America distinction has any connection to the concept of "race".

Ultimately, my goal was to get you to refine your thinking about race, or at least to give us a hint how many races of men there are (3? 500?). You claim that there are scientific facts that prove your contention: I claim that there are no such scientific facts, and you invite you to present the best scientific argument that IQ scores are determined (even partially) by race. As I said, those claims do not pass basic scientific muster.

 

 

Share this post


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

You're evading the point. Your original definition has nothing to do with continents. You should read what you actually said " races are populations of people who interbred in a specific geographic location thus are genetically and physically distinguishable". This is pretty much the opposite of any definition of race and its connection to genetics. If populations of people interbreed in a location, they will tend to be genetically and physically indistinguishable. Separation leads to non-interbreeding and greater differentiation. Mountains, deserts and bodies of water lead to separation, as does great distance. There is no problem in traversing Europe to Asia, Asia to Africa, North America to South America. There is not a single fact that indicates that the North / South America distinction has any connection to the concept of "race".

Ultimately, my goal was to get you to refine your thinking about race, or at least to give us a hint how many races of men there are (3? 500?). You claim that there are scientific facts that prove your contention: I claim that there are no such scientific facts, and you invite you to present the best scientific argument that IQ scores are determined (even partially) by race. As I said, those claims do not pass basic scientific muster.

 

 

They are distinguishable from other races, if they breed together in a specific location they will be distinguishable from other isolated populations. Back then when races formed it was not so easy to traverse natural barriers. I did not bring up continents, someone else asked me why races are limited to continents. I have sourced several studies, what more do you want? 

Edited by Sameak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One complication in applying racial concepts to humans is that there is more interbreeding among humans than within most other species.

If A tests with an IQ of 180 and B tests with an IQ of 80, A should still respect B as an individual and consider B's statements rationally.

Edited by Doug Morris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how well the HHS author manuscript holds up as a proof of genetic influences on political ideology.  But even leaving that aside, two points.

To what extent is it showing racial differences, and to what extent is it showing individual genetic differences that cut across racial lines?

These studies were carried out in a context in which most people do not have good philosophy to guide them and many choices are made emotionally.  This leaves people open to all sorts of influences, including any genetic tendencies that may exist.  To the extent that people have better philosophy and choose rationally instead of emotionally, they will be less subject to such influences. 

 

Share this post


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

 I have sourced several studies, what more do you want? 

Don't "source" anything, take intellectual responsibility for your claim. Present the scientific facts, and explain what claim you think it supports. Read one of those articles, understand it, and show us why it proves whatever you think it proves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many people would consider Ayn Rand a typical Russian?  Filter your experience of an individual through a preconceived expectation and you eclipse your direct, immediate awareness of the evidence that the individual is presenting.  The aptitudes I have seen among friends varies so greatly it seems inconvenient to have a preconceived notion about what a person is capable of.  It seems condescending to express surprise when someone is smarter than their demographic would suggest.  I might have some higher aptitudes than my parents, but what does that do for our relationship, if I am not careful to respect that they are doing what they can with what they have?  

There are greater aptitudes among any organic creature that has been navigating the same geographical challenges for thousands of years.  Fat/energy storage, cooling, sun and oxygen absorbency, fighting predators.  Inuits and polar bears are better at surviving in the cold. This knowledge seems superfluous unless there is something I need to learn from one of them for my own work or survival.  

Why should an individual of one demographic refrain from exploring a path of knowledge that excites him because it isn't considered a strength among those who look like him?  

Share this post


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

Im sorry about the confusion, I figured this thread might go all over the place considering the topic. Just help me understand how this concept, if true, affects the philosophy ...

I'll leave it to others to argue whether Objectivism has anything to say one way or the other on this topic... and if it does, whether it is right or wrong.

As for what biology and other such sciences tell us...

3 hours ago, Sameak said:

... and if possible send me a study of that gene theory you mentioned.

Let me ask you two questions:

  • You say you have studied the evidence. So, you're probably aware that this is a controversial topic. You're also probably aware that there are ideologues on both sides of the debate: some want to push racist ideas, and cling to some studies to do so. Others want to argue that there are no differences and cling to studies that show the opposite. Meanwhile, there are also studies that cannot be accused of such bias, but yet point to evidence either for or against.
    So, with that background context, my first question is: have you spent as much time on such unbiased studies that argue against race being a big driver of things like IQ?
     
  • Second, let's say there are two factors A and B which both seem to correlate with IQ. And, suppose reliable studies, which have tried their best to normalize and control of other factors, have found that, when isolated, Factor-A has a low positive correlation with IQ while Factor-B has a high positive correlation with IQ. That's the background. 
    With that background, would you try think it reasonable to argue that Factor-B is more important -- as a causal factor -- for IQ. (That would a false argument,  but it is one that many people -- including "scientists" make.)
Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


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

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

Considering some other points that have been made in this thread,  the concept of race, as both presented and elaborated upon by the OP, has not been verified satisfactorily either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pondering the irony that a fanatic of individualism emerged from Russia.  It may be that the pressure of thousands of years of expectation, of conformity to the values of regional collectivist groups, can act as a catalyst for the emergence of an individual of that group to burst forth with such a vigor of rebellion that it releases the group from limiting dogma and allows them to evolve.  Ayn Rand had special insight into the nature of Russians that no one else could articulate so clearly.  

Each person alive today has survived 3.8 billion years of wars, famines, plagues, predators, oppression, humiliation, upheaval, adaptation to new environments...  It is a mistake to take anyone for granted, no matter how you might believe yourself superior, their DNA has as much survival instinct as yours.  

IQ tests are biased and not advanced enough to measure many kinds of conceptual abstractions of intelligence.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, I have taken David's advice and am refining my racial theory and how it ties into my Neo Objectivist philosophy so I can make my arguement complete for you. However, feel free to chat amongst yourselves about race realism. I should be back with you folks tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2018 at 4:57 AM, human_murda said:

@Sameak I'm from South India. What do you think my race is? What race are Dravidians/Malayalis? I'm curious to know.

Asian, the 3 main racial groups are Asian, European, and African, however, their can be subraces of said race. For example, for Europeans theres Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2018 at 11:23 AM, Tenderlysharp said:

Pondering the irony that a fanatic of individualism emerged from Russia.  It may be that the pressure of thousands of years of expectation, of conformity to the values of regional collectivist groups, can act as a catalyst for the emergence of an individual of that group to burst forth with such a vigor of rebellion that it releases the group from limiting dogma and allows them to evolve.  Ayn Rand had special insight into the nature of Russians that no one else could articulate so clearly.  

Each person alive today has survived 3.8 billion years of wars, famines, plagues, predators, oppression, humiliation, upheaval, adaptation to new environments...  It is a mistake to take anyone for granted, no matter how you might believe yourself superior, their DNA has as much survival instinct as yours.  

IQ tests are biased and not advanced enough to measure many kinds of conceptual abstractions of intelligence.  

Can you please source some evidence for such a lofty claim? It sounds like you are just calling things invalid because it doesn't support your egalitarian world view. I always found it fascinating how much in common mainstream Objectivists had with the far left. Disregard for biological differences between the races and genders being one of them.

Edited by Sameak

Share this post


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

Can you please source some evidence for such a lofty claim? It sounds like you are just calling things invalid because it doesn't support your egalitarian world view. I always found it fascinating how much in common mainstream Objectivists had with the far left. Disregard for biological differences between the races and genders being one of them.

Why is this all that fascinating/perplexing to you? Rand (and Randians more broadly) is a radical individualist, and Rand's thought had both left and right wing strains. 

The whole lineage of individualists in the English, French, and American liberal tradition have historically been supporters of economic freedom and privately property rights, and at the same time supporters of broadly "left wing" causes like supporting social safety nets, mutual aid, poverty relief, worker solidarity, anti corporatism, anti racism/sexism/bigotry, LGBT rights, anti war/militarism, pro choice, etc. Individualists thinkers like Spencer, Tucker, Spooner, Garrison, embraced cooperation and tolerance, upheld the rights of marginalized groups, fought for the abolitionist movement, supported the burgeoning feminist movement and women's rights (Patterson, Wilder, and Rand), and upheld a market economy against government planning and corporate capitalist management.

It seems you want this right wing racial collectivist fusion with a "scientific racism," but you're going to have to drop the left wing and individualist aspects of the philosophy, and do you really end up with something that looks like Rand at all? 

Share this post


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

Asian, the 3 main racial groups are Asian, European, and African, however, their can be subraces of said race.

You just listed 3 continents. They're not racial groups by any standard. Why aren't you considering European and Asian as the same? If it's based on the difficulty of traveling, why aren't you considering India and China as separate? After all, the tallest mountain range in the world separates the two and I don't think many have traversed it.

Also the Asian category would be the biggest genetic dump ever. Are you considering Northern Asians, North-eastern Asians, South-eastern Asians, South Asians, Central Asians and West Asians as all the same overarching racial group? I'm also assuming you're dumping Australians and Americans into the Asian group? What about the Jarawa/Sentinelese people of India? Are they Asian? What about the Siddis of India? Are they Asian?

Also, the reason I asked about Dravidians is that at various points in time, they have been classified as Negroid, Mongoloid, Australoid and Caucasoid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_definitions_of_races_in_India). Do you believe in this 'oid' classification?

The only "racial" category that you have suggested that remotely makes any sense is European. But of course, Europe is much smaller (it's about the same size as USA) than Asia (and maybe Australia and North and South America) which you seem to have dumped into one category: Asian.

Also, I personally don't think that racial classification is impossible. I think it should be possible and would have some connection to geographical origins (just not the one you suggested). Also, since homo sapiens are one species and can interbreed (and evolve), I don't think racial categories should be fixed for all time. If there are large enough numbers of "mixed race" people of a similar kind, they should be considered a separate race.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


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

It sounds like you are just calling things invalid because it doesn't support your egalitarian world view.

FYI, Objectivism is NOT egalitarianism.  It is individualist.  It wants all rewards to be earned by ability and honest work.  It does not want all the spoils to be shared by everyone equally regardless of ability or the amount and quality of work done like the egalitarians do.  

Share this post


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

I always found it fascinating how much in common mainstream Objectivists had with the far left. Disregard for biological differences between the races and genders being one of them.

it's not that there is disregard, but that the alleged differences are either based on bad science, or the differences aren't substantial enough to result in behavioral differences that are relevant to modern society. Of course there is variation among individuals, but it's not egalitarian to say those differences aren't as substantial as you think. Egalitarianism would be calling for the equalization of everyone in that we can literally be anything we want to be. That's wrong not the correct view.  Some people are better at what they do than others, and that's okay. That doesn't justify using questionable science to come up with explanations for individual differences. IQ has issues, mostly because intelligence is so complicated that no single measure really works.

Share this post


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

...lofty ...just calling things invalid ...common mainstream ... far left.... Disregard ...

Nope, not me

On 3/26/2018 at 3:01 PM, Sameak said:

if you are going to give me a ________________ argument and just call anyone _____________ racist, please move on to another post.

I do what I can to approach any argument with the intention of a win/win mutual understanding.  I am bringing my understanding of race to this discussion because it seems superfluous to start my own topic on the same subject.  

14 hours ago, Sameak said:

please source some evidence

Types of intelligence that are not measured in IQ tests:

Humor

The Arts/Creativity

Olympics

Holding Context

Seeking Critical Feedback

Understanding/Developing broad abstractions

Developing Axioms

Time scheduling priorities

Measuring Probabilities

Recognizing exponential shifts 

The ability to cross reference differing fields to bring a new solution

Determination

Tolerance for Pain

Deconstruction

Being Concise 

Integration

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/03/2018 at 4:52 AM, Sameak said:

I always found it fascinating how much in common mainstream Objectivists had with the far left. Disregard for biological differences between the races and genders being one of them.

1° There is no "maintstream Objectivists", as if there is "alternative Objectivism". There is only Objectivists, period.

2° Objectivism could have common points or opposition with any political trend, it doesn't matter. Objectivism is not seeking to be "left-wing" nor "right-wing". To say that Objectivism share some view with anything (or is opposed to it) does not discredit it in any regards. If your primary goal is to oppose the left or the right (and not to seek the truth), then you can not claim to be Objectivist. For a rational person, the only thing that matters is not the conclusion, but the process: Why does Objectivism support such or such view? And: Is it consistent with the rest of its views?

Edited by gio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, and earlier he crawled up on the cross and cried out that the Scientologists and so forth had called him a subversive and, oh my, we were trying to call him a "heretic!!!!" (who knew individualists were against racism? Weird!) Now he's the one going "eek! A mouse!" Why, oh no, the spectre of "leftist" heresy is upon us, as if that is supposed to frighten one.

Wait till he shits a brick when he finds out Rand hated "meritocracy" and called it "one of the most contemptible" fallacies in modern political parlance, and identifying it as a species of "tyranny." Or that Rand favored a radical anti-privilege egalitarianism, identifying equality "in a rational sense" with opposition to "special privileges granted to some, denied to others." 

 

Edited by 2046

Share this post


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

...Rand hated "meritocracy" and called it "one of the most contemptible" fallacies in modern political parlance, and identifying it as a species of "tyranny."

I didn't know that, do you have the reference? I'm interested.

EDIT: Okay I found it. I had already read this essay but I had forgotten this piece.

Edited by gio

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.

×