Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Azrael Rand

The Case for Open Objectivism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Nicky said:

By all means, dispel the doubt, by citing the studies and the findings. Only one I know about is Richard Lynn, who did a terrible job guessing national IQs from low sample sizes, non-uniform tests and conjecture, and then wrote a book that interpreted the results poorly (and that's a charitable choice of words).

More importantly, once again: science has a poor understanding of what intellect even is. That's why it's such a struggle to create artificial intelligence: we don't really know how it works. So the notion that they have a test that quantifies intellect is ridiculous. The first thing you need, to measure something, is know how it works.

Just to be clear: is it your position that IQ tests accurately quantify a person's intellect? Do you agree with all the assumptions the people who devised the tests made?

First off, "quantifying". Personally, I am at my most suspicious when numbers are used to 'prove' anything about a person or people. I think one can't put "a figure" on anyone's life to measure, evaluate or define it, in short, and I argue strongly against that when anyone attempts to do so. That goes for 'statistics', financial wealth, age (etc.) - or IQ. But I admit some numbers can be useful at times in some areas of human activity, simple tools and little more.

If figures were released showing that the average lifespan in Denmark was x, or the average height of people in Tibet was y, most of us would give the numbers the briefest attention, accept the findings and forget about them as being irrelevant. What is it then about IQ scores which raises objections and doubt.  

When everyone surely accepts that every other physical characteristic like size, facial features, natural strength etc. - the *many* variants within the narrow, possible, human range which an individual possesses was inherited via his DNA, why not also the "capacity" of his physical brain? If his DNA was passed onto him, from where did it come? (Originally, very far back - when mankind lived scattered in isolated groups).

The quality, and therefore accuracy, of the IQ testing (and across ethnic groups), by systems taking into account and allowing for cultural, language (Etc.Etc.) differences, as impartially as possible, one should research and judge for oneself, if anyone is interested. One thought to leave from when I once looked into this, was that I was certain that no ethnic bias was permitted to creep in--if anything, perhaps the opposite. Mostly I've forgotten the data, the methods and even the names of prominent IQ'ists. Thing is, I found their discoveries to be realistic to humans and fitting to my experience. Like most (I suppose?), I always knew that different individuals - relatively - have somewhat less or somewhat more 'brain power' :

How? and why? is there the relative differential of IQ - there's what the sciences can point us to. 

I agree, scientists should not get loose in "the intellect". If that is "the consciousness". The study of the brain is quite distinct, and great things have come out of neuroscience. In there of course is most of the problem and fault that scientists have with consciousness. The majority of them, being convinced reductive-materialists, consider the mind-brain as mere 'meat'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

If figures were released showing that the average lifespan in Denmark was x, or the average height of people in Tibet was y, most of us would give the numbers the briefest attention, accept the findings and forget about them as being irrelevant. What is it then about IQ scores which raises objections and doubt.   

Are you claiming that IQ scores are as accurate at measuring intellect as a ruler at measuring height, or basic record keeping at measuring lifespan? By the way, where are you getting the notion that most of us dismiss the average lifespan in Denmark as irrelevant from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The quality, and therefore accuracy, of the IQ testing (and across ethnic groups), by systems taking into account and allowing for cultural, language (Etc.Etc.) differences, as impartially as possible, one should research and judge for oneself.

Yes, one should. Preferably before basing insulting claims about billions of people on it.

Did you research this? And what did you think? Are they accurate, and what specifically are they accurate AT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2019 at 11:11 AM, whYNOT said:

Finally, that there is a racial, ethnic component to IQ shouldn't be surprising for anyone, when viewed amongst all the other physical properties which individuals of different races inherit. 

But IQ isn't a property like that, so I don't know what your point is.

 

Share this post


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

But IQ isn't a property like that, so I don't know what your point is.

 

It isn't? What is the innate capacity of a brain, but a biological inheritance - like every biological property? What do IQ tests try to measure, but that capacity?

Seriously, does anyone believe that all individuals' natural intelligence is equal? Please inform me, since it almost looks that way. And if agreed there are distinctions, how could scientists go about empirically establishing the differences? And if the tests they use find that ethnicity plays ~some~ part, do they suppress the facts?

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

Are you claiming that IQ scores are as accurate at measuring intellect as a ruler at measuring height, or basic record keeping at measuring lifespan? By the way, where are you getting the notion that most of us dismiss the average lifespan in Denmark as irrelevant from?

I am claiming that honest attempts at coming close to *an accurate as possible* methodology, have been made. Should one throw out the baby and bathwater if the methods are not always exactly precise, to the nth degree? Either a 'perfect' measurement, or the system must be discarded. Hm?

I assumed that all here are in favor of objective scientific inquiry wherever it leads, (and whatever feelings some or most people may have about it).

As for Denmark and lifespan, that was meant as an innocuous generalization, obviously you can think up your own example of an average, physical measurement of people, some place, that's irrelevant or unimportant to you. As I said, personally I don't go much by numbers for people, tho some figures may be quite interesting.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

Yes, one should. Preferably before basing insulting claims about billions of people on it.

Did you research this? And what did you think? Are they accurate, and what specifically are they accurate AT?

Insulting billions. I have no idea how to go about that. Is anyone insulted that there are, without doubt, about 4-5 billion adults out there, who each can do, let's say, a half-dozen things (or may have a half-dozen abilities/talents) - better and/or faster than oneself? Plus, those many more activities and pursuits which one can't do - at all? From, say, repairing a motorbike, to solving a math theorem, to knitting a jersey? (generalizing).

I don't know anyone (I like or respect) who'd be intimidated or slighted by - all - those others' abilities and active minds, in the world. Nor, especially, others' high intelligence. They rather take pleasure in knowing that fact.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

It isn't? What is the innate capacity of a brain, but a biological inheritance - like every biological property? What do IQ tests try to measure, but that capacity?

If you want to measure some sort of capacity, like a sort of calculating power, IQ doesn't actually measure that. Specifically, it's a measure of a particular kind of problem solving on a specific set of standardized tests, narrowly defined. They attempt to measure a general intelligence capacity, but it is extremely controversial to say that it really does measure that sufficiently. It doesn't actually get down into innate capacities, even though that was its original intention. We know generally how it correlates and does not correlate with environmental and intrinsic factors. But IQ is primarily used for correlation research, because that's all it's really good for. It helps to give a sense of intelligence, but only on a broad way.
 

 

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Seriously, does anyone believe that all individuals' natural intelligence is equal?

That isn't the controversy. The issue is the explanation. Saying race is the cause is a bad explanation. It's a bad explanation because any study that uses race has a predefined notion of race, and much of the time, there is no genetic measure in the experiment. And besides that, if we did find some reliable genetic measure, like a specific gene that was reliably correlated, we wouldn't even talk in terms of race. We would talk about the specific ways specific genes are passed on. 

Read the beginning of the thread, much of this was discussed already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

It isn't? What is the innate capacity of a brain, but a biological inheritance - like every biological property? What do IQ tests try to measure, but that capacity?

While IQ tests do measure something real and something that can provide information about the individual that may be useful in some contexts, to say that they measuring an innate capacity is definitely wrong. Saying so implies that... that's it. They aren't measuring something else. And that is so obviously wrong that I'm sure you'll come back and say it was just something you phrased wrong. 

I had two friends in school, both very similar heights, but one was athletic and the other was a couch potato.If they had to do push-ups, or run a race there was no doubt who would win. Yet, you would never guess that if you'd only met the two pairs of parents. That's not to say that there is no relationship between parental athletic performance and that of the kids. But, even where there is...it is very often the result of parental attitudes, parents setting examples, parents knowledge, ... things that translate into some kids choosing a cetain path almost by default... and not particularly about the born-muscle-structure of the parent. 

 

People like to use height and basketball as an analogy when they speak of IQ. It is a poor analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2019 at 1:45 PM, softwareNerd said:

While IQ tests do measure something real and something that can provide information about the individual that may be useful in some contexts, to say that they measuring an innate capacity is definitely wrong. Saying so implies that... that's it. They aren't measuring something else. And that is so obviously wrong that I'm sure you'll come back and say it was just something you phrased wrong. 

I had two friends in school, both very similar heights, but one was athletic and the other was a couch potato.If they had to do push-ups, or run a race there was no doubt who would win. Yet, you would never guess that if you'd only met the two pairs of parents. That's not to say that there is no relationship between parental athletic performance and that of the kids. But, even where there is...it is very often the result of parental attitudes, parents setting examples, parents knowledge, ... things that translate into some kids choosing a cetain path almost by default... and not particularly about the born-muscle-structure of the parent. 

 

People like to use height and basketball as an analogy when they speak of IQ. It is a poor analogy.

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".

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

I think height for basketball is a trite and overused analogy, but the general idea remains.

You missed the point. IQ is not a measurement of a (natural) trait, it's a measure to infer a trait. On top of that, in infants and babies, IQ is correlated a lot less with genetics than for adults.

Height is itself the trait you measure. Height has no motivational element, IQ tests do. And in either case, it's bad science to just say something like "black people run better than white people". 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the purpose of subdividing a species based on different coloring patterns on their bodies? It's mostly an arbitrary discrimination criteria. Like I said earlier, every arbitrary grouping of humans one chooses is going to possess some average IQ, but why does it matter?

I fully expect that the people of Africa or other Third World regions would currently have a lower measured general IQ than American's or other First World nations. This is not (mostly, if at all) because of "genetic differences". It's mostly going to come down to things like diet, cultural differences, superior living conditions, better schooling, etc. Living in even a semi-capitalist nation is going to naturally raise average measured IQ of it's population. Living in squalor will lower it.

The people who claim (almost without exception) that skin, hair, eye coloring, i.e., genetics of purely cosmetic differences will result in lower or higher general IQ of an arbitrary population are racists. 

Just as a reminder from the Lexicon:

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination. 

“Racism,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 126

Edited by EC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2019 at 6:59 PM, whYNOT said:

Another researcher I heard just now, recently concluded, "IQ is about 80% genetic by the late teens". This can't be wished away.

Which genes are responsible for the IQ differences? Are you saying that some scientist out there has figured out a way to analyze the DNA samples of any two individuals in the world and then predicted the difference in their IQ scores with 80% accuracy? Or is it not predictive? If it's not predictive, then it's not science and the "80%" number doesn't mean anything. Were the genes responsible for IQ differences isolated? How did the scientist discover that it's "80%" and not 0% or 3% or 100% (especially if the genes responsible are not known)?

What exactly is this "80%" figure for? Can they pull out two random individuals from the street, give them DNA tests and predict what their future IQ scores (or difference in IQ scores) are going to be with 80% accuracy? Or does the 80% result come from data fitting done on racial IQ averages (in which case 80% figure isn't predictive and the result assumes what the experiment is set out to discover)?

I want to see the math. Can you link me to a paper or some website where they calculated and came up with the "80%" figure?

 

Also, @Azrael Rand

Can East Asians and Jews prevent White people from entering USA because of the low IQs of White people?

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


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

You missed the point. IQ is not a measurement of a (natural) trait, it's a measure to infer a trait. On top of that, in infants and babies, IQ is correlated a lot less with genetics than for adults.

Height is itself the trait you measure. Height has no motivational element, IQ tests do. And in either case, it's bad science to just say something like "black people run better than white people". 

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.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, EC said:

What is the purpose of subdividing a species based on different coloring patterns on their bodies? It's mostly an arbitrary discrimination criteria. Like I said earlier, every arbitrary grouping of humans one chooses is going to possess some average IQ, but why does it matter?

I fully expect that the people of Africa or other Third World regions would currently have a lower measured general IQ than American's or other First World nations. This is not (mostly, if at all) because of "genetic differences". It's mostly going to come down to things like diet, cultural differences, superior living conditions, better schooling, etc. Living in even a semi-capitalist nation is going to naturally raise average measured IQ of it's population. Living in squalor will lower it.

The people who claim (almost without exception) that skin, hair, eye coloring, i.e., genetics of purely cosmetic differences will result in lower or higher general IQ of an arbitrary population are racists. 

Just as a reminder from the Lexicon:

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination. 

“Racism,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 126

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

As if one's brain could be an exception to one's inherited physicality.

I think you missed the point again. You keep talking as if IQ is a characteristic of your brain. It isn't. It is not a measure of something about your brain. This would make sense if you were measuring something about your neurons, or neurochemicals, or your synapses, or anything else that is truly a measure of brain capacity.

IQ does not measure what you think it measures.

I don't understand your previous post directed at me. First, I was saying that height is not like IQ. They are not similar at all. Second, I was saying that for whatever parts are genetic, it would still be irresponsible to say that it has much to do with ethnicity or race (race and ethnicity aren't defined by a specific set of genes). Even in your example about runners, it's not that being black or being Kenyan is why they run fast. There would be specific genes about lung capacity, blood oxygenation, and so on, which cannot be grouped into simple racial categories like black or white.

I imagine you mostly agree, so the main point is that you are thinking about IQ in the wrong way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

EC: Are you addressing me?

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.

Yes, but only because you have been taking a semi-opposing opinion.

I don't believe IQ is that important as it only measures certain aspects of intelligence. Slight differences in raw horsepower are mostly irrelevant. I also know that this intellectual capacity is inherited or at least you can receive a better overall processor (brain) with the right mix of genetics. The genes build the structure of the brain and those are inherited. I just don't understand why a supposed intellectual capacity needs to be assigned to a grouping of people or why the people are being grouped. I'm not even convinced "race" exists.

Sure, if someone asked I would say that I'm white and could point out someone I think is Asian or black, but beyond some relatively superficial attributes what does this actually mean as far as being a sub-division of homo sapien? I think it was just semi-arbitrary divisions people created to distance themselves from others of the same species who look slightly different.

Being a semi-arbitrary division based on cosmetic differences, I find it hard to believe that there would be innate intellectual capacity differences between this semi-arbitrary grouping of individuals of our species beyond some level of random noise, if you take out the nurture aspect. 

There's something I'm not quite saying right but can't put my finger on it atm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2019 at 2:12 AM, whYNOT said:

I am claiming that honest attempts at coming close to *an accurate as possible* methodology, have been made.

You sure are. Emphasis on "claiming", because you've repeatedly ignored requests to present any evidence for that claim. This is I think the fourth time I'm asking you to specify even just one of those "many extensive studies" you claim have been done on the subject of IQ differences between races, for instance. That's not the only question you've been ignoring, either. You're yet to explain how exactly would an IQ test amount to a scientific measure of intellect (it obviously isn't, the notion is laughable: IQ tests have about as much to do with the scientific method as a learning disabled jelly fish).

On 1/19/2019 at 2:12 AM, whYNOT said:

Should one throw out the baby and bathwater if the methods are not always exactly precise, to the nth degree? Either a 'perfect' measurement, or the system must be discarded. Hm?

Given that there's no evidence to prove your claims? Yes, of course. Out the window, preferably off the top floor of the Empire State Building. Your measurement isn't imperfect. There is no measurement. The IQ tests that were made are few and far between (and poorly executed), and, on top of that, IQ tests aren't even science.

This is the classic racist argument. You are arguing from ignorance (it's very clear to me that you never studied the field of Genetics), and erring on the side of racism. You're doing DiCaprio's act in Django Unchained: instead of bothering to study the science, you're developing this parallel, simplistic pseudo-science that uses shallow association and made up studies to "prove" blacks inferior.

...when, in fact, guess what: unlike with your made up IQ studies (not to mention the unscientific claim that IQ tests are a good measure of intellect), Genetics is an actual science, in which all assertions are backed up by peer reviewed, empirical proof. And extensive genetic studies DO EXIST comparing races. Genetics overwhelmingly proves that the differences between the so-called "races" are extremely minor. It's just the few alleles that determine superficial traits like skin color (and some inconsequential ones that appear only in a small minority of populations). The differences are nowhere near enough to affect complex traits like brain structure or function. 

On top of that, the time span from when we left Africa to present day is nowhere near enough for such complex changes to evolve. Only meaningful things that changed, when humans migrated away from the Equator, were adaptations to the change in temperature and sunlight intensity. These changes involve relatively few genes.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 4:14 PM, EC said:
On 1/12/2019 at 3:17 PM, Azrael Rand said:

My philosophical approach could be described as utilitarianism based on human nature. 

Self-sacrifice is required to a certain extent assuming you're not living on an isolated island. 

 

Funny, you claimed to be an Objectivist earlier. Also funny that you completely ignored the scenario I proposed where you and your "group" are the ones with the inferior IQ's and if it would be moral for them to exclude you from that near future US as a result.

Admit you are a racist before you make any more statement or arguments in the thread. At least completely own that shit. If I was a racist I would fully admit it and argue for it explicitly and proudly, not like a intellectual wannabe pussy who hides behind complex sentence structure. Not only are you a racist, you are also a coward.

And before that I stated that Objectivism had certain flaws as it does not correctly account for human nature. The two go hand in hand.

Also why is it important to you for me to make to make an admission to being a racist? What exactly would that do for you? How do you benefit from that?

I don't know if you realize this, but based on the popular culture in the US and the West in general all Objectivists are considered racists because they believe in capitalism, a system of white oppression, and because they don't acknowledge their inherent privilege to the oppressed people of color suffering in silence.

As far as the dominant culture is concerned we're both racists.

Also the fact that you resort to name calling shows that you're easily offended. Here's a helpful fact, you yourself have some say in what offends you if you hold objectively accurate beliefs about human cognition. Not that your likely inclined to listen to anything I say but its worth noting none the less.

 

On 1/12/2019 at 4:30 PM, Eiuol said:
On 1/12/2019 at 3:17 PM, Azrael Rand said:

There's a difference between one black person or family living in an all white area vs having different ethnic groups clustered together and occupying the same territory with other groups.

Yeah, and you see this as a threat because of their lower average IQ. So you need to keep them out. That's how it works. Or you keep them segregated, like internment of Japanese-American citizens. I don't know why you still don't see the implication.

Seeing as you brought up the Japanese, in Japan there are certain areas and establishments that are reserved for "Japanese only." That's what freedom of association looks like in real life. Do you only have a problem with exclusion in white countries or in all countries?

Like it or not, people are inherently tribal. People don't just behave in a tribal manner because they have been brainwashed by leftists. Yes said brainwashing certainly amplifies tribalism but it doesn't create it out of no where. Capitalism works as well as it does because we are mostly selfish by nature. But we are also part tribal. You cherish and idealize one but outright reject the other. But both are part of human nature and need to be addressed. You can try to ignore the parts of reality you find disagreeable but that will only make the problem worse in the end. All that deluding yourself into believing that tribalism is a social construct does is to ensure that your tribe will be the first one to go. If your on a soccer team but all the players on your team have convinced themselves its all about them the outcome of the match is clear.

Individual rights can exist in an environment in which tribalism has been accounted for but they cannot exist in an environment of inter-tribal competition. You may not see yourself as part of a tribe but others see you as part of a tribe whether you like it or not.

 

On 1/12/2019 at 4:44 PM, MisterSwig said:
On 1/12/2019 at 4:29 PM, Azrael Rand said:

What's your position on immigration?  Do you outright dismiss segregation using national borders or is there a certain set of criteria you prefer in order to segregate, and if yes what are these criteria?

I don't believe in segregation by race or IQ. Like I said, however, there might be a case for denying imbeciles citizenship, particularly the privilege of voting.

MisterSwig, I didn't ask you what you don't believe in, I asked you what you do believe in :)

 

On 1/12/2019 at 4:49 PM, Doug Morris said:
On 1/12/2019 at 3:17 PM, Azrael Rand said:
On 1/6/2019 at 10:09 AM, Doug Morris said:

If the number of homeless people in the United States drastically increases, where exactly would they go?  No private property owner would have to let them onto his or her property.  Even owners who were willing to accept some of them would probably have a limit to how many they would accept.  If they are squatting on or clogging government property, the government would have the right to require them to leave.  This might mean arresting and jailing them for trespassing, especially if there is no other place for them to go. 

Was this meant to counter my quoted point?  As a stand alone scenario I would say the property owners would try to use the government to get them to move elsewhere.  Arresting and jailing them all would likely cause an undue tax burden on the system, especially if their population is ever increasing.  If the government failed to effectively deal with the problem, the property owners would likely decide to move elsewhere if the problem gets out of hand. Kind of what you're seeing in certain parts of California right now.

The point I was making was that there was not as much difference in principle between Africans and homeless people as you were implying, and that a drastic increase in the numbers of either here would probably mean that at least some of them were committing violations of property rights that could be addressed as such.

In theory you're absolutely correct that if we fully respected property rights the way that you envisioned them that said illegals would be in violation of property rights. Having said that neither our government, our people, or the offenders in question fully acknowledge your vision of property rights. If they did we wouldn't have a problem. If these people cared about property rights they wouldn't come here for the sole purpose of violating them. So the key question is why aren't things the way you'd like them to be and what can you do to change that.

We both know that the US can't absorb all the world's suffering and poor and still resemble a first world nation. A fatal flaw to traditional Objectivism is that in an attempt to deny altruism at the individual level it guarantees altruism at the collective level by writing off tribalism and groupishness as evil and/or social constructs (simply bad ideas).

Individual rights and group interests appear to be mutually exclusive from a logical point of view but they are both a part of our nature. By forsaking one for the other you are logically consistent but that logic doesn't acknowledge people for who they are because you're just viewing them for what you'd like them to be. When marxists envision their utopia they envision a people that are not selfish but care for others interests above their own. Yes at times we tap into this mindset as part of human nature, but again the reason why capitalism works better than communism is because we are more selfish than groupish, but it doesn't mean we're completely one or the other.

On 1/13/2019 at 12:08 PM, whYNOT said:

What makes me think that? Because the Constitution was written in direct opposition to utilitarianism, in my understanding. Not 'the good' of the majority (at potential or actual cost of the individual) but the individual at the base of his good - and exclusively by way of that, of the societal good. What is good for one, is good for all, in short, and so the founders showed their grasp of the metaphysical nature of man. Which if stuck to, is all the "social engineering" ever needed, anywhere. That's why "it was extremely successful for a long period of time". Where the principle is departed from, lately, is when any and all types of social engineers - "social metaphysicians" - come out of their corners.

It seems like what you're saying is that the founders understood human nature better than most and were therefore able to create a system that worked better than past systems. That is most certainly a form of social engineering. Naturally it differs from more recent examples of leftist social engineering where instead of relying on a firm grasp of human nature as the foundation for a social system it is replaced by the utopian hopes and dreams that are a central part of the leftist's mindset.

You could compare it to GMOs. Not all GMOs in theory are bad, but if you only genetically enhance crops to streamline efficient production without consideration for safety to the consumer you're likely going to get bad outcomes.

On 1/13/2019 at 1:18 PM, whYNOT said:

Azrael Rand,

I'd caution against any intrinsicist ideas about IQ, the *capacity*, not the content and action of intelligence, being the measure of the man. Briefly, by trying to beat 'em, you could be joining them. In effect, the Left (in the USA and in Europe) are proclaiming: "Open immigration - good; all immigrants - good; AND we have such good feelings about ourselves, while publicly displaying our good for others to see". Well, that's a characteristic of the altruist left all over! Especially when they are free to demonstrate their 'good' and don't have to pay for the reality -- i.e., it comes at others' sacrifice.

Good - for whom and for what purpose?

Just as they, you can be making a collectivist-intrinsicist error, in thinking that high intelligence automatically makes for rationality. Iow, that highly intelligent people are objectively good. I don't think it follows, they can often be ideologically suspect and are more influential upon others because of their intellectual-looking arguments and sometimes their elevated educative positions. Nor are they necessarily 'good' in the area of having good character, often the reverse, in my experience, which is more important to one among people in a society, not so? I think so, anyway.

But more than that, it seems you are promoting an uber-class of those intelligent people. An "elite", in effect. Considering the toxicity that collectivism and tribalism in all their forms have brought (deriving one's identity and value - and others' identity and dis-value from the superficial 'group'), I think you are only adding another layer of collectivism, and the superiority of one more 'group'. The "elitism" today is largely a property also of the Left and their intellectuals, the 'higher' ground they have seized. In beating them, I believe Objectivists should be careful not to join them and compromise with them. 

You make several good points here but I think you may be misunderstanding my actual point. I'm not sure if you read my original article, if not I'd recommend reading it. My point is that race, IQ, tribalism, and human irrationality (which you touched upon) are facts of life and that we can't just simply sweep them under the rug to protect a belief system we feel comfortable with. There is a difference in saying something is a factor that has to be considered and saying it's something that ought to be used as the sole method by which to judge a person's intrinsic worth.

For example, Japan has not and likely will not in the foreseeable future permit immigration that will lead to the Japanese people being replaced by foreigners in their own lands. I do not view this as evil or as a slight of the Japanese towards others but as a means to protect their way of life based on an understanding of human nature and social dynamics. I'm not really tracking a lot of public outrage tied to Japan's immigration policy but when it is adopted by a majority white country then people have a problem with it.

Also just because someone's a good person doesn't mean they have a right to come live in your country. Unless of course you have a culture in place that promotes ethnic self-sacrifice which is something white nations are currently struggling with.

I hear what your saying about not becoming a leftist by fighting them, but when they're right about something, even something small, they're still right about it. Covering up factual inconsistencies for emotional well-being in the short run will only lead to dignified loosing in the long run. For example, the left is wrong when they claim that power is everything ie all that matters (if you care for outcomes at least) but without power there can be no rule of law. There's a distinction here that many people won't fully come to terms with.

I understand that white people are extremely uncomfortable talking about race. They would rather pretend race didn't exist. But that's an illusion. It's like pretending there's no liability problem with social programs in government because we act as if the problem doesn't exist.

However what we are witnessing today in white countries is a cultural movement of hyper-tribalism where marxists and minorities seek to replace the dominant population, culture, and institutions with a more diverse and inclusive people, culture, and institutions. We can certainly blame the left for a big part of this but non-leftist whites are to blame as well for sweeping race under the table.

The same also applies to IQ differences, tribalism, and human irrationality. By dismissing these topics outright and not engaging their proponents on the battlefield of ideas you're ceding the moral high-ground to them by default.

Share this post


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

That's what freedom of association looks like in real life.

That's not freedom of association, except maybe in a very rigid and legal sense and nothing to do with political principle. Freedom of segregation is more like it, which is an oxymoron.

2 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

Individual rights can exist in an environment in which tribalism has been accounted for but they cannot exist in an environment of inter-tribal competition.

Fine, just stop this notion that you support individual rights. No one person here thinks you do. Individual rights don't mean what you think they mean.

You haven't made any arguments, you keep repeating yourself, and seemed surprised that anyone here thinks minorities can be racist too. Of course I have a problem with Japanese people being racist, I have a problem with anyone being racist. You seem trapped in a loop, unable to follow your arguments through. Every time, you stop short of discussing actual racist policies. But that's utilitarianism for you. It always just depends. Should you support segregation? It depends on what would bring the greatest good to the greatest number! Whatever works for social harmony.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Azrael Rand,

There is enough belief in and respect for property rights to prevent a situation in which hundreds of millions enter the country.  Not that I see so many people trying in any case.

We can resist collectivism of all sorts without becoming collectivists ourselves.

The reason capitalism works better than communism is that communism practices the sacrifice of the individual to the collective, which gives evil results.  In addition, there are practical reasons why markets work better than centralized planning.

All countries, including Japan, should have open borders.  As an American, I am most interested in the policies of the U.S.A. and have the best chance of exerting influence here.

Race is an illusion.  Racism of various kinds and its destructive effects are real, but race itself is an illusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2019 at 6:53 PM, whYNOT said:

Seriously, does anyone believe that all individuals' natural intelligence is equal? Please inform me, since it almost looks that way. And if agreed there are distinctions, how could scientists go about empirically establishing the differences? And if the tests they use find that ethnicity plays ~some~ part, do they suppress the facts?

Yes people do believe this to be true. The more you read and learn about human psychology and cognition the more you begin to understand that the way people view the world and specific events is through a filter that is shaped by their core beliefs of the world. There is no guarantee that any two people witnessing the same event will perceive it the same way. When things don't agree with a person's viewpoint their brain steps in and dismisses whatever information they perceived to contradict their core beliefs. Thus how we perceive reality depends on our core beliefs. This is why you can have otherwise rational people believe in the most stupid things. I once believed that humans were rational by default; but that's not the truth. We do however have the ability to benefit from understanding objective reality if we are motivated to do so.

Here's a great example in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7gwEyDV_Ps

This is also an excellent example on how to "red pill" others. Note how at 5:20 he frames his argument in a way that is in sync with her world view and core beliefs and as a result information that was previously instantly dismissed, because it conflicts with her core beliefs, is actually seriously entertained because it was framed in a matter that acknowledges and aligns with her core beliefs. If we were rational individuals she would have seriously considered what he was saying at the beginning of the conversations not minutes into the conversation and not until he was able to correctly frame his message around her world view.

The truth is that unless we understand how the human cognitive process works we're all essentially living in denial running on a script provided to us by evolution.

On 1/20/2019 at 7:26 PM, EC said:

What is the purpose of subdividing a species based on different coloring patterns on their bodies? It's mostly an arbitrary discrimination criteria. Like I said earlier, every arbitrary grouping of humans one chooses is going to possess some average IQ, but why does it matter?

If you're willing to sweep virtually all of human history and human nature as a whole under the rug then yes race is nothing more than an arbitrary social construct. If you're not a slave to your own cognitive limitations however you may come to realize that humans are a tribal species and that the tribe functioned as a evolutionary survival mechanism.

A religious person may try to pray away the gay, a marxist may wish to vanquish human self-interest, and you may wish to rationalize away the tribal aspect of human nature but neither of the people I listed are acknowledging reality as it exists. They are strictly viewing reality as they would like it to exist. Quoting Ayn Rand doesn't change that. All that does is demonstrate to me that you lack the willingness to think for yourself and would rather defer to other people's judgement.

On 1/20/2019 at 7:46 PM, human_murda said:

Also, @Azrael Rand

Can East Asians and Jews prevent White people from entering USA because of the low IQs of White people?

They won't have to if whites continue to view themselves as a doormat for people of color. But on a more serious note the US as we know it today has traditionally been a majority white country similar to the way India is a country made up of its native inhabitants. What your saying makes about as much sense as asking if the Chinese have to permit the entry of Indian people into India. I never stated that race ought to be the sole and defining factor in any measure of anything. What I have said however is that it is a relevant factor. Should India become a majority African nation in order to prove the logical consistency of an ideology that does not correctly account for human nature? Should it?

20 hours ago, Eiuol said:
23 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

That's what freedom of association looks like in real life.

That's not freedom of association, except maybe in a very rigid and legal sense and nothing to do with political principle. Freedom of segregation is more like it, which is an oxymoron.

And here I thought you were an advocate for a nation of laws. Now your the one abandoning freedom and the freedom of association because you don't like what freedom may look like in real life. What's next on the chopping block, free speech?

20 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You seem trapped in a loop, unable to follow your arguments through.

We do not share the same core beliefs so I understand why'd say that. Of course the same could be said of my opinion of you and your argument.

20 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Every time, you stop short of discussing actual racist policies.

Its clear to me that you'd prefer I go to a certain place I don't think we ought to go. My reasoning isn't guided by a hatred for the other but by an understanding of human nature, specifically the nature of r vs K selection, epigenetic preferences for diversity vs security that underlie the two major philosophical movements of our time, and other related co-factors.

20 hours ago, Eiuol said:

It depends on what would bring the greatest good to the greatest number! Whatever works for social harmony.

Social harmony is a prerequisite for maintaining law and order. This is where I'll say that I think you're the one stuck in a loop.

 

9 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

There is enough belief in and respect for property rights to prevent a situation in which hundreds of millions enter the country.  Not that I see so many people trying in any case. 

That's why you boil the frog gradually and don't throw him into boiling water. The overton window is a more effective tool than a radical war cry for revolution. You may be right that people would demand political action under such a scenario you outlined (hundreds of millions all at once), but a few million every single year is a different story. Again it goes back to an understanding of human psychology.

9 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

We can resist collectivism of all sorts without becoming collectivists ourselves.

My point is we're all part collectivist. Better to acknowledge it and honestly deal with that fact than to try to pretend it isn't so and to risk the foundation of everything you hold dear. The idea that humans can't be part tribal in order for there to be legal protections for the individual is not rooted in reality. 

 

9 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

The reason capitalism works better than communism is that communism practices the sacrifice of the individual to the collective, which gives evil results.

Right, communists believe that humans ought to value others more than they do themselves. This belief is not rooted in reality. Of course every communist, whether they choose to admit it or not, has carved out a little niche for themselves in which those rules they espouse apply to all but themselves.

The best way to fight against communists is to hold them to their own standards (no to yours) and to ridicule the living crap out of them. You believe in white privilege? You believe that all inequality is the result of oppression? Well guess what? By the extension of said logic drinking a cup of coffee at Starbucks makes you a racist sociopath because you chose to purchase a cup of coffee for yourself with money stolen from a person of color in the third world that just died of hunger of a preventable disease. See how quick they backpedal once you hold them accountable to their own rules. The rules for radicals work both ways.

9 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

In addition, there are practical reasons why markets work better than centralized planning.

The major practical reason being that humans are the main variable in the equation and that we are to a large extent selfish beings and that capitalism leverages said fact.

 

9 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

As an American, I am most interested in the policies of the U.S.A. and have the best chance of exerting influence here.

That's tribalism right there. If every country should have open borders, if we're all individuals and all have equal rights then that statement is a contradiction. The nation state of the USA is an arbitrary construct if you believe in open borders. Why focus on the arbitrary when you could focus on the concrete?

9 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Race is an illusion. 

I have no doubt in my mind that that is a firmly held core belief of yours. Doesn't mean it's objectively true though.

9 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Racism of various kinds and its destructive effects are real, but race itself is an illusion.

Just because differences are real doesn't mean the answer has to be bloody murder every single time. There are some shades of gray here. It's just that you can't see them based on your current belief system which demands that only black and white are allowed to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Azrael Rand said:

Now your the one abandoning freedom and the freedom of association because you don't like what freedom may look like in real life. 

You may as well have said freedom is slavery. It's a contradiction in terms. It is nothing do with what I agree with. I'm just trying to get you to comprehend that you are using doublethink. You're trying rationalize segregation as freedom. Presumably your example was the Japanese government forces segregation. And presumably you would support forced segregation. 

32 minutes ago, Azrael Rand said:

Its clear to me that you'd prefer I go to a certain place I don't think we ought to go.

Lol, you talk about how important it is to talk about things that make people uncomfortable, but you'd prefer not to go there yet? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

MisterSwig, I didn't ask you what you don't believe in, I asked you what you do believe in :)

I have argued for my position on the Immigration Restrictions thread. I don't care to discuss it further in this one. But in a nutshell, I believe in border control for objective threats to the general welfare, such as contagious diseases, criminals, and anti-American beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

but a few million every single year is a different story.

If a few million come in every year they have time to assimilate and become more American, especially if they are not forced to keep a low profile by wrongful immigration restrictions.  Many of the people who come here do so to work, which is compatible with becoming more American.

13 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

My point is we're all part collectivist.

Any portion of collectivism or individualism present in any person's ideas is there by their choice and can be changed by their choice.  It is not biologically determined.  This is also true, in a less direct manner, of most, if not all, of a person's attitudes and emotions.  And where reason conflicts with emotion, we can choose reason.

14 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

The best way to fight against communists is to hold them to their own standards (no to yours) and to ridicule the living crap out of them. You believe in white privilege? You believe that all inequality is the result of oppression? Well guess what? By the extension of said logic drinking a cup of coffee at Starbucks makes you a racist sociopath because you chose to purchase a cup of coffee for yourself with money stolen from a person of color in the third world that just died of hunger of a preventable disease. See how quick they backpedal once you hold them accountable to their own rules. The rules for radicals work both ways.

That approach may be of value, especially in breaking through initial resistance, but to really accomplish something we need to work positively, on a fundamental level, by teaching them the right fundamental principles.

14 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:
On 1/23/2019 at 10:58 AM, Doug Morris said:

In addition, there are practical reasons why markets work better than centralized planning.

The major practical reason being that humans are the main variable in the equation and that we are to a large extent selfish beings and that capitalism leverages said fact.

Perhaps.  That's stated very generally, making it hard to get a handle on.  It's not the whole story, though.  For example, central planners have trouble knowing what prices to set.  In at least some cases they have used prices in freer economies as a guide.

14 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:
On 1/23/2019 at 10:58 AM, Doug Morris said:

As an American, I am most interested in the policies of the U.S.A. and have the best chance of exerting influence here.

That's tribalism right there. If every country should have open borders, if we're all individuals and all have equal rights then that statement is a contradiction. The nation state of the USA is an arbitrary construct if you believe in open borders. Why focus on the arbitrary when you could focus on the concrete?

It's not tribalism.  It's recognizing where I can have the most effect and where this will most affect me.

Where exactly national borders are drawn is not arbitrary but optional.  (I am using the words "arbitrary" and "optional" in Ayn Rand's sense.)

The world badly needs to have a U.S.A., although it really needs a better one than the one we have now.

14 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:
On 1/23/2019 at 10:58 AM, Doug Morris said:

Race is an illusion. 

I have no doubt in my mind that that is a firmly held core belief of yours. Doesn't mean it's objectively true though.

To the extent that people distinguish "races", they do so on the basis of minor physiological differences.  The evidence for greater differences is weak at best and implies at most statistical differences which are much less than the differences among individuals within each "race".  The biggest genetic differences that do exist among humans fall not along the lines of traditional "races" but among different groups in Africa, one of which gave rise to all modern humans who left Africa.

14 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:
On 1/23/2019 at 10:58 AM, Doug Morris said:

Racism of various kinds and its destructive effects are real, but race itself is an illusion.

Just because differences are real doesn't mean the answer has to be bloody murder every single time. There are some shades of gray here. It's just that you can't see them based on your current belief system which demands that only black and white are allowed to exist.

I am well aware that the "races" have had different histories which have had measurable statistical effects and have also had a major effect, in a variety of ways, on people's ideas and attitudes.  Can you name even one shade of gray that actually exists that I can't see?

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×