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

The Case for Open Objectivism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 1/21/2019 at 4:50 AM, Eiuol said:

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.

The intention of IQ was and is a measurement of cognitive function, not so? Of course, not the identical, direct measurement as is height, but indirect -- of one's potential brain capacity - to be precise, of the prefrontal cortex's function.

If you'd want (E.g) to measure a person's muscular strength, you would give him increasing weights (i.e. physical resistance) to lift.

In the same way, assessing cognitive ability you get hin to perform cognitive "resistance" in the form of standardized tests. You can argue the tests' accuracy and efficacy, but the intention and purpose of the method is clear. If they only give indicators of the degree of intelligence, they would still have some merit, imo.

Simple as that, that's what I "think it measures" and how.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

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.

The thing about evolution is that things change. Tribal nations have been repeatedly crushed by nontribal ones for hundreds of years now. Compared to constitution and rights-based nations like America, race and culture-based ones are at a retarded level of social and technological development. Even primitive religion-based nations like Iran outclass the tribal nations of the world, who generally survive due to military protection from nontribal nations. Your desire to Make America Tribal Again ignores not only our rational (not tribal) nature, but also the clear lessons of history. I'd say it's a worse position than the far Left, who wants to make America socialist. Tribalism has a much longer history of defeat than socialism, which is based on a moral system rather than a race or culture. To promote tribalism means you ignore an even greater amount of historical evidence against your position than some goofball progressive like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019 at 5:58 PM, Doug Morris said:

 

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

2

Hear, hear. On two counts: the 'group' does not exist; and mankind's immense range of superficial, physical features which say nothing of an individual. The metaphysical identity of man supersedes all that, importantly too, giving to philosophers a standard of how to think of, evaluate and engage with others. It is that metaphysics which is missing today and causing huge damage, needless to say, before one even includes reason and ethics. When many people actually believe their own tribal self-justifications, what you get is a self-fulfilling prophecy, I suppose.

A qualification on "illusion" - the varying biological natures of man, e.g. ethnicities, is an actuality in some "special sciences", which backs this discussion. The findings and applications of biology, especially the growth of genetics, informs us and is going to have more effects on our lives.

This only means being careful (I think) to keep the two, philosophy and science, distinct - and with no contradiction.  

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

The intention of IQ was and is a measurement of cognitive function

it's some kind of measure of cognitive function. But it doesn't say why, or what causes it, and it doesn't measure cognitive capacity. Even if I give you a test about history, and asked you to answer 20 multiple-choice questions about World War I, that's a measure cognitive function. You tried to make a metaphor with height, but I think you miss quite how much actually changes when you need to consider cognition. Of course it is much more stable than how you do on the history test, but that really only means that for adults, there isn't much in your environment that you can do. It's pretty up in the air about infants, especially because there isn't really any good IQ test for infants.

There just isn't any good science to show that race is a causal factor of IQ. Perhaps your intuition suggests that there might be some, but that only means you should do more research on the topic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heritability of IQ 

 

Research on heritability of IQ implies, from the similarity of IQ in closely related persons, the proportion of variance of IQ among individuals in a study population that is associated with genetic variation within that population. This provides a maximum estimate of genetic versus environmental influence for phenotypic variation in IQ in that population as environmental factors may be correlated with genetic factors. "Heritability", in this sense, "refers to the genetic contribution to variance within a population and in a specific environment".[1] In other words, heritability is a mathematical estimate that indicates an upper bound on how much of a trait's variation can be attributed to genes. There has been significant controversy in the academic community about the heritability of IQ since research on the issue began in the late nineteenth century.[2] Intelligence in the normal range is a polygenic trait, meaning that it is influenced by more than one gene,[3][4] more specifically, over 500, and is thought to be up to 80% genetic in origin.[5][not in citation given]

The heritability of IQ for adults is between 57% and 73%[6] with some more-recent estimates as high as 80%[7] and 86%.[8] Genome-wide association studies have identified inherited genome sequence differences that account for 20% of the 50% of the genetic variation that contributes to heritability.[9] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics, for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood. This phenomenon is known as the Wilson Effect.[10] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores;[11] however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects.

Wikipedia

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 11:17 AM, whYNOT said:
On 1/23/2019 at 7:58 AM, Doug Morris said:

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

2

Hear, hear. On two counts: the 'group' does not exist; and mankind's immense range of superficial, physical features which say nothing of an individual.

Race is not an illusion. It doesn't describe a group's trait. It describes each individual's trait in relation to another individual's trait. This man has dark skin versus that man with light skin. You can then group each type and treat them collectively. You might find something interesting, like the darker-skinned people have higher melanin levels. But the fact of their race is not an illusion. They actually do have darker skin.

The problem with today's racists is that they are attempting to connect IQ with obvious traits like melanin level, because if it's only connected to brain development, then they would have no justification for segregating people by skin color. They would have to call for intrusive examinations of people's brains, and segregation based on brain types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Race is not an illusion. It doesn't describe a group's trait. It describes each individual's trait in relation to another individual's trait. This man has dark skin versus that man with light skin. You can then group each type and treat them collectively. You might find something interesting, like the darker-skinned people have higher melanin levels. But the fact of their race is not an illusion. They actually do have darker skin.

The problem with today's racists is that they are attempting to connect IQ with obvious traits like melanin level, because if it's only connected to brain development, then they would have no justification for segregating people by skin color. They would have to call for intrusive examinations of people's brains, and segregation based on brain types.

Okay. You're describing what one sees, the superficial features of humans, which doesn't rise above a perceptual level of awareness. Are these traits *essential* properties of an individual's personal identity? They are not in this philosophy.

But as I said, I think science has a different agenda and has the brief to study "races", their background and physical differences, etc. etc. Yes, which may be interesting and/or useful to learn.

I may say for some of today's Leftist, purportedly anti-racists, that I see - they too are extremely aware of racial "traits" (skin color, etc.) A give-away is that old saw: " Some of my best friends are - x, y, or z". Are they then that color blind? Do they have to mention this fact at all? It would seem that superficial appearances matter greatly to them.

And I don't have to describe the extra-special treatment, socially and otherwise which members of those races commonly receive from progressivists. This special attention, I hear, is amusing to, or considered dishonest, condescending - even racist, in itself -  by e.g. many blacks or Jews, or whomever, on the receiving end. Any form of 'special selection', group-identifying of others, has collectivist premises. You should read Thomas Sowell in his many articles decrying this and Affirmative Action. 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

Okay. You're describing what one sees, the superficial features of humans, which doesn't rise above a perceptual level of awareness. Are these traits *essential* properties of an individual's personal identity? They are not in this philosophy.

No, they are not. But our opposition is saying that IQ can be linked to race, and IQ might be essential to someone's identity, as it appears to measure the rational faculty. It's very important, therefore, that we accept what is true about race, so that the other side cannot accuse us of evading it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 9:50 PM, Azrael Rand said:

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.

No, this is what evil Leftist SJW's believe because they've allowed their rational capacities to be neutered to the point that all they can do is mindlessly repeat what the irrational majorities around them are chanting. They have next to no capability of rational independent thought left. You are the same, but with slightly different, but equally evil views. You are also parroting complete nonsense the same as they are but based on the far evil Right. You are all evil collectivists that no longer are capable of independent rational thought outside what the majorities of your respective evil spheres of influence tell you.

That you would morally equate what a majority that is by definition evil due to it's Leftist philosophy believes with what is true in reality means that you are irredeemably evil as I already surmised. FWIW I'm white and would happily have you and other racists shipped out of the US along with all the other collectivists of the Left or Right. You are all evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

No, they are not. But our opposition is saying that IQ can be linked to race, and IQ might be essential to someone's identity, as it appears to measure the rational faculty. It's very important, therefore, that we accept what is true about race, so that the other side cannot accuse us of evading it.

I think it's important to distinguish IQ, intelligence, rationality, and reason.

"The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as man's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action...It means a commitment to the fullest perception of reality within one's power ..." VoS

"Intelligence is not an exclusive monopoly of genius, it is an attribute of all men, and the differences are only a matter of degree". CUI

SO, untrue to say IQ (directly) measures "the rational faculty". This could be the most critical point.

 Rationality, the commitment to reason/reality, I think I could eventually detect in many individuals I've met in all walks of life, many ~apparently~ of moderate, or fairly low, IQ. And the reverse - in the apparently intelligent (intellectuals, for instance) who are inconsistently- or anti-conceptual.

In the course of events, who cares? Who seeks out others' IQ scores? Why should that be concerning to one in dealings with them? Their dedicated choice or not of rationality is paramount, not so?  

My supposition is that IQ can at its best measure the capacity, the raw horsepower of a brain. On that metaphor, a four-cylinder engine run efficiently, driven expertly in many conditions and well-looked after, will surpass an 8-cylinder, twin-turbo engine which putters only to the shops never out of first gear, and is abused.

In the end, there's little to IQ for people to worry about. As a determining factor for one's life it is diminishingly low--given a volitional consciousness. 

The "opposition", you mention - both racists and especially, I'm sorry to add, many anti-racialists, make it harder to express any opinion or judgment about others. Reasoned discourse becomes difficult (on what is an overly sensitive topic). The effect lately is clearly the censoring and self-censoring of speech, and honesty and minds.

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing, you keep harping on about how our species is tribalist, or that we all have this or that attribute depending on what "race" we belong to, etc. And all of us keep saying that what you are claiming does not apply to us, I know none of it applies to me. I don't care or acknowledge the importance of "tribes", I'm NOT a social animal--fuck the world, I'm not a racist--don't believe "race" even exists, etc. If an individual exists that isn't part of the "human nature" that you claim, then what you are claiming is wrong. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2019 at 4:21 AM, Eiuol said:

There just isn't any good science to show that race is a causal factor of IQ. Perhaps your intuition suggests that there might be some, but that only means you should do more research on the topic.

 

 

Eiuol, no "good science" that this is a causal factor? Only overwhelming science, tried and tested. You guys feel free to do your research and find any flaws if you can, and present your counter-arguments. I had interest in other (philosophic) priorities here, apart from the IQ science, so won't be joining in. What would be simply incredible, would be findings that every ethnicity had identical average IQ ratings.

With that I leave aside this race and IQ story, it's a delicate subject which upsets people and frankly is given too much prominence, but moreso - when it's concealed and denied on the grounds of offending others and/or tacitly proclaiming one might be superior to them. (Why? Do people, particularly Objectivists, believe that there's an intrinsic "equality" in all individual adults - in every respect - which needs to be uplifted? Otherwise, the only option is to sink into racial supremacy? Looks like a false and collectivist alternative, to me.

Of course, here one should not have to make the single distinction: equality in rights and before the Law, the only "equality".

I don't know about anyone else, but I have never known, seen or met ~any~ two 'equal' individuals, and I expect I never will. The unique singularity of individuals is what one is left with if one pays them attention. And it may be surprising to find that most people aren't so delicate as to take offense at hearing of their -supposedly-  modest/lower IQ. It is just not such a big deal. 

Your remark of my "intuition" caught my eye. How did you arrive at that? Intuition? Ha. Consider maybe, that my experiences, observations and assessments based on the instances of many, many individuals (of several 'races') from my life in African countries, is anything but 'off the top of his head' intuitionism (instinct, rationalism and the like). You would instead know this to be inductively gained knowledge.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2018 at 9:20 PM, Eiuol said:

For the record, ARI did not embrace Jordan Peterson. Nor should they, because he's more of a postmodernist thinker (despite his protests against it). He wasn't at OCON because people agreed with him and his views. 

I wonder specifically where the distinctions of Jordan Peterson's view of objective reality differ from Objectivism.  Ayn Rand used terms like 'God No'  and 'God bless you' not because she believed in a literal God, but because she liked what those phrases meant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZMIbo_DxJk&t=1139s

Share this post


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

Only overwhelming science, tried and tested.

You were repeatedly asked to provide evidence, mention some studies, but you never did. If someone claims there is no evidence, but you claim there is, all you have to do is cite one study. You say there is overwhelming science, so it shouldn't be hard to back up your claim. I'm actually guessing that the evidence you are thinking of doesn't mean what you think it means. Just because you read a study doesn't mean you understood it.

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Why? Do people, particularly Objectivists, believe that there's an intrinsic "equality" in all individual adults - in every respect - which needs to be uplifted?

Where did anyone suggest that differences existing is bad or has bad implications?

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

What would be simply incredible, would be findings that every ethnicity had identical average IQ ratings.

I told you already, the discussion isn't about IQ differences alone. It's about why these differences exist. No one disputed that differences exist.

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And it may be surprising to find that most people aren't so delicate as to take offense at hearing of their -supposedly-  modest/lower IQ.

Who was offended at there being differences?

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You would instead know this to be inductively gained knowledge.

Your experiences, whatever they may be, can't tell us whether race is a cause of IQ differences. You would need to do research across many different populations. South Africa isn't a very great country to figure this out, or the rest of Africa for that matter. There are so many confounds that your observations just aren't good enough. If anything, it's interesting to point out that the people saying race isn't a causal factor are American; our experiences are not like yours. For a subject like this, personal experiences won't tell much. Basically, intuition is required to make the conclusions you are making. It may seem like you used induction, but that doesn't mean you did it successfully.

I'm not trying to argue against you as much as I am trying to show you that you don't know as much as you think you do about the subject.

Share this post


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

I wonder specifically where the distinctions of Jordan Peterson's view of objective reality differ from Objectivism.

I think the difference is more about how he thinks knowledge and meaning is formed. He has a lot to say about narratives and things like that. He approaches philosophy more like the way Jung and Freud did.

Share this post


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

You were repeatedly asked to provide evidence, mention some studies, but you never did. If someone claims there is no evidence, but you claim there is, all you have to do is cite one study. You say there is overwhelming science, so it shouldn't be hard to back up your claim. I'm actually guessing that the evidence you are thinking of doesn't mean what you think it means. Just because you read a study doesn't mean you understood it.

 

 

Do a search. DNA, ethnicity, intelligence, etc. There is an overload of material by independent researchers which I once went through and don't need returning to. It is you who are rejecting the mainstream discoveries on IQ and race, so rather you whom I should ask to "provide evidence". Here's your opportunity to bring up some contradictory literature and show why and how the theory is unfeasible. Why wait for me? Demonstrate for me what I don't understand.

As "repeatedly" as it is demanded of me for studies, if it's important to you and others, why cannot you initiate a counter argument citing just one favorable source? Ball's in your court.

And I'm usually the last person to accept "the settled science". If the science integrates with one's generalized observation and logic, I'd say it has merit.

About the logic. You missed my point about how incredible it would be if every ethnicity had equal IQ. If early tribal man, in all parts, in much-varied conditions (etc.) HAD developed "equally" as well as autonomously, one could almost make a case for supernatural intervention. The logical deduction seems solid.

 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

If anything, it's interesting to point out that the people saying race isn't a causal factor are American; our experiences are not like yours. For a subject like this, personal experiences won't tell much. 

 

 

"Experiences" of humanity are unvarying and universal in men's machinations for dominance, only changing by degree, location and timing.

Did you ever wonder what was the motivation of those Americans you indicate who too-strenuously oppose such causality? You don't see their (very open) motives?

I thought it was clear, the West today is frantic in its guilty quest to "equalize" everything and everybody. What began with relativism and relativist notions re: different ethics, cultures and civilisations, continues with bringing all the cultures, peoples (and so on) down to one level - "equalized": We are no better than you...and cannot know better than you. And so will continue, until eradicating and sacrificing whatever was and is valuable of the West's legacy. Hatred of the good?

In the meantime there are objectively better individuals than others, better countries, better systems of governance, cultures, religions ... etc.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a difference between equalization of opportunity and equalization of outcome.

Equalization of opportunity means keeping the starving masses from uprising and destroying the system, while fostering social mobility so that talent can rise from poverty.  The loss of millions of individual lives has already shown that we can not force/guarantee equalization of outcome.  Working to fight unearned second hand theft is important.  Outliers in society are a fact, do you want them to steal your car, or a portion of your paycheck, some portion of your time addressing their source and reduction?  There is a problem, it has always been a problem, something is going to happen, which do you choose?  

People often use portions of Ayn Rand's text without fully integrating her entire philosophy. They haven't earned it.  It isn't proper to tell someone what to do, it doesn't work. What one ought to do, and I try, is to be very careful in choosing words.   

Human societies (including Objectivism) are based on hierarchies.  Ayn Rand is at the top, there are varying degrees of competence within the structure of individuals who volunteer to take part in this particular hierarchy.  Just as in America, where Objectivism was born, there are conservative and liberal objectivists.  When an individual in this social space goes to an extreme each individual chooses how he or she wants to deal with it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tym: Equalization of opportunity - for whom and by whom and what for? That will hardly be a free society. The key is "Laissez-nous faire" - i.e., to find and make one's own opportunities, as one sees fit. Even one's choice to squander an opportunity. ;) One man's opportunity-equalization entails another man's 'un-equalization'. 

  

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever had a personal sentimental item, attached to the memory of a person who is gone, stolen from you?  I have.  No amount of shouting in the street about what is fair is going to stop human malevolence and ignorance.  If I want to approach fair human interactions, I've got to build my own foundation, inspire the cretins to educate themselves, and not waste time bloviating to a choir of one.  

I come here to find real, unique, interesting intelligent human beings, who happen to adore Ayn Rand for reasons she might have appreciated.  I am not here to run around in circles with puppets who spout ideologies with no thought of what any of it means to them personally, individually here and now in the real world.

Edited by Tenderlysharp
spelling

Share this post


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

Do a search. DNA, ethnicity, intelligence, etc.

See, this comes across as lazy on your part. As I said, the evidence you are thinking of probably doesn't mean what you think it means. "Do a search" is not how discussing science works. When you do a search, there are so many things you can find, and there is so much you can find that you can misunderstand. When you say I'm rejecting mainstream discoveries, you refuse to mention any such discoveries that I'm rejecting. I can't bring up contradictory literature until I even know the literature you've read. I'm telling you, there is no research that supports the idea that race is a causal factor of IQ. If you think you found it, either its bad science (as in, the research was done poorly with poor standards), or didn't demonstrate any causal interaction.

You seem to think that because IQ differences have been discovered as related to race means that this is evidence that race causes IQ differences.

Instead of being so adversarial, just cite something. 
 

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And I'm usually the last person to accept "the settled science"

Great, then let's talk about your specific objections. That means mentioning specific things you read. Part of the reason to discuss these things is that you can return to previously integrated concepts, unpack them, and go over it again. "Don't need returning to" is never true. Science makes progress when people return to things. Same goes for your knowledge - you can become wiser when you return to things again.
 

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

"Experiences" of humanity are unvarying and universal in men's machinations for dominance, only changing by degree, location and timing.

I don't know what your point is.

And the evidence you are asking me for, please read the thread from the start. Some of my earlier posts do this already.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Jordan Peterson's premise is correct (He has done more research into the subject than I have) I might contemplate how this affects me on an individual level.

If I realize I am talking to a person who belongs to a demographic with an average higher IQ, and I theoretically have a median IQ, I might assume they have a 60% chance of being smarter than me.  If a person belongs to the bottom 40% of their group, and they haven't tested their own IQ they might have a higher chance of inflating their own intellectual value by associating inappropriately with the extreme cases in the group they identify with.  

I see this with people who are interested in Objectivism, who obviously have no where near the intellectual capacity of Ayn Rand, attempting go exert some authority by using her words.  

At the same time, extremely talented individuals who belong to any group you identify with have the power of being role models you can understand, and you may improve your own intelligence by learning what you can from each of them.  

Share this post


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

If I realize I am talking to a person who belongs to a demographic with an average higher IQ, ... ..., I might assume they have a 60% chance of being smarter than me.  

What are you going to do with this assumptions? Do you seriously thinking 40% 60% etc. while talking to people? If you are actually having a conversation, It does not take much to start forming an opinion of another person... at which point class probabilities are rendered pretty useless. And, if you start to assume that before hand, you will hinder your own ability to be objective, and will therefore miss spotting reality.

Share this post


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

What are you going to do with this assumptions? Do you seriously thinking 40% 60% etc. while talking to people? If you are actually having a conversation, It does not take much to start forming an opinion of another person... at which point class probabilities are rendered pretty useless. And, if you start to assume that before hand, you will hinder your own ability to be objective, and will therefore miss spotting reality.

Jordan Peterson (who I think is a brilliant thinker and public speaker) makes a very interesting point about social statistics: the real issue isn't the 60/40 split between the masses. The real issue is between the outliers: when there's a 60/40 split between two large groups of people, the spit between the extremes (the people who out-perform the group, meaning the over-performers) is far greater (95/5 to 99/1).

For instance, in NYC (or NYS, I'm citing this out of memory, so I'm not entirely sure which), an overwhelming majority of genius level IQ tested high-school students are ethnic Ashkenazi Jews. A crazy amount, something like 49 out of 50 "genius" IQ students in NY are Jewish. That's a natural consequence of Ashkenazi Jews being, on average, about ten points above the average population, in IQ. Which is not that much. But small statistical differences result in overwhelming differences when it comes to outliers (in this case, geniuses).

Another good example of this, often cited by Jordan Peterson, is the radical split in prison population, by sex...pretty sure it is above 9 to 1 in "favor" of men...despite the fact that, on average, personality traits that favor criminality, between men and women, tend to be around 60/40 percent...which, on the surface, doesn't seem that significant until you look at the results in outliers.

And, of course, outliers determine the future of a society. It's hard to argue with that. Albert Enstein (a person who can be objectively judged to have had superior intellect, without an IQ test) was more important than 5 billion people, all added together, who lived since. Clearly. If high IQ really does equal superior intellect, then no one else really matters in the NYC school system on a societal level, except Ashkenazi Jews. And no one really matters on the African continent, period. So, if you buy into IQ (like Jordan unfortunately does...but with a caveat: he does not claim any kind of omniscience, he is open to counter-arguments, and I think he would be blown away by someone challenging his definitions, I don't think he ever met someone able to do that), you can't really dispute these types of conclusions. The only possible avenue of attack against that position is attacking IQ (and social sciences in general, because Jordan is correct: IQ is one of the better parts of social sciences).

Jordan, as far as I know, only makes one decent argument for IQ: there's a strong corelleration between IQ and financial success in the West. Which is somewhat of a non-sequitur.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...