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

The Case for Open Objectivism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, softwareNerd said:

Do you seriously thinking 40% 60% etc. while talking to people?

Yeah, no I don't think I have ever thought that when meeting someone.  If I think about the truth I always have a sense that I have something to learn from each person I talk to.  They might be dumb as a box of rocks and funny as hell.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Nicky said:

But small statistical differences result in overwhelming differences when it comes to outliers (in this case, geniuses).

I don't quite understand.

Do you mean the outliers being included in the population "shifts" the mean? 

Or do you mean that the statistical difference in the sample, Ashkenazi Jews in this case, IQ is slightly shifted higher for Ashkenazi Jews, which in turn makes the individuals higher in the distribution that much further away from the population mean?

I know that's a mouthful. I think the clarification matters though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Nicky said:

no one else really matters

The people I care about matter to me in many different ways, their intelligence being one aspect.  

38 minutes ago, Nicky said:

the radical split in prison population, by sex...pretty sure it is above 9 to 1 in "favor" of men

In prison drug use has probably diminished the IQ's that many had when they were younger.  There are also some very intelligent bastards in prison.  

This got me thinking about another statistic Jordan Peterson was talking about.  That 10% of Americans, the outliers, do not have a high enough IQ to be allowed into the military.  They are not smart enough to be shot at, yet they still need to be kept occupied with something productive to do so they don't run around tearing the world up.  One can have very low IQ and very high trait conscientiousness and still do a simple repetitive job much better than a robot can.  

Share this post


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

This got me thinking about another statistic Jordan Peterson was talking about.  That 10% of Americans, the outliers, do not have a high enough IQ to be allowed into the military.  They are not smart enough to be shot at, yet they still need to be kept occupied with something productive to do so they don't run around tearing the world up.  One can have very low IQ and very high trait conscientiousness and still do a simple repetitive job much better than a robot can.   

If IQ is an objective measure of intellect, then we have problem. But, like I said: Jordan is jumping to conclusions in a field outside his expertise. IQ is not a good measure of intellect, I don't care what the US military says (in this case...I actually do rely on US military studies on language learning, but this makes no sense whatsoever: the language learning stuff relies on studies, this does not). He's basically just saying "the US military says so, for unspecified reasons, so get on board...which is not a good enough reason to get on board.

And, again: this is a pretty throwaway point he makes when people obsessed with the issue probe him on it. It's not his field of expertise. (check out his take on Islam, on youtube...that should illuminate his capacity for refraining from definitive statements on things he's not an expert on).

He doesn't believe personality (which IS his field of expertise) is set in stone/genetics, so why would you ever take his word on the notion that intellect (especially once freed from the arbitrary bind to IQ) is set in stone/genetics?

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


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

Do you mean the outliers being included in the population "shifts" the mean? 

In this image, the space in the center (the mean) shows the average IQ scores for the vast majority are the same, and the real differences arise in the small gaps at the edges which are the outliers.  

One Standard Deviation.jpg

Edited by Tenderlysharp
clarity

Share this post


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

There's far more to it than that.

I agree.  

2 hours ago, Nicky said:

Jordan Peterson (who I think is a brilliant thinker and public speaker) makes a very interesting point

I've been on a Jordan Peterson youtube marathon the last couple weeks, as I do with many people who interest me.  His lectures are packed so full of information.  He reads a book a day, and says the more you know the more you realize how much more you don't know.  I've sensed his limits on a few issues, wouldn't it be nice to have a couple hundred more years to take things in and put them together in useful ways.  

Edited by Tenderlysharp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intelligence tests were first designed to comb through people in poverty, identify those with potential and invest in their education.  

Some contributing factors of intelligence having upward mobility are basic nutrition, stable emotional environment, caring family members, not being shot at, willingness to take on responsibility, negotiation skills, writing/speaking skills, openness, autonomy...

Part of the flag waving American Pride is the implication that humans seem to have gotten a lot smarter in the last 200 years in proportion to their freedom and value for individual independence.  

Share this post


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

In this image, the space in the center (the mean) shows the average IQ scores for the vast majority are the same, and the real differences arise in the small gaps at the edges which are the outliers.  

One Standard Deviation.jpg

Those aren't outliers, those are just the ends of the distribution. Outliers are outside the distribution so far that they can't really be considered part of the sample. An example of shifting the mean in the sense I mean would be to include outliers in the blue line group, which would then make it look like the yellow line (roughly speaking, it's more like it would reach out further). 

If we are comparing Ashkenazi Jews to the population on average, we are basically "zooming in" on the people in the blue group, if the blue group represents the American population. We'd be asking "does this group follow a different pattern than the pattern we would expect in the entire population?". When you focus on Ashkenazi Jews, you find significant differences - it is unlikely they are from the same population as the blue group (the type of status we are talking about always start with the assumption that groups follow the same patterns). This just means that Ashkenazi Jews don't follow the pattern we would expect. This would in turn means that people further onto the edge of the yellow line are even further over than the blue line. But this doesn't mean that the small statistical differences result in overwhelming differences. If there are small differences in one part, they are small differences in another part. It means that more people in the yellow group are at the higher end of the blue group, if the blue group is our standard of measurement.

I'm saying all this to help your thinking about it. It's important to distinguish I think when simply more people are on the higher side of the population distribution, or when including outliers in a sample of the population distorts the results. But I also asked Nicky what he meant, since the wording was unclear and unintentionally misleading to the rest of his point. And actually, the more we talk about statistics, the more you can see there are problems when the people you measure are very different from everyone else. In that sense, the differences become overwhelming to an individual - the more "out there" you are, the more you are set apart from the people you're compared to. But it's not that the small significant differences can eventually make for an even more significant difference.

 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Clarifications

Share this post


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

If IQ is an objective measure of intellect, then we have problem.

IQ tests do measure some types of mental computational abilities. With all their issues, I think an employer could be right to say... I don't want anyone who score below NNN on an IQ test. So, maybe an employer uses  a cut-off of 80 for low-skilled jobs.

Other tests may work better too. For instance, in the U.S., there is a test called the "ACT Work Keys" test which is not an IQ test, but tries to assess if a person has some basic abilities to function in a workplace. it is the type of tests that average students scoff at as being "sooo easy", but that's the point.

I think employers might also want to use IQ scores, or similar tests, in the above-average ranges, again as a cut-off for certain jobs, but not weighted along with other factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2019 at 2:53 AM, Tenderlysharp said:

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.

 

To "spout ideologies with no thought" requires some (anyone here?) to only mimic/disgorge Rand, for reasons she would not have appreciated and often said so, i.e. remaining dependent on her mind, simply making deductions from her principles or concepts - not inducing them for oneself from, right, "the real world"..

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019 at 9:32 PM, Eiuol said:
On 1/23/2019 at 8:55 PM, 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. 

I was referring to private establishments. Also I'm not equating freedom with segregation by default. I've said many times that different people have different preferences. There are people who highly value diverse experiences and those that do not. Freedom allows like minded people the opportunity to live life the way they would like too. On both sides of the spectrum.

On 1/23/2019 at 9:32 PM, Eiuol said:
On 1/23/2019 at 8:55 PM, 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? 

You keep hinting at a position you'd like me to assume which I do not believe in. I'm not avoiding the topic of genocide, ethic cleansing, or holocaust because I have a hidden agenda. I don't bring it up because it's not a place we have to visit in real life if we correctly account for human nature.

On 1/23/2019 at 9:48 PM, MisterSwig said:
On 1/22/2019 at 9:50 PM, 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.

Doesn't sound unreasonable but how do you plan on maintaining the culture to retain said American values in the face of collectivist activism?

On 1/24/2019 at 11:31 AM, Doug Morris said:
On 1/23/2019 at 8:55 PM, 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. 

If they arrive in large enough numbers they won't have to assimilate, they'll just take over. You assimilate when you leave your country behind and set up residence in a new country. If you take our old country along for the ride the incentive to assimilate is greatly diminished.

On 1/24/2019 at 11:31 AM, Doug Morris said:
On 1/23/2019 at 8:55 PM, 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.

Agreed. However it can't be understated the importance of using influence techniques to arrive at a place where we can have debates based on facts, reason, and evidence. Since we are largely subjective and emotional by nature you have to actively incentivize the higher virtues of discourse. It has always amazed me that objectivists support a rational means of national defense as written about by the likes of Peter Schwartz but are unable to do the same in the realm of cultural defense. Yes higher virtues exist, but unless you can come to terms with our emotional base state and account for it in your approach your appeals for said higher levels of discourse will fall on deaf ears.

As I said in my original article, objectivists have failed to win the cultural wars because they haven't fully accounted for human nature. You can't succeed at persuasion if you choose to believe humans are rational actors by default. If you're willing to drop a nuclear bomb on another country you should at least be willing to call a leftist a racist to their face by holding them to their own irrational standard.

On 1/24/2019 at 11:31 AM, Doug Morris said:
On 1/23/2019 at 8:55 PM, 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. 

The place you can have the most effect is where the greatest amount of evil exists. That clearly wouldn't be the US in this example. But yes you prefer to deal with your own in-group. That's tribal, not ethnic tribalism but still tribalism or in-group preference.

On 1/24/2019 at 11:31 AM, Doug Morris said:
On 1/23/2019 at 8:55 PM, 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.

You're partially correct in that we can adopt new beliefs and said beliefs can and do change how we interpret the world around us, that part is true. But if you research the underlying epigenetic differences that underlies the split between liberals and conservatives (a good place to start would be Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind") you will also discover that there is a genetic/environmental component as well. There is a spectrum that is defined by a need for security on the one end and a desire to embrace diversity on the other end. Where we fall on this spectrum largely determines our political beliefs. So to be clear there's a genetic component, environmental component, and a free-will component at play. Objectivists fall onto the diversity/freedom seeking end of the spectrum but have less empathy than "genuine" liberals.

On 1/24/2019 at 11:31 AM, Doug Morris said:
On 1/23/2019 at 8:55 PM, 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.

Referring back to the security-diversity spectrum, if you fall more on the diversity seeking side of the spectrum, race and loyalty to the group play less of a role in your moral makeup. Add to that a belief system that outright rejects race and this is why libertarians and objectivists do not understand the concept of race as being real. But it's a very real concept for the people on the other side of the spectrum.

Edited by Azrael Rand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 1:36 PM, MisterSwig said:

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.

For the majority of America's history it has been a majority white country, choosing to live by European enlightenment values, united by a common culture and common language. Implying that the US was nontribal is nonsense. The US was quite successful internationally, as you said they crushed it, when non-whites and women were not legal equals to white property owning men. From a factual perspective your argument is completely invalid.

You're entitled to your own feelings but not your own facts.

On 1/24/2019 at 1:36 PM, MisterSwig said:

Even primitive religion-based nations like Iran outclass the tribal nations of the world, who generally survive due to military protection from nontribal nations.

Japan, a racist country, enjoys a far superior standard of living compared to Iran.  Care to revise your claim?

On 1/24/2019 at 1:36 PM, MisterSwig said:

Your desire to Make America Tribal Again ignores not only our rational (not tribal) nature, but also the clear lessons of history.

It's not my problem that you can't accept the fact that tribalism and reason are not inherently incompatible.

On 1/24/2019 at 1:36 PM, MisterSwig said:

I'd say it's a worse position than the far Left, who wants to make America socialist.

Leftist account for tribalism but do so at the expense of accounting for selfishness whereas I acknowledge both. Not following you here.

On 1/24/2019 at 1:36 PM, MisterSwig said:

Tribalism has a much longer history of defeat than socialism, which is based on a moral system rather than a race or culture.

Considering that we are a tribal species and that we lived, succeeded, failed, and died all within a tribal context you can't claim that tribalism is at fault here. It's just an underlying reality of the human condition. It's like the water that surrounds the fish.

On 1/24/2019 at 1:36 PM, MisterSwig said:

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.

She might not understand things like math but at least she understands human power dynamics and race realism.

On 1/27/2019 at 7:25 PM, EC said:
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.

So this is your version of the progressive accusation of the right wanting the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and children to fend for themselves. Can't say I'm impressed. You call me evil and by doing so signal to those around you your virtue of the good. But have you ever considered that your beliefs and the ideology you have chosen to embrace aren't the result of your moral superiority, rather you simply just adopted a certain set of beliefs that most closely aligned with your personal default nature. Food for thought. I may not be able to think, per your comments, but I'm sure you can manage right ;)

Share this post


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

You keep hinting at a position you'd like me to assume which I do not believe in. I'm not avoiding the topic of genocide, ethic cleansing, or holocaust because I have a hidden agenda.

I wasn't talking about those things. I'm not even saying you have a hidden agenda. I'm saying that you seem unwilling "go that way" for purposes of discussion. I'm not going to guess why. You said "I don't think we ought to go", apparently "going to" that topic is wrong. But the only way we can actually talk about the implications I suppose that there are, we need to engage those more extreme positions in order to find if your position actually has some line that doesn't lead to an implication of using the government to segregate people. After all, you've been saying that things like lowering the average IQ is threatening; that social harmony underlies rights; that some form of utilitarianism is correct. 

(By the way, I understand that people have preferences, and I can see these preferences as immoral, but I certainly would permit them as far as legality. But none of that is based on the need of social harmony first. I would argue that even private segregation is not freedom, but a self-limitation that detracts from the health of a society.)

If we don't have to visit these topics "in real life if we correctly account for human nature", then we fail to engage what certain beliefs entail. And what if correctly accounting for human nature actually calls for government enforced segregation? Perhaps things more severe than that? Besides, the only place I wanted you "to go" was talk about government enforced segregation. Your beliefs do not seem consistent with that. I think that's because you're maintaining a contradiction somewhere. Not only that, if correctly accounting for human nature instead means social harmony, and you're sure about that, then you certainly want to fix up your beliefs if they entail something incorrect or against that goal.

So let's go back to that real-life example. Let's talk about Japanese internment. You haven't directly said that this was wrong. But by your beliefs, is it wrong? 
 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


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

You can't succeed at persuasion if you choose to believe humans are rational actors by default.

I wanted to point this out. This is emphatically not the Objectivist position. People told you before I think. The idea is that man by nature has a rational capacity. Man ought to use this capacity because it is his means of survival. No one is rational by default - rationality is a chosen and purposeful thing. This is partly why we don't say selfishness or tribalism is part of human nature. There are a myriad of ways we can act and a myriad of standards. In terms of political standards, we take fallibility into account, including that people might be tribal, or might be selfish, or something else entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of this is starting to get repetitive again.

15 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

The place you can have the most effect is where the greatest amount of evil exists.

The greatest amount of evil exists in places like North Korea.  How can I have a significant effect there?

 

15 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

Add to that a belief system that outright rejects race and this is why libertarians and objectivists do not understand the concept of race as being real. But it's a very real concept for the people on the other side of the spectrum.

I understand and acknowledge that some people perceive race a a very real concept.  They are deluded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2019 at 5:05 PM, softwareNerd said:

IQ tests do measure some types of mental computational abilities. With all their issues, I think an employer could be right to say... I don't want anyone who score below NNN on an IQ test. So, maybe an employer uses  a cut-off of 80 for low-skilled jobs.

There are many kinds of physical jobs, including relatively high skilled ones, that require very low computational abilities. I think a lot of low IQ individuals have to the potential to do impressive things. There are likely some highly successful athletes, for instance, with IQ under 80, including some in team sports where the selection process is extremely unforgiving, and you need both physical and social skills to advance through the many levels of selection standing between a talented kid and a professional career.

Those athletes could just as easily be productive (significantly productive, well above minimum wage) doing all sorts of regular jobs that require physical agility, endurance, and the ability to work with others in a stressful atmosphere...as long as someone believed that it was worth it to prepare them for such a career. What's keeping low IQ individuals out of these jobs isn't that they lack the capacity for doing the job, it's the bias created by the Psychologists that built IQ up into the be all end all measure of a person's worth on the job market. And the fact that the education system is built on that premise.

Jordan Peterson makes the argument that even the US military, which desperately needs personnel, turns away low IQ individuals. But he forgets that the military needed personnel far more than they need it now, at times in the past, and yet they happily turned away blacks when there was a societal, pseudo-scientific stigma attached to their skin color. And they turned away 50% of the population (women) from combat roles until this decade. So that doesn't mean anything. In general, the correlation between IQ and financial success doesn't prove anything. The cause can be the low IQ, or the general bias against low IQ. We would only know which if we actually gave these people a chance to prove themselves (that would involve changing the education system, where the bulk of the damage is done to the self esteem of people with low IQ...because school curricula and IQ tests are developed on the same premise that this narrow set of abilities are the only ones that matter).

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2019 at 6:22 PM, Azrael Rand said:

It's not my problem that you can't accept the fact that tribalism and reason are not inherently incompatible.

So what do you do when the reasonable action goes against the dictates of the tribe? What if your tribe demands that you be sacrificed to the rain god in order to end the drought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2019 at 4:26 AM, Eiuol said:

 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.


 

 

 

"Causes", "a causal factor", "causal interaction". Where did your "causation" enter, how did you get that idea? You must know those researchers, to the best of my reading, speak entirely of the "correlation" of race to IQ, as I have done. It might seem a trifle or nuanced to one, but this is a field of science which has to deal with means and averages through large population groups, therefore can NOT be "causal", nor especially (the gist of my argument), deterministic.

Correlation not causation!

btw, in your last para - if - as you seem to accept :

" ...IQ differences have been discovered as related [that's better - :)] to race" ---

THEN, does it not follow "...that this is evidence that race causes[nope!] IQ differences". ??

You are making too fine a distinction, those statements amount to one and the same. 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

Where did your "causation" enter, how did you get that idea?

Because that's what you were talking about when you were defending Watson, so I kept trying to correct you that most scientists don't talk about that (Watson, in contrast, specifically talked about race causing IQ differences). Nicky did as well basically. You called IQ biological, you claimed IQ can be caused by genetics, you gave examples of how race can be causal. You were trying to argue against me, even when I said that the discussion wasn't about just a correlation. And you kept going. I don't think you even realize what you've been arguing. 

10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

" ...IQ differences have been discovered as related [that's better - :)] to race" ---

THEN, does it not follow "...that this is evidence that race causes[nope!] IQ differences". ??

Of course it doesn't follow, that's why I said it was wrong. "Differences as related to race" doesn't mean "differences caused by race". That's all. The first one includes correlations for the most part, the second one includes causation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2019 at 5:57 AM, Eiuol said:

Because that's what you were talking about when you were defending Watson, so I kept trying to correct you that most scientists don't talk about that (Watson, in contrast, specifically talked about race causing IQ differences). Nicky did as well basically. You called IQ biological, you claimed IQ can be caused by genetics, you gave examples of how race can be causal. You were trying to argue against me, even when I said that the discussion wasn't about just a correlation. And you kept going. 

 

Obviously IQ is not biological and I havent said that. But it is a measurement, effective, or not, of a function of a biological entity, the brain - and that's different. And the heritabilty of intelligence is established, as in the Wiki piece - for only one result. I gave an example and analogy, well-known, of the many long distance runners from East Africa who lived at high altitude, as have done their community going back to their ancestors. A reasonable correlation can be made, which I did, that the people had developed a genetic predisposition to slightly stronger cardio-vascularity. Again, correlation not causation. These debates move along best without nitpicking.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2019 at 7:55 PM, whYNOT said:

I came across this one in a search which covers all bases, a conversation Sam Harris has with Charles Murray (The Bell Curve). Well worth the 40minutes.

https://youtu.be/1YfEoxU82us

 

In this agreeable and rational exchange on a contentious topic much is made about primacy of the individual, and it emerges that IQ is not such "a big deal". (Said by Murray himself). I think this is the healthy approach: know about an element of correlation between ethnicity and IQ, and get over it. Also, there is a brief mention of one critic of The Bell Curve, a biologist, who's quoted : "A vehicle of Nazi propaganda in a cover of pseudo-scientific respectability...".

It makes you wonder at the objectivity of some scientists who make emotive statements. But there's much more unremarked upon in how many people view race and intelligence, than this common, rather Lefty (I guess) moral vituperation of the supremacist right/Nazis/etc. which we are more familar with.

(And I doubt strongly that those fascist-nazis-etc. ever will make a lot of "propaganda" out of any supposed IQ differences and racial inferiority. They are skating on thin ice, since you can bet most of them today are on the lower tail of IQ scores and they probably know that fact. (And their other target, Jews, are widely known to have somewhat higher IQ). So, no, these explicitly racist people, who are being gradually isolated anyway, aren't going to sound off too much about IQ and race!)

On the other end, are the egalitarians whom we observe using emotive tactics to manipulate people in another direction. Using 'equality' and 'victimization' of the racial/etc.etc. groups, qua group, in order to foment discord and gain power. They are the implicit racists (/collectivists). Here is the greater danger.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's this wistful thinking (read, primacy of consciousness) abroad that all mankind are "created" equal and must be kept equal. (I consider the Founders' brilliant thinking and intent was not so much deistic as their recognition of man's metaphysical nature, proposing then that citizens then remain equal ~only~ in rights and by the law). But something such as being born with lower or higher advantages in greater or lesser circumstances appears to have quasi-mystical - especially for the secularists - undertones, seeming ~unjust~ in their, well, distribution. We know that if you could equalize everything for the ultimate best in favor of every individual: e.g. All born in a free country, nurtured by caring parents, equally intelligent, well educated, having the same wealth, and so on... except for the reality, we all can see around and even from experience in ourselves. With the strengths/weaknesses of human nature and the volitional rationality being as it is, well before this equalization program was lifted huge disparities would arise from one to the next. Some would 'fail' (in general, material, spiritual terms) where others would 'succeed'.

A very good entry in the Lexicon I hadn't read before although well known to others I am sure, cuts into the premises and consequences of 'Egalitarianism'. Most apt today ("a children's fairy tale". Ha! What socialism is, psychologically):

The new “theory of justice” [of John Rawls] demands that men counteract the “injustice” of nature by instituting the most obscenely unthinkable injustice among men: deprive “those favored by nature” (i.e., the talented, the intelligent, the creative) of the right to the rewards they produce (i.e., the right to life)—and grant to the incompetent, the stupid, the slothful a right to the effortless enjoyment of the rewards they could not produce, could not imagine, and would not know what to do with.

Philosophy: Who Needs It

“An Untitled Letter,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 110

Observe that . . . the egalitarians’ view of man is literally the view of a children’s fairy tale—the notion that man, before birth, is some sort of indeterminate thing, an entity without identity, something like a shapeless chunk of human clay, and that fairy godmothers proceed to grant or deny him various attributes (“favors”): intelligence, talent, beauty, rich parents, etc. These attributes are handed out “arbitrarily” (this word is preposterously inapplicable to the processes of nature), it is a “lottery” among pre-embryonic non-entities, and—the supposedly adult mentalities conclude—since a winner could not possibly have “deserved” his “good fortune,” a man does not deserve or earn anything after birth, as a human being, because he acts by means of “undeserved,” “unmerited,” “unearned” attributes. Implication: to earn something means to choose and earn your personal attributes before you exist.

Philosophy: Who Needs It

“An Untitled Letter,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 111

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

Obviously IQ is not biological and I havent said that

I hope that you changed your mind in the process of discussion, because you definitely said that. Here are some quotes from you, that say this and are examples that used to support that idea. Here are some quotes from you from various posts in this thread:

"IQ, like everything biological in animals and the rational animal, has to have emerged from somewhere and something - i.e., our parents' and forefathers' DNA. Like the range of ~inessential~ attributes which one may superficially apply to mankind - physicality, gender, size, color, features (etc.), they have to be considered "metaphysically given".

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. 

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).

What is the innate capacity of a brain, but a biological inheritance - like every biological property?

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.

Eiuol, no "good science" that this is a causal factor? Only overwhelming science, tried and tested."

Only a few posts before my last one, you yourself said causal factor. You could perhaps say genetics are minimally causal in terms of specific genes, but certainly not anything like "race causes IQ".

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I gave an example and analogy, well-known, of the many long distance runners from East Africa who lived at high altitude, as have done their community going back to their ancestors.

This line here is an argument about causality. Not just a correlation with genes! It was an example of how causal genetic differences (e.g., lung function) manifest in performance differences. So I told you the analogy didn't work because IQ is simply not a biological measurement in the first place.

 

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...