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

The Case for Open Objectivism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

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. 

2

Eiuol, I let you earlier bring in "causal factor", your words, without objection. That was my mistake. I never explicitly said causation, except this once, adopting your word.

Above again is my quote which properly describes my position on IQ - "...a measurement ... of a function of a biological entity, the brain". You make no response to that? If it was not defined directly by me, it was what I meant throughout and thought was self-evident. So I was imprecise. 

"Function" (- or "capacity" as I've repeatedly put it) of the performance of the (biological) brain.

If we can't get past semantic stumbling blocks - and - accept there is a ~correlation~ of IQ to race, we can't get to the critical moral-philosophical matters of how and why IQ/race is abused, suppressed, moralized and politicized, and by whom. This apparently doesn't interest you as it does me. IQ itself is such a minor matter.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

Eiuol, I let you earlier bring in "causal factor", your words, without objection. That was my mistake. I never explicitly said causation, except this once, adopting your word.

Still, everything you wrote was in support of the idea that race is a causal factor of IQ.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

If we can't get past semantic stumbling blocks

It's not a semantic stumbling block. I don't know how to put it, other than you don't really know what you're talking about. Inaccurate analogies, fast and loose use of the words causal and biological, confusing the discussion between correlation and causation. I don't expect you to be an expert, but I don't think you're even listening. You can't talk about why IQ is abused as a construct until you can get the science right.

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

and - accept there is a ~correlation~ of IQ to race

I keep repeating this. No one in this thread disputed that a correlation exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bunch of White people debating (to be honest, it's not even a debate. Nobody has brought up the possibility that the Blacks are intellectually superior to Whites. It's still an epistemological possibility that Blacks are intellectually superior and Whites are trying to keep them down, both through actions and through propaganda about intelligence) among themselves whether they're smarter than people from third world countries isn't very interesting. "Oh, looks like we're smarter than everybody aren't we? What a coincidence? Clap Clap. Self-congratulations. Clearly, we aren't biased af". Let me add some spice to it (no, I'm not stereotyping myself).

 

On 1/5/2019 at 11:22 PM, Azrael Rand said:

why would the Dalai Lama of all people say "Europe belongs to Europeans?"

I don't know. He's a refugee in India. He can be as hypocritical as he wants to be.

If White people consider themselves superior to me (or my race) and they're exterminated, you have to agree that that's a good thing for me (at least as far as my self-defense is concerned). If White people want to be collectivist as a race, go ahead, be collectivist. At least, I can sleep peacefully knowing that White people are dying (and that's selfish and morally right for me to do so). That's not racist, it's just self-defense (if you're intellectually honest, you would agree that White people would try to destroy me and that it's morally right for me to be happy if they ever die out).

Besides, I bet that Dravidians are smarter than Europeans. If a bunch of third world Dravidian illiterates with bows and arrows could come up with calculus and infinite series centuries before rich Europeans, who is smarter? Clearly, Dravidians. Dravidians discovered many other mathematical theorems centuries before the Europeans crawled on their hands and feet pretended to discover the same results (for the first time!) with their inferior brains. It must be the manifest destiny of Dravidians to take over India and eventually Europe.

If Mysore (inhabited by Dravidians) had a higher per capita income than London and the entirety of Europe before the British arrived (even the guns produced in Mysore were superior to low IQ European guns), what does that imply? If Dravidians had the highest living standards in the world, what does that mean? Europeans must be lower IQ compared to Dravidians. Capitalism wasn't meant for low IQ Europeans anyway: Europe and America are heading towards becoming unlivable third world countries, as they were always meant to be. Only Dravidians are meant to possess Capitalism. Europeans and Americans have always kept Capitalism for themselves and try to spread western philosophies like Socialism and Communism to the rest of the world. Not anymore.

North Indians are genetically closer to Europeans than South Indians are, which makes them have a lower IQ. Their connection to Europeans (and the resultant low IQ) is responsible for their high fertility rates (several times higher than Dravidians), honor killings, low hygiene, cow vigilantism, low per capita income and sucking up taxation from Dravidians. If North Indians, with a bit of PIE blood is like this, what would actual Europeans be like? Probably mentally retarded (you would agree with me if you were intellectual honest ☺️). However, North Indians are inflicted with the curse of being more closely related to Europeans, which causes all their failures (they're born with a disability: their PIE genes).

 

@whYNOT

(In the spirit of pretending to be civil while claiming that some races are mentally challenged or born with a disability):
Heritability figures are obtained under the assumption that the covariance between the environmental and genetic variables is zero. This assumption is false.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


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

 Inaccurate analogies, 

 

Do you know what an analogy is? An analogy is a device and does not need to be equivalent in every respect to the subject analogized and it won't be. By definition, it will not be 'accurate' or "inaccurate".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, human_murda said:

 

 

@whYNOT

(In the spirit of pretending to be civil while claiming that some races are mentally challenged or born with a disability):
Heritability figures are obtained under the assumption that the covariance between the environmental and genetic variables is zero. This assumption is false.

 

Thank you for your response. You of course have set up a straw man. I have seen only of the authors who take well into account covariance, never making such a false assumption it is "zero". Not to burst your bubble, and I have alluded to those variables here. (For the rest of your comment about me, that is presumptuous and I take it to be cheap psychologizing).

Share this post


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

Do you know what an analogy is?

It was inaccurate because it failed to convey what you wanted apparently, and you tried to say two things were related in a way that they aren't actually related. We already talked about this.

 

Share this post


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

 

 

I keep repeating this. No one in this thread disputed that a correlation exists.

 

Circumspectly said. Indeed, no one has said much to dispute - or agree - outside of quibbling over inessentials. So what was the fuss about?

There is more to discuss about the increasing assault on, and the self-abnegating guilt by, one specific race and specific gender - i.e. white men - wherever they live - racialistically motivated, also. Perhaps this isn't the place for it.

Share this post


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

There is more to discuss about the increasing assault on, and the self-abnegating guilt by, one specific race and specific gender - i.e. white men - wherever they live - racialistically motivated, also.

Aww. So sad 🤧.

White men are surely the victims in a discussion about the mental disabilities of non-White people. Please cry more.

Share this post


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

So what was the fuss about?

I have no words. It just sounds like your posts are stream of consciousness at this point. If you still don't know what the fuss was about, and how you were part of that fuss, even after I and other people explained it, then there's nothing more to say.

 

Share this post


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

I have no words. It just sounds like your posts are stream of consciousness at this point. If you still don't know what the fuss was about, and how you were part of that fuss, even after I and other people explained it, then there's nothing more to say.

 

To try another way. Surely clear by now, this basic topic does not interest me that much. Where it leads does. You and others want to keep this to the empirical level. While important, that doesn't come even close to the extent of the objectivist method. (To mention what you know, one does not need to be and cannot be, empirically "expert" in each and every sphere - for that you have conceptualism).

It may be far easier to stick closely and concretely to the loads of data and narrowing complexities from science (and to make moralizing/emotional pronouncements) than to consider all the ramifications of IQ that rationality, volition and logic will answer, which -- I have maintained, repeatedly -

- are the ONLY way to defuse all racism, whether in societies, or within oneself.. 

"Moral sentimentalism" [DH] merely defers or skates round the problem.

There is sense in my posts and you know it. These irritated responses are by those who well understand what I mean.. Logically, take apart my "stream of consciousness" (huh!) if you want.

But you can see now what I meant by "upsetting" to some, which you couldn't accept earlier? Why is it that facts disturb? Also important and to be thought over/introspected by Objectivists I'd believe.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


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

Aww. So sad 🤧.

White men are surely the victims in a discussion about the mental disabilities of non-White people. Please cry more.

Fascinating. Do continue. It all provides fresh insight into racism, in all its manifestations.

(And what made you think I am a white man?)

Share this post


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

But you can see now what I meant by "upsetting" to some, which you couldn't accept earlier?

So, if somebody says that Africans are mentally challenged, they're enlightened robots with no emotion (and are "intellectually honest"). But if somebody says Europeans are mentally challenged, they're emotionally compromised (because that couldn't possibly be true). Good to know.

Looks like everyone has preset psychological evaluations for people based on what fact they're claiming:

(1) Claiming that Blacks are mentally challenged: The person claiming it must have mastery over his/her emotions, is intellectually honest, is unbiased, has no ulterior motive, etc.

(2) Claiming that Whites are mentally challenged: it can only be an emotional response and a form of racism against White people.

(3) Claiming that there's no significant or important distinction between races (other than insignificant things such as skin color): The claimant must be saying that because that's what he/she wants to believe. They're trying to fit facts to their idealistic egalitarian fantasies.

 

What's the point in giving out all these psychiatric evaluations with no interest in the actual science or mathematics? (If anyone's still interested, I'll still argue the position that White people are mentally challenged on average with a few exceptions).

 

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

And what made you think I am a white man?

If you aren't, live long and prosper.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


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

You and others want to keep this to the empirical level.

Not really, but when you say things that are wrong, and fill your posts with that, you can't expect people to ignore it. For the purpose of discussion, you can't just throw up your hands and say "well I never was very interested in that anyway!" To do that is to attempt to say the facts don't really matter, all that really matters is that how you feel (or think) about the words in front of you is more important. Kind of like saying "since I feel that IQ is closely tied to genetics, just the way height is, then since height doesn't absolutely determine where I end up in life, then neither does IQ!" But then when people talk in depth about the genetics, they are trying to show you how "genes cause IQ" was actually based on faulty reasoning, and the very jumping off point that people like Azrael use as a basis for racist political philosophy (e.g., government policies based on race). 

This isn't the empiricist error; you've been fooled to think that understanding these facts doesn't explain why Western society today tries to instill identity politics and think so much about the "guilt" that various races have. Some might say that by understanding IQ, we can come to see that SES or racism explains the true reason for IQ differences. Others might say that by properly understanding IQ, we can come to see that there are inherent inferiority is among races. I would say that by understanding IQ, we can come to see that the differences are really pointless because the construct is not built well at all. 

No, it's not that facts disturb. It's that people fail to understand facts, interpret it according to their narrative, and then act like the people who don't fail to understand the facts are the ones who don't understand the facts. People might do this because it's difficult to truly understand something complicated. Or they only take pieces of it, attempt to integrate it. In a sense, it's mis-integration. Parts are forced together into a deformed jigsaw puzzle. So that's why I said stream of consciousness. There are disparate thoughts. They are superficially related.

I don't mind if you say the understanding in depth isn't worth your time entirely, or beyond your study. You don't need faulty facts or imprecise understanding of scientific literature to participate. You can let it be. Offer what you can, and update your understanding as others respond to you. Change your mind and all that, not a big deal. But rational discussion starts to break down when you introduce incorrect ideas and act like they are minor and not what you really wanted to talk about.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Looks like everyone has preset psychological evaluations for people based on what fact they're claiming:

(1) Claiming that Blacks are mentally challenged: The person claiming it must have mastery over his/her emotions, is intellectually honest, is unbiased, has no ulterior motive, etc.

(2) Claiming that Whites are mentally challenged: it can only be an emotional response and a form of racism against White people.

(3) Claiming that there's no significant or important distinction between races (other than insignificant things such as skin color): The claimant must be saying that because that's what he/she wants to believe. They're trying to fit facts to their idealistic egalitarian fantasies.

 

15 hours ago, whYNOT said:

For the rest of your comment about me, that is presumptuous and I take it to be cheap psychologizing

 

Anyway, I don't want to insult anybody. Let's talk about the race of mentally challenged people (with a few exceptions) known as White people; Let's discuss this like normal, rational people equipped with emotional mastery and intellectual honesty. If you assume that Blacks have mental retardation, I bet it's a form of attack and you're just emotionally upset. If you assume that any races have significant differences, I bet you're just saying that because that's the belief that fits your narrative. It's the way non-Dravidian brains are wired, you can't help it. I must not assume that non-Dravidians can think. Thinking is a curse that Dravidians must bear. I can't assume that White people can think, because they don't have Dravidian genes. Thus, only Dravidians must be able to think. I must not assume that other people are like me. Hence, it is proved that White people are mentally challenged (if you can't handle that fact, you're just emotionally upset).

It's not my problem that White people are mentally challenged. I will not assume Dravidian-guilt by pretending that White people are not mentally challenged, anymore. Overwhelming scientific evidence has proven that White people are not like me. I must strengthen my psychology and steel my emotions and like the Ubermensch that I am (different and wired differently from everyone else), I must just accept the fact that White people can't think like me. I've never been to Europe, but I can smell the mental retardation from here (in a scientific and intellectually honest way, of course).

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


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

Fascinating. Do continue. It all provides fresh insight into racism, in all its manifestations.

I can tell you're so upset. Don't be mad, it's just the way your brain is wired. You can't help it. I see that non-Dravidians can't control their emotions like I can. These are the mental disabilities non-Dravidians must face. They're simply wired differently (if you don't agree, you're intellectually dishonest). I see it now: we're all so different and must simply accept our differences.

I don't want to insult anybody. I'm being kind to you. Besides, I'm probably being too charitable by assuming that White people have anything close to my brain. I'm sorry, I was being too altruistic in my intentions by initially assuming that White people don't have mental disabilities. I have since updated my thinking, attained enlightenment and realized that White people are just mentally challenged (if any Dravidian person doesn't agree with me: it's just because you're intellectually dishonest and you're being charitable about the intelligence of White people. If any White doesn't agree with me, it's because you're emotionally upset. These are the totally scientifically accurate psychiatric evaluations for you, depending on which fact you want to believe).

There needs to be no more further proof for my lack of emotion (and my intellectual integrity) than my claim that Whites are retarded. I acknowledge that. My claim that Whites are retarded proves that I'm not emotional. Only emotional and irrational Dravidians believe that Whites are intelligent.

I'm not trying to insult anybody. I'm not racist. I'm simply intellectually honest, unlike other charitable Dravidians who have been brainwashed to think that White people are like them. I discard all my failures (believing that White people were like me and could think). However, I'm not brainwashed. I'm not like those irrational Dravidians who believe in a mythical White race that can actually think. I'm not emotional. I've been red-pilled. To demonstrate my honesty, intelligence, rationality, sincerity, lack of emotion (and other Dravidian virtues), I acknowledge that White people are retarded.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Forgot to mention: I will not accept that White people are my equals. That would imply that any failures of White people are the fault of Dravidian people. I do not accept Dravidian guilt and hence [in my infinite rationality] acknowledge that White people are retarded. If White people are mentally retarded, their failures are not my fault. If White people are not mentally retarded, their failures are my fault. Conveniently enough, it just so happens that they're actually mentally retarded. It's not my fault that they're retarded. I'm the only one rational enough to acknowledge their retardation while everyone else wallows in guilt. It's not my fault 😭).

 

 

Anyway, for a serious discussion regarding slavery in America: the White slave owners who lived in the past are partially responsible for the disparities between Blacks and Whites in America today (Blacks and Whites also have different subcultures which also contributes. However, ultimately, the divergence occurred during slavery). This doesn't mean that Whites who exist in the present are responsible or need to be held accountable (the Whites in the past and the Whites in the present are two different groups only connected by ancestry and inheritance). The actions of Whites who existed in the past have ramifications today. The differences between slaves and masters are not going to disappear in a couple of generations. The success of some immigrants in America (including Nigerians) doesn't disprove the notion that Whites in the past are partially responsible for what's happening today (immigrants have a different culture and different mindset than people in America). Arguments such as "some races are mentally disabled on average and that's why they fail" are incorrect no matter how convenient these arguments may be in absolving some idiot's guilt complexes (get rid of the "either they're mentally retarded or I'm guilty" mindset).

Edited by human_murda

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.

×