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

The Case for Open Objectivism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

What you're saying makes good sense but I don't see how you can conclusively exclude IQ altogether.

Well, India is not really consistent in how unregulated the different sectors of the economy are. The IT industry is highly unregulated and most of the rest of the economy is still highly regulated. The deregulation that happened in the 90s was small (but still boosted India's GDP growth a lot). Consider the case of Technopark, Trivandrum. At least Wikipedia says that it was due to the 90s liberalizations.

 

13 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

Then again, what explains differences in decision making and public policy between India and African nations?

Then, consider the case of Botswana: it has much higher economic freedom than India (ranked at #35, its economic freedom is much higher than the world average, while India is ranked at #130, below world average) and has a much higher per capita income.

Finally, you're just looking at how the world looks right now, which wasn't how it always looked.

 

13 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

Collective IQ differences are likely to be a factor along with cultural differences and other considerations.

Lower intelligence cannot make you believe that the sky is green or that water is dry. People don't believe in God due to low intelligence. People can't become criminals or believe wrong things simply because of low intelligence.

 

13 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

I'm not getting that vibe from you tough but there are some people that took part in this discussion that fall into this category.

I'm actually pretty set in my mind too, but I mind don't discussing the topic of intelligence. I usually find that the more the detail with which you study something, the more simple and nuanced your position becomes.

However, my personal beliefs are probably different from everyone else (and probably controversial). I personally believe that, apart from people who have neurological disorders or parasites in their brain (or suffer from extreme malnutrition), everyone's base intellectual capacity is the same. I think that individual variations in intelligence are primarily due to the use of intelligence and that people's achievements are due to how rationally they approach their work (I'm not talking about monetary achievements per se; that depends on other people as well).

One of the prime reasons for my belief is that, if one person solves a problem, I don't see how another person can never solve that problem. Also, the assumption that people of lower intelligence can't solve some problems raises more questions: if there are some problems that people of lower intelligence can't solve, then there must be some problems that humans with the highest intelligence can't solve. Then why do people believe that humans like Einstein would have the capacity to solve every problem in the Universe? Are there some humans that can solve every problem in the world, while there are other humans who can only solve a limited number of problems?

People who assume that humans with the highest intelligence can solve all problems in the Universe while humans with lower intelligence can only solve a limited number of problems have to make the above assumption. This contradicts the continuity in human intelligence. There are only two solutions to this problem: (1) All humans are dumb: at some point in the future, humanity will face a problem that not even the most intelligent humans can't solve (2) All humans are smart. Based on the fact humans have been capable of solving every problem that has faced humanity, I believe the latter is true.

In summary: Define intellectual capacity as the ability to solve new problems. Assume that human intelligence is continuously varying. Then it's not possible that there are two different classes of humans: (a) one class of humans who can solve every problem in the Universe; (b) one class of people who can solve only a limited number of problems. If all humans belong to the same class/category then there are only two possibilities: (1) Humanity will encounter one problem which nobody can solve at some point in the future (2) All humans have the capacity to solve all problems. Based on history, I'll say that the answer is (2) (there's one way out this problem: to claim that human intelligence is not just different in degree but different in kind, i.e., that human intelligence is not continuous. I think that is wrong too).

This is my "proof" that all humans must have the same intellectual capacity (capacity to solve all problems) with the differences being primarily due to the use of intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 9:27 PM, Azrael Rand said:

Not knocking anyone in particular, it's just the way the cognitive process works for us humans. Unless you have an open mind, facts are likely not going to persuade you. We are mostly selfish by nature and we're not about to let facts get in the way of our chosen belief system we're emotionally invested in. Simple as that.

Having an "open" mind is not only NOT a virtue, but most people that believe that it is are often the most irrational, evil people on this planet. The virtue is in having an active mind, not believing that all ideas are created equal, and are therefore equally open for serious debate. And you make that distinction based on principles that you've found are true in reality, not "beliefs". People that hold "beliefs" removed from facts based in reality are often equally irrational, and therefore to certain degree also immoral people as much as the open mind crowd is. Both "belief" and "open minds" are highly toxic ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2018 at 11:27 AM, human_murda said:

everyone's base intellectual capacity is the same.

Not exactly. IQ is the topic here, not intellectual capacity per se. There are natural differences among brains, although they aren't wildly big differences. Regardless of population, IQ for the most part is between 80 and 120. Exceptions to this can usually be attributed to terrible living conditions with terrible nutrition (IQ is not necessary or important to having a population that eats well). The important thing to understand is that race isn't the important consideration here. Just because there are some natural differences doesn't mean that such differences must be racial. Something can be genetic without being racial (not to mention that racial divisions are poor genetic divisions). If you're really good at remembering facts, and organizing them in your head, you might see that as intellectual capacity, but IQ doesn't measure that. 

But you're right to say that low IQ doesn't have much to do with factual beliefs or beliefs that don't involve how efficiently you can think. IQ would usually measure how quickly you can solve problems that are deductive in nature. It does not measure creative thinking, rational thinking, or healthy thinking. If people see Einstein as a genius, it's not actually because he had a high IQ. Usually high IQ is necessary to do something extremely abstract like computer science, physics, or philosophy. But the reason he was able to do anything new and creative was because of his other skills besides IQ. Einstein had an abnormal brain actually, but just for the region of the brain that mainly deals with imagination and visualization. That helps IQ, but it helps creativity even more than IQ. In other words, when it comes down to it, IQ is really only a concern if your concern is who might become a physicist.

Perhaps an even bigger concern is motivation. A person with completely average IQ could possibly become a physicist, if they can accept that they don't think as quickly or as fast as others. If your ideas are good, and your motivation is good, and IQ would only tell you how difficult the goal will be to reach.

 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


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

IQ would usually measure how quickly you can solve problems that are deductive in nature. It does not measure creative thinking, rational thinking, or healthy thinking.

I would say, not based on the claims of the people who distribute these tests to other people, but based on the structure of the IQ tests themselves that IQ tests could measure (if anything) productivity, not intellectual capacity per se.

There are two main characteristics that IQ tests have: (1) they are time-limited (2) they involve questions of similar difficulty. You earn the most points by answering the highest number of questions with medium difficulty in the shortest amount of time. It basically measures productivity.

 

14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Usually high IQ is necessary to do something extremely abstract like computer science, physics, or philosophy.

If the test gave 3 novel problems as a 6 hour exam, that would probably test your intellectual capacity (but you would need a lot of subject specific knowledge before attempting such a test). But when the test expects you to answer each (standard) question in 30 seconds, that has very little to do with intellectual capacity and more to do with productivity. Even losing a little sleep would lower your productivity and probably, your IQ scores as well. So, because of the small variations in difficulty of the test, someone who scores high on the test need not be productive across the board. Also, someone who answers slowly might get a low score. So, I disagree with your assessment that a high IQ is necessary for particle physics (for example). Feynman apparently got an IQ score of 126. Someone who scored 150 can probably do more problems of low difficulty (compared to particle physics) in a shorter period of time. So although Feynman might be slightly slower on lower difficulty problems, he'd be orders of magnitude faster on higher difficulty problems. An accountant would probably score higher than a physicist (because of the difficulty levels and because they're used to doing problems of such difficulty extremely fast).

Humans today are much more productive than they were 50 years ago, which might explain the Flynn effect (changes in IQ scores across generations). This could also explain why people who score high on the IQ test may achieve more: they may be more productive in their work. It may also explain why Bushmen may score less (although not fully proven because of poor data): they're used to idling around and are not used to highly productive activities.

All of this is speculation. I don't think there are actual scientific studies that claim this. Ironically, the study of intelligence doesn't actually use much reason or logic. Most of it is just distributions of data (statistics) with poor attempts to interpret it. They don't even have an actual theory of intelligence (and then claim to be able to measure it). In situations like this, it's better to look at the structure of the test to figure out what it can actually measure than to take someone's claim at face value.

(Statistics, by itself, doesn't mean anything. It's just there. The position of Mercury in the sky doesn't mean anything by itself. It's just there. People who attribute meaning to statistics without an actual theory are as good as astrologers. And there are a lot of them).

Differences in productivity (i.e., differences in the time it takes to solve a problem) are matters of degree. It may take a dumb cheerleader 10 years to solve a problem (with effort) which took Einstein 1 week to solve. So, while I would say that productivity may differ between people, the ability to solve problems is the same (refer to previous post).

Share this post


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

It basically measures productivity.

Fine, but that's the point. Efficiency, speed, and quality. They are abstract problems, so it does reflect how well you can do abstract thinking. An accountant would not score higher because that is not abstract thinking in the same way. Either way, Feynman would not be faster at the higher difficulty problems. If he was fast or anything, like I was saying, is for factors besides IQ. Indeed it doesn't measure the ability to solve problems in the first place, except if you take hours to complete a problem that someone else would take 10 minutes, it makes a difference for what you want to do in your life. Time is worth a lot. Not to mention that if you go too slow, other things start to interfere that wouldn't normally. 

All this to say average IQ wouldn't even measure the economic potential of a country, the freedom of a country, or the things that matter for quality of life. I think we agree on that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a great physicist, like Einstein, comes from the ability to abstractly imagine physical possibilities in a literal way. Things like imagining free fall inside of an elevator, ticks of a "light clock" in between mirrors, relative motion of train passengers, etc. These things aren't really measured by IQ tests, but are what's important to truly create or understand physical concepts in a creative manner.

It's laughable that someone would think the shade of a certain person's skin somehow affects that ability.

Edited by EC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2018 at 11:27 AM, human_murda said:

Then, consider the case of Botswana: it has much higher economic freedom than India (ranked at #35, its economic freedom is much higher than the world average, while India is ranked at #130, below world average) and has a much higher per capita income.

Finally, you're just looking at how the world looks right now, which wasn't how it always looked.

There are a number of factors why this can be the case. Just because someone has a higher IQ than another person doesn't guarantee specific outcomes in life which also require factors other than IQ. The same applies to countries. I'm sure India would be better off without a cast system for instance. I think it would only make sense to outright compare India and Botswana if essentially both countries were equal other than average IQ. This isn't the case, therefore I wouldn't jump to conclusions.

On 12/14/2018 at 11:27 AM, human_murda said:

Lower intelligence cannot make you believe that the sky is green or that water is dry. People don't believe in God due to low intelligence. People can't become criminals or believe wrong things simply because of low intelligence.

The chief culprit here would be our emotional nature. If someone of average intelligence and above believes in something wholly irrational, it's likely based on an emotional need. That's not to say IQ plays absolutely no role in the belief in irrational ideas but in my opinion it's not the chief culprit; for example people of higher intelligence are likely less inclined to believe in god than people of below average intelligence.

On 12/14/2018 at 11:27 AM, human_murda said:

However, my personal beliefs are probably different from everyone else (and probably controversial). I personally believe that, apart from people who have neurological disorders or parasites in their brain (or suffer from extreme malnutrition), everyone's base intellectual capacity is the same. I think that individual variations in intelligence are primarily due to the use of intelligence and that people's achievements are due to how rationally they approach their work (I'm not talking about monetary achievements per se; that depends on other people as well).

This is a good example for my previous point. It's emotionally pleasing too assume commonality but that doesn't mean that reality has to conform to this belief system.

On 12/14/2018 at 11:27 AM, human_murda said:

One of the prime reasons for my belief is that, if one person solves a problem, I don't see how another person can never solve that problem.

The same thing I said above applies here. Unless there's a good reason not to, we naturally assume that others are like us. This isn't necessarily a bad thing since it can contribute to social cohesion. But that doesn't mean it's factually correct just because we want it to be.

On 12/14/2018 at 11:27 AM, human_murda said:

Also, the assumption that people of lower intelligence can't solve some problems raises more questions: if there are some problems that people of lower intelligence can't solve, then there must be some problems that humans with the highest intelligence can't solve.

That's a false premise. Just because differences exist, doesn't guarantee a specific outcome to either side of the extreme. If we're not all equally intelligent that doesn't necessarily mean that you naturally have a vegetable on one end of the spectrum (IQ 0) and an omniscient being on the other.

 

On 12/15/2018 at 5:22 PM, EC said:

Having an "open" mind is not only NOT a virtue, but most people that believe that it is are often the most irrational, evil people on this planet. The virtue is in having an active mind, not believing that all ideas are created equal, and are therefore equally open for serious debate. And you make that distinction based on principles that you've found are true in reality, not "beliefs". People that hold "beliefs" removed from facts based in reality are often equally irrational, and therefore to certain degree also immoral people as much as the open mind crowd is. Both "belief" and "open minds" are highly toxic ideas.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I've advocated for moral relativism anywhere in any of my past and present posts. When I say "open mind" I'm not equating that to mean ignorant or foolish. I'm referring to the ability to look at the argument from both sides of the equation. Since none of us are guaranteed to be omniscient, there exists a statistical probability that what we believe to be true isn't 100% true. Unless you're willing to actually hear the other person out you likely won't be able to improve your world view in terms of it being aligned with objective reality.

Share this post


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

There are a number of factors why this can be the case. Just because someone has a higher IQ than another person doesn't guarantee specific outcomes in life which also require factors other than IQ. The same applies to countries. I'm sure India would be better off without a cast system for instance. I think it would only make sense to outright compare India and Botswana if essentially both countries were equal other than average IQ. This isn't the case, therefore I wouldn't jump to conclusions.

IQ is not a good explanation, that's all. Economic freedom is a better explanation (explains more of the differences). Besides, if you can't get to the meat of your argument, that we should make race-based judgments for the health of society at least on the level of government, you're just dancing around the issues you brought up.

Share this post


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

IQ is not a good explanation, that's all. Economic freedom is a better explanation (explains more of the differences). Besides, if you can't get to the meat of your argument, that we should make race-based judgments for the health of society at least on the level of government, you're just dancing around the issues you brought up.

I think I've more than made my case here. The process of objectively organizing society consists of more than just one issue (freedom, race, etc). You have to look at human nature as a comprehensive whole not just at the pieces you like.

You can be 90% correct but if you're not 100% correct you're leaving a weakness for others to exploit. Once your enemy knows your weakness they'll keep exploiting it until you either fix your weakness or totally capitulate.

Share this post


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

I think I've more than made my case here. The process of objectively organizing society consists of more than just one issue (freedom, race, etc). You have to look at human nature as a comprehensive whole not just at the pieces you like.

Nobody can simultaneously  make a claim of having a plan of "objectively organizing society" and consider race as a component of that. That's 100% racist = 100% evil which has no place in a discussion of objectivity.

What about a near future society of man and intelligent machines? Or man, intelligent machines, and aliens? How and and why would "races" enter that discussion? And why is it important in a discussion of just man? What if instead of dying out Neanderthals had lived to the present day and we had an entire different species of man? Why does it matter when what actually matters for organizing societies is a mutual respect for the rights of all rational entities.

Edited by EC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if it were true that some races are more intelligent than others, which it's not, how would average intelligence of a group of people with a certain skin tone or hair color matter when it comes to designing societies that equally protect the rights of all individuals? Should rights be handed out based on actual intelligence of an individual, or, should all individuals regardless of intelligence level have the same rights by virtue of belonging to a class of individuals (man, in this case) with the potential of conceptual intelligence regardless of the degree they actually possess it?

Does a "dumb" white man get to live in a society where "smart" men get to violate his rights to life, liberty, and property or vice versa? 

No. Objective societies are created to protect the rights of all men and to violate the rights of none. Race, intelligence, species--anything non-essential is irrelevant to the discussion.

Edited by EC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2018 at 8:06 PM, EC said:

Why does it matter when what actually matters for organizing societies is a mutual respect for the rights of all rational entities.

Societies tend to work out best for the majority of its members when all members of the group are held to the same set of rules. No disagreement from me on that account. It's not that all men are endowed equally (by their creator) or any of the other rationalizations people offer when trying to justify their feelings on the matter; based on human nature things just work best when everyone is held to the same set of rules simple as that.

However this truth is conditional based upon other factors; it's not an absolute truth. A precondition is that there's a requirement for a certain level of likeness among the members of the population. If we all appear to be roughly equal then it's not a stretch to justify equal treatment. But imagine a country where half the population has an above average IQ and the other half of the population has an IQ that is borderline retarded. You can't tell me that it would be reasonable to hold all members in that society to the high IQ set of standards. Same goes for culture. If half your country is Atheist and the other half is Islamist then how do you justify holding all people to the same standard. You need a certain set of shared values, identity, cultures, etc for the equal treatment to result in desired outcomes.

Edited by Azrael Rand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2018 at 8:20 PM, EC said:

Even if it were true that some races are more intelligent than others, which it's not, how would average intelligence of a group of people with a certain skin tone or hair color matter when it comes to designing societies that equally protect the rights of all individuals?

Individual rights in my opinion are the result of combining and balancing self-interest, utilitarianism and empathy. Utilitarianism requires a certain level of IQ whereas empathy requires a certain level of EQ. A population that is lacking in sufficient average levels of either will not voluntarily consent to a system built around individual rights. Individual rights in my opinion don't exist as universal truths or absolutes. They are the product of a certain mindset that is conditional on certain variables.

On 12/25/2018 at 8:20 PM, EC said:

Should rights be handed out based on actual intelligence of an individual, or, should all individuals regardless of intelligence level have the same rights by virtue of belonging to a class of individuals (man, in this case) with the potential of conceptual intelligence regardless of the degree they actually possess it? 

Everyone should be held accountable to the same set of rules within our society but we need to ensure that we don't jeopardize the foundations and preconditions of individual liberty; the minimum levels of average IQ and EQ I mentioned before. Immigration policy is one of many component to this.

On 12/25/2018 at 8:20 PM, EC said:

Does a "dumb" white man get to live in a society where "smart" men get to violate his rights to life, liberty, and property or vice versa? 

No I don't agree with that; but at the same time I can't agree with the assertion that everyone inn the world has a right to become an American citizen. As a hypothetical, let's assume the fictional country of Whiteistan had mostly white people with below average IQs that culturally valued incest, rape, and cousin marriages; I'm sure you'd agree with me that it would be in our best interest to have a number of immigration restrictions in place to protect the foundations our society is built upon.

Edited by Azrael Rand

Share this post


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

But imagine a country where half the population has an above average IQ and the other half of the population has an IQ that is borderline retarded.

IQ distributions work in such a way that this doesn't happen anyway. At best, you would need a very limited population, which we aren't even talking about.

But you missed the point. I'm not going to go over how you got the Objectivist position on individual rights incorrect, since we went over that already. Suffice it to say that it is a principle, not an "absolute" (contextless truth) in the way you put it, to guide how we establish an organized society, rather than a consequence of an organized society. Regardless of the person's IQ or race, we care about their actions or their stated beliefs, especially reasons to think the person is a threat to individuals. We might hold people to different standards of accomplishment, but we hold people to the same standard of morality. This is than the basis we should use in which to create a stable and healthy society. This then establishes a shared culture and all that, which only enhances the stability.

You still avoid the whole IQ discussion that you've created when you refuse to talk about what you would do about black people in the US. 

Share this post


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

But imagine a country where half the population has an above average IQ and the other half of the population has an IQ that is borderline retarded. You can't tell me that it would be reasonable to hold all members in that society to the high IQ set of standards. Same goes for culture. If half your country is Atheist and the other half is Islamist then how do you justify holding all people to the same standard. You need a certain set of shared values, identity, cultures, etc for the equal treatment to result in desired outcomes.

Respect for the individual rights of everyone is still possible to both groups under either scenario, and is all we need to have a good government.  The two groups might go their separate ways in some respects, but this is OK as long as they respect each other's rights.

Share this post


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

As a hypothetical, let's assume the fictional country of Whiteistan had mostly white people with below average IQs that culturally valued incest, rape, and cousin marriages; I'm sure you'd agree with me that it would be in our best interest to have a number of immigration restrictions in place to protect the foundations our society is built upon.

It might be a good idea to keep an eye on Whiteistanis to watch out for rape and child abuse, as long as we don't violate their rights to privacy or due process.  We certainly would need to deal firmly with anyone, Whiteistani or not, who actually committed such crimes.  And like anyone else, Whiteistanis who wanted to become citizens should have to prove they understand our political system and take a loyalty oath.  But we wouldn't really be justified in barring them from entering the country.  What about Whiteistanis who are trying to escape the rape culture?

What should we do about the rape culture that apparently exists among some male American college students?

Share this post


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

You still avoid the whole IQ discussion that you've created when you refuse to talk about what you would do about black people in the US. 

You do recall the discussion we had about embracing the freedom of association do you not? If a group of white, blacks, hispanics, etc choose to live in racially homogeneous communities they are free to do so. If you have a group of interracial individuals that choose to live in each others company then they are free to do so under the freedom of association. Does this answer your question?

9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

IQ distributions work in such a way that this doesn't happen anyway. At best, you would need a very limited population, which we aren't even talking about.

If we're talking about a more or less racially homogeneous society then yes. But the scenario I outlined could come to pass under unchecked migration / open border policies. That's what you're seeing in Europe right now.

9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

But you missed the point. I'm not going to go over how you got the Objectivist position on individual rights incorrect, since we went over that already.

Why bring up a point for discussion only to shut it down. If you want to discuss let's do it. If you want to claim a quick victory by using a rhetorical device try again.

9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Regardless of the person's IQ or race, we care about their actions or their stated beliefs, especially reasons to think the person is a threat to individuals.

As I've said before, my position does not dismiss content of character but it desn't end there either. A 90% solution doesn't cut it if your opposition has identified your weakness / logical fallacies.

9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Regardless of the person's IQ or race, we care about their actions or their stated beliefs, especially reasons to think the person is a threat to individuals. We might hold people to different standards of accomplishment, but we hold people to the same standard of morality. This is than the basis we should use in which to create a stable and healthy society. This then establishes a shared culture and all that, which only enhances the stability. 

This belief system is solely based on our selfish individualistic nature but doesn't account for our groupish and tribal nature. Furthermore you're essentially saying that there's no theoretical limit to the amount of people with below average IQ that would have to be granted access to the United States so long as they take a pledge to uphold our values. Sounds like a trojan horse scenario in the making. Lowering the average IQ of a country has real life implications whether you like it or not. Saying IQ is irrelevant, a non-factor, is misguided.

 

Share this post


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

Respect for the individual rights of everyone is still possible to both groups under either scenario, and is all we need to have a good government.  The two groups might go their separate ways in some respects, but this is OK as long as they respect each other's rights.

If it weren't for the whole Diversity + Proximity = Conflict thing embedded in human nature I would agree with you. Sure we can manage outcomes to a certain extent using cultural controls, but it's something that requires expenditure of social / cultural capital that can't be used for other cultural initiatives.

From a utilitarian perspective that acknowledges our groupish nature, why expend extra resources to achieve a sub-optimal outcome for the sake of logical consistency?

Why can't we instead have individual liberties for the members in our society and do the best we can using non coercive foreign policy to assist other nations in their pursuit of improving their lot?

7 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

But we wouldn't really be justified in barring them from entering the country.

The central issue is do Whitistanis have a right to US citizenship or not? And if yes on what grounds? Do Americans not have a right to restrict access to their country? Is it moral to allow access to Whitistanis into the US against the will of the people? I don't believe that one's group "owns" the individuals that make up the group but on the other side I do not believe that any individual has a universal right to access any group's country. If this were the case we would need to limit/halt trade and/or declare war on Japan, China, Mexico, and every other country that doesn't have an open access immigration policy for violating this sacred universal right.

7 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

What about Whiteistanis who are trying to escape the rape culture?

This is a good point. So essentially we're talking about the best and brightest Whitistanis here. These are people that are more like us than the general Whitistani population. On one side of the argument it makes sense for us to accept these people because they are for all intents and purposes "our" kind of people. But what happens to the country of Whitistan if you take all of their best and brightest from them? We're essentially removing what little chance that country had left to become a halfway decent place to live. Would the US and Whitistan not both be better places if we used foreign policy to assist the best and brightest of Whitistan to make Whitistan a better place for all Whitistanis?

7 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

What should we do about the rape culture that apparently exists among some male American college students?

Good one. We start by challenging the notion that we're all equal. The left loves this notion because it justifies their egalitarian lunacy, but as most of us know this is not true at face value. (Leftist) women are forced to believe that all people are equal (untrue), that groups matter (true) and that the male collective group is evil (untrue). That requires quite a lot of mental gymnastics, but thanks to human nature it's certainly not impossible. So since we're all equal, but men as a group make choices that don't make sense from a female perspective, men are evil and must be avoided, feared, hated, shamed, punished, etc.

If women were taught to understood male nature, and men taught to understand female nature there would be more give and take. Save for the current situation created by female bias in statism, men and women benefit from living together as opposed to living apart. There's something in it for both parties, we just need to understand and respect what it is the other side values. Demonizing someone for their core identity creates alienation and dehumanization on both sides. If you want harmony inform people of the truth and let people adjust their behavior accordingly.

Edited by Azrael Rand

Share this post


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

No I don't agree with that; but at the same time I can't agree with the assertion that everyone inn the world has a right to become an American citizen. As a hypothetical, let's assume the fictional country of Whiteistan had mostly white people with below average IQs that culturally valued incest, rape, and cousin marriages; I'm sure you'd agree with me that it would be in our best interest to have a number of immigration restrictions in place to protect the foundations our society is built upon.

I would agree to no such thing, beyond a background check to make sure we aren't accepting a known rights violator to the country. Even that makes me nervous because you could end up barring somebody who got arrested for a bar fight or something in their relative youth. The immigrating person should respect the rights of others is the main issue. I don't care if they live a murderous society as long as they don't bring it here individually. 

Is a person truly free if he isn't able to choose where he lives voluntarily? Can a society truly claim to value liberty while denying other's liberty to make such a choice?

Share this post


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

The central issue is do Whitistanis have a right to US citizenship or not? And if yes on what grounds? Do Americans not have a right to restrict access to their country?

"Citizenship" is not the same as "access."

But yes, Americans do not have a right to restrict access to their country, as such (apart from the sort of background check EC mentions and that which is required procedurally).

2 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

Is it moral to allow access to Whitistanis into the US against the will of the people?

There is no "will of the people" in this sense. There may be a majority vote, perhaps. But if I have property in the US -- let us say a store -- and if a Mexican wishes to come to my store, you and your majority vote have no right to tell that Mexican he may not come to my store, and no right to restrict my access to his patronage. (And furthermore, no right to restrict home sales in my neighborhood, etc.)

This is so even if you believe yourself to represent the fictitious "will of the people."

(Since you have taken aim at "logical consistency," you might not care, but what you're proposing here runs directly counter to the "freedom of association" that elsewhere you seem to think important.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Azrael Rand,

We should respect everyone's rights even if this requires more work to deal with differences among people.

If another country is following a rights-violating policy, that does not necessarily call for drastic action on our part.  One way we may be able to influence other countries is to set a good example ourselves.

We should focus on individual rights, not on trying to engineer other countries.

It's not clear to me what you're saying about a rape culture among some male American college students.  Are you saying there is no such thing?  Are you saying it's OK if there is, we just need to understand it and work with it?  Please clarify.

Edited by Doug Morris
Make addressee clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2018 at 4:52 PM, Azrael Rand said:

It's emotionally pleasing too assume commonality but that doesn't mean that reality has to conform to this belief system.

Emotionally pleasing to whom? Different people have different values and different emotions. I'm sure there are some Nazis who would be emotionally pleased to believe that differences between people exist (even when none factually exists). The existence of irrational atheists (or people who became atheists by emotional rebellion against their parents) does not prove the existence of God. The fact that there exists emotional & irrational people who believe in equality (and use it to justify their arguments) does not invalidate their claim. Just because irrational people believe something doesn't mean that's false. Most people have an emotional attachment to their children; doesn't mean it's irrational. There are ridiculously dumb people who believe in capitalism. I don't know why you're so concerned with other people's beliefs/emotions and how you can manipulate them.

 

On 12/24/2018 at 4:52 PM, Azrael Rand said:

That's not to say IQ plays absolutely no role in the belief in irrational ideas but in my opinion it's not the chief culprit; for example people of higher intelligence are likely less inclined to believe in god than people of below average intelligence.

"I'm smart, therefore I'm right (or vice versa)?". You know, a dog can't believe in Socialism. Because it doesn't have the mental capacity to do so. It does take intelligence to understand and believe in invalid concepts. It's now known that Newton's laws aren't entirely correct. However, you still require intelligence to study Newton's laws of motion. It also takes a good deal of intelligence to study theology, no matter what the "averages" are. As Ayn Rand said:

Quote

From the smallest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from one attribute of man - the function of his reasoning mind.

(and if you're going to say that emotions are the chief culprit, then why do the "IQs" of people matter?)

 

On 12/24/2018 at 4:52 PM, Azrael Rand said:

Unless there's a good reason not to, we naturally assume that others are like us.

You're contradicting yourself:

On 12/26/2018 at 9:52 PM, Azrael Rand said:

A precondition is that there's a requirement for a certain level of likeness among the members of the population.

If we naturally assume that other people are like us, then that "precondition" is satisfied regardless of our "tribal nature".

 

On 12/24/2018 at 4:52 PM, Azrael Rand said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I've advocated for moral relativism anywhere in any of my past and present posts. When I say "open mind" I'm not equating that to mean ignorant or foolish. I'm referring to the ability to look at the argument from both sides of the equation. Since none of us are guaranteed to be omniscient, there exists a statistical probability that what we believe to be true isn't 100% true.

Nah, he's right. Having an open mind requires you to enter a debate without having an opinion. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion even if you're not omniscient. (Besides, requiring your opponent to not have an opinion is a weasely way of inserting your own opinion into their mind).

 

On 12/25/2018 at 7:05 PM, Azrael Rand said:

You can be 90% correct but if you're not 100% correct you're leaving a weakness for others to exploit.

You said yourself this (being 100% correct) isn't possible.

 

On 12/24/2018 at 4:52 PM, Azrael Rand said:

That's a false premise. Just because differences exist, doesn't guarantee a specific outcome to either side of the extreme. If we're not all equally intelligent that doesn't necessarily mean that you naturally have a vegetable on one end of the spectrum (IQ 0) and an omniscient being on the other.

Not my point (I'm not saying that people have extremes of IQ. I'm saying that differences in IQs, however small, doesn't predict a split in basic intellectual capacity). My point was, at which level of intelligence (or IQ points if you want) does the split between people (those who can solve every problem in the Universe and those who can't) occur. Can people with an IQ above 137 solve every problem in the Universe (and are people with an IQ of 136 or below confined to a limited number of problems)? Where is the split (and if there is no such split, then why does it matter if people have different IQs)? At which IQ point does there exist a split in intellectual capacity required to understand capitalism? The concept of intelligence or even the concept of IQ doesn't contain such a split, which is why I said it doesn't make sense. Not because I "want" it to be true. Thanks for the psychiatric evaluation but don't try to make up what my emotions are. It shouldn't even be part of the argument.

 

14 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

Do Americans not have a right to restrict access to their country?

Individuals have a right to restrict access to their houses. However, you don't have a right to restrict access to your neighbor's house. 300 million people don't have that right. What you're talking about are collectivized rights (and identity politics, which is its natural consequence). You're more "leftist" than you think (or atleast, you're jealous that you don't get to play by their rules, as you've stated throughout this thread).

And don't forget that Nazism is the identity politics of the right (or maybe you already know it).

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


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

Lowering the average IQ of a country has real life implications whether you like it or not. Saying IQ is irrelevant, a non-factor, is misguided.

 

15 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

If a group of white, blacks, hispanics, etc choose to live in racially homogeneous communities they are free to do so. If you have a group of interracial individuals that choose to live in each others company then they are free to do so under the freedom of association.

You seem to contradict yourself.

First you say that IQ matters a lot for the health of a country. Moreover, you have gone over how you think that by nature black people have lower average IQ than white people. This means that having more black people will lower the average IQ. According to you, this is bad. In response, you could deport black people, withhold the right to vote, or deny them citizenship. If you do nothing, then you are allowing the country to weaken.

Then at the same time, you clearly advocate for freedom of association. 

But with freedom of association, without even discussing immigration yet, you are allowing racial groups to mix and therefore lower the average IQ.

Something has to give. At least one of your beliefs has to change if you care about the consistency of your own beliefs. 

16 hours ago, Azrael Rand said:

This belief system is solely based on our selfish individualistic nature

This reflects why I wasn't going over individual rights. 2046 went over with you that individual rights are not based off a selfish nature. Nothing even about Objectivism supposes that people are selfish by nature, or tribal by nature. I only mentioned it for the convenience of other people reading the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, one of the first videos that pop-up when you search for "identity politics" on YouTube is this. The video attempts to justify identity politics by obfuscating the fundamentals ("all politics is identity politics"). He doesn't seem to understand the distinction between collective rights and individual rights (or maybe, he understands it and tries to hide it). He makes a similar argument: that identity politics is inevitable ("identity politics is going to exist whether you like it or not") since politics is based on your identity/nature.

What's the moral stature of people who promise to sell you on "individual rights" through trickery and deceit (and emotional appeal)?. Why try to fight the attempt to obtain collective rights (by leftists) through more collective rights for the right? Does anyone actually hope to achieve individual rights through collective rights? Why does anyone promise others individual rights through collectivized rights for white people (or collectivized rights for supporters of capitalism)? Who is he trying to trick? Certainly not "high IQ" people. This pushing of identity politics towards capitalists should aptly be labeled capitalism for the mentally challenged.

Anyone who tries to make the supporters of capitalism believe that the only way to save capitalism is through supporting collectivized rights for themselves [the supporters of capitalism or White people or whatever other group that statistically has a higher chance of supporting capitalism] isn't trying to save capitalism (notwithstanding their protests). With such an obvious contradiction, they're not trying to appeal to your mind. They're trying to appeal to what they think is the irrational within you (emotions, tribal nature, whatever it is). They apparently want to preserve capitalism through the initiation of force (towards immigrants or blacks or whatever other groups that are statistically less likely to be capitalist) and preserve individualism through collectivized rights/similarity/likeness. The mentally challenged capitalists are just going to be fodder for the alt-right.

@Azrael Rand Is praising the intelligence of capitalists part of the emotional appeal? Is praising the race that has the highest numbers of capitalists part of the emotional appeal? And why do collectivists even need sanction from Objectivism?

Edited by human_murda
Wrong link

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...