cliveandrews

I'm surprised to enounter this degree of antagonism to inference here. I would expect Objectivists to sympathize with the view that published scientific evidence is not prerequite to drawing a conclusion and holding a reasonable belief. Maybe some of you just don't have the background in physiology that I have, or simply haven't considered the issue in as much depth, but it is glaringly obvious to me that aptitude in most or all areas of human ability is primarily determined by genetics. I will write a more detailed argument later.

Just because somebody challenges the studies doesn't mean the challenge is successful.

I guess that depends on what you consider proof. There are plenty of studies indicating that intelligence has a strong genetic component. The studies on identical twins are particularly compelling. If you mean absolute proof, as in evidence that settles the matter decidedly, then no, I don't have that, and don't need it.

HIT (High Intensity Training) is a heterodox system of physical training which parallels Objectivism in many ways. It is utterly despised in the mainstream fitness arena, mainly because it indicts other training methods. You could say it's the Austrain economics of exercise physiology. Exercise physiology is corrupt for a lot of reasons, the least of which is that it primarily attracts jocks rather than scientists. Undergrad exercise physiology is more like glorified P.E. than anything resembling a hard science. Overall the field is pretty much comparable to what is going on in other fields like economics, philosophy, political science, etc. It's an intellectual cesspool.

Ah, I should've seen that Mentzer was also my first exposure to Objectivism, although I did not accept it as a result of his influence. Instead, I thought he came off like a nut. Later, when my interest in politics and economics led me to seriously consider Objectivism, I realized he was right. Although, I'm still not sure that I approve of the attempt to associate H.I.T. with Objectivism - I think this tends to have the effect of turning people away from both philosophies. Most people, even sincere ones, simply cannot understand what the hell Menzter and Johnston are talking about and inevitably come away with bad impressions, as I did. You are the exception. I assume you've read Arthur Jones' stuff. It's amazing how closely his life and opinions approximate Objectivism even though he was not an Objectivist. As far as not becoming corrupt yourself goes, I think your awareness of the problem, and your philosophical grounding should be all the protection you need. H.I.T. needs someone to carry the flag for Ellington Darden, and it can only be done by someone within the mainstream establishment, someone with the credentials needed to be taken seriously and have a voice in the field. Take that vision with you as you proceed with your studeies. Hell, Dareden got ass rich promoting HIT, and you can too.

You don't need evidence on this subject- the fact that ability is determined by genetics is availible to pure inference and can be confirmed by simple observation. I learned this lesson the hard way, having previously tried to compete at things for which I was not genetically suited. Furthermore, mainstream authorities have gone to great lengths to distort the facts on the issue due to uncomfortable racial implications, so do not assume that your books are objective and unbiased.

Oh, wow. I'm an exercise physiology buff myself and had previously intended to get a Ph.D. until I realized how corrupt the field is. You wouldn't happed to subscribe to the H.I.T. school of thought, would you? I know Objectivism is popular among the H.I.T. crowd.

Genetics are everything. Virtually all aptitudes, from athletic talent to mathematical ability, are determined by genetics. Extrinsic factors are almost trivial in comparison to intrinsic ones. You absolutely cannot train yourself to do anything well.

Intelligence is not equivalent to rationality. Hell, Issac Newton was a Christian.

I do think she is evil. I think she is responsible for ruining my brother's life, and I disagree with the people who said otherwise.

I am a new objectivist and not yet as philosophically knowledgable as many of the posters here. Rightly or wrongly, I thought that it might be possible for a more advanced Objectivist to make a judgement of evil based on fairly detailed description of how my mother lives her ilfe. I would only be asking others to think for me if I accepted their opinions arbitrarily. So far I disagree with most of the responses in this thread, so I'm certainly not blindly capitulating to others. By your logic, why ask any philosophical questions at all if doing so is equivalent to expecting others to do your thinking for you?

The issue of strangeness is negated by the fact that we are all Objectivists, and I assumed that the purpose of this board is to discuss complex philosophical and psychological issues. I don't know the answer to the question, so I'm asking.

I was, to my detriment, but realized how fucked up my family is a long time ago.

She's responsible for his drug addition because she enabled him, gave him money whenever he demanded it knowing fully well that he was a meth addict. She claims that he manipulated her into giving her the money, and that's probably true, but it's still a massive failing on her part because it should have been utterly obvious to any reasonable person that he did not need $40 a day to spend at McDonald's.

My mother is one of the most irrational people I've ever known. She is not very intelligent to begin with, but beyond merely lacking intellect, she has recieved nothing but intellectual poison throughout her life and unfortunately assimilated most of it. She is sincerely well-intentioned, but is intellectually disordered to the degree that she is simply incapable of doing anythng right. She has utterly destroyed my brothers' life as a result of her relentless coddling; he is now 24 years old, has the mentality of an adolescent and is completely helpless as a result of having learned to rely on his mother for everything throughout his life. I have explained her errors to her innumerable times over the years, and she acknolwedges that what I say is correct, but she seems to be absolutely incapable of modifying her behavior. The result is that my brother is now so maladjusted that I don't believe he'll ever be able to lead a normal life, and will proabably end up committing suicide when his parents die in a few years and he finds himself incapable of surviving on his own merit. She believes that her son has intrinsic value even though he is a totally worthless parasite who produces nothing and does nothng except smoke cigarrettes and methamphetamine (which habit his mother subsidizes unwittingly) and play childish video games all day. She shields him from the consequences of his lifestyle by never punishing him for anything and always defending him arbitrarily. When I inform her that she has raised a worthless son, she shrieks in horror and persecutes me for telling her the truth about her son, her husband, and herself. Based on her reactions I think she knows on some level that what I say is correct, but blocks it out because the truth is too painful for her to bear. She engages in the willful denial of reality and relies on psychiatric drugs to obliterate her senses and avoid experiencing the proper emotional consequences of her actions. She is not aware of how irrational her behavior is, She simply wallows through life in an ignorant stupor and appears to be incapable of doing anything else. It is truly sad. Is my mother evil, or is there any moral absolution in the fact that she basically a babbling, retarded blob of fat who simply doesn't know any better? She loves me to death and has done a lot of things for me that I should be appreciative of, and it causes me a great deal of stress that I despise her so much. And I am disgusted with my family to the degree that I often think about changing my name just to spite them publically.

What thing or things will make a person a bigger failure than anything else?

I've been a light marijuana user in the past and I can see that it has at least some utilitarian value. It allows you to have thoughts that you could never have while sober, and improves your literary ability somewhat. It allows you to hear music in ways that you normally couldn't. At the same time, I think it is fundamentally dangerous to mess with your mind or alter your perception of reality in any way. I haven't made up my mind on the subject yet, but it may be better to maintain a firm policy of not doing drugs of any kind. Although, I will say that whoever drinks alcohol in any form is no better than a marijuana user, because alcohol is by far the more evil of the two drugs.

It's too bad that he was mindfucked by religion at a young age. He might have become an Objectivist.

I feel the same way. It's hard to hate him after everything he's done to influence my thinking.

Having reflected on this statement, I now realize that I made it in error. I hereby retract it and apologize. Odden, Egoist and others made excellent points.

I came to Objectivism through Ron Paul. I was deeply moved by his presidential campaign and became interested in Austrian economics, which in turn led me to Objectivism. As a result of reading Objectivist literature, I now understand Paul's errors, but still consider him vastly superior to all other candidates, and do not regret voting for him. Those who say that Paul is not fundamentally sound on economics are betraying their objectivity. He is GOLD on economics, firmly grounded in the Austrian school, and has a 30 year congressional record to back it up. His stance on abortion is regrettable, but that does not negate the fact that he is the world's premier advocate of limited government and rational economics. And if you have anything in the way of a contrary opinion, you are simply allowing your hatred of religion to cloud your judgement on the subject.

What kinds of meaningful goals could you realistically puruse if you were unable to work and were forced to rely on welfare? If you valued your independence and autonomy above all else and lost is as a result of disability, could that become an intolerable compromise?

*** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread. - sN *** When, if ever, is it objectively appropriate to commit suicide? If you became permanetly disabled and were no longer able to work, would you prefer suicide to relying on a Social Security income? I would say that it would be appropriate to commit suicide when one's values become compromised to an intolerable degree, or to avoid such from happening.

I apologize, I should have gathered the answer to this myself.

Is the reasoning that, as long the Fed is going to exist, it may as well be run by a rational person? If Rand were still alive, what do you suppose she would have to say about Greenspan now?