About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 80

Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 8:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have been a critic of what is going on at the Ivies ever since graduating magna cum laude from one of them in the late '70s. What I experienced there was mind boggling, but had been put in place decades before I ever showed up for my attempted indoctrination.

It is true that you can find exceptions. It is true that it is possible to sneak through the Ivies -- those mandrels of thought-- relatively intact and take your education. But for every John Stossel that manages to escape with his reason in place, there are a hundred self-replicating Paul Krugman's cookie cuttered out to unduly infect not only the rest of academia, but our media, businesses, and institutions of state.

They have largely long become The Churches of Social Scientology, and were and are the beach-heads through which the intellectual underpinnings of freedom were deliberately and with intent attacked in this nation.

There are only a handful of them, and they are not that large; some are no bigger than a large high school. Tiny Princeton has cookie cuttered out about a thousand every year...and yet fully 1/3 of our present USSC passed through there(Obama's last two picks being nearly identical clones of each other), much less the Ivies in total. The Ivies have a disproportionate to their size representation in Congress, the USSC, and even the White House, and the Soviets of last century understood that. They were choke points, and not only choke points, but freely accessible choke points in a nation with open borders, a non-police state, and a tradition of nearly complete academic freedom in its universities.

No sane person would interpret 'complete academic freedom' as encompassing the embrace of 'universal cancer for all,' even as cancer is freely studied on those same campuses-- with the hope for a someday cure. But that is exactly what happened in the political context of a free nation -- 'complete academic freedom' was interpreted as embracing and advocating concepts totally anathema to freedom(just as embracing 'cancer' is totally anathema to 'health.') The long defunct Soviets, with an interest in forwarding totalitarian global thinking, turned our loose intellectual grasp of 'freedom' into a weapon against freedom, and they largely succeeded in the Ivies.

Long before I was born, much less, attended.

They succeeded-- as was largely disclosed by George Kennan in his Feb 1946 "The Long Telegram" -- in turning the global struggle between freedom and totalitarianism from an external struggle to a self-propagating internal struggle.

That would be Princeton Alumni George Kennan...who managed to go to Princeton before the successful attacks of the 30s and beyond, and who fought to defend freedom in this nation from its biggest once external threat with a passion.

But a nation that can't broadly define freedom can't broadly defend freedom. The Soviets understood that, and knew exactly what chokepoints to attack. The Ivies were one such set of chokepoints, and have long been totally over-run.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 81

Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 8:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The last sentence of Kennan's "The Long Telegram"

After all, the greatest danger that can befall us in coping with this problem of Soviet communism, is that we shall allow ourselves to become like those with whom we are coping.

Ouch.



Post 82

Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 7:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred, you quote selectively from The Long Telegram of George F. Kennan.  Allow me the same privilege.
Part 1: Basic Features of Post War Soviet Outlook, as Put Forward by Official Propaganda Machine
Are as Follows:
(g) Among negative elements of bourgeois-capitalist society, most dangerous of all are those whom Lenin called false friends of the people, namely moderate-socialist or social-democratic leaders (in other words, non-Communist left-wing). These are more dangerous than out-and-out reactionaries, for latter at least march under their true colors, whereas moderate left-wing leaders confuse people by employing devices of socialism to seine interests of reactionary capital.

So, the Ivy Leaguers whom you condemn were not the actual red pawns but only independent thinkers, distrusted and hated by Moscow.
So much for premises. To what deductions do they lead from standpoint of Soviet policy? To following
(d) Relentless battle must be waged against socialist and social-democratic leaders abroad.
Part 2: Background of Outlook
Finally, no sane person has reason to doubt sincerity of moderate socialist leaders in Western countries. Nor is it fair to deny success of their efforts to improve conditions for working population whenever, as in Scandinavia, they have been given chance to show what they could do.
In short, if we the people democratically and republicanly enact social welfare, then that is to the good.  You (and I) can complain.  We can even cite good theory and recorded practice to warn against the inevitable consequences, but in damning them, you place yourself in the camp of the Stalinists, oddly enough... or (see below)perrhaps not so oddly...

This political force has complete power of disposition over energies of one of world's greatest peoples and resources of world's richest national territory, and is borne along by deep and powerful currents of Russian nationalism. In addition, it has an elaborate and far flung apparatus for exertion of its influence in other countries, an apparatus of amazing flexibility and versatility, managed by people whose experience and skill in underground methods are presumably without parallel in history. Finally, it is seemingly inaccessible to considerations of reality in its basic reactions. For it, the vast fund of objective fact about human society is not, as with us, the measure against which outlook is constantly being tested and re-formed, but a grab bag from which individual items are selected arbitrarily and tendenciously to bolster an outlook already preconceived.
In The True Believer, Eric Hoffer explains how the fundamentalist Christian becomes a Nazi who becomes a Communist who becomes Whatever is Next.  We have examples here on RoR of reformed and saved fundamentalists who once erred but now are saved. 

 ...  the vast fund of objective fact about human society is not, as with us, the measure against which outlook is constantly being tested and re-formed, but a grab bag from which individual items are selected arbitrarily and tendenciously to bolster an outlook already preconceived.
 

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 10/27, 7:25pm)


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 83

Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 8:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:

So, the Ivy Leaguers whom you condemn were not the actual red pawns but only independent thinkers, distrusted and hated by Moscow.

From the Long Telegram to the Long Jump. What Ivy Leagers are mentioned in your quote from Kennan? Don't see it. If you are going to try to jump that far, then you might want to try out for the Olympics.

Forgive me, but with all due respect, I spent four years there. I didn't know a guy, I didn't work with a guy, I didn't have a neighbor, I didn't drive by the campus once. So forgive me for not taking your remote opinion of the Ivies over what I experienced with my own lying eyes.

Independent thinkers? Not nearly by intent. The Ivies are mandrels of thought, places of intense indoctrination. Not that the reaction is universal; the clumsy and transparent indoctrination either attracts or repels. One is either successfully deconstructed and reconstructed, anxious to sit up and bark back the instruction to the once implanted and now self-replicating beekeepers, or not.

But by all means, convince me otherwise.





Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 84

Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 9:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It seems to me that the people we have entrusted to educate and enlighten our most gifted have been betraying and deceiving us for a very long time.

One only has to look at what is being taught to people taking philosophy to see how far the education system is failing us all.

At least if one is in a trades school the values you learn are not twisted by professors spewing mind numbing garbage and what one learns there has immediate productive application.

Post 85

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - 9:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
More on race realism and the philosophic corruption entailed by the rejection of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJLcOt0lTqw


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 86

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 7:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brad,

If the added exposure to lead (negative), manganese (negative), diabetogenic, or diabetes-causing, nutrition (negative), fish oil (positive), and long-term breastfeeding (positive) explain at least half of all of the variation in human IQ scores, and if there may be dozens more environmental factors explaining most of the rest of the variation in human IQ scores -- leaving less than 25% of all of the variation in IQ explainable by genetics -- then aren't you getting ahead of yourself with your "conclusion" that race predicts intelligence?

For example, many of the folks who drowned in New Orleans in Hurricane Katrina were black. On your "theory" (it's more of a hypothesis), one might say that -- because they were black -- they were not intelligent enough to escape. However, New Orleans is full of lead and -- assuming you come from an area with low environmental lead -- moving there will decrease your baseline intelligence by 10-20 points.* What's important is that you will say that race explains a 10-point difference in intelligence, but science says that lead already explains up to 20 points of difference among humans.

Let me say that again. You say that race explains a 10-point difference in IQ scores, but scientific evidence shows that varying lead exposure already explains not only that 10-point difference -- it even explains up to another 10-points worth of difference on top of that! Race is a very minor factor, when compared to environment.

So, the better explanation for the unintelligent behavior (of "waiting out" a Category 3 hurricane) does not fit with your "theory." The theory that best explains the facts -- i.e., the theory that is most likely the correct one (and is surely the more logical one) -- is not that these folks were unintelligent because they were black, but because they were chock-full of lead.

Don't you think it's premature for you to say that race causes differences, when you haven't fully examined the environmental differences that so often track closely alongside of someone's race?

Ed

Scientific Evidence:
Every 12 mcg/L increase in blood lead level drops your IQ by 1 point
Low-level environmental lead exposure and intellectual impairment in children--the current concepts of risk assessment.

Kids in New Orleans have an extra 200 mcg/L (20 mcg/dL) of lead in their blood

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/02, 7:04pm)


Post 87

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 7:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adding to Ed's theory if said water has flourine in it that could also add to the lowering of intelligence of children under 12 regardless of what color they are depending on the amount of flourides consumed.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 88

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 8:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Culture/subculture, knowledge/values/psychology (thinking and choices), character - these tell you about a person. Race doesn't. People that spend time trying to explain other people by race are almost always racists.

Post 89

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 8:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Obviously, the best way to measure racial variation in general intelligence would be to put people of different races in identical environments from birth and track their progress. Then, nearly 100% of the variation would be genetic. In the real world, environmental variables are more important, but I'm not persuaded that "less than 25% of all of the variation in IQ [is] explainable by genetics".

It's not possible to control for environment completely, but there are enough environments around the world where people of different races live in close proximity that produce uncannily similar IQ orderings, that no rational person can seriously believe that race itself has no predictive value.

Whether blacks in New Orleans were exposed to substantially higher levels of lead than neighboring whites I don't know. Maybe members of the Congressional Black Caucus have high levels of lead, too. I doubt a lead-free environment would change the culture of dependence, to which a low IQ makes one more susceptible, yes...but culture itself isn't heritable and isn't a direct function of a population's IQ. Anyway, if lead-free blacks still don't have IQ scores that measure up to the averages of other races, then lead is just another environmental red herring for deniers of racial variation to introduce into a conversation about race without refuting anything about race.


Post 90

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 10:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brad I highly recommend welding for prolonged periods of time without a faceshield, that way when people talk to ya you won't be able to tell what color they are and ironically you won't be as blind as you are now.

Actually I don't recommend it at all but I do recommend that you read Ayn Rand your absence of color self's IQ MIGHT Rise by a good 80-90 points!

Post 91

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 10:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brad,

Obviously, the best way to measure racial variation in general intelligence would be to put people of different races in identical environments from birth and track their progress.
Good point. I'm glad you agree on what it is that science would require for achieving "proof-of-genetic-dominance" in this debate.

Genetics may explain almost half -- but not more than half -- of the 60-point variation in IQ found in the middle 97.5% of the Bell Curve (2 standard deviations above and below the mean). To concede in a small way, genetics probably explains more than half of the variation in IQ scores in the remaining 2.5% of the population found at the extremes (severely retarded/severely gifted).

It's not possible to control for environment completely, but there are enough environments around the world where people of different races live in close proximity that produce uncannily similar IQ orderings, that no rational person can seriously believe that race itself has no predictive value.
I gather that you are referring to the statistical pecking order found in some studies, where European Whites are the third most intelligent humans walking the planet (after the Ashkenazi Jews and the East Asians). But I have got to register some disagreement with these statistical numbers. I think it short-changes black and white people. I mean, European Whites (EWs) are really generally some pretty smart folks. They've invented a lot of things. Putting them at third place behind the AJs and the EAs doesn't seem to create an accurate picture of reality. If you took, as an example, all of the inventions of EWs and you measured that against the EW population as a whole, I do not think that you would find that they are "third-rate."

Also, blacks have accomplished a lot of inventions. And blacks aren't immune to the phenomenon of the mental superpower associated always and only with the savant, either; as this video eloquently shows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TibQ_1zH3U

Ed


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 92

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 - 11:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brad,

I doubt a lead-free environment would change the culture of dependence, to which a low IQ makes one more susceptible, yes...but culture itself isn't heritable and isn't a direct function of a population's IQ.


Culture isn't strictly (genetically) heritable, but it is 'passed-on' (it 'runs in' families and neighborhoods, etc). Much of the separation and racial segregation that we do see when we look in real neighborhoods (black neighborhoods, white neighborhoods) stems from the collectivist mindsets (from philosophy) that Steve mentioned, rather than from the type of genetic instincts that keep tigers associating with tigers and lions associating with lions, etc.


Anyway, if lead-free blacks still don't have IQ scores that measure up to the averages of other races, then lead is just another environmental red herring for deniers of racial variation ...


This is a both a non sequitor ("does not follow from") and a petitio principii ("begging the question"). It hasn't been demonstrated that lead-free blacks even exist, let alone that their IQ scores don't measure up. You would first have to control for lead or titrate it out of someone's body. After that, you would have to run IQ tests on the lead-controlled subjects. After getting the results, then you do the same with manganese, etc. After repeating this process, then you can start making statements like "no rational person" ought to continue to believe that race (or genetics) doesn't matter.

You can't do investigative science with a simple snapshot picture of noted differences, even of differences noted worldwide. That's bad science. It's the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change Alarmists (AGWCCAs).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/02, 11:09pm)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 93

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 4:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have yet to read this book but have read good things about it:

Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children by Risley, Hart, and Bloom

This study of ordinary families and how they talk to their very young children is no ordinary study at all. Betty Hart and Todd Risley wanted to know why, despite best efforts in preschool programs to equalize opportunity, children from low-income homes remain well behind their more economically advantaged peers years later in school. Their painstaking study began by recording each month - for 2-1/2 years - one full hour of every word spoken at home between parent and child in 42 families, categorized as professional, working class, or welfare families. Years of coding and analyzing every utterance in 1,318 transcripts followed. Rare is a database of this quality. "Remarkable," says Assistant Secretary of Education Grover (Russ) Whitehurst, of the findings: By age 3, the recorded spoken vocabularies of the children from the professional families were larger than those of the parents in the welfare families. Between professional and welfare parents, there was a difference of almost 300 words spoken per hour. Extrapolating this verbal interaction to a year, a child in a professional family would hear 11 million words while a child in a welfare family would hear just 3 million. The implications for society are staggering: Hart and Risley's follow-up studies at age 9 show that the large differences in the amount of children's language experience were tightly linked to large differences in child outcomes. And yet the implications are encouraging, too. As the authors conclude their preface to the 2002 printing of Meaningful Differences, "the most important aspect to evaluate in child care settings for very young children is the amount of talk actually going on, moment by moment, between children and their caregivers." By giving children positive interactions and experiences with adults who take the time to teach vocabulary, oral language concepts, and emergent literacy concepts, children should have a better chance to succeed at school.

My point in sharing this is that poverty of both matter and spirit drives IQ lower. Neural development related to IQ requires stimulation at an extremely young age. Such stimulation comes from articulate parents who themselves likely inherited those traits culturally from their parents. It should come as no surprise that poor families have lower IQ scores than wealthier ones.

None of this mandates a welfare state but does point to more credible causes than race as drivers of IQ development.

Post 94

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 9:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Excellent post, Luke.

I remember an old thread where the subject of "Tarzan" came up. It was a thread dealing with evolution and human mental power. After linking to some research in that thread (I will try to find it), I noted that a real-life Tarzan (a jungle boy) found late in his life may never develop a normal IQ, because of the crucial time-frame early in life where the brain responds to stimulus (or the lack thereof).

Rand said we use words first to think, then to communicate (i.e., that words aren't primarily communicative but rather, epistemological, tools). Risley's studies seem to back that up with empirical findings.

Ed


Post 95

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 11:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
poverty of both matter and spirit drives IQ lower. Neural development related to IQ requires stimulation at an extremely young age. Such stimulation comes from articulate parents who themselves likely inherited those traits culturally from their parents. It should come as no surprise that poor families have lower IQ scores than wealthier ones.

None of this mandates a welfare state but does point to more credible causes than race as drivers of IQ development.
Luke, it doesn't follow that because poverty is one driver of IQ, it is "more credible" than the racial genetics of brain development in explaining IQ variation.   Just as Ed failed to demonstrate that blacks and whites with similar lead levels have similar IQs (they don't), you haven't argued, much less shown, that blacks and whites who live in poverty have similar IQs.  

They don't.  In The Affirmative Action Hoax, author Steven Farron showed that white students from low-income households actually outperform blacks from high-income households.

West Virginia is 94% white.  It contains high rates of poverty, some backward cultural and health habits (high rates of tobacco, alcohol, drug, and Mt. Dew abuse)...and yet has rates of high school graduation that are slightly above the national average.


Post 96

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 11:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Obviously, the best way to measure racial variation in general intelligence would be to put people of different races in identical environments from birth and track their progress.
So, if such an experiment were to be conducted, Ed, what's your prediction on the outcome?  Since this is purely hypthetical, let's say your life depended on your prediction being accurate to within 5%.  Would you bet your life on the blacks in the study -- given the same instruction, same living conditions, same diet, etc., as the orientals -- scoring just as high as the orientals on a standardized math test?
 I mean, European Whites (EWs) are really generally some pretty smart folks. They've invented a lot of things. Putting them at third place behind the AJs and the EAs doesn't seem to create an accurate picture of reality. If you took, as an example, all of the inventions of EWs and you measured that against the EW population as a whole, I do not think that you would find that they are "third-rate."
Whites exhibit wider variation in their IQ distrubution than do Asians -- more idiots and more geniuses on the left and right tails of the bell curve.  The bell curve for Asian IQs is taller (more concentrated around the middle).  The white average is lower overall, but the likelihood of a great inventor or writer emerging within a white population may still be higher.  I'm not sure about Ashkenaizis (European Jews) -- they're a particular subset of the white population that is very distinctive culutrally.


Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 97

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 2:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Unless I'm the only person who thinks this is thread constitutes an argument on racism, I'd like to see it moved to the Dissent area.

Racism doesn't merit being treated as it were worthy of debate, as if the pro and the con were moral equals, certainly not in the public area of ROR.

Post 98

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 2:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would definitely have to agree with that steve.
(Edited by Jules Troy on 11/03, 3:58pm)


Post 99

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 3:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Racism" is a given for person who believes that reality is deterministic, using the definition:

"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement"

Yet there is a connotation add to it, which is invalid, and I assume is not held by Brad Trun:

Invalid connotation:
- "usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others"
- "a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination"
- "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races"

I'd disagree that this is dissent material, unless Brad is arguing in support of the invalid connotations of racism.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 11/03, 4:02pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.