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 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 180

Monday, June 25, 2012 - 12:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike, Western civilization is in the process of a slow-motion terminal collapse.  You can choose to be neutral about whether Western, European peoples continue to dwindle in numbers and get replaced by rapidly reproducing and migrating Africans and Muslims.  But you can't choose for the global demographic transformations underway to be neutral in terms of their measurable effects on civilizations.  

Sowell has some interesting things to say about economics, history, and politics, but he's ill-qualified to weigh in on psychometrics and the evolutionary biology of racial differences.  (Does he even believe in evolution?  Not with much conviction if he does.  He endorsed rabid religionist Alan Keyes for president!)  

Lynn and Rushton have spent decades studying global IQ differences among populations from a Darwinian evolutionary perspective.  They find that the IQs and ultimately the fortunes of nations are heavily dependent on the racial demographics of nations, as they explain here:

The Demographic Decline of the United States and the Western World
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St3G_DbV7Mc&feature=player_detailpage#t=1898s


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 181

Monday, June 25, 2012 - 8:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brad,
And your solution is...[?]

Post 182

Monday, June 25, 2012 - 7:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here's another possibility:

The full list of factors comprising your IQ might look like this:
22% of your performance on an IQ test originates from additive genetic factors
20% of your performance on an IQ test originates from non-additive genetic factors
----------------------------------------
44% of your performance on an IQ test originates from shared environmental factors
14% of your performance on an IQ test originates from non-shared environmental factors
Plugging in these numbers, we get the following.


Identical twins share:
--all of the additive genetic factors (which comprise about 22% of someone's IQ)
--all of the non-additive genetic factors (which comprise about 20% of someone's IQ)
----------------------------------------
--all of the shared environmental factors (which comprise about 44% of someone's IQ)
Total = 86% of all of the factors comprising someone's IQ = 0.86 correlation between the IQ of identical twins. Note that, even in the case of identical twins, there is still that remainder of 14% of all of the factors influencing IQ which comes from environmental factors that are not shared -- so 58% of the IQ is still caused by the environment (as is true, generally, for everyone). What is not shared among identical twins is simply the non-shared environmental factors (which comprise about 14% of someone's IQ).


And, moving to non-identical twins -- and making minor modifications which take even better account of the mitigated synchronicity of genetic transfer from parents to non-identical twins (as compared to that of parents to identical twins), we get the following.

Non-identical twins share:
--exactly half of the additive genetic factors (comprising about 11% of IQ)
--one-quarter of the non-additive genetic factors (comprising about 5% of IQ) 
 -----------------------------------------
--all the shared environmental factors (which comprise about 44% of someone's IQ)

Total = 60% of all of the factors comprising someone's IQ = 0.60 correlation between the IQ of non-identical twins. What is not shared among the non-identical twins would then be:
--the other half of the additive genetic factors (comprising about 11% of IQ)
--the other three-quarters of the non-additive genetic factors (comprising about 15% of IQ)
------------------------------------------
--the non-shared environmental factors (which comprise about 14% of someone's IQ)
I'm willing to bet that this permutation is even closer to reality than was the previous permutation. Somebody get Charles Murray and Arthur Jensen on the phone for me. This has become something that they both need to see! 


:-)

The beauty of this permutation is that it follows straightforwardly in a mathematical sense. Other theories cannot explain the difference in the correlation between identical twins and non-identical twins while staying true to the math. I'm not sure that there even is a theory that seamlessly integrates the mathematical dynamics that you would need to employ in order to explain the 26 percentage-point difference in IQ correlations while, at the same time, accounting for the differential "heritability" of additive vs. non-additive genetic factors.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/25, 8:45pm)


Post 183

Monday, June 25, 2012 - 7:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The solution is incentives.  Demographic decline can be conceived as a set of economic problems arising from the current incentive structure -- free rider/tragedy of the commons, negative externalities, concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.  So the issue is how to align the self-interest of individuals with the grand objective of halting and reversing nations' demographic declines and saving Western civilization. 

But it ultimately requires a cultural shift away from the Christian/egalitarian universalist ethos of alleviating poverty and inequality and toward valuing and supporting excellence, away from idealizing societies as mere abstractions and toward grounding them in the objective, biologically given natures of their inhabitants. 


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 184

Monday, June 25, 2012 - 7:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Trying to align the self interest of individuals with grand schemes is the problem. Self interest is self interest. You end up with people voting to align OTHER peoples interest with their own grand schemes, by force.

Your second paragraph would have been better if it had ended at "...grounding them in the objective"[.]

Post 185

Monday, June 25, 2012 - 7:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So the issue is how to align the self-interest of individuals with the grand objective of halting and reversing nations' demographic declines and saving Western civilization.
We need some examples of this aligning. What specifically would be done to halt/reverse these alleged declines? If Western Civilization is at risk you should have thing in mind that would have more impact then, say public interest commercials on TV. Give us some examples that might actually perform the halting and reversing you say we need.

Post 186

Monday, June 25, 2012 - 8:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Your second paragraph would have been better if it had ended at "...grounding them in the objective"[.]
What a strange suggestion.  You want me to extricate human nature from the realm of the objective and replace it with nothing.  Well, I'm a realist, so I don't make floating prescriptions and call them "objective." 

Objective means existing in a mind-independent reality that precedes any normative evaluation.  The biological basis for human nature and its variations among individuals and groups is objective.


Post 187

Monday, June 25, 2012 - 8:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brad,
Objective means existing in a mind-independent reality that precedes any normative evaluation.
No, that's wrong. Objective means something like "anti-subjective" (i.e., something not particular to any one observer). For instance, concepts are objective, but you won't find them "existing in a mind-independent reality."

Ed


p.s., And check out post 182. I improved it.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/25, 8:41pm)


Post 188

Monday, June 25, 2012 - 9:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed is right. Here is Rand on Objectivity:

Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.

Post 189

Monday, June 25, 2012 - 9:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Educating people about the problem of demographic decline and affectuating a cultural change that includes defeating the doctrines of egalitarianism and politcal correctness that have ruled the West for 50 years is the long-term solution. 

But in the interim, if I were a billionaire, I could set up a charity to pay millions of poor,
low IQ people from areas with explosive birth rates to undergo sterilization, pay many
thousands of culturally hostile immigrants to repatriate back to their countries of origin, and
subsidize sperm and egg banks, surrogate motherhood, and adoption with the goal of bringing
more babies with strong genetic lineages into the world and thus slowly improving a society's
genetic infrastructure. I could help "artificially" raise the white fertility rate up to the
replacement level of 2.1, at least in certain areas.

If I were dictator, I'd take away people's Social Security checks and end all government support for the elderly and all government pensions and other subsidizations of "retirement" -- except, temporarily, for the truly poor and destitute among them.  The West is dying demographically and economically in part because everyone wants to retire and draw on the resources of society rather than free those resources up for activities that sustain its future.  If you want people to take care of you when you're old, then have kids or make friends.  Otherwise, invest well, keep working, or suffer the consequences of your social failures.  I'm a loner, so I don't expect anything from anyone.  Spending trillions of dollars taken from productive people in their child-bearing years to pay tens of millions of old people to retire is perverse and economically and demographically unsustainable.

I'd reinstate pre-1965 immigration policies predicated on national self-interest rather than egalitarian idealism and the altruism of subservience to globalist conceptions of universal human rights rendering full citizenship a birthright of anyone and everyone on the planet, globalist conceptions rendering national borders in effect illegitimate and morally unenforceable.  I'd use national defense resources to deport criminal aliens and secure and defend our own borders and rather than other nations' (at fraction of the cost in terms of lives and treasure of the altruist model of neo-con nation-building aimed at spreading so-called democracy). 

So basically, I'd solve the problem while shrinking government and expanding freedom for all the citizens of the country. I have no need or desire to coerce anyone into having kids or not having kids (I don't have any myself and would object to anyone dictating any decision of mine pertaining to my personal, family, or sex life).  So if you're OK with more freedom, then the only basis on which you could prefer the current system over mine is if you prefer the demographic decline that is currently playing out.


Post 190

Monday, June 25, 2012 - 9:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"You want me to extricate human nature from the realm of the objective and replace it with nothing. Well, I'm a realist, so I don't make floating prescriptions and call them "objective." "

"Floating prescriptions"...You mean principles? Principles do not need excess baggage. There is "human nature", not "natures" with respect to the way society should treat its members.

What would your ideal society look like? Equal opportunity for all? Free markets?

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 191

Monday, June 25, 2012 - 11:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What would your ideal society look like?
All white with blond hair and blue eyes? Just a guess.

Post 192

Monday, June 25, 2012 - 11:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Equal opportunity for all?

No, not in a free society.  Yaron Brook explains why here:

Yaron Answers: Should We Promote Equality of Opportunity?
http://youtu.be/y9X0Hgr6C04

I am encouraged that his video received 73 likes and only 1 dislike.

Egalitarian idealism -- the desire for people to be equal in outcomes or equal in opportunities or equal in nature -- is incompatible with a rational and consistent defense of freedom.  Nature doesn't do equal, and neither do free societies that are grounded in natural law. 

The basic rights of individuals don't vary because rights are derived from the basic requirements of life for volitional organisms, and those requirements don't vary fundamentally among individuals.  But volition does not mean transcendence.  Individuals and groups are born with unequal abilities, and those natural inequalities mean that racial outcomes will never be equal in a free society.  Idealizing all races as being equal in ability damns freedom, because freedom allows any preexisting, biologically objective inequalities to be expressed most fully.  Only a totalitarian government can make inequalities seem to disappear.


Post 193

Monday, June 25, 2012 - 11:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Idealizing all races, or idealizing one race, or diminishing people because of their race... those are all based upon errors of fact and anyone of those practices if implemented politically would diminish liberty and justice.

Only individuals should be judged, criticized, praised, respected, or condemned - and only on their merits, their actions, their character.

Volition DOES mean trancendence - transcendence above the statistical norms - transcendence about where we were, where our parents were, where our peers were. We develop our skills, our abililties, we exchange effort for knowledge, practice for improvement, clarity of thought for better knowledge, discipline and self-honesty to build greater character. That's not a claim that magic happens. It isn't a claim for unrealistic outcomes - but it is a statement that the variability in outcomes depends far, far more on what we will, than it does on the color of our skin.

We are not nearly as limited in our abilities by what we are born with, as we are in what we learn. I know of no babies born understanding epistemology or brain surgery, but we all know of adults who have learned those.

Idealizing all races is no more conducive to totalitarian practices than declaring this or that race as inferior by nature. History makes that clear.

Post 194

Tuesday, June 26, 2012 - 12:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Capitalism doesn't guarantee equal opportunity but freedom of opportunity.

Post 195

Tuesday, June 26, 2012 - 8:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brad,

I wrote this in another thread:

"As far as I know no one has asked Brad directly if he would discriminate against a black person based solely on their race. For instance, he's offering a job, a black person submits a resume, comes to an interview and is clearly far more intelligent and experienced than any other applicant, does Brad refuse to even consider hiring him? I don't know the answer to this question."

Would you mind answering this question? And explain the thought processes you would go through to come to a decision?

Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Post 196

Tuesday, June 26, 2012 - 9:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brad,

 I could help "artificially" raise the white fertility rate up to the
replacement level of 2.1, at least in certain areas.
But if aggregate performance on an IQ test is what you are trying to increase, then you should be thinking about raising fertility rates of Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians ("Orientals") -- because they both have higher IQs than run-o-the-mill "whites."

Ed


Post 197

Tuesday, June 26, 2012 - 3:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Volition DOES mean trancendence...it is a statement that the variability in outcomes depends far, far more on what we will, than it does on the color of our skin.
This Forum is apparently dumping ground for irrational philosophic notions that genuine Objectivists have refuted and discarded.  Post-modernism, social constructivism, hyper-skepticism, environmental determinism, consequentialist epistemology, moralistic fallacy, anti-conceptualism...transcendentalism... 

There are ways that a person of reason could object rationally to some of my views, but the objections raised here have been atrociously bad.  They are as bad as (and often identical to) the objections raised by egalitarian overt Marxists.  I have a 5-part series refuting a militant cultural Marxist on race, and his anti-objective, anti-conceptual, anti-science, anti-evolution claims have been echoed here (though unlike him, I think most people here are no longer asserting the absolute, innate cognitive equality of all races; they are just wanting to minimize the extent and significance of the biologically given differences).

Race and IQ Equalitarianism Destroyed
http://youtu.be/ZzECHPkswW4
http://youtu.be/ctTDwATQ-24
http://youtu.be/tY26zm9Q0rM
http://youtu.be/C3zG-wWUc6E
http://youtu.be/_HnIsXhRDKw

The series is on an alternative channel because my main channel was shut down in the name of tolerance and diversity.

LibertarianRealist Terminated by GoogleTube
http://libertarianrealist.blogspot.com/2012/06/libertarianrealist-terminated-by.html

The reality is, blacks can't transcend their smaller brains to obtain equal average IQs to populations with larger innate cognitive capacity, all else being equal.  They can't "will" themselves more brainpower than they were endowed with.  Race reliably predicts IQs.  Will doesn't. 

For instance, he's offering a job, a black person submits a resume, comes to an interview and is clearly far more intelligent and experienced than any other applicant, does Brad refuse to even consider hiring him?
I'd consider hiring him.
But if aggregate performance on an IQ test is what you are trying to increase, then you should be thinking about raising fertility rates of Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians ("Orientals") -- because they both have higher IQs than run-o-the-mill "whites."
Yes, but the IQ averages of nations isn't all that matters to me.  I don't want Kalahari Bushmen and Australian aborigines to go extinct in their homelands just because they have the lowest IQs.  But I don't want them to immigrate en masse to European or Asian countries, either.


Post 198

Tuesday, June 26, 2012 - 4:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I'd consider hiring him."

What would those considerations be? Assume you've checked his credit rating and references and previous employers and all are sterling. A further assumption: your comments about race and IQ in these threads are forever inaccessible to him and he can never read the accusations against you of being a racist.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 199

Tuesday, June 26, 2012 - 5:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is how Trun quoted me in his post #197:
Volition DOES mean trancendence...it is a statement that the variability in outcomes depends far, far more on what we will, than it does on the color of our skin.
But look at what he chose to leave out. Here is my full statement from post #193:
Volition DOES mean trancendence - transcendence above the statistical norms - transcendence about where we were, where our parents were, where our peers were. We develop our skills, our abililties, we exchange effort for knowledge, practice for improvement, clarity of thought for better knowledge, discipline and self-honesty to build greater character. That's not a claim that magic happens. It isn't a claim for unrealistic outcomes - but it is a statement that the variability in outcomes depends far, far more on what we will, than it does on the color of our skin. [emphasis added]
With his ellipsis, he completely dropped the context I had specified.

What doesn't he understand about volition and the exercise of will that can raise a person above the statistical norms? And, doesn't he agree that the failure of exercising will, or discipline or effort are causes for a person sinking below some statistical norm? In post #192, where he makes his "volition" statement, he is talking about "abilities" and "natural inequalities" - as if the measured achievements of adults bore no relationship to their efforts, their will, their practice, their focus, their learnings, their choices. That's idiocy!

Then he states that ROR must be a dumping ground for "...Post-modernism, social constructivism, hyper-skepticism, environmental determinism, consequentialist epistemology, moralistic fallacy, anti-conceptualism...transcendentalism"

I guess this person chooses to resort to ugly, false accusations when he doesn't get his way. And the form of his argument is to misquote someone by leaving out the context of the their statement and then attack the misquote, in an attack that has no specifics, just unsupported generalities. He just throws all kinds of mud that doesn't even apply.

He uses his little platform generously granted here in RoR's Dissent section to attack RoR, and to advertise his pitiful little lectures, and to whine that some of his little videos were shut down (as he put it, "The series is on an alternative channel because my main channel was shut down in the name of tolerance and diversity.") - Can anyone spell "Racism"?

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.