What if Howard Roark was black?

[Peter]

Ahhh gee, Marcus. Do I have to go until I get my shit together? Anyone interested in the idea of a black Howard Roark, Hank Reardon, or John Galt should read the Bell Curve first if you want to NOT be snickered at. You brought up race.

Rand wrote: The possession of a rational faculty does not guarantee that a man will use it, only that he is able to use it and is, therefore, responsible for his actions." ("Ayn Rand Letter," 27 July, 1972.) And, Man's volition is an attribute of his consciousness (of his rational faculty) and consists in the choice to perceive existence or to evade it." (ARL, 27 July, 1972).

Objectivism is at an intellectual cross-road. It can stick to an “a priori” counter-factual belief about intelligence and genetics, and become another pseudo-intellectual movement like "Creation Science", or Scientology, or it can, through the proper use of reason, reconcile its ideology with reality.

Negroid is the correct term used by anthropologists, Marcus. The anthropological distinction of the races usually consists of the groups, Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, and sometimes (bushman, Capoid,) or (Australoid for aborigines), and there are subgroups of other racial types in Asia.

My college anthropology professor’s name was Dr. Laid and he had a keen interest in the genetic “closeness” and study of Homo Neanderthalus and Homo Sapiens Sapiens. He maintained that three of four racial characteristics should be required to objectively classify a person as “belonging” to a certain race. Otherwise racial classifications should be up to the individual, if they wish to classify themselves as any particular thing. If my memory serves me, in the case of Negroes those classifying characteristics would be: Dark skin. Kinky hair. Thicker, distinctive “Negro” lips. And a “Tropical nose.”

Now, as most educated people know, an Arab like Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who had a dark skin, looked like most ancient Egyptians if you compare him to glyphs, (and Anwar was even played by a black man on a television biography,) yet he had all of the other racial characteristics of the subgroup “Arabic.” His dark skin did not make him a Negro. And it is ludicrous to say the Pyramids were built by blacks.

The original Aryans were from the north of India, but darker skinned people from Bombay are not Negroes. In fact East Indians are classified as an Asian subgroup of the Caucasoid race. Some Scotch people with red hair which could be described as kinky, are not Negroes. Many people of many races have “thicker” lips but are not Negroes. And most people who evolved at the equator have a tropical nose. Polynesians, and Malaysians are not Negroes though there are people of mixed ancestry. It is interesting that racially minded people in the Southern United States think that a person with a tropical nose, or dark skin, etc., must be Negroid. This is erroneous thinking and too imprecise and irrelevant in a personal sense to Objectivists.

Each race has certain characteristics but of course there are moderately “mixed raced” humans everywhere! I agree we all originated from an original, mostly common DNA pool, and non-Africans diverged from Africans 100,000 years ago or even further back. That is not controversial. It is necessary for Science to differentiate between the races for the sake of knowledge and also for Medicine. The races are not the same medically. Some need different medical treatments, as do men and women.

I have no problem with anyone who sees no difference between the races in a social context and I agree with Objectivism that our degree of *Volition* is the biggest part of what makes us different from the great apes. The Sciences of Anthropology and Evolutionary Psychology are not Racism. There are significant differences in heredity that do matter, for all the reasons I have discussed. Innate capacities for talent and intelligence do exist. A is A. So, what if Roark was black? What if two kids walk into a “day care for the arts” on the first day it opens? One has the potential to be another Mozart, and one can’t carry a tune but draws like Rembrandt. Would you think it is better to get young Mozart some crayons and young Rembrandt a piano? No one can disprove comprehensive IQ tests or the SAT’s as good indicators of academic success, but I am also leery of pigeon holing some poor kid into “industrial arts,” or mark another kid for college, when volition, application, and interest, matter as much.

Is my shit together yet, Marcus?

Peter

From, "The Missing Link," by Ayn Rand: I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent. But a certain hypothesis has haunted me for years; I want to stress that it is only a hypothesis. There is an enormous breach of continuity between men and all the other living species. The difference lies in the nature of man's consciousness, in its distinctive characteristic: his conceptual faculty. It is as if, after aeons of physiological development, the evolutionary process altered its course, and the higher stages of development focused primarily on the consciousness of living species, not their bodies. But the development of a man's consciousness is volitional: no matter what the innate degree of his intelligence, he must develop it, he must learn how to use it, he must become a human being by choice. What if he does not choose to? Then he becomes a transitional phenomenon - a desperate creature that struggles frantically against his own nature, longing for the effortless "safety" of an animal's consciousness, which he cannot recapture, and rebelling against a human consciousness, which he is afraid to achieve. For years, scientists have been looking for a "missing link" between man and animals. Perhaps that missing link is the anti-conceptual mentality. end quote

[Peter]

Greg Johnson wrote in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies and of course everyone knows who Nathaniel Brandon, and Roger Bissell are. Here are a few old letters. Hmmm? Denzel Washington could play John Galt and Morgan Freeman could play Hugh Akston?

Peter

 

From: "Greg Johnson" To: "Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Race, Intelligence, and Anecdotal Evidence.

Like Bill Dwyer and George Smith, I have met a number of highly articulate blacks. But unlike Bill and George, I have actually taught logic and critical thinking to such blacks over the course of a semester, and I administered tests to them. After a while, I began to notice that ALL of these apparently "bright" black students were not particularly capable of logic and critical thinking, even though they were highly attuned to the social realm and quite capable of giving the superficial impression of high-level cognitive functioning. Over the years I did, however, encounter a few black students who were genuinely intelligent, on the rightward fringe of the black bell curve. But none of these students were superficially "bright" at all.

 

But this sort of anecdotal evidence is really beside the point. The truth about racial differences only comes out when one compares averages based upon large numbers of tests. The average intelligence of blacks in the US is 85 --18 points lower than the white average, 21 points lower than the Asian average and 30 points lower than the Ashkenazic Jewish average. The average IQ of African Negroes is 70. (This means that the average African black is closer to a German shepherd in intelligence [somehow an average IQ of 30 has been ascribed to these dogs!] than to the average Ashkenazic Jew.) Even so, averages are averages. This means that there are some blacks who are well above the averages--just as there are some that are well below. There are even some blacks with genius level IQs, although it is a vanishing small percentage, about one tenth of one percent, if memory serves. By comparison, FULLY ONE FOURTH of the Ashkenazic Jewish population have genius-level IQs. Perhaps Bill and George simply had the good luck to run into examples of these extremely rare blacks. (I met one such black man when I was a teacher. I am sure that he was smarter than me. How lonely he must have been among his people!)

 

A few days ago, someone posted remarks about Marva Collins and the teacher featured in STAND AND DELIVER. These stories provide no evidence against racial differences in IQ. If these stories are true, all they prove is this: Black and Mestizo students, given traditional educations by excellent and committed teachers, do better than Black and Mestizo students who have trendy modern educations and rotten teachers. They may even equal or outdo white students with rotten educations. The only way one could draw any conclusions about racial differences in intelligence is if one compared the students in question to white or Asian students who also received traditional educations from excellent and committed teachers. In such a comparison, I suspect that the same racial differences would assert themselves, just as they assert themselves on SATs and on IQ tests.

 

As for the question of the inheritability of IQ: The best discussion of this and other issues is to be found in Arthur Jensen's magisterial book THE G FACTOR. His case is crushingly well-documented and well-argued, and to my mind totally convincing.

Greg

 

From: "DAVID RASMUSSEN" To: Atlantis. Subject: RE: ATL: On Talents. Dave Thomas states that "it's immoral to restrain the cream (genetic or otherwise) from rising to the top," and points out that it is to the general benefit.

 

Dave Thomas, clearly it is in the best interest of all to have the most capable run things. But, stating it is "immoral" for restraining the cream from rising to the top is not to say that it is ~moral~ for the cream to rise to the top. In milk, the cream rises to the top as a matter of physics. In our economic system, the intelligent rise to the top because their intellectual talents allow them to out compete others. To the degree that intelligence is innate, they are not due any particular ~moral~ credit.

 

On the other hand, certain aspects of character are certainly more subject to volition. How honest you are is not an issue of intelligence. How loyal you are to your friends is not a matter of intelligence. How faithful you are to your spouse is not a matter of intelligence.

 

Objectivism ought to be about giving credit to those who develop their talents, and use them credibly. This ought to extend to character. And character ought to matter as much from 5[PM] to 9[AM] as much as it does from 9[AM] to 5[PM]. Those who have limited innate talents, but fully development of those talents, ought to be given more moral credit than a genius who fails to develop his talents, but has enough innate ability to economically out compete the latter person. The person who is honest with his friends, all things equal, is a better human being than the casual liar. But the casual liar might make more money in sales, law, or politics.

 

Using economic success, aka "income," as the score-keeping mechanism is perverse. It confuses genetic talent with moral virtue. That is not objectively just. But that seems to be exactly what Ayn Rand did.

--- DAVID RASMUSSEN

 

From: "Greg Johnson" To: "Atlantis"

Ellen Stuttle has recently posted suggestions that Denzel Washington play John Galt and Morgan Freeman play Hugh Akston. I have also heard James Earl Jones suggested for these roles. My main problem is that these men are supposed to be geniuses, and although there are black geniuses, their percentage among the black population is so low that such casting would not seem plausible. (Why not Will Smith as Hank Rearden, and Chris Tucker as Francisco, and Whoopi Goldberg as Dagny? We can still cast her evil brother as a white guy, though.)

 

On the plane back from Munich, they played Dr. Doolittle 2. At a certain point, I found myself in the odd position of finding it more plausible that animals could talk than that Eddie Murphy could be a doctor. I wondered why I had this reaction. After all, there are black doctors. My conclusion was this: Hollywood does not want me to believe that animals can talk, but they definitely want me to believe that Eddie Murphy can be a doctor. Hence the steady stream of black computer geniuses, scientists, judges, and brain surgeons being served up by Hollywood and TV. I am sure that there really are blacks in all of these roles, but not in the numbers that are being represented.

 

I understand why Hollywood and the networks want to promote this lie. But why do Objectivists want to go along with this? Do they expect to swell the ranks of Objectivism with blacks? What possible good would that do them? Are they simply tired of being ostracized for their radical viewpoints and therefore are eager to wrap themselves in one of the few scraps of political correctness that they have not rejected?

 

Just wondering,

Greg

 

From: David Bozzini To: Atlantis. It is easier to understand phenomena concerning sexual and racial differences once one becomes familiar with the normal distribution, or bell curve. I propose to assist Atlantis members with this topic, and in doing so I will keep the discussion non-technical.

 

If you take a sampling of IQ scores, or track speeds, or heights, or weights etc. of any group of people, you are going to find that the data will fit a bell-shaped curve, with a hump right in the middle at what is called the "mean". Now, it is found that, depending on which groups are sampled, this curve can have its mean positioned at different places, and its thickness (or pointiness) will vary as well. The "tails" of this hump-shaped curve can be higher or lower. (There are terms like "kurtosis" and the like which can be used here, but they are really not necessary to gain an intuitive understanding. For that, one only needs to look at some diagrams.)

 

Once you take a look at these curves, and learn their properties, you can explain certain "burning political issues" like the "glass ceiling" which holds down women and racial minorities from top positions in business or other fields.

 

Studies suggest that although the bell curve of female IQ is not shifted to the left of male IQ, it is more "pointy," or gathered in about the mean, than that of male IQ. Now, if that is true, certain effects will follow. Namely, if you examine a meritocracy where the most intelligent people rise to the top, and you then examine the top, you are going to find more men there than women. And this is because of the ~relative~ height of the very right-hand tail of the male and female curves.

 

Of course, a shift in the location of the mean IQ between various groups (whether you call them "races" or "ethnicities" or what have you) can produce a very similar effect. And again, various studies have shown just such a shift.

 

Someone said something to the effect that "there are more differences between members of a (race or sex) than

differences between the (races or sexes)." Well, er, yes. That's just saying that the distance between the far flung tails of any one distribution is typically greater than the distance between the means of two compared distributions. Nevertheless, you will experience the "glass ceiling" effect. Because, in certain environments, it's really what happens in the tails that matters.

 

As an aside, I am often amused to find the following attitude, even among presumably educated persons: "There just can't be any differences between races or ethnic groups when it comes to IQ, or any other ability that might matter in the real world." It's almost as if the unspoken belief is: "God set things up so that, even though skin color and certain physical features can vary among races, nothing else of significance can vary among races." This seems to me to be quite a silly sacred cow. And even sillier when applied to differences between sexes.

David

 

From: "Dennis May" To: atlantis

Mona Holland wrote: >Tests which measure raw intelligence of the sort employed by Einstein show almost no females in the top-most echelon of genius.

 

The Air Force bent over backwards to encourage women with technical backgrounds to pursue PhD's.  They would in fact pass over men with higher GPA's and more interest to keep open slots for any woman who would at least attempt to go the distance.  I only knew one Air Force woman who attempted to go the distance in physics.  She often remarked how she was surrounded by men who were much smarter than her and she had no idea what they were talking about most of the time.  She got good grades but entirely lacked creativity in physics. She also had difficulty in understanding basic concepts applied "outside of the box".

 

I have known more undergraduate women in physics than most people in physics ever know based on my discussions at a Society of Physics Students conference.  Women in physics are rare, genius women in physics are almost unheard of.  Madam Curie [experimental physics] and her daughter are the only examples I know of where women reached the pinnacle in physics.  I'm sure there have been others I am unaware of but they are rare.  I have never heard of single example in theoretical physics.

Dennis May

 

From: MonaHolland1 To: atlantis

In a message Dennis May writes: >Women in physics are rare, genius women in physics are almost unheard of.  Madam Curie [experimental physics] and her daughter are the only examples I know of where women reached the pinnacle in physics.  I'm sure there have been others I am unaware of but they are rare.  I have never heard of single example in theoretical physics.  >

 

No doubt.  The value of this information is to obstruct those who will howl "sexism" as the only, or primary, explanation for the significant under-representation of women in physics.  Ditto for whatever psychometrics can actually demonstrate about those genetic cohorts denominated as "races" vis-a-vis claims of racism.

 

However, I am persuaded that there exist different varieties of intelligence. Women, in the aggregate, are ahead of the game when it comes to "emotional intelligence," and any particular woman who is superior in this realm, as well as highly gifted intellectually, is likely to be a supremely effective and productive human being.

--Mona—

 

From: "Reidy, Peter" Subject: RE: ATL: Re: Female Genius. Dennis May writes "I have never heard of single example [of a first-rank woman] in theoretical physics."

 

There was Maria Goeppert-Mayer (1906 - 1972) who shared the Nobel Prize in 1963.  See http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~moszkows/mgm/mgmhmpg.htm

<http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~moszkows/mgm/mgmhmpg.htm>

Peter

 

From: "Dennis May" To: atlantis

I wrote: "I have never heard of single example [of a first-rank woman] in theoretical physics."

 

Peter Reidy wrote:

>There was Maria Goeppert-Mayer (1906 - 1972) who shared the Nobel Prize in 1963.  See >http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~moszkows/mgm/mgmhmpg.htm

><http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~moszkows/mgm/mgmhmpg.htm>

 

She seems like a good example.  Both Maria Goeppert-Mayer and Madam Curie were married to scientists doing work in the same area.  The nuclear shell model Maria Goeppert-Mayer worked on is something I studied at one time.  Her contributions apparently didn't make a big impression on me.  There have been other women in physics who have done well but again they are few and far between. The nuclear shell model is a direct extension of work already done on atomic shell models but applied to the nucleus rather than entire atoms.  It is one of several models used in approximations of nuclear physics.

Dennis May

 

From: Nathaniel Branden Subject: ATL: Re: Reason

I would say, and I am confident Rand would agree, that what is inherent in our nature is the capacity to reason, assuming we go through normal stages of development (an infant can't reason, obviously).  The great student of cognitive development, Jean Piaget, maintained that if, during teen-age years, a person does not develop high level of cognitive abilities ("formal operations"), it is virtually impossible to develop them later in life.   If this is true, then the world is full of people whose reasoning ability is not absent but severely limited.

 

Reason as a process is, of course, epistemological, but as a capacity, inherent as a potential in our nature, it is, if you wish "metaphysical."

 

I put the word in quotes because, strictly speaking, metaphysics addresses only the fundamental nature of reality, not such things as the attributes of man or lower animals.

 

And, finally, in calling man "a rational animal," Rand meant (a) that we humans have a capacity to reason that differentiates us from lower animals (genus and differentia), but also (b) that that capacity explains more about our behavior than any other trait or attribute.

Nathaniel Branden

 

From: Roger Bissell Re: ATL: Re: Reason: I agree completely with what Nathaniel Branden says below, and I would simply like to amplify or expand upon some of his points, in lieu of a lengthier reply to Ellen Moore's recent challenge.

 

Nathaniel wrote:

>I would say, and I am confident Rand would agree, that what is inherent in our nature is the capacity to reason, assuming we go through normal stages of development (an infant can't reason, obviously).  The great student of cognitive development, Jean Piaget, maintained that if, during teen-age years, a person does not develop high level of cognitive abilities ("formal operations"), it is virtually impossible to develop them later in life.   If this is true, then the world is full of people whose reasoning ability is not absent but severely limited.

 

Yes, the ~capacity~ to reason is what is inherent in our nature, not the ~unvarying exercise~ of that capacity. This is why all the recent comments about man not being "the rational animal" because he "doesn't always engage in reason" are invalid and uninformed. Whether or not "rational animal" is the proper ~definition~ of "man," it is ~truly predicable~ of man, because it refers to the ~capacity~, which is always there (unless destroyed by injury or disease or birth defect).

 

>Reason as a process is, of course, epistemological, but as a capacity, inherent as a potential in our nature, it is, if you wish "metaphysical." I put the word in quotes because, strictly speaking, metaphysics addresses only the fundamental nature of reality, not such things as the attributes of man or lower animals.

 

Yes, that is the accurate way of describing reason in regard to metaphysics and epistemology. I will simply add that in his 1975 lectures on Objectivism (watched over carefully by Ayn Rand), Leonard Peikoff talked about the "metaphysical nature of man," by which he meant the ~fundamental~ nature of man. And he ~began~ with ~reason~. Only much later in that first lecture did he finally get down to ~volition~ (point 4 or 5, if I recall accurately). This, I will point out, was ~several years~ after Rand's essay, "The Metaphysical vs. the Man-Made," which Ellen Moore frequently has cited as the basis for her view that volition is metaphysical and more fundamental than reason. ~Either~ Rand was guilty of a huge lapse in failing to correct her previous view (that reason was fundamentally distinguishing, as she wrote in chapter 4 of ~Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology~). ~Or~ Ellen Moore is guilty of misinterpreting Rand's comments about volition in "The Metaphysical vs. the Man-Made." Naturally, I think it is the latter, as I have argued previously. But if Ellen Moore thinks she is right and I am wrong, then she ought to have the courage of her convictions and ~admit~ that Rand made a big mistake in failing to correct her previous view about the fundamentality of reason. In other words, Rand's essay should have ~trumped~ Peikoff's later (Rand-monitored) lecture, if Ellen Moore is correct. The fact that she didn't is telling. This is not some esoteric, arcane point in Objectivist philosophy -- this is the ~base~ of objectivity itself! There is no plausible reason for Rand's failure to NAIL DOWN the point of the fundamentality of volition, if that is in fact what she held as early as ten years before she died.

 

>And, finally, in calling man "a rational animal," Rand meant (a) that we humans have a capacity to reason that differentiates us from lower animals (genus and differentia), but also (b) that that capacity explains more about our behavior than any other trait or attribute.

 

Again, I agree completely, and I will just add that biological capacities emerge before the capacity for controlling that capacity. This is true all up and down the evolutionary scale. Consciousness is the capacity for being aware of reality and thus to ~control~ and ~direct~ our actions. Not just man, but nearly (?) the entire animal kingdom has this capacity. But the actions emerge first, and gradually the animal learns how, with the aid of consciousness, to control and direct those actions. This is also true with conceptual level consciousness. All animals direct their perception toward that in which they are interested, and at some point the perceptual overload stimulated some ape creatures to learn how to internally construct mental "file folders" for groups of sufficiently similar percepts -- and the human race was off to the....races. :-) But ~whether~ to form those concepts was never in question for the early humans, not until they reached sufficient self-awareness that they realized they were engaging in mental effort and that they could continue to do so or not, depending on whether it suited their desires (purposes, values). It is ~then~, not prior to the first concept, that humans became volitional (i.e., self-awarely directing the functions of their minds) -- and that is how we did it, and our babies do it, too.

 

I'm not going to write on this again for a good while, but I will be quite interested in comments others would like to make. To sum up my view on reason vs. volition: capacity to act is causally and epistemologically prior to capacity to control and direct one's act. Thus, reason is fundamental, and volition (as self-aware direction

of one's consciousness and actions) is a consequence.

Best to all,

Roger Bissell

 

I remember Nathan saying he did not mean to imply he was yelling by his use of caps. Peter

 

From: Nathaniel Branden Re: ATL: Re: Reason. THE REASON WHY THERE IS SOME CONFUSION ON THIS POINT, I SUSPECT, IS THAT RAND SOMETIMES USED "METAPHYSICAL" TO MEAN "PERTAINING TO REALITY (USUALLY EXTERNAL REALITY), AS CONTRASTED WITH PERTAINING TO CONSCIOUSNESS, AND YOU WILL SEE THIS USAGE AMONG SOME HER FOLLOWERS. HOWEVER, PHILOSOPHICALLY, IT IS NOT PRECISE BECAUSE "MAN'S NATURE" IS AN EMPIRICAL, SCIENTIFIC ISSUE NOT A PHILOSOPHICAL ONE, ALTHOUGH IT OBVIOUSLY HAS PROFOUND PHILOSOPHICAL RAMIFICATIONS.

NATHANIEL BRANDEN

 

From: Nathaniel Branden Subject: ATL: Objectivist metaphysics/ In response to my earlier post in which I explained that the definition of human nature is not part of metaphysics, I have been asked to elaborate on what is included in the domain of metaphysics.  It's an important question because it touches on one of the most important and distinctive features of Objectivism.

 

Rand rightly dismissed "cosmology" as not part of philosophy, insisting instead that it was the province of science.   She argued that metaphysics deals only with the most fundamental features of existence as such.   She set forth what has been called correctly "a minimalist metaphysics"--fundamental truths that no scientific discovery could disprove and that all scientific discoveries presupposed.   This came down to Aristotle's laws of logic, which (as she and others have observed) are also laws of reality (Brand Blanshard's "Reason and Analysis" is great on this point), and also the law of causality.  In other words, metaphysics is concerned with that which is true "of being qua being."

 

By this definition, the particular attributes of man or other animals are in the domain of science, meaning they are not "metaphysical."  However, as I observed in a previous note, Rand sometimes used the term "metaphysical" more broadly to mean "pertaining to reality" as contrasted with "pertaining to consciousness"--, on other occasions, as meaning "pertaining to that which is given in nature" as contrasted with  the "man-made."

 

I hope this clarification is helpful.

Nathaniel Branden

 

From: Nathaniel Branden Subject: ATL: Re: Objectivist metaphysics

Michael Hardy wrote:

>Nathaniel Branden <brandenn@pacbell.net> wrote that Ayn Rand set forth what has been called correctly "a minimalist metaphysics" --fundamental truths that no scientific discovery could disprove and  that all scienific discoveries presupposed.  This came down to Aristotle's laws of logic, which (as she and others have observed) are also laws of reality (Brand Blanshard's "Reason and Analysis" is great on this point), and also the law of causality.

 >

>I for one would have said the laws of logic belong to epistemology rather than metaphysics.  Can anyone explain this classification? Shouldn't the nature of free will also belong to metaphysics?

Mike Hardy

 

THE LAWS OF LOGIC ARE, QUA LAWS OF THOUGHT, EPISTEMOLOGICAL, AND, QUA LAWS OF REALITY, METAPHYSICAL.

NATHANIEL BRANDEN

 

From: Nathaniel Branden Subject: ATL: ONE MORE THOUGHT

If one accepts that metaphysics is concerned only with being qua being, then one sees that volition is not "metaphysical." Such at any rate was Rand's position, which I share.

Nathaniel Branden

 

From: "William Dwyer" Subject: ATL: RE: ONE MORE THOUGHT

Nathaniel wrote,

"If one accepts that metaphysics is concerned only with being qua being, then one sees that volition is not "metaphysical."

 

Assuming that the five branches of philosophy subsume all of the basic issues in philosophy, under what branch does the issue of free will versus determinism fall, if not under metaphysics?

 

Perhaps, metaphysics should not be concerned only with being qua being,

Bill

 

From: RogerEBissell/Nathaniel Branden wrote:

>I forgot to answer one question:  If volition does not belong in  >  metaphysics, where does it belong among the branches of philosophy? Good question.  I would venture to say...epistemology.

 

Debbie Clark wrote:

>I was about to ask that myself.  It seems to me that it is like at the root of epistemology. (?)

 

That's where Leonard Peikoff puts it -- in the "anteroom" of epistemology, along with the issue of the validity of the senses. It's clear that he views these as preconditions of knowledge and thus of epistemology.

Best to all,

Roger Bissell

 

From: Walter Foddis Subject: ATL: On intelligence: Scientific questions

Morganis wrote:

“…whatever percentages one feels comfortable with, re Nature/Nurture in terms of that catch-all rubric, "intelligence”...[the percentages do] not *determine* what level IS reached, but merely the limits of what CAN be reached…..Conceptual development then *determines* what WILL be reached...and guess what that hinges on?”

 

There are few issues to tease apart here. I am not sure I understand Morganis. Let’s say I do (dangerous though that may be). Different intelligence tests assess different abilities. Some tests purport just to measure a general factor called intelligence, or ‘g’, as it is known in the literature. The Raven’s Progressive Matrices is one such test. You are given a 3 X 3 grid of symbolic patterns in which the patterns are logically linked together. However, you are only given 8 patterns and must deduce the 9th. Discovering the logical rules between the patterns is the task requirement. One could argue that such a test measures one’s potential abilities (e.g., one’s reasoning ability in general, which can be extended to other contexts), although it is also measuring one’s actual abilities (e.g., your reasoning ability as it pertains to the patterns).

 

To make this more clear, another major intelligence test--the Weschler Intelligence Scale--is composed of two dimensions: Performance IQ (PIQ) & Verbal IQ (VIQ). The PIQ includes tasks like the reasoning puzzle as described above, whereas the VIQ taps into mostly verbal knowledge and reasoning (although there are some indirect verbal tasks). It is argued that VIQ is greatly influenced by acquired knowledge (i.e., the "actual"), whereas the PIQ is more influenced by the processes to acquire knowledge (i.e., the "potential"). These two dimensions of IQ are also referred to as crystallized intelligence (i.e., the end-product of prior learning) and fluid intelligence (i.e., the processes underlying one’s learning ability).

 

To make a long story short, IQ tests can measure both potential and actual abilities, which I think contradicts what Morganis believes about IQ tests, but then again, I am not sure what Morganis was claiming.

 

Regarding volition and intellectual development, one’s current ability to reason is dependent on one’s volition, and one’s learning to reason is also influenced by one's volition. These are two claims which my previous post, nor this one, denies. However, what I am saying (and repeating) is that there is more to intellectual development than volition.

 

What I believe is that if a child is not taught how to reason, no amount of volition on the part of the child would cause this to happen. A child needs to learn how to reason, or a more humanistic way of saying it, a child’s potential to reason needs to be nurtured and supported in order to draw it out of the child. In addition, at the early stages of development (prior to adolescence), I don't believe ~all~ conceptual development (assuming Morganize meant the ability to form concepts) arises from volitional, conscious processes. I forget the exact studies now, but I do recall evidence indicating that toddlers classify certain objects together (e.g., fork and spoon) before they can speak. One can consider this rudimentary concept formation.

Walter

[9thdoctor]

5 hours ago, Marcus said:

Yes . 

Everything the same except his race.

Alright, but instead of Stanton I say he gets kicked out of Howard University.  I checked, there's an architecture program there.  

For Peter, who I'm usually quite friendly with:

 

[Marcus]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Is my shit together yet, Marcus?

*Cue wall of text*

You can't even put proper sentences, paragraphs and arguments together. I won't bother to read most of what you've posted above.

Look, Peter. This thread is not about "racial averages", whether blacks built pyramids (heh), whether race exists or any other irrelevant points that typically concern racists. 

The question (that you are evading) was simply to the effect of "If Howard Roark was black and that was the only difference, how differently would the story have gone?"

If you have no real thoughtful, answers you have no real business in this thread. Fuck your "averages". Fuck your criminal statistics (Howard Roark blew up buildings after all). Most of all, Fuck you.

You won't derail my thread with non-sense.

P.S. And no I won't read your gay-ass book written in 1994 using questionable data. 

Moving on....

[Peter]

Oh, knock it off Ninth and go back to your fifth. I liked the headline to the video but I did not punch the button. I suggest the mute button, Ninth.

Gay ass? Oh, oh, Marcus. You do know there are a lot of black men in prison and they all . . . you know, situational gays, etc.,  . . . so statistically you would need to present a black character as sort, of, kind of, and anyway, you should be advised that if I have pissed you off with your racist thread, then your demeaning gay ass remark will also piss a lot of people off. It was uncalled for. For shame heathen! Okay. You passed the test.   

Marcus ‘Aurelius’ wrote: If Howard Roark was black and that was the only difference, how differently would the story have gone? end quote

Consider this. Because he is never given a race then he already has dark skin. Yeah, that’s the ticket, if you want him to be. I will think about him being an olive skinned Jewish guy from Israel. But the story never changes, because it is already written in stone.

I lifted this from some Indian looking girl’s web site (dark, with long black hair) so I can’t vouch for its authenticity. Odd dialogue from The Fountainhead, page 163 / Roark to Mr. Janss on buildings.

J: “I don’t know that I've ever thought anything about why a building was beautiful, one way or another,” Mr. Janss confessed, “but I guess that’s what the public wants.”

R: why do you suppose they want it?

J: You've got to consider the public.

R: Don’t you know that’s most people take most things because that’s what given to them, and they have no opinion whatever? Do you wish to be guided by what they expect you to think they think or by your own judgement?

J: You can’t force it down their throats.

R: You don’t have to. You must only be patient. Because on your side you have reason - oh, I know, It’s something no one really wants to have on his side - and against you, you have just a vague, fat, blind inertia.

J: Why do you think I don’t want reason on my side?

R: It’s not you, Mr. Janss. It’s the way most people feel. They have to take a chance, everything they do is taking a chance, but they feel so much safer when they take it on something they know to be ugly, vain and stupid. end quote

Marcus, if Howard were black what WOULD BE necessary changes in the plot and dialogue?

Peter 

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Marcus said:

 

The question (that you are evading) was simply to the effect of "If Howard Roark was black and that was the only difference, how differently would the story have gone?"

Finally! A lucid question! He would have gotten a job in Detroit assembling cars for Henry Ford. The End.

Or, he wouldn't have gotten into college so he would have gone to Detroit . . .

Or, his dad would have been lynched in Mississippi and . . .

Or, he went to see Cameron as a black man expelled from Stanton with those drawings and Cameron would have hired him and he had those first successes and ended up in the quarry and "raped" Dominique and become to architecture what Paul Robeson was to singing and film in real life 1930s. Culturally minor. When you bring in something as powerful as (a) black (man) everything else goes out the door that doesn't play directly off that black man's race. Goodbye architecture, goodbye artistic integrity, goodbye creative genius. And it has a lot to do with racists and racism, in people and in a culture. Now, we can grossly simplify this by discarding Roark (call him a creature of liberal arts) and imagine Einstein as a black man who was a genius physicist who came up with Relativity. That's relatively simple for it's pure brain work. I think for that he would have, could have, still have had acceptance and acclaim as did the Jewish Einstein assuming Jews touting a Jew wouldn't matter and they touted him anyway. (I think Jews touting Jews is Jews touting intelligence where they can find it. The very smartest people who have ever lived revealed by intellectual accomplishments seem to have been and are Jews of a particular stock.)

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Peter, you're grossly abusing the thread and the rest of us.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

6 hours ago, Peter said:

"Sin loi.” Brant, is that Mandarin for “carpe diem”?

It was common parlance amongst the Vietnamese and American soldiers during the Vietnam War for "Sorry about that! or "Too bad!"--frequently as humor.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If Howard Roark were black? If he spoke slang, it could be a thing:

"But I don't think of yo ass, mothafucka!"

Michael

[Peter]

Brant wrote: Peter, you're grossly abusing the thread and the rest of us. end quote

Thanks, amigo. Of course I am grossly abusing you and the rest of the gay ass wooses (Marcus's phrasing). I knew you would understand.

Howard “Easy Rawlins” Roark opened the door to his architectural office. Down the hall, someone was arguing in the John Shaft / Virgil Tibb’s private detective agency office, but that was normal. Those guys rarely saw eye to eye. Now they are deciding whether to bring in detective Foxy Brown as a partner. Those two never could keep it in their pants. Howard had talked with Foxy before and she was one hell of a woman.  She was a ten in looks and came from a good background:  born in Winston-Salem, NC, one of four children. Her mother was a nurse, and father was an Air force mechanic. From humbled beginnings, Foxy, managed to solve dozens of cases in the hood.

“I hope she gets the job,” thought Howard and then he laughed. “I have some designs to show her. I will be her private dick.”

I've saved up enough money from working in the quarries. Check. Enough to rent this office for one year. But how in the hell am I going to get a paying client? I suppose I could work cheaper than those other guys. I know what they charge. I will keep an eye on the permitting process in the NY Times, for smaller projects. I will get some attention and earn some respect. Maybe I will combine my design with some construction work too.

I know that black lawyer, Jackie Chiles, who works for that comedian Seinfeld, is planning on refurbishing some old offices for his business. Yeah. That’s it. We’ve known each other since high school. I will get a hold of Jackie and tell him I will work cheap for the architectural designs and then also do some of the construction work. I use that on my resume to get some better paying jobs.    

It’s quiet down the hall. I guess they hired her. I think I will turn my radio and wait for the phone to ring. Ah. This is a good one.

Shaft
Who's the black private dick
That's a sex machine to all the chicks?
(Shaft!)
You're damn right
Who is the man
That would risk his neck for his brother man?
(Shaft!)
Can ya dig it?
Who's the cat that won't cop out
When there's danger all about
(Shaft!)
Right on
You see this cat Shaft is a bad mother
(Shut your mouth)
But I'm talkin' about Shaft
(Then we can dig it)
He's a complicated man
But no one understands him but his woman
(John Shaft) Songwriter: Issac Hayes.

[Brant Gaede]

Well, I don't care to take part in this drive Marcus off OL project.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm treating this (so far) as a flare-up and not a full-out flame war.

Can we all tone down the hostility vibes and tone up the ideas?

Thanks.

btw - Marcus, you will find that Peter often posts long copy-pastes from previous discussions years ago in O-Land that are no longer available to the general public. (He kept copies.) Since heavies in our subcommunity often participated, these posts can get very interesting. They sometimes drift from the topic, but the historical trade-off is well worth it.

If you don't like them, rather than taking it personally, I suggest skipping over them. That's what many readers do. After all, you might get irritated that they cause thread drift, but flaming someone also detracts from what you want to discuss. I've been doing forums for enough years to know that people who are interested in what you have to say will look for your posts, even when there are others talking about other things. So I suggest you talk to them about your mutual interest instead of showing them you are mad at someone else. If that is all they will see, there comes a point where they lose interest.

On another point, I'm not into PC language so I let a little flexibility flow, but please be aware that there are many gay members on OL. After a certain point, if your bursts of anger (or passion) continue to include gay slurs, I will have to step in. There is no reason in my mind why these people should be disrespected as a habit. The gay people who post regularly on OL have beautiful minds. I'm not gay and, hell, we hardly ever make homosexuality an issue on OL, but I love every one of them. I highly recommend their discussions.

Michael

[Marcus]

Quote

On another point, I'm not into PC language so I let a little flexibility flow, but please be aware that there are many gay members on OL. After a certain point, if your bursts of anger (or passion) continue to include gay slurs, I will have to step in. There is no reason in my mind why these people should be disrespected as a habit. 

Well he did "disrespect" blacks are you going to ignore that and pretend gays are the only ones aggrieved here? Blacks can be dogged out, called stupid, "negroids", averaged out criminals, etc but when someone makes a one-off gay comment the gauntlets are off?

Interesting.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

56 minutes ago, Marcus said:

Interesting.

Marcus,

That's the correct word.

Make ideas interesting...

As to the rest, if you encounter a contradiction, check your premises... (you know the drill)...

Michael

[Marcus]

Mike, the fact is he blatantly slurred blacks in multiple posts and not a peep from anyone. Quite a double standard.

Check your premises. Mine are fine and where they should be. (i.e. the side of justice).

[Brant Gaede]

deleted

[9thdoctor]

34 minutes ago, Marcus said:

Mike, the fact is he blatantly slurred blacks in multiple posts and not a peep from anyone. Quite a double standard.

Check your premises. Mine are fine and where they should be. (i.e. the side of justice).

Not a peep?  What did you think Penn Jillette was shouting about?

[Marcus]

51 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

Not a peep?  What did you think Penn Jillette was shouting about?

I stand corrected. You are pretty the only exception (and another guy via PM). Everyone else including the admin, apparently didn't see the irony.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Marcus said:

Mike, the fact is he blatantly slurred blacks in multiple posts and not a peep from anyone. Quite a double standard.

Check your premises. Mine are fine and where they should be. (i.e. the side of justice).

Marcus,

Justice shmustice.

Here is one of the premises you need to check--one that is not where it should be.

Who decides how things are run here on OL? You or me?

I let you start a hot button thread to bait people with racism without saying anything. I even thought it might be interesting to see where it might go. But that does not give you veto rights on OL, nor the right to insult OL regulars, nor the right to decide what policy is here, nor the right to insult gays. You are not the owner of this site.

So enough.

This is your first warning.

If you need to express yourself in this manner, knock yourself out, but not here. There is the entire Internet to do it.

If you don't like the way someone else expresses themself, call them on it from the idea perspective. "Fuck you" is not a welcome form of interaction here. I tolerate it a bit at times from long-term regulars despite it poisoning discussions. But they've earned that consideration. I do not tolerate it from newer members trying to see how far they can push.

btw - Please call me Michael. I'm not fond of being called Mike.

Michael

[Marcus]

Quote

I let you start a hot button thread to bait people with racism without saying anything. I even thought it might be interesting to see where it might go. 

The premise of this thread is not to promote or bait people with "racism", it's simply presenting the story from another angle so as to get people to think about it's implications to the story. It's a creative thinking exercise, an experiment. Provocative? Maybe. I tend to make threads that do that. 

Quote

 "Fuck you" is not a welcome form of interaction here.

Peter is lobbing the equivalent of a big "Fuck you" with his racist diatribes. Do you think that leads to polite discussion? It's equally as offensive to blacks as any statement made about gays, probably more. But I guess it's "ok" to trash blacks on OL, just not gays? Those are the official rules?

I will not retract my statement whatsoever unless you also call him out on it. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Marcus said:

Peter is lobbing the equivalent of a big "Fuck you" with his racist diatribes. Do you think that leads to polite discussion? It's equally as offensive to blacks as any statement made about gays, probably more. But I guess it's "ok" to trash blacks on OL, just not gays? Those are the official rules?

I will not retract my statement whatsoever unless you also call him out on it. 

Marcus,

You are not called on to retract anything, but I will not have anyone demanding conditions on how OL is to be run, how I must run it or else, nor bashes against the site or OL people. You don't have to like this. Those are rules everyone understands around here.

This is your second warning. There won't be a third.

My suggestion is to let it lie and carry on. You are welcome here (I mean it). I even like your contributions. But you are not welcome as a troublemaker. No one is. If you want to bicker with other posters, make demands and so on, there is an entire Internet out there full of people just waiting for you. I don't want that crap here.

Please stick to the ideas and we'll get along just fine. Or not. You decide. Then I will make my own decisions.

Michael

[Marcus]

Peter is on ignore. I don't have a high tolerance for racists nor do I treat them well. It's probably better that I don't see his posts or it would probably end badly for everyone involved (including those who like my posts). 

Back on topic...

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, Marcus said:

Peter is on ignore. I don't have a high tolerance for racists nor do I treat them well. It's probably better that I don't see his posts or it would probably end badly for everyone involved (including those who like my posts). 

Back on topic...

Can't tell if it's racism or his way of throwing your topic back at you. Regardless, Peter is seldom quoted so putting him on "ignore" will probably work for you.

I do think that movie I referenced does a much better job with the topic idea than Roark as a black man. The one problem with that is you don't use your imagination. You just analyze the results. It's easy to see the boy's typical life with normal hair then you get his life with green hair. One other advantage is people who like Roark the way he is aren't going to be pissed off out of the box at what they think is defacement. We don't go far I would think with the idea of what if the Mona Lisa were a black woman.

Regardless, Roark as a black man or Roark with green hair--the story stops to deal with that just as the "normal" story stops in the movie. It's almost as if time itself stops.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just for the record, Peter is no racist.

But he is mischievous as all hell.

Michael

[RobinReborn]

I'll try to bring the thread back to the original question.

 

Because of who Ayn Rand was, Howard Roark would have still won at the end of the book.  He probably would have a harder time doing it.  In the Fountainhead people were always asking Roark for buildings in various European styles and they might not ask him to do that if he was black.  But race isn't a major part of Ayn Rand's novel, so it probably wouldn't effect the story too much.  Maybe one potential customer refuses Roark based on race and he figures out a way to get around discrimination and then speaks out against it in one of his monologues.