IQ and Heredity

[psychoanaleesis]

Peter,

you said:

The “Individual Talents Found in Other Races,” is something to be examined scientifically. I have read that the Chinese invented gunpowder, and the Arabs (pre-Muhammad) the decimal system, Africans the throwing spear, and American Indians never created the wheel, except as a toy...[end quote]

one question: Who among them did it? Surely, it cannot be a million people all thinking on the same problem at once. If they can, hey, "collective" effort does work wonders. This is assuming that there were NO forerunners for if there were, he/she/that set should be the only ones truly to deserve credit.

[Peter]

I wrote:

The “Individual Talents Found in Other Races,” is something to be examined scientifically. I have read that the Chinese invented gunpowder, and the Arabs . . .

David Lee responded:

One question: Who among them did it? Surely, it cannot be a million people all thinking on the same problem at once. If they can, hey, "collective" effort does work wonders. This is assuming that there were NO forerunners for if there were, he/she/that set should be the only ones truly to deserve credit.

end quote

I know what you are saying is to discredit the concept of *reification* and I am with you to a degree.

From Britannica:

Reification . . . the treatment of something abstract as a material or concrete thing, as in the following lines from Matthew Arnold’s poem “Dover Beach”:

The Sea of Faith

Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore

Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.

End quote

That’s a bit obscure. Would you agree with the totality of the following statement, or is it too extreme?

To paraphrase Steve Reed:

The only humans that actually exist and have rights, and for whom anything can be good or bad, or who can invent something, are individuals. Nations, such as “China” or "America," do not in fact exist except as figures of speech. To think in terms of what would be "Good For The Philippines" is a delusional reification of collectivist speech.

However you, David, have also said the following:

“While I do agree that culture plays a significant role in cognitive development . . .”

and

“. . . which revealed that the human mind has a limit to the pattern it can conceive or grasp . . .”

So you are also reifying “culture with cognitive development of individuals” and “the human mind has a limit to the pattern it can conceive or grasp,” which is a reification. But there are only individuals, according to the anti-reification theory.

I disagree. Large collective concepts are not collectivism. I could say Ming, and Chang, and Wong and name a billion other Chinese living in the territory of China and then say Woo, and Chou and a billion other of their individual ancestors did this or that but it is ridiculous to NOT just say, “The Chinese,” and know you understand me. So, yes the smallest minority is the individual, but sociological concepts also have their place. Now if I were a Marxist you would be correct to call me out for my reifications, but I am an Objectivist.

I have no qualms about saying, Ayn Rand achieved what she did by standing on the shoulders of Giants, because, unless you are being picky, you know what I mean by Giants. It’s quicker, simpler, and a way to automatize (how did Rand spell that word?) concepts.

To go back a bit further Ayn wrote:

A percept is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism. [iTOE, p. 5.]

Scott Ryan once criticized this quote by writing:

So "sensations, as such, are *not* retained by man's memory," but (some) *groups* of sensations *are* thus retained -- and retained *automatically*. But if sensations, "as such," are not "retained" by our memories, how is it that one's "brain" is able to retain them -- even in "groups" -- while it performs the task of "integration"? And if a percept *is* a "group of sensations," isn't it true that our memories *do* "retain" sensations? Or are our sensations transformed into something else by this mysterious process of "integration" (on which Rand nowhere sees fit to elaborate)? And does all of this mean we can't remember single sensations? As Rand would say: Blank-out.

end quote

Scott was right, but still a bit picky. Ayn Rand could sound really, really smart even when she was a bit imprecise. I will accept someone’s reifications as long as they don’t start harping on “The Masses” or incorrectly state what all “Objectivists” think, unless I think it is so too.

The following is an old letter. Don’t bother reading it if it bothers you but it is one of the best defenses of reification that I know of.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

From: allen <allen23@optonline.net>

To: Objectivism@wetheliving.com

Subject: OWL: Immigration, Captain Mental, and promulgating ideas.

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:49:17 -0400

Allow me to apologize for this all too lengthy posting, as I had been unavailable for almost a week. However (as Mark Twain put it) I should have written a brief letter, but I didn’t have the time.

Mr. Reed protests "in the strongest possible terms" my comment that he addressed immigration in terms of what is good for America. I apologize for hurting him to the quick, and stand corrected for my misinterpretation. Rather his position is that "nations do not in fact exist except as figures of speech." That which is good for America is said to be a "delusional reification of collectivist speech." (As an aside, we may note that by this reasoning, my statement that earlier immigration was helpful to America, should also have been denounced.) I thank him for clarifying his position, and hopefully have a better understanding of where he is coming from. Since Mr. Reed has clarified his fundamental objection, the discussion is more developmental than before.

Now, it is my position that nations do in fact exist. Note that one can bet that the Mets will win the World Series, rather than say only that certain individuals will win it. The team exists, and we make decisions in terms of it, rather than solely in terms of given individuals. The same holds for nations. When America went to war with Germany, it was on a national basis. The individuals changed during that war, if only because some died, but the nations did not.

I will address the issue of whether a nation exists, theoretically, for that is how it was raised. Afterward however, I will argue (as I did in my previous post) that the philosophical issues ought to be secondary for Objectivists, while the threats to man’s survival should be primary.

The underlying question is what does it mean for something to exist. When a definition of an entity is applied in such a manner that our decisions are consistently best made in terms of it, that entity exists. Let us consider the category of man. We cannot say that there is no such collective as men but only certain individual men. It may be decided that men are not permitted to enter an organization, which can only be composed of women. This is not employing a figure of speech, but is an expression of differences within reality. (Surely AR spoke in terms of men and women.) The reasoning that classifies existence only as tangible specifics, ends up saying that there are individual cats, but not cats as a collective. But this leads to absurdity since we cannot speak in terms of individual cats, without acknowledging what it means for there to be an individual, and what it means to be a cat.

On an abstract level, this has been discussed as the nominalist/ realist controversy. Some nominalists argue that only specific members of a class exist (while the class itself is but a figure of speech), while realists argue that only the class exists (while a member is only a representative of that class). However, both individuals and groupings exist; it is rather a question of which is primary.

Now there is a theory called "methodological individualism" where to quote Ludwig von Mises "all actions are performed by individuals…a social collective has no existence and reality outside of the individual member's actions." Mises is often used as the source for objections to employing social entities. Here, some O’s and L’s conclude that only individuals exist, using him as a source. Yet even he writes "It is uncontested that in the sphere of human action social entities have real existence. Nobody ventures to deny that nations, states, municipalities, parties, religious communities, are real factors, determining the course of human events" (Human Action p. 42).

Once one claims that groups and social entities have no real existence, he must logically conclude that there is no reality to "individual rights" but only the rights of a given person. Nor are there such things as "protests", but only a given act of protesting. One cannot be a "collectivist" or a "utilitarian". Nor can there be an "American government" or any “government” at all, for there can only be the individuals that comprise it. Moreover, there can be no such thing as capitalism, socialism, government intervention, or even immigration. In the end, this becomes silly. Suppose the singing team of the "Ink Spots" is defined as strictly that which is comprised of four specific individuals. Then if these individuals happen to stop singing, but become programmers, the "Ink Spots" become a subgroup of the programmers. The definition of the group becomes without foundation.

Fundamentally, Mr. Reed’s argument is that social entities cannot be used successfully for guiding our decisions. To review this position, it is helpful to model its logical structure:

The good-of-America presupposes a nation, which is a social entity;

Social entities do not exist;

That which does not exist should not be used operationally;

Therefore, the concept of the good-of-America is delusional, and should not be employed.

Now the first statement is true, and if the second and third statement were true, the conclusion would follow. However, the second statement is mistaken, since social entities exist.

Moreover, the third statement is false, since even when things do not exist, they can be used effectively. Note that zero, orders of infinity, the vanishing point in a painting, AR’s concepts-of-method, Homer’s Neptune in the Iliad, and Shakespeare’s ghost in Hamlet, do not exist, but are effectively employed. So I do not think that his position is tenable. However, I again thank Mr. Reed for reducing his defense of immigration to that of whether nations exist, because it renders the discussion more developmental . . . .

End quote

[psychoanaleesis]

Yes Peter, I can fully grasp what you say. It's linguistic nuances. For when I say "culture" I refer to a system/method of living that which is stagnant and passed on from one generation (parent) to the next (offspring). However, I could have took that also partly thinking more on "traditions". The "human mind" is I intended, not as collective but man as a conscious creature and pertains solely to the findings of that research which is in extended form would turn out something like so: the human mind has a limit... although it cannot be said that it is without exception or it still could depend on a case to case basis as this research has yet to test each and every individual on the planet.

I do agree, it's rather difficult if you are picky with the use of words but you must be able to break down those "reifications" if and when it is asked or when you feel obliged to clarify or identify.

I brought up that point not to discuss nuances because truly, I do not have a beef with "groupings" because it plays a significant role in the advancement of man qua man. To say simply, the Chinese cannot claim, "We invented the..." because that would be implying "communal achievements" which I have said in effect in another post, "communal" things are always of lesser value and are in a horrible state than that of "solely owned objects".

I cannot yet discern (put my finger on) why this country (most of the world) is oh so eager to get one man's achievement shared among its citizenry. Take for example, Pacquiao (the boxer, if you've heard of him), I admire his prowess in the ring and the strength he demonstrates but it does not make me any more proud that "I am a Filipino" as screamed by every media here. They say, "Victory for the Filipinos!" and as if its spirit can be pandered "for the race". Oh, well, he said that himself and he does give (blindly) some of the prize money to strangers which he lovingly calls "countrymen". If he willingly wants to be the paschal lamb, I can't do anything about it for he is a being of his own volition. However, I'm gonna take a shot and say, "He did it for the collective - where I do not belong." but in my heart of heart, I cannot turn a blind eye to his achievement. I can only withdraw my consent to their practice since I do not approve of the atrocities being done to that which I know as "greatness".

Edited March 23, 2010 by David Lee

[psychoanaleesis]

-deleted- irrelevant

Edited March 23, 2010 by David Lee

[Peter]

I posted this excerpt in the Stumping in The Backyard section but I thought it was relevant here too. It illustrates nature and nurture, and innate ability coupled with volition. It illustrates *racism* used as a deliberate distortion of reality, just as the charge of *racism* is used to suppress the truth when anthropological and psychological evidence is uncovered. Objectivists are expected to close their eyes, and stop thinking.

It illustrates the dishonesty and stupidity of the accusers, and it illustrates the power of the “Big Lie” that is political correctness. These clowns thought they were being smart. They volitionally raised their consciousnesses and hatched this plot. Yet, with video evidence potentially available, how bizarre it is that this “elite” group of men could think they could get away with it.

“In the video, there is no audio record of a group of Tea Party protesters chanting [the n-word] together 15 times. There is no audio or video record of any altercation with someone spitting at Rep. Emanuel Cleaver.”

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

TIA Daily • March 23, 2010

The Long War Against the Left

3. N-Word-Gate

by Jack Wakeland and Robert Tracinski

Editor's Note: The article below makes repeated reference to an old racial epithet as "the n-word." Now, we all know what that word is, so my first response was simply to reprint it as a full word, on the grounds that you are not children and do not need to be shielded from the ugly realities of life. But the "n-word" has acquired the status of a borderline obscenity, largely for a good reason: the now deeply ingrained cultural prohibition against racism. In fact, you can get in more trouble for using the "n-word" than you would for using a fully fledged obscenity like the "f-word." For that reason, I expect that spelling out the whole word could cause us problems with filters designed to block unsolicited message—e-mails known by another word we can't use; let's call is the "s-word." And in this hypersensitive era, even having the word printed out—no matter what the context—could potentially cause problems for subscribers who read TIA Daily at work. Hence the clumsy use of the politically correct placeholder, and this apology for using it.—RWT

The nationwide headline: tea party protesters in DC spit at members of the Congressional Black Caucus and called them [the n-word]. This story will be the only headline that the establishment press will carry about the tea party protest.

The central part of the story is an account by Congressional Black Caucus members John Lewis and Andre Carson that they were repeatedly called [the n-word] by members of the crowd as they walked by the Tea Party protesters. House Majority Whip James Clyburn, also a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, who was some distance behind the two, says he heard the epithet, too. Based on initial reports, it appears that the statements that two of the congressmen made to the press were spontaneous and unrehearsed.

But these claims may be a fabrication, a deliberately coordinated act by the four Congressional Black Caucus members who made the accusation: Representatives John Lewis, Andre Carson, Emanuel Cleaver, and James Clyburn (the House Majority Whip).

In this video, the four men can be seen walking together in a group of eight, including some of their staffers.

The fact that they all walked so closely together through the tea party group in front of the Capitol Steps casts a different light on the men's stories about the supposed incident. The incident was supposed to have happened in front of the Capitol Steps during a one minute and 30-second period, the middle half of which is recorded on the above video.

In the video, there is no audio record of a group of Tea Party protesters chanting [the n-word] together 15 times. There is no audio or video record of any altercation with someone spitting at Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. There is no audio or video record of a DC policeman momentarily detaining the attacker, talking it over with Rep. Cleaver, and then letting him go.

Given these physical circumstances, we must conclude that there is no corroborating evidence that anything these four men accused the crowd of doing actually happened.

Given the history of the past 20 or 30 years of repeated instances of entirely fabricated claims of "racist acts" made by black leftists, we must infer that four of these Congressional Black Caucus members—leftists—could very well have made an entirely fraudulent accusation. It is entirely possible and reasonable to ask: did the four slander the tea party marchers on the DC Mall? Did they slander them in a deliberately coordinated act?

On the FOX Financial Network cable TV show, "America's Nightly Scoreboard" tonight, Andrew Breitbart observed that not one single video or audio of the shocking racist words or the assault have been posted at YouTube. He challenged some one to come forward with cell phone or camcorder video that shows the epithets and spit being hurled at the four black Congressmen. Mr. Breitbart challenged some one to come forward with video that shows heads turning with shock at [the n-word] being yelled. Are there videos showing the DC police detaining a protester and talking with Rep. Cleaver?

If a group of leftists had planted themselves among the tea party protesters to hurl the racist insults, Mr. Breitbart noted, they surely would have recorded the event and it would be posted on YouTube.

Andrew Brietbart noted that the entire body of the establishment press took the word of the four Congressional Black Caucus members as fact, as if no source independent of this four-man, self-corroborating team was necessary to establish the truth of the claims.

Editor's Note: Now here is my addition to Jack's note.

When I saw this story, I was immediately suspicious of it, because it does not fit with my experience of the tea party movement, where racism has been totally absent. But it does fit perfectly—too perfectly—with the Democratic Party's line of attack against the tea parties.

It is now becoming clear what this frame-up of the tea parties was meant to accomplish. Representative Lewis and his fellow conspirators were trying to stage a re-creation of the Selma civil rights march, in which blacks demanding their civil rights walked through a gauntlet of violent attacks. Forty-five years later, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus are still trying to cast themselves in the role of brave martyrs facing down ignorant rednecks.

Here are the passages, from the Washington Post report linked at the top of this article, that give the game away:

Democratic leaders and their aides said they were outraged by the day's behavior. "I have heard things today that I have not heard since March 15, 1960, when I was marching to get off the back of the bus," said House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the highest-ranking black official in Congress.

And Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said in a statement, "On the one hand, I am saddened that America's debate on health care—which could have been a national conversation of substance and respect—has degenerated to the point of such anger and incivility. But on the other, I know that every step toward a more just America has aroused similar hate in its own time; and I know that John Lewis, a hero of the civil rights movement, has learned to wear the worst slurs as a badge of honor."

"This is not the first time the congressman has been called the 'n' word and certainly not the worst assault he has endured in his years fighting for equal rights for all Americans," said Rotert, Cleaver's spokesman.

This is how desperate the Democrats have become. The last really good thing the liberal Democrats did was their early backing for the civil rights movement (which was opposed, not by Republicans, but by Southern Democrats). So they have to keep re-living the one historical moment that gives them an aura of moral authority.

In this case, it may well turn out to have the opposite effect. If it is confirmed that this was a hoax perpetrated by the leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus, then it should be a major scandal. Let's call it "N-Word-Gate." It is an incident that removes every last vestige of President Obama's promise of "post-racial" politics, and it will further inflame public outrage against the Democrats—and give further credibility to the tea party movement.

[psychoanaleesis]

We've digressed for a bit but the article above is good and relevant Peter. Have we covered all the issues regarding IQ and Heredity? I'd just like to add that when I speak of IQ it refers to overall 'intelligence' or 'g' and not the old/standard definition which is the quotient of one's mental age/chronological age. However, due to laziness of typing 'intelligence' all the time, I decided to stick with 'IQ'.

Probably everyone who's interested and has searched Wikipedia got this and this

Edited March 24, 2010 by David Lee

[Peter]

David wrote:

Have we covered all the issues regarding IQ and Heredity?

Probably not. But thinking about it helps me understand a lot that goes on.

I thought the following old letter was an interesting twist on the IQ/Heredity thread and immigration. I was watching Glenn Beck on Fox yesterday. I don’t know if David knows who he is but others might. He mentioned that a lot of people were saying we needed a “revolution.” On one side of the black board he had our founding fathers who started a revolution. On the other side of the blackboard he had Marx, Stalin, Hitler, etc and said that when there is a revolution you don’t know who you are going to end up with. These guys or those. Would we end up with Facists?

Peter

From: Gregory Wharton <jgw@demetriou.net>

Reply-To: Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com

To: "'Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com'" <Starship_Forum@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: RE: [starship_Forum] Political Independence in Space

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:49:15 -0800

Bill Wells suggests that the societal form of any independent space colony would initially be fascism. I disagree with this, and I think history does too.

First of all, fascism, as a socio-political system, implies centralized control of property in a de facto sense, but not a de jure sense (centralization on both counts being more accurately described as communism). Implementing such centralization of control is difficult, and takes a lot of resources and effort to sustain. Fascism, for this reason combined with its systemic inability to promote growth, is inherently unstable. As we are all aware, the one thing in short supply for a space colony is resources (specifically, mass and people--energy being very plentiful, especially in planetary systems). Also, any effort not expended on survival-oriented tasks is going to degrade the overall survivability of the colony until it can grow beyond a certain break-even threshold.

The default social structure of any nascent space colony, as for any subsistence band of human beings (low- or high-tech), is feudalism.

It has been argued in numerous circles that feudalism (or, more specifically, Feudal Tribalism) my actually be the most fundamental expression of human social organization there is. This judgment has no normative dimension. It is merely the observation that human beings tend to automatically first organize themselves in a feudalistic order based on personal and familial loyalty whenever they spontaneously generate social order from chaos.

I think it very likely, particularly given the extremely inhospitable environment of space, that an independent colony would develop a rigid feudal hierarchy in relatively short order. The nucleus of this order might or might not center on corporate affiliations (military, government, private corporations, etc.), but the feudal nature of the interconnected structure of fealty, patronage and loyalty would be similar in any case.

In addition, I think it would be very constructive to survey the works of cultural anthropology which have studied cultures developed in environmentally harsh areas on earth. The Inuit, the !Kung Bushmen of the Kalahari, and the Grand Valley Dani of New Guinea are all such cultures. Though technologically and philosophically very primitive, the extremity of their respective environments has generated some fascinating cultural adaptations for the survival and growth of their communities (and, indeed, given what they have to work with, their technologies are extraordinarily sophisticated within their limits). In pre-modern Inuit, infanticide was a regular and accepted occurrence. The old and the sick were routinely abandoned on the tundra and ice floes. Gender roles in all these societies were and are rigidly stratified.

Arguably, space is the most inhospitable environment toward life that exists. What sorts of cultural adaptations could we expect from an independent space-based society (particularly if developed in isolation)?

This, I think, is a very important, and as yet unanswered, question.

~g

[bmacwilliam]

Scientists might sound like racists if they insisted that, where blacks go they turn the area into another Africa, or another third world environment. But is it true? Black (g) goes from 70 to 80 or 85 after leaving Africa. Will it go higher? So let us examine all of black Africa, Zanzibar, the little Caribbean islands in which Negroes predominate, Haiti, the inner cities of America, etc.

Has there ever been a black civilization? Will there ever be one? The Flynn Affect suggests there could be, but it’s been 100,000 years or more, but don’t forget my example of the Eskimos. The closest to a pre-western influenced, black nation that I can think of might be the militaristic mega-tribe of the Zulus.

What has been invented in Black Africa? I will give you the throwing spear and stone tools, but nothing modern. Do the critically thinking members of Objectivist Living (greetings, Brant and Reidy!) who are reading my post dispute this? I would really like to be proven wrong. Remembering the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” please don’t unfairly dismiss me or call me a racist.

Ok, my first point here, perhaps made before, is IQ has strong culturally influences. Australian aborigines tested lower on standard IQ tests. Then they turned it around and had white Australians test in more Aborigine based subjects like navigation, sense of direction, spatial intelligence etc. If the Standard IQ was the latter one, the white Australians would be categorized as morons.

Secondly, more importantly, is that there is more genetic diversity AMONGST african "blacks" than all other races. All other races will be more closely related to some Africans or each other than some "blacks" are related to other "blacks". People turn white® precisely because they move out of Africa. It is profoundly nonsensical to refer to African blacks as a racial group. They are the most racially diverse "group" on the planet.

White 'civilized' societies are just Africans that moved north.

Bob

[tjohnson]

I belong to the Canadian race. What does 'race' mean? is it the country you are from, the language you speak, the colour of your skin, the continent you are from?? it's totally unscientific to talk about races in this context.

[Peter]

Bob_Mac wrote and I cobbled together for my meaning:

All other races will be more closely related to some Africans or each other than some "blacks" are related to other "blacks" . . . It is profoundly nonsensical to refer to African blacks as a racial group. They are the most racially diverse "group" on the planet.

end quote.

Thanks for taking an Objective, scientific look at the subject, Bob. As far as the “related to” question, that is not what I have read, though recently I have only looked at about eight-year-old data (I am revisiting the subject) and what was recently put on Wikipedia’s Evolutionary Psychology pages.

And General, there are such things as *Races,* just as we can rationally classify species, phylum, etc. Take a good look at the top of the OL page. Ayn is watching you!

Certainly, blacks are a very diverse group as far as DNA goes and very different physically and perhaps mentally to a degree, but Negroid Africans are more closely related to each other than they are to NON-Africans which would include Whites and Asians. Within the Negroid group, Bushmen and the Aborigines of Australia are the most different, and *controversially* the least violent.

Anthropologists and other scientists discuss three racial groups, so I cannot agree with your statement that, “White 'civilized' societies are just Africans that moved north.” Nor are Asian ‘civilized’ societies just Africans that moved north.

You might want to re-read about the characteristics of each race (and can we dispense with the use of those long, technical words: Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid, and I particularly don’t like the terms “yellow” and “red skin” and even “black” is not always very descriptive?). Each race has certain characteristics but of course there are modernly “mixed race” humans. I agree we all originated from an original, common DNA pool, but some people clearly look like a *modern mix* of characteristics from two or more races. Some “reification” is required for clarity. NON-AFRICANS DIVERGED FROM AFRICANS 100,000 YEARS AGO, AND 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. We need different medical treatments, as do men and women. And “WE” are otherwise physically different. One example always gets the hoot of “redneck,” and derision from the PC (hide the truth crowd): tendon length is sufficiently different, so that (even without cultural differences) it explains why it IS NOT blatant racism to have 10 blacks playing against each other in the final four basketball tournament.

Plus there are certain common characteristics of Caucasians and Asians who live in tropical zones for long periods. If many generations of homogeneous white or Asian groups live in a hot, tropical climate those people will develop a “Tropical Nose,” which is a broadening and flattening to facilitate breathing. So an Asian *White* Indian (who actually has a dark skin) might have a broader nose or an Asian from Indonesia might have a broader tropical nose, etc., but they are not considered “black” for this one trait by anthropologists.

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. However, the Sciences of Anthropology and Evolutionary Psychology are not Racism. There are significant differences in heredity that do matter, for all the reasons we have discussed. Innate capacities for talent and intelligence do exist. A is A.

What if two kids walk into a “day care of the arts” on the first day it is opened? One tests to have 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.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

general semanticist wrote:

I belong to the Canadian race. What does 'race' mean? is it the country you are from, the language you speak, the colour of your skin, the continent you are from?? it's totally unscientific to talk about races in this context.

End quote

Sorry, General, I reread your post when I got back to my inbox, and I have a better grasp about what you are saying. But, golly, did you notice that you spelled “color” “colour?” I’ll bet you also pronounce, “about,” “aboot?” Yup, you must be a Canadian.

From a Nationalistic point of view any person of any race, language, etc., can be a Canadian if they share a certain ethnicity and geographical area. Now a person who geographically just lived in Canada, but put the Pope first, might not be a Canadian but a Papist in their own mind, and answer to the Vatican, or a Muslim to Al Qaeda. And a Canadian (in his own right mind, a Canadian,) could still root for the South African Cricket team from whence his parents immigrated.

For our purposes the IQ and Heredity thread is using DNA and visual proofs as to racial distinctiveness. Personally, I could, with a clear conscience, mark “American” as my race on the census form, but those pesky scientists might examine a dozen characteristics that I possess and determine that I am XYZ.

I don’t remember from physical anthropology the number of characteristics required “to be of one race,” but I think it was less than ten. Maybe someone reading this knows.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[tjohnson]

I think in light of the human genome project, 'race' will become an obsolete term.

Today many scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Large parts of the academic community take the position that, while racial categories may be marked by sets of common phenotypic or genotypic traits, the popular idea of "race" is a social construct without base in scientific fact.^{[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]} Nonetheless, when divorced from its popular connotations, the concept of race may be useful. According to forensic anthropologist George W. Gill, blanket "race denial" not only contradicts biological evidence, but may stem from "politically motivated censorship" in the belief that "race promotes racism".^[4]

[Peter]

The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it. -- Flannery O'Connor

general semanticist quoted:

Today many scientists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation using concepts such as "population" and "clinal gradation". Large parts of the academic community take the position that, while racial categories may be marked by sets of common phenotypic or genotypic traits, the popular idea of "race" is a social construct without base in scientific fact. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Nonetheless, when divorced from its popular connotations, the concept of race may be useful. According to forensic anthropologist George W. Gill, blanket "race denial" not only contradicts biological evidence, but may stem from "politically motivated censorship" in the belief that "race promotes racism".[4]

general semanticist then responded to that quote:

I think in light of the human genome project, 'race' will become an obsolete term.

End quote

General, did you say your name was John? So you agree with the first half of the quote, which was meant to be "shot down" by the final portion of the quote? Interesting.

John, I think the human genome project will illuminate the sameness and differences within humanity as a species. Then it will illuminate the differences between individuals, just as fingerprints differentiate us, one from the other. Will the science point to species egalitarianism, elitism, or none of the above? MAY THE TRUTH WILL OUT!

The idea that *race* will no longer be a viable term is predicated on the idea that we are all sufficiently the same, so that differences are irrelevant. I have heard that one-world, one-race prophecy from idealistic science fiction writers. The hypothesis is: As inter-racial DNA is mingled we will become more closely related, until centuries from now all of humanity will resemble a Coppertone commercial where we all just have a “good tan.” And General Intelligence actually rises. Hurray!

If the opposite is supported by the Human Genome Project, perhaps that the races have separated sufficiently for “humanity” to be considered as containing “sub species,” what will be different about our view of the universe? Will the evidence be suppressed, except in the inner scientific community, so that a Orwellian, socialist - egalitarian “right-think” can be achieved? I hope not.

As Carl Sagan said, “We have acquired great soaring passionate intelligence . . .”

The “We” he names is all of *humanity,* but is Sagan really talking about *people* who’s limit is the building of stone tools and mud huts? Regardless of *Race* Sagan is speaking about the best within humanity, and that is an *elite.* An elite to which he belonged. Do you?

I have thrown out this challenge before, and again, I am speaking about *scientific, anthropological, verifiable truth* and not *Racism.* Can anyone prove me wrong? So far, in ten years, no one has.

Question One:

Has there ever been an invention coming out of black Africa beyond wood or stone tools, mud huts, story telling, and music? Anything more technical? Anything in Anthropology, Geology, Psychology, Astronomy, Physics, Medicine, etc.? I don’t think there has, not in one hundred thousand years, though Non-African re-colonization within the last few centuries may have had a beneficial, elevating, civilization- creating affect. (The opposite is trumpeted by Marxists: that Non Africans were exploiters.)

Have you read about the Neanderthals? For two hundred and fifty thousand years they used the same stone tools, with barely minor innovations, until they benefited and duplicated the superior tool making ability of homo sapiens sapiens (the first humans)? What if the genome of African Blacks has reached a similar great divide between them, who some Evolutionary Psychologists labeled, *homo sapiens sapiens,* or *The First Humans,* and the rest of humanity (or *Non-Africans* which is the term they use) and who are also labeled *homo sapiens sapiens sapiens*?

Qestion Two:

Has there ever been a black civilization beyond the Zulu mega-tribe? I don’t think there has. You won’t believe some of the entries that have been submitted to me from less-than-wise people. From King Solomon and his African mines, to Arabic and Semitic achievements, to the Great Pyramids of Egypt. These and others have all been misappropriated as black civilizations and attributed to Black Africans. Of course they are not civilizations achieved by Black Africans, but rather by Mediterranean peoples, Jews and Arabs.

I am not seeking to harm anyone. Just remember that “the totalitarians” are the ones who promote non scientific: egalitarianism, altruism, and one world government, and need uncritical followers so that they may *lead.* Discussions like this solve some dilemmas, yet can also generate fear, suppression, and loathing. But discussions and awareness prepare us for the truth. And the truth is liberating.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[bmacwilliam]

Anthropologists and other scientists discuss three racial groups, so I cannot agree with your statement that, “White 'civilized' societies are just Africans that moved north.” Nor are Asian ‘civilized’ societies just Africans that moved north.

Geneticists do no such silliness. The extreme genetic diversity in Africa makes these classifications useless. And yes indeed we all have African genetic links. Non-africans have much less diversity.

Bob

[syrakusos]

Have you read about the Neanderthals? For two hundred and fifty thousand years they used the same stone tools, with barely minor innovations...

Has there ever been a black civilization beyond the Zulu mega-tribe? I don’t think there has.

Clearly, we are exponentially increasing in intelligence, but that does not erase the slow gains of the past. Neanderthals, in particular, are poorly and incompletely understood because the most important features, the soft tissue, does not survive. I would not characterize them as primitive, brutish or stupid. For one thing, some of their graves show that the dead were buried with flowers. We know also, from Jerico, that they cared for and maintained their wounded oldsters. Again, think of that.

As for Africa, I know very little, but I can point to Timbuktu and Great Zimbabwe.

Even if your implications were valid, it would say nothing about you or me as individuals here and now.

For a seminar class in criminology, I investigated the genetics of individualism. Identical twins have different fingerprints. There are three different biochemical mechanisms that produce Type One Diabetes, functionally the same in expression and treatment, but different in origin. Strict nature-nuture prediction says that identical twins raised in the same home should have IQs within one standard deviation of each other, but in fact, only 85% do. Identical twins separated at birth with show surprising similarities -- naming pets or the names of their spouses or their brands of cigarettes -- and yet, if you assume genetic-environmental determinism, they show surprising divergences, as they have chosen differently over the course of a lifetime. People choose; and what we choose makes us who we are.

[Peter]

Michael E. Marotta wrote about Neanderthals:

I would not characterize them as primitive, brutish or stupid.

End quote

Michael I must disagree. I would say Neanderthals were primitive, and comparatively stupid, but not brutish.

Primitive: There was no change in tool making ability for 250,000 years. Only after they copied “our” innovations did they learn anything new. A recent study of their vocal cords suggests their speech may have been musical to our ears. I am sure that they produced music, art, and told stories. Yet if they survived until today, they would always be living in “lesser” conditions. Always, because it would be their nature.

Stupid: Every study has estimated a 60 median IQ, which means there were some with a 40 and some with an 80, but genius level may have been next to zero. Zero. Close proximity to “our” civilization could have produced a “Flynn Affect,” but not anywhere near to the extent as with other “sapiens.”

Not brutish: Lately I have been getting my info from TV shows, and they showed a skull that had been bashed in by another Neanderthal, but their inter-species brutality may have been a fraction of what we see with homo sapiens sapiens, simply by studying causes of death and injury. And I read about a Neanderthal boy with spina bifeda who was cared for by his family, until he died. Stories like that abound.

Michael wrote:

As for Africa, I know very little, but I can point to Timbuktu and Great Zimbabwe.

end quote

Timbuktu is a good example of their highest culture, with Muslim religion, art, architecture, and music, created by black African people. It was a significant trading center, and produced at least one Islamic scholar.

From Wikipedia:

Its geographical setting made it a natural meeting point for nearby west African populations and nomadic Berber and Arab peoples from the north. Its long history as a trading outpost that linked west Africa with Berber, Arab, and Jewish traders throughout north Africa, and thereby indirectly with traders from Europe, has given it a fabled status, and in the West it was for long a metaphor for exotic, distant lands: "from here to Timbuktu."

End quote

The city looks like a large oasis. One could argue that they achieved what they did through cultural osmosis from more advanced cultures, as did non-African groups too, so I will just leave it at that. Timbuktu is a good example of their highest culture.

Michael wrote:

Even if your implications were valid, it would say nothing about you or me as individuals here and now.

end quote

I am one hundred percent with you on that.

Michael wrote:

Strict nature-nuture prediction says that identical twins raised in the same home should have IQs within one standard deviation of each other, but in fact, only 85% do . . . if you assume genetic-environmental determinism, they show surprising divergences, as they have chosen differently over the course of a lifetime. People choose; and what we choose makes us who we are.

End quote

Good point. And I agree. Those “twins raised apart” stories are fascinating. Many of the studied twins have no inkling that they have a doppelganger. Yet, the twins raised separately name a pet the same name, or marry the same sort of spouse, or they are both germ-ophobics, or, my favorite, two raised apart twin guys, when using a public restroom, used identical “rituals” like flushing the urinal before peeing, hand washing, etc. But, of course, there can also be tremendous differences between identical twins due to volition.

The following quotes are mostly from, “Goddess of the Market.” Where I and many scientists disagree with Rand is with her sense of species wide egalitarianism, attributed to “volition.” She tried to convince Rothbard of this mental egalitarianism, by telling him, “I could be just as good in music as in economics if I applied myself.” Rand insisted all men had “similar rational endowments.” Rothbard did not buy that non-scientific observation, nor do I.

An earlier Rand gave credence to the Evolutionary justification for Capitalism. She had a sense of a “deep seated elitism.” She believed all men were NOT created equal, and included negroes in that lesser group, though she later based her early rights theory on the Constitutionally stated, “All men are created equal . . . .” but her earlier, direct observations led her to see differences in intellect.

Later in life, a more mature Ayn Rand was trying to develop a unified philosophy free from Nietzschean influences but went too far towards what cannot be verified scientifically. She went from “superman” to “passive versus active man” to egalitarian man in her mature writing, as she attempted to write a “book for the centuries.”

Michael wrote:

For a seminar class in criminology . . .

End quote

Ah, now we are hitting territory where your expertise could be even more valuable. Statistics can be manipulated, but Michael, can you speak about the following truths without dodging behind the politically correct kumbaya bush?

Evolutionary Biologists and Psychologists kind of beat around the bush too, but do you agree or disagree with racial profiling? Blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes as an ethnic group in America. South Africa is “the rape capital of the world.”

Is there a racial factor in this? One scientist characterized the Bushmen as the most different and “least violent” of the different African racial/ethic groups. Other blacks are very violent.

As an American example, watch a favorite movie of American Blacks, like “Barbershop.” In that movie, everyone threatens violence, commits violence, or has violence committed against them. I candidly spoke to a person of that ethnic persuasion and they thought nothing of the constant unremitting, violence. When I pressed them about it, they thought that it did comically reflect their life, but that they never thought of it as SO violent before. It was just their life.

Are black, homo sapiens sapiens “the killer ape,” as one author suggested? As a non-racial aside, I noticed that the new screening procedures for incoming flights is more heavily relying on profiling.

Of course I must end this letter by saying, “Always judge men by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.” This is an Objectivist site after all. And Objectivism must be contextual and scientific true.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[anonrobt]

The following quotes are mostly from, “Goddess of the Market.” Where I and many scientists disagree with Rand is with her sense of species wide egalitarianism, attributed to “volition.” She tried to convince Rothbard of this mental egalitarianism, by telling him, “I could be just as good in music as in economics if I applied myself.” Rand insisted all men had “similar rational endowments.” Rothbard did not buy that non-scientific observation, nor do I.

Are you suggesting there could not be a Francisco D'Anconia? While most of my life has been directed in more specific areas, largely excluding other areas of endeavors or thought, any which I did decide to devote my time to turned out to be a very competent affair, with only the limits of aging and life limiting the distance which could be gone... am I then a 'freak'? not a 'normal' human being? then if normal, why not others also normal? [granted, on the south side of the bell curve, matters are different, but none of us are discussing them, and to bring them up would be straw-dogging]

[Peter]

Lake Wobegon, where "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average,"

Anonrobt wrote:

Are you suggesting there could not be a Francisco D'Anconia? While most of my life has been directed in more specific areas, largely excluding other areas of endeavors or thought, any which I did decide to devote my time to turned out to be a very competent affair, with only the limits of aging and life limiting the distance which could be gone... am I then a 'freak'? not a 'normal' human being? then if normal, why not others also normal?

End quote

Of course there could be a Francisco D’Anconia, but every kid who wants to be a super hero is not “built” for it. If it were true there would be no inspiring stories to tell, because great achievements would be commonplace.

I thrashed this out with Professor of Mathematics, Michael Hardy, who was at MIT at the time. His contention was that any “average human” could take higher mathematics and EVENTUALLY pass (if he were the teacher.) He only conceded that it might take a retarded child a life time to successfully pass high school algebra, but the retarded child, who later becomes an adult student of math, and then an old adult could volitionally make that happen.

The newer IQ tests gauge different areas of proficiency, and I think their evidence is compelling, but I never could convince Professor Hardy. Can any human's proficiencies be strengthened? Of course, but would it be worth the struggle? I would be the last person to tell a young person, “You just don’t have what it takes. You’re in the eleventh grade, kid, and your “moving your body thru space” proficiency is fine, and you could be a gymnast. But at Five foot two, the odds of you making it to basketball’s professional level is infinitesimal.”

Average children gravitate to their areas of proficiency. A “Polymath” such as yourself or Ayn Rand are rarities. But I don’t think Ayn could have been another Mozart, which was her contention. Now she certainly could have been a stand out in a rock band!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

From Wikipedia:

A polymath (Greek polymathēs, πολυμαθής, "having learned much")[1] is a person, with superior intelligence, whose expertise spans a significant number of different subject areas. In less formal terms, a polymath (or polymathic person) may simply be someone who is very knowledgeable. Most ancient scientists were polymaths by today's standards.[2]

The terms Renaissance Man and, less commonly, homo universalis (Latin for "universal man" or "man of the world") are related and used to describe a person who is well educated or who excels in a wide variety of subjects or fields.[3] The idea developed in Renaissance Italy from the notion expressed by one of its most accomplished representatives, Leon Battista Alberti (1404–1472): that “a man can do all things if he will.” It embodied the basic tenets of Renaissance humanism, which considered humans empowered, limitless in their capacities for development, and led to the notion that people should embrace all knowledge and develop their capacities as fully as possible. Thus the gifted humans of the Renaissance sought to develop skills in all areas of knowledge, in physical development, in social accomplishments, and in the arts.

[syrakusos]

• The FLYNN EFFECT is the general increase in intelligence over time.
  http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml
  

• Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence
  Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, Henry Harpending; Department of Anthropology; University of Utah
  Other Ashkenazi disorders are known to increase intelligence. Although these disorders have been attributed to a bottleneck in Ashkenazi history and consequent genetic drift,there is no evidence of any bottleneck.
  http://homepage.mac.com/harpend/.Public/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

  Research Report
  
• Music Lessons Enhance IQ by E. Glenn Schellenberg; University of Toronto at Mississauga, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
  http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/musiciq.pdf
  

Taylor, arguing with you only gives you an excuse to waste space. I could take either side of the argument because the truth is more complicated than the false dichotomy that you propose.

Think of a dodecahedron. Look at it close up. You can see just one pentagon and swear that this is indeed only a pentagon. You can view an edge and claim that this is a line. You can hold it so far away that it looks like a sphere.

Myself, I can live with ambiguity. I was empowered by Penn & Teller.

West Wing Episode

"Did you go to law school?"

"No. Clown school."

Their Las Vegas act

Edited April 15, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[Peter]

Michael, I can understand your reticence. If I were still in business, teaching, or running for office, I would not be forthcoming either, with an answer to my question, do you profile in your law enforcement job?

You mentioned a Research Report showing “Music Lessons Enhance IQ.” I remember seeing that. One study was from around when my oldest daughter was still in her Mom’s tummy, 27 years ago. I played classical and other music to her in the womb and after she was born. Math abilities are definitely enhanced, according to those studies, and I had both my daughters take piano lessons too, though one started out for a semester with the flute, of all things, and then switched to the piano. They are not cheap, but I bought an upright, which my eldest still has in her house. I loved hearing “The Charley Brown Theme” by Vince Geraldi and “Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini” by Rachmaninoff being played.

You mentioned the “Flynn Effect.”

Excerpted and condensed from Wikipedia to suit my purposes:

The Flynn effect describes an increase in the average intelligence quotient (IQ) test scores over generations (IQ gains over time). The biggest success story that I have read about, is Jewish men conscripted to serve in the U.S. Army around 1914, during WWI until today, when their IQ’s have increased 30 points. I find that odd, but I assume many came from Russia where they were poorly treated, physically and psychically, by the Czars and then there was plenty of internal strife and food shortages, with the rise of Communism.

Some reasons for the Flynn Effect

Duration of average schooling has increased steadily. Many studies find that children who do not attend school for one reason or another score lower on the tests than their regularly attending peers.

Another explanation is an increased familiarity of the general population with tests and testing. For example, children who take the very same IQ test a second time usually gain 5 or 6 points by doing so. However, this seems to set an upper limit on the effects of test sophistication.

Another theory is that many parents are now interested in their children's intellectual development and are probably doing more to encourage it than parents did in the past. Early intervention programs have shown mixed results.

Still another theory is that the general environment today is much more complex and stimulating. One of the most striking 20th-century changes of the human intellectual environment has come from the increase of exposure to many types of visual media. From pictures on the wall to movies to television to video games to computers, each successive generation has been exposed to richer optical displays than the one before and may have become more adept at visual analysis.

Related to this, James Flynn's current explanation (Flynn 2007) is that environmental changes resulting from modernization - such as more intellectually demanding work, greater use of technology and smaller families - have meant that a much larger proportion of people are more accustomed to manipulating abstract concepts such as hypotheses and categories than a century ago.

Improved nutrition is another explanation. I have donated to the “Plumpy Nut” program to get early “brain building” nutrition to Black African babies and toddlers.

The Flynn Effect is real, and Black Africans have been around for 100,000 years, but as you mentioned, the pinnacle of Black African civilization is Timbuktu, with an average IQ of 70.

For Black Americans, where you might expect to see the greatest Flynn Effect since desegregation, the average IQ is now 80 to 85.

Obligatory Disclaimer: this does not describe or explain the essence or the actions of any individual. Yet, what it does explain, *in general,* are your own observations and gut responses to professionally living in the law enforcement world.

Michael wrote and quoted (and you say I am wasting space):

Myself, I can live with ambiguity. I was empowered by Penn & Teller.

West Wing Episode

"Did you go to law school?"

"No. Clown school."

End quote

Do we really need to always dumb down this discussion? OK, Walt Disney might help. Goofy was one dumb dog-faced human, though apparently smarter than the true canine, Pluto 8-)

Are you, or can you be, rationally prepared for certain behaviors when dealing with certain *groups*? Your most basic, law enforcement, split second observation might be, “The perpetrator is bigger, and may be stronger and faster than me.”

An American Plains Indian’s response to that situation might be, “Today is a good day to die!”

A more prudent and rational response might be, “I do not plan on dying today. May the *Politically Correct* be damned! I will act appropriately, based on what I have experienced in the past, and what I see before me, today.”

That’s not racism. It’s called being rational . . . and truthful, even if the truth hurts.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[syrakusos]

Michael, I can understand your reticence. If I were still in business, teaching, or running for office, I would not be forthcoming either, with an answer to my question, do you profile in your law enforcement job?

Peter Taylor

Dear Mr. Peter Taylor,

You are an idiot.

I am not in "law enforcement." I never have been. I never will be. I am a criminologist. I have worked as a security officer.

If I were in law enforcement on patrol and if I were called to the scene of a crime at which a white female age 11 to 18 had been raped, I would seek first the mother's second husband or live-in boyfriend. If the victim is Black, then the aggressor was likely Black. If the victim was an Episcopalian, then the aggressor was likely an Episcopalian. If the victim was a member of the New York Symphony Wind Section, then the perpetrator was likely the first chair clarinet.

Generally speaking, it is statistically 85% likely that if you are victimized in any way that the perpetrator is someone in your life right now.

Beyond your immediate social circle, generally speaking, it is statistically 100% likely that you cannot even name all the times that you have been victimized in the last 12 months.

Mike M.

Michael E. Marotta

Edited April 20, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[Peter]

Michael E. Marotta wrote:

You are an idiot . . . Allow me to explain . . .

End quote

No explanation is necessary Michael. You are just not a brave man.

Ray Charles, Sly of the Family Stone, Prince, The guy who IS the Black Eyed Peas writer, vocalist, and choreographer, (although Fergie is a great Sheena of the Jungle) - they are all geniuses.

Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, and Booker T. Washington (there is no choice but success) are all geniuses. And BHO? Who else is that savvy in front of a mike since Ronald Reagan? And a host of actors and other achievers.

History from Wikipedia:

European American paramilitary violence against African Americans intensified. Many blacks were fearful of this trend, and men like Benjamin "Pap" Singleton began speaking of separating from the South. This idea culminated in the 1879-1880 movement of the Exodusters, who migrated to Kansas.

End quote

This was well after the Civil War. Is it happening again? No Michael. Never again. It smells like the holocaust, not because of religion, but because of the way you look.

Some more personal history? I remember riding on a ferry boat across the Chesapeake Bay from Cape Charles to Norfolk, Virginia around 1950. The bathrooms had “Whites” and “Negroes” signs and so did the water fountains.

I was three years old, and raised on the south side of the Mason Dixon line (and I still live just south of the line). I lost my bagged lunch on the ferry that my Mommom had fixed for my lunch. I saw an old negro man who had a bagged lunch and I thought it was mine. “He stole it,’ I thought. I walked over to him and tried to snatch it out of his hands. He hung on to it and pinched me!

I ran to my Mom. “That nigger has my lunch, Momma! He pinched me!”

She told me to look around. “A lot of people have bag lunches. Retrace your steps. Where did you set it down? And don’t ever let me ever hear you say, “nigger” again. He is an American like you and me. Call him Mister.”

I walked over to the man, still disbelieving. Listening to what my Mom had said to me, he cooperated when I yelled, “Show me what you got in that bag, you, ah, oh, Mister,” I demanded. He was bemused and showed me. It was not my lunch.

I am just too honest to be PC. What’s the point of ignoring the truth and lying? Can we still be scientific, and separate fact from fiction? I wish no individual any harm.

I was briefly a cop, as are quite a few of my family. Sorry, I thought you were too. We call the police hired for the summer only around here, ‘rent a cops.’

You can’t speak truthfully, can you Michael? Are you a Fraidy Cat, hiding behind his desk?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[syrakusos]

(never mind...)

Edited April 22, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[Peter]

Michael E. Marotta wrote but then deleted, using the edit function available to paying readers of Objectivist Living, but then my excellent service, (no spy-ware was used in the retrieval of this information ha, ha) still allowed me to read his deleted post:

Anyway, Michael wrote:

Objectivism suggests that the most important factor in intelligence -- as the most important factor in character -- is choice. Your own disabilities and misfortunes aside, my explanation is simply that you choose to be an idiot.

End quote

That is where I disagree with you, (not that I am or am not an idiot, for Glenn Beck might agree with you, as I will explain later) but that the most important factor in intelligence is choice.

The *use* of your IQ is substantially a choice. Having an IQ is heredity. Can a person’s near maximum IQ bestowed upon them by heredity, be enhanced by its caregivers’ proper nutrition, and early stimulation, and then later personally enhanced by the child Volitionally exercising its abilities by reading and thinking? Of course, but genetics placed the *potential* there, not Volition.

Now if I were an idiot, could I think that? Your argument is so lame Michael, it is almost a Saturday Night Live caveman or Tarzan caricature, “Peter Bad - He Stupid, Michael Good – Me Smart” so thank you for being so outrageously wrong. No one will take you seriously, at least just by your arguments. You are very emotional about this subject. Why is that? Fear? Brainwashing? Orwellian PC newspeak?

I have also written to Glenn Beck about this subject though it was some time ago. On yesterday’s show he advised caution on any topics about race by the Tea Party Movement, because the left wing propaganda machine and state run media are already trying to pin the *racism* tag on the movement. We should not give them any ammunition even if a statement is factually correct about heredity and IQ.

As a compromise if anyone wishes to continue this conversation, I would advise being circumspect and rational. I will know what you mean, simply because, like my cat, I can read pantomime 8-)

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Brant Gaede]

When I can think of something good to say about Peter Taylor--I won't.

--Brant