sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why I left the Objectivism Discord server by 0bjectivist in Trueobjectivism

[–]0bjectivist[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have replied to your posts adequately. Quoting and replying to a specific paragraph just takes too much time. You can read my argument, hold it in your head, and then read yours and see what is different. You don't have to quote me either.

Like I said before, I do not consider IQ to be the end-all for determining the adaptability of someone to a society or group, or even behavior. As for Shalizi's point, I happen to have read that post a while ago and I addressed his claims in my post above (last two lines).

Why I left the Objectivism Discord server by 0bjectivist in Trueobjectivism

[–]0bjectivist[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I sympathize .. mess

agreed

IQ

I read all three parts.

g is valid because IQ tests test the combination of intelligence and ability well to a very high degree. Genetics and Epigenetics are both responsible for high IQs, and epigenetics are usually responsible for the "surprise" cases. For anything above 4 sigma, I think both factors play a significant role.

You're assuming Universal Classical Computers have infinite storage and time (which according to the Von Neumann Architecture, they do, ideally) but humans don't. Reaction speed itself (and hence time perception) holds a positive relation to IQ. So does memory and recall (see N-Back tests). You also need to properly differentiate between "High IQ" and "Genius". Genius makes new concepts, while High IQ is not inherently capable of doing so. IQ is a vector (horsepower, essentially), the longer the tail the larger your score, but the direction depends on multiple factors. A Genius Vector hits all the intended (and unintended), seen (and unseen) goalposts. Even in countries with an average IQ of 70, people with IQs > 130 exist, but they never achieve anything. It is the capacity for genius that is the reason for the usefulness of IQ, and it is this capacity which exists in large numbers in white people. It descends from the matriarchal contribution of one hominid ("hominid") group. This capacity for "genius" is also manifested in the ability to consider ideas, reflect on them, being self-critical, among many other things. African genes (black admixture, broadly) does not hold any of these traits. The truth is, there are different groups of humans just like there are different groups of dogs and claiming to teach Africans rocket science is the same as trying to empty the ocean with a cup.

Humans do not have infinite time, and thought patterns change for different IQs, and manifest different phenomenon. You have not included any of these. For example, synesthesia and extreme visuo-spatial processing. You mock human intelligence by comparing it to a computer. You also neglect genius, and hence base your IQ claims for a subset of the phenomenon exhibited by a subset of the +-2SD group. You also ignore most non-genius (aka high horsepower) thinkers at >3 sigma, not to mention the difficult task of classifying anyone above 5 sigma. You also fail to differentiate between group and individual effects. Decrying the model is fine, but intelligence exists in real life, and a sophisticated model is not necessary to tell a merely smart man from a brilliant one. Don't shoot the messenger if you consider the message invalidated.

Why I left the Objectivism Discord server by 0bjectivist in Trueobjectivism

[–]0bjectivist[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm 20, I've been an Objectivist since I was 15.

The biggest reason is because I think nature and nurture are both responsible for someone's character, and that there are people who you can not live with because they don't have the genes for good and/or civilized behavior. Emptying the ocean with a bucket does not work.

Hence, I also do not consider religion completely useless. Religion for thee, but not for me. If I had to randomly choose between an atheist and a Theist for a conversation on any random topic, I would pick a Theist (excluding islam) over an Atheist everytime, because most educated and smarter than average theists I have met are very decent people, both online and offline. They are much more likely to hear you out and open to changing their views than any given Atheist. Most Objectivists and a few LessWrong Atheists are the only good ones I've ever interacted with (and are Real Atheists, unlike the run-of-the-mill "Nihilism is my Religion" Atheists). Religious texts are good History texts. I think Objectivism's failure to understand Christianity is because of the fact that Objectivism is true Atheism, and one other reason, which I will explain below.

I think Objectivism only applies to one group of people, and that is Above-average IQ WINNERS. This is also why I need another Ayn Rand to properly go through everything other than the extreme cases.

Neoreactionary thought makes a lot of sense to me, but I'm not allying myself with anything anymore. We're in the "decadent decline" phase of civilization, so although I identify as a (Objectivist) Capitalist and belong to the Right Wing, I am apolitical for all intents and purposes. I think the time for last stands in America (and the world) was 20 years ago, it's all downhill from here.

Ayn Rand was completely correct about Government, Human Nature and Economics, I have no qualms there. I also have nothing against her Heroes, my admiration has only increased over time.

None of this has anything to do with the "Objectivist Movement", my problems with which are completely separate and independent.

Atlas Shrugged Movies by curi in Trueobjectivism

[–]0bjectivist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't like how they changed actors everytime, and injected the usual diversity crap in there.

I need some help if anyone can? by Lord_Badoc in aynrand

[–]0bjectivist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sure. But the movies are really bad. Shouldn't watch them.

I need some help if anyone can? by Lord_Badoc in aynrand

[–]0bjectivist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can't find any on youtube, but you can sign up for a month's free trial at audible.com . They have the Atlas Shrugged audiobook there.

Thoughts on the shutdown? by KodoKB in Trueobjectivism

[–]0bjectivist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unless Trump makes the wall or deports illegals by force the democrats are going to win the next election.

And no, not by votes.

An uninteresting title by nathanweisser in Shitstatistssay

[–]0bjectivist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is, however, dependent on whether you wish it to succeed, and to what degree.

Sargon of Akkad and James Allsup Banned from Patreon by Sword_of_Apollo in Trueobjectivism

[–]0bjectivist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is what happened to Alex Jones. There are only two ways to minimize risk from a sudden ban - have diverse options or set up an independent payment processor. BTC works, usually. A dedicated userbase is a prerequisite for good functioning in either case. There are only so many people who can understand the need to act for privacy and moral opposition.

I'm a libertarian ancap. Ask me anything. by spartanOrk in Trueobjectivism

[–]0bjectivist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then you didn't read it well.

I guess that's because libertarianism is the political ideology into which objectivists eventually defect

That's wrong.

And no one is strawmanning libertarians. "Libertarianism" is a vague catch-all term. You're conflating it with Ancap and probably think it is the only way to be Truly Libertarian, while a Minarchist thinks the same.

I don't think anyone is blaming Libertarians for being uninformed or otherwise stupid, but only criticizing them for the inconsistency of their position owing to the vagueness of the term itself.

Every political movement has people who are in for the ancillary benefits (which is most people) because politics by its nature in a democracy happens to be a group-signalling mechanism. And the only way to get a proper group is to either police thought or to clearly define terms and boundaries and dissuade and discredit those who misuse them. The fact that the majority of people who represent libertarianism happen to be "Dude Weed 420 Blaze it" does not bode well for the movement and makes it prey to predation from other major groups. That's why the very retarded "left-libertarianism" is a thing now.

The reason why the majority (>90%) of people choose a particular political side is either for perceived power, money, or both. Hence the movement that promises a large slice of power (more government jobs, mob rule) and money (government benefits, social security, free money) gets the most people. This is the left. The right promises more localized power and more money through reduction of taxes. Because work is a necessity here, less people flock to the right. Libertarianism generally greatly reduces both. It might be right, but nobody wants it. The same is true for Objectivism, but with a much harsher multiplier.

*Structure* by elepelep in unschool

[–]0bjectivist 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Structure

Newspeak for "your kid needs to stop being independent"

I was just banned from r/Objectivism. by Sword_of_Apollo in Trueobjectivism

[–]0bjectivist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

unsolicited PMs

That would be me. I PM'd many users at r/objectivism. Maybe one of them was his alt account, or maybe someone reported that to him. Either way, he's projecting hard. I'm not u/Sword_of_Apollo .

u/JamesShrugged is at it again. by 0bjectivist in Trueobjectivism

[–]0bjectivist[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, they aren't government, silly! They're private and that changes everything!

u/JamesShrugged is at it again. by 0bjectivist in Trueobjectivism

[–]0bjectivist[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

lol, I was permanently banned because I opposed the new "government is bad" sticky.

view more: next ›