RoR: Forum

Bill wrote:

Moreover, while certain dispositional or personality traits may have a genetic component, a person's character depends on his beliefs and convictions -- on the moral values that he learns or discovers and chooses to practice -- not on his ancestral lineage.

You have quite clearly smuggled the hidden premise here that invalidates the argument. The hidden premise being that "character" is defined as that which is not inherited. This is begging the question plain and simple.

If you're so sure that you're not begging the question, let's start naming character traits and see if there's evidence of heredity. Because if there's a single one that you say is a character trait that shows strong inheritance, then the whole thing falls apart or you have to redefine it is as "not a character trait" or concede tabula rasa is wrong.

Or just do what you have done so far and say "character cannot be inherited" and pretend you do not have a fallacious argument.

Bob

Post 81

Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 2:24pm

Cal writes:

This is also consistent with the following howler:
No one is born with any kind of "talent" and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired. [AR, Foreword to We the Living].
She doesn't seem to know the difference between "talent" and "skill". Of course "talent" is that what you're born with, and using that talent you can develop the skill. But she literally believes in the tabula rasa, so Mozart had no talent, it was just a question of hard work and everyone who does the same work can achieve the same results as Mozart. Yeah, sure.

Cal, If you think that Rand doesn't know the difference between "talent" and "skill", then everything else you say above makes no sense. If she is not distinguishing between "talent" and "skill" then how can you conclude that she believes that "Mozart had no talent" and that "everyone who does the same work can achieve the same results as Mozart"? Do you believe we are born with the same "skill" that Mozart had?

The most you can accuse Rand of in this case is using two words as synonymous when they aren't. But, the context made it clear what she meant. Since you aren't an Objectivist, it shouldn't be a problem for you to apply the "Principle of Charity" when trying to understand what she wrote. But, understanding isn't your goal, is it?

Post 82

Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 3:10pm

Glenn Wrote:

"The most you can accuse Rand of in this case is using two words as synonymous when they aren't."

What Rand wrote was "No one is born with any kind of "talent" and,..."

You can try to explain away with "context" arguments all you want, the truth is that the exact opposite of that statement is true

IE: "EVERONE is born with Many kinds of "talent" and,..."

You cannot explain that away with context arguments, no way.

Bob

Post 83

Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 3:16pm

Ah, Mr. Fly, I see that you've come buzzing around once again to pester and annoy those of us who actually consider Ayn Rand a respectable philosopher, since apparently your sole reason for being on this list is to discredit and belittle her. In your latest foray, you write:

So Rand held the absurd notion that all our emotions are the result of the ideas we hold. It's just a question of programming the right ideas and then the good emotions will follow automatically.

Yes, with the understanding that an emotion is a response to a value judgment, and that the programming is fully integrated and non-contradictory. This view of emotions, by the way, is not some crank opinion with no scientific backing. It is supported by Psychologist Dr. Magna Arnold in her two-volume work, Emotion and Personality (Columbia University Press, 1960).

[Rand] apparently really thought that our character has no inherited traits, that it's all "self-made".

Yes, given the Objectivist view of "character" as that aspect of a person's nature or identity that is shaped by his moral values.

This is also consistent with the following howler: No one is born with any kind of "talent" and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired. [AR, Foreword to We the Living]. She doesn't seem to know the difference between "talent" and "skill". Of course "talent" is that what you're born with, and using that talent you can develop the skill.

Aren't you being a bit unfair to call her statement a "howler"? A howler is a stupid blunder. Far from being a howler, Rand's statement is a perfectly legitimate use of the English language, since the term "talent" can be used to refer either to a natural endowment or to an acquired skill or ability. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "talent" as: 1. A mental or physical aptitude; natural or acquired ability."

But she literally believes in the tabula rasa, so Mozart had no talent, it was just a question of hard work and everyone who does the same work can achieve the same results as Mozart. Yeah, sure.

She doesn't say that, nor is it implied by her statement. To say that every skill has to be acquired is not to say that everyone can acquire the same skill or the same level of skill. Nor is the latter implied by her concept of "tabula rasa," which refers only to her rejection of innate ideas. If anything is a howler, Mr. Fly, it is your interpretation of Rand's philosophy!

- Bill

Post 84

Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 3:45pm

Cal, If you think that Rand doesn't know the difference between "talent" and "skill", then everything else you say above makes no sense. If she is not distinguishing between "talent" and "skill" then how can you conclude that she believes that "Mozart had no talent" and that "everyone who does the same work can achieve the same results as Mozart"? Do you believe we are born with the same "skill" that Mozart had?

It was not correct to say that she didn't seem to know the difference between the words, what she wrote was wrong, but not for that reason. In fact I'm sure that she did know the meaning of the word "talent" (she wrote that in 1958, just after she'd finished Atlas Shrugged, so her command of the English language was perfect at the time and her insistence on precise language is well known), but that she thought that it was a meaningless concept (hence the scare quotes), as "no one is born with any kind of talent". Of course she wasn't arguing that (for example) Mozart couldn't write a symphony when he was born, no one will ever deny such a trivial truth, everyone will have to develop his skills, even a Mozart. No, she really meant it, this is her version of the blank slate, that there really is no such thing as "talent", implying for example that everyone can in principle develop the same skills as Mozart. She wrote further:

Writers are made, not born. To be exact, writers are self-made.

Of course no one will ever claim that someone can be born a writer in the literal sense that he can immediately write a book. He'll have to learn to speak and to write first and he will have to develop his skills in writing over the years. It's obvious that she's not disputing that trivial sense that "writers are not born", as no one will ever deny that. So she can only mean that there is no innate disposition (in other words, there doesn't exist a talent) for becoming a writer.

The most you can accuse Rand of in this case is using two words as synonymous when they aren't. But, the context made it clear what she meant. Since you aren't an Objectivist, it shouldn't be a problem for you to apply the "Principle of Charity" when trying to understand what she wrote. But, understanding isn't your goal, is it?

On the contrary, I think that I'm one of the few people here who really understands what Rand says.

Post 85

Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 7:26pm

Bill,

I give you kudos for your constitution in dealing with the dictionary police.

Ethan

Post 86

Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 11:51pm

Well, at least as regards the Mozart issue (I haven't been following the whole discussion), Cal IS right as to what Rand thought. Of course, she considered Mozart "pre-music," so that wouldn't imply that she thought he acquired the degree of skill in any case which the general opinion of the music world credits him with displaying. But she didn't think there was a native disposition at work enabling him more easily to acquire skill than others. Her views on the issue of native talent -- i.e., that there isn't such a thing -- were taught by Allan Blumenthal in psychology courses I took with him in the early '70s. He always seemed to me to be uncomfortable with this view, to find it problematic, and to be stretching for explanations when asked (as each time I took his course he was asked), well, then, how did you account for something like Mozart? (In the last years of the '70s, Allan was reconsidering the issue of talent, along with other issues; by then he'd split with Rand. I don't know what he eventually concluded.)

Ellen

___

Post 87

Friday, June 30, 2006 - 7:03am

Ellen,
We're having a disagreement as to what Rand meant by "talent". So, let me ask you this question: Is it your understanding that Rand believed (and Blumenthal taught in his psychology lectures) that anyone could have done what Mozart did if they did the same amount of work?
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 88

Friday, June 30, 2006 - 7:20am

Glenn Fletcher asked me if it's my understanding "that Rand believed (and Blumenthal taught in his psychology lectures) that anyone could have done what Mozart did if they did the same amount of work?"

Yes, exactly -- with the added factor that after all Mozart had significant early training from his father and grew up in a music-rich environment; but then the same could be said of his sister, and she, too, was an avid musician, so the extra ingredient in his case was considered to be the "amount of work."

Ellen

___

Post 89

Friday, June 30, 2006 - 8:25am

I recall Peikoff saying in an interview that she demanded she was no smarter than other philosophers. When asked how she accounted for all of her discoveries, as opposed to all their blunders throughout history�she insisted that it was her unyielding honesty. (He said he respectfully disagreed with her because he was certainly honest growing up, yet he didn�t discover anything.)

Post 90

Friday, June 30, 2006 - 8:44am

Bill wrote:

Ah, Mr. Fly, I see that you've come buzzing around once again to pester and annoy those of us who actually consider Ayn Rand a respectable philosopher

If by "pester and annoy" you mean "coherently and logically point out obvious errors" and by "respectable" you mean "infallible", then this makes sense.

Bob

Post 91

Friday, June 30, 2006 - 9:02am

Ok Bill look at this. You wrote:

Yes, given the Objectivist view of "character" as that aspect of a person's nature or identity that is shaped by his moral values.

and...

Rand points out that this is false[pre-determined character], because a person enters the world tabula rasa, and because his convictions, values, moral character and achievements are determined by his choices and acquired knowledge rather than by his genetic lineage, how does this beg the question?

Tell me now, honestly, that you still don't see the fallacy. You argue character is not inherited because it relies on morals, then say morals are defined as that which is not inherited - fallacy. C'mon now...

How is this NOT begging the question ??

Bob

Post 92

Friday, June 30, 2006 - 9:31am

Wow Bob,

You sure are good at ascribing to others things they haven't said. Who are you trying to convince?

Ethan

Post 93

Friday, June 30, 2006 - 9:45am

Of course she wasn't arguing that (for example) Mozart couldn't write a symphony when he was born, no one will ever deny such a trivial truth, everyone will have to develop his skills, even a Mozart.

She wrote further:
Writers are made, not born. To be exact, writers are self-made.
Of course no one will ever claim that someone can be born a writer in the literal sense that he can immediately write a book. He'll have to learn to speak and to write first and he will have to develop his skills in writing over the years. It's obvious that she's not disputing that trivial sense that "writers are not born", as no one will ever deny that. So she can only mean that there is no innate disposition (in other words, there doesn't exist a talent) for becoming a writer.

Again, I'll give my take. I believe in the concept of Tabula Rasa in the context I defined earlier. I do believe that some people are born with the potential for greatness, but it still has to be actualized. That potential could come in the form of "better" neurons and receptors in certain areas of the brain responsible for different skills. BUT, even if someone posesses the potential to be a great writer, if they have no interest in writing it won't do any good. So in this sense, the quote you mention is certainly valid. Cal, so far you've offered quotes from Rand, and then insist that what she said is not what she really meant. It seems to me as if you just keep on setting up strawmen. Now, I'm well aware that you may come back with another quote that proves what Rand really meant, but if you want to know the truth, I'm more interested in whether a given idea fits in with the principles of Objectivism, than whether or not "Rand said it."

Post 94

Friday, June 30, 2006 - 10:43am

Jonathan:

Cal, so far you've offered quotes from Rand, and then insist that what she said is not what she really meant.

On the contrary, I said that she meant what she said. Anyway, my interpretation of what she said has been fully confirmed by Ellen's posts, so I see no need to elaborate on it further.

You remind me of those theologians who try to explain away embarrassing and/or conflicting passages in the Bible, by tying themselves into knots to try to find some far-fetched interpretations of the text that are less offending, as it is unthinkable to them that the text might be just wrong. Is it really unthinkable that Rand might have screwed up sometimes?

In fact that is not so strange, as Rand may have presented her views as a philosophy, but in many places she moved into the domains of biology and psychology, of which she had only the knowledge of a rank amateur. But even if she had been an expert in these areas and had built her ideas on the then current knowledge, such knowledge may now have become obsolete, so it wouldn't come as a surprise that ideas that might have been plausible in the sixties have now been disproved. What I observe in Objectivist circles however, is cramped attempts to keep the canon unchanged at all costs, as if any modification might bring down the whole structure.

Post 95

Friday, June 30, 2006 - 10:55am

You remind me of those theologians who try to explain away embarrassing and/or conflicting passages in the Bible, by tying themselves into knots to try to find some far-fetched interpretations of the text that are less offending, as it is unthinkable to them that the text might be just wrong. Is it really unthinkable that Rand might have screwed up sometimes?

Absoutely not, as I clearly indicated when I said:

I'm more interested in whether a given idea fits in with the principles of Objectivism, than whether or not "Rand said it."

"Rand said so" is not an argument (nor does it disprove anything).

Post 96

Friday, June 30, 2006 - 12:45pm

Here is evidence that you can alter who you "are" (genes aren't even half the issue, environment predominates above them) ...

==============
Structural plasticity associated with exposure to drugs of abuse. Neuropharmacology. 2004;47 Suppl 1:33-46.

Persistent changes in behavior and psychological function that occur as a function of experience, such those associated with learning and memory, are thought to be due to the reorganization of synaptic connections (structural plasticity) in relevant brain circuits.

Some of the most compelling examples of experience-dependent changes in behavior and psychological function, changes that can last a lifetime, are those that accrue with the development of addictions.

However, until recently, there has been almost no research on whether potentially addictive drugs produce forms of structural plasticity similar to those associated with other forms of experience-dependent plasticity.

In this paper we summarize evidence that, indeed, exposure to amphetamine, cocaine, nicotine or morphine produces persistent changes in the structure of dendrites and dendritic spines on cells in brain regions involved in incentive motivation and reward (such as the nucleus accumbens), and judgment and the inhibitory control of behavior (such as the prefrontal cortex).
==============

Ed

Post 97

Friday, June 30, 2006 - 12:50pm

And more evidence ...

=========================
D-amphetamine boosts language learning independent of its cardiovascular and motor arousing effects. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2004 Sep;29(9):1704-14.

D-Amphetamine (AMPH) was effective in a number of studies on motor and language recovery after stroke, but given safety concerns, its general use after stroke is still debated. ...

Subjects received either AMPH (0.25 mg/kg) or placebo 90 min prior to training on each day. Novel word learning was significantly faster and better in the AMPH as compared to the placebo group.

Increased learning success was maintained 1 month post-training. No correlation was found between training success and drug-induced increases in blood pressure, heart rate, or a facilitation of simple motor reaction time.

Our data show that AMPH's plasticity-enhancing effect in humans is not related to its cardiovascular arousal. This suggests that the beneficial effects in stroke patients could also be obtained by less cardiovascular active drugs.
=========================

I heard a rumor that Rand was addicted to Dexatrim diet pills. If true, this would go a long way in explaining her exceptional mental prowess.

Ed

Post 98

Friday, June 30, 2006 - 1:02pm

And here's another ...

=========================
Enhanced neocortical neural sprouting, synaptogenesis, and behavioral recovery with D-amphetamine therapy after neocortical infarction in rats. Stroke. 1998 Nov;29(11):2381-93; discussion 2393-5.

CONCLUSIONS: These data support the occurrence of neurite growth followed by synaptogenesis in the neocortex in a pattern that corresponds both spatially and temporally with behavioral recovery that is accelerated by D-amphetamine treatment.

While the specific mechanisms responsible for D-amphetamine-promoted expression of proteins involved in neurite growth and synaptogenesis and of enhanced behavioral recovery are not known, it is suggested that protein upregulation occurs as a result of functional activation of pathways able to remodel in response to active behavioral performance.
=========================

If you want to make your kid a genius, though, there are other ways besides psycho-stimulants (and fetal exposure to stimulants is DETRIMENTAL!).

The only thing you really need is an enriched environment. The child's excitement at seeing new things will release the child's own adrenaline -- and this will cause abundant neural sprouting and synaptogenesis.

The neuro-synaptic "return on investment" falls sharply at about age 10, when the brain has developed most every cell it ever will (canalization). After age 10, enriched environments ought to maintain the canalized brain.

Ed

Post 99

Friday, June 30, 2006 - 1:18pm