RoR: Forum

Based on Steve's good advice, I started a thread in Dissent meant to carry this discussion forward.

Ed

Post 101

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 3:59pm

My appologies for being subjective on my last post.

Post 102

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 4:00pm

Actually, those "invalid connotations" seem reasonable for a determinist when generalizing our behavior in respect to all life forms.

For example, we (objectivists) do not respect the "property" of suspected murderous bear (bear: actual, not metaphor), nor do we give wolves (attack our cows/sheep), foxes (attack our chicken), our livestock, nor other non-human organisms. Environmentalists and animal rights activists respect the property rights of some other organisms.

Each living entity, for themselves, chooses which other living entities it will respect the property of. An Objectivist would respect the property of all humans, except its not too well described how we should handle children and others who have very low intelligence. Which is a good question to ask... what kind of intelligence/ability is required in order for an objectivist to accept someone as being able to make legal claims to defend their own property?

To say that it is immoral if a person does not respect the property of all humans, but its OK if a person does not respect the property of another form of life, such as a chimpanzee (our closest species in the graph (~tree) of life)... is a slippery slope. At some point in the future (after the human species becomes more diverse), the slippery slope's edge will become less steep, and there will be more "racist" objectivists.

Brad, Should our legal system would respect the property of its black citizens? If a non-black citizen attacks the property of a black citizen, is this a crime? Vice versa the race of the citizens, is it a crime to the same extent?

Post 103

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 4:05pm

Dean,

...[moved]...

EDIT: Ed, I'd cross-posted this with your post and the post of Dean's just above. I've moved it to your new thread. Thanks.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 11/03, 4:14pm)

Post 104

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 4:35pm

Dean,

I don't think I'm advancing genetic determinism. That would be plausible only if we all inhabited identical environments. I'm advancing contextual race realism, meaning I'm not exempting race from an objective assessment of its nature.

People who invoke Hitler or feign moral outrage over a mere factual discussion of whether racial traits help explain some of the observable racial realities in society remind me of religious fanatics who oppose scientific inquiries into sensitive topics on moral grounds. Such people are withdrawing themselves from the realm of rational discourse.

Just because I'm for individualism in social ethics and politics doesn't mean I'm for imposing that viewpoint prescriptively on the facts of reality. Racial variation exists biologically because the human species as it branched out geographically didn't stop evolving. Racial variation affects organs, body systems, and chemicals. Racial variation influences susceptibility to certain diseases, influences cognitive capacity, and influences psychological traits such as extroversion.

Anyone who denies the existence of genetic variation among races or asserts that it has nothing to do with academic, economic, and crime disparities that are consistently observed among races is either ignorant or willfully blind to facts in service of an ideology that rests on faith.

Post 105

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 4:54pm

Brad,

Sorry for the confusion on "determinism". I'm a compatibilist, meaning that I think reality is deterministic, and that what people do is determined by genetics, environment, and self determination. I was not trying to imply that you have such a position. I was stating my position.

You didn't answer my question. Should our legal system would respect the property of its black citizens? If a non-black citizen attacks the property of a black citizen, is this a crime? Vice versa the race of the citizens, is it a crime to the same extent?

Thanks,
Dean

Post 106

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 6:00pm

If a non-black citizen attacks the property of a black citizen, is this a crime? Vice versa the race of the citizens, is it a crime to the same extent?

Yes, and yes.

Post 107

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 8:21pm

Oh... give me a break! You guys are pathetic.

The Minnesota Studies offer scientifically validated, statistically significant conclusions about the genetic basis of behavior. Over the years, this on-going study has expanded beyond the originally 100 sets of reared-apart twins (and triplets). Extending beyond the United States, such siblings have been found in China, Germany and Sweden, as well as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Broadly speaking, identical twins remain very similar, regardless of how they are raised. ��About 70% of the variance in IQ was found to be associated with genetic variation. On multiple measures of personality and temperament, occupational and leisure-time interests, and social attitudes, monozygotic twins reared apart are about as similar as are monozygotic twins reared together.� [Bouchard. 1990]

The study of IQ is paradigmatic of human behavior genetic research. There are more than 100 relevant twin, adoptee, and familial studies of IQ, and IQ has been at the center of the nature-nurture debate. The analysis of IQ is also paradigmatic of the approach taken by this study. It illustrates our use of replicated measures, evaluation of rearing effects, and analysis of environmental similarities. We obtain three independent measures of IQ. � These correlations vary within a narrow range (0.64 to 0.74) and suggest, under the assumption of no environmental similarity, that genetic factors account for approximately 70% of the variance in IQ. [Bouchard 1990]

Dataset 2: Familial correlations for IQ

Expected results versus actual results.

Expectation comes from classical �single polygenic model.�
Relationship

Sample or Population

Predicted

Actual

Monozygotic twins raised together

4672

1.00

.85

Monozygotic twins raised apart

65

1.00

.67

Dizygotic Twins Reared together

5546

.50

.58

Siblings reared together

26,473

.50

.45

Non-biological sibling pair (adopted/natural)

345

.00

.29

Non-biological sibling pair (adopted/adopted)

369

.00

.31

From "Crime and Genes: to what extent is human behavior genetically determined?" by Michael E. Marotta

in partial completion of a final grade for CJT 225: Criminal Justice Seminar for Prof. Letitia Arantes and Prof. Christpher FitzPatrick Washtenaw Community College, Fall 2006. Full paper online here.

Identical twins raised together should have the same IQ (within error). They do not. Anecdotally, teaching, middle school, I had a couple of twins in my 7th grade science class. They dressed differently, hung out with different people and always came to class late (one) or early (the other). Kids - teenagers - seek identity. They differentiate themselves. You get a twin who wants to be different, and you have an individual who is.

.... moreover...

There are many kinds of "intelligence" so-called. I have reconstructions of ancient Greek music and when it was presented in the 1890s, the Euros were shocked at how primitive it was. The Parthenon, it ain't.

Zum-galli-galli, the lion sleeps tonight...

It is nice enough to invent the AC turbo, but if you cannot give expression to your happiness, what have you got but a vague and undifferentiated feeling?

Rebirth of Reason, call my name: I'm coming home.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/03, 8:59pm)

Post 108

Thursday, November 3, 2011 - 9:07pm