About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 6:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've already posted this thread on the Yahoo group "Rand-Discussion", but somehow I only got an answer of the nature "Ask her, why are you asking us?"

Ayn Rand has a great reverence for genius in all her books. Yet she makes a clear distinction between the genius and the mediocre. In Atlas Shrugged, for example, she has made Eddy and Cheryl right - that is, on the hero side, rather than the villain side, to put it crudely.
But how does she explain how, while these characters recognize the monstrosity of the events and ideas around them, they are not of the same level of her "atlases"? How do some people "have it" and some just don't?
According to her all men are born with the mind. How does she explain some being born with a more powerful one?


Neha


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 7:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Neha,

To tell you the truth, inherent capacity is more of a biological accident than anything else. What is not a biological accident is the choice to use reason and the effort to develop inherent inclinations and growth potentials to the limit. Geniuses do that and so do the lesser good guys.

A person may have an innate propensity to become a genius and simply decide not to develop it. People who do not have such innate propensity will never become a genius, no matter how hard they strive, but they can become darn good at what they do.

That does not make their lives inherently less valuable to them. Just to others. Especially those who do not know them. Geniuses are valuable not only to themselves, but to all because of what they provide.

Michael


Post 2

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 7:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"According to her all men are born with the mind. How does she explain some being born with a more powerful one?"

I'm sure Rand never suggested that some men are born with a more powerful mind, but her central theme is that living morally & acting virtuously enable individual men to achieve great things.

Also, I've never considered that any Rand character, even Galt, were geniuses. I've just thought of them as "normal" men who lived virtuously and reaped the benefit of their good practise.

Ross

Post 3

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 9:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh, come on, Ross,

Shall we cherry pick? (My font emphasis below.)
Intelligence is not an exclusive monopoly of genius; it is an attribute of all men, and the differences are only a matter of degree. If conditions of existence are destructive to genius, they are destructive to every man, each in proportion to his intelligence. If genius is penalized, so is the faculty of intelligence in every other man. There is only this difference: the average man does not possess the genius's power of self-confident resistance, and will break much faster; he will give up his mind, in hopeless bewilderment, under the first touch of pressure.
["Requiem for Man," Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal]

America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices to “the common good,” but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America’s industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance—and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way.
["What is Capitalism?," Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal]

A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race - and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin.
["Racism," The Virtue of Selfishness]
Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man's character. Only a brute or an altruist would claim that the appreciation of another person's virtues is an act of selflessness, that as far as one's own selfish interest and pleasure are concerned, it makes no difference whether one deals with a genius or a fool, whether one meets a hero or a thug, whether one marries an ideal woman or a slut.
["The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness]
"I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline. Particularly when one can't see the details. Just the shapes. The shapes and the thought that made them. The sky over New York and the will of man made visible. What other religion do we need? And then people tell me about pilgrimages to some dank pesthole in a jungle where they go to do homage to a crumbling temple, to a leering stone monster with a pot belly, created by some leprous savage. Is it beauty and genius they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them come to New York, stand on the shore of the Hudson, look and kneel. When I see the city from my window - no, I don't feel how small I am - but I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body."
[The Fountainhead]
On genius without using the word, "genius":
The great creators - the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors - stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible... But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.
[For The New Intellectual]
On Nathaniel Branden in the good times:
As to Nathan, I thought he was a genius from the first evening. And I really mean genius. In that sense, I have never pronounced that judgment on someone I know, not that immediately, not that objectively... From intelligence alone, it's not yet enough for the title genius. You know what's necessary there? It's a creative intelligence, it has to be an initiating intelligence, not merely philosophical or abstract or quick to understand or being able to deal with abstractions... When you conclude that someone is really a genius, it's total independence, the first hand look of a creative mind, a mind that is constantly active on its own power.
[Taped Interview with Barbara Branden]
Blurb to Atlas Shrugged:
Peopled by larger-than-life heroes and villains, and charged with awesome questions of good and evil, Atlas Shrugged is a novel of tremendous scope. It presents an astounding panorama of human life—from the productive genius who becomes a worthless playboy (Francisco d'Anconia)—to the great steel industrialist who does not know that he is working for his own destruction (Hank Rearden)—to the philosopher who becomes a pirate (Ragnar Danneskjold)—to the composer who gives up his career on the night of his triumph (Richard Halley).
Michael


Post 4

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 1:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"How does she explain some being born with a more powerful one?"

Why would she want to, or need to? Some guys have bigger feet, etc. etc. The brain is an organ -- and, the more circuits you are born with (or whatever - that being a scientific question) the more mental power you can exercise, given the same moral qualities.

This may also be relevant: AR once said that a mediocrity is NOT an average intelligence -- it's 'an average intelligence that resents and envies its betters' (I think those are the exact words she used.)


Post 5

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 4:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Sorry Neha, I deleted my post because I miss interpreted your question!
My intelligence varies during the day. lol

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/04, 11:12am)


Post 6

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 7:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, if sheer volume was a substitute for coherent argument, then you'd have me.

My comments were directed at the belief that some are born smarter or more intelligent than others. This is the sick, sad excuse used by educators and bureaucrats all over the world when their anti-mind policies fail.

Neha was referring to people that seem to "have it" and those that don't.

I was challenging that premise; that some are born with or are *lucky* enough to have great gifts of intelligence bestowed upon them. Bullshit. Rand defined intelligence as the ability to deal with & integrate abstractions. She's right. But that particular process, while a natural predisposition exists, is learned, not given.

Ross

Post 7

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 7:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What is I.Q.? 'Tis not hereafter.  Present integration hath present laughter.

Sorry to butcher the Bard(and all apologies to ARIans for butchering the word 'bard' by applying it to Shakespeare).

My question is; why is it so hard to allow for hereditary differences in intelligence just because Ayn Rand 'supposedly' disavowed the idea?  Allowing for natural differences in I.Q. does nothing at all to vitiate objectivism.


Post 8

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 8:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My comments were directed at the belief that some are born smarter or more intelligent than others. This is the sick, sad excuse used by educators and bureaucrats all over the world when their anti-mind policies fail.
It seems clear that some people are born with more potential for muscular development than other people.  I don't see why a similar thing shouldn't be true for various kinds of intelligence.

I could never be a great singer, no matter how much I trained....I do think it's true that certain people are born with certain genetic gifts.


Post 9

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 8:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ross,

Sorry for the overkill. I got searching and enthusiasm got me - not against you, but in finding the quotes in themselves.

I agree that different innate mental capacities and propensities are used shamelessly as excuses by education bureaucrats, but that is no reason to deny a simple fact. Trounce the bureaucrats for being assholes and not doing their job competently.

Evaluating mental capacity is both important and is misused.

Like I.N. Rand said, some have bigger feet, some have poor eyesight, some have extreme facility in learning vocabulary, so they learn 10 or 15 different languages in short time with no problem, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Why deny that? Why think Rand would be so dumb as to deny it too? I have never seen her once claim that all human beings are created with equal mental capacity. On the contrary, she created Eddie Willers for a purpose and I remember she was very clear about it (I don't remember the words and don't have time to look right now).

One thing did stand out to me, however. There is a mental threshold where people who fall within the limits have the capacity to develop a minimum of reasoning skills. And with this minimum, they can develop splendidly, albeit to differing degrees. (Obviously people with Downs Syndrome and other such limitations are more problematic.)

In any false dichotomy, I always seek a third way based on reason.

Michael


Post 10

Saturday, September 3, 2005 - 9:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, that's the crux of that matter then, isn't it? To what degree is mental capacity determined by nature or nurture?

I hold that vis *intelligence* it is predominantly nurture. Now, the benefits and exigencies of environment are, to say the least, complicated. Excepting those that have actual physical retardation there's good research to suggest that environment, and changes to same, strongly influence intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Or perhaps the wild boy of Aveyron:

http://sesd.sk.ca/psychology/psych30/wild_boy_P30.htm

From that precis:

"If he has sensations, they give birth to no idea. He cannot even compare them with one another. One would think that there is no connection between his soul or mind and his body, and that he cannot reflect on anything. As a result he has no discernment, no real mind, no memory. This condition of imbecility shows itself in his eyes, which he never keeps on any one object, and in the sounds of his voice which are inarticulate, and discordant."

Montessori used such data to develop her didactic methods, taking slum children and raising them to a startling level of competency.

But perhaps more importantly, when we talk about intelligence, what do we actually mean? Well, I mean, with Rand, the ability to deal with abstractions, that is, the ability to conceptualise. If a person is born tabula rasa, having no innate ideas, but only a potential, then that potential can only be realised through environment, that is, through learning.

Ross



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Sunday, September 4, 2005 - 7:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jordan,

Please read Ross Elliot's posts on this thread.  After you have done so, please let me know if you still think that the form of the tabula rasa that Steven Pinker attacked in his book, The Blank Slate, is trivial and unimportant and was inappropriately considered a variation of the tabula rasa position.

Laj.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Sunday, September 4, 2005 - 9:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ross,

There is a vast amount of literature on IQ testing and differences in mental ability.  You are cherry-picking a very small amount of it to support a conclusion that flies in the face of what most experts believe based on the available evidence.

Charles Murray, a co-author of The Bell Curve, recently revisited the issue of how blindness to differences in mental abilities is hurting social policy.  He wrote an article for Commentary magazine, an article that is available online.  You would be hard pressed to find an expert that would disagree with his evaluation of the evidence.

It's quite possible that if you had first hand experience teaching students, you'd appreciate many of the finer points of this issue better.

Laj.


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Sunday, September 4, 2005 - 1:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I meet many wealthy people in my line of work. These people are not always the sharpest tools in the shed. One of my customers runs his own trucking company with great success. He has multiple homes, plenty of cash, helicopter, cars despite being fairly simple minded in many respects. I swear this guy makes the hillbillies from Deliverance look they are from the future.
This guy (along with many just like him) has learned how to have ethical business practices along with a touch of common sense and personal work ethic. He deals with reality very well. For me, this seems to be the point. All levels of intelligence should be judged on application to reality. The world has markets for silk ties and NASCAR T-shirts. People who apply what they know to reality in efforts to chase lofty dreams or just improved quality of life tend to end up a lot closer to their desired results.


Post 14

Sunday, September 4, 2005 - 10:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The  intelligence of every living organism is directly proportioned to the nervous system , meaning;
more developed nervous system more intelligence .
The nervous system is the principal coordinative and the center of innate intelligence distribution .
Matter of facts alterations of the form, position, and tension of the nervous system, mainly in the spinal cord; block ,inhibits, or harden the expression of this intelligence.


(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/04, 3:09pm)


Post 15

Sunday, September 4, 2005 - 8:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Say what you will about "genius," it is only subjective. I submit it has as much to do with character as with anything else. Even Rand's description of Branden isn't objective. I've known highly creative people who may or may not be described as "genius" using Rand's standard(s).

--Brant


Post 16

Sunday, September 4, 2005 - 8:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ross,

I see you have had very little experience with teaching. Any good teacher at practically any level would love to put you in front of a classroom and see if you can get equal results from all students (those who learn in good faith, not problem students due to attitudes, etc.).

I am confused about one thing. You seem to be making this case on an either-or basis.

What is wrong with having both? Innate aptitudes and nurturing?

One does not contradict the other in any logic I can see. So why the insistence?

Michael


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 3:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From "The Inequality Taboo" thread here.  See this link. 
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12002015_1

Then, read this summary:
http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000658/

The work of Charles Spearman taken up by Arthur Jensen and others has identified a factor called g, which "cannot be described in terms of the knowledge content of cognitive test items, or in terms of skills, or even in terms of theoretical cognitive processes. It is not essentially a psychological or behavioral variable, but a biological one, a property of the brain. But although not itself a cognitive ability, g is what causes positive correlations among individual differences in performance, even on cognitive tasks that differ greatly with respect to sensory motor modality, brain modularity, and learned cognitive skills and knowledge. "

It has nothing to do with brain size.  Variations within large groups (men-women; "races;" or occupations) tend to be greater than those between them.  (In other words, some black female carpenters are smarter than some white male architects.)  But those variations exist.  They are real. They are measurable.  They are innate -- born within the individual.and borne within the individual.

Now, if you want to see the "psychology of genius," read SOLO.  It plays out pretty much as Luke Setzer describes a MENSA meeting.   Geniuses are smarter than everyone else, but they do not run their lives any better.  I guess that is some comfort to the rest of us.

I asked rhetorically in another thread if a little lawlessness is not necessary to a vibrant society.  That is to ask, if we had a society of geniuses, what would it look like?

My brother is a genius, but I am not.  We have many of the same attitudes and temperments.  However, I know, internally, that he often tells me things that I had no perception of, emotuonal as well as intellectual. 

The reason that IQ tests work is that they ask questions that you cannot solve no matter how much time you devote to them. 

It is also true that people waste a lot of mental energy with non-productive or counter-productive habits, from simple neurosis to alcoholism.  Think of all the time lost praying in church.  (But is it lost if it re-centers the individial?  Tough question...)  We advocate a wonderful society by de-controlling and de-regulating at the legislative level. Think of the personal liberation to be won by freeing the mind of unnecessary, incorrect, or destructive ideas -- and more -- habits of thinking.

So, if we were characters in an Ayn Rand novel -- which we are -- then our clear thinking (courtesy of Barbara Branden's "Efficient Thinking" course) would allow us to achieve more than "other" people.   Well, OK, maybe not. 


Post 18

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 3:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ross Elliot wrote: " If a person is born tabula rasa, having no innate ideas, but only a potential, then that potential can only be realised through environment, that is, through learning."

No animal is born tabula rasa.  Chicks perceive the hen through the shell.

Have you ever been a parent?

(Nathaniel Branden's classic quip on this was: "The tragedy is not that men are born tabula rasa, but that they often die that way.")

Anyway, tabula rasa is a construct, not an empirical fact.


Post 19

Monday, September 5, 2005 - 4:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Now what would make you say that, Michael?

I taught computer technology, full-time, to tertiary students for eight years. I wrote most of the course material. I was also instrumental in establishing a Montessori pre-school.

You shouldn't be so presumptuous.

You should also read more carefully.

"You seem to be making this case on an either-or basis."

I said:

"Excepting those that have actual physical retardation there's good research to suggest that environment, and changes to same, strongly influence intelligence."

I didn't say that nurture was the only factor, I said it was a strong factor, and I can assure you that of the hundreds of students that passed through my hands, those that had the most difficulty learning were those who came from difficult environments. Many of them still write to me and let me know how they're doing.

My views come from personal experience and until someone equally qualified can show me that environment is not the decisive factor in a person's ability to think and learn coherently, I'll take conjecture and supposition under advisement.

Ross

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.