tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post6023633886139834636..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: The Evolution of Orthodox ObjectivismDaniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-77994597143061739012019-07-11T21:55:34.394-07:002019-07-11T21:55:34.394-07:00"If the mind is not a blank slate what's ..."If the mind is not a blank slate what's the point of education?"<br /><br />1. The Blank Slate means no heritable mental traits.<br />2. Etymologically education means "drawing out" what is in the student already in embryonic form, so to speak. It means helping them to become who they are.<br />3. I often wonder whether young people wouldn't be better served in their education by turning them loose in libraries and workshops and, instead of offering classes, only holding office hours in case they have a question about something they found in a book or they want to hash something out in the hearing of an elder.T. Rasanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-22406083755783174312019-07-10T10:39:01.975-07:002019-07-10T10:39:01.975-07:00If the mind is not a blank slate what's the po...<br />If the mind is not a blank slate what's the point of education?<br /><br />Students think they know it all anyway.<br /><br />Maybe they are right!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-82743517347282343882019-06-23T09:43:29.029-07:002019-06-23T09:43:29.029-07:00Interviewer: "Miss Rand, what evidence do you...Interviewer: "Miss Rand, what evidence do you have that the human mind is a blank slate?"<br /><br />Miss Rand: "MY mind has always been blank, it is my greatest pride!"T. Rasanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-7231347157434860422019-05-30T11:22:25.831-07:002019-05-30T11:22:25.831-07:00Even if you have high IQ you still have to study.
...Even if you have high IQ you still have to study.<br /><br />Many a Napoleon has remained in the counting house!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-84893021287376492682019-05-26T05:30:08.638-07:002019-05-26T05:30:08.638-07:00Quote:
Rand herself says in "Ayn Rand Answe...Quote: <br /><br />Rand herself says in "Ayn Rand Answers" (last question of Chapter 3): "I'd prefer that people raise their IQ from 110 to 150. It can be done." <br /><br />*****<br /><br />Given her premises, her meaning is clear: the individual can choose to raise his IQ by almost three standard deviations, by using his unaided rational mind. That cannot be squared with anything in the sciences of human nature. It is the reductio ad absurdum of the blank slate.<br /><br />End quote.<br /><br />To be fair, this statement was from 1967. That was before Jensen's 1969 article and Hernsteins '72 (I think that's the date, it was in the Atlantic) in which the idea that intelligence had a high genetic component made it into the public consciousness. I recall when The Bell Curve came out, it wasn't just race that got the attention but just the fact (which was consensus at the time) that intelligence was largely genetic.<br /><br />Rand's reading was limited to the New York Times so I doubt she was ever presented with the evidence for a high genetic component to intelligence. Even today plenty of people who should know better (though not those trained in psychometrics) attack IQ testing and the high heritability of intelligence.<br /><br />But yeah, I think if Rand were alive today she'd do all she could to minimize these things out of an allegiance to the blank slate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-18669946608955048252019-05-21T20:10:16.759-07:002019-05-21T20:10:16.759-07:00Gordon said:
"[Rand] would never concede [th...Gordon said:<br /><br />"[Rand] would never concede [that people aren't blank slates in the sense that she conceived of the idea]. This is a deductive system based on premises that Rand regarded as axiomatic. If any facts seemed to contradict those basic premises, she would simply assert that the report of the facts must be wrong. And that, of course, is what Objectivists still do, what they have to do, and will continue to do. Unless, of course, they abandon Objectivism."<br /><br />Gordon is right. Rand's blank slate theory logically grounds her metaphysical view of Man (or human nature), which logically grounds the Objectivist Ethics, etc. The whole philosophy is built on it. A deductive system for sure, despite Peikoff's cosmetic attempts to emphasize inductive reasoning in his last years. Rand herself says in "Ayn Rand Answers" (last question of Chapter 3): "I'd prefer that people raise their IQ from 110 to 150. It can be done." Does she mean by eugenic breeding? Certainly not. She is always talking about the individual, not the collective. Eugenic breeding would be collectivist muscle-mysticism (or some such term). So does she mean implanting electrodes in the individual's brain? No: her position is that philosophical truth has to be based on no special scientific apparatus, so the nature of Man's mind means his "unaided" mind. (The phrase "unaided mind" has a long history in Enlightenment philosophies, to whose general line she subscribed, and she herself often used the phrase.) Given her premises, her meaning is clear: the individual can choose to raise his IQ by almost three standard deviations, by using his unaided rational mind. That cannot be squared with anything in the sciences of human nature. It is the reductio ad absurdum of the blank slate.<br /><br />She would be the first to say there is no such thing as "a little blank slate-ism." You either believe Man's mind is a blank slate, or you do not: 50%-80% heritable intelligence is not a *blank* slate.<br /><br />Discarding the blank slate in favor of an empirically-ascertained mixture of nurture and nature collapses Objectivism's logical structure, as outlined in Peikoff's OPAR and passim in her writings, leaving as Greg said, "A sort of libertarian Sam Harris [philosophy], minus Harris's scientific credentials and incisive wit." Objectivism cannot be salvaged by the Dave Rubins of the world, the kind who say, "Why can't we have both blank slate and heritable intelligence too?" in between drags on a joint.Anonymous is backnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-53629257633897098962019-05-04T07:35:38.656-07:002019-05-04T07:35:38.656-07:00Speaking of blank slatism, this article is interes...Speaking of blank slatism, this article is interesting:<br /><br />https://quillette.com/2019/05/03/selective-blank-slatism-and-ideologically-motivated-misunderstandings/?fbclid=IwAR3aKiTpaC7CBwA_UxyHNu0oG83MOb83VmtwUXjwALUvGN6GHgro541e2wE<br /><br />NPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-84566197466051836652019-03-28T23:46:58.320-07:002019-03-28T23:46:58.320-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170569094220343366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-42456057747125417122019-03-28T19:07:44.122-07:002019-03-28T19:07:44.122-07:00"I suppose one might ask how would Objectivis...<br />"I suppose one might ask how would Objectivism change if it were conceded that people aren't blank slates in the sense that Rand conceived of the idea."<br /><br />Bluntly: she would never concede any such thing. This is a deductive system based on premises that Rand regarded as axiomatic. If any facts seemed to contradict those basic premises, she would simply assert that the report of the facts must be wrong. And that, of course, is what Objectivists still do, what they have to do, and will continue to do. Unless, of course, they abandon Objectivism.<br />Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-71744537242828553712019-03-18T13:02:41.873-07:002019-03-18T13:02:41.873-07:00"admit"? "claim" would be bet..."admit"? "claim" would be better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-32624906719618724882019-03-16T08:33:02.152-07:002019-03-16T08:33:02.152-07:00From what little I've read, you can hard wire ...From what little I've read, you can hard wire your brain to some extent, although certainly not as much as Binswanger thinks.<br /><br />In his 2018 book on free will, ARI psychologist Edwin Locke writes that IQ tests measure intelligence and intelligence is 50-80% genetic. (He also says that some Amazon tribes are lesser evolved humans). This is the first time I've heard an ARI type admit that about intelligence.<br /><br />I suppose one might ask how would Objectivism change if it were conceded that people aren't blank slates in the sense that Rand conceived of the idea.<br /><br />-NPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-37491174464927201222019-03-14T07:49:56.426-07:002019-03-14T07:49:56.426-07:00Biswanger is an Objectivist on auto-pilot. He even...<i>Biswanger is an Objectivist on auto-pilot. He even had to mention the irrationality of the Abraham/Isaac story.</i><br /><br />There's a bit of back story behind that remark. I suspect Binswanger brought it up as a subtle dig against Jordan Peterson, who has done a lecture series on stories from the Bible (including the Abraham/Isaac story). Binswanger has been highly critical of Peterson. Dave Rubin has been on tour with Peterson and is a close friend. So how does Binswanger get his shot at Peterson without alienating Rubin? Well, first he finds something he can say that's complimentary to Peterson (Peterson stood up against the compelled speech fascists). Then, without mentioning Peterson's name, he goes after the Biblical stories (and, by implication, Peterson's lectures on biblical stories). This kind of simplistic/vulgar attack on Western culture (and that's what it amounts to in the end) constitutes one of the least appetizing aspects of orthodox Objectivism, and it's not all that different from some of the attacks we get on Western culture from the far left (although these radical left attack's are based on very different rationalizations).gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-44989234294134928062019-03-14T07:29:11.979-07:002019-03-14T07:29:11.979-07:00In fairness to Rand, she did her mature thinking w...<i>In fairness to Rand, she did her mature thinking when the idea of strong genetic influence on behavior or intelligence was seen as suspect, if not racist.</i><br /><br />Yes, Rand can be cut some slack because her philosophy was developed when the sciences of human nature were still in their infancy. However, since new discoveries have refuted Rand's view, it would seem incumbent on anyone who considers themselves "rational" and "objective" to dismiss that part of Rand's thought that clashes with this new body of knowledge. Because of ARI's commitment to a "closed" interpretation of Rand's thought, that places Brook and other Objectivists in a difficult position. Whatever Brook has said in the past about these issues (or believes privately), he knows well enough not to challenge a Gad Saad or Jordan Peterson on these issues. gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-44719607479675997732019-03-13T16:25:38.226-07:002019-03-13T16:25:38.226-07:00I have listened to only the first 30 minutes. Sal...I have listened to only the first 30 minutes. Salmieri seems smart, but Biswanger is an Objectivist on auto-pilot. He even had to mention the irrationality of the Abraham/Isaac story. Boy, we haven't heard that before (Kant agreed with Binny on that lol).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-58496245477685092042019-03-13T15:51:10.604-07:002019-03-13T15:51:10.604-07:00In fairness to Rand, she did her mature thinking w...In fairness to Rand, she did her mature thinking when the idea of strong genetic influence on behavior or intelligence was seen as suspect, if not racist. Even today, any study that purports to show that genes aren't significant makes headlines, whereas the steady flow of studies that indicate nature is much more important than nurture is ignored.<br /><br />Yaron Brook said a couple years ago that IQ tests are "bullshit" and that studies show that twins separated at birth and are adopted into different families indicate that family upbringing is more important than genes. OK, Brook is an ignoramus, but would you get a different idea from reading the New York Times?<br /><br />-NPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com