The intellectual foundations for collectivism

ever heard of ethical/political philosophy?

This is actually quite an apt comparison. Good on you. Indeed, I only serve temperature in so far as it benefits me. For instance, I don't stick my hand in boiling water because that hurts and damages my hand.

Nice try rookie.

yeah, are we pretending they have scientific measurements in any way comparable to a thermometer?

brownie points with mr himmler are the base units I think

your conscious, subjective feelings, and natural sense of right and wrong when tuned right are as accurate as a thermometer, yes, problem is that most humans have their internal thermometers distorted by wrong environmental conditioning.

The reason whites flee black communities is the ultra-high crime rates
pic related

Blacks in America commit crime at a rate roughly equivalent to the average African nation. Whites in America commit crime at a rate roughly equivalent to the average European nation. The common denominator in each case is not culture, geography, or education. It's genes.

Blacks also have much lower IQ levels and slow down the school system. They have smaller brains and fewer connections to the frontal lobe.

If you import millions of Somalians to your idyllic northern European mountain town, you will also be importing their sky-high murder rates (among other things).

excuse me if I do not take this seriously.

Ok user that had nothing to do with the topic at all, this isn't /pol/.
If you still have a problem with blacks who share the same culture as you do then you're racist.
If you don't, then as I said in my previous post the problem is lack of shared culture.

You guys don't go around being upset at low IQ whites. Oh wait nevermind you do. Carry on.

>opening your borders to all comers, far from being an economic boon, actually can have disastrous consequences for the quality of life, security, and prosperity of the people of a nation
Proof? Migrant worker programs are very successful. The root of the problem is welfare not immigration, that is why we can't afford to offer unfettered citizenship.

>This has been a great "redpill" moment in history for a lot of libertarians
Not for me.

I have been in the gravitational pull of objectivism and libertarianism for a while now and I have noticed 2 types of libertarians, the ideologue and the capitalism fanboy.

The former is someone like yourself who dreams of utopia, you probably watched some videos on youtube and you thought "hey that's kinda neat" and follow it because it brings something into your life.

The latter is the kind of person you might find on Veeky Forums with a disdain for regulations and taxes, they go about as far as Milton Friedman into politics. Capitalism is a success because people trying to achieve other more übermensch oriented goals (getting money) ended up discovering it and its virtues, it is a means not an ends.

To someone like this nazism would be ludicrous, never mind the glaring flaw of putting your trust in a tyrant, even assuming it would result in utopia, you have little influence over the outcome. In all things you are better off investing in your own personal success, then when you have influence you can have an impact on the world if you choose to push for some cause. At the moment as a fedora on Veeky Forums you are not at that point.

There are consiquntialists libertarians who argue for capitalism and small government because they think it works better, then there are libertarians who believe there are moral laws which mandate libertarianism.

The former are more moderate and more reasonable

of course I excuse you, you are like most people trapped in the limited uncertainty of the mind it is only natural that the answer you seek would be one that's appropriate to what you are more used to using and relying upon, but it is true none the less.

Well its not, at least not in any way that can be measured or shared beyond subjective experience.

we were talking about measurements, not moral realism by the way.

It has plenty to do with the topic, as the assertion was that everybody is the same and the only thing that separates us is racism.

To the contrary, there are huge genetic gulfs between races (in particular). Thus each race has different characteristics to them, and each race builds a different sort of society.

For example, when Detroit was 90% white, it had the highest median income in the world.
Now that Detroit is 90% black, it has a murder rate as high as post-war Zimbabwe, and the entire city has collapsed into a hellhole.

Two different racial population groups which build two different societies, imagine that. It doesn't matter what continent, country, or climate you're in. Black build a certain kind of society, whites build another, Hispanics build another....etc.

Different racial groups cannot freely mix in perfect harmony because they are distinctly, fundamentally, genetically different from each other.

Sweden opened it's borders and is now the rape capital of Europe
Women are dying their hair brown to avoid being raped on the street

>I like tomatoes and you hate tomatoes
>tomatoes can be rated objectively based on emotions

>sweden the rape capital of europe

bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372

I almost envy people who are naive enough to simply take stats at face value and not look into them any further.

>looks at changes in race
>disregards every other factor under the sun, most of which are more prominent in this discussion than race for the simple reason of race-baiting

Most other factors are relatively insignificant user
The difference between your POV and mine is that you fail to acknowledge just how massive a role your genes play in your life.

>youtube.com/watch?v=GL8aY3E2rto

Here's a scientist talking about this topic:
>youtube.com/watch?v=i9FGHtfnYWY

just because there is a genetic component does not mean things like early education, upbringing and nutrition are not just as important.

And no one can currently say with scientific certainty which are more important

everything is a subjective experience, only the laws by which human behavior works by makes it impossible to communicate it with the mathematical language because it is too complicated for it, there are other languages though that successfully communicate feelings and subjective phenomenona that relates to human behavior quite easily like modern they language, body signs we use when we talk, the way in which we choose to speak etc we always describe things with other things, we can't communicate the thing itself because a thing in itself is made of subjective experience and subjectivity is infinite and indescribable to its fullest extent.

>1490 citations
>cherry-picked stats who's implications are highly questionable

users.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/Blau_ASR_82.pdf

>"scientist"
have an actual academic paper instead of the shit you find on right wing forums.

The whole question I posed was whether a collective can be measured like temperature, that is scientifically.

if you want to argue that things like language and body signs have a compatible precision, and that makes morality as "real" as the temperature than your full of shit

It's quite strange that despite the huge racial disparities we find between the outcomes of different populations, you say that genes have nothing to do with it.

Humans evolved separately for over 200,000 years in radically different environments. Why would we all be indistinguishable? Such a time frame was enough to radically change our bodies, you don't think it was enough to change our brains as well?

tomatoes have an objective taste , if you see that it would be profitable for you to eat tomatoes you can easily condition yourself to like them, that's how we choose to like or "not" like everything to varying degrees of conscious awareness.

oh, and
insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/27/study-finds-race-growing-explanatory-factor-sat-scores-california

>you say that genes have nothing to do with it

The effects are minute at best tbqh. If you want to talk about human progression, don't forget that things only really started changing between the west and, say, the middle east, in the past 600 years or so. If you think evolution kicks in that fast, you're gravely mistaken. Yet, people still hold them as inferior and in contempt. People attribute these things to race because they've never taken a political science class or an economics class, and have no understanding of how either institutions or incentives work. Race might've played a role initially in the way societies evolved, but at this point in time, thanks to how small the world is, and how globalizing influences work, it simply isn't nearly as relevant anymore.

>tomatoes have an objective taste
>the blue you see is the blue I see

user stop you're embarrassing yourself even further.

sorry OP
tl;dr
pretty much this

temperature is the movement of particles in a certain piece of matter, does the fact you say 20 degrees define where exactly to the fullest extent of the word those particles are moving towards? does it determine the smallest nuisances of how these particles move?
no it only measures the effect their movement have on the matters state and other phenomenona that is effected by the particles movement, in the same way language and body signs describe phenomenona it doesn't matter if it doesn't describe it to its fullest extent because it communicate the phenomenona/idea/meaning you want to communicate itself, sure the communication isn't flawless because the phenomenona itself is harder to be agreed upon by both communicating parties but the system by which it works is the same.

>If you think evolution kicks in that fast you're gravely mistaken
Well apparently it was enough to give us radically different physical features. Go to the Middle East, look at the people there. There is a significant difference. They are Semites, as opposed to Europeans.

Why are Jews so successful? Despite being only 0.2% of global population, they've won 25% of the Nobel Prizes.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

In America, Jews are 2% of the population. And yet are 50% of our Nobel Laureates, 50% of our chess grandmasters, and 60% of our Pulitzer Prize winners. Roughly 25% of the Harvard student body is Jewish.

They overwhelmingly dominate the top levels of business, banking, science and medicine (not to mention the media).

It's estimated that the mean Jewish IQ is 115, a full standard deviation higher than the average white American. This IQ advantage is widely considered to be genetic, it's one of the few genetic IQ differences that is PC to talk about openly.

Here is a Jewish scientist discussing it:
>youtube.com/watch?v=1GexZF5VIMU

except temperature can be axiomised because molecules will always behave the same way under the same circumstances. A mile is always a mile. There is no guarantee that a human being will always react the same way given the same circumstances, and a lot don't.

Ironically, the harder you try and push that unbounded rationality the more you're in agreement with libertarians. That's one of the axioms of their schools of economic thought, funnily enough. Ya dun goofed and went full circle to the other side dude.

that's not what I said, they have an objective taste in relation to yourself, you have the same reference point and can condition yourself to change the way you interact with that reference point if you truly wanted to and like tomatoes.

>The effects are minute at best tbqh.
The effects of IQ within a society is massive. The average IQ of different ethnic groups vary a lot.
>If you want to talk about human progression, don't forget that things only really started changing between the west and, say, the middle east, in the past 600 years or so

Technology is much more important factor in todays society, benefitting populations with high intelligence.

.>If you think evolution kicks in that fast, you're gravely mistaken.
Evolution dosent really need more than a single generation.
>Race might've played a role initially in the way societies evolved, but at this point in time, thanks to how small the world is, and how globalizing influences work, it simply isn't nearly as relevant anymore.

Wealth in the world today follow very distinct racial lines between and within societies.

>units are units if they apply to one person
>I can call a kilometer a mile and be able to establish the same frames of reference with someone else

It's complicated sure not everyone will react to everything in the same way because it is effected by countless factors but in the simple, important things when people are honest with themselves they will react the same, everyone wants to be happy, everyone likes when other people are nice to them, everyone likes to be accepted, everyone likes to feel a nice temperature, everyone likes to see a beautiful sunrise, everyone likes hearing melodic music, when you isolate the feeling itself and don't try to relate it to the mind, humans react in a very similar way indeed.

It bothers me that I overstated some of the stats. Looks like Jews account for 40% of Nobel Prizes in Mathematics and Economics, but only 25% of total Nobel Prizes.

Anyway you get the gist. They are vastly, overwhelmingly overrepresented at the top levels of society, to a ludicrous degree.
4/8 of the US Supreme Court Justices are Jewish. Every Federal Reserve Chairman for the last 40 years has been Jewish. Half the important American intellectuals are Jewish. Albert Einstein? Richard Feynman? Niels Bohr? Guess what? Jewish.

If you accept that there are racial differences here, you have to accept that they show up in the other ethnic populations as well. And indeed they do. For example, blacks are only 25% of the population that lives in poverty, and yet commit over 55% of the murders. In every single multi-racial society on Earth, their crime rates are off the fucking charts

These are just a couple examples of various measures of genetic differentiation. But we are different in innumerable multitudes of ways. From the foods we like to eat, to the median height of our center of gravity, to our degree of sociability....etc.

Because of these differences, we build different types of societies. The society a black man wants to live in is far different from the society a white man wants to live in. Voting patterns bear this out.

the virtuous of tomatoes in relation to yourself are objective, in the same way the virtuous of making a child smile are, it is easy to see what is right and wrong when you use your feelings, "feeling healthy is positive, I want to be healthy, eating tomatoes is healthy, therefore I should like eating tomatoes" it really isn't that complicated, the truly beautiful thing is that we have the ability to make ourselves like what we should with enough effort.

>your conscious, subjective feelings, and natural sense of right and wrong when tuned right are as accurate as a thermometer, yes, problem is that most humans have their internal thermometers distorted by wrong environmental conditioning.

The issue here is that you cant really tell the difference between a correct and incorrect "internal thermometer" unless you set your values or desires as a foundation.

>Zimbabwe
>59-69 on AVERAGE (!!!)

Total bullshit, that's below the threshold for literal mental retardation. A society where the bell curve's greatest bulk is hovering around dribbling idiot tier couldn't even fucking feed themselves.

Working at a Vietnamese hole in the wall 8 by 5 was one of the most isolating experiences in my life. My only rasping breath of fresh air and connectivity to be had were the owner's kids, aged 19 and 14, who spoke english. We didn't have much in common, but they were a pleasure to talk to since we could communicate freely. Had I lumped them in with the rest of the non fluent Vietnamese workers, much as I tried to connect with them, I would never have had that relief.

Likewise, I could have left right after close to an empty home, but I'd share an XX with the guys in the back now and then, and laugh over broken english and spanish with them.

Stop pretending like there's some sort of invisible barrier. That's magical thinking. The only separation here is a perceived difference in values and an inability to communicate as a bridge over these differences.

Dig your own grave, fine. I've made it my life's goal to understand and be understood. I choose Myshkin, you are as free as you'd like rot in the shadow of Rogozhin's pride. God knows it's the easy route.

It's truer than you'd think, as far as I can tell, most important positions are run my functioning people but fuck me if the average person isn't a sack of potatoes

I've read that American and European IQ has had to be adjusted for something of 30 points on average over the 100 years that we've had the test. Though I can't support it.

If it's true, it implies a certain environmental determinism between concrete and abstract thinking. If it's true, the prevalence of technology and the sophistication of our social lives have actually made us more capable abstract and fluid thinkers.

If it's true, 59-69 would place them where we once were, before we were fully industrialized.

>being this ignorant of statistics
>what is the Flynn effect

>It's truer than you'd think, as far as I can tell, most important positions are run my functioning people but fuck me if the average person isn't a sack of potatoes

Ive been there, and whilst the people were nowhere close to western standards they were capable of proper conversation and independent living which is beyond literal retards which those figures would hold them to be.

To be fair when I say potatoes I wasn't saying they can't function, just, well you've been there so you know.

>As many people have realized (such as Stefan Molyneux), opening your borders to all comers, far from being an economic boon, actually can have disastrous consequences for the quality of life, security, and prosperity of the people of a nation. This has been a great "redpill" moment in history for a lot of libertarians, who see their idealistic views failing miserably in real time.

I'd say these failures largely happen because only some nations do it. If all nations did it and people were free to move about the Earth, the innovations and cultural exchanges that would result would be far more beneficial than any downsides.

It's kind of like trade blockades. If you block nations from trading goods and services with yours just because you don't like their ideology, it's worse for everyone. The nation you block fails economically, and is forced to invest militarily to combat your economic sabotage. It becomes a feedback loop of petty backstabbing. The same is true of immigration. If """free""" (by which I mean freer than most) nations like the U.S.A allows immigrants fleeing tyranny from all over the world into her borders, the U.S.A might fail from overload. However, this didn't really happen in the past. People said it would when we had German, Italian, Irish, Slavic immigrants around the turn of the century making up a third of our population, but when we have 20 million hispanic immigrants out of 300 million, people freak out and act like the nation is going to collapse from the influx of illegals. They cite mostly bogus crime statistics and ignore the fact that these immigrants are largely taking jobs the natives don't want anyway... and they aren't even taking jobs half as fast as automation and technological innovation is.

>So why shouldn't society be constructed around the individual? Are we not all individual entities with our own minds, our own conscience, our own personalities?

It is in some places. Maybe not to the extent that you'd like, and for that I can only say keep fighting for what you want.

Individuals often support societies that suppress individualism, though. This is the paradox of individualism. There always emerge individuals in history who use the power of their free society to grab power and suppress free society. And there always exist toadies who let them do this.

Caesar and Sulla are great examples of clever, innovative individuals using their own clever, innovative individuality to make power grabs in a relatively free society with a constitutional gov. and suppress the free society itself. There will always exist sociopaths and Machiavellians who think in terms of "I better take their freedom and power before they take mine." To an extent they're right. To be any other way is to run the risk of being a pawn.

What is an ocean but a multitude of drops? Nothing important these days gets accomplished without large teams cooperating, and yet at the same time if power and wealth are your end game, you need to cut throats or risk getting yours cut.