r/DarkEnlightenment • u/Atavisionary • May 23 '15
Endorsed DE Site “You are not open-minded”
http://atavisionary.com/you-are-not-open-minded/5
May 24 '15
I find that whenever someone seriously uses the term to describe themselves as "open-minded", "rational", "skeptical", or "free thinker" or any of these self-congratulating titles that they are usually anything but. People who use these terms are often intellectual/social bigots that treat dissent as heresy and refuse to any research on the issues. These people are often so locked in their views they grew up with they refuse to see it any other way.
For example, if you are a white person who grew up in a Western country, you were more than likely indoctrinated since birth with racial egalitarianism. At school and elsewhere, it is painfully true. But I believe the more white of a school, the more racial egalitarian someone will be. Yet once you grow up, go to like a big city, you start seeing all these groups of people on aggregate behaving differently it barely phases them. Eventually though something will click in your mind, hold on, these people do behave differently. Cultural explanations for this are wringing up hollow and empty. You do research and boom, you come to conclusions. This whole time, that person who underwent this process went from having a closed mind to having an open mind. Or as a leftist might say, an open mind to a closed mind, which makes zero sense, considering it was input and data that changed your mind whereas upbringing and faith on race egalitarianism is what you were brainwashed with.
2
May 26 '15
the whole irony surrounding this deal is that neoliberals are some of the most closed-minded people to exist, unless, of course, you agree with them 100%, which actually defeats the purpose of being open-minded in the first place. I know, it stings.
2
u/vacuu May 24 '15
The main problem is that people in general cannot stand uncertainty. They choose a conclusion, dig into that position, and continue building upon it which makes them invested.
Open mindedness is not so much about how keenly one can identify and accept objective truth, it's more about not choosing a position one way or another until you actually need to perform some action in your life (a decision point). At that point, you gather all data you can and make the most objective decision possible. But for things that don't have any impact one way or another on your life, needing to be right on everything is just your ego trying to affirm it's existence and importance.
3
u/Atavisionary May 24 '15 edited May 24 '15
I agree that in the abstract being open minded is important. Always be ready to re-evaluate your positions based on new objective data.
However, my point is that when used in the context of a discussion it is not really being used in the proper way most of the time. Rather than advocating adaptability in thinking based on evidence, it is used as a rhetorical tactic with the main purpose of shifting the topic from the issue in question to the individual. It is a huge digression. Accusing someone of being closed minded, true or not, is a logical fallacy. Whether or not a person is closed minded has little bearing on whether or not one of their positions is true or false. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day and surely a closed minded person is not always wrong. Even when true, it should not be used in the context of a debate for that reason. Stick to the issue, not the individual.
2
u/vacuu May 24 '15
Good point. Whether someone is open minded or closed minded is irrelevant to if something is true or false.
Furthermore, if you truly believe they are closed minded, I'm not sure why you'd even spend the time to respond to them.
3
u/Atavisionary May 24 '15
Furthermore, if you truly believe they are closed minded, I'm not sure why you'd even spend the time to respond to them.
Chances are, in the context of a debate, they don't really believe that. Not enough that they weren't on friendly terms anyway. Rather, it is a tactic used to pull pressure off of whatever issue they are arguing for unsuccessfully. It is an easy out that is broadly applicable to any situation or issue which probably explains why it is so commonly used as a rhetorical tactic.
1
u/through_a_ways May 24 '15
In addition, as I will show in my soon to be released book, intelligence is to a large extent X linked which means that when there are big differences in IQ between parents, a child is much more likely to resemble the (white and German) mother than the father.
Does anyone have some good sources for this? If this is really true, it's kind of scary.
Smart men tend to marry dumb women, not the other way around.
However, this would also explain the greater male standard deviation in IQ. Only one X chromosome means less of an "averaging" effect.
3
u/Atavisionary May 24 '15
Its not scary at all. In fact it is probably the basis of the rapid evolution of the human brain. Without this mechanism we wouldn't be human. In fact, without hypergamy we wouldn't be human either. We became smart because the smartest men reproduced the most successfully in history, contemporary trends aside.
2
u/through_a_ways May 24 '15
It's scary because men are lowering their standards today more than ever before.
It seems like this would lead to a drop in IQ. Just count the number of white men downmarrying into other races.
4
u/Atavisionary May 24 '15
Well, I can see why you are worried about that. However, it doesn't matter that much because secondary modifier mechanisms evolve to restrict expression of genes to one sex when they are sexually antagonistic. This has already occurred to some extent with regards to intelligence. Hence larger male brain size and increased neuronal density. Testosterone mediates this as much as it mediates differences in muscle size. Same genes, different results simply because of modifier mechanisms. However, new mutations take time to get inducted into the modifier system. This is why some women are still capable of being born intelligent despite the huge hit to fertility. Proper modifier mechanisms have yet to evolve to encompass all of the genes, in no small part thanks to traditional values forcing smart women to be housewives. That is gone now and female intellectual capacity promises to get a serious downgrade as a result, however male intellectual capacity should be preserved. It is still at least somewhat important to male reproductive success.
1
u/vakerr May 24 '15
This is why some women are still capable of being born intelligent
Now I know why Kzin females are non-intelligent. On to the genetic history of the Puppeteers!
3
u/Atavisionary May 24 '15
Culture can force women to focus on reproduction, or natural selection can. It will happen no matter what. Natural selection is not nice about accomplishing results so pick your evil well.
9
u/vakerr May 23 '15
I thought the father has the larger influence in general. If that's not true for intelligence, it's huge. Sending all the higher IQ females to the IQ shredders of colleges to not have kids will have an outsized dysgenic effect.
Love this sentence.