Prohibiting those who can't or won't take care of themselves is unrelated to IQ tests as a criterion.

Absolutely right. It used to be that true immigrants uprooted themselves to come here because they wanted to be a part of American culture. There was no “help” given by the welfare culture, and that was known. The strong and responsible immigrants survived. America needed more strong and responsible people, and our system meant that only the fiercely self reliant and healthy bothered to come here. I would say those that came were mostly the smart ones too

Now our system favors the weak, the less intelligent, and the ones looking to be taken care of. America does NOT need those people, and needs to stop admitting people because we feel sorry for them.

If a migrant showed up at your door, what would you require if they wanted to move in with you? Our immigration policy should be crafted more along the same lines

How well an immigrant does on an IQ test does not tell us how well he understands or accepts the principles required to "assimilate" American individualism. A high IQ socialist or ordinary criminal is worse than a dumb one. Nor does having rights depend on intelligence, let alone IQ.

I think I would prefer NOT to have hordes of migrants from shithole countries like Honduras, Somalia, Syria, and Mexico invading the USA where I live unless they pass a means test and truly want to assimilate into our country like immigrants used to do. I think IQ does make a difference, as well as education and philosophical orientation.

Problem solving isn't knowledge and it isn't integrity. IQ tests do not include a lot of what we mean by intelligence. Whatever the "IQ" of immigrants from the south, they can learn and so can their next generation. Those with high IQs can potentially also be more clever in pursuing welfarism and socialism.

Regarding what people think, the only relevant criterion is appreciation of self-responsibility for thinking and living, and respecting the rights of the individual. That is made much more complex by the state of those factors already in this country, making adopting it as policy impossible. Welfare statists want more "clients".

And I upvote you every chance I get.

From what I understand , the designers of IQ tests are primarily interested in the functioning power of the person’s brain, problem solving, spatial recognition, ability to recognize patterns. Usually given in person for highest accuracy.

Us military doesn’t accept people below 83. I think there are supposedly 10 million people in USA below that cutoff. Already.

Accepting random migrants from South America would reduce the average IQ in America and make us less competitive in the world. That is why immigration should be merit based.

As technology advances, I think People need to be smarter and more educated in order to compete in our economy. More and more low level jobs are being taken over by automation and robots

Once again we see cowardly religionists who don't belong on this forum 'downvoting' Ayn Rand with no response.

The number is a relative score, relative to whatever the average is. 100 is assigned as the average.

If someone from Somali barely speaks English he won't understand either the test questions or the principles in Galt's speech. A person of average intelligence ought to be able to understand both with sufficient explanation.

From what I read, lower IQ means more limited ability to understand concepts and principles. Try explaining john galts speech to a somali refugee and see how far you get.

Recognizing a natural right means understanding it as a principle based on the nature of man, not observing it in tribalism the way these clowns claim to find morality. Your intent for the thread aside, there is no such thing as "non religious morality" because there are many mutually conflicting moral theories that are not religious.

Jefferson and the founding fathers understood and accepted private property rights as a principle and natural right; it was generally accepted and emphasized in several state constitutions, such as Virginia's. But it was not in any known draft of the Declaration. There was no such reference to remove over slavery or anything else.

All known drafts of the Declaration referred to a right to "life", "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness". "Property" should have been included, but it was taken for granted; today's problems were not foreseen then.

Congress did remove Jefferson's protest of the King as responsible for the slave trade as one of the reasons for the break from Britain.

See Carl Becker's, The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas, which discusses all the known draft's of the Declaration and much more -- from the philosophy presumed by it, to the contrasting philosophy that followed, and from the political process of adopting it to its literary style.

I believe that I have observed the same stuff.

It seems to me that one of the problems comes from the need to have very thoroughly thought through whether one's premises have a solid rational root or base, without an emotional devotion having crept in surreptitiously.

That need seems to be going more frequently unsatisfied. Here and in much of so called mainstream media, which certainly are not mainstream in the true sense of the word and smell a lot of propaganda machines.

I spent 21 of my younger years in fascist and communist "socialisms" and thus feel thoroughly inoculated.

Stay well. We will never give up.
Respectfully,
Maritimus

IQ is a relative score based defined with 100 as the mean. It does not prevent the majority of people from understanding basic principles; indoctrination does.

Most people don't live up to their intellectual capacity.

(The mean is the average, calculated in the usual way, not "half above and half below", which is the median.)

Ironic that going back to philosopher Cicero, the right to property has been observed as a natural right. Burke believed this, and Thomas Jefferson stated as much in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, only to have it replaced with the more nebulous "pursuit of happiness." That was a result of a compromise between abolitionists fearing it was an endorsement of slavery (humans as property) and slave states who insisted he remove an anti-slavery statement.

Only collectivist believers have a notion of what is "too much" property. Whenever those who express a desire for "equality" of wealth gain control, the result is equal poverty for all but the elite at the top.

When I posted this item, it wasn't an endorsement, but an anthropologist view that I was sure would raise hackles and stir an exchange of ideas. Lots of erudite expressions resulted. My thanks to all, and doubleplusgood for you as some of the best defense of real objectivism.

There is at least one very belligerent and cowardly militant religious conservative who is bulk 'downvoting' all of my posts. There are several other examples below. They also have a record of previously posting false emotional personal accusations based on nothing but their own subjective speculations of what "must be" -- a theme in their method of thinking across the board.

One of their ideological mantras is that evil, such as communism, is "based on atheism" -- the same fallacy I addressed above. The collectivism in their epistemology package-deals people into invalid concepts based on non-essentials, specifically not being their religious faith, without regard to what we do believe as true or how we know it.

It used to be that those attracted to the sense of life and philosophy of Atlas Shrugged were filled with enthusiastic questions wanting to know more. Now we see militant dogmatists who don't care about Ayn Rand's ideas. They either confuse Atlas Shrugged with the contradictions of whatever they already believed, or don't care and only want to exploit its popularity as a source of converts for their own dogma (or as their echo chamber), or both.

Obviously they don't belong here.

Hello, ewv,
I think that most of the crowd here lost sight of Ayn Rand's objectivist view and allow the infection of collectivist ideology to creep into their thinking. I cannot believe my eyes seeing someone voting your comment down. Where is their explanation for that action?
Just my thought.
Maritimus

I started to read “The neuroscience of intelligence” by Haier. He talks at length about IQ and it’s effect on a culture and race. From their studies, they estimate the average IQ of Americans is 97- meaning half of the people have IQ OF LESS THAN 97 and half have IQ greater than 97.

I am only through chapter 1, but I suspect that IQ May have some effect on the ability of a person to use reason effectively. In a democracy run by mob rule as we have today, this could tilt the country towards the emotional left even though ayn rand laid out the principles of objectivism carefully

Tests in most other cultures show average IQ rates lower than that in America ( except for some far eastern cultures). Raises some interesting questions for sure about the likelihood of spreading a complex group of philosophical principles in the world.

Most people hold contradictory mixed premises. The worst of them will never change. Others may at least stay out of the way. The most likely to be receptive are the young, but they are also being taught by the worst among the intellectuals.

My point is that since most people today who are leftists make only emotional decisions, ayn rands work falls on deaf ears. I think the decision to use reason is learned when very very young, so the next generation should be more receptive, assuming their parents teach them the value of reason

She addressed people who are receptive to rational ideas and made a big difference by doing so. It has not yet been enough to reverse the trend.

"Changing the course of politics requires changing the fundamental philosophical ideas that are broadly accepted, however long that takes. There are no shortcuts."

This is true. I dont harbor expectations of changing politics in the USA, at least while anyone I know is alive, and you shouldnt either. Ayn Rand spent her life hoping that could happen, but she overlooked the basic reason the currently living leftists are leftists- they DONT think and cant be convinced through reason- Unfortunately for all of us.

Rejecting Pragmatism as a false and destructive philosophy is not "Objectivist dogma". Pragmatism does not mean rationally "practical". The philosophy of Pragmatism does not "work" because of its own nature and its origins in Kantianism. If Ayn Rand had not formulated her philosophy, Pragmatism would still be false and destructive. It isn't waiting for the future, it never "worked", including in "our lifetime".

Pragmatism is and has been for over a century a major means for the dissemination of destructive policies and destructive underlying philosophical ideas on which it is parasitical -- including, but not restricted to, the entire trend of progressivism.

That you would "surely like people doing to others as you would want them to do to you" is a subjectivist standard based on what you "want", with no basis for it and no way to implement it. To the extent that what you personally "want" is correct, your "wants" will not change what others think and do. That, too, is subjectivist.

You can try to take practical measures to personally protect yourself during your lifetime. Adopting Pragmatism because there "isn't time" for anything else does not "work" and would make your own life worse. Changing the course of politics requires changing the fundamental philosophical ideas that are broadly accepted, however long that takes. There are no shortcuts.

Are you sure you arent adopting objectivism as a dogma to be accepted in its entirety or not at all?

I some people agree to at least some o the principles mentioned in objectivism, is that not better than if they adopted 100% leftist ideas?

Pragmatism does not work in our lifetime.

Any principle based on "the way I want' is not an objective principle. The statement formulated that way does not reflect why you want it. Anyone with any "wants" could say the same thing and mean something entirely different than you do.