Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Argue the Facts First, Opinions Second

Here is my problem with arguing with anyone, about anything:

If we don’t share the same knowledge of facts, we’ll never agree about our opinions. And if, miraculously, our opinions do agree but for entirely different reasons, I’m still not happy because I think their reasons for agreeing are disagreeable. I have found it impossible to argue my beliefs with friends and family, because they are so factually ignorant that everything I say will sound crazy or evil to them. How can you have a genuine argument or debate with someone, when the other side doesn’t know anything, and thus no logical reasoning from that knowledgable base can be done?

Here’s a simple fact, women on average score 4 IQ points lower than men. This has profound implications. Is this perhaps why women aren’t as highly represented on CEO boards, elite positions, and nobel prizes? Should we really give women equal say in politics–was there a reason why we never used to? Perhaps women aren’t as suited as men are at making money and should stay at home with the kids, a simple job they’re bio-engineered for?

I’m not going to argue one position or another, but I will make this argument: Until everyone learns the fact that women on average have a lower IQ than men, we can never have a reasonable discussion about these questions. Anyone who suggests the above will be called all sorts of names, thrown out of the room, and likely fired from his job and divorced by his wife. Why? Because people have become so indoctrinated, so brainwashed, that no one can speak to them on the basis of the facts, instead of the lies they have been told since childhood. I am fine with arguing with people who possess the same facts but come to different interpretations thereof. I am fine with arguing with people who see the same thing and come to a different conclusion. There is a wonderful difference between these sorts of arguments, and the arguments of today. In an argument where both people know the facts, it is easy to sympathize and understand the other person’s point of view. It is easy to see that people are well intentioned, honest, and good people underneath who are capable of changing their mind if further proof were provided. When people are operating from completely different sets of facts, it is impossible to sympathize or understand their point of view. In an honest world that starts with the truth and then works from there, you have a sort of socratic philosophy club. Friends get together, discuss right and wrong, have dinner and go home, delighted with what they’ve shared. In a dishonest world where the truth is suppressed and heresy becomes a crime, mutual hostility and demonization sets in. There is no possibility of agreement, no possibility of compromise, it is war to the bitter end. They will hate you, consider you the ultimate evil, do anything to shut you up. You, meanwhile, will despise them, consider them the ultimate evil, and would do anything to overthrow their tyrannical rule. What a difference mutual knowledge of the facts makes!

This is why a rally with a bunch of flags shouting slogans as people march down the streets, is such a pointless, self-defeating effort. You are trying to spread your opinions, but not your facts! No one will ever spontaneously hear “White pride!” and think “Hey, that sounds like a good idea!” and jump into the crowd. They have to know where we are coming from, how we got to our views, why they should feel the same way.

Even worse if if people have come to our views Without any basis in fact. If someone asks you, “why do you hate black people so much?” And you tell them, “I don’t know, I have no reason to, I just woke up one day and realized–I hate black people. I hate them so much I want to kill them. And I’ve been telling other people we should kill black people ever since.” Who are you going to convert???? We have to have full mastery of the facts, we need statistics dripping off our fingertips. We need sources, books, articles, links, the whole shebang, and we need to reserve our opinions until they’re ready to hear it. It’s a lot easier to discuss facts with people who know you’re a decent, good person ahead of time. Then it’s a lot easier to discuss opinions with people who know the same facts you do. Inspire trust through personal conduct, inspire good sense through teaching of the facts, inspire pro-white opinions by reasoning from the facts.

Encourage other people to read the same books you have, give them short summaries of the author’s views in the most non-threatening manner, and be enthusiastic about how much you learned from it. Offer to read books from the other side that argue the opposite point of view that they adhere to, trade time for each other where you can get to know each other’s facts. Listen to their points and give them credit where they’re due. Teach facts first, opinions later. I suspect this is the correct way to indoctrinate our kids too. Encourage them to read these books, talk with them about it after they’re done, and see if you can give them a pro-white viewpoint that will help them throughout their lives. If nothing else, you don’t want your daughter dating a black guy who will likely abuse her, give her an STD, get her pregnant and leave, etc.

If there are any other books that are vital to the cause, please suggest them to me! If you’re spreading the pro-white message without any facts or books, please take the time to read them first. If each one of us converts even one other person in our lives, and they go on to convert just one other person themselves, soon enough the whole world would agree with us. But what that means is we can’t burn bridges and just agree to hate the entire world in a fump. We’ve got to engage with people, we’ve got to argue with them, and it’s got to be in a Socratic, polite, and friendly way. Once they know the facts, they’ll sympathize with us even if they don’t agree. They’ll go easier on us, and that’s already a win.

15 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

This article has been published before somewhere, and although its main thesis states the obvious, it is stated in derogatory terms. A 4 point IQ difference for a group, to make a point, is hardly convincing and the writer says more about himself than his thesis. Diamed is an arsehole masquerading as an intellectual, but in reality he thinks he is a genius by virtue of the fact that he is a white male. I wouldn't trust his abilities to interpret the facts. The nut is better off campaigning for a seperate homeland, a new uprising or some other half-baked idea.

Andrea Murrhteyn said...


My comment hypothesises Dr. C. George Boeree of Shippensburg University, perspective on intelligence to be correct; namely that intelligence is a person's capacity to (1) acquire knowledge (i.e. learn and understand), (2) apply knowledge (solve problems), and (3) engage in abstract reasoning.

WHAT IS A FACT?: Perhaps before we wish to argue the 'facts'; we may first clarify what we mean by facts; cause there are poeple with extremely liberal itnepretataitons about what constitutes a 'fact'; and what is a theory or hypothesis, etc.

WIKI: A fact is a pragmatic truth, a statement that can, at least in theory, be checked and either confirmed or denied. Facts are often contrasted with opinions and beliefs, statements which are held to be true, but are not amenable to pragmatic confirmation or denial.

A Hypothesis is a working assumption.

IQ FACTS?: In my view, IQ tests are somewhat useful; and it may be in fact be a 'fact' that your IQ result is whatever it is, and mine is whatever it is.

IS IQ = INTELLIGENCE?: What I would NOT agree with you on is that the system of IQ measurement is FACTUALLY an ACCURATE measurement of INTELLIGENCE, in accordance with the aforementioned defintion of intelligence provided.

In my personal opinion, the IQ system is flawed, it does not include issues such as simplistically COMMON SENSE, nor EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE; nor ETHICS. What does it matter we have 'geniuses' who run the worlds investment banks and the worlds finance system, and their IQ's are through the roof, that they know they don't know what the fuck they are doing with credit default swaps, and colateral obligations (See for example the two GENIUSES of Long Term Capital Management story), and they don't have the EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE to tell the truth, to resist Wall Street and CEO authority, when such authority may cost them their job; or similar (Remember Enron's Traders; quite IQ freaks they were, with sweet fuck all honour or emotional intelligence. Watch 'Smartest Guys in the Room' documentary about Enron).

Remember Stanly Milgram's tests on obedience to authority? There was no difference between blind obedience to authority, from moron imbeciles, and geniuses!!?

What about ASCHES studies on conformity: Idiots are as prone as geniuses to conform to peer pressure to agree to a consensus regarding a factually incorrect reality.

A high IQ does not mean an ethical person, or honourable character!

For me, one of the questions, I ask in a serious conversation with another is: What motivates you? What makes you tick? What is your religion? Your map of orientation and object of devotion? Cause if what makes me tick, is not the same as what makes you tick; then we have different 'religions' we have different worldviews. You interpret your facts based upon what makes you tick; as I do mine.

As Erich Fromm said, 'our religious attitude may be considered an aspect of our character structure, for we are what we are devoted to, and what we are devoted to is what motivates our conduct.

My devotion is to truth, to reality; not to converting anyone to my beliefs; but to finding those who will share my journey in finding the truth, whatever it may be; on any given issue; and however the truth, may change on any given issue, given new facts and new events.

In suc a quest it is useful, if we (i) make sure our 'facts' are really 'facts' built on rock foundations; and not 'working assumptions' built on quicksand; and (ii) are willing to acknowledge that sometimes we hear what we want to hear, and filter out what we do not, and that we need each others honest feedback, should we be serious about wanting to resolve any alleged 'problem'; cause to do so; the first item on the agenda; would be to ACCURATELY IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM, based upon ROCK HARD FACTS, not QUICKSAND ASSUMPTIONS.


Vanilla Ice said...

@ Andrea. Well said. Actually high IQ types are more prone to manipulating the world around them. That is why white collar crime is ... well ... dominated by whites.

Anonymous said...

Diamed hasn't a clue about the many intelligences humans have. He obviously hasn't dealt with many people on a daily basis for many years. IQ is a small part of human intelligence. Diamed wastes what little intelligence he has.

You'll lose readers by posting Diamed's garbage. SAS readers got tired of his pseudo-intellectual rubbish. Fact: Diamed hasn't mentioned all human intelligences, which amounts to bias.

FishEagle said...

If it is true that women have a lower IQ than men, then so be it. My IQ certainly hasn’t changed after I read the post yesterday. The only thing that might change is men’s perception of my intelligence after they read the post. In SA, no big loss there! Women certainly aren’t the priority challenge in terms of intelligence!!

“Should we really give women equal say in politics..?”

How should we determine who gets to have a say in politics, and how much each person’s opinion counts. It is a very valid question.

My suggestion is that people should be given a quiz on their country’s political developments, history, financial issues and legislation. The quiz should be constructed in such a way that it will also test interpretation of experience. Then each person’s vote should be weighted according to the test results. That’s doable. Only, I’ve noticed people NEVER like simple solutions.

Vanilla Ice said...

@Fisheagle. Individual IQ's tell us nothing about the individual and are notoriously unstable. You would have to take multiple tests, and over time these will converge. Group IQs on the other hand are quite stable. Having said that, I just think Diamed used a very unsophisticated way of trying to express himself, which was to mention that all well reasoned arguments should have a solid foundation. He, of course, fails dismally by not taking the epistemology into account. The numbers are merely one aspect of IQ.

As regards your suggestion to derive a test for the electorate, well that would amount to prejudice unfortunately. No matter how you slice and dice it, there will be disenfranchised folk.

FishEagle said...

VI, I am afraid I am greatly drawn to Diamed’s “unsophisticated” style of writing. I thought the author was razor sharp in making his point; therefore I have to disagree with you.

The foundation of Diamed’s argument is that people argue opinions rather than facts. He has successfully incorporated all the authors of the above comments, myself included, to strengthen that foundation.

The fact that he provided was woman have an IQ that is on average 4 points less than men. Nobody has refuted this fact with any other facts.

Just look at all the above comments, which are arguing the IMPLICATIONS of the fact that woman have an IQ 4 points lower than men. We can only speculate about the implications, i.e. express our OPINIONS. Even Diamed does not specify the implications. He reiterates very specifically that his understanding of the possible implications is a mere opinion.

He created a very solid foundation for his argument. Makes me wonder about the comment you made previously that, “Actually high IQ types are more prone to manipulating the world around them.”

Having said that, I will now be going against the author’s warning about arguing around opinions and slightly change the topic.

In my previous comment I was steering towards the meritocracy. I just found this a very convenient place to raise the issue considering it became a discussion around women’s role in politics. It gave me an opportunity to illustrate my own willingness, as a woman, to make sacrifices for the greater good of society.

The foundation of my argument is that there are too many people on this earth. The fact is that the earth’s carrying capacity has been exceeded by 1.4 times. My opinion is that a democracy is a weak system because it is based on popularity, not competence, and this creates weak leadership. My opinion is that a meritocracy will resolve many of the problems found in a democracy, including creating a leadership strong enough to curb the human population growth. My opinion is that I may not have the most say in future politics if we had a meritocracy. Maybe because my IQ is 4 points lower than the average male’s IQ! Lol. Yet I am willing to look at the greater good of our society and continue proposing a meritocracy. Of course there will be disenfranchised folk if they needed to be graded before voting but we simply MUST DO IT.

PS. Seriously, who cares if men have a slightly higher IQ than woman? The sexes are different, just like the races. I think men are just as awesome as women and I can appreciate intelligence in both.

PPS. Where did you find this jewel of an author??

Doberman said...

@ FE, expect more from this author altho I'll admit he is not everyone's cup of tea. No matter. We can't all agree on every writer's views all the time, right? I happen to think he makes some valid commentary altho he does seem to lose the plot occasionally. He's worth reading though. Fascinating mind.

Vanilla Ice said...

Hi Fish Eagle. It's great to get disagreement for a change. When I said Diamed put his point across in an unsophisticated way, I meant he only considered the measurable evidence, namely women on average are 4 points lower on standardised tests. The way knowledge is acquired (the epistemology) is not just about the measurable, therefore he failed his own standard. You cannot convincingly argue a point merely because the numbers tell you something is so. This was partially covered when Andrea remarked on the definition of facts.

As regards my statement that higher IQ types are prone to manipulating. This is obvious by virtue of the fact that they have higher IQs. If you are intelligent you have a responsibility to represent measurable facts honestly. It is easy to take measurable evidence, say the 4 IQ difference, and then deduce some absurd implications which you know to be untrue but your audience doesn't. We have all been guilty of that since a deeper understanding takes time. There are plenty of modern examples.

Andrea also touched on this, but not directly. The high brow types have manipulated the masses since the beginning of time. Anyway, watch a video on Bullshit by Prof. Frankfurt here, It may clarify some points.

Vanilla Ice said...

Fish Eagle again. Your argument for a meritocracy has .... merit. I completely agree that there should be a benchmark. Democracies end up being a measure of the average voter, and this means that we will generally get bad government.

Anybody watch the Hard Talk interview on BBC with Matthews Phosa? This is a prime example, where he kept repeating that the 11 million ANC voters had spoken. (For the polymath types this raises further questions, but for now the suggestion is that the quality of the electorate is questionable.)

The problem with your suggestion is how do you get consensus on a benchmark, then how do you implement this? A referendum wouldn't work. Assuming you were a benevolent dictator, you could transition to a "democracy" using your suggestion, but there are no benevolent dictators. Then there is the issue of global opinion. Anyway, it will still amount to prejudice and there are many arguments to consider.

Keep the ideas coming.

FishEagle said...

Hi Vanilla, I thought Diamed’s choice in the fact to illustrate his point was brilliant, that woman have a lower IQ than men. It was bound to get the required response that, in essence, proved his point very neatly. Had it been a fact that could have been presented in a more sophisticated way, the message would probably not have had the same impact.

The conversation around the different types of intelligence I find very interesting. VI, dare I say that you have a high IQ with your amazing linguistic skills and probably mathematical skills too?

Lara has a knack for recalling interesting facts.

A psychologist told me my emotional intelligence went through the roof. As you can imagine it was very flattering. Ironically, it was not until I read this post and had this discussion that I grasped the concept. Diamed has a high emotional intelligence.

VI, regarding your next comment, a small group of people should try my proposal of ‘licensing’ votes (from Orania? Or Singapore, which already has a meritocracy?). They’d have to be intelligent enough to see the potential of such a system, which rules out most of Africa. It would have to be done on a small scale to start with because people will need room to experiment and make mistakes. There will be no way of setting an acceptable benchmark unless there is a process of trial and error first. Once you have one benchmark it can be adjusted for other broader requirements.

Vanilla Ice said...

@Fish Eagle. You are too kind. What the article did confirm, is my own prejudice. In isolation, I am more prepared to accept empirical evidence showing blacks to be inferior, than to accept the numbers on women. No doubt the differences are extreme, but regardless, it still makes you think.

FishEagle said...

You have no idea how much this conversation has meant to me. Because I was not able to distinguish between conventional wisdom (IQ intelligence) and emotional intelligence, I was finding that I was unable to get the balance back. I recently lost the balance because there were some personal issues that I had to resolve. Since I neglected another part of my life, I better make up for it now. Wish me luck. Wow, what a blog!

FishEagle said...

VI, could it just be that you like having women visit and comment on the blog for a change and that you didn’t want women to be deterred by this post? I am tougher than that so don’t worry! I won’t be able to comment again for the next week. Going on a trip so I’ll just be following.

FishEagle said...

Yay! My trip has been postponed for a day or two.

One thing that bothered me about going to work in a first world country is the fact that I didn’t have a yard stick to gauge where whites were on an intellectual level. I recently made some major changes in my life, all positive I must say, but it made me feel insecure about the level that I was on. Family and friends weren’t any help. And you see I’m young and I’ve mostly worked with blacks only. Well, needless to say that was a dead end too.

Well, thanks very much!