The Enlightenment Test: Are You a Sheep or Wolf?

[Asian-American]

This is the most eccentric philosophy quiz I have ever taken: http://www.transtopia.org/quiz.html

My score:

"MEMETIC SHOCK LEVEL 03 (0-4): borderline Enlightened. Purgatory; the countercultural realm. The more interesting Atheists, Libertarians, Transhumanists, and Modern Satanists dwell here, together with other freethinking and politically incorrect types. Congratulations, you're just a couple candles short of Enlightenment! Keep honing those clearly present rational, taboo-smashing instincts, and one day you too might become an Enlightened Transtopian Master."

[Mr.Vicchio]

Wow... what a peice of work this quiz is, check this out:

VIII. Some might mistakenly interpret the above as a glorification -or at least tacit approval- of cowardice and "spinelessness". Nothing could be further from the truth. One should never actively seek martyrdom, but when an enemy threatens one's possessions, "loved ones", freedom, way of life, or very existence, he should be fought with courage and tenacity -- "to the last bullet and beyond", if necessary. Caution is good, but cowardice is rather uncool and ultimately counter-productive. To quote a famous German statesman: "Whoever wishes to live, he will fight. And whoever, in this world of eternal strife, refuses to defend himself is not deserving of life."

Any takers on who the "German Statesman" is?

And I love the constant push on Eugenics... wow what garbage lol

My score and I think I am quite proud of this:

MEMETIC SHOCK LEVEL 01 (0-4): average. More than a few candles short of Enlightenment. The sheepish, conformist, intellectually lazy masses reign supreme here. Hell's overcrowded livingroom.

[Asian-American]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Wow... what a peice of work this quiz is

What do you mean?

check this out: VIII. Some might mistakenly interpret the above as a glorification -or at least tacit approval- of cowardice and "spinelessness". Nothing could be further from the truth. One should never actively seek martyrdom, but when an enemy threatens one's possessions, "loved ones", freedom, way of life, or very existence, he should be fought with courage and tenacity -- "to the last bullet and beyond", if necessary. Caution is good, but cowardice is rather uncool and ultimately counter-productive. To quote a famous German statesman: "Whoever wishes to live, he will fight. And whoever, in this world of eternal strife, refuses to defend himself is not deserving of life."

It sounds like the quiz supports American style patriotism. As a Neo-Conservative, would you not agree with this?

Any takers on who the "German Statesman" is?

What are you trying to say?

And I love the constant push on Eugenics... wow what garbage lol

Can you please expand your analysis here?

My score and I think I am quite proud of this:

This tells me what your personal world views are and I thank you for sharing them with us!

Regards.

[Mr.Vicchio]

The German Statesman is Hitler, interesting choice of "statesman" wouldn't you say?

Eugenics, do you know what Eugenics is? It's a theory that was at one time, all the rage, say about 1890-1930 or so, that basically believed that by selectively breeding humans one could produce "superior humans"

As for the VIII I can agree with much in there, but my big problem wasn't what was said, but rather thier choice of statesman. Does that not tell you something about the bias of this "quiz" Choosing Hitler was intentional, and a dead giveaway as to what message they were trying to convey.

[Asian-American]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio The German Statesman is Hitler, interesting choice of "statesman" wouldn't you say?

It is definitely an eccentric and politically incorrect choice. I think the author is though just trying to break through taboos.

Eugenics, do you know what Eugenics is? It's a theory that was at one time, all the rage, say about 1890-1930 or so, that basically believed that by selectively breeding humans one could produce "superior humans"

Modern eugenics thought originated in the U.S.A., and then spread to Europe, Japan, and South America, see http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/Unfit.htm But aside from its origins and history, what arguments would you give for why eugenics should not be applied today?

Does that not tell you something about the bias of this "quiz" Choosing Hitler was intentional, and a dead giveaway as to what message they were trying to convey.

And what messages do you believe the author was trying to convey? I would appreciate specifics, if you have the time and motivation.

Regards.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Eugenics my friend, was widely and openly debunked about 70 year ago and rejected by both the public and science.

The message was, if you agree with the above, you agree with a Nazi, ergo you are a Nazi.

[Asian-American]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Eugenics my friend, was widely and openly debunked about 70 year ago and rejected by both the public and science.

Eugenics is the science of altering genes to a desired state. Dog and plant breeders have been doing this for a long time. In other words, eugenics can be done and there is no scientific debunking of it. Even Jews practiced eugenics, see History, Eugenics, And The Jews: http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_a...p?article=3719

and Jewish Eugenics by Rabbi Max Reichler: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1a7b64f7879e18

The message was, if you agree with the above, you agree with a Nazi, ergo you are a Nazi.

Your characterization of the author is very vague. Can you please tell us exactly what policies you believe the author is trying to convey, and then explain why you believe they are either good or bad policies?

Thank you

[Mr.Vicchio]

Eugenics was, quite literally, an effort to breed better human beings – by encouraging the reproduction of people with "good" genes and discouraging those with "bad" genes. Eugenicists effectively lobbied for social legislation to keep racial and ethnic groups separate, to restrict immigration from southern and eastern Europe, and to sterilize people considered "genetically unfit." Elements of the American eugenics movement were models for the Nazis, whose radical adaptation of eugenics culminated in the Holocaust. http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/

The author's point was to cast the views in VIII as Nazi views, thus not good things.

Oh I suggest you visit that web site and read up on the flawed theory of Eugenics, it's dust bin of history science, for a reason.

[Asian-American]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio The author's point was to cast the views in VIII as Nazi views, thus not good things.

Actually, Patriotism/jingoism is not limited to any one nation: every leader of every nation gives the same speech to their voters that George Bush gives to Americans.

Eugenics was, quite literally, an effort to breed better human beings – by encouraging the reproduction of people with "good" genes and discouraging those with "bad" genes.

Yes, this is true. So what's the problem?

Eugenicists effectively lobbied for social legislation to keep racial and ethnic groups separate

So what are you saying? Are you saying that you support multi-racial societies? Or what about if we had a eugenics program that didn't take race into account?

to restrict immigration from southern and eastern Europe

So what are you saying? Do you believe that it was unethical to not allow these darker skinned Europeans to immigrate? Also, I have alternate information that one prominent American eugenicist brought up the claim that southern/eastern Europeans were not as intelligent as the Nordics, on average, but this comment was never put into practice and immigration of these Europeans was never limited.

But, aside from history, what does this have to do with modern eugenics? What if we had a eugenics program that didn't take race or ethnicity into account? Would you support this type of eugenics?

and to sterilize people considered "genetically unfit."

Yes, this is true. So what's the problem? Do you believe it was immoral to sterilize murderers, thieves, rapists, and the mentally retarded?

Also, eugenics simply means the "bettering" of genes. But it does not mean forced sterilization needs to be applied. Many methods can be used to improve genetic health which would not include coercive sterilization.

Elements of the American eugenics movement were models for the Nazis, whose radical adaptation of eugenics culminated in the Holocaust.

So modern eugenics is an American ideology. So to oppose it, won't you then be engaging in anti-Americanism?

Also, the persecution of Jews had nothing to do with eugenics. Rather, Hitler thought the Jews were very intelligent, even more than the Germans. The reason Hitler persecuted the Jews was because they were promoting Communism in Germany. Hitler also knew that the majority of the leaders of the Bolshevic Revolution in Russia were Jews and that they were slaughtering millions of Russian Christians.

Oh I suggest you visit that web site and read up on the flawed theory of Eugenics, it's dust bin of history science, for a reason.

I am already familiar with the Liberal historical account of American eugenics. But, if you look at the history of medicine, many mistakes were made as well. So my point is, what does eugenics in the past have anything to do with eugenics today? What about Christianity of the past where the Spanish Inquisition was carried out mostly against Jews? Does this mean that Christianity should no longer be practiced because of what happened in the past?

Cheers!

[Nugan]

Eugenics, at this point in time, is a bad idea even if we take away any of the moral implications of limiting individual reproductive choice, and even if we ignore the huge amount of pontential for it to be manipulated by the economic/social elite and assume that the system would opperate entirely fairly.

The reason why eugenics is currently a bad idea is, because, in spite of what a few overenthuastiastic individuals might believe, science has not fully determined the role of genetics as oppossed to environment in the development of most traits, particularly pyschological ones. Certainly there are a few genetic diseases that could be selected against with embryonic screening, but anything beyond that is a hasty assumption. The things that society would most want to wean out, like tendencies for criminal behavior, are not currently genetically detectable. Further, most "neo-eugenics" research are incomplete shams, like the detestably racist The Bell Curve that was quickly debunked by academics.

I would be opposed to eugenics even if there was a scientific basis to it, but that's not even an issue presently, as there is no academic consensus on genetic cauisality for undesirably traits and behaviors.

[Vee]

MEMETIC SHOCK LEVEL 02 (0-4): above-average. A mixed bag of genuine wisdom and deeply ingrained taboos & irrational hangups. The domain of either conservative or politically correct (armchair) philosophers and people who can't make up their frickin' minds (oh, and let's not forget the puerile LAMERS who hit 'score it' without changing/reading anything; you know who you are...). Limbo.

I fall into the bold area.

[Milton Bradley]

This is a wonderful book about eugenics, and the perpatrators of this crima against humanity.


http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/


Edwin Black uses the files of the people he implicates to set the facts straight about eugenics.


Highly recomended.

[Asian-American]

Quote by: Milton Bradley This is a wonderful book about eugenics, and the perpatrators of this crima against humanity. http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/ Edwin Black uses the files of the people he implicates to set the facts straight about eugenics. Highly recomended.

Here is a rebuttal against Black's book: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/Unfit.htm Edwin Black is Jewish and feels it's necessary to fabricate much of the eugenics history to place Jews in a much bigger victim status than they really were.

Second, what does eugenics in the past have anything to do with eugenics applied today in a more scientific manner? Would you try to say that modern medicine is a bad idea because of the mistakes made in the past? Would you say that we should no longer have physicians and prescription drugs and surgery?

Regards.

[Nugan]

Quote by: Asian-American Second, what does eugenics in the past have anything to do with eugenics applied today in a more scientific manner? Would you try to say that modern medicine is a bad idea because of the mistakes made in the past? Would you say that we should no longer have physicians and prescription drugs and surgery?

If you check the bottom of the previous page, you'll see my reply to these questions.

To give you the short version: Modern eugenics have no more of a sound scientific basis than thier predecessors.

[G. Adams]

MEMETIC SHOCK LEVEL 04 (0-4): the pinnacle. Transtopian, or pretty close to it. Progressive and hardcore with very few taboos. Looks like we have a WINNER here (either that or a major CHEAT)!

[Asian-American]

Quote by: Nugan Eugenics, at this point in time, is a bad idea even if we take away any of the moral implications of limiting individual reproductive choice,

There are no absolute morals. Morality rather is more of a fad, they change every generation. I believe it is immoral to reject eugenics.

The reason why eugenics is currently a bad idea is, because, in spite of what a few overenthuastiastic individuals might believe, science has not fully determined the role of genetics as oppossed to environment in the development of most traits, particularly pyschological ones.

Scientists already know enough of the genetic basis of mental traits to get started with a eugenics program.

The things that society would most want to wean out, like tendencies for criminal behavior, are not currently genetically detectable.

The criminal personality trait is psychopathology and it has a 50% heritability rate. People who commit violent crimes, and test positive for psychopathology, can be denied reproductive rights. Yes, perhaps over the years of eugenics some people may be wrongly accused of having criminal genes, but then, this never stopped people from going to war, even though some innocents may accidentally die in the process. And even though some innocents may end up dying from the death penalty, we accept a certain margin of error. Even driving a car may end up in an accident, yet we take that chance. Eugenics is no different.

Further, most "neo-eugenics" research are incomplete shams

Your comment is an unproven hypothesis.

The Bell Curve that was quickly debunked by academics.

Nope, rather the Bell Curve has been vindicated over and over by subsequent research.

as there is no academic consensus on genetic cauisality for undesirably traits and behaviors.

First, there is indeed an academic consensus to personality, esp. the Big 5 personality traits which have a 50% heritability rate:

- introversion versus extroversion
- Conscientiousness versus psychopathology
- altruism versus tough-mindedness
- neuroticism versus emotional stability
- open-to-experience versus conventionality

Second, so what if hypothetically speaking there was no consensus? We currently have many laws in which there is no consensus among the "experts." Got to get started somewhere, instead of waiting for a "consensus."

Regards.

[Aequo]

MEMETIC SHOCK LEVEL 04 (0-4): the pinnacle. Transtopian, or pretty close to it. Progressive and hardcore with very few taboos. Looks like we have a WINNER here (either that or a major CHEAT)!

[Nugan]

Quote by: Asian-American There are no absolute morals. Morality rather is more of a fad, they change every generation. I believe it is immoral to reject eugenics.

This comes down to a difference of personal moral opinion, so I doubt we'd get anywhere arguing this point.


[quote=Asian-American]
Scientists already know enough of the genetic basis of mental traits to get started with a eugenics program.

Quote by: Asian-American The criminal personality trait is psychopathology and it has a 50% heritability rate.

Paychopathy is not "the criminal personality trait", but rather a personality disorder that often is associated with criminal behavior. Not all criminals are pyschopaths, and not all psychopaths are criminals (although anti-social behavior is extremely common among psychopaths).

Further, there is no complete understanding of the role that genetics play in anti-social personality disorder (the prefered term for Psychopathy), and there certainly is not proof of the 50% heritability rate that you suggest. This is still the subject of research.

It is commonly believed that there are both genetic and environmental factors at work in the development of most psychological disorders, including anti-social personality disorder, but we do not yet understand them well enough to know what steps would be best to prevent their development.

If you do have a study that proves a 50% heritiability rate for anti-social personality disorder, rather than a simple likelihood of some some level of genetic predetermination, I would be very interested in seeing it.

Quote by: Asian-American People who commit violent crimes, and test positive for psychopathology, can be denied reproductive rights. Yes, perhaps over the years of eugenics some people may be wrongly accused of having criminal genes, but then, this never stopped people from going to war, even though some innocents may accidentally die in the process. And even though some innocents may end up dying from the death penalty, we accept a certain margin of error. Even driving a car may end up in an accident, yet we take that chance. Eugenics is no different.

War is also best used as a last resort, when all other possible options are exhuasted. Going to "war" against personality traits using forced sterilization is a little like declaring war on another nation over ten acres of disputed territory when the opposing nation has already offered to broker a peace plan. What I mean by this is that the denail of reproductive rights is an extreme penalty based on limited evidence when there are much better documented links between poverty and other detrimental environmental factors and criminal behavior. Attempts to releave poverty and prevent children from being raised in neglectful and/or abusive home environments would be more effective than denying reproductive rights, and would not involve infringements on civil liberties.

(I'm not even going to talk about the death penalty, since its so far off topic, except to point out that many nations have ceased using it since there is no evidence that it is a deterent to crime, much the same as eugenics.)

Quote by: Asian-American Your comment is an unproven hypothesis.

Ditto.

Quote by: Asian-American Nope, rather the Bell Curve has been vindicated over and over by subsequent research.

No, it has not been vindicated. The best you can claim is that it is still a topic of heated debate.


Here's an entire site of articles attacking the Bell Curve on both social and scientific grounds: http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/debunk/dBell.htm

And here's another thorough article: http://slate.msn.com/?id=2416

I could easily find and supply more, since a Google search for "bell curve debunking" returns over 7,000 results.

Quote by: Asian-American First, there is indeed an academic consensus to personality, esp. the Big 5 personality traits which have a 50% heritability rate: - introversion versus extroversion - Conscientiousness versus psychopathology - altruism versus tough-mindedness - neuroticism versus emotional stability - open-to-experience versus conventionality

It is true that the "Big 5 Personality Traits" have a great deal of cross-culutural relevance, and I imagine there is some level of genetic determination involved in them, but I have never heard of data that holds that there is clear evidence of 50% heritability.


If you have such a study, as I said above, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Quote by: Asian-American Second, so what if hypothetically speaking there was no consensus? We currently have many laws in which there is no consensus among the "experts." Got to get started somewhere, instead of waiting for a "consensus."

Yes, we do have many laws over which there is no expert concensus. However, most of those laws do not limit individual rights on the basis of unproven and highly disputed scientific ideas. Certainly in this area especially we need to be cautious, concidering the historical usage of unproven eugenic ideas. A better question would be: What's so essential about eugenics that insists that eugenic policies should be undertaken even when the science upon which they rest is heavily challenged? What would be the benefit of mass sterilization if modern eugenic theory turned out to be as false as its historical incarnations? The worse case scenario of rejecting eugenics is the preservation of the satus quo. The worse case scenario of its implimentation is the groundless sterilization of thousands of individuals.

[Asian-American]

Heritability of the Big 5 Personality Traits:

http://www.haverford.edu/psych/courses/p103/Sep13

For most personality traits, there appears to be around 50% heritability

http://artsandscience.concordia.ca/p...ure18_txt.html

o Heritability: - 0.50 for "big 5" and some other traits

[Mr.Vicchio]

Do believe the world is on the verge of a massive food shortage?