Brandon Cropper has recently gotten attention as an active Objectivist YouTuber. I don't think he's an Objectivist. I've typed in what he said to Rucka Rucka Ali about biological determinism. FYI the Objectivist view is, in short, the blank slate view.
There may be minor transcription errors and I left out some filler words and false starts. Starting at 5:40, Cropper says:
If there is at least a little bit of wiggle room there to say that genes have something to do with it, or are innate something, we can't say innate knowledge, we're not allowed to, somebody will come spank our hand. But as Objectivists we have these certain things we have to not say like "innate knowledge". But what is it? It's an innate tendency for men as opposed to women to be more aggressive? Or is it just in the nature of males as such that physical violence is part of their domain and therefore they have the predisposition for it or something? However we say it, there it is, 97% of murderers are men. How are we going to say it though?
The idea that males are innately or genetically predisposed to violence is incompatible with Ayn Rand's philosophy which clearly and directly states otherwise, and argues its case.
But what stands out to me more is that he's intentionally trying to avoid saying what he thinks. He thinks Objectivism is wrong about this, but he still wants to be an Objectivist anyway – I guess he likes other parts of Objectivism. OK but he believes the way to remain an Objectivist (or at least to avoid complaints from the YouTube audience he's pandering to like Gail Wynand pandered?) is by obeying speech restrictions – just never say anything that Objectivism disapproves of. That is totally contrary to the Objectivist spirit of free thought, inquiry and judgment. Objectivism has never tried to silence people who disagree with it. It's disturbing for a person trying to teach and lead Objectivism to view it like a religion that prohibits profanity rather than as a rational philosophy.
Messages (44)
Ayn Rand on man having a "tendency" to evil
> The idea that males are innately or genetically are predisposed to violence is incompatible with Ayn Rand's philosophy which clearly and directly states otherwise, and argues its case.
Yeah. For example, in Atlas Shrugged, Galt says:
> Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.
Brandon Cropper The Pandering Popularizer
(I’ve only watched a little Cropper.)
Cropper is very accepting. Not only Objectivists but pretty much anyone right wing and anti-collectivism is on his side. This is unlike Ayn Rand or the admissions criteria for Galt’s Gulch (even Eddie wasn’t invited, tons of decent people weren’t invited).
Cropper does politics, contrary to the Objectivist view that philosophy education needs to come first. Politics gets more attention than philosophy.
Cropper says he’s a leader and can solve problems. He announces that he has *fast* answers to major problems, which don’t look that hard to him. And he includes his viewers as part of the solution. Like if they follow him, and people actually do stuff, major political progress can be made fast.
I saw him saying something about how at first he was going to read books or something but now he needs to focus his time on sorting out this political mess or maybe it was the mess with Yaron Brook and ARI being confused. He presents improving the world as something that’s going to happen any day now, not a long term project that people can make small, gradual contributions to. That isn’t fun for dumb people, they want a big impact in the short term, and they want practical results instead of just to develop better ideas and educational resources so that there can be gradual learning in the world. The viewers mostly don’t use educational resources much themselves (listening to people like Cropper, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, etc., is not like reading books and studying for real), so they certainly don’t see those educational resources as the path to improving the world. They are on YouTube instead of a longform text platform because they don’t want to think very hard, and they are not going to be very friendly to the idea that they are going to be in the 517th wave of progress (a few people think, make longform text resources, then for wave two a few more people think and help make more resources, and so on, and it takes a bunch of waves before it gets to the masses, and for a long time only the more serious people do much).
Cropper made it sound like, with his efforts, he’ll get things sorted out soon (like within 3 months maybe, and a viewer could easily think it’ll be 3 weeks because that’s enough time for Cropper to make a bunch of videos). This is unreasonable. I talk differently. I’m pretty clear that I don’t expect to have a big impact on our culture this year or next year. I have a small audience and most people are hostile to thinking. The stuff I say is not what the majority want to hear, so it helps keep my audience smaller. My message is not exciting to dumb people (one ought to be excited by philosophy ideas). That’s fine. I’m just comparing because Cropper’s rather different message is trying to attract a bigger but lower quality following. That’s similar to what Gail Wynand did.
Cropper is different than Wynand by being much smaller and less successful. He thinks he’s different in another major way: that he’s sharing the right ideas instead of pandering. But he’s a big tent guy who doesn’t understand significant parts of Objectivism like the blank slate stuff. Ayn Rand loathed the libertarians and thought Hayek and Friedman were enemies. Cropper is nothing like that. He’s sorta like “the right is all good, yay us”. He says some stuff about individual rights and free trade and small government or whatever and then plenty of non-Objectivists and non-philosophers can like that.
Cropper isn’t very good at stuff. He made dozens of videos with a webcam pointed at his computer screen instead of being able to record his screen. When I told him to screencast, he replied “This is stretching my technical skills to their limits.”. So he’s barely able to make videos at all and he’s OK with that or something, not embarrassed about his incompetence. He ought to be strong, capable and able – effective in the world – and learn skills he lacks. He should have an “I can do it” attitude instead of a “this is too hard for me” attitude. And it’s really not that hard to record a computer screen today, there are plenty of easy apps for that. And he managed to figure it out at some point. But he’s not like Francisco or Dagny in attitude or success. If he was less good at stuff than them, but trying to be good, that’d be alright, but isn’t doing his best to deal with the world similar to how they do. He can use most of their methods even if he’s less skilled and knowledgeable than them. He can say “I can do it” and then do it, even if it takes him longer than it would take them.
> Francisco could do anything he undertook, he could do it better than anyone else, and he did it without effort. There was no boasting in his manner and consciousness, no thought of comparison. His attitude was not: “I can do it better than you,” but simply: “I can do it.” What he meant by doing was doing superlatively.
The text “I can do it” is in *Atlas Shrugged* 8 different times. Here’s Dagny:
> She felt the excitement of solving problems, the insolent delight of taking up a challenge and disposing of it without effort, the eagerness to meet another, harder test. She felt, at the same time, a growing respect for the adversary, for a science that was so clean, so strict, so luminously rational. Studying mathematics, she felt, quite simply and at once: “How great that men have done this” and “How wonderful that I’m so good at it.” It was the joy of admiration and of one’s own ability, growing together. Her feeling for the railroad was the same: worship of the skill that had gone to make it, of the ingenuity of someone’s clean, reasoning mind, worship with a secret smile that said she would know how to make it better some day.
Most of this is coming from the conversation between Cropper and Rucka. The other thing I remember from watching a few Cropper videos, a few weeks ago, is that he isn’t very technical. He doesn’t have detailed knowledge of some of the subjects he tries to tackle. He’s just doesn’t know much, by my standards. He’s not much of an expert. There isn’t enough depth to his knowledge. Maybe he knows a lot about some subjects, but not the ones I saw him talk about. He was trying to do some technical philosophy, I think relating to the brain and mind, and he wasn’t able to go into much detail or be very convincing.
I’ve made a lot of video content on YouTube recently and gained few new subscribers. I think the differences are notable. When streaming I do actual, serious philosophy, in depth, for hours. Cropper makes short videos, with more politics and more posturing as an Objectivist. I don’t emphasize being an Objectivist in my videos. Maybe it’d actually be good to make some Objectivist themed stuff. I could stream doing the Galt’s speech analysis that I’ve been vaguely planning to do. I could also stream organizing and editing the quotes for randquotes.com And I could get Justin to make highlight videos from the Objectivist streams and give them Objectivist titles. That seems reasonable (not pandering).
Also Tew, Rucka, Cropper and others keep trying to comment on and talk about and respond to *people with larger audiences*, people who get a bunch of attention. I do that much less. I think doing it a bit is legitimate because you want to respond to the ideas that matter in our culture today. But they are getting themselves a bunch of attention by focusing way too much on minor issues like a rebuttal to some Jordan Peterson video, and they do that kind of thing routinely as a major focus. (My Jordan Peterson rebuttal material is a minor part of the content I make just like Peterson, overall, doesn't get much of my attention. And my rebuttal material was mostly just talking about psych studies and serotonin and brain science and *topics of general interest*, because the point was just to read something and share my thinking, which is why the ratio of my comments to pages read is really high, I was mostly saying my own stuff and Peterson played a relatively minor role.)
rucka > cropper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQn1BQL1xws
Poor quality writing
> The idea that males are innately or genetically are predisposed to violence is incompatible with Ayn Rand's philosophy which clearly and directly states otherwise, and argues its case.
This writing is poor. You have carelessly repeated the word "are", which makes the sentence hard to parse. The word "its" is ambiguous. You have introduced "Ayn Rand's philosophy" as a synonym for Objectivism, without any explanation or justification.
> But what stands out to me more is that he's intentionally trying to avoid saying what he thinks.
The referent for the word "he" is ambiguous unless the reader knows that Ayn Rand is female. Nothing in what you have written gives that information.
Do you agree that you have made many mistakes in just these two paragraph? What lessons might you learn from this?
>> The idea that males are innately or genetically are predisposed to violence is incompatible with Ayn Rand's philosophy which clearly and directly states otherwise, and argues its case.
> This writing is poor. You have carelessly repeated the word "are", which makes the sentence hard to parse.
The second "are" looks to be a typo/editing error.
> The word "its" is ambiguous.
What are the potential referents that you see for "its"?
> You have introduced "Ayn Rand's philosophy" as a synonym for Objectivism, without any explanation or justification.
curi's typical audience doesn't need explanation on that point. It is impossible to make writing entirely self-contained and explain everything.
>> But what stands out to me more is that he's intentionally trying to avoid saying what he thinks.
> The referent for the word "he" is ambiguous unless the reader knows that Ayn Rand is female. Nothing in what you have written gives that information.
The title of the piece is "Brandon Cropper Is Not an Objectivist." curi also refers to Cropper twice by name in the body of the article.
> Do you agree that you have made many mistakes in just these two paragraph? What lessons might you learn from this?
"Paragraph" should be plural, "paragraphs."
> The second "are" looks to be a typo/editing error.
Yes. I've deleted it.
>> Do you agree that you have made many mistakes in just these two paragraph?
No. The post wasn't trying to be a basic introduction to Objectivism that informs people about topics like whether Rand was male or female and what the meaning of the word "Objectivism" is. If someone doesn't know anything about that, they aren't the target audience, and they can look it up, skip the post, or take an interest in the main point of the post (about obeying speech restrictions as a method of adhering to a philosophy).
>> What lessons might you learn from this?
The post has other writing flaws which you didn't point out. I already knew what the quality of writing for this post was (understandable, much better than most people can write, but not my personal best). I have already considered issues like which posts I should or shouldn't do editing passes on, and why. This was a quick, informal post that I thought was much better than nothing, but did not want to put a bunch of effort into. I don't regret it. You haven't given me unexpected information, so I have no new reason to change my mind about something.
> What are the potential referents that you see for "its"?
It could be referring to "Ayn Rand's philosophy" or "The idea that males are innately or genetically are predisposed to violence is incompatible with Ayn Rand's philosophy".
The latter seems more appropriate to me, but the former is the closest referent. By the way, does a philosophy argue? Or does a *philosopher* argue for a philosophy?
> curi's typical audience doesn't need explanation on that point. It is impossible to make writing entirely self-contained and explain everything.
I am not suggesting to "explain everything" and I understand that curi's typical audience will not need explanation. I am simply pointing out some implicit assumptions that I believe could easily be clarified and make the article understandable even to those who know little about Objectivism and its connection to Ayn Rand. Why introduce a synonym anyway?
> > The referent for the word "he" is ambiguous unless the reader knows that Ayn Rand is female. Nothing in what you have written gives that information.
>
> The title of the piece is "Brandon Cropper Is Not an Objectivist." curi also refers to Cropper twice by name in the body of the article.
I am not sure how this response relates to my criticism.
> "Paragraph" should be plural, "paragraphs."
I spotted that after I posted the comment, but I couldn't find any way to edit it. A typo like that doesn't seem to me to significantly harm readability or comprehensibility. Why did you think it worth mentioning?
#13515 so, is Harry Binswager a real objectivist?
Is he a good representation of Objectivism?
#13641 http://curi.us/1930-harry-binswanger-refuses-to-think
#13641 Why do you ask? Are you looking for resources to help you learn Oism and you aren't sure if HB offers enough value? Or something else?
#13643 Objectivism is not 100% integrated correctly with mans nature and reality, Rand had blind spots.
I am an admirer of Rand and she helped me a good deal, but I am not an Objectivist. I will never be one. I am a rational egoist and radical for capitalism.
I have been following the Objectivism drama over the last few months, and to me it seems like it is
ObLeftivism- the objectivists who are trapped in their conceptual theoretical world (same way that many professors in academia are only living in a theory world, detached from reality's overall nature)
and the "non-dogmatic Objectivists" ...
I consider Mr. Cropper in the "non-dogmatic group" so I was wondering if you were with the "Harry B.'s" of ObLeftivism...
If Ayn Rand really thought biology didnt matter, then she was wrong. So, if Mr. Cropper being objective about the fact that biology matters, because evolution is real, then good on him for leaving a dogmatic cult.
I dont know if Ayn Rand really thought biology doesnt matter, BUT IF she did, she was wrong.
The human is born with a monkey nature, because we are 98% monkey. Only 2% of us is blank slate, because we arent born with innate ideas or concepts.
Rand also did not know how to work a room, nor did she understand why it is important to play the crowd, correctly... Ill take Ben Franklins methods of socializing to Rand's. Every individual is on the chessboard of life, friends and allies are important.
> If Ayn Rand really thought biology didnt matter, then she was wrong.
Then David Deutsch and I are wrong too. Did you want to have a rational debate about this? We could do it e.g. in this thread: http://curi.us/2056-iq
> so I was wondering if you were with the "Harry B.'s" of ObLeftivism...
No. I'm no leftist. I'm a fan of David Horowitz and Ann Coulter. Ted Cruz was my first choice for president, Trump second. I want a southern border wall, to end anchor babies, etc.
So, what's your actual point with IQ? I read it and it sounded like an apologist. The person didn't flat out say biology matters or biology doesn't matter, they just went on about how culture influences it.
Define your position.
Does biology matter or not?
IQ isn't the only area either. Male and female, and how it has an effect on an individual's overall nature. Are you someone who doesn't believe males and female are different?
Biology has more influence on IQ than culture. Culture does influence it, and consciously a culture can have a long term (more than one life span) influence on the overall IQ of their people through self confidence and character building. On any one individual life, biology plays a bigger role than culture.
#13649
> I read it and it sounded like an apologist. The person didn't flat out say biology matters or biology doesn't matter, they just went on about how culture influences it.
I can't tell if you're accusing me of being an apologist or the other guy.
You can read my existing writing on the matter like that series and many others and then *engage with it*. Don't ask questions like "Define your position." which are asking me to start at the beginning with you. Ask questions or give arguments related to particular text that I already wrote so that we aren't starting over from zero. I'm not interested in creating a zero-to-know-everything lecture course for you, in comments, from scratch, without reusing anything. Point out errors or gaps in my existing material using quotes or specifics.
You also haven't defined your own position, and there is no way for me to look up more info about it. That's a major asymmetry. And what you say is quite vague, e.g. are males are females "different"? They are different in some ways and not other ways, e.g. having a penis is a difference. The differences of interest to me and Objectivism are along the liens of intellectual capacity differences due to genetics, which are what we deny.
The person who wrote the link you sent sounded like an apologist. I figured it was something you wrote, since you linked it... Where is your position? Send me a link to that then.
I did define my position, "The human is born with a monkey nature, because we are 98% monkey. Only 2% of us is blank slate, because we arent born with innate ideas or concepts."
Did you not read what I wrote?
#13651 You can't tell that I'm the blog owner, or can't tell that the post you were linked to is on the same blog you're currently at?
Your comments strike me as aggressive, unserious and ignorant. If you don't want to say something substantial – either about your own views or about something I've written – we can just drop it.
I'm kind of amazed that you would call my multi-blog-post series – and much more in the archives and elsewhere – inadequate for explaining my position but then provide 2 vague sentences and call those adequate. Your summary suggests something like we're 98% defined by our nature, and 2% by our ideas and concepts, but doesn't explain what that nature consists of or why you think ideas play such a small role in life.
I clicked here from one of his videos. I could obviously tell I was on the same blog when I clicked on your link, but no I did not know whos blog it was when I first got here.
Why would someone send me a link to someone elses work? I obviously thought you were directly linking something specific you wrote.
Why dont you give me a link to your multi-blog series rather than someone elses stuff?
I didnt say "ideas play such a small role in life" you're quite dismissive and catty, are you being serious?
Monkey nature, I defined what type of nature in the sentence.
Ideas matter greatly, as Mr. Cropper points out "North and South Korea."
If you want to be serious and have me look at your work, then can you provide me a direct link to your work.
> Why would someone send me a link to someone elses work? I obviously thought you were directly linking something specific you wrote.
> Why dont you give me a link to your multi-blog series rather than someone elses stuff?
I did directly link you to my writing – the IQ posts. You have not written a substantive response to any specific part.
You are at a blog named Curiosity, on the domain curi.us. I, curi (aka Elliot Temple), wrote the posts here.
Saying "monkey nature" is not specific or clear.
> I didnt say "ideas play such a small role in life" you're quite dismissive and catty, are you being serious?
You put them at 2%.
Thank you for clearing that up, it was very confusing seeing some posts by "curi" and some by "Elliot Temple."
I understand your point about the 2%, what I meant was that 98% of us is monkey and only our human consciousness is a blank slate. I already pointed out Koreas, so ideas matter greatly.
If you want to look at the human being as a "horse body with a human head" it would help for my point here...Human consciousness is 100% surrounded by our monkey body, and EVERYTHING our consciousness wants to do in reality, it has to do it within our nature (if its going for an optimal life).
So, I stick by my first statement, where I said that the link you provided me sounded very apologetic toward the "biology and nurture" debate. Because you go on and on about the flaws in the test, how culture and religion affect it, but then you end it with the quote
"So, while I disagree about many of the details regarding IQ, I'm fine with a statement like "criminality is mainly concentrated in the 80-90 IQ range"."
So, basically you agree with my original statement, "Biology matters."
You were misrepresenting yourself when you said,
>> If Ayn Rand really thought biology didnt matter, then she was wrong.
> Then David Deutsch and I are wrong too. Did you want to have a rational debate about this? We could do it e.g. in this thread: http://curi.us/2056-iq
What you are trying to debate is "how much does biology matter?" That is a different debate than "does biology matters?"
Even if biology matters only 1%, my point is made.
This is similar to an Objectivist trying to debate someone who doesnt believe in free will. The person has to acknowledge that free will matters in order to have the debate.
You have already accepted that biology matters.
If you want to know more about what I think, I am John Nelson, and I talked about my idea for a religion for "rational egoism and free market capitalism" on Mr. Croppers show....I admit I am not comfortable yet being on camera, but I comment all over the comment section and try to clarify my thoughts more.
Here is a link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ1VnbDDtSc&t=14s
My view is that biology doesn't matter to thinking. If you want qualifiers like "unless there is severe brain damage, which sometimes has biological causes" or "unless there is a genetic mutation which prevents a brain from being created at all, so the person is stillborn", sure, I do sometimes include that kind of qualifier. I also think that kind of qualifier is implied.
If a person can put together a few sentences reasonably coherently or get a 70 on an IQ test (rather more like a 0), then what differentiates that person from me, intellectually, is ideas not biology. It's not 40% biology or even 5% biology, it's not biology.
The difference between you and me is ideas. Every single one of the comments by you or I is enough to determine we're intelligent human beings, who can think, not entities with broken brains. So, as usual, the issue is ideas.
I don't think you have given any topical arguments that are half as high quality as what I've read in the past or could readily find on Amazon; nor found any error in any quote I wrote, quoted it, and then explained the error; nor done much research to find and read much of what I've already written about the nature/nurture debate (search the blog). If you can't or won't do those things, I don't know why I would want to speak with you further. What value are you offering?
IQ does affect your ability to grasp ideas and implement them. People with higher IQ's are more likely to produce (whatever their trade) more effectively.
IQ also matters with higher level abstractions and only genius with IQ over a certain level can discover/create "general relativity" or "Objectivism." The actual IQ number is irrelevant, just the point that it takes a certain amount to be the 1st one to grasp it.
Biology includes male and female too. Females amoore born paying attention to faces, while men are born paying attention to things. This is 100% outside of human consciousness. I don't need to get into specifics beyond this because just 1 example proves the point that biology matters and affects our lives in ways that define our natural nature.
Ayn rand did understand there is a difference between men and women, otherwise she would never have made the statement about a female president.
https://youtu.be/cL8g7zy6qxw
> IQ does affect your ability to grasp ideas and implement them. People with higher IQ's are more likely to produce (whatever their trade) more effectively.
Setting aside that IQ is largely a myth, and just treating it as a vague approximation which is poorly measured by badly designed tests ... I don't think IQ is biological.
I judge that you are not interested in my work on this subject and that you're a beginner who doesn't know much about logic, research, citations, quotes, or debate, but doesn't realize it.
I've made my point that biology matters with male and female, so I think Im done here.
I am new to debate, but you have to start somewhere.
We disagree about IQ. I am not an expert, its true, but I do know enough of the science to know that IQ is biological to some degree. I am not interested in your work particularly, because Ive seen the arguments against Nassim Taleb.
#13667 You aren't giving any details or specific regarding your claims about IQ, Taleb, male/female (you made a scientific claim with no source), etc.
You don't have to start by trying to debate an expert on a complex issue. Start with something that is easier, have some success, try something 30% harder after that, repeat and work your way up.
Or try it with a different attitude. Go slower, more organized, ask for help on some points, etc. You're posting chaotically.
My only point was that biology matters.
You said it doesn't, implying "humans are only ideas." Is this a fair assessment of your view, or what you meant?
I don't have to get into the nitty gritty of it to demonstrate that it matters, because my point isn't "to what degree it matters" my point is only that it matters.
The link you provided demonstrates that you do know it matters to some degree, other wise you would haven't finished it with,
"So, while I disagree about many of the details regarding IQ, I'm fine with a statement like "criminality is mainly concentrated in the 80-90 IQ range"
You wouldn't make a statement like this unless you understand that it does matter to some degree.
#13671 I already said:
> I don't think IQ is biological.
You aren't listening and don't seem interested in trying to get better at this.
Ok, I understand your last statement now.
I don't see a point though continuing, because there is clearly a genetic component to IQ. Why would evolution affect everything except our brain? Especially given that our brain becoming big enough to understand ideas, is how we survive?
Does biology affect a males nature vs a female?
> I don't see a point though continuing, because there is clearly a genetic component to IQ.
You don't want to discuss it because, as a non-expert who is unfamiliar with arguments that disagree with you – such as http://bactra.org/weblog/520.html – you are so confident you're right that discussion is a waste of time? That's irrational.
Evolution created our brain but all brains have the same fundamental capabilities similar to how all PCs can run the same apps. Being an intelligent person, or not, is binary. How effectively one thinks is due to which ideas one uses to think, not due to hardware.
You could have found this out by reading material I've already written, but you refused to even try to learn in that way.
Does biology affect a male vs a females nature?
#13675 You haven't said what you mean by "nature". If you mean their mind – e.g. wanting to wear makeup, or starting fist fights – no, that's ideas, many of which people get from their culture.
Ill go with google's definition,
"Nature-the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it."
I mean nature of the person as a whole, mind and body. Our mind cant do anything, unless it works through the body. Our mind isnt divorced from the body.
Since your not a Leftist, Im assuming you understand why it is wrong for "male biological individuals who identify as female" to compete against females. This is one obvious way in which the nature of males and females are different. Men being bigger and stronger on average, is 1 example of males and females having a different nature.
Males have more of an innate drive to reach the top of the field, sport, or whatever competitive area (on average), than women.
Females multi-task better, because their brains are wired different than mens.
> Since your not a Leftist, Im assuming you understand why it is wrong for "male biological individuals who identify as female" to compete against females.
Yeah, being male affects muscles.
> Females multi-task better, because their brains are wired different than mens.
This is the kind of thing I think is false. In order to reach a conclusion about this, one has to go into details, but you aren't doing that. How do you know your claim? By science, by logical reasoning, or what? And then give the details of your arguments. etc. You will neither read and engage with my arguments – readily available by searching my blog or at the links I've provided – nor give details for yours. I think that's because you don't know much about this – but instead of being curious you're already very biased for a conclusion.
Males have bigger muscles and a protective instinct.
I'm not going into great detail because there isn't a need to, not for making such an elementary point that biology matters and affects how the individual integrates with reality.
The basic data from psychology backs this up. Male and females have different biological drives, these drives affect our nature, and if individuals are not integrate with their nature, they can not live a fully optimal life. We didn't stop being monkeys because we became fully conscious.
Ideas matters but an individual isn't satiated by ideas alone. For example, "loneliness is fatal" because human beings are social animals, and if people don't have some honest social connections it leads to mental health problems, and potentially suicide. I'm sure you can find data for this in psychology today.
> Males have bigger muscles and a protective instinct.
The claim that males have a protective instinct is an unargued assertion. If you want to have a productive discussion, you'll have to go into detail instead of saying things like "The basic data from psychology backs this up." with no citation.
Ill explain "males have a protective instinct" in detail, when you explain in detail the assertion "existence exists."
Reality exists, as opposed to solipsism or the belief that nothing exists. Do you disagree? Do you have a counter argument? I don't know what details you want. Solipsism is refuted in detail in this book https://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Reality-Parallel-Universes-Implications-ebook/dp/B005KGJX8E/
Why are Rand's characters so rapey?
Why is curi pretending to be an expert in Biology?
#13648 why does curi support stealing people's money to build a wall?
Does curi not know that ladders have been invented?
#13724 If you think curi has made a false claim about biology, why don't you write it down and link to it?
#13723 Why are you claiming Rand's characters are rapey without providing any examples?
#13727 Why do you people need so much help with simple things?
I thought Randians were advocates of self-reliance?