Tackling the links between Gender expression and orientation/preference in ones partners.

Recently I have been researching into the known links between gender expression and sexual orientation/preferences in partners as well as positions in sexual relationships. Is it true that gender expression is actually directly linked to non-heterosexual orientations in adulthood? If so, is there a difference between the tops and bottom non-heterosexuals? Does penetrative same sex sexuality differ from bottom receptive same sex sexuality in terms of gender congruence and expression? Is there is a difference between bisexual same sex sexualities and exclusive homosexual ones? Can you really tell someones orientation just by looking at or listening to someone?

Well, it depends on which studies you look at really. Some studies say that non-heterosexuality be it bi or homosexual is linked to at least childhood non-conformity. They point out that feelings, thoughts, interests and behaviors of non-heterosexuals were more opposite gender typical in childhood and that there is also a link in that continuing into adulthood with ones orientation/sexual preference for partners. That seems to miss out on something important though. The research the American Psychological Association under Lisa Diamond did over long term time frames showed same sex sexualities are mostly bisexuals. What does this mean for the people in this studies? Could it not be possible those gays in these studies could turn out to be bisexuals.

How would one track this to see if it was the case? Well, for one we would need to know the ages of the people in the studies. We would also need to know if they were conflating bisexuality and exclusive gayness. It is possible since we do not know the stats that these people with opposite typical expression are as much for men into chooch and for the women into manmeat as the exclusively heterosexuals all around them. For the longest time bisexuality especially for men was denied its existence by the same groups that perform these studies. To the point where men whom set off this Gaydar and fiercely protested loudly they where bisexuals all over the bisexual scale were told they were "delusional."

On top of this the results are contradictory as well. Remember, I asked about the tops VS bottoms? Well, top homosexual males are more than likely to come off as the gender typical bloke, but, with a male hole for their man rod than bottom homosexual males. Men whom sleep with men whether they are in fact gay, bisexual or hetero and just horny without a woman around all share one core thing. Their gender expression is a typical bloke. This does not mean they might not say love Musicals or love Pink, but, they do not for example have any appeal at the idea of say doing drag as an adult. Nor do they for example use terms like "girl" to describe themselves. In fact, they tend to find gays that are too out there as more annoying.

Top homosexuals, bisexuals, bi-curious, questioning, mostly heterosexuals and so on are the least likely to be camp or overly flamboyant. They tend to for example be more into sports and be more physical than the bottoms. They tend to be more dominant in the bedroom as well not just the penetrative actor. They tend to be the Alpha if you will in the sack. Treating bottoms if you will as a chicks with dicks in terms of the traditional gender roles in the bedroom. They tend to not cross their legs and tend to sit with them more open. They tend to have less overemotional behavior as well, but, they are far from non-feeling Stoics either. This has lead people to believe that Tops in the same sex world have a much higher level of Testosterone during critical times of Androgen floods as well as a hormonal balance that is more flooded with said testicle juice.

However, if these people are also same sex attracted how can one say there is an inherent link between gender conformism and orientations? Well, some studies have shown a whopping 85-88% of gender non-conforming kids grow up to a heterosexual adulthood. However, that was back in 2012. Since then more studies have come out showing links between orientation/preference and gender expression. These studies one must remember though were done by the same group of people which denied bisexual men and still to this day refuses to take into their world view the FACT that most men with same sex sexualities are bisexual and not gay at all in the way we would tend to think of it as being exclusively homosexual attraction. 

So, it is safe to say given their track record that even if people in the study said "dude, I am not homo I am bisexual I love pussy OK." That they would turn around and like they always have say they were gay and in denial. Funnily enough they DO believe in female bisexuality and do not conflate them like they do men in their studies. Even though they included a Bisexual part of their most recent causes of homosexuality article they still come to end it with saying it is a minority of men that are in fact bi if they even exist. Which is laughable and downright insulting to the personal experiences of any and all bisexual males. With such links to the flat out denial of the bisexual male how can one trust any study by such a group of ignorant twats?

This same group denies that sexuality can change over time for both genders/sexes. They stake claim to a completely genetic determinism model of orientation which says one is not ever both or in a gray area. Or that sexuality can be a scale. Or that bisexuality is the norm for same sex sexualities. They stake the claim you are born gay and or straight. That very few people at least for men are both or bisexual of some sort. That Sexual Fluidity is rare instead of the norm in same sex attractions which we have ample evidence is the opposite in human orientations and preferences. Even the American Psychological Association has come out against the working group sighting their anti-fluidity biases. As well as their lack of acknowledging of bisexuals in their studies whom time after time request not to be statistically called gay when they are not.

So, I have come to the conclusion that although they might be right that for some orientation is linked to gender expression it is not something that is true for all or even necessarily most same sex sexualities. For example there are tons of masculine even full gay men and tons of feminine full lesbian women. If orientation and partner preferences was deterministic of expression than it should determine that all people with same-sex attraction are opposite gender typical when they are not. For every Musical theater loving gay or bi male there is equally as many Nascar and Football loving, Nacho eating and Beer downing typically masculine gay or bisexual dude. For every butch lesbian there is a lipstick lesbian or complete femme lesbian.

I think that in fact most people will conform to some extent to their Gender Roles and expression due to how it is linked to our Gender Identity as males and females. Since same sex sexuality is not the same thing as Gender Identity Disorders or Gender Dysphoric issues it would be normal for one to in some ways conform to ones gender expressions linked to ones identity. That I do think is much more deterministic than the opposite. Most people irregardless of orientation and preference will be men and will be women. Or will be males and females to some or more of an extent. For every unique trait that could be atypical you can find so many more that are typical of male and femaleness irregardless of ones partner preferences.

Men and women having male and female brains will mean that most of the gays and bisexuals will be just as similar to heterosexuals on a whole list of metrics while differing on others. Yes, there might be some small differences, but. the idea that you can spot a same-sex attracted person simply based on the stereotype of gender non conformism is bullshit. Gaydar will only work on the most flamboyant and out there gays and most butchy of butchiest of lesbians. Even than you could be dead wrong and they might be as straight as the next person just expressing themselves differently. The era of the Gaydar test needs to stop. Let us just treat each other as individuals. Let all men and women just be themselves. Most of the time that will be in accordance with natural gender rules. However, even if it was not just let people be.

You should not really be asking about someones preferences outside of if you are interested in them anyways. It is really no ones business whom is straight, gay or whatever in the day to day life unless you want to partner or fuck said person. So, let us quit trying to put people into boxes based on their preferences and just be peaceful/benevolent to one another irregardless of ones orientation. In the end it does not matter at all to the character of a person and the content of ones character is what matters not the content of ones brain and genitals on sex.

The Flourishing Man Episode 2 | Same-sex Masculinity

In this second Episode the primer on definitions continues as I dispel the notions of same-sex experiences being incompatible with retaining manhood. I will be also citing the same article What is Masculinity from A Voice For Men.

Which can be found at;

www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issue…s-masculinity/

Sexuality and Gender by Lawrence S. Mayer (The New Atlantis Report in Audio Book form)

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/preface-sexuality-and-gender

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/executive-summary-sexuality-and-gender

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/introduction-sexuality-and-gender

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50Introduction.pdf

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/frequently-asked-questions-sexuality-and-gender

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160906_TNAFAQSexualityandGender.pdf

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/part-one-sexual-orientation-sexuality-and-gender

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/part-two-sexuality-mental-health-outcomes-and-social-stress-sexuality-and-gender

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/part-three-gender-identity-sexuality-and-gender

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/conclusion-sexuality-and-gender

From the Frequently Asked Questions of the New Atlantis Report; 

1. Does the report argue that being gay or transgender is a choice?

No. The report explicitly states that “sexual orientation is not a choice,” but demonstrates that, according to currently available scientific research, “biological factors cannot provide a complete explanation” for sexual orientation and argues that “environmental and experiential factors may also play an important role.” The report does not argue that gender identity is chosen, but notes that “almost nothing is well understood when we seek biological explanations for what causes some individuals to state that their gender does not match their biological sex.”

2. Does the report prove that the “born that way” hypothesis is false?

No. The report shows that the “born that way” hypothesis is not supported by scientific evidence. Observing that something has not been proved true is not the same as demonstrating that it is false. What is false is the claim that the “born that way” hypothesis is supported by science.

3. Does the report argue that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed through therapy?

No. The report argues that “sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people” and observes that “only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.” The report does not advocate trying to change — or confirm — a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through therapy. The report’s authors are especially wary of medical interventions directed at children.

The report argues strongly for better addressing the mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide) and behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence) that non-heterosexual and transgender populations experience at much higher rates than the general population. 

Dancing is not at all non-conforming nor Gender Queer in anyway. Dancing really is a Man's Game!

One of the metrics in the studies on non-conforming or so-called gender queerness in men; AKA gay traits is actually of all things dancing. One of a few metrics that are considered non-conforming in studies to which I facepalm and shake my head. The claim is that dancing is an "effeminate" trait and thus makes one gender queer or homosexual typical/gaydar inducing, This makes no sense to me at all and is counter to all of ones personal experience of men that do dance. The human experience is filled in our history with men whom were not effete whom danced and also sang as well.

One of the biggest names in this history is Gene Kelly whom famously said in his day, "dancing is a man's game." The truth is that men have been dancing since time immemorial and at no time have these men dancing been considered effete or "Queer." In fact, women love a man that can dance with them. Men that dance show how well they move which is often very sensual and ones dancing style can tell a woman a lot about how that man will partner with them in the bedroom. Dancing as Gene Kelly mentioned is also a form of athleticism.

How dancing became associated with men being womanly or associated with gayness, or with being effete is beyond me. The truth is there is nothing more traditionally part of the heterosexual mating game than cutting a rug with your woman. Was Patrick Swayze in Dirty Dancing being queer and a fag? Or somehow being non-conforming to having a penis and testicles? I do not think so. How about Frank Sinatra? Fred Astaire? Danny Key? Clark Gable in his musicals? Carey Grant in his musicals? Gays do not own dancing in anyway at all. "Queer" is not at all a word that describes men dancing in anyway either.

Dancing is a human thing and it is not an effete thing at all. No man should feel less than for loving to move on the dance floor; nor should they feel less than for loving to sing along with it. This also connects to the odd idea that musical theater is gay, queer and effete for young boys or grown man. Once again dancing is a form of athleticism it just does not use a bat or a ball. It uses the body and a solid dance floor. It uses sometimes props which are associated with the dance this is the dancers own bat and ball. People whom classify this as non-conforming behavior in metrics for studies need to have their head examined.

No young boy whom likes dancing should be labeled as pre-gay children. Nor should they be labeled as gender variant or queer or pre-trans or effete in anyway at all. Nor should boys whom like to be singers be considered effete or pre-gay or anything. These things are not unmanly and these things are not to be attempted to be pushed out of a person. Let people be and let men enjoy singing/dancing to their hearts content.

Digit Ratio/Gender Non-conformity and sexuality -- A Meta-Analyses of the actual research

There is a word that is often thrown about in our society called "Gaydar." and it is prevalent throughout various areas of science too. It is not just a term bandied about by people that come off as stupid, but, people that seem quite logical as well. They point to studies which claim that all the stereotypes about straight people and gay people are correct. That straight equals being a gender conforming god and gays being gender queer and atypical aberrations from the norm in ways other than their sexual desires. 

However, is it really true that Gaydar exists and is it also true that straight people never are gender-non conforming? Oh and does a difference in your ring finger really tell you anything about your orientation? Most people will point to studies mainly by the people associated with Michael J. Bailey and his studies. However, how correct are these studies? Are they consensus building? Are they even scientific or are they quackery? Looking at the Meta-Analyses of the data shows serious holes in the idea that Gaydar is a consistently true phenomenon. 

Moreover it shows some serious flaws in the idea of what is manly for men as well. Especially when it comes to activities like dancing. If you look at the studies gay men played game show and performance more than straight boys did as children.. However, there is a serious flaw in all these studies. No straight people are even given a chance to take part in the research. Of course you will have a majority of gay boys and lesbian girls being sissies and tomboys. There is no control sample of straight people or even just mostly straight people in these studies to see how many of them have videos of non-conforming home movies. 

If you saw my Moms old photos of me back at her place one of them is me in a very flamboyant coat that has a color in it a mix between purple and pink. Yet, I am straight I am not gay. I both danced when I was younger, was in a play "Twelve Dancing Princesses," and played with guns too. I was the 1 of only 3 boys in a play and was also playing Chris Bond with my toy gun at the same time. As long as there is no control group in any of these studies I call unscientific BS on them all. I call them quackery and Michael J. Bailey is himself in denial about the existence of sexual fluidity. He did not even acknowledge male bisexuality exists and still denies it is prevalent to this day in the male sex.

If Michael J. Bailey is not a good source and even denies evidence he does not like where can we look outside his inner circle for information on the markers of being gay? Is there any studies on Gaydar related traits that is not by Bailey and what do they show? Well, they show that most people in our species that are men do have a conformism and so do women. However, it also shows much more importantly the demographics of actual non-conforming people no matter how small the number. The top tier of people whom had gender non-conforming childhoods are in fact heterosexual as adults. 

Not mostly heterosexual, but, self-identified complete Kinsey 0 heterosexuals are the most to have had moments of various levels of non-conformism in life. This was according to a wonderful study done outside of Bailey's narrative back in 2012. However, there are other ideas out there trying to tell people certain factors tell you what orientation you are. That being your ring to index finger ratio with the length of your ring finger being longer meaning you are more likely straight than not as a man. While supposedly gay men have digits similar to women not straight men. Yet, in meta-analyses shows there is not enough evidence to show any sort of connection. 

I think the meta-analyses of non-conformity makes perfect sense. As meta-analyses of orientation identification overtime shows heterosexuality as being the most stable and the most likely to be where people with any sort of same sex play to end up. The two most taken up identities are either mostly straight or completely straight for most men and women by the time they are in their 30's and going into their 40's. This is shown in the studies that took a scientific and objective eye on human sexual orientation. Every single Longitude based tracing of populations done since around 2002ish shows a bisexual or a just curious at one time direction. Lisa Diamond; a very out and proud Lesbian Psychologist for the APA cites this among other things in her research which shows a lack of any real evidence for the biological determinism or existentialist etiology for bisexual or homosexual attractions. 

So, it would make sense that most men and women irregardless of behavior or interests to be not gay and to be at least some variant of heterosexual. Only 2-3% of any human population is steadily gay or homosexual over their entire life without change to at least at bisexual identity. People with non-conformism with actual Gender Dysphoria (Transsexualism) is less than even 1% of the population. Most people whom have at some point gone through non-conformism or continue to be non-conforming are Gender Concordant and heterosexual. There is no reason to assume someone is gay just because they act a certain way, talk a certain way or have certain interests. 

Gaydar is a false pattern which does not help when dealing with people as individuals and not collectives. You should never collectivize all people with certain traits together into one mind. Individualism is the answer and to think first about if someone is a good person and treat them by their character. Do not prejudge about people before getting to know them. Gaydar is collectivism and it should be shoved off as the Pseudio-science it is for it is quackery at its finest. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/07/25/2d4d-ratio-masculinity/

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/23/news/la-heb-gender-identity-kids-20120223

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/02/15/peds.2011-1804

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2012/02/15/peds.2011-1804.full.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289524/

http://www.adhdld.com/pdfs/Grimbos_et_al2010.pdf

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-005-3122-x

http://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=scholarship
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2969161_code835085.pdf?abstractid=2965179&mirid=1

“The Fountainhead on What Is Important (and What Is Not)” by Gregory Salmieri

Sexual Tribalism

In the newer editions of The New Left The Anti industrial revolution there is the inclusion of a newer set of essays. One of those essays is called "gender tribalism." Which talks about the tribalism of feminism the idea for this articles name comes from that essay.                                                           

I used too be on the board of directors for our local Pride group as a full supporter of GLBT individual rights. However, that was years ago now. I noticed even back at that time a very worrying sense of collectivism and of tribalism among GBL people in the group and on the board. There was a sense in which their Pride came not from the content of their character, but, from their group affiliations. It seemed that some people thought being GLB came almost with a sharing of the same mind it was quite creepy really. It got to the point at one time that even your choice of music was enough to remove your GBL card and to consider you an anomaly.

Since those days the collectivism and tribalism around sexuality seems to have gotten worse and not better. Now you have Social Justice Warriors whom seem to treat themselves like GBL peoples own personal Gestapo. You have people whom think that merely having a single thought that does not fall in line with their views is the same as screaming to beat up gays in the streets. It is not uncommon for example for the Log Cabin Republicans in the USA or Conservative Party of Canada supporters to be viewed as self-hating gbl people for being of a different world view. The assumption is that what these people share is more than just whom they sleep with. As if somehow political or other non-sexual traits can and should be part of a GBL persons sexual identity.

These people are not helped by newspaper articles about studies detailing how GBL people are somehow biologically determined to share traits outside of the sexual. It is for them far too easy to go from study says X and then interpret it as study says Y. Ludicrous claims that have surfaced in the mainstream media linking everything from vocal fluidity to hair-whirls in people to their sexual orientation or preferences only make matters worse for GBL people that do not fall into these traits. The idea of the gay gene far from being a saving grace also fuels the biological determinism fire that GBL people need to be a certain way or are a certain way by nature in order to be considered truly gay or bi or lesbian enough for the tribe to accept.

It also fuels assumptions about men and women that are not GBL, but, have some trait. It fuels a denial of their stated sexual identity. Are you straight or even Mostly straight and have a certain speaking pattern? Do you have certain mannerisms about you? Then you must be a freaking gay or lesbian and be in denial, and, if you deny that you are just proving their point they will think. The idea that sexuality is a collective and tribal attribute is anti-metaphysically given facts, The facts of the law of identity. A thing is itself and not everyone else, but, is and can only be metaphysically itself. Or you cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same respect. AKA the mind belongs to the individual and not anyone else.

This denial of the law of identity a core concept of human reason and logic helps fuel the idea that GBL is a collective or tribe. As opposed to just individual people with individual minds that can have many different views on issues and interests outside of the shared trait of sexual attraction and preferences. It turns things into an us vs them scenario where how we treat people is drowned out by them belonging to a different tribe from ours. It is in fact a first step to the complete dehumanization of whole groups of people that are different from us. Sexual tribalism is very dangerous and it needs to be stopped now. Before it is too late and someone gets seriously hurt. 

Objectivism, Evolution, and Ethics W/Ed Hudgins

Ed Hudgins offers in this talk a detailed examination of the attempts by the new secularists and atheists to address the fundamental questions of ethics and morality from an evolutionary and based on insights into human evolution and neuroscience. he discusses how thinkers like Dawkins, Dennett, and Shermer have wrestled with these issues and analyze where they've succeeded and where they've failed to establish a rational foundation for ethics. Then he shows how Objectivist meta-ethics is both consistent with the core of their discoveries and, indeed, necessitated by their understanding of science and the role of reason.

Objectivism and Evolution: No Contradictions by Edward Hudgins

The following article is by Edward Hudgins as posted on"Sense of Life Objectivists."

September 21, 2010 -- The essay “Why Ayn Rand’s Philosophy is Incomplete” by the Prometheus staff claims that the facts of biological evolution reveal a logical flaw in Objectivist philosophy. This claim is based on serious philosophical confusion and a misunderstanding of the philosophy developed by Rand.

The essay states that “One of Objectivism's fundamental axioms is that ‘existence is identity,’ which Rand derived from Aristotle's law of identity,” that is to say, A is A. The essay also states that “evolution shows us that existence is a process of evolving identity.” It then concludes that “Far from the ‘A is A’ certainty of Aristotlelian-Randian thought, evolution holds that change is the only true constant. Time's arrow specializes in contradiction.”

What changes and what doesn’t

To untangle this confusion, we must ask what it means to say that everything that exists has an identity. A is A, that is to say, the law of identity, is a metaphysical premise or axiom. It is the acknowledgment that to exist is to be something in particular, to have certain attributes and not to have others. Change in the world does not contradict the fact that to exist is to possess a certain identity. Rather, how an entity changes is an aspect or attribute of its identity. Change occurs in an orderly, law-like manner. Rand states that “The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act.” Here “action” means any kind of change.

Observe that concrete entities are what changes. A flower grows. A rock rolls down a hill. A planet orbits the sun. Hydrogen atoms, subject to intense gravitational forces inside the sun, fuse together, becoming helium atoms and releasing a certain amount of energy.

Observe also that there is something constant in these and in all cases of change. Specifically, entities change in a law-like rather than a random manner. Such change is an aspect of an entity’s identity. According to the Prometheus essay, “evolution holds that change is the only true constant.” Really? What about the laws of evolution? Would the essay’s authors maintain that in the period of a few seconds a flower might transform into a dinosaur and then a starfish, and then a volcano? Why not, if all is change?

Of course, evolution refers to the fact that some individual living organisms suffer genetic mutation; that the attributes that are altered by mutations can confer survival advantages or disadvantages on the organism depending on the environment; that when a mutation confers an advantage, the organism will be more likely to survive and produce offspring which, in turn, will pass along those advantageous genes to the next generation. Over many generations more mutations occur, changing the individual organisms in subsequent generations. Over long periods of time, individuals might be greatly changed from earlier organisms from which they came. We say that the species has evolved. It is that law-like manner of change that we refer to as evolution.

Indeed, the task of science is to discover such laws or constants concerning the nature of entities. A plant needs water, carbon dioxide, and nutrients to survive and flourish. The force of an object is equal to its mass times its acceleration. And so on.

Forms vs. concepts

The Prometheus essay seems to treat “identity” as if it were a metaphysical essence or entity, as if it were some sort of eternal and unchanging Form. It then attributes such a view to Objectivism and criticizes that view for not allowing for change and evolution. But Objectivism explicitly rejects this view of identity.

Objectivism understands that the concepts by which we identify entities and their attributes are not metaphysical entities but, rather, the epistemological means by which we understand the world, by which we classify things, by which we have rational knowledge. Rand had a very specific understanding of concepts. Rand states that a concept “is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s ) and united by a specific definition.” In other words, to define “human” as a “rational animal” is to observe attributes that all humans share with certain other entities—animals—as well as attributes that distinguish humans from those entities—the capacity for rational knowledge. Were there creatures a million years ago that could be identified by the concept “human?” The evidence says “No.” We would have to use a concept other than “human” to describe those earlier creatures. Were there creatures back then from which today’s humans evolved? The answer is “Yes.”

Whatever the attributes of those creatures from which modern humans evolved, the creatures today to which we apply the concept “human” have a certain identity, that is, certain attributes that we can describe and understand. Among those attributes is that fact that they did evolve from earlier creatures through a process that we describe as evolution.

How blank a slate?

The essay quotes Rand’s statement that “I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent.” Let’s acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The Prometheus essay asserts that Rand’s agnosticism led her to misunderstand human nature. She said that “Man’s emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses.”

According to the essay, evolutionary psychology tells us that “Human psychology is far from a tabula rasa, and is hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts which mitigate against all attempts to employ pure rationality.” The essay acknowledges most human achievements come “thanks to our ability to transcend these evolutionary handicaps,” adding “but gainsaying their existence is sheer misrepresentation of scientific reality.”

Here the essay has a point. Recent discoveries about evolution and the brain do, in fact, reveal that human nature is much more complex than perhaps Rand understood. Even so, a close look at Rand’s works shows her to be a more sophisticated observer of human nature than perhaps the essayists appreciate. But that’s another discussion. Still it is crucial for Objectivist thinkers to take account of these discoveries if they wish to refine their understanding of how individuals might live happy lives.

But these discoveries so far do not undermine the basic Objectivist understanding of ethics. The essayists acknowledge the human ability “to transcend these evolutionary handicaps.” Another way to put this is that we humans can use our volition to check our immediate emotions, including those that might involve hard-wired capacities. We can reflect upon the world around us and on ourselves and our own nature. We can ask how we might act, including how we might discipline our emotions or hard-wired tendencies in order to best survive and flourish. This is the virtue of rationality.

Here we also see that in a very crucial way humans are “tabula rasa.” We do not have pre-programmed conceptual knowledge. Even if we are “hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts,” it is only through a volitional, rational process that we discover and validate knowledge about the physical world in which we exist and about our own nature—our nature as evolved beings and as beings that can only survive and flourish if we act in accordance with certain principles found in our own nature, that is, in our identity as human beings. In any case, any instincts or biases that we humans have do not give us automatic knowledge concerning how to survive and flourish. We must discover this knowledge, using our rational capacity. From this perspective we might as well consider ourselves to be “tabula rasa.”

The Prometheus essay acknowledges Rand’s insights about free choice, free markets, and limited government in society. But these insights trace back to the deeper Objectivist understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The essayists rightly ask about the implications of evolution for Objectivism, but they would do well to ask about their own understanding of Objectivism so that they might avoid the errors analyzed above and have a better understanding of the foundations of the freedoms that they rightly cherish.

Gad Saad & Yaron Brook on evolutionary psychology, Altruism, State of academia & more!

On November 1, 2018, Yaron and Gad Saad sat down to discuss Donald Trump, birthright citizenship, immigration, idea pathogens, evolutionary psychology, objectivism (Ayn Rand), altruism, consilience, and interdisciplinary pursuits.

Follow Gad Saad on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLH7...), Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Dr.Gad.Saad, and Twitter: https://twitter.com/GadSaad (@GadSaad)
______________________________________

Like what you hear? Become a Patreon member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this! https://www.patreon.com/YaronBrookShow or support the show direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow.

Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook).

Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.

Harry Binswanger | Logic; The Method of Reason

Atlas Shrugged has been aptly described as “a hymn to logic.” But today what one finds in logic textbooks are sterile, formalistic diversions from real-life issues. This course, in contrast, will focus on the most personally important — and most neglected — topic in logic: concepts. It is proper conceptualization, not facility with syllogisms, that makes the difference between clarity and confusion, rational and irrational functioning, adhering to reality and wandering through dreamland. Drawing on Ayn Rand’s revolutionary identifications in logic, these five classes focus on the proper formation, definition, maintenance, and use of concepts. Emphasis will be given to working on practical exercises. The course is based on the material in chapters six and seven of How We Know, with class exercises to practice applying the principles to concrete cases.

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/

The Yaron Brook Show: An Interview with Gad Saad

This interview recorded on June 6, 2018 between Yaron Brook and Gad Saad delves into free speech, free will and evolutionary psychology and the relationship between psychology and values and key scripts that define one's life. To connect with more of Gad Saad, see his channel at https://www.youtube.com/gadsaad or follow him on Twitter @GadSaad.

Like what you hear? Become a Patreon member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this! https://www.patreon.com/YaronBrookShow or support the show direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow.

Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook).

Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.

Stuart Hayashi | Kin Selection and Evolutionary Psychology Do Not Refute Objectivist Ethics, Part 2 of 2

Daniel Dennett | Quit telling people they have no free will

5 big misconceptions about Objectivism that are just plain wrong

Objectivism is a religion 

False, Objectivism is a philosophy based on reason, not a religion (which is based on faith or mysticism).

Objectivism is a cult 

Many critics of Objectivism claim that students of the philosophy blindly follow Ayn Rand and treat her word as some kind of "divine revelation," but this is simply not the case. This view is diametrically opposed to the core tenants of Objectivist epistemology which hold that man must (and can only) gain knowledge through the use of his own rational faculty.

It's possible to be religious and be an Objectivist at the same time 

Objectivism rejects all forms of religion at its metaphysical base, the Primacy of Existence, and is thus an atheistic philosophy.

Objectivism is an "open system" to revision and changes 

Objectivism is the name Ayn Rand used for her philosophical achievement. As such, the term "Objectivism" may only be applied to the ideas by Rand or by those she explicitly endorsed. This is not to say that there are not other philosophical truths that rational thought can illuminate, but, that passing these ideas as the work of Ayn Rand is misleading.

The Laissez-Faire Capitalism advocated by Objectivism is a form of Anarchism or Anarchocapitalism 

Not true, Objectivism does in fact support government with a monopoly on the use of force. This government, however, is only to use force against those who initiate its use to violate others' rights. The three tasks of government in this function are (as stated by Ayn Rand): "...the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws."

Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Common_Misconceptions_about_Objectivism&oldid=9275"

The Yaron Brook Show: An Interview with Gad Saad

This interview recorded on June 6, 2018 between Yaron Brook and Gad Saad delves into free speech, free will and evolutionary psychology and the relationship between psychology and values and key scripts that define one's life. To connect with more of Gad Saad, see his channel at https://www.youtube.com/gadsaad or follow him on Twitter @GadSaad. Like what you hear? Become a Patreon member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this! https://www.patreon.com/YaronBrookShow or support the show direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow. Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook). Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.

Capitalism is a Social System; it is not just "economic freedom."

There is a big misconception out there that Capitalism only means economic freedom in a Nation. This is something that even some people that claim to support free markets say about the system. Libertarians tend to push Capitalism as "the economic freedom." However, this is dead wrong as Economic Freedom is the outcome of Capitalism itself. Economic freedom is simply a corollary of truly being free to begin with. Capitalism is both social and economic freedom it is not separate from the other. In fact, freedom to trade is not even really "economic" freedom at all it is merely one manifestation of personal freedom as pertains to the right to trade with others for mutual benefit to mutual advantage in a consensual manor. If you have a "market" quote un quote, but, then you are told what to eat or whom to date or whom to marry you are in an authoritarian nightmare not Capitalism. 

The separation of Economic Freedom from the broader existence of the defense of individual rights leads to things like the nightmare of Anarcho-Capitalism to be seen as a freedom philosophy when it is the complete opposite. It helps make especially libertarians to be incoherent and philosophically deadly. This is yet another reason that one needs to differentiate between supporting any individual Libertarian Party, institute, group or Individual Candidate for matters of implementing policy VS supporting libertarianism the intellectual movement. Due to their lacking a coherent philosophy or a dedication intellectually to reality or reason there is no "reason" for them to see the error of their way of seeing Capitalism as only Economic freedom scales. 

This is one of the big differences from a broader Radical for Capitalism or even Classical Liberal from the libertarian movement. While some Classical Liberals make the same mistake it at least is not ingrained in the movement or the intellectual caste of the group. This is of course a major difference between Objectivists and Non-Objectivists as well in talking about freedom and Capitalism in general. As Objectivism IS a coherent and reality based philosophy it talks about Capitalism as it really is. Which is that it is in fact the only moral social system that could ever "grace" this Earth. This is because an Objectivist whom really understands their Philosophy has a coherent whole of views that all go together in a hierarchy that fit together into reality based concepts. Whereas most, but, not all libertarians are whim worshiping and subjectivist at heart. They in a fact take NAP this NAP as an abstraction and do not know how to defend the soul use of defensive force. 

This is spurned on because a lot of them while talking about supporting Capitalism do not even fully understand the breadth of what Capitalism is and means. What Capitalism is, is not just economic freedom as a lot of libertarians word it. It is in fact the identity of the only truly humane, free and just; AKA Moral Social System it is in fact defined as follows; 

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind.

The essence of capitalism’s foreign policy is free trade—i.e., the abolition of trade barriers, of protective tariffs, of special privileges—the opening of the world’s trade routes to free international exchange and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one another.

Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships.

I would recommend anyone that wants a properly explained and essentially defined look at Capitalism to find their nearest copy of "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," by Ms. Rand. To buy up a copy as quickly as possible to remove any Hobgoblins and residuals from the Anti-Capitalist mentality in your defending of this great system. The only truly moral system for mankind qua mankind. The above passages are all Copyright Ms. Rand's estate and all rights are reserved to the owners of the Ayn Rand Lexicon website.