--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "orionaut"

>
> From time to time -- as I'm sure Ed will attest, having been one
of
> them -- members rethink their commitment. If they can no longer
honor
> that commitment with a full and joyful heart, they make the only
> possible moral choice: they resign.
>

Yes, I left the ORION group. I think that the first group to
establish an orbital colony will do so because they have put their
butts and wallets on the line, not because they have scored high on
an IQ test. Sure, many of those who do get up there first will be
quite intelligent, but they won't get up there just because they are
smart; they will get up there because they _do_something_ about it.

Ed

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Minchau"
wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "orionaut"
> wrote:
>
> > From time to time -- as I'm sure Ed will attest, having been one
> of
> > them -- members rethink their commitment. If they can no longer
> honor
> > that commitment with a full and joyful heart, they make the only
> > possible moral choice: they resign.
> >
> Yes, I left the ORION group. I think that the first group to
> establish an orbital colony will do so because they have put their
> butts and wallets on the line, not because they have scored high
on
> an IQ test. Sure, many of those who do get up there first will be
> quite intelligent, but they won't get up there just because they
are
> smart; they will get up there because they _do_something_ about it.
>
> Ed

There is a lot to be said for putting your money where your mouth
is. That's why I admire the freestateproject venture.

How much is the Orionaut group *doing* to foster their cadre?

Why not create an on-line dating service for your members?

Why not *tax* your members to enable the group as a whole to
practice I.V.F. and preimplantation embryo screening? If tax is a
dirty word, then legislate it.

Why not create private schools for your children where they can
excel compared to the rest of society and the subject matter can be
taught that will be politically, socially, and technically useful in
orbit? This way if things don't happen in time for you to go to
orbit, at least your children will be well situated.

What is your stance on religion for your members? If you follow the
trend of higher intelligence ---> lower religous belief, then if you
really do have a population pool of IQ 130+, I would expect very few
of your members to believe in gods. Why not teach your children that
believing in god is the same as santa claus or the tooth fairy? How
do you expect that this would ripple through your society?

What are your postions on male-female dynamics? Equality for all in
name only, or in actual policies? How about child-care? If it falls
to the woman then doesn't that negate the equality policy? I think
it'll be unlikely that there'll be day-care services because they
are usually staffed by low-paid, not high IQ people. There won't be
these peons in the Habitat, so what will you do?

Will you be usng your high IQ people to the fullest thus leaving
them little time to have a family life? Perhaps they will become
high investment parents and only have one child to lavish their
limited attention on. If so, won't the Orionauts die off from a
below relacement birth rate?

How do you square the circle with respect to high IQ, high
fertility, high achievement, and the expense of accomplishing these
goals. One way would be wealth transfer through taxes but that would
be anethema to most libertarians.

Are you doing anything to create a societal "common lore" that binds
people together?

What is your postion on language for the group? What if the group is
taken over by a large influx of Chinese or Russians and they vote
their language to be primary?

Are you in the process of creating a "culture" or are you just going
to transplant the American culture to orbit? If the last, is it only
politics that warrants improvement? Are there traits from other
cultures that should replace some dominant American memes? What are
they?

Are you publishing commentary to spread your message to a wider
audience beyond the "spacesettlers" group? How about publishing
political, societal, religious, technical, philosophical, artistic,
and educational treatises that can distinguish your movement, and
bring on debate, spread your influence and attract adherents?

Do you see the common thread of my questions? What is it that binds
the Orionauts together? Is it just high IQ and a libertarian
political bent that may be inappropriate for a closed knit society
that may require more governmental oversight because of the safety
issues of living in orbit? Or are you defining yourselves as a
separate culture with other distinguishing characteristics? If the
latter, I hope that it's something that the world hasn't seen so
that your experiment actually teaches us something new and
introduces new ideas into the world community.

Perhaps, I'm misunderstanding your philosophy. Does the libertarian
politics interest the members of the group because it will directly
benefit them, and they are much less concerned about creating a new
society and laying the groundwork for the future.

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:

> Why not create private schools for your children where they can
> excel compared to the rest of society and the subject matter can be
> taught that will be politically, socially, and technically useful
in
> orbit? This way if things don't happen in time for you to go to
> orbit, at least your children will be well situated.

How kind of you to mention this -- that's our Down Here Project #2 :)

I myself will be returning to grad school within the next 2-3 years
to acquire the necessary credentials to open a "community home-
school" for the gifted chldren of our adult members. Gibven all the
grad credits I have already, I can do this one course at a time,
entirely on line, in only 20 months.

But running a community G&T school, of course, will require a
physical community. The formation of which is, big surprise, our Down
Here Project #1.

Both of thsese projects will, of course, be 100% member-funded.

Far more than I'd intended to post on my one precious "day off" --
spike

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Minchau"
wrote:
> I think that the first group to
> establish an orbital colony will do so because they have put their
> butts and wallets on the line, not because they have scored high on
> an IQ test. Sure, many of those who do get up there first will be
> quite intelligent, but they won't get up there just because they
are
> smart; they will get up there because they _do_something_ about it.

Expcetional intelligence is SO frightening to "the other 97%" that
the moment it's mentioned, it's a huge psychological relief for non-
spookybruight audiences to spuriously insert an "and that's ALL we
care about" into any statement by any individual or group which
asseerts that intelligence is of value.

Hence all the false dichotomies hurled as weapons against anyperson
or group which values intelligence AND:
"Smart BUT unethical"
"Smart BUT underachieving"
"Smart BUT psychologically unbalanced"

Nobody bothers to read on, to discover that the value ACTUALLY being
promoted are:
"Smart AND ethical"
"Smart AND productive"
"Smart AND liberty-loving,"
etc.

It would be idicoy indeed to discount or diminish the very real
contributions that have been made to this world of ours by persons of
goo dhacracter who nevertheless are endowed with only average
intelligence or below. I fail to see, however, why groups like this
one invariably LEAP to the conclusion that people like me and groups
like ORION revere intelligence AND NOTHING ELSE, perfectly willing to
forgo morality in general and work ethic in particular.

Please, will someone explain to me how it is morally pernicious to
say "We value ethics, liberty, and achievement...and we believe that
SMART folks who possess all those sterling qualities of character
might, just might!, in a psychologically supportive environment, be
able to do more with them than folks of average-or-below intelligence
who ALSO possess those sterling qualities of character"?

It's really the hidhgt of irony that we wouldn't come in for anywhere
NEAR the same sort of terrified resentment if we were aiming to form
a community with the very same ethics and politics, but instead chose
to limit it to left-handed folks. "It's senseless," you'd say, "to
screen folks on the basis of a trait THAT COULDN'T POSSIBLY MAKE ANY
DIFFERENCE." The inescapable inference, of course, is that it IS
legitimate to screen folks on the basis of a trait that VERY LIKELY
will make A VERY LARGE DIFFERENCE INDEED (like, ummmm,
intellgence ;)) not only to the eventualy success vs. failure of one
orbital colony, but also and far more importantly to the survival vs.
extinction of the Human species entire.

spike

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "orionaut"
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Minchau"
> wrote:
> > I think that the first group to
> > establish an orbital colony will do so because they have put
their
> > butts and wallets on the line, not because they have scored high
on
> > an IQ test. Sure, many of those who do get up there first will
be
> > quite intelligent, but they won't get up there just because they
> are
> > smart; they will get up there because they _do_something_ about
it.
>
> Expcetional intelligence is SO frightening to "the other 97%" that
> the moment it's mentioned, it's a huge psychological relief for
non-
> spookybruight audiences to spuriously insert an "and that's ALL we
> care about" into any statement by any individual or group which
> asseerts that intelligence is of value.

First off, let me state that I had never heard of your group before
you posted to this forum.

>From my above statement I think it is reasonable to assume that the
only way I can get to know you is from your statements to this group
and from the public statements your group has made, e.g. your

Injecting my own opinion into the analysis, the description of
yourselves as "spookybrights" actually diminishes you in my eyes. I
reiterate that this is just my opinion, so take it at that level.

>
> Hence all the false dichotomies hurled as weapons against
anyperson
> or group which values intelligence AND:
> "Smart BUT unethical"
> "Smart BUT underachieving"
> "Smart BUT psychologically unbalanced"

These comparisons are often cited because instances abound in most
people's lives of just such combinations of intelligence and other
characteristics being displayed in people.

>
> Nobody bothers to read on, to discover that the value ACTUALLY
being
> promoted are:
> "Smart AND ethical"
> "Smart AND productive"
> "Smart AND liberty-loving,"
> etc.

See, here's the thing. For "spookybrights" to not realize that they
are judged by how they present themselves, kind of takes away from
their "spookybright" personas, doesn't it?

You accuse us of not reading on, but your introduction to the group
didn't make mention of these characteristics. Further, your website

http://pages.ivillage.com/orionaut/index.html

presents this picture to the world:

1.) "cognitive-elite breeding population"
2.) "Any adult with a tested IQ of 130 or higher (if you've never
been tested, ask us how!) who shares this Dream, or simply wishes to
learn more about it, is warmly welcomed to apply for Membership in
this "spookybright spacefarin' Tribe."

presents this picture to the world:

"Anyone with a tested IQ of 130 or higher (if you've never been
tested, ask us how!) who shares this Dream, or simply wishes to
learn more about it, is welcome to apply for Membership here"

So, any objective (even objectivist) observer can come to only one
conclusion: your only stated criteria is an IQ of 130 or higher.

>From your clarifications over the course of a number of postings to
this forum you've not been proactive in introducing the other
criteria you make mention of above, rather those criteria have been
introduced into discussion in a defensive fashion. That said, I
believe most of us have taken you at your word and not brought up
those issues after you've allayed our concerns.

>
> It would be idicoy indeed to discount or diminish the very real
> contributions that have been made to this world of ours by persons
of
> goo dhacracter who nevertheless are endowed with only average
> intelligence or below. I fail to see, however, why groups like
this
> one invariably LEAP to the conclusion that people like me and
groups
> like ORION revere intelligence AND NOTHING ELSE, perfectly willing
to
> forgo morality in general and work ethic in particular.

As I've stated above, we have no need to leap to that conclusion
when you've presented it to us on a silver platter via your group's
public declarations.

>
> Please, will someone explain to me how it is morally pernicious to
> say "We value ethics, liberty, and achievement...and we believe
that
> SMART folks who possess all those sterling qualities of character
> might, just might!, in a psychologically supportive environment,
be
> able to do more with them than folks of average-or-below
intelligence
> who ALSO possess those sterling qualities of character"?

You're begging the questions here. This would be a valid question if
your group presented this statement from the outset and then others
raised their criticisms. The criticisms were raised before your
qualifying statements, so the events that this paragraph is
predicated on did not occur, thus your are begging the question to
provide a conclusion.

>
> It's really the hidhgt of irony that we wouldn't come in for
anywhere
> NEAR the same sort of terrified resentment if we were aiming to
form
> a community with the very same ethics and politics, but instead
chose
> to limit it to left-handed folks.

Actually, my personal opinion is that it is the height of irony
for "spookybrights" not to realize that by declaring themselves to
be "spookybrights" and then not demonstrating that they are
indeed "spookybrights" in their public pronouncements, that they
will be viewed skeptically by their intended audience. If you solely
stress IQ of 130+ in your public documents, then you're fair game
for criticism on the exclusivity of that criterion.

As for a group of left handed folks, well they wouldn't be setting
themselves apart as somehow superior on the basis of their left-
handedness, now would they?

I wouldn't characterize the response that you're receiving as being
resentment. I'd say you're getting hard questions from skeptics who
want you to earn the respect that should go with the
moniker "spookybright." I, personally, don't resent you. I happen to
think that you're ahead of the curve on a number of genetic issues
that are confronting the world. Further, taking account of your
clarifications on a number of issues, your goals are not
unreasonable.

Surely you must have expected skeptics to react to your message and
how you present yourselves as self-styled "spookybrights?"

You know, Andrew Wiles, Alan Dershowitz, Steven Pinker, Stephen
Hawking, James Watson, and others could present themselves to this
group under psuedonyms, and they'd have to earn their respect and
the title "spookybright" by how they presented themselves not by
self-declaring. I think that any such self-declaration would make
them the target of skeptics. Perhaps in their "spookybright" fashion
they've conceived a strategy of rebuffing such skeptical challenges
by engaging in serious debate so as to highlight
their "spookybright" intellects.

"It's senseless," you'd say, "to
> screen folks on the basis of a trait THAT COULDN'T POSSIBLY MAKE
ANY
> DIFFERENCE." The inescapable inference, of course, is that it IS
> legitimate to screen folks on the basis of a trait that VERY
LIKELY
> will make A VERY LARGE DIFFERENCE INDEED (like, ummmm,
> intellgence ;)) not only to the eventualy success vs. failure of
one
> orbital colony, but also and far more importantly to the survival
vs.
> extinction of the Human species entire.
>
> spike

I'm not saying it's senseless, and I'd venture a guess that even
opponents of IQ testing don't dispute the value of intelligence
(their bugaboo is with the test being able to measure it) but what I
take issue with is how well you're making the case for your position.

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "orionaut"
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
> wrote:
>
> > Why not create private schools for your children where they can
> > excel compared to the rest of society and the subject matter can
be
> > taught that will be politically, socially, and technically
useful
> in
> > orbit? This way if things don't happen in time for you to go to
> > orbit, at least your children will be well situated.
>
> How kind of you to mention this -- that's our Down Here Project
#2 :)

It was my pleasure :)

>
> I myself will be returning to grad school within the next 2-3
years
> to acquire the necessary credentials to open a "community home-
> school" for the gifted chldren of our adult members. Gibven all
the
> grad credits I have already, I can do this one course at a time,
> entirely on line, in only 20 months.

What educational pedagogy will you use? I'd suggest structuring your
curriculum on the Socratic Method from the earliest years of
education that your students receive. Structure the minds of your
children so that they realize that knowledge is infinite, comes from
their own minds, and let them walk with the giants of history as
they independently discover all of the "truths" that we know. The
knowledge they gain will be more real because they discovered it,
and they'll understand it because they found their way to it in the
first place.

Of course, the reason that we see so little Socratic Method in our
schools today is that it is measurably more difficult to teach in
this fashion than the faddish pedagogies of today. To guide the
discussion so as to lead your students to make their own insights
implies that the teacher is knowledgeable enough about the material
to see the student's potential logical pitfalls and to steer them in
the right direction. It's much easier to just lecture from a
textbook, and with the assistance of teacher's notes, you don't even
have to know what you're lecturing about.

Such schools aren't common, if they exist at all (I haven't found
one yet,) so if you can indeed gather a group of gifted children,
this method may give you the most "bang for the buck."

>
> But running a community G&T school, of course, will require a
> physical community. The formation of which is, big surprise, our
Down
> Here Project #1.
>
> Both of thsese projects will, of course, be 100% member-funded.
>
> Far more than I'd intended to post on my one precious "day off" --
> spike

I'm still curious about your answers to the other questions I've
raised.

Also, how does your group deal with an accepted member who marries
or procreates with a sub-optimal member? Is the member kicked out?
Is the sub-optimal accepted into the fold? Does the member go to
orbit and have to leave the mate and children? What's your policy?

Also, take a look at the work of Richard Lynn. He poses a question
that you may find pertinent to your group in his book "IQ and the
Wealth of Nations." Namely, how much of the success of a nation has
to do with the inherent IQ of its citizens. Of course to agree with
his analysis you have to buy into his key premises which are: 1.) IQ
can be measured; 2.) IQ has a genetic components; and 3.) that there
is a correlation between IQ and a host of other qualities that are
inputs into the "wealth of nations" concept. Either way, the
questions raised are worth looking into.

For your group, you would expect there to be a very positive
correlation, wouldn't you?

TangoMan

>Also, how does your group deal with an accepted member who marries
>or procreates with a sub-optimal member? Is the member kicked out?
>Is the sub-optimal accepted into the fold? Does the member go to
>orbit and have to leave the mate and children? What's your policy?

This brings up another line of questioning I'm wondering about. There was a
utopian society once that started hemorraging members, partly because while
waiting to learn to appreciate the unimpeachable logic of the premises of
the utopian society's philosophy, their stomachs wouldn't stop growling.
That society had to erect a barrier, the Iron Curtain, to keep their members
in until they saw the light. Is your society prepared for youthful revolt
against its unassailably logical principles?

Also I was just reading the account of the La Reunion Colony, a
socialist-inspired agrarian community in 19th Century Texas. Young folks
came to the colony from all over western Europe, yet once they got there
they realized they had exactly two farmers, and way too many artisans,
partly because none of these literate young folks were trained to or wanted
to farm. How you gonna convince your lowly 132's to clean and farm and run
the machinery so that the 152's can gaze at the stars all day? Greater good
of the colony? If they decide they're sharp enough to have a better life
elsewhere, is the greater good of the colony going to make them decide to
ignore their own self-interest? Or are you going to realize you need to
bring up some 100's to keep things growing and shiny? Will they have equal
rights? What about equal rights to marry and procreate, that most basic of
human aspirations?

Brad W.

Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
> You accuse us of not reading on, but your introduction to the group
> didn't make mention of these characteristics. Further, your website
>
> http://pages.ivillage.com/orionaut/index.html
>
> presents this picture to the world:
>
> 1.) "cognitive-elite breeding population"
> 2.) "Any adult with a tested IQ of 130 or higher (if you've never
> been tested, ask us how!) who shares this Dream, or simply wishes
to
> learn more about it, is warmly welcomed to apply for Membership in
> this "spookybright spacefarin' Tribe."
>
> presents this picture to the world:
>
> "Anyone with a tested IQ of 130 or higher (if you've never been
> tested, ask us how!) who shares this Dream, or simply wishes to
> learn more about it, is welcome to apply for Membership here"
>
> So, any objective (even objectivist) observer can come to only one
> conclusion: your only stated criteria is an IQ of 130 or higher.

I respectfully refer you to another page on our site:

http://pages.ivillage.com/orionaut/id11.html

Its content in full:

The great 20th Century American philosopher Ayn Rand -- of whose
Objectivism many current ORIONauts consider themselves students --
was once challenged to "define Objectivism while standing on one
foot." (She could, and did.)

We here at ORION are also frequently asked for a 2-minute summary of
what we're all about. With apologies (and certainly en homage) to
Rand's memory, here is our answer:

ORION On One Foot
Location: Earth orbit
Population: the Tribe
Objective: euGenics (the "G" is for g-factor)
Administration: "night watchman"
Ethics: Objectivist

spike

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
> What educational pedagogy will you use? I'd suggest structuring
your
> curriculum on the Socratic Method from the earliest years of
> education that your students receive. Structure the minds of your
> children so that they realize that knowledge is infinite, comes
from
> their own minds, and let them walk with the giants of history as
> they independently discover all of the "truths" that we know. The
> knowledge they gain will be more real because they discovered it,
> and they'll understand it because they found their way to it in the
> first place.

These are thoughtful suggestions, and at first reading very good ones
indeed :)

> I'm still curious about your answers to the other questions I've
> raised.
>
> Also, how does your group deal with an accepted member who marries
> or procreates with a sub-optimal member? Is the member kicked out?
> Is the sub-optimal accepted into the fold? Does the member go to
> orbit and have to leave the mate and children? What's your policy?

Yet another good question!

This one comes up so often that I devoted a column earlier this year
to it, which I have kept available for perusal at the ORION website:

http://pages.ivillage.com/orionaut/id24.html

> Also, take a look at the work of Richard Lynn. He poses a question
> that you may find pertinent to your group in his book "IQ and the
> Wealth of Nations." Namely, how much of the success of a nation has
> to do with the inherent IQ of its citizens. Of course to agree with
> his analysis you have to buy into his key premises which are: 1.)
IQ
> can be measured; 2.) IQ has a genetic components; and 3.) that
there
> is a correlation between IQ and a host of other qualities that are
> inputs into the "wealth of nations" concept. Either way, the
> questions raised are worth looking into.
>
> For your group, you would expect there to be a very positive
> correlation, wouldn't you?

Yep, that's what we're hoping :)

spike

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Walsh"
> How you gonna convince your lowly 132's to clean and farm and run
> the machinery so that the 152's can gaze at the stars all day?
Greater good
> of the colony? If they decide they're sharp enough to have a
better life
> elsewhere, is the greater good of the colony going to make them
decide to
> ignore their own self-interest? Or are you going to realize you
need to
> bring up some 100's to keep things growing and shiny? Will they
have equal
> rights? What about equal rights to marry and procreate, that most
basic of
> human aspirations?

1) Please see the article to which in my immediately preceding post I
just referred Tangoman.

2) Your assumption that "132s" will do grunt work while "152s" stare
at the stars is a false one. Any 152 who isn't ready and willing to
take his or her turn (literally!) shoveling shit (whatever else the
inhabitants of an O'Neillian orbital habitat may be, they wil surely
be FARMERS) won't make the cut to begin with.

Fra more to the point: Any individual who is not ready, willing, and
EAGER to actively contribute to the caretaking and education of the
comunity's children won't make the cut either, no matter HOW high his
or her IQ :)

spike

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "orionaut"
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
> wrote:
> > What educational pedagogy will you use? I'd suggest structuring
> your
> > curriculum on the Socratic Method from the earliest years of
> > education that your students receive. Structure the minds of
your
> > children so that they realize that knowledge is infinite, comes
> from
> > their own minds, and let them walk with the giants of history as
> > they independently discover all of the "truths" that we know.
The
> > knowledge they gain will be more real because they discovered
it,
> > and they'll understand it because they found their way to it in
the
> > first place.
>
> These are thoughtful suggestions, and at first reading very good
ones
> indeed :)
>
> > I'm still curious about your answers to the other questions I've
> > raised.
> >
> > Also, how does your group deal with an accepted member who
marries
> > or procreates with a sub-optimal member? Is the member kicked
out?
> > Is the sub-optimal accepted into the fold? Does the member go to
> > orbit and have to leave the mate and children? What's your
policy?
>
> Yet another good question!
>
> This one comes up so often that I devoted a column earlier this
year
> to it, which I have kept available for perusal at the ORION
website:
>
> http://pages.ivillage.com/orionaut/id24.html

Give them enough rope . . .

Zeig Heil . . All aboard the Orion for the Aryan's journey to the
Stars.

I was just waiting for a document like this to surface.

Man O' Man, where to start?

How about something positive! I liked the author's analysis of the
co-option of the word discrimination to take on the meaning of the
word prejudice. I agree that the act of discrimination based on
standard criteria should not be a societal evil, whereas the act of
prejudice does have negative societal and personal connotations.

I think the author spent way too much space on getting to that point
and her reference to the bogeyman "the MultiCults" just belied her
own bias. The case could have been stronger without the bogeyman
angle.

For the remainder of my post I'll address the author's points
sequentally as they were raised in the article you linked to.

For people who claim to be so intelligent you'd think at least one
of your group would have studied the past and human nature. There
are all sorts of failed societal experiments that try to place a
political/philosophical ideal before allegience to family.

For the author to expect Einstein to send his below 130+ child away
from the colony is sheer lunacy on her part. How long do you think
the Nazi's and the Communists could have children turning in their
parents, having people deny the existence of their gods, believe in
the collective of the workers instead of their own self-interest.
Congratulation's, your group has taken the first step on the road to
Totalitarianism by forcing the exile of people who are born into
your society. Where are those people to go when they are citizens of
Orion?

The originator of this policy prescription is in all likelyhood not
a parent, for I know of NO parents who would put the value of a
political philosophy over the happiness and well-being of their
children. Either that, or they are an idiot who somehow snuck into
your group. To expect monetary bribes to ameleorate this barbarism
is sheer lunacy. To invoke "human nature" and fully expect this
kindness to be bestowed upon the exile by the sorrowful tormenters
yet not look to "human nature" to see that just such a policy will
rip the guts out of your society is wishful thinking.

So we have a group who is glorying in their superiority and at this
point in the article you've linked to, I've come to think of your
group as idiots. Hmm, where have I heard this before. To see how
prescient I was, see:

Now your author moves on to the topic of racial discrimination in
favor of Caucasions. Well, to be honest, from your first post to
this list I was accepting you at face value and was curious how well
thought out your philosophy was but by the time I got to this point
in the article I wasn't surprised to find that Orion is a White
Supremacist organization.

Your group is what taints IQ studies with disrepute. There is much
to be learned about intelligence, about racial differences, about
genetics, and I abhor the suppression of knowledge for fear of
upsetting social nicities, but when your type of groups jump into
the fray and start improperly using science to buttress your
supremacist fantasies, I fully understand why people get concerned
about "knowledge for knowledge's sake."

Your author makes accurate mention of the IQ differences between the
races. With Caucasions standardized to an IQ of 100, East Asians
score at 105, and Ashkenazi Jews at 115. Simply put there is a
larger population distribution within those two ethnic groups of
people who score greater than IQ 130, and with East Asians being a
populous race, sheer aggregate numbers of IQ 130+ people will be
greater than Caucasians. The combination of these two
classifications of distribution will afford your group more choice
of individuals who meet your stated requirements of multi-faceted
talents in addition to IQ 130+, but you construct the "rules" to
exclude the majority of them.

Further, when the author turns her attention to races that score
lower than the Caucasion race, you invoke the fallacy of "Regression
to the Mean" as a barrier to prejudiciously discriminate against
individuals who meet your IQ requirements. Regression to the mean,
notwithstanding your appeal to the authority of Garth Zeitsman, Ph.D
IQ 230 (who may be leading you mere "spookybrights" down the garden
path with his incorrect usage of the concept) doesn't mean that the
high IQ individual's offspring will revert to the lower mean of his
race. What it means is that the offspring will have a tendency over
time to regress to the mean of the group he/she is within. If that
group is comprised of individuals all of whom possess IQ 130+, then
that becomes the baseline. Shouldn't "spookybright" know this?

Now the author turns the table and artificially constructs a
rationale to discriminate against higher IQ Asians and Jews, and do
so in a fashion as to demonstrate to all of us the prejudicial
nature of your discrimination. The majority of this section is built
on fallacy. You claim these groups don't value participatory
government, yet blithely ignore the proportion of governmental
leaders who are of the Jewish faith. You seek high creativity in the
sciences, humanities, and technologies yet again ignore the
remarkable accomplishment of Jews and Asians in these fields. Look
to any objective sources and you'll see an over-represntation for
their population size of these two groups in university faculties,
awards that recognize excellence and are awarded by their peers,
patent filings, journal articles published, societal influence,
publishing, etc.

To further buttress her point the author now turns the tables of
reference on us and starts a comparison of cultural history and
defines non-Caucasion cultures as being static. What has that to do
with the individual potential of a person who meets your first
criteria of having an IQ 130+? Shouldn't you "spookybrights"
recognize inconsistent argumentation? You're grasping at anything in
order to hide your prejudice behind the definition of discrimination.

When your author notes that she believes that Causcasions should be
classed as explorers and she's heard the phrase "That's what
Caucasions do!" used, it makes me wonder if she only moves in the
company of other White Supremacists? Not a convincing line of
argument.

Now that the author has artificially defined some criteria, she
turns to genetics and HOPES that there is a genetic basis for these
criteria. Pathetic, most especially for a group of "spookybrights."
The author is projecting and it's very sad to witness her descent
into idiocy.

Now we come to the section that many of us suspected motivated the
members of Orion and which you valiantly argued was without cause.
We suspected that many of your members look to their IQ as the
hallmark of their existence and were lacking in other attributes
which defined success. Now the author gives us proof that this is
indeed the case for she writes:

"after all, many of us have been denied the chance to "rise" in
society to the level our cognitive capability warrants ironically,
because of the pervasive cultural stigmatization of those very
cognitive gifts."

Yeah, it's a big conspiracy against smart people. (Tht's irony for
those "spookybrights" who don't recognize it.) Hmm, let me see if I
can decypher the logic here. Orion member has a high IQ. Orion
member is failing in society. It is unconceivable that Orion member
is lacking in an attribute that society will reward with success.
Therefore society is holding back the Orion member because they are
envious of his/her high IQ.

Let's see if we can falsify that syllogism. There are smart people
who are successful in society. Society, in fact, actively encourages
smart people to succeed because they enrich the remainder of
society. These successful smart people became successful from their
intelligence and other characteristics that they possess. These
successsful smart people don't identify with Orion. Therefore, Orion
which actively seeks people with IQ 130+ attracts such people who
are not successful and blame conspiracies rather than looking within
themselves.

At this point the author delves into equal opportunity law, history
of racial discrimination, societal influences on racist perspective
and through sheer verbiage tries to reach the conclusion that these
factors neccessitate the prejudicial discrimination of certain non-
Caucasian races. How weary this makes me, feeling compelled as I do,
and taking time out of my day, to deconstruct this garbage.

In the end, if this document does stand for the ideals of the Orion
Initiative, then you should have kept it hidden deep within the
crypt of your hidden lair. You've revealed yourself to be no
different than the hoard of other white supremacist organizations
out there. You've shown you cling to a high IQ score as a measure of
your own personal worth because society is preventing you from
achieving the recogniztion you deserve while completely ignoring
that others of identical intelligence are achieving success within
society.

Further, you had the opportunity to actively promote the creation of
a group of high IQ and high success individuals regardless of race.
I'm sure that the thought of race-mixing, the mongrelization, would
send the author of that article into hysterics.

There is much to be learned from genetics. Unfortunately, your types
of groups are a societal impediment to the pursuit of knowledge.
Your's is the last group that anyone should send into orbit!

On a purely personal observation, what is it that is so percurlarily
American that draws the rabidly Libertarian and White Supremacist
together so frequently?

Give them enough rope . . . and they'll hang themselves.

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "orionaut"

> > So, any objective (even objectivist) observer can come to only
one
> > conclusion: your only stated criteria is an IQ of 130 or higher.
>
> I respectfully refer you to another page on our site:
>
> http://pages.ivillage.com/orionaut/id11.html
>
> Its content in full:
>
> The great 20th Century American philosopher Ayn Rand -- of whose
> Objectivism many current ORIONauts consider themselves students --

> was once challenged to "define Objectivism while standing on one
> foot." (She could, and did.)
>
> We here at ORION are also frequently asked for a 2-minute summary
of
> what we're all about. With apologies (and certainly en homage) to
> Rand's memory, here is our answer:
>
> ORION On One Foot
> Location: Earth orbit
> Population: the Tribe
> Objective: euGenics (the "G" is for g-factor)
> Administration: "night watchman"
> Ethics: Objectivist
>
> spike

Yes, I saw that page and purposely ignored it. It provides no clue
whatsoever to the other attributes beyond IQ that Orion seeks in its
members. It's mumbo-jumbo code.

Do you not see that the more you reveal of your group, the more
troubling becomes the task of the reader in giving you a fair shake
at expressing your point of view.

Why would you think that it provides the answer?

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "orionaut"

> 2) Your assumption that "132s" will do grunt work while "152s"
stare
> at the stars is a false one. Any 152 who isn't ready and willing
to
> take his or her turn (literally!) shoveling shit (whatever else
the
> inhabitants of an O'Neillian orbital habitat may be, they wil
surely
> be FARMERS) won't make the cut to begin with.

How does this square with your Libertarian ethos, of which a
significant part is the "government should get out of the lives of
its citizens." If a 152 can achieve higher utility performing a task
for which he is better suited than a 132, why would the "government"
force him to do work of more common utility? Sound kind of communist
if you ask me.

Logocal inconsistancies are starting to show.

> Fra more to the point: Any individual who is not ready, willing,
and
> EAGER to actively contribute to the caretaking and education of
the
> comunity's children won't make the cut either, no matter HOW high
his
> or her IQ :)
>
> spike

Now the State is intruding into the family life of the individual.
Wouldn't you rail against this if it happened in the good ole U.S.
of A?

In another post you referenced an author who referred to other
societies as static. Doesn't it strike you as odd that your "State"
is going to apply such a uniform standard to selection, going right
down to the ways in which families conduct themselves that you will
squeeze out all variety and dynamism and become the epitomy of
a "static" society?

TangoMan

Thanx tangoman for such a thoughtful response and
sparing me the need to do so. After reading the link
put forth on all this white supremist stuff, I was/am
very disgusted. Luckily space is very large and
groups like this can exist and go off on there own and
be forgotten.

Ryan Z

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Z wrote:
> Thanx tangoman for such a thoughtful response and
> sparing me the need to do so. After reading the link
> put forth on all this white supremist stuff, I was/am
> very disgusted. Luckily space is very large and
> groups like this can exist and go off on there own and
> be forgotten.
>
> Ryan Z

You're welcome.

I just finished watching a piece on ABC's PrimeTime about these MIT
students who flew into Vegas every weekend for years and used their
sophisticated computer models to win several million dollars. Very
funny.

Why do I bring this up?

Because here you have a group of very smart people, all probably
with IQs of 130+, they do very well with their scheme, and as MIT
grads they are sought after for their intelligence. Why are they not
conspired against like the Orion group?

On another note, wouldn't it be interesting to see a discussion on
future society that had some hard questions like intelligence,
genetics, eugenics, race, race-mixing, gender, gender roles,
procreation, family size, sexuality, and demographic trends without
racist overtones?

Either we as a group aren't interested in getting into these hard
questions or we're afraid that they're too sensitive of topics. It
could be interesting and thought provoking to read people's takes on
the issues of today and how they could be different in an orbital
society with different societal foundations.

Heck, even if racist ideologies were introduced, it might be an
interesting discussion if the racist position could hold its own
against the arguments arrayed against it. Does race really exist?

I think we could all get into far ranging discussions on future
society. Anyone have thoughts on this?

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
> Yes, I saw that page and purposely ignored it. It provides no clue
> whatsoever to the other attributes beyond IQ that Orion seeks in
its
> members. It's mumbo-jumbo code.
>
> Do you not see that the more you reveal of your group, the more
> troubling becomes the task of the reader in giving you a fair shake
> at expressing your point of view.
>
> Why would you think that it provides the answer?

You asked, where do we delineate our ethics and politics? I referred
you to the page that does. No "code" there, my friend, to any student
of the social sciences: Ethics = Objectivism, Politics =
nightwatchman State.

spike
<== who did NOT come here to recruit (sigh),
but rather merely commented upon a post which
mentioned guided evolution in orbit...and have
ever since been fiedling YOUR questions about it.
If you don't want to hear about it, quit asking
questions. It really IS that simple :)

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "orionaut"
> wrote:
>
> > 2) Your assumption that "132s" will do grunt work while "152s"
> stare
> > at the stars is a false one. Any 152 who isn't ready and willing
> to
> > take his or her turn (literally!) shoveling shit (whatever else
> the
> > inhabitants of an O'Neillian orbital habitat may be, they wil
> surely
> > be FARMERS) won't make the cut to begin with.
>
> How does this square with your Libertarian ethos, of which a
> significant part is the "government should get out of the lives of
> its citizens." If a 152 can achieve higher utility performing a
task
> for which he is better suited than a 132, why would
the "government"
> force him to do work of more common utility? Sound kind of
communist
> if you ask me.

Why would the administration have to force anyone? If you don't
believe that in a frontier community everyone -- including yourself! -
- must do their share of the unpleasant labor, you're not suited for
frontiering in the first place: with ORION or any other community.
>
> Logocal inconsistancies are starting to show.
>
> > Fra more to the point: Any individual who is not ready, willing,
> and
> > EAGER to actively contribute to the caretaking and education of
> the
> > comunity's children won't make the cut either, no matter HOW high
> his
> > or her IQ :)
> >
> > spike
>
> Now the State is intruding into the family life of the individual.
> Wouldn't you rail against this if it happened in the good ole U.S.
> of A?
>
> In another post you referenced an author who referred to other
> societies as static. Doesn't it strike you as odd that your "State"
> is going to apply such a uniform standard to selection, going right
> down to the ways in which families conduct themselves that you will
> squeeze out all variety and dynamism and become the epitomy of
> a "static" society?

Again, the self-selection fallacy: If you're not behind our Job One --
raising and educating gifted & talented kids -- you certainly
wouldn't apply to join a community where this is such a priority, and
that communkity certainly would not accept you even if you did.

spike

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Z wrote:
> Thanx tangoman for such a thoughtful response and
> sparing me the need to do so. After reading the link
> put forth on all this white supremist stuff, I was/am
> very disgusted. Luckily space is very large and
> groups like this can exist and go off on there own and
> be forgotten.

Luckily, space IS large. There's room for EVERYBODY up there, and one
of the most exciting things about it is that MANY social experiments
can be undertaken without any of them stepping on the toes of any of
the others. Even communities whose INTERNAL ideologies are in total
opposition to each other can trade freely in information, education,
goods & services without compromising either the principles or the
psychosocial well-being of their respective memebers.

I, personally, support ANYONE'S effort to establish an orbital
community...and further believe that all such individuals and groups
CAN and SHOULD make common cause to make this Dream a technological
reality.

spike

On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 08:22 AM, orionaut wrote:

> Why would the administration have to force anyone?

Why don't your room-mates always do their dishes?

> If you don't
> believe that in a frontier community everyone -- including yourself! -
> - must do their share of the unpleasant labor, you're not suited for
> frontiering in the first place: with ORION or any other community.
>

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 08:22 AM, orionaut wrote:
>
> > Why would the administration have to force anyone?
>
> Why don't your room-mates always do their dishes?

In the absence of an explicit agreement to the contrary ("you cook,
I'LL do the dishes") they DO do their dishes...or they don't stay my
room-mates for very long. ;)

Ah, the beauty of VOLUNTARY Human associations -- spike