Peterson, Harris, etc....

Minimalist said:
Chomsky’s email exchange with Harris (in my opinion) showed how the latter overestimates his own wisdom on these matters. The fact he published it on his website initially thinking it showed Chomsky looking daft made him go down in my estimate.

Don’t mind him in general I must admit. His fanboys (as usual) are worse.
Click to expand...


psychdelicblues said:
He's recently, appeared to come off the worse again in a email exchange with Vox's Ezra Klein in response to a Harris podcast interview he did with Charles Murray (Bell Curve).

Since then, Klein has kept at it, and he delivered another volley today. I told him that if he continued in this way, I would publish our private email correspondence so that our readers could judge him for themselves. His latest effort has convinced me that I should make good on that promise.
Click to expand...


Day later.........

Judging from the response to this post on social media, my decision to publish these emails appears to have backfired. I was relying on readers to follow the plot and notice Ezra’s evasiveness and gaslighting (e.g. his denial of misrepresentations and slurs that are in the very article he published). Many people seem to have judged from his politeness that Ezra was the one behaving honestly and ethically. This is frustrating, to say the least.

Many readers seem mystified by the anger I expressed in this email exchange. Why care so much about “criticism” or even “insults”?........
Click to expand...



https://samharris.org/ezra-klein-editor-chief/
Click to expand...


Mciahel Goodman said:
More than anything, Harris seems overly concerned with popularity and what people think of him. Publishes an email correspondence where people judge him to be the idiot of the two, then writes notes online pleading with people to understand that they're wrong.

A bit self-absorbed.
Click to expand...

Minimalist said:
Jesus that reads very immaturely.
Click to expand...

'Clear the air' of some sorts between Harris and Ezra Klein

 
psychdelicblues said:
'Clear the air' of some sorts between Harris and Ezra Klein

Click to expand...


Can you summarize the 2 hours of video there?

BTW I am surprised about this weird resurgence of the Bell Curve (or maybe I shouldn't be in the Brexit/Trump world). Still, its odd something easily discredited (IQ tests are neither a definitive measure of intelligence nor are they unbiased) is seeing new popularity 25 years later.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Can you summarize the 2 hours of video there?

BTW I am surprised about this weird resurgence of the Bell Curve (or maybe I shouldn't be in the Brexit/Trump world). Still, its odd something easily discredited (IQ tests are neither a definitive measure of intelligence nor are they unbiased) is seeing new popularity 25 years later.
Click to expand...

I listened to about 20 minutes. Klein spent most of this time attempting to poke holes in Harris' logic and Harris addressed each of Klein's criticisms.
 
Harris was on Rogan along with Maajid Nawaz the other day. Only listened to the first half but it's been great so far.
 
Tarrou said:
Harris was on Rogan along with Maajid Nawaz the other day. Only listened to the first half but it's been great so far.
Click to expand...

Yeah anything with Maajid and Harris is great. Rogan not so much.

Interesting chat about transgenders at 57:40

 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Can you summarize the 2 hours of video there?

BTW I am surprised about this weird resurgence of the Bell Curve (or maybe I shouldn't be in the Brexit/Trump world). Still, its odd something easily discredited (IQ tests are neither a definitive measure of intelligence nor are they unbiased) is seeing new popularity 25 years later.
Click to expand...

Much of it is an long, drawn out argument about Harris' views on Charles Murray and about the idea that its ok to consider it legitimate that there are genetic differences between different groups of people.
 
Raoul said:
I listened to about 20 minutes. Klein spent most of this time attempting to poke holes in Harris' logic and Harris addressed each of Klein's criticisms.
Click to expand...

Ok so I listened to the whole thing. I think Klein makes a very wise point that Harris is quick to accuse other people of confirmation bias but he has a big blindspot to it in regards to people he likes.

Harris does repeatedly try to casually dismiss Nisbett and Turkheimer for instance as instantly being dishonest to the science because of a policy agenda and falsely calls them 'fringe'. Yet Nisbett and Turkheimer are hugely respected "mainstream" Professors at University of Michigan and University of Virginia while Murray, as Klein points out, has spent his entire career working in privately funded conservative think tanks getting paid to produce research to support a conservative policy agenda. Murray who has a very clear economic and personal incentive yet Harris doesn't even entertain the notion that its Murray whose research is following from confirmation bias. He also doesn't admit that the IQ differences might not be due to genetics which is what Nisbett and Turkheimer's research shows.

Another problem with Harris is something that Chomsky exchange highlighted. Harris loves his imaginary thought experiments that really don't illustrate anything because they are just disconnected from the real world and allow Harris to conclude whatever he wants. That neaderthal imaginary thing got tiresome.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Ok so I listened to the whole thing. I think Klein makes a very wise point that Harris is quick to accuse other people of confirmation bias but he has a big blindspot to it in regards to people he likes.

Harris does repeatedly try to casually dismiss Nisbett and Turkheimer for instance as instantly being dishonest to the science because of a policy agenda and falsely calls them 'fringe'. Yet Nisbett and Turkheimer are hugely respected "mainstream" Professors at University of Michigan and University of Virginia while Murray, as Klein points out, has spent his entire career working in privately funded conservative think tanks getting paid to produce research to support a conservative policy agenda. Murray who has a very clear economic and personal incentive yet Harris doesn't even entertain the notion that its Murray whose research is following from confirmation bias. He also doesn't admit that the IQ differences might not be due to genetics which is what Nisbett and Turkheimer's research shows.

Another problem with Harris is something that Chomsky exchange highlighted. Harris loves his imaginary thought experiments that really don't illustrate anything because they are just disconnected from the real world and allow Harris to conclude whatever he wants. That neaderthal imaginary thing got tiresome.
Click to expand...

I got something slightly different out of it beyond what the likes of Murray and his critics are talking about. Its really a discussion about whether or not we are willing to entertain the idea that different groups have varying genetic differences based on their respective historiographies, and if so, whether such results would be taken head on or whether they would be denied and/or swept below the carpet because we are living in a particular era where the moral orthodoxy is centered on balancing historical inequities. That to me was the crux of what they were arguing about. Harris doesn't seem to take a moral position on interpreting the raw data whereas his critics - here Klein, but also the likes Greenwald et al - over the years clearly do.
 
Raoul said:
I got something slightly different out of it beyond what the likes of Murray and his critics are talking about. Its really a discussion about whether or not we are willing to entertain the idea that different groups have varying genetic differences based on their respective historiographies, and if so, whether such results would be taken head on or whether they would be denied and/or swept below the carpet because we are living in a particular era where the moral orthodoxy is centered on balancing historical inequities. That to me was the crux of what they were arguing about. Harris doesn't seem to take a moral position on interpreting the raw data whereas his critics - here Klein, but also the likes Greenwald et al - over the years clearly do.
Click to expand...

Harris was interpreting the data in the sense that the data only shows a discrepancy in the IQ results it doesn't establish the genetic causation. Attributing that to genetic causes is not self-evident to the data. That is what Nisbett, Turkheimer, etc research suggests - that the actual discrepancy in the data is not nearly as genetic as Murray and his funders claim and its those facts that Harris glosses over when he gets overly polemical.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Harris was interpreting the data in the sense that the data only shows a discrepancy in the IQ results it doesn't establish the genetic causation. Attributing that to genetic causes is not self-evident to the data. That is what Nisbett, Turkheimer, etc research suggests - that the actual discrepancy in the data is not nearly as genetic as Murray and his funders claim and its those facts that Harris glosses over when he gets overly polemical.
Click to expand...

That was the normative side of the debate but there was also a deeper philosophical layer of it that touched on if such data exists, whether it would be ignored or squashed because we don't want to offend said groups.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
That was the normative side of the debate but there was also a deeper philosophical layer of it that touched on if such data exists, whether it would be ignored or squashed because we don't want to offend said groups.
Click to expand...

I thought that was the least compelling part because Harris just makes up his imaginary thought experiment and then proceeds to make conclusions on the scenario he is imagining. This is another case like Chomsky unpacked where Harris is using a completely made up circumstance to arrive at pre-conceived conclusions. Its really a poor form of arguing as all he is doing is reinforcing his own confirmation bias.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
That's not how I would describe it. That was the least compelling part because Harris just makes up his imaginary thought experiment and then proceeds to make conclusions on the scenario he is imagining and goes on from there. This is another case like Chomsky unpacked where Harris is using a completely made up circumstance to arrive at pre-conceived conclusions. Its really a poor form of arguing as all he is doing is reinforcing his own confirmation bias.

I don't find that particular point very thought provoking either as I think its clear if there actually was some valid scientific evidence it wouldn't be be addressed in any of the ways Harris is imagining as that's not the way the current scientific community works despite some wing nut attacks on associations like AAAS being inherently biased political. This is where I think Klein has a valid point about Harris not even noticing his own confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

I think all Harris is saying that we are to varying degrees, different. He used the Korean analogy where anyone who saw him would know he's not Korean. He's simply challenging the idea that we are all identical irrespective of background and that there may be some genetic differences based on environmental factors. If there are then we should be looking into why.
 
Raoul said:
I think all Harris is saying that we are to varying degrees, different. He used the Korean analogy where anyone who saw him would know he's not Korean. He's simply challenging the idea that we are all identical irrespective of background and that there may be some genetic differences based on environmental factors. If there are then we should be looking into why.
Click to expand...

That's a poor analogy IMO. He is using a specific phenotype manifestation and then using that to generalize and extrapolate about something completely different.

The problem that he doesn't seem to recognize is two-fold 1) that intelligence is not a simplistic expression of genetics but extremely complex. 2) "Race" is a problematic construct in this case because genetic research has shown that genetic variation within the five broad genetic categories is greater than the variation between each category.

This is why the whole premise is problematic scientifically. Considering that the variation is greater within a group than between the groups, its not useful to try to use visual phenotype to try to organize groups around intelligence because two people that self-identify as Europeans might actually have more in common genetically with an Asian person than each other.

Its not like Murray was using actual genetic data (which didn't exist in 1994) to accurately divide and define the 'races'. He was using outdated 18th century racial categories that have since been shown to be mostly meaningless as the link shows.
 
Last edited:
I assumed this thread had been bumped due to Ben “facts not feelings” Shapiro filing a police report for “battery” after being mildly intimidated by a Trans woman on TV, as a result of pulling his usual “needlessly mock and insult them personally until they snap, so I look like the rational one” shtick.

But alas, apparently not...




Intellectual discourse for grown ups in 2018. The bombs can’t some soon enough.
 
Last edited:
Mockney said:
Intellectual discourse for grown ups in 2018. The bombs can’t some soon enough.
Click to expand...

I haven't watched it but apparently the world's leading intellectual was on bill Maher talking about the perils of masturbating.
 
Mockney said:
I assumed this thread had been bumped due to Ben “facts not feelings” Shapiro filing a police report for “battery” after being mildly intimidated by a Trans woman on TV, as a result of pulling his usual “needlessly and mockingly insult them personally until they snap, so I look like the rational one” shtick.

But alas, apparently not...




Intellectual discourse for grown ups in 2018. The bombs can’t some soon enough.
Click to expand...


:lol: Just heard about this.

Edit. This apparently happened in 2015. No charges filed in the end.
 
Last edited:
oneniltothearsenal said:
That's a poor analogy IMO. He is using a specific phenotype manifestation and then using that to generalize and extrapolate about something completely different.

The problem that he doesn't seem to recognize is two-fold 1) that intelligence is not a simplistic expression of genetics but extremely complex. 2) "Race" is a problematic construct in this case because genetic research has shown that genetic variation within the five broad genetic categories is greater than the variation between each category.

This is why the whole premise is problematic scientifically. Considering that the variation is greater within a group than between the groups, its not useful to try to use visual phenotype to try to organize groups around intelligence because two people that self-identify as Europeans might actually have more in common genetically with an Asian person than each other.

Its not like Murray was using actual genetic data (which didn't exist in 1994) to accurately divide and define the 'races'. He was using outdated 18th century racial categories that have since been shown to be mostly meaningless as the link shows.
Click to expand...
Harris repeats ad nauseam that he doesn’t know much or care about the topic and doesn’t think it’s productive to research it.

He is standing up for the right to talk about it in the first place after left wing ‘ultras’ attacked Murray and a professor for daring to speak about a sensitive topic. Another recent Rogan podcast with Pinker illustrates this problem succinctly.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
Harris repeats ad nauseam that he doesn’t know much or care about the topic and doesn’t think it’s productive to research it.

He is standing up for the right to talk about it in the first place after left wing ‘ultras’ attacked Murray and a professor for daring to speak about a sensitive topic. Another recent Rogan podcast with Pinker illustrates this problem succinctly.
Click to expand...

Do you know the history of race-intelligence research, and also of Murray's political positions?
 
berbatrick said:
Do you know the history of race-intelligence research, and also of Murray's political positions?
Click to expand...
I know of Murray’s agendas, and they strike me as being Darwinian and cruel.

But that doesn’t mean we should ignore the research he bases his ideas upon, which as has already been pointed out has some merit. To shut down any debate is tyranny, even if well intentioned.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
I know of Murray’s agendas, and they strike me as being Darwinian and cruel.

But that doesn’t mean we should ignore the research he bases his ideas upon, which as has already been pointed out has some merit. To shut down any debate is tyranny, even if well intentioned.
Click to expand...

There are several answers to this and I'll edit this post to add details.

1. American eugenics 1900-40 was a acknowledged as a model by hitler. (contemporary science had proved Jews, Italians, and (iirc) Irish and Asians were alongside blacks at the bottom of the intelligence ladder). So would shutting down debates about the subhuman nature of Jews also have counted as tyranny? There were scientists who could show evidence for that claim.

2. There are equally many reasons to doubt the claim too. I'm on mobile so can't link but I'd recommend watching the 2nd half of a video on YouTube called reading the right: the bell curve by foreverjameses.

3. (afaik) Murray was shut down at one place and has continued with a highly successful college tour everywhere else. He continues to be a well-funded researcher name-checked by political and economic elites. Yet he dines off the perception of victimhood.

4. Let's assume that the counter-evidence didn't exist. What do you think should be done about inferior people? Hitler had a clear answer. Murray has a less drastic one (gut education outside practical training for the dull 80%). Can you think of another?
 
berbatrick said:
There are several answers to this and I'll edit this post to add details.

1. American eugenics 1900-40 was a acknowledged as a model by hitler. (contemporary science had proved Jews, Italians, and (iirc) Irish and Asians were alongside blacks at the bottom of the intelligence ladder). So would shutting down debates about the subhuman nature of Jews also have counted as tyranny? There were scientists who could show evidence for that claim.

2. There are equally many reasons to doubt the claim too. I'm on mobile so can't link but I'd recommend watching the 2nd half of a video on YouTube called reading the right: the bell curve by foreverjameses.

3. (afaik) Murray was shut down at one place and has continued with a highly successful college tour everywhere else. He continues to be a well-funded researcher name-checked by political and economic elites. Yet he dines off the perception of victimhood.

4. Let's assume that the counter-evidence didn't exist. What do you think should be done about inferior people? Hitler had a clear answer. Murray has a less drastic one (gut education outside practical training for the dull 80%). Can you think of another?
Click to expand...
The feck are you on about? I disagree with Murray, as does Harris who is the epicenter of this crap storm. The research is mostly to do with class anyway, not race. Race is just one designator that can be used due to how class and race coincide on aggregate in America after centuries of discrimination and denial of opportunity.

I understand the sensitivity surrounding it, but in this post-factual Trumpian world we are living in shutting down debate does us no good. It only serves to keep perverse ideas under darkness without being exposed to light, meaning for their proponents they never get disproven. So long as something isn’t proven wrong, there will be people that can claim it is true.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
The feck are you on about? I disagree with Murray, as does Harris who is the epicenter of this crap storm. The research is mostly to do with class anyway, not race. Race is just one designator that can be used due to how class and race coincide on aggregate in America after centuries of discrimination and denial of opportunity.

I understand the sensitivity surrounding it, but in this post-factual Trumpian world we are living in shutting down debate does us no good. It only serves to keep perverse ideas under darkness without being exposed to light, meaning for their proponents they never get disproven. So long as something isn’t proven wrong, there will be people that can claim it is true.
Click to expand...


:lol:
 
Organic Potatoes said:
The feck are you on about? I disagree with Murray, as does Harris who is the epicenter of this crap storm. The research is mostly to do with class anyway, not race. Race is just one designator that can be used due to how class and race coincide on aggregate in America after centuries of discrimination and denial of opportunity.

I understand the sensitivity surrounding it, but in this post-factual Trumpian world we are living in shutting down debate does us no good. It only serves to keep perverse ideas under darkness without being exposed to light, meaning for their proponents they never get disproven. So long as something isn’t proven wrong, there will be people that can claim it is true.
Click to expand...

You wanted a debate since not having a debate is tyranny. Let's have the debate.

About the bolded part - you don't seem to get Murray's research.
The authors also note that adjusting for socioeconomic status does not eliminate the black-white IQ gap.
the authors also repeat many of the analyses from Part II, but now compare whites to blacks and Hispanics in the NLSY dataset. They find that after controlling for IQ, many differences in social outcomes between races are diminished
The authors discuss the possibility that high birth rates among those with lower IQs may exert a downward pressure on the national distribution of cognitive ability
Evidence for experimental attempts to raise intelligence is reviewed. The authors conclude that currently there are no means to boost intelligence by more than a modest degree
The authors criticize the "levelling" of general and secondary education and defend gifted education.
Click to expand...
Blacks are according to their evidence simply not as capable as whites or asians (exceptions will exist). It would be wrong to pretend that they are and fund equal education for all. The main difference between races is not discrimination but IQ (something inherent within races, not what society imposed on them). So your claim about discimrination is menaingless, the econmic status of blacks is simpy a reflection of their cognitive disabilities.

Now, what do you plan to do about this societal problem?

> So long as something isn’t proven wrong, there will be people that can claim it is true.

Trump's claims about migrants and rapists and Muslims were repeatedly aired on the media, proven wrong every day, from day one of the campaign. A large number of people still believed them.

And once again, a guy who does well-funded research, a university speaking tour, has mainstream (NYT, Atlantic, liberal icon Steven Pinker) support is not "in darkness"; a polite debate with a single online editor is not a "crap storm".
 
Javi said:
If you're still investigating Peterson but haven't read the Current Affairs piece somebody posted earlier, here is the link again (be warned, long read - but I thought it was well written): https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

And a sneak peek:
Click to expand...

That was a good read. Many good points about Peterson's incessant, needless overcomplicating of verbiage. That said, much of the focus of this piece seemed to be Peterson's entire body of work and not as much his most recent book, which along with his YouTube appearances seems to make up the bulk of his current fame.
 
Bit confused with the last few pages of this thread, but am I right in thinking that the likes of entropy would consider me an Islamophobe because I absolutely despise religion and dogma?
 
Raoul said:
That was a good read. Many good points about Peterson's incessant, needless overcomplicating of verbiage. That said, much of the focus of this piece seemed to be Peterson's entire body of work and not as much his most recent book, which along with his YouTube appearances seems to make up the bulk of his current fame.
Click to expand...

That's true. But the impression I got from the article is that the "12 rules for life" (or whatever it's called) in essence is nothing more than basic self help packaged in difficult words ...
The harder people have to work to figure out what you’re saying, the more accomplished they’ll feel when they figure it out, and the more sophisticated you will appear. Everybody wins.
Click to expand...

Consider this summary of principles from the end of 12 Rules for Life:

What shall I do to strengthen my spirit? Do not tell lies, or do what you despise.

What shall I do to ennoble my body? Use it only in the service of my soul.

What shall I do with the most difficult of questions? Consider them the gateway to the path of life.

What shall I do with the poor man’s plight? Strive through right example to lift his broken heart.

What shall I do with when the great crowd beckons? Stand tall and utter my broken truths.

These are pompous, biblical ways of saying: tell the truth, be true to yourself, see challenges as opportunities, set a good example, and, uh, give confident and long-winded lectures to your adoring crowd of fans

Based on the article and the few interviews of his I've seen (including the recent Bill Maher appearence you linked, the Newman interview, the interview with some asian guy where he's borderline implying that women are asking for sexual assault by wearing make up and stuff thus sexualizing the workplace. "or maybe not". "I think we should have a discussion about that".) the only way I can make sense of his fame is by the major drought conservative intellectualism is having atm which he at least appears to fill.
 
Javi said:
That's true. But the impression I got from the article is that the "12 rules for life" (or whatever it's called) in essence is nothing more than basic self help packaged in difficult words ...


Consider this summary of principles from the end of 12 Rules for Life:

What shall I do to strengthen my spirit? Do not tell lies, or do what you despise.

What shall I do to ennoble my body? Use it only in the service of my soul.

What shall I do with the most difficult of questions? Consider them the gateway to the path of life.

What shall I do with the poor man’s plight? Strive through right example to lift his broken heart.

What shall I do with when the great crowd beckons? Stand tall and utter my broken truths.

These are pompous, biblical ways of saying: tell the truth, be true to yourself, see challenges as opportunities, set a good example, and, uh, give confident and long-winded lectures to your adoring crowd of fans

Based on the article and the few interviews of his I've seen (including the recent Bill Maher appearence you linked, the Newman interview, the interview with some asian guy where he's borderline implying that women are asking for sexual assault by wearing make up and stuff thus sexualizing the workplace. "or maybe not". "I think we should have a discussion about that".) the only way I can make sense of his fame is by the major drought conservative intellectualism is having atm which he at least appears to fill.
Click to expand...

I think the reason why 12 rules for life has connected so broadly is because it seems to focus on personal responsibility as well as act as a response to what Peterson calls the post-modernist view that power and identity politics are intertwined. Peterson is basically promoting a more primal construct where male are allowed to be alpha-males again, which is the primary reason his popularity is soaring at the moment.
 
Raoul said:
Peterson is basically promoting a more primal construct where male are allowed to be alpha-males again, which is the primary reason his popularity is soaring at the moment.
Click to expand...

By definition, only 1 can be alpha.
(which would suggest that the overwhelming majority of his followers are fighting hard to obtain beta status)
(which presupposes that this terminology is valid for humans)
 
This one is quite amazing:


I want to make a joke about Arbeit macht frei but I can't think of one. So I'll just point out that this thought leader doesn't know that this most famous quotation on the entrance of the most famous concentration camp directly contradicts him.

(edit: i'm referring to the video in this tweet, not the whole thread.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.