Is a funny thing the internet. It allows you to speculate on all kinds of things you know nothing about. Before you know it you're in a Facebook group, shouting racial slurs and what not, everyone having the best of times with you. Scary place the internet. One should be careful speculating too much..
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
I mean you did basically just describe 8chan terrorists, so I guess that's fair.
I've seen similar moves on reddit by people curious about "human bio diversity" asking a lot of questions and then 20 comments later you look at their posting history and they are Charles Murray devotees if not worse. His sudden inclusion of climate and penis size makes me think he's all up to speed on the latest science the Pioneer Fund has to offer.
It's difficult, because there are several "innocent" ways to come by views like that, especially if you end up with a distorted view of the science by taking someone like Harris seriously. I mean innocent specifically as in not malicious here, not as in excusable. However, this guy in particular is such a natural when moving between specific claims and JAQing off, it seems both very rehearsed and an internet stereotype.
Thanks for the links, good review. For the record, I've also just read a couple pieces on the most recent geneticist Harris spoke to on his show - Robert Plomin - and appreciate his (fairly impressive) track record is now being questioned by the latest science.
Which is great. That's the whole point of science and academia - testing and disproving previous hypotheses.
Wow, that escalated quickly.
For the record, if the latest science shows that there's little supported evidence of group genetic predictability than great, that's the latest science and we should follow it - and keep testing it with the latest tools available. Obviously others are far more knowledgeable in this area so I'll defer to them, I don't have an educated opinion nor belief on the issue.
My whole point was that, imo, you shouldn't judge Harris in this case because - from what he and others have said since - it's not a topic that he's an expert in or was expressing a strong opinion on. He invited someone onto his show, and spoke with that person about their work. Now for many - like Klein - simply giving a platform to that person was worthy of criticism. But my whole point is that because of just speaking to someone, the ACLU have listed Harris as a racist.
This should be separated from his views on Islam - which are very clearly his views and something he has written book about. And of course those views are problematic, and you can absolutely criticise him on those, because they're his.
But from all I've seen about the Charles Murray stuff, he wasn't saying it's his view, more just reflecting what a guest on his show was saying. He does it literally every episode, on new topics every week.
Finally, you should treat Harris and any other podcast/ host as what they are: facilitators of discussion, not experts to be trusted blindly. If you find a guest or subject interesting, go research the topic, seek out alternate views and form your own opinion from those.
I'd only 'trust' Harris on topics of neuroscience and the benefits of meditation - both of which he appears credible on.
For the record, if the latest science shows that there's little supported evidence of group genetic predictability than great, that's the latest science and we should follow it - and keep testing it with the latest tools available. Obviously others are far more knowledgeable in this area so I'll defer to them, I don't have an educated opinion nor belief on the issue.
My whole point was that, imo, you shouldn't judge Harris in this case because - from what he and others have said since - it's not a topic that he's an expert in or was expressing a strong opinion on. He invited someone onto his show, and spoke with that person about their work. Now for many - like Klein - simply giving a platform to that person was worthy of criticism. But my whole point is that because of just speaking to someone, the ACLU have listed Harris as a racist.
This should be separated from his views on Islam - which are very clearly his views and something he has written book about. And of course those views are problematic, and you can absolutely criticise him on those, because they're his.
But from all I've seen about the Charles Murray stuff, he wasn't saying it's his view, more just reflecting what a guest on his show was saying. He does it literally every episode, on new topics every week.
Finally, you should treat Harris and any other podcast/ host as what they are: facilitators of discussion, not experts to be trusted blindly. If you find a guest or subject interesting, go research the topic, seek out alternate views and form your own opinion from those.
I'd only 'trust' Harris on topics of neuroscience and the benefits of meditation - both of which he appears credible on.
Great, I hope Harris invites Nisbett and / or the other authours on his show to run through how it contradicts Murray's work. It would be a good discussion, I'm sure.
I'll leave it with Harris trying to articulate - as I have clearly failed to do - why he even had Murray on his show. Which was nothing to do with the topic, but all about academic freedom:
"Whatever I say at this point, no matter how scientifically careful, appears to convey an interest in establishing the truth of racial differences (which I do not have and have criticized in others). ... I did not have Charles Murray on my podcast because I was interested in intelligence differences across races. I had him on in an attempt to correct what I perceived to be a terrible injustice done to an honest scholar."
Well, if you're ignorant on a topic, it would be wise to listen to the specialists. Scepticism is a good thing, but scepticism in the face of a strong scientific consensus is just denialism. You're not going to be a sceptic and ask questions about the concept of gravity either.
And there is actually strong scientific consensus here. That's not because I say it; I'm not a specialist either. But the author of that book is. Of course, you can't always be sure whether a single book portrays the scientific consensus (if there even is one on the relevant topic), but if you would check the book's reviews by specialists in the field, you'll find that the science is spot-on and inarguable. Take for instance the review I linked: it's from Nature, far and away the world's leading science journal alongside Science. (Fact; but you can look them.up if you don't believe me.) The only criticism the reviewer had, is that Rutherford gives too much credence to the concept of IQ, and that the world doesn't really need another book on theory. Why not? Because this is all well-known stuff.
Hence also the title: the author isn't arguing for a case or adding to an ongoing discussion, he is summarizing well-known scientific information in a neat package for those who want to engage in discussion with people that hold racist ideas (be it knowingly or unknowingly) - exactly as the title proclaims: 'How to Argue With a Racist: What Our Genes Do (or Don’t) Say About Human Difference'.
Not sure why you'd try and bring up suggestive scenarios if you declare yourself ignorant, but ok. 100 generations span some 2000-3000 years. That's a blink of an eye in terms of evolution; giraffes will have had virtually exactly the same neck length 3000 years ago. Selective breeding can, of course, emphasize certain traits, like they do for cattle. But that's not how people reproduce in reality; it's very messy. As it happens, Rutherford, the author of the book, wrote a piece in the Guardian on his book and talked about this. I have quoted the relevant paragraphs below, and bolded the most relevant bit (since you're not actually arguing some kind of pure blood theory).
Rutherford said:
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...tics-bigotry-african-americans-sport-linnaeus
Once again, what you're saying is not true. He was very clearly speaking his view, both in private and publicly. You earlier acknowledged that he did speak his view, now you seem to once again backtrack.
Harris not being an expert is not an excuse. He could have asked experts, like Richard Nisbett, Eric Turkheimer or James Flynn. He knew perfectly well what these experts believe, and what did he do with that knowledge? They are all, according to non-expert Sam Harris, fringe. James Flynn's expert view is implausible, Eric Turkheimer's expert view is obviously wrong and he's being wrong for nakedly politically correct reasons, and he's dishonest. Expert Richard Nisbett, together with expert Eric Turkheimer and expert Kathryn Harden, wrote an article that according to non-expert Sam Harris was political propaganda. According to non-expert Sam Harris, expert Richard Nisbett knows what he wants the data to say, so he manipulates it. This is academic fraud.
Once again, like every time, you want to pretend that Harris is talking about lofty principles like academic freedom. It isn't true. Anyone who can read can see this. I really don't understand how you can keep doing this.
You assured me that you were on top of this whole thing, but in his e-mail correspondence you'll see Klein several times implore Harris to have Nisbett et al on the podcast to talk about the science, while Harris refuses. Then Klein agrees to have a public talk, and Harris goes trying to talk about the science even though they agreed that that wouldn't be a topic.
Last edited:
And as far as I have understood Klein, it's exactly this perception of a "terrible injustice done to an honest scholar" that he criticizes first and foremost on Harris. The notions that:
a) Murray's interests are strictly scientific (Klein describes him as a right wing policy-maker instead)
b) the criticisms of Murray's claims and methods are scientifically dishonest and amount to politically motivated character assassination (Klein contends that the scientific criticism is sound and the political criticism is justified and necessary)
Agreed, and Harris has a good discussion with Klein earlier this year on their positions.
Listen, this is clearly a major topic for you, so fair enough. I guess this would be like an ESPN correspondent saying something we thought was naive and wrong about United, when that person is an ex-NFL player with barely a passing interest in the real football.
From having spent probably close to hundreds of hours reading and listening to Harris, I really think this particularly topic is not something he feels strongly about, and that he's sick of talking about the subject of genetics and race, but will always talk on the subject of how intolerant he sees certain sectors of the left/academia becoming. Further, a 2 minute Google-ing has found at least two other, respected journalists (Sullivan and Haeir) who have also touched this 'third-rail' and had various character assisanitations because of it. All three were willing to speak to Murray and attempt to understand the data in the Bell Curve, and all three have been attacked fairly mercilessly because of it.
THAT is the reason Harris had him on. Cancel culture, overly political-correctness and his perception that the left is trying to silence science they don't like is his concern, not the science itself.
A major topic for me isn't Sam Harris, it's what people like Harris can without it even registering for his fans. It's a very interesting fan behaviour that has several parallels to religiosity. Here we've gone from 1. I don't think Harris said that, 2. Harris didn't say that, 3. Harris did say that., 4. Harris didn't share his view (this is the craziest one) to brushing it off now.
When the topic is what Harris says and thinks you keep bringing other stuff up to deflect. Why Sam Harris chose to have Charles Murray on the podcast doesn't impact the fact that Sam Harris thinks white people are more intelligent than black people for genetic reasons.
And in my opinion you're seeing what you want to see. Sam Harris has said countless times since that interview that he personally does not have strong beliefs on the topic, nor is that interested by it. I've quoted him previously, saying exactly that. The 'damaging' Sam Harris quotes you can find on the topic are a transcript of the Murray podcast where he introduces why the topic is fretful, and why Murray's data causes so much controversy.
But you know his mind better, clearly.
There have been over 200 episodes of just his Podcast, and he chose to bring up this exactly once, in response to when Murray was cancelled. In that time he's done dozens of episodes on both religion and consciousness, two topics he does care about. He's done a few on cancel culture - something he does care deeply about.
If you can't see the difference because of your biases, that's on you, not him.
To football, this would be like seeing him at the Etihad once with a friend, once, and then swearing blind that he's a huge proponent of human rights abuses, despite him having season tickets at Stamford Bridge and writing books on Chelsea.
That's another main point of Klein's criticism: Harris' idea that Murray represents an oppressed opinion and has to be helped (see also the pretty cringeworthy title of Harris' interview with Murray: "Forbidden Knowledge").
But even when just focusing on Sam Harris in all of this, it's essential to have a good idea what the criticism of Murray is actually about in the first place. These articles were useful to me:
Shorter article from 2012, focusing on both Murray as a publicist and his public reception:
https://www.americanprogress.org/is...ay-and-the-power-of-mainstream-media-amnesia/
It also provides links to the detailed criticism of Murray's book Coming Apart by conservative publicist David Frum.
Longer article from 2018, pretty much a quintessential criticism of Murray and his line of thinking in US right wing politics:
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/10/17182692/bell-curve-charles-murray-policy-wrong
It includes direct quotes from Murray on policies, which everyone should absolutely be aware of.
Klein vs Harris, including a link to Harris' podcast with Murray:
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/9/17210248/sam-harris-ezra-klein-charles-murray-transcript-podcast
Last edited:
Ok, at this point you're just going to lean on the biased charge anyway so we're done. Someone who isn't me asked you a question yesterday that you missed, maybe you'll prefer that route:
You seem to be a proponent of reading and understanding, did this really happen?
Agree, one should listen to specialists. It’s a funny thing, when specialists disagree, some people go to one side of the debate, often the one that feels good in the head. I don’t know.. I’m just really, really special, I guess. Let’s wait and see, keep an open mind. It would be amazing if group differences are restricted to a very few physical attributes. If it is the case that’s all there is, then that is just fantastic. If not, then that is as fantastic, but we can then at least talk about it and consider societal remedies if deemed necessary. I wouldn’t pretend to know something I possibly couldn’t. I’ll ask questions if I care enough about a subject, and someone’s hurt feelings can be restored. Suggestive scenarios should be easily dispelled if they are way off. If one can’t easily rebut or dispel such scenarios, one should perhaps question one’s own convictions.
I appreciate your lengthy response. I’ll look into it, some of it, I’m sure. Apologies if I leave you wanting more in return.
Listen, don't have a position on Murray, or at least, from what I've read it sounds like the data have been refuted and the original publishing has been damaging because of its fuel for racist propaganda. No argument from me. If anything I'd side with Klein: we don't know enough one way or the other about the relative impact of genes and the environment on anything, much less IQ.
The discussion I'm failing to have with NotThatSoph is that Harris really doesn't care about the subject very much either, and that his interest with Murray wasn't about the topic, but about his being cancelled, and Harris' interest in cancel culture being why he spoke to him. NotThatSoph is prescribing Murray's beliefs to Harris, and from all I've heard from Harris himself in subsequent years, he doesn't feel strongly on the topic of IQ and genetics, but does feel strongly on the cancelling of controversial (or even dangerous) opinions.
For someone that can clearly be articulate when they want to, you're really not even trying anymore.
Murray's data in the Bell Curve are dangerous ammunition for racists, largely refuted by subsequent research and have been interpreted with negative societal impact for years since its publishing. So to Synco's point yes - that is what the Bell Curve states. I agree.
Harris hosting Murray on a podcast does not confer those believes onto him as the host. If following that discussion Harris had gone on to write opinion pieces, or continued to push the Bell Curve findings all the time on his podcasts or taken any real interest in IQ then you could say those were his beliefs. But he hasn't, the only time he talks about it is justifying hosting Murray, and decrying the impact it has had on his life.
While it might well be true that Harris doesn't care a great deal about the subject, it's also true that he's fairly unambiguously flagged his support for the idea. He's also keeps refuting legitimate criticism of it as 'politically biased' (which is especially stupid, seeing as how the Bell Curve is depressingly biased to begin with).
Good thing neither Murray nor Harris are specialists in the field, and that actual specialists are fairly unanimous in saying that there's no evidence to suggest there's a genetic component to the observed measured IQ gap. There's no need to wait and see, there's nothing to keep an open mind about.
This is the bit I don't agree with. Where is this unambiguous support? Harris throughout has been more concerned with the treatment of Murray than the arguments themselves, imo.
This is detailed and far more well written than I can manage. Leaving it at that. https://everythingstudies.com/2018/04/26/a-deep-dive-into-the-harris-klein-controversy/
" The roots of their disagreement are different ideas about what’s acceptable conduct in debates, and whether we should be treating politically relevant scientific ideas in a high-decoupled or low-decoupled way."
I don't think anyone's saying there's evidence to suggest much of anything. That is the point. Why take a side. Go on with your life and threat individuals accordingly.
I'm sorry, but the whole point I was making, is that there IS strong scientific consensus on the topic. I.e.: there is no genetic link between IQ, or intelligence more broadly, and race. So if Black and White people have different IQ test results, you have to look for the reason in cultural differences and the concept of IQ tests. I'll say it again: keeping an open mind towards the genetic link is like keeping an open mind towards the concept of anthropogenic climate change. Or gravity. Or whether the earth is round. Or the existence of giraffes.
Obviously, I can't force you to accept anything, but if you think keeping an open mind on any of these subjects is an example of healthy scepticism or objectivity, then I would argue that you're just fooling yourself. Better save that scepticism for anything regarding economic theory (my pet example) - that's where the real bullshit happens, dressed up as mathematics.
No, you're right I'm not trying anymore.
I've extensively quoted Harris himself. A lot. I have described what Harris thinks would be impossible or a miracle. I have described what Harris finds plausible and implausible. I have described which scientists Harris thinks are honest, and which scientists he thinks are dishonest because of the views they hold. Everything here is about Harris's own views., not Murray's
It is impossible for you to not have seen this, yet you're talking about how "hosting Murray on a podcast does not confer those believes onto him as the host". Well no, obviously, no said anything about this. You're not responding to what people are saying, so what is the point in trying?
The fact this thread has turned into a race iq debate, really shows the issue with people like Harris.
Last edited:
Skimming through wiki page on the subject, there seem to be some controversy and disagreement. What evidence there is, or lacking, seem to point toward environmental influences. Environment may trigger/"untrigger" the activation of genes? I dont know, and I won't invest too much in it other than conversations like these. In defence of myself, if needed, I'm not the one obsessing about IQ, in particular. It's just an inconvenient..part..of the subject at large. I keep an open mind on just about anything. Even the existence of giraffes.
Whatever your views on Harris i think we can all agree that The Bell Curve is horse-shit
I'd argue wikipedia is not the ultimate source of expertise and scientific information. But anyway, I'll leave you with this challenge then:
They also do have a wiki!
Hmmm....
So, what's next? Obesity, vaccines?
Did you mean to put the comma there or not?
Here's the hitch, you're not quoting Harris himself. Your arguments read far more like you've read/listened to people discussing Harris' proported views. If only someone had more time and energy than I do, maybe they'd of gone down this deep rabbit hole and...oh wait! Thank you internet. Here's an actual link entitled "the complete list of all the times Sam Harris has talked about race and IQ":
Whoever this guy is pretty much sums up my intrinsic belief - again from having listened to the man for years - of HE has actually SAID on the topic: "These are all the instances in which Sam Harris touched the topic. Let's remember that Sam Harris is primarily an author, and in none of his 7 books did he ever write about the topic. Of all his countless articles none have been about it, or even mentioned it. Of his 170 podcasts only in 2 of them did he say something about it, and barely. Plus, every time he even mentions the subject, he explains clearly that he is not interested in it. Two out of those times he pretty much was forced to talk about it, and one time he didn't even say anything about it. It was just one time that he talked about it, and it was because he had Charles Murray as a guest, and he wanted to talk about the attack he received at Middlebury, which is related to free speech; a topic he is interested in. In fact, considering the blowback he received for that one podcast, it's surprising he hasn't talked about it more. It's safe to say that the few times he uttered any sentence about the topic at all he has been mostly dragged to do so.
But the one quote that I think is the most poignant is in the debate with Klein:
"Okay, what you should understand--and I’ve said this many times--is that the opportunity to respond is no opportunity at all. It’s the opportunity to continually to be slimed by association with these seemingly radioactive ideas. It’s the opportunity to seem to care about racial difference, even though you don’t, just in an effort to prove that you were not guilty of a racially biased misreading of the empirical data." Indeed. How many times must Sam Harris say he is not interested a subject he has barely touched for this band of detractors to leave it alone?
So hate the guy for his views on radical Islam, hate him for his pretentious tone, hate him for platforming Charles Murray but he doesn't deserve to be called a racist, and the fact that he is literally deemed one by the ACLU for this one action pretty much makes his entire point on cancel culture and the third-railness of the subject.
Must now batten down the hatches for a hurricane.[/spoiler][/spoiler]
Holy shit, dude, yes I am!
Hah, funny
If you read the opening statement in the podcast with Klein, he defends Murray's claims as scientifically uncontroversial and refutes the criticism of Turkheimer/Harden/Nisbett as political propaganda, i.e. unscientific. So he actually takes a strong stance in favour of Murray there, which also renders his claims that he doesn't care much about the subject irrelevant.
I wasn't aware of the amount of health problems Peterson has
its that all beef diet innit
is his grifter daughter still making money from that?
is his grifter daughter still making money from that?
Definitely related to him following his daughter's dumbass all meat diet.