Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
iq doesn't measure intelligence, it measures competency in a specific mode of conceptual thought. it then calls this "intelligence". middle class black people will no doubt score higher in iq tests on average but it has nothing to do with intelligence. it has to do with inculcation into cultural valences. the stress placed on the didactic form of rote learning and then one's competency to extend the principles obtained there in test conditions. that isn't intelligence, it's competency.
intelligence is universal. competency within specific forms of abstract reasoning differs according to many factors. of course there's a genetic component but it has almost nothing to do with race. all an iq test will measure is literacy. that's a terrible way to divine intelligence amongst a group of people which on average, being in the lower socioeconomic gradations, have higher rates of illiteracy in all the "conventional" languages.
what harris and the others tend to do is reprise the social darwinist arguments which were wholly discredited, on scientific merit, decades ago. in fact they were rejected in the 19th century before being rediscovered in the 20th which led in part to eugenics. it is racist whether you comprehend that or not. it's the literal bedrock of the eugenics movement.
also, the arguments harris makes regarding iq relating to black or white outcomes were made in the 19th century but with reference to southern europeans and immigrants of all varieties who were deemed naturally inferior in the same way. being white, or not black, they didn't face the same segregated conditions which only elapsed in both the us and africa in the latter part of the last century. what you're looking at is a generational divide, not a "pure" natural qualification. the "nature" side here presupposes a kind of timeless essence maintained via natural selection. well that's already been proven absurd. just look at how many of those inferior europeans and asians, generations later, went on to succeed in all kinds of sciences and arts. there are at least a hundred or more nobel laureates from countries previously classified as "inferior" according to the same logic that harris and co continue to extend to this day, and i'm not even counting japan even though they were also considered intellectually inferior for a very long time.
i have no problem with the arguments being made because it's just a nature/nurture rehash and harris and the rest most likely don't understand their own bias. are probably very sincere in thinking that they're correct. you can refute them without cancelling them.
intelligence is universal. competency within specific forms of abstract reasoning differs according to many factors. of course there's a genetic component but it has almost nothing to do with race. all an iq test will measure is literacy. that's a terrible way to divine intelligence amongst a group of people which on average, being in the lower socioeconomic gradations, have higher rates of illiteracy in all the "conventional" languages.
what harris and the others tend to do is reprise the social darwinist arguments which were wholly discredited, on scientific merit, decades ago. in fact they were rejected in the 19th century before being rediscovered in the 20th which led in part to eugenics. it is racist whether you comprehend that or not. it's the literal bedrock of the eugenics movement.
also, the arguments harris makes regarding iq relating to black or white outcomes were made in the 19th century but with reference to southern europeans and immigrants of all varieties who were deemed naturally inferior in the same way. being white, or not black, they didn't face the same segregated conditions which only elapsed in both the us and africa in the latter part of the last century. what you're looking at is a generational divide, not a "pure" natural qualification. the "nature" side here presupposes a kind of timeless essence maintained via natural selection. well that's already been proven absurd. just look at how many of those inferior europeans and asians, generations later, went on to succeed in all kinds of sciences and arts. there are at least a hundred or more nobel laureates from countries previously classified as "inferior" according to the same logic that harris and co continue to extend to this day, and i'm not even counting japan even though they were also considered intellectually inferior for a very long time.
i have no problem with the arguments being made because it's just a nature/nurture rehash and harris and the rest most likely don't understand their own bias. are probably very sincere in thinking that they're correct. you can refute them without cancelling them.
Last edited:
Again on Harris, I encourage people to do their own reading in context. Don't watch YouTube videos commentating on bits and pieces. Here's the entire discussion with Ezra Klein: https://www.vox.com/2018/4/9/17210248/sam-harris-ezra-klein-charles-murray-transcript-podcast
I strongly believe, and still do, that Harris could care less about race and IQ outside of sharing a view with a guest while discussing it. As someone that has been personally attacked numerous times for his opinions, he is extremely interested in people he feels are also unfairly treated because of research or views. Justifiably or not. That's the Murray issue. Harris shouldn't have doubled-down, shouldn't have been so defensive imo, but you're still conflating Murray's views (which for the reasons Klein points out have to be taken in context of his greater works) and Harris. As Harris says: "While I have very little interest in IQ and actually zero interest in racial differences in IQ, I invited Murray on my podcast, because he had recently been de-platformed at Middlebury College. He and his host were actually assaulted as they left the auditorium. In my view, this seemed yet another instance of kind of a moral panic that we were seeing on college campuses. It caused me to take an interest in Murray that I hadn’t previously had. I had never read The Bell Curve, because I thought it was just ... It must be just racist trash, because I assumed that where there was all that smoke, there must be fire. I hadn’t paid attention to Murray."
Surely there are actual people that care about this stuff you could target your ire towards - like Murray himself - rather than Sam Harris?
I strongly believe, and still do, that Harris could care less about race and IQ outside of sharing a view with a guest while discussing it. As someone that has been personally attacked numerous times for his opinions, he is extremely interested in people he feels are also unfairly treated because of research or views. Justifiably or not. That's the Murray issue. Harris shouldn't have doubled-down, shouldn't have been so defensive imo, but you're still conflating Murray's views (which for the reasons Klein points out have to be taken in context of his greater works) and Harris. As Harris says: "While I have very little interest in IQ and actually zero interest in racial differences in IQ, I invited Murray on my podcast, because he had recently been de-platformed at Middlebury College. He and his host were actually assaulted as they left the auditorium. In my view, this seemed yet another instance of kind of a moral panic that we were seeing on college campuses. It caused me to take an interest in Murray that I hadn’t previously had. I had never read The Bell Curve, because I thought it was just ... It must be just racist trash, because I assumed that where there was all that smoke, there must be fire. I hadn’t paid attention to Murray."
Surely there are actual people that care about this stuff you could target your ire towards - like Murray himself - rather than Sam Harris?
But that last part of his quote seems to suggest he doesn't think The Bell Curve is racist trash, and that Murray does have a point when it comes to race and IQ ("I hadn't paid attention to Murray")?
This isn't the Murray thread, it's the Harris thread. His actions here are worthy of criticism, and so they are criticized.
Sam Harris:
No, he doesn't think The Bell Curve is racist trash, he thinks it's uncontroversial science. That shouldn't be surprising, after all he agrees with it. Or, that's not completely true, Harris's claims are stronger than those in the book. Unlike Harris, Murray would never claim that it's impossible for the gap to not to be explained by environmental factors.
No, he doesn't think The Bell Curve is racist trash, he thinks it's uncontroversial science. That shouldn't be surprising, after all he agrees with it. Or, that's not completely true, Harris's claims are stronger than those in the book. Unlike Harris, Murray would never claim that it's impossible for the gap to not to be explained by environmental factors.
Uncontroversial science “at the time it was written”. You omitted an important phrase there.
Has anyone on here actually read The Bell Shaped Curve? Or are we forming opinions based on other people’s opinions?
I haven’t read it but listened to the podcast where Murray and Sam Harris discussed it. Which seemed like a reasonable enough discussion to me.
But I definitely can’t rule out the possibility the book/research on which that discussion was based is all a load of bollox. I’d need to read the book (and a whole lot of related scientific literature) to have an informed opinion. So I’ll reserve judgement. But I’m curious if those who have such definitive opinions on the whole subject matter have done their due diligence?
Has anyone on here actually read The Bell Shaped Curve? Or are we forming opinions based on other people’s opinions?
I haven’t read it but listened to the podcast where Murray and Sam Harris discussed it. Which seemed like a reasonable enough discussion to me.
But I definitely can’t rule out the possibility the book/research on which that discussion was based is all a load of bollox. I’d need to read the book (and a whole lot of related scientific literature) to have an informed opinion. So I’ll reserve judgement. But I’m curious if those who have such definitive opinions on the whole subject matter have done their due diligence?
Obviously not given that this is after all the internet, where people get cherry picked content from sources they already agree with, then gleefully scamper into forums like this to score points against the opposition.
Have you read it?
- Human “general intelligence” is a scientifically valid concept.
- IQ tests do a pretty good job of measuring it.
- A person’s IQ is highly predictive of his/her success in life.
- Mean IQ differs across populations (blacks < whites < Asians).
- It isn’t known to what degree differences in IQ are genetically determined, but it seems safe to say that genes play a role (and also safe to say that environment does too).
2 is misleading. "intelligence" must be confined to the constraints imposed by testing conditions. the formal languages and modes of reasoning which the test measures "competence" in. it's true in that it measures a certain kind of competence but false in that it does not measure "general intelligence".
3 is true. this is because success is defined according to economic outcomes and the iq test is oriented toward industrial and post-industrial regimes of epistemic competence. so if you are competent in the languages which the iq test seeks competency in, you will, on average, have better economic outcomes.
4 is misleading. it differs more according class than race and there are stratifications within stratifications here.
5 is complex but mostly an open ended question which backtracks on the innatist position outlined in 1 + 2.
overall it's highly misleading. it's not that there's no truth to it, it's just that the cultural presuppositions are never admitted. they're taken at face value. and that's a problem if you claim a scientific method.
The Bell Curve ? Not a chance, which is why I'm not getting involved in the comments. I have read a couple of Harris' previous books.
Is the not a chance part because you don’t agree with the premise or just not that interested by the subject matter?
If I don’t watch it can I still criticise Peterson?
The subject matter has been done to death over the years, so its not particularly interesting at this point.
Oh yeah, that's a God given right.
If Peterson has taught us anything it's that you absolutely don't need to understand something to comment on it.
Scrap all the fecking Petrie dish cruise ships.
I say we go with Bill Burr's plan of sink random ones and build new ones while we do so no one notices
I have certainly heard JBP say that if there's one things psychologists know how to test for, it's IQ. If you don't agree with the commonly prevailing understanding of IQ then you don't agree with any of the prevailing assumptions about psychology. Kind of thing, trying to paraphrase.
That's working with the presupposition that one of them is definitely plausible. That's not the same as saying one possibility is definitely implausible.
When you only have two possibilities then, yes, it's obviously the same thing. If it can only be A or B, then saying that it's very unlikely to be B is the same as saying it's highly likely to be A.
How do IQ tests work around dyslexia and dyscalculia? It's a timed test and dyslexia and other different ways of understanding information is on a spectrum.
Yeah. I think his problems with health have destroyed his rationality, his mind. I used to like him for the most part, I still do, his passion at least. Feels a bit bad to talk about such things but I feel there is little left there except for eloquence. Eloquence without rationality is just verbal diarrhea. The ideas are lost. I would not put him in the same category as Harris anymore, or any other. Unless they need the money, If I was his daughter I would take him out from the public eye.
I take some of that back. He has 5 mil subs on youtube so of course he/ his family are going to continue no matter how irrational he is. I feel sorry for what he has become, but If I ware him I would do the same and keep milking the cow that made me famous.
Being an ass online for money does seem to work for a lot of folks.
It does. But with him is a bit sad because he is educated. I have no problem with low level educated people getting as much as they can in life, even if it's manipulation (Brexit).
Seeing a man that I know is much better then this devolve in to a more well spoken version of Trump is just sad.
Is he though…?
Yeah keep twisting the knife will you.
Oh, gladly. He’s always been a cowardly little shit, so I’m enjoying his downfall.
I read excerpts from it and then other academic journal articles and research during a section on intelligence in a psych class in uni. Safe to say the Bell Curve arguments are just trash. They rely on a ton of assumptions, which are not sound, and ignore tons of other research that essentially debunk its points. @neverdie post is a good start but I'd even go further and say that IQ is not really a good predictor of "success" in life, depending on how success is defined. I know post-docs in neuroscience that make exponentially less money than really stupid former high school American football players that are "salesmen". People with a certain type of low animal cunning coupled with a lack of empathy can do quite well in life economically without having any sort of above-average general intelligence. And there are plenty of people with high IQ that have struggled in life. One of the highest IQs ever was Marilyn vos Savant and I wouldn't consider her even close to a giant of intellectual thought or "general intelligence". There is so much wrong in the Bell Curve overall that anyone basing anything on its faulty arguments can safely be dismissed.
Also, its just wrong to call it "uncontroversial science" when it was published. Many professors/PhDs tore it apart when it came into the spotlight and it was never really based on sound science. If you ever want to read it for the lulz please buy it from a used bookstore so you aren't contributing any money to a cnut like Murray.
Given the money he is still probably making, not so much of a down anything. Just a disappointment for me, I guess. Guy is doing fine. A testament to the ability of having lots of fans with next to 0 brain function; like Trump.
I’m not talking about his income. The American right will give money to any idiot that parrots what they wanna hear.
It's not just politics. Lots o people despise everything to do with "standard" politics and are willing to get in bed with something new. The one big horror of politics is to think that Trump, Brexit, La Pen, etc are there because of the power of the right; no; they are there because the status que failed the common man and they have become desperate. These idiots presented themselves as the alternative, that is all.
They exist because zilions of people have been left behind in our effort of more and more profit, and less and less for the normal people. It's a long disscusion this but it's always the same: the standard does a shite on people and the extremist take advantage.
Whenever one of these "intellectuals" stops bothering put a veneer of verbose plausible deniability on their bullshit, you get this portion of their fanbase who act as if the pile of bullshit wasn't there all along.
Jordan Peterson has solved climate change with an absolutely meaningless word salad of bollocks.
his answer is to let the free market solve climate change. the "free market" is the reason there's a problem to solve in the first place. the transition needs proper management. sri lanka is a good example of a bad method of implementation. as are the examples of the farmers worldwide and other working class movements which were needlessly put down. i agree with him on that in a very limited sense because if you fully electrify the transport, industrial, and basic heating and housing sectors, including industrial freight by train, you cut out >70% of all current global emissions. that should be the primary target. going after farmers and fishermen, except in terms of quotas to let stock replenish, is a stupid move, unless it's the last move. would be worthwhile to subsidize the fishing sector so they don't fish btw for a period of a few years to let it rebound.
also
green new deal logic is bad because it doesn't address the necessities of the most impoverished. that's his thesis. his answer is to turn to free market neoliberalism which over forty years has been the cause of all this poverty and inequality. the man does not give a feck about poor people, he just doesn't like the idea of doing something necessary for the environment. also, new deal type plans will benefit the poorest if done correctly because they will include massive jobs programs centred around re-industrialization and construction as well as engineering.
all a green new deal implies is that the energy which drives the economy is sourced from solar, hydro, geothermal, hydrogen, or other types of renewable. it isn't even an ideological distinction. it's a technological distinction. what freedoms do you lose by having an economy in which the productive mode is not reliant upon fossil fuels? the freedom to pollute? if you fully electrify industrial capacity, transport, and buildings, residential and commercial, and do it through hyrbid forms of renewable energy, which will include a mass manufacturing operation centred around the technologies required to generate said electric capacity, then you've solved the problem. people making a culture war out of this are driven by self interest. it isn't an ideological problem. it's no more ideological than the transition from horse and cart to combustion engine. it's the next step and it's entirely logical. even if there wasn't a climate crisis, it would still make sense in technological and economic terms.
he's not an economist. he's not a climate scientist. he's a contrarian, multi millionaire, who now apparently gets paid to talk down to "elites". he is, in short, a cnut.
Last edited:
You can accuse him of verbosity, and fair enough that's a matter of opinion - I personally love his linguistic style, I think it's a stylistic choice, it's an art form, nobody criticizes a painter for using too many strokes, but our primary interest is football where as in all practical things, economy of movement is paramount.
But the essence of what he's saying is hard to argue against. Make our society more democratic, and the will of the people will drive the push toward environmental responsibility. Or perhaps he's giving his readers a platform to arrive at their own conclusions. Using the above you can either conclude that our society isn't democratic enough, or, it is reasonably democratic, people just don't care enough about climate change. The latter is not hard to believe, how many people were and still are Covid responsible? Hard to make the assumption a person cares about the life of a person on the other side of the world in some 3rd world country when they don't seem to care about the health of the person sat across from them on the bus.
When you're writing a work of fiction or similar, sure. But the problem here is that he says a lot of words without really saying anything of meaning. He's a gobshite who fools people with his overly complicated (and nonsensical) way of speaking. Which is funny, since one of his principles is "be precise in your speech".