# Interesting podcast conversation between Sam Harris and Charles Murray (of "Bell Curve" fame) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 23, 2017, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052 "2017-04-23T09:21:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2017, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/461 "2017-04-30T22:23:04Z")
When this thread started, I predicted that it would engender no new debate and reveal no new facts and no new ways of thinking, that it would go over the same tired arguments racists have been making for decades to justify their racism. Looks like I was right. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2017, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/462 "2017-04-30T22:33:13Z")
> [@mr.jp](#): > > I wonder what conclusion you intended to find in your encounters with statisticians. Wonder away. Can you point to a genuine statistician who does not criticize Murray for his bad math? Murray’s expected result is no secret. Before The Bell Curve he had already made statements that promoted the outcome that he claimed to have “discovered” when writing the book. If a person declares that he is in favor of a particular social program, then writes a book filled with bad math and bad logic that comes to the conclusion that supports his desired social program, one would need to be incredibly naive to think that that was mere coincidence. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2017, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/463 "2017-04-30T22:33:39Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > When this thread started, I predicted that it would engender no new debate and reveal no new facts and no new ways of thinking, that it would go over the same tired arguments racists have been making for decades to justify their racism. > > Looks like I was right. I did call it too, pages ago. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2017, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/464 "2017-04-30T22:35:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I did call it too, pages ago. I’ll take your word for it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2017, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/465 "2017-04-30T22:40:00Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > EXPECT. Expect the world to be. And what do you expect? differences? identical average results between populations? or the null/coward move, you can’t say one way or another when it comes to any genetic influences. I do not expect the world to take any particular form. I tend to prefer to find evidence that supports conclusions rather than creating imaginary scenarios that have nothing but wishes (or “expectations”) upon which to build. I would guess that if we gave the entire world an IQ test and then chopped the world up into various groups, none of the groups would have scores identical to other groups. However, since IQ test have not been shown to measure anything other than the ability to take IQ tests, and the groups into which the world would be divided would have been utterly arbitrary, (we could always restructure the groups to get different group-to-group comparisons), the results would have no meaning. ---
**Author:** ![CatandMouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c89c15/32.png) [@CatandMouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CatandMouse)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2017, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/466 "2017-04-30T22:46:16Z")
> [@mr.jp](#): > > 10 pages of discussion later: Sorry, I’m late for the party. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2017, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/467 "2017-04-30T22:51:04Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > I’ll take your word for it. It was when I complained to the OP that he may had listen to the pod cast, but I noted that he should had demonstrated that he had understood it. Telling us then what was new or different coming from Murray this time. So, yep, nothing new there. I still think the OP is a jerk as his intention was to make others waste their time with already old excuses from Murray that only avoided the fact that Murray decided to not face peer review and to not explain properly to the experts that did counter his research… in peer review journals even. As noted, doing replies by podcast only shows how far away from science Murray is. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2017, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/468 "2017-04-30T23:19:49Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I do not expect the world to take any particular form. I tend to prefer to find evidence that supports conclusions rather than creating imaginary scenarios that have nothing but wishes (or “expectations”) upon which to build. > > I would guess that if we gave the entire world an IQ test and then chopped the world up into various groups, none of the groups would have scores identical to other groups. However, since IQ test have not been shown to measure anything other than the ability to take IQ tests, and the groups into which the world would be divided would have been utterly arbitrary, (we could always restructure the groups to get different group-to-group comparisons), the results would have no meaning. Tell that to millions of kids struggling in a calculus class while some of their peers find the subject much easier to grasp and easier to solve problems with. Differences in aptitude matter in life asd makes learning easier or harder compared to others and has a threshold effect where people below a certain level have a much harder time understanding and doing the work. You could substitute any word you wish for it, but people are not all equally intelligent, and that differential is increasingly consequential in life outcomes. That is why this matters. If there are group differences in average aptitude based in part on genetic differences, there are two liberal policy consequences. 1. Use redistribution to minimize the downside effects of not winning the genetic lottery in the modern world. The legitimacy of a libertarian fantasy of a more pure meritocracy in all things is undercut. 2. We need to put machine learning to work on teasing out the gene combinations that lead to the gaps in average intelligence between groups so we can work to minimize the gaps that arose from the natural world. I am SUCH a racist !!! I sometimes shock myself I can go out in public without a Klan robes or SS regalia. Meanwhile, dumb liberals who want to cherry pick reality will keep on presuming the default assumption that their egalitarian model is built into nature itself. We just need to tweak the environment, end discrimination and racism, insert typical boiler plate response here. Internal assumptions preserved. People helped? Zero. But at least your beliefs and assumptions were kept in tact. Doing good in the world is secondary. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2017, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/469 "2017-04-30T23:35:26Z")
“I’m not a racist, I just think that hypothetical differences in average gene frequencies between two billion-plus member populations justify treating particular black kids differently in calculus class.” This stupidity wouldn’t even be accepted at the level of _immediate family_. Imagine a math teacher telling you that she isn’t going to waste time on Johnny because his Dad was a dolt. But somehow, as if by magic, when you align it with white supremacy, it makes perfect sense to some people. But they’re totally not racists. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2017, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/470 "2017-04-30T23:38:54Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > Meanwhile, dumb liberals who want to cherry pick reality will keep on presuming the default assumption that their egalitarian model is built into nature itself. We just need to tweak the environment, end discrimination and racism, insert typical boiler plate response here. > > Internal assumptions preserved. People helped? Zero. But at least your beliefs and assumptions were kept in tact. Doing good in the world is secondary. Just keep fucking that [del]chicken[/del] ignorance. As I said you are useful to show others what to avoid. In this case you are denying also that genes tell us that the differences are few, and there are no clear differences among the genes of different “races” when intelligence is the issue, there are other reasons besides genes why there are differences and historically speaking\*\* it was the assumptions that the empires and nations had in the past the ones that caused a lot of harm.\*\* The myth of race, debunked in 3 minutes > [@](#): > > American’s of European descent eagerly bought into this type of thinking around the same time. Some historians have said the idea that there are different races helped them resolve the contradiction between a natural right to freedom and the fact of slavery. If whites were their own distinct category, then they could feel a lot better about denying freedom to people who they labeled black and decided were fundamentally different. > > But as political priorities change, definitions of race in America adjust right along with them. For example, if were of Mexican birth or ancestry in the United States in 1929, you were considered white. Then, the 1930 census changed that to non-white to limit immigration. Later, when the US needed to increase its labor force during World War II, these people were switched back to white. > > And what it took to be “black” once varied so widely throughout the country, from one quarter, to one sixteenth, to the infamous “One drop” of African ancestry, that people could actually change races just by crossing state lines. Then, suddenly, in 2000, the government decided that Americans could be more than one race and added a multi-racial category to the census. This has left many Americans scratching their heads when it comes to selecting who they are. As many as 6.2% of census respondents selected “Some other race” in the 2010 survey. > > The idea that someone might look one way, and identify another way, or that they might be really hard to place in a racial category, is not new. This is why there was a public debate about whether MSNBC’s Karen Finney could say she was black, or how we can’t even agree on the racial label assigned to the President of the United States. > > Of course many people feel their racial identity is very clear and very permanent, but the fact that some people have changed theirs, and that nobody can really argue with them, shows how shaky the very idea of race is. This is all because there isn’t a race chromosome in our DNA that people can point to. It simply doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2017, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/471 "2017-04-30T23:49:15Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > Tell that to millions of kids struggling in a calculus class while some of their peers find the subject much easier to grasp and easier to solve problems with. Differences in aptitude matter in life asd makes learning easier or harder compared to others and has a threshold effect where people below a certain level have a much harder time understanding and doing the work. > > You could substitute any word you wish for it, but people are not all equally intelligent, and that differential is increasingly consequential in life outcomes. That is why this matters. If there are group differences in average aptitude based in part on genetic differences, there are two liberal policy consequences. So, you are just hunkering down on the straw man you have created? I never said that all people had equal intelligence and posting as if I had made that argument simply demonstrates that you have a need for me to make it because your point fails if I have not made that argument. Either provide serious evidence, (not Murray’s and Herrnstein’s dishonest claims, flawed logic, and seriously bad math), of an actual genetic component to real intelligence, (rather than IQ scores), at the level of groups that can be explicitly identified without playing games to get different people into or out of the apparent groups, and we can discuss the issue. Attacking positions I do not hold under the straw man accusation of a “liberal” mindset, with no actual evidence of your claims, fails to be persuasive. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2017, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/472 "2017-04-30T23:54:11Z")
The fact that some people are more intelligent than others is not in dispute. The fact that intelligence is a heritable trait is not in dispute. The dispute is that this factor lies along racial lines. And, yes, that is what you are arguing. Because, otherwise, there is no objection from liberals. No one says you can’t group people by intelligence and teach them differently, and that is actually what the liberal methods of teaching actually do. The objection arises when you presume it is racial, which is something you have to prove. You don’t get to come up with the hypothesis and then come up with the solution and get mad at people who don’t accept the solution because they don’t accept the hypothesis. It’s up to you to prove it. Problem is, the available evidence goes the other direction. But you keep on wanting to hold onto your hypothesis instead of updating it. That’s what gets you labeled racist. You’re the one looking at gaps in races. You can’t say that it’s not about races for you. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/473 "2017-05-01T01:04:46Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The fact that some people are more intelligent than others is not in dispute. The fact that intelligence is a heritable trait is not in dispute. The dispute is that this factor lies along racial lines. It’s not explicitly on racial lines, race is a blurred group designation, genes that have a greater frequency in one race can still appear in other races. But there is a great deal of objection to the pretty docile leaps of logic that if intelligence is partly based on genetics, and the genes responsible for differences between individuals are heritable, that it is LIKELY that there will be different mixes in genes between not JUST individuals, but also populations over time. If different gene mixes that contribute to intelligence in individuals is accepted, why would different frequencies of gene mixes that contribute to intelligence in different populations produce SOME variance between populations? > [@](#): > > And, yes, that is what you are arguing. Because, otherwise, there is no objection from liberals. No one says you can’t group people by intelligence and teach them differently, and that is actually what the liberal methods of teaching actually do. > > The objection arises when you presume it is racial, which is something you have to prove. You don’t get to come up with the hypothesis and then come up with the solution and get mad at people who don’t accept the solution because they don’t accept the hypothesis. It’s up to you to prove it. I presume that since different “races” have a different average frequency of alleles in different areas, and since some of those are the kinds of alleles that contribute to intelligence, that we’d expect to see some variance between populations. Note, these presumptions on my part are BEFORE we even look at any data. You still need to confirm actual differences in aptitude and results in the real world to see whether this is real or not, or what kinds of magnitudes of differences to expect, or which populations of people have higher or lower average scores on whatever metric you choose, but this general view is a mode of thinking I find completely reasonable, and I have yet to hear of a credible argument as to why it is flawed. > [@](#): > > **Problem is, the available evidence goes the other direction.** But you keep on wanting to hold onto your hypothesis instead of updating it. That’s what gets you labeled racist. That is very much contested. The gaps have not closed between races, or even groups within the same race (I keep stressing this is not explicitly about race, but that is what people get caught up with). When people are given iq tests, you get different results in average scores based on race. To me, that is credible evidence that some of the difference is based on different characteristics of different groups. And here is the most radical thing of all. I do not take a HATCHET to the idea that some of that difference is genetic. I go out on a ledge and assume that the differences in average scores between groups are probably a mix of different genes and different environmental factors. People like you and others? WE CAN’T SAY IT’S GENES !!! But we CAN say it’s environment, and hype that up as the ONLY credible response worth assuming. If you can’t see the massive bullshit in that mode of thought, you are lost just like the others. And I and others are labeled racist because people have SHIT standards of what a racist is, and they do not know how to read definitions. I do not consider ones intelligence level a metric of someone being a \*superior \*human being. If YOU and others do, then you WOULD be a racist the MOMENT you thought there were group differences in IQ. But thinking that there are group differences based on the fuzzy group boundaries defined by “race” does not make someone a racist if you do not attach notions of superiority to those metrics. That SHIT standard makes zero distinction between people like Murray and white nationalists or white separatists or nazis or klansmen. The alt right uses the assumption of group differences to argue to keep people out from certain parts of the world they consider lower iq populations. This coupled to their notions that lower iq = inferior makes THOSE types true racists. Not that they stop there, they think asians have slightly higher iqs, based in part on genetics, but they still don’t want asians over here. They just want a white ethno state because they think they are the shit and only want to be around other white people. THOSE are racists. But on this topic definitions have little meaning. This is emotional for many of you. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/474 "2017-05-01T01:33:38Z")
Oh, stop being so emo… ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/475 "2017-05-01T03:41:26Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > When this thread started, I predicted that it would engender no new debate and reveal no new facts and no new ways of thinking, that it would go over the same tired arguments racists have been making for decades to justify their racism. > > Looks like I was right. If that is the case it’s largely due of the use of the term _racist_ as a thought terminating slur. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/476 "2017-05-01T04:04:43Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > If that is the case it’s largely due of the use of the term _racist_ as a thought terminating slur. Shut up, you stupid racist. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/477 "2017-05-01T04:29:22Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > It’s not explicitly on racial lines, race is a blurred group designation, genes that have a greater frequency in one race can still appear in other races. > > But there is a great deal of objection to the pretty docile leaps of logic that if intelligence is partly based on genetics, and the genes responsible for differences between individuals are heritable, that it is LIKELY that there will be different mixes in genes between not JUST individuals, but also populations over time. > > If different gene mixes that contribute to intelligence in individuals is accepted, why would different frequencies of gene mixes that contribute to intelligence in different populations produce SOME variance between populations? > > I presume that since different “races” have a different average frequency of alleles in different areas, and since some of those are the kinds of alleles that contribute to intelligence, that we’d expect to see some variance between populations. > > Note, these presumptions on my part are BEFORE we even look at any data. You still need to confirm actual differences in aptitude and results in the real world to see whether this is real or not, or what kinds of magnitudes of differences to expect, or which populations of people have higher or lower average scores on whatever metric you choose, but this general view is a mode of thinking I find completely reasonable, and I have yet to hear of a credible argument as to why it is flawed. > > That is very much contested. The gaps have not closed between races, or even groups within the same race (I keep stressing this is not explicitly about race, but that is what people get caught up with). When people are given iq tests, you get different results in average scores based on race. To me, that is credible evidence that some of the difference is based on different characteristics of different groups. And here is the most radical thing of all. I do not take a HATCHET to the idea that some of that difference is genetic. I go out on a ledge and assume that the differences in average scores between groups are probably a mix of different genes and different environmental factors. > > People like you and others? WE CAN’T SAY IT’S GENES !!! But we CAN say it’s environment, and hype that up as the ONLY credible response worth assuming. > > If you can’t see the massive bullshit in that mode of thought, you are lost just like the others. > > And I and others are labeled racist because people have SHIT standards of what a racist is, and they do not know how to read definitions. > > I do not consider ones intelligence level a metric of someone being a \*superior \*human being. If YOU and others do, then you WOULD be a racist the MOMENT you thought there were group differences in IQ. But thinking that there are group differences based on the fuzzy group boundaries defined by “race” does not make someone a racist if you do not attach notions of superiority to those metrics. > > That SHIT standard makes zero distinction between people like Murray and white nationalists or white separatists or nazis or klansmen. > The alt right uses the assumption of group differences to argue to keep people out from certain parts of the world they consider lower iq populations. This coupled to their notions that lower iq = inferior makes THOSE types true racists. Not that they stop there, they think asians have slightly higher iqs, based in part on genetics, but they still don’t want asians over here. They just want a white ethno state because they think they are the shit and only want to be around other white people. THOSE are racists. > > But on this topic definitions have little meaning. This is emotional for many of you. That straw man has no hope of survival under such an onslaught! Well done! ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/478 "2017-05-01T04:55:27Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Shut up, you stupid racist. QED ---
**Author:** ![CatandMouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c89c15/32.png) [@CatandMouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CatandMouse)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/479 "2017-05-01T05:03:50Z")
I take it ole Salvor has never watched _ **Hidden Figures** _. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2017, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/480 "2017-05-01T11:42:24Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That straw man has no hope of survival under such an onslaught! Well done! Do you really read his posts? I look at the wall of text and just get tired. Relatedly, have you noticed that a wall of text in a racist thread is either a racist’s post or **Gigobuster** ’s? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=25)