# 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:** 32
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2017, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/621 "2017-05-23T13:01:54Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Besides showing again your jerkish inability to type a bit of what Harris or others said, **tomndeb** said “if”. You are not grasping basic tings. I shouldn’t even ask, but…what the actual fuck are you gibbering about? Jesus. ---
**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 23, 2017, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/622 "2017-05-23T13:14:32Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I shouldn’t even ask, but…what the actual fuck are you gibbering about? Jesus. Not surprised that you are projecting your inability to grasp things on others; again, you are ignoring that tomndebb said “if Harris used this example”. Indeed that is an option. So he is therefore now not making a point against Harris, but your clarification then makes the idiocy of using that example against peer review to not go to Harris, but to you. ---
**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 23, 2017, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/623 "2017-05-23T14:20:45Z")
> [@Malleus\_Incus\_Stapes](#): > > And here I was sure **SlackerInc** would be posting today because of [this](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/science/52-genes-human-intelligence.html?action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront). Interesting article. It notes that those genes are just a very small fraction of an unknown number that affect intelligence, but if this is confirmed, it will probably be the first of many such discoveries. And eventually someone will do population studies and find out if prevalence for these genes varies by population, and we’ll have real data instead of Rushton/Lynn/Murray-style ass-derived conclusions to look at for questions like this. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2017, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/624 "2017-05-23T16:18:05Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Interesting article. It notes that those genes are just a very small fraction of an unknown number that affect intelligence, but if this is confirmed, it will probably be the first of many such discoveries. And eventually someone will do population studies and find out if prevalence for these genes varies by population, and we’ll have real data instead of Rushton/Lynn/Murray-style ass-derived conclusions to look at for questions like this. I have little doubt that if we comprehensively compared genotypes to studies of intelligence and other forms of mental acuity, we could probably identify not only some alleles that indicate a propensity for intelligence in one form or another, but we would also identify different demographic groups with a propensity for higher or lower academic ability. Whether those genetic difference have a greater or lessor impact than upbringing and environment would still be an unanswered question (IMHO, the majority of one’s physical and mental well being is determined by nutrition and social interaction at very young ages.). And I am of the firm belief that if such a comprehensive study were to be carried out, there would be no overall correlation found between intelligence and skin pigment. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2017, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/625 "2017-05-23T17:48:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not surprised that you are projecting your inability to grasp things on others; again, you are ignoring that tomndebb said “if Harris used this example”. Indeed that is an option. :smack: I did not ignore the “if”: it was the focus of my point. I was just trying to note that instead of speculating on what Sam was up to, he/she/they could just listen to the short segment and then offer an informed judgment. ---
**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 23, 2017, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/626 "2017-05-23T19:04:43Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > :smack: > > I did not ignore the “if”: it was the focus of my point. I was just trying to note that instead of speculating on what Sam was up to, he/she/they could just listen to the short segment and then offer an informed judgment. Not my problem that you are looking more foolish here, the point that you are missing is that \*\*tomndebb \*\*had one option that can be disregarded indeed: what the “if” implied, so that choice is gone: we know now that \*\*Sam did not say that foolish thing about peer review. \*\* The other option is the one you are trying to tap dance furiously away and you are not getting out of it: It was \*\*you \*\* then who brought forward that dumb attempt at disparaging peer review, just admit you did not think that properly. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2017, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/627 "2017-05-23T20:03:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not my problem that you are looking more foolish here, the point that you are missing is that \*\*tomndebb \*\*had one option that can be disregarded indeed: what the “if” implied, so that choice is gone: we know now that \*\*Sam did not say that foolish thing about peer review. > \*\* > The other option is the one you are trying to tap dance furiously away and you are not getting out of it: It was \*\*you \*\* then who brought forward that dumb attempt at disparaging peer review, just admit you did not think that properly. Hoo boy. :rolleyes: I’m not tap dancing away from anything: you lost the plot long ago. Your great revelation, that it was I and not Sam who used the example to disparage peer review, is nothing I have ever denied. My only point – and I really don’t know why you can’t understand this — is that **tomndebb** would not have had to issue a conditional statement starting with i"if", had they just listened for a few minutes to learn for themselves what Sam said, without my having to report on it. Sheesh. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2017, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/628 "2017-05-23T20:09:13Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Hoo boy. :rolleyes: > > I’m not tap dancing away from anything: you lost the plot long ago. > > Your great revelation, that it was I and not Sam who used the example to disparage peer review, is nothing I have ever denied. My only point – and I really don’t know why you can’t understand this — is that **tomndebb** would not have had to issue a conditional statement starting with i"if", had they just listened for a few minutes to learn for themselves what Sam said, without my having to report on it. Sheesh. And if you had spent a few minutes providing an accurate description of what it is that you are talking about, instead of asking others to do homework in order to ferret out the meaning of your posts, you wouldn’t need to have this point of yours. Everyone understands your point, that you want us to listen to this podcast. You don’t get the point that we don’t want to. ---
**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 23, 2017, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/629 "2017-05-23T20:12:36Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Hoo boy. :rolleyes: > > I’m not tap dancing away from anything: you lost the plot long ago. > > Your great revelation, that it was I and not Sam who used the example to disparage peer review, is nothing I have ever denied. My only point – and I really don’t know why you can’t understand this — is that **tomndebb** would not have had to issue a conditional statement starting with i"if", had they just listened for a few minutes to learn for themselves what Sam said, without my having to report on it. Sheesh. Your avoidance of your need to take back your sorry point about peer review is duly noted. And that is what I’m pointing at, when you plant idiotic seeds of doubt about peer review it shows who you really are. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2017, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/630 "2017-05-23T21:16:07Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Everyone understands your point, that you want us to listen to this podcast. You don’t get the point that we don’t want to. You don’t get the point that I don’t give a fuck whether you listen to it or not. I do wish you would refrain from commenting on it if you don’t listen, but it’s a free country. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2017, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/631 "2017-05-23T21:28:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that is what I’m pointing at, when you plant idiotic seeds of doubt about peer review it shows who you really are. Are [TIME](https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/81388/is-the-peer-review-process-for-scientific-papers-broken/%3Fsource%3Ddam) and [Vox](https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/11/29/13770988/peer-review-bias-authors) also “planting idiotic seeds of doubt”? :dubious: ---
**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 23, 2017, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/632 "2017-05-23T22:08:06Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Are [TIME](https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/81388/is-the-peer-review-process-for-scientific-papers-broken/%3Fsource%3Ddam) and [Vox](https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/11/29/13770988/peer-review-bias-authors) also “planting idiotic seeds of doubt”? :dubious: If you knew what I have found and posted many times before in the SDMB regarding climate change you would know that the popular press is not a good place to get science information. > **[Science Isn’t Broken](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/)** > > If you follow the headlines, your confidence in science may have taken a hit lately. Peer review? More like self-review. An investigation in November uncovered a scam in which researchers were rubber-stamping their own work, circumventing peer review... > [@](#): > > if you follow the headlines, your confidence in science may have taken a hit lately. Peer review? More like self-review. An investigation in November uncovered a scam in which researchers were rubber-stamping their own work, circumventing peer review at five high-profile publishers. Scientific journals? Not exactly a badge of legitimacy, given that the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology recently accepted for publication a paper titled “Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List,” whose text was nothing more than those seven words, repeated over and over for 10 pages. Two other journals allowed an engineer posing as Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel to publish a paper, “Fuzzy, Homogeneous Configurations.” Revolutionary findings? Possibly fabricated. In May, a couple of University of California, Berkeley, grad students discovered irregularities in Michael LaCour’s influential paper suggesting that an in-person conversation with a gay person could change how people felt about same-sex marriage. The journal Science retracted the paper shortly after, when LaCour’s co-author could find no record of the data. > > Taken together, headlines like these might suggest that science is a shady enterprise that spits out a bunch of dressed-up nonsense. But I’ve spent months investigating the problems hounding science, and I’ve learned that the headline-grabbing cases of misconduct and fraud are mere distractions. **The state of our science is strong** , but it’s plagued by a universal problem: Science is hard — really fucking hard. In other discussions about peer review I have seen that a lot of the complains do come from the medical field, and indeed a lot of the examples the article touch are related to it. In any case peer review is not the end of the process, but it magnifies the reach of an idea among researchers. As noted many times, Murray and others are running away from peer review, and that is a big clue that what they peddle is not gonna be accepted until he follows the path. So yes, there are issues with peer review, but also when I remember the controversies that took place in climate science when deniers managed to publish some papers tells me that one important feature of peer review is that it also uncovers the bullshit journals that allowed trash to be published. So yes, your point was idiotic. ---
**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:** [June 15, 2017, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/633 "2017-06-15T16:25:55Z")
New takedown of Murray/Harris: > **[There’s still no good reason to believe black-white IQ differences are due to...](https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/15/15797120/race-black-white-iq-response-critics)** > > Our response to criticisms. They make the same point I do about the Flynn effect, and have the same conclusion – it’s much too early to make any conclusion at all about whether genetics are involved in average test score disparities. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/634 "2017-06-15T20:54:58Z")
Shit, I was just about to start a thread based on a subsequent Sam Harris podcast but that will have to wait. > [@](#): > > And because different racial groups differ genetically, to any degree, and because most of what we care about in ourselves — intelligence included — … also has some genetic underpinnings — for many of these traits we’re talking about something like 50 percent — it would be very, very surprising if everything we cared about was tuned to the exact same population average in every racial group. There’s just virtually no way that’s going to be true. So based purely on biological consideration, we should expect that for any variable, there will be differences in the average, its average level, across racial groups that differ genetically to some degree. [55:12] They quote Sam’s point here, one which I find pretty much irrefutable, but then never meaningfully address it. > [@](#): > > Does adoption count as “jack[ing] up artificially the environment”? In our original post, we pointed out that adoption from a poor home to a well-off home is associated with a 12- to 18-point gain in IQ. Other studies have come up with slightly lower figures, but the general direction of the finding is beyond dispute. Here again we see the slippery cherry picking with only mentioning the environmental correlation and not the biological one which is even stronger. > [@](#): > > we think there is, in fact, good reason to believe that improving children’s environments will improve their cognitive skills. Murray may dispute this but I don’t think Sam would. > [@](#): > > Still, in both the Snyderman and Rothman book and in the more recent survey, more than half of respondents selected one of two response categories that included zero (one option was “0 percent of [black-white] differences due to genes” and the other was “0-40 percent of differences due to genes”). This is just rank sophistry. > [@](#): > > The IQs of those adopted children are substantially higher than they would have been if they had been raised by their biological parents. This was in a section far down from the first mention of adoption in which they finally admit the biological parents mattered more. But even this supposed rebuttal only really says that these adoptive children’s parents could have given them shitty genes and shitty parenting but, due to giving them up for adoption, only gave them the former. > [@](#): > > That finding suggests that low-income children have fewer opportunities for their genetic potential to flourish. No shit. Even Murray did not dispute this. He used the analogy of corn plants grown in a desert, for instance. > [@](#): > > This is important, because it undermines the hereditarian argument that twin studies show family environment doesn’t matter for IQ Egregious straw man. Total bullshit. > [@](#): > > At the same time, our observation — that statistical geneticists could not publish a study that only controlled for self-identified race rather than genetic ancestry as measured from DNA — is certainly true. Controlling for multiple dimensions of ancestry derived from genome-wide genotyping is standard practice in genetic research. This looks like a valid point. So let’s see the studies based on this standard practice! > [@](#): > > I suspect that Khan’s reflexive criticism comes from a place of exasperation with the idea, still in circulation among some social scientists, that race is “just” a social construct or that the racial categories used in the US today are entirely meaningless. I am sympathetic to this objection to pure social constructivism, and we said in our post that lay notions of race are not wrong or useless. Self-reported racial categories, coarse as they are, also generally reflect underlying differences in genetic ancestry. How many of those subscribed to this thread choked on this part after cheering everything up to this point ? > [@](#): > > The effort to divide Europe’s inhabitants by “blood” is crude, but in one respect, Brigham wasn’t wrong — with modern technology, you could certainly differentiate a person with English ancestry from a person with Italian ancestry. But sometime in the past century, we stopped conceptualizing the differences between the English and the Italians in terms of race. We elevate to the status of “race” the distinctions that are our current political and cultural preoccupations, while eliding others. Another fair point. I would be very glad for them to talk more specifically about the English versus the Spanish versus the Slavs versus the Congolese, etc. > [@](#): > > If you were persuaded by Murray and Harris’s conclusion that the black-white IQ gap is partially genetic, but uncomfortable with the idea that the same kind of thinking might apply to the personality traits of Jews, I have one question: Why? Couldn’t there just as easily be a science of whether Jews are genetically “tuned to” (Harris’s phrase) different levels of materialism than gentiles? > > On the other hand, if you no longer believe this old anti-Semitic trope, is it because some scientific study has been conducted showing that it is false? And if the problem is simply that we haven’t run the studies, why shouldn’t we? Materialism is an important trait in individuals, and plausibly could be an important difference between groups. (Certainly the history of the Jewish people attests to the fact that it has been considered important in groups!) But the horrific recent history of false hypotheses about innate Jewish behavior helps us see how scientifically empty and morally bankrupt such ideas really are. This was apparently intended to be a reductio ad absurdem which would paralyze me with self-contradiction. But it didn’t read that way to me. I don’t have any particular objection to the hypothetical research described. ---
**Author:** ![nachtmusick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ac91a4/32.png) [@nachtmusick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nachtmusick)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/635 "2017-06-18T09:54:38Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > New takedown of Murray/Harris: > > [There’s still no good reason to believe black-white IQ differences are due to genes - Vox](https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/15/15797120/race-black-white-iq-response-critics) > > They make the same point I do about the Flynn effect, and have the same conclusion – it’s much too early to make any conclusion at all about whether genetics are involved in average test score disparities. After 20 years it is still much too early. ---
**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:** [June 18, 2017, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/636 "2017-06-18T16:25:15Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > How many of those subscribed to this thread choked on this part after cheering everything up to this point ? Well, thanks a lot for showing all that you are willfully ignoring that that is not the issue that many do have a beef with Murray and Harris. Here is a hint: there are the items that **iiandyiiii** me and others have made a point of. And even the professors in the cite made. As it is the point I made that even the writers of the piece **iiandyiiii** cited also noticed how shifty Harris is, I will have to say that the criticism stands: Harris, as well as Murray, sets so many scape hatches that his ship sinks with little help. Or IOW, might as well consider him as not having an opinion that is meaningful. ---
**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:** [June 18, 2017, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/637 "2017-06-18T19:45:21Z")
My criticisms of Harris (and Murray, though my estimates of his intelligence are far lower than of Harris, and thus I hold him to a much lower standard) still stand, and aren’t refuted by anything you’ve posted, **SlackerInc** that I have seen. Considering how highly you seem to think of his intelligence, you should also hold him to a high standard on issues like this that are so closely tied to the worst oppression and brutality in American history, and he failed to offer any challenge at all to Murray’s bullshit (instead focusing on a few shreds of at least slightly accurate science that Murray hangs his hat on). Harris should be ashamed of himself. Doesn’t mean he’s evil, or stupid, but he still fucked up big time, and I imagine his ego is preventing himself from seeing it and trying to make up for it. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/638 "2017-06-18T23:39:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > My criticisms of Harris (and Murray, though my estimates of his intelligence are far lower than of Harris, and thus I hold him to a much lower standard) still stand, and aren’t refuted by anything you’ve posted, **SlackerInc** that I have seen. Considering how highly you seem to think of his intelligence, you should also hold him to a high standard on issues like this that are so closely tied to the worst oppression and brutality in American history, and he failed to offer any challenge at all to Murray’s bullshit (instead focusing on a few shreds of at least slightly accurate science that Murray hangs his hat on). Harris should be ashamed of himself. Doesn’t mean he’s evil, or stupid, but he still fucked up big time, and I imagine his ego is preventing himself from seeing it and trying to make up for it. Your perseverance here has really been something to behold. As for me, I’ve been down that road (both arguing with Bell Curve enthusiasts and trying to talk sense into **SlackerInc.** ) It’s a hazardous path you travel. Godspeed. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2017, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/639 "2017-06-18T23:46:23Z")
I think it’s interesting how people tried to ding me for not being specific enough earlier. Then in response to these Vox pieces, I have gotten extremely specific, and no one has any specific response. Simply stating that none of my logical points, or evidence I have provided (with citations) refute anything, is not an argument. ---
**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:** [June 18, 2017, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/640 "2017-06-18T23:51:00Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I think it’s interesting how people tried to ding me for not being specific enough earlier. Then in response to these Vox pieces, I have gotten extremely specific, and no one has any specific response. Simply stating that none of my logical points, or evidence I have provided (with citations) refute anything, is not an argument. I didn’t address your specific responses because they didn’t have anything to do with my specific criticism of Harris and Murray. I did link to that other criticism (though I only mentioned the Flynn effect point and the conclusion, neither of which you responded to), and I appreciate that you took the time to address it, but my earlier specific criticism of Harris and Murray stands. The charitable interpretation, IMO, is that Harris is smart enough to realize he should have challenged Murray, but his ego prevents him from seeing it. The uncharitable interpretation is that he isn’t as smart as he (and you) thinks he is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=33)