# 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:** 41
**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 1, 2018, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/801 "2018-04-01T04:41:27Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > My source was Scientific American: > > [Tiny Genetic Differences between Humans and Other Primates Pervade the Genome | Scientific American](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tiny-genetic-differences-between-humans-and-other-primates-pervade-the-genome/) AFAIK, that is according to some estimates, not all agree on that number. Still then, the attempt at making it insignificant is misleading: > [@](#): > > For example, comparing the 33 percent of our genome that codes for proteins with our relatives’ genomes reveals that although the sum total of our genetic differences is small, the individual differences pervade the genome, affecting each of our chromosomes in numerous ways. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2018, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/802 "2018-04-01T04:54:43Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > This basically destroys the genetic monocausal position as a determinant of IQ. Giant strawman alert! Who has argued for the genetic monocausal position? Certainly not I. And IIRC, on the podcast Sam credited genes for something like 50-80%. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ---
**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 1, 2018, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/803 "2018-04-01T04:57:07Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Giant strawman alert! Who has argued for the genetic monocausal position? Certainly not I. And IIRC, on the podcast Sam credited genes for something like 50-80%. Yes. But the problem has been that Sam has not acknowledged yet how he was played by Murray and his ilk. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/804 "2018-04-01T05:42:26Z")
> **[Opinion | How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’ (Published 2018)](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html)** > > If scientists avoid discussing the topic candidly, racist theories will fill the vacuum. Interesting how accurate this article is with regards to people’s motivations for arguing a particular point of view in such vehement fashion. It’s not a debate. It’s a defense against heresy. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2018, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/805 "2018-04-01T06:25:36Z")
Thought-provoking op-ed! Thanks for sharing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ---
**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 1, 2018, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/806 "2018-04-01T06:39:09Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html) > > Interesting how accurate this article is with regards to people’s motivations for arguing a particular point of view in such vehement fashion. It’s not a debate. It’s a defense against heresy. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > Thought-provoking op-ed! Thanks for sharing. > Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Well, thanks for showing that you both missed the main point, that racists are bound to misuse the research. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/807 "2018-04-01T07:18:50Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Giant strawman alert! Who has argued for the genetic monocausal position? Certainly not I. And IIRC, on the podcast Sam credited genes for something like 50-80%. 50-80% sounds very high. 80% isn’t too far from monocausal frankly. I have seen numbers like that kicked around on the internet. But consider the following quote from wikipedia: [INDENT][INDENT][INDENT] The 2006 edition of Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence by Alan S. Kaufman and Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger reports correlations of 0.86 for identical twins raised together compared to 0.76 for those raised apart and 0.47 for siblings.[70] These number are not necessarily static. When comparing pre-1963 to late 1970s data, researches DeFries and Plomin found that the IQ correlation between parent and child living together fell significantly, from 0.50 to 0.35. The opposite occurred for fraternal twins.[71] [/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT] [Heritability of IQ - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ) Now frankly the changes in the scores make one doubt the underlying metric. Set that aside. We would expect twins raised in separate environments to have environments that are nonetheless correlated with each other - environments are unlikely to be assigned to twins randomly. So the “Twins raised separately” gives us an _upper_ bound of the effects of genetics on intelligence. On top of that, it skips hereditary: two geniuses aren’t especially likely to birth another genius if for no reason other than reversion to the mean. It’s not like mixing paint colors. So we’re discussing a _real_ upward bound (i.e. a vast over-estimate) in the way heredity and intelligence is commonly understood by laymen. Here’s the catch: to get the R[sup]2[/sup] (or % explained) you have to square the correlation. .76^2 is .58. That’s quite a distance from .80. And remember, it’s an upper bound twice over. Look, this isn’t my area of expertise. But the 50 - 80% figure has a bad smell to it. Amateur audit fail. Can you understand my frustration with treatments of this subject? ---
**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:** [April 1, 2018, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/808 "2018-04-01T08:07:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, thanks for showing that you both missed the main point, that racists are bound to misuse the research. Ehhh… (1) How does my comment show anything other than that I found it thought-provoking and that I appreciated octopus’s sharing it? (2) FYI, I did not miss the point that racists are bound to misuse the research. And I agree with that. (3) But that was not the main point. The main point was that among antiracists (which overall group the author certainly counted himself), it is far too common for people to plant their flags firmly in a decades-old, hidebound anthropological paradigm that does not hold up well in light of ongoing genetic discoveries. And that further, by stubbornly denying, denying, denying as we have seen on this board, you give people with dark motives more power because there are always people coming to the issue fresh (adolescents for one) who look around at the arguments being made to see who makes the most sense. And so if the antiracist contingent pins itself to claims that can be shown to be false, it loses overall credibility and passes the credibility on to the bad guys. This is actually a larger problem I see opening up in society, ginned up by the PC ultraleft, particularly on Twitter but certainly in evidence around these parts. It expresses itself perhaps even more strongly in a militant feminism, but it comes overall in a blended form that holds up straight white cisgender males as the ultimate evil, or increasingly as a type to be mocked as pathetic and “mediocre”, always “failing upwards”. This despite the fact that every one of their category markers (straight, white, cisgender, male) are traits people are born with and have no choice about. As a result, polling has shown that young white males are actually trending more Republican, while every other youth demographic is moving even more toward Democrats. I have worried for a long time that something like this might happen: if young straight white men are only accepted among progressives if they wear a hairshirt, make self-deprecating remarks now and then, but otherwise shut up and let others take charge, we shouldn’t be too surprised if more and more of them get tempted over to the dark side, to a party that unapologetically celebrates their kind. It’s not something I would ever do, but I understand it. There’s a lot of power in the phrase “it’s okay to be white”, no matter how many progressives sneer at it. So aside from the fact that I am just the type of person to stubbornly stand up for my own beliefs, I also feel a responsibility, a kind of mission: I want to stand up and show young men that you don’t have to choose between that simpering tail-between-the-legs existence, and being a douchey MAGA fratboy. That it’s possible to be intellectual and/or artistic, to hold progressive beliefs, to vote for Democrats, but to stand up for free speech and refuse to apologize for happening to be born a certain way that is fashionable on the left to treat as a pinata. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > 50-80% sounds very high. 80% isn’t too far from monocausal frankly. I disagree that 80% is virtually monocausal. But you can’t just take a statement of “50-80%” and ignore the range. If you want to characterize it as a static number, it would be more intellectually honest to call it 65%. In any case, having read smart people on the nature-nurture subject over the years, it strikes me that they tend to lean pretty closely to 50/50, so Sam is a little high on the nature side. But nowhere near as egregious as the social scientists in the nurture crowd, who allow as there might be some severe brain defects attributable to mental problems in rare cases, but otherwise see aptitude and personality as almost entirely a product of one’s environment. Pinker discusses this blinkered ideology extensively in _The Blank Slate,_ and I have seen it up close and personal with my own parents. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![nachtmusick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ac91a4/32.png) [@nachtmusick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nachtmusick)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/809 "2018-04-01T08:18:53Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, I listened to it. I admit being prone to distraction throughout, but Harris and Murray sound reasonable enough. > > This is not an endorsement of their theses, just that I didn’t hear anything I thought was obviously wrong. You must not have listened carefully enough. If you pay close attention during the early part of the podcast, you will hear Sam say that he is about to have a conversation with Charles Murray. Many people think that this is obviously wrong. ---
**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 1, 2018, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/810 "2018-04-01T08:29:13Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Ehhh… > > (1) How does my comment show anything other than that I found it thought-provoking and that I appreciated octopus’s sharing it? Well you really are like Murray and Sam, oblivious to the racist input. I REALLY have a hard time believing that you missed the past octopus tenacious defence of fascist’s free speech while ignoring that it is not free speech anymore when a fascist runs over protesters against them. It is really his propensity to fall for film flam of the racist kind. (No, the article is not racist, just that it complains a lot and that is confused by bigots as if is supporting the bigots) > [@SlackerInc](#): > > (2) FYI, I did not miss the point that racists are bound to misuse the research. And I agree with that. > > (3) But that was not the main point. The main point was that among antiracists (which overall group the author certainly counted himself), it is far too common for people to plant their flags firmly in a decades-old, hidebound anthropological paradigm that does not hold up well in light of ongoing genetic discoveries. > > And that further, by stubbornly denying, denying, denying as we have seen on this board, you give people with dark motives more power because there are always people coming to the issue fresh (adolescents for one) who look around at the arguments being made to see who makes the most sense. And so if the antiracist contingent pins itself to claims that can be shown to be false, it loses overall credibility and passes the credibility on to the bad. As others concluded, (and showed with evidence) you have that problem indeed. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2018, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/811 "2018-04-01T08:42:58Z")
GIGO, no offense but there are very few posters here that I remember from thread to thread. Generally I just engage with what’s right in front of me and don’t carry around baggage from past encounters. So I don’t know if I have read what you are referring to, or indeed anything written by octopus. But it doesn’t matter, because I didn’t say I endorsed their own comments either now or in the past (nor did I say I did not). I said I thought the ARTICLE was interesting, and that I appreciated their sharing it. And I don’t even know what to make of your last sentence. What in the quoted material are you responding to? What “problem”? Is English your first language? I don’t ask that as an insult—just trying to understand why your verbiage has the odd character that it does. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/812 "2018-04-01T09:24:50Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > GIGO, no offense but there are very few posters here that I remember from thread to thread. That goes hand in hand with the rest of your memory issues, so seems legit. ---
**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 1, 2018, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/813 "2018-04-01T16:13:33Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > That goes hand in hand with the rest of your memory issues, so seems legit. Seems that he also does not remember or is also ignorant that concern trolling is one of the properties of octopus, hence the need for the mollusk to find a piece that is a refined piece of concern. That piece is mostly misguided for the main reason that the racists are the ones attempting to set, not only the agenda, but also the environment on willing media where they demand scientists and others about what to do and say to appease the racists, lukewarmers and concern trolls of science themselves. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2018, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/814 "2018-04-01T17:03:24Z")
Awesome, keep those heads in the sand! Great job. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ---
**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:** [April 1, 2018, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/815 "2018-04-01T17:08:45Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Awesome, keep those heads in the sand! Great job. > Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yes, great job ignoring the Scarr study, the Flynn effect, Murray’s very obviously racist statements about black contributions to culture, and the ridiculousness of believing that test scores can tell us anything about genetics in such a profoundly unequal society. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/816 "2018-04-01T17:39:57Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > And that further, by stubbornly denying, denying, denying as we have seen on this board, you give people with dark motives more power because there are always people coming to the issue fresh (adolescents for one) who look around at the arguments being made to see who makes the most sense. And so if the antiracist contingent pins itself to claims that can be shown to be false, it loses overall credibility and passes the credibility on to the bad guys. I’m fine with that. Let’s see; who here has: [ol] [li]Misrepresented scientific studies, in ways that are easily understood to be wrong[/li][li]Repeated old arguments after repeatedly being shown to be wrong (I corrected you on that exact study 6 months ago)[/li][li]Made absurd claims (black students are being educated as effectively as it’s possible to educate them)[/li][li]Come to the discussion with a closed mind and easily identifiable bias[/li][/ol] The answer to the above is: **you**. And I think that’s obvious to anyone reading the thread. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/817 "2018-04-01T17:43:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, thanks for showing that you both missed the main point, that racists are bound to misuse the research. No, my reading comprehension impaired friend, that was not the main point. The main point is intellectual dishonesty to maintain a political orthodoxy is not always the best strategy to control a narrative as scientific tools advance. The Catholic Church learned that lesson. ---
**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 1, 2018, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/818 "2018-04-01T17:57:05Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > No, my reading comprehension impaired friend, that was not the main point. The main point is intellectual dishonesty to maintain a political orthodoxy is not always the best strategy to control a narrative as scientific tools advance. The Catholic Church learned that lesson. Bullseye… As usual you miss where I come from, I have seen what you and Slacker do coming from creationists, moon hoaxers, climate change deniers, etc. Until better evidence comes it is the pseudoscientist the one that should not take their case to popular media (or misleading one), that is indeed the road to either ideocracy or fascism. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/819 "2018-04-01T18:03:23Z")
Does “genes” equal “race” to many people? I could casually buy that intelligence has a large genetic element that has no correlation with the genes for skin and hair colour and other minor physical traits, which seem to be the criteria for “race” sorting. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2018, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/820 "2018-04-01T18:32:17Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Bullseye… > > As usual you miss where I come from, I have seen what you and Slacker do coming from creationists, moon hoaxers, climate change deniers, etc. > > Until better evidence comes it is the pseudoscientist the one that should not take their case to popular media (or misleading one), that is indeed the road to either ideocracy or fascism. Where you are coming from? Your tactic, which is far from uncommon, is to attack a poster or the motives of a poster. Ironic thing is, your point of view is more akin to moon hoaxers, holocaust deniers, and creationists than those who you attack. You have no idea what my motives are. So attacking what you assume to be my motives accomplishes what exactly? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=40) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=42)