Interesting podcast conversation between Sam Harris and Charles Murray (of "Bell Curve" fame)

[SlackerInc]

“Stop being a jerk…shut up”. Mmmkay then.

[GIGObuster]

Again, even one of your supporters early showed how easy it was type a main point from the podcast, and did so in the thread; so yeah, at least someone already showed to have superior genes than the ones you have.

[Buck_Godot]

@SlackerInc

Make it worth my while, and I’ll prove it to you. $100 wager sound good?

Why do I imagine that the proof is going to look something like this.

[SlackerInc]

@Buck_Godot

Why do I imagine that the proof is going to look something like this.

For $100 you can find out!

[Evil_Economist]

@Buck_Godot

Why do I imagine that the proof is going to look something like this.

I imagine what he’ll actually show us is proof that IQ tests are an imperfect measure of intelligence.

[SlackerInc]

@Evil_Economist

I imagine what he’ll actually show us is proof that IQ tests are an imperfect measure of intelligence.

Heh. You’ve guaranteed the result you want! Well done.

And yes, they are indeed an imperfect measure, as I’ve said repeatedly ITT.

[iiandyiiii]

Whatever your IQ (and I don’t particularly care what it is), SlackerInc, your refusal to consider reasonable criticism of Harris doesn’t reflect well upon your intelligence. It really is reasonable to criticize him for not challenging Murray’s conclusions at all; for a silly and false tweet that race is a “biological” category; and for more. It doesn’t mean he’s terrible, or stupid, or that he can’t also be a smart guy who has written some very interesting things.

[SlackerInc]

Gee, Mister, thanks for 'splaining all that to me!

:rolleyes:

[iiandyiiii]

@SlackerInc

Gee, Mister, thanks for 'splaining all that to me!

:rolleyes:

Have you changed your mind? Do you now agree with my criticism of Harris?

[Ramira]

@SlackerInc

Whatever gave you the idea I was monolingual? I speak French assez bien, and I have also studied Russian and Spanish.

Doubtful.

[wonky]

I suddenly wonder if the OP is orange and has a massive… combover.

[SlackerInc]

@Ramira

Doubtful.

Even easier to prove. FaceTime me and I’ll show you. Just last night I was watching the French presidential debate on YouTube without dubbing or subtitles. (I did play it at 0.75X and rewound it frequently, but I got most of it.)

[Ramira]

@SlackerInc

(I did play it at 0.75X and rewound it frequently, but I got most of it.)

That is not the sign of “assez bien” mon cher but it is a good benchmarking for your self estimations. It says enough to tell us also of the other things.

[SlackerInc]

@Ramira

That is not the sign of “assez bien” mon cher but it is a good benchmarking for your self estimations. It says enough to tell us also of the other things.

Whatever. :rolleyes: I learned French entirely from school, starting in seventh grade (including a couple 400 level courses in college where my French was stronger than that of the French majors), and I can follow a debate that had lots of overtalking, interruptions, and technical terms…but that’s not good enough? You demand better bread than is made of wheat. If I were the world’s top-ranked chess grandmaster, you’d sneer “but you can’t defeat Deep Blue”. Pfffft.

[SlackerInc]

Sam’s latest podcast episode is an AMA grab bag, but he spends about two minutes starting at 12:30 defending the neuroscience behind Murray’s assertions, more specifically than he did in the previous episode. I am not a neuroscientist and won’t claim to be able to evaluate what he said here, but I thought I ought to throw it out there since there were (valid) complaints that he did not defend the scientific underpinnings previously.

[GIGObuster]

Now that was underwhelming. Sam had to rely on other book to defend what Murray said. Even if it was from an expert the point stands that people that attempt to pass Murray as the mainstream are deluded.

The End of Nature v. Nurture?

The same research has linked adversity with physical problems. A few months ago, the New Yorker had a terrific article by Paul Tough called “The Poverty Clinic.” It drew heavily on work by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, using a data set culled from the patients of the Kaiser Permanente health care system. That study showed correlations between various sorts of abuse, neglect, and trouble in youth and such future health problems as cardiovascular disease.

The strong role of environment in development is the ultimate rejoinder to Herrnstein, Murray, and everybody else who argues public policy can’t make a difference. The science, Shonkoff says, “clearly illustrates that this is not inevitable” – and that it’s possible interventions can work, particularly if they take place early.

In the article, I talk about some of those interventions – and one in particular that has shown a lot of promise. More on that later.

Update: I’ve reworded this item (in response to a letter from a friend) to make clear that genetics still play an important role in development. The question is whether nature, as opposed to nurture, is as dominant as Murray and Herrnstein suggested. The consensus among scientists that I interviewed was that it is not – i.e., that Murray and Herrnstein significantly understated the influence of environment.

[Rick_Sanchez]

@Ramira

That is not the sign of “assez bien” mon cher but it is a good benchmarking for your self estimations. It says enough to tell us also of the other things.

Your grasp of English is so piss poor that you can’t even use the word ‘the’ correctly. You’re really in no position to be snarky about SlackerInc’s grasp of French, or any other language.

[SlackerInc]

Oh snap!

[iiandyiiii]

Good critical article here:

Charles Murray is once again peddling junk science about race and IQ

It does a good job of dismantling Murray’s claims, but I’d also like to highlight its criticism of Harris, which matches my biggest gripe:

Harris belies his self-presentation as a tough-minded skeptic by failing to ask Murray a single challenging question.

Harris really ought to be ashamed of himself. Hopefully his ego isn’t so overwhelming that he isn’t able to self-assess and identify mistakes like this.

[SlackerInc]

@iiandyiiii

Good critical article here:

Interesting. Did you notice that the author states that the following assertion is “not completely incorrect”:

Discoveries about genetic ancestry have validated commonly used racial groupings.

?

A lot of people ITT beg to differ.

Also:

Some well-informed scientists hold views closer to Murray’s than to ours.

Now, it’s absolutely true that this is a far cry from Sam’s claim that the science is beyond dispute (I fault him for that overstatement). But this is also a contradiction of what we’ve seen over and over in this thread (not from you, mind you, but from many other posters).

Most crucially, heritability, whether low or high, implies nothing about modifiability. The classic example is height, which is strongly heritable (80 to 90 percent), yet the average height of 11-year-old boys in Japan has increased by more than 5 inches in the past 50 years. A similar historical change is occurring for intelligence: Average IQ scores are increasing across birth cohorts, such that Americans experienced an 18-point gain in average IQ from 1948 to 2002. And the most decisive and permanent environmental intervention that an individual can experience, adoption from a poor family into a better-off one, is associated with IQ gains of 12 to 18 points.

Once again, just as with Nicholas Kristof’s selective use of this data, the full story about adoption that I pointed out upthread is elided. Murray did *not *say someone’s environment, the family they were raised in, does not matter. He *explicitly *pointed out that the most prizewinning strain of corn ever bred would not grow in the desert.

Furthermore, following the link in the Vox article to the adoption study finds this rather notable limitation admitted to by the study’s authors:

Because of the Flynn effect (Flynn,1987), therefore, the average IQ of 100 in our meta-analysis might underestimate the average IQ level of Western populations, which,during the past 5 decades, have shown remarkable increases in mean IQ scores (Flynn, 1987). Thus, similarity of adopted children’s IQ with an average IQ of a measure that has not been updated during the last 10 or even 20 years may underestimate cognitive delays (O’Connor et al., 2000). This may be the reason that our comparison with standard mean scores shows a considerable advantage for the adopted children, whereas direct comparisons of their scores with scores of classmates or other comparison groups show adopted children to lag behind.

And:

Third, in a small set of studies we found that the percentage of adopted children who needed special education for their learning problems was about twice as large as the percentage of nonadopted children.

The vast majority of people who do not actually click the Vox link will of course know none of this.

Going back to Vox, they ironically raise the Flynn effect in support of their case, after having failed to note it potentially cripples the adoption finding they just touted:

The Flynn effect, named for the political scientist and IQ researcher James Flynn, is the term many scholars use to describe the remarkable rise in IQ found in many countries over time. There has been an 18-point gain in average IQ in the US from 1948 to 2002. One way to put that into perspective is to note that the IQ gap between black and white people today is only about half the gap between America as a whole now and America as a whole in 1948. Murray’s hand-waving about g does not make that extraordinary fact go away.

Again, this is no different in principle from the fact that the women’s record in the 100 meters now (and since 1988) is faster than the men’s record 100 years ago. That does not mean there is not a vast, inborn difference between women’s and men’s potential at sprinting.

It is true (and unsurprising) that poor children exposed to special educational programs such as Head Start tend to regress once the program ends and environmental disadvantages reassert themselves. But the gain in social and intellectual capital from the best available early childhood education can result in an increase of one-third in the likelihood of graduating from high school, can triple the rate of college attendance, can produce a two-year advantage in reading ability of young adults, and can result in a two-thirds increase in the likelihood that they will be either gainfully employed or enrolled in higher education. The best available K-12 programs also result in substantial gains in intellectual and social capital.

No dispute there. Is Murray actually against Head Start? If he is, I did not catch that in his interview, and I would oppose him strongly on that point.

Again following the link in Vox to another study’s text, we find language that strikes me as at odds with the point the Vox authors intend to make, and also at odds with what most here have been arguing:

It would be naive, however, to interpret SES strictly as an environmental variable. Most variables traditionally thought of as markers of environmental quality also reflect genetic variability (Plomin & Bergeman, 1991). Children reared in low-SES households, therefore, may differ from more affluent children both environmentally and genetically (Gottesman, 1968), and the models we employed in this study do not allow us to determine which aspect of SES is responsible for the interactions we observed.

This is exactly what I’ve been arguing: that beyond skin color, there are “races” (extended families) of less intelligent people even within people generally classed as “white”, and these people mostly breed with each other and tend to live in poverty. Then when someone from one of these families happens to hit the end of the bell curve and gets a master’s degree or something, they don’t come back to the holler and marry one of the people they grew up with, but rather join the higher IQ group in Palo Alto or somewhere, helping to reinforce the higher intelligence of that wealthier group. Social Darwinism is absolutely real, folks; the mistake is thinking that it is somehow morally prescriptive.

But here’s an important caution from the Vox piece that so many on the left (including many here) would do well to pay heed to:

The left has another lesson to learn as well. If people with progressive political values, who reject claims of genetic determinism and pseudoscientific racialist speculation, abdicate their responsibility to engage with the science of human abilities and the genetics of human behavior, the field will come to be dominated by those who do not share those values. Liberals need not deny that intelligence is a real thing or that IQ tests measure something real about intelligence, that individuals and groups differ in measured IQ, or that individual differences are heritable in complex ways.

Hear, hear.

But I have one more criticism of the Vox piece as a whole: someone who read it without being particularly familiar with Sam Harris would come away with the belief that he is a conservative. I’m not sure if these authors were unfamiliar with Harris and only listened to this one podcast and came to this erroneous conclusion themselves, therefore unwittingly passing it on; or if they purposely and disingenuously created this impression, which would be rather dastardly indeed.