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

[iiandyiiii]

@SlackerInc

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

Yes, I did notice. That Murray is only mostly incorrect in this assertion doesn’t seem like much of a defense to me. He also wouldn’t be completely incorrect if he asserted there were two races – people who live in Pittsburgh, and people who don’t. If we tested that claim, we’d probably find that, lo and behold, people who live in Pittsburgh actually have a stronger genetic relationship to each other than they do to people who don’t live in Pittsburgh.

That would be only slightly less useful a classification than the one Murray uses.

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).

You should also fault Harris for saying silly things (like about “biological groupings” or whatever), and for failing to ask Murray a single challenging question.

Those are pretty big faults, or they should be, for someone as smart as Harris (and I don’t deny he’s very smart). I hold very smart people to very, very high standards, and Harris totally failed in this particular instance. If he met your standards, then they’re way too low, IMO.

Snipping a whole bunch because it doesn’t dispute anything I’ve said.

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.

A hypothesis. Maybe it’s a reasonable one. But that’s all it is. It’s not a theory, or a conclusion… it’s just a hypothesis. That’s how Harris, and others, should treat it, until we actually find those genes for high IQ, and how prevalent they are in various groups.

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:

Hear, hear.

There might be a few close-minded folks on the left. But that’s not the problem with this issue – there are plenty of well-meaning non-white-supremacists doing good and valuable work to try and help less fortunate people succeed, including in this particular field. The main problem is bad science like Murray (and Rushton, Lynn, and other David-Duke-approved assholes) being held up as somehow comparable to the actual good science that’s been done in the field (by folks like Sandra Scarr, for example).

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.

Harris’s politics are weird as fuck. Advocating for Murray is in the rock-dumb end of one particular segment of conservatives, and unfortunately, it’s the worst fucking one (alt right/white supremacists). That’s who promotes Murray the most – white supremacist troglodytes. It’s not a coincidence. Harris should know better. Being liberal on a few other issues doesn’t excuse this particular one, IMO. I have no reason to believe Harris bears any enmity for non-white people, but by promoting Murray and his ideals, he’s indirectly aiding the alt-right and white supremacists. It’s bad enough that it’s bad science, but helping those sons of bitches is much, much worse.

I think Harris’s ego is to blame – the criticism he’s gotten from liberals on other issues has burned his ego, and he’s learned the false lesson that this must mean that others who have been harshly criticized by liberals must have necessarily been treated unjustly.

I’m sure it’s hard to be as successful as he’s been without gaining an utterly massive ego… but Harris is a smart guy, and he should know better, ego or no ego, and smart folks like us should hold him to a higher standard than the one he’s meeting right now.

[SlackerInc]

Yes, Harris should have challenged Murray more, I agree. Not his best moment, although you and I obviously disagree about how severe a failing it was.

@iiandyiiii

Harris’s politics are weird as fuck.

Yes, as are mine, in a very similar way. But neither of us can fairly be called conservatives. Sam does find that an alarming number of right wingers gravitate to him, and he expresses indignation (basically, “good riddance”) whenever they make this fact known. It’s not just about Islam, either. When, a few years ago now, he wrote this column about inequality and progressive taxation (which I won’t even try to excerpt from, because I think the point is best made by reading it in its entirety), he noted that he had a record number of indignant conservatives and libertarians unsubscribe from his mailing list in response.

I don’t see how anyone could read that and think this is the writing of a right winger of any stripe. And it doesn’t even delve into his hostility to the Religious Right! Just on economics, he is so clearly left of center. Same is true (although not mentioned here) when it comes to free speech and civil liberties; which is why he is so troubled by the increasing intolerance on this front by the far left.

[Mijin]

For me, his political leanings and motives are largely beside the point.

The fact is, more and more of Harris’ writing concerns topics will little to no scientific, or public policy, value but which are catnip to those who want to believe that humans of different colors are essentially different species. It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t realize how inflammatory what he’s saying is.

And I agree that in some circumstances in the US free speech is under fire; no-one should feel physically threatened when trying to do a speech. However these things are not the same: I can support free speech without needing to “test” it by becoming a bigot.

[nachtmusick]

@iiandyiiii

.

I think Harris’s ego is to blame – the criticism he’s gotten from liberals on other issues has burned his ego, and he’s learned the false lesson that this must mean that others who have been harshly criticized by liberals must have necessarily been treated unjustly.

I’m sure it’s hard to be as successful as he’s been without gaining an utterly massive ego… but Harris is a smart guy, and he should know better, ego or no ego, and smart folks like us should hold him to a higher standard than the one he’s meeting right now.

This is close to true.

What is also true is that Charles Murray was treated unjustly, and I think that is really what Sam wanted people to understand.

[SlackerInc]

@Mijin

For me, his political leanings and motives are largely beside the point.

Well, bully for you; but many of us find it slanderous (libelous, whichever) when we are strongly implied to be of a political bent we find appalling. That was unfair and unnecessary–so I hope it was just an erroneous assumption and not a disingenuous tarring.

@Mijin

The fact is, more and more of Harris’ writing concerns topics will little to no scientific, or public policy, value but which are catnip to those who want to believe that humans of different colors are essentially different species.

More and more? Really? Can you provide some examples, other than this podcast episode?

[Mijin]

@SlackerInc

That was unfair and unnecessary–so I hope it was just an erroneous assumption and not a disingenuous tarring.

And I have said no such thing, so I assume you are talking about other poster(s).

More and more? Really? Can you provide some examples, other than this podcast episode?

Well there’s his book: Islam and the future of tolerance

[SlackerInc]

@Mijin

And I have said no such thing, so I assume you are talking about other poster(s).

I thought it was clear I was talking about the authors of the Vox op-ed.

@Mijin

Well there’s his book: Islam and the future of tolerance

The one co-written with the Muslim activist Maajid Nawaz? That Steven Pinker described thusly: “This honest and intelligent dialogue is a superb exploration of the intellectual and moral issues involved.” That book? :dubious:

[Mijin]

@SlackerInc

The one co-written with the Muslim activist Maajid Nawaz? That Steven Pinker described thusly: “This honest and intelligent dialogue is a superb exploration of the intellectual and moral issues involved.” That book? :dubious:

Yes that’s the one. I haven’t read it, but I’ve seen his interviews about it, and read some summaries, and his central argument seems to rest on caricaturing tolerance as “political correctness gone MAD”, and good old-fashined bigotry.

I was saying more and more of his writing, and podcasts, seem to be on topics like this. If you, or Steven Pinker, think he happens to be right, then fine. But that’s tangential to what I was saying.

[nachtmusick]

@Mijin

Yes that’s the one. I haven’t read it, but I’ve seen his interviews about it, and read some summaries, and his central argument seems to rest on caricaturing tolerance as “political correctness gone MAD”, and good old-fashined bigotry.

I was saying more and more of his writing, and podcasts, seem to be on topics like this. If you, or Steven Pinker, think he happens to be right, then fine. But that’s tangential to what I was saying.

So what you are saying is that you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

[Ramira]

@Rick_Sanchez

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.

Well George Kaplin, it iis maybe better if you paid attention to your usage of the kinds of marker slurs like Mongoloid.

@SlackerInc

Oh snap!

No snap, it is the pitiful stalking Rick/George has for me, I made no characterization ever of my own English language capacity at all. For the French, you did, in keeping with your over estimation of your capacities.

[Mijin]

@nachtmusick

So what you are saying is that you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

Ah yes, the old argument that it’s not enough to be able to refute some bigoted argument being made by a person. I must read his entire book before I can make any comment.

[nachtmusick]

@Mijin

Ah yes, the old argument that it’s not enough to be able to refute some bigoted argument being made by a person. I must read his entire book before I can make any comment.

You should never call anyone a bigot before you have read their book.

[wonky]

@nachtmusick

You should never call anyone a bigot before you have read their book.

Goodness. If someone hasn’t written a book, can we ever call them a bigot?

[orcenio]

@nachtmusick

You should never call anyone a bigot before you have read their book.

Fuck Charles Murray and those that defend the cross burning bigot.

[iiandyiiii]

@nachtmusick

You should never call anyone a bigot before you have read their book.

I didn’t read Mein Kampf… Have you?

[nachtmusick]

@iiandyiiii

I didn’t read Mein Kampf… Have you?

No I didn’t.

Are you telling me I shouldn’t read that book? What if, for whatever reason, I decide I want to?

Would you burn all copies of that book so as to prevent me from reading it?

As long as we are starting a fire, how about we throw Charles Murray’s work upon the blaze? Or Sam Harris’s?

Surely society would benefit if these foul ideas were expunged in the flames.

[obeast]

@iiandyiiii

Good critical article here:

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

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 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.

I thought that that article mostly served to make Harris’ point, actually - which was, as he made pretty clear in the podcast, not that he thought that racial differences in mean IQs were largely or even partially genetic in origin. Rather, he was arguing (I thought) that 1) most of Murray’s premises are uncontroversial, and 2) Murray had been the victim of a witch hunt of sorts, in which well-meaning scientists and journalists deliberately mischaracterize his assertions. Vox’s article is something of a case in point.

I actually agree with nearly every word the authors write about the relevant science (I would be foolish not to - they are eminent psychologists, and my training, such as it is, is in physics). But here’s the thing: I’m pretty sure Harris and Murray would too, based on what I’ve read and heard from them.

The headline portrays the article as a deconstruction of Murray’s “junk science” - and then notes, by the by, that “some well-informed scientists hold views closer to Murray’s than to ours.” So which is it, Vox? It’s is a slightly weird statement in any event, as you have to really squint to see the space between the authors’ views and Murray’s in the first place, but it’s a notable dissonance between headline and content (I’m aware that authors typically do not write their own headlines).

Later on, when discussing heritability, the authors write that

These observations do not undermine the conclusion that intelligence is heritable, but rather the naive assumption that heritable traits cannot be changed via environmental mechanisms. (Murray flatly tells Harris that this is the case.)

This is “flatly” false. On Harris’ podcast, Murray repeatedly asserts that environment can modify IQ. For example, he uses analogy to seed corn - take two genetically identical seeds, put one in the desert and one in fertile soil, and you will see very different results. This analogy is apparently in The Bell Curve itself. I am honestly baffled at how a person could listen to the podcast and then type the sentence in parenthesis.

Later, they summarize Murray’s views on group differences thusly:

On the basis of the above premises, Murray casually concludes that group differences in IQ are genetically based.

It ridiculous to say that “Murray casually concludes that group differences in IQ are genetically based.” He concludes nothing of the sort. Rather, he argues that the evidence is ambiguous, and speculates that both genes and environment might play a role. This is slightly further than I would go, but it is nothing like the caricature one finds in the article.

In the same section, they accuse Harris of not raising the issue of the Flynn effect - but he does. Again, it is hard to see how someone who actually listened to the podcast could write that - they talk about it for ~5 minutes.

Lastly, I will note that the article opens with a dangerously unfair misquote of Harris:

The consensus, he says, is that IQ exists; that it is extraordinarily important to life outcomes of all sorts; that it is largely heritable; and that we don’t know of any interventions that can improve the part that is not heritable. The consensus also includes the observation that the IQs of black Americans are lower, on average, than that of whites, and — most contentiously — that this and other differences among racial groups is based at least in part in genetics.

Harris is not a neutral presence in the interview. “For better or worse, these are all facts,” he tells his listeners. “In fact, there is almost nothing in psychological science for which there is more evidence than for these claims.”

Harris indeed spoke those words on the podcast, but crucially, not in the context of the bolded words above. He was referring to the rest of the assertions (IQ’s validity; IQ’s heritability; racial differences in mean IQs, whatever their origins), and the authors do not disagree with any of those. This is made extremely clear in the podcast.

[nachtmusick]

Crucially, the rub is nature versus nurture. Both Murray and Harris seem to think that genetics accounts for more than 50 percent of whatever difference exists between distinct population segments (I think everybody understands that race is not a significant term here).

As opposed to cultural forcings. Murray and Harris seem to accept that nature is the predominant variable, but provide no cites. This is a big problem for me. The opposition states that all variation is cultural, but they more or less prohibit research to confirm that theorem.

[GIGObuster]

@obeast

This is “flatly” false. On Harris’ podcast, Murray repeatedly asserts that environment can modify IQ. For example, he uses analogy to seed corn - take two genetically identical seeds, put one in the desert and one in fertile soil, and you will see very different results. This analogy is apparently in The Bell Curve itself. I am honestly baffled at how a person could listen to the podcast and then type the sentence in parenthesis.

I’m more baffled that defenders of Harris and Murray do not see that they want to have their cake and eat it too.

I think the point is missed here that many of the defenders of scientific racism do grasp and use the words of Harris and others to justify their sorry paths. That some come later to claim that there is perfectly good explanation of the very reprehensible or unscientific things Harris talks about does not change that many racists do grab the “misunderstandings” and I have seen enough to conclude that Harris and others do not do much of an effort to discourage racists from running away with their “misconceptions”. And I put that in quote marks because by now it is very clear what is going on regarding the “method” of discussion Harris uses.

Cenk Uygur: Sam Harris' anti-Muslim 'thought experiments' are like Repubs'...

Cenk Uygur: Sam Harris’ anti-Muslim ‘thought experiments’ are like Repubs’ actual policy ideas

http://www.alternet.org/belief/sam-harris-made-himself-look-idiot-email-exchange-chomsky-and-has-shared-it-world

Sam Harris Made Himself Look Like an Idiot in a Email Exchange with Chomsky and Has Shared It with the World

1. I have not read Radical Priorities. [the Chomsky book Sam Harris was criticizing Chomsky about] I treated your short book, 9/11, as a self-contained statement on the topic. I do not think it was unethical or irresponsible of me to do so.

Of course Chomsky showed later how irresponsible Sam was on that.

The more I read about him the more his style of being a bit ambivalent or having the consistence of baby poop is more noticeable (this reprehensible idea is bad, but maybe…). Also that he commits a lot of the very thing his supporters and him accuse others of doing: To not read what people like Chomsky actually wrote before tossing stones. Might as well consider him as not having any opinion at all worth considering. That is what I see other critics notice too.

[Evil_Economist]

@nachtmusick

The opposition states that all variation is cultural, but they more or less prohibit research to confirm that theorem.

Not sure what you’re saying here. Care to provide some examples? Some examples of “the opposition” “prohibiting research” would be good.