Piffle, stop denying that Murray did not had plenty of peers and people that already did check the source and ended up not being amused.
I just find it hard to believe there are still race realists out there, preaching the validity of classical race theory.
Let me guess Harris (in his mildly patronizingly named show “waking up”) refused to delimit “the races?” He called them “families with fuzzy borders?” He cited no biological studies outlining human genetic variation? He called his detractors leftists/PC/Marxists? He alluded to a conspiracy against him/Murray? He did not pose one critical question to the validity of race theory?
Why should any skeptically minded person believe in the biological principal of race when their adherents cannot/will not provide biologically definitions?
I have nothing to discuss with anyone who doesn’t offer a precis of the 90-minute podcast he wants to talk about. People who want to discuss one-page articles offer excerpts of the articles which they feel are pertinent. You didn’t offer anything except some vague allusions to the content of the podcast.
Frankly we know what happens when skeptics demand to be given details on the race theories of racialists. No racialist can come to an agreement with another.
The racialists just waste time arguing about nose/head/chest/skin colour/hair form/eye shape measurements then say “racial categorization/groupings are biological accurate and too complex to define…plus it’s Black/White/Asian that’s accurate enough for most of us”
Correcting my post:
Murray had plenty of peers and people that already did check the source and ended up not being amused. Do not deny that.
And I have to add that for this thread I already reported that I did listen to parts of the podcast, not much of a difference from what I heard in the past, even his old excuses and “clarifications”.
So, when I say that Harris makes a point of saying people shouldn’t judge others only on the opinions of their detractors you reinterpret that into me saying there were no detractors.
How does that work out in your head?
:dubious:
Corrected in post #105 you foolish fellow that follows fools.
So you screw up and then insult me?
Charming. :rolleyes:
The weird thing about the two prior posts is that Ale’s post #106 is actually consistent with the corrected version of GIGObuster’s post and not with the original (i.e. it ignored the double-negative). This would seem to make the subsequent heated exchange completely moot.
Were they able to synthesize their interests and discuss the intelligence of Arabs?
Several years ago one of the more popular PC buzzwords was HBD, human biodiversity. Not sure if that’s still in fashion.
Actually you showed that you did not pay attention to the correction, but more damming is the fact that you only showed that you did not pay attention to the mass of material (post #100) from peers and researchers that pointed why is that Murray and others are still not respected, and recent fig leafs from Murray do not change that.
“All we are saying is: give racists a chance!”
Ah, yes. Much in the same way that, as an atheist, I don’t think religious discrimination is a real thing.
Please don’t call them that. They’re not realists.
A link to rationalwiki, one of the most biased sources on the internet?
From the perspective of a scientist who thinks Murray is mostly right, and that his opinions are quite mainstream within the field, this thread is quite disappointing for my view of this forum. One thing is honest disagreement of course, but that’s not even what we have here, it’s arrogant dismissal. I’m afraid The Straight Dope forums is not the place to find truth in any vaguely PC-related matters.
Okay I listened to it. It’s officially shit. Harris asks a total of zero skeptical questions, and merely prostrated himself to Murray while walking through how right he is in his racial theories. Not one pointed question. Jeez, what a waste of time.
Yep, no where does he define any of these groups. Groups he adamantly preaches are biologically sound. Races are just unblinkingly kept vague and taken as fact/gospel.
Go to 54:15-54:40 for this quote: “very large family that’s partly inbred”
Nada, perhaps our resident racialists can help us out here and give a time stamp?
Ubiquitous and occurs throughout. Basically: The detractors are politically opposed to our calculated logic. 09:35-10:02
Answered above. In fact their racial viewpoints contain “virtually no scientific controversy” 10:02
We can call it populations instead of races or whatever; you are getting very bogged down in the concept of races. You can look at clusters of genetic populations (as identified by PCA), self-identified “race”, whatever. There is an IQ gap between the groups whichever of these approaches you take.
I was going to quote various posts by **Ale **and Novelty Bobble, but it would have been a wall of quoted text without my adding much other than “QFT” or “cosigned”. So consider this a blanket pronouncement of same. I’m heartened that there are those like you out there! (Now brace for accusations of sock puppetry. :smack:)
One parallel those of us who listened may have noted with the podcast: Murray complained that the people organizing the protests against him are largely faculty members who admit they have not read a word of anything he’s written, but nevertheless feel perfectly comfortable denouncing him as a Nazi and pseudoscientist. It’s just exactly the kind of thing we see all over this thread.
Riiiight, because of all things, the measure is kaylasdad99. :dubious:
I may not have the dates right, but there is no lie in the overall thrust of what I said. If you are now claiming you never changed your mind about who was going to win, it is either you who is the liar or you have some kind of serious memory problem.
Ahhhh. Thanks, now my curiosity is sated on that point. (On the question of whether anyone would miss it if he stopped, I still am unsure.)
And you didn’t listen to the podcast episode I want to discuss. Do that, and I’ll make you a promise that I’ll engage you on any and every point you ask me to. Don’t do it, and I’ll pick and choose. Your call.
The question of “why study this?” is an absolutely valid one. Sam has said many times he is dubious of the necessity of doing so, even if there is solid science behind it. And he raised this question with Murray. He specifically pointed out that the lion’s share of those rooting hardest for this research to be carried out and widely publicized are virulent racists. And that is absolutely very troubling.
My preference would be that we would in fact sweep this data under the rug. Just don’t speak about it, don’t call attention to it, out of simple kindness and decency. But that would require widespread social cooperation. In particular, we would need to go back, in public education, to what Dubya termed “the soft bigotry of low expectations”. Instead, dedicated teachers (and their unions) and administrators in inner city schools are being constantly thrown under the bus by “reformers” who start out with the axiomatic, a priori belief that the kids in those schools should be able to score at national average levels–and that if they don’t (which they pretty much never do), it is the fault of those educators and their unions, and their schools are “failing” and must be reorganized or shut down, no matter how happy the students and their families may be with the schools.
This is an issue I care deeply about, and I raised it here twice before, in 2013 and 2015.
I have seen this assertion many times, and I’m puzzled by it. I don’t think anyone could dispute that as a group, people of West African heritage have the greatest genetic potential for sprinting and jumping, while East Africans, as a group, have the greatest potential for distance running. But does that lead an obese West or East African couch potato to look at a trim and fit white guy running by at a good clip and think “I could outrun him”? There are easily available psychometric tools to determine what your individual IQ is, within a certain margin of error, and they don’t require any racial assessment. I know how intelligent I am because of those kinds of tests, not because of my skin color or ancestry.
All very salient points. As I say, if we could just form a tacit societal consensus that we aren’t even going to look at racial disparities in aptitude, I’d be cool with it–as long as we also tacitly understood that schools serving poor black kids are not going to post the same average scores you’ll see elsewhere, and we don’t blame the schools for this fact.
Yes, and I’ve posted many times about articles and almost always have included excerpts. But that doesn’t work with podcasts (or movies, or TV shows). That would be awesome if there were a transcript to quote from, as there is with Freakonomics. But there’s not.
Are you saying you don’t think religions exist? I am as hardcore an atheist as you will find, and I absolutely believe religions exist.
I have the sense that this is far more true now than it was five or ten years ago. 
Call me skeptical as to whether you really listened carefully to the whole thing. He absolutely pressed Murray on the question of whether the subject *should *be studied at all, and pointed out that the people who cheerlead loudest for this kind of science are mostly the scum of the earth.
That said, I appreciate that you at least attempted to listen, which is a lot more than most of the peanut gallery can say.
What does that mean, “a scientist”? What field? What qualifications?
I don’t really wan’t to identify myself too much, but human genetics.