Sam Harris v Ezra Klein, is the "Bell Curve" science or racism.

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
12,094
I listen to Sam Harris's podcast "waking up" fairly regularly and was surprised to see his latest edition, " Extreme Housekeeping", given that I knew he was on holidays.


[video=youtube;hEX6IoaVk9M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEX6IoaVk9M&t=2000s[/video]

The podcast outlines a spat Harris has been having on twitter and by E-mail with several journalists and political commentators including Ezra Klein, Harris claims that they have misrepresented his views and slandered him over a podcast he made with Charles Murray on his 1994 book "The Bell Curve". Harris normally mild mannered ,has had enough and cut short his holiday to face his detractor in a soon to be organised podcast with Klein.

Harris claims that he produced this podcast with Murray because he had been de-platformed at Middlebury College after being shouted down and physically attacked by violent protesters. In the video Harris portrays Murray as a sober and ethical, well intentioned scholar who has been wrongly vilified by leftists who are intentionally creating a moral panic.

[video=youtube;XJIxAS50y0c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJIxAS50y0c[/video]


Harris has been accused of promoting racialist and sexist pseudoscience, of pandering to the far right by giving scientific credence to the oldest racist and sexist stereotypes, the fact that on average there are marked differences in intelligence between races and the sexes.

[video=youtube;AnNGyZwjIh4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnNGyZwjIh4[/video]


I haven't read the book but I have listened to an abridged version here;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1YYZjsDsxQ.


The book is for the most part uncontroversial, it sets out the correlation between intelligence (IQ) and economic and social success, it justifies itself by claiming that this information it contains would be essential to inform social scientists on what ought to be done in matters of education and inform journalists and politicians when looking for explanations.

I don't expect everyone to listen to these long podcasts but I'm sure many will have an opinion anyway.

My interest in this is the lefts attempts to deny science and shut down any opposing opinions, however valid, but i'm sure many will just call me the same things Harris has been called.
 


talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,679
I listen to Sam Harris's podcast "waking up" fairly regularly and was surprised to see his latest edition, " Extreme Housekeeping", given that I knew he was on holidays.


[video=youtube;hEX6IoaVk9M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEX6IoaVk9M&t=2000s[/video]

The podcast outlines a spat Harris has been having on twitter and by E-mail with several journalists and political commentators including Ezra Klein, Harris claims that they have misrepresented his views and slandered him over a podcast he made with Charles Murray on his 1994 book "The Bell Curve". Harris normally mild mannered ,has had enough and cut short his holiday to face his detractor in a soon to be organised podcast with Klein.

Harris claims that he produced this podcast with Murray because he had been de-platformed at Middlebury College after being shouted down and physically attacked by violent protesters. In the video Harris portrays Murray as a sober and ethical, well intentioned scholar who has been wrongly vilified by leftists who are intentionally creating a moral panic.

[video=youtube;XJIxAS50y0c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJIxAS50y0c[/video]


Harris has been accused of promoting racialist and sexist pseudoscience, of pandering to the far right by giving scientific credence to the oldest racist and sexist stereotypes, the fact that on average there are marked differences in intelligence between races and the sexes.

[video=youtube;AnNGyZwjIh4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnNGyZwjIh4[/video]


I haven't read the book but I have listened to an abridged version here;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1YYZjsDsxQ.


The book is for the most part uncontroversial, it sets out the correlation between intelligence (IQ) and economic and social success, it justifies itself by claiming that this information it contains would be essential to inform social scientists on what ought to be done in matters of education and inform journalists and politicians when looking for explanations.

I don't expect everyone to listen to these long podcasts but I'm sure many will have an opinion anyway.

My interest in this is the lefts attempts to deny science and shut down any opposing opinions, however valid, but i'm sure many will just call me the same things Harris has been called.
Yep, I read about this, I believe they are going to have a debate about it.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
I like Sam Harris on religion especially this:

Harris has referred to Catholicism as "ghoulish machinery set to whirling through the ages by the opposing winds of shame and sadism", and asserts that the Catholic Church has spent "two millennia demonizing human sexuality to a degree unmatched by any other institution, declaring the most basic, healthy, mature, and consensual behaviors taboo." Harris has criticized the Catholic Church's structure and forced celibacy within its ranks for attracting pedophiles, and blames its opposition to the use of contraception for poverty, shorter lifespans, and the proliferation of HIV/AIDS.
 

razorblade

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2016
Messages
8,090
He's spot on usually which doesn't go down well with the snowflakes and he most certainly isn't far right.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
He's spot on usually which doesn't go down well with the snowflakes and he most certainly isn't far right.
No he is a liberal and supports liberal causes, like taxing the wealthy and SSM. He is also a feminist and severe critic of female oppression.
 

silverharp

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
16,676
i listened to that podcast a few weeks back, certainly mis-characterising the author and sam seems to be a sport. One point that was raised in the podcast was that neroscience/dna research will have all this area pinned down in a decade or so
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
12,094
Yep, I read about this, I believe they are going to have a debate about it.
It should be interesting, the only stipulation Harris has put on the podcast, is that it be unedited.
It could be Petersen v Newman II, but I doubt there will be any gotchas.
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,679
It should be interesting, the only stipulation Harris has put on the podcast, is that it be unedited.
It could be Petersen v Newman II, but I doubt there will be any gotchas.
The only thing about it is that neither of these are actual experts/scientists themselves - it might be better if each of them had a nominated (and widely accepted) expert on as well.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
12,094
The only thing about it is that neither of these are actual experts/scientists themselves - it might be better if each of them had a nominated (and widely accepted) expert on as well.
Sam Harris is a neuro scientist, though thats not a particularly relevant field.
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,679
Sam Harris is a neuro scientist, though thats not a particularly relevant field.
Tbh, I don't really see what they are arguing about. From what I've read on it from the Vox articles etc, it seems to me that all the scientists agree -

There is a racial/population group IQ gap;
Some part of this could be down to genetics, but there's no real evidence of this to date;
This may be proved in the future, on the other hand it might not be.

So I'm not really sure what is the main bone of contention here. Klein seems to object to anyone saying there could be a genetic element, that seems to be his problem.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,651
This thread suggests serious defenestrationing is required somewhere.

Btw has anyone heard the screams from Hawking from inside the Black Hole?
 

flavirostris

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
24,571
Hundreds of years ago, it was conservatives who tried to suppress science. Darwin and evolution, Galileo and the Church etc.

Now it's the left that actively tries to silence and no platform scientists.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
12,094
Tbh, I don't really see what they are arguing about. From what I've read on it from the Vox articles etc, it seems to me that all the scientists agree -

There is a racial/population group IQ gap;
Some part of this could be down to genetics, but there's no real evidence of this to date;
This may be proved in the future, on the other hand it might not be.

So I'm not really sure what is the main bone of contention here. Klein seems to object to anyone saying there could be a genetic element, that seems to be his problem.
There is lots of evidence of heritable intelligence, if you were to argue that there was no genetic impact on intelligence, then you would have to conclude that all intelligence is environmental, studies of twins separated at birth suggest otherwise.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,651
There is lots of evidence of heritable intelligence, if you were to argue that there was no genetic impact on intelligence, then you would have to conclude that all intelligence is environmental, studies of twins separated at birth suggest otherwise.
Defenestration is your only man.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Hundreds of years ago, it was conservatives who tried to suppress science. Darwin and evolution, Galileo and the Church etc.

Now it's the left that actively tries to silence and no platform scientists.
Ah come off it. This story is a year old. It was in May 2017 that one college tried to deplatform Charles Murray.

How has his research been affected since? Have he and Harris not been allowed to publish or undertake research?

Do you even know what the dispute was about?
 

paulp

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
7,292
Hundreds of years ago, it was conservatives who tried to suppress science. Darwin and evolution, Galileo and the Church etc.

Now it's the left that actively tries to silence and no platform scientists.
If they have the science they should publish their research and have it peer reviewed.

My understanding is that there is no biological difference between races - so how can you argue that race impacts intelligence.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
12,094
If they have the science they should publish their research and have it peer reviewed.

My understanding is that there is no biological difference between races - so how can you argue that race impacts intelligence.
Publication and peer review makes no difference to people like you, who form an opinion and avoid the science.
 

benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
12,094
Ah come off it. This story is a year old. It was in May 2017 that one college tried to deplatform Charles Murray.

How has his research been affected since? Have he and Harris not been allowed to publish or undertake research?

Do you even know what the dispute was about?
To be fair the left once championed IQ tests as a way for people to excel in classless societies, now they are meaningless because they no longer suit their narrative.
The impact on Murrays career has been pretty devastating if you believe what he says in the videos above.
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,501
I like Sam Harris on religion especially this:

Harris has referred to Catholicism as "ghoulish machinery set to whirling through the ages by the opposing winds of shame and sadism", and asserts that the Catholic Church has spent "two millennia demonizing human sexuality to a degree unmatched by any other institution, declaring the most basic, healthy, mature, and consensual behaviors taboo." Harris has criticized the Catholic Church's structure and forced celibacy within its ranks for attracting pedophiles, and blames its opposition to the use of contraception for poverty, shorter lifespans, and the proliferation of HIV/AIDS.
Hard to argue with that. It's peculiar that a pope can abolish hell but not the ban on condoms that's only a few decades old. It's no longer a burning issue as even the most slavishly Catholic countries, of whom we were one ourselves up to recently, now simply ignore the Vatican tripe but to me it's still the most ridiculous of their positions and is the issue on which their over-bearing influence was finally broken.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top