Peterson, Harris, etc....

[Cheesy]

I feel like the problem with the Peterson video on the previous page is that while there are perhaps one or two valid points touched upon he makes a lot of wide-ranging generalisations without doing anything to back them up at all, speaking in the sort of overly emotive tone he'd probably criticise opponents for using.

Academia is primarily left-leaning and will tend to take more liberal stances on most things, but that doesn't mean all men taking those academic subjects are being encouraged to think that they're all patriarchal oppressors who're evil. I do think he makes a fair point that when we're consider male privilege - or any variation thereof - it should be considered that to a lot of men who're fairly disillusioned or disadvantaged in their own social situations, the idea they're in any way privileged in probably going to seem silly and dismissive of any problems they do have. Naturally as a man I can appreciate there are certain societal benefits I receive others lack - but people tend not to like to be grouped into singular groups which are supposed to define their entire identity, and thus it's not always an ideal approach.

But still - he's largely blowing his own trumpet and is filled with his own self-important arrogance, telling others how people came up to him to say he'd changed their life as if he's some sort of fecking prophet instead of a guy with opinions, some of which are a bit controversial.

 

[JohnLocke]

Wait what? I‘m responsible for what my ancestors did? Hope you didn‘t pay for that shit. Although I must confess that I have trouble believing that to be true. It could be argued that there is some responisbility to not make their errors again but otherwise sounds ridiculous.

I'd say that this is more for US students to be honest. I did have to take a course in Feminism and write an assignment on how Identity Politics is good. I could have written that it's not but to be honest, I thought it was good at the time, as being against it would make me some kind of racist schmuck.

I don‘t believe that these people actually think everything is wrong with how things go. That‘s obvs. clearly the wrong outlook. With ‚clean-the-room‘ I simply meant to pool these ideas you laid out. The thing is that the Current Affairs article basically argues that there is no debt and it‘s backed up.

I actually thought that capitalism was the root of all evil!

 

[Pogue Mahone]

A significant proportion of psychology is bullshit. >50% of studies are not reproducible. Not on a par with sociology or gender studies but obviously a lot of the most bs/"unscientific" modules overlap in these degree programmes.

Nursing is vocational.

That reproducibility issue has been demonstrated in a bunch of other fields too. Including the likes of economics and medicine. It’s just that psychology was one of the first disciplines to start testing this hypothesis. Publication bias and the “desk drawer effect” means a lot of false positives can creep through the net. It’s certainly no reason to dismiss psychology as a “bullshit course”.

 

[berbatrick]

What I don't understand is the link between universities being taken over by left wingers (if we assume that to be true, would need stats for that) and the message at the beginning (bold part) which I can certainely relate to and would classify as good advice although it does seem a bit trivial but nevertheless nothing wrong with it. Is he suggesting the former runs contrary to the latter or what?

Conveniently, stats exist.

To answer this question, among others, I analyzed data from surveys and interviews with professors, including a nationally-representative survey of the American professoriate, conducted in 2006 with the sociologist Solon Simmons. My research shows that only about 9 percent of professors are political radicals on the far left, on the basis of their opinions about a wide range of social and political matters, and their self-descriptions (for example, whether they describe themselves as radicals). More common in the professoriate—a left-leaning occupation, to be sure—are progressives, who account for roughly a third of the faculty (and whose redistributionism is more limited in scope), and academics in the center left, who make up an additional 14 percent of professors.
...
But who are academic radicals, and what do they believe? This is a diverse category, encompassing social democrats, radical feminists, radical environmentalists, the occasional postmodernist—and yes, some Marxists. All told, about 43 percent of radical professors say that the term “Marxist” describes them at least somewhat well. (About 5 percent of American professors, over all, consider themselves Marxists.)

https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2013/03/05/the-actual-politics-of-professors/

I'm using this one in particular because it is the only one that bothers to seek out Communists in particular from a sea of undifferentiated liberals. Note that social democrats are considered radical.

 

[Silva]

A significant proportion of psychology is bullshit. >50% of studies are not reproducible. Not on a par with sociology or gender studies but obviously a lot of the most bs/"unscientific" modules overlap in these degree programmes.

Nursing is vocational.

yes that is the nature of humanities, just because a first year fine arts students isn't painting as well as rembrant doesn't sink their pursuit of painting*, similarly, gender studies isn't a pure science to begin this, it's a mixture of history, queer studies, sociology, culture studies, religious studies and so on, it's a very narrow field that's concerned with cataloguing and understanding gender expression in different peoples, times, places cultures etc. expecting it to produce reproducible studies would be like expecting everyone to agree on whether the nuclear bombings of japan were justified**

*although, the fine arts (in western countries) moving away from technical excellence and technical teaching was a mistake

**the second 100% wasn't, even if there's disagreement on the bombings effects overall

 

[hobbers]

That reproducibility issue has been demonstrated in a bunch of other fields too. Including the likes of economics and medicine. It’s just that psychology was one of the first disciplines to start testing this hypothesis. Publication bias and the “desk drawer effect” means a lot of false positives can creep through the net. It’s certainly no reason to dismiss psychology as a “bullshit course”.

I know and i'm not really dismissing psychology in and of itself. Some of it is useful, some of it is interesting and clinical psychology is clearly essential in this day and age with everyone seemingly on the brink of a mental collapse.

I've just seen the sort of stuff psychology students get given in some of their modules and a lot of it is worthless hokum.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I know and i'm not really dismissing psychology in and of itself. Some of it is useful, some of it is interesting and clinical psychology is clearly essential in this day and age with everyone seemingly on the brink of a mental collapse.

I've just seen the sort of stuff psychology students get given in some of their modules and a lot of it is worthless hokum.

If we’re to start dismissing degrees on the basis of students being given “worthless hokum” to do in certain modules then we might as well scrap all qualifications other than those issued by City and Guilds.

 

[Silva]

Example A:

Also, silly diagrams..

 

[Silva]

If we’re to start dismissing degrees on the basis of students being given “worthless hokum” to do in certain modules then we might as well scrap all qualifications other than those issued by City and Guilds.

idk, I've filmed a lot lectures that are part of the mandatory minimum work to maintain those qualifications, and even some of the work in professional qualifications can easily be described as worthless hokum

 

[Organic Potatoes]

please be more specific, the US is a big place with a lot of higher education institutions

and their course make up should have no effect on UK student choices

I'm not sure how you expect me to be more specific about colloquial evidence, or what UK courses have to do with it .

 

[Silva]

I'm not sure how you expect me to be more specific about colloquial evidence, or what UK courses have to do with it .

I was responding to a claim that these leftist have driven men out of humanities courses in the UK, according to UCAS - despite UCAS research showing that it's because poor white males fall behind in their formative years and men are generally underrepresented in higher education.

I asked you to be specific because every time this comes up it turns out to be a wilful misrepresentation of the module people are criticising.

 

[Raoul]

Peterson on Maher last night...

 

[Raoul]

 

[Carolina Red]

I do feel that Alex Wagner asked the professor a good question there.

 

[psychdelicblues]

Chomsky’s email exchange with Harris (in my opinion) showed how the latter overestimates his own wisdom on these matters. The fact he published it on his website initially thinking it showed Chomsky looking daft made him go down in my estimate.

Don’t mind him in general I must admit. His fanboys (as usual) are worse.

He's recently, appeared to come off the worse again in a email exchange with Vox's Ezra Klein in response to a Harris podcast interview he did with Charles Murray (Bell Curve).

Since then, Klein has kept at it, and he delivered another volley today. I told him that if he continued in this way, I would publish our private email correspondence so that our readers could judge him for themselves. His latest effort has convinced me that I should make good on that promise.

Day later.........

Judging from the response to this post on social media, my decision to publish these emails appears to have backfired. I was relying on readers to follow the plot and notice Ezra’s evasiveness and gaslighting (e.g. his denial of misrepresentations and slurs that are in the very article he published). Many people seem to have judged from his politeness that Ezra was the one behaving honestly and ethically. This is frustrating, to say the least.

Many readers seem mystified by the anger I expressed in this email exchange. Why care so much about “criticism” or even “insults”?........

https://samharris.org/ezra-klein-editor-chief/

More than anything, Harris seems overly concerned with popularity and what people think of him. Publishes an email correspondence where people judge him to be the idiot of the two, then writes notes online pleading with people to understand that they're wrong.

A bit self-absorbed.

Jesus that reads very immaturely.

'Clear the air' of some sorts between Harris and Ezra Klein

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

'Clear the air' of some sorts between Harris and Ezra Klein

Can you summarize the 2 hours of video there?

BTW I am surprised about this weird resurgence of the Bell Curve (or maybe I shouldn't be in the Brexit/Trump world). Still, its odd something easily discredited (IQ tests are neither a definitive measure of intelligence nor are they unbiased) is seeing new popularity 25 years later.

 

[Raoul]

Can you summarize the 2 hours of video there?

BTW I am surprised about this weird resurgence of the Bell Curve (or maybe I shouldn't be in the Brexit/Trump world). Still, its odd something easily discredited (IQ tests are neither a definitive measure of intelligence nor are they unbiased) is seeing new popularity 25 years later.

I listened to about 20 minutes. Klein spent most of this time attempting to poke holes in Harris' logic and Harris addressed each of Klein's criticisms.

 

[Tarrou]

Harris was on Rogan along with Maajid Nawaz the other day. Only listened to the first half but it's been great so far.

 

[Raoul]

Harris was on Rogan along with Maajid Nawaz the other day. Only listened to the first half but it's been great so far.

Yeah anything with Maajid and Harris is great. Rogan not so much.

Interesting chat about transgenders at 57:40

 

[Raoul]

Can you summarize the 2 hours of video there?

BTW I am surprised about this weird resurgence of the Bell Curve (or maybe I shouldn't be in the Brexit/Trump world). Still, its odd something easily discredited (IQ tests are neither a definitive measure of intelligence nor are they unbiased) is seeing new popularity 25 years later.

Much of it is an long, drawn out argument about Harris' views on Charles Murray and about the idea that its ok to consider it legitimate that there are genetic differences between different groups of people.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I listened to about 20 minutes. Klein spent most of this time attempting to poke holes in Harris' logic and Harris addressed each of Klein's criticisms.

Ok so I listened to the whole thing. I think Klein makes a very wise point that Harris is quick to accuse other people of confirmation bias but he has a big blindspot to it in regards to people he likes.

Harris does repeatedly try to casually dismiss Nisbett and Turkheimer for instance as instantly being dishonest to the science because of a policy agenda and falsely calls them 'fringe'. Yet Nisbett and Turkheimer are hugely respected "mainstream" Professors at University of Michigan and University of Virginia while Murray, as Klein points out, has spent his entire career working in privately funded conservative think tanks getting paid to produce research to support a conservative policy agenda. Murray who has a very clear economic and personal incentive yet Harris doesn't even entertain the notion that its Murray whose research is following from confirmation bias. He also doesn't admit that the IQ differences might not be due to genetics which is what Nisbett and Turkheimer's research shows.

Another problem with Harris is something that Chomsky exchange highlighted. Harris loves his imaginary thought experiments that really don't illustrate anything because they are just disconnected from the real world and allow Harris to conclude whatever he wants. That neaderthal imaginary thing got tiresome.

 

[Raoul]

Ok so I listened to the whole thing. I think Klein makes a very wise point that Harris is quick to accuse other people of confirmation bias but he has a big blindspot to it in regards to people he likes.

Harris does repeatedly try to casually dismiss Nisbett and Turkheimer for instance as instantly being dishonest to the science because of a policy agenda and falsely calls them 'fringe'. Yet Nisbett and Turkheimer are hugely respected "mainstream" Professors at University of Michigan and University of Virginia while Murray, as Klein points out, has spent his entire career working in privately funded conservative think tanks getting paid to produce research to support a conservative policy agenda. Murray who has a very clear economic and personal incentive yet Harris doesn't even entertain the notion that its Murray whose research is following from confirmation bias. He also doesn't admit that the IQ differences might not be due to genetics which is what Nisbett and Turkheimer's research shows.

Another problem with Harris is something that Chomsky exchange highlighted. Harris loves his imaginary thought experiments that really don't illustrate anything because they are just disconnected from the real world and allow Harris to conclude whatever he wants. That neaderthal imaginary thing got tiresome.

I got something slightly different out of it beyond what the likes of Murray and his critics are talking about. Its really a discussion about whether or not we are willing to entertain the idea that different groups have varying genetic differences based on their respective historiographies, and if so, whether such results would be taken head on or whether they would be denied and/or swept below the carpet because we are living in a particular era where the moral orthodoxy is centered on balancing historical inequities. That to me was the crux of what they were arguing about. Harris doesn't seem to take a moral position on interpreting the raw data whereas his critics - here Klein, but also the likes Greenwald et al - over the years clearly do.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I got something slightly different out of it beyond what the likes of Murray and his critics are talking about. Its really a discussion about whether or not we are willing to entertain the idea that different groups have varying genetic differences based on their respective historiographies, and if so, whether such results would be taken head on or whether they would be denied and/or swept below the carpet because we are living in a particular era where the moral orthodoxy is centered on balancing historical inequities. That to me was the crux of what they were arguing about. Harris doesn't seem to take a moral position on interpreting the raw data whereas his critics - here Klein, but also the likes Greenwald et al - over the years clearly do.

Harris was interpreting the data in the sense that the data only shows a discrepancy in the IQ results it doesn't establish the genetic causation. Attributing that to genetic causes is not self-evident to the data. That is what Nisbett, Turkheimer, etc research suggests - that the actual discrepancy in the data is not nearly as genetic as Murray and his funders claim and its those facts that Harris glosses over when he gets overly polemical.

 

[Raoul]

Harris was interpreting the data in the sense that the data only shows a discrepancy in the IQ results it doesn't establish the genetic causation. Attributing that to genetic causes is not self-evident to the data. That is what Nisbett, Turkheimer, etc research suggests - that the actual discrepancy in the data is not nearly as genetic as Murray and his funders claim and its those facts that Harris glosses over when he gets overly polemical.

That was the normative side of the debate but there was also a deeper philosophical layer of it that touched on if such data exists, whether it would be ignored or squashed because we don't want to offend said groups.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

That was the normative side of the debate but there was also a deeper philosophical layer of it that touched on if such data exists, whether it would be ignored or squashed because we don't want to offend said groups.

I thought that was the least compelling part because Harris just makes up his imaginary thought experiment and then proceeds to make conclusions on the scenario he is imagining. This is another case like Chomsky unpacked where Harris is using a completely made up circumstance to arrive at pre-conceived conclusions. Its really a poor form of arguing as all he is doing is reinforcing his own confirmation bias.

 

[Raoul]

That's not how I would describe it. That was the least compelling part because Harris just makes up his imaginary thought experiment and then proceeds to make conclusions on the scenario he is imagining and goes on from there. This is another case like Chomsky unpacked where Harris is using a completely made up circumstance to arrive at pre-conceived conclusions. Its really a poor form of arguing as all he is doing is reinforcing his own confirmation bias.

I don't find that particular point very thought provoking either as I think its clear if there actually was some valid scientific evidence it wouldn't be be addressed in any of the ways Harris is imagining as that's not the way the current scientific community works despite some wing nut attacks on associations like AAAS being inherently biased political. This is where I think Klein has a valid point about Harris not even noticing his own confirmation bias.

I think all Harris is saying that we are to varying degrees, different. He used the Korean analogy where anyone who saw him would know he's not Korean. He's simply challenging the idea that we are all identical irrespective of background and that there may be some genetic differences based on environmental factors. If there are then we should be looking into why.

 

[Raoul]

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I think all Harris is saying that we are to varying degrees, different. He used the Korean analogy where anyone who saw him would know he's not Korean. He's simply challenging the idea that we are all identical irrespective of background and that there may be some genetic differences based on environmental factors. If there are then we should be looking into why.

That's a poor analogy IMO. He is using a specific phenotype manifestation and then using that to generalize and extrapolate about something completely different.

The problem that he doesn't seem to recognize is two-fold 1) that intelligence is not a simplistic expression of genetics but extremely complex. 2) "Race" is a problematic construct in this case because genetic research has shown that genetic variation within the five broad genetic categories is greater than the variation between each category.

This is why the whole premise is problematic scientifically. Considering that the variation is greater within a group than between the groups, its not useful to try to use visual phenotype to try to organize groups around intelligence because two people that self-identify as Europeans might actually have more in common genetically with an Asian person than each other.

Its not like Murray was using actual genetic data (which didn't exist in 1994) to accurately divide and define the 'races'. He was using outdated 18th century racial categories that have since been shown to be mostly meaningless as the link shows.

 

[Mockney]

I assumed this thread had been bumped due to Ben “facts not feelings” Shapiro filing a police report for “battery” after being mildly intimidated by a Trans woman on TV, as a result of pulling his usual “needlessly mock and insult them personally until they snap, so I look like the rational one” shtick.

But alas, apparently not...

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Intellectual discourse for grown ups in 2018. The bombs can’t some soon enough.

 

[berbatrick]

Intellectual discourse for grown ups in 2018. The bombs can’t some soon enough.

I haven't watched it but apparently the world's leading intellectual was on bill Maher talking about the perils of masturbating.

 

[Raoul]

That's Katy Tur's father isn't it.

 

[Mockney]

I haven't watched it but apparently the world's leading intellectual was on bill Maher talking about the perils of masturbating.

Dragons don’t wank dude.

 

[Raoul]

I assumed this thread had been bumped due to Ben “facts not feelings” Shapiro filing a police report for “battery” after being mildly intimidated by a Trans woman on TV, as a result of pulling his usual “needlessly and mockingly insult them personally until they snap, so I look like the rational one” shtick.

But alas, apparently not...

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Intellectual discourse for grown ups in 2018. The bombs can’t some soon enough.

Just heard about this.

Edit. This apparently happened in 2015. No charges filed in the end.

 

[berbatrick]

Dragons don’t wank dude.

Sorry it's an older clip

Www.twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/987706974598041605

 

[Organic Potatoes]

That's a poor analogy IMO. He is using a specific phenotype manifestation and then using that to generalize and extrapolate about something completely different.

The problem that he doesn't seem to recognize is two-fold 1) that intelligence is not a simplistic expression of genetics but extremely complex. 2) "Race" is a problematic construct in this case because genetic research has shown that genetic variation within the five broad genetic categories is greater than the variation between each category.

This is why the whole premise is problematic scientifically. Considering that the variation is greater within a group than between the groups, its not useful to try to use visual phenotype to try to organize groups around intelligence because two people that self-identify as Europeans might actually have more in common genetically with an Asian person than each other.

Its not like Murray was using actual genetic data (which didn't exist in 1994) to accurately divide and define the 'races'. He was using outdated 18th century racial categories that have since been shown to be mostly meaningless as the link shows.

Harris repeats ad nauseam that he doesn’t know much or care about the topic and doesn’t think it’s productive to research it.

He is standing up for the right to talk about it in the first place after left wing ‘ultras’ attacked Murray and a professor for daring to speak about a sensitive topic. Another recent Rogan podcast with Pinker illustrates this problem succinctly.

 

[berbatrick]

Harris repeats ad nauseam that he doesn’t know much or care about the topic and doesn’t think it’s productive to research it.

He is standing up for the right to talk about it in the first place after left wing ‘ultras’ attacked Murray and a professor for daring to speak about a sensitive topic. Another recent Rogan podcast with Pinker illustrates this problem succinctly.

Do you know the history of race-intelligence research, and also of Murray's political positions?

 

[Organic Potatoes]

Do you know the history of race-intelligence research, and also of Murray's political positions?

I know of Murray’s agendas, and they strike me as being Darwinian and cruel.

But that doesn’t mean we should ignore the research he bases his ideas upon, which as has already been pointed out has some merit. To shut down any debate is tyranny, even if well intentioned.

 

[berbatrick]

I know of Murray’s agendas, and they strike me as being Darwinian and cruel.

But that doesn’t mean we should ignore the research he bases his ideas upon, which as has already been pointed out has some merit. To shut down any debate is tyranny, even if well intentioned.

There are several answers to this and I'll edit this post to add details.

1. American eugenics 1900-40 was a acknowledged as a model by hitler. (contemporary science had proved Jews, Italians, and (iirc) Irish and Asians were alongside blacks at the bottom of the intelligence ladder). So would shutting down debates about the subhuman nature of Jews also have counted as tyranny? There were scientists who could show evidence for that claim.

2. There are equally many reasons to doubt the claim too. I'm on mobile so can't link but I'd recommend watching the 2nd half of a video on YouTube called reading the right: the bell curve by foreverjameses.

3. (afaik) Murray was shut down at one place and has continued with a highly successful college tour everywhere else. He continues to be a well-funded researcher name-checked by political and economic elites. Yet he dines off the perception of victimhood.

4. Let's assume that the counter-evidence didn't exist. What do you think should be done about inferior people? Hitler had a clear answer. Murray has a less drastic one (gut education outside practical training for the dull 80%). Can you think of another?

 

[Organic Potatoes]

There are several answers to this and I'll edit this post to add details.

1. American eugenics 1900-40 was a acknowledged as a model by hitler. (contemporary science had proved Jews, Italians, and (iirc) Irish and Asians were alongside blacks at the bottom of the intelligence ladder). So would shutting down debates about the subhuman nature of Jews also have counted as tyranny? There were scientists who could show evidence for that claim.

2. There are equally many reasons to doubt the claim too. I'm on mobile so can't link but I'd recommend watching the 2nd half of a video on YouTube called reading the right: the bell curve by foreverjameses.

3. (afaik) Murray was shut down at one place and has continued with a highly successful college tour everywhere else. He continues to be a well-funded researcher name-checked by political and economic elites. Yet he dines off the perception of victimhood.

4. Let's assume that the counter-evidence didn't exist. What do you think should be done about inferior people? Hitler had a clear answer. Murray has a less drastic one (gut education outside practical training for the dull 80%). Can you think of another?

The feck are you on about? I disagree with Murray, as does Harris who is the epicenter of this crap storm. The research is mostly to do with class anyway, not race. Race is just one designator that can be used due to how class and race coincide on aggregate in America after centuries of discrimination and denial of opportunity.

I understand the sensitivity surrounding it, but in this post-factual Trumpian world we are living in shutting down debate does us no good. It only serves to keep perverse ideas under darkness without being exposed to light, meaning for their proponents they never get disproven. So long as something isn’t proven wrong, there will be people that can claim it is true.

 

[Raoul]

The feck are you on about? I disagree with Murray, as does Harris who is the epicenter of this crap storm. The research is mostly to do with class anyway, not race. Race is just one designator that can be used due to how class and race coincide on aggregate in America after centuries of discrimination and denial of opportunity.

I understand the sensitivity surrounding it, but in this post-factual Trumpian world we are living in shutting down debate does us no good. It only serves to keep perverse ideas under darkness without being exposed to light, meaning for their proponents they never get disproven. So long as something isn’t proven wrong, there will be people that can claim it is true.