Have I missed something? Harris, if I recall correctly, cares not one iota about race with respect to IQ. His crime seems to have been hosting Murray on his podcast - does that constitute racism in your book?
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Again, I don't find it interesting what he cares about or not. Harris had a podcast with Murray, a private correspondence with Ezra Klein, a podcast with Ezra Klein and some other scattered comments here and there. Here he said and wrote a bunch of stuff, some of that stuff was racist. He thinks the only plausible explanation for an observed racial IQ gap is that part of that gap is because white people are genetically more intelligent than black people. That has nothing to do with hosting Murray.
You seem to do this a lot. " unless you think critiquing Islam (read: Islam, not muslims) is racist?", "His crime seems to have been hosting Murray on his podcast - does that constitute racism in your book?". Please stop, it's annoying.
You’re wrong, you’re angry, and your opinions are shit. Good day.
Well that escalated quickly 
Is he wrong about the racial IQ comment? Sounds racist to me.
Yes, he’s wrong, because none of that happened - at least not as he purports it to have happened. Forgive me for not elaborating, but I resent having to disprove the fanciful nonsense that has been spouted in here. If only such naively absolutist views would work when applied to intelligent humans... alas, we aren’t all that close-minded.
On topic, though, let me just reiterate: Harris himself has hardly weighed in on race and IQ beyond hosting Murray.
Why people have this need to invent stuff about what people they don't like have said or done, or spout nonsense others have invented? Makes you look kinda untrustworthy and foolish. People imagine they have to dislike someone based off some ideology, leading them to pretty much make up any nonsense to support themselves not liking said person and continuing throwing shit. You do it once, even at length by some, why take anything else you say seriously.. I know little of Peterson but quite a bit about Harris. Why would anyone take seriously claims of craziness/racism/other isms, on Peterson in this case, by someone obviously talking nonsense about other people. Repeatedly and at length
All of this goes in circles.
If anyone can be arsed, page 82 (post #3247) to page 84 (first post) of this thread has lots of stuff about Harris, Murray, "race"/IQ.
If anyone can be arsed, page 82 (post #3247) to page 84 (first post) of this thread has lots of stuff about Harris, Murray, "race"/IQ.
Well said.
Not even Ezra Klein, the man at the centre of our ‘friend’s’ fan fiction, would call Sam Harris racist... and I know this is true because he has literally said, in direct conversation with Sam, that he does not believe Sam is racist, and would never call Sam racist (historically or otherwise).
This is the fecking state of the world these days. People are so eager to discredit others that they literally invent nasty allegations. How fecking abhorrent.
What a shock, he was as hostile then as he is now, and as wrong too. The man is nothing if not consistent.
I've written about this before, page 82 as Synco said. Read it if you're interested, though I can't remember if it was proper posts or quick ones. I can write it up properly if it was bad.
It's not really debatable that Harris thinks white people on average score higher on IQ tests than black people partly because of genetic differences in favour of white people.
Indeed and agreed. Ezra Klein is supposed to be a trustworthy person and someone to be taken seriously. But when he invents stuff, for no apparent reason other then what "team" he's on, he's revealed his ignorance and maliciousness once and unwillingness to correct himself when confronted with it. Why spend time on someone like that. Dishonesty should come with at least some cost
This is a deplorable misrepresentation. Shame on you.
First of all, I think the "race"/IQ angle is inherently racist, and I also think that Harris has taken a clear stance pro Murray (see my last post, on top of page 84).
But I also have zero intention to wade through all of this again, so I just pointed to the part of this thread where it's already been covered. With further links, etc.
In that page 82 debate your whole argument that he is definitely a racist hinges on him saying it is “possible but not plausible” that the genetic component of IQ is pushing in the opposite direction to what is observed in population studies .
It was pointed out to you that is because - as well as population studies - studies of twins and adoptees show the same trend. This seems much more likely to be the basis for him saying “possible but not plausible” rather than him being racist.
You didn’t address that point then. Could you address it now?
I don't know if I understand the request, sorry.
Are you asking me to address that Harris might think the only plausible explanation being that white people are genetically advantaged over black people with regards to intelligence is because of evidence, and that it's therefore not racist?
I think what I’m asking is clearly expressed in my post?
@Beachryan made the same point in your back and forth on page 82 but you didn’t seem to pick up on it then either.
Then I'm too stupid, probably. In #3528 Beachryan brings up twin studies in the context of individual differences, right? We're talking group differences here, so that looks like a simple misunderstanding of what the issue is about and therefore not a lot for me to address. The question isn't whether or not genetic differences can partly explain variarence in IQ, it can, the question is whether or not genetic differences between black and white people can explain differences in IQ between black and white people. It's akin to "do genes impact height?" vs "do genes explain the differences in height between people in country A and B?"
I believe Harris describes what happened with the Murray issue here....
I agree with you, and I believe Sam Harris would agree with you too. He’s not at all pro Murray, he’s just opposed to the pile-on that’s taken place recently. He critiques a lot of Murray’s work quite pointedly. Here’s a snippet of the general theme of his critique:
“... I’m sure we can find hate supremacist organizations who love the fact that The Bell Curve was published ... Why look at this? How does this help society get more information about racial difference?”
The ‘why’ is important. Harris recognises the danger in Murray’s research, as it could be misappropriated by certain hate groups. If certain ‘hate groups’ would approve of the work of a certain scholar, then that scholar has a responsibility to appropriately frame their position, or so Harris says. Harris isn’t particularly enamoured with Murray’s work in this respect.
Harris does not wade deeply into the science behind Murray’s general hypothesis, but does say the following:
“... there seems to be very little we can do environmentally to increase a person's intelligence even in childhood. It's not that the environment doesn't matter, but genes appear to be 50 to 80 percent of the story. People don't want to hear this. And they certainly don't want to hear that average IQ differs across races and ethnic groups”.
So, genes are important to intelligence - Undeniably true. IQ appears to differ across races - also true, as statistics show. That’s about as deep as Harris goes. The reality is that a complex mix of sociocultural phenomena contribute to this ‘iq disparity’. What Harris never does, much as it might pain certain people in here, is suggest that white people (or Asian people, really, as they fare best in Murray’s research) have some sort of biological or intellectual superiority over any other race. That is a deplorable suggestion.
Ok, thanks. You’ve addressed it now. I was assuming that these twin/adoption studies had showed a difference between races that trended in the same direction as the population studies. If not, then “possible but not plausible” is an odd comment from Harris.
@jungledrums
I meant what I said when I said "zero intention".
I meant what I said when I said "zero intention".
This was what I was trying to say, in a clearly painfully inadequate way, when engaging on this the first time.
Harris was always more focussed on Murray's treatment than Murray's research. But while he has to discuss the latter to make sense of his view of the former, some people take it to be supporting the research. It just isn't, I don't find it hard to parse at all.
I can think of some reasons to dislike Harris (I obviously don't) but this is really distorting things imo.
It’s fine, but I wanted to make that point anyway.
It is coincidence that the people (ex-school acquaintances) on my social media who post quotes and videos attributed to Jordan Peterson are all lads who also tend to parrot bizarre conspiracy theories and suffer from clear and obvious mental illnesses?
Since he's a clinical psychologist who sold a best selling self-help book so a lot of people who follow him might suffer from mental health issues.
I absolutely do not propose going down this rabbit hole again as it got nowhere last time, but this is demonstrably untrue, and it annoys me that people can just state such things as fact: "He thinks the only plausible explanation for an observed racial IQ gap is that part of that gap is because white people are genetically more intelligent than black people."
The man himself has wasted years of his life trying to convince people - apologies but clearly people like you - that deliberately misrepresent his opinions on the issue for some bizarre reason I cannot fathom.
Obviously I very much agree with the thought that Harris doesn't belong in this group, particularly as the others are either nuts or extremely right-wing, when Harris is clearly neither.
For those on the fence, just watch some of Harris' full talks, or better, listen to his Podcasts with a guest that you find interesting. Make up your own mind.
That’d figure. I’m not sure spending hours listening to Jordan Peterson tell you how to tie your own shoelaces is the best way to navigate through said issues.
My cynicism may be misguided but the same folk I see posting what this bloke has to say tend to be exactly the same folk who post about 5G towers, ‘cultural marxism’ and DNA chips. Idiots, to be concise.
No, lets, and we can do it really simply and clearly so you can show people that I am deliberately misrepresenting Harris. Then, if this ever comes up again in the future you can reference it, and you'll have proved I'm a dishonest liar. It's a pretty good deal for you.
We can start with describing the possibilities when explaining the observed gap:
1. Genes do not impact the observed racial differences in IQ scores.
2. Genes do impact the observed racial differneces in IQ scores, and the impact goes in favour of black people.
3. Genes do impact the observed racial differneces in IQ scores, and the impact goes in favour of white people.
Do you agree that this is an exhaustive list of any possible belief, or do you want to add anything? In an effort to save some time I'm going to guess you'll accept that Harris at least thinks 1 is false, but if not then let me know.
Listen, my interest in this topic extends to a tiny percentage of a podcaster I listen to. I'm not about to debate someone who quite clearly has invested far more time and energy into it, as I'd be fully out of my league.
What I do believe to have a good understanding about is what Sam Harris has said about what Sam Harris believes, from Sam Harris' point of view. That's it. He's not an expert either, he says as much many times on this topic.
From all I've read and heard from Sam Harris, I believe you are taking your widely researched, well-articulated, probably right views on the matter of genetic variance in IQ studies and for some reason picking - in the greater scheme of decades of work - a throwaway side issue on a single podcast that was only designed to investigate the left's desire to cancel things to fully determine Harris' character, worth and value.
What I do believe to have a good understanding about is what Sam Harris has said about what Sam Harris believes, from Sam Harris' point of view. That's it. He's not an expert either, he says as much many times on this topic.
From all I've read and heard from Sam Harris, I believe you are taking your widely researched, well-articulated, probably right views on the matter of genetic variance in IQ studies and for some reason picking - in the greater scheme of decades of work - a throwaway side issue on a single podcast that was only designed to investigate the left's desire to cancel things to fully determine Harris' character, worth and value.
To be honest I have left-wing "anarchists" friends on my FB who post excatly the same things apart from the "cultural Marxism" thing. Same goes for some that are spiritual and "New Age" types.
It wouldn't be a debate about genetics, it would be reading Harris's own statements. It's all in writing, so it will be very easy for you to show that I am lying, it will require no knowledge of the science. It will all be about what Sam Harris has said about what he believes.
For instance, regarding point 1 I would point out to where Harris says it would be impossible and a miracle (this is from two separate emails) that genetics aren't involved and use these clear statements to claim that Harris believes that genetics do at least play some role, and then if no objections here we'd proceed to look at the things Harris have said about what those genetic differences might be.
I think Harris even entertaing Charles Murray's ideas was a severe mistake. Your view on how much this disqualifies him as someone worth listening to is kind of preference. Its a pretty good reason to completely disregard someone views imo. I wouldn't necessarily judge someone else negatively for not being especially bothered by it. I think my biggest problem with him is he's a bit boring. He probably is the best of bad lot.
Can I "critique Jews" in NYC and does that make me racist or not?
Besides even if your idea of racism is the fashionable black people focussed racism of nowadays, sam harris has literally said black people are less intelligent and have lower IQs for reasons other than just socio economics.
Islamophobe doesn't find another islamophobe racist. Shocker.
And a figure head for the modern day incel.
I think Harris knows he made a mistake by allowing himself to get categorized as part of the intellectual dark web, and by so doing, associate himself with the likes of Rubin, Shapiro and others. He's since disassociated himself from the term, which was definitely the right thing to do. Prior to that, he had a healthy amount of cred from his four horseman days, which was largely forgotten due to his squabbles with Aslan, Greenwald, et al., followed by the IDW label.
I haven't listened to him much tbh (or the Charles Murray stuff at all to be clear, no interest in the subject). From what i have listened he comes off as very dry and kind of unremarkable. I don't know what hes meant to be qualified in or an expert on but as a general intellectual on the world he seems to have as many dumb, bad takes as intelligent ones.
Have a listen to him talk about free will. Or, better yet, read his book by the same name (it’s quite short, so won’t take you long). It’s undeniably smart, interesting stuff. In a completely different league to most of the numbskulls he gets grouped in with.
Agreed, good time for that as this weeks podcast is his 'final word on free will and a great summary of his position on it.
He's definitely dry but also definitely not dumb. And at least has some academic chops to ba k up his views, unlike some of the other names mentioned here.