lol.
Affleck started off smug and was reduced to nothing but a petulant sulking child within the space of 2 minutes. He had absolutely nothing to counter what was being said and did a very poor job in hiding that fact.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Affleck started off smug and was reduced to nothing but a petulant sulking child within the space of 2 minutes. He had absolutely nothing to counter what was being said and did a very poor job in hiding that fact.
You laughed out loud? Or is that just an internet debating tool mirroring your side of the televised debate at hand?
I'm sorry you think that Harris is in the know of the Muslim world beyond reading statistics conducted by some party that holds his own views.
Both of their views are giant over simplifications of a very complex problem. Affleck ends up 'losing' because he is too emotionally invested and not the brightest bulb.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Cringeeeee
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That clip was too short and sounded like it could be the summary to a million different points. Did you listen to the full version? Did he make that point or give any evidence pointing towards it?
Sorry was just when you said you could almost hear him thinking, could not help but laugh. Poor guy was thinking so hard it's a miracle his skull didn't implode.
I don't know about who knows more than who but Harris is at least factually accurate in what he does know, and of course unlike Affleck he is not totally bereft of knowledge.
Yeah, it is really stupid. He rejects some of the claims made by the bell curve paper regarding the same subject. He doubles down on genetic heritage and how Murray's thesis proves the claim that different races are just genetically smarter.
As hobbers said, Affleck had absolutely nothing to offer. All religion is poisonous but Islam is clearly worse than others. Take a look at some of the research that has been done by Pew on some of the views that are commonly held my Muslims and tell me you are not absolutely disgusted by that, e.g. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
Harris' statement that Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas and contrary to our liberal values is an important one and something I completely agree with.
Religion is a [deleted] and one can only hope that it will be eradicted sooner than later. Not by force but through arguments and education. And certainly not by misconceived tolerance towards the indefensible as displayed by Ben Affleck in the clip.
Last edited:
This is the piece that VOX apparently declined to publish for some reason, written by renowned and respected expert on intelligence Richard Haier in response to the Murray/Harris controversy:
http://quillette.com/2017/06/11/no-voice-vox-sense-nonsense-discussing-iq-race/
Sam Harris is not an expert in intelligence research but I am. After hearing the podcast, I emailed congratulations to him and Murray for conducting an informative discussion of complex and controversial issues. Every point they enumerated as having broad support among intelligence researchers is correct. There is an overwhelming weight of evidence to support the ideas that intelligence is something real, it can be reliably and validly measured without bias, and the measures predict many real world variables that are important to most human beings. There also is broad agreement that one component of intelligence is a general ability (the g-factor) to reason and problem-solve across a wide range of situations. There also is overwhelming evidence that genes play a significant role in explaining differences in intelligence among individuals.
I guess Haier is a klansman too.
http://quillette.com/2017/06/11/no-voice-vox-sense-nonsense-discussing-iq-race/
Sam Harris is not an expert in intelligence research but I am. After hearing the podcast, I emailed congratulations to him and Murray for conducting an informative discussion of complex and controversial issues. Every point they enumerated as having broad support among intelligence researchers is correct. There is an overwhelming weight of evidence to support the ideas that intelligence is something real, it can be reliably and validly measured without bias, and the measures predict many real world variables that are important to most human beings. There also is broad agreement that one component of intelligence is a general ability (the g-factor) to reason and problem-solve across a wide range of situations. There also is overwhelming evidence that genes play a significant role in explaining differences in intelligence among individuals.
I guess Haier is a klansman too.
Last edited:
You guys do know that his (Harris') academic credentials have been proven to be less than ironclad, don't you?
https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com...ist-sam-harris/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
There's another, more official source for this info as well but I can't seem to find it right now
https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com...ist-sam-harris/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
There's another, more official source for this info as well but I can't seem to find it right now
Affleck comes off like a coked up celebrity who parrots naive aphorisms about the way he would like things to be - a world where everyone gets along and no one disagrees on controversial topics. Harris does come off as his usually smug self as well, but at least he’s grounded in a degree of research and book writing on the various topics he discusses.
As already said, the stuff that Affleck argues in that infamous segment is fine (in a general sense) but his delivery, crying like a petulant school kid is why Harris gets away with it (coming off looking better). Haven't watched the whole thing in a while but pretty sure other panel members agree with Affleck (but in more eloquent terms). Neither of them is a bad as Maher to be fair, the smarmy git.
Anyway...
Back to genuine racists and lunatics like Ben Shapiro, I enjoyed this easy take down of his views on Hollywood.
Anyway...
Back to genuine racists and lunatics like Ben Shapiro, I enjoyed this easy take down of his views on Hollywood.
There is evidence that certain segments of the population score lower on IQ tests on average. That's not even up for debate.
It reads like a pretty desperate and vindictive hit job to discredit Harris. Nearly everyone who reads or listens to Harris knows he is did his PhD in Neuroscience and opted to not become a practicing Neuroscientist and instead write about the various topics he has. Rather than nit pick his dissertation, the anonymous author of the blog would be better off actually dealing with the substance of Harris' more recent arguments.
Based purely on their race? I doubt that's beyond debate. Citation needed.
Not surprising. There is a politically correct orthodoxy within certain corporate owned mainstream media that doesn't allow ideas that contradict the "we are all exactly equal" narrative.
This is the contentious point. I think environmental factors play a far larger role in what has been called "intelligence disparities" (a misnomer) amongst various races. Of course genetics are bound to play some role, but the options you have as you grow up are more important (based on everything I've ever read on the topic).
What is often neglected is that the IQ test itself is entirely redundant in many instances. How do you judge intelligence? Literacy and numeracy aren't sufficient, except for specific sections of society who privilege those aspects over others.
I'm not familiar with Adorno, I'm thinking more of Weber's Disenchantment theory and some of its critiques, and the work on religion by Talal Asad (Genealogies of Religion) which questions the historical basis for an autonomous category of 'religion' and the whole idea of secularism. In terms of Islam there's too much stuff on the roots of the modern revivalism to list here (I can PM you if you like?), but Shahab Ahmed's What is Islam? explicitly links it to Weber's theory and is a must-read in any case (probably the book that's had the biggest impact on how I think about Islam).
Most recent evidence (as you allude to) has shown a real lack of clarity for how genes influence 'abilities'. Anyone suggesting otherwise clearly isn't paying attention to the area.
I don't think Islam is any worse than Christianity to be honest. In fact parts of the old Testament are quite clearly worse if anything. The only difference is most Christians tend to completely ignore the stupid bits in the Bible whereas Islam has still not reached that phase. It is after all 600 years younger. and unlike the areas where Christianity is practiced, the moderating influence of Secularism and Democracy is absent which doesn't help.
I'd suggest Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern.
@Synco you might have a read of this by Francis Robinson: "Secularization, Weber and Islam" - https://repository.royalholloway.ac.uk/file/32080deb-f823-e5ff-5f58-5deefd6cf06e/8/Weber.pdf
Talk about stereotyping
Maybe it is contentious, I know next to nothing about the subject. But I’m not the one making the claim, Richard Haier is, and I think it’s probably fair to say that he has some idea of what he’s talking about, given his credentials. And when he lends support and credibility to Murray and Harris’ conversation, I’d say that goes a long way of vindicating the spirit and content of the conversation itself, even if parts of it (or all of it) might be up for debate. Which is the whole point.
And the fact that VOX/Klein refused to publish Haier’s piece really does not reflect well on them. It reeks of cowardice and insecurity.
I am sure there is, bud.
Probably more of an editorial choice to avoid criticisms of eugenics. They should have published it as it's valid and entirely open to rebuttal (similar studies have refuted many times).
This is incredibly naive, speaking as someone in academia.
As an atheist living in Palestine/Israel and someone who's part of the Arab and Muslim society, I'm well aware of what can fall through in translation. Yes in the village I grew up in people will tell you that they think "death is the punishment for apostasy/ridda", but it's just a mantra that is repeated without thinking, even by some of the most wholesome people I know. Now I know that sounds like a contradiction but It's only due to a lack of education and a lack of an insight to a modern world view. It's a cultural habit as much as a religious one to agree with everything that is written in the Quran. The difference is only a tiny tiny percentage will actually carry it out. In fact Western interference and arming of fundamentalist groups is more if an immoral issue and should worry someone like Harris more.
There's a cultural divide, you can't look into other cultures from the same perspective you look into your own. You have to actually try and understand the inner workings of different cultures if you are that interested. I got myself to a place where I adhere to western and eastern values and live in a mixed culture on a daily basis. So if it sounds scary to you that Muslim's might say something like that, you will only be able to put it in perspective once you delved into their way of thinking and operating.
I can assure you that in Affleck's line of work, he can conjure up a more "real-life" opinion on the matter. I can see he was hurt by the bigotry disguised as a humanitarian view, and he let his emotions show, nothing wrong with that. Implying that he looks coked up is your interpretation. He might not be a political scientist but you only need the ability to think to see through the nonsense spouted by Harris. Of course with Harris following up by addressing the need to empower the secular Muslims/Arabs Harris manages to attract a lot people to his opinions, but don't let that distract from the fact that his fears are based on meaningless statistics.
That looks really interesting.
Read the highlighted sentence again. Nothing remotely naive about it. I was deliberately using the mildest language possible to avoid putting too much emphasis on credentials/commit argument from authority.
It is, Latour's style is a struggle at first though. You have to get through the first few pages before you assimilate his idiom. Not sure I agree with him, but a great book nonetheless.
Great post. As you mention, people see Affleck's emotional response and assume he knows next to nothing on the matter. He comes off worse due to it in terms of a talkshow debate - but it's not coming from nowhere.
As for the bolded part, his exchange with Chomsky seems to show his thoughts on this.
I think Affleck was simply repeating a contemporary narrative that all humans are exactly alike and should therefore only accept a knowledge base that conforms to our values, as opposed to where fact based research takes us. That's not to say Harris was 100% correct either. They were both to a degree pushing their own agendas.
Seems to be a translation from the original French which may explain the style. Reading a bit more about it, I definitely think I've encountered his arguments second-hand somewhere.
I imagine Affleck is also influenced by his humanitarian work and his view that America has made the whole thing much worse by their actions. He's far from stupid going by his background.
He was clearly pissed off and took an instant dislike to Harris which made the whole thing a shitshow.
He was clearly pissed off and took an instant dislike to Harris which made the whole thing a shitshow.
Isn't that what Harris was saying in that video?
He was also clearly inebriated in one way or another. The difference in his demeanor and the rest of the guests is pretty stark.
But that's the heart of the matter, isn't it? It makes little sense to me going back to the Crusades and witch burning to defend what's currently wrong with Islam. Looking at the worst examples of Christians at the moment, we end up with people such as Mike Pence or some far-right extremists such as the KKK that have very little influence. That's a long way removed from the stronghold that deeply immoral and anti-liberal values have over large parts of the Muslim world.
As you said most Christians (thankfully) ignore all the nonsense in the Bible and cherry-pick the good bits. Hopefully a modern Islam can go down that route as well (my wish that religion disappears all together isn't going to happen in my lifetime) but this requires not being afraid to point out all the things that are wrong with it currently due to political correctness or fear of being labelled offensive or worse (what about my intelligence being offended when someone starts talking about God and miracles btw). That is why people such as Sam Harris are important.