Peterson, Harris, etc....

Sam Harris is obviously left wing. He just has a few opinions which left wing people consider sacrilege so they're keen to evict him from "their" group. The idea that a political stance can be reduced to a handful of controversial issues is tragic but that's our reality and he opens himself up to that attack knowingly, so we really shouldn't care how other people identify him. If you want to know his position you can listen to him talk about it in simple terms many times. Pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things but kind of amusing all the same.

He's a good litmus test for how extreme your views are and how you perceive politics in general. The people that want to claim him on the right or eject him on the left are only communicating something about themselves, not about him. Mostly intentionally too.

Exactly. It's amusing but also a bit sad, because his ethical reasoning in support of matters that are important to the left are drowned out by these outright false claims that he wants to nuke the middle east and thinks brown people are inherently stupid, or whatever bs is said about him nowadays.
 
Harris said:
People don’t want to hear that a person's intelligence is in large measure due to his or her genes and 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.

Now, for better or worse, these are all facts. In fact, there is almost nothing in psychological science for which there is more evidence than these claims. About IQ, about the validity of testing for it, about its importance in the real world, about its heritability, and about its differential expression in different populations.

Again, this is what a dispassionate look at [what] decades of research suggest. Unfortunately, the controversy over The Bell Curve did not result from legitimate, good-faith criticisms of its major claims. Rather, it was the product of a politically correct moral panic that totally engulfed Murray's career and has yet to release him.
Like, even if you ignore the evident racism from people like Murray, there is a lot of criticism of IQ as a measure of intelligence - especially as applied to race and the whole planet. Being dispassionate when you're telling black people they're dumb is sus af.
 
Like, even if you ignore the evident racism from people like Murray, there is a lot of criticism of IQ as a measure of intelligence - especially as applied to race and the whole planet. Being dispassionate when you're telling black people they're dumb is sus af.

Which gets discussed in the podcast. It’s a flawed metric but it’s the most studied. So obviously worthy of discussion. Ignoring all the data is just sticking your fingers in your ears and going “nah nah nah I can’t hear you”.
 
Like, even if you ignore the evident racism from people like Murray, there is a lot of criticism of IQ as a measure of intelligence - especially as applied to race and the whole planet. Being dispassionate when you're telling black people they're dumb is sus af.

Yeah, he probably exaggerated the reasons for Murray's villifications, I'll agree to that.

Harris's interest in IQ comes from worrying about the stratification of IQ in society in general, and that stratification goes across race since the racial difference is so insignificant It's tied to the accumulation of wealth by the top percents to the detriment of the people in the lower categories, because intelligence plays an increasingly important role in what you can achieve in today's society, as opposed to previous times where the determinstic element was much stronger.

It's an inherently humanistic worry, and it's damn shame that this very real problem is untouchable because of the racial implications which *surprise surprise* aren't even worth taking into consideration at all!
 
Exactly. It's amusing but also a bit sad, because his ethical reasoning in support of matters that are important to the left are drowned out by these outright false claims that he wants to nuke the middle east and thinks brown people are inherently stupid, or whatever bs is said about him nowadays.

He's said some things on the topic of "brown people" that can only incite hatred. Irrespective of his reasoning for it I think it's embarrassing that he's been unable to recognise why people have legitimate issues with what he said.

I agree with his condemnation of this culture of outrage but he loses legitimacy in that discussion when he denies the legitimacy of any outrage against him on that subject. Especially when he bangs the drum so loudly about the need to leave a lot of room in discussions for alternative viewpoints. He does that very poorly in some aspects and lacks a remarkable amount of self reflection on that front at times.

For an open minded person he has a very poor temperament when people challenge him on fundamental questions. He admits the poor temperament but never legitimises the other, much more important element of that issue.

That doesn't make me want to evict him from my side of the political spectrum though. It's normal to have fundamental disagreements with people that share broad worldviews. It's really odd to avoid facing that reality by simply denying his right to self identify. Dangerous too I think.
 
He's said some things on the topic of "brown people" that can only incite hatred. Irrespective of his reasoning for it I think it's embarrassing that he's been unable to recognise why people have legitimate issues with what he said.

I agree with his condemnation of this culture of outrage but he loses legitimacy in that discussion when he denies the legitimacy of any outrage against him on that subject. Especially when he bangs the drum so loudly about the need to leave a lot of room in discussions for alternative viewpoints. He does that very poorly in some aspects and lacks a remarkable amount of self reflection on that front at times.

That doesn't make me want to evict him from my side of the political spectrum though. It's normal to have fundamental disagreements with people that share broad worldviews. It's really odd to avoid facing that reality by simply denying his right to self identify. Dangerous too I think.

Absolutely, I agree.
 
Did you listen to that podcast? You really should. Otherwise you’re just arguing from a position of ignorance.
It's just check its........TWO AND HALF HOURS long. I could watch Tarkovsky Stalker in the same amount of time(Fast forwarding all the boring parts)

Some who has listen to it

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech

In an episode that runs nearly two and a half hours, Harris, who is best known as the author of The End of Faith, presents Murray as a victim of “a politically correct moral panic” — and goes so far as to say that Murray has no intellectually honest academic critics. Murray’s work on The Bell Curve, Harris insists, merely summarizes the consensus of experts on the subject of intelligence.

The consensus, he says, is that IQ exists; that it is extraordinarily important to life outcomes of all sorts; that it is largely heritable; and that we don’t know of any interventions that can improve the part that is not heritable. The consensus also includes the observation that the IQs of black Americans are lower, on average, than that of whites, and — most contentiously — that this and other differences among racial groups is based at least in part in genetics.

Harris is not a neutral presence in the interview. “For better or worse, these are all facts,” he tells his listeners. “In fact, there is almost nothing in psychological science for which there is more evidence than for these claims.” Harris belies his self-presentation as a tough-minded skeptic by failing to ask Murray a single challenging question. Instead, during their lengthy conversation, he passively follows Murray to the dangerous and unwarranted conclusion that black and Hispanic people in the US are almost certainly genetically disposed to have lower IQ scores on average than whites or Asians — and that the IQ difference also explains differences in life outcomes between different ethnic and racial groups.

In Harris’s view, all of this is simply beyond dispute. Murray’s claims about race and intelligence, however, do not stand up to serious critical or empirical examination. But the main point of this brief piece is not merely to rebut Murray’s conclusions per se — although we will do some of that — but rather to consider the faulty path by which he casually proceeds from a few basic premises to the inflammatory conclusion that IQ differences between groups are likely to be at least partly based on inborn genetic differences. These conclusions, Harris and Murray insist, are disputed only by head-in-the-sand elitists afraid of the policy implications.

(In the interview, Murray says he has modified none of his views since the publication of the book, in 1994; if anything, he says, the evidence for his claims has grown stronger. In fact, the field of intelligence has moved far beyond what Murray has been saying for the past 23 years.)

Finally, let us consider Sam Harris and his willingness to endorse Murray’s claims — his decision to suspend the skepticism and tough-mindedness we have come to expect from him. There is a fairly widespread intellectual movement among center-right social theorists and pundits to argue that strong adherence to the scientific method commits us to following human science wherever it goes — and they mean something very specific in this context. They say we must move from hard-nosed science of intelligence and genetics all the way — only if that’s the direction data and logical, unbiased interpretation lead, naturally — to genetically based differences in behavior among races.
 
It's just check its........TWO AND HALF HOURS long. I could watch Tarkovsky Stalker in the same amount of time(Fast forwarding all the boring parts)

Some who has listen to it

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech

I read the vox piece before, after listening to the podcast. It’s seriously biased and misrepresents most of what they discuss. Which is actually fairly level-headed and well meaning. Although, like most psychosocial research, the findings need to be taken with a massive pinch of salt. And, as usual, Harris is a bit too interested in banging the drum about freedom of speech.

Reactions like that are part of the reason genuinely abhorrent right wing views are getting so much traction. People like the Vox writer are so desperate to see racists and nazis absolutely everywhere that the real ones can slip through unnoticed.
 
@Sweet Square Not only does that article completely misrepresent how the conversation went, and in particular which parts of Murray's claims Harris agreed to, but it's by Vox, who pretty much mounted an entire smear campaign on Harris after the podcast. Besided, as far as I understand the topic, Turkheimer and Nesbitt are the scientifically controversial ones on this topic.

I get that you don't want to listen to the podcast just for the argument, but what you're claiming simply isn't true. The way Harris handled the whole aftermath was reckless and stupid of him, but that podcast does not make him racist and right wing. The fact that you're so careless and intent on labeling him as such is a bit frightening.

Edit: The thing which should be criticised in all this is Murray's ridiculous policy claims, which I find abhorrent, and I wish Harris had pushed harder back on that, but that wasn't really the purpose of the whole conversation.
 
It’s barely been two days since a lunatic shot up a mosque and people out here bending over backwards to defend an islamaphobe like Harris. FFS.

The fact that a lunatic shot up a mosque doesn't mean one shouldn't argue against false accusations of racism and wrongful political labels.
 
Think the idea Sam Harris is a ‘lefty’ is pretty nonsensical. He’s not a far right nutcase either but I’d put him in the centre right category.

My main issue with him is he’s no where as smart as he thinks he is. Silver spoon kid to boot.
 
It’s barely been two days since a lunatic shot up a mosque and people out here bending over backwards to defend an islamaphobe like Harris. FFS.
Surely it’s obvious why? This seems to be a recurring theme on here lately.

*Someone says something dangerously false about someone*
“Oh actually, btw that isn’t true”
“OMG why are you defending him?”
 
Think the idea Sam Harris is a ‘lefty’ is pretty nonsensical. He’s not a far right nutcase either but I’d put him in the centre right category.

My main issue with him is he’s no where as smart as he thinks he is. Silver spoon kid to boot.

He has said multiple times he is a "lefty". Thinking you know better than him about his political ideology suggests your main issue with him might contain a hint of projection in there.

Yeah I'm not going to listen to two hours of Charles Murray, sorry. :rolleyes:


Yeah we get Andrei it's a train journey now get a move on.

The point is that if you only read a 5 minute summary of a 2 1/2 hour discussion then inevitably you lose the nuance of the discussion. In controversial topics the nuance is important. If you choose to read a bastardised version of that discussion from an author you feel comfortably aligned with then you are not in any way informing yourself about that subject, but reinforcing your assumptions. If you do that on a repeated basis on the same subject then your perception of reality becomes distorted without you even realising. It feels gratifying but it isn't achieving what you claim its intended to. They remain assumptions but somehow they feel grounded in evidence.

That's all fine, if you accept the psychological dangers inherent in that, but then you're not a particularly useful commentator on that subject. Your view on Sam Harris is in fact your view on the caricature of Sam Harris. Telling other people that this is what Sam Harris is like without acknowledging that you are informing them of what his caricature is like is intellectually dishonest and not helpful to the person asking the original question.
 
It’s barely been two days since a lunatic shot up a mosque and people out here bending over backwards to defend an islamaphobe like Harris. FFS.
It’s a relevant time to have the discussion, particularly in regards to Harris.

Though I’m growing weary of that term being thrown around so loosely, as he dishes it out to Christians just the same in his defense of atheism.
 
Someone shouldn't be pinned as an islamaphobe if they are negative towards all religions. Also, why should anyone have to defend not liking Islam? It's a perfectly valid viewpoint.
 
Harris always struck me the most politically centrist and sensible of the IDW folks. He's certainly a lot more grounded and reasonable than Ben Shapiro, although that shouldn't be the bar.
 
Hunter Maats is notorious for pretty much making up shit that Harris has never said or meant.

@Sweet Square Not only does that article completely misrepresent how the conversation went, and in particular which parts of Murray's claims Harris agreed to, but it's by Vox, who pretty much mounted an entire smear campaign on Harris after the podcast.

Vox fake news ?

This is just pointless now because well I'm not going to listen to a couple of hours of Charles Murray(A man who literally burnt a cross on his front lawn in his younger days)and you will just say a criticism of Harris is some bizarre smear campaign that always misrepresent his views(Basically the standard push back Harris gives to any criticism of him)

podcast does not make him racist and right wing.

I've said already in my other post the podcast isn't the only reason. What in your mind makes Harris left wing ? Is he for universal healthcare ? Is he for stronger workers rights ? Higher Taxes on the wealthy ? Ending private prisons ? etc Answers in non 2 hours + podcast format please .

that wasn't really the purpose of the whole conversation.
Then you don't know the history of how people like Murray operate and are just being played along.
 
Vox fake news ?

This is just pointless now because well I'm not going to listen to a couple of hours of Charles Murray(A man who literally burnt a cross on his front lawn in his younger days)and you will just say a criticism of Harris is some bizarre smear campaign that always misrepresent his views(Basically the standard push back Harris gives to any criticism of him)

It's not necessarily fake news. I don't see Vox as a bad faith actor in general, but as @Brwned said, in this instance the representation of Sam Harris and the conversation was a caricature. And yeah, Harris can overdo the "I'm misrepresented" thing, but in this instance he is right.


I've said already in my other post the podcast isn't the only reason. What in your mind makes Harris left wing ? Is he for universal healthcare ? Is he for stronger workers rights ? Higher Taxes on the wealthy ? Ending private prisons ? etc Answers in non 2 hours + podcast format please .

He is indeed in favour of all the bolded parts. I can't say about private prisons because I don't remember, but I'd bet his views on it would align with most people on the left. I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with branding him as a right winger when he's a self proclaimed center-leftist whose political views are far more on the left than any Democratic candidate the last decades.


Then you don't know the history of how people like Murray operate and are just being played along

What? As I've already said, Murray's conclusions on policy are absolutely terrible, and if that was topic of the conversation then I'm sure it would have met way more pushback since they have pretty much opposite views on things like the social safety net. But again, that's not how it went. The only thing they agree on is that intellience is an increasingly important factor in quality of life, but while Murray ridiculously claims that a laissez-faire approach is the solution, Harris thinks a redistribution to benefit the once left out of an increasingly wealthy society is the way to go. Very right wing, right?
 
Last edited:
I’m pretty sure I once saw Harris arguing in favour of UBI. I’ll try to find the clip after work
 
He is indeed in favour of all the bolded parts. I can't say about private prisons because I don't remember, but I'd bet his views on it would align with most people on the left.
Links ? I've tried to find him supporting universal healthcare and have found nothing and the same can be said of the other topics I've mentioned. I mean Harris couldn't support the most basic centre left reforms Bernie put forward in 2016.

Now I get that American politics is so far to the right that anyone who isn't a actual Nazi seems on the left but simply guessing Harris fails somewhere on the left is kinda of useless.

I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with branding him as a right winger when he's a self proclaimed center-leftist whose political views are far more on the left than any Democratic candidate the last decades.

I'm not obsessed with branding him anything. I've looked at his views on the topics I mentioned and came to the conclusion he's on the political right. And some people on here really struggled with that, so thats why we are talking about it now.


I’m pretty sure I once saw Harris arguing in favour of UBI. I’ll try to find the clip after work
UBI can also be a right wing idea. Milton Friedman loved the idea.
 
It's not a guess, he has self identified as a liberal repeatedly. The only reason not to believe him would be if you think there's some benefit to claiming he's a liberal, which makes no sense if you consider who the majority of his audience is.
 
no one doubts he's a liberal, the doubt is whether he's left wing which is different despite some overlap

The overlap is pretty significant, especially if you subscribe to the view that political views should be contextualised in their time rather than viewed in the abstract, and I don't think it's useful to speak for everyone. Your view on this subject is much more nuanced than SS'.
 
Last edited:
this is a good case in point, his bizarre email conversation with noam chomsky https://samharris.org/the-limits-of-discourse/

Yes I found it particularly bizarre too. I don't think it demonstrates your point at all though. It's one of the many examples of him preaching about tolerance while being wholeheartedly incapable of it. I don't think either of them did their views much justice in that exchange. You don't have to be on the same side as Chomsky to be on the left. Regardless of how much SS would wish it so.
 
I, perhaps mistakenly, pegged him as clearly right wing years ago after all the Islam stuff he came out with. He seems fairly left wing on social issues these days, and fairly right wing on certain political issues, to me at least. But I don't think he has a definitive bias either way.

It's a strange discussion to have though, isn't it? We seem to be of the general consensus these days that it's a bad thing that society is so polarised and divided on everything.
Yet when someone like Harris comes along who seems kinda balanced and open-minded, or at worst is only slightly biased in one direction, we still endeavour to put him in the clearly labelled left or right box.
 
Political designations become meaningless if the overlap means x and y are the same, in this case liberalism and leftism which have very different intellectual and public histories. Yes, the overlap is there and it's important to recognise it and to engage it and sometimes ally against further forces but they're not the same. Leftism is a specific designation for redistributive economic policies, you can be a conservative leftist and many have been, it just happens that in the west liberal leftism is more common. You don't have to be a randian lunatic to not be left wing, you just have to be against leftist economics, namely against socialism. Harris is broadly an interventionist capitalist, i.e a liberal. There's MPs in the British conservative party who would vote against moving away from free at the point of service healthcare or who voted to legalize gay marriage etc. But it would be silly to call them leftists.
 
Political designations become meaningless if the overlap means x and y are the same, in this case liberalism and leftism which have very different intellectual and public histories. Yes, the overlap is there and it's important to recognise it and to engage it and sometimes ally against further forces but they're not the same. Leftism is a specific designation for redistributive economic policies, you can be a conservative leftist and many have been, it just happens that in the west liberal leftism is more common. You don't have to be a randian lunatic to not be left wing, you just have to be against leftist economics, namely against socialism. Harris is broadly an interventionist capitalist, i.e a liberal. There's MPs in the British conservative party who would vote against moving away from free at the point of service healthcare or who voted to legalize gay marriage etc. But it would be silly to call them leftists.
Since we’re on the topic of podcasters, Dan Carlin recently did one that delved into this topic of ‘left v. right’ that I enjoyed. Not on his usual channel, but the Addendum one as well as on the History on Fire podcast with the Italian guy.
 
Links ? I've tried to find him supporting universal healthcare and have found nothing and the same can be said of the other topics I've mentioned. I mean Harris couldn't support the most basic centre left reforms Bernie put forward in 2016.

Now I get that American politics is so far to the right that anyone who isn't a actual Nazi seems on the left but simply guessing Harris fails somewhere on the left is kinda of useless.



I'm not obsessed with branding him anything. I've looked at his views on the topics I mentioned and came to the conclusion he's on the political right. And some people on here really struggled with that, so thats why we are talking about it now.



UBI can also be a right wing idea. Milton Friedman loved the idea.
I did not mean it as a "is he right or left," more just adding a policy belief I think he has. I should have phrased that better, sorry.
 
this is a good case in point, his bizarre email conversation with noam chomsky https://samharris.org/the-limits-of-discourse/

I “may have been talking about both Christopher Hitchens and [you], given the way the question was posed,” or maybe about Hitchens, whose views I know about, whereas in your case I only know about your published falsifications of my views, which readers of yours have sent to me, and which I didn’t bother to respond to.

The idea of publishing personal correspondence is pretty weird, a strange form of exhibitionism – whatever the content. Personally, I can’t imagine doing it. However, if you want to do it, I won’t object.

:lol::lol::lol: Old man is ruthless :lol::lol: