Legendary Comedy Duo: Harris and Murray

[angrysoba]

And he earned that reputation by being a very proud, public racist.



Then he should have done research and he would have had strong reasons.



On this, we agree.

Could you point to some quotes of Murray where he proudly and publicly expresses his racism? It's strange to hear that because I believe he denies he is racist in the podcast and I think Harris also denies he found any racism.

 

[TraneWreck]

Could you point to some quotes of Murray where he proudly and publicly expresses his racism? It's strange to hear that because I believe he denies he is racist in the podcast and I think Harris also denies he found any racism.

Well, that does it, then. They deny it? I also heard The Bell Curve's opening line begins, "I'm not racist, but..."

Here's the Southern Poverty Law Center's page on Murray:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/charles-murray

His whole game is to dress racism up in science-y sounding stuff.

But seriously, you don't see the obvious racism in manipulating survey data to justify a position that black people are born inferior to white people? It's amazing that his racism needs to be explained.

And, again, the data does not show this. The scientific research does not show this. Murray made ******** up to justify a racist position. That's literally the only reason anyone knows who he is.

 

[angrysoba]

Well, that does it, then. They deny it? I also heard The Bell Curve's opening line begins, "I'm not racist, but..."

Here's the Southern Poverty Law Center's page on Murray:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/charles-murray

His whole game is to dress racism up in science-y sounding stuff.

But seriously, you don't see the obvious racism in manipulating survey data to justify a position that black people are born inferior to white people? It's amazing that his racism needs to be explained.

And, again, the data does not show this. The scientific research does not show this. Murray made ******** up to justify a racist position. That's literally the only reason anyone knows who he is.

You didn't say he stealthily puts forward racist ideas in sciency sounding terminology, you said he was a proud public racist. Where is this proud public rascism? Where are the quotes?

 

[marplots]

Duplicate.

 

[marplots]

The "Warrior Gene" dates back to the early 90's. I'm curious what makes you think it has any legitimacy.

It depends on what you mean by "any"?

The paper I mentioned: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ase_Addiction_and_the_Warrior_Gene_Hypothesis

One from 2009: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650118/

Some interesting research from 2014: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776744/

Charles Murray is the dirty bath water.

Maybe. I don't know the guy personally. We have an obligation to look at whatever evidence he presents.

What bothers me is when racists cherry-pick research to push their own agenda and that then taints the larger subject unfairly. We don't need to undermine the science in service of social justice.

I want the truth of the matter - even if it's uncomfortable.

 

[angrysoba]

I haven't read the Bell Curve so I cannot say if it is racist or not, but Wikipedia has two quotes suggesting that the relationship between IQ and race is unresolved and that they suggest both environmental and genetic factors have something to do with it. Is this what sparked the controversy?

 

[Roboramma]

I happened to have just listened to (most of) the podcast today. I didn't find anything particularly objectionable.

I thought Harris did an okay job. He brought up a few important points. For instance he brings up the Flynn affect, and at one point quotes Flynn as saying something along of lines of "You only have to posit that the environment of the average black man today is as conducive to mental development as that of the average white mane in 1948 to demolish the idea that there is a genetic component to the racial differences in IQ" (something like that). Murray dismissed this as though it were ridiculous because he seems to assert that the environmental differences simply aren't large enough.

I thought that was the weakest part of his argument. When Harris brings up environmental differences he rightly points out that we can measure at least some aspect of this, but then just basically makes an argument from incredulity saying that it's just inconceivable that the environmental differences could be large enough to explain the measured difference in IQ. Now, maybe he knows more about the research and there are actually valid reasons to think that, but if so he didn't explain them.

Nevertheless I didn't get the impression that he had an agenda. I don't know enough about the science here to form a solid opinion, but I do think that it's possible for him to be wrong and think he was right simply on scientific grounds, and i don't think that the issue is so clear cut that only a racist with an agenda could possibly continue to hold the opinions that he holds.

My own view is that while, as I say, I'm not sure, I suspect that the differences can be explained by environmental differences.

 

[nelsondogg]

Suprising that the push back took this long to come about as this podcast has been out for a while. I thought Harris should have been more critical in the discussion. Perhaps the feedback from the cluster **** of the podcast with Jordan Peterson, where the discussion completely stalled for 2 hours over the definition of truth was still on his mind. But I don't think Harris would hold back that much. In his podcast with Andrew Sullivan before the election, they ripped into Clinton before making the case against Trump. I think as someone who has been unjustly called a racist, like by Affleck on Real Time, he sympathizes too much with Murray.

 

[marplots]

I haven't read the Bell Curve so I cannot say if it is racist or not, but Wikipedia has two quotes suggesting that the relationship between IQ and race is unresolved and that they suggest both environmental and genetic factors have something to do with it. Is this what sparked the controversy?

My own view is that while, as I say, I'm not sure, I suspect that the differences can be explained by environmental differences.

If it comes down to environment there's an explanitory escape clause - improve the environment and race-linked IQ differences disappear. That falls in line with social justice concerns and is an acceptable way forward. If, on the other hand, it comes down to real, demonstrable genetic differences, there's a problem - that's taboo science.

The usual way to placate social justice concerns is to say that race itself is ill-defined, and, coupled with figuring out just what IQ actually measures, the whole subject should be thrown out as junk science.

Can it be repaired? I think it can, but have no idea what the results would show.

What's needed is a tightening of both definitions - race and IQ. Cognitive scientists have been working on the second and came up with "g" which they argue is both internally and externally consistent. So what about race? Can that be pinned down?

It can be, if you just decide our impression of someone's race is misleading and go with a genetic definition instead. That would mean throwing out "self identification" of ethnicity and the kind of social constructs we might want to keep for political purposes, but it has the advantage of a clear definition for purposes of deriving associations - the epidemiology we are interested in.

How to pin down race genetically? Well, look at genes of course!

Scientists have figured out that lighter skinned East Asians get their skin color mostly from a non-working version of kitlg. Northern European people with lighter skin often have a poorly working version of SLC24A5. A small number of pale northern Europeans get their skin color from a non-working MC1R gene. From: http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask288

Granted, that's a pretty shallow definition of what race is all about, but it has the advantage of getting the ball rolling. If we find no correlation with skin color (at least one way we talk about race) then fine, no need to press the case any further - it was all a mirage anyhow.

If there is a correlation, then we are back to nature/nurture conversations and have to start separating out those with background A from background B when the genes are the same. This is normal fare in statistical epidemiology.

The gold standard would be linking specific genes to g scores with an underlying explanatory theory - in the way you might determine someone's risk for breast cancer knowing how the genes interact.

In the end, and even if it all plays out nicely (I'm looking at you, reproducible study!), will we find out anything worth knowing? I seriously doubt it. And all the while we risk feeding oxygen to racists. They are even worse than Creationists when it comes to cherry-picking.

 

[TraneWreck]

It depends on what you mean by "any"?

The paper I mentioned: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ase_Addiction_and_the_Warrior_Gene_Hypothesis

One from 2009: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650118/

Some interesting research from 2014: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776744/

From your last link:

However, the largest study on this issue, with more than 4000 individuals, could not confirm the hypothesis that this MAOA genotype moderates the relationship between childhood maltreatment and antisocial behavior, but found statistically non-significant evidence for a main effect of MAOA genotype on having disposition toward violence.1

It is, at best, a radical oversimplification of the relationship between genetics and behavior. Again, it's difficult to respond because I'm not sure what you think they've established about MAOA. It's been used from very trivial points to very, very racist points and even been referenced in court decisions.

Maybe. I don't know the guy personally. We have an obligation to look at whatever evidence he presents.

First of all, personal relationship has nothing to do with. Second, we've been looking at his nonsense for 20 years. I linked a ton of people who have long since demolished his nonsense.

He isn't dismissed because people ignored him; he is dismissed because people read him and were horrified at both the racism and the bad science.

What bothers me is when racists cherry-pick research to push their own agenda and that then taints the larger subject unfairly. We don't need to undermine the science in service of social justice.

I want the truth of the matter - even if it's uncomfortable.

Then Charles Murray should be your enemy. He is the one who cherry-picked and make awful scientific arguments to substantiate his racist thesis.

 

[TraneWreck]

I happened to have just listened to (most of) the podcast today. I didn't find anything particularly objectionable.

I thought Harris did an okay job. He brought up a few important points. For instance he brings up the Flynn affect, and at one point quotes Flynn as saying something along of lines of "You only have to posit that the environment of the average black man today is as conducive to mental development as that of the average white mane in 1948 to demolish the idea that there is a genetic component to the racial differences in IQ" (something like that). Murray dismissed this as though it were ridiculous because he seems to assert that the environmental differences simply aren't large enough.

I thought that was the weakest part of his argument. When Harris brings up environmental differences he rightly points out that we can measure at least some aspect of this, but then just basically makes an argument from incredulity saying that it's just inconceivable that the environmental differences could be large enough to explain the measured difference in IQ. Now, maybe he knows more about the research and there are actually valid reasons to think that, but if so he didn't explain them.

Yes. this is a good summary. And as the article I posted details, Harris gave absolutely MINIMAL effort to the Flynn issue. Even just mentioning it was enough to completely undermine Murray's thesis.

Nevertheless I didn't get the impression that he had an agenda. I don't know enough about the science here to form a solid opinion, but I do think that it's possible for him to be wrong and think he was right simply on scientific grounds, and i don't think that the issue is so clear cut that only a racist with an agenda could possibly continue to hold the opinions that he holds.

He has spent two decades attacking minorities, the poor, and anyone else he feels he has proven genetically inferior. I have posted plenty of links to show his long history of malicious racism.

He found a sympathetic host who didn't bother to do much research and they had a little self-pity party. He doesn't come off as objectionable because both he and Harris worked very hard to hide that aspect of his work.

 

[marplots]

From your last link:

It is, at best, a radical oversimplification of the relationship between genetics and behavior. Again, it's difficult to respond because I'm not sure what you think they've established about MAOA. It's been used from very trivial points to very, very racist points and even been referenced in court decisions.

I think you were asking for evidence of "any legitimacy," not a conclusion. I'm perfectly happy with "the jury is still out" or "it's not settled science." Association studies are not the best evidence - we'd like a mechanistic study instead. But they offer a way forward, and the root idea seems uncontroversial on it's face: genetics influence phenotype, including "psychotypes."

I propose the science (such that it is) should stand or fall on its own merits without being driven by social policy. In fact, the best pairing is to use the science to direct social policies intelligently. I suppose the question is whether that's even possible or not.

First of all, personal relationship has nothing to do with. Second, we've been looking at his nonsense for 20 years. I linked a ton of people who have long since demolished his nonsense.

He isn't dismissed because people ignored him; he is dismissed because people read him and were horrified at both the racism and the bad science.

I'll take this as read, since I only listened to the podcast to form my opinion and am not familiar with how the topic has been mishandled/debunked.

 

[TraneWreck]

From your last link:

It is, at best, a radical oversimplification of the relationship between genetics and behavior. Again, it's difficult to respond because I'm not sure what you think they've established about MAOA. It's been used from very trivial points to very, very racist points and even been referenced in court decisions.

That's a fair point. These issues are sensitive because people take something like MAOA, find it present in the Maori, and all of a sudden we have people claiming that individuals of a certain background are likely to be more violent.

Both with this and Murray, it's the folks who adopt your position - hey, this is interesting, let's figure out the implications - who are arguing against the racists who think they've found genetic deterministic explanations for why white people are great and everyone else isn't.

As for Murray, I linked his SLPC page. The SLPC is the legal organization that figured out how to hold the leaders of the KKK responsible for the crimes of their followers. It is a network dedicated to hate. There's a reason Charles Murray has a page there.

 

[marplots]

That's a fair point. These issues are sensitive because people take something like MAOA, find it present in the Maori, and all of a sudden we have people claiming that individuals of a certain background are likely to be more violent.

It's spin though. Here are two descriptions of candidates for a job:
* “A good leader, with strong achievement motivation, fair bargaining behaviors, and social assertiveness.”
* “Has low impulse control, aggressive, with a propensity to act out violently.”

Both of those fit the behaviors associated with the warrior gene.

Both with this and Murray, it's the folks who adopt your position - hey, this is interesting, let's figure out the implications - who are arguing against the racists who think they've found genetic deterministic explanations for why white people are great and everyone else isn't.

Yep. In truth though, I don't think much of behavioral genetics as a science. There is absolutely too much wiggle room when you combine psychology with epidemiology. There's no experimental model and only wild-type correlations. This leads to headline grabbing mischaracterizations of what (if anything) was actually discovered.

That said, I do think those with a racist agenda have a role. Recall the Creationists with their irreducible complexity bit. I learned something when evolutionary biologists took the time to debunk it. That's a service they provided, and it's similar to the "service" rendered by the race-linked genetic determinists. Finding out why they are wrong is worthwhile. The Flynn Effect is worth knowing about.

Maybe a little bunk stimulates a useful immune response. Was Harris too gentle? Too kind? In hindsight I suppose he was. But the topic was worth having on his show.

 

[TraneWreck]

That said, I do think those with a racist agenda have a role. Recall the Creationists with their irreducible complexity bit. I learned something when evolutionary biologists took the time to debunk it. That's a service they provided, and it's similar to the "service" rendered by the race-linked genetic determinists. Finding out why they are wrong is worthwhile. The Flynn Effect is worth knowing about.

I think this is the best analogy. Very similar situations.

Maybe a little bunk stimulates a useful immune response. Was Harris too gentle? Too kind? In hindsight I suppose he was. But the topic was worth having on his show.

You did hear the opening where Harris goes on and on about how unjustly poor Murray has been treated for just being a truth teller...

Harris' failings run far deeper than just not providing enough of a skeptical response to Murray's long-debunked nonsense, though that was obviously a problem.

 

[angrysoba]

As for Murray, I linked his SLPC page.

Yeah, I had a look at that, but again I haven't read the whole thing. I don't really see any smoking gun given that you called Charles Murray a "very proud, public racist". This was in the context of you saying Sam Harris should have found it easy to discover that the notoriety was fully deserved, when I haven't seen evidence that Murray is clearly driven by racism. It may be that he is, but it doesn't seem to be as you characterize him.

The SPLC refer to him as a "White Nationalist". Now, there clearly are White Nationalists who proclaim themselves as such and often wave flags and tattoo themselves in a way that make their allegiance obvious. Charles Murray doesn't appear to do this. I am not saying that he cannot be a racist, but he is not an out and proud racist, unlike your characterization.

There are a couple of reasons why Sam Harris himself may be unmoved by the SPLC's page and a reason why Charles Murray's very appearance there is insufficient for him to decide against inviting him on the podcast.

One of those is that Sam Harris has himself been labelled a "white supremacist", I believe, by a writer on Salon (I can't find the article right now, but Harris has referenced it before on his podcast).

The other is that two of Harris's previous guests also have pages on the SPLC, and one of them he has even co-written a book with. They are Maajid Nawaz (who is an anti-Muslim extremist apparently for compiling data on peaceful Islamists (!) and for tweeting a cartoon of Muhammed (!)), and Ayaan Hirshi Ali (who "says she endured female genital mutilation" - but hey, pics or it didn't happen, I guess, and also says some non-complimentary things about Islam).

Of course, Harris also realizes that he's not only courting controversy by having Murray on his podcast but also that he will be called a racist etc... just for having the conversation. He was right.

 

[casebro]

I'd like to see a tally of the warrior gene among cops too, rather than only criminals.

But so far as other comparisons, I think any two groups for comparison would give two bell curves. They would mostly overlap- left side can only go to zero, the right side tapering down toward very small percentages. The big difference would be in the peak of the bell curves. This would be appropriate for say, flavor of apples, texture of gravel, talness vs ability to jump. Anydamnthing.

So far as race vs IQ, many current studies show a difference of one SD, 15 IQ points. That would be a comparison to the peak of the bell curves. But that doesn't mean that any particular black man is necessarily stupider than any particular white man. Because I sure have met some stooopid white men too.

And as far as racism goes, I think minoritys have a higher percent of racism than whites. I don't know how many times I've heard "you white guys are all racist". That is just as racist as "You black guys are sex fiends". If I'm so racist, how come both a Mexican and a Native American named their first born males after me? I think some of you prejudiced minoritys ought to get to know me better before judging me a racist.

 

[casebro]

Last I heard, there are about 7 genes tied to skin color. I don't think any of them have been tied to IQ.

But that does not mean there are no ethnic or regional differences in IQ.

I do think there ought to be more study done though. If for no other reason than the possibility of eliminating the skin color from the equation. Tranwreck, wouldn't it be nice to say "There is no scientific basis to relate skin color to IQ"? You can't say that now. Yet.

 

[TraneWreck]

Yeah, I had a look at that, but again I haven't read the whole thing. I don't really see any smoking gun given that you called Charles Murray a "very proud, public racist". This was in the context of you saying Sam Harris should have found it easy to discover that the notoriety was fully deserved, when I haven't seen evidence that Murray is clearly driven by racism. It may be that he is, but it doesn't seem to be as you characterize him.

You are flatly wrong. Murray has been one of the most influential racists of the last couple decades. His shoddy science has given an intellectual foundation to a wide range of malicious beliefs.

You can stubbornly refuse to see the truth in front of you, but, again, the man generates bunk science for the express reason of attempting to prove that black people are genetically inferior to white people.

Hey, that's *********** racist.

The SPLC refer to him as a "White Nationalist". Now, there clearly are White Nationalists who proclaim themselves as such and often wave flags and tattoo themselves in a way that make their allegiance obvious. Charles Murray doesn't appear to do this. I am not saying that he cannot be a racist, but he is not an out and proud racist, unlike your characterization.

Again, you are just wrong. You just listened to a podcast where he presented very bad science to justify his position that black people are inferior to white people. That is a proud, public display of racism.

That you, like Harris, have chosen to ignore the actual science making it difficult to see where the malicious, flawed reasoning takes place is not a compelling argument against Murray's racism.

Of course, Harris also realizes that he's not only courting controversy by having Murray on his podcast but also that he will be called a racist etc... just for having the conversation. He was right.

See, this is just sad. It isn't because he had a conversation. It's because he gave a teary defense of the man, validated his incorrect statements as being "just facts," and completely failed to criticize views that have been demolished for two decades. Harris endorsed those views, both explicitly and implicitly.

THAT is the reason for the criticism.

 

[TraneWreck]

Last I heard, there are about 7 genes tied to skin color. I don't think any of them have been tied to IQ.

But that does not mean there are no ethnic or regional differences in IQ.

I do think there ought to be more study done though. If for no other reason than the possibility of eliminating the skin color from the equation. Tranwreck, wouldn't it be nice to say "There is no scientific basis to relate skin color to IQ"? You can't say that now. Yet.

...I'm not sure why people are having so much trouble following the discussion. Please read the article in the OP.

I and the various scientists I cited are not (1) denying that intelligence and IQ are, at least in part, heritable; we are not (2) the ones making the strong assertion about what the current science proves.

Murray has asserted that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that black people are genetically less intelligent than white people. This is a strong, totally unjustified conclusion.

The arguments you are directing at me, for some reason, need to be aimed at Murray. I fully accept that IQ and intelligence in an individual and in groups is partly determined by a range of heritable factors and environmental conditions. That ruins Murray's arguments, not mine.