Legendary Comedy Duo: Harris and Murray

[Roboramma]

* Unless we are talking about some kind of technological enhancements, I suppose.

I agree with the content of that quote, and in fact generally find Harris quite reasonable on this topic. I listened to the podcast and didn't find anything really outrageous in what either of them said.

I was only commenting on the quoted text that I replied to and I do think that my criticism of that particular passage was valid.

 

[angrysoba]

Sam releasing the email exchange was in response to Klein's piece in Vox today. Sam comes off not looking so good in my opinion.

Nobody comes off looking so good when you tip a bucket of excrement over them.

Klein's piece is reliant on the same kind of innuendo he complained about before. It's I'm-not-saying-research-into-intelligence-across-different-racial-groups-is-racist-but-that's-what-the-Nazis-were-into.

 

[angrysoba]

There's a difference between some particular trait being 100% environmental (whatever, as Harris himself says, that means) and the differences between two populations in that trait being 100% environmental.

I think the latter is a much more straightforward idea and I don't think "any other honest scientist" would find it particularly unlikely a priori.

I agree with the content of that quote, and in fact generally find Harris quite reasonable on this topic. I listened to the podcast and didn't find anything really outrageous in what either of them said.

I was only commenting on the quoted text that I replied to and I do think that my criticism of that particular passage was valid.

I thought that it was clear he was talking about differences in the same passage:

He doesn’t know how much of interracial IQ difference is genetic and how much is environmental, and he suspects that both are involved. His strongest claim is that given the data, it’s very hard to believe that it’s 100 percent environmental. This could be said about almost any human trait. Would you want to bet that anything significant about you is 100 percent environmental?

 

[Roboramma]

I thought that it was clear he was talking about differences in the same passage:

Let's look at it.

He doesn’t know how much of interracial IQ difference is genetic and how much is environmental, and he suspects that both are involved.

Here, you're right, he's very clearly talking about differences between populations.

His strongest claim is that given the data, it’s very hard to believe that it’s 100 percent environmental. This could be said about almost any human trait.

Given the context of the first sentence, it should also be clear that this is talking about differences between populations.

Would you want to bet that anything significant about you is 100 percent environmental?

This, however, doesn't make sense in the context of the first quote. If he is still talking about differences in gene frequences between populations, I don't even know what this sentence is supposed to mean. If he is talking about differences between individual people, then yes there's very good science that some of that difference is genetic, but that's a very different issue than that average differences between populations are genetic. Conflating the two is a problem. I don't think he did it intentionally, though.

Moreover, this:

(The truth is, it’s not even clear what it means to say that something is 100 percent environmental. All the environment can interact with is our genes and their products.)

Is actually pretty clear when we are talking about differences between populations rather than individuals.

 

[Matthew Best]

This was the very careful analysis contained in the article I linked that you complained about "knitpicking."

You spelled "nitpicking" wrong.

Surely I should receive some sort of prize for nitpicking "knitpicking"?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Saw the thread title and thought it was about Iron Maiden!

 

[d4m10n]

Environmental factors may be completely sufficient to determine the difference in IQ and intelligence BETWEEN "RACES," while still acknowledging that there is a genetic component.

To assert that environmental factors are not completely sufficient to explain measured differences between two groups of people perceived as racially distinct would be to imply that genetic differences explain at least some of the observed differences. Assuming that the outcome being measured is something generally valued among human beings (e.g. intelligence) such an assertion would be racism more or less by definition.

 

[angrysoba]

To assert that environmental factors are not completely sufficient to explain measured differences between two groups of people perceived as racially distinct would be to imply that genetic differences explain at least some of the observed differences. Assuming that the outcome being measured is something generally valued among human beings (e.g. intelligence) such an assertion would be racism more or less by definition.

Yeah, it's like when people value height and then they say, "People in Japan are not as tall as people in the Netherlands". I'm like, "That's racist, by definition!"

They say something like, "Yeah, but it is true that on average, people in the Netherlands are taller than Japanese people." I explain, "I know a Dutch guy who is shorter than a Japanese guy, so you're wrong, and racist!" Then they explain, "Sure, individuals among the population are not necessarily going to be the average in that population. Just because any given individual is Japanese is doesn't mean they will be shorter than a given Dutch individual. We could instead plot the heights of Japanese and Dutch people on a graph where the distribution of heights would form a bell curve. You could see the mean average in height - or the thickest part of the bell in the case of the Dutch population slightly to the right of the mean average of the Japanese bell. It may also be slightly thicker at the far end if you have a greater number of particularly tall people. Or not, whatever the case may be. This is merely an empirical claim and is not motivated by anything like racism."

So, I think about this for a bit, and then point out that, "Okay, it might be the case that people in the Netherlands are generally taller than Japanese people but that is almost entirely down to diet and other environmental factors. That if you look at the average height of Japanese people at the end of World War Two and for a few decades after, you will notice that their average heights are most definitely shorter than those of Japanese people today. But with the improvement of diet you can see that the average height is increasing among Japanese people and in fact likely to be closing on Dutch people."

"So it is not racist to say that Dutch people are taller than Japanese people?"

"Only if you point out the reasons why that is the case?"

"Okay, so diet..."

"Yes!"

"...and genes?"

"No!"

"But don't you think that while Japanese people have become taller over time because of diet - and as have Dutch people - that there could be a genetic contribution to height that will not necessarily close the gap?"

"That's racist!"

"What is the alternative situation, that with any arbitrary group of people, if they have exactly the same diet and environment, that they will end up with exactly the same mean height?"

 

[casebro]

But it's OK if I continue to hate white people even if their genetic deficiency can't be proven?

It could go either way.....

 

[fuelair]

I listened long enough to hear him do it.

This isn't complicated stuff. Murray's entire game is to cloak obvious, gross racism behind a "scienc-y" facade. If you are unaware of the science or don't care to learn, it can be convincing. That's why he's particularly malicious and dangerous.

Murray also plays this coy little game of trying to distance himself from the Bell Curve and minimize the claims therein, but as you see in the Harris interview, he will always go back to defending it as "Science."

The man argues for race realism and provable genetic differences between those races in a way that is not supported by the evidence.

If you can't see how the assertion that black people are one standard deviation below white people in terms of intelligence, and environmental factors cannot explain it, is racist, I don't know what to tell you. It would be one thing if the science supported that claim, but it does not.

Lest we forget, the first race was black all the way. So were the genetic mother and father of all of us. As we expanded/moved further South and North that changed. A lot of books, papers, video and discoveries reported in them have proven that beyond doubt.

 

[d4m10n]

"What is the alternative situation, that with any arbitrary group of people, if they have exactly the same diet and environment, that they will end up with exactly the same mean height?"

If you believe height is intrinsically valuable, and you believe Norwegians are superior as a result of genetics leading to greater height, well . . . that is basically the definition of racism. Thankfully, rather few people (outside of Tinder and the NBA) take such a view of height.

 

[fuelair]

And I bet just as much bias is shown by the people Tranewreck quotes. Reparations supporters for instance. So I give little credence to the Godwin ploy.

Race is one of several subjects on which it is nearly impossible to find unbiased research. Others are pornography, Marijuana, and homosexulity- nature or nurture.

And about now, there may be enough data acquired to come to a conclusion. But 'Africa' is too broad, it would need to be separated into the ummm 7 different ethnicities of Africa.

Ooops, double the number of groups, each of those 7 diluted with Euros. Maybe African-Americans ARE dumber, because of Euro genes? Hahahahaha.

And the culmination of all this research will have to point out exactly which group is the stupidest. Serbians? Pacific Islanders? Amazon pygmies? There has to be ONE. Would liberals accept that?

And of course, that avg would not meant that every member is shtoopid either. I bet there is a genius Pygmy Serbian out there too.

Not sure where you get that for pornography, a large number of studies and projects have been done - especially since the late 1940's. Except those done by people with an ax to grind on to chop it up and burn it, the evidence is heavily for it being mostly harmless except for persons who have deficiencies in certain types of mental function where sex is a consideration. There is a lot more to this and I have too many other interests to go on and on with this.......

Note, my specialty is the type and scope of the porn over time. Many things go in and out of favor - mostly a cycling of things of most interest to the general public.

 

[angrysoba]

If you believe height is intrinsically valuable, and you believe Norwegians are superior as a result of genetics leading to greater height, well . . . that is basically the definition of racism. Thankfully, rather few people (outside of Tinder and the NBA) take such a view of height.

You have changed your argument. What you say here is different from what you said before. I think the whole ground for crying racism rests on exactly the conflation you have made as well. On the one hand you are asking about whether a trait is intrinsically valuable (and smuggled in a concept that you did not originally use. Is intelligence intrinsically valuable?). The original post was about whether a trait was environmental or genetic. Now you are asking about whether people who possess that trait are “superior”. This is the shift in the goalposts. Harris and Murray have made no such claims about who is superior. Please stop resorting to these types of smears.

To assert that environmental factors are not completely sufficient to explain measured differences between two groups of people perceived as racially distinct would be to imply that genetic differences explain at least some of the observed differences. Assuming that the outcome being measured is something generally valued among human beings (e.g. intelligence) such an assertion would be racism more or less by definition.

 

[d4m10n]

You have changed your argument. What you say here is different from what you said before.

Comparing quotations might be helpful here.

On the one hand you are asking about whether a trait is intrinsically valuable (and smuggled in a concept that you did not originally use. Is intelligence intrinsically valuable?).

You have to say that some particular trait or set of traits is indeed valuable in order to say that some group is superior to another group based on said traits. Superiority cannot exist in a vacuum, one must be superior in performance in some given field, either generally (e.g. complex cognitive tasks) or specifically (e.g. Tetris).

The original post was about whether a trait was environmental or genetic.

You mean the Vox article?

At any rate, if the trait under discussion is thought to be entirely environmental (e.g. the British penchant for hot tea) then we are talking about culture rather than about race.

Now you are asking about whether people who possess that trait are “superior”. This is the shift in the goalposts.

If the goal is to show that someone is doing racism, you have to show that they have found one group of people to be superior to another group of people in some particular way (e.g. IQ). That's simply what it means to be racist.

Harris and Murray have made no such claims about who is superior. Please stop resorting to these types of smears.

And just now I finally realize that you must be confusing me with someone else.

 

[angrysoba]

Comparing quotations might be helpful here.

Oh, must we start getting into this?

To assert that environmental factors are not completely sufficient to explain measured differences between two groups of people perceived as racially distinct would be to imply that genetic differences explain at least some of the observed differences.

Here, you seem to be asking about whether a trait is 100% environmental, or alternatively 1% or more genetic. This is an empirical claim. Hence, I brought up what I imagine to be a fairly uncontroversial analogy, height, albeit in a way that was meant to highlight the controversy when it comes to race and IQ. I actually don't imagine that very many people have a problem with the idea that height is at least above 1% genetic - and almost certainly a lot more.

Assuming that the outcome being measured is something generally valued among human beings (e.g. intelligence) such an assertion would be racism more or less by definition.

Now, this is where you lose me. What difference does it make if the outcome is something generally valued among human beings? Does it become less of an empirical claim to say Group A has, on average, a higher IQ than Group B if people "generally" value IQ? What if they "generally" value height? Does it then become racist to make the empirical claim that Group A is, on average, taller than Group B? To say that, ah well, height isn't really valued so it doesn't matter and therefore isn't racist to make the empirical claim is dodging the issue. Then you move the goalposts with the highlighted bit...

If you believe height is intrinsically valuable, and you believe Norwegians are superior as a result of genetics leading to greater height, well . . . that is basically the definition of racism. Thankfully, rather few people (outside of Tinder and the NBA) take such a view of height.

Nobody was talking about superiority as a result of genes. You introduced that!

 

[d4m10n]

I actually don't imagine that very many people have a problem with the idea that height is at least above 1% genetic - and almost certainly a lot more.

If someone were to say Norwegians are superior to South Koreans on account of average height, would that not be a racist sentiment, in your view?

What difference does it make if the outcome is something generally valued among human beings?

It is the difference between making a claim about superiority and just noticing a measurable difference.

Does it become less of an empirical claim to say Group A has, on average, a higher IQ than Group B if people "generally" value IQ?

Did I say anything about whether some given claim is empirical or not?

What if they "generally" value height? Does it then become racist to make the empirical claim that Group A is, on average, taller than Group B?

Of course, yes. Did you not read the definition I linked earlier? To say that one group of people is better in some particular, valuable way (on account of their ancestry) is to make a racist claim.

Nobody was talking about superiority as a result of genes. You introduced that!

Pretty sure the idea that higher IQ is superior to lower IQ came up in the article linked from the OP.

 

[angrysoba]

If someone were to say Norwegians are superior to South Koreans on account of average height, would that not be a racist sentiment, in your view?

If they said they were superior, as in better people because of their height, then yes it would be racist.

However, if someone said Norwegians are taller than South Koreans on account of average height, would that be racist?

It is the difference between making a claim about superiority and just noticing a measurable difference.

Why? Is money not generally valued by people? If I said that white people tend to be richer than black people is that racist?

Did I say anything about whether some given claim is empirical or not?

What you are saying is that if you make an empirical claim about a quality that happens to be valued then it becomes racist. This is a ridiculous position. An empirical claim is either true or false.

Of course, yes. Did you not read the definition I linked earlier? To say that one group of people is better in some particular, valuable way (on account of their ancestry) is to make a racist claim.

No, FFS!

Imagine two possible worlds:

World 1: Group A is taller on average than Group B. (True Statement) + Nobody gives a crap about height.

World 2: Group A is taller on average than Group B. (True Statement) + Height is a highly valued trait.

According to d4m10n's law it is racist to utter the same statement in World 2 but not in World 1.

That's absurd!

Pretty sure the idea that high IQ is superior to lower IQ came up in the article linked from the OP.

What does it mean to say it "came up"? It's only meaningful if Harris or Murray are saying something like, "not only does Group A have a higher IQ than Group B, but that makes Group A a superior group of people to Group B."

This is, of course, the innuendo. Are you going to make the claim that someone involved here is making that statement? If not then what place does your use of the term "superior" have here?

 

[angrysoba]

A couple more pieces have come out since this latest dust-up:

First Andrew Sullivan has written a piece that is partly about the controversy:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...isnt-shutting-down-racism-its-fueling-it.html

And one of the writers of the Vox piece has responded to it on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/ent3c

I can only say this so many times: *of course* IQ is heritable in the statistical sense. No one who knows me or my work could possibly think I need this explained to me. We said so in the first paragraph of our original piece...

But the general heritability of IQ has 0 implications for the causes of a particular group difference. I get it that saying, maybe the group difference is *partly* genetic seems like a moderate stance on a polarized topic, but that is an illusion....

Speculating in the absence of convincing theory or empirical evidence that a race is genetically inferior on a trait as important as IQ-- the partly is no help-- *is* the polarized view, the other pole being the belief that genetics has nothing whatever to do with behavior....

There is no scientific theory in which to frame the notion of partial genetic determination of group differences; no empirical evidence that strongly suggests it's true; no examples of other, less controversial behavioral traits for which it has turned out to be true...

I'll say one more thing in the interest of keeping the heat down. I am sorry we used the phrase "junk science". That was just name calling, and it didn't help.

 

[d4m10n]

That's absurd!

Take it up with the dictionary, my man. To say some group is superior in some way is to make a judgement about which differences really matter.

What does it mean to say it "came up"?

Scroll up to the top of the thread. Highlight the phrase "relatively poorer intellectual performance" and ask yourself why we are talking about those particular differences rather than far more obvious ones which are much easier to reliably measure.

It's only meaningful if Harris or Murray are saying something like, "not only does Group A have a higher IQ than Group B, but that makes Group A a superior group of people to Group B."

I haven't characterized either Harris or Murray anywhere in this thread. Any impression of innuendo is entirely on your end of the line.

 

[Roboramma]

Take it up with the dictionary, my man. To say some group is superior in some way is to make a judgement about which differences really matter.

But that’s not what you said was racist. You said that to make a purely empirical statement about group differences in the context of other people having a judgement about the value of some the trait that differs, is racist.

If you want to define racism such that acknowledging the truth is racist then I think you have a problem.

Personally I think that the differences in IQ are very likely down to environmental factors. I listened to the Murray/Harris podcast and wasn’t convinced by his arguments, but his case wasn’t unreasonable and certainly wasn’t racist by any reasonable definition of the term.