Legendary Comedy Duo: Harris and Murray

[Roboramma]

If you believe height is intrinsically valuable,

I’d just like to point out that people in general do treat height as intrinsically valuable. This can be seen in differences in income based on height, in dating practices, and parental attitudes toward their children’s height.

 

[d4m10n]

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

No idea how you got from my linking to the dictionary definition to conjecture about what I want to happen regarding the meanings that words convey. My name isn’t Merriam nor is it Webster. The word ”racism“ conveys what it does, you don’t have to like it.

You are welcome, of course, to argue that claims of genetic superiority in terms of measurable general intelligence aren’t really what’s at issue here, but rather something else such as systemic discrimination within some cultural context. I’d be interested to hear how that one plays out, given the OP.

 

[nelsondogg]

Harris released a podcast going over all this today. He will have Ezra on to discuss their beef and iq and all that. Sounds like he is not going to hold back, should be good.

 

[angrysoba]

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.



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.



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

No idea how you got from my linking to the dictionary definition to conjecture about what I want to happen regarding the meanings that words convey. My name isn’t Merriam nor is it Webster. The word ”racism“ conveys what it does, you don’t have to like it.

You are welcome, of course, to argue that claims of genetic superiority in terms of measurable general intelligence aren’t really what’s at issue here, but rather something else such as systemic discrimination within some cultural context. I’d be interested to hear how that one plays out, given the OP.

You seem to be hopelessly confused here. So much so that I don't know how to help you out at this point.

The question that was at issue in the Harris-Murray podcast was the question of whether or not genetics plays some part in determining the differences in intelligence among groups and individuals. Whether they do or not is an empirical fact which can be represented by data. As Sam Harris points out in his latest podcast, data cannot be racist.

The only way in which you can begin down the racist path is when you decide what to do about these empirical facts however they may turn out to be. If you decide that the data justifies discrimination, then you are being racist. If you overinterpret the data to say, for example, that black people aren't smart enough to go to university then you are being extremely racist. If you think the data justifies white supremacy then you are being extraordinarily and unforgivably racist.

If you think "Intelligence is valuable, therefore it is racist to claim that some groups are, on average, more intelligent than other groups as a result of any amount of genetics, because Merriam-Webster says so" then, for whatever combination of environmental or genetic reasons, you are being extraordinarily dimwitted.

 

[Roboramma]

No idea how you got from my linking to the dictionary definition to conjecture about what I want to happen regarding the meanings that words convey. My name isn’t Merriam nor is it Webster. The word ”racism“ conveys what it does, you don’t have to like it.

You aren’t using the dictionary definition, as I pointed out in the part of my post that you cut from your quote.

Admittedly there is a typo there that makes it hard to parse. I’m on a cycling holiday and didn’t bring my computer. Not really used to typing on my phone.

 

[d4m10n]

The question that was at issue in the Harris-Murray podcast was the question of whether or not genetics plays some part in determining the differences in intelligence among groups and individuals. Whether they do or not is an empirical fact which can be represented by data. As Sam Harris points out in his latest podcast, data cannot be racist.

I'm not seeing anything about empiricism or data in any common defintion of racism. Once again, when I say "racism," what I mean to convey is simply the view that some group of people is superior to some other group of people (regarding some important variable) on account of their differing ancestry.

There is a common expression in the law of defamation to the effect that a statement cannot be libel if it's true. It seems to me that you are attempting to carve out a similar exception for the concept of racism. I don't believe you will be successful in this, for fairly obvious reasons.

 

[d4m10n]

You aren’t using the dictionary definition, as I pointed out in the part of my post that you cut from your quote.

Here you go:

 

[angrysoba]

I'm not seeing anything about empiricism or data in any common defintion of racism. Once again, when I say "racism," what I mean to convey is simply the view that some group of people is superior to some other group of people (regarding some important variable) on account of their differing ancestry.

There is a common expression in the law of defamation to the effect that a statement cannot be libel if it's true. It seems to me that you are attempting to carve out a similar exception for the concept of racism. I don't believe you will be successful in this, for fairly obvious reasons.

What the ****?

 

[kellyb]

The question that was at issue in the Harris-Murray podcast was the question of whether or not genetics plays some part in determining the differences in intelligence among groups and individuals. Whether they do or not is an empirical fact which can be represented by data. As Sam Harris points out in his latest podcast, data cannot be racist.

Do you think an IQ of 150 is superior to an IQ of 90?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

nvm

 

[angrysoba]

Do you think an IQ of 150 is superior to an IQ of 90?

Higher in number? Yes. Better to be 150 IQ than 90? Yes. Do you disagree with these things?

How you evaluate IQ is one thing, what the data says about the IQ levels of different groups is another. If you find a difference, then you find a difference. So what?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

There is too much demand to identify genes who by their absence or presence enhance intelligence as to be bothered by the possible implication of giving racists more fodder, as if they needed any.
Would White Supremacists refuse a hypothetical gene injection therapy for and extra 10 IQ points if the sequences were primarily found in Africans?
Only the stupid ones would.

 

[kellyb]

If you find a difference, then you find a difference. So what?

The "so what?" is that you are very much making a claim about racial superiority, then, and the "It's not racist if it's true!" argument is not valid. It's dictionary definition racism.

 

[Giz]

The "so what?" is that you are very much making a claim about racial superiority, then, and the "It's not racist if it's true!" argument is not valid. It's dictionary definition racism.

Can you clarify? If say, sickle cell anemia (hereditary genetic condition) is mostly found in one ethnicity, is that a racist fact?

 

[kellyb]

Can you clarify? If say, sickle cell anemia (hereditary genetic condition) is mostly found in one ethnicity, is that a racist fact?

No, bobody outside of the 1930's era eugenics supporters have claimed that people without sickle cell anemia are superior to those with it on that basis alone.

 

[angrysoba]

The "so what?" is that you are very much making a claim about racial superiority, then, and the "It's not racist if it's true!" argument is not valid. It's dictionary definition racism.

No it is NOT a claim about racial superiority! You and Damion are making an elementary failure of logic! It is not making any claim about the superiority of one group of humans over another.

As I pointed out above, you may as well say the same thing about height.

 

[kellyb]

No it is NOT a claim about racial superiority! You and Damion are making an elementary failure of logic! It is not making any claim about the superiority of one group of humans over another.

As I pointed out above, you may as well say the same thing about height.

IQ superiority is THE core metric race supremacists have historically used. It's the primary core feature that distinguishes us from cousin ape species.

 

[angrysoba]

IQ superiority is THE core metric race supremacists have historically used. It's the primary core feature that distinguishes us from cousin ape species.

If you say so. Then take it up with them. Harris, Murray and I are not making the claim for racial superiority.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Harris released a podcast going over all this today. He will have Ezra on to discuss their beef and iq and all that. Sounds like he is not going to hold back, should be good.

Yes, the housekeeping episode. I listened to almost all of it. Not sure how good the Ezra podcast will be - I could see it going either way.

I usually enjoy the Sam Harris podcast. I enjoyed the Charles Murray episode. The Glenn Loury one on race was also very good, as is Glenn;s own podcast.

 

[kellyb]

Can anyone provide the best evidence with links that IQ tests are not biased?