Legendary Comedy Duo: Harris and Murray

[kellyb]

pointing out such a fact would cause uproar and vilification

Point out for what purpose and in what context?

Data points which can be used for anti-black, racist purposes are noted all the time. There isn't any widespread denialism over race and what's called "black on black crime", for example. The only real uproar is over how "white on white crime" is ignored altogether or assumed to not exist at all, and the widespread ignorance of the fact that most of the time when a white person is murdered, it's by another white person.

 

[fuelair]

Point out for what purpose and in what context?

Data points which can be used for anti-black, racist purposes are noted all the time. There isn't any widespread denialism over race and what's called "black on black crime", for example. The only real uproar is over how "white on white crime" is ignored altogether or assumed to not exist at all, and the widespread ignorance of the fact that most of the time when a white person is murdered, it's by another white person.

Logic is often overlooked if it interferes with belief.

 

[d4m10n]

As an aside, the discussion between Harris and Klein has been released. (Or if you'd prefer listening to Klein's show.)

Okay, I listened to part of the show again this a.m. (Ezra's version this time, instead of Sam's) for reasons too boring to explain. It was even more frustrating the second time around. I'm going to greatly condense and paraphrase here, so feel free to correct me if you've listened to the show yourself.

Sam's main point: Research scientists should be allowed (perhaps even encouraged) to openly speculate about the posibility that most people of color are innately and immutably intellectually inferior to people of European and/or East Asian ancestry, and poltical scientists should consider the policy consequences which ought to follow therefrom. In essence, Murray's approach is neither intellectually nor morally backrupt.

Ezra's main point: Americans have been doing this for hundreds of years (most often with the explicit backing of the scientific establishment) and it has only ever made things worse for those who experience stereotyping, stereotype threat, and various other forms of systematic deprivation relative to their fellow citizens. Sam is failing to seriously consider the possibility that he helping to steer the bus towards a local minimum on our shared sociopolitical moral landscape.

Both men talk past each other quite a bit; I never got the sense that Sam was even slightly picking up what Ezra was putting down.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

My understanding is that if neanderthals and humans hooked up and had fertile babies, it means (by nature of current taxonomy) neanderthals were human.

Am I wrong?

yes and no.
There have been many instance in which animals considered to be distinct species have produced fertile offspring. This basic definition of a species isn't really useful anymore.
In the case of humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans and others should be considered sufficiently distinct from Homo Sapiens even though they could interbreed.
Bottom line is that the "purest" Homo sapiens today are found in region of the cradle of Humanity in Africa.

 

[angrysoba]

Sam's main point: Research scientists should be allowed (perhaps even encouraged) to openly speculate about the posibility that most people of color are innately and immutably intellectually inferior to people of European and/or East Asian ancestry, and poltical scientists should consider the policy consequences which ought to follow therefrom. In essence, Murray's approach is neither intellectually nor morally backrupt.

This is so utterly incorrect as a summary of what he said.

First of all, he does not "encourage" anything of the sort. He doesn't talk about "openly speculating"; he says merely that people honestly reporting the data they find should not be castigated. He definitely does NOT say "most people of colour" are innately and immutably inferior" - that is an absolute strawman. He spends much time explaining that a lower intelligence in Person A (and he uses himself as an example to illustrate) than Person B (he uses Von Neuman as an example) DOES NOT mean that Person A is an inferior person to Person B. This is spelled out so painstakingly that you cannot have missed it if you were listening properly.

And where you get the whole "policy consequences that ought to follow therefrom" is beyond me when he repeatedly points out that he proposes nothing himself, and that policy is a completely separate issue.

He believes that Murray's account of the science is broadly in line with the mainstream science. He mentions that there are scientists he knows of who believe Murray is more in line with the science that Murray's detractors and gives a couple of examples of those. The others he says don't want to speak publicly because of a kind of chilling effect that Harris thinks is caused by people who willfully misrepresent the honest reporting of data.

Ezra's main point: Americans have been doing this for hundreds of years (most often with the explicit backing of the scientific establishment) and it has only ever made things worse for those who experience stereotyping, stereotype threat, and various other forms of systematic deprivation relative to their fellow citizens. Sam is failing to seriously consider the possibility that he helping to steer the bus towards a local minimum on our shared sociopolitical moral landscape.

Both men talk past each other quite a bit; I never got the sense that Sam was even slightly picking up what Ezra was putting down.

Ezra, it seems to me, was pointing out that Sam Harris is failing to take seriously the ways in which the science has been misused, and suggests that scientific arguments about the inferiority of black people has been the main reason for discrimination (Harris disputes this and thinks that it is more the case that humans discriminate on all kinds of arbitrary differences, and that skin colour is a salient difference, and that such prejudice against different people has been bolstered more by Biblical teachings etc...).

Ezra also thinks that Sam Harris's railing against identity politics reflects an intellectual and empathic blindspot for Harris, in that he doesn't recognize the true suffering of black people, and ends up empathizing only for Murray who he recognizes as some kindred spirit, and therefore in some way identifies with.

Ezra thinks that Sam Harris is not really aware of the full body of work that Murray has written which goes beyond The Bell Curve and Coming Apart and is obsessively focused on IQ and race and how human achievements are primarily those of Europeans, that Murray actually is very influential and not silenced at all despite the one incident of no-platforming. He also argues that the type of policy recommendations Murray advocates do not seem to logically follow from an apparent concern for the well-being of the cognitively disadvantaged despite Harris's protestations otherwise, and Ezra's - I think - strongest point, is that Harris really should know that Murray cannot really believe that the policies he recommends are going to help those with lower IQs if, as Murray believes, those with lower IQs will struggle to get good work and be able to get ahead in life.

I actually think that Ezra came across well, and Sam Harris often did not. But let's at least summarize their views accurately.

 

[nelsondogg]

Sam definitely made the point that having a lower iq does not imply inferiority (using himself as an example in comparison to Von Neuman). He seemed to be oblivious to the fact that it has been used to imply that black people are inferior, along with other scientific "facts" in the past.

I think that was the main disagreement between them. Sam believes in objective scientific facts that "properly collected" would be immune to biases (I suppose he has "faith" in the scientific method) while Ezra looks at the history of how science has been used and thinks that is extremely naive.

 

[kellyb]

He spends much time explaining that a lower intelligence in Person A (and he uses himself as an example to illustrate) than Person B (he uses Von Neuman as an example) DOES NOT mean that Person A is an inferior person to Person B. This is spelled out so painstakingly that you cannot have missed it if you were listening properly.

d4m10n's claim was that Sam said:

innately and immutably intellectually inferior

You can't delete the word "intellectually" and then say "he didn't say that's an inferior person!"

 

[Wildy]

Both men talk past each other quite a bit; I never got the sense that Sam was even slightly picking up what Ezra was putting down.

Talking past each other is probably the best way to describe the whole discussion.

 

[d4m10n]

First of all, he does not "encourage" anything of the sort. He doesn't talk about "openly speculating"; he says merely that people honestly reporting the data they find should not be castigated.

Even if the data were gathered and analyzed in an effort to show that people of color are innately and immutably intellectually inferior to people of European and/or East Asian ancestry?

And where you get the whole "policy consequences that ought to follow therefrom" is beyond me when he repeatedly points out that he proposes nothing himself, and that policy is a completely separate issue.

Firstly, policy isn't a separate (or even severable) issue, as Ezra repeatedly pointed out. Murray has a political agenda, which includes rolling back any efforts at affirmatively acting to level the playing field between racially distinct groups. His persuasive efforts are ultimately in service thereto, which is why you usually find a chapter or two of policy recommendations at the end of his books.


Secondly, Sam himself argues along Murrayian lines about policy in that bizarre analogy about Jews being underrepresented in short-distance footraces. Go back and listen to where he is going with that one.

He spends much time explaining that a lower intelligence in Person A (and he uses himself as an example to illustrate) than Person B (he uses Von Neuman as an example) DOES NOT mean that Person A is an inferior person to Person B.

You are equivocating here by dropping the word "intellectually" from the phrase "intellectually inferior." I'm going to assume this was accidental rather than an example of arguing in bad faith. Of course Harris is intellectually inferior to Von Neuman, on this there is not much room for doubt.

He believes that Murray's account of the science is broadly in line with the mainstream science.

Agreed, Sam definitely seems to believe this. It remains an open question as to which of Murray's specific proclamations he would care to endorse.

 

[angrysoba]

Even if the data were gathered and analyzed in an effort to show that people of color are innately and immutably intellectually inferior to people of European and/or East Asian ancestry?

If the data were true data it wouldn't alter the truth of it. Remember I am talking about the mere reporting of data, not spinning it in a particular way. We can certainly criticize that, but he points out that even the Nazis doing abominable experiments in which they used live human subjects found things which turned out to be true. Such results, if correct are correct regardless of how these things were arrived at.

In other words, even under the worse possible circumstances, a True Thing is a True Thing regardless of how you want the counterfactual to be.

Firstly, policy isn't a separate (or even severable) issue, as Ezra repeatedly pointed out. Murray has a political agenda, which includes rolling back any efforts at affirmatively acting to level the playing field between racially distinct groups. His persuasive efforts are ultimately in service thereto, which is why you usually find a chapter or two of policy recommendations at the end of his books.

I think policy recommendations can be separate. But as I said, Ezra's strongest point is that Murray himself is not separating these things and that such a connection needs to be taken into account if one wants to know why someone has a problem with Murray. In other words, it is not so much the science but what he wants to do with it. I can get on board that part, and I think Harris may have been blindsided in a way that he doesn't appreciate.

Secondly, Sam himself argues along Murrayian lines about policy in that bizarre analogy about Jews being underrepresented in short-distance footraces. Go back and listen to where he is going with that one.

I think you will have to explain where you are going with that one. I don't see what it is.

You are equivocating here by dropping the word "intellectually" from the phrase "intellectually inferior." I'm going to assume this was accidental rather than an example of arguing in bad faith. Of course Harris is intellectually inferior to Von Neuman, on this there is not much room for doubt.

Fair enough. I did miss that. Nevertheless, the point is "intellectually inferior" does NOT equal "inferior" in terms of value as a human being. And if you disagree, then Sam Harris's point about being inferior in track, or height, or any other thing also comes into it.

Agreed, Sam definitely seems to believe this. It remains an open question as to which of Murray's specific proclamations he would care to endorse.

Again, what Harris believes about Murray's take on the science is different from what Murray believes regarding policy issues.

 

[angrysoba]

d4m10n's claim was that Sam said:



You can't delete the word "intellectually" and then say "he didn't say that's an inferior person!"

Stephen Hawking was athletically inferior to my 99-year old grandmother.

Apparently this means I believe SH was inferior to her as a person.

And yet, my grandmother was intellectually inferior to SH.

Apparently this means I believe my grandmother was inferior to SH.

You can see how it fails, right? And please don't start with "ah, but intelligence is regarded as more important that athleticism" or some other special pleading.

 

[d4m10n]

If the data were true data it wouldn't alter the truth of it. Remember I am talking about the mere reporting of data, not spinning it in a particular way.

I'm not seeing any books or articles by Murray which engage in mere reporting of the data, without drawing policy conclusions therefrom. Where are you finding aggregate IQ data in such a blissfully policy-free environment? I'd be interested to read more about it.

In other words, even under the worse possible circumstances, a True Thing is a True Thing regardless of how you want the counterfactual to be.

This is self-evidently true. What you and Sam seem to be overlooking here is that white supremacists often care about publishing truth claims as well, and they would be utterly over the moon to see the population level intelligence data come out a certain way, after effectively controlling for environmental confounders.

I think policy recommendations can be separate.

They *could* be separate but they somehow never are while reading Murray, the specific scholar whom Harris has been supporting throughout this particular kerfuffle.

I think you will have to explain where you are going with that one. I don't see what it is.

Okay, we're going to have to back up a bit. What did you take away from Sam's analogy about how Jews aren't winning sprint events at world-class track and field events these days?

Again, what Harris believes about Murray's take on the science is different from what Murray believes regarding policy issues.

It is of course possible for someone to believe that Murray is correct when he asserts that "it will turn out that the population below the poverty line in the United States has a configuration of the relevant genetic makeup that is significantly different from the configuration of the population above the poverty line" in an article about "how the new eugenicism will play out" in the 21st century. It would be impossible to read that article without noticing that it is primarily about public policy, just as one might expect from a political scientist at a think tank.

 

[kellyb]

If the data were true data it wouldn't alter the truth of it. Remember I am talking about the mere reporting of data, not spinning it in a particular way.

Do you understand that you can collect "good" data that's rigged to show the desired result on purpose? And that even when you try really hard to NOT find something to just validate your hypothesis, it's still possible that you accidentally skewed the results by virtue of how you collected the data?

 

[angrysoba]

I'm not seeing any books or articles by Murray which engage in mere reporting of the data, without drawing policy conclusions therefrom. Where are you finding aggregate IQ data in such a blissfully policy-free environment? I'd be interested to read more about it.

And yet the two things are separate issues. I am not claiming Murray has not made policy issues as well.

This is self-evidently true. What you and Sam seem to be overlooking here is that white supremacists often care about publishing truth claims as well, and they would be utterly over the moon to see the population level intelligence data come out a certain way, after effectively controlling for environmental confounders.

So what if they are over the Moon about it? This would not change whether something is true or not. Harris worries that we are now being told not to say X whether it is true or not, because if you say X then "white supremacists would be over the Moon about it."

They *could* be separate but they somehow never are while reading Murray, the specific scholar whom Harris has been supporting throughout this particular kerfuffle.

Maybe, and maybe Harris needs to take greater care not to go soft on Murray, which I think is Klein's best point.

Okay, we're going to have to back up a bit. What did you take away from Sam's analogy about how Jews aren't winning sprint events at world-class track and field events these days?

My take was that Harris is saying that a slight change in the mean average of certain genetic traits may show up in obvious ways even if you are not looking for the data. Therefore, the idea of simply trying to ignore things is not feasible. If Sam Harris wanted to play "identity politics" then he could argue that some people such as Ashkenazi Jews may feel offended at the fact that his "ethnicity" is badly represented in track running, but that such a thing would be ridiculous.

It is of course possible for someone to believe that Murray is correct when he asserts that "it will turn out that the population below the poverty line in the United States has a configuration of the relevant genetic makeup that is significantly different from the configuration of the population above the poverty line" in an article about "how the new eugenicism will play out" in the 21st century. It would be impossible to read that article without noticing that it is primarily about public policy, just as one might expect from a political scientist at a think tank.

If the real issue is Murray's policies, then make that the issue. But pretty much all the pushback has been arguing that the science is "racialist junk science" or "pseudoscience".

 

[angrysoba]

Do you understand that you can collect "good" data that's rigged to show the desired result on purpose? And that even when you try really hard to NOT find something to just validate your hypothesis, it's still possible that you accidentally skewed the results by virtue of how you collected the data?

Sorry, what? If the conclusions are lies then we only need to show it is false.

 

[d4m10n]

So what if they are over the Moon about it?

It would likely change their recruiting success and their electoral clout, resulting in more victories for nationalists who demonize non-white immigrants. This is a consequence which Sam has gone on the record saying he wants us to avoid.

This would not change whether something is true or not.

If it were true, and shown to be true, then it would be an even more potent propaganda tool than it is at present.

Harris worries that we are now being told not to say X whether it is true or not, because if you say X then "white supremacists would be over the Moon about it."

Harris need only worry about whether publishing such truths would actually move us up or down on the moral landscape.

 

[kellyb]

Sorry, what? If the conclusions are lies then we only need to show it is false.

A conclusion need not be a lie to be misleading or false.
But otherwise, yeah.

ETA: when you said "Sorry, what?" --- does that mean you're unclear on how good/solid data can be misleading either intentionally or unintentionally?

 

[kellyb]

I read the Vox transcript. It looks like Sam's in a loop, where he says he's not an IQ expert, doesn't care about any of it, he just wants to argue the data and not policy, but then when Ezra, who's comparatively an expert on it all wants to argue about data and Murray's agenda, Sam goes back to "I'm not an IQ expert", don't care, rinse and repeat.

If Sam wants to argue that Murray has been unfairly maligned, Sam needs to have some expertise on the issue, outside of "I read Murray's book and it seems legit to me!"

Sam's also almost implying there's some secret scientific consensus that agrees with Murray, because some scientists emailed Sam and expressed a private agreement with them. This is...what are we supposed to do with that claim?

Has Sam come across stuff like this?

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...p-on-Ravens-Advanced-Progressive-Matrices.pdf

This study addresses recent criticisms aimed at the interpretation of stereotype threat research and methodological weaknesses of previous studies that have examined race differences on Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM). African American and White undergraduates completed the APM under three conditions. In two threat conditions, participants received either standard APM instructions (standard threat) or were told that the APM was an IQ test (high threat). In a low threat condition, participants were told that the APM was a set of puzzles and that the researchers wanted their opinions of them. Results supported the stereotype threat interpretation of race differences in cognitive ability test scores. Although African American participants underperformed Whites under both standard and high threat instructions, they performed just as well as Whites did under low threat instructions.

He seems to be completely unwilling to consider the idea that the consensus that TBC is quackery is real, and exists for a good reason.

Sam tells Ezra at one point in the discussion:

There are many errors of this kind that you and Nisbett and Turkheimer are making when you criticize me and Murray. You criticize Murray for errors that he didn’t make.

And in order for you to imagine that I’m equally biased, because you must imagine bias on my side, why am I getting it so wrong? Why am I looking at the same facts that Nisbett and Turkheimer and Harden are looking at and I am getting it absolutely wrong? You have to imagine that I have an equal and opposite passion, that I feel equally righteous, but it’s pointing in the opposite direction. I would have to be a grand dragon of the KKK to feel an equal and opposite bias on these data. You’ve already said you don’t think I’m a racist, but that’s what it would have to be true of me to be as biased as you are

Umm...what?

Sam's been put on the SPLC's hate list next to neonazis over this. His ego is naturally hugely threatened. His bias at this point is extraordinary.

He's not thinking clearly.

When Ezra says:

I do want you to know, you mentioned James Flynn here. To prepare for this conversation, I called Flynn the other day. I spoke to him on Monday. His read of the evidence right now, and this is me quoting him. He says, “I think it is more probably than not that the IQ difference between black and white Americans is environmental. As a social scientist, I cannot be sure if they have a genetic advantage or disadvantage.”

...it doesn't sink in at all. They go back and forth on it and Sam, you imagine him just sort of shaking his head and going "Nu uh!"

Sam keeps trying to say he's arguing the "empirical science", but he's not. Ezra's doing more of than than Sam is.

Finally, a side note I'm going to throw in since I just ran across it: Men and women are about equal in natural mathematical aptitude:

Reported here are results of a field experiment that tested the usefulness of the stereotype threat formulation for understanding women's performance in upper levels of college mathematics — men and women who are highly motivated and proficient mathematicians and who are in the pipeline to mathematics and science professions. Our primary hypothesis was confirmed. Test performance of women in a stereotype-nullifying presentation of the test in an experimental group was raised significantly to surpass that of the men in the course. In a control group, in which test-takers were given the test under normal test instructions, women and men performed equally.

 

[Giz]

Finally, a side note
I'm going to throw in since I just ran across it: Men and women are about equal in natural mathematical aptitude:

Quote:
Reported here are results of a field experiment that tested the usefulness of the stereotype threat formulation for understanding women's performance in upper levels of college mathematics — men and women who are highly motivated and proficient mathematicians and who are in the pipeline to mathematics and science professions. Our primary hypothesis was confirmed. Test performance of women in a stereotype-nullifying presentation of the test in an experimental group was raised significantly to surpass that of the men in the course. In a control group, in which test-takers were given the test under normal test instructions, women and men performed equally.

Doesn’t that actually say that women are superior in mathematics? (I.e. in a stereotype nullifying test, their performance surpassed that of the men in the group)

 

[angrysoba]

It would likely change their recruiting success and their electoral clout, resulting in more victories for nationalists who demonize non-white immigrants. This is a consequence which Sam has gone on the record saying he wants us to avoid.



If it were true, and shown to be true, then it would be an even more potent propaganda tool than it is at present.



Harris need only worry about whether publishing such truths would actually move us up or down on the moral landscape.

Jesus! Well now you are, at least, falling into line with what Sam Harris was accusing his opponents of doing, which is to shut down speech on the grounds that they don't like it, not on the basis of what is true or not.