Legendary Comedy Duo: Harris and Murray

[angrysoba]

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?

"Sorry, what?" means what is your point?

Are you talking about some general principle that people can use real data for nefarious purposes? That point seems so obvious it hardly seems worth stating. The question is whether you think Sam Harris is doing that.

Otherwise your point sounds like something 9/11 Truthers say, "Do you really believe the government never tells lies?" etc...

 

[d4m10n]

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.

Asking Harris (an avowed consequentialist) to seriously consider whether spending his reputational capital to bolster Herrnstein's racial research and Murray's policy proposals will end up driving us higher or lower on the moral landscape isn't exactly the same thing as shutting down anyone's speech. I'm surprised and disappointed that you don't seem to see the difference here. I'm also beginning to wonder whether you've read any of the relevant books.

 

[angrysoba]

Asking Harris (an avowed consequentialist) to seriously consider whether spending his reputational capital to bolster Herrnstein's racial research and Murray's policy proposals will end up driving us higher or lower on the moral landscape isn't exactly the same thing as shutting down anyone's speech. I'm surprised and disappointed that you don't seem to see the difference here. I'm also beginning to wonder whether you've read any of the relevant books.

Do you now? And which of these are the relevant books that you will have read?

 

[angrysoba]

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!"

His aim is not so much to argue the case about IQ and race. As he points out several times, his main problem is what he sees as a chilling effect on speech that no-platforming of Murray and others creates. Nevertheless, the question of whether it is defensible science is still one that he argues.

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?

Actually, he names a couple of scientists, including one who specifically argued his corner. Some of the others he says are not willing to go on record because there is a reputational cost to saying certain things even if they are true.

Has Sam come across stuff like this?

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

I don't know. I have come across stereotype threat a couple of times. The first time was a Radiolab podcast in which the research for stereotype threat has come in for some rough treatment. Apparently it hasn't been replicated in a way that inspires much confidence. What is your point about it?

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.

He's probably unwilling to consider it because it is not the consensus that it is "quackery".

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.

No wonder those scientists he talked about don't want to put their heads above the parapet.

He's not thinking clearly.

I definitely think he's on tilt, but he also knows that he's got himself into some bother. That somewhat proves his initial point though, doesn't it?

 

[kellyb]

"Sorry, what?" means what is your point?

Are you talking about some general principle that people can use real data for nefarious purposes? That point seems so obvious it hardly seems worth stating. The question is whether you think Sam Harris is doing that.

Otherwise your point sounds like something 9/11 Truthers say, "Do you really believe the government never tells lies?" etc...

It's the fact that good data can be misleading on accident that's the bigger issue.

You do know how that works, right?

 

[angrysoba]

It's the fact that good data can be misleading on accident that's the bigger issue.

You do know how that works, right?

This is fascinating.

 

[baron]

I say we should have a self-appointed body to vet all scientific data for its likelihood to cause offence before it's released to the public. I still can't get over that upstart Copernicus causing such offence to the Church by challenging geocentrism. He should have kept his mouth shut and everybody would be much happier.

 

[Giz]

I say we should have a self-appointed body to vet all scientific data for its likelihood to cause offence before it's released to the public. I still can't get over that upstart Copernicus causing such offence to the Church by challenging geocentrism. He should have kept his mouth shut and everybody would be much happier.

"Bourgeois pseudoscience was a term of condemnation in the Soviet Union for certain scientific disciplines that were deemed unacceptable from an ideological point of view.

At various times pronounced "bourgeois pseudosciences" were: genetics, cybernetics, sociology, semiotics, and comparative linguistics"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois_pseudoscience

 

[kellyb]

His aim is not so much to argue the case about IQ and race. As he points out several times, his main problem is what he sees as a chilling effect on speech that no-platforming of Murray and others creates.

He can't do the latter without being able to do the former.

Actually, he names a couple of scientists, including one who specifically argued his corner.

Quote the relevant part, or name the scientists.

Apparently it hasn't been replicated in a way that inspires much confidence.

Link?
I did a google scholar search and didn't see it tested without the same results anywhere.

He's probably unwilling to consider it because it is not the consensus that it is "quackery".

Yes, it is.

No wonder those scientists he talked about don't want to put their heads above the parapet.

Yes but that's not relevant to his total lack of awareness about his own bias here. Being in denial your own bias will scramble anyone's thinking.

I definitely think he's on tilt, but he also knows that he's got himself into some bother. That somewhat proves his initial point though, doesn't it?

At the cost of his own ability to be objective!
His main error here is that he didn't develop any expertise at all on the topic in between reading TBC and and interviewing Murray. Of course, I doubt Murray would have allowed himself to be interviewed if Sam hadn't expressed general agreement with the picture the book's chapter on race and IQ paints.

 

[kellyb]

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)

I was trying to be...delicate.

 

[baron]

"Bourgeois pseudoscience was a term of condemnation in the Soviet Union for certain scientific disciplines that were deemed unacceptable from an ideological point of view.

At various times pronounced "bourgeois pseudosciences" were: genetics, cybernetics, sociology, semiotics, and comparative linguistics"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois_pseudoscience

It can be an effective strategy and perfectly acceptable to anybody who objects to living in a free society.

 

[kellyb]

Subjection to criticism is not an infringement on one's freedom of speech.

Good lord.

 

[Giz]

I was trying to be...delicate.

Of course the big question is that if the results had been reversed and men had scored better on the stereotype - neutral test, should the results have been hushed up?

 

[baron]

Subjection to criticism is not an infringement on one's freedom of speech.

What are you criticising?

 

[kellyb]

Of course the big question is that if the results had been reversed and men had scored better on the stereotype - neutral test, should the results have been hushed up?

Of course not. I find it likely that the sexes have tendencies towards different aptitudes.

 

[kellyb]

What are you criticising?

Comparing Murray's quacktacular racism to Copernicus' heliocentricism.

 

[d4m10n]

Comparing Murray's quacktacular racism to Copernicus' heliocentricism.

It would be helpful here if you narrowed this down to a specific claim from Murray. Doesn't need to be as straightforward as "the Earth orbits the Sun," but it has to at least be properly attributed to Murray.

 

[kellyb]

It would be helpful here if you narrowed this down to a specific claim from Murray. Doesn't need to be as straightforward as "the Earth orbits the Sun," but it has to at least be properly attributed to Murray.

Here:

“The professional consensus is that the United States has experienced dysgenic pressures throughout either most of the century (the optimists) or all of the century (the pessimists). Women of all races and ethnic groups follow this pattern in similar fashion. There is some evidence that blacks and Latinos are experiencing even more severe dysgenic pressures than whites, which could lead to further divergence between whites and other groups in future generations.”

And...

“You want to have a job training program for welfare mothers? You think that’s going to cure the welfare problem? Well, when you construct that job training program and try to decide what jobs they might qualify for, you had better keep in mind that the mean IQ of welfare mothers is somewhere in the 80s, which means that you have certain limitations in what you're going to accomplish.”

His whole worldview is centered on white supremacy. If he showed any sign of incorporating new information into his worldview and disavowing his previous views, I'd be less harsh, but he's fundamentally not a scientist - he's curator of factoids that can be cherry picked and put together in service of political agendas.

 

[baron]

Comparing Murray's quacktacular racism to Copernicus' heliocentricism.

That was after I posted. You can't criticise my post before I made it. Prior to my post, you were criticising something. What was it?

 

[kellyb]

That was after I posted. You can't criticise my post before I made it. Prior to my post, you were criticising something. What was it?

Which post of mine before your Copernicus post are you referring to?