Legendary Comedy Duo: Harris and Murray

[baron]

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

Good lord.

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

That's what I'm asking

I said

It [restrictions on publicising contentious data] can be an effective strategy and perfectly acceptable to anybody who objects to living in a free society.

to which you replied

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

I'm asking what you were subjecting to criticism. Are you criticising the right of scientists and academics to publish any and all data genuinely obtained, or are you simply criticising the interpretation of the data in this case?

 

[kellyb]

Are you criticising the right of scientists and academics to publish any and all data genuinely obtained, or are you simply criticising the interpretation of the data in this case?

I'm criticizing Sam's method of handling the controversial interpretation of cherry picked data which is known as the book "The Bell Curve", in the form of nodding along with Charles Murray, who is the very embodiment of "scientific racism", on his podcast.

Sam should have familiarized himself with more of the research out there as well as Murray's agenda - not just Murray's chapter in one book - as well as the consensus of the actual experts, before going to bat for Murray.

Sam can't claim "I'm not an IQ expert and don't even care!" and "I'm talking about the data, and I'm just defending science!" at the same time.

 

[angrysoba]

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

Yes, well done! Harris says exactly that, and has said exactly that throughout the podcast.

Quote the relevant part, or name the scientists.

Richard Haier

"Haier is currently a Professor Emeritus in the Pediatric Neurology Division of the School of Medicine at University of California, Irvine. He has a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University. He is also the editor-in-chief of the journal Intelligence since 2016"

Sam Harris is not an expert in intelligence research but I am. After hearing the podcast, I emailed congratulations to him and Murray for conducting an informative discussion of complex and controversial issues. Every point they enumerated as having broad support among intelligence researchers is correct. There is an overwhelming weight of evidence to support the ideas that intelligence is something real, it can be reliably and validly measured without bias, and the measures predict many real world variables that are important to most human beings. There also is broad agreement that one component of intelligence is a general ability (the g-factor) to reason and problem-solve across a wide range of situations. There also is overwhelming evidence that genes play a significant role in explaining differences in intelligence among individuals.

These points were reasonably well established when The Bell Curve was published, as evidenced by a task force of prominent researchers constituted by the American Psychological Association in 1995 (report published in 1996), hardly a right-wing group. And, as Murray noted in the podcast, all these findings have been validated even further by subsequent research with much larger samples and more powerful research designs.

The main thrust of the THN post centers on whether average group differences in IQ and other cognitive test scores observed among some racial and ethnic groups have a partial genetic basis. There is not consensus on this because direct evidence from modern genetic studies of group differences is not yet available. Nonetheless, apparently THN view any possibility that this may be correct as inherently racist and malevolent. They attacked Harris and Murray for promoting this genetic view and the genetic inferiority of some groups it implies. It is a false charge. There is quite a difference between discussing and promoting.

http://quillette.com/2017/06/11/no-voice-vox-sense-nonsense-discussing-iq-race/

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

Well, maybe you didn't. But here is an example of a meta-analysis that did a review of the research into, in this case, male and female stereotype threat:

One explanation for this gap, stereotype threat, was first proposed by Spencer, Steele, and Quinn (1999) and has received much attention. We discuss merits and shortcomings of this study and review replication attempts. Only 55% of the articles with experimental designs that could have replicated the original results did so. But half of these were confounded by statistical adjustment of preexisting mathematics exam scores. Of the unconfounded experiments, only 30% replicated the original. A meta-analysis of these effects confirmed that only the group of studies with adjusted mathematics scores displayed the stereotype threat effect. We conclude that although stereotype threat may affect some women, the existing state of knowledge does not support the current level of enthusiasm for this as a mechanism underlying the gender gap in mathematics.

http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/a0026617

Yes, it is.

Maybe you can give an argument for how the "consensus" is that TBC is "quackery". I've already posted an example of an expert who says it is not. You can no doubt find some scientist against The Bell Curve, but you need to show that they are not only against it but that they argue it is "quackery" and all their peers agree. Do you think you can do that?

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.

Look, you are now practically pathologizing Sam Harris by arguing that he is saying what he does because of his wrong brain. What makes you so free of bias? Maybe you are in denial of your bias? Do you see how unfruitful it becomes to go down this route?

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.

Ah! That's your bias talking. Have you ever though that maybe you are just wrong because of your bias?

Let's see, how the Hell do you know that Murray wouldn't have agreed to go on a talk in which his ideas are to be attacked?

 

[d4m10n]

Sam can't claim "I'm not an IQ expert and don't even care!" and "I'm talking about the data, and I'm just defending science!" at the same time.

Exactly! If we are going to argue about the substantive scientific claims made by Herrnstein & Murray, we have to at least be familiar with what their conclusions were and how they were derived.

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

For starters . . .

Those are just the ones I have on the shelf, my more recent reading has been on Kindle.

 

[angrysoba]

Exactly! If we are going to argue about the substantive scientific claims made by Herrnstein & Murray, we have to at least be familiar with what their conclusions were and how they were derived.



For starters . . .

[qimg]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180414/4fdf92dac00adab0107baba92cc661a8.jpg[/qimg]

Those are just the ones I have on the shelf, my more recent reading has been on Kindle.

As I have already said, I have not read The Bell Curve.

What conclusions have you drawn from your reading?

 

[d4m10n]

What conclusions have you drawn from your reading?

Paraphrasing Sam Harris:

1. “General intelligence” is a scientifically valid concept, arising from demonstrable correlations between various kinds of intelligence.
2. IQ tests do a pretty good job of measuring it, in the specific sociocultural context for which they were designed.
3. A person’s IQ is highly predictive of his/her success in life, in the specific sociocultural context for which they were designed.
4. Mean IQ differs across various demographically distinguishable populations in the U.S., based on a set of relevant longitudinal surveys.

Murray goes somewhat beyond this, claiming 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" and that there is a "biological basis for personal qualities statistically associated with social problems—low IQ, impulsiveness, short time-horizons, sociopathy, indolence" and so forth.

To the extent that Murray associates these "significantly different" genetic configurations with race, he is promoting a view of homo sapiens which tightly coheres with the common, nontechnical definition of racism which I posted above.

 

[angrysoba]

Paraphrasing Sam Harris:

1. “General intelligence” is a scientifically valid concept, arising from demonstrable correlations between various kinds of intelligence.
2. IQ tests do a pretty good job of measuring it, in the specific sociocultural context for which they were designed.
3. A person’s IQ is highly predictive of his/her success in life, in the specific sociocultural context for which they were designed.
4. Mean IQ differs across various demographically distinguishable populations in the U.S., based on a set of relevant longitudinal surveys.

Murray goes somewhat beyond this, claiming 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" inasmuch as there is a "biological basis for personal qualities statistically associated with social problems—low IQ, impulsiveness, short time-horizons, sociopathy, indolence" and so forth.

Do you believe Murray's conclusions cannot possibly be true?

To the extent that Murray associates these "significantly different" genetic configurations with race (or more precisely, lineage) he is promoting a view of homo sapiens which tightly coheres with the common, nontechnical definition of racism which I posted above.

Only if he considers that certain "races" are inferior as human beings.

 

[kellyb]

Richard Haier

Who besides him?

Well, maybe you didn't. But here is an example of a meta-analysis that did a review of the research into, in this case, male and female stereotype threat:

My apologies - I should have been more clear. I was specifically talking about stereotype threat and testing for racial group differences on "raven's progressive matrices".

Maybe you can give an argument for how the "consensus" is that TBC is "quackery". I've already posted an example of an expert who says it is not. You can no doubt find some scientist against The Bell Curve, but you need to show that they are not only against it but that they argue it is "quackery" and all their peers agree. Do you think you can do that?

No, there is not a need for "all" their peers to agree, and a scientific consensus is not a phrase that needs scare quotes around it.

Look, you are now practically pathologizing Sam Harris by arguing that he is saying what he does because of his wrong brain. What makes you so free of bias? Maybe you are in denial of your bias? Do you see how unfruitful it becomes to go down this route?

I'm aware enough of my own bias to know that I'm probably more biased than I think I am. It's not an unfruitful line of reasoning.

Let's see, how the Hell do you know that Murray wouldn't have agreed to go on a talk in which his ideas are to be attacked?

I don't know, which is why I said "I doubt" instead of "I know".

 

[d4m10n]

Only if he considers that certain "races" are inferior as human beings.

Nope. If he considers some group of nonwhites inferior strictly in terms of "personal qualities statistically associated with social problems—low IQ, impulsiveness, short time-horizons, sociopathy, indolence," etc. then he holds essentially the same view traditionally held by mainstream white supremacists, regarding that group.

 

[fuelair]

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.

Makes life fun for the "Aryan pure Sooper-Dooper untermensch"!!!!!!

The reddened/enbiggened in the quoted is by me.....

 

[Delvo]

Maybe you can give an argument for how the "consensus" is that TBC is "quackery". I've already posted an example of an expert who says it is not. You can no doubt find some scientist against The Bell Curve...

...which she didn't, but your 1 still isn't enough compared to her 0.

The opposition to "The Bell Curve" and research consistent with it is interesting. I've found none that actually opposes its claims about the science on scientific grounds. They oppose it in one or more of four other ways instead:

1. Claim that the enemy's science must be inaccurate somehow but never produce a studious scientific critique of its flaws or a research project that pointed to a contradictory conclusion
2. Flat-out lie about what the enemy said in the first place
3. Say someone else who said something vaguely comparable earlier was unscientific and racist; almost the same thing as #2, because there's no possible point in bringing it up other than to equate the two, claiming that the current enemy is doing the same thing as whoever else you're dredging up, but technically not precisely the same thing as #2 if you don't actually openly state that equation but just let everyone figure out that that's what you're up to
4. Agree that the facts are the facts, that something is indeed causing measurable differences in intelligence between races, which is indeed affecting people's lives as it would be expected to, but then argue over where else we should go from there: say its causes are entirely environmental rather than even fractionally innate, or ignore the question of causes and go straight to favoring one type of policy response over another... For example, one such opposing work was titled "Not In Our Genes", which essentially says right there in the title that it's arguing a case for what's causing this phenomenon, not pretending the phenomenon isn't actually real.

Interestingly, approaches #1-3 seem to be found almost exclusively among amateurs/lay-people at websites like ours here or personal blogs or such, not in journals or books from non-vanity publishers. Those normally stick to #4. That even leads to something I could have included as a fifth item: pointing to a respected source/publication that did #4 but claiming that it had actually reported contradictory scientific evidence instead.

If he considers some group of nonwhites inferior strictly in terms of "personal qualities statistically associated with social problems—low IQ, impulsiveness, short time-horizons, sociopathy, indolence," etc. then he holds essentially the same view traditionally held by mainstream white supremacists, regarding that group.

...which leads to the question of whether to handle such conclusions, and the people who draw them, differently based on whether they were arrived at by a fair analysis of the facts or by a racist attitude.

 

[d4m10n]

...which leads to the question of whether to handle such conclusions, and the people who draw them, differently based on whether they were arrived at by a fair analysis of the facts or by a racist attitude.

Maybe we need two different valences of "racism" here. One of them based on bias, the other based on data.

 

[kellyb]

Angrysoba was already aware of 5 actual experts on intelligence who think TBC is pseudoscience - James Flynn, Eric Turkheimer, Kathryn Paige Harden, and Richard E. Nisbett.

The latter three say "We believe there is a fairly wide consensus among behavioral scientists in favor of our views, but there is undeniably a range of opinions in the scientific community." They call Murray's cherry picked data points "junk science".

Then there were the two authors who wrote the paper I linked to earlier, Ryan P. Brown and Eric Anthony Day, who say "The results of the present study offer strong support for the hypothesis that race differences in cognitive ability test scores could be accounted for with a simple, contextual variable that is independent of biological factors and even test content."

Flynn's statement “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.” is almost certainly representative of mainstream thought on the issue within the scientific community studying intelligence.

 

[kellyb]

2 more, Joseph F. Fagan and Cynthia R. Holland

Race was unrelated to the g factor. Cultural differences in the provision of information account for racial differences in IQ.

The present results, along with those of Fagan and
Holland (2002), do not support Jensen's default
hypothesis, on the contrary, they indicate that the average
difference in IQ between African-Americans and Whites
is not due to the same genetic and environmental factors,
in the same ratio, that account for IQ differences among
individuals within a racial group

The present data offer no empirical support for
Jensen's (1998) view that racial differences in IQ are due
to differences in g. Our results do not stand alone.
Helms-Lorenz, Van de Vijver, and Poortinga (2003), in a
study of majority-group children and second-generation
migrant children in the Netherlands, found that performance
differences between majority and minority-group
members were best predicted by a cultural factor rather
than by a general cognitive factor. Moreover, a series of
investigations by Dolan (2000), Dolan and Hamaker
(2001), Dolan, Roorda, and Wicherts (2004), Lubke,
Dolan, and Kelderman (2001) have used multi-group
confirmatory factor analysis to ask if differences in IQ
between minority groups and majority groups from
various cultures can be shown to be due to differences in
g. The general import of the Dolan re-analyses is that it is
impossible to draw any clear conclusion on the basis of
such studies as to racial group differences in IQ being
due to differences in g.

 

[dann]

4. Agree that the facts are the facts, that something is indeed causing measurable differences in intelligence between races, which is indeed affecting people's lives as it would be expected to, but then argue over where else we should go from there: say its causes are entirely environmental rather than even fractionally innate, or ignore the question of causes and go straight to favoring one type of policy response over another... For example, one such opposing work was titled "Not In Our Genes", which essentially says right there in the title that it's arguing a case for what's causing this phenomenon, not pretending the phenomenon isn't actually real.

That is not what they're saying: "that something is indeed causing measurable differences in intelligence between races." What they're saying is that something(s) is causing measurable IQ differences between races, which, of course, to you is the same thing because you believe that IQ actually measures intelligence, which they don't. (And neither do I.)
What you talk about the title of the book "Not in Our Genes", it would have helped if you had mentioned the whole title: R. Lewontin, S. Rose, L.J. Kamin: Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology & Human Nature. It would also have helped if you hadn't lied about them agreeing with you about "this phenomenon". The phenomenon is IQ and not the alleged g, general intelligence. I.e., what they are saying is that IQ doesn't actually measure anything, hence the title of Stephen Jay Gould's book.

Other books and articles:
Stephen Jay Gould: The Mismeasure of Man - Revised & Expanded (Amazon) The revised and expanded edition includes criticism of TBC.
Richard Lewontin: The Inferiority Complex (New York Review of Books, online)
Richard Lewontin: It Ain’t Necessarily So (Amazon)
R. Lewontin and his critics: Is Intelligence for Real? An Exchange (New York Review of Books, online)

 

[dann]

Correction.

This line

What you talk about the title of the book "Not in Our Genes", it ...

should have read: "When you talk about ..."


And I hope that this will fix the second Youtube link:

 

[angrysoba]

Who besides him?

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

Haier is the one who specifically argued his corner. But he also argues that David Reich and, yes, even James Flynn are consistent with the idea that there may be genetic causes for differences in IQ across groups. In fact, you even quote him saying that.

My apologies - I should have been more clear. I was specifically talking about stereotype threat and testing for racial group differences on "raven's progressive matrices".

Hmmm...that's rather specific. Anyway, the Radiolab episode I was talking about is here:
http://www.radiolab.org/story/stereothreat/

No, there is not a need for "all" their peers to agree, and a scientific consensus is not a phrase that needs scare quotes around it.

I put quotes around it because "consensus" is the word you used, but not one that you have demonstrated. Can you show that there is a consensus that it is "quackery". And by that, I mean not just something that may not be true, but some form of pseudoscientific fraud?

I'm aware enough of my own bias to know that I'm probably more biased than I think I am. It's not an unfruitful line of reasoning.

But it doesn't get us anywhere. Let's say someone believed Manchester City would win their Champions League match against Liverpool because it seemed likely on form, and a Liverpool fan believed that Liverpool would win because of some blinkered, one-eyed fanaticism which also included rampaging racism, homophobic bigotry, anti-semitism and raging misogynistic reasons, and moreover because of an utterly irrational hatred of the colour sky blue that Manchester City happen to have as their football strips. One person is extremely biased and the other is not. It doesn't mean that Liverpool didn't win the match.

I mean, I know from my own biases that I would much prefer that the science was clear that race was a completely socially-dependent concept (in fact, my own position more or less), and that there could be no genetic reasons for saying that one group could be different in terms of intelligence than another. But that doesn't mean that those who self-identify one "race" or another cannot possibly have a different distribution of genetic predispositions in terms of intelligence, or that such differences may have different life outcomes.

I don't know, which is why I said "I doubt" instead of "I know".

Why? People who like to debate ideas often go up against people who disagree with them.

 

[angrysoba]

Nope. If he considers some group of nonwhites inferior strictly in terms of "personal qualities statistically associated with social problems—low IQ, impulsiveness, short time-horizons, sociopathy, indolence," etc. then he holds essentially the same view traditionally held by mainstream white supremacists, regarding that group.

The term "white supremacism" seems to be the word du jour at the moment.

Can you countenance the idea that his reporting of the data was in good faith rather than out of his desire to run about in a white hood?

And I notice that you missed my other question:

"Do you believe Murray's conclusions cannot possibly be true?"

 

[angrysoba]

Angrysoba was already aware of 5 actual experts on intelligence who think TBC is pseudoscience - James Flynn,

Does James Flynn actually call it "pseudoscience"? (scare quotes because I would like to see if he uses the term).

Eric Turkheimer, Kathryn Paige Harden, and Richard E. Nisbett.

Yes, although as Sam Harris pointed out, Turkheimer then retreated from the term "junk science". Do we know why?

And that's four by my count, but plausibly all of them may not hold as fast to the claim as you suggest.

The latter three say "We believe there is a fairly wide consensus among behavioral scientists in favor of our views, but there is undeniably a range of opinions in the scientific community." They call Murray's cherry picked data points "junk science".

A fairly wide consensus in favour of their view, not that it is "quackery".

Then there were the two authors who wrote the paper I linked to earlier, Ryan P. Brown and Eric Anthony Day, who say "The results of the present study offer strong support for the hypothesis that race differences in cognitive ability test scores could be accounted for with a simple, contextual variable that is independent of biological factors and even test content."

Flynn's statement “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.” is almost certainly representative of mainstream thought on the issue within the scientific community studying intelligence.

Again, this is a very different claim. These latter people you are quoting are not saying TBC is quackery.

 

[kellyb]

I don't know, which is why I said "I doubt" instead of "I know".

Why? People who like to debate ideas often go up against people who disagree with them.

I think he's aware of the fact that the strength of the case he made in TBC has diminished significantly over the past 23 years as more data has been gathered. Sam also is not an expert in IQ, and most people who know they have holes in their pet theory prefer discussions with non-experts for obvious reasons.

If Murray were debating Nisbett or Flynn, he'd actually have to debate the science instead of just being sympathetically interviewed.

Can you show that there is a consensus that it is "quackery"

Turkheimer, Harden, and Nisbett say it is.

How much research over the last 15 years is in Murray's corner? A couple of papers by Rushton and Jensen?

I mean, I know from my own biases that I would much prefer that the science was clear that race was a completely socially-dependent concept (in fact, my own position more or less), and that there could be no genetic reasons for saying that one group could be different in terms of intelligence than another. But that doesn't mean that those who self-identify one "race" or another cannot possibly have a different distribution of genetic predispositions in terms of intelligence, or that such differences may have different life outcomes.

Well, there ya' go. Trying to be aware of your own biases has at least some effect in attenuating the effects of the bias. This isn't really controversial, is it?

But he also argues that David Reich and, yes, even James Flynn are consistent with the idea that there may be genetic causes for differences in IQ across groups.

Everyone agrees that there may be.

Where Murray steps outside of mainstream thought is in seeing the specific effects in the data.