Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
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.
They seemed to have a fairly congenial debate here in 2006. They obviously disagree, but Flynn isn't calling Murray a quack, or a crank:
Furthermore, according to Sam Harris, when Murray was due to have a discussion at Middlebury College, the professor who was assaulted was herself there to question Murray's claims.
They don't argue that the scientific consensus calls it "pseudoscience" or "junk science". You quoted a section from their paper without the wider context:
Murray’s premises, which proceed in declining order of actual broad acceptance by the scientific community, go like this:
1) Intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is a meaningful construct that describes differences in cognitive ability among humans.
2) Individual differences in intelligence are moderately heritable.
3) Racial groups differ in their mean scores on IQ tests.
4) Discoveries about genetic ancestry have validated commonly used racial groupings.
5) On the basis of points 1 through 4, it is natural to assume that the reasons for racial differences in IQ scores are themselves at least partly genetic.
Until you get to 5, none of the premises is completely incorrect. However, for each of them Murray’s characterization of the evidence is slanted in a direction that leads first to the social policies he endorses, and ultimately to his conclusions about race and IQ. We, and many other scientific psychologists, believe the evidence supports a different view of intelligence, heritability, and race.
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.Some well-informed scientists hold views closer to Murray’s than to ours. And there are others who challenge views that we accept about the utility of the general concepts of intelligence and heritability. What we attempt to do here is shed light on the status of Murray’s claims and logic in a way that Harris failed to do in the interview.
You only quoted the bold bit with the assumption that the "consensus" is that it is pseudoscience. The full context only shows disagreement, in their case, and which they "believe" is broader than than those who agree with Murray.
The point is not to thrash out who is correct here, only that there seems to be some legitimate ground for debate and that having someone like Murray on a podcast is not grounds for shrieking vilification, nor is it grounds for assault on campus. As mentioned, Harris is not motivated by questions of IQ and race, only open discussion, and that the discussion about IQ and race was there purely to show that Murray's views, whether right or wrong, were not some kind of rabble-rousing Fascist rallying cry. Harris's annoyance with some people such as Ezra Klein is that when pushed into saying whether or not they think Murray is a racist, will say no, and yet at other times in their writing or other words they will deliberately try to put Murray and Harris in some racist, "white supremacist" garb.
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?
I still don't know what use this is. I mean, you are talking about Sam Harris and his lack of awareness of his own biases. You present no evidence for what his biases are nor his failures to "attenuate" them. Maybe you should talk to him on Twitter about this because I have no clue what to do with these claims.
They seemed to have a fairly congenial debate here in 2006. They obviously disagree, but Flynn isn't calling Murray a quack, or a crank:
Furthermore, according to Sam Harris, when Murray was due to have a discussion at Middlebury College, the professor who was assaulted was herself there to question Murray's claims.
Thanks. I'll check out the debate, and you might be right about Murray's willingness to stand by his claims facing someone who disagrees.
They don't argue that the scientific consensus calls it "pseudoscience" or "junk science". You quoted a section from their paper without the wider context:
You only quoted the bold bit with the assumption that the "consensus" is that it is pseudoscience. The full context only shows disagreement, in their case, and which they "believe" is broader than than those who agree with Murray.
The point is not to thrash out who is correct here, only that there seems to be some legitimate ground for debate and that having someone like Murray on a podcast is not grounds for shrieking vilification, nor is it grounds for assault on campus.
You have to have at least a passing familiarity with the science to know if the debate is legitimate or not.
I certainly agree about assault, and I don't like seeing Harris vilified, either. I was sort of 'ing Harris when he first interviewed Murray, but I didn't (and still haven't) lost respect for him. I just think he's wrong here, like I think he's wrong about defending torture and some particular aspects of his perception of Islam vs Christianity and Judaism.
I still don't know what use this is. I mean, you are talking about Sam Harris and his lack of awareness of his own biases. You present no evidence for what his biases are nor his failures to "attenuate" them. Maybe you should talk to him on Twitter about this because I have no clue what to do with these claims.
Sam thinks he'd have to be as biased as the grand wizard of the KKK to be as biased as Ezra! His exact words were "I would have to be a grand dragon of the KKK to feel an equal and opposite bias on these data...that’s what it would have to be true of me to be as biased as you are."
That is nuts! If I claimed I'd have to be the head of the KKK to be as biased as you, you'd think I have no self-awareness of my own bias at all, and you'd be right!
His entire thought process in those few paragraphs involves him temporarily forgetting that he actually isn't an expert on this and lacks a comprehensive understanding of the research.
I have little doubt that Murray is advancing his claims in good faith. He seems to sincerely believe that socially important personal characteristics such as "low IQ, impulsiveness, short time-horizons, sociopathy, indolence," etc. are more common in poor people in general—and people of color in particular—because of their ancestry.
What has this to do with angry white men in pointy white hoods? Try to envision their reaction *if* Murray were actually shown to be correct. Would it tend to marginalize them further, or recenter them in the political mainstream?
If someone wanted to demonstrate that among the poorest there are more people with low IQs than among the other demographics, I'm positive it would be found. And with low IQ would come a couple of things, like impulsiveness and short time-horizons. Sociopathy is a stretch (the only reproductive limiting on that trait is when one gets caught, it seems, creating a survival advantage for the smart sociopaths) as well as indolence (think "the idle rich".)
Intelligence "due to heritability" and "due to ancestry" are two very different claims. I'm not worried about Murray turning out correct there (the whole concept fundamentally lacks plausibility in a few different ways), and the klansmen are going to believe whatever they wish to believe no matter what.
These are often the same people still asking whycome chimps still exist if we evolved from chimps, afterall.
I have little doubt that Murray is advancing his claims in good faith. He seems to sincerely believe that socially important personal characteristics such as "low IQ, impulsiveness, short time-horizons, sociopathy, indolence," etc. are more common in poor people in general—and people of color in particular—because of their ancestry.
What has this to do with angry white men in pointy white hoods? Try to envision their reaction *if* Murray were actually shown to be correct. Would it tend to marginalize them further, or recenter them in the political mainstream?
Whether he turns out to be correct or not (for the record, I'm not saying we need to fund or perform any more research into these particular sorts of group differences) Harris really needs to ask himself, as a consequentialist, where exactly Murray is driving us on the moral landscape.
Whether he turns out to be correct or not (for the record, I'm not saying we need to fund or perform any more research into these particular sorts of group differences) Harris really needs to ask himself, as a consequentialist, where exactly Murray is driving us on the moral landscape.
Or perhaps you could ask him on Twitter. My own take was that free and open discussion is, except in extreme cases, a better way of maximizing outcomes than no-platforming and imposing taboos on speech.
I just want to go on record as saying *I* think what he's promoting is actual pseudoscience.
He's aware of the Flynn effect and doesn't question the data, which means, quoting Flynn himself, "In 1900, the average IQ scored against current norms was somewhere between 50 and 70. If IQ gains are in any sense real, we are driven to the absurd conclusion that a majority of our ancestors were mentally retarded."
But he thinks "the United States has experienced dysgenic pressures throughout either most of the century ..." and "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."
Or perhaps you could ask him on Twitter. My own take was that free and open discussion is, except in extreme cases, a better way of maximizing outcomes than no-platforming and imposing taboos on speech.
Or perhaps you could ask him on Twitter. My own take was that free and open discussion is, except in extreme cases, a better way of maximizing outcomes than no-platforming and imposing taboos on speech.
He sees the deplatforming of Murray as a bigger problem (because of the problems of deplatforming in general) than any potential negative consequences of hosting Murray on his podcast. So he took action against the former.
He sees the deplatforming of Murray as a bigger problem (because of the problems of deplatforming in general) than any potential negative consequences of hosting Murray on his podcast.
I'm not getting the sense that Sam even noticed the highlighted bit, much less that he weighed it against other considerations. The only negative consequences I've heard him talking about were reputational in nature.
Yes, and I am saying he is acting in accordance with his stated values, namely his dislike of no-platforming and in imposing taboos around what can be studied .
I am writing about what he has said, not about what you have said. Can you see the difference between the two?
I just want to go on record as saying *I* think what he's promoting is actual pseudoscience.
He's aware of the Flynn effect and doesn't question the data, which means, quoting Flynn himself, "In 1900, the average IQ scored against current norms was somewhere between 50 and 70. If IQ gains are in any sense real, we are driven to the absurd conclusion that a majority of our ancestors were mentally retarded."
But he thinks "the United States has experienced dysgenic pressures throughout either most of the century ..." and "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."
Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz were on Joe Rogan's podcast yesterday. They talk a little about the Charles Murray thing, the recent podcast with Ezra Klein, etc.
Looks like Sam kind of is serving as a gateway into the alt right, right now. Look at the chart about a quarter of the way down. Sam's right under Richard Spencer.
Their “biggest stepping stone” was from Harris’ work to Kersey’s blog: “It was there I learned about race realism, IQ, genetics, bell curves, and the economic/political drivers behind the pushing of ‘diversity.’”
Looks like Sam kind of is serving as a gateway into the alt right, right now. Look at the chart about a quarter of the way down. Sam's right under Richard Spencer.
Sad news. He can reverse this trend, I'm hoping, if only he spends some time speaking with (and listening to) anti-racists. The results of the Ezra Klein interview were particularly disappointing, on that score.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
'ing Harris when he first interviewed Murray, but I didn't (and still haven't) lost respect for him. I just think he's wrong here, like I think he's wrong about defending torture and some particular aspects of his perception of Islam vs Christianity and Judaism. 
