Vox: Sam Harris, Charles Murray, and the allure of race science
- Thread starter Thisman
- Start date
How can he be deplatformed? He owns his podcast. He’s not on NBC or anything like that.
Deplatformed by who exactly? He's running his own service.
And I think the very fact that he attracts so many highly esteemed intellectuals onto his podcast demonstrates that this notion of him being "intellectually dishonest" is not shared by at least a sizeable section of the scientific community. I'd say that the majority of the guests he has on are left-leaning liberals who respect his opinion even if they may not agree with him on everything.
Agreed with most of what both said but couldn't finish the podcast. It's unfortunate these "debate" podcasts seem to get the most attention since they are by far the worst ones that sam harris puts out.
Pass on that. Need to protect against the youtube recommendations based on this lol. "X intellectually emasculated by Y in one sided debate"
The debate is also up on Vox and Ezra's podcast feed: https://www.vox.com/2018/4/9/17210248/sam-harris-ezra-klein-charles-murray-transcript-podcast
I think they both came away bleeding, which is a way of saying they both landed their criticisms. Sam does come across as being insufficiently sensitive as he pokes his nose into controversial topics in science, while Ezra’s ideological concerns leave him happy to help curiosity in this space be a mark of a dangerous pariah.
I think the ideal for how this subject is spoken about is not represented by either man speaking here.
I think the ideal for how this subject is spoken about is not represented by either man speaking here.
New Atheist leader defending racist theories, big surprise after his defense of racial profiling.
Agreed, I think both acquitted themselves well. Both have legitimate concerns that happen to be intersecting in this particular topic and you can see their different backgrounds shaping what concerns they speak of (Sam being more on the philosophical thinker side of things, Ezra being a social policy thinker).
To some extent they both made good points that were sort of ignored by the other, so I think when Sam says at the end that the audience will think they were largely talking past each other, he's right. But he's also right that I found it educational.
Overall I think Sam was too quick to claim Ezra was confusing points, but he also addressed Ezra's concerns directly more often than Ezra did.
I thought this was one of Klein's weakest points. He seemed unprepared for Harris's response to Klein saying he was defending Murray because of white identity politics. Unprepared enough that he attempted to change what identity politics he was referring to at the end to "person who has been attacked by social media" or something. Which is a pretty soft point to land, and definitely not an adequate response to Sam's fear that identity politics mean silencing any discussion, factual or otherwise, which might be deemed as detrimental to the cause.
But I do feel Ezra was right to call out Sam for spending more time and energy lately attacking identity politics than actual fascists (though Sam discussed why he didn't feel the need to do the latter much, namely that it's implied among sane people to denounce those).
I also like that Ezra freely said that he doesn't consider Sam a racist, but never mentioned Murray, knowing that saying he does believe that would probably derail things. That Human Achievement book seems suspect as all get out.
Last edited:
Both sides(TM) are pretending to be mind readers concerning Murray's motivations. Ezra thinks Murray and other like-minded IQ scientists are ultimately leaning into their theory due to their white privilege/tribalism/bias. On the other hand Harris thinks Murray and other like-minded IQ scientists are creating their theory based upon a rational extrapolation of the data, free from racial bias.
As Ezra points out Murray first wrote a book on how social welfare programs are bad, and then wrote a book on how the data shows that such programs are bound to fail. This lends some decent weight to Ezra's claim. But no matter which way you boil it down, it still becomes a game of mind reading and hypotheticals, neither of which clarifies the Rationalism v Racism context for Murray's genetic gap theory.
As far as I can tell most IQ scientists think there is some amount of a genetic racial gap, but anything more specific than that is beyond the scope of what IQ science can definitively say. Murray says the gap is probably largely genetic due to his belief in the strength of IQ heritability and what he characterizes as the inevitable failures of welfare social policy. Flynn says it's likely small due to his belief in the strength of IQ environmental effects, and blames the failure of environmental social policy upon deeply rooted systemic problems. They even disagree on whether the gap is closing or not, which is a pretty damn fundamental piece of the picture.
In the abstract I believe that sometime in the future, with enough valid, replicable data someone could make Murray's argument for there being a significant genetic gap. But we don't have that data. Should such a concept still be floated and advanced as a valid theory right now, like Harris thinks? In a colorblind, ethical world, maybe, but US policy is created in an environment far removed from such a place. It's often based upon embracing unlikely hypotheticals so long as it benefits those in power (see our record on climate change). Murray's theory has a good chance of rationalizing bad policy right now to favor those in power, which is why it's potentially dangerous. Harris says we should "trust" people with these kinds of complex ideas and not treat them like kids. Did he learn nothing from Trump's victory?
By the way, thank you to all those who are giving meaningful, lengthy responses. It makes ignoring the drive-by hot takes much easier.
As Ezra points out Murray first wrote a book on how social welfare programs are bad, and then wrote a book on how the data shows that such programs are bound to fail. This lends some decent weight to Ezra's claim. But no matter which way you boil it down, it still becomes a game of mind reading and hypotheticals, neither of which clarifies the Rationalism v Racism context for Murray's genetic gap theory.
As far as I can tell most IQ scientists think there is some amount of a genetic racial gap, but anything more specific than that is beyond the scope of what IQ science can definitively say. Murray says the gap is probably largely genetic due to his belief in the strength of IQ heritability and what he characterizes as the inevitable failures of welfare social policy. Flynn says it's likely small due to his belief in the strength of IQ environmental effects, and blames the failure of environmental social policy upon deeply rooted systemic problems. They even disagree on whether the gap is closing or not, which is a pretty damn fundamental piece of the picture.
In the abstract I believe that sometime in the future, with enough valid, replicable data someone could make Murray's argument for there being a significant genetic gap. But we don't have that data. Should such a concept still be floated and advanced as a valid theory right now, like Harris thinks? In a colorblind, ethical world, maybe, but US policy is created in an environment far removed from such a place. It's often based upon embracing unlikely hypotheticals so long as it benefits those in power (see our record on climate change). Murray's theory has a good chance of rationalizing bad policy right now to favor those in power, which is why it's potentially dangerous. Harris says we should "trust" people with these kinds of complex ideas and not treat them like kids. Did he learn nothing from Trump's victory?
By the way, thank you to all those who are giving meaningful, lengthy responses. It makes ignoring the drive-by hot takes much easier.
Last edited:
What do you think about Harris' (and others) argument that because it's inevitable that science will force those topics to be covered, there's maybe some use in trying to do so now in order to frame the discussion in a way that doesn't leave the floor open to racists to frame it how they'd like?
The idea that non-white people's biological inferiority to white people with regard to "intelligence" is an inevitable scientific discovery seems a bit off
I think that Sam's great failing regarding identity politics as a "dead end" is that he's looking at what a utopian society looks like (which would include as little discussion about race as possible, since equality would have been reached) and reasoning that because identity politics has no place there, it has no place now. He's afraid that identity politics will lead us down a path away from truth. While I think that identity politics CAN be dangerous, I also think Sam needs to be more receptive to the idea that they can be a good mid-run game that paves the way for the endgame of a utopian, equal society. That they have no place in an equal society doesn't mean they aren't useful as a means now to advancing towards something better. They don't need to be an end if they are a means to a better end.
Almost halfway through the podcast now... This is actually a far better discussion then I was expecting. Both Sam and Ezra do a great job of explaining their side and both come off as equally sincere. Although it seems to be getting a lot more personal now, with each of them trading barbs and attacking one another's character.
Keep a race enslaved and then once freed, oppress them with great effectiveness by limiting their access to decent jobs, decent schools, and force them to live under the threat of violence over the smallest of infractions everyday and then point to them and say "hey, it's not how we've treated them for literally centuries, there is a biological reason why they have lower IQs."
Look at Milo. Advertisers shun him. Book publishers won't publish him, etc
In reality this won't happen unless he gets #metoo'd .He's too smart and eloquent to say something out right unacceptable.
He will continue his game of using selective reasoning, "just asking questions", "go where the science leads me" to insinuate and imply his dangerous ideas.
Personally I just use Sam Harris as a litmus test. If I'm talking to a person that takes what Harris seriously I know I shouldn't take them seriously. I know that is harsh but Harris followers are their own type of deluded because they think they're being rational/objective.
Here's one example of the BS that Harris peddles. In the debate Harris states a few times that he doesn't have a position on the underlying race vs IQ. 1) that is cowardly and stupid, 2) he does this so he can attain a form of authority. "I am approaching this objectively because I don't care, I am dispassionate, I don't have a horse in this race"
It's a form of intellectual dog whistling. Stupid people don't really get the point. Pseudo-Intellectual people believe Harris and grant him that authority. Smart people like Klein see it for what it is. Harris does it though because his real audience, as always, is the pseudo intellectual that wants to feel smart and be contrarian and that is exactly what Harris provides them.
His ENTIRE schtick is one big argument from authority. That is why he tries to de-legetimize actual reasoned positions with stupid things like "identity politics" because he's too stupid to actually argue real positions. Or rather, that's what his audience wants to hear. They don't want actual debate, they want the legitimacy of debate to legitemize their specious reasoning. Notice that when Harris "debates" someone with a contrary position he focuses not on the actual issue but instead on discussing the legitemacy of the debate itself. He did this with Chomsky and is doing it here.
except this is patently true and doesn't take a mind reader to figure out
He doesn’t have many scientists on, and the assertion that most of his guests are left-liberals is untrue as well. He has guests who tend to play to his political preferences.
This is a very good post. The fact is that Murray is, completely falsely, presenting his warmed-over racism as "rational" and "scientific" when it is absolutely neither. The current state of scientific knowledge is that we simply cannot address this definitively one way or the other. The knowledge we do have does not in any way indicate that the gap between races in the US is mostly, let alone entirely, due to genetics. Yet pseudo-intellectuals like Harris never actually challenge people like Murray on their misrepresentation of the science, because it flatters them and their followers to give credence to "controversial" opinions as long as they are presented with a veneer of intellectual sophistication. And of course, those "controversial" opinions these oh-so-rational people gravitate towards just happen to be the ones that assert their own rightful superiority. The lack of self-awareness is painful.
Every IQ scientist who thinks genetics play a role in IQ are doing so because they are white?
...Which is a left-liberal.
If this is what you think the debate is about, then... you don't actually know what the debate is about. "Genetics plays a role in IQ" is a completely different statement from "Genetic differences between races explains the IQ gap between white and black Americans". The tremendous effort people like Murray make to conflate the two is blatantly racist in origin.
I've been calling Harris a clown for years (especially on the old board). He always came across as out of his element when compared to his contemporaries. Glad there's finally pushback on his nonsense as he was definitely the wrong horse to back. Seeing him and Maher fall have given me a great sense of schadenfreude. Lawrence Krauss having sexual allegations against him and Dawkins poor use of twitter and opinions on brown people have also definitely not reflected well on the New Atheist movement.
Harris admits that racists cheer over Murray and his policy positions, so I'm not sure what the difference would be if a racist "framed" it. I'm sure they argue for all sorts of dystopian group-based hierarchy policies upon the back of Murray's theory, but that's not a framing that can be realistically prevented. Harris and Murray retreat into "individualism" as a way to avoid the obvious pitfall of group discrimination, but individualism only functions correctly in a society that's already colorblind, not one that's continually shrugging off the chains of systemic racism. I don't believe theories with such significant racial components should be treated as "just another theory" like Harris wants, but nor should they be dismissed as racist pandering. They occupy a grey area, but in the end I tend to agree more with Ezra's approach.
How is my understanding flawed? No one is saying that the differences between IQ in populations are purely genetic, including Murray who I actually do believe has some racial motivation going on here. It's always a combination of genes vs environment, and this is a statement not uncommonly believed in the IQ community. Murray gets into trouble when he uses that data to propose social policy, which is where Klein's worries come in. Sam believes the latter shouldn't affect someone's ability to discuss the former, which is where his worry comes in.
Last edited:
In this context, I'm using science in a more broader extent to include philosophers, physicists, political scientists, etc. who I can assure you do constitute a majority of his guests. And as Ralemont mentioned, he absolutely has a lot of left liberals on the podcast, who certainly are who he most closely associates with. I would be extremely surprised if you were able to go through his podcast guest list and determine that less than 50% of them were publicly left-leaning.
Not really. He’s left liberal on some things, right on others. They stances he seems to talk about most (scary Muslims, dangerous SJWs) are conservative.
Why would you try to burnish his credentials within the “scientific community” if you were actually talking about philosophers and Preet Bharara? When he has political guests, they tend to be Douglas Murray, Ben Shapiro, David Frum, Andrew Sullivan, David Brooks.
I was referring to the broader debate around Murrayanian ideas, not the podcast specifically, though I see that was unclear. The argument for those social policies based on that data rests entirely on conflating those two issues. If pressed, yes they will say of course everything is complicated, gene-by-environment interaction blah blah blah. And then they will go right back making massive logical leaps that ignore the massive uncertainty.
I suppose Harris is treating this like he treats any other theory, in that he is hyping up attention-grabbing headlines based on a superficial understanding of the underlying science. Normally that's fine, Harris does his TED talk schtick and his audience feels like they are smart and his guest sells some of their pop science book. Here, not so much.
It seems to me Harris lead you astray here, because literally every sentence in this paragraph reflects some of the same misunderstandings he showcased throughout the podcast.
For one, Ezra didn't change his reference at all. He uses the word 'tribe' often, and almost never with obvious racial connotations. This usage was clear throughout the debate, as well, as he emphasized again and again that he perceived in Harris a bias toward Murray/Murrayism because of shared difficulties with the current political environment. So when Harris responded to Ezra's point about that bias with a spiel about not being racially motivated, that spiel seemed to come completely out of nowhere.
The point Ezra did make about white identity politics, though, was a pretty important one. The tribalistic thinking mentioned above was the motivator; the white identity politics was the framing. I mean, Harris is a dude who's willing to engage uncritically with someone like Charles Murray, but refuses to engage at all with someone like Ta-Nehisi Coates. Through a feat of self-awareness (the incredible absence of it, that is), he can somehow remain convinced that his perspective transcends any given aspect of his identity, and simply reflects some sort of universal rationality. That's the stuff of white identity politics: because you're white, you're free to pretend that your perspective rests on some default intellectual paradigm, and only perceive explicit identity politics in the perspective of others.
As for a direct response to Harris' fears about silencing discussion, Ezra responded to that perfectly well: it's not nearly as big a deal as he seems to think it is, considering that even the Charles Murrays of the world are doing incredibly well for themselves; on the flip side, the things "identity politics" addresses are real, pervasive, and deeply damaging.
I think that's a little disingenous. Sam is anti-Islam in large part because he's anti-religion, which is decidedly not conservative, at least in US politics. And in his podcasts where he talks about identity politics, it sure sounded like his guests were from the left as they were discussing their worries about why the Democrats had failed in this election and were failing to motivate their base. In his podcast with the former Neo Nazi now turned-liberal, he was asked why he seems to spend more time arguing with the left than the right, and his response is that many far right positions are openly ridiculous such that there's nothing to discuss. He's anti-Trump, pro gun control, pro climate-change-is-real, believes in social policies that help minorities and the less fortunate (tonight with Ezra he mentioned that society should do as much as it can to eliminate the luck of the draw, such as being born an oppressed minority and therefore having a natural disadvantage in a racist country), etc etc.
That's he's not on the most extreme left doesn't mean he's conservative or right-wing.
Ezra's jump was unclear because previous to his assertion that Sam was engaging in identity politics, they were both talking about racial identity politics. And Ezra further tries to drive this point home by bringing up the disparity of black podcast guests. So no, he wasn't "always" trying to only reference tribalism in reference to political difficulties in the current climate of discussion. I'm glad he clarified this so they could move past it, because he was really just saying back to Sam what Sam said at the beginning from that moment on.
Sam also openly accepts the premise of white privilege and the advantages he's afforded by being white, but I don't agree that this freedom to say "I'm basing my opinion on rationality and not identity politics" constitutes white identity politics. That is different from white privilege.
I agree with Ezra that the wrongs identity politics seek to address are more damaging than the wrongs Sam is trying to address, but this isn't actually a response to the idea that the latter is a wrong. It's whataboutism. It's perfectly consistent to care both about identity politics as potentially dangerous political discourse and confirm that identity politics are necessary to drive forward an agenda of equality in an imperfect world. Focusing on one for the moment doesn't mean you don't care about the other.
As for Charles Murray, well, sure, he's doing ok. Because he's a social policy thinker and not a scientist. If he were purely a scientist, then the damage that has been done to his reputation in that realm (again, contrary to what Sam thinks, I do think Charles' motivation is deeply suspicious, so I'm not going to claim it's unfair) would have destroyed his livelihood. And if you don't think the era of social media and hot takes has produced undesirable effects when it comes to the pursuit of truth...then I don't know what to say.
Edit: Since I came out of this thinking both had made very good points, I'll add that one particular area where I felt Klein was successful was drawing out the argument from Sam that the history of racism in the US has no bearing on the data. That even if the US is racist, data can't be. I think that sounds nice, but data can certainly be overwhelmingly influenced by racist factors in the environment. And I don't think he was charitable enough to Klein who was suggesting that the data was far less "case proven" than Sam was suggesting the IQ community thinks it is.
Last edited:
Perhaps scientific community is the wrong term for it, but I meant the interdisciplinary group that is composed of professors, authors, political analysts, etc. for which Sam is a part of. In particular, people like the last few guests he's had on podcast such as Robin Hanson (economist), Max Tegmark (physicist), Rebecca Goldstein (philosopher), Niall Ferguson (historian/political commentator). The subset of people you've chosen is not at all representative of the typical guests he has on.
Edit: Re-reading your response, I think I misinterpreted what you were saying. I'll acquiesce that the strictly political guests that he has on are frequently conservative, although I still doubt they make up the majority.
In any case, I just finished the podcast and immensely enjoyed it as I both agreed and disagreed with Sam and Ezra at different parts of the conversation. Definitely one of the more thought-provoking discussions Sam has been a part of, largely due to how fundamentally Ezra disagreed with him of many topics.
Last edited:
I don't think there was a jump at all. Ezra was talking about tribalism and identity politics simultaneously. In this case, the white identity politics inevitably informing Harris' point of view framed the tribalism that made him associate with people like Murray specifically. Harris' response reversed those two things, and ended up missing the point completely.
Harris acknowledging white privilege as a concept does nothing to mitigate that he so clearly fails to appreciate the white privilege he personally showcases. His refusal to acknowledge that identity might be informing his perspective is a pretty clear manifestation of white identity politics. That's made even more stark when you consider some of his positions and past statements: he tries very hard to disassociate race science and social policy, but the criticism Murray has received for so explicitly linking those two things apparently amounts to him being the most unfairly maligned figure in Harris' lifetime; he specifically sought out Glenn Loury for his podcast because he wanted to talk to a black person who wasn't "contaminated by identity politics"; again, he's pretty cool speaking to a Charles Murray, but not a Ta-Nehisi Coates. It requires a massive blindspot not to see that his whiteness is informing all that ridiculous maneuvering.
The thing is, the "identity politics" framing isn't actually useful in the first place. People like Harris continue to force it on us. To the extent that identity politics is a thing, that's because it's incredibly pervasive and difficult to escape - it's the actual default state of affairs. This was also one of Ezra's points: in a way, Harris' white identity politics is actually more explicit than any of the other manifestations he's calling out, because it's only when you're engaging with white identity politics that you can so easily be dismissive of identity in the first place.
Now consider that, through all this, Harris somehow lands on the position that he's simply being rational, while everyone else is being overly influenced by the subject of identity...this is white identity politics in a nutshell.
Also, there's no whataboutism here. We're talking about one thing: identity politics. It addresses a serious issue, while the negative affects attributed to it are dramatically overstated. I don't think it's inhibited our quest for the truth, no. If anything, it's a prerequisite to unpacking it.
I don't want to dogpile or anything, but I just wanted to say that I've really enjoyed your posts Nerokis. In your first two paragraphs I was thinking to myself "what use is talking about identity politics anyway..." and boom right there at the beginning of the 3rd paragraph you brought it up.
Claiming "identity politics" on someone as a motivation for their argued position is an ad hominem and nothing more.
Best response on here and is basically what has happen. It’s so silly that some people would actually believe that. I just don’t get the world.
Those complaining about "identity politics" are always using it to refer to minority identity politics and in a negative way. Identity politics itself is neutral. It can help, hinder, or not do anything for a group of people. It was used to hinder entire groups in the formation of the United States. Black people were considered three-fifths of a person. The Electoral College was created to make the slave states happy. States controlled the elections and most of them only allowed landed white males to vote. Jim Crow was identity politics. Slavery itself was identity politics, especially when a freed black man could be kidnapped and enslaved again without consequence. These things and more worked together to oppressive an entire race of people in the US and we still feel the effects well after the laws and practices have been abolished.
But there were good identity politics, too. The Civil Rights Movement, Women's Suffrage (although that was only for white woman), and all sorts of others. The unconstitutionality of Texas' sodomy law was identity politics. It was illegal for a man to have sex with another man until 2003. You cannot avoid identity politics. It is impossible. To fix the problems caused by bad identity politics, we have to use identity politics to identify who has been affected and correct it.
Thanks
Anyone can produce data to say anything. If you don't provide and look at context, then you're being willfully ignorant. Harris' refusal to even acknowledge that America's racist history might possibly have an impact on results of IQ tests is maddeningly absurd.
Only 45 minutes in and Harris already interrupts and ad hominems Klein numerous times.
Only 45 minutes in and Harris already interrupts and ad hominems Klein numerous times.
This is just wrong, though. It's disingenuous to act like there has never been any motivation behind any scientific study ever other than "science."
In the last week Harris has:
1.) Insulted Ezra further by claiming over and over that he was acting in “Bad faith” and managed to insinuate that anyone who agrees with Ezra is wrong or unintelligent.
2.) Compared Ezra and the “Far Left” to fucking Nazis lol.
3.) Claimed that he’s not going to be able to reach the “Far Left” because they are too far gone.
4.) Contunaly tried to paint Murray as a good dude and honest social scientist, yet ignoring the fact that Murray is simply a policy entrepreneur who wants to stop “unintelligent”(in Murray’s case, Black or Hispanic) mothers from having babies, and take social assistance progeams away from poor people.
5.) Claimed that genetics explain why men are better at math than women (shocker this isn’t true) https://twitter.com/_saeen_/status/987073221882204160?s=21
Sam Harris is a piece of work...
1.) Insulted Ezra further by claiming over and over that he was acting in “Bad faith” and managed to insinuate that anyone who agrees with Ezra is wrong or unintelligent.
2.) Compared Ezra and the “Far Left” to fucking Nazis lol.
3.) Claimed that he’s not going to be able to reach the “Far Left” because they are too far gone.
4.) Contunaly tried to paint Murray as a good dude and honest social scientist, yet ignoring the fact that Murray is simply a policy entrepreneur who wants to stop “unintelligent”(in Murray’s case, Black or Hispanic) mothers from having babies, and take social assistance progeams away from poor people.
5.) Claimed that genetics explain why men are better at math than women (shocker this isn’t true) https://twitter.com/_saeen_/status/987073221882204160?s=21
Sam Harris is a piece of work...
What “good points” can Harris possibly make from the position he’s arguing from?
That tweet in point 5 seems weird. Not only does it not address his point about averages, it shows completely superior scores for girls in reading, possibly proving his point just with the opposite gender and with literacy instead of math. Nothing in that data is implying its genetic but would be curious to see what the environmental reasons given would be,
A statistic that shows that girls having better scores than boys when it comes to reading doesn’t conclude that girls are genetically better at reading.
It COULD, but it also COULD suggest a different scenario due to environmental conditions.
We don’t know enough about these things yet to make the generalizations that Harris and Murray do.
i've tried following some of this, but i've missed something very important.. what were the racist things Sam Harris said or did? like specifically. how did this get started?
i even listened to the podcast Sam did with Ezra and i found both of them to be reasonable, to the extent it was frustrating to listen to because i couldn't decide who i agreed with more.. both made good points. did i miss some bombshell in the podcast? (possible, since i was doing other stuff at the same time and probably missed stuff).
i even listened to the podcast Sam did with Ezra and i found both of them to be reasonable, to the extent it was frustrating to listen to because i couldn't decide who i agreed with more.. both made good points. did i miss some bombshell in the podcast? (possible, since i was doing other stuff at the same time and probably missed stuff).
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/why-is-charles-murray-odious
This is the guy that Sam Harris is defending