PLEASE bring back the download key so I can download and listen later, it's really inconvenient for us in Iran and I suppose other countries that don't have good access and stable internet.
go to share link and copy the link than you can search "youtube to mp3 converter" and enter the link too download doesn't work with every mp3 converter tho because the video is long.
There can be no doubt regarding the love and commitment that Sam Harris has to both freedom of intellectual investigation and the maintenance of social courage.
You should run for President Sir. The way you argue and handle facts is outstanding and rare. Every time I hear you speak, whether it is on artificial intelligence, religion, science, economics, psychology, racism, inequality, or police brutality, it always strikes me how masterly and skillfully you work your way through a subject, reaching conclusions that are either true, brilliant, or thought provoking. And always done in a comfortable calm demeanor that never ceases to convince me. It’s almost like brainwashing... but in the BEST of ways! Please take such brilliance and intellect to the White House. It’s truly needed! I beg you Sir. The Country needs sanity. @Sam Harris...The world needs it. A plea from a Danish citizen.
I admire the financial independence of people, But you can live better if you work a little more. After watching this I think there are people out there, on the extreme, who plan to die early just to be able to retire early. To each their own but to me, retirement isn't just about not having to work, it's about having the freedom to do whatever you might reasonably want, such as travel, buying things, enjoying life, etc. I don't think I could retire with less than $3m in income-generating investments, maybe $2m at the very minimum. I plan to work until I'm at least 45
Nobody knows anything, you need to create your own process, manage risk and stick to the plan, through thick or thin while also continuously learning from mistakes and improving
@@MarcusFred-wn3iv Having an investment adviser is the best way to go about the market right now, especially for near-retirees, I've been in touch with a coach for a while now mostly cause I lack the depth knowledge and mental fortitude to deal with these recurring market conditions, I netted over $220K during this dip, that made it clear there's more to the market that we avg joes don't know
Mr. Harris: Invaluable information sir!!! Thank you so so much for these insights about how human beings can reach various tipping points. Beautifully done.
@@DerekMoore82 Sorry - you are right :) Many of the comments under the video spoke of this "Ham Sarris" chap. Partly because it was tricky to work out who was actually speaking. All four of them (Ham, Sam, Holeman and Coleman) have very similar styles of delivery.
My brother in law was adopted into a family and he didn't take on the attributes of his adoptive parents or siblings. He was the odd one out in pretty much every way. My aunties were adopted into our family at a very young age (by my grandparents). They are indentical twins who grew up together but then lived appart for the subsequent 60 years, yet they are more similar to each other even now than they are to the rest of us.
@thomas anderson I think the idea that the parents shaping kids is better comes from the possibility of educating people to raise children in a better way. Either way, truth is truth and it doesn't care about our preferences.
You can argue with DNA. * Contamination is always a risk. *Most of our genes are not mapped yet. *Likely there is a combination of genes that are involved with specific physical and psychological traits. *Your/your caregivers choice of environment and behavior likely affect the onset, the offset and the expression of certain genes. Thank you for discussing this important interesting topic! I appreciate you sharing your results and reflections with us!
Hey Sam, I’m a data scientist and I was curious if there are any publicly available datasets that I’d be able to analyze to investigate the nature versus nurture effect. I suppose that’s a really open ended question given that there are thousands of variables and even more measurable outcomes (physical traits, behavioral, health outcomes, socio economic, etc). If there isn’t a ton of data available, what strategies do you think policy makers might be able to implement to collect more data?
As I subsciber to, and listener of, Sam's podcasts, I found this one to be one of the most interesting. The implications of the discoveries being made related to genetics are staggering and are changing the way we view who we are and why we do what we do. This is really exciting stuff. And if you like the podcast, you shoud ready Robert Plomin's "Blueprint", as it goes into great detail about the herditability of psycological traits based on long term studies.
25:46 "What is the first law of behavior genetics" In the mainstream media, the first law of behavior genetics is that you don't talk about behavior genetics.
Would it be better for group differences to be genetic or environmental? I think either way we will find it hard to swallow the facts and move society and our species forward.
I would love to make the subtitles in Spanish for your podcasts, there is a lot of good information that Spanish talkers in third world countries such as mine aren't able to get due to the language barrier.
16:22 if sex differences account for 1% of the individual variance in normally distributed traits, you still have decent odds of guessing whether a prodigy in a given area is a male or female. This is true even if you don't know much about a given individual based on on sex, because the tail of the distribution will be much less diverse with even a slight offset at the means. If you don't get it, don't worry; Larry Summers may have had to resign from Harvard precisely because this is so hard even for ivy leaguers to understand, despite the dramatic over-representation of men in prison for violent crimes. "Genetic extremes of single-gene mutations" may further compound or erase this effect (depending on prevalence in the population).
I know this is not the best metaphor for an explanation, but I try to convey it to people like this: There is a 1% difference in human and chimp genes. But look at the difference.
This is exactly the example Jordan Peterson uses. He says that men are about 10% more aggressive than women. So if you pick a random man and a random woman from the population. If you guess that the man is more aggressive than the woman you'll be right 6 out of 10 times. Which is not very significant. But if you go the extremes. And pick one person randomly from the top 10 most aggressive people in the population and try to guess their gender. If you guess they're male, you'll be right 9 out of 10 times.
Sam, you''ve been quite an inspiration for me for a very long time: I hope you'll correct your simplistic (feel free to read as: obvioulsly WRONG) sentence at 9:30 so that we can keep it that way.
Plomin’s “Blueprint” not to be confused with Nicholas A. Christakis’s “Blueprint.” Both books came out around the same time, but have different conclusions. Christakis argues that DNA is only part of the story of what causes our human nature. I tend to agree with Christakis, but Plonin’s book is a must-read! He does an excellent job of describing how he sees it, and I think you need that before going into Christakis’s book. Highly recommend both Blueprints!!
Yeah, I love this one. It's like Brian Eno and Hans Zimmer scored the aftermath of an alien invasion. The guitar piece sounded like an automated bathroom air freshener smells.
Easily the most intellectually spirited conversation between Kermit the Frog and John Malkovich I’ve ever had the pleasure of listening to. Great episode though, in all seriousness. You definitely need to have him on again!
Sam wasn't having him on he was completely straight. The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms: 2. have someone on; put someone on. Deceive or fool someone, as in There was no answer when I called; someone must be having me on, or You can't mean you're taking up ballet-you're putting me on! [Colloquial; mid-1800s]
both my father and grandfather were great at drawing, and my 2 brothers got taught to draw at a young age, while I didn't and only started when I was older, and all of us have probably the almost exact same talent to drawing
Hi, Ive been meditating for quite some time now, and everytime i do it While being high (marihuana) i can connect to the experience more easily, in fact it feels like its the only way worth doing. My question is it seems to me that meditation is a tool for living in a reality in which everything seems more new and strong, dont know how else to describe, and From that place and only that place you can become enlightned. It would be extremely helpful if you could answer this for me, Thank you
You are already enlightened...you just believe the thought “I am not enlightened”. Ignore thinking for a moment...enter presence...there ya go, that’s Heaven/enlightenment. You don’t need weed or meditation to get there, because you’re already there always.
Cooper Roberts i just had a small hit of marihuana and im able with a bit of concentration to see the ego, the self, my personality really just as the illusion it is, just for a Few moments anyways, ive read that is called the dzogchen method, in which you arrive everytime you meditate to that understanding, if only for a moment, but why the fuck does it come clear to me only with a hit of marihuana and in a normal state is so hard? Sorry for my swearing and if my English is not ok I’m from Argentina. Anyways it’s not a matter of believing to be enlightned or not, at least for me, I know when I think that I’m not enlightned it’s just the ego thinking that and I should go back to presence, experience, but that doesn’t lead me to the understanding, or the experience of having no self. Anyways I know I’m not yet a good meditator, actually I’m pretty bad it’s really hard for me to focus, but I’m gonna keep meditating intensely until I get there, my concern or my hope actually is if anyone has any idea on how I could get to that understanding without the weed?
Plomins' book became one of Jared Taylor's favourites as soon as it was published. He claimed it vindicated everything he was saying for decades. Any chance you can have Taylor on your podcast to refute his claims? That would be a most fruitful discussion and would send ratings through the roof.
He will not, mostly because of Taylor's reputation. But I do feel sorry for the guy. He doesn't seem to hate anyone, just trying to explain human nature to humans.
@Christoffer Yes, people forget about Japan (unit 231) I think. But it goes back to WW1 even, eugenics. Teddy Roosevelt loved that stuff. We just have to pay close attention to our tribal nature. In-Group and Out-Group thinking.
Sam, I am huge fan! Having done a psychoanalysis (and changed) I strongly recommend that you talk to a psychoanalyst on these topics. I am sure, if I had a twin that has grown up in Oklahoma City (I am German) she would be similar in body weight, intelligence, her capacity to play the piano (=none), maybe even have the same temper as I have. But I really don't see how she could be haunted by the same demons if she has never met mine..... it would be interesting to see what kind of questions are being asked to twins in the studies you discuss, how much time is spent with them. I am sure that any scientist/psychologist who spends hours, even days or weeks with me does not understand who I am, how I stand in the world (is this English?), how I feel, how I dream, what I wish! And this is what makes me me. Not my BMI.
I’d love the three to give a talk of their science and insights in terms of making society more informed and educated around these issues. Especially around social issues, health policy, justice reform, education and general human wellbeing.
@@jamespaternoster7354 Well, they would disagree. Plomin puts too much stock in the magnitude of how much genes play a role. Sapolsky does the complete opposite.
@@timeisup3094 I did wonder as much, it’s not impossible that in time they could learn from each other. There core message in terms of nature bests nurture is something they both understand and educate about as well.
@@timeisup3094 I never said it was a competition just just nature is a bigger modifier for how we are as individuals than nurture that doesn’t mean that nurture has not input. The issue is is the all ways nurture expresses itself in any given situation is determined by the preceding mix of nature and nurture. For example a mother is stressed and this impacts the child but her greater than typical stress is caused by epigenetics linked back to her grandparents being tortured in a national conflict scenario. This was then caused in primary terms by an environmental causal factor (nature) then interacting with the grandparents neurobiological processes (nature) to then impact there parenting skills, social norms, manner and other such factors as a person (nurture) there is obviously an interplay of both at every moment but there are so many more variables that are non internal nature aka environmental determinism which include smell, culture, religion, language, norms, taste, diet, technology, age, status, illnesses the list is literally endless all interacting with each individual’s neurobiological makeup. He may die to his own bias have a heater focus on the role of genes but they definitely due based on his work and many others evidently have a massive impact on human behaviour and personality etc
The problem about the Murray conversation blowback and the this guests reason to not like the justification for the research simply isn't good enough! You shouldn't be scared to look into or talk about anything. A few hundred years ago you may wanted to talk about the world being round, some people would want to burn you for heresy. These radicals don't understand the fundamental principles of free thought and expression, we should allow people to talk or research anything, however uncomfortable or disgusting we may find it.
I'm a computer science student... which means I have only physics chemistry maths and computer science as main.. is there any chance that I can study about brain-Neuroscience. I'm not a biology student...
Love your work, Sam. I miss Hitch sooo much. Two pieces of 😬 advice. Get off social media. Before SM if there was a drunk mental patient across the street that was throwing his fecal matter at you and hurling insults you would just dodge the shit and move on. No point engaging, right? But that same guy now has 50 SM accounts and for some reason you take notice and engage. Get off social media, recover 25% of your productivity and 100% of your sanity / optimism. Second piece, which will naturally follow the first, skip the laments. Focus on honest conversations and quality of work. The rest will take care of itself.
Im so happy to listen to your podcast Sam, and also im so happy when i read the chat because it makes me realize that smart people still exist in the cacophony we living right now. It gives me hopes that in the end we will win the ultimate battle, which is common sense vs. ignorance! Wish all of you a lot of health
Would love to see a friendly debate between Robert Plomin and Robert Sapolsky. Sapolsky suggests attributes thought to be genetic in origin, are often environmental when looked at more closely. I recommend the Innovation Hub episode "Tapping into Twins Studies". And what percentage of health and longevity does Robert Plomin attribute to genetics / environmental? For example, on the Live Long and Master Aging podcast, Luigi Fontana suggests data from identical twins is that it's 25% / 75%... but maybe as high 40% / 60% . Luigi also disagrees with the increasingly common view that aging "diseases" are a result of wear-and-tear, accumulation of normal metabolism, and instead seems more on the Michael Rose camp that suggests it's all highly regulated.
I’ve listened to this podcast twice and once again I don’t hear the racism! Just logic and reason. I was born and raised in the “ghetto” and I know firsthand the (Individual) differences they speak of. The majority of the people in my neighborhood suffer greatly from intellectual poverty, I don’t think it’s a blanket issue for the whole black race, but it has a lot to do with a lack of scientific literacy and a strong belief in theological doctrine which leads to a shut down of critical thinking. And these thought patterns are taught and learned from generation to generation. Even I who committed crimes and did time am a whole different person largely in part do critical thinking and scientific literacy among other things. If I can go from a major drug dealer who would murder another human being without a second thought to a man who understands the important need for social cohesion for the future of our species, who learned algebra and calculus, memorized the periodic table of elements and so much more, then I seriously doubt its genetic. Keep speaking honestly Sam, I love your podcast.
Fuck yea man. Good for you! I honestly believe human CAN unlearn almost any unproductive behavior. It just has to be the right person at the right place at the right time to say something in the properly worded way.
I love how diplomatically the scientist tells Sam at the beginning that he does not want to talk about average differences in intelligence, because the scientific tools are not truly there yet and thus, assigning a genetic origin to them is no more than unscientific speculation. Ah, and he also tells him how Murray's motivations are dubious at best.
It doesn't matter is there is no connection between average differences and individual differences. When discussing demographic change we're taking about average differences. That's the firestorm
I like Sam Harris a lot but I wish he would allow the guests to speak. He interjects, explains and projects for minutes on what the guest has to say before they even open their mouth. For someone who is a proponent of meditation, he certainly doesn't' like to stay quiet and just listen :)
Am I hearing this right? (22:05) - _"It's only because I have taken elaborate pains to _*_inure_*_ myself to the blowback to these kinds of conversations that I even can have them. Honestly, in any other role in society - had I been a professor at a university; had I been a normal journalist who had a boss - I think I would have lost my job based on the blowback from my conversation with Charles Murray, and that's a sobering _*_reality_*_ (reminder) of the environment we're in."_
Nurture & Nature...🤔🤔🤔 Thinking of DNA from an adoption point of view and abusive-environment point of view give me different ideas...🤔🤔🤔 I understand that the environment can work as a trigger in many situations, and it can create different types of results depending on one's understanding of the situation and emotional intelligence. #Knowledge But here is what's makes this interesting. I've seen this experiment on abused infants and how their behaviors were affected because of the neglects they have experienced. So far, nothing surprising, but I think you have mentioned DNA wire us for certain outcomes and experience. So, my question is, were those kinds wired to be abused? Is it to do with their DNA or the environment they were put in or raised upon? Also, therapy + medications are there to help us rewrite or learn to cope from the mental programming experienced previously...🤔🤔🤔 Rewiring/Rewriting the mental programming one has received before kind of further us away from the adoption perspective a little. Clear why would be how did those babies knew what's happening to them was wrong? They are like a white canvas, and they are not born with all the standards we adults learn as we grow. Is that the DNA part that's mentioned here? Survival instinct?🤔🤔🤔 What a curious bundle of joy they are...🔍✨
@57:25 - incorrect. Epigenetic marks can be passed on by both egg and sperm. Apparently epigenetic changes in sperm can pass on diabetes in mice. This is detailed in Robert Sapolskys book Behave for anyone wondering
It's odd how both courageous and cowardly Sam is when discussing this topic. He's courageous because he even discussing them at all, but cowardly because he feels he needs to pad each 'controversial' statement with a thick wall of caveats that proclaim he's not a racist. Dude, we know you're not a racist. Who are you doing it for? The people who brand you as a racist don't care about your caveats they'll say you're racist no matter what you say. Also, both of them kind of brush off the topic of studying group differences as useless. What are you talking about? Currently, a whole suite of social policies predicated on the assumption that group differences don't exist. Sam himself says that any deviation from 'the blank slate' is taboo. If your research finds that men are better than women in math, even by 1%. Then it shouldn't surprise you that the majority of the best mathematicians are men. (Because the best ones are at the high tail of the distribution.) This will prove that discrimination and unfair treatment is not the only viable explanation to why men are the top mathematicians. Yet for some reason, Sam thinks this isn't valuable information and that pretending that any difference in outcome between various groups is solely due to discrimination or racism is a fine idea.
Robert Plomin found Charles Murray's answer to why he studies average group differences "unsatisfactory". I found Plomins' answer to why he doesn't unsatisfactory, as well as slightly disingenuous. I suspect, and I'm being generous here, that the number one reason why he doesn't is cowardice, and the 3 reasons he gives are a justification. The idea that a geneticist wouldn't find value in the study of group differences is crazy to me. Here's one reason to study it, despite and partly because of the taboo against it - as Sam Harris says, because we're unable to even consider the idea that there are differences between groups, we ascribe all differences in behavior and outcome to "systemic racism". This explanation has and continues to foment enormous hatred and resentment (toward whites in particular) and allows no alternative hypothesis. If blacks don't do as well on certain standardized tests, the tests must be racist. That's just absurd! and yet it's accepted and challenging it is done at great risk. Since no other explanations are allowed to be given, no solutions are even attempted.
As a victim of parental psychological abuse from both parents, it is difficult to hear that 75% of your anxiety and depression is NOT because of your parents' behaviour... That being said, the data is insufficient in a lot of other ways... Firstly, physical outcomes are very different to psychological outcomes because of the psychological feedback loop - genetics may affect how your parents treat you, but that negative treatment feeds back into the way you behave, which feeds back to the way you are treated, etc. - this doesn't really occur with physical outcomes... Secondly, the government has regulated much of the childhood environment in order to prevent the devastating impact that environment/nurture can have on children - so the studies are within a somewhat homogenous environment... Thirdly, related to the second point, the adoption criteria are very stringent, which leads to even greater homogeneity of the environment... Fourthly, the data fails to consider the negative exponential impact of parental environment over development - i.e. for the first 2 years of your life, you are entirely vulnerable to the environment provided by your parents, so if your parents bugger that up, that sets down negative behaviours that stay with you through life - to assess a child's behaviours then at 5 years old without considering all that came before seems a bit dubious...Fifthly, BMI is also correlated to your microbiome, which is largely colonised during (vaginal) birth, which is environmental, not genetic, but is passed on between biological mother and chid, not adoptive parent to child... Sixthly, the statement that "all we inherit is genetic differences" is also incorrect - look up transgenerational epigenetics... Seventhly, saying parents have less responsibility for the outcomes of their children because it's mostly genetic is ridiculous - the parents selected the gene pool, so they're already 75% responsible on that basis alone...Eighthly, parents send their children to private schools for the networking opportunities and social grooming...
*Sam, please get off of Twitter. From the point of view of all of us who are not on it at all (and live in the real world), your constant haranguing about your experience there is tiring. What you experience in the Twitter bubble is NOT the real world. But you won't see that until you get off of it.*
@ That's fine, but folks with malicious intent are only a threat if he gives them oxygen (starting by him being on social media). Just do your work, find your audience, and ignore the haters. Someone writing mean words about you isn't going to kill you, and needn't have any effect on you. Everyone seems to have forgotten the #1 rule of the internet from 20+ years ago: Don't feed the trolls.
@Christoffer If your reputation is solid amongst a group (especially as Sam's is), I don't see any reason why any lie should matter. (Come on, you have 'Christ' in your name. I expect better.) ;)
Something ive wondered is we often talk of a mass of complex genes interacting with one another to influence complex traits, but most of our genetic code is concerned with the organism we are before higher level function emerges. And a lot of our DNA is 'junk' leftover from evolution. Surely if we could isolate those genes present in the formation of the large, late mammalian brain then we have a smaller set to examine for high level disorders and indicators? You wouldn't look at our shared plant DNA for answers on psychosis for example but it might be there in our chimp genetics.
At the end intelligence is just the potential you have and a tool, it depends on many other things to use it right and to accomplish something that worth.
What is the best DNA test? Anyone know so I can research? I want one to identify issues with my genetics. For example on my family's side have all died from dementia. I suspect it is because they all smoked or were exposed to smoking. I'd like to know my vulnerability.
I'd like to complexify the comments made on epigenetics, inheritance, and "all you need to know are the genetics" a little bit. We don't just inherit DNA, we inherit the molecular/cellular environment. This includes DNA but it also includes the mRNA molecules within the cell or the non-coding RNA molecules that also regulate gene expression. We inherit the proteins within the cell and the organization of the molecules within the cell. And there is a list of many more molecules. This means that the initial state varies, even if the genetics are identical. This translates to gene X being expressed ("told to be created at") at 10% vs 15% even with identical genetics, and this will have some effect over time. Biology though is truly miraculous at taking a huge range of inputs and compressing them to some smaller range of outputs. This means that our biology may perform a similar set of actions even if the environment (in this case molecular) varies quite drastically. For example, if your cells need some molecule to be expressed, over averaged time, at 100 000 molecules per cell, it may be possible for them to maintain that over different environments. In this context, our genetics produce/constrain the set of rules that the molecular environment has to work with, and those rules work to maintain some set of environments over time. So to bring it back together, the subtlety lies in whether the initial state leads to a different equilibrated (holding the system at some balanced point) state or not. And in many cases, just knowing some abstract view of the rules, the genetics, is enough to predict the variance with some degree of certainty.
Robert says he doesn't understand the point of studying average genetic differences between groups, and that this difference is so low that it doesn't matter. Well, group differences might turn out to be a powerful explanation to why different cultures look the way they do. I'd say it is highly relevant to study it. Getting this information might be the solution to lessen the tension between groups. If you think that no difference in group behavior can be explained by genes, then you will start to look for policies that will just make things worse. This is the current political situation, and we need to get out of it.
There are certain things that you have to say if you want to stay alive. There are other things you must forever avoid saying if you want to stay alive.
Great talk, thank you both! I’d like to point out that epigenetics, the chemical reactions that change how dna is expressed in the cells, is turning out t9 be hereditary, more so than we thought and over many, many generations. This actually strengthens the case for hereditary cause of behavioral effects, not the opposite. When you look at dna and compare to behavioral outcome, you get a certain correlation. If there is as additional hereditary effect in the form of epigenetics, that actually means that you have understated the correlation by only looking at dna. That should not be the case in twin and adoption studies, where the entire hereditary package automatically is included.
Adoption studies seem flawed when it comes to prenatal environments and socioeconomic bias which is inherent within the studies, due to the nature of adoption selection.
Rowling didn't just "admit that biological sex is a thing which causes people to behave differently." She started parroting a bunch of outright bigotry against trans and gender nonconforming people. That's why she's being cancelled.
i find it way more relaxing understanding human nature and biology then walking around constantly in denial, angry at scientist doing the same work that saved us from the middle ages at took us into a high tech world. nothing is fair, duh. but at least now you see all the cards and can play whatever hand you're dealt.