Ezra Klein is certainly prepared and puts forth a lot of good points. Its a shame he delivers ideas with such a pompous tone he'd change more minds without it.
What good point did he put forward? He never addressed the validity of the results, only the implications it will have it these results would get to be mainstream knowledge. for 2 hours long.
At 2:09 Ezra made a blanket statement about people who don’t look like Sam and what they think. The arrogance that he can confidently say what people of color think when they hear Sam speak. He has no idea what he’s talking about.
very bad example though "Nam" is a situation where the US soldiers got involved for no reason, and their involvement caused more suffering than what could have been
My beef with this is that someone; Harris, who does not understand the so-called ‘hard problem’ of consciousness; or mind which is elemental, emerging with quantum events, gets to talk to large crowds and communicates a worldview based on materialism; the elemental being primary to reality which as we approach a quantum age is ridiculous. Another point, on race, data can be flawed. Humans are to a prototype with fourteen versions in a universal cycle. Some people are ‘heady’ but not street smart, there are abilities in all races and none are superior or inferior; we can all learn from each other. I put this as a comment to your post as I could not find where I could add a new post.
I absolutely love Sam but I think platforming Murray was one of his biggest mistakes. I just don't see the purpose. It's not a free speech issue, he dealt with consequences for his speech 2 decades ago. And behind the scenes he's trying to push for racialized policies. Sam absolutely has a blind spot regarding historical and political issues. That being said, Ezra's arrogance annoyed the hell out of me throughout this interview.
@@timromanal7183I completely agree. Murray's work in the Bell Curve cannot be taken out of its larger context. The book was written as one piece in the furtherance of his life's work, which is dismantling policies enacted in the wake of the civil rights movement. It's not a coincidence that he is helping design policy to attack the protections afforded to minorities in this country, and also happened to write an incredibly inflammatory book where he claims to be soberly analyzing the data of racially stratified intelligence. It's all in service of his larger goal. The fact that Sam can't acknowledge that is really disappointing.
Sam: "Let's have a clear look at statistics and numbers" Ezra: "Charles murray has bad ideas about social policies" Sam: "I don't see how that's relevant" Ezra: "Chill out man, as I was saying about his social policies..." What a fucking pointless discussion.
Harris : - "You're misrepresentating Flynn" Klein:- " I talked to Flynn on Monday and he said this" Harris:- "No, I know what Flynn said better than Flynn himself" Klein:- "Funny that, he definitely said this is possible" Harris: - "Sure, that's possible but history doesn't matter and Neanderthals" You've got to love it when the right wing come against a well researched journalist
But Sam didn't bring up statistics and data at all and we never had a "clear look" at them in this conversation. He merely conjectured that statistics and data were on his side, which is highly debatable given Murray's track record with statistical analysis. Sam isn't a statistician. And he's more than a decade out from finishing a PhD in a field that is irrelevant to this conversation and that in which he has produced absolutely nothing. I don't really give a fuck what Sam think the data are or what his analysis of that data are relating to this topic. He's a complete ignoramus on the subject which is why he was so easily swooned by the likes of Murray.
@Tim Romanal Yet, Harris did voice frustration at how Klein changed the minds of his audience and put it down to Klein's politeness. Tell me what you think of Klein calling out Sam Harris on his misrepresenting of James Flynn's views?
@Tim Romanal It isn't separate from the exchange itself and your cynicism has you claiming things that are categorically untrue. There was a discussion over Flynn. What are your views on it? Have you bothered to think of the implications of Harris's misrepresentation of Flynn?
Fascinating. I took the time to read the e-mail exchange, and at first Ezra sounded like the reasonable one... until you realise how the article and the twitter posts denigrated Sam's character. And how Ezra refused to acknowledge the issue with that or even that it was an issue at all!
Sam, I just wanted to say, I know you'll probably never read this, but Thank You. I... honestly, genuinely feel like it must be so frustrating dealing with the same, unfair, unfounded ad hominem, confirmation bias, and host of logical failings with people hold no scruples about accusing the same in you (and consistently being unable to actually qualify their claim in any meaningful matter). Just... thanks so much for pushing on in the name of reason, logic, and skepticism, in a world where those are vilified. You rock, and we know it.
Klein never once honestly dealt with Murray’s argument or Sam’s defense against his de-platforming; he doubled down on his ascription of racial overtones to the conversation.
He answered the supposed cancelling of Murray perfectly by showing that he is far from cancelled. How that is dishonest I don't know. And you can't exactly get away from 'racial overtones' when talking about Chares Murray's work.
@@BricksAndSparrows That Sam Harris has his own biases that allow him to think it would be understandable to discriminate against people perceived of as Black
@@BricksAndSparrows My issue with the original comment was what was missed out and the assertion that spotting biases that lead to racist outcomes is "low quality thought"
Until you factor in Harris citing MLK's point about judging someone by the content of their character and then using Murray's work to validate the questioning the aptitude of your Black neurosurgeon
Год назад
What do you mean by virtue signaling? It's not a bad idea to critically assess concepts that get thrown around before repeating them.
@@jmc5335 whoa! You basically didn't get what they were saying. OBVIOUSLY NOTHING will ever be anything but race this, and race that. Good luck with your life!
@@jaed2630 I understand perfectly well what they were saying and that Ezra Klein was on the side of Hitchens on this. As Sam Harris fine well knows. I note you have nothing to say about the contradiction between Harris's virtue signalling and his prejudice against Black people
"The appropriate response to those who claim to have found evidence of genetically-based differences in ability between the races or sexes is not to stick to the belief that the genetic explanation must be wrong, whatever evidence to the contrary may turn up: instead we should make it quite clear that the claim to equality does not depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact. Equality is a moral ideal, not a simple assertion of fact. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to satisfying their needs and interests. The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat humans." -- Peter Singer
Just in case the quote isn't ironic, we're seeking to understand and explain the differences in humans' instrumental value, not use that knowledge to justify neglecting their intrinsic value.
I can’t stand how Ezra Klein laughs or giggles when discussing anything. He comes off as cocky and elitist. Like “how could you even believe what you just said, it’s ridiculous.” His communication style ruins every point he tries to make.
You don’t need comedy while making argument when you’re in a conversation. He’s hoping there will be an audience later on that will giggle along with him.
Recognizing a difference in IQ between two groups and saying that is statistically valid is very different than saying the differences between those groups are intrinsic / unchangeable. The evidence for the first is doable to collect. The evidence for the second is much much harder to collect and is inherently much much messier.
From a public speaking perspective: I take the little “half laughs” that Ezra keeps doing as a sign of weak-grounded footedness. This conversation fucking rules tho dude
I think if you take Murry's study, without including the environmental factors, this will be a self-fulfilling study across the globe. Han Chinese will have a higher IQ than Mongolians/Nepalis. In Singapore, Han Chinese has a higher IQ than local Malays. I agree the conversation should be had and Murry shouldn't be shouted down, and his research should be refined, not repulsed.
I wish Ezra addressed the example at the end of "Jews not appearing in the 100m dash". No one looks at that and thinks "antisemitism" because there is no history there to suggest it may come from bias or racial animus. Sam Harris views science as "objective and dispassionate". But as anyone who has ever done a science project knows, sometimes you want to find certain patterns to fit your hypothesis. When dealing with something as scientifically dicey as social science it is perfectly appropriate to ask what history and other ideas the scientist conducting the study has.
Well that wasn't nearly as big of a shit show as I was expecting after hearing about it! I think this has aged much better than anyone probably guessed it would at the time. I definitely do not regret spending 2 hours listening to this. Sam I think you were largely in the right but there was a point I think Ezra should have made but never did - when it comes to scientific data and research, like with anything, the source matters. Would you trust data that tended to support creationism if it came from a Vatican astronomer? I think not. Can we truly separate the data from the agenda of the data gatherer - or the malicious agendas of those who would misuse the data for their own purposes? You obviously say yes, but in practice that's far easier said than done. When the value of the science is so tenuous and the potential for abuse so great, it may well be the case that it's not worth pursuing.
Год назад
Not sure if I can sincerely listen to the podcast after Harris unironically declaring that Murray is probably the "most unfairly maligned person of his lifetime." For a deep dive into the work of scientific racism that is the Bell Curve, I recommend this analysis: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UBc7qBS1Ujo.html
I knew you would link Shaun. The dude selectivly takes screenshots and evidence in his video knowing no one will check the evidence in a 2 hour long video. The fact is that most of the scientific community agrees with the iq disperity between races. That is not racist. Racism is treating people different based on the same characteristics or ones that don't matter in x situation.
Sam: We need to be able to talk about data and its implications like adults if we are to actually use it to solve problems Ezra: But racists! Racism! Slavery existed. Sam: We should be able to discuss statistics and how we can use what they tell us to better society, dont you? Ezra: Hmm.. Id like to counter with...Racism is real! Im not calling you a racist. Ya know, just ...What about racism?!
@@shawncrespi4436 not as much as you would think. Ezra is basically saying any fact, any data, any collection of details that is not flattering to Black Americans should be shelved. He’s also creating a different set of rules for conversation about race for white people. Rules that stink of political correctness.
@@miked2075 Klein said near the end he's fine talking about scientific results as long as they're placed in the right context. For all of US history public intellectuals have made scientific arguments for the inferiority of black people and every single time they've been proven wrong (and racist) as science progresses. Am I supposed to think that this time the people pushing this are "just doing science"? To me this is ridiculously naive and looks like an attempt to shift the conversation away from their terrible ideas and how they want to implement them. Instead they are valiant defenders of science! Never mind that it would justify leaving black people as a permanent underclass in our society.
@@BoraHorza456 Ezra is full of shit about the right context. There’s no context where Ezra will ever have an honest discussion about data and real life issues. He just wants to exist in the intellectually lazy swamp that is politics.
I'm from 5he Caribbean, and Blacks are also seen at the bottom of the intellectual ladder. How would Klein explain this? Klein is very aggressive and righteous in his attitude.
So far I’ve listened to 1 hour of the podcast. Neither participant has made fallacious arguments. The conflict stems from Sam’s premise: he does not defend Murray’s social policies and at least claims to not be interested in IQ differences between races, but he believes Murray’s data to be TRUE. They might tap into this in the rest of the conversation, but there are many reasons to call Murray’s data into question (him not being a geneticist but a political scientist, inflating data in The Bell Curve, using research from eugenicists as sources in The Bell Curve). Ezra’s argument is that Murray’s policy proposals are intrinsic to his science. Sam’s is that Murray’s politics and data are separable and that data can be analyzed in the abstract. Ezra has so far successfully argued his position. Sam has not contradicted himself, but his premise needs Murray’s data to be true, when it has been demonstrated to be faulty.
How is the data called into question? The overall point Sam is making here that IQ is affected by both environment AND genetics. Seems like Ezra will not admit that but that's a pretty safe assumption from my understanding.
Think you missed the point entirely. It's not about the data, it's about how political activists like Ezra will use their power to attempt to silence and demonize those who do not adhere to the messaging he (they) deem right even if the data is valid and uncomfortable. They want their ideas to shape policy and not anyone elses. The problem is that if you ignore data that may be uncomfortable or does not fit into your view of the world, then you will always make bad policy that can end up doing more harm than good.
@@shawnedwards3569 by data called into question I mean external criticisms towards Murray. Shaun’s video on The Bell Curve features a good rundown of the methodological caveats in Murray’s work. Hell, even Wikipedia might refer you to some individuals and their different reasonings.
@@Tempus64 and you in turn missed my argument. You are repeating what Sam is saying. In principle, there is nothing wrong with Sam’s position, but in this case it relies on Murray’s data being valid. Otherwise he wouldn’t be so defensive about Murray’s data despite “not caring about his policy proposals” nor “IQ differences in races” (uncomfortable data). It would only be uncomfortable data if it were *true*, but the data has been disputed, not by activists but by other researchers and scientists. I agree with you on the first part. The reason why Sam agreed to this is because he justifiably felt he was being defamed by Vox articles through guilt by association. Ezra said that Vox didn’t publish anything that wasn’t true, but the framing was definitely sketchy and Sam was right for defending himself.
@@rauldjvp3053 He didn’t miss your argument. You’re just misunderstanding him and Harris both. It actually does not matter if Murray is right about the data. Harris argument doesn’t rely on that being the case. Harris obviously thinks that the data is true and defends that claim at various points, but again, it’s not his main concern. Harris says about 12 times that he just wants any debate about the data to be had in good faith and to actually be about the data. An argument against the data can’t be that Murray’s policy prescriptions are bad. And it certainly can’t be that the people you’re arguing against are shilling for bigotry and are “racialist pseudoscientists.” When Harris make the point that calling he and Murray bigots is a rationally unjustifiable and intellectually dishonest move, and most importantly, *does not make the data wrong.* Ezra’s response is to change the subject to Murray’s ostensibly racist policy prescriptions. Ezra cannot seem to grasp that calling someone racist does not make their science wrong, and when this is pointed out, doubling down and trying to prove their racism is not an adequate response. Murray being wrong about the data does not make him a racist, and Murray being a racist doesn’t necessarily make him wrong about the data either. Ask yourself why Ezra didn’t just write an article detailing the scientific errors in Murray’s work? Why did Ezra imply bigotry on the part of Harris and Murray? Why did he ever bring up Murray’s social policies? And I just have to point out that all the reasons you listed in your original post as to why Murray’s science is faulty do not establish that. Those things could all be true and the science could still be right. The data could have been given to Murray by Hitler himself and that would still not mean it must be wrong.
@@bunkbeds3001 anyone can cherry pick "facts" to support their claim. Whats important to recognize is charles murray isnt some non partisan, non biased actor. He has an ideological motive, prior to doing the study
I see it as open debate vs. impact. It should be possible to talk about controversial topics, but what to do when people that listen take the wrong things out of it? I've seen studies recently indicating that Sam Harris and even more so Jordan Peterson work as gateways to white supremacy channels on RU-vid. As a public commentator I would be very careful to avoid being part of that chain.
Though this debate is important it is annoying. Both guys are partially correct, in my view. I do not believe Sam is a racist, he's acknowledging current data (which may change in the future). Klein is pointing out the challenges inherent in relying only on data as though it's a complete assessment. Pretending like the current genetic data alone is the full and final picture without including the culture and environmental impact is dangerous, yet we can't say that every negative outcome is solely due to racism in all cases. Getting past their infuriating back and forth, and their inability to recognize the truth in both points, I would ask them what I believe are the two more-important questions to address now: 1) Do you believe racism still exists, systemic or otherwise? Yes or No. 2) Does current IQ/genetic data on its own provide the information necessary to resolve those issues? Yes or No. For me, the answer is Yes on 1 and No on 2. So sure, consider the data, Sam and Ezra, but it's not the stopping point. An individual's IQ should not determine our societal morality of how individuals (or groups) are treated culturally. I would think two highly intelligent minds could get further than they did.
I appreciate your assessment on the conversation. Even though this conversation is getting heavy criticism from the comment section (and on some points rightfully so), I find it as an important one as well. The stances they each are taking, which I believe to both contain forms of biases, are ones that deserve time to wrestle out as I see them doing here. We all see reality through the limited scope of our own consciousness and in the case here, though it may be uncomfortable and be annoying as a listener, it still is part of the working out process of getting to the truth. To me, even though Harris saw this as a "failure" of a podcast, I find as some of the most valuable content for they both put them themselves and their egos in a vulnerable position for the sake of progress and understanding.
"It's amazing that you'd think this is relevant," Sam said in increasing desperation, and I think the same could be said about every sentence to come out of Ezra's mouth since this podcast started.
The six or seven minutes before Harris made that comment -- before Klein brought it around to demographics of podcast guests -- Klein had been rattling off points that couldn't possibly have been more relevant.
@@tiborkoos188 Time has proven in the context of this conversation that Ezra Klein was actually the correct one in this conversation, even though personally I am a fan of Sam Harris and don't really follow Ezra at all.
I know this is a little off the subject, but I wouldn't consider being part neanderthal to be necessarily a bad thing. The more you learn about them you see they were actually pretty impressive. They were a little different than homosapian but not necessarily inferior. They were survivors in a harsh environment. The more we learn about them the more we see that they were more similar to homosapian than different.
The highest extent that it exists in any population is 4% in East Asians and it is junk DNA. It doesn't actually express itself in any characteristic way outside of the genome.
@@thesensiblesocialist this is not true. Neanderthal dna among other things contributed to skin color (melanin) and immunity. Svante paabo documents this
Exactly. His argument regarding Neanderthals made no sense. He was the only one that thought Neanderthal = negative. The fact that he thinks this about an extinct cousin to Homo sapiens calls into question on what he thinks about racial differences among sapiens
That’s exactly his point. It’s all social and political and has nothing to do with science. He is saying if the news was “black people have more Neanderthal DNA” there is a politically advantageous stance to take that the researchers are racist because we associate Neanderthals with less-evolved humans. Where if the news is “white people are Neanderthals” there’s nothing politically expedient to use to get people outraged. He is pointing out that there is nothing inherently wrong with studying Neanderthal DNA in modern human genetics, but the critique of the ethics of science is politically charged which is ridiculous because for the scientific method to be valid it must be apolitical.
I’ve heard this a few times now, and every time I hear it I find Ezra Klein unabashedly biased, astoundingly incompetent at debate, and obnoxious in a way I couldn’t begin to describe. Not a single point worth hearing from his mouth, not a scintilla of responsibility taken for his mistakes. Long story short he’s a gross human.
Gave this another listen after 5 years. Even as someone deeply suspicious of people like Charles Murray, I found this to be a really frustrating conversation. I wish this had been someone with a science background, who could have critiqued the actual data and Murray's methods (while keeping in mind the social realities of course). But I do think Klein was pretty much spot on when it came to Harris' own cognitive biases. His whole "I don't have beliefs, I have objective moral calculations" schtick is absurd. And in hindsight, it's easy to see how he got suckered in by SBF and the "longtermism" grift.
They were both extremely well mannered. Even when Sam got defensive, he still didn’t just talk right through Ezra’s points. Unfortunately, they did talk past each other. Sam didn’t acknowledge the sensitive history of asserting Whites are smarter than Blacks. Nor did he consider Ezra’s point that Murray’s done weird racial shit in the past. I do wish that Ezra understood the point Sam was making that people can just assert that your racist and appear morally superior. However in the year of 2022 that sure are a lot of actually racist people whether they realize it or not. So I have to say, I’m more on Ezra’s side.
Then maybe you can answer the question Klein slid off of: if the studies showing Neanderthal DNA in every people of the world except sub-Saharan Africans came out the opposite: that the ONLY people that had Neanderthal DNA were Africans, should the people who discovered the information be considered racist/bigoted? That is the status quo for treating scientists/data anti-racists dislike.
I'm torn on this one. Although they may have been discussing objective data on the podcast, the fact that it can be used in bad faith makes me feel like it isn't worth giving a platform to. What is the point of examining differences in IQ between race? It seems like it would cause more harm than good so it would be best to leave it alone. I'm not sure I fully understand I guess.
You can do nice forms of eugenics... for example... when people abort children with Down's syndrome.. you can put some form of nice incentives that are not coercive to choose to not reproduce... Or better yet! Abolish reproduction via natural methods and only make genetically modified babies!
There are countless reasons - but to answer broadly, so that we can ground some of our social policies in reality rather than faux egalitarianism. We regularly spend millions of dollars to study things like "the effects of dance therapy on Mexican teenagers", but yet you question how understanding race and intelligence better could ever be of use?
All science and truth deserves a platform. Imagine if people got an extra 1k every year from the government for every 1 IQ point they were below 100. Now that's actually something that could benefit society. That said, you'd just have to measure IQ through methods other on IQ tests so people don't game the system.
In a world where some genetic differences between races do exist, then it's important to talk about a society (as ezra suggests) that prevents these unearned differences from having an impact on people. Basically, the scientific and political arguments are separate (imagine a 2x2 matrix racism and not racism on one axis, science says one racial group is on top vs another on top), so one group (the racists) have a bunch of time to talk about how genetic differences justify their position while the other side just denies the science (not a very convincing argument) instead of engaging in the valid critiques about the political claims these people made based on said science (If this data is true, racism still isn't justified, in fact just more proof of unearned white privilege).
So, Sam Harris did a podcast with a controversial expert in his specific field. Ideas are exchanged which are (apparently) in accordance with modern scientific understanding. Vox writes an article claiming claiming those ideas are pseudoscience. Sam challenges those claims. Vox, etc are unable to support their claims of pseudoscience, then unable to understand that to be the issue. What did I miss?
You missed out the part where Harris ruined his family holiday because of Vox challenging his approach to this topic, him releasing an email exchange with Klein which many of his listeners found Klein to be the most reasonable, subsequently trying to back back out the debate with Klein, Harris acknowledging to Klein that people can sincerely disagree with the methodolgy and findings of The Bell Curve but afterwards resorting to the bad faith position that such criticism is driven by left wing ideology, Harris saying that the weight of history has nothing to do with outcomes today and Harris getting caught out misrepresenting Flynn. Subsequent to this podcast you also missed out the part where Harris used Murray's work to say discrimination against Black neurosurgeons because of their skin colour would be the legitimate and Charles Murray saying it would be economically rational for employers to discriminate against applicants they perceive as Black Unfortunately Klein missed the the opportunity to ask Harris why he thought Hitchens was a moral and intellectual coward for silencing him when he brought up The Bell Curve to him.
They were both extremely well mannered. Even when Sam got defensive, he still didn’t just talk right through Ezra’s points. Unfortunately, they did talk past each other. Sam didn’t acknowledge the sensitive history of asserting Whites are smarter than Blacks. Nor did he consider Ezra’s point that Murray’s done weird racial shit in the past. I do wish that Ezra understood the point Sam was making that people can just assert that your racist and appear morally superior. However in the year of 2022 that sure are a lot of actually racist people whether they realize it or not. So I have to say, I’m more on Ezra’s side.
Except dismantling the idea that Charles Murray is far from cancelled, educating the audience on Charles Murray's previous suspect research methodologies, catching Harris out misrepresenting Klein, educating the audience on how the book was marketed etc..... Of course, Harris did try and backtrack on his public challenge to debate the issue with Klein. Klein in part agreed with you, he asked Harris to speak to the writers of the article published in Vox. Harris declined.
They are both very difficult to listen to, constantly talking past each other... at least some valid points were made from both side, but it felt like they went nowhere with them. It is like they are actually unable to have conversation...
I'm not saying sam did everything correct (he even admitted he didn't check his podcast with sean) but like he said his fuse is short, and rightfully so. Imagine you're trying to explain something to someone that is so simple (the topic isn't simple, the reason they were discussing it is), yet the walk around your question(s) everytime. Not only did this waste all of our times but it wasted Sam's. I'd be passed too.
@@jmc5335 because if race ultimately does not matter, then why would you try so hard to specifically have guests of a certain race? This is exactly the identity politics logical fallacy that Sam talks about Where only certain people of a certain race are able to talk about certain subjects. And if you are not that race then you just aren’t allowed to discuss it
@@itskelvinn Klein points out that Harris seeks people from different races only if they share his worldview. Unfortunately, Klein never explored further why Harris wouldn't talk to Coates. Sam Harris said that he thought that illegal settlers in Palestine should be dragged by their beards off the land. I'm sure he would describe a Palestinian or campus protester as antisemitic for such talk. However, Harris said that he gets to say what he wants on the subject as he is Jewish.
Sam isn’t able to respond to any of Ezra’s charges, keeps complaining about his personal woes, and brings up dubious hypotheticals. There are many ideas and perspectives he is childishly stubborn about not considering or being, in his words, “intellectually honest” or “adult” about
Revisiting this conversation post Covid-19. Although they are both essentially speaking past each other, I’ve always enjoyed this back and forth as a perfect case study in how smart, informed people can be the most prone to biases and self deception. As a particularly fascinating addendum In the post CV19 space, Ezra has remained consistent in his hyper racialized world view, but Sam’s views, specifically with regards to the pharmaceutical industry’s hijacking of the CV19 policies, have completely shown to be radically contradictory to the core of everything he’s arguing for here.
Sam Harris has more contradictions than any holy book he ignorantly criticises. The hyper racialised argument is from Sam Harris's side in this exchange. I really wish Klein pushed harder on he definitions of the groups Murray uses in his pseudoscience, but he does raise it in passing when he questions the veracity of describing Latino as a homogeneous genetic group
Can you explain Sam’s radical contradiction? I find his logic much more sound than Klein’s, but I’m suspicious that he has his blind spots. I hold Harris in high esteem, but I’m open to deconstructing that. I’d just like a reference or some foundation on which to investigate.
@@stephenfraser9036Well there's quite a few. Principally he doesn't truly practice the liberal principles he preaches when citing MLK's famous I have a dream speech. First, can you explain the weaknesses in Klein's and Hitchens's logic and position on The Bell Curve?
@@jmc5335 I don’t have a horse in the race on the entire bell curve controversy, i’m only aware of the controversy from listening to the podcast between Klein and Harris whom I admire as great intellects. I haven’t listened to the source podcast between Harris and the author or interrogated the The Bell Curve itself so my comment would only be speculation and thus unproductive. What I was referring to was Klein’s refusal in this podcast to address Harris’ epistemological claim that data should be scientifically and dispassionately interrogated through empirical methods and that historical context should not dictate the realm of scientific inquiry. I think Klein makes his case brilliantly and convincingly, my position is that he falls short of addressing and deconstructing Harris’ argument and merely pivots to making his own while Harris directly addressed the logical construction of Klein’s argument. Put simply, I’m saying that Klein continues to make his case, while not addressing the merits of Harris’ case. I’m not saying Klein is wrong, he may be right on the Bell Curve. What I’m saying is he doesn’t debate Harris on epistemological ethics which is what Harris’ entire argument is, he debates on the interpretation and scholarship of the Bell Curve and the personal history and character of the author.
@@jmc5335 also, to which liberal principles are you referring to specifically? Or do you generally mean “Harris is not being a ‘true Liberal’ and being disingenuous by invoking MLK in a context other than social justice/equity/equality”
Again, Indians were brought to the Caribbean as indentured servants after slavery was abolished in the mid-1800s. Not much better off than being slaves. Yet Asians are at the top in intellectual abilities in this region. Considering that Blacks have all the political powers here, how would Klein explain this outcome?
Although I have concerns about critical race theory (that are similar to Harris' concerns), it is interesting how Klein showed a paradox in Harris' thinking. It is typical to think of SJWs as ideologically possessed by identity politics. They show this in some form of tribalism, by defending their group. At the same time, Klein pointed out how Harris is also acting in a tribalistic manner by trying to defend people in his group (such as Murray).
the difference is Sam Harris isn't in a group with Murray they don't define themselves by their group identity, Sam Harris is making the argument for everyone to have their voice heard and not be shut out, although specifically talking about Murray its about the constant call from progressives to shut down anyone who disagrees with them. people on the receiving end of unjust progressive outrage isn't really a group identity given that those it happens to have such a diverse set of beliefs, ethnicity and backgrounds. Ezra and others actually claim group status in the progressive/SJW movement as opposed to being placed in that group arbitrarily by others
People who have been mugged are not an identity group, even if one is defending the others' right to walk down a street. That's just saying it's reasonable to assume that you won't get mugged everyday. The muggers could be there or not, but it should be safe to assume that you'll be safe if you aren't seeking to engage anyone. The muggers who watch a certain street may consider it part of their identity, the victims do not. Replace street with topic, and mugger with journalist, you got yourself an analogy. If you and I got beat up by the same gang, that doesn't make us a gang. Even if it did we'd be an anti-gang-gang and the real gang will always measure our achievements vs theirs and win because we want gangs to stop doing gang things, but they think we want to takeover their gang stuff. We'd want them to get jobs, they'd want us to keep coming back to the street
Did Sam really read the bell curve and considered that the amount of data used to study was good scientific research? I used to respect Sam as a scientist but bell curve is filled with sampling bias, ineffective size and incorrect extrapolations of data. It's a scientific disaster, I am totally with Sam that scientific data should be read the way it is but scientifically speaking the bell curve is pseudoscientific
These are invented accusations from someone who clearly never read the book himself. Even the opponents (the scientific peers) to the book haven’t made such claims. Annoying.
In ALL his 100+ podcasts, Sam Harris has only had TWO black guests? C'mon! That says SO much about Sam Harris' wanting/willingness to hear the 'other side.'
"Scientific data can't be racist" -- actually, if you work hard enough at leading the question, you can get some pretty suggestive results that may end up looking totally irrelevant when you ask similar questions in a more neutral way. This isn't physics. It's people. People are really complicated!
I will sum up this entire conversation as follows: -Sam is willing to be honest about the results of the Bell Curve, knowing that it will not affect him or his behavior since he looks at people as individuals and not like members of a group, he treats individuals on their own merits, so for him it's fine to know about different group averages on all sort of topics including average IQ differences. -Ezra is deathly afraid of the consequences of the results of the Bell Curve, and thinks it will create animosity between races and facilitate racism. You might not like Ezra's ways, but there is definitely a point to be made there. The big big big question is therefor: Should the Bell Curve findings on average IQ be public knowledge? Will that lead to good? or will it lead to bad? do you think people would be able to think like Sam Harris does, and act as Sam Harris does, with the information? I'm not sure people can... in general tbh. My thoughts: we have to choose between 2 different worlds. World1: the current world we live in, a world where all differences in outcomes between groups (education level, income level, crime level, etc etc) are explained by imaginary racism. World2: a world where we know the differences in averages between groups and can therefor explain why the NBA looks they way it does (average athletical ability differs between groups) why 22% of all Noble prizes have been won by Jews (hint: you have to be a genius, and average IQs between groups differ which greatly impacts the tail ends of the distribution, where all the geniuses come from) etc etc etc average income, you can all explain that without using imaginary racism, just embrace the differences in averages, mind you they are just averages! and you treat people like invidividuals. You decide. I'm not sure what is best. Will average and dumb people (of which there are A LOT) really be able to treat people as individuals and not look at them from the standpoint of the group their from? I don't know, likely not.... so, better to live in a world with imaginary racism maybe? That's what Ezra chose, he's fine with that. What do you choose? what should we choose?
I think the crux of the argument they had was: Klein feels any data which sheds less than a positive light on historically disadvantaged people should be shunned. Harris wants to be able to see/discuss this data w/o allowing identity politics to intrude; regardless of the specific history of the people involved. An example I use currently: in some Orthodox Judaism traditions, the Rabbi sucks the blood from the baby’s penis, after the Bris. This has caused transmission of disease to the baby. Should we NOT discuss this repugnant ritual, because the Holocaust happened, and antisemitism exists? Klein would say yes. Harris would say no.
And how totally tendentious and silly it is to claim with such certainty that in the future the so called "lower IQ people" will have less option for meaningful employment because the use of advanced technology will expand. Really ? Isn't it just as (or even more) likely that the dominant effects will be increased wealth and wealth distribution, easier and not more difficult use of tech (that's what "automation" means), and with the increased GDP more purchasing power and hence employment for meeting social service needs (like caring for the elderly) which are not "IQ demanding" jobs ?
Klein is absolutely right in his reading of Harris's psychology, motivation, and behavior as a public intellectual. (cf. about 55:00 in this conversation.)
2:00:00 Jumpin' Jesus Christ, what a terrible misunderstanding of a closer by Harris. Like in his exchange with Chomsky (in which he also published a series of email exchanges, crazily confident that he was obviously the "winner"), Sam is just divorced from the real world we actually live in.
@@RatatRatR Agreed. If I hear him whine one more time about how he's been misrepresented just because someone disagrees with him or points out a flaw, my head will explode
@@RatatRatR help me understand what you mean here. Klein accuses Harris of tribalism for defending a white guy and only having 2 black podcast guests. Sam gives examples of his history that he believes dispute the accusation. I can see how someone might have qualms about his response, but he most certainly did not miss the point.
@@RatatRatR again, your comment confuses me. “What a terrible misunderstanding”? Klein made his point, claimed that Harris is most concerned by possible politically correct backlash and should be more concerned with “the cost this idea has actually had for African Americans”. Harris then responds to those exact points, with a clear understanding of those points. Say you disagree, if you’d like, but it makes no sense to claim that either of these two did not fully understand the points of the other.
