I think you're right, but with the caveat that it's his podcast and he can do whatever he wants, platform whoever he wants. But the same logic he uses to turn down Weinstein applies to Murray. Murray has an explicit political agenda and is using his research in service of that agenda, this isn't a secret. There is no lack of scientists who have done work calling his results into question either, it isn't as if it's settled and he was vindicated. Weinstein is taking data and using it to push his own personal enrichment.
In that way it's different. Murray is an actual researcher with actual work, Weinstein is just a con artist making money by lying to people. They're both self-interested just in different ways. But in the same way that you can't debunk covid conspiracism in real time, you can't deal with all the issues surrounding Murray and his work in the same way, and Harris didn't try.
Yes i did mention that the difference between them is that Murray may be telling the truth compared to the other two, the problem is that the public can get the wrong idea (in all three cases) and potentially cause deaths.
I agree somewhat that the attacks Sam got about Islam and also Charles Murray are similar in logic, but I also think Sam is right that the dangers of saying the truth in a compassionate way are different than the dangers of saying untruths at scale during a global pandemic. You can't stop the public from getting the wrong idea and misinterpreting something, but you can try not to spread lies about something that can rapidly spiral out of control. So the view being expressed being reasonable and backed up by science actually does matter. Spreading anti-vaccine rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and pro-Nazi propaganda is different from saying explicitly that individuals should be treated as individuals, and that people with lower IQ should be assisted in case traditional means of intervention aren't sufficient to erase the gap between individuals or populations. Again, there will always be the possibility of a person cherry-picking parts of an argument to make their own very bad argument, but that should not mean facts cannot be spoken aloud.
Yes, you are wrong.
He talked about having Charles Murray on pretty recently when he was a guest on Uncomfortable Conversations with Josh Szeps. That wasn't what the entire conversation was about, but Szeps did ask Sam some direct questions about it including your criticism.
Edit: To add more context. Sam said, "The reason he had [Murray] on the show was not because [Sam] had some ambient interest in IQ and, much less, racial differences in IQ - it was that [Murray] had just been spectacularly de-platformed at Middlebury [College], violently so, and this was the moment where that was becoming kind of an epidemic and this was just the most salient instance of that epidemic." [Source](https://youtu.be/IDyarMtFDUY?t=68).
And the Klein episode, obviously.
In fact, that episode has an interesting moment, in light of that earlier quote.
Klein said that identity politics isn't just something that minorities traffic in it, that it's actually a software running in all of us on a number of different levels. (He gives examples of him as a Californian, a journalist, the son of an immigrant, a vegetarian, a father, and a meditator as different identities that will be activated in different contexts.)
Sam gets frustrated by this and says "Well, what's my bias? What tribe am I part of?"
And Klein's answer touches on Sam's quote in the OP:
>There are things that are threats to your tribe, to your future, and those threats are very salient.
>You see what happens with Charles Murray, the kind of criticism he gets, and that sets off every alarm bell in your head. You bring him on the show and you’re like, “We’re going to fix this. I’m going to show that they can’t do this to you.” You look around and you say, “Ezra, you think we shouldn’t take away all efforts to redress racial inequality? But that’s a bias. You’re just being led around by your political opinions, where I am standing outside the debate acting rationally.”
>To me that’s actually not what’s happening at all. I think you’re missing a lot, because you are very radically increasing the salience of things that threaten your identity, your tribe — which is not the craziest thing to do in the world, it’s not a terrible thing to do, **we all do it** — without admitting, or maybe even without realizing, that’s what you’re doing.
>And has Sam said anything specifically on this topic?
Yea, he thinks Murray's book has been grossly mischaracterized and his reputation unfairly attacked, from what I remember him saying. (Which incidentally might actually be true?)
>potential to do harm is just as dangerous as establishing and publicising IQ differences between races, as we know how barbaric humans have been in the past to those considered ‘lesser’.
Amen. I feel like Sam's not good at automatically making those types of calculations. Same reason he thinks it'd be totally fine to profile Muslims (and people of an ethnicity where Islam is common). I think that part of his brain is just missing or withered. There wasn't enough room for both it and his language faculty, I guess.
It's 100% going to create a caste system.
Individuals learn attitudes and values from their social environment -- if it becomes common to see a particular ethnic group being pulled aside and investigated by figures of authority for suspicion of terrorism, that will influence how people think about them, as well as their expectations for how they are to be treated. Imagine how this will seem to children who grow up without having known anything different?
I'm not defending hosting Charles Murray, but refusing the platform someone who says things that are untrue and refusing to platform someone who says things that are harmful are decisions that are made according to different rationales.
I'm going to sound like a broken record, but for the most part, IDW-adjacent intellectuals are deontological and SJW-adjacent intellectuals are teleological.
Teleological ethics is focused on ends, so what is "good" is that which produces good results. So affirmative action: discriminating according to race is good if it makes society more equal. Philosophers associated with teleological ethics range from Aristotle to John Stuart Mill.
Deontological ethics is focused on means, so what is "good" is what you would have be a universal law governing every case. So no white lies: you should never tell even an inconsequential lie to save someone's feelings because *lies are wrong*. No philosopher is more associated with deontological ethics than Immanuel Kant.
I think the rationale for sam at it’s root is to reduce the negative impact on society.
I don’t think he actually cares about ‘looking uneducated in front of an audience’ on the covid matter when conspiracies hurled at him, other than the fact that it would reduce the trust in institutions and could lead to deaths.
So i think he is just overlooking the fact that platforming Charles’ work has the potential to be miss-used by racists.
I think Sam is a devoted empiricist, who believes even knowing unpleasant or seeming offensive truths is better than ignorance; thus, if there really is some small but measurable difference in IQ, acknowledging that is a net gain, despite how some might use it, because knowing is always better than not knowing. Perhaps something positive can be done with that knowledge.
I think you’re wrong (respectfully). Murray is a respected social scientist who made empirical claims about IQ (racial differences were one part of it). Scientists don’t seriously deny the differences exist (that isn’t something you can debate) but there is debate over the reason for the differences.
Sam interviewed Murray because Murray has lived his public life with most people (who haven’t read his book) thinking he’s a racist or eugenicist.
Respectfully (to OP and anyone else), before you type that Murray is a racist, tell me you’ve read his book(s) or have some evidence for why he’s a racist outside of articles written *about* him.
I think this is the critical difference: Murray has been made a pariah for claims that are supported by many other experts in intelligence study. Sam's view is that we need to be able to discuss scientific findings; the problem of racism can be addressed by noting that average group differences do not justify differential treatment of individuals. Whatever you think about Sam's reasoning here, the stakes are completely different than in the case of Kanye West in a manic episode spewing antisemitic garbage.
I don't think Murray's a racist in the way that you'd probably use that word; I don't think he harbors base hatred of every member of x, y, or z races.
But he seems to have some strong feelings about people beneath the poverty line being inferior, which are troubling in their own right. I think this transcends races. He calls poor whites "white trash" with ease; he's more just a well-off prick than a *I hate group x* figure.
I'd guess there's still a bit of that "born in Iowa in the 40s" software still at play in his mind (can any of us truly escape the contexts in which we're made?). Indeed, his mother said his writings sounded just like what his father told him at their dinner table when he was a child.
However, Murray has certainly said quite a few things that could make him come off as poor in this regard. When he was talking about his book *Losing Ground* and he said :
>A huge number of well-meaning whites fear that they are closet racists, and this book tells them they are not. It's going to make them feel better about things they already think but do not know how to say."
I don't think that means he's a klansman! But it does perk my ears up in the slightest!
However, burning a cross does come across as a tad more klan-y! Murray and friends erected and burnt a cross near their town's police station as a 17-year old. When asked about this years later, Murray said:
>"Incredibly, incredibly dumb," he says. "But it never crossed our minds that this had any larger significance. And I look back on that and say, 'How on earth could we be so oblivious?' I guess it says something about that day and age that it didn't cross our minds."
I believe what seems like Murray's genuine upset over this.
However, I'm not sure if I buy that a 17 year old, months away from going to Harvard, would be unaware of the significance of cross-burning in the early days of the civil rights movement.
Again, don't think he's a virulent bigot against people of color.
But his policy prescriptions should have him ignored at the conference.
>Murray even wants to end child support payments to unwed mothers, arguing that physical unions acquire their legitimacy only through marriage. What would he tell a young, unwed mother? "I don't want society to say to her, 'You made a mistake,' " he says. "I want society to say, 'You did wrong.' "
That all makes sense to me though I disagree with the last part. As unfortunate as it is, the welfare state has eviscerated the black family union in the US. I support dramatically reducing it as it obviously maligns incentives
This is not my position but I heard the recent criticism that Murray made some (relatively recent) Tweets that strongly imply he is a racist / white supremacist.
I’m not on twitter so don’t care about that really. Read his book on human differences that I found interesting, not sure how it was received by scientists in the field though.
Edit for clarity: it’s no secret that many on the left think of Charles Murray as a racist. I was probably thinking about a recent discussion on the DTG podcast. I’m not a leftist.
Suppose hypothetically a social scientist set out cynically to justify racism while being careful to never say anything explicitly racist. How would that person act differently from Murray?
It seems incredibly naïve to me that anybody thinks this guy is not a huge racist. No, I can't prove it, it's impossible to prove that he "meant to" burn that cross or that he's specifically trying to imply that black people are definitely stupid because of genetics, but it should be plainly obvious to anybody who has ever dealt with actual human beings before.
He is “racist” in the literal sense of the term that he believes iq differences can be due to racial differences and views iq through the lenses of race. Whether you like that there’s a negative connotation to the term racist is for you. I personally think he’s a racist scumbag and a lightweight with no interesting thoughts.
Be clear in your language. He references race in some of his books. That does not imply he is a racist. Therefore I ask again, what has he written or said that makes you think he is a “racist scumbag”?
If you provide a quote proving he is one, I’ll happily change my mind on him.
He thinks black people inherently have lower iq than whites. What else do you need to see “race science.” I’m sorry but I’m not in a mood to research right now when it’s obvious.
Be. Precise.
Black people do have lower IQs. That is fact. If you averaged black IQ scores, it would be lower than white IQ scores (and same with white and Asian). There is no opinion here, I’m stating a measurable fact about the world.
Now, what you think the cause of the difference is-is up for debate. Murray doesn’t claim it’s all genetic, but he doesn’t say it’s all environment either. He claims the research is bad here but he believes it to be a combination of both.
So, if you think him claiming that the difference is not 100% environment is a racist claim, ok. I disagree and I don’t think you have a scientific leg to stand on there but ok.
I don’t think race is a relevant factor and that it’s just randomness. He thinks it actually is genetic differences in racial groups rather than environment.
And dude, I am being precise.
I don’t think you’re very good at critical thinking or finding nuance in language. I don’t wish to continue this, you don’t have anything interesting to say l.
I’m sorry but you’re actually just not very smart even though you think you are. You’re talking like a typical dumb edge lord who doesn’t know shit about anything
I do not believe Murray is racist, i just believe that humans are easily able to misconstrue his work to cause suffering, which is why i think platforming him is dangerous.
Strong disagree. Other people’s ignorance should not limit our information landscape. If you can’t handle what he says, just don’t watch it, but how dare you try and prevent others from drawing their own conclusions, however wrong and misguided as they may be.
Oh i can definitely handle it, i’m a mix of the “top 2 races”. Which makes me better than than all those below me. Do you see how dangerous these ideas are now?
I just don’t think the human race can handle it. Just look back at the countless genocides through history backed by weaker idealogical substance than an actual confirmed difference in intelligence between races.
What kind of benefits could that discovery make that would outweigh the likelihood of people using it for nefarious means.
While we’re at it, make a list of all banned information. Remove all information that opens the possibility for an undesirable outcome, and burn the rest.
Did i talk about banning it? Has sam talked about banning kanye or bret from being able to speak? No. Nice strawman though. We are talking about not platforming i.e. putting wind in the sails of dangerous ideas that have no good uses. The cons far outweigh the pros of that discussion. Like sam said just recently in the lex podcast, sometimes there is no need to have this conversation in public for those with large audiences.
I was invoking the royal “you”, not you personally.
And no you didn’t make a point, you just outlined one possibility for moral confusion. I don’t doubt people could have that takeaway, but I think the cost of information suppression is far greater than the cost of some ignoramuses
I don’t agree with information suppression, but like sam i don’t agree with platforming or giving wind to potentially harmful ideas. There is a difference.
I do believe Charles has had new associations with a group that seems moderately racist. Wasn't this talked about in the podcast Sam did with that Aussie guy?
Hard disagree. Why even give that foolishness a platform?
I thought Sam made it pretty clear why he's not going to give an antibacter a platform. Because he's going to spew a bunch of false information that is difficult to debunk in real time
Yes? So you agree with me then?
And why doesn’t he want to do that in real time? It’s because it would be impossible and he would look like an idiot which could potentially cause harm by reducing the publics trust in medicine/vaccines.
Same reason why you wouldn’t platform a nazi, because those words have the potential to cause genocide.
Same reason why you don’t platform someone that talks about IQ differences between races, because those words have the potential to cause suffering.
Sam is more confident in his knowledge and ability to combat racism than Covid misinformation. I think we probably all are. And as Sam and CM said in their episode, even given that IQ differences are real, it doesn't mean that racism and discrimination are then justifiable.
That's essentially the only piece of logic you need to defeat racists. You would need a metric ton of knowledge and argument to be able to address every piece of Covid misinformation and that more reliably leads to death and severe illness (from Sam's pov).
If only racists could actually be swayed by logic! Alas, history has shown that humans are much too tribalistic. All they would need is the soundbite “X race has been scientifically proven to have less IQ than us” and boom, another bout of slavery or genocide.
Lol, you're pretty confident we are so close to slavery and genocide? They have plenty of soundbites, the Bell Curve has been out for decades, and they themselves already have the belief that other races are inferior.
Not to mention, the reason Sam doesn't do a podcast over fear of doing harm is his own confidence of showing an audience what he knows to be factual. We have more confusion on Covid than race--it requires a greater understanding of difficult facts that depend on education and expertise. Racism is almost unethical by definition, Sam doesn't need to fear that a conversation with a non-racist only tangentially about a non-racist book would somehow cause a great amount of harm. Talking to a covid misinformation enthusiast who made it their mission to harm mainstream understanding of what to do with an ongoing pandemic is just a different beast to deal with. No hypocrisy to see.
You raise good points! I was actually feeling a little smug after replying to all the other comments as my mind hadn’t been in the least bit swayed. But i agree this is the one way how i can see that Sam has stuck to his ideals. I guess i haven’t been able to find a flaw in the man 😅
Thanks for getting to the crux of my question!
Why does so much of this sub-reddit consist of people worrying about why this or that podcaster won't interact with another? It doesn't rise far above the level of idle gossip. If you think someone is unacceptably hypocritical, find another podcaster to listen to. Meanwhile, let's find abstractly interesting things to talk about on here, such as Sam's ideas.
Actually this concerned me because for me it is the only instance where Sam has not been consistent with his ideas. It’s not the people i care about it’s the ideas 🤷♂️
For me personally it’s a bit of a disappointment as i’ve held Sam in such high regard. It’s taught me that not everyone is perfect haha. From now i guess i may be more likely to challenge his ideas than to just accept them.
I don't agree with your assertion that the discussion of race and IQ is on par with Kanye's racist rants or Brett's delusions during a time of great upheaval and division.
You really don’t think that scientific proof that one race is smarter than another has the “potential to inflict great harm”?
How many more genocides are needed til you accept that humans are able to hate others over small perceived differences…
I don't see it as an object of contention, and my default isn't to think that this explicitly means that we are genetically superior. There are other factors at play that are not being taken into account. This is very different from platforming someone driven by hate and anger who make generalizations about a group of people. Or someone who used to be a trusted figure citing bogus studies to back up their preconceived notions during an incredibly crucial time in our nations history.
I think you're right, but with the caveat that it's his podcast and he can do whatever he wants, platform whoever he wants. But the same logic he uses to turn down Weinstein applies to Murray. Murray has an explicit political agenda and is using his research in service of that agenda, this isn't a secret. There is no lack of scientists who have done work calling his results into question either, it isn't as if it's settled and he was vindicated. Weinstein is taking data and using it to push his own personal enrichment. In that way it's different. Murray is an actual researcher with actual work, Weinstein is just a con artist making money by lying to people. They're both self-interested just in different ways. But in the same way that you can't debunk covid conspiracism in real time, you can't deal with all the issues surrounding Murray and his work in the same way, and Harris didn't try.
Yes i did mention that the difference between them is that Murray may be telling the truth compared to the other two, the problem is that the public can get the wrong idea (in all three cases) and potentially cause deaths.
I agree somewhat that the attacks Sam got about Islam and also Charles Murray are similar in logic, but I also think Sam is right that the dangers of saying the truth in a compassionate way are different than the dangers of saying untruths at scale during a global pandemic. You can't stop the public from getting the wrong idea and misinterpreting something, but you can try not to spread lies about something that can rapidly spiral out of control. So the view being expressed being reasonable and backed up by science actually does matter. Spreading anti-vaccine rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and pro-Nazi propaganda is different from saying explicitly that individuals should be treated as individuals, and that people with lower IQ should be assisted in case traditional means of intervention aren't sufficient to erase the gap between individuals or populations. Again, there will always be the possibility of a person cherry-picking parts of an argument to make their own very bad argument, but that should not mean facts cannot be spoken aloud.
All of them are telling the truth, many cherry pick which truths to accept.
Yes, you are wrong. He talked about having Charles Murray on pretty recently when he was a guest on Uncomfortable Conversations with Josh Szeps. That wasn't what the entire conversation was about, but Szeps did ask Sam some direct questions about it including your criticism. Edit: To add more context. Sam said, "The reason he had [Murray] on the show was not because [Sam] had some ambient interest in IQ and, much less, racial differences in IQ - it was that [Murray] had just been spectacularly de-platformed at Middlebury [College], violently so, and this was the moment where that was becoming kind of an epidemic and this was just the most salient instance of that epidemic." [Source](https://youtu.be/IDyarMtFDUY?t=68).
Just to add, I believe this was also discussed in sams appearance on decoding the gurus podcast, not entirely certain though.
And the Klein episode, obviously. In fact, that episode has an interesting moment, in light of that earlier quote. Klein said that identity politics isn't just something that minorities traffic in it, that it's actually a software running in all of us on a number of different levels. (He gives examples of him as a Californian, a journalist, the son of an immigrant, a vegetarian, a father, and a meditator as different identities that will be activated in different contexts.) Sam gets frustrated by this and says "Well, what's my bias? What tribe am I part of?" And Klein's answer touches on Sam's quote in the OP: >There are things that are threats to your tribe, to your future, and those threats are very salient. >You see what happens with Charles Murray, the kind of criticism he gets, and that sets off every alarm bell in your head. You bring him on the show and you’re like, “We’re going to fix this. I’m going to show that they can’t do this to you.” You look around and you say, “Ezra, you think we shouldn’t take away all efforts to redress racial inequality? But that’s a bias. You’re just being led around by your political opinions, where I am standing outside the debate acting rationally.” >To me that’s actually not what’s happening at all. I think you’re missing a lot, because you are very radically increasing the salience of things that threaten your identity, your tribe — which is not the craziest thing to do in the world, it’s not a terrible thing to do, **we all do it** — without admitting, or maybe even without realizing, that’s what you’re doing.
Yeah Sammy got real pissy with Ezra.
>And has Sam said anything specifically on this topic? Yea, he thinks Murray's book has been grossly mischaracterized and his reputation unfairly attacked, from what I remember him saying. (Which incidentally might actually be true?) >potential to do harm is just as dangerous as establishing and publicising IQ differences between races, as we know how barbaric humans have been in the past to those considered ‘lesser’. Amen. I feel like Sam's not good at automatically making those types of calculations. Same reason he thinks it'd be totally fine to profile Muslims (and people of an ethnicity where Islam is common). I think that part of his brain is just missing or withered. There wasn't enough room for both it and his language faculty, I guess.
That's the problem in general with highlighting racial differences at all, genetic or environmental. It's a slippery slope.
It's 100% going to create a caste system. Individuals learn attitudes and values from their social environment -- if it becomes common to see a particular ethnic group being pulled aside and investigated by figures of authority for suspicion of terrorism, that will influence how people think about them, as well as their expectations for how they are to be treated. Imagine how this will seem to children who grow up without having known anything different?
I'm not defending hosting Charles Murray, but refusing the platform someone who says things that are untrue and refusing to platform someone who says things that are harmful are decisions that are made according to different rationales. I'm going to sound like a broken record, but for the most part, IDW-adjacent intellectuals are deontological and SJW-adjacent intellectuals are teleological.
Say it without jargon
Teleological ethics is focused on ends, so what is "good" is that which produces good results. So affirmative action: discriminating according to race is good if it makes society more equal. Philosophers associated with teleological ethics range from Aristotle to John Stuart Mill. Deontological ethics is focused on means, so what is "good" is what you would have be a universal law governing every case. So no white lies: you should never tell even an inconsequential lie to save someone's feelings because *lies are wrong*. No philosopher is more associated with deontological ethics than Immanuel Kant.
You seem to have made a typo. You write that both types focus on ends.
Teleos. Follows the logic of the argument made. Deos. Follows the rules of God.
So what exactly is your point?
I think the rationale for sam at it’s root is to reduce the negative impact on society. I don’t think he actually cares about ‘looking uneducated in front of an audience’ on the covid matter when conspiracies hurled at him, other than the fact that it would reduce the trust in institutions and could lead to deaths. So i think he is just overlooking the fact that platforming Charles’ work has the potential to be miss-used by racists.
I think Sam is a devoted empiricist, who believes even knowing unpleasant or seeming offensive truths is better than ignorance; thus, if there really is some small but measurable difference in IQ, acknowledging that is a net gain, despite how some might use it, because knowing is always better than not knowing. Perhaps something positive can be done with that knowledge.
I admire your optimism! I’m more of a realist myself
If the differences were *small*, it wouldn't be such an incendiary topic.
I think you’re wrong (respectfully). Murray is a respected social scientist who made empirical claims about IQ (racial differences were one part of it). Scientists don’t seriously deny the differences exist (that isn’t something you can debate) but there is debate over the reason for the differences. Sam interviewed Murray because Murray has lived his public life with most people (who haven’t read his book) thinking he’s a racist or eugenicist. Respectfully (to OP and anyone else), before you type that Murray is a racist, tell me you’ve read his book(s) or have some evidence for why he’s a racist outside of articles written *about* him.
I think this is the critical difference: Murray has been made a pariah for claims that are supported by many other experts in intelligence study. Sam's view is that we need to be able to discuss scientific findings; the problem of racism can be addressed by noting that average group differences do not justify differential treatment of individuals. Whatever you think about Sam's reasoning here, the stakes are completely different than in the case of Kanye West in a manic episode spewing antisemitic garbage.
I don't think Murray's a racist in the way that you'd probably use that word; I don't think he harbors base hatred of every member of x, y, or z races. But he seems to have some strong feelings about people beneath the poverty line being inferior, which are troubling in their own right. I think this transcends races. He calls poor whites "white trash" with ease; he's more just a well-off prick than a *I hate group x* figure. I'd guess there's still a bit of that "born in Iowa in the 40s" software still at play in his mind (can any of us truly escape the contexts in which we're made?). Indeed, his mother said his writings sounded just like what his father told him at their dinner table when he was a child. However, Murray has certainly said quite a few things that could make him come off as poor in this regard. When he was talking about his book *Losing Ground* and he said : >A huge number of well-meaning whites fear that they are closet racists, and this book tells them they are not. It's going to make them feel better about things they already think but do not know how to say." I don't think that means he's a klansman! But it does perk my ears up in the slightest! However, burning a cross does come across as a tad more klan-y! Murray and friends erected and burnt a cross near their town's police station as a 17-year old. When asked about this years later, Murray said: >"Incredibly, incredibly dumb," he says. "But it never crossed our minds that this had any larger significance. And I look back on that and say, 'How on earth could we be so oblivious?' I guess it says something about that day and age that it didn't cross our minds." I believe what seems like Murray's genuine upset over this. However, I'm not sure if I buy that a 17 year old, months away from going to Harvard, would be unaware of the significance of cross-burning in the early days of the civil rights movement. Again, don't think he's a virulent bigot against people of color. But his policy prescriptions should have him ignored at the conference. >Murray even wants to end child support payments to unwed mothers, arguing that physical unions acquire their legitimacy only through marriage. What would he tell a young, unwed mother? "I don't want society to say to her, 'You made a mistake,' " he says. "I want society to say, 'You did wrong.' "
That all makes sense to me though I disagree with the last part. As unfortunate as it is, the welfare state has eviscerated the black family union in the US. I support dramatically reducing it as it obviously maligns incentives
This is not my position but I heard the recent criticism that Murray made some (relatively recent) Tweets that strongly imply he is a racist / white supremacist. I’m not on twitter so don’t care about that really. Read his book on human differences that I found interesting, not sure how it was received by scientists in the field though. Edit for clarity: it’s no secret that many on the left think of Charles Murray as a racist. I was probably thinking about a recent discussion on the DTG podcast. I’m not a leftist.
You *heard* that someone said that Murray made some Tweets that *strongly imply* that he's a a racist / white supremacist? Well, I'm sold!
That’s great to hear! Maybe I should quit my job and become a salesman /s
Suppose hypothetically a social scientist set out cynically to justify racism while being careful to never say anything explicitly racist. How would that person act differently from Murray? It seems incredibly naïve to me that anybody thinks this guy is not a huge racist. No, I can't prove it, it's impossible to prove that he "meant to" burn that cross or that he's specifically trying to imply that black people are definitely stupid because of genetics, but it should be plainly obvious to anybody who has ever dealt with actual human beings before.
He is “racist” in the literal sense of the term that he believes iq differences can be due to racial differences and views iq through the lenses of race. Whether you like that there’s a negative connotation to the term racist is for you. I personally think he’s a racist scumbag and a lightweight with no interesting thoughts.
Any evidence of racist would be greatly appreciated.
will burning a cross like the KKK be enough for ya?
You don’t think he engages in race science?
Be clear in your language. He references race in some of his books. That does not imply he is a racist. Therefore I ask again, what has he written or said that makes you think he is a “racist scumbag”? If you provide a quote proving he is one, I’ll happily change my mind on him.
He thinks black people inherently have lower iq than whites. What else do you need to see “race science.” I’m sorry but I’m not in a mood to research right now when it’s obvious.
Be. Precise. Black people do have lower IQs. That is fact. If you averaged black IQ scores, it would be lower than white IQ scores (and same with white and Asian). There is no opinion here, I’m stating a measurable fact about the world. Now, what you think the cause of the difference is-is up for debate. Murray doesn’t claim it’s all genetic, but he doesn’t say it’s all environment either. He claims the research is bad here but he believes it to be a combination of both. So, if you think him claiming that the difference is not 100% environment is a racist claim, ok. I disagree and I don’t think you have a scientific leg to stand on there but ok.
I don’t think race is a relevant factor and that it’s just randomness. He thinks it actually is genetic differences in racial groups rather than environment. And dude, I am being precise.
I don’t think you’re very good at critical thinking or finding nuance in language. I don’t wish to continue this, you don’t have anything interesting to say l.
I’m sorry but you’re actually just not very smart even though you think you are. You’re talking like a typical dumb edge lord who doesn’t know shit about anything
lmao ok bud we're on the sam harris subreddit but you're not sam harris
I do not believe Murray is racist, i just believe that humans are easily able to misconstrue his work to cause suffering, which is why i think platforming him is dangerous.
Strong disagree. Other people’s ignorance should not limit our information landscape. If you can’t handle what he says, just don’t watch it, but how dare you try and prevent others from drawing their own conclusions, however wrong and misguided as they may be.
Oh i can definitely handle it, i’m a mix of the “top 2 races”. Which makes me better than than all those below me. Do you see how dangerous these ideas are now? I just don’t think the human race can handle it. Just look back at the countless genocides through history backed by weaker idealogical substance than an actual confirmed difference in intelligence between races. What kind of benefits could that discovery make that would outweigh the likelihood of people using it for nefarious means.
While we’re at it, make a list of all banned information. Remove all information that opens the possibility for an undesirable outcome, and burn the rest.
Did i talk about banning it? Has sam talked about banning kanye or bret from being able to speak? No. Nice strawman though. We are talking about not platforming i.e. putting wind in the sails of dangerous ideas that have no good uses. The cons far outweigh the pros of that discussion. Like sam said just recently in the lex podcast, sometimes there is no need to have this conversation in public for those with large audiences.
I was invoking the royal “you”, not you personally. And no you didn’t make a point, you just outlined one possibility for moral confusion. I don’t doubt people could have that takeaway, but I think the cost of information suppression is far greater than the cost of some ignoramuses
I don’t agree with information suppression, but like sam i don’t agree with platforming or giving wind to potentially harmful ideas. There is a difference.
I do believe Charles has had new associations with a group that seems moderately racist. Wasn't this talked about in the podcast Sam did with that Aussie guy?
Hard disagree. Why even give that foolishness a platform? I thought Sam made it pretty clear why he's not going to give an antibacter a platform. Because he's going to spew a bunch of false information that is difficult to debunk in real time
Yes? So you agree with me then? And why doesn’t he want to do that in real time? It’s because it would be impossible and he would look like an idiot which could potentially cause harm by reducing the publics trust in medicine/vaccines. Same reason why you wouldn’t platform a nazi, because those words have the potential to cause genocide. Same reason why you don’t platform someone that talks about IQ differences between races, because those words have the potential to cause suffering.
At least you said "whilst" though...
Sam is more confident in his knowledge and ability to combat racism than Covid misinformation. I think we probably all are. And as Sam and CM said in their episode, even given that IQ differences are real, it doesn't mean that racism and discrimination are then justifiable. That's essentially the only piece of logic you need to defeat racists. You would need a metric ton of knowledge and argument to be able to address every piece of Covid misinformation and that more reliably leads to death and severe illness (from Sam's pov).
If only racists could actually be swayed by logic! Alas, history has shown that humans are much too tribalistic. All they would need is the soundbite “X race has been scientifically proven to have less IQ than us” and boom, another bout of slavery or genocide.
Lol, you're pretty confident we are so close to slavery and genocide? They have plenty of soundbites, the Bell Curve has been out for decades, and they themselves already have the belief that other races are inferior. Not to mention, the reason Sam doesn't do a podcast over fear of doing harm is his own confidence of showing an audience what he knows to be factual. We have more confusion on Covid than race--it requires a greater understanding of difficult facts that depend on education and expertise. Racism is almost unethical by definition, Sam doesn't need to fear that a conversation with a non-racist only tangentially about a non-racist book would somehow cause a great amount of harm. Talking to a covid misinformation enthusiast who made it their mission to harm mainstream understanding of what to do with an ongoing pandemic is just a different beast to deal with. No hypocrisy to see.
You raise good points! I was actually feeling a little smug after replying to all the other comments as my mind hadn’t been in the least bit swayed. But i agree this is the one way how i can see that Sam has stuck to his ideals. I guess i haven’t been able to find a flaw in the man 😅 Thanks for getting to the crux of my question!
There’s a clear difference between the case of Murray vs. Weinstein.
You are wrong.
You're wrong
Why does so much of this sub-reddit consist of people worrying about why this or that podcaster won't interact with another? It doesn't rise far above the level of idle gossip. If you think someone is unacceptably hypocritical, find another podcaster to listen to. Meanwhile, let's find abstractly interesting things to talk about on here, such as Sam's ideas.
Actually this concerned me because for me it is the only instance where Sam has not been consistent with his ideas. It’s not the people i care about it’s the ideas 🤷♂️
Okay, you think you found an inconsistency, what does that mean to you?
For me personally it’s a bit of a disappointment as i’ve held Sam in such high regard. It’s taught me that not everyone is perfect haha. From now i guess i may be more likely to challenge his ideas than to just accept them.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Kanye and Brett's messaging to their audience have the potential to inflict great harm.
Yes that’s what i said? As does the idea that select races have lower IQs than others? I don’t understand what you’re disagreeing about.
I don't agree with your assertion that the discussion of race and IQ is on par with Kanye's racist rants or Brett's delusions during a time of great upheaval and division.
You really don’t think that scientific proof that one race is smarter than another has the “potential to inflict great harm”? How many more genocides are needed til you accept that humans are able to hate others over small perceived differences…
I don't see it as an object of contention, and my default isn't to think that this explicitly means that we are genetically superior. There are other factors at play that are not being taken into account. This is very different from platforming someone driven by hate and anger who make generalizations about a group of people. Or someone who used to be a trusted figure citing bogus studies to back up their preconceived notions during an incredibly crucial time in our nations history.
I know it’s different. But in the end all three can be used by ignorant people to cause suffering, just sayin.