https://quillette.com/2017/06/11/no-...ssing-iq-race/

An honest conversation about The Bell Curve IS about how big of a racist Charles Murray is. There's a reason why you go on to try to walk back your defense of it because you don't know what it says. I do know what it says! So do his critics!

It's the same reason why you're trying to downplay Harris' full throated endorsement of Murray as a victim of an academic conspiracy. Because again, I know what Harris said, and there's no way to defend Murray the way Harris did without sharing Murray's beliefs about race and IQ and the policy implications thereof.

Same reason why Harris was so evasive and dishonest in his interview with Klein about the Murray podcast, because HE knows at some level what's up.

Racism is not localized entirely inside Charles Murray.

Here is an article about Murray that is by someone that the IDW won't debate even though he constantly offers:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/...-murray-odious

That's a very very good article

So woke. "Race isn't real... well kind of, its real to you racists!"

The preferred stance of virtue signalers everywhere with their shame whips ready to lash. There are maybe 3 studies on this and 500 million articles claiming its "scientific fact"

The author contradicted himself on what is literally his main point

Arbitrary to whom? It should be noted that the author then linked a Salon.com opinion piece about why Ted Cruz is an idiot as PROOF of their opinion.

I haven't read Murray's book, but this isn't exactly earth shattering research here. Its someone's opinion.

The boded is my favorite part. You've described Charles Murray to a T! He's spent his career at political think tanks workshopping ways to weaponize data against minorities. Who on Earth told you he was an objective voice? Or even an academic? Murray's job is to make up handwavy reasons why minorities deserve to be ****ed over so the rich *******s over at the American Enterprise Institute don't feel so bad about what they do.

There is, in fact, a sacred space where research is evaluated on whether it is true or not, and by god Murray made sure he stayed well away from that space when he declined to have The Bell Curve undergo any kind of peer review.

In regards to the first bold, what defense am I walking back? Can you provide the post please?

In regards to the third bold, I literally just re-listened to the interview today. Where is Harris dishonest and evasive?

In regards to the second bold, Klein himself said he didn't think Harris was racially motivated or had any animus, his main argument is that Harris is blinded by his own cognitive biases and "identity" and this blindness is making him view Murray's motivations in way too favorably a light. You seem to be arguing that there is no way for Harris to have the opinions he does have without there being racial animus? Do you believe that Klein is being too charitable towards Harris?

Anyways, I don't really have a problem with Klein's argument at all. I don't even disagree with his argument that Harris is guilty of his own brand of tribalism.

Where I have a problem is that Vox publishing that piece = Murray ending up on the SPLC hate list (which as I said in another thread corporations blanketly use to censor/deplatform/punish), and everyone seemingly being ok with this form of academic censorship.

That quote doesn't describe Charles Murray at all. It also doesn't describe my personal thoughts at all. It is me trying to frame how I think Harris is approaching the issue. Did you not understand that? Why is it so important for you and Fly to completely mischaracterize everything I say? Do you even realize that is what you are doing?

I have not given a single personal opinion on Murray or Murray's character at all in this entire thread. At the most I have argued that Harris's opinion of Murray doesn't make him a racist per se, and me arguing such doesn't make me a racist either.

I have not read a single word of anything Murray has written or listened to anything he has said other than the Harris podcast which I don't even really remember because I listened to it when it came out (I dont even remember when). Based on basically hearsay I am inclined to believe that Harris is being way too charitable towards Murray and his motives, but I dont think it means I think he (Harris) is a racist and should be on the SPLC hate list.

And we still haven't addressed the part where the scientist who claims he is an expert in intelligence research claims that nothing in the Bell Curve or in the Harris/Murray podcast is inaccurate as far as current scientific knowledge of the time or today is concerned.

So, how do we explain this. Is the scientist clearly just a racist liar and belongs himself on the SPLC hate list?

Also, when you get a chance, can you show me where you quoted Sam Harris verbatim. It seems a pretty reasonable request given that you said you did.

Who won't debate this person?

The article is fine, although even taking everything that article says at face value I can't map a line from that article to it being obvious that Harris is a racist, which seems to be the claim that is being put forth.

It was in the last Harris thread we did in the old forum. You get so ****ing excited for your random things, what, you think I'd just make that up? Why? I can quote him again, it's not difficult:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/...ight-debate-us

You need to realize the way you're super skeptical about Current Affairs but oh so eager to run in here and demand people respond to Quillette tells us something about you.

And I know this is how you guys get trained to crush libs on the wheel of logic by demanding sources for this claim, but I cannot stress enough that the rhetorical strategy of constantly giving out homework, constantly claiming ignorance and demanding that other people fill you in... it just makes it seem like you probably shouldn't be talking about this **** at all. It's not a clever strategy to avoid getting guilt by association-ed by whichever reactionary you're defending today, if you truly were unaware of someone's work you'd be ambivalent about people calling him racist online.

If you aren't capable of reasonably informing yourself, my failure to educate you is not a win state for the reactionary side. And that's giving you the maximal benefit of the doubt, many people won't take you at your word that you're truly coming from a place of objective ignorance and eager to learn.

Who are you quoting here? Harris has never said that. Prove me wrong
Classic example of religion over science

It's a hit piece. If you didn't know any better you would think the book is 500 pages of Murray calling black people "dumb". That's kind of the whole point Harris was making, nobody even cares what the book actually says, they just here outrageous opinion pieces like the one above and assume it paints an accurate picture. The writer demonstrates a very poor understanding of IQ. The whole thing is a beautiful display in writing something that is very appealing to your audience, sounds clever, and the audience will have zero clue how ignorant of the subject matter the author is and how misleading the characterization is

The Quillette article is by Richard Haier

Seems like not only an expert on the topic, but also an exceptional career

This is the author of your article



More religion vs science

Well, I would argue your failure has more to do with making wild claims that are not based in any objective reality, especially when you are telling me what I said or think.

The basic structure of most of our conversations seem to go as follows.

Me: I am saying "X"
You: So you guys are saying "Y"
Me: What, I never said I was saying "Y." Where do I say that? And who is you guys?
You: I am not falling for your rhetorical technique of claiming ignorance.

Then we move on. Am I the only one that sees a problem here?

You have the testicular fortitude to make this comment after weaving a set of bull**** uninformed strawmen over multiple days?

Uninformed Strawman?

Uninformed strawman? https://intellectualdarkweb.site/van...tual-dark-web/

Uninformed strawman?

"The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ and Inequality Worldwide is a book by Richard Lynn, originally published by publisher Washington Summit Publishers in 2008. The book aims to determine whether the racial and socioeconomic differences in average IQ originally reported in the Bell Curve in the United States also exist in other countries. Lynn's book concludes that such differences do in fact exist in other countries, in addition to in the United States. It was reviewed favorably by researchers J. Philippe Rushton,[59] Donald Templer,[60] and Gerhard Meisenberg.[61] "

You keep referring to "IDW" like its some cohesive group when IDW is just a meme and something only "NEETS" (and you, apparently) take seriously. (More uninformed bull**** btw)

And this article can only be described as masturbatory. He spends 1000 words working up to his first claim despite spending those 1000 words calling the author racist and putting words into his mouth. There aren't even any juicy quotes, just imposing ones personal values onto data.

So then you post this ****ing joke of an article where this guy says;

"I am hesitant to make allegations here, because I do not have firsthand familiarity with the internal negotiations and can only relate what I have been told by those who asked me to come. However...." and proceeds to make allegations about agendas when the explination was literally, "The student government, whose approval was needed for the event, then narrowly rejected the proposal for a Shapiro event."

I wonder why the group felt like it had been stiffed because their event was rejected. This guy has literally nothing to do with it, pushed himself into the situation, and spun it where the "IDW" is ducking him.

All around a beyond pathetic performance for someone who was described to me as an argumentative "bumhunter".

Well, I think religion vs science isn't exactly accurate. It seems more to me to be an issue of appealing to moral truth versus rationale truth (which is kind of getting to the same place without all the baggage the words religion and science bring to the table).

I think you could frame the Klein/Harris debate in the same terms. Klein seems to be appealing to moral truth in the context of American history and Murray's own history; whereas Harris seems to believe that the data underlying The Bell Curve can and should be debated on its appeal to rationale truth independent of context.

FWIW (I doubt very much) I tend to think Klein came off better than Harris in their debate. Specifically, I don't think Harris did a very persuasive job rebutting Klein's assertion that Harris himself is practicing his own form of identity politics and not recognizing his own cognitive biases. I just don't think it ever reached the point where the whole ordeal made it clear Harris is a racist or has ill intent the way some are framing things.

Yes, moral truth versus rational truth is a decent summation

Not to derail but this is what I mean by religion here. Definitely worth a watch

Fly got up in his feelings about Harris giving Murray a platform and thought he would lay waste to the thread, but hes just spouting off emotional bull**** and calling people itt racists because... hes mad. Its beyond garbage.

I think he was more of the "ok now we know let's move on cos we can't use that knowledge usefully" school than the "because you included a chapter on it in your book about IQ 20 years ago you should never be allowed to speak in public again and turning up in ski masks and assaulting your host is a perfectly reasonable response" school.

Here's a link to a nyt piece about the talk he tried to give at Middlebury. They sent it out to a bunch of professors to grade on a scale of 1 to 9 about how conservative/liberal the content was. Scores came back averaging ~5. Not exactly hate speech and obviously nothing to do with IQ.

It's like the Men In Black came through and blanked everyone's memory. No clue about this Murray fellow or what he's written about (but you're pretty sure it's important stuff that people need to listen to!).

Perhaps you should defer judgement to the guys who actually do know what Murray's deal is?


Then you've got the guys who are so incredibly coy:

What exactly is it we know? What is this mysterious knowledge that you're afraid to talk about it anonymously on the internet?


I know fly makes you guys hoppin' mad, but this is a paragraph you should really think over for a bit.