"Metacommetary" is probably better than the "microcosm" I used in that long post.

hahahaha WOOOOOOOOO

Like I quoted it in the other thread but dudeoflife is running his mouth like he isn't the stupid trolling side here. But he is.

So I'll link it now,
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/9/1721024...script-podcast

And what I want to draw everyone's attention to because it's such a telling small thing:

"Sam Harris
...I felt this article was totally unfair. It accused us of peddling junk science and pseudoscience and pseudo scientific racialist speculation and trafficking in dangerous ideas. Murray got the worse of it, but at minimum, I’m painted as a total ignoramus, right? One line said while I have a PhD in neuroscience I appear to be totally ignorant of facts that are well known to everyone in the field of intelligence studies.

Ezra Klein
I think you should quote the line. I don’t think that’s what the line said.

Sam Harris
The quote is, this is the exact quote: “Sam Harris appeared to be ignorant of facts that were well known to everyone in the field of intelligence studies.” Now that’s since been quietly removed from the article, but it was there and it’s archived.


[I went back and looked into this and, as far as I can tell, the original quote that Harris is referring to is this one: “Here, too briefly, are some facts to ponder — facts that Murray was not challenged to consider by Harris, who holds a PhD in neuroscience, although they are known to most experts in the field of intelligence.” Here is the first archived version of the piece if you want to compare it with the final. — Ezra]"

Literally the same dynamic, where Klein, generously, nicely, ever so civilly tried to alert Harris to the fact that his core ****ing grievance over the article didn't happen, that he was allowing his personal poor reading skills to invent insults... and despite Klein trying to clue him in Harris confidently asserted an exact quote that literally did not appear. And Harris, apparently vaguely self-aware enough realize that the line wasn't there, INVENTED THAT IT WAS EDITED OUT. The man is just really ****ing dumb, guys, he's a stupid thin skinned ******* who 100% believes black people are stupider than white people.

even knowing the other clovis interactions it feels like wil hacked his account

Anyway, that's why you shouldn't bother being nice to these guys, even if you try very very hard to be respectful they still get their feelings hurt, and tbh their feelings should be hurt, so just call 'em dumb dumbs.

Hey look everyone fly googled another article. Well done fly.

If only fly had read his googled source. Klien makes this point.

Fly is trumpkin through and through. As I've said before, he is on the left out of pure historical accident.

On topic though, Klien does call out Harris for one of his real flaws.

Harris does struggle with self reflection which is odd give his long history of mindfulness. Klien nails him on other points as well.

For those of you who haven't listened it is well worth it. You too fly. You should listen.

So the debate is whether or not Harris 'is racist'? I don't think that was the original topic.

Then you weren't following along. It all began with me quoting Harris calling Trumps worldview an epistemological potlatch.

Rep, FLYs only intellectual equal, called Harris a racist less that 2 hours later. A few hours later in comes fly to back up his moronic buddy to call Harris a racist and to claim I am a huge face of race science.

And fly was off to the races going on an on about how racist Harris is all the while citing a guy who doesn't think Harris is a racist.

Yeah, I recalled that, and then posts were spread out over multiple pages I see after going to the tape.

Klein's podcast is also very interesting and well worth people following. I got into it because of the Harris one but have listened to a bunch since then.

The big point Klien makes about Harris and Murray is you cant take the science out of it's historical context. This is another weakness of Harris. His materialism gets the better of him sometimes as he fails to understand the social implications of some of the topics he covers.

Going to the tape it seems 'Harris is a racist' is tangential to the original topic of fighting good ideas with better ideas in a civil manner and subsequently, if so, what the hell was going on with the Murray debacle. The conversation wasn't linear and circled around a bunch. Saying 'Harris is a racist' is more an answer than a topic question, and a boring and disappointing one at that when compared to the more interesting and fruitful topic of the dangerous white moderates whom MLK wrote about.

Again, Harris as the twitter meme:

me: So Sam, do you agree with Murray that Africans and Black Americanss are literally ****ing ******ed?
Harris: No, that's preposterous.
me: OK, that's goo-
Harris: BUT...

That little fictional monologue is not a fair representation of the conversation.

Harris had three main points each of which are obviously correct,

1) any study of racial differences is bound to show differences. It's possible those differences are important and possible they are meaningless.

2) he is not interested in those differences. Here be should have been more forceful in pointing out the very idea of race makes no scientific sence. It is a social construct. This is where Harris often runs into trouble as he is very well versed in the hard sciences and philosophy, but less so the social sciences.

3) his main point, and nearly the only reason he brought Murray on was his strong belief that scientific debate must be open and free. If he has one over-riding moral principal it's that freedom of speech and open debate is the umbrella to all other freedoms.

Point three is where Klien and Harris were talking past each other and where the far left gets mixed up too. When Harris is talking to someone like Murray or Peterson, or when he is attacking Islamism, he is focused on bad ideas not bad people. The far right can't get past the people. This is why it's so idiotic to say he is racist for his attacks on Islamism. His beef is with the ideas, not the people.

On the other hand, Klien was entirely correct in calling out Harris for his lack of social and historical context with respect to racism and for whitewashing some of Murray's odious history.

As I said in the other thread the evidence seems to support Murray having real racist ideas. It simply does not for Harris. His sin is a lack of self-awarness and a thin skin.

SH-
“Now that said, I think your argument is, even where it pretends to be factual, or wherever you think it is factual, it is highly biased by political considerations. These are political considerations that I share. The fact that you think I don’t have empathy for people who suffer just the starkest inequalities of wealth and politics and luck is just, it’s telling and it’s untrue. I think it’s even untrue of Murray. The fact that you’re conflating the social policies he endorses — like the fact that he’s against affirmative action and he’s for universal basic income, I know you don’t happen agree with those policies, you think that would be disastrous — there’s a good-faith argument to be had on both sides of that conversation. That conversation is quite distinct from the science and even that conversation about social policy can be had without any allegation that a person is racist, or that a person lacks empathy for people who are at the bottom of society. That’s one distinction I want to make.

The other thing that I regret, which I think is, this is the thing you are taking me to task for, and I understand it, but I do regret that in the preface to my podcast with Murray, I didn’t add some full discussion of racism in America. The reason why I didn’t, or certainly at least one reason why I didn’t is that I had, maybe two months before that, done a podcast with Glenn Loury, the economist at Brown, who happens to be black. Glenn is fantastic. He’s got his own podcast, the Glenn Show, which everyone should watch. Glenn was on my podcast, and we were talking about race and violence in America. And I prefaced the conversation with a fairly long statement about the reality of white privilege and the past horrors of racism. When I got to the end of it, Glenn pretty much chastised me for thinking that it was necessary for me to say something like that just because I’m white. The fact that any conversation about race and violence, especially coming from a white guy like me, has to be bracketed with some elaborate virtue signaling on that point.

I mean, he basically said — these aren’t his words, but this was his attitude — he basically said, “Obviously, since you’re not a racist *******, it can go without saying that you think that you understand that slavery was bad and that Jim Crow was bad and that you totally support civil rights.”

shorter version elsewhere

Now I’m not defending Murray’s view of what the social policy should be. I’m open-minded about universal basic income. I think there can be a good faith debate about many of these topics. It’s a completely separate conversation, and I totally share your concern about racism and inequality.

Another slam dunk by Klein right fly?!

Klein
I mean, in your whole show, Sam, you’ve had 120-some episodes, and — I could have miscounted this, I totally take that as a possibility here — but you’ve had two —

Sam Harris

It’s amazing you would think this is relevant, but yes, you can give me the numbers.

Ezra Klein

I think you’ve had two African Americans as guests. I think you need to explore the experience of race in American more and not just see that as identity politics

Sam Harris

You said our conversation was of a piece with the worst crimes, social crimes in American history. The onus was on us to prove we’re not Nazis. I mean, that was the implication of what Turkheimer wrote.

Ezra Klein

They did say something actually about that.

Sam Harris

No they didn’t use the word Nazi, yes./

Yeah that sounds super generous here. Seriously way to cherry pick through the whole 2 hour debate and find where Harris misquoated then when the message Harris was getting across was accuratare depiction. Just incredible detective work. You must have gotten a boner when you found that nugget out.

I can see how someone gullible could be taken in by Klein’s act of trying to act sincere. If you followed the email exchange, read Vox article, and listened to the podcast with them you wouldn’t be fooled.

Clovis what was the quote I posted about? Who was the speaker? Where was it from?

Uh, that was my point. Klein bent over backward not to call Harris racist, Harris still cried like a ***** about it. P.S. Harris is a huge racist! Big ole believer in the natural inferiority of blacks.

This continues to make no sense, and will make less and less sense as Harris moves farther right and you eventually decide that "trumpkin" isn't an insult because the alternative is being an overreacting regressive left SJW.

I ****ing POSTED it you illiterate. I already ****ing know what it says. I knew what it said before this thread. You didn't, because like I said earlier, lol, you had never listened to or read the transcript of the Klein/Harris debate. And because you're so ****ing stupid you just ADMITTED THAT. ****ing hell.

Correct if you take Harris at his word. But like, can you imagine being a critical thinker? Did Mummsy and Daddikins not teach Clovis how to ****ing THINK?


This is gibberish but also concedes that race is real and also that racial differences are genetic and innate, a.k.a. the entire ****ing debate.

Harris does not believe race is a social construct. If race is a social construct, #1 becomes meaningless.

So going back to The Quote, who was I quoting, about what subject?

Like this is just a ****ing lie, Clovis, you're just lying. And we can tell, because if Harris wasn't a believer in the inferiority of blacks, and Harris was also a believer in the importance of open debate and good ideas chasing out bad ones, why the **** didn't he disagree with Murray about all of his garbage!

Our beef is with his ideas! That's why we do **** like post transcripts while you do **** like melt down into a temper tantrum.

Sam Harris literally cannot read English at a college graduate level. Which I think he shares with you, because that triumphant quote you posted... was Harris doing the exact same thing. Inventing a personal attack that didn't happen and crying about his hurt feelings instead of addressing the substance. That's all you people* ever do.


*And you know exactly what I mean by "you people" here, don't you buddy?

No that's racist getout clause 12a, behind I have a black friend, and if kanye can say it why can't I?

Vox wouldn't publish a rebuttal by Richard Haier, who is best known for his work on the neural basis of human intelligence psychometrics, general intelligence, and sex and intelligence

Turkeheimer, one of the author's of the Vox article tweeted out,

"I am sorry we used the phrase "junk science" that was just name calling, and it didn't help".

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

https://quillette.com/2017/06/21/vox...gent-progress/

From Haier article,
/
The worst that detractors can say about the podcast is that Murray and Harris prematurely endorsed the Default Hypothesis as resolved. Similarly, in my view, the VOX piece prematurely rejects the Default Hypothesis as somewhere between unreasonable and not provable.

In my experience, presentations of research data to non-specialists easily fall into overly simplistic conclusions and charges of cherry-picking evidence. Here are three things to keep in mind as you form your own opinion of what the data mean: 1) intelligence is a function of the brain and no story about the brain is simple, 2) no one study is definitive, 3) it takes many years to do independent replications and sort things out until there is a compelling weight-of-evidence to support some interpretations over others. We all should be careful when advocates for a particular point-of-view claim the moral high ground. The science will sort itself out — it always does. In the meantime we need to encourage more discussions like the Harris/Murray podcast and be resolute in supporting the expression of controversial ideas and informed challenges to them like the THN piece. /

The ironic part of this whole thing is I have multiple post on another forum citing that Harris complains too much about the regressive left,SJW, and gives people like Shapiro a pass. I'll wager any amount if you doubt such post exist. Now it's clear that the regressive lost has indeed lost their F**** mind.

Dude you are wasting your time arguing with a trumpian like fly. Just mock and laugh at his moronic posts.

FLY is not trying to debate in good faith.

Wait you're backing up dudelife here? I thought it was about the academic freedom to spout nonsense not about whether or not that nonsense is true. dude is arguing the content not the context. You're losing your presumption of detached indifference to which side is correct (I just want people to be able to talk about these topics), which is basically all you have at this point.

You got it. That was Harris point about debate. Well done.

This thread surely proves there is no shortage of morons on the left as well sadly.

Context should be irrelevant to scientific data. Harris on this point...

"We’re trying to judge on what is plausible to say and, more important, I am worried about the social penalty for talking about these things, because, again, it will come back to us on things that we don’t expect, like the Neanderthal thing. That comes out of left field. Had it gone another way, all of a sudden we can’t talk about Neanderthal DNA anymore.

There’s no point in having our politics be hostage to these kind of tripwire effects, where you say something that seems politically invidious, merely talking about the data as they are — unless every population of human beings has exactly the same mean and the same variance for every trait we care about, we are guaranteed to be blindsided by these differences that seem important to people who care about differences among groups."

Have at it guys...This whole Race/IQ thing got completely out of control and used for a hit piece on Harris which apparently many of "you guys" like to pile on. It's not even interesting the core debate about Race IQ.

I'm going to Family Belong Together protest. This is not productive in any way.

lol, you literally copy-pasted his wikipedia bio.