Regressive lost sounds like a John Milton poem.

Not sure what the Neanderthal thing is. I googled, dont know if it's related but wow ...

https://www.cnet.com/news/scientists...ns-in-the-lab/

They discovered in 2010 that a small % of genome in non African population is Neanderthal.

It's some ridiculous invented outrage, some research found white people have more neanderthal dna than black people "but if it was the other way around you wouldn't let us talk about it! you'd censor us!" Just assuming they'd be "silenced" (how and by whom?) if the facts weren't "politically correct". It's nonsense. People get "silenced" when they subjectively interpret facts to fit their racist worldview. Obviously sometimes some dumb college kids take things too far but the occasional dumb kid <> a vast conspiracy to silence scientific inquiry. It's purely manufactured grievance.

yes....and? Wanted to give accurate description of his background instead of just scientist.

That's good you are doing research. Maybe you will learn something.

And he's wrong about that.

Context is absolutely essential. People have to know things like the sample size, demographics of the sample, environment a study is occurring in etc. These factors, among many others, have an influence on the results obtained. To exclude the context that led to the results is to be disingenuous.

Scientific data has implications on future studies. That's why after the data in a study is presented, there's often a section that discusses the implications of the results within the rest of the studies in that same field and how they should influence the decision making and behavior of people.

It's kind of astounding that Sam can have a Ph.D in neuroscience and not know something that obvious.

Bob that is not what Harris means by context. They are taking about cultural and historical context. Not the design context of a study.

LOL I like the Wikipedia bio here, but also, Klein addressed that. Vox isn't a ****ing public service, they don't publish on demand by third parties. Harris can publish his own ****ing rebuttal.

And this is a good example of why being civil and trying to be nice can backfire. Clovis ran here with Klein trying to defuse stuff by not calling Harris racist, this guy's attempt to be conciliatory is seen as ADMISSION OF DEFEAT. There's no percentage in it, they'll seize on weakness through bad faith out of context quotes

(again, for the second time, dude here is explaining something that was literally in the ****ing transcript. ***** I know how to read!)

"regressive left" used unironically is exclusively an alt-right thing for ****'s sake man you're ****ing TERRIBLE at this act. You have multiple posts in THIS forum saying that Harris and you oppose Trump and are totes not racist and blah blah blah, I don't doubt your ability to mash out some entirely unconvincing lies.


P.S. Those of you who don't have whatever ****ing brain disease makes me care about this **** may not be aware but Quillette is like the house ****ing journal of the Intellectual Dark Web, 2p2ers may remember it from FoldN linking to it over and over and over to support women not being able to program and ****.

Lol Trumpkins.

I wasn't "diffusing stuff". I was pointing out you are a complete fraud.

shut the **** up clovis you look so bad right now

Klein was trying to DEFUSE, as in defuse the tantrum Harris was throwing about his hurt feelings.

That's an even ****ing better example than I could've hoped for! I used a word, albeit metaphorically, to describe Klein's councilatory words. You read that sentence, changed the word from defuse to diffuse, switched the antecedent of that word from Klein to you, and whined about your hurt ****ing feelings! 4 minutes apart, you put it in quotes, and not only could you not understand the fairly simple English I was using, you couldn't even accurately reproduce the spelling.

This mother****er moves his lips when he reads so hard that he somehow confused homonyms in written ****ing English lol

Checkmate. Harris is clearly a racist.

You might be the most trumpkin on this forum.

What was the quote I posted in the other thread about?

Looking bad to you is not a failing. It is a badge of honor.

Absolutely no idea. I've been watching training videos all day and still haven't figured out how to google. I'll get it eventually.

That guy actually used quilette as a source? I don't think I've ever seen it used by someone without a gab account.

Domer dropped a Quillette article here a few days ago. Seems to be a trendy spot for today’s intellectual 4channers.

Like you have to at least guess by now that the quote has something to do with the subject we're discussing, right?

So given that you know that, and everyone knows you haven't read or listened to any of this ****....

Why are you so ****ing confident I'm wrong? A whole ton of reactionary weirdos online have thrown temper tantrums when I called someone racist, you're just the latest in a very long line. Approximately zero of them have ever come out looking good, because I know what the **** I'm talking about.

If you think your side is due to notch a W here, OK, I understand. But doesn't the fact that I provided a quote and keep clowning you about the content of that quote raise some red flags for you here, buddy? Like "oops maybe I should've at least vaguely learned who Murray was or why people were criticizing Harris before Koolaid-manning through the wall here"?

there's no honor in being an idiot who shills for racists and refuses to engage in a good faith discussion

But even that can be important. The basis of scientific studies are based on results of previous studies. That's why studies contain a literature review at the beginning: to provide a brief history of the areas that are relevant to the study being done.

Cultural context can matter depending on the study. If you're studying non-human specimens, obviously cultural context is not particularly relevant. But with human subjects, it can be depending on the area of study. If you're studying human behavior, then social norms related to one's culture have to be considered a motivating factor for a person's actions.

We have to also keep in mind that Murray himself is not a scientist in the traditional sense. He's a policy analyst and adviser who works for the AEI. He uses his data to advise policymakers. So when he tells them what they should do, he's extrapolating his data and discussing it within the context of American government and politics.

Yet, Harris thinks that shouldn't be done. Seems to me that he just wants to quiet the likes of Klein for calling out Murray's work for what it is: racism poorly concealed by scientific integrity. After all if Klein calls Murray's work racist, it means that Harris gave a platform to a racist to disseminate bigotry without any questioning or critiquing and Harris cannot have that blemish on his reputation.

Funny thing is that Harris could have apologized and this whole thing would have gone away. Hell, I didn't know about Vox's article until he brought it up himself and made a big deal about it.

To get back into the bigger picture, Bob here, to his credit, initially backed Harris back when this debate was in the news. He was disagreed with, he learned more, and he changed his mind.

So like, Clovis and dude, we know it can be done. All of the information you need is readily available.

I agree completely. You will note I have never once defended Murray other than his right to be part of a debate. He is a racist.

I’m a trained anthropologist so completely agree that cultural context matters. This is a big blind spot for Harris. That being said we should keep the cultural context separate from the validity of a scientific result.

Lots of scientific studies have had, what were considered at the time, hugely negative social implications. It didn’t make them any less true. That being said we as a society then have to deal with those implications.

Agree. I think both sides got their backs up and neither acted their best. Harris does have a thin skin.

The big difference is it is clear bob has listened to the podcast, and knows the context, where it is clear you have not and do not.