IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Charles Murray , racial issues , racism charges , racism issues , sam harris

Reply
Old 9th April 2018, 03:04 PM   #161
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
pointing out such a fact would cause uproar and vilification
Point out for what purpose and in what context?

Data points which can be used for anti-black, racist purposes are noted all the time. There isn't any widespread denialism over race and what's called "black on black crime", for example. The only real uproar is over how "white on white crime" is ignored altogether or assumed to not exist at all, and the widespread ignorance of the fact that most of the time when a white person is murdered, it's by another white person.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2018, 06:01 PM   #162
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Point out for what purpose and in what context?

Data points which can be used for anti-black, racist purposes are noted all the time. There isn't any widespread denialism over race and what's called "black on black crime", for example. The only real uproar is over how "white on white crime" is ignored altogether or assumed to not exist at all, and the widespread ignorance of the fact that most of the time when a white person is murdered, it's by another white person.
Logic is often overlooked if it interferes with belief.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 07:23 AM   #163
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 11,901
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
Okay, I listened to part of the show again this a.m. (Ezra's version this time, instead of Sam's) for reasons too boring to explain. It was even more frustrating the second time around. I'm going to greatly condense and paraphrase here, so feel free to correct me if you've listened to the show yourself.

Sam's main point: Research scientists should be allowed (perhaps even encouraged) to openly speculate about the posibility that most people of color are innately and immutably intellectually inferior to people of European and/or East Asian ancestry, and poltical scientists should consider the policy consequences which ought to follow therefrom. In essence, Murray's approach is neither intellectually nor morally backrupt.

Ezra's main point: Americans have been doing this for hundreds of years (most often with the explicit backing of the scientific establishment) and it has only ever made things worse for those who experience stereotyping, stereotype threat, and various other forms of systematic deprivation relative to their fellow citizens. Sam is failing to seriously consider the possibility that he helping to steer the bus towards a local minimum on our shared sociopolitical moral landscape.

Both men talk past each other quite a bit; I never got the sense that Sam was even slightly picking up what Ezra was putting down.
__________________
“Knowledge is Power; France is Bacon.”
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 07:38 AM   #164
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
My understanding is that if neanderthals and humans hooked up and had fertile babies, it means (by nature of current taxonomy) neanderthals were human.

Am I wrong?
yes and no.
There have been many instance in which animals considered to be distinct species have produced fertile offspring. This basic definition of a species isn't really useful anymore.
In the case of humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans and others should be considered sufficiently distinct from Homo Sapiens even though they could interbreed.
Bottom line is that the "purest" Homo sapiens today are found in region of the cradle of Humanity in Africa.
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.”
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 07:52 AM   #165
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Sam's main point: Research scientists should be allowed (perhaps even encouraged) to openly speculate about the posibility that most people of color are innately and immutably intellectually inferior to people of European and/or East Asian ancestry, and poltical scientists should consider the policy consequences which ought to follow therefrom. In essence, Murray's approach is neither intellectually nor morally backrupt.
This is so utterly incorrect as a summary of what he said.

First of all, he does not "encourage" anything of the sort. He doesn't talk about "openly speculating"; he says merely that people honestly reporting the data they find should not be castigated. He definitely does NOT say "most people of colour" are innately and immutably inferior" - that is an absolute strawman. He spends much time explaining that a lower intelligence in Person A (and he uses himself as an example to illustrate) than Person B (he uses Von Neuman as an example) DOES NOT mean that Person A is an inferior person to Person B. This is spelled out so painstakingly that you cannot have missed it if you were listening properly.

And where you get the whole "policy consequences that ought to follow therefrom" is beyond me when he repeatedly points out that he proposes nothing himself, and that policy is a completely separate issue.

He believes that Murray's account of the science is broadly in line with the mainstream science. He mentions that there are scientists he knows of who believe Murray is more in line with the science that Murray's detractors and gives a couple of examples of those. The others he says don't want to speak publicly because of a kind of chilling effect that Harris thinks is caused by people who willfully misrepresent the honest reporting of data.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Ezra's main point: Americans have been doing this for hundreds of years (most often with the explicit backing of the scientific establishment) and it has only ever made things worse for those who experience stereotyping, stereotype threat, and various other forms of systematic deprivation relative to their fellow citizens. Sam is failing to seriously consider the possibility that he helping to steer the bus towards a local minimum on our shared sociopolitical moral landscape.

Both men talk past each other quite a bit; I never got the sense that Sam was even slightly picking up what Ezra was putting down.
Ezra, it seems to me, was pointing out that Sam Harris is failing to take seriously the ways in which the science has been misused, and suggests that scientific arguments about the inferiority of black people has been the main reason for discrimination (Harris disputes this and thinks that it is more the case that humans discriminate on all kinds of arbitrary differences, and that skin colour is a salient difference, and that such prejudice against different people has been bolstered more by Biblical teachings etc...).

Ezra also thinks that Sam Harris's railing against identity politics reflects an intellectual and empathic blindspot for Harris, in that he doesn't recognize the true suffering of black people, and ends up empathizing only for Murray who he recognizes as some kindred spirit, and therefore in some way identifies with.

Ezra thinks that Sam Harris is not really aware of the full body of work that Murray has written which goes beyond The Bell Curve and Coming Apart and is obsessively focused on IQ and race and how human achievements are primarily those of Europeans, that Murray actually is very influential and not silenced at all despite the one incident of no-platforming. He also argues that the type of policy recommendations Murray advocates do not seem to logically follow from an apparent concern for the well-being of the cognitively disadvantaged despite Harris's protestations otherwise, and Ezra's - I think - strongest point, is that Harris really should know that Murray cannot really believe that the policies he recommends are going to help those with lower IQs if, as Murray believes, those with lower IQs will struggle to get good work and be able to get ahead in life.

I actually think that Ezra came across well, and Sam Harris often did not. But let's at least summarize their views accurately.
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 08:02 AM   #166
nelsondogg
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 371
Sam definitely made the point that having a lower iq does not imply inferiority (using himself as an example in comparison to Von Neuman). He seemed to be oblivious to the fact that it has been used to imply that black people are inferior, along with other scientific "facts" in the past.

I think that was the main disagreement between them. Sam believes in objective scientific facts that "properly collected" would be immune to biases (I suppose he has "faith" in the scientific method) while Ezra looks at the history of how science has been used and thinks that is extremely naive.
nelsondogg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 08:09 AM   #167
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
He spends much time explaining that a lower intelligence in Person A (and he uses himself as an example to illustrate) than Person B (he uses Von Neuman as an example) DOES NOT mean that Person A is an inferior person to Person B. This is spelled out so painstakingly that you cannot have missed it if you were listening properly.
d4m10n's claim was that Sam said:

Quote:
innately and immutably intellectually inferior
You can't delete the word "intellectually" and then say "he didn't say that's an inferior person!"
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 08:19 AM   #168
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,857
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Both men talk past each other quite a bit; I never got the sense that Sam was even slightly picking up what Ezra was putting down.
Talking past each other is probably the best way to describe the whole discussion.
__________________
Wildy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 08:23 AM   #169
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 11,901
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
First of all, he does not "encourage" anything of the sort. He doesn't talk about "openly speculating"; he says merely that people honestly reporting the data they find should not be castigated.

Even if the data were gathered and analyzed in an effort to show that people of color are innately and immutably intellectually inferior to people of European and/or East Asian ancestry?


Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
And where you get the whole "policy consequences that ought to follow therefrom" is beyond me when he repeatedly points out that he proposes nothing himself, and that policy is a completely separate issue.

Firstly, policy isn't a separate (or even severable) issue, as Ezra repeatedly pointed out. Murray has a political agenda, which includes rolling back any efforts at affirmatively acting to level the playing field between racially distinct groups. His persuasive efforts are ultimately in service thereto, which is why you usually find a chapter or two of policy recommendations at the end of his books.


Secondly, Sam himself argues along Murrayian lines about policy in that bizarre analogy about Jews being underrepresented in short-distance footraces. Go back and listen to where he is going with that one.


Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
He spends much time explaining that a lower intelligence in Person A (and he uses himself as an example to illustrate) than Person B (he uses Von Neuman as an example) DOES NOT mean that Person A is an inferior person to Person B.

You are equivocating here by dropping the word "intellectually" from the phrase "intellectually inferior." I'm going to assume this was accidental rather than an example of arguing in bad faith. Of course Harris is intellectually inferior to Von Neuman, on this there is not much room for doubt.


Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
He believes that Murray's account of the science is broadly in line with the mainstream science.

Agreed, Sam definitely seems to believe this. It remains an open question as to which of Murray's specific proclamations he would care to endorse.
__________________
“Knowledge is Power; France is Bacon.”

Last edited by d4m10n; 10th April 2018 at 08:26 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 08:39 AM   #170
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Even if the data were gathered and analyzed in an effort to show that people of color are innately and immutably intellectually inferior to people of European and/or East Asian ancestry?
If the data were true data it wouldn't alter the truth of it. Remember I am talking about the mere reporting of data, not spinning it in a particular way. We can certainly criticize that, but he points out that even the Nazis doing abominable experiments in which they used live human subjects found things which turned out to be true. Such results, if correct are correct regardless of how these things were arrived at.

In other words, even under the worse possible circumstances, a True Thing is a True Thing regardless of how you want the counterfactual to be.



Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Firstly, policy isn't a separate (or even severable) issue, as Ezra repeatedly pointed out. Murray has a political agenda, which includes rolling back any efforts at affirmatively acting to level the playing field between racially distinct groups. His persuasive efforts are ultimately in service thereto, which is why you usually find a chapter or two of policy recommendations at the end of his books.
I think policy recommendations can be separate. But as I said, Ezra's strongest point is that Murray himself is not separating these things and that such a connection needs to be taken into account if one wants to know why someone has a problem with Murray. In other words, it is not so much the science but what he wants to do with it. I can get on board that part, and I think Harris may have been blindsided in a way that he doesn't appreciate.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Secondly, Sam himself argues along Murrayian lines about policy in that bizarre analogy about Jews being underrepresented in short-distance footraces. Go back and listen to where he is going with that one.
I think you will have to explain where you are going with that one. I don't see what it is.





Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
You are equivocating here by dropping the word "intellectually" from the phrase "intellectually inferior." I'm going to assume this was accidental rather than an example of arguing in bad faith. Of course Harris is intellectually inferior to Von Neuman, on this there is not much room for doubt.
Fair enough. I did miss that. Nevertheless, the point is "intellectually inferior" does NOT equal "inferior" in terms of value as a human being. And if you disagree, then Sam Harris's point about being inferior in track, or height, or any other thing also comes into it.


Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Agreed, Sam definitely seems to believe this. It remains an open question as to which of Murray's specific proclamations he would care to endorse.
Again, what Harris believes about Murray's take on the science is different from what Murray believes regarding policy issues.
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 08:43 AM   #171
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
d4m10n's claim was that Sam said:



You can't delete the word "intellectually" and then say "he didn't say that's an inferior person!"
Stephen Hawking was athletically inferior to my 99-year old grandmother.

Apparently this means I believe SH was inferior to her as a person.

And yet, my grandmother was intellectually inferior to SH.

Apparently this means I believe my grandmother was inferior to SH.

You can see how it fails, right? And please don't start with "ah, but intelligence is regarded as more important that athleticism" or some other special pleading.
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 09:55 AM   #172
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 11,901
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
If the data were true data it wouldn't alter the truth of it. Remember I am talking about the mere reporting of data, not spinning it in a particular way.
I'm not seeing any books or articles by Murray which engage in mere reporting of the data, without drawing policy conclusions therefrom. Where are you finding aggregate IQ data in such a blissfully policy-free environment? I'd be interested to read more about it.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
In other words, even under the worse possible circumstances, a True Thing is a True Thing regardless of how you want the counterfactual to be.
This is self-evidently true. What you and Sam seem to be overlooking here is that white supremacists often care about publishing truth claims as well, and they would be utterly over the moon to see the population level intelligence data come out a certain way, after effectively controlling for environmental confounders.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I think policy recommendations can be separate.
They *could* be separate but they somehow never are while reading Murray, the specific scholar whom Harris has been supporting throughout this particular kerfuffle.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I think you will have to explain where you are going with that one. I don't see what it is.
Okay, we're going to have to back up a bit. What did you take away from Sam's analogy about how Jews aren't winning sprint events at world-class track and field events these days?

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Again, what Harris believes about Murray's take on the science is different from what Murray believes regarding policy issues.
It is of course possible for someone to believe that Murray is correct when he asserts that "it will turn out that the population below the poverty line in the United States has a configuration of the relevant genetic makeup that is significantly different from the configuration of the population above the poverty line" in an article about "how the new eugenicism will play out" in the 21st century. It would be impossible to read that article without noticing that it is primarily about public policy, just as one might expect from a political scientist at a think tank.
__________________
“Knowledge is Power; France is Bacon.”
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 10:13 AM   #173
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
If the data were true data it wouldn't alter the truth of it. Remember I am talking about the mere reporting of data, not spinning it in a particular way.
Do you understand that you can collect "good" data that's rigged to show the desired result on purpose? And that even when you try really hard to NOT find something to just validate your hypothesis, it's still possible that you accidentally skewed the results by virtue of how you collected the data?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 05:39 PM   #174
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I'm not seeing any books or articles by Murray which engage in mere reporting of the data, without drawing policy conclusions therefrom. Where are you finding aggregate IQ data in such a blissfully policy-free environment? I'd be interested to read more about it.
And yet the two things are separate issues. I am not claiming Murray has not made policy issues as well.



Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
This is self-evidently true. What you and Sam seem to be overlooking here is that white supremacists often care about publishing truth claims as well, and they would be utterly over the moon to see the population level intelligence data come out a certain way, after effectively controlling for environmental confounders.
So what if they are over the Moon about it? This would not change whether something is true or not. Harris worries that we are now being told not to say X whether it is true or not, because if you say X then "white supremacists would be over the Moon about it."

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
They *could* be separate but they somehow never are while reading Murray, the specific scholar whom Harris has been supporting throughout this particular kerfuffle.
Maybe, and maybe Harris needs to take greater care not to go soft on Murray, which I think is Klein's best point.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Okay, we're going to have to back up a bit. What did you take away from Sam's analogy about how Jews aren't winning sprint events at world-class track and field events these days?
My take was that Harris is saying that a slight change in the mean average of certain genetic traits may show up in obvious ways even if you are not looking for the data. Therefore, the idea of simply trying to ignore things is not feasible. If Sam Harris wanted to play "identity politics" then he could argue that some people such as Ashkenazi Jews may feel offended at the fact that his "ethnicity" is badly represented in track running, but that such a thing would be ridiculous.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
It is of course possible for someone to believe that Murray is correct when he asserts that "it will turn out that the population below the poverty line in the United States has a configuration of the relevant genetic makeup that is significantly different from the configuration of the population above the poverty line" in an article about "how the new eugenicism will play out" in the 21st century. It would be impossible to read that article without noticing that it is primarily about public policy, just as one might expect from a political scientist at a think tank.
If the real issue is Murray's policies, then make that the issue. But pretty much all the pushback has been arguing that the science is "racialist junk science" or "pseudoscience".
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 05:40 PM   #175
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Do you understand that you can collect "good" data that's rigged to show the desired result on purpose? And that even when you try really hard to NOT find something to just validate your hypothesis, it's still possible that you accidentally skewed the results by virtue of how you collected the data?
Sorry, what? If the conclusions are lies then we only need to show it is false.
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 05:49 PM   #176
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 11,901
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
So what if they are over the Moon about it?
It would likely change their recruiting success and their electoral clout, resulting in more victories for nationalists who demonize non-white immigrants. This is a consequence which Sam has gone on the record saying he wants us to avoid.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
This would not change whether something is true or not.
If it were true, and shown to be true, then it would be an even more potent propaganda tool than it is at present.

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Harris worries that we are now being told not to say X whether it is true or not, because if you say X then "white supremacists would be over the Moon about it."
Harris need only worry about whether publishing such truths would actually move us up or down on the moral landscape.
__________________
“Knowledge is Power; France is Bacon.”

Last edited by d4m10n; 10th April 2018 at 05:52 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 06:39 PM   #177
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Sorry, what? If the conclusions are lies then we only need to show it is false.
A conclusion need not be a lie to be misleading or false.
But otherwise, yeah.

ETA: when you said "Sorry, what?" --- does that mean you're unclear on how good/solid data can be misleading either intentionally or unintentionally?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 10th April 2018 at 07:20 PM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2018, 11:45 PM   #178
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
I read the Vox transcript. It looks like Sam's in a loop, where he says he's not an IQ expert, doesn't care about any of it, he just wants to argue the data and not policy, but then when Ezra, who's comparatively an expert on it all wants to argue about data and Murray's agenda, Sam goes back to "I'm not an IQ expert", don't care, rinse and repeat.

If Sam wants to argue that Murray has been unfairly maligned, Sam needs to have some expertise on the issue, outside of "I read Murray's book and it seems legit to me!"

Sam's also almost implying there's some secret scientific consensus that agrees with Murray, because some scientists emailed Sam and expressed a private agreement with them. This is...what are we supposed to do with that claim?

Has Sam come across stuff like this?

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...e-Matrices.pdf

Quote:
This study addresses recent criticisms aimed at the interpretation of stereotype threat research and methodological weaknesses of previous studies that have examined race differences on Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM). African American and White undergraduates completed the APM under three conditions. In two threat conditions, participants received either standard APM instructions (standard threat) or were told that the APM was an IQ test (high threat). In a low threat condition, participants were told that the APM was a set of puzzles and that the researchers wanted their opinions of them. Results supported the stereotype threat interpretation of race differences in cognitive ability test scores. Although African American participants underperformed Whites under both standard and high threat instructions, they performed just as well as Whites did under low threat instructions.
He seems to be completely unwilling to consider the idea that the consensus that TBC is quackery is real, and exists for a good reason.

Sam tells Ezra at one point in the discussion:

Quote:
There are many errors of this kind that you and Nisbett and Turkheimer are making when you criticize me and Murray. You criticize Murray for errors that he didn’t make.

And in order for you to imagine that I’m equally biased, because you must imagine bias on my side, why am I getting it so wrong? Why am I looking at the same facts that Nisbett and Turkheimer and Harden are looking at and I am getting it absolutely wrong? You have to imagine that I have an equal and opposite passion, that I feel equally righteous, but it’s pointing in the opposite direction. I would have to be a grand dragon of the KKK to feel an equal and opposite bias on these data. You’ve already said you don’t think I’m a racist, but that’s what it would have to be true of me to be as biased as you are
Umm...what?

Sam's been put on the SPLC's hate list next to neonazis over this. His ego is naturally hugely threatened. His bias at this point is extraordinary.

He's not thinking clearly.

When Ezra says:
Quote:
I do want you to know, you mentioned James Flynn here. To prepare for this conversation, I called Flynn the other day. I spoke to him on Monday. His read of the evidence right now, and this is me quoting him. He says, “I think it is more probably than not that the IQ difference between black and white Americans is environmental. As a social scientist, I cannot be sure if they have a genetic advantage or disadvantage.”
...it doesn't sink in at all. They go back and forth on it and Sam, you imagine him just sort of shaking his head and going "Nu uh!"

Sam keeps trying to say he's arguing the "empirical science", but he's not. Ezra's doing more of than than Sam is.

Finally, a side note I'm going to throw in since I just ran across it: Men and women are about equal in natural mathematical aptitude:

Quote:
Reported here are results of a field experiment that tested the usefulness of the stereotype threat formulation for understanding women's performance in upper levels of college mathematics — men and women who are highly motivated and proficient mathematicians and who are in the pipeline to mathematics and science professions. Our primary hypothesis was confirmed. Test performance of women in a stereotype-nullifying presentation of the test in an experimental group was raised significantly to surpass that of the men in the course. In a control group, in which test-takers were given the test under normal test instructions, women and men performed equally.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 12th April 2018 at 11:47 PM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 05:45 AM   #179
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Finally, a side note
I'm going to throw in since I just ran across it: Men and women are about equal in natural mathematical aptitude:

Quote:
Reported here are results of a field experiment that tested the usefulness of the stereotype threat formulation for understanding women's performance in upper levels of college mathematics — men and women who are highly motivated and proficient mathematicians and who are in the pipeline to mathematics and science professions. Our primary hypothesis was confirmed. Test performance of women in a stereotype-nullifying presentation of the test in an experimental group was raised significantly to surpass that of the men in the course. In a control group, in which test-takers were given the test under normal test instructions, women and men performed equally.

Doesn’t that actually say that women are superior in mathematics? (I.e. in a stereotype nullifying test, their performance surpassed that of the men in the group)

Last edited by Giz; 13th April 2018 at 05:46 AM.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 07:38 AM   #180
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
It would likely change their recruiting success and their electoral clout, resulting in more victories for nationalists who demonize non-white immigrants. This is a consequence which Sam has gone on the record saying he wants us to avoid.



If it were true, and shown to be true, then it would be an even more potent propaganda tool than it is at present.



Harris need only worry about whether publishing such truths would actually move us up or down on the moral landscape.
Jesus! Well now you are, at least, falling into line with what Sam Harris was accusing his opponents of doing, which is to shut down speech on the grounds that they don't like it, not on the basis of what is true or not.
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 07:41 AM   #181
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
A conclusion need not be a lie to be misleading or false.
But otherwise, yeah.

ETA: when you said "Sorry, what?" --- does that mean you're unclear on how good/solid data can be misleading either intentionally or unintentionally?
"Sorry, what?" means what is your point?

Are you talking about some general principle that people can use real data for nefarious purposes? That point seems so obvious it hardly seems worth stating. The question is whether you think Sam Harris is doing that.

Otherwise your point sounds like something 9/11 Truthers say, "Do you really believe the government never tells lies?" etc...
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 07:47 AM   #182
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 11,901
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Jesus! Well now you are, at least, falling into line with what Sam Harris was accusing his opponents of doing, which is to shut down speech on the grounds that they don't like it, not on the basis of what is true or not.
Asking Harris (an avowed consequentialist) to seriously consider whether spending his reputational capital to bolster Herrnstein's racial research and Murray's policy proposals will end up driving us higher or lower on the moral landscape isn't exactly the same thing as shutting down anyone's speech. I'm surprised and disappointed that you don't seem to see the difference here. I'm also beginning to wonder whether you've read any of the relevant books.
__________________
“Knowledge is Power; France is Bacon.”

Last edited by d4m10n; 13th April 2018 at 07:49 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 07:51 AM   #183
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Asking Harris (an avowed consequentialist) to seriously consider whether spending his reputational capital to bolster Herrnstein's racial research and Murray's policy proposals will end up driving us higher or lower on the moral landscape isn't exactly the same thing as shutting down anyone's speech. I'm surprised and disappointed that you don't seem to see the difference here. I'm also beginning to wonder whether you've read any of the relevant books.
Do you now? And which of these are the relevant books that you will have read?
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 08:01 AM   #184
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
If Sam wants to argue that Murray has been unfairly maligned, Sam needs to have some expertise on the issue, outside of "I read Murray's book and it seems legit to me!"
His aim is not so much to argue the case about IQ and race. As he points out several times, his main problem is what he sees as a chilling effect on speech that no-platforming of Murray and others creates. Nevertheless, the question of whether it is defensible science is still one that he argues.

Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Sam's also almost implying there's some secret scientific consensus that agrees with Murray, because some scientists emailed Sam and expressed a private agreement with them. This is...what are we supposed to do with that claim?
Actually, he names a couple of scientists, including one who specifically argued his corner. Some of the others he says are not willing to go on record because there is a reputational cost to saying certain things even if they are true.

Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Has Sam come across stuff like this?

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...e-Matrices.pdf
I don't know. I have come across stereotype threat a couple of times. The first time was a Radiolab podcast in which the research for stereotype threat has come in for some rough treatment. Apparently it hasn't been replicated in a way that inspires much confidence. What is your point about it?



Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
He seems to be completely unwilling to consider the idea that the consensus that TBC is quackery is real, and exists for a good reason.
He's probably unwilling to consider it because it is not the consensus that it is "quackery".



Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Sam's been put on the SPLC's hate list next to neonazis over this. His ego is naturally hugely threatened. His bias at this point is extraordinary.
No wonder those scientists he talked about don't want to put their heads above the parapet.

Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
He's not thinking clearly.
I definitely think he's on tilt, but he also knows that he's got himself into some bother. That somewhat proves his initial point though, doesn't it?
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 08:47 AM   #185
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
"Sorry, what?" means what is your point?

Are you talking about some general principle that people can use real data for nefarious purposes? That point seems so obvious it hardly seems worth stating. The question is whether you think Sam Harris is doing that.

Otherwise your point sounds like something 9/11 Truthers say, "Do you really believe the government never tells lies?" etc...
It's the fact that good data can be misleading on accident that's the bigger issue.

You do know how that works, right?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 08:54 AM   #186
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
It's the fact that good data can be misleading on accident that's the bigger issue.

You do know how that works, right?
This is fascinating.
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 09:02 AM   #187
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
I say we should have a self-appointed body to vet all scientific data for its likelihood to cause offence before it's released to the public. I still can't get over that upstart Copernicus causing such offence to the Church by challenging geocentrism. He should have kept his mouth shut and everybody would be much happier.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 09:07 AM   #188
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I say we should have a self-appointed body to vet all scientific data for its likelihood to cause offence before it's released to the public. I still can't get over that upstart Copernicus causing such offence to the Church by challenging geocentrism. He should have kept his mouth shut and everybody would be much happier.
"Bourgeois pseudoscience was a term of condemnation in the Soviet Union for certain scientific disciplines that were deemed unacceptable from an ideological point of view.

At various times pronounced "bourgeois pseudosciences" were: genetics, cybernetics, sociology, semiotics, and comparative linguistics"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois_pseudoscience
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 09:09 AM   #189
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
His aim is not so much to argue the case about IQ and race. As he points out several times, his main problem is what he sees as a chilling effect on speech that no-platforming of Murray and others creates.
He can't do the latter without being able to do the former.

Quote:
Actually, he names a couple of scientists, including one who specifically argued his corner.
Quote the relevant part, or name the scientists.

Quote:
Apparently it hasn't been replicated in a way that inspires much confidence.
Link?
I did a google scholar search and didn't see it tested without the same results anywhere.

Quote:
He's probably unwilling to consider it because it is not the consensus that it is "quackery".
Yes, it is.

Quote:
No wonder those scientists he talked about don't want to put their heads above the parapet.
Yes but that's not relevant to his total lack of awareness about his own bias here. Being in denial your own bias will scramble anyone's thinking.

Quote:
I definitely think he's on tilt, but he also knows that he's got himself into some bother. That somewhat proves his initial point though, doesn't it?
At the cost of his own ability to be objective!
His main error here is that he didn't develop any expertise at all on the topic in between reading TBC and and interviewing Murray. Of course, I doubt Murray would have allowed himself to be interviewed if Sam hadn't expressed general agreement with the picture the book's chapter on race and IQ paints.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 09:12 AM   #190
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Doesn’t that actually say that women are superior in mathematics? (I.e. in a stereotype nullifying test, their performance surpassed that of the men in the group)
I was trying to be...delicate.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 09:14 AM   #191
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
"Bourgeois pseudoscience was a term of condemnation in the Soviet Union for certain scientific disciplines that were deemed unacceptable from an ideological point of view.

At various times pronounced "bourgeois pseudosciences" were: genetics, cybernetics, sociology, semiotics, and comparative linguistics"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois_pseudoscience
It can be an effective strategy and perfectly acceptable to anybody who objects to living in a free society.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 09:16 AM   #192
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Subjection to criticism is not an infringement on one's freedom of speech.

Good lord.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 09:31 AM   #193
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I was trying to be...delicate.
Of course the big question is that if the results had been reversed and men had scored better on the stereotype - neutral test, should the results have been hushed up?
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 09:32 AM   #194
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Subjection to criticism is not an infringement on one's freedom of speech.
What are you criticising?
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 09:36 AM   #195
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Of course the big question is that if the results had been reversed and men had scored better on the stereotype - neutral test, should the results have been hushed up?
Of course not. I find it likely that the sexes have tendencies towards different aptitudes.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 11:07 AM   #196
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by baron View Post
What are you criticising?
Comparing Murray's quacktacular racism to Copernicus' heliocentricism.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 13th April 2018 at 11:11 AM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 11:16 AM   #197
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 11,901
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Comparing Murray's quacktacular racism to Copernicus' heliocentricism.
It would be helpful here if you narrowed this down to a specific claim from Murray. Doesn't need to be as straightforward as "the Earth orbits the Sun," but it has to at least be properly attributed to Murray.
__________________
“Knowledge is Power; France is Bacon.”
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 11:25 AM   #198
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
It would be helpful here if you narrowed this down to a specific claim from Murray. Doesn't need to be as straightforward as "the Earth orbits the Sun," but it has to at least be properly attributed to Murray.
Here:

“The professional consensus is that the United States has experienced dysgenic pressures throughout either most of the century (the optimists) or all of the century (the pessimists). Women of all races and ethnic groups follow this pattern in similar fashion. There is some evidence that blacks and Latinos are experiencing even more severe dysgenic pressures than whites, which could lead to further divergence between whites and other groups in future generations.”

And...

“You want to have a job training program for welfare mothers? You think that’s going to cure the welfare problem? Well, when you construct that job training program and try to decide what jobs they might qualify for, you had better keep in mind that the mean IQ of welfare mothers is somewhere in the 80s, which means that you have certain limitations in what you're going to accomplish.”

His whole worldview is centered on white supremacy. If he showed any sign of incorporating new information into his worldview and disavowing his previous views, I'd be less harsh, but he's fundamentally not a scientist - he's curator of factoids that can be cherry picked and put together in service of political agendas.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 11:27 AM   #199
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Comparing Murray's quacktacular racism to Copernicus' heliocentricism.
That was after I posted. You can't criticise my post before I made it. Prior to my post, you were criticising something. What was it?
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2018, 11:33 AM   #200
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
Originally Posted by baron View Post
That was after I posted. You can't criticise my post before I made it. Prior to my post, you were criticising something. What was it?
Which post of mine before your Copernicus post are you referring to?
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:56 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.