The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Oh christ 2:18 long? Fine
I can see this thread going in the way of all the others where we throw out ad hominems in lieu of discussion.
If anyone who thinks this is wrong wants to listen to the podcast and fancies talking about it with someone who has an open mind, feel free to pm me, id be glad to have the discussion.
Good idea. These threads are 9/10ths people who won't even listen to the thing. Shit show.I can see this thread going in the way of all the others where we throw out ad hominems in lieu of discussion.
If anyone who thinks this is wrong wants to listen to the podcast and fancies talking about it with someone who has an open mind, feel free to pm me, id be glad to have the discussion.
Good idea. These threads are 9/10ths people who won't even listen to the thing. Shit show.
No. I listened to this episode. He flat out asks Murray why he even considers this worth looking into. There's nothing to gain from it.
I can see this thread going in the way of all the others where we throw out ad hominems in lieu of discussion.
If anyone who thinks this is wrong wants to listen to the podcast and fancies talking about it with someone who has an open mind, feel free to pm me, id be glad to have the discussion.
Good idea. These threads are 9/10ths people who won't even listen to the thing. Shit show.
I did. He didn't come off that good.
There's even quotes in the OP.
yeah. Dawkins, Maher and Harris especially attract special kind of folks here on GAF
Easy to spot the people who didn't bother listening to the podcast. Anyone who did come away from that discussion viewing either of them as racist is beyond help at this point.
Care to argue against the quotes?
Easy to spot the people who didn't bother listening to the podcast. Anyone who did come away from that discussion viewing either of them as racist is beyond help at this point.
Link: https://angrywhitemen.org/2017/04/2...l-curve-during-interview-with-charles-murray/
"People dont wanna hear that a persons intelligence is in large measure due to his or her genes, and there seems to be very little we can do environmentally to increase a persons intelligence even in childhood. Its not that the environment doesnt matter, but genes appear to be 50 to 80 percent of the story. People dont want to hear this. And they certainly dont want to hear that average IQ differs across races and ethnic groups."
Considering the overall patterns present in figure 5.5, two results stand out. First, while researching examining how neighborhoods affect children's outcomes has focused exclusively on the child's own environment, there is very strong evidence suggesting that the parent's childhood neighborhood, experienced a generation earlier, is at least as important to the development of cognitive skillsand in the case of applied problems assessment, the evidence suggests the parent's environment during childhood may be more important than the child's own environment. Second, the multigenerational impact of neighborhood poverty is substantial. Living in poor neighborhoods over two consecutive generations reduces children's cognitive skills by roughly eight or nine points on the standard IQ scale, or slightly more than one half of a standard deviation.
To provide some perspective on the magnitude of this estimated effect, it may help to consider some estimated effects of other factors that are thought to be related to intelligence or cognitive ability. For example, in 2007 a study was published showing that firstborn children had higher IQs than their second-born siblings. The study received an enormous amount of attention in the press and scrutiny in the academic world, as it purported to show strong evidence that firstborn children were smarter than their siblings. With all this attention, the magnitude of the estimated difference between firstborn children and their siblings was about three points on the same scale I am using for the current analysis. The cumulative impact of neighborhood poverty is three times as large as the "firstborn" effect.
Another, perhaps more relevant example, is the effect that schooling has on children's cognitive ability. After considering the literature on this subject, Christopher Winship and Sanders Korenman concluded that a year of schooling improves children's cognitive ability by somewhere between two and four points. This means that the effect of being raised in a family that lives in a poor neighborhood over two consecutive generations is roughly equivalent to missing two to four years of school.
Pretty much. It's pretty clear that when the outrage button gets pushed, many people tend to reason emotionally to the conclusion that validates their outrage. I sure know I've been guilty of it before. It's a tough impulse to stay.
TrulyI am good.
Pro tip people, you don't need a sliderule or a formula to say you hate Niggers. Just say it, be honest with yourself and everyone
Easy to spot the people who didn't bother listening to the podcast. Anyone who did come away from that discussion viewing either of them as racist is beyond help at this point.
Pretty much. It's pretty clear that when the outrage button gets pushed, many people tend to reason emotionally to the conclusion that validates their outrage. I sure know I've been guilty of it before. It's a tough impulse to stay.
Not everyone has 135 minutes to spare to listen to a defense of racial IQ comparisons. The selections from that blog seem more than enough to draw some basic conclusions.Easy to spot the people who didn't bother listening to the podcast. Anyone who did come away from that discussion viewing either of them as racist is beyond help at this point.
Three minutes in, I'd like to see all this research correlating intelligence trends and race considering that the entire idea of "genetic race" is an incredibly narrow concept barely used.
EDIT: He literally opens the interview bending over backwards to present Murray as a misunderstood victim, the fuck are you all talking about?
So he had the guy on to talk about the thing he thinks has no value in talking about?
And in the process of interviewing the guy about the thing he thinks has no value he comes to state he believes it to be true....
And then while believing the in the thing he thinks has no value he defends the guy who wrote the thing that he believes has no value by saying those who disagree with the thing that he believes has no value but is none the less true are doing so to be PC....
Which is to say Sam Harris believes in the Bell curve but thinks there's nothing to be gained in talking about and proves it by having the guy on to talk about it, give his stamp of truth to it and then accuse anyone who disagrees of being PC....
Sure
People dont want to hear this. And they certainly dont want to hear that average IQ differs across races and ethnic groups".
I just don't see Harris as a racist. I can't say I bought what Murray was selling, tho. There were some comments that made me raise my eyebrows (soemthing along the lines of environmental factors not playing as huge a role as I'd always come to think made me go wut), but I've never researched much of this. I'm just weary today, period. Not meaning to come off testy.You're free to defend it here. You know a discussion is a two way street and I see you're biggest contribution is basically "listen to it". Bring up some points, defend your views. Don't just get dismissive because people are tired of hearing once more about the bell curve. Its not new, its not special, its just ugly.
Here with go with the reflexive "He's a racist."
He could very well be wrong, but in an alternate dimension where he is stating true facts such subjects will still have this emotional outrage. The guy is not a white supremacist and no friend to Republicans, but he will support something that is *true* regardless of the controversy and sensitivity surrounding it.
Ten people outraged by these remarks will jump in with a group already outraged by previous controversial positions to create one giant group spouting hyperbole.
Here with go with the reflexive "He's a racist."
He could very well be wrong, but in an alternate dimension where he is stating true facts such subjects will still have this emotional outrage. The guy is not a white supremacist and no friend to Republicans, but he will support something that is *true* regardless of the controversy and sensitivity surrounding it.
Ten people outraged by these remarks will jump in with a group already outraged by previous controversial positions to create one giant group spouting hyperbole.
I honestly think the belief that race as a concept even exists is a massive problem.The problem with a genetic correlation of race and intelligence is not because intelligence cannot have a large genetic component, but because race does not
Here with go with the reflexive "He's a racist."
He could very well be wrong, but in an alternate dimension where he is stating true facts such subjects will still have this emotional outrage. The guy is not a white supremacist and no friend to Republicans, but he will support something that is *true* regardless of the controversy and sensitivity surrounding it.
Ten people outraged by these remarks will jump in with a group already outraged by previous controversial positions to create one giant group spouting hyperbole.
I love how he also includes the whole "Columbus sailed to the west to prove the Earth was round" BS.
So aside from complaining about the Gaf hivemind, what about responding to the quotes in the OP.
We live in this dimension
So Sam isnt racist but he subscribes to racist newsletters?
Because the Bell Curve is like the holy grail to white suprmacists trying to rationalize their hatred for minorties in an 'intellectual' manner.
Yeah I listened to the whole thing and I don't think any less of Sam. Race affects environmental factors which affect intelligence. That's the sole point which can be understood to understand why he's not fucking white washing or using this data to promote racism.
Take a fucking minute and think things through before subscribing to outrage porn
I plan on listening to the full podcast not read an article that interprets context for me. I'm just very familiar with how Harris ends up in these positions sometimes. The guy isn't malicious in the least.
The point went over your head. It doesn't matter what he said, if it challenges something sensitive there will be outrage all the way to the first reply in the thread. The guy doesn't shout from an ivory tower dictating things... he has conversations.
Right, Harris would totally have voted for Obama a third term. Stop the outrage peoples....Here with go with the reflexive "He's a racist."
He could very well be wrong, but in an alternate dimension where he is stating true facts such subjects will still have this emotional outrage. The guy is not a white supremacist and no friend to Republicans, but he will support something that is *true* regardless of the controversy and sensitivity surrounding it.
Ten people outraged by these remarks will jump in with a group already outraged by previous controversial positions to create one giant group spouting hyperbole.
I plan on listening to the full podcast not read an article that interprets context for me. I'm just very familiar with how Harris ends up in these positions sometimes. The guy isn't malicious in the least.
The point went over your head. It doesn't matter what he said, if it challenges something sensitive there will be outrage all the way to the first reply in the thread. The guy doesn't shout from an ivory tower dictating things... he has conversations.
Race isn't a fucking thing that has to do with genetics. It's a social construct. Black people don't all have the same genes, neither do whites. Certain groups of ethnicities do.
Race affects environmental factors, yes, because of racism. Why is he claiming then that "50 to 80 percent" of intelligence comes from genes?
So he had the guy on to talk about the thing he thinks has no value in talking about?
And in the process of interviewing the guy about the thing he thinks has no value he comes to state he believes it to be true....
And then while believing the in the thing he thinks has no value he defends the guy who wrote the thing that he believes has no value by saying those who disagree with the thing that he believes has no value but is none the less true are doing so to be PC....
Which is to say Sam Harris believes in the Bell curve but thinks there's nothing to be gained in talking about and proves it by having the guy on to talk about it, give his stamp of truth to it and then accuse anyone who disagrees of being PC....
Sure
Race isn't a fucking thing that has to do with genetics. It's a social construct. Black people don't all have the same genes, neither do whites. Certain groups of ethnicities do.
Race affects environmental factors, yes, because of racism. Why is he claiming then that "50 to 80 percent" of intelligence comes from genes?
They addressed this in a section in the podcast, though honestly I cant remember how they did it
Well, that part is fairly accurate. Its taken from monozygotic twin studies, where psychologists track down identical twins separated from birth and compare them. Massive studies have been made in this field, and the ones ive read usually come up with with correlations around 0.7, and ive never seen one under 0.5.
Race affects environmental factors, yes, because of racism. Why is he claiming then that "50 to 80 percent" of intelligence comes from genes?