Support NeoGAF

[DontBeThatGuy]

The first half of the podcast you really could sort of read charitably if you weren't that familiar with The Bell Curve and all the discussion around it. Like, these guys don't have any clue what they're talking about with regards to race but they don't seem malicious, just ignorant

Then Murray starts talking about affirmative action and MIT and it just goes to complete shit

That's at the point where Harris (multiple times) asks Murray why he's so interested in chasing this topic, in defending it, and someone could argue that his reasoning could in essence be construed as; affirmative action is terrible and he's doing it for their own good.

It's a lot of pretty words and research in order to prop up a pretty bog standard conservative view point.

 

[Slayven]

any particular recommendation?

 

[Sadsic]

Thanks, will listen when my next Audible credit rolls in

It's not wrong to say that race is a social construct, because it is. What's wrong is when people use that to handwave away talking about racism ("I'm colorblind, I don't even see it! It's all a social construct so what does it matter! Can't we talk about the REAL issues???")

Race isn't real biologically. It is real socially.

I agree 100%, but if you think about it, the entirety of human society is imaginary - money, countries, religion, history, etc. These concepts exist only in our heads, and cannot be reproduced outside of the imagination. What I think matters are how these imaginary stories benefit humanity - do they create or eliminate human suffering? Do they advance civilization in any particular way? So I suppose the question here to me would actually be, "Does race benefit humanity?". I do not know the answer to this question - my gut feeling is no, since divisions between people seem to cause human suffering, but I could be persuaded that human beings are somehow "better" with the concept of race if framed responsibly

Whiteness is defined by it's opposition to everything else so yeah, it would be nice if we could stop considering ourselves white. However, that's not going to happen without some sort of massive, world-historic cultural change. So we just have to use our privilege to try to undermine racism.

How can this idea even exist? I cannot actually fathom this concept - would you tell any other race to stop considering themselves their identity? How can you have a class of humans unable to acknowledge their physical selves? This is where I get really confused on this stuff

 

[Suikoguy]

It's been a horrific couple of decades for the Atheist movement. I'm not sure how it became such a perfect incubator for misogyny and racism, but that's where we are.


Burn it all down and start over.

No kidding. It's infuriating.

 

[SwolBro]

There is no genetic component to race, .

Let's just not even go there because one set of anthropologists will argue one way, the other in a different way. So, unless we are carrying Phds in a related field we're not going to get anywhere attempting to discuss something as complex as genetics.

 

[Sunster]

Thanks, will listen when my next Audible credit rolls in



I agree 100%, but if you think about it, the entirety of human society is imaginary - money, countries, religion, history, etc. These concepts exist only in our heads, and cannot be reproduced outside of the imagination. What I think matters are how these imaginary stories benefit humanity - do they create or eliminate human suffering? Do they advance civilization in any particular way? So I suppose the question here to me would actually be, "Does race benefit humanity?". I do not know the answer to this question - my gut feeling is no, since divisions between people seem to cause human suffering, but I could be persuaded that human beings are somehow "better" with the concept of race if framed responsibly



How can this idea even exist? I cannot actually fathom this concept - would you tell any other race to stop considering themselves their identity? How can you have a class of humans unable to acknowledge their physical selves? This is where I get really confused on this stuff

in a future with no racial inequality maybe?

 

[L Thammy]

Looking at the Sadsic's point above, not totally sure this follows:

I get the sense that a lot of well-meaning white people have the bad habit of making other people's race about them. As far as I've seen, nonwhites have no problem talking about their race or culture, or comparing it others. Whereas whites are more likely to become uncomfortable with the subject, like they're entering into a minefield. The perspective seems to be that race is a white problem and it's their job to solve it.

Ultimately, I think that racist ideas are out there, and we've all likely absorbed a bunch of them just as a result of having lived this long in this environment. We need to be aware of that, and do our best to quash them as we find them. Not something we need to feel particularly guilty about. But cultures existing is not a problem, and so we should be able to acknowledge when we come from difficult cultures, and be able to discuss that in a peaceful and friendly way.

 

[Lois_Lane]

Let's just not even go there because one set of anthropologists will argue one way, the other in a different way. So, unless we are carrying Phds in a related field we're not going to get anywhere attempting to discuss something as complex as genetics.

What are you even going on about? Race is a social construct. Phenotypes are genetics. This shit has been debunked so many times that I don't know why you're going to die on this hill.

 

[VenomousCoffee]

Some of the posts in this thread--esp. the first few pages--are gross.

The Bell Curve is based on two logical fallacies (given the book's subject, this would be irony). The first is that race is real, which some people in this thread have torn apart. The other is the idea that your score on an "IQ Test" measures something real in your brain. There is no evidence of this. It's called the reification fallacy.

See Stephen Jay Gould's Mismeasure of Man for more.

 

[FyreWulff]

Looking at the Sadsic's point above, not totally sure this follows:

I get the sense that a lot of well-meaning white people have the bad habit of making race about them. As far as I've seen, nonwhites have no problem talking about their race or culture, or comparing it others. Whereas whites are more likely to become uncomfortable with the subject, like they're entering into a minefield

White fragility is the recognized term for that.

http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116

 

[Sadsic]

in a future with no racial inequality maybe?

so a future with no racial inequality is a future where a white race is nonexistent? This would probably sound really threatening to most of middle america

 

[excelsiorlef]

so a future with no racial inequality is a future where a white race is nonexistent? This would probably sound really threatening to most of middle america

What

 

[IndoAssassin]

I'm brown don't think he's racist, even after listening to this episode.

 

[SwolBro]

What are you even going on about? Race is a social construct. Phenotypes are genetics. This shit has been debunked so many times that I don't know why you're going to die on this hill.

This issue was discussed in the interview.

Some of the posts in this thread--esp. the first few pages--are gross.

The Bell Curve is based on two logical fallacies (given the book's subject, this would be irony). The first is that race is real, which some people in this thread have torn apart. The other is the idea that your score on an "IQ Test" measures something real in your brain. There is no evidence of this. It's called the reification fallacy.

See Stephen Jay Gould's Mismeasure of Man for more.

Gould was discussed in the interview.

I'm not here to defend anyone. I just don't see this interview or their intentions resembling anything close to racism. That is all.

 

[wandering]

Anyone have a link to that really great post in the JonTron meltdown thread about the construct of whiteness? Seems relevant here.

See Stephen Jay Gould's Mismeasure of Man for more.

A lot of the race realist types think Gould is a politically correct hack. So much for science.

 

[Chichikov]

How can this idea even exist? I cannot actually fathom this concept - would you tell any other race to stop considering themselves their identity? How can you have a class of humans unable to acknowledge their physical selves? This is where I get really confused on this stuff

The "white race" a is relatively recent concept. Europeans did not consider themselves to be one ethnicity. This shit was mostly developed in north america in the 17th century to drive a wedge between black and white indentured servants.

There is a difference between acknowledging physical traits (which is fine) and letting stuff like skin tone define your identity (which makes as much sense as doing it by eye color).

 

[Slayven]

so a future with no racial inequality is a future where a white race is nonexistent? This would probably sound really threatening to most of middle america

Who said anything about getting rid of white people?

The "white race" a is relatively recent concept. Europeans did not consider themselves to be one ethnicity. This shit was mostly developed in north america in the 17th century to drive a wedge between black and white indentured servants.

And mallible as fuck. Look what they they did to the Irish and Italians, and soon the lighter Hispanics

 

[L Thammy]

White fragility is the recognized term for that.

http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116

Thanks, I'm not well read on this stuff. If you don't mind me asking, is this the same as "white guilt"? I thought it was, but whenever I've seen the phrase recently it seems to be swung around by alt-right types to justify why they should be more racist.

 

[unpopularblargh]

Someone on Twitter asked PZ Myers (a prominent atheist, and evolutionary biologist at University of Minnesota) if The Bell Curve was a worthwhile scientific endeavour. His response was terse if amything:

No. We don't understand "intelligence", so bumbling forward with invalid preconceptions is BAD SCIENCE.

https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/857934400973033472

 

[GameAddict411]

Scientists in the united States and Europe have tried for centuries to prove that the white man is superior intellectually, but have failed. Environmental factors and how a person is raised are a big factor I'm determining someone's congnitive abilities, but so are Gene's but they are not related to race. In fact race is just a social construct. It doesn't exists and has no bearing biologically. The only difference between a white man and other darker shades of skin is the amount of melinan in the skin.

It's insane that Harris hold these beliefs considering how science project he is. I guess he is either ignorant or he does hold prejudices against people of color. I betting on the latter.

 

[FyreWulff]

Thanks, I'm not well read on this stuff. If you don't mind me asking, is this the same as "white guilt"? I thought it was, but whenever I've seen the phrase recently it seems to be swung around by alt-right types to justify why they should be more racist.

White fragility is closer to the idea that since white persons don't have to deal with their racial identity every day like every other race does, even the slightest hint of being treated as a collective whole or on terms of your race is perceived as a large attack and the reaction is to leave the area/discussion or go on the offensive to restore the white racial status quo of the immediate situation.

 

[Sunster]

so a future with no racial inequality is a future where a white race is nonexistent? This would probably sound really threatening to most of middle america

idk I'm just your average gringo spitballing here. maybe in a future where racial inequality is non existent and whites, even middle america type whites, saw themselves as completely equal to other races, maybeeee, they wouldn't feel a need to identify as white person. just person. However, for races who have long histories of oppression because of their race. Idk if it would be so easy for them to just give up that part of their identity.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I'm brown don't think he's racist, even after listening to this episode.

Good for you

 

[L Thammy]

I agree 100%, but if you think about it, the entirety of human society is imaginary - money, countries, religion, history, etc.

I don't think these are exactly imaginary. Money is a thing that exists, you can ask me for money and I can produce it, and we'll probably both agree that it's money even if it's not used by us.

Similarly, history is basically someone transcribing things that happened. That's why we can say something is prehistoric; things happened then, but there was no one to write it down. I can produce writings of things that happened, and that's history right there.

They aren't naturally occurring, but they exist, and we just used to works to classify these things.

 

[Sadsic]

The "white race" a is relatively recent concept. Europeans did not consider themselves to be one ethnicity. This shit was mostly developed in north america in the 17th century to drive a wedge between black and white indentured servants.

There is a difference between acknowledging physical traits (which is fine) and letting stuff like skin tone define your identity (which makes as much sense as doing it by eye color).

I'm very aware, but you can't really make this concept go away by acknowledging it's imaginary origins - just like every other race

Who said anything about getting rid of white people?

Seemed like what I was replying to was implying that a future with no racial inequality is one where white people don't acknowledge the white race anymore

idk I'm just your average gringo spitballing here. maybe in a future where racial inequality is non existent and whites, even middle america type whites, saw themselves as completely equal to other races, maybeeee, they wouldn't feel a need to identify as white person. just person. However, for races who have long histories of oppression because of their race. Idk if it would be so easy for them to just give up that part of their identity.

that's the part that really confuses me, how can you get some people to say they dont have a race, and others to say "I'm ____ race and I'm proud!" - seems paradoxical

 

[SwolBro]

Someone on Twitter asked PZ Myers (a prominent atheist, and evolutionary biologist at University of Minnesota) if The Bell Curve was a worthwhile scientific endeavour. His response was terse if amything:

https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/857934400973033472

And? What exactly are people supposed to pull from this?

The co-author of the book went to Harvard and got his PhD from MIT.

 

[Dan]

I agree 100%, but if you think about it, the entirety of human society is imaginary - money, countries, religion, history, etc. These concepts exist only in our heads, and cannot be reproduced outside of the imagination. What I think matters are how these imaginary stories benefit humanity - do they create or eliminate human suffering? Do they advance civilization in any particular way? So I suppose the question here to me would actually be, "Does race benefit humanity?". I do not know the answer to this question - my gut feeling is no, since divisions between people seem to cause human suffering, but I could be persuaded that human beings are somehow "better" with the concept of race if framed responsibly

I think one of your biggest stumbling blocks here is that you keep saying things are "imaginary." They are not imaginary. Are they sometimes arbitrary and irrational? Yes. Are they socially constructed? Yes. But they are not imaginary. That seems like a problematic conceptualization that keeps leading you away from the heart of the matter.

 

[Lois_Lane]

I'm brown don't think he's racist, even after listening to this episode.

Milo, Ben Carson, Tomi Lahren, etc. If the vast majority of your x-identity hates it then maybe consider that your tooling around with those fools instead of being right.

 

[Chumley]

Someone on Twitter asked PZ Myers (a prominent atheist, and evolutionary biologist at University of Minnesota) if The Bell Curve was a worthwhile scientific endeavour. His response was terse if amything:

https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/857934400973033472

Yep, also these tweets by gregja -

I'm not a scientist but shouldn't Harris know better? What must minorities think listening to prominent atheists say this?

It boggles my mind, Muslim already thinks he's a bigot, this undermines everything he is supposedly trying to achieve.

Are exactly my opinion on it too. I've listened to Harris for a while but this stunned me, this is probably the dumbest thing he's ever done.

 

[Sunster]

I'm very aware, but you can't really make this concept go away by acknowledging it's imaginary origins - just like every other race



Seemed like what I was replying to was implying that a future with no racial inequality is one where white people don't acknowledge the white race anymore



that's the part that really confuses me, how can you get some people to say they dont have a race, and others to say "I'm ____ race and I'm proud!" - seems paradoxical

in an equal society its kinda a non issue, no? I say let's strive for equality and not worry about what people will identify as later. haha

 

[wandering]

I've listened to Harris for a while but this stunned me, this is probably the dumbest thing he's ever done.

What about trying to pick a fight with Noam Chomsky?

 

[Stinkles]

Yes we all remember how painfully politically correct America was when The Bell Curve appeared.

 

[Foffy]

Yep, also these tweets by gregja -





Are exactly my opinion on it too. I've listened to Harris for a while but this stunned me, this is probably the dumbest thing he's ever done.

His conversation with Noam Chomsky still takes the cake for me.

 

[unpopularblargh]

And? What exactly are people supposed to pull from this?

The co-author of the book went to Harvard and got his PhD from MIT.

Because it's an opposing view on The Bell Curve from someone experienced in the field and as a counterpoint to Harris and Murray.

 

[Sadsic]

I think one of your biggest stumbling blocks here is that you keep saying things are "imaginary." They are not imaginary. Are they sometimes arbitrary and irrational? Yes. Are they socially constructed? Yes. But they are not imaginary. That seems like a problematic conceptualization that keeps leading you away from the heart of the matter.

I'm generally using the term imaginary as meaning "originating from the human mind" - this could also be called "intersubjective" - I learned of this viewpoint primarily from this book:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062316095/?tag=neogaf0e-20

[/B]in an equal society its kinda a non issue, no? I say let's strive for equality and not worry about what people will identify as later. haha

Seems like a major issue right now since it's the backbone of alt-right philosophy - the whole "white genocide" thing

 

[lastflowers]

I listened to two hours and eighteen minutes of this and I am actively angry that I did. No it didn't "provide further context", it only made it worse. This was a load of bullshit and no-one else needs to listen to it

oh boy. I feel sorry for you.

I just started listening to his podcast a few weeks ago. There were a few fairly interesting episodes. This one I gave up on quite early and deleted. Not enough time in the day to entertain this bullshit for over an hour

 

[Sunster]

I'm generally using the term imaginary as meaning "originating from the human mind" - this could also be called "intersubjective" - I learned of this viewpoint primarily from this book:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062316095/?tag=neogaf0e-20



Seems like a major issue right now since it's the backbone of alt-right philosophy - the whole "white genocide" thing

yea right now. In an equal society not so much. There would be no white nationalists in such a world.

 

[L Thammy]

that's the part that really confuses me, how can you get some people to say they dont have a race, and others to say "I'm ____ race and I'm proud!" - seems paradoxical

Race is an attempt to turn political lines and culture into biological or genetic thing, which it isn't. That doesn't mean you don't come from a culture and weren't born within the lines of a political entity.

 

[Slayven]

And? What exactly are people supposed to pull from this?

The co-author of the book went to Harvard and got his PhD from MIT.

And Ben Carson is a brain surgeon

 

[Chumley]

His conversation with Noam Chomsky still takes the cake for me.

Never saw that, I'll have to check it out.

 

[Foffy]

Never saw that, I'll have to check it out.

I believe we had a GAF thread at the time, and it was pretty hilarious, actually.

I think everyone gave Sam shit because he was, quite literally, out of his league with the "debate".

 

[Dead Man]

As a neuroscientist any pop depictions of intelligence are cringe inducing because it's basically all conjecture. Intelligence is such a vague concept scientifically speaking.

One thing of note is that chronic stress and discrimination like say from racism and poverty will do damage to your brain much like solitary confinement. There's really no way to unconfound IQ tests from these effects and it's highly unlikely that there are significant differences between the vast majority of ethnic groups with ashkenazi Jews as a big exception due to the founder effect which comes with fun stuff like tay Sachs.

Not a neuroscientist but studied enough intelligence rubbish at uni to appreciate this post.

 

[SwolBro]

Because it's an opposing view on The Bell Curve from someone experienced in the field and as a counterpoint to Harris and Murray.

Harris's whole point for the interview was to push back against simply labeling everything "racism" and the concept of identity politics that is without a doubt pervasive around the world today.

He opens up the podcast with talking about how he, without ever reading the book, refused to contribute to something that Murray was also involved in. He feared the association. And that's the whole point here. The book could be wrong, but that doesn't mean the authors or the work had racist intent.

It's also interesting to note that the final half of the podcast is Murray talking about what is happening to middle america, how the 'cognitive elite' is widening the gap with everyone, and how he wants to see universal income be a thing. So much for a racist.

 

[The Technomancer]

Harris's whole point for the interview was to push back against simply labeling everything "racism" and the concept of identity politics that is without a doubt pervasive around the world today.

He opens up the podcast with talking about how he, without ever reading the book, refused to contribute to something that Murray was also involved in. He feared the association. And that's the whole point here. The book could be wrong, but that doesn't mean the authors or the work had racist intent.

It's also interesting to note that the final half of the podcast is Murray talking about what is happening to middle america, how the 'cognitive elite' is widening the gap with everyone, and how he wants to see universal income be a thing. So much for a racist.

...none of those things are incompatible with racism.

 

[sphagnum]

How can this idea even exist? I cannot actually fathom this concept - would you tell any other race to stop considering themselves their identity? How can you have a class of humans unable to acknowledge their physical selves? This is where I get really confused on this stuff

It can exist and in fact used to. The Romans, Greeks, Celts, and Germans never saw themselves as members of a white race. The idea didn't exist. It only came into existence to contrast with the negative Other in the early modern, perhaps late medieval period.

You wouldn't want to tell another group that their identity doesn't exist because their identity has been created usually either by being foisted upon them by whites or as a solidarity mechanism: in either case, not as a construct to oppress others. But let's say the world was in reverse and Asians had conquered it instead of Europeans. Previously Asians hadn't seen each other as the same but they come to adopt an Asian racial superiority mentality in that universe because it contrasts their ruling status to lowly black and white slaves or whatever. In that case, whiteness would be a relative positive and it would also be a positive to deconstruct Asian identity.

 

[L Thammy]

The book could be wrong, but that doesn't mean the authors or the work had racist intent.

Racism isn't racial hatred. Your intent doesn't matter.

 

[unpopularblargh]

Harris's whole point for the interview was to push back against simply labeling everything "racism" and the concept of identity politics that is without a doubt pervasive around the world today.

He opens up the podcast with talking about how he, without ever reading the book, refused to contribute to something that Murray was also involved in. He feared the association. And that's the whole point here. The book could be wrong, but that doesn't mean the authors or the work had racist intent.

It's also interesting to note that the final half of the podcast is Murray talking about what is happening to middle america, how the 'cognitive elite' is widening the gap with everyone, and how he wants to see universal income be a thing. So much for a racist.

Okay and?

How does any of this negate my reason for posting PZ Myers comment as a counterpoint?

Also you don't need intent to be racist. As Jawbreaker posted earlier in the thread, from Scientific American:

“The Bell Curve” endorses prejudice by virtue of what it does not say. Nowhere does the book address why it investigates racial differences in IQ. By never spelling out a reason for reporting on these differences in the first place, the authors transmit an unspoken yet unequivocal conclusion: Race is a helpful indicator as to whether a person is likely to hold certain capabilities. Even if we assume the presented data trends are sound, the book leaves the reader on his or her own to deduce how to best put these insights to use. The net effect is to tacitly condone the prejudgment of individuals based on race.

This isn't the "PC police" talking. Although prejudice breaks taboos, stomps on eggshells, and hurts people's feelings with unfairness, that's just the beginning. Its full damage reaches much more dire extremes. Personhood and individuality are sacred. Judging by way of category is the epitome of dehumanizing. It curtails the individual's opportunities and livelihood, and contributes to what is often a self-fulfilling, systematic cycle of disadvantage for an entire group. It also curtails the prejudger's potential to wholly evaluate a person as an individual by his or her prior behavior, choices, and character. This is why the term "civil rights" has a nice ring to it and "bigotry" does not.

 

[Foffy]

Harris's whole point for the interview was to push back against simply labeling everything "racism" and the concept of identity politics that is without a doubt pervasive around the world today.

He opens up the podcast with talking about how he, without ever reading the book, refused to contribute to something that Murray was also involved in. He feared the association. And that's the whole point here. The book could be wrong, but that doesn't mean the authors or the work had racist intent.

It's also interesting to note that the final half of the podcast is Murray talking about what is happening to middle america, how the 'cognitive elite' is widening the gap with everyone, and how he wants to see universal income be a thing. So much for a racist.

Doesn't Murray's UBI model include the need for HSAs for health care?

I've always hated that idea. Scott Santens and Guy Standing have better models.

 

[L Thammy]

...none of those things are incompatible with racism.

Maybe if "racism" means "conservative"?

 

[Slayven]

Maybe if "racism" means "conservative"?

Have you seen conservatism lately?