Waking Up With Sam Harris #73 - Forbidden Knowledge with Charles Murray
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- Waking Up With Sam Harris #73 - Forbidden Knowledge with Charles Murray
LIKE==========SHARE===========COMMENT
Join Us Now: / @wakingupwithsamharris...
Listening to this podcast really makes me wonder if Ezra Klein actually listened to this episode or read The Bell Curve.
Ezra most likely listenes to it, & was very annoyed that Charles was allowed to be humanized. Ezra is not a good actor, he has no interest in a good faith argument.
Klein is a reactive ideologue
@@JustT725 Why do you need to make a personal attack of Ezra Klein? Shows your intellectual dishonesty
@@freshham7399 ditto as what i said to Zen Conservative
@@deirdredowling8747 you will have to make a very strong argument to defend Klein. And for those of us who disagree with him, your effort would still be pointless.
This is an example of what makes Sam Harris so amazing. He can cut through his own biases in an effort to find the truth!
you mean amazingly stupid , right ?
Sam Harris doesn’t even believe there’s a Sam Harris haha
That’s nice for him that his fans are dupes, but the difference between him and white nationalists is at least they know when they are promoting the Bell Curve it’s in the service of promoting a racist worldview.
Sam’s confused on this point which is hilarious. He finds a cross burning eugenicist’s work is the bees knees of science and doesn’t get the eugenicist needs white men like him to propagate the work because no one else will. No one else takes Murray’s racist nonsense seriously. It’s the Sam’s of the world Murray is looking for because they have absolutely no clue what their actual motivations are.😂😢😂😢
Hopefully Sam can gain that ability back....
1.5 speed for the win. Trust me.
You are everything wrong with the world.
Chipmunk Speed(TM).
All I can think of is Batman when I hear this guys voice! haha....
@Accelerationist Yeah, Adam West Batman.
I may be late, but mad respect to you both for doing what you've done and saying what you've said.
This isn't a real Sam harris channel. Also he doesn't monitor youtube comments, only twitter.
@@OhManTFEhe deleted his Twitter account. I have never seen him respond to Instagram comments, either.
We need this Sam Harris back. Brave. He followed the truth, no matter where it may lead. Even of its an uncomfortable truth for all.
I have four college degrees: two associates', one is lib arts w a concentration in psych (I was a psych major), the other in substance use disorder counseling. My bachelors is in science, Human Development w an emphasis in Epistemology. My grad degree is masters in social work. I'm also licensed as a sub use dis counselor an social work (LMSW). I'm currently working on my clinical which will be my final credential in behavioral health.
My point in listing these programs is to illustrate the about of time I spent in humanities programs in higher education. A decade in total, with 6 semesters (or 3 yrs) of interning. The Bell Curve was brought up in at least 5 of my classes and the instructors emphasized the evil of this book. As Sam once said, I heard it so often that I didnt even bother to read it, because I assumed it was a racially biased book that was structured on untruthful research.
Eventually, I began to see that some of my professors and instructors were absurdly left wing. Obviously, I knew they were liberals, but the amount of 3rd wave feminists and hardcore PC-SJWs conducting class were absolutely brainwashed. They were not bad people, just lost in their deep critical race theory trance. I learned how to learn productively, by listening to some folks in the IDW, which brought me to other scholars.
I have come to realize there are very, very few real atheists out there. I live in Utah (Mormon Land, Zion), and a little while ago I joined a Utah Atheists Facebook group, hoping to meet some kindred spirits. Everyone on there was every bit as fanatical and brainwashed into Woken-ism, SJW-ism, whatever you want to call it, as many Mormons are into their cult.
I considered myself a content liberal until Donald Trump drove the world insane, so I have been shocked to watch the whole country divide itself into two competing political cults (Trumpism and Woke-ism), or two different roads to hell, as Sam calls them. Even if someone has nothing but contempt for the traditional religions, their ingrained herd mentality manifests some other way. As Sam also has said, there are apparently only a few (literally, by my count about three) people left in the world who truly think independently, and are currently willing to criticize both political cults. Universities--faculty and students--are ironically the worst of all! I really would hate to be up there now; it was bad enough when I attended ten years ago, and it has got to be like Jonestown now.
Hmm not a mention on how the book is deeply flawed?
@@ashwinramaswamy4059 Hmm. Not sure what to make of your comment, but if you’re suggesting the book is deeply flawed, there’s still no mention of how the book is deeply flawed. And that can’t happen until the.folks who think so actually TALK in some rational way to Murray and those who hold that the research is solid. Painting Murray as.a Nazi, while effective for its purpose, says nothing about how the book is deeply flawed.
@@frankweber7946 Not sure if you've ever actively tried dissuading people from really flawed beliefs such as QAnon, Flat Earth, or other such terrible ideas, but logic does not work when bad ideas gain traction in the garb of "science and free speech".
Nazi ideas and eugenic-related bs are shunned for a reason - they have been repeatedly debunked, go against the status quo of more than a hundred years of behavioral research, and are extremely dangerous. It's not like these are particularly new or radical ideas - it's just that science is hard and messy, and bad ideas can stick around for years before getting debunked.
The flaw with the arguments is very straightforward and simple - we have no proper definition, let alone an accurate readout, of "innate intelligence". IQ is a horrible measure to be basing an argument with such extraordinary claims. IQ tests were developed in a very specific context with english-speaking relatively affluent predominantly caucasian subjects, among many other issues. One does not take such metrics too seriously as to split hairs over tiny differences in mean IQ and infer genetic influence of race.
For someone to be talking about the difference in mean observed IQ between blacks and whites in America without even mentioning the huge elephant in the room, ie slavery and its catastrophic effects on future generations, makes them ignorant and stupid, there's really no two ways about it
@@puremercury lol Im certain you have absolutely no research experience and treat a non scholarly work like this book as gospel
Charles Murray says that when he went to Harvard if he saw a black man at the student union he knew that person was smarter than him because of the difficulty a black man had back then. In other words a black man who was equally as talented a Charles Murray was couldnt get in. This means that because Murray was white he recieved a de facto affirmative action admission because he was white. Then he says that if he went to school today he would hate people to think he got in because he was black. I n other words affirmative action was great when he benefitted but bad now that someone else gets help
It was not affirmative action lol. There was anti black racism.
@@drugvash4899 It was anti black racism but its effect was a de facto affirmative action favoring whites. Whatever you call it he benefited from the universities policies that gave him an advantage based on his race.
after listening to this properly its clear to me that theres nothing morally wrong with Murray and everything morally wrong with the "crowd" today, the political world and our culture in general. it is those who would silence and be violent to intelligent careful conversation like this, that i think we should silence.
Seemingly intelligent conversation can be filled with fallacies, myths and dogmas and if you don't have any training or understanding of what they are saying, you won't be able to recognize it.
All you end-up being is a savant seal clapping away. You clap away because it falls into your own prejudice.
They've made some egregious misrepresentation, especially when talking about mendellian inheritance scores.
They didn't tell you what it really means. What other fields think of the numbers, their relevance or lack thereof.
It's incredibly dishonest and you won't know this because you haven't spent actual time on the related subjects.
That was a great interview, as well as my introduction to Charles Murray. Thank you both.
This is interesting. About 30 mins in.
The way groups are described throughout the podcast differs somewhat - sometimes using nationality and then sometimes saying “asian” or “white” or “black” which don’t sound as specific to me. I wonder how many of these people are immigrants, and whether career and education screening when trying to enter America created a group of people who are yes, above average IQ, but perhaps because the average and below average people in their home country were left behind
You have a point that's already been made by Thomas Sowell. Immigrants are always spoke about in the abstract. But if your investigate further. You find that they come from a certain region of those countries, at a certain time, with different beliefs
Code of the man my butt, Charles Murray burned a cross in town when he was young. That’s the real code of this man.
I would be the first in line to purchase The Harry Potter Audiobook Series read by Sam Harris.
That was my reaction too. The fact that a Harry Potter audio book read by Sam Harris went unrecorded and is now forever lost to the ether is a kind of tragedy.
@@PokeRapper5000 ol
Fascinating interview, and kudos to Sam for looking at an extremely controversial book, and judging objectively and for himself whether it is legitimate scholarship. If it wasn't for brave people like him, I would be going around with many misconceptions, even hatreds of individual authors and scholars, bouncing around my mind.
A thought occurred to me: The potential usefulness of a study seems to me to be irrelevant, at least with regard to whether it is ethical to conduct it or not. I do not think anything should be prevented from being known. Even if there is no practical application of the findings of a study, I do not think any topics should be banned from being investigated, even explosively controversial ones. If someone approaches a topic in a completely unbiased, professional and honest way, I think it is ethical to find out anything about it. The question of whether there is any knowledge, so taboo that it should not be allowed to be investigated, came up in another of Sam's conversations. My opinion is definitely, "no."
It is a funny thought experiment, to imagine what would have been the reaction of the intellectuals who now hate Murray, had the results of the race component of his study skewed the opposite direction. Which they for no reason might not have, given that Murray's scholarship was honest.
This conversation would not alter any sane person's respect for all people, one little bit! The current political climate makes everyone terrified to talk about practically anything that is not just mindless repetition of the dogma of their tribes. If we all just encounter and understand each other as individuals, like Harris and Murray say here, we will all be all right.
if you're watching Sam Harris you probably value intelligence alot right. if intelligence is accurately measured by IQ then IQ obviously is important. Murray himself says that there is an intellectual elite that controls eveything. If intelligence didnt matter know one would even care about this book and it would not have been written. HIs research just happened to be funded by a group found by a Nazi eugenicist,
Claiming that the difference is neligibile is not going to be enough to stop the evil that will inevitably come from accepting what is claimed here. Murray himself makes harmful policy recommendations from data including elimination of the welfare state. He claims multiple times in this talk that the difference in racial iq is probably greater but cannot be proved yet.
@@thisaccountkillsfascists3802 I don't know that different peoples can live in peace and harmony while accepting that they're unequal. I'm not convinced that it's desirable either - might it not be better for them to live apart, so that each can have policies adapted to their needs, and interact and compete in an environment of their peers?
But what I'm fudging _positive_ about is that lying about equality is leading to the opposite of peace and harmony. It draws on the worst aspects of human nature - avarice, tribalism, opportunism. And the epistemic damage from the central lie about human nature spills over into most areas of life, frustrates almost everything we want to accomplish.
No thanks lol I’ve read the bell curve it’s every bit as racist as Murray’s detractors think it is
I'm not sure if we can talk about real difference using only the SD. Is there any t-test or any other test done to compare the means between groups?
Why would SD not be sufficient
I'm confused by the shared environment v non-shared environment @ 39:48.. So, the shared environment has very little impact, but then @ 44:54, malnourishment causes stunted growth? But isn't food provided by the parents in the shared environment? Is that NOT parenting? Also, what is the impact from psychologically abusive parents who pick a golden child and a scapegoat? Isn't that a wildly different shared environment that leads to wildly different personality traits? It could be that the interaction between the genetic personality and the parents personality is different between non-identical twins and so changes the shared environment directly for each individual (as opposed to the genetic personality wholly determining personality)? And what about epigenetics? And the microbiome?
Don't be confused. Look into WHY Charles Murray got criticized. His research is trash, it references people like Richard Lynn (look him up too lmao that guy is WILD)
The "height" example was just used to highlight that some things which are mostly genetic (up to 80%, according to Sam), can still be influenced by environment (malnourishment). I dont think the shared v non-shared environment was relevant, just that some things that are assumed to be entirely genetic aren't.
I've heard critiques of this podcast that are centered around the answers Murray gave in response to "why study all of this?". He gave good enough answers for me, but let me give you the "real" answer. The importance of establishing mean differences in IQ (and other variables) if there is in fact one is centered around the idea of correcting what we consider a success or failure in all of these efforts we go through to remedy for slavery and past institutional racism. Many people think that the fact that black people are poorer, less educated, etc. is because of past racism. Past racism is certainly on the table as a portion of the explanation, but if it's well established that there's a residual difference in IQ between whites and blacks, then we should not expect blacks to earn as much as whites before we are comfortable that we have gotten rid of all racism. That's the whole point. We can make sure there is no racism on an individual or institutional level, and with an established mean IQ difference, it makes perfect sense that there will be outcome differences. This is why you study it. It has everything to do with affirmative action.
So if I understand you we should study racial differences in iq as a way to measure our progress on eliminating systemic racism? If that's what you are saying it makes a lot of sense. There are some caveats but that sounds like the best reason I have actually heard for measuring iq.
@1:33:27 I also hold the plebs in disdain, and I'm one of them!
These two Muppets are such plebs.
17:15. IQ and outcomes.
I worked for a psychometric testing company, and we knew we could not use a G assessment alone because they would always be biased against certain ethnic groups and we couldn’t allow that. So they had to be packaged with other assessments known to counterbalance that bias. Very interesting.
Wow, none of the dudes ever heard of the central limit theorem (or understand what it implies about the causes of a normally distributed measure).
That a sum of many random variables is distributed normally by the CLT, does not imply that every normally distributed variable is a sum of many random causes.
Half way through and curious why the Terman Study of Genius was never brought up. That's a good counterargument on how IQ and success aren't correlated as strongly as Murray is suggesting.
The Terman study showed that participants with higher IQ tended to be more successful in adulthood. Several studies since then (such as a study on mathematically precocious youth) have shown the same.
@@BUSeixas11 "However, the majority of study participants' lives were more mundane. By the 4th volume of Genetic Studies of Genius, Terman had noted that as adults, his subjects pursued common occupations "as humble as those of policeman, seaman, typist and filing clerk"[29] and concluded:
At any rate, we have seen that intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated.[30]"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Studies_of_Genius
@@ttimothytran They're not perfectly correlated, just highly correlated. I don't think any serious person would argue that they are perfectly correlated.
@@bradfordlangston836
Statement A: Almost all terrorists are Muslims.
Statement B: Almost all Muslims are terrorists.
There's a giant difference between the two statements.
You can argue that most success people are intelligent. However, you cannot argue that most intelligent people are successful. It would be conflating what is essential for what is sufficient. Intelligence is essential, but intelligence alone is not sufficient.
If everyone learned this stuff, there would be a lot less hate in the world.
Except that Charles Murray has no clue what he's talking about
@@gigameter Go on... You say Charles Murray doesn't know what he's talking about. Concerning what? His work is solid. It speaks for itself. Maybe you don't know what you're talking about...
Parker Tufts His argument is essentially that since Jim Crowe ended in the sixties, IQ differences between blacks and whites can only be explained by genetics. He’s a fucking social Darwinist.
@@gigameter He explains clearly that IQ is a result of many factors including everything from environment to nutrition to genetics.
Go ahead and keep telling lies though.
Parker Tufts He fails to explain that IQ is meaningless and that there is no evidence whatsoever for a genetic component between different racial groups that leads to differences in IQ scores.
37:40
What does he mean by "Reinforce the genetic material" ?
Can someone explain
e.g. the child's positive environmental stimuli can help to bolster his IQ--much of which was naturally attained genetically.
......using Nurture....nurturing a child...treating them well, love, nutrition etc etc. This boosts brain development and potentially makes them smarter than they would have been with the original natural’ brain they were born with. A car engine is built to provide a certain amount of power....if you ‘nurture’ the engine, that is look after it, use quality oil and fuel and so on it will perform better than the manufacturer’s original.
@@joeroganjosh9333 An important caveat is that, in the normal range of environments, none of those nurture effects persist into adulthood.
@@OptimalOwl
I wonder where you got that, as the opposite effects are stress and anxiety and are well known to be detrimental. It also contradicts work by Marian Diamond and others who have followed in her footsteps.
@@GeneTakovic225
Not familiar with Marian Diamond specifically, but there's an awful lot of cart-before-horsing on this sort of stuff in general.
Effects of nurture and effects of nature correlate a lot in the general population, because your environment is mostly created by people who share your genes (i.e. your parents in childhood & yourself in adulthood.) So you need to use clever experimental designs, like twin- and adoption studies, sibling fixed effects analysis, longitudinal intrafamilial study designs, genome-wide association studies etc to separate the effects of nature and nurture. Just going "the people who had more A also ended up doing/being more B" doesn't cut it.
ski masks..... white sheets....
It would be interesting to see if Eminem or China Mac have the highest IQ's amongst the top rappers and if Tiger Woods is the dumbest golfer. Although, Tiger is half Asian so in theory that might bump him up to the middle of the pack.
I agree with a lot of what Murray says, but I think I have a problem with his stance on UBI. I'm a populist conservative (just to give some insight on what point of view this is coming from). He makes good points on why something akin to UBI might be good, but I don't think he has addressed the real criticisms of UBI. Mine being this, If we start giving everyone money every month, the big corporations and the more economic libertarian types will start asking this question "Why do we have minimum wage?" My point is, UBI could introduce the new problem of wages getting dropped to literally 0$ because people get UBI every month. So, why should I as an employer pay these people anymore than 0$? Of course, this would be disastrous. I think a form of UBI could work, but I also think Murray needs to elaborate on how the system would be regulated so the things that I talked about don't happen. Maybe I need to read his book on UBI. And if he did this in his book, awesome I would agree.
The main reason he advocates for this is the decreasing job market. Which is a problem that needs to be addressed immediately. What I have to say to that is, why should we let the job market get to that point in the first place? The other reason it's happening besides A.I. is how many jobs American companies outsource to foreign countries like China. And the billions of dollars we dump into foreign countries like china, all of the countries in Nato, the Scandinavian countries, and Israel. If we were to adopt a more economic nationalist way of economics, (I.e. no outsourcing to other countries, and reallocating all of our foreign aid money back into the U.S. in some way) we can fix the job market problem. And regarding A.I., when did we lose control? we are in control of the A.I., not the other way around. I would rather stunt the progress in artificial intelligence then have to send 10 million people into the unemployment line every year. And i think most people can agree with that.
@Yankie Doodle "why should I as an employer pay these people anymore than 0$" Because if people have UBI they'll quit a shitty job that doesn't pay anything.
I recommend a couple things, first listen to Rutger Bregman's 2014 TED talk on UBI, and also read his book Utopia for Realists. Might seem radical but honestly he has some solid data behind his claims. Also, Nixon would have implemented a UBI backed by Congress which would have effectively won out the war on poverty that LBJ started. He has the nation's economists behind him who had conducted several large scale experiments in Denver, Seattle, New Jersey, Indiana, North Carolina, and other states. Their findings were consistent with other experiments in Canada, the UK, and elsewhere. People did not work less in a statistically significant manner, and in time spent not working, time was much more productive. Graduation rates rose 30% in New Jersey alone. But his crackpot advisor Martin Anderson (who believed in the false ideology of Ayn Rand) changed his mind using a stereotyped and debunked experiment in 1795 England that stemmed from Thomas Malthus' bullshit population explosion and lazy poor theories.
Interesting
Prices (including those of labor) aren't just arbitrary numbers put on things by people, and really don't have anything to do with greed. I didn't understand this either until recently, but then I heard this audiobook.
czcams.com/video/dQiBD-crrvA/video.html
Cry baby 😭
I don't know how the average Joe can deal with this knowledge tho, maybe that's why progressives are so agitated by these things being shown to the public... I don't want to give so much credit to the average Joe when the stakes are so high. I wish we had more conversations about how physical punishment decreases iq and how essential parenting is.
So the philosopher kings should decide what is best?
@Not My last name
Now, I'm sure you can think of a more constructive response than that. Come on, bring forth your complaint
@Reluctant Human
What value has liberty when it is owned by other men.
@Reluctant Human
You prove way too much!
Using your rule, you couldn't know that buying lottery tickets is a bad idea. "I read up on your lottery, and only 1 in 10'000 of the tickets is a winner. But, that says nothing about _this_ ticket, or _that_ ticket, or the one over there... I'll take them all, please!"
You couldn't prefer hiring PhDs to hiring high school graduates. "PhD-holders are _generally_ smarter and more conscientious than high school dropouts, but you can't know for sure."
Whatever metrics you hold up as good aren't absolute either. Grades can be easier or harder to get, people with identical criminal records vary in how many crimes they commit later on, and people with a given IQ or SAT score exhibit a range of different behavioural outcomes.
It's all the same operation of probabilistic inference. It's all Bayes, all the way down.
Or maybe it has to do with the lack of valid foundation, like the fact that it is based one some of the most flawed studies out there. He uses a study where an IQ test was tested on white South Africans and then black South Africans.
The only thing this study showed was that it is way easier to do an IQ study in English if you can actually speak English. Yeah, they where giving an IQ test to black South African children who didn't speak English as their main language.
This was claimed to be the best evidence for this racist BS.
The problem is that the worst types of plebs, the ones who are deep in to the Dunning Kruger shit hole like Sam Harris, have a problem with critical thinking.
Sam Harris is a twat at best. Most of his ideas are short sighted or simply just wrong.
He even says that there is evidence of the validity of testing for IQ when IQ is a pretty shitty measurement of anything to begin with. It is a measurement of something that there is no agreed up on definition of. It is adapted to the bell curve for no reason but pure assumptions.
Even if there is a meaningful IQ score that we can develop we have no basis for how such score should be distributed. We completely lack fundamental information about it.
No serious psychiatrist deals with IQ scores. It gives very little information about the person and serves no purpose in psychoanalytics.
Sam Harris is a pseudointellectual sham.
Another problem with the bell curve is that it has no models. It just looks at some shitty studies and says "look, race defines IQ durr".
Science is not as simple as claiming that there is a genetic relation. You have to come up with a model that describes the relations between genetics and intelligence.
Sam Harris' and his idiot of a friend's argument is as good as "look my friend survived this accident, this shows how god protected him".
Genetics to these nuts are just as well defined and illusive as ghosts. It is simply a buzzword for fools.
The point of having a model is so that there are ways to disprove it if it is wrong.
Sam Harris' is not a racist, just a fool. He think it makes him smart and a critical thinker for believing in controversial ideas.
He just want to be that edgy person that can tell him self that he is more woke because he doesn't fear stuff like this. Like just look at the name of this series, it is embarrassing how highly he think of him self.
The guy who came up with all this nonsens is a racist though. He was asked about what he thinks of the fact that his best evidence is complete garbage and doesn't say what he claim it to say. He then answered that evidence would pop up eventually. That is the level of critical thinking we are dealing with here. He can't imagine him self being wrong because it was never about science to begin with.
This stuff is not even wrong, since for it to be wrong there have to be actual science behind it.
2:00:27 HAHA!
gameboy :p
Dam vidya
The cultural influence is immeasurable as it can't be fully understood by the scholars that cannot fully understand the culture they are studying.
@Reluctant Human
Apparently not, since the bell curve sites a study that compares white- and black South African children's result on an IQ test. The IQ test was in the native language of the white children: English. The black children did not speak English as their native language.
Yeah it appears to be extremely hard to surpass cultural barriers for some. Like the idiot who hade a problem understanding that it is harder to do an IQ test in a different language than your native one.
That is suppose to be the best evidence in the entire bell curve book according to the author.
You are following a bunch of idiots. Don't be a sheep.
@@MegaBanne This is an inaccurate representation of both The Bell Curve.
In any event East Asians whose first language is not English significantly out perform people whose native language is English on IQ tests administered in English.
This is dismal only because people tend to mistake “economic value” as the only value a human life has. Think of all the amazing art several different races produce. Blacks’ contributions to culture (jazz, hip hop, freestyle, dance, sports) are so valuable and so disproportionately created by blacks.
Clayton Bigsby first, great CZcams handle, and second, I agree. I’d also like to add in reply to @Den Henson, a lower IQ and intelligence doesn’t mean that these other groups don’t add value to a community,,,, the problem is that a lesser IQ and intelligence level rears it’s ugly head when under pressure to advance themselves (or at least not regress). A human of lower intelligence gets along fine when the world around them is copacetic and easy, but will act out violently when frustrated with an issue because they struggle to find a solution. People of lesser intelligence and/or those that find the idea of it abhorrent or are guilt ridden by the truth of it will also tear down anyone who tries to shed light on the subject, even if their intentions are to take steps to improve the situation. So now instead of being able to identify a problem so that it can be fixed, everyone wants to stick their fingers in their ears, scream “la la la la la” and kick and stomp their feet until the mean person stops talking about it.
@@babaika802 @Clayton Bigsby I''m not sure if I was being clear with the intent of my original comment. So just to clear things up I think this interview was on point and Murray and Harris were extremely unfairly attacked and mislabeled. I understand that IQ is an extremely good predictor of success. Because it is, and because the dismal, but true, nature of genetics being a determining factor for IQ, I can understand the why people want to invalidate the thesis of The Bell Curve. That is not something I am trying to do.
What I'm trying to point out is IQ is a predictor of a specific range of intellectual ability, much of which is highly valued in the market place. But there is no correlation between IQ and how much value a person adds to my personal life, at least as far as I can see. I have some really dumb friends that make great music, are super funny, super sweet, and are a pleasure to be around. In many cases I think most people could care less what their favorite musicians' or comedian's IQ is, no one cares that David Goggins has a low IQ, and I doubt how they scored on an IQ test is relevant to their success
Nothing I say here is meant to invalidate the value or predictive ability of IQ (never mind that EQ is arguably a much better predictor, though it is difficult to quantify). It's more of a message to the kind of person who would feel offended or belittled by this most dismal data and analysis. They feel this way because they perceive, one way or another, that they are being told they have less value than someone with a high IQ, and what I'm trying to say is that's not the case.
I found it dismal that I dont have the genetics to play in the NBA, but I also realize that the ability to play in the NBA is not the only thing that can validate me as a human being. IQ should be looked at in a similar way
@Clayton Bigsby I respond to this in a comment to Baba below.
Den Henson - I agree with your clarification of your original comment. And will also say that IQ does not definitively measure ones success or personal happiness. As you stated, there are many people of many different backgrounds that find their way to live a productive life through the arts. Albeit, with my own lack of understanding, I do not believe an IQ test can determine someone’s level of creativity or measure natural talent. I think creativity or raw genetic talent for activities like sports,,, comedy, music, are separate from what an IQ test measures.
So can you have a lower IQ but be talented, gifted physically, or creative? I’m assuming yes. But as you pointed out, not everyone is equally gifted the genetics to be fast, tall or creative.
So, there will inevitably be more of those with an IQ below the threshold that allows one to analyze problems and find solutions AND also have a general lack of physical talent or creativity.
We could argue the true worth (to the progression or human success of the country) of things like professional sports or musical talent. To many they provide a great deal of entertainment and distraction from the rigors of life, but if one day they can’t be played or participated in the world would not cease to exist and all those lower IQ / high talent people would then lose the advantage of what got them to the place they are.
So, since the black population makes up roughly 13% of the US, but vastly dominate in the arts and sports (idk,,,let’s say at least 60% of successful athletes, comedians and musicians are black), I can determine that most of the success comes from those that have physical and/or creative talent... (and there’s nothing wrong with that) .... but the odds of you becoming a pro athlete or musician or paid comic are very slim, so even a person of higher talent may not make it to the level where they can live off that. The problem is then what do you do if you also have a lower than average IQ? You have less alternative avenues to succeed and/or find happiness,,, especially when the majority of the remainder of the population is doing inherently better than you because they have a higher intelligence level and figured out a way to find their own level of success or happiness without necessarily being talented in the arts or gifted physically. So now, with the advent of social media, this disparity is even more visible which I believe is creating all this strife between the races and as I mentioned before, when low intelligence gets frustrated with their own place in life, things seem to get worse for them because they can’t analyze the problem effectively and find a solution. They would rather change the whole game.
And just as a caveat, I’m easily of very average intelligence and talent myself, as not to confuse anyone with me thinking any higher of myself than anyone else on this planet. I chose not to judge a human by the color of their skin but by their character ( or something like that ), I just feel that there is validity to the argument and although some think there is no hope for a human of lesser IQ because of the biological and genetic aspects, I think a population can learn and grow and find a way out of whatever misery they find themselves in... but first, the issue needs to be recognized and, if needed, dealt with in as caring and positive and understanding a method as possible.
you (students) do not belong anywhere (for that behavior in Middlebury), not just in university, other than in jail
Those students were acting barbaric and lost credibility by doing so. That said, they could have easily denounced Murray through a simple fact and logic based dialogue with him that frankly would have made the outrage seem justifiable.
My family
I really went down the Sam vs Ezra rabbit hole, which started with this, and I think I've read and listened to everything that the two of them reference (excluding the books and the academic research itself). I can't see how Sam can't see the criticisms of this podcast episode are legitimate and in good faith.
I think Sam has a real blind spot where "social justice warriors" as he and many others call them are concerned. Calling out things that promote a broader societal level racism (or sexism, or anythingism) as bad for that reason isn't the same as slandering individuals and calling them white supremacists.
@Pat Gomez Fair enough, not a particularly important question for me, but the original podcast and the rebuttals to it were very interesting nonetheless.
@Pat Gomez It depends what you mean by “this dispute” I guess - I certainly didn’t hear Ezra say he categorically doesn’t want science in this field to be done.
I would steelman the two sides in the debate in this Ezra podcast episode as:
Sam: Ezra has knowingly treated me unfairly by continually and publicly overstating my preference for a) free speech and inquiry no matter where it leads over b) making the world a better and more just place for the people for whom it’s a bad and unjust place.
Ezra: Sam’s preference for (a) over (b) is real, and worth stating, and is legitimate good faith criticism.
What on the earth. Sorry I am totally confused, I thought I was commenting on a completely different video! Lol. Pat you are totally right.
I was talking about this czcams.com/video/i-VF4KCylKI/video.html
Comment above still holds about the Ezra/Sam dispute though.
But Sam won the debate with Ezra going away.
Hey Sam, if you really are motivated only about an objective discussion of IQ surely you will very soon invite a real scientist who actually studies IQ to allow "free expression" to people who disagree with Murray's arguments ? I'm not holding my breath, but will be waiting ...
1:04:55 "Nutrition is probably where it needs to be now."
This would be the first and hopefully the last instance that I ever play The White Privilege card: Really Sam, have you ever heard of the term "food desert"? Yes, in case you're wondering, that's desert spelled with one s not two.
@@puremercury My god, when will this ever end. Okay let’s start from the beginning. All the factors that influence IQ cannot be controlled for in any experiment. This means the potential influence of certain variables or a combination of different variables on IQ is difficult/impossible to measure. Furthermore, any geneticist will tell you that race, as we understand it, doesn’t really exist. There are subgroups, regional difference, etc, but these aren’t arbitrarily correlated with skin tone or complexion. Africa is more genetically diverse than the rest of the planet combined. The tallest and shortest people in the world are both in Africa. In a world where environmental influences were controlled for, we’d expect the most variance in IQ to be in Africa not outside of it.
The scientific community doesn’t accept this book because it makes presumptions on something we barely understand. Murray attempts to prescribe solutions to a problem he hasn’t even determined to exist. I’ve yet to seem him engage with any respectable scientist that has challenged the validity of his work.
@@puremercury What’s this “misunderstanding” of the true statement you’re referring to in your refutation of information that’s commonly accepted by experts? When did I suggest that you need a formal study to simply observe trends? Although, a study would lend you support if you postulate a race based interpretation of IQ.
Admittedly, my experience here is limited because I don’t spend much time engaging in fruitless topics to inflate my ego. A suggestion, you should consider alternative activities to trying to figure out why you believe others are more intellectually challenged than yourself.
@@puremercury and you said Sub-Saharan Africans. Which tribes in which regions exactly? Can I assume these tribes are representative of all Africans?
@@puremercury There have been multiple papers written on the topic of regional genetic variability specifically between eurasians and Africans. I’m sure you’re capable of finding and reading them yourself.
Sorry, I don’t scour Reddit threads written explicitly for racist types. Just doesn’t do it for me. I’m glad you’re enjoying yourself though.
@@puremercury The comparison you just made there revealed your lack of understanding of the concept and my position. Yes humans share 99.9% of their genes and the variance lies in the remaining .1 percent (which, for reference, is 20x smaller than the one that exists between us and chimps). I have made no attempt to mitigate the magnitude of differences between humans. What I have done is point out that wherein these differences lie is not easily discerned or described by oversimplifications like race.
Murray straight up lies at 25:45 when he says that Cristopher Winship at Harvard looked at his analysis and provided him with sweet sweet vindication of the bell curve.
The paper he refers to actually says" We find evidence that Hernstein and Murray index of parents SES produces substantially misleading estimates of the effects pf parental family socioeconomic status on social and economic outcomes on youth. Their index of parents ses fails to capture components of socioeconomic family background that are demonstrably important determinants of adult outcomes."
In other words not a vindication of his methods at all. What a liar
You're over reaching in your comment. He didn't say anything of the context you're insinuating
So do you find that paper gives Murray sweet sweet vindication on his methodology for computing ses?
Why doesn’t it show likes and dislikes
it would be brigaded by mobs of twitter sjws.
@@asdfasdf7199 or right wing who knows anymore
@@hotepkiller1180 well, for the most part it's clear Bolshevists prefer forced association - and that all groups are the same - and that no true diversity, no culture exists nor should it.
@@aperfectdayradioforfamilie7492Bolshevik’s are Jews ?
Murray uses the analogy that to be a linebacker you have to weigh 300 lbs. And to be a physicist you have to have a very high Iq. True but no football player starts in pop warner at 300 pounds he starts working and learning at a young age and is brought up into the weight by his coaches teachers and parents without whose help he couldnt be an nfl player. Its not that you have to be 300 lbs you have to have good teachers and coaches to help you along the way. He wohld be wise to apply that to his theory
Bad analogy by you. So a skinny 5 9 football player can get to that weight by "help"?
You miss the point. Murray says that you have to be 300 pounds first then comes determination and hard work. This isnt true. toget to be 300 pounds of muscle requires grit and hard work just to get that body. You cant just be 300 pounds. You have to be the kind of three hundred pound person who has dedicated himself over a long period of time with a lot of help on the way. You cannot just have a high iq and be a physicist.Youre IQ like your weight is not something you just have. It takes grit and determination before you can even get that weight.
@@jlrinc1420 IQ is genetic. Training can't change your intelligence.
why is this more than 2x as long as the version on sam harris website :3 ?
On the sam harris website you have to pay to get the full podcast, if you listen to the end it will say that
Charlie Lidbury it was never like that, right?
Kevin Parra wdym, that’s how it is right now
Charlie Lidbury you don’t have to pay, you can get it for free
Michael Chetrit only if you say you can’t afford it?
what about the number of ACEs someone has? trauma can also be inherited genetically.
No it cannot.
😂
I am almost frightened to comment in case Ezra trolls me. What the hell - go Sam, go Charles. I adore listening to Charles speak - doesn't even matter what he says really - fortunately he always talks sense. Hitch would be proud! (I am a feminist).
Do you mean that Hitch would be proud of Dr. Murray or Sam?
Murray's work on the bell curve has faulty logical assumptions, faulty statistics, and faulty measures. He also calls for racial eugenics and cites white supremacist organizations. He has the fallacy of genetic determinism, while current research has found a large role of the environment (which is what accounts for group differences, see Nisbett's work). Current work in evolutionary psychology has dispelled nature vs nuture fallacies with developmental and social evolutionary psychology and work on genetic and development plasticity (along with neuroplasticity). There is debate about what IQ is and how much it is genetic, but due to current best practice evidence, there are only fringe figures like Murray who still stand by the contentions about group differences, contrary to the best available evidence and consensus amongst scholars across fields and approaches. Lastly, policy reccommendations from a political science recommendation make no sense from an institutionalist or public opinion perspective and have no normative basis. And Murray's work is not fringe - it's widely accepted as a basis for IQ research, flawed as it is. Murray is the one is a fringe figure, but that's only because he refuses to engage with honest research practices and the best emprical evidence, or engage with normative and policy based critiques of his work
Murray says in 😮this podcast that by 2025 we will understand intelligence at the level of snps. I wonder if his science buddies are just syashing all the research till 2025 because we aren't any closer now to understandings the genetics of intelligence now than we were then.😊 I doubt Sam Harris will go over any of this and have a bit of self reflection. For all Sam's vaunted intelligence he says a lot of dumb things.
I have been a huge Sam Harris fan, and it distresses me that he doesn't seem to agree with me (and you) about Charles Murray. What is your opinion of my comment below on the following Coleman Hughes video The Perils Of Race Science:
czcams.com/video/OE5QcD_12fQ/video.htmlsi=blhc-W4rqVAsLM5L
30:05 I came into this 100% neutral, and my conclusion is that Murray is simply a guy who "cannot see the forest for the trees".
Because social policies haven't improved test scores over the past 30 years, he concludes that the remaining problem must be genetic, and he lacks the brain power and/or imagination to consider the possibility that DIFFERENT social policies, perhaps aimed at black culture, MIGHT narrow the gap.
Coleman points this out after Murray speaks, but Murray still either doesn't get it, or doesn't want to get it.
@jerrysmith5782 from Dave rueben to Sam Bankman Freid Sam has an almost infintie ability to befriend right wing drifters and attack guys who just write comic books. I can find almost nothing from Sam including his defense of Israel that is actually wel argued. He has always been punching down on the basis of dubious logic since I first heard of him
@jerrysmith5782 I don't often agree with Coleman Hughes but he did great pointing out the lack of any good reason for studying race science in the first place. People forget thar Charles murray as a teen burned a cross on a hill in his hometown. That's something I would normally let slide from a teen given their age but after looking at his books that fail every correlation causation test imaginable I am less charitable about his motives
I agree, but I wonder if it is for the same reason? Am I making a faulty assumption if I assume that you are a liberal almost "across the board"?
If so, then you won't like my reason, which agrees with Coleman's reason: I believe in a colorblind society just as he does.
I'm against stereotyping any group, and instead treating people as individuals.
For example, affirmative action's original motive was to help the disadvantaged, but it morphed into helping people who belong to groups who have a lot of disadvantaged people in them, regardless of whether the individual being helped is disadvantaged or not.
Similarly, to help people who have a low IQ, we don't have to find a group that contains a lot of people with low IQ's, we just need to directly help people who actually have low IQ's, regardless of which "groups" they may belong to.
Why study the IQ levels of black people instead of the IQ levels of brown-eyed people or tall people or brunettes? They all may have lower than normal IQ's on average, but if the goal is to help people with low IQ's, then why not just simply directly help those individuals who have low IQ's, regardless of whether they are members of those groups or not?
If you are a normal liberal, then you may not agree with me that stigmatizing a group for ANY reason is harmful.
Murray: "In the 1940s people did not see objects rotating in 3 dimensions as much as we do today in the age of TV". Yes ! If it wasn't for TV shows we would hardly see anything rotate ! After all what kind of TV show is only about showing things as they are in the world, like people doing things ? To be allowed in the presence of true genius
the fact that you say you are screaming tells me everything i need to know
@@Bronco541 Does that change the fact that the argument is stupid to the point of being hilarious ?
@@tiborkoos188 cry harder shitlib 😂
this is brilliant. I know from experience that you hardly ever see something rotating in real life esp 3dimensional objects.
Average IQ by country , US is 24th, North Korea 9th.
I am highly skeptical of north koreas IQ. And while the US is 24th, it’s only two or three points from nations like Norway. Many nations are “tied” with the United States. Nations 24-11 have the same IQ. As does 10-8 and 7-4 and 3-2 and 1.
@Pat Gomez Culture, the secret of their success, violence, is destroying them from within.
@@jgionnvdjovfdpm its survival of the fittest in North Korea. I'm sure it's selected for more intelligent people.
this should not be extrapolated to individuals and its of no use to employers as you said
can anybody tell me of what use are these studies what real world importance and application these inferences have, of what use are these when compared to the potentially devastating consequences?
do we need any more fuel to the fire that already a large enough section of whites who believe they are already superior to blacks and think of them as sub human
its like the difference between doing things because you can rather than thinking if you should
I have loved sam harris for a long time I don't know why he would do this
A prevailing worldview throughout history has been that economic, cultural, and other environmental forces are the preeminent causes of group and individual behavior. Modern social science has typically taken this perspective and promoted the idea that all babies are born more or less equally endowed in intelligence and learning ability. It followed therefore that inequalities were the result of social, economic, and political forces. This worldview generated many strategies for intervention in the home, the workplace, the mass media, the criminal justice system, and even the entire social-economic system. Some have been effective and are almost universally accepted, whereas others have failed and produced only shattered expectations, resentment, and interethnic hostility. The major policy implication of the research reviewed here is that adopting an evolutionary-genetic outlook does not undermine our dedication to democratic ideals. As E. O. Wilson aptly noted: “We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm freedom and dignity”. He went on to quote the sociologist Bressler : “An ideology that tacitly appeals to biological equality as a condition for human emancipation corrupts the idea of freedom. Moreover, it encourages decent men to tremble at the prospect of ‘inconvenient’ findings that may emerge in future scientific research”. Denial of any genetic component in human variation, including between groups, is not only poor science, it is likely to be injurious both to unique individuals and to the complex structure of societies.
www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
Sam took the red pill and seems to not care about the religious right taking over. I miss Hitch
@Yankie Doodle Hitch from the bad Will Smith movie maybe...
@Yankie Doodle You think Bush is on the "religious right" compared to Sadaam? I didn't always agree with Hitch, but at least he was real about Islam.
Ok Christopher Hitchens was a religious right winger and Sadaam was a secular humanist. Brilliant.
No such thing as the red pill
@@parkertufts5251 What? Saddam was not a religious conservative, but a nationalist extremist. He was similar to the nazis if anything. He wanted to create an Arabic ethnostate. Knowing what kind of person Saddam was it shouldn't be surprising that he is compared to the nazis.
Brown people got civilized earlier. Mesopotamia Indus Valley and Vedic civilisations all started by brown people. Romans and Greeks were olive skinned. Blonde and pale Germanics were considered barbarians by the Romans
Lol. Yes, the fact that there was a primitive civilization 5000 years ago and civilization that failed miserably 2000 years ago, is so important for current IQ. That’s why whites, “the barbarians “ have the most advanced civilization these days, while brown people, well not so much…
Mediterranean people are olive skinned nowadays but are considered white. Also, ever heard of “Caucasians”? Any guesses where they came from? Point being that whites are far from being only Germanic, but of several different origins.
But sure, whatever you have to tell yourself to feel superior…
Well the brown ones(, I am one) , the geography was on our side: it s easier to start a civilization in a warm sunny fertile hospital lands like egypte , Greece or south Asia than in cold wet northern Europe.
IQ's must at some level be correlated to functioning in a civilizational existence? Humans have spent most of their existence in non civilizational existence. It would be interesting to know which sort of brain functioning was required when we were hunter gatherers, which lasted at the low end 100k years, at the high end 300k years. Was it a different type of IQ?
No. Some people are significantly more intelligent than they would have needed to be in a hunter gatherer situation, so having an IQ significantly lower than those with the highest IQs wouldn't cause people to have much lower standards of living.
Today however, in a high modern civilization, having an IQ one or two standard deviations below those with the highest IQs _can_ lead to significant wealth inequity.
Noticing patterns would have been highly useful and selected for. Patterns in animal movement, migration, feeding, etc.. Patterns in the weather and seasons. In harvests. In which plants are beneficial and which are dangerous. Pattern recognition leads to abstract thought and higher level cognition, which brings us to today.
@@bobbym6130 right
It's not a coincidence that these tests were designed by the same groups who excel at them and who had the benefit of receiving education that correlates to the ability to do well in these tests while other groups were slaving away, uneducated, building the same campuses that provided the education exclusively to those like themselves and lead by the ones who then designed the tests.
That isn't the case, though. The people who tend to do the best were not the ones who came up with them. And IQ is much different from testing well consistently in school subjects.
Affirmative action had an important roll in history but there always needed to be an expiration date. The use of IQ tests like the SAT was valuable for a time in the 60s and 70s but the wealthy have largely overcome that system with the top schools again being the land of those wealthy enough to get in. The cost of medical school has increased to the point where few people of normal means would consider taking the risk of going into debt for over a million dollars.
@@puremercury "by the same groups", not by the "same people". "groups" meaning "having access to good education"
"And IQ is much different from testing well consistently in school subjects."
IQ is a measure of amount of quality of schooling, not proficiency in any particular subject.
@@puremercury You are 100% incorrect. Amount of education does play a big role in IQ, and denying that is denying reality. That's like saying a feral child would be able to get an average score.
@@puremercury Clearly you don't understand what p-hacking is. And you're denying the fact that learned cognition is a huge factor in intelliegence. You can't a priori derive intelligence from nothing. It comes from culture.
1:16:00
But aren't genes environmentally determined?
There isn't a definitive answer as to how much. It would be safe to presume that they are, but accept that randomness is widespread.
Unfortunately, Harris and Murray are saying that people's environment is determined by their genes.
What
@@yakib4663 Harris and Murray naturalise race and class disparities through the use of IQ tests, which they think offers an accurate representation of what a person's intelligence and work ethic is.
Why do you think Hitchens and Taleb rubbished - in their words - pseudoscience of The Bell Curve? Because Harris paints any criticism of "The Forbidden Knowledge" as being dishonest and driven by political ideology
Genes are inherited. Pretty basic stuff.
I think it's funny that when we talk about sports. There is no dispute over genetics. Nut mention race and intelligence and then the experts are wrong and the layman become activists. It's fucking funny
Murray is so dishonest about the criticism he received. For instance he says that his critics were dissatisfied with his index of socio economic status. They wanted him to throw something like the number of books in the house into his index. He says he refused because the number of books in the house was already closely correlated to iq so he left it out. But number of books is not what people were complaining that he left out of his SES index. In an analysis of the role that socioeconomic factors have in determining for instance whether a person will be unemployed Any decent analysis would include the rate of unemployment in the neighborhood you live in, not the number of books. If you want to show how your socioeconomic background correlates to your spending time in jail any good analysis would include the crime rate in the neighborhood you grew up in. The number of teachers with a masters degree in the high school you attended might be relevant in an analysis of how your socioeconomic background correlates with your chances of going to college. The things his index leaves out are not things like books in the house that are already correlated with iq but the actual relevant information that anybody with a sociology background would include.
He just lies about his critics again and again. Sad
I get your point of view. But to say he lied to his critics is wrong. Those stats you site ignored age and cultural difference as well. The list goes on
@@jaed2630 Tell me if Murray is honest at 25:00 when he says that He received a sweet sweet vindication from Cristopher Winship at Harvard in his analysis of the role of IQ in determining outcomes.
Here is a quote from the abstract:
Herrnstein and Murray's measure of parental SES fails to capture the effects of important elements of family background (such as single-parent family structure at age 14). As a result, their analysis gives an exaggerated impression of the importance of IQ relative to parents' SES, and relative to family background more generally.
Does that look like Winship vindicated his analysis of the relative influence of iq and parental ses on life outcomes? No and Murray knows it but he knows Harris isnt going to look it up. The guy lies over and over again in this interview
He complains that people were upset that he chose Richard Lynn to advise him on racial differences. Richard Lynn is a self described scientific racist who said that African nations in famine should be allowed to starve to death so evolution can improve the species. Think people might be scratching their heads over why this is the guy he chose as his expert in racial differences. The guy is a self described racist who advocated for the united states to dissolve into racially pure white states.
Wonder why anyone would find him objectionable.
Of course Murray doesnt mention the time in high school when he and his friends burned a cross on the hill in his hometown. When asked about it he says he didnt know there were racial implications to burning a cross. This was a year before he went to Harvard when he was on his high school debate team travelling cross country in one of the most racially divisive times in the history of America and cross burning was all over the papers at the time. Lucky debate teams dont discuss current events right? How was a High school senior accepted into harvard on the basis of his intelligence supposed to know burning a cross had racial implications?
Murray is such a liar
@@jlrinc1420I'm sorry you have an ace to grind with murray bit there are black sociologists that say the same things Murray says. To claim he's a racist with a biases against people of color is just nonsense. Have you ever read the bell curve?
@@jaed2630 Number one I never claimed he was racist. I personally dont care whether he is racist. Its funny that that would be your critique of my post. I make factual claims about his life and work.. I look at his sources and his actions. These are all based on facts that can be verified. So lets look at the questions I ask. The First question is whether Murray lied when he represented the paper by The Harvard Sociologist as supporting his thesis. I have quoted the relevant passage to the paper he mentions.. He says that the paper supported his ses index. Am I right? Does the abstract support Murrays thesis?
Second Murray complains that he is excoriated for using Richard Lynn as his expert on racial differences.. Lynns work has been debunked for years now for its poor methodology. Lynn describes himself as a Scientific racist. Lynn was the editor of a magazine founded by literal nazis to promote white ethnic superiority. All of this is fact. Why would Murray use this guy as his expert on racial differences when there are serious scholars who study the subject. Am I wrong in assuming he uses Lynn as an expert because he knows what results he wants to get and Lynn delivers.
Third Murray says that he didnt realize there were racial implication to burning a cross in his senior yearin high scool. As a member of his schools debate teamhow likely is that. I have looked it up and in the 3 years prior to his cross burning there were dozens of stories in his local newspaper describing cross burnings. Think he never once read his local paper as a member odf his high scool debate team?
See I havent even once accused him of being a racistbecause I honestly dont care. What I know and can prove is that he is a liar. Tell me where I am wrong.
I have read the bell curve at least 3 times including the index. I know the book backwards and you?
1:15:10
The youtuber Shaun has since done a deep dive into the science behind the book:
czcams.com/video/UBc7qBS1Ujo/video.html
Yeah, random CZcamsr > Actual classical liberal scientist. Nice bias.
@@Apistevist Are you *trying* to make an argument from authority?
@@SuperSuperspoof As opposed as you using some biased political CZcamsr who's on the side of politics that literally openly denies genetics?
@@Apistevist At what point does the video I've linked deny genetics?
An excellent breakdown of how the Bell Curve break's down. Everyone here is so pleased to have been enlightened by this podcast - "ah, what a revelation and breath of fresh air from the freedom-of-speech-killing woke left" - but there was good reason it was criticized when it came out (for its crap scientific method and crap sources) and Sam's not going to get that information from Charles Murray. It'd be interesting to see people here give their arguments against some of the cited scientific footnotes in Shaun's video.
So everybody ok with overt racism now? This is literally the textbook definition of racism. Also this is all complete bullshit. I dont disagree with sam because "Its a hard truth I dont want to hear" I disagree with him because he is wrong.
Definition of Racism: The belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
I've read The Bell Curve from cover to cover multiple times and the authors never make any value statements along the lines of "superiority" or "inferiority" like you mention here. They simply point out that average test scores differ. Charles Murray's views didn't change in the 23 years between writing this book and recording this podcast, as he clearly states that intelligence, while desirable, is one of many, many characteristics that humans tend to value in others, and that we should treat everybody as an individual rather than as a member of the group. I don't mean to be rude, but judging by your comment I don't think you've read the book, listened to this podcast in full or thought seriously about the issues at hand. People can invent any denotation they want for a post-hoc pejorative, but it doesn't invalidate or render null the scientific data. Understanding intelligence is the path away from racism. Ignoring the role intelligence plays and laying the blame of all average group social outcomes at the feet of the group that is doing relatively better is guaranteed to cause endless resentment and social chaos, and crucially, fail to improve the lot of those who need help the most.
"distinct characteristics", such as skin color? Even if you don't believe in difference in average cognitive capabilities, that definition simply means reality is racist.
Racism in its purest form is hatred towards another race based on skin colour and a superiority claim over the other .
Charles work has no hatred or any measure of the sort .
All these are averages too no racism or hatred just scientific enquiry
loool
The definition of racism you posted is not advocated by Murray or Harris.
Murray: "Asians have different visual-spatial IQ". Oh, those sharp-eyed Asians ! They really know where things are in space and coming to take your seeing jobs ! LOL.
what is the point of comments like this? your putting words in his mouth
Such a dumb comment
No serious person would comment this
Murray burned crosses during his youth. Of all 7 billion people in the world, it is him who is "concerned" about black people. Call me a cynic, but I don't buy his alleged motivation. I just find it interesting that people who are interested to defend the link between genes and intelligence are usually whites and Jews. I myself believe in that link, though not to the extent the authors do, but I can't ignore the obvious, i.e. the guy burned crosses! And I think that's why Murray gets derided.
What crosses? Plus I know you never read his book.
@@jaed2630 What was Charles Murray's explanation for burning a cross?