Bakker and Harris

  • 36 Replies
  • 2454 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TLEILAXU

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Exalt-Smiter of Theories
  • Posts: 707
    • View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 29, 2018, 06:19:51 pm »
I'm really not interested in pursuing this matter with you much further, Tleilaxu. I don't care for your style. I guess you see nothing wrong with baldly stating "So-and-so is a racist".

Here's a long post from Sam Harris that contains 1) the email exchange between Harris and Ezra Klein (editor at Vox); and 2) two podcasts that further the discussion (the second being a 2 hr. podcast with Harris and Klein)

https://samharris.org/ezra-klein-editor-chief/
You're right, I have zero problems calling out people on being racist.
I don't have time go to through all of this but let's take one example.
Ezra Klein says:
Quote
The overwhelming thrust of your discussion features Murray arguing that racial IQ differences are real, persistent, significant, driven by genetic racial differences (he has a long discourse on how strong that signal must be to make it through the noise of racial mixing), and immune to virtually every intervention we’ve thought of. Yes, there are caveats sprinkled throughout, but there’s also a clear and consistent argument being made, or so it seemed to me. That was, as I understood it, the Forbidden Knowledge referred to in the title: you can’t just wish away the black-white IQ gap as a matter of environment and history and disadvantage.
Sam Harris' response:
Quote
Yes, it is very hard to wish it away. That doesn’t stop people from trying—and doing their best to destroy the reputations of others in the process.
He all but flat out states that there are genetic differences between whites and blacks that results in blacks being less intelligent than whites. This is not supported by genetic science, and is thus politically motivated and racist.

Here's Andrew Sullivan objecting to Ezra Klein's article in Vox:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/denying-genetics-isnt-shutting-down-racism-its-fueling-it.html

I don't think that the relationship between genetic science and the heritability of intelligence is crystal clear at this moment in time; certainly Harvard geneticist David Reich believes it to be an open question (according to Sullivan's summary). So let's not shut down the debate by waving the bloody shirt of racism, OK?
I skipped that and read the article by David Reich instead ( https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html ). It's actually pretty good and nuanced, and most importantly does not make broad statements or insinuations. Look at the part where he discusses James Watson as an example.
Compared with what Sam Harris seems to be saying though there's a world of difference.

By definition, someone positing differences in race beyond skin pigmentation is racist.
It is when their position is politically motivated and not supported by science.

BeardFisher-King

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • The Trackless Steppe
    • View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 29, 2018, 06:51:21 pm »
Tleilaxu, you didn't "call out" Sam Harris as a racist. "Calling out" would require some evidence, wouldn't it? You just made an unsupported allegation. You said, "Also, Sam Harris is a racist." End scene.
"The heart of any other, because it has a will, would remain forever mysterious."

-from "Snow Falling On Cedars", by David Guterson

BeardFisher-King

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • The Trackless Steppe
    • View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 29, 2018, 07:24:06 pm »
From David Reich's article:

"If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong."

From my reading of the Reich article, I'm confident that he would take issue with your absolutist stance on what genetic science does or does not support, Tleilaxu.
"The heart of any other, because it has a will, would remain forever mysterious."

-from "Snow Falling On Cedars", by David Guterson

TLEILAXU

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Exalt-Smiter of Theories
  • Posts: 707
    • View Profile
« Reply #18 on: May 29, 2018, 09:51:42 pm »
( so I'm disagreeing with TL here, motive does matter )
No, I completely agree.

As if an IQ score could, or would, be a definitive measure of anything except "ability to take IQ tests."
Wait, weren't you supposed to be a Jordan Peterson fanboy xd?

From David Reich's article:

"If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong."

From my reading of the Reich article, I'm confident that he would take issue with your absolutist stance on what genetic science does or does not support, Tleilaxu.
Maybe he's a racist too then.

Just to be clear, do you believe that there is a genetic basis for the difference between black and white intelligence?

TaoHorror

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 981
  • Blueberry Psûkhe Sorcerer
    • View Profile
« Reply #19 on: May 29, 2018, 10:06:57 pm »
Just to be clear, do you believe that there is a genetic basis for the difference between black and white intelligence?

I know you're not asking me, but a resounding NO. Anything to the contrary is incorrect at best, racist at worst. And even if I'm wrong, it simply does not matter and the approach for a completely inclusive/equal opportunities for all does not change.
May your death be soon, slow and painful

TLEILAXU

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Exalt-Smiter of Theories
  • Posts: 707
    • View Profile
« Reply #20 on: May 29, 2018, 10:16:39 pm »
Just to be clear, do you believe that there is a genetic basis for the difference between black and white intelligence?

I know you're not asking me, but a resounding NO. Anything to the contrary is incorrect at best, racist at worst. And even if I'm wrong, it simply does not matter and the approach for a completely inclusive/equal opportunities for all does not change.
Aight aight.
Personally, I could easily see there being some population specific differences, but it'd be damn hard to tell for sure, especially because different population specific alleles might cause a similar thing. For example, the alleles that give Europeans white skin are different from the alleles that give Asians white skin.

The problem is just that in this age of (mis)information there's a lot of people who invoke the science card to justify political/ideological agendas. They say it's all in the science, all in the genetics, to justify e.g. their beliefs in women having specific gender roles. David Reich showcased some nice examples in his article.

Conditioned

  • *
  • Emwama
  • Posts: 20
  • Instructions: blather, rinse, repeat if necessary.
    • View Profile
« Reply #21 on: May 29, 2018, 11:24:40 pm »
Thanks Beard, just trying to have a talk that is more about what was actually said and less about how people think their motivations, intent, and political philosophies played into it all. I don't feel like the Murray stuff plays into 99% of the stuff Harris gets into anyway, so I think it shouldn't really color everyone's opinion of him so much. He  really has a lot of interesting opinions on a lot of different subjects.

Oh and I also totally agree that Harris is by no means an expert in every field he discusses. Though he does have a BA in philosophy and a PhD in neuroscience from what I just gathered from wiki... so I believe he at least is more qualified than most laypeople to discuss this stuff.

I probably should've been writing down Harris and Bakkers similar ideas before I started this thread, huh? Give me a few days (pretty busy most of the time between my full time job and my demonically possessed toddler) and I will try to put together something more substantial.

I guess I should start with both of their apprehension in regards to the approaching technological shitstorm and the implications of meddling too early with the human brain without enough thought to unintentional consequences, or even intentional consequences. They cite a lot of the same work when talking about their ideas. Cases of face blindness, being blind to being blind and all that kind of stuff lol

Also Bakker and Harris both seem to have a certain proficiency for infuriating the extreme left and extreme right of the US political spectrum and I think they both consider themselves to liberal leaning.

This is a start at least. Just caught my toddler sranc growling and trying to bite my Siberian husky, so I better start paying attention to him before one of them gets hurt.

BeardFisher-King

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • The Trackless Steppe
    • View Profile
« Reply #22 on: May 29, 2018, 11:31:00 pm »
From David Reich's article:

"If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong."

From my reading of the Reich article, I'm confident that he would take issue with your absolutist stance on what genetic science does or does not support, Tleilaxu.
Maybe he's a racist too then.

Just to be clear, do you believe that there is a genetic basis for the difference between black and white intelligence?

You need to formulate your questions with more care. There is no "black" intelligence. There is no "white" intelligence. Try again.

I will say, as a layman, that I believe intellectual capacity/aptitude is hereditary in some degree. That would seem to be a non-controversial statement, but in a time where Sam Harris gets labelled as a racist apparently because he failed to distance himself sufficiently from Charles Murray, who is apparently beyond the pale, perhaps it is not.

It's pretty clear from David Reich's article and from his work that scientists are currently finding genetic differences among various population groups. What these differences amount to, I haven't a clue. But Reich did note the much more significant biological (and, hence, genetic) differences between men and women. More landmines, I'm afraid. Is David Reich "sexist" as well as "racist", Tleilaxu?
The problem is just that in this age of (mis)information there's a lot of people who invoke the science card to justify political/ideological agendas. They say it's all in the science, all in the genetics, to justify e.g. their beliefs in women having specific gender roles. David Reich showcased some nice examples in his article.

When you refer to those people that use the "science" card to justify political/ideological agendas, would that group include climate change alarmists? If not, why not?
"The heart of any other, because it has a will, would remain forever mysterious."

-from "Snow Falling On Cedars", by David Guterson

BeardFisher-King

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • The Trackless Steppe
    • View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 29, 2018, 11:32:26 pm »
Sorry, Conditioned, we derailed your thread.
"The heart of any other, because it has a will, would remain forever mysterious."

-from "Snow Falling On Cedars", by David Guterson

Conditioned

  • *
  • Emwama
  • Posts: 20
  • Instructions: blather, rinse, repeat if necessary.
    • View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 30, 2018, 12:44:33 am »
Lol Beard, I won't lie... I saw the potential for the conversation veering this way before I posted it. But all it took for me was to listen to his podcast with Murray and i was able to make a decision based on the things that were said. I don't think that it was some great idea on Harris' part to decide to trod this path, then again, I pretty much felt exactly the same when Bakker did something similar all those years ago. Sometimes picking a fight to prove a point ends up making even your best friend's look at you a little different, let alone people who are willing to make an 'informed decision' without ever being willing to look at either your body of work as with the accusations of sexism with Bakker or listen to the evidence from the podcasts in question with Harris.

I am an atheist that lives in the deep south, so I tend to find myself on the left side of virtually any real life conversation. Like Harris, I have found many of the same extremes of the left hard to defend. In the south, it is actually hard to find a household that doesn't have a firearm inside. I am a huge advocate for more responsible gun owners and even tighter restrictions on the acquisition process and mental health checks and whatnot, yet I find myself debating even more liberal people than me on whether we should totally ban guns in the US... which simply seems like the most unlikely thing to happen to me. Or some other stuff that I am not sure I would've ever been aware of if not for Harris like the Evergreen University stuff, which is also about people declaring other people racist due to their unwillingness to let the extreme left dictate the terms of what an actual racist is. And whether or not people with opposing views can speak/debate at universities without fear or threats of violence. I mean, this is the very fucking idea of free speech.

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 2282
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2018, 02:23:52 am »
Never read the article, but let me give some life experience here, in regards to what is racist. Well, I have 3 half sisters (same Mom, different dads, theirs is a black man), and I've found myself saying something in which, I felt, was completely harmless and never meant as racist and been told that it is. Does that make me a racist? No. I love my sister's, stepfather, nieces and nephews and have more black friends than white. But, what you feel is harmless, doesnt mean it isn't to someone else. Its a very hard subject. I usually get carte Blanche on that side of my family, because they know the love I have for them, but I have been put in my place before.

I do think it is very unreasonable to call someone a racist without total, undeniable proof that one is. A wrong word here, a mistaken assumption there and all of a sudden, your racist. And, please, none of us bullshit here and be honest with ourselves, this is a leftist tactic in America. A very, very hard thing to put up with. I am a democrat, though moderate. And, these tactics the extreme left employ are doing nothing but hurting the Democratic party, which is sad. Look what it got us, 4-8 years of a bumbling fucking idiot, who will, before its said and done, have us in either a civil war or a World War. Its scary. The majority of the left needs to come back more to the center.

And, this extreme leftism is fostered at UNI's across the nation, and quite frankly gotten out of control. It would never make me turn Rep., but its hindering any chance the left has to regain the Oval Office. It needs to end. Its become so outlandish and extreme, that when politics are brought up IRL, I just walk away...if I can.

TLEILAXU, I think its very irresponsible to make a claim that one is racist, just what ibe read in this thread. From a lot of stuff ive read on genetics, indont think that any one ethnicity is smarter than another because of genetics. Your smarts come from the environment in which you are brought up and how much attention and devotion the parentsnput forth towards their children. I could be wrong, but that is what ive read. But, to make a claim that one person is racist, because of article, and not strong facts and multiple incidentsnto back that up, is just more extreme left-wing ignorance, imho. They just throw claims like that around too often. Just my 2 cents.
“No. I am your end. Before your eyes I will put your seed to the knife. I will quarter your carcass and feed it to the dogs. Your bones I will grind to dust and cast to the winds. I will strike down those who speak your name or the name of your fathers, until ‘Yursalka’ becomes as meaningless as infant babble. I will blot you out, hunt down your every trace! The track of your life has come to me,

BeardFisher-King

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • The Trackless Steppe
    • View Profile
« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2018, 03:09:50 am »
Btw, Conditioned, welcome back!
"The heart of any other, because it has a will, would remain forever mysterious."

-from "Snow Falling On Cedars", by David Guterson

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2549
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #27 on: May 30, 2018, 09:49:17 am »
As if an IQ score could, or would, be a definitive measure of anything except "ability to take IQ tests."
Wait, weren't you supposed to be a Jordan Peterson fanboy xd?

I do like a fair share of Peterson's thoughts, especially those on the psychology of religion, but I'm not sure where you are going with that...
“I am a warrior of ages, Anasûrimbor . . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury.” -Cet’ingira

themerchant

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Captain Slogger
  • Posts: 938
    • View Profile
« Reply #28 on: July 26, 2018, 07:49:59 am »
I don't like Sam Harris I feel most of the things he says are laced with his politics which i consider toxic.

Calling for indiscriminate nuclear strikes
Saying loads of stupid shit for examples:

"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live."

9/11 was done for religious reasons.

we are at war with islam, not terrorism.

He'd vote for Ben Carson over Noam Chomsky (this was cause his ego was hurt)

“I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”

Would differentiate refugees coming into the country by their religion. Christians get to queue jump Muslims.



Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5684
  • Do you remember the words?!
    • View Profile
« Reply #29 on: August 07, 2018, 03:49:08 pm »
Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.
This is a curiously extreme proposition that, Catch 22 aside, seems likely to get one killed by their own idea. Like "Ok sounds good, we'll start by killing people who think that killing like that is a good idea, then we'll revote and see if there's anyone else that thinks this way".
For that reason, its a silly idea that can be used to kill off any group of people that happen to disagree with the proposer. Though at some point you probably will end up with a group of people that all say they think alike under this regime.
... Thinking on it, I'm pretty sure this idea has been used by governments historically. Natzi's come to mind, but I'm no history buff.

And whether or not people with opposing views can speak/debate at universities without fear or threats of violence. I mean, this is the very fucking idea of free speech.
Free speech is probably without argument the most dangerous thing to any person with any modicum of power (outside physical violence - human bodies are so squishy).
« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 03:59:22 pm by Wilshire »
One of the other conditions of possibility.