Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSam Harris is a bona fide white supremacist. He's an awful human being.
In an episode that runs nearly two and a half hours, Harris, who is best known as the author of The End of Faith, presents Murray as a victim of a politically correct moral panic and goes so far as to say that Murray has no intellectually honest academic critics. Murrays work on The Bell Curve, Harris insists, merely summarizes the consensus of experts on the subject of intelligence.
The consensus, he says, is that IQ exists; that it is extraordinarily important to life outcomes of all sorts; that it is largely heritable; and that we dont know of any interventions that can improve the part that is not heritable. The consensus also includes the observation that the IQs of black Americans are lower, on average, than that of whites, and most contentiously that this and other differences among racial groups is based at least in part in genetics.
Harris is not a neutral presence in the interview. For better or worse, these are all facts, he tells his listeners. In fact, there is almost nothing in psychological science for which there is more evidence than for these claims. Harris belies his self-presentation as a tough-minded skeptic by failing to ask Murray a single challenging question. Instead, during their lengthy conversation, he passively follows Murray to the dangerous and unwarranted conclusion that black and Hispanic people in the US are almost certainly genetically disposed to have lower IQ scores on average than whites or Asians and that the IQ difference also explains differences in life outcomes between different ethnic and racial groups.
In Harriss view, all of this is simply beyond dispute. Murrays claims about race and intelligence, however, do not stand up to serious critical or empirical examination. But the main point of this brief piece is not merely to rebut Murrays conclusions per se although we will do some of that but rather to consider the faulty path by which he casually proceeds from a few basic premises to the inflammatory conclusion that IQ differences between groups are likely to be at least partly based on inborn genetic differences. These conclusions, Harris and Murray insist, are disputed only by head-in-the-sand elitists afraid of the policy implications.
The consensus, he says, is that IQ exists; that it is extraordinarily important to life outcomes of all sorts; that it is largely heritable; and that we dont know of any interventions that can improve the part that is not heritable. The consensus also includes the observation that the IQs of black Americans are lower, on average, than that of whites, and most contentiously that this and other differences among racial groups is based at least in part in genetics.
Harris is not a neutral presence in the interview. For better or worse, these are all facts, he tells his listeners. In fact, there is almost nothing in psychological science for which there is more evidence than for these claims. Harris belies his self-presentation as a tough-minded skeptic by failing to ask Murray a single challenging question. Instead, during their lengthy conversation, he passively follows Murray to the dangerous and unwarranted conclusion that black and Hispanic people in the US are almost certainly genetically disposed to have lower IQ scores on average than whites or Asians and that the IQ difference also explains differences in life outcomes between different ethnic and racial groups.
In Harriss view, all of this is simply beyond dispute. Murrays claims about race and intelligence, however, do not stand up to serious critical or empirical examination. But the main point of this brief piece is not merely to rebut Murrays conclusions per se although we will do some of that but rather to consider the faulty path by which he casually proceeds from a few basic premises to the inflammatory conclusion that IQ differences between groups are likely to be at least partly based on inborn genetic differences. These conclusions, Harris and Murray insist, are disputed only by head-in-the-sand elitists afraid of the policy implications.
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech
Never understood this guy's appeal, the fact that he's a vehement atheist doesn't compensate for his other bigotries.
NB: Charles Murray is a long-discredited white supremacist quack.
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sam Harris is a bona fide white supremacist. He's an awful human being. (Original Post)
geek tragedy
May 2017
OP
welivetotreadonkings
(134 posts)1. Glad this is getting more exposure...
This guy was always a racist and an islamaphobe, now it's just getting more and more obvious. Can't believe there are liberals out there who buy into his garbage. But I guess I'm part of the "regressive left" lol.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)2. some people think that being an atheist is carte blanche nt
MountCleaners
(1,148 posts)3. Have you read Murray's twitter?
I hate-read it. He has a giant "poor me" victim complex. Thinks he's being persecuted.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)4. don't read white supremacist twitter, even to hate read it nt
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)5. Missed this. Thanks for posting.