U.S. Politics: Hairpiece In the Middle East Part 2

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

You should. I can't comment on Murray's book, havent read it and I'm never going to be able to read enough to comment on whether what he said is true or not. However the podcast is interesting in that the race part of his book is apparently a tiny element of it that blew up out of all proportion. And its that over reaction that meant that he ended up on that podcast, the main message being the shutting down of free speech for people you don't agree with.

And as it turns out, the science behind that controversial chapter was really sound. The primary push back that Harris provided regarding that data was whether or not it was really worth pursuing, not that it was inaccurate or vitriolic or racist.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

You really should if you haven't. It really is a very good example of the sort of Campus Political Correctness run amok that Harris, Jonathan Haidt and Dave Rubin and the like have been pushing back against over the past few years.  

Hey look, I do have some problems with SOME of the PC stuff. That said, I think what Murray is pushing is garbage.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The Vox article certainly was.

Ah, apologies, I didn't click the link before commenting. 

Well then, it seems Vox has decided to double down on the PC related hate regarding Murray and Herrnstein's findings then. In areas of science, I'm a little more likely to trust Harris's assessment over Vox's.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

And as it turns out, the science behind that controversial chapter was really sound. The primary push back that Harris provided regarding that data was whether or not it was really worth pursuing, not that it was inaccurate or vitriolic or racist.

And if you had read the article linked above, you'd find out that the science was not remotely really sound, that it ignores or happily handwaves any data that contradicts it (for example: the overall IQ of the US has risen more than the racial gap in the US since 1948, or that adopted kids going from a poor to a middle class family raise IQ by one standard deviation), and it asserts a conclusion that is not remotely based on most of the facts.

As the article itself says:

Quote

Moreover, a reflexive defense of free academic inquiry has prompted some to think it a mark of scientific objectivity to look at cognitive differences in the eye without blinking. To deny the possibility of a biological basis of group differences, they suggest, is to allow “moral panic,” as Harris puts it, to block objective scientific judgment. But passively allowing oneself to be led into unfounded genetic conclusions about race and IQ is hardly a mark of rational tough-mindedness. The fact is, there is no evidence for any such genetic hypothesis — about complex human behavior of any kind. Anyone who speaks as if there were is spouting junk science.

or

Quote

We hope we have made it clear that a realistic acceptance of the facts about intelligence and genetics, tempered with an appreciation of the complexities and gaps in evidence and interpretation, does not commit the thoughtful scholar to Murrayism in either its right-leaning mainstream version or its more toxically racialist forms. We are absolute supporters of free speech in general and an open marketplace of ideas on campus in particular, but poorly informed scientific speculation should nevertheless be called out for what it is. Protest, when founded on genuine scientific understanding, is appropriate; silencing people is not.

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

It's relevant in that you don't seem to understand what it centered on. It wasn't about "taking out libertarian garbage" as your initial post suggested. 

Did we read the same article?

Did you read what the author was saying?

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Ah, apologies, I didn't click the link before commenting. 

Well then, it seems Vox has decided to double down on the PC related hate regarding Murray and Herrnstein's findings then. In areas of science, I'm a little more likely to trust Harris's assessment over Vox's.

The authors of this article are three professors in psychological studies.

Quote

Eric Turkheimer is the Hugh Scott Hamilton Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia. Twitter: @ent3c. Kathryn Paige Harden (@kph3k) is associate professor in the department of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. Richard E. Nisbett is the Theodore M. Newcomb Distinguished University Professor at the University of Michigan.

Your bias against information that might contradict your specific basis of viewpoints is really showing. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

You should. I can't comment on Murray's book, havent read it and I'm never going to be able to read enough to comment on whether what he said is true or not. However the podcast is interesting in that the race part of his book is apparently a tiny element of it that blew up out of all proportion. And its that over reaction that meant that he ended up on that podcast, the main message being the shutting down of free speech for people you don't agree with.

Hey, I am a defender of robust free speech rights. Murray can say whatever the hell he wants.

The point though is that Murray is full of it. And people are excising their free speech rights by pointing that out.

[Kalbear]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Hey, I am a defender of robust free speech rights. Murray can say whatever the hell he wants.

The point though is that Murray is full of it. And people are excising their free speech rights by pointing that out.

I do appreciate the irony of people slamming someone for not listening to a podcast that wasn't even the main point of the article who themselves didn't bother to read the actual article that was linked - all while defending a person's viewpoints based on the view that information should be available to discuss and simultaneously ignoring information that is being provided that is available to discuss. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Hey look, I do have some problems with SOME of the PC stuff. That said, I think what Murray is pushing is garbage.

That's part and parcel of the problem surrounding this book. It was one chapter of a much larger story, and it wasn't pushed by the authors. In fact, they made all the appropriate mea culpas in the controversial chapter, and they themselves downplayed the importance of those findings. They kept that chapter intact despite the fact that they knew it was liable to be controversial, but once they had determined that the findings were sound, they opted to keep it in.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And if you had read the article linked above, you'd find out that the science was not remotely really sound, that it ignores or happily handwaves any data that contradicts it (for example: the overall IQ of the US has risen more than the racial gap in the US since 1948, or that adopted kids going from a poor to a middle class family raise IQ by one standard deviation), and it asserts a conclusion that is not remotely based on most of the facts.

As the article itself says:

or

 

You should check out the podcast. Harris and Murray address the overall IQ rise in what I think is probably a more comprehensive manner than the Vox writer does in this article. Quick disclaimer, I don't have much of a Science background at all, and I'm a Harris fan, so YMMV.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I do appreciate the irony of people slamming someone for not listening to a podcast that wasn't even the main point of the article who themselves didn't bother to read the actual article that was linked - all while defending a person's viewpoints based on the view that information should be available to discuss and simultaneously ignoring information that is being provided that is available to discuss. 

Yeah, I jumped the gun and apologized. Sweet Limping Christ on a Crutch, like you've never done the same? Get off of your fucking cross for a minute, would ya?

I got excited when I saw the post, as I had just heard the podcast maybe a couple of weeks ago. Once again, apologies to Old Gimlet Eye for not clicking the post first.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The authors of this article are three professors in psychological studies.

Your bias against information that might contradict your specific basis of viewpoints is really showing. 

And Sam Harris has a PHD in neuroscience. 

Perhaps you might want to get his point of view before deciding whether or not he effectively contradicted the points of the article? The same way I might want to click on the article before questioning the OP's initial post. 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

You should check out the podcast. Harris and Murray address the overall IQ rise in what I think is probably a more comprehensive manner than the Vox writer does in this article. Quick disclaimer, I don't have much of a Science background at all, and I'm a Harris fan, so YMMV.

I doubt it. I've heard Murray in other places, and my example was just one of the things cited as laying bare a poor conclusion. 

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

And Sam Harris has a PHD in neuroscience. 

In the podcast he doesn't appear to push back all that much on Murray's spurious claims, at least according to the article. In any case, Harris' bona fides aren't really an issue here, as the debate is largely between Murray and the Vox article writers. Which you apparently dismissed out of hand because you didn't like the conclusion they raised, before you even bothered reading it.

Though Harris isn't immune to criticism:

Quote

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.

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Perhaps you might want to get his point of view before deciding whether or not he effectively contradicted the points of the article? The same way I might want to click on the article before questioning the OP's initial post. 

In general if you think you have a simple explanation for anything in psychology or evopsych, you're probably insanely wrong. As we continue to peel things back we continue to find more and more complexities that we didn't even think could exist 20 or 40 years ago. Murray completely (and erroneously) dismissing environmental factors in genetic expression is a great example; when Murray wrote this that was the general consensus, and now we know how incredibly wrong we were. I know Murray's point of view; it's a pretty old one. The difference is that Murray's experiential data has been shown to be at best a shallow interpretation, and deeper dives into any number of topics indicates the lack of depth. 

That it also happens to be an insanely bad thing to publish bad information on for moral reasons is another issue, but as the article says - you don't need to criticize this garbage pseudoscience on moral grounds, simply scientific ones. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That's part and parcel of the problem surrounding this book. It was one chapter of a much larger story, and it wasn't pushed by the authors. In fact, they made all the appropriate mea culpas in the controversial chapter, and they themselves downplayed the importance of those findings. They kept that chapter intact despite the fact that they knew it was liable to be controversial, but once they had determined that the findings were sound, they opted to keep it in.  

The point is though is many people are challenging the alleged soundness of their findings.

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I got excited when I saw the post, as I had just heard the podcast maybe a couple of weeks ago. Once again, apologies to Old Gimlet Eye for not clicking the post first.

No worries. It's all good. We all jump the gun once awhile. In fact, I did this morning. LOL.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

55 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That was a really good podcast. Murray has really been unfairly cast as some sort of racist regarding the findings of his book (The Bell Curve). Harris dug pretty deep into the fallacies surrounding the controversy behind Murray and Hernstein's book.

I think there's some sort of disconnect regarding Murray. (Ostensibly) non-racist defenders of Murray will say that Murray made 5 main claims: 1. IQ is real, and meaningful

2. IQ is heritable

3. Different races have different average IQs

4. There is some genetic basis for race

5. The reasons for some races having higher average IQ than others is at least partly genetic.

And only the last one is really racist, and he spends most of his book on the least racist claims (1&2) anyway.

But his detractors will counter that he was using 1-4 as as premises for 5, and the entire book is really just setup for his claim that some races are less intelligent for genetic reasons. Just like Man of Steel was was 1 and a half hours of setup for Superman and Zod destroying a city while punching each other for 30 minutes.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In the podcast he doesn't appear to push back all that much on Murray's spurious claims, at least according to the article. In any case, Harris' bona fides aren't really an issue here, as the debate is largely between Murray and the Vox article writers. Which you apparently dismissed out of hand because you didn't like the conclusion they raised, before you even bothered reading it.

Though Harris isn't immune to criticism:

In general if you think you have a simple explanation for anything in psychology or evopsych, you're probably insanely wrong. As we continue to peel things back we continue to find more and more complexities that we didn't even think could exist 20 or 40 years ago. Murray completely (and erroneously) dismissing environmental factors in genetic expression is a great example; when Murray wrote this that was the general consensus, and now we know how incredibly wrong we were. I know Murray's point of view; it's a pretty old one. The difference is that Murray's experiential data has been shown to be at best a shallow interpretation, and deeper dives into any number of topics indicates the lack of depth. 

That it also happens to be an insanely bad thing to publish bad information on for moral reasons is another issue, but as the article says - you don't need to criticize this garbage pseudoscience on moral grounds, simply scientific ones. 

Harris doesn't push back on Murray's data, he does indeed agree with it. What he does push back on is the usefulness of this data. 

Harris is a magnet for criticism, absolutely. His stance on Islamic Terrorism and its' roots are extremely controversial. He is hated in many circles, no doubt.

To the last point, I agree strongly. I'm not claiming that Harris is right, and the authors of this piece are wrong. That said, the same logic applies to the authors here. There's no simple explanation in either direction and the truth likely lies somewhere in between. I would simple suggest listening to this podcast if you find the subject to be interesting. I'd love to hear your take on it.

 

/Quick addition: I'd push back on your claim that the main thrust of the article isn't a criticism of Harris's podcast. It's in the subtitle, and after a quick intro/bio of Charles Murray, it jumps right into the podcast. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

I think there's some sort of disconnect regarding Murray. (Ostensibly) non-racist defenders of Murray will say that Murray made 5 main claims: 1. IQ is real, and meaningful

2. IQ is heritable

3. Different races have different average IQs

4. There is some genetic basis for race

5. The reasons for some races having higher average IQ than others is at least partly genetic.

And only the last one is really racist, and he spends most of his book on the least racist claims (1&2) anyway.

But his detractors will counter that he was using 1-4 as as premises for 5, and the entire book is really just setup for his claim that some races are less intelligent for genetic reasons. Just like Man of Steel was was 1 and a half hours of setup for Superman and Zod destroying a city while punching each other for 30 minutes.

 

Very well put, and this is more or less how Harris frames his defense of Murray. He admits that he himself had avoided reading the book due to this controversy, and had avoided attending panel discussions that Murray was involved in due to this controversy.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

To the last point, I agree strongly. I'm not claiming that Harris is right, and the authors of this piece are wrong. That said, the same logic applies to the authors here. There's no simple explanation in either direction and the truth likely lies somewhere in between. I would simple suggest listening to this podcast if you find the subject to be interesting. I'd love to hear your take on it.

I really don't have 150 minutes to listen to them talk mostly about the poor tactic of suppressing speech in colleges. 

The 'truth lying somewhere in the middle' is the same garbage that climate deniers say. No, that's not remotely the case. Murray's data was based on a 23-year old study that has since had an absurd amount of new data thrown at it, all of which shows how shallow the data was in the first place and how immoral the actual conclusions were. Murray's fault isn't using the data; it's using the data with a specific goal in mind. His views on women's intelligence are similarly flawed; he starts with an observable bit of data (there aren't that many women Einsteins), states a hypothesis (women are simply not capable of being as smart as men can) and then stops right there. Similarly, Murray's contention that half of all kids are 'below average' is accurate, but meaningless, because the entire intelligence of the population has increased by a full standard deviation in 60 years. 

When someone performs bad science it doesn't mean that their conclusions are somewhat right. This is akin to saying that because one scientist had a study that vaccines likely cause autism, and others have studies that show they don't, chances are good that vaccines cause a bit of autism - even though the first study was actually flawed and turned out to be wrong. No, that's really not how any of this works. 

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

/Quick addition: I'd push back on your claim that the main thrust of the article isn't a criticism of Harris's podcast. It's in the subtitle, and after a quick intro/bio of Charles Murray, it jumps right into the podcast. 

It criticizes Harris' passivity,  but the major thrust of the article is showing why Harris was doing so badly - because he refused to push back as a noted skeptic on a whole host of claims that weren't particularly reasonable, and went along with them. The majority of the article spends its time refuting Murray's viewpoints and pointing out precisely how his basis points are wrong. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I really don't have 150 minutes to listen to them talk mostly about the poor tactic of suppressing speech in colleges. 

That's not at all the crux of the podcast. He opens with the event in question, wherein students were combing various classrooms trying to find out where they had moved the discussion/broadcast and pulling fire alarms while listening to the broadcast in order to help determine where Murray and the interviewing professor were. This after injuring the interviewing professor to the degree that they had to go to the ER afterwards. The vast majority of the podcast centers on the contents of The Bell Curve, not on regressive anti-Free Speech campus movements.

To the rest, I'm not going to bother arguing with you if you're going to dismiss half of the source material we are discussing. If it doesn't interest you enough to listen to, I get that, but I don't see any point in hashing it out minus that.

 

/And hell, I haven't read The Bell Curve, so it's not like I can defend it. I can only speak to the points that both Harris and Murray made in the podcast.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

I think there's some sort of disconnect regarding Murray. (Ostensibly) non-racist defenders of Murray will say that Murray made 5 main claims: 1. IQ is real, and meaningful

2. IQ is heritable

3. Different races have different average IQs

4. There is some genetic basis for race

5. The reasons for some races having higher average IQ than others is at least partly genetic.

And only the last one is really racist, and he spends most of his book on the least racist claims (1&2) anyway.

But his detractors will counter that he was using 1-4 as as premises for 5, and the entire book is really just setup for his claim that some races are less intelligent for genetic reasons. Just like Man of Steel was was 1 and a half hours of setup for Superman and Zod destroying a city while punching each other for 30 minutes.

 

The article points this out in a lot of depth in precisely this way. 1 is entirely within scientific consensus. 2 starts to get bad:

Quote

The new DNA-based science has also led to an ironic discovery: Virtually none of the complex human qualities that have been shown to be heritable are associated with a single determinative gene! There are no “genes for” IQ in any but the very weakest sense. Murray’s assertion in the podcast that we are only a few years away from a thorough understanding of IQ at the level of individual genes is scientifically unserious. Modern DNA science has found hundreds of genetic variants that each have a very, very tiny association with intelligence, but even if you add them all together they predict only a small fraction of someone’s IQ score. 

3 gets even worse:

Quote

To what extent is the observed difference in cognitive function a reflection of the myriad ways black people in the US experience historical, social, and economic disadvantage — earning less money, suffering more from chronic disease, dying younger, living in more dangerous and chaotic neighborhoods, attending inferior schools? Or, following Murray, is IQ an essential inborn characteristic of a group’s genetic background, a biologically inherent deficit in cognitive ability that in part causes their other disadvantages?

4 is really really bad because of how Murray defines race:

Quote

Murray talks about advances in population genetics as if they have validated modern racial groups. In reality, the racial groups used in the US — white, black, Hispanic, Asian — are such a poor proxy for underlying genetic ancestry that no self-respecting statistical geneticist would undertake a study based only on self-identified racial category as a proxy for genetic ancestry measured from DNA.

and then 5 is the conclusion that is simply hugely flawed.

Quote

 But what of the actual evidence on the question? Murray makes a rhetorical move that is commonly deployed by people supporting his point of view: They stake out the claim that at least some of the difference between racial groups is genetic, and challenge us to defend the claim that none, absolutely zero, of it is. They know that science is not designed for proving absolute negatives, but we will go this far: There is currently no reason at all to think that any significant portion of the IQ differences among socially defined racial groups is genetic in origin.

The real problem that Murray had - and continues to have - is that he bases race not on genetics but on social construct, but then argues that IQ is based in genetics. This isn't like the Superman 2 setup at all; it's making an argument based on semantic values instead of scientific ones. One cannot conflate genetic background with social race.