#73 — Forbidden Knowledge by Waking Up with Sam Harris published on 2017-04-23T06:33:32Z In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Charles Murray about the controversy over his book "The Bell Curve," the validity and significance of IQ as a measure of intelligence, the problem of social stratification, the rise of Trump, universal basic income, and other topics. You can support the Waking Up podcast at samharris.org/support. Comment by StarLover get Stephan Molyneux on the podcast. he has the most vast knowledge on this topic among other things. 2017/04/26 15:04:12 +0000 Comment by Jedi22 @varangian-464660518: Thanks for posting this - especially the one from 2016. I don't think that Murray should be prevented from speaking or completely ostracized, but his views should be matter of factly challenged and protested when his ideas are wrong or lacking in important context. 2017/04/26 13:28:37 +0000 Comment by Jedi22 OK - to be fair to Murray, he acknowledged that his position is contradicted in some studies - that's somewhat better 2017/04/26 12:56:48 +0000 Comment by user505943961 Today’s topics involving the book "The Bell Curve" & general intelligence is digressing from the more important issue of "Science as a tool of democracy". The “Normal Distribution” is useful in hypothesis testing AS A TOOL of science! Civilization & Science are only of "good value" when they works toward inclusiveness & well being of ALL people. I LOVE rational thinking, & using science to rationally help create a democratic society. This function is something I CAN justify. BUT setting up measuring scales that eventually result in classism & exclusivity is NOT something we, as scientists, should put our energy into. We MUST, as part of the community of man, to establish testing systems that utilize the best talents of ALL humans! Howard Gardner has "the right idea", and should be supported in his "Multiple Intelligence" model that is (a)democratic, (b) helps guide students looking for occupations they have the greatest aptitude for, & (c) helps employers to optimally make selections! 2017/04/26 12:18:27 +0000 Comment by Lace @varangian-464660518: Science isn't determined by consensus, it is not a democracy. It is based on evidence and facts 2017/04/26 08:02:50 +0000 Comment by Jedi22 and by "reverse problem" I mean that it's worse for a high-achieving minority student who is sent to a lower tier school than it is for a high-achieving minority student to go to a selective school. The latter is the statistically better proposition, and it also happens to be pretty great from a human standpoint to know that we can thrive when it might seem unlikely based on superficial factors. 2017/04/25 21:17:20 +0000 Comment by Jedi22 Uh-oh -- this 'mismatch' notion of minority student with highly selective school is risking getting into Justice Scalia's misconceptions that came out in the University of Texas affirmative action case. Scalia falsely alleged that minority students may not do well in competitive and selective schools, but the data shows that the reverse problem is actually more harmful. Murray is wandering away from facts here and toward bias. 2017/04/25 21:12:03 +0000 Comment by Varangian @dingsbums7: I've got a few: http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/PSYC621/Sternberg_For%20whom%20the%20bell%20curve%20tolls_1995.pdf https://www.sociologicalscience.com/download/vol-3/july/SocSci_v3_520to539.pdf http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1994/12/01/the-tainted-sources-of-the-bell-curve/ 2017/04/25 20:50:48 +0000 Comment by dingsbums7 @varangian-464660518: Please post the link. 2017/04/25 20:35:43 +0000 Comment by Varangian @mmrez: Sam didn't come prepared at all for this podcast, I think. He completely ignored the fact that an overwhelming scientific consensus discredits Murray's views - it's comparable to consensus on climate change. 2017/04/25 20:18:14 +0000 Comment by Varangian @heekof: Fortunately, it is not scientifically accurate. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that discredits the sort of arguments Murray and Herrnstein make in the Bell Curve. I can link you to a few reviews of the Bell Curve (and a modern look at it), if you're interested in an hour or two of reading about this. 2017/04/25 20:16:40 +0000 Comment by Varangian @duncan-driessen: Murray was arguing for the hereditary model in the Bell Curve, and much of the research he cited was conducted by open white nationalists like Richard Lynn. This in itself does not negate the validity of his arguments. However, the content of Murray's arguments in the Bell Curve have largely been discredited and debunked by an overwhelming scientific consensus in the field of social sciences. In short, the sort of arguments that Murray posits in the Bell Curve (and especially the way he attempts to use inconclusive data to form soft eugenics - type policies) are not respectable positions in academia. 2017/04/25 20:15:09 +0000 Comment by JB TOWNSEND These types of discussions, contrary to unfair interpretations, will help our society to achieve progress and improved environments for everyone. Peace/Knowledge/Love/Understanding 2017/04/25 13:17:43 +0000 Comment by Jaâfar Bendriss Sam, I love your podcasts and work, but I didn't feel comfortable with this podcast. I think it may bring more harm than good, even if it is scientifically accurate. 2017/04/25 12:56:50 +0000 Comment by User 312373871 @user-938720590: Fascists? Come on, no need to name call. 2017/04/25 00:01:24 +0000 Comment by User 312373871 @arcadianaudio: They were speaking about nutrition in a relative sense and in context with the different groups within Murray's studies. Yes, many of us eat horrible processed food, but we are not malnourished or starving. They were making the point that it is unlikely that improvements in nutrition would significantly change things like our IQ test results. The point is that IQ is significantly predetermined by genetic factors and improvements in nutrition would unlikely reduce the significance that our genes have on our IQ. 2017/04/24 23:58:35 +0000 Comment by Arcadian Audio Nutrition is NOT "where it needs to be now." Why do you think it is? Nutrition still has a LONG way to go before it hits ceiling. 2017/04/24 17:48:58 +0000 Comment by Rio Rio Nothing is going to happen to those students, Snoflake U! 2017/04/24 17:10:40 +0000 Comment by Suspect I had seen his book quoted in a hyper racist 4chan tread once and this was my only knowledge ether him or his book. He is possibly the most rational conservative I've ever encountered. Thank you for having him on. 2017/04/24 13:45:04 +0000 Comment by Atticus Finch Judith related to Sam? 2017/04/24 12:58:37 +0000 Comment by M.Rez @duncan-driessen: I agree. 2017/04/24 12:32:35 +0000 Comment by Black Bellamy @duncan-driessen: I agree. Data is data. The truth is the truth. Sometimes the truth sucks and the truth hurts; it's up to us to overcome what sucks and ameliorate (or prevent) what hurts. 2017/04/24 09:52:54 +0000 Comment by Duncan Driessen @mmrez: You can debate the nature v nurture argument all you want - but everything points to a mix. Ignoring this is simply bad practise in favor of politically correctness. Evolutionairy group strategies are (often) based on kin recognition for instance. Ignoring this will yield bad policies. 2017/04/24 09:46:37 +0000 Comment by Duncan Driessen @blackbellamy: IQ is mainly useful as a predictor. This whole notion of 'evil data' is so orwellian. I'm amazed with the spread of this anti data cancer, driven by antipositivist ideologues, swallowed hook line and sinker by self proclaimed skeptics and intelelctuals. 2017/04/24 09:39:19 +0000 Comment by User 938720590 extremely interesting conversation. glad we have intellectual warriors like these guys battling the fascists. 2017/04/24 08:22:03 +0000 Comment by Roger This is going to be an amazing podcast 2017/04/23 19:09:05 +0000 Comment by HipHop Gde I knew he was going to say Christopher Hitchens :) I miss that guy. 2017/04/23 18:03:53 +0000 Comment by HipHop Gde 1:22:06 - he already answered Sam, a kid might have a much more successful career if he studies at a different college rather than MIT 2017/04/23 17:29:49 +0000 Comment by HipHop Gde Interesting. 2017/04/23 16:17:59 +0000 Comment by M.Rez @varangian-464660518: I do agree with you on the part that this is not fuel for mainstream political debates, but this is science and we can learn a lot from this. One thing I like to see is how much ideas compare to our genes when it comes to our features e.g. globalistics vs. nationalistics. I would expect ideas make genes irrelevant, but knowing this is very valuable even though I do not see genes as important as mindset of the person. 2017/04/23 15:06:53 +0000
