So is the premise of the argument that you should be able to freely discuss data and how it could be interpreted? But at the same time not be allowed to question the flaws in methodology of the production or collection of that data, or the ways in which that data will have inherent bias built in?

I'm confused as to what the issue is.

Does the possibility not exist that this is, in fact, simply bad science, and people aren’t being vilified so much as they are being told that their science is bad?

Hang on, I thought you guys used sliming to mean jizzing?

If we ever get beyond this, I'm reading Paul Bloom's new book Agaisnt Empathy which might be a good fit here?

Totally persuaded by it.

Sam Harris Waking Up Podcast is here

The relevant episodes are:

The Harris/Murray podcast that kicked all this off is episode 73 (Forbidden Knowledge)

THe Harris/Klein podcast is 123 (Identity and Honesty) and is the most recent.

Klein posted the latter on his site too, but its the same.

Facewon wrote:

There is not consensus on this because direct evidence from modern genetic studies of group differences is not yet available.

 

Facewon wrote:

But it's uncontroversial to say that black folk score lower on IQ?

 
These go together.

JRPC wrote:

Facewon wrote:

But it's uncontroversial to say that black folk score lower on IQ?

Well it certainly shouldn't be by default. It depends completely on the context and yes, the intentions.

I wonder what could give us context? Hmmmm, let me think. Maybe social science, history and a touch of philosphy of science.

JRPC wrote:

That's a different Buzzfeed article isn't it? Hang on...

No, it's the same one, I find posting links 3-4 times gives me around a 10% chance of you reading them.

The issue of how we define race and how we think about group differences is absolutely an interesting and important thing to talk about.

I don't think it actually has anything to do with the core of this issue here, that being that there are "bad actors" here (classic Harrisism) who are deliberately and repeatedly misrepresenting Murray's position and motives, and now are sliming Harris for daring to have a conversation with him.

So arguing that the idea of race is messy doesn't at all throw Murray's takes on things into question at all? 

If your main argument is that "dangerous ideas" or inconvenient truths need to be discussed openly and honestly, then sure, but you can't then continue to ignore folks pointing out that your (general your)ideas aren't actually dangerous, they're possibly just wrong.

And if you want to talk about intentions, then why ignore or dismiss Klien's very good points about Murray's Previous work, his title, and the excerpt they chose to run. That's context, and it puts his intentions into question. 

Further, like you in the discussion here, as I've mentioned previously, Harris and Murray both MISREPRESENT (since he's so sensitive about being misrepresented) the entirety of the Bell curve Criticism. Yes, there was some abuse, yes there's some OTT responses etc, it may even be the majority of responses, but that doesn't mean there weren't good takedowns that should have been dealt with. I linked to all manner of stuff just after a quick google.

You've done similar in here, talking about lynch mobs and being driven out, while taking forever to maybe respond to stuff. There's plenty of meat in here for you to go at and explain where you disagree, but more often than not you've not engaged, you've worried about bad faith and name calling. You've highlighted Gonzo and Chump as being impossible, when you've had legit and perfectly polite disagreement from Jon B and Monkey which you've not engaged with.

It might be useful to quote less from folks when you agree with them, and also quote less that you agree with from links from other folks, and quote the bits you disagree with and explain why.

Some questions:

Do you agree that it's possible for someone to both cop abuse, bad faith and poor arguments from some people, while at the same time copping fair and well thought out criticism from others? This is a Yes No, and I assume you'll see where I'm going if you say Yes.

What was your follow up to the question about the ideal on bias?

I wonder what could give us context? Hmmmm, let me think. Maybe social science, history and a touch of philosphy of science.

That's not what I mean by context there.

What I mean is better described by 'framing' then possibly. That it's possible to imagine a situation where a conversation about race and IQ could be had where nobody involved, on either side of the debate, are automatically considered racists. 

Do you agree that it's possible for someone to both cop abuse, bad faith and poor arguments from some people, while at the same time copping fair and well thought out criticism from others? This is a Yes No, and I assume you'll see where I'm going if you say Yes.

If I understand the question correctly then yeah, absolutely. 

What was your follow up to the question about the ideal on bias?

I've been trying to understand how you're coming to some of the conclusions that you are. It occurred to me that it was possible to think that going into these sort of questions that it's preferable to have a strong bias going in (when it seems to me an absolute no-brainer that the goal is no bias).

I didn't actually imagine you were thinking that way but thought it would be worth at least excluding it before moving on to make a point.


I can't actually remember what I was going to do with it now though.

I'm not sure of the value of "a conversation about race and IQ", given the questionable value of IQ as any kind of useful/unbiased measure; and the questionable value of any correlations between the two; and due to the questionable context in which all such data was gathered and studied. I just don't see how it can be a fruitful conversation.

Indeed the whole desire to have such a conversation seems a bit weird to me tbh. I'm sceptical as to the goals of people who want it. I'm guessing at least some want to "prove" themselves better than others, and to ignore individuality.

So yeah, if that's your key goal here, good luck with that.

JRPC wrote:

...
I can't actually remember what I was going to do with it now though.

There’s a very simple explanation for that.

djchump wrote:

JRPC wrote:

A short post-podcast Quilette article; Ezra Klain should know better

Sooo, nobody should try and smear Harris and Murray, but you’ll happily post articles smearing Ezra Klein?

I mean, that piece right there is 100% “attack the person, rather than the claims”, whereas the Vox pieces I read were predominantly breaking down and criticising the claims Murray made.

It's actually highly relevent.

It speaks to his intentions.

Do you think Harris's behaviour in his interactions with Klein, chompers, and Ater show intentions that are pure?

Brooks wrote:

Quilette seems like a bad website.

It's actually the best a man can get.

JRPC wrote:

It's actually highly relevent.

It speaks to his intentions.

So it’s entirely legitimate to ignore the arguments or statements someone has made and criticise them entirely according to their intentions?

Cool cool. So “Murray is a racist” is now fine and we can put all this to bed then, yeah? (Not that Vox ever made that claim, but there we go).

You’re flip-flopping all over the place.