@ace, oh, I'm with you on your trepidation, don't get me wrong. My point is it's possible not to throw baby out with bathwater.

And has a low IQ.

JRPC wrote:

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

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech

Just so everyone can compare and contrast the Vox piece that JRPC thinks doesn’t “deal with the science” and is pure character assassination, with a piece that JRPC thinks is valid criticism and not character assassination at all, no sir.

Nb - did you ever actually read that Vox piece yourself JRPC? I’m betting that no, you didn’t, you only listened to Harris whinging about it.

Now, I'm going to go Woolies to get a tirmassu and then I wanna respond to Face.

The answer is obvious of course: everyone has a certain viewpoint due to his or her background ergo everyone has a bias on a subject. In society and especially when practicing science. It's unavoidable and scientists should be aware of this when conducting research and formulating a valid null-hypothesis. Even Kuhn realised this in his description of the scientific paradigm.

The only way to counter this is to be aware of your own bias and.....of others. Murray and Harris definitely fail the above.

That's also why the bell curve is flawed. It observes that rich (white?) people score higher in iq tests and poor (coloured?) people score lower but it's just that, an observation. It fails to explore why this happens instead opting to assume the cause is probably genetic (why?). It doesn't even consider racial inequality as a possible environmental factor skewing the statiscal findings. Again: why?
The answer is of course: internal bias of the researcher. It becomes painfully obvious when you look at Murray's background as Klein points out.

Bias is also evident in how iq is defined as a very hard to influence factor even though it's 20-60% environmentallly influenced. Yet again Murray (and thus Harris) ignore environment and racist attitudes as a plausible factor explaining the bc statistics. As Klein stated in the podcast, you cannot ignore the Flynn effect which is obviously driven by environmental stimuli. Even Flynn believes the statistical findings in the Bell curve can be explained by environmental factors. Murray fails to acknowledge this.

The bell curve fails to proof anything and would obviously fail Popper's falsification test. Observing iq differences is not enough, you have to really do a decent null hypothesis and test the fuck out of it.
And consider the issue from all angles trying to explain your findings. Murray fails to do this which is why the Bell curve is considered pseudo science. Imho of course.

Won't stop the alt righters from screaming they're being maligned and ignored and idiots like Harris being played.

JRPC wrote:

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. 

It is certainly possible to imagine such a situation. The conversation goes pretty much as follows:

Person 1: “Hmm, there appears to be evidence that certain races have lower IQs than others. What does that mean?”

Person 2: “Not much really. The idea of ‘race’ has been pretty solidly dismissed as a concept in science, furthermore, IQ tests are known to be highly problematic as a way of measuring anything”.

At this stage in the conversation, nobody is considered a racist. Should person 1 decide to ignore all of the evidence that disproves their position and insist on arguing the point, then yes, they are probably going to be considered racist.

JRPC wrote:

...
I've read the original vox article a couple of times (including the original before they edited out some of the more inflammatory bits and the more blatant factual errors) ...

So does anyone have access to diff so they can check the changes between:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170519015801/https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech

And:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180411175750/https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech

It’ll be interesting to see what these “inflammatory bits” were that got edited out - and if it is anything more than what they state in the “Clarification” addendum at the bottom of the latest version.

There's no settling with this kind of alarmed thickness.

I will discard my email to Leeroy.

Oh, Harris is undoubtedly sincere in his intentions.
Which makes his blind spot as pointed out by Klein all the more painful as it makes him look like an idiot. It also makes him look more humane if that's any comfort.

Unless he's a shill. Then the above observation is null and void.

Ater is me totally getting names muddled up with dudes at work. Lol. Omer Aziz. Of 4 hr pod fame.

Oh Aziz!

Honest to god you will backtrack on that one once you listen.

And it's totally worth a listen if only to hear meditation Harris loose his shit.

djchump wrote:

JRPC wrote:

... I've read the original vox article a couple of times (including the original before they edited out some of the more inflammatory bits and the more blatant factual errors) ...

So does anyone have access to diff so they can check the changes between: https://web.archive.org/web/20170519015801/https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech And: https://web.archive.org/web/20180411175750/https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech It’ll be interesting to see what these “inflammatory bits” were that got edited out - and if it is anything more than what they state in the “Clarification” addendum at the bottom of the latest version.

Back home now, so I did the diff and here's the only changes in the article (changes bolded):

Original text:

...Here, too briefly, are some facts to ponder — facts that Murray was not challenged to consider by Harris, who holds a PhD in neuroscience, although they are known to most experts in the field of intelligence.

- The black-white IQ gap is decreasing, and is now closer to 10 points than the widely cited one standard deviation (15 points), which is the erroneous value Murray cites in the interview. Academic achievement of blacks has also improved by about one-third standard deviation in recent decades.

- The Flynn effect, named for the political scientist and IQ researcher James Flynn, is the term many scholars use to describe the remarkable rise in IQ found in many countries over time. There has been an 18-point gain in average IQ in the US from 1948 to 2002. One way to put that into perspective is to note that the IQ gap between black and white people today is only about half the gap between America as a whole now and America as a whole in 1948. Murray’s hand-waving about g does not make that extraordinary fact go away.
...

Edited text:

...
Here, too briefly, are some facts to ponder — facts that were insufficiently addressed in the podcast (or omitted entirely):

- The black-white IQ gap is decreasing, and is now closer to 10 points than the widely cited one standard deviation (15 points), which is the erroneous value Murray cites in the interview. Academic achievement of blacks has also improved by about one-third standard deviation in recent decades.

- The Flynn effect, named for the political scientist and IQ researcher James Flynn, is the term many scholars use to describe the remarkable rise in IQ found in many countries over time. There has been an 18-point gain in average IQ in the US from 1948 to 2002. One way to put that into perspective is to note that the IQ gap between black and white people today is only about half the gap between America as a whole now and America as a whole in 1948. When asked about the Flynn effect by Harris, Murray responds with some hand-waving about g, a response that does not make the extraordinary fact of the Flynn effect go away.
...

All of which is completely covered in their clarification note that was added at the end:

Clarification: This article has been read to say that Harris did not ask Murray about the “Flynn effect,” the increase in IQ scores over time. That wasn’t our intent. They did discuss the phenomenon. We meant to say that Harris didn’t challenge Murray enough on its implications, and Murray’s answers on it were inadequate. The passage has been revised.

So, are you still holding to your claim that "they edited out some of the more inflammatory bits and the more blatant factual errors", now that we can see exactly what was edited?

And, be honest, did you really read the original article before it was edited, and then re-read it afterwards and thought to yourself "gosh, they've removed some inflammatory bits and blatant factual errors", or did you hear about the edit in one of the podcasts?

AJ wrote:

Well, that was a relief, thought I was going to need to listen to around quarter of an hour of that podcast, but it took less than five. Sorry, J, the guy's a nut or utterly ill suited to be doing what he is. If anyone wants a laugh, check out his blog page, it's like a parody and has lots of pictures. https://samharris.org/blog/

Oh no!

How come?

What happened?

Fair enough.

Did you opt for the Murray or the Klein one?