I Used To Be A Fan But I Am Now Shocked, Disgusted And Appalled With Sam Harris

[Edwardo Piet]

It seems contradictory to say something is too complex to be measured accurately but it's also easy to use common sense to tell that there's not much difference between measurements.

That's just you being obtuse again.

The fact that it can't be measured accurately in a technical way is why we have to resort to common sense. It's the best we've got because it's difficult.

If it's too complex to be measured with accuracy what method are you using for measurement to come to an accurate conclusion?

That's the whole point... it's not measurable. It's merely definable.

Intelligence is generally defined as understanding, learning, application of knowledge, expression, creativity, forward planning.

Those are all different things and I don't consider "intellignce" to be a Wittgenstein family resemblance concept.

There are over represented groups in fields where intellect is a prime requisite for success, Jews and Asians for instance when it comes to Nobel prize winners, finance, academic achievements, careers in science and technology, law, media and entertainment, comedians, entrepreneurial success, medical fields, sales.

Those are all skills and talents and fields of expertise. We're talking about intelligence itself here.

Not just in America or any specific country, with Jews especially this is especially true.  This is where the ideas of a Jewish conspiracy come from which I think is nonsense, I think they're just simply clever.

"they", as in "Jews", are clever.

Okay dense bigot.

It's not really random in the sense that they're over represented in all of those fields, in a various countries and all of those fields require complex understanding, learning, creativity, forward planning, application of knowledge and so on.

At the very least, to me, it would seem to require more than common sense to come to a conclusion of near enough complete equality between racial groups and intelligence.

The null hypothesis isn't distant differences of intelligence between races the null hypothesis is near enough equality between races. The fact you're looking for evidence of near enough equal intelligence between races and assuming by default that some races have significantly superior intelligence to others just speaks to the bigotry behind your preconceptions. There's absolutely no reason to think that any races are significantly more intelligent than any other races. Intelligence is about forming connections between neurons and as long as you have a non-disabled human brain your brain is more than capable of forming strong connections... and it is simply that some people have more potential and a higher capacity than others. And such intelligent people are very much between all races.

Why are you trying to accurately measure something that is too complex to measure? The whole reason IQ tests are inaccurate is because they are grotesquely unsophisticated and very much non-comprehensive when it comes to measuring intelligence.

My point being purely that it's understandable to say race and intelligence are complex issues, but seemingly illogical to me to say it's easily observable by common sense to observe races are all equally intelligent.

It's not "easily" observable. You've got your null hypothesis backwards. Common sense is pretty much useless.

When it comes to intelligence, it takes one to know one, you either have it or you don't... and you very much don't. I only waste my time and energy on you when I'm bored because your denseness is so freaking frustrating. It's not something that can be objectively measured.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think any phenomenon so complex as intelligence has both genetic and environmental factors.

[paulpablo]

It seems contradictory to say something is too complex to be measured accurately but it's also easy to use common sense to tell that there's not much difference between measurements.

That's just you being obtuse again.

The fact that it can't be measured accurately in a technical way is why we have to resort to common sense. It's the best we've got because it's difficult.

If it's too complex to be measured with accuracy what method are you using for measurement to come to an accurate conclusion?

That's the whole point... it's not measurable. It's merely definable.

And that goes back to my question of how can you conclude using common sense that there are equal measurements of a value that isn't measurable.

I simply use common sense to tell quite easily that if there is any difference it's too negligible to even be worth discussing.

It's not "easily" observable. You've got your null hypothesis backwards. Common sense is pretty much useless.

So you used useless common sense to easily observe something that isn't easily observable.
And you've judged yourself to be intelligent and me to be unintelligent on the basis that you know you're intelligent enough to tell you are intelligent and I'm not intelligent.

If you're putting forth a claim of equality of intelligence among races it's your burden of proof.  So far all you've provided is "Beh I can just tell, common sense innit."

All those things I mentioned are skills, talents and fields of expertise, all of which utilize the minds capacity for learning and applying knowledge, understanding, creativity, expressiveness, problem solving and dealing with abstract concepts.

There are certain groups who are exceptional in these fields.

I think the way intelligence is defined, at least from every definition I can find from the dictionary, wikipedia and how the word is used in common parlance it involves understanding, knowledge, creativity, expressiveness, problem solving and so on.

---

I think any phenomenon so complex as intelligence has both genetic and environmental factors.

I don't think this can be argued against.  To give an obvious example, there are lots of ways childhood neglect or abuse could reduce a person's mental capacity.  Whether from lack of nutrients, dehydration, concussion.

And there could be economic freedom or lack of which decides how free someone is to express their creativity to an extent, possibly.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Indeed. That's not even mentioning brain plasticity, which simply means that exposure to stimulating ideas stimulates the creation of further neural connections in the brain, which aren't preprogrammed genetically.

The learning environment of a child, and even of adults, can and does physically modify the brain, and it is not genetically programmed.

I've no doubt that factors like brain size, or the differing proportions of different processing areas of the brain, have large genetic components. Equally, I have no doubt that exposure to different stimuli can and does stimulate growth in differing areas of the brain. You and I are musicians. We spend a lot of time learning things like how to keep our guitars in tune, how to play with meter and tempo, and so on. No doubt in those areas our brains have neural connections that non-musicians lack.

Picking either one or the other -- genetics or environment -- strikes me as far too simplistic to have any explanatory power on a phenomenon so complex as general intelligence.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think any phenomenon so complex as intelligence has both genetic and environmental factors.

Nah I think intelligence is entirely innate. I think that -- like with some mental illnesses like Bipolar Disorder for example -- the environment can help activate certain genes but it can't create them. And I also think having your intelligence nurtured by the environment can strongly unlock that intelligence and make it appear like it has been created or that it wasn't there before and you just got 'made more intelligent', but I don't believe that's actually possible. The way I define intelligence: it's an innate capacity/potential that can be unlocked, encouraged, fostered and fed but it can't be created or made.

Knowledge and learning and memory is a different side of the coin to ultimate capacity for understanding/ultimate potential of comprehension/intelligence, IMO.

However: merely a difference of definition on our parts will make us reach two equally respectable conclusions, of course.

---

And that goes back to my question of how can you conclude using common sense that there are equal measurements of a value that isn't measurable.

And that just goes back to my point that your null hypothesis is completely backwards. The null hypothesis is that all races' intelligence levels are either equal or insignificantly different and we'd require evidence of the contrary for that null hypothesis to be falsified. The null hypothesis is not that different races have significantly different intelligence levels the null hypothesis is that different races have at most insignificantly different intelligence levels. Getting the right null hypothesis is where the common sense comes in. When it comes to recognizing the most parsimonious hypothesis that's where you actually have to use your own intelligence... your own intelligence which has evidently failed you here.

---

I don't think this can be argued against.

I strongly disagree and have the complete opposite opinion.

 To give an obvious example, there are lots of ways childhood neglect or abuse could reduce a person's mental capacity.

To go against your so-called 'obvious' example (which I prefer to think of as an oversimplified assumption) here is my, perhaps counterintuitive (but to me far more obvious than your position), counter argument: Childhood neglect or abuse doesn't reduce a person's mental capacity it fails to foster it/ it neglects it/ it damages the person mentally or neurologically so their capacity can no longer be reached. But restriction is different to reduction. Even if in practice a person's capacity is so damaged that they are unable to ever reach their full mental capacity it is still in principle the same and it's not in principle impossible for them to ever reach it. And perhaps there are people who can recover some, or even all, of that capacity in time and with correct therapy... largely depending on how bad the abuse was. And still: even if they can't it doesn't mean it's not there anymore. There's a difference between something that has become unreachable and something that isn't there.

---

The learning environment of a child, and even of adults, can and does physically modify the brain, and it is not genetically programmed.

But this is exactly my point... when the environment changes someone's brain it is still an alteration of their innate brain's capacity... it doesn't create or destroy someone's intelligence it can only affect an innate intelligence that is already there.

[paulpablo]

I haven't mentioned a null hypothesis because it would be an obviously flawed way to come to a conclusion of equality.

Especially if you reject that intelligence can be measured.

This is basically like saying I can't see the water in the cups so I know they're equal for a fact.

It's funny how you view the IQ tests to be flawed but you consider your own "common sense" and on the spot judgement of people to flawless.
That says a lot about your arrogance.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nah I think intelligence is entirely innate. I think that -- like with some mental illnesses like Bipolar Disorder for example -- the environment can help activate certain genes but it can't create them. And I also think having your intelligence nurtured by the environment can strongly unlock that intelligence and make it appear like it has been created or that it wasn't there before and you just got 'made more intelligent', but I don't believe that's actually possible. The way I define intelligence: it's an innate capacity/potential that can be unlocked, encouraged, fostered and fed but it can't be created or made.

That's your definition. It works for the way you think.

The studies done with twins indicate that there is indeed a genetic component to intelligence, and that it is strong, but the fact is that, as Paul pointed out earlier, childhood malnutrition (which is of course an environmental factor), can have a strong and lifelong deleterious effect on intellectual development. "Entirely innate" is to me far too radical a point, considering that the science we have on the matter indicates an interaction of the two factors.

The learning environment of a child, and even of adults, can and does physically modify the brain, and it is not genetically programmed.

But this is exactly my point... when the environment changes someone's brain it is still an alteration of their innate brain's capacity... it doesn't create or destroy someone's intelligence it can only affect an innate intelligence that is already there.

Except that those neural connections are quite literally not there until the brain in question takes an interest in whichever phenomenon it is that spurs the development of those new neural connections. The potential to grow new connections is innate in everyone, sure -- but that potential is weakened by an unstimulating environment, say, or childhood malnutrition. The capacity for growth in intelligence is innate. The actual growth of intelligence largely depends on the environment.

Granted the absence of neuropathology, no doubt your standard-issue human contains a potential for intelligence roughly equal to other humans. But the environment seems to shape the development of intelligence. This is one reason why inner-city children more often need preparatory classes in order to succeed in university.

[CapnAwesome]

Yeah. Well this is a thread about how I not only agree with him on lots of things (although disagree strongly with him on some things)... but I generally consider myself a rather big Sam Harris fan. He's my favorite (was my favorite) public intellectual

Now he's just some transphobic bigoted fuckface who merely happens to be a smart guy who I agree with on a lot of matters and I think has very good argumentation and logical skills in general but I have no desire to listen to his podcasts, read his books or watch his videos anymore, and I'm far from a fan.

As soon as someone doesn't agree with you 100% they are cast into the pit eh............Basically your whole post was just a bunch of insults. I didn't even get what he said from it, nor did you offer any sort of actual refutation. Just a bunch of insults because there is one area you disagree on.

The real question is what logical fallacies did he use?? Lol.

[*Deidre*]

I've never liked Sam Harris, just not my type of personality. He's smart, but he seems to tread the line a lot of insulting women, and then back pedaling his position when called out on it. This is an example, but there's other types of dialogues like it.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/im-n...ooking-for

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've never liked Sam Harris, just not my type of personality. He's smart, but he seems to tread the line a lot of insulting women, and then back pedaling his position when called out on it. This is an example, but there's other types of dialogues like it.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/im-n...ooking-for

Jesus please us. Someone needs to tell him that generalizations are not a sound basis for rational thought. I don't tend to get into fistfights with strangers after an escalating series of insults.