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

[*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

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

He wrote in the article you linked:

Violence is different for women than it is for men. Unlike men, they don’t tend to get into fistfights with strangers after an escalating series of insults.

I don't have that tendency he ascribes to men. If it comes to insults at all, of course. While it may well be true that men on the whole fight more often than women, and it's certainly true that when physically attacked I have no qualms about striking back, the notion that men tend to fistfighting after insults is a shopworn stereotype -- a generalization, and a false one, at that -- in my view.

[*Deidre*]

He wrote in the article you linked:

Violence is different for women than it is for men. Unlike men, they don’t tend to get into fistfights with strangers after an escalating series of insults.

I don't have that tendency he ascribes to men. If it comes to insults at all, of course. While it may well be true that men on the whole fight more often than women, and it's certainly true that when physically attacked I have no qualms about striking back, the notion that men tend to fistfighting after insults is a shopworn stereotype -- a generalization, and a false one, at that -- in my view.

Ahhhh, I see. I was like whhhhat?? 

I think we can all generalize from time to time, but Sam Harris borders on sexist, imo. I just don't like him.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

... and existing connections between neurons will strengthen and weaken over time with hebbian learning using a variety of different physical mechanisms, and even reconnect to other parts. Two people could theoretically have exactly the same number of neurons and axons but have vastly different abilities or level of intelligence based on how their brains have been shaped from their environment. One could have a far more efficient brain than the other.

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.

I personally argue that you only be as intelligent as your environment allows because you need something to be intelligent about, to learn and to adapt to. A baby raised from birth in a sensory depravation chamber won't make an intelligent adult no matter what its parentage.

I do think that there are innate predilections but these only really serve to start the person down the right path. If they don't make use of their abilities then someone without those innate abilities could easily get better than them through hard work and practical experience. Intelligence can also be lost over time. Use it or lose it.

[Edwardo Piet]

The connections quite literally aren't there but the fundamental base for them very literally is there. The genetic makeup plays a huge role. And even when genes are dormant they're still there and able to be activated. The environment shapes intelligence but it can only shape what's already there... and what seeds grow can only grow from the seeds that are already there, to use an analogy.

Intelligent people aren't born with baby level intelligence and they "become" intelligent. They've always been intelligent it just hasn't had chance to develop yet.

The way I understand and define intelligence is it's a potential capacity.

---

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

That's an awful analogy of what I'm doing. You're assuming they're not equal and we're talking about a situation where races are so equal in intelligence on average that the null hypothesis is indeed that they are close to equal rather than further away from equal.

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.

What utter bullshit. You're the arrogant one because you're claiming to know I think this when I haven't even given the sligthest indication of thinking that at all. In fact I've said the exact opposite... I'm saying that the best we can do is use our own common sense because it's too difficult to measure. You're the one who thinks we can measure it remember? You're the arrogant one. I'm saying it's immeasurable.

I have said that that the best we can do is use our common sense when it comes to realizing what the null hypothesis is. You're the arrogant moron who pretends to not even have a null hypothesis and yet you're also looking for evidence that races do have equal intelligence. And you're the arrogant idiot who is trying to measure it and then accusing me of doing that when I'm saying we can't. You're the twat who's misrepresenting my position as saying my own common sense is good enough to measure intelligence when what I'm actually saying is that we can't measure it at all and we have to use common sense to recognize that the null hypothesis is that races are more or less equal intelligence and we'd have to look for evidence of them NOT having equal intelligence, not look for evidence that they do.. Not be a biased racist arrogant moron who thinks that we need to look for evidence of races NOT having significantly differing intelligence, assuming like a bigot that the null hypothesis is that races have significantly different intelligent levels/ Why would you make that your null hypothesis? You are saying you consider a null hypothesis would be a bad idea and yet your null hypothesis is already very clearly that races have significantly different intelligences despite not having any evidence of this and despite not being able to have evidence of this. And the fact that that is your starting position without evidence is what makes it a null hypothesis (and a rather bigoted assumption) on your part.

[paulpablo]

The connections quite literally aren't there but the fundamental base for them very literally is there. The genetic makeup plays a huge role. And even when genes are dormant they're still there and able to be activated. The environment shapes intelligence but it can only shape what's already there... and what seeds grow can only grow from the seeds that are already there, to use an analogy.

Intelligent people aren't born with baby level intelligence and they "become" intelligent.  They've always been intelligent it just hasn't had chance to develop yet.

The way I understand and define intelligence is it's a potential capacity.

---

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

That's an awful analogy of what I'm doing. You're assuming they're not equal and we're talking about a situation where races are so equal in intelligence on average that the null hypothesis is indeed that they are close to equal rather than further away from equal.

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.

What utter bullshit. You're the arrogant one because you're claiming to know I think this when I haven't even given the sligthest indication of thinking that at all. In fact I've said the exact opposite... I'm saying that the best we can do is use our own common sense because it's too difficult to measure. You're the one who thinks we can measure it remember? You're the arrogant one. I'm saying it's immeasurable.

I have said that that the best we can do is use our common sense when it comes to realizing what the null hypothesis is. You're the arrogant moron who pretends to not even have a null hypothesis and yet you're also looking for evidence that races do have equal intelligence. And you're the arrogant idiot who is trying to measure it and then accusing me of doing that when I'm saying we can't. You're the twat who's misrepresenting my position as saying my own common sense is good enough to measure intelligence when what I'm actually saying is that we can't measure it at all and we have to use common sense to recognize that the null hypothesis is that races are more or less equal intelligence and we'd have to look for evidence of them NOT having equal intelligence, not look for evidence that they do.. Not be a biased racist arrogant moron who thinks that we need to look for evidence of races NOT having significantly differing intelligence, assuming like a bigot that the null hypothesis is that races have significantly different intelligent levels/ Why would you make that your null hypothesis? You are saying you consider a null hypothesis would be a bad idea and yet your null hypothesis is already very clearly that races have significantly different intelligences despite not having any evidence of this and despite not being able to have evidence of this. And the fact that that is your starting position without evidence is what makes it a null hypothesis (and a rather bigoted assumption) on your part.

I didn't actually mention a null hypothesis.  According to you there is no data to back up a null hypothesis, the only reliable measurement of intelligence is if you say someone is intelligent then they are, you know because you're intelligent and can therefore tell who else is.

I made a casual observation that it would be statistically unlikely for any two groups of huge populations to have exactly the same sum of any sort of biological value.

Whether it's athletic performance, weight, body fat percentage, height, bone density.  Or intelligence.

I'm not speaking much about my own opinions apart from casual observations.  I wouldn't make a hypothesis based on no data.

The main thing I'm talking about is your statements which seem illogical.

A bit like it's not racist for me to say that the fact a lot of the fastest runners and best boxers are African American isn't a coincidence because races do have physical genetic differences and competences even though mentally intelligence levels between races is the same.

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

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.

 Getting the right null hypothesis is where the common sense comes in. 

Your statements are so wild.

You have a value that's not measurable but you can tell upon meeting someone who has intelligence because you've judged yourself to be intelligence, common sense is useless so you used this useless common sense to come to the null hypothesis that all intelligence is equal based on no measurements because it's impossible to measure.

Impossible to measure except when you yourself judge a measurement, because you're so intelligent you have the ability to measure the immeasurable.

[Astonished]

This is why we should learn to divorce good ideas from those who espouse them. No good comes from doing otherwise.

[Edwardo Piet]

Apologies for the necro, but I finally found someone who has explained exactly how I feel about Sam Harris on this matter, and like myself had the same reaction and is also a big fan of Sam Harris in basically ALL other areas. To this day this one podcast episode still remains the only time I've pretty much ever disagreed with or been disgusted and disappointed in Sam Harris. I'm not the only one who reacted in shock like this.

Here is the article: https://warmlittlepond.wordpress.com/201...am-harris/

Hi Sam,

I’m a big fan of your work, and think what you’re doing is immensely important. You are quite often a bastion of clear thinking on so many topics, and it’s a pleasure to hear you speak and think.

Because of my high opinion as you as a thinker, I was a bit shocked to hear part of the conversation you had with Douglas Murray in your last podcast episode. I agree with him a lot regarding the regressive left, etc., but then he decided to go on this ignorant and angry tirade about transgender issues. He mocked the idea of letting people identify themselves as transgendered, made fun of the fact that a transgendered person may or may not decide to undergo sex-reassignment surgery (as if that would somehow illigitimize their identity) and thought people coming out as transgendered was all due to politics. This was quite disturbing to hear, but even more disturbing–to me–was the fact that you just sat by and laughed with him, and seemed to sympathize with what he said. This was shocking to hear. Granted, you didn’t say any of those hateful things yourself, but silence on your part seemed to speak volumes in this case, especially given your reputation for fearlessly confronting what you perceive to be bad ideas. You certainly didn’t seem to object to anything he said, and thought his comments were, in your words, “hilarious.”

Perhaps you did not want to be combative with your guest early on in your podcast, and instead wanted to move on to other things. But, if you disagreed with him, you could have simply stated “I don’t agree with much you said on transgender issues, but I would like to switch our focus to another topic.” Or something similar. But you made no indication that you disagreed with anything he said. I would really like you to clarify your position on transgender issues, and let us know whether you were in large agreement with Douglas Murray in your podcast when he ranted against transgendered people. This is very concerning to me, as I constantly defend your views from distortions, and this would be more difficult for me to do should you in fact hold such a disturbing position.

Kind regards,

Colin

I couldn't put it better myself. I added the bold myself though.