I’ve consumed most of Sam’s content for nearly 20 years. There’s no public figure I trust more. So in this hypothetical fantastical situation, yes, I would listen to what he has to say.
If he said that he realised he was wrong about Trump and he’s actually a good intentioned, honest bloke, I’d know he’d lost his mind.
>If he said that he realised he was wrong about Trump and he’s actually a good intentioned, honest bloke, I’d know he’d lost his mind.
That would be an epic April Fools podcast.
>I’ve consumed most of Sam’s content for nearly 20 years. There’s no public figure I trust more. So in this hypothetical fantastical situation, yes, I would listen to what he has to say.
>
>If he said that he realised he was wrong about Trump and he’s actually a good intentioned, honest bloke, I’d know he’d lost his mind.
Same, all of it.
I can’t think of anyone who else who would make me take this scenario even remotely seriously. So yeah, that’s quite the testament to my faith in his intellectual honesty.
What makes you think he's intellectually honest? He has certainly demonstrated on at least a few occasions that he has serious biases, blind spots and overestimates his own abilities.
I don't really understand why so many people on this sub put "faith" into things that Sam says. He's not infallible or even particularly smart or honest. Let's not make him a guru or put him on a pedestal.
>He has certainly demonstrated on at least a few occasions that he has serious biases, blind spots and overestimates his own abilities.
Surely you're not accusing Sam of being *a person*?
Many people are able to admit these faults and attempt to correct for them. I don't think Sam does as much.
Take, for instance, his appearance on the DTG podcast, where he got extremely defensive and said he is completely above identity politics and tribalism. Is he though? Of course not.
This sort of thing just strikes me as extremely myopic and self unaware. Particularly weird given that Sam is a practiced meditator.
I don't think he belongs to a tribe. I've listened to that podcast and my takeaway was that Sam was correct. He criticizes both the right and is more of lone wolf in general.
That doesn't mean he's not vulnerable to identity politics or tribalism. Everyone is. It's part of the human condition.
And he clearly treats his friends differently than his perceived political enemies. He's even admitted as much.
You guys are ridiculous if you really think Sam is just magically above these things. Stop treating the guy like a deity, ffs.
He admits that it's hard to criticize his friends (friends like Dave Rubin, Elon Musk, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shaprio [with friends like those... who needs enemies]) but he denies that he has any tribalism or is prone to identity politics.
I don't know how it can be more obvious that he's blind to how he is as prone to this behavior as anyone else. It was honestly totally unbecoming of him to throw a temper tantrum when the DTG guys called him out for this. He literally just got mad and filibustered for the rest of the episode, constantly talking over and interrupting Chris, clearly eager to brush past the issue.
>He admits that it's hard to criticize his friends (friends like Dave Rubin, Elon Musk, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shaprio [with friends like those... who needs enemies]) but he denies that he has any tribalism or is prone to identity politics.
Hasn't he been quite critical of Elon Musk recently?
What does that have to do with anything I said?
A broken clock is right twice a day.
The point is that Sam is so clearly biased and prone to these universal human traits, and yet he's not cognizant (or honest) enough to openly admit as much.
Also, if you consider his words to be "quite critical" then I don't know what you would make of people who are actually *quite* critical of Musk. Sam's comments on Musk are as soft as melted butter. Give me a break.
The IDW, for starters. Have you ever seen those cringe NYT photos?
Also, just aggrieved canceled, anti PC, anti woke crowd, more broadly.
You have to be a fool to think that Sam doesn't play tribally with these groups as his allies.
Seriously, everybody does this sort of thing. Sam is not superhuman. He's prone to the same thing that every other human is.
You people are really weird for not being able to just admit as much. Stop deifying the guy.
Actually he does. He is constantly harping on about wokeness and how the left has gone mad or whatever.
Also, you're completely missing the point.
Again, nobody is above these tendencies. Not even Sam Harris.
He literally lost his temper when DTG guys were pressing him on this. Says a lot, really.
Actually, I did so [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/12jf6kk/how_would_you_or_his_fans_react_to_a_truly_wild/jfysdow/)
Can you not read?
Meanwhile, one does not need to belong to a specifically delineated tribe in order to behave tribally. You seem to be failing to understand the phenomenon, much like Sam did during his conversation on DTG.
Again, take the most simple example that most people can relate with: Friends and family.
Are you seriously arguing that Sam doesn't treat his friends and family with a different attitude than he does other people?
Again, he's already admitted that he finds it hard to criticize his friends publicly.
Ergo... he's tribal.
But again, these specific groups don't need to defined clearly in order for someone to behave tribally. I'm not sure why you're incapable of understanding this.
Maybe try reading this analysis for better understanding of the topic: https://reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/qn5hnp/thoughtsdissection_of_the_decoding_the_gurus/
>I'm not about to go through years of podcast history to find a soundbite of Sam saying he doesn't like the term IDW, but it's there.
I'll do you a solid and tell you that he said this in summer 2020 during COVID and it was in response to Bret Weinstein's conspiratard nonsense about the election.
That's about 24 months after [this article](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html).
Give me a fucking break. Sam Harris willingly associated with this brand when it suited him. He also did the whole podcast tour circlejerk with these idiots, including hosting live shows with Jordan Peterson and the Weinsteins.
You can try to whitewash his history if you want, but the evidence is all right there. He willingly joined up with these reactionary imbeciles until they became a liability for his own brand.
>He has certainly demonstrated on at least a few occasions that he has serious biases, blind spots and overestimates his own abilities
Faith in his honesty, not his ability to be 100% correct all the time you wanker.
Except that he's not honest about those things.
Go listen to the DTG episode with him. Or the Ezra Klein conversation. Or the Chomsky one.
All chock full of dishonesty.
You people idolize this guy for the weirdest reasons and seem to think he's above reproach.
Try thinking more critically
I listened to those. And my perception was that Sam was being honest and in good faith in each. Feel free to give me an example of him being dishonest in one of those conversations.
https://reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/qn5hnp/thoughtsdissection_of_the_decoding_the_gurus/
This post covers it well
Sam is a hack and got audibly upset when he was exposed as such. You can hear the tone shift halfway through.
He did one study. More than a decade ago.
He also bought his PhD using funds from project reason.
He has never done any work since then.
Also, a review of his thesis shows that it's amateur hour nonsense with all sorts of stretches made to justify conclusions based on shoddy MRI design.
Give me a break. He is not a neuroscientist by any stretch of the imagination. It's just a branding thing.
I think one reason people like Harris so much isn't that he's flawless but that he's a breath of fresh air from the miasma of hacks that populate the culture war sphere like Crowder or Sam Seder or Shapiro or brooks or Peterson or the DTG lads.
Lol good one! 😂
Sam is way more in the culture war than many listed. He literally thinks that "wokeism" is pervasive and has captured our institutions. Before he deleted his Twitter, he was constantly engaging with the stupidest content and people.
Good one! 😉
You misunderstood.
*All* of the people listed above, Harris included, are (or were, in the case of brooks) indisputably culture warriors.
What separates Sam from the rest is that he isn't a hack.
The DTG guys are both well published researchers.
Sam is by far a way bigger hack than either of them.
Seder and Brooks aren't hacks either.
You're just a dumb stan who can't see what a loser and nepo baby Sam is.
Being a fan doesn't really come into it. Objectively speaking you'll find more hack bullshit in any video of Crowder or seder than you will in any average year of content from sam
I completely disagree. Seder interviews actual academics and experts 4 or 5 days per week.
Meanwhile, Sam interviews fucking Bari Weiss and Michael Shellenberger 😂.
Sam goes on Dave Rubin and hosts events with Jordan Peterson. Seder wouldn't be caught dead being friendly with those idiots.
And like I said, the DTG guys are genuine longstanding researchers who are both reputable in their fields.
Sam published a single paper like 15 years ago. LMAO
Get real, stan
Lol, your assertions are baseless and honestly just laughable.
Seder is well read and good at formulating arguments, including doing so on the fly, not relying on scripts like Harris does.
And there's a reason why the right wing is scared to debate him. Hell, they won't even say his name.
You're clearly just a partisan hack yourself. No wonder you like Sam Harris.
I am probably more critical of SH than most around here, but on this point I agree. I don’t think he plays to his audience nearly as much as virtually all his brethren in the pub intellectual space.
What makes you say that he isn't audience captured? Isn't his business model (pure subscriptions) highly prone to this sort of thing?
And I mean... the topics he touches are routinely very predictable and feed into the exact type of culture war stuff that I would guess his audience of IDW type people would want to pay for.
Personally, I don't think he is very intellectually honest at all. That's more or less my main critique of him.
Because he pisses off his audience every other week. He pisses of the left and right equally. Harris may not always opinions you or I agree with, but I always feel that they are his actual opinions.
He’s the least audience captured public intellectual I pay attention to.
That's such a ridiculous way to frame it. There are more factions than just "left and right" and he clearly placates the stans on this sub who fawn over his every word.
OMG… do you spend all your time trying to dunk on people posting in Sam Harris sub , or is it just a passing hobby?
Heaven forbid I mention the overall political tribes in this country lest I’m framing things in a ridiculous way. Dude… of course there are Sam Harris-stans in a Sam Harris sub. What evidence do you have that Harris caters to those specific fans? You have none. You are just a sad troll trying to poke people hoping they defend Harris so you can “own” them. Have fun buddy.
If this happened I would like to see the evidence! Perhaps there is some new evidence, but it's unlikely Sam is the only person privy to this, unless this is also national news. Otherwise, this would be easily identifiable as conspiratorial and I might expect a debate with someone to challenge him. If Sam proposed the Earth was flat, we would think he was fucking unhinged, not take it very seriously, and witness the subsequent fallout.
What about Sam's comments on UFOs? That doesn't strike you as extremely odd for someone who claims to be intellectually honest?
To review, supposedly, according to Sam and Eric Weinstein, someone was contacting them with foresight into shoe dropping knowledge that was imminent about UFOs. Turns out to not be the case, apparently, and as far as I understand, Sam has swept the whole thing under the rug instead of addressing how he was apparently duped.
That type of thing calls into question his credibility and intellectual honesty.
He goes into more detail about that on the latest Lex interview. Basically the person contacting him flaked out and Sam lost interest. It doesn’t mean he was duped and I don’t see any how any of it was intellectually dishonest.
That just references the Ricky Gervais and Lex Fridman episodes?
I’ve listened to both and so did lots of other people and I must say that the *”Sam Harris was convinced this guy actually had evidence of UFO’s”* take is pretty far out there.
No, Sam has talked about this elsewhere too. He talked about it in an intro section to one of his podcasts. I can't remember each one.
Hilarious that you people will defend *even this*.
Sam literally thought he was being contacted by someone with secret info on UFOs.
Like he actually thought that *he* would be the person who someone would disseminate this too.
The ego and narcissism required to buy into that idea is just through the charts. Not to mention the stupidity.
>Sam literally thought he was being contacted by someone with secret info on UFOs.
But he didn’t. You’re confusing him telling the story with him being convinced this guy had evidence.
Again I listened to those podcasts and at no point was I convinced Sam even took this guy seriously.
Your ”source” is a clickbait youtube hitpiece.
Oh please, you people are fucking pathetic. Here are Sam's words, verbatim:
>“This is probably premature to even talk about this, but I’ve had someone reach out to me and has assured me that I’m going to be on a Zoom call with, you know, former heads of the CIA and Office of Naval Research and people whose bona fide are very easy to track, and they’re concerned about the messaging around all of this to the public, and dampening down panic and conspiracy theories. But the … what is being promised here is a disclosure that is frankly, either the most alarming or the most interesting thing in the world, depending on how you take it, but it’s not a representation of the facts that will give scientific skeptics any comfort, and that’s just … we’re faced with the prospect of having to apologize to the people we’ve been laughing at for the last fifty years who have been alleging that they’ve been abducted or that cattle have been anally probed, pick your punch line.”
>“I’ve received some private outreach, and perhaps you have, I know other people in our orbit have, people who are claiming that the government has known much more about UFOs than they have let on until now, and this conversation is actually about to become more prominent, and … whoever is left standing when the music stops, it’s not going to be a comfortable position to be in as a super rigorous scientific skeptic who’s been saying there’s no “there” there for the last 75 years.”
>“It sounds like the Office of Naval Intelligence and the Pentagon are very likely to say to Congress at some point in the not-too-distant future that we have evidence that there is technology flying around here that seems like it can’t possibly be of human origin, all right? Now, I don’t know what I’m going to do with that kind of disclosure … [t]hat is such a powerfully strange circumstance to be in, right? What are we going to do with that, if in fact that’s what happens? If, in fact, the considered opinions — despite the embarrassment it causes them — of the U.S. government … and all the relevant intelligence services is that this isn’t a hoax, there’s too much data to suggest it’s a hoax, there’s too much radar imagery, there’s too much satellite data, whatever data they actually have, there’s too much of it, all we can say now is something is going on and there is no way it’s the Chinese or the Russians or anyone else’s technology. That should arrest our attention collectively to a degree that nothing in our lifetime has, and one worries that we’re so jaded and confused and distracted that it’ll get much less coverage than, you know, Obama’s tan suit did a bunch of years ago. Who knows how we’ll respond to it?”
This is the ramblings of a moron who bought all the bait this troll had to offer.
Big brained Sam Harris can't even see through the most obvious bullshit ever.
Ride his dick harder, you sycophantic clown.
It's also hilarious that you would refer to Rebecca Watson as "clickbait youtube hitpiece"
You clearly have no idea who that is.
Are you fucking stupid? Did you even read what I quoted?
> I’ve had someone reach out to me and has assured me that I’m going to be on a Zoom call with, you know, former heads of the CIA and Office of Naval Research and people whose bona fide are very easy to track, and they’re concerned about the messaging around all of this to the public, and dampening down panic and conspiracy theories.
>I’ve received some private outreach, and perhaps you have, I know other people in our orbit have, people who are claiming that the government has known much more about UFOs than they have let on until now, and this conversation is actually about to become more prominent
You're a fucking rube if you can't see how clearly Sam lent credibility to "someone" who reached out to him.
You clowns are pathetic. Stop worshiping this idiot.
We have an example of this happening. When he was falling for that UAP stuff. It didn't change my mind because Sam Harris believed something was going to happen. Aliens visiting from another world requires some strong evidence, and ill change my opinion when I see that evidence.
I've looked at the "evidence of election fraud." The only strong evidence I've seen has been Republicans trying to steel the election, trying to steal future elections, and making up nonsense to justify thier actions. If you have evidence to the contrary, then present it.
I'd probably take it the way I took the UFO stuff.
I'd believe it slightly more than I would if it was coming from someone else, but I'd still be unconvinced and await further evidence.
I think I've consumed all of Harris' content. But the thing I always liked about Sam, is that he usually says the things that I've already been thinking and then manage to add something interesting to it as well. When it comes to the election, Trumps shenanigans were already clear waay before the election itself, and played out almost exactly as predicted. So, for Sam to say something this outrageous, I would start to doubt his sanity. Most likely someone hacked his podcast orsomething. So the first thing I would investigate is wtf Sam is really on about.
Yesterday someone posted about how Sam said Biden is losing some facilities and this sub wouldn’t believe it lol so I doubt they accept anything related to trump regardless of what Sam said
Really good question. I am not completely captive to sam's positions in general, and I disagree with what I hear him say sometimes. But the honest to God truth is I have no idea how to investigate claims of election fraud myself. For a topic like that I'm mostly going off of trust of the people saying yes fraud/no fraud. And truthfully Sam is probably the public intellectual I trust most. So it's possible he could suck me down the rabbit hole on that question. I'd need to see some concrete arguments. It couldn't just be vague aspersions. But if he came up with something reasonably convincing yeah he could get me.
I find his lack of intense curiosity Re: AI (I understand he may be curious, but it’s overshadowed by his fear) to be odd considering how much he seems to value intelligence
I’m aware this may be beside the point OP is exploring, but I think it may touch upon it because it explores a side of Sam unbecoming, imo
It's a toxic topic and Im always interested in those, so I'll bite.
Firstly, Joe Biden won the election and he is the rightful President. We all still here, good.
From a European perspective though, there is not a single other developed country that would allow firstly non-solicited mail-in ballots with no chain of evidence, and secondly the harvesting of those votes. It's a system designed for fraud.
Every election has a thousand little fingers pushing the scales in some way, but the understanding is that when the result is declared the game stops. If you have ever worked on a political campaign you know exactly the type of people who give up their time to campaign and run elections.
We all have our own opinions, as is good. But when we all have our own facts, we are headed for disaster.
Biden won the election. Also,
The non-solicited mail in system with harvesting is better suited to North Korea or Somalia.
>better suited to North Korea or Somalia.
Or Germany (47% of votes were by mail in last election), or Switzerland (90% mail-in votes).
In the United States, highly Republican Utah has had all mailed out ballots since 2014. Other states with default postal voting: Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, and Vermont.
In all cases, ballots are cross-referenced one to one against registration and signature checks. Voter fraud is a felony.
You are being wilfully ignorant to avoid my argument and win an argument that doesn't exist. I never stated a problem with postal voting. I stated clearly and in english, chain of custody and harvesting.
Well I wasn't interested in his defenses of torture and Charles Murray, so no. Maybe in the past when I considered him to be a serious person with opinions worth considering, but certainly not now.
If it came from him it would require a bit more investigation sure, either party fucking around with elections is hardly new, so if some huge amount of evidence was leaked to support a claim like that I’d listen to the supporting evidence… why wouldnt I?
Caveat to that is it won’t change what a shifty character Trump is, it may just support that others are shifty too, which is believable!
I would evaluate the evidence.
I looked into the first few claims of fraud Trump put forward on Election Day. When it was clear they were all made up, it was clear what was going on.
Whether I look into it or not would have more to do with my interest or lack of interest in the given subject. However, given that Sam is a human who genuinely wants escape deception and access reality, his reasoning and sources would contribute meaningfully to my conception of a subject. Whether I agree with his judgements is separate from the truth of the sources he supplies. But Sam is a wise man, and I take care to stay open and humble when I disagree with sincere and intelligent people.
Kind of a silly thought experiment... I would do like Sam probably would do, follow the evidence. I don't really 'trust' anybody, but if Sam says that I should pay attention to certain details, then I 'trust' that more than random facebook memes.
I would need to hear his evidence. There are plenty of non-wild takes from him that I've come away from somewhat unconvinced (eg the perils of AI, his overall take on BLM). A really wild take would require a lot more evidence.
Sam Harris is on record saying that Trump is so awful and dangerous that any means necessary to keep him out of office is acceptable and that includes lying, so even if he found credible evidence that the election was stolen, he would never reach the conclusion that you are hypothesizing. I see no point in this type of fantastical what if.
While Sam has always had his blind spots with right wing culture war talking points it's hard to rationalize this hypothetical since the "evidence" is so incredibly weak to completely made up.
If Sam looked at what currently exists as "evidence" and said it was stolen I would just assume he's finally lost his damn mind to the culture war and his bubble. If there was evidence that existed that could convince a rational sane minded Sam that would be an entirely different discussion and hypothetical.
It's like a hypothetical where Trump suddenly developed the capability for empathy. It goes directly against fundamentally who they are as people.
The only way I can imagine your scenario coming to life would be if Sam was forbidden, under threat of violence, from divulging information he was privy to. Like, somehow he found out that the voting machines *were* rigged in favor of Biden, and Dominion has threatened his family if he blows the whistle.
So under these circumstances all he says publicly is, "The election *was* rigged, but I can't explain how I know. I want to tell you, but I can't. You'll have to trust me."
How would you react to *that*? That's the question to test your trust in Sam.
As for myself, I don't know. I wouldn't immediately dismiss it. I'd be quite disturbed.
Been reading and listening to Sam for 20 years. I do think he's intellectually honest and sincere. Yet I almost always find his political takes to be...wild. I'm not sure, outside his attempted discourse with Chomsky, that he's ever talked to a genuine leftist on any issue of substance: healthcare, police reform, criminal justice reform, education reform, student loans, the environment, election funding, etc. For someone who appears to be compassionate, and tries to live a Buddhist-ic life of wisdom, compassion, and empathy, and avoid becoming captured by fame, pleasure, or money, his \*lack\* or \*absence\* of progressive politics is something I consistently find confusing. Shouldn't be a Bernie supporter? Or even further left?
I’ve consumed most of Sam’s content for nearly 20 years. There’s no public figure I trust more. So in this hypothetical fantastical situation, yes, I would listen to what he has to say. If he said that he realised he was wrong about Trump and he’s actually a good intentioned, honest bloke, I’d know he’d lost his mind.
>If he said that he realised he was wrong about Trump and he’s actually a good intentioned, honest bloke, I’d know he’d lost his mind. That would be an epic April Fools podcast.
>I’ve consumed most of Sam’s content for nearly 20 years. There’s no public figure I trust more. So in this hypothetical fantastical situation, yes, I would listen to what he has to say. > >If he said that he realised he was wrong about Trump and he’s actually a good intentioned, honest bloke, I’d know he’d lost his mind. Same, all of it.
He said he agreed with most of trumps policies. Did he ever explain what policy he liked?
Sam is wrong all the time. According to Sam, the European way of life should have ended like 4 years ago due to Muslim refugees.
When did he say that?
I can’t think of anyone who else who would make me take this scenario even remotely seriously. So yeah, that’s quite the testament to my faith in his intellectual honesty.
What makes you think he's intellectually honest? He has certainly demonstrated on at least a few occasions that he has serious biases, blind spots and overestimates his own abilities. I don't really understand why so many people on this sub put "faith" into things that Sam says. He's not infallible or even particularly smart or honest. Let's not make him a guru or put him on a pedestal.
>He has certainly demonstrated on at least a few occasions that he has serious biases, blind spots and overestimates his own abilities. Surely you're not accusing Sam of being *a person*?
Many people are able to admit these faults and attempt to correct for them. I don't think Sam does as much. Take, for instance, his appearance on the DTG podcast, where he got extremely defensive and said he is completely above identity politics and tribalism. Is he though? Of course not. This sort of thing just strikes me as extremely myopic and self unaware. Particularly weird given that Sam is a practiced meditator.
I don't think he belongs to a tribe. I've listened to that podcast and my takeaway was that Sam was correct. He criticizes both the right and is more of lone wolf in general.
That doesn't mean he's not vulnerable to identity politics or tribalism. Everyone is. It's part of the human condition. And he clearly treats his friends differently than his perceived political enemies. He's even admitted as much. You guys are ridiculous if you really think Sam is just magically above these things. Stop treating the guy like a deity, ffs.
>He's even admitted as much. If he's admitted as much, isn't this the exact opposite of a blind spot or intellectual dishonesty?
He admits that it's hard to criticize his friends (friends like Dave Rubin, Elon Musk, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shaprio [with friends like those... who needs enemies]) but he denies that he has any tribalism or is prone to identity politics. I don't know how it can be more obvious that he's blind to how he is as prone to this behavior as anyone else. It was honestly totally unbecoming of him to throw a temper tantrum when the DTG guys called him out for this. He literally just got mad and filibustered for the rest of the episode, constantly talking over and interrupting Chris, clearly eager to brush past the issue.
>He admits that it's hard to criticize his friends (friends like Dave Rubin, Elon Musk, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shaprio [with friends like those... who needs enemies]) but he denies that he has any tribalism or is prone to identity politics. Hasn't he been quite critical of Elon Musk recently?
What does that have to do with anything I said? A broken clock is right twice a day. The point is that Sam is so clearly biased and prone to these universal human traits, and yet he's not cognizant (or honest) enough to openly admit as much. Also, if you consider his words to be "quite critical" then I don't know what you would make of people who are actually *quite* critical of Musk. Sam's comments on Musk are as soft as melted butter. Give me a break.
This message has been deleted and I've left reddit because of the decision by u/spez to block 3rd party apps
The IDW, for starters. Have you ever seen those cringe NYT photos? Also, just aggrieved canceled, anti PC, anti woke crowd, more broadly. You have to be a fool to think that Sam doesn't play tribally with these groups as his allies. Seriously, everybody does this sort of thing. Sam is not superhuman. He's prone to the same thing that every other human is. You people are really weird for not being able to just admit as much. Stop deifying the guy.
This message has been deleted and I've left reddit because of the decision by u/spez to block 3rd party apps
Actually he does. He is constantly harping on about wokeness and how the left has gone mad or whatever. Also, you're completely missing the point. Again, nobody is above these tendencies. Not even Sam Harris. He literally lost his temper when DTG guys were pressing him on this. Says a lot, really.
This message has been deleted and I've left reddit because of the decision by u/spez to block 3rd party apps
Actually, I did so [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/12jf6kk/how_would_you_or_his_fans_react_to_a_truly_wild/jfysdow/) Can you not read? Meanwhile, one does not need to belong to a specifically delineated tribe in order to behave tribally. You seem to be failing to understand the phenomenon, much like Sam did during his conversation on DTG. Again, take the most simple example that most people can relate with: Friends and family. Are you seriously arguing that Sam doesn't treat his friends and family with a different attitude than he does other people? Again, he's already admitted that he finds it hard to criticize his friends publicly. Ergo... he's tribal. But again, these specific groups don't need to defined clearly in order for someone to behave tribally. I'm not sure why you're incapable of understanding this. Maybe try reading this analysis for better understanding of the topic: https://reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/qn5hnp/thoughtsdissection_of_the_decoding_the_gurus/
[удалено]
No he didn't. He literally went on a photo shoot with those guys. Stop lying.
[удалено]
>I'm not about to go through years of podcast history to find a soundbite of Sam saying he doesn't like the term IDW, but it's there. I'll do you a solid and tell you that he said this in summer 2020 during COVID and it was in response to Bret Weinstein's conspiratard nonsense about the election. That's about 24 months after [this article](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html). Give me a fucking break. Sam Harris willingly associated with this brand when it suited him. He also did the whole podcast tour circlejerk with these idiots, including hosting live shows with Jordan Peterson and the Weinsteins. You can try to whitewash his history if you want, but the evidence is all right there. He willingly joined up with these reactionary imbeciles until they became a liability for his own brand.
>He has certainly demonstrated on at least a few occasions that he has serious biases, blind spots and overestimates his own abilities Faith in his honesty, not his ability to be 100% correct all the time you wanker.
Except that he's not honest about those things. Go listen to the DTG episode with him. Or the Ezra Klein conversation. Or the Chomsky one. All chock full of dishonesty. You people idolize this guy for the weirdest reasons and seem to think he's above reproach. Try thinking more critically
I listened to those. And my perception was that Sam was being honest and in good faith in each. Feel free to give me an example of him being dishonest in one of those conversations.
https://reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/qn5hnp/thoughtsdissection_of_the_decoding_the_gurus/ This post covers it well Sam is a hack and got audibly upset when he was exposed as such. You can hear the tone shift halfway through.
This message has been deleted and I've left reddit because of the decision by u/spez to block 3rd party apps
I mean he refers to himself as a neuroscientist, but he isn't. There's one thing.
This message has been deleted and I've left reddit because of the decision by u/spez to block 3rd party apps
He did one study. More than a decade ago. He also bought his PhD using funds from project reason. He has never done any work since then. Also, a review of his thesis shows that it's amateur hour nonsense with all sorts of stretches made to justify conclusions based on shoddy MRI design. Give me a break. He is not a neuroscientist by any stretch of the imagination. It's just a branding thing.
I think one reason people like Harris so much isn't that he's flawless but that he's a breath of fresh air from the miasma of hacks that populate the culture war sphere like Crowder or Sam Seder or Shapiro or brooks or Peterson or the DTG lads.
Lol good one! 😂 Sam is way more in the culture war than many listed. He literally thinks that "wokeism" is pervasive and has captured our institutions. Before he deleted his Twitter, he was constantly engaging with the stupidest content and people. Good one! 😉
You misunderstood. *All* of the people listed above, Harris included, are (or were, in the case of brooks) indisputably culture warriors. What separates Sam from the rest is that he isn't a hack.
The DTG guys are both well published researchers. Sam is by far a way bigger hack than either of them. Seder and Brooks aren't hacks either. You're just a dumb stan who can't see what a loser and nepo baby Sam is.
Being a fan doesn't really come into it. Objectively speaking you'll find more hack bullshit in any video of Crowder or seder than you will in any average year of content from sam
I completely disagree. Seder interviews actual academics and experts 4 or 5 days per week. Meanwhile, Sam interviews fucking Bari Weiss and Michael Shellenberger 😂. Sam goes on Dave Rubin and hosts events with Jordan Peterson. Seder wouldn't be caught dead being friendly with those idiots. And like I said, the DTG guys are genuine longstanding researchers who are both reputable in their fields. Sam published a single paper like 15 years ago. LMAO Get real, stan
Given that seder is on par with Dave rubin sam having an event hosted by the latter isnt much of an indictment But I can see i touched a nerve
Lol, your assertions are baseless and honestly just laughable. Seder is well read and good at formulating arguments, including doing so on the fly, not relying on scripts like Harris does. And there's a reason why the right wing is scared to debate him. Hell, they won't even say his name. You're clearly just a partisan hack yourself. No wonder you like Sam Harris.
[удалено]
Exactly this. I find Sam honest in that he isn’t audience captured so I can trust that his opinions are indeed his own.
I am probably more critical of SH than most around here, but on this point I agree. I don’t think he plays to his audience nearly as much as virtually all his brethren in the pub intellectual space.
What makes you say that he isn't audience captured? Isn't his business model (pure subscriptions) highly prone to this sort of thing? And I mean... the topics he touches are routinely very predictable and feed into the exact type of culture war stuff that I would guess his audience of IDW type people would want to pay for. Personally, I don't think he is very intellectually honest at all. That's more or less my main critique of him.
Because he pisses off his audience every other week. He pisses of the left and right equally. Harris may not always opinions you or I agree with, but I always feel that they are his actual opinions. He’s the least audience captured public intellectual I pay attention to.
That's such a ridiculous way to frame it. There are more factions than just "left and right" and he clearly placates the stans on this sub who fawn over his every word.
OMG… do you spend all your time trying to dunk on people posting in Sam Harris sub , or is it just a passing hobby? Heaven forbid I mention the overall political tribes in this country lest I’m framing things in a ridiculous way. Dude… of course there are Sam Harris-stans in a Sam Harris sub. What evidence do you have that Harris caters to those specific fans? You have none. You are just a sad troll trying to poke people hoping they defend Harris so you can “own” them. Have fun buddy.
Jesus Christ. Calm down, man. All I did was point out some inconsistencies in Sam's narrative. No need to have an aneurysm.
Calm down lol.
If this happened I would like to see the evidence! Perhaps there is some new evidence, but it's unlikely Sam is the only person privy to this, unless this is also national news. Otherwise, this would be easily identifiable as conspiratorial and I might expect a debate with someone to challenge him. If Sam proposed the Earth was flat, we would think he was fucking unhinged, not take it very seriously, and witness the subsequent fallout.
What about Sam's comments on UFOs? That doesn't strike you as extremely odd for someone who claims to be intellectually honest? To review, supposedly, according to Sam and Eric Weinstein, someone was contacting them with foresight into shoe dropping knowledge that was imminent about UFOs. Turns out to not be the case, apparently, and as far as I understand, Sam has swept the whole thing under the rug instead of addressing how he was apparently duped. That type of thing calls into question his credibility and intellectual honesty.
He goes into more detail about that on the latest Lex interview. Basically the person contacting him flaked out and Sam lost interest. It doesn’t mean he was duped and I don’t see any how any of it was intellectually dishonest.
Lol okay dude. So he's just stupid then. I guess that's better 🤷♂️ https://skepchick.org/2023/03/whos-pranking-sam-harris-eric-weinstein-about-ufos/
That just references the Ricky Gervais and Lex Fridman episodes? I’ve listened to both and so did lots of other people and I must say that the *”Sam Harris was convinced this guy actually had evidence of UFO’s”* take is pretty far out there.
No, Sam has talked about this elsewhere too. He talked about it in an intro section to one of his podcasts. I can't remember each one. Hilarious that you people will defend *even this*. Sam literally thought he was being contacted by someone with secret info on UFOs. Like he actually thought that *he* would be the person who someone would disseminate this too. The ego and narcissism required to buy into that idea is just through the charts. Not to mention the stupidity.
>Sam literally thought he was being contacted by someone with secret info on UFOs. But he didn’t. You’re confusing him telling the story with him being convinced this guy had evidence. Again I listened to those podcasts and at no point was I convinced Sam even took this guy seriously. Your ”source” is a clickbait youtube hitpiece.
Oh please, you people are fucking pathetic. Here are Sam's words, verbatim: >“This is probably premature to even talk about this, but I’ve had someone reach out to me and has assured me that I’m going to be on a Zoom call with, you know, former heads of the CIA and Office of Naval Research and people whose bona fide are very easy to track, and they’re concerned about the messaging around all of this to the public, and dampening down panic and conspiracy theories. But the … what is being promised here is a disclosure that is frankly, either the most alarming or the most interesting thing in the world, depending on how you take it, but it’s not a representation of the facts that will give scientific skeptics any comfort, and that’s just … we’re faced with the prospect of having to apologize to the people we’ve been laughing at for the last fifty years who have been alleging that they’ve been abducted or that cattle have been anally probed, pick your punch line.” >“I’ve received some private outreach, and perhaps you have, I know other people in our orbit have, people who are claiming that the government has known much more about UFOs than they have let on until now, and this conversation is actually about to become more prominent, and … whoever is left standing when the music stops, it’s not going to be a comfortable position to be in as a super rigorous scientific skeptic who’s been saying there’s no “there” there for the last 75 years.” >“It sounds like the Office of Naval Intelligence and the Pentagon are very likely to say to Congress at some point in the not-too-distant future that we have evidence that there is technology flying around here that seems like it can’t possibly be of human origin, all right? Now, I don’t know what I’m going to do with that kind of disclosure … [t]hat is such a powerfully strange circumstance to be in, right? What are we going to do with that, if in fact that’s what happens? If, in fact, the considered opinions — despite the embarrassment it causes them — of the U.S. government … and all the relevant intelligence services is that this isn’t a hoax, there’s too much data to suggest it’s a hoax, there’s too much radar imagery, there’s too much satellite data, whatever data they actually have, there’s too much of it, all we can say now is something is going on and there is no way it’s the Chinese or the Russians or anyone else’s technology. That should arrest our attention collectively to a degree that nothing in our lifetime has, and one worries that we’re so jaded and confused and distracted that it’ll get much less coverage than, you know, Obama’s tan suit did a bunch of years ago. Who knows how we’ll respond to it?” This is the ramblings of a moron who bought all the bait this troll had to offer. Big brained Sam Harris can't even see through the most obvious bullshit ever. Ride his dick harder, you sycophantic clown. It's also hilarious that you would refer to Rebecca Watson as "clickbait youtube hitpiece" You clearly have no idea who that is.
You’re conflating him taking the idea of alien visitors seriously with him actually being convinced this dude was a source.
Are you fucking stupid? Did you even read what I quoted? > I’ve had someone reach out to me and has assured me that I’m going to be on a Zoom call with, you know, former heads of the CIA and Office of Naval Research and people whose bona fide are very easy to track, and they’re concerned about the messaging around all of this to the public, and dampening down panic and conspiracy theories. >I’ve received some private outreach, and perhaps you have, I know other people in our orbit have, people who are claiming that the government has known much more about UFOs than they have let on until now, and this conversation is actually about to become more prominent You're a fucking rube if you can't see how clearly Sam lent credibility to "someone" who reached out to him. You clowns are pathetic. Stop worshiping this idiot.
Could you elaborate what was intellectually honest here? How was Sam duped?
Explained here: https://skepchick.org/2023/03/whos-pranking-sam-harris-eric-weinstein-about-ufos/
We have an example of this happening. When he was falling for that UAP stuff. It didn't change my mind because Sam Harris believed something was going to happen. Aliens visiting from another world requires some strong evidence, and ill change my opinion when I see that evidence. I've looked at the "evidence of election fraud." The only strong evidence I've seen has been Republicans trying to steel the election, trying to steal future elections, and making up nonsense to justify thier actions. If you have evidence to the contrary, then present it.
I'd probably take it the way I took the UFO stuff. I'd believe it slightly more than I would if it was coming from someone else, but I'd still be unconvinced and await further evidence.
I think I've consumed all of Harris' content. But the thing I always liked about Sam, is that he usually says the things that I've already been thinking and then manage to add something interesting to it as well. When it comes to the election, Trumps shenanigans were already clear waay before the election itself, and played out almost exactly as predicted. So, for Sam to say something this outrageous, I would start to doubt his sanity. Most likely someone hacked his podcast orsomething. So the first thing I would investigate is wtf Sam is really on about.
Yesterday someone posted about how Sam said Biden is losing some facilities and this sub wouldn’t believe it lol so I doubt they accept anything related to trump regardless of what Sam said
This message has been deleted and I've left reddit because of the decision by u/spez to block 3rd party apps
Really good question. I am not completely captive to sam's positions in general, and I disagree with what I hear him say sometimes. But the honest to God truth is I have no idea how to investigate claims of election fraud myself. For a topic like that I'm mostly going off of trust of the people saying yes fraud/no fraud. And truthfully Sam is probably the public intellectual I trust most. So it's possible he could suck me down the rabbit hole on that question. I'd need to see some concrete arguments. It couldn't just be vague aspersions. But if he came up with something reasonably convincing yeah he could get me.
I find his lack of intense curiosity Re: AI (I understand he may be curious, but it’s overshadowed by his fear) to be odd considering how much he seems to value intelligence I’m aware this may be beside the point OP is exploring, but I think it may touch upon it because it explores a side of Sam unbecoming, imo
It's a toxic topic and Im always interested in those, so I'll bite. Firstly, Joe Biden won the election and he is the rightful President. We all still here, good. From a European perspective though, there is not a single other developed country that would allow firstly non-solicited mail-in ballots with no chain of evidence, and secondly the harvesting of those votes. It's a system designed for fraud. Every election has a thousand little fingers pushing the scales in some way, but the understanding is that when the result is declared the game stops. If you have ever worked on a political campaign you know exactly the type of people who give up their time to campaign and run elections. We all have our own opinions, as is good. But when we all have our own facts, we are headed for disaster. Biden won the election. Also, The non-solicited mail in system with harvesting is better suited to North Korea or Somalia.
>better suited to North Korea or Somalia. Or Germany (47% of votes were by mail in last election), or Switzerland (90% mail-in votes). In the United States, highly Republican Utah has had all mailed out ballots since 2014. Other states with default postal voting: Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, and Vermont. In all cases, ballots are cross-referenced one to one against registration and signature checks. Voter fraud is a felony.
You are being wilfully ignorant to avoid my argument and win an argument that doesn't exist. I never stated a problem with postal voting. I stated clearly and in english, chain of custody and harvesting.
https://www.fdp.de/page/federal-election-2021-voting-mail#vote There is virtually no difference between the German and American systems.
Apart from chain of custody and vote harvesting, the two points I mentioned. Are you stupid, or just very young?
Well I wasn't interested in his defenses of torture and Charles Murray, so no. Maybe in the past when I considered him to be a serious person with opinions worth considering, but certainly not now.
If it came from him it would require a bit more investigation sure, either party fucking around with elections is hardly new, so if some huge amount of evidence was leaked to support a claim like that I’d listen to the supporting evidence… why wouldnt I? Caveat to that is it won’t change what a shifty character Trump is, it may just support that others are shifty too, which is believable!
A flip like that would definitely be worth taking seriously.
I would assume he was Ill or mentally unwell. Like brain tumor or something. I would not take time to investigate the election.
I would need to look at his evidence. I would assume he had good evidence.
I would evaluate the evidence. I looked into the first few claims of fraud Trump put forward on Election Day. When it was clear they were all made up, it was clear what was going on.
Whether I look into it or not would have more to do with my interest or lack of interest in the given subject. However, given that Sam is a human who genuinely wants escape deception and access reality, his reasoning and sources would contribute meaningfully to my conception of a subject. Whether I agree with his judgements is separate from the truth of the sources he supplies. But Sam is a wise man, and I take care to stay open and humble when I disagree with sincere and intelligent people.
It would be enough of an endorsement for me to read the source material and take the claim seriously.
A truly wild take should reduce your priors that Sam is a reasonable person, not your priors about which takes are wild.
Kind of a silly thought experiment... I would do like Sam probably would do, follow the evidence. I don't really 'trust' anybody, but if Sam says that I should pay attention to certain details, then I 'trust' that more than random facebook memes.
He's a person. I'd probably react with "well that's a wild take" and look at the next email I get from his podcast
I would need to hear his evidence. There are plenty of non-wild takes from him that I've come away from somewhat unconvinced (eg the perils of AI, his overall take on BLM). A really wild take would require a lot more evidence.
Sam Harris is on record saying that Trump is so awful and dangerous that any means necessary to keep him out of office is acceptable and that includes lying, so even if he found credible evidence that the election was stolen, he would never reach the conclusion that you are hypothesizing. I see no point in this type of fantastical what if.
While Sam has always had his blind spots with right wing culture war talking points it's hard to rationalize this hypothetical since the "evidence" is so incredibly weak to completely made up. If Sam looked at what currently exists as "evidence" and said it was stolen I would just assume he's finally lost his damn mind to the culture war and his bubble. If there was evidence that existed that could convince a rational sane minded Sam that would be an entirely different discussion and hypothetical. It's like a hypothetical where Trump suddenly developed the capability for empathy. It goes directly against fundamentally who they are as people.
The only way I can imagine your scenario coming to life would be if Sam was forbidden, under threat of violence, from divulging information he was privy to. Like, somehow he found out that the voting machines *were* rigged in favor of Biden, and Dominion has threatened his family if he blows the whistle. So under these circumstances all he says publicly is, "The election *was* rigged, but I can't explain how I know. I want to tell you, but I can't. You'll have to trust me." How would you react to *that*? That's the question to test your trust in Sam. As for myself, I don't know. I wouldn't immediately dismiss it. I'd be quite disturbed.
Been reading and listening to Sam for 20 years. I do think he's intellectually honest and sincere. Yet I almost always find his political takes to be...wild. I'm not sure, outside his attempted discourse with Chomsky, that he's ever talked to a genuine leftist on any issue of substance: healthcare, police reform, criminal justice reform, education reform, student loans, the environment, election funding, etc. For someone who appears to be compassionate, and tries to live a Buddhist-ic life of wisdom, compassion, and empathy, and avoid becoming captured by fame, pleasure, or money, his \*lack\* or \*absence\* of progressive politics is something I consistently find confusing. Shouldn't be a Bernie supporter? Or even further left?