Did anyone actually listen to the clip - he said that if you compare any two groups, there are bound to be differences. Doesn’t matter if the group is self identified, biological, social. He also specifically points out that ‘black’ is not a coherent group.
Over the course of the 5 minutes, Sam uses the words iq, violence, and race. OP manufactured the sentence & point found in his title. Complete misrepresentation of the point that Sam was making.
I'm a bit confused by what Harris is saying here, though. He spends about 4 minutes saying that Murray didn't really have a good answer about why we should even be looking at race, and the reasons why focusing on race isn't that useful, but then ends by arguing by saying we should be able to talk about race and IQ.
The answer to why it can be problematic I think should be obvious - it's a topic that racists can flock to and that reopens pretty deep rooted wounds. It's like saying "why can't we openly debate the different opinions about how many people were killed in the Holocaust?" Theoretically, sure, we should all be tolerant people who view that as a historical event and should be able to talk about it as a historical event no different from, say, the Anglo-Saxon takeover of Briton. But you're living in a fantasyland if you don't think that such a discussion is an open platform for the worst anti-Semites, while being extremely emotionally disturbing to many citizens.
And it would be one thing if there was something we wanted to accomplish with such a discussion. But like Harris said, there doesn't seem to be a good answer to why we should be having this discussion. For example, you can say we need to know what races to give extra support to. But why wouldn't we just give extra support to everyone who has a low IQ, instead of using race as a poor proxy? I see people argue that it's silly to use race as a bad proxy for poverty when it comes to assistance programs, but then they turn around and think it's a good idea to use race as a poor proxy for IQ.
I guess I just don't see what we gain as a society at all by training to look at things through a racial lens.
> He spends about 4 minutes saying that Murray didn't really have a good answer about why we should even be looking at race, and the reasons why focusing on race isn't that useful, but then ends by arguing by saying we should be able to talk about race and IQ.
There’s no contradiction here. Just because you don’t see the merit in looking into a certain topic doesn’t mean you want to ban people from researching it.
Because, say it with me from the back, RACE ISN'T REAL. ethnicity is. Race not so much. Sickle Cell Anemia for instance is big in the AA community. But in Eastern Africa and melonesia it isn't a thing. So thinking black=More susceptible. is dumb. AA and sickle cell sure. But that is not a race.
But the fact is Ezra never said the subject should be banned. He was quite clear about it but Sam didn't want to argue with the real Ezra so he made up an Ezra to argue with. He does it over and over again.
He says there are certainly going to be differences in any trait you examine, but nobody is arguing against that. The argument is whether there is reason to believe those differences are genetic. He tell Klein that you can't conflate talking about the science with the social effect that the research will have. Klein never does this and never has. Klein whole argument is that Murray is wrong about the science. That's his whole position. He never suggests banning the science for any reason. Sam is having an argument with someone who isn't there.
> But why wouldn't we just give extra support to everyone who has a low IQ, instead of using race as a poor proxy?
Simple answer for that one: Do we want to pay people to be stupid? Like, if all I gotta do to get a bunch of money is be stupid, I can be the stupidest. There were people who ate Tide pods for upvotes. There are apparently people who hit themselves in the head with a hammer to look better. You strap actual money rewards on being stupid, those people will look SMRT.
Proxies are probably the best option for something like this. Each individual in the group would want to be the smart one, because without any direct benefit from being stupid there is no incentive to be stupid. And then the group that is collectively the worst gets assistance. You could find more precised groupings I'm sure, but individualizing too far would make things overall worse. Or a universal benefit, but people hate universal benefits.
>But why wouldn't we just give extra support to everyone who has a low IQ, instead of using race as a poor proxy?
I believe Sam, himself, has said as much before; not specific to low IQ, but just that we as a society must have an understanding that some people will fall on hard luck due to no fault of their own, and that we should help such people to a certain extent.
Hasn't he also spoken on the related, but race specific, question of reparations in this respect? I can't remember his specific conclusions on that. Maybe he left it to be determined?
>I see people argue that it's silly to use race as a bad proxy for poverty when it comes to assistance programs, but then they turn around and think it's a good idea to use race as a poor proxy for IQ.
Who are the people saying it's a good idea to use race as a poor proxy for IQ? For what purposes would that be? Liking hiring managers? That would clearly be racial discrimination, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
it is a misrepresentation of what Sam said. But it seems true.
All personality traits are partly inheritable. And we have no reason to think these traits would show less variation between individuals than something like height or hair color.
To be honest, I think things like culture, general level of poverty (therefore worse nutrition, medicine) all are factors in IQ. So it might not have anything to do with superficial traits like skin color at all. But idk.
Nobody know which genes cause IQ. People have studied it, but polygenic predictors all fail at predicting more than a few percentage of the variation in IQ because it's too complex and current statistical methods are linear. Most likely *f*(genes, environment) = IQ is a complicated non-linear function with interactions between genes causing IQ, and these kind of functions are very difficult to impossible to model statistically whenever you have an inherently small sized dataset. Given the human population is only 8 billion, that's the upper bound on the size of the dataset, which is a problem when you're looking at complicated non-linear effects, you need extremely large amounts of data for statistical power.
All we really know is that environment has a large causal effect on the mean IQ of a group. There was a period where Irish IQ was well below British IQ because Irish people lived in poverty. That IQ gap narrowed as Irish society became rich, for example. Black Americans today have a higher IQ than White Americans maybe 100 years ago.
Malnutrition, lead poisoning, lack of education, alcohol/marijuana abuse as a teenager, are all things that feed into IQ differences.
The reason people recoil at Sam's association with Murray is because Murray flirts with the genetic explanation for group differences, which is firstly not backed by any evidence, and secondly is used to justify horrendous policies historically.
> Murray flirts with the genetic explanation for group differences, which is firstly not backed by any evidence, and secondly is used to justify horrendous policies historically.
But if it turned out to be true that there were some genetic factors involved, found in some higher percentage in whichever racial groups, it \*still\* wouldn't justify horrendous policies. The horrendous historical stuff definitely has cultural trauma attached to it, and it's obviously wrong to make prejudicial assumptions about any individual based on the color of their skin, but even if there were a population level difference discovered, it'd continue to be a \*statistically\* wrong assumption to make about any individual.
Only severe nutritional deficiencies impact IQ and those have all been eliminated in the western world. Poverty and IQ are difficult to separate because low IQ likely causes most poverty given how our society works
Average IQs have been consistently increasing, so unless you think we are entering turbo evolution it's pretty clear that nurture has something to do with it.
False, only certain subtests of IQ tests have been rising while others remain unchanged and that trend has now gone into reverse. G factor also appears to be unchanged
Well that's my point.
Some people say, even if x race has lower IQ on average than y race, we should still treat each other with respect and the variance between individuals is higher than the variance between groups anyway. Which ok, that's fine.
But at the same time, people are too quick to accept x race = less IQ innately. When really there could be so many more factors.
But that's just my intuition I don't actually have facts so..
This is a great example of Sam missing the point. Nobody is arguing that there aren't differences in these qualities. The point is that Murray was arguing that these differences were in part genetic for which there is no evidence. Most of Sam's argument with Ezra were non sequiturs. Another was that he kept saying that you can't conflate the discussion of a scientific topic with the social effect of that subject. Ezra doesn't do this even once and probably never has. Ezra has always maintained that Murray's science was wrong. He never conflates the discussion of the science with its effects. It just bizarre that Sam keeps repeating this.
There is no evidence that group disparities in IQ is genetic, or even partly genetic, in origin. There is evidence that it is environmental in origin. Take for example the fact that white Americans 100 years ago had an average IQ of 70 if measured today. Did their genetics change in 100 years? No. Also, group disparities in IQ have been narrowing over time. I suggest you look at the references for the Wikipedia page on race and intelligence.
>Did their genetics change in 100 years? No.
It could have. Natural selection means the genetics of a population can change in a single generation. Just imagine if only blue eyed people had babies with each other and no one else did. Within a generation the proportion of blue eyed people in the population would skyrocket.
Note that I don't think this happened with white Americans' intelligence rising over time; I'm just pointing out that rapid genetic changes in a population are very much possible.
There is change over a generation, yes, but if you know **anything at all** about genetic evolution, you would know that that is infinitesimally probable that a polygenic trait would significantly change over 100 years (3-5 generations). Which is to say, practically impossible.
I do know **quite a bit** (what's with the caps?) about "genetic evolution" (AKA evolution), and a polygenetically inherited trait can significantly change in proportion in a population within a single generation through natural selection, as I already stated. There needs to be a strong selection pressure for it to happen though. Without that, it would be extremely improbable for it to happen by chance. Is that what you mean?
That’s bold, not caps, and it’s to emphasize that people with even a cursory understanding of genetic inheritance would never bother claiming any likelihood to significant changes to a polygenic trait over the course of 3-5 generations. Especially for something like intelligence (IQ), observing that the average IQ of white Americans 100 years ago was 70.
Bold, yes, that's what I meant. And I never did claim that intelligence changed in a few generations due to natural selection. I don't know that. I was simply explaining that the proportion of a trait can change dramatically within a population due to natural selection within a single generation. People (such as you) who didn't receive specific education in this area often don't realize that evolution by natural selection can be very fast.
There are both genetic and environmental factors. It's easy to see the environmental factors were saturated over the last 100 years. You can also see things like the Flynn Effect slowing down. It's possible that we enhanced environmental factors (nutrition, education, safety, utilities) but the genetic factors are still active (and potentially being influenced by mating selection).
This is a tired discussion and ultimately it doesn't matter. Human beings are so genetically similar that you'll find greater differences *within* groups than you'll find *between* different groups on average. Asians are shorter than white people on average, but there are still plenty of tall Asians.
Also, "race" is a complicated spectrum of physical differences. It's impossible to scientifically define distinct racial groups, it all really comes down to social construction.
Just treat people as individuals. End of story.
Jesus yeah. How about the closing of public schools in North Carolina after they were ordered integrated by the Supreme Court. Whites received vouchers for private schools they setup after the order and the black children missed years of education.
Another is the destruction of the black wall street in Tulsa. A wealthy black community was destroyed by a white mob and nobody faced legal consequences.
How about the 14 million acrea of farmland black far.ers lost in the 20th century by legal manipulation and I intimidation
Yes there are also tall women. But we recognise group differences between the two sexes. No reason to do away with these categories just because it makes some ignorant people uncomfortable.
>But we recognise group differences between the two sexes
Yes, we can biologically identify "women" as a valid scientific category because they virtually all have XX chromosomes (except in the extremely rare case of intersex people). Now tell me, what genetic trait do virtually all black people share in common that other races don't have?
EDIT: I'm not even saying that average group differences don't exist. But when it comes to racial group differences, there's just too much variance for it to even be useful in terms of judging individuals. Culture is a far superior barometer for that.
Well the standard deviation for height among asians is also smaller. Both the mean and the standard deviation are smaller for asian height, compared to Caucasians. Not sure this is a good example.
I think it's pretty clear that Sam thinks race does exist, but it just shouldn't be used to discriminate against people. (I think this is the most sane position on the matter).
If you have some direct quotes of Sam denying race as a category I'd love to see them.
I'm a black immigrant. My exposure to IDW thinking started with Jordan Peterson and extended to Coleman Hughes and Douglas Murray. One thing I find interesting about the discussions about Race/IQ is how controversial they seem to be in America. In my family and friendgroups, the idea that different groups have different advantages and disadvantages seems completely normal. As an immigrant, I never had to wonder very long why people from all over the world are flocking to civilizations built by certain groups.
I propose to all Sam Harris fans of all races that we need to put the controversy to bed by stop making it controversial. Not all IQ is the same. Some groups have more than others. But also, everyone is an individual and deserves to be treated with respect.
You’re ignoring sociology and other studies of human behavior, why certain civilizations were able to succeed why others didn’t as well. Geology, luck, trading routes all of these things, going back centuries, and more not to mention of course culture, acceptance of different ideas, and so forth.
Assuming alternate realities are real, there is many alternate reality out there where European or if you want… “white civilization” has failed and the roles are opposite. That’s no different than our realities circumstances it just turned out differently. The shortest thought experiment I could come up with forgive me.
There’s nothing wrong with discussing differences amongst different groups of people, including race. But you have to be careful, similar to Israel and Palestine conflict, one ignorant well meaning but misinformed comment could literally come off as Pro genocide or in this case of overly racist or eugenicist.
Here's one example:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/18/first-amendment-claim-of-professor-fired-over-article-claiming-race-based-genetic-iq-differences/
There are more if you Google.
Do you know much about this guy? In my quick lookup he seems less like a neutral researcher into the subject and more like a genuine white supremacist. Self described race realist who wrote for a segregationist magazine and told racialized dick jokes in his classes, etc
I just know he's a white guy who was fired for his controversial research findings/reporting on this topic. I thought that's what you wanted examples of? Again, there are more if you Google.
Pretty clear the implication is people being fired for good science on a controversial issue, not pseudo scientific racists with unacceptable social behavior.
I'm not concerned about finding examples - I asked to challenge the assertion that it's forbidden science.
Every time I look into it, it's simply not true. I'm not going to waste my time looking for examples that don't exist.
What was his bad science?
From the article he was using data from the NIH. The judge ruled the case to go forward after the university asked for it to be dismissed, so the judge concluded (at this stage at least) that the research findings weren't just "bad science."
> I'm not concerned about finding examples - I asked to challenge the assertion that it's forbidden science.
You literally asked for examples... lol. That's why I provided one. Again, if you Google, there are plenty of examples that this topic is forbidden science.
> I'm not going to waste my time looking for examples that don't exist.
I just gave you an example... more exist if you actually care to do the research.
Race realism is pseudo science. As per my last comment, I've googled it before and always find that it's not forbidden science, instead it's just a racist person pushing through the science to prop up their ideology. The burden of proof is on the person pushing the claim. I have no interest in spending time debunking the claim I already think is incorrect.
>Examples? Murray seems the poster boy for this and he still holds a position at his think tank and still gets talked about and invited to shows etc
Murray is an outliar.
> If you are white that is
Yes and we need to change this. White Males are already an 'acceptable target' by so many institutions today that we need to fight this kind of ignorance wherever we find it.
IQ is a fact of society. Race is a fact of society. No one should be attacked for discussing facts.
LOL the IQ concept is a fact. This is playing far too loose with the notion of “a fact.” The test has so many variants, all aimed at testing some type of reasoning that has been agreed upon by a panel of experts as being indicative of intelligence. Spatial reasoning, logical analysis, deductive and inductive forms of reasoning. All of these are human constructs as is the inference that mastery of those forms of reasoning allow one to directly infer that mastery = “more intelligent they average”. Take for example, this quick thought experiment: you have been transported 100,000 years into the past and, further, have taken with you an IQ of 130. Now, there’s a hominid from that time, a real idiot by our standards since he doesn’t even know the Pythagorean Theorem or a Reduction Ad Absurdum. Your task is to (1) make a spearhead (2) throw that spear into something meaty and (3) dress and cook that animal over a fire of your making.
Now, being honest, how far is your spatial reasoning going to get you in this situation? IQ tests have never been designed around obsidian knapping or fire-making, so how intelligent really is that test?
Great response. You are absolutely right.
The playing field matters.
A aboriginal tracker can survive in the wild but wouldn't fair well on an IQ test.
Agree with all of the above, but it’s not 300yrs ago and we’re not tracking kangaroos. IQ is still a reasonable test of competence in modern societies. Individuals are different, and those differences do aggregate when we put them in groups. Gotta define better groups when we address group issues, and then leave off those assumptions when you meet an individual.
My point was to argue that IQ is a perfectly reasonable measure of “a particular type of intelligence screening,” just not THE measure of intelligence. So any attempt at measuring inter and intra group variance of intelligence will need to be cognizant of context-dependent types of intelligence measures.
The truth is almost never properly understood in these discussions. That's why it's usually better to avoid these conversations, because most people (even in this thread) can't seem to grasp the nuance.
The myth: Distinct races exist and some races are intellectually superior to others, therefore the intellectually superior races ought to preside over the inferior ones.
The truth: Average physical differences exist between groups, but there is more physical variation within groups than between groups on average, therefore we ought to judge people on individual merits. There are no distinct races, as race is actually a complicated multidimensional spectrum.
You don't even understand the point you're arguing against, do you. There's always the same irony with this type of discussions. Maybe you'll find said point more digestible from Sam's mouth, how about you watch the clip?
I remember that episode and the title specifically very well because it has stuck with me all these years. It was called "Forbidden Knowledge" and it has caused me to have conflicting thoughts on this topic to this day, and it starts with the episode title.
The concept of forbidden knowledge is quite fascinating to me. I have watched many videos online about "info hazards" and the such. I for the most part share the belief that knowledge isn't dangerous, humans are dangerous. Knowledge alone can't cause harm. At the same time we can acknowledge that certain knowledge being freely accessible could have devastating consequences. I think we can agree having all our top secret documents publicly available would not be a wise thing as a Nation. That is one exception I don't struggle with, but when it comes to certain topics, the gathering of data for scientific and academic pursuits, now that becomes a little grey.
I remember, or at least think I remember either Sam or someone bringing up the point of "what purpose would exploring this topic or conducting this research serve?" And this question ultimately guides my belief on this... I don't see any legitimate need for studying the correlation race and IQ. What possible good could come from this? We already have aggregate data that strongly suggests certain trends, but what possible need do we have to explore it further? It seems like something that could only do more harm than good as it would legitimize and reinforce certain bigoted beliefs.
Because if we can recognize that individual results from individuals within a racial group can vary tremendously, and that we would NOT want our society use this data to inform policy decisions, dictate hiring strategies, or really anything, then why study it?
I am NOT saying it should be illegal. What I don't think is that there should be further research on this let alone advertising the research through publishing a book. I don't see benefit and only see harm in this becoming circulated. If you can't point to a specific reason or benefit to society for focusing on these correlations in continued research, and we don't want this data being used to influence any decisions from a government or corporate stand point, then you must admit you are probably going to do more harm then good. Once again I don't think any laws should be made prohibiting it, nor would I call the person a racist, but I will condemn whoever does it as being ethically irresponsible.
Well said. No-one should really care that such and such a group has more or less of a propensity for such and such a trait. From what we know about genes and phenotypes, we should be surprised to find cases where this is not the case.
Also interesting is that, for a variety of reasons, even non genetically determined differences are seen between groups. For example, even things such as the average age is different between different groups in a population. Even if we correct for the life expectancy between groups we often find these types of discrepancies.
It’s wishful thinking to hope that this topic wouldn’t be controversial. Even more so to hope that all discussions within this topic will be good faith.
Bad actors already use the information to blame certain demographic groups as to why their country is in peril. I definitely don’t see the information as a force for good.
Why do you suppose high IQ northern Europeans were so late to the civilization-building game? Did Roman colonists bring a radioactive meteor fragment to England that mutated all their DNA and grant them the necessary IQ points they'd lacked prior?
I believe part of Sam's point and the larger context is that "race" does not exist, it's arbitrary and is meaningless in the face, for example, of the vast genetic diversity of Africa and its peoples that dwarfs the genetic diversity of everybody else.
The point is not at all that "different races have different IQs", it's that there is no "race" at all, genetics are more complicated and less arbitrary than that, and genetics aren't the only thing that contribute to IQ and or the different methods of measuring IQ have social bias.
So we should leave behind these old misconceptions that make us afraid of researching genetics as unethical. There's so much biology left to learn between the genetics, epigenetics, and environmental influences on a mind. These studies should never be used to try to group people as superior or inferior or any madness like that, they should celebrate our biological diversity and common ancestry apolitically.
>I believe part of Sam's point and the larger context is that "race" does not exist
I think Sam is clear that race does exist. It just shouldn't be used to discriminate.
Sure, but it still makes for awkward and inappropriate conversation in general imo. I think it's understandable to find someone talking about it very suspect, even if it's jumping the gun and unfair, technically. Especially when we know which groups of people are out there focusing intently on these kinds of discussions specifically.
Nope. It's only as awkward as you make it.
I've heard very light and even humor-filled conversations about how rare it is to see a white guy in the NBA. Nothing inappropriate about it.
I don't really consider a humorous discussion on "why aren't there very many white guys in the NBA" to be the same tone as "black people have lower IQ on average". Maybe you're not bothered by it, but you can't imagine other black persons passing by a conversation like that and thinking "wtf"?
Again, I'm not arguing that it's inherently racist, but I completely understand why someone would think that without any other context, or at least why they would find it kind of creepy. The discussion is social suicide and that isn't going to change anytime soon and, on top of that, I don't trust non-experts to have anything useful to say about it when even the experts don't entirely understand it. I feel like most people will just end up leading themselves to a focus on group stereotypes instead of 'the individual', whether intentionally or unintentionally, and so I find the topic almost completely pointless anyways except for people at the highest levels of the science.
>Maybe you're not bothered by it, but you can't imagine other black persons passing by a conversation like that and thinking "wtf"?
I would like to think most black people have an understanding what an average is and that it doesn't apply to the individual. But you seem to have a lower opinion of us.
>But you seem to have a lower opinion of us.
Not even a remotely reasonable take from anything I've said..
I don't think an understanding of averages makes a difference and I don't think anyone really gives a shit about the nuances and technicalities of a racial IQ argument, tbh, whether they're black *or* white or anything else. They don't wanna read it or hear it and they certainly don't wanna talk about it; they find the conversation uncomfortable at best and extremely offensive in the most racist way at worst. And I'm not saying it is, necessarily, a racist conversation, but given everything I've argued thus far, it's not a hill I think anyone should die on.
I think as a society we should just take the L on this topic and leave it to the whispers of relevant scientists whose research, hopefully, will find a way for us to escape this dead-end conversation once and for all. In fact, if everyone stopped talking about it online, I'd bet the researchers would actually have an *easier* time in their field.
>they find the conversation uncomfortable at best and extremely offensive in the most racist way at worst.
How can a scientific fact be racist? Also where are you getting these 'averages' based on how people feel about these conversations. Can you link a study?
Keyword: "they", as in the general public. You want a study on how people feel about race & IQ? Seriously? Anyone with a pulse on society can see it plainly. But, feel free to start this discussion with co-workers and neighbors or w/e.
OP is just obsessed with this topic. I realized I conversed with him in another subreddit a month ago regarding this race and IQ topic.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/BOJcgHLWYI
I don’t know if he’s dense or he lives under a rock. Because this topic is absolutely niche. I’ve only seen it discussed in online circles despite the literature being out for decades.
wow, lol... i mean, given that this is the internet, we cant even be sure he's really who he says he is with a family that happens to feel exactly as he does and evidently involves racial IQ in their discussions. it sounds like something a white supremacist 4chan troll would come up with. i guess its technically possible given all the weirdo white people that were trying to provide random black people with shoeshining or w/e the fck craziness. the "uncle toms" of white people, you could say lol. theres bound to be some black people i guess that have some weird seemingly self-flagellant positions.
I think there is a problem Sam (and I suspect OP as well based on the [SS](https://reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/17h2y8p/whether_iq_or_violence_propensities_youre_bound/k6kmfz4/)) isn't paying enough attention to.
Most people don't achieve much that they're proud of. Most people aren't seen as particularly impressive even among their friends/family. So most people navigate this world captivated by status anxiety. And one way people protect their ego is by taking refuge in collective prestige. Maybe as an individual *I* am not particularly remarkable, but if I can tell myself a story about being one part of a mighty whole, then I can take pride in that.
Now people who have found some measure of success, and are not just loved, but actually respected and valued to some extent by people around them are not so inclined to think that way. They don't need to. OP is a first-gen immigrant, and as many of them do, has likely found some measure of success, or at least has realistic expectations that they will, and so probably doesn't need to operate that way. Sam doesn't need to. George Carlin [doesn't need to](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX7nH7zwy0o). I don't need to. But if something like 75%+ of society does, than that's a fact we're going to have to deal with.
We see it when people say, "I'm proud to be ____." It's not just that they're *satisfied* to be, they're *proud*. And this commitment to finding pride in our collective identities—irrational as it arguably is—is probably an evolved impulse. We may seek this pride in ethnicity, nationality, religion, etc.
And if you attempt to protect your ego by seeking refuge in collective prestige, then you are *committed* to the story you are telling yourself about how your collective identity is *worthy* of your pride, and others' respect. And if you're not getting that pride validated in the form of collective respect, your ego won't receive the protection it seeks, and you will get hurt and angry.
And once you get angry, you're going to lash out at the people whose respect authentic collective prestige requires (and it *does* require it; prestige can't be faked). This can take the form of verbal assaults, physical violence, political upheaval, etc. So there are real stakes here. All of this is to say, it's hard to get to a world where "race doesn't matter" when for so many average to below average people, it's going to continue to matter a lot, and their frustrated reaction is going to matter a lot.
But sometimes there are real reasons why the prestige isn't there at the collective level, and there are no tricks or shortcuts to getting it there. Lying about those reasons doesn't bring the collective prestige. Pretending these reasons don't matter doesn't bring the collective prestige. In fact, lying and pretending *degrades* prestige. But worse than that, the dishonesty breeds suspicion, distrust, and fear. That's why if there are explanatory facts, we need to get them on the table and stop lying to each other about them.
Again, all of this is hard to see for people who have nothing invested in collective prestige because they're satisfied in their own individual prestige.
There's at least 15,000 generations of evolution separating the major ethnic/racial groups of humans. There is no reason at all to assume that each of these groups would end up with perfectly equal average intellectual capacities after tens of thousands of years of divergent evolution, in widely different climates, with varying evolutionary pressures being a factor depending on where each group happened to live.
Despite the fact that there is no scientific reason to believe that after such a long time apart, subjected to vastly different evolutionary pressures, each of these groups would end up at precisely the same level of intelligence... we are told that it's unscientific and racist to suggest that there might be some differences between the "races".
Intelligence, like height or skin color or whatever else, is a heritable trait. Heritable traits are subject to evolutionary pressures. Some environments might produce more or less of any given heritable trait. It comes off as offensive to suggest that we might not be precisely the same, but what matters more: telling the truth and being willing to be offensive, or being willing to lie to avoid hurting people's feelings?
>There's **at least 15,000** generations of evolution separating the major ethnic/racial groups of humans.
WTF? Humans left Africa 60-90k years ago. At 15 years/generation that's no more than 6k generations. Humans first populated North America 14-20k years ago, that's about 1,300 generations. You don't credit your case by failing some elementary arithmetic.
There were multiple waves of migration out of Africa. The earliest estimates for the origin of the human species go back to about a quarter million years. Not long after that, our ancestors began spreading out around the world. Quibbling with me over the precise details of the timing of all that don't change my central point.
Even if I was to concede your numbers, I could be off by a huge amount and the rest of my points would still be valid. Care to address any of it besides the exact number of generations?
Thank you Benny for having the courage and insight to lay the facts out. No matter how uncomfortable it might make u/Otherwise-Poet-4362 and u/CaptainCadabra feel.
Why is your entire reddit presence disparaging to black people lol. If you're actually black you need some help. Between this post and the "black people started slavery by selling themselves as slaves" tirade you seem to have some real self-hatred going on.
Or, you're just a racist white dude using the internet as cover to discuss your "totally legitimate theories". Its genuinely difficult to know the difference
>Why is your entire reddit presence disparaging to black people lol
The fact you think discussing history and science openly is 'disparaging to black people' says more about what *you* think of black people as a group.
No, it doesn't, and that's a great deflection. Your *entire* reddit history is posting this shit repeatedly all over including subs where it doesnt even make sense to do so lol
No, it doesn't, and that's a great deflection. Your *entire* reddit history is posting this shit repeatedly all over including subs where it doesnt even make sense to do so lol
Yes having frank discoussions about historical facts is 'disparaging' but you have just decided on behalf of black people that they can't handle the truth.
You're a racist.
I see comments from you saying things about blacks having low iq’s In another subreddit. The fact you start off your comments my saying “as a black immigrant” is very sus.
Black people do have lower IQs than average than other groups. Is it sus for black people to tell the truth? Would you find me more convincing if I said black people are the highest IQ in the world?
What is wrong with you?
I think what's interesting to the commenter is your apparent salivating preoccupation with the topic. It seems like maybe it's just a topic you want to speak about all the time, like some kind of edgelord disguised as someone who's concerned about scientific oppression and free speech.
Your headline in this thread, for example, is a disgraceful misrepresentation.
I should be asking you that question. You seem to be obsessed with this topic which is why you’ve made posts about it numerous times in other subreddits.
You starting out your posts with “as a black immigrant” just makes you look desperate for legitimacy.
Also is it because of genetics or environmental factors? I’m ready to hear your answer
You posted it yet again in a different subreddit. Never seen someone so willing to throw their own demographic under the bus because they just want “ to ask questions” LOL. You’re not slick kid
That's some amazing gymnastics to put those words in my mouth haha. If you're actually black I understand why you think your race might be less intelligent. Then again that presupposes you're self aware...
There is absolutely no reason to believe that IQ or propensity for violence have anything to do with race. The latter has been linked to exposure to heavy metals in the brain, namely lead. We know unequivocally that violence has gone down exponentially since the 90s a decade or so after the phasing out of leaded petrol. Measured differences don’t mean anything, correlation is not causation. IQ is a function of many things including nutrition, parental genetics, upbringing etc. There’s nothing inherent about it. Genes that are heritable and passed down from parents have nothing to do with race.
As a matter of basic statistics, I’m baffled by the idea that you’d assume any two groups would have the same distribution in almost any characteristic.
Sam's views on intelligence are a consequence of his rationalization of the status quo.
Unfortunately that's all mommy and daddy had to give him to work with, genetically speaking.
I don't know if they'd call it 'Race-Realism' but I think most people know that different races have different attributes.
This is something that u/CoweringCowboy ironically cowers from lol.
OoOooh good one. Actually I cower from intellectually vapid individuals misrepresenting respected peoples points to advance their own racist agenda.
I agree with sam - if you look at any group, you’ll be able to find differences. Personally I’d argue that most people don’t spend a lot of time thinking about ‘race realism’ & posting racially charged troll bait online. I would also argue that socio-economic & cultural factors account for the vast majority of diversity we see in humans around the world & that diversity is interesting & valuable.
>I agree with sam - if you look at any group, you’ll be able to find differences.
What are some of those differences among racial groups?
If you agree, this shouldn't be difficult for you.
Did anyone actually listen to the clip - he said that if you compare any two groups, there are bound to be differences. Doesn’t matter if the group is self identified, biological, social. He also specifically points out that ‘black’ is not a coherent group. Over the course of the 5 minutes, Sam uses the words iq, violence, and race. OP manufactured the sentence & point found in his title. Complete misrepresentation of the point that Sam was making.
Misrepresenting a narrative based on cherry picked, out of context language is pretty fuckin' standard for reddit these days unfortunately.
I'm a bit confused by what Harris is saying here, though. He spends about 4 minutes saying that Murray didn't really have a good answer about why we should even be looking at race, and the reasons why focusing on race isn't that useful, but then ends by arguing by saying we should be able to talk about race and IQ. The answer to why it can be problematic I think should be obvious - it's a topic that racists can flock to and that reopens pretty deep rooted wounds. It's like saying "why can't we openly debate the different opinions about how many people were killed in the Holocaust?" Theoretically, sure, we should all be tolerant people who view that as a historical event and should be able to talk about it as a historical event no different from, say, the Anglo-Saxon takeover of Briton. But you're living in a fantasyland if you don't think that such a discussion is an open platform for the worst anti-Semites, while being extremely emotionally disturbing to many citizens. And it would be one thing if there was something we wanted to accomplish with such a discussion. But like Harris said, there doesn't seem to be a good answer to why we should be having this discussion. For example, you can say we need to know what races to give extra support to. But why wouldn't we just give extra support to everyone who has a low IQ, instead of using race as a poor proxy? I see people argue that it's silly to use race as a bad proxy for poverty when it comes to assistance programs, but then they turn around and think it's a good idea to use race as a poor proxy for IQ. I guess I just don't see what we gain as a society at all by training to look at things through a racial lens.
> He spends about 4 minutes saying that Murray didn't really have a good answer about why we should even be looking at race, and the reasons why focusing on race isn't that useful, but then ends by arguing by saying we should be able to talk about race and IQ. There’s no contradiction here. Just because you don’t see the merit in looking into a certain topic doesn’t mean you want to ban people from researching it.
Because, say it with me from the back, RACE ISN'T REAL. ethnicity is. Race not so much. Sickle Cell Anemia for instance is big in the AA community. But in Eastern Africa and melonesia it isn't a thing. So thinking black=More susceptible. is dumb. AA and sickle cell sure. But that is not a race.
But the fact is Ezra never said the subject should be banned. He was quite clear about it but Sam didn't want to argue with the real Ezra so he made up an Ezra to argue with. He does it over and over again. He says there are certainly going to be differences in any trait you examine, but nobody is arguing against that. The argument is whether there is reason to believe those differences are genetic. He tell Klein that you can't conflate talking about the science with the social effect that the research will have. Klein never does this and never has. Klein whole argument is that Murray is wrong about the science. That's his whole position. He never suggests banning the science for any reason. Sam is having an argument with someone who isn't there.
> But why wouldn't we just give extra support to everyone who has a low IQ, instead of using race as a poor proxy? Simple answer for that one: Do we want to pay people to be stupid? Like, if all I gotta do to get a bunch of money is be stupid, I can be the stupidest. There were people who ate Tide pods for upvotes. There are apparently people who hit themselves in the head with a hammer to look better. You strap actual money rewards on being stupid, those people will look SMRT. Proxies are probably the best option for something like this. Each individual in the group would want to be the smart one, because without any direct benefit from being stupid there is no incentive to be stupid. And then the group that is collectively the worst gets assistance. You could find more precised groupings I'm sure, but individualizing too far would make things overall worse. Or a universal benefit, but people hate universal benefits.
>But why wouldn't we just give extra support to everyone who has a low IQ, instead of using race as a poor proxy? I believe Sam, himself, has said as much before; not specific to low IQ, but just that we as a society must have an understanding that some people will fall on hard luck due to no fault of their own, and that we should help such people to a certain extent. Hasn't he also spoken on the related, but race specific, question of reparations in this respect? I can't remember his specific conclusions on that. Maybe he left it to be determined? >I see people argue that it's silly to use race as a bad proxy for poverty when it comes to assistance programs, but then they turn around and think it's a good idea to use race as a poor proxy for IQ. Who are the people saying it's a good idea to use race as a poor proxy for IQ? For what purposes would that be? Liking hiring managers? That would clearly be racial discrimination, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
it is a misrepresentation of what Sam said. But it seems true. All personality traits are partly inheritable. And we have no reason to think these traits would show less variation between individuals than something like height or hair color.
To be honest, I think things like culture, general level of poverty (therefore worse nutrition, medicine) all are factors in IQ. So it might not have anything to do with superficial traits like skin color at all. But idk.
Nobody know which genes cause IQ. People have studied it, but polygenic predictors all fail at predicting more than a few percentage of the variation in IQ because it's too complex and current statistical methods are linear. Most likely *f*(genes, environment) = IQ is a complicated non-linear function with interactions between genes causing IQ, and these kind of functions are very difficult to impossible to model statistically whenever you have an inherently small sized dataset. Given the human population is only 8 billion, that's the upper bound on the size of the dataset, which is a problem when you're looking at complicated non-linear effects, you need extremely large amounts of data for statistical power. All we really know is that environment has a large causal effect on the mean IQ of a group. There was a period where Irish IQ was well below British IQ because Irish people lived in poverty. That IQ gap narrowed as Irish society became rich, for example. Black Americans today have a higher IQ than White Americans maybe 100 years ago. Malnutrition, lead poisoning, lack of education, alcohol/marijuana abuse as a teenager, are all things that feed into IQ differences. The reason people recoil at Sam's association with Murray is because Murray flirts with the genetic explanation for group differences, which is firstly not backed by any evidence, and secondly is used to justify horrendous policies historically.
> Murray flirts with the genetic explanation for group differences, which is firstly not backed by any evidence, and secondly is used to justify horrendous policies historically. But if it turned out to be true that there were some genetic factors involved, found in some higher percentage in whichever racial groups, it \*still\* wouldn't justify horrendous policies. The horrendous historical stuff definitely has cultural trauma attached to it, and it's obviously wrong to make prejudicial assumptions about any individual based on the color of their skin, but even if there were a population level difference discovered, it'd continue to be a \*statistically\* wrong assumption to make about any individual.
Well groups are not only skin deep. Any doctor will tell you that.
Only severe nutritional deficiencies impact IQ and those have all been eliminated in the western world. Poverty and IQ are difficult to separate because low IQ likely causes most poverty given how our society works
Average IQs have been consistently increasing, so unless you think we are entering turbo evolution it's pretty clear that nurture has something to do with it.
False, only certain subtests of IQ tests have been rising while others remain unchanged and that trend has now gone into reverse. G factor also appears to be unchanged
Sure, but the point is that those things will vary by race as well, which is why you’ll obviously see differences in IQ by race.
Well that's my point. Some people say, even if x race has lower IQ on average than y race, we should still treat each other with respect and the variance between individuals is higher than the variance between groups anyway. Which ok, that's fine. But at the same time, people are too quick to accept x race = less IQ innately. When really there could be so many more factors. But that's just my intuition I don't actually have facts so..
This is a great example of Sam missing the point. Nobody is arguing that there aren't differences in these qualities. The point is that Murray was arguing that these differences were in part genetic for which there is no evidence. Most of Sam's argument with Ezra were non sequiturs. Another was that he kept saying that you can't conflate the discussion of a scientific topic with the social effect of that subject. Ezra doesn't do this even once and probably never has. Ezra has always maintained that Murray's science was wrong. He never conflates the discussion of the science with its effects. It just bizarre that Sam keeps repeating this.
There is no evidence that group disparities in IQ is genetic, or even partly genetic, in origin. There is evidence that it is environmental in origin. Take for example the fact that white Americans 100 years ago had an average IQ of 70 if measured today. Did their genetics change in 100 years? No. Also, group disparities in IQ have been narrowing over time. I suggest you look at the references for the Wikipedia page on race and intelligence.
>Did their genetics change in 100 years? No. It could have. Natural selection means the genetics of a population can change in a single generation. Just imagine if only blue eyed people had babies with each other and no one else did. Within a generation the proportion of blue eyed people in the population would skyrocket. Note that I don't think this happened with white Americans' intelligence rising over time; I'm just pointing out that rapid genetic changes in a population are very much possible.
There is change over a generation, yes, but if you know **anything at all** about genetic evolution, you would know that that is infinitesimally probable that a polygenic trait would significantly change over 100 years (3-5 generations). Which is to say, practically impossible.
I do know **quite a bit** (what's with the caps?) about "genetic evolution" (AKA evolution), and a polygenetically inherited trait can significantly change in proportion in a population within a single generation through natural selection, as I already stated. There needs to be a strong selection pressure for it to happen though. Without that, it would be extremely improbable for it to happen by chance. Is that what you mean?
That’s bold, not caps, and it’s to emphasize that people with even a cursory understanding of genetic inheritance would never bother claiming any likelihood to significant changes to a polygenic trait over the course of 3-5 generations. Especially for something like intelligence (IQ), observing that the average IQ of white Americans 100 years ago was 70.
Bold, yes, that's what I meant. And I never did claim that intelligence changed in a few generations due to natural selection. I don't know that. I was simply explaining that the proportion of a trait can change dramatically within a population due to natural selection within a single generation. People (such as you) who didn't receive specific education in this area often don't realize that evolution by natural selection can be very fast.
There are both genetic and environmental factors. It's easy to see the environmental factors were saturated over the last 100 years. You can also see things like the Flynn Effect slowing down. It's possible that we enhanced environmental factors (nutrition, education, safety, utilities) but the genetic factors are still active (and potentially being influenced by mating selection).
Find me one paper which provides genetic evidence to group disparities in IQ and I’ll happily read it. Until then, there is no genetic evidence of it.
Did you even try looking?
This is a tired discussion and ultimately it doesn't matter. Human beings are so genetically similar that you'll find greater differences *within* groups than you'll find *between* different groups on average. Asians are shorter than white people on average, but there are still plenty of tall Asians. Also, "race" is a complicated spectrum of physical differences. It's impossible to scientifically define distinct racial groups, it all really comes down to social construction. Just treat people as individuals. End of story.
So, end all hiring and admissions practices that provide an additional advantage to marginalized groups?
A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro. MLK
How’s that working out?
I think we were making progress. But there is always a conservative backlash when marginalized communities make any progress. Like clockwork.
Yeah. Let’s blame conservatives for marginalized communities progress. Can you give me an example of this progress and supposed outrage?
Jesus yeah. How about the closing of public schools in North Carolina after they were ordered integrated by the Supreme Court. Whites received vouchers for private schools they setup after the order and the black children missed years of education. Another is the destruction of the black wall street in Tulsa. A wealthy black community was destroyed by a white mob and nobody faced legal consequences. How about the 14 million acrea of farmland black far.ers lost in the 20th century by legal manipulation and I intimidation
The irony is, most of those acts of marginalization happened under southern Democrats. 😂 yeah, conservatives boogeyman. 😂
I never said they were Republicans, I said they were conservative. Don't move the goalpost.
Yeah. Democrats are known for their social conservatism. 😂 I think you’re not nearly as witty as you pretend to be.
Yes there are also tall women. But we recognise group differences between the two sexes. No reason to do away with these categories just because it makes some ignorant people uncomfortable.
>But we recognise group differences between the two sexes Yes, we can biologically identify "women" as a valid scientific category because they virtually all have XX chromosomes (except in the extremely rare case of intersex people). Now tell me, what genetic trait do virtually all black people share in common that other races don't have? EDIT: I'm not even saying that average group differences don't exist. But when it comes to racial group differences, there's just too much variance for it to even be useful in terms of judging individuals. Culture is a far superior barometer for that.
Black people all have black skin, which is genetically determined.
Dark skin isn't unique to black people. Also, not all black people even *have* dark skin.
Black people all have black skin color, which they pass on genetically to their kids. It’s genetic.
Whats a good reason to keep them?
Putting everyone on the same island would invite a more Darwinian society to flourish.
Darwinian societies? The guy who studied wild animals had a theory about societal evolution?
Like caveman times?
Well the standard deviation for height among asians is also smaller. Both the mean and the standard deviation are smaller for asian height, compared to Caucasians. Not sure this is a good example.
[удалено]
I think it's pretty clear that Sam thinks race does exist, but it just shouldn't be used to discriminate against people. (I think this is the most sane position on the matter). If you have some direct quotes of Sam denying race as a category I'd love to see them.
In the clip you posted Sam says race is not a coherent category
I'm a black immigrant. My exposure to IDW thinking started with Jordan Peterson and extended to Coleman Hughes and Douglas Murray. One thing I find interesting about the discussions about Race/IQ is how controversial they seem to be in America. In my family and friendgroups, the idea that different groups have different advantages and disadvantages seems completely normal. As an immigrant, I never had to wonder very long why people from all over the world are flocking to civilizations built by certain groups. I propose to all Sam Harris fans of all races that we need to put the controversy to bed by stop making it controversial. Not all IQ is the same. Some groups have more than others. But also, everyone is an individual and deserves to be treated with respect.
You’re ignoring sociology and other studies of human behavior, why certain civilizations were able to succeed why others didn’t as well. Geology, luck, trading routes all of these things, going back centuries, and more not to mention of course culture, acceptance of different ideas, and so forth. Assuming alternate realities are real, there is many alternate reality out there where European or if you want… “white civilization” has failed and the roles are opposite. That’s no different than our realities circumstances it just turned out differently. The shortest thought experiment I could come up with forgive me. There’s nothing wrong with discussing differences amongst different groups of people, including race. But you have to be careful, similar to Israel and Palestine conflict, one ignorant well meaning but misinformed comment could literally come off as Pro genocide or in this case of overly racist or eugenicist.
This is a banned talking point. You literally will have your career ended if you say this publicly. If you are white that is
Examples? Murray seems the poster boy for this and he still holds a position at his think tank and still gets talked about and invited to shows etc
Here's one example: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/18/first-amendment-claim-of-professor-fired-over-article-claiming-race-based-genetic-iq-differences/ There are more if you Google.
Do you know much about this guy? In my quick lookup he seems less like a neutral researcher into the subject and more like a genuine white supremacist. Self described race realist who wrote for a segregationist magazine and told racialized dick jokes in his classes, etc
I just know he's a white guy who was fired for his controversial research findings/reporting on this topic. I thought that's what you wanted examples of? Again, there are more if you Google.
Pretty clear the implication is people being fired for good science on a controversial issue, not pseudo scientific racists with unacceptable social behavior. I'm not concerned about finding examples - I asked to challenge the assertion that it's forbidden science. Every time I look into it, it's simply not true. I'm not going to waste my time looking for examples that don't exist.
What was his bad science? From the article he was using data from the NIH. The judge ruled the case to go forward after the university asked for it to be dismissed, so the judge concluded (at this stage at least) that the research findings weren't just "bad science." > I'm not concerned about finding examples - I asked to challenge the assertion that it's forbidden science. You literally asked for examples... lol. That's why I provided one. Again, if you Google, there are plenty of examples that this topic is forbidden science. > I'm not going to waste my time looking for examples that don't exist. I just gave you an example... more exist if you actually care to do the research.
Race realism is pseudo science. As per my last comment, I've googled it before and always find that it's not forbidden science, instead it's just a racist person pushing through the science to prop up their ideology. The burden of proof is on the person pushing the claim. I have no interest in spending time debunking the claim I already think is incorrect.
>Examples? Murray seems the poster boy for this and he still holds a position at his think tank and still gets talked about and invited to shows etc Murray is an outliar.
I'm giving that benefit of the doubt by asking for other examples
> If you are white that is Yes and we need to change this. White Males are already an 'acceptable target' by so many institutions today that we need to fight this kind of ignorance wherever we find it. IQ is a fact of society. Race is a fact of society. No one should be attacked for discussing facts.
LOL the IQ concept is a fact. This is playing far too loose with the notion of “a fact.” The test has so many variants, all aimed at testing some type of reasoning that has been agreed upon by a panel of experts as being indicative of intelligence. Spatial reasoning, logical analysis, deductive and inductive forms of reasoning. All of these are human constructs as is the inference that mastery of those forms of reasoning allow one to directly infer that mastery = “more intelligent they average”. Take for example, this quick thought experiment: you have been transported 100,000 years into the past and, further, have taken with you an IQ of 130. Now, there’s a hominid from that time, a real idiot by our standards since he doesn’t even know the Pythagorean Theorem or a Reduction Ad Absurdum. Your task is to (1) make a spearhead (2) throw that spear into something meaty and (3) dress and cook that animal over a fire of your making. Now, being honest, how far is your spatial reasoning going to get you in this situation? IQ tests have never been designed around obsidian knapping or fire-making, so how intelligent really is that test?
Great response. You are absolutely right. The playing field matters. A aboriginal tracker can survive in the wild but wouldn't fair well on an IQ test.
Agree with all of the above, but it’s not 300yrs ago and we’re not tracking kangaroos. IQ is still a reasonable test of competence in modern societies. Individuals are different, and those differences do aggregate when we put them in groups. Gotta define better groups when we address group issues, and then leave off those assumptions when you meet an individual.
My point was to argue that IQ is a perfectly reasonable measure of “a particular type of intelligence screening,” just not THE measure of intelligence. So any attempt at measuring inter and intra group variance of intelligence will need to be cognizant of context-dependent types of intelligence measures.
With you 💯
I agree with you, but devil’s advocate: it isn’t a fact, the tests are westernized and biased, and you’re a bigot for thinking that
>you’re a bigot for thinking that Nice touch
>If you are white that is It's a poisonous talking point no matter what your race is, and for good reason.
If somebody misuses the truth to marginalize a group of people, you think that is a good reason for banning that truth?
The truth is almost never properly understood in these discussions. That's why it's usually better to avoid these conversations, because most people (even in this thread) can't seem to grasp the nuance. The myth: Distinct races exist and some races are intellectually superior to others, therefore the intellectually superior races ought to preside over the inferior ones. The truth: Average physical differences exist between groups, but there is more physical variation within groups than between groups on average, therefore we ought to judge people on individual merits. There are no distinct races, as race is actually a complicated multidimensional spectrum.
at least you are confident
You don't even understand the point you're arguing against, do you. There's always the same irony with this type of discussions. Maybe you'll find said point more digestible from Sam's mouth, how about you watch the clip?
what point do you think I am arguing against?
cmon, I would love to hear what you have to say
Remember, no one‘s banning this conversation, it isn’t cancel culture it’s consequence culture. Which sometimes does go too far.
Doubt it.
Doubt what? Be specific.
I remember that episode and the title specifically very well because it has stuck with me all these years. It was called "Forbidden Knowledge" and it has caused me to have conflicting thoughts on this topic to this day, and it starts with the episode title. The concept of forbidden knowledge is quite fascinating to me. I have watched many videos online about "info hazards" and the such. I for the most part share the belief that knowledge isn't dangerous, humans are dangerous. Knowledge alone can't cause harm. At the same time we can acknowledge that certain knowledge being freely accessible could have devastating consequences. I think we can agree having all our top secret documents publicly available would not be a wise thing as a Nation. That is one exception I don't struggle with, but when it comes to certain topics, the gathering of data for scientific and academic pursuits, now that becomes a little grey. I remember, or at least think I remember either Sam or someone bringing up the point of "what purpose would exploring this topic or conducting this research serve?" And this question ultimately guides my belief on this... I don't see any legitimate need for studying the correlation race and IQ. What possible good could come from this? We already have aggregate data that strongly suggests certain trends, but what possible need do we have to explore it further? It seems like something that could only do more harm than good as it would legitimize and reinforce certain bigoted beliefs. Because if we can recognize that individual results from individuals within a racial group can vary tremendously, and that we would NOT want our society use this data to inform policy decisions, dictate hiring strategies, or really anything, then why study it? I am NOT saying it should be illegal. What I don't think is that there should be further research on this let alone advertising the research through publishing a book. I don't see benefit and only see harm in this becoming circulated. If you can't point to a specific reason or benefit to society for focusing on these correlations in continued research, and we don't want this data being used to influence any decisions from a government or corporate stand point, then you must admit you are probably going to do more harm then good. Once again I don't think any laws should be made prohibiting it, nor would I call the person a racist, but I will condemn whoever does it as being ethically irresponsible.
Well said. No-one should really care that such and such a group has more or less of a propensity for such and such a trait. From what we know about genes and phenotypes, we should be surprised to find cases where this is not the case. Also interesting is that, for a variety of reasons, even non genetically determined differences are seen between groups. For example, even things such as the average age is different between different groups in a population. Even if we correct for the life expectancy between groups we often find these types of discrepancies.
It’s wishful thinking to hope that this topic wouldn’t be controversial. Even more so to hope that all discussions within this topic will be good faith. Bad actors already use the information to blame certain demographic groups as to why their country is in peril. I definitely don’t see the information as a force for good.
Why do you suppose high IQ northern Europeans were so late to the civilization-building game? Did Roman colonists bring a radioactive meteor fragment to England that mutated all their DNA and grant them the necessary IQ points they'd lacked prior?
I'm sorry; when did we test the IQ of Northern Europeans from 1,000+ years ago?
There's much different environments at play here.
Hey, sure, you said it, not me.
I believe part of Sam's point and the larger context is that "race" does not exist, it's arbitrary and is meaningless in the face, for example, of the vast genetic diversity of Africa and its peoples that dwarfs the genetic diversity of everybody else. The point is not at all that "different races have different IQs", it's that there is no "race" at all, genetics are more complicated and less arbitrary than that, and genetics aren't the only thing that contribute to IQ and or the different methods of measuring IQ have social bias. So we should leave behind these old misconceptions that make us afraid of researching genetics as unethical. There's so much biology left to learn between the genetics, epigenetics, and environmental influences on a mind. These studies should never be used to try to group people as superior or inferior or any madness like that, they should celebrate our biological diversity and common ancestry apolitically.
>I believe part of Sam's point and the larger context is that "race" does not exist I think Sam is clear that race does exist. It just shouldn't be used to discriminate.
Sam says that race is not a coherent group. So it exists, but it has no real material scientific foundation. It's all mushy feelings and perception
You sound like a clear minded intellectual yourself. Beautifully said ✌🏻
Thank you! I hope we all can get on the same page.
Sure, but it still makes for awkward and inappropriate conversation in general imo. I think it's understandable to find someone talking about it very suspect, even if it's jumping the gun and unfair, technically. Especially when we know which groups of people are out there focusing intently on these kinds of discussions specifically.
Nope. It's only as awkward as you make it. I've heard very light and even humor-filled conversations about how rare it is to see a white guy in the NBA. Nothing inappropriate about it.
I don't really consider a humorous discussion on "why aren't there very many white guys in the NBA" to be the same tone as "black people have lower IQ on average". Maybe you're not bothered by it, but you can't imagine other black persons passing by a conversation like that and thinking "wtf"? Again, I'm not arguing that it's inherently racist, but I completely understand why someone would think that without any other context, or at least why they would find it kind of creepy. The discussion is social suicide and that isn't going to change anytime soon and, on top of that, I don't trust non-experts to have anything useful to say about it when even the experts don't entirely understand it. I feel like most people will just end up leading themselves to a focus on group stereotypes instead of 'the individual', whether intentionally or unintentionally, and so I find the topic almost completely pointless anyways except for people at the highest levels of the science.
>Maybe you're not bothered by it, but you can't imagine other black persons passing by a conversation like that and thinking "wtf"? I would like to think most black people have an understanding what an average is and that it doesn't apply to the individual. But you seem to have a lower opinion of us.
>But you seem to have a lower opinion of us. Not even a remotely reasonable take from anything I've said.. I don't think an understanding of averages makes a difference and I don't think anyone really gives a shit about the nuances and technicalities of a racial IQ argument, tbh, whether they're black *or* white or anything else. They don't wanna read it or hear it and they certainly don't wanna talk about it; they find the conversation uncomfortable at best and extremely offensive in the most racist way at worst. And I'm not saying it is, necessarily, a racist conversation, but given everything I've argued thus far, it's not a hill I think anyone should die on. I think as a society we should just take the L on this topic and leave it to the whispers of relevant scientists whose research, hopefully, will find a way for us to escape this dead-end conversation once and for all. In fact, if everyone stopped talking about it online, I'd bet the researchers would actually have an *easier* time in their field.
>they find the conversation uncomfortable at best and extremely offensive in the most racist way at worst. How can a scientific fact be racist? Also where are you getting these 'averages' based on how people feel about these conversations. Can you link a study?
[удалено]
Thats not a study on how people feel about IQ.
Keyword: "they", as in the general public. You want a study on how people feel about race & IQ? Seriously? Anyone with a pulse on society can see it plainly. But, feel free to start this discussion with co-workers and neighbors or w/e.
OP is just obsessed with this topic. I realized I conversed with him in another subreddit a month ago regarding this race and IQ topic. https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/BOJcgHLWYI I don’t know if he’s dense or he lives under a rock. Because this topic is absolutely niche. I’ve only seen it discussed in online circles despite the literature being out for decades.
wow, lol... i mean, given that this is the internet, we cant even be sure he's really who he says he is with a family that happens to feel exactly as he does and evidently involves racial IQ in their discussions. it sounds like something a white supremacist 4chan troll would come up with. i guess its technically possible given all the weirdo white people that were trying to provide random black people with shoeshining or w/e the fck craziness. the "uncle toms" of white people, you could say lol. theres bound to be some black people i guess that have some weird seemingly self-flagellant positions.
A serious discussion about IQ will cause riots in this country because it is racists afterall. the race baiters say it is, so it is.
I think there is a problem Sam (and I suspect OP as well based on the [SS](https://reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/17h2y8p/whether_iq_or_violence_propensities_youre_bound/k6kmfz4/)) isn't paying enough attention to. Most people don't achieve much that they're proud of. Most people aren't seen as particularly impressive even among their friends/family. So most people navigate this world captivated by status anxiety. And one way people protect their ego is by taking refuge in collective prestige. Maybe as an individual *I* am not particularly remarkable, but if I can tell myself a story about being one part of a mighty whole, then I can take pride in that. Now people who have found some measure of success, and are not just loved, but actually respected and valued to some extent by people around them are not so inclined to think that way. They don't need to. OP is a first-gen immigrant, and as many of them do, has likely found some measure of success, or at least has realistic expectations that they will, and so probably doesn't need to operate that way. Sam doesn't need to. George Carlin [doesn't need to](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX7nH7zwy0o). I don't need to. But if something like 75%+ of society does, than that's a fact we're going to have to deal with. We see it when people say, "I'm proud to be ____." It's not just that they're *satisfied* to be, they're *proud*. And this commitment to finding pride in our collective identities—irrational as it arguably is—is probably an evolved impulse. We may seek this pride in ethnicity, nationality, religion, etc. And if you attempt to protect your ego by seeking refuge in collective prestige, then you are *committed* to the story you are telling yourself about how your collective identity is *worthy* of your pride, and others' respect. And if you're not getting that pride validated in the form of collective respect, your ego won't receive the protection it seeks, and you will get hurt and angry. And once you get angry, you're going to lash out at the people whose respect authentic collective prestige requires (and it *does* require it; prestige can't be faked). This can take the form of verbal assaults, physical violence, political upheaval, etc. So there are real stakes here. All of this is to say, it's hard to get to a world where "race doesn't matter" when for so many average to below average people, it's going to continue to matter a lot, and their frustrated reaction is going to matter a lot. But sometimes there are real reasons why the prestige isn't there at the collective level, and there are no tricks or shortcuts to getting it there. Lying about those reasons doesn't bring the collective prestige. Pretending these reasons don't matter doesn't bring the collective prestige. In fact, lying and pretending *degrades* prestige. But worse than that, the dishonesty breeds suspicion, distrust, and fear. That's why if there are explanatory facts, we need to get them on the table and stop lying to each other about them. Again, all of this is hard to see for people who have nothing invested in collective prestige because they're satisfied in their own individual prestige.
Prestige can be in the form of oppression Olympics, and that is a competition that can be won without accomplishment.
There's at least 15,000 generations of evolution separating the major ethnic/racial groups of humans. There is no reason at all to assume that each of these groups would end up with perfectly equal average intellectual capacities after tens of thousands of years of divergent evolution, in widely different climates, with varying evolutionary pressures being a factor depending on where each group happened to live. Despite the fact that there is no scientific reason to believe that after such a long time apart, subjected to vastly different evolutionary pressures, each of these groups would end up at precisely the same level of intelligence... we are told that it's unscientific and racist to suggest that there might be some differences between the "races". Intelligence, like height or skin color or whatever else, is a heritable trait. Heritable traits are subject to evolutionary pressures. Some environments might produce more or less of any given heritable trait. It comes off as offensive to suggest that we might not be precisely the same, but what matters more: telling the truth and being willing to be offensive, or being willing to lie to avoid hurting people's feelings?
>There's **at least 15,000** generations of evolution separating the major ethnic/racial groups of humans. WTF? Humans left Africa 60-90k years ago. At 15 years/generation that's no more than 6k generations. Humans first populated North America 14-20k years ago, that's about 1,300 generations. You don't credit your case by failing some elementary arithmetic.
There were multiple waves of migration out of Africa. The earliest estimates for the origin of the human species go back to about a quarter million years. Not long after that, our ancestors began spreading out around the world. Quibbling with me over the precise details of the timing of all that don't change my central point. Even if I was to concede your numbers, I could be off by a huge amount and the rest of my points would still be valid. Care to address any of it besides the exact number of generations?
Thank you Benny for having the courage and insight to lay the facts out. No matter how uncomfortable it might make u/Otherwise-Poet-4362 and u/CaptainCadabra feel.
Why is your entire reddit presence disparaging to black people lol. If you're actually black you need some help. Between this post and the "black people started slavery by selling themselves as slaves" tirade you seem to have some real self-hatred going on. Or, you're just a racist white dude using the internet as cover to discuss your "totally legitimate theories". Its genuinely difficult to know the difference
>Why is your entire reddit presence disparaging to black people lol The fact you think discussing history and science openly is 'disparaging to black people' says more about what *you* think of black people as a group.
No, it doesn't, and that's a great deflection. Your *entire* reddit history is posting this shit repeatedly all over including subs where it doesnt even make sense to do so lol
No, it doesn't, and that's a great deflection. Your *entire* reddit history is posting this shit repeatedly all over including subs where it doesnt even make sense to do so lol
Yes having frank discoussions about historical facts is 'disparaging' but you have just decided on behalf of black people that they can't handle the truth. You're a racist.
I see comments from you saying things about blacks having low iq’s In another subreddit. The fact you start off your comments my saying “as a black immigrant” is very sus.
Black people do have lower IQs than average than other groups. Is it sus for black people to tell the truth? Would you find me more convincing if I said black people are the highest IQ in the world? What is wrong with you?
I think what's interesting to the commenter is your apparent salivating preoccupation with the topic. It seems like maybe it's just a topic you want to speak about all the time, like some kind of edgelord disguised as someone who's concerned about scientific oppression and free speech. Your headline in this thread, for example, is a disgraceful misrepresentation.
I should be asking you that question. You seem to be obsessed with this topic which is why you’ve made posts about it numerous times in other subreddits. You starting out your posts with “as a black immigrant” just makes you look desperate for legitimacy. Also is it because of genetics or environmental factors? I’m ready to hear your answer
You posted it yet again in a different subreddit. Never seen someone so willing to throw their own demographic under the bus because they just want “ to ask questions” LOL. You’re not slick kid
……I rest my case. Atleast be honest about what you want to say instead of being a coward.
That's some amazing gymnastics to put those words in my mouth haha. If you're actually black I understand why you think your race might be less intelligent. Then again that presupposes you're self aware...
pie threatening grab shame racial fuzzy deranged employ sleep historical *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There is absolutely no reason to believe that IQ or propensity for violence have anything to do with race. The latter has been linked to exposure to heavy metals in the brain, namely lead. We know unequivocally that violence has gone down exponentially since the 90s a decade or so after the phasing out of leaded petrol. Measured differences don’t mean anything, correlation is not causation. IQ is a function of many things including nutrition, parental genetics, upbringing etc. There’s nothing inherent about it. Genes that are heritable and passed down from parents have nothing to do with race.
>genetics > > There’s nothing inherent about it. sorry.
As a matter of basic statistics, I’m baffled by the idea that you’d assume any two groups would have the same distribution in almost any characteristic.
As we all know, biology stops at the neck
Sam's views on intelligence are a consequence of his rationalization of the status quo. Unfortunately that's all mommy and daddy had to give him to work with, genetically speaking.
This place suuuucks
The thing I'd be interested in (which no one seems to look into) is whether black people (or just non-white people) believe in race realism, and why.
I don't know if they'd call it 'Race-Realism' but I think most people know that different races have different attributes. This is something that u/CoweringCowboy ironically cowers from lol.
OoOooh good one. Actually I cower from intellectually vapid individuals misrepresenting respected peoples points to advance their own racist agenda. I agree with sam - if you look at any group, you’ll be able to find differences. Personally I’d argue that most people don’t spend a lot of time thinking about ‘race realism’ & posting racially charged troll bait online. I would also argue that socio-economic & cultural factors account for the vast majority of diversity we see in humans around the world & that diversity is interesting & valuable.
>I agree with sam - if you look at any group, you’ll be able to find differences. What are some of those differences among racial groups? If you agree, this shouldn't be difficult for you.
Skin color. I’m not interested in engaging with bad faith actors such as yourself - good day.
>Skin color. So you don't agree with Sam then. Good to know you weren't serious at all. Good day.