Wow, what I’m taking away from that article is that Sam Harris went
full HBD in some random podcast and this is the first I’m hearing about
it.
…I mean, I’m not shocked he believes that crap, but I’m
kinda shocked he’d say it publicly. Even Charles Murray doesn’t claim
the (alleged) IQ gap is entirely genetic.
I don't think that quote is saying it's fully genetic; when I have a chance I'll check out the full context.
I think Harris has always been careful not to take a position there.
What
You must be joking
He said everything in The Bell Curve is sound science and all of Murray's critics are motivated by SJWism
Everything
All of them
but both contradict the false and shockingly uninformed claim that Harris "has **always** been careful not to take a position there"
My emphasis on "always", but it would be equally uninformed without that unnecessary modifier
I meant that he's never taken a position on how much of the gap is genetic, and in particular never said that it's all genetic.
He's definitely suggested that some of it is genetic on several occasions.
I'll admit I haven't looked at his stuff in like a year since the emails came out but I think I'd have remembered if he was taking positions close to "the gap is 100% genetic".
But he has, because he has specifically endorsed the claims made by Charles Murray about the degree to which any such gap is genetic, and ridiculed actual scholars in the field who make *alternative* claims as crooks and liars
It's low-hanging fruit, but his anti-Pinker article shows that Pinker can't even cite and argue against that low-hanging fruit correctly. Which also goes for the rest of his stuff. He's genetically incapable of not strawmanning.
As an expert in evolutionary psychology Im pretty sure his ancestors were able to scare off the lions and jaguires by being a bunch of just annoying fucking crackers.
It could be applied that way. The response by Johnson is fairly indicative:
>That M&S’s argumentative theory applies to their own reason-ing is necessary if their theory is to be consistent. To suggestotherwise is to commit what Little (1972) called thenonreflexivefallacy. Yet M&S spend virtually the entire article discussingstudies of nonscientists and nonphilosophers, with just the brief-est mention of how their theory might apply to professional rea-soners. One exception is a reference to reviewers of scientificmanuscripts who look for flaws in papers to justify rejectionwhen they do not agree with a paper’s conclusion. They alsoremark near the end of their article that even among scientiststhe ability to control one’s own biases is “uncommon” and“almost freakish” (sect. 6, para. 7).
pundits stop calling things they don’t like “tribalistic” challenge 2k19
Wow, what I’m taking away from that article is that Sam Harris went full HBD in some random podcast and this is the first I’m hearing about it.
…I mean, I’m not shocked he believes that crap, but I’m kinda shocked he’d say it publicly. Even Charles Murray doesn’t claim the (alleged) IQ gap is entirely genetic.
i hate steven pinker too, but running a twitter called “xriskology” is a bad look