Sam HarrisVerified account

If there is indeed something to racialist or gender essentialism, this does not discount the need to focus on areas of inequality that we can have societal control over. Too often, this kind of argument is used to dismiss the effectiveness of these efforts.

If? Do you not plainly observe that men tend to take more risks than women under the same conditions, or that sub-Saharan Africans tend to out-sprint and jump the other branches of humanity? You have to dispense with the idiotic pretense of "if" differences exist at all.

Furthermore, one wonders about the internal conflict in the minds of people such as yourself who so thoroughly doubt the most conspicuous parts of reality. Is it that you don't trust yourself not to be hateful, not to be a bigot, were you to concede these points?

The "if" is merely a placeholder for how much any one may think essentialism plays a role. It certainly plays some role. The point, however, is to focus on societal barriers to equality of opportunity.

The point actually, is that the left has decided all differential outcomes are 100% the result of our moral failings. This is not only unscientific, but will in various ways be a hindrance when trying to address the issue of equality. Both what it means and what we should do.

100% is not a convincing number.

Not sure what you're talking about. There exists an expectation by the left, the people with a monopoly on guiding the conversation on equality, that every identity they enshrine have equality of outcome. They have concluded that equality of opportunity = equality of outcome.

I am afraid that just isn't true. Progressive policies seek progress not some impossible goal of absolute equality of outcome.

Another attempt to reduce race to genetics/biology? This will be interesting. I wonder if my skepticism of racial essentialism will be reduced to identity politics or intellectual dishonesty (or both).

I have two problems with this IQ test: 1) how can race be the basis for intelligence when race itself is a construct & has been debunked scientifically? 2) even if true, I’d question if this experiment factors in societal & cultural impediments to intelligence?

I think these questions can be asked without rejecting science completely.

Ugh. Can one of you guys just organize an interview on one of your respective casts? You overlap so much. Hash it out. You can commiserate over the difficulties of trying to be vegetarian.

Sam already tried; Ezra declined. I prefer Ezra’s interviews, but I consider Sam more honest and evenhanded. It could be a great conversation.

ezra claims otherwise, and sam's recent behavior and circles he's hanging in and surround himself with also suggest otherwise

Hi, can you clarify this statement? Not being willfully obtuse; honestly don't know what you're referring to.

ezra seems to be willing as per article and tweethttps://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/978678751927132161 …

the 2. part has to do with the claim "sam is more honest". maybe 3 years ago you could say this, but his insistence to financially support rubin and his constant playing grabass with peterson, c. murray, d. murray, gad saad, ben shapiro and so on makes me question his "honesty"

Fair enough. I don't agree with that interpretation, but I see how one could see it that way. Didn't know if there was unequivocal event that had happened recently.

rubin is his murtaza, but a worse version. he was justifiably angry with greenwald who defended murtaza who said sam was a fascist who would support the golden dawn, but rubin today does much worse and yet sam supports him.