Ezra seems to merely be endorsing that Sam engage with more minority voices and historical context but that wouldn’t warrant the reputational damage he never acknowledges intentionally inflicting. It’s frustrating and interesting but I don’t know if I would recommend it.
-
-
-
It’s endlessly frustrating that given history & intensity of antisemitism two men of Jewish descent discussing discrimination are labeled “two white guys” by Ezra. A tautology - bad outcomes in groups exist because of discrimination which only exists when there are bad outcomes.
-
The most interesting thing Ezra said is that you could use the idea that IQ is both very important and largely innate & immutable to argue for expanding the welfare state and the role of government. An article on progressive policy tethered to IQ innateness would be fascinating.
-
I think that idea comes right out of The Bell Curve.
-
My short thread regarding this podcast. Sam really should have brought up Communism & Lysenkoism whenever Ezra started talking about historical injustices. https://twitter.com/PALE_Primate/status/984722412964143104 …
This Tweet is unavailable. -
This Tweet is unavailable.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You constantly interrupting him was pretty distracting. I know this isn't a substantial point to make but I still wanted to bring attention to it. He rarely interrupted you
-
Klein didn’t want to discuss the topic: his inappropriate article. He only wanted to spew his views on racism and it’s obvious he doesn’t like sam. He took a cheap shot with the race card to try to bring down a guy he doesn’t like. He brought nothing to the table.
-
I think both of them technically talked past each other. Maybe they should have implemented a rule where one person asks a question and tries not to drone on and the other person directly and clearly answers the question. Both sides seemed to dodge each others' q's non stop
-
The difference is that SH's questions were relevant to why they were having a podcast in the first place. When you have two people talking past each other, at least one of the two is doing it deliberately, and ground rules devised to prevent it are not going to be successful.
-
I don't understand why there would be a "requirement" for one of them to do it deliberately. I believe both Ezra and Sam are intellectually honest dudes without such manipulative intentions.
-
I don't think it's a requirement, but I think it's extremely unlikely for two intellectually honest dudes to have it happen accidentally.
-
There were a few times I thought
@ezraklein's veneer of genuine debate slipped away and he seemed to be obfuscating and disingenuous (i.e., re: the althetic analogy) quite possibly could be mistaken as he made his argument really well/articulatety.@SamHarrisOrg was excellent -
Klein had an edge of mockery to my ear, lots of scoffing/chuckling and seeming bemused by obvious points. Thankfully Harris didn’t react to it or things might have turned ugly. I think Klein wanted to be debating Murray the way he kept steering it to Murray’s policy ideas.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Sam, I thought your handling of this conversation was excellent and that the podcast was far more useful than I expected.
-
I agree with Ezra's view that systemic environmental inequalities remain sufficiently pervasive that considering genetic reasons for differences in racial outcomes is a bit premature. Had that been the basis of the Vox article, this episode would have been far more pleasant.
-
Instead, the Vox article accused Murray of racialist pseudo/junk science and you of being too happy to go along. This was unfair, and his only response seemed to be the continuous conflation of the science with the politics.
-
Also, whites historically using the science of the day to justify racists policies and the consequential harm that has done to generations of blacks does not justify maligning the reputation of whites dispassionately discussing the science as its known today.
-
That the comparative suffering was unequal is irrelevant - what Ezra did in his article war wrong. I largely agree with
@ezraklein's political stance, but I wish he had expressed it without defaming the reputation of those who try to discuss a difficult topic dispassionately. -
In my view, Harris defamed his own reputation by inadequately assessing the state of the science & the history of racism in the science while interviewing Murray. He accepted Murray's conclusions on the data on IQ pretty much at face value. Klein merely pointed that failing out.
-
Does one need to understand the history of the application of a science to discuss its accuracy? For social/political conversations - yes. For scientific conversations - less so. Not doing it at all should not however invite defamation.
-
I agree with you that Sam could have pushed back far more on Murray's conclusions, but I disagree that pointing this out was all Klein was doing. One can do just this without saying that those who do not push back sufficiently on such conclusions assist in peddling junk science.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.