This analysis is utter crap. There isn't a single good point based on evidence in this video. If you disagree with Leftism, even if you have evidence, you are probably coming from a place of racism, sexism, bigotry, whatever. Stupid.
Sam's EXACT words: "....I see what's coming. The more we understand ourselves, genetically and environmentally, even if we're not looking, we WILL discover differences between groups. And the endgame for us as a species is not to deny that those differences exist OR could possibly exist, BUT to deny that they have real political implications." If you are honestly dense enough and dumb enough to think this is a racist position, then that says a LOT more about YOU and YOUR intentions than it does about Sam and automatically kills any credibility you may have as someone who should ever be taken seriously.
@@SubscribersWithoutAnySubscribe deflection via gaslighting, instead of refutation, is how I know your a racist that watches right wing racists on youtube. Predictable Racist behaviour lol
Regarding his death it says “Later it was discovered that Brooks died of a saddle embolus. Upon further medical examination it was discovered he had two separate genetic factors for increased clotting.” Brooks - How dare Sam Harris suggest genes are responsible for IQ. Genes - Watch this. There’s not enough irony in the world.
Whilst I was never a full Harris fanboy, I appreciate the efforts of Michael and Sam Seder revealing to me the level of sophistry that Harris deploys. Love the impressions as well!
@@peterm1240 what the fuck is "a sophist's conclusion"? sophistry is a dishonest way of presenting ideas and arguing that puts rhetoric before logic, that doesn't say a lot about the inner workings of a sophist and how they would reach conclusions
Ezra is politicizing science with good intention of stopping racist doctrines from spreading...BUT when he does this it prevents us from actually being able to have clear conversations about the state of a given science in the first place. BASICALLY, it obscures the difference between science and politics - a difference that should ALWAYS be crystal clear. Ezra Klein is right to fight for a more equal, more just America. He does not have to politicize science to do it.
Bryan A He’s not politicizing science, he is trying to give the science context. The problem with Murray is that he leads to a conclusion that doesn’t at all follow the data. Giving science context is not politicization, it’s nuance. Having a nuanced view and looking at all relevant factors is important rather than leading to a premature conclusion that doesn’t address all relevant questions. That doesn’t make you a scientist, it makes you a biased hack and that is what Ezra Klein was trying to present to Sam but Sam was unwilling to have the conversation.
Speaking of systemic and institutionalized inequality, why don't we look at the inequality in the environments of West and East Germany at the point that the Berlin Wall fell. The East Germans were oppressed by the Russian Communists for years but once the country united, the IQ gap between the East and West closed within one generation. But given that it closed so fast within that historic context, I actually believe that the East Germans genetically probably have a genetic +2 IQ compared to West Germans.
@@liamdoyle100 Although it's not my desire to advantage historically oppressed groups. It's my desire to make sure that all groups are treated fairly TODAY. That's why I prefer to advocate for the only group in the country that isn't allowed to explicitly advocate for their own political interests. The only group that has the life expectancy of their working age males declining. This is unprecedented in the developed world.
I’m not a huge fan of Harris. But I listened to that podcast twice and he made some good points.. they both did.. from 2 different perspectives.. this is a pathetic video.. you guys are going lower and lower no wonder why you’re so unpopular..
Sam Harris is a pseudo intellectual, and saying this show is unpopular is like saying this show is "the most popular thing on television" it just doesn't wash.
There is a consensus on the facts. The mean IQ of asians is higher, get over it you racist. White people don't have to be the best at everything, and the fact that you can't accept this is really telling. Racist.
I don't think they care about being popular. They care about the truth. If the truth of Sam Harris being ludicrously off base on this point is scary to you, sorry but you do not belong in these discussions.
Michael Brooks is the kind've guy you can shotgun a beer with, blast Pantera on a back road in pickup truck, and discuss geopolitics with all at the same time.
That's a 2nd post gone completely off the rails (2/2). Look bro, my post was not mean spirited one bit, nor it was not meant to offend or ridicule. But since you;re asking: you could have taken something from it. For example you could have googled "parasocial", and you could have taken a hint that that is not how "normal" people usually interact. That is if your plan is to keep pretending you're a normal dude ;)
You're like Jesus Christ. You just can't help but help people. I am forever changed because of you. I can't imagine how my life would've gone had you not intervened with your grace and wisdom. I'll name my first born after you.
Racist on IQ is like a comedy routine, you got to laugh. I've read a lot on race and IQ from the pass and the one thing you get out of it is to question the IQ of the people that are stating it as fact.
Harris’ entire point in his podcast is that we don’t know where these differences come from, and that we need to be able to talk about data without being crucified for it, even if the data can be offensive. You just misrepresented him and proved his worries true
This should be called The Ad Hominem Show. I think it was very easy to miss Sam's point since he seemed to want to get Ezra to concede that the science was sound and Ezra obviously had no intention discussing any of that, or backing up his claims. Charles Murray, however much you disagree with him, is not a racist. How many racist do you hear say that you would be doing a great disservice to yourself, to judge anyone based on anything other than their merit? Do you think a racist would say that back when he was going to college, if he saw a black person he automatically assumed he was smarter than himself due to it being so much harder for black people than himself to get to college? How about racists that say affirmative action was necessary? Science is great, because one only needs to bring data to disprove someone. Go do the study, prove him wrong, bring the numbers. He could absolutely be wrong, and you could absolutely be right. There is no need to resort to personal attacks on someone and ascribing motives of racism to their opinions.
There are discussions and views that will get labelled a racist in public discourse. My problem is Sam Harris is that he also labels people racist for having similars views to Charles Murray.
tidak ada The stuff I've seen printed on Murray regarding Thailand just about amounts to conspiracy theories from unreliable sources. I think the definition of racism has now become social construct focused on the oppression if back people, where it used to be someone who thought their race to be superior. All that aside, let's just look at his policies. As you describe them, they are brutal right wing policies. As bad as they could possibly be, chances are, they're not racist. It is just your perception. Maybe I'm wrong and he is trying to implement whites only restrooms or something like that, but I doubt it. Can we not disagree with him without calling him a racist? It's almost as bad as calling Ben Shapiro a Nazi.
tidak ada I will take your point on the racism definition as I have heard of the trend you spoke of. So are you saying there is no way be a conservative without being a racist? Policies geared toward reducing social benefits to the lower class have to be racist? Take Murray's opinion that we should take away benefits from single mothers that don't work (or something to that effect). He thinks this provides incentive to people to have kids to gain access to benefits. I disagree with him and believe to an increase in homeless children as well, and I think that having a child cannot be deterred in this manner, not would I want to live in a society where you need to have a certain amount of money to have a child, but I can see why he has this stance. I think he can have this view without being a racist.
Charles Murray definitely isn't racist. It's not like he ever burned a cross or anything...oh wait: www.nytimes.com/1994/10/26/opinion/in-america-throwing-a-curve.html
"How many racist do you hear say that you would be doing a great disservice to yourself, to judge anyone based on anything other than their merit?" Literally every single racist who wants to maintain their social status will say this to cover their ass you gullible moron.
Debate Summary: Ezra: I don't think we can talk about scientific facts without providing historical and social background, and making it clear what our moral beliefs are first. Sam: Maybe that would have been helpful, but I don't think people should be vilified or misrepresented when they neglect to do that, because it should be ok to just talk about the science sometimes. Ezra: But not having context is bad. Sam: But implicitly attributing policy ideas to scientific facts is bad. REPEAT over and over.
@Blaire Sovereign but a scientists job is merely to correctly gather, verify and present the empirical data for peer review. That's it. What is done with the data is not the scientists responsibility. That is a discussion out with the purview of science itself. Ezra at no time seemed to be able to grasp that simple fact.
@@endlessnameless6628 The problem though is that no one is fully capable of doing that. All people have biases that's why professionals in academia need to have their articles peer reviewed, its not just for accuracy its so that ones bias is as limited as possible. Everyone has some form of bias and Sam Harris' attempt to suggest that historical context, societal influences, cultural beliefs, and other attitudes are not influencing scientists doesn't make sense. If someone understands scientific history, then one knows that scientists have biases and those biases cannot be separated from the time period someone grew or grows up in.
What I don't understand in this era thanks to Sam Harris' sick defense of Charles Murray is why James Flynn has been ignored. Yes, the "Flynn Effect" is acknowledged but not the man himself and his opposition against Murray. Sam Harris claims that Flynn has gone against his opposition to Murray but Klein makes clear that he spoke to Flynn two days before the recording of his conversation with Harris and Harris just ignores it and bizarrely continually claims that Flynn is now on Murray's side. Hell, why doesn't someone suggest to Harris to bring Flynn on? Why hasn't Harris done so himself if he is so interested in truth as he claims? This is what makes it clear that Sam Harris is a white supremacist because he framed his interview with Murray as if Murray's thesis is definitive truth and that no one disagrees with Murray despite that being obviously false. Why James Flynn was not invited by people in the last year to talk about this stomach churning resurgence of popularity around Murray thanks to Harris is beyond me. However, Harris ignoring Flynn's opposition to Murray speaks volumes about who he is as a person.
The sort of line Harris said about how he is a liberal and he really didn't wish the IQ statistics were true but they are is a sign I've seen on white supremacist forums like on 4chan's /pol/. It's a way of radicalizing people while "hiding your power level"
Sam Harris has exactly one debating trick. "You didn't understand what I was saying." "You obviously didn't understand what he was saying." "You didn't read enough of my stuff." "Unlike me, you just don't understand." "I understand everything better than you."
@@jtstevenson81 Not really a fan of either, but Sam Harris has to be the most misunderstood person ever. Whenever he's challenged he dresses his argument up however makes it sound more appealing. He is a very bland intellectual for me.
You know what really gave the game away for me? Sam kept saying Ezra couldn't escape his 'wokeness' ( seemed a trite assumption to make but ok) which Klein obviously denied yet there was a point when Sam started to draw an analogy, obviously a simple thought experiment about finding racial bias in sprinting because there are no Jews in the 100 meters. It was obvious it was an illustration of a point, fairly straight forward. Astoundingly however, Ezra cuts in with 'Are you comparing the idea that there are not Jews in the finals of the New York City or Boston Marathon or whatever, to the conversation about whether African Americans, after what has gone on in this country’s history, are scoring worse in IQ?'. That was astounding, after conceding Sam was not a racist and that the argument is in good faith, Ezra then tries to characterize this simple analogy as somehow Sam trying to say these things are morally the same, something only a raging KKK member would do. If he knows that Sam is not a racist (as he conceded)then why on earth would you even think Sam would then try and frame those two things as morally equivalent? It demonstrates either one of two things, either Klein is stupid ( don't think so) or he has a complete inability to apprehend the argument Sam is making on the nature of why the autonomy of science is important because he simply cannot shut down his woke outrage antennae long enough. At that point it did seem that Ezra is helpless in being unable to stop trying to find racism in everything, even here under the auspices of a good faith debate with a man he acknowledged as not being racist. He simply cannot see beyond his own framing of everyone and everything in terms of racial animus, this ( kinda cringey) attempt at a 'gotcha' moment backfired and revealed more about him than Sam🤷♀️. That was a slam dunk for me quite honestly, a small thing but in an instant it proved that Ezra simply cannot distance himself from the emotional allure of playing 'find the racist' everywhere. Ezra just cant seem to help himself, its obvious to see the difference between an analogy and drawing a moral comparison, or it should be, especially from an intellectual opponent who stated that they agreed politically and who Klein accepted was not a racist yet Ezra...just...couldnt...resist. I thought they were talking around each other to that point but that really proved Sam's point. Also Klein really needs to stop gish galloping ( he on Shapiro levels of bad) and interrupting. If you have faith in your arguments, let other people speak.
@@endlessnameless6628 I'm wondering why Sam talks about the issue as if science is settled by appearances on political outlets. And why he brings on a non-scientist (Murray) to talk about science.
@@smaakjeks Whatever you think of Murrays views (and I abhor his politics) he isn't just some schlub. Murray holds degrees from both Harvard, M.I.T and has done research work at A.I.M. I think that's why he is viewed as dangerous, his education and background give the patina of academic credibility to his arguments. I don't know if he's right or wrong ( I lean toward him being completely and utterly off base tbh, holds far too much stake in IQ being a barometer of future success) but I know there's nothing wrong with examining the data which is what Sam explicitly says , if only to prove him wrong . By trying to suppress it, it only makes it look like there's something to hide which halfwits can use to say his work is correct or why else would it be censored? Get it out into the public forum and debunk it thoroughly. Its simple. Data is data, peer review is the best antidote to bad science.
@@endlessnameless6628 Switch up Murray with your average creationist with a PhD and that text you wrote there would be equally applicable. The book he published is not peer-reviewed. There is no suppression of his ideas happening in science academia, just like there's no suppression of creationism. It's just bad science.
@lopez Yes, yes it was. He either was lying or so blinded by ideology that he couldn't see the truth. Sam Harris wiped the floor with Ezra Klein. Every normal person can see it.
@lopez What are you talking about? Everything Harris said is true to the science as we have it today. And both he and Charles Murray believe that the genetic heritability of IQ is somewhere around 40-60%, so it's NOT "all genetics." Did you even watch the Harris episode with Murray? You have no idea what the arguments even are. And most environmental effects are theorized at this point, not "proven"; see the debate over the validity of the environmental lead theory on brain development. I am sorry, but you simply are not informed enough to make any confident statements about this topic.
@lopez I do care. The other side's ideas are wrong and divisive. That's a problem. That's why we need to reiterate the facts, because people will appeal to emotion time and time again.
@@puremercury On the whole argument about emotion. It's funny how it was Sam Harris who apologised for his angry reaction to a legitimate piece of journalism. On whether The Bell Curve is discredited, Harris and Murray discredit the book with their virtue signalling
you said that sam tries to explain why the vox articles are unfair and that he tried to keep ezra on topic. what arguments does sam make, that you agree with?
so why do you agree when sam says history is "completely irrelevant"? i think history is operating in a society, in which black people are discriminated throughout their lives, which they are. how could history possibly be "completely irrelevant" as sam says, in your opinion?
There are a weird amount of comments complaining about how annoying Sam Seder is. Every time I see this, I have to wonder if the person is accidentally calling Sam Harris ''Sam Seder'' or if they're calling Michael Brooks "'Sam Seder''. Unless he's sneaking around in the background somewhere, Sam Seder is nowhere in this fucking video.
Alexandre Gareau I have listened to Harris and what he says and see him constantly misrepresented. Sam is 100% correct. If you talk about an issue that the left, of which I am a part, does not approve, then you are demonized and face ad hominem attacks rather than them dealing with your arguments. Let’s be honest, statistics show that black people in this country score lower on IQ tests. But that is so taboo because we live in a culture where the radicalized on the left feel that saying something true, that may offend someone, is off limit. Michael Brooks is white knighting, and a nobody, why the hell would someone of Sam Harris’ status want to waste his time debating someone nobody knows who is hellbent on attacking him personally because he is talking about a topic supported by data that people on the radical left want to attack him for saying. Attack the argument, not the man. That’s what Brooks can’t get thru his head. Freedom of speech used to be a principle of the left, now it’s the right that is defending it and the left who want to censor what people are saying.
I'm seeing the same issue with Sam and Ezra that I did with Sam and Noam Chomsky. An actual look at socioeconomic factors and their influences on groups could be edifying for Sam, as he seems to miss the mark with regard to these things.
@Peter Dembowy ummm Che Guevara, Stalin, Lenin, Leon Trotsky, etc. were raise as wealthy men who dedicated their lives (and mostly died) for the idea of Communism, which grew to power because of wealth inequality. Even if you hate communism. You have to, at the very least, acknowledge the ridiculousness of suggesting that Bin Laden (who's body was found with a letter saying he wanted the to start a war between the west and the muslim world) wasn't reacting to the socio-economic conditions of the islamic world because he was wealthy. He was fighting AGAINST the Saudi's and their alliance to the U.S.
deconstructyouridols Have you even read Bin Ladens letter to America. Yes, it had a lot of Islamic fundamentalist beliefs in it but it also talked about the preventing of Democracy, the Kiyoto Agreement, the oppression of Palestinians, and the torture regime under Bush, so your view has to be more nuanced than Islam bad, because you get a dangerously deluded perspective with no nuance.
+deconstructyouidols History is full of examples of wealthy men leading popular uprisings of commoners. The US revolution and most of the Latin American wars for independence are examples. I feel it cannot be forgotten that Osama’s rise to power was made possible by US support and encouragement of starting a “jihad” against the “godless Soviets.”
This guy is a fucking block constantly checking his notes because he's pre written everything to sound intelligent how could anyone subscribe to his channel
Interestingly, this was the discussion that led me to seriously question Harris. I started this podcast thinking that Ezra Klein was going to throw PC ad hom at Harris and was shocked at what I heard: Sam Harris basically had a breakdown during this interview. He starts by lobbing accusations at Ezra (poisoning the well) before completely disregarding the clarifications provided by the scientists that Klein had acquired. Sam repeats "That's a mis-characterization of his statement" after Klein literally quotes the scientists saying that it was MURRAY AND SAM who were mis-characterizing their works to form insane and unscientific conclusions. And, as Michael notes at 17:20 it's naive and insane to believe that science can't be racist. It reveals a disturbing lack of understanding of history and the development of societies and a naivete about science and politics that verges on ignorance. It was my final Harris straw. His now close association with Peterson, Shapiro and the like only confirmed my suspicions.
Same here, man. I used to listen to Harris's podcast and liked much of what I heard. Then when I heard about all this idw stuff I couldnt understand why Harris was being lumped in with those other fools. Then I learned who Charles Murray is and Sam's relation to him and I was exceedingly disappointed and basically shocked at what I heard from Harris. This isnt a contentious issue. Since then I've heard his takes on other race related issues and he just continued to disappoint. Shame on him, mr intellectual honesty my ass
The only time Sam was ever relevant to me was when he was riding shotgun with Hitchens. Hitchens was a rare genius, Sam Harris is a guy who likes to hear himself talk
Hahaha you must feel silly reading this back, thinking Harris was anything like Shaperio or Peterson. What a joke. Harris is the only intellectual with any integrity left.
@@matics2808 What a weird and cultic thing to say. Harris himself would be the first to point to the literally thousands of intellectuals in the scientific community that have integrity and do good science everyday. But you're correct that he has created a lot of distance between himself and Peterson/Shapiro. He's more or less stayed the same while they've gone off the cliff - especially on covid. Do I feel silly that Sam has surpassed my incredibly low expectations? Not especially.
Anyone who's career is based on just criticizing others is a fuckin loser. You're debating them personally or presenting your own ideas but instead making content bitching about someone. Its pathetic.
Harris didn’t use Affleck. What media attention that interaction got was not Harrris’s doing, and I’ve heard him mention it like three times since then, and I listen to almost all his podcasts. Meanwhile Seder and crew frequently bash Harris for likes.
I used to listen to every episode of Sam’s podcast. There was always some stuff that rubbed me the wrong way, but I still found it engaging overall. The Murray debacle was a huge wake up for me and I don’t think I ever listened to another episode after the Klein debate. RIP Michael, wish we had your voice today
That’s funny because I am just starting to listen to Sam Harris. I thought you all thought he was so great, now he’s a racist? I need to do my own research, a lot of hearsay going around.
I realised Sam Harris was a joke and a pseudo-intellectual back when he started pretending to be a philosopher and making absurd, unsubstantiated claims about objective moral truths. He didn't even understand the claim he was making or why it was controversial. I think he should stick to neuroscience when he's making public comments, and exercise the bare minimum of humility to leave other fields to actual experts.
Are ANY of Sam Harris' followers here actually addressing Michael's points?! Because from the looks of it, "ad hominem" has a whole different meaning now: criticism.
@@smaakjeks well there is certainly some truth to that. People of different races have similar characteristics and genes. I don't think that was what got criticized by vox. It was an opinion that there could be no generic component to iq when there likely is. Even though Sam any Murray never said that there was for sure
@@smaakjeks next time you have a critical health issue and the doctor wants to know your background just tell them it doesn't matter because we're all the same
Even the genetic argument is also an environment psychosocial argument because what genes are expressed is largely dependent on the stresses people are placed under in one generation and many generations. Human height for example is largely dependent on the diet of the mother of the mother. Trauma spans generations. The bigger question might be why people feel the need to make these arguments and present these ideas.
Yes, so the genetic differences could simply be transient although it is highly unlikely that blacks will ever catchup at this point. They may close the gap slightly, but I wouldn’t expect much more. Groups have lived apart for tens of thousands of years. Many of these differences will naturally be permanent.
yes new discoveries in biology like genetics are very relevant to this topic as it shows that lineage is more important and what are parents and their parents how they behaved changes are DNA more quickly than previous dogma would have thought. IMO sense that if you take two different people with different family histories one for instance a jewish person whos family has been in a society for generation after generation and compare that man with someone taken right out of a primitive society and plop him into a society obviously it will take his DNA lineage some time to adapt to this new lifestyle, habits and way of living and thinking. Racial characteristics are somewhat fluid like everything else in life.
Here's the thing about calling people that agree with Harris on this issue names like "fanboi" and "fancuck." Agreeing with Harris on this issue does not necessarily mean you are a fan especially since, apparently, it's not the "popular" position to take. What agreeing with Harris on this issue means is that you are, likely, a careful thinker. You are someone who evaluates a position without emotional investment and comes to the logical conclusion that valid scientific data obtained through ethical means should not be demonized. It further indicates that you think a person discussing said data should also not be demonized simply for the discussion and that the use of media outlets to libelously denigrate and demonize people for discussing "forbidden knowledge" is unacceptable. If you stand opposed to this position then you stand opposed to the pursuit of truth and knowledge. If you stand opposed to this because someone with, in your opinion, the wrong skin color delivers and/or discusses this knowledge then you stand opposed to the concepts best vocalized by Dr. Martin Luther King who dreamed of a time when people would be judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. It is therefore not an ad hominem but an actual genuine appraisal of the anti-Harris position to say that it is advocating ignorant racism.
I use to disagree with this channels criticisms of Sam Harris and being both a fan of him and Sam Seder but after looking at Harris foreign policy and watching him playing footsie with Rightwingers like Ben Shapiro,Charles Murray etc and blaming Leftist pc culture for the rise of Trump and ignoring that its people like Ben Shapiro and Charles Murray that are responsible for Trump.... I can’t take him seriously anymore.. I still think he’s smart but he’s not the intellectual I thought he was.
it always strikes me as funny how, out of all the possible subjects in reality, some people seem to get really really interested into the "race makes smart" subject
"The weight of American history is completely irrelevant" I get seriously nauseas the way this guy defend his space of thought experiments. Nah man you just think that's too much to take in and you wouldn't be able to maintain a I-know-what-goes-on-in-the-brain-universe-persona. The psychoanalytical ethical shortcomings of these gurus are so violently displayed in the comments sections of their followers.
Alfha Gahma Do you think he was saying that history is irrelevant in general, or irrelevant to his point? To reduce the entire discussion down as simply as possible: Klein: Scientific data is fine as long as it can’t potentially make these specific groups feel bad. If it does, it’s your fault for talking about it. Harris: I’m not even saying anything about a specific group or endorsing any policies. I’m only saying that facts are what they are, they will eventually emerge, and the messengers shouldn’t be shot for simply being true to their field of study. The truth, whatever it may be, will only give us more to work with in order to maximize the wellbeing for the most people.
Michael needs a larger platform. Not many people in the media, look at the world, from this sociological/philosophical/critical perspective. Your take on this is spot on.
I went into the debate with much more respect for Sam Harris than when it was over. And much more respect for Ezra Klein. What's crazy is that some people think Harris crushed Klein... "But, the Data!... You don't trust the data?!"... Klein: "That's not how you analyze or collect data... sure it's data... but not data that will help you arrive at anything substantial."
Here's a thought experiment: "What would Harris say regarding the Syrian attack?" Is the U.S's response troubling as it's engaging in war with yet another middle-east territory without first awaiting the conclusion of inspectors. Moreover, if this is all that's required for military intervention, why does the U.S. never act to prevent or punish Israel when they attack Palestine with chemical agents?. Isn't this a double-standard?.
@Ask Aas I watched this video and the klein/ harris conversation like 3 months ago so its a bit fuzzy, but I can still remember the general problem i had with his criticisms. Sam's point is that scientists should be able to talk about and present data without having to be afraid of any backlash or being misrepresented/ smeared, and this guy does just that to sam. Its fine if you disagree still, and I unfortunately can't really be more specific because I don't remember details. I'd rewatch it but I don't have the time these days, maybe rewatch it in a few months, however, Klein's inability to understand what harris was saying pissed me off so probably not lol
I'm really starting to think that Jonathan Haidt is right, when he said Intersectionality is a new religion. Sam is talking about treating scientific data as just that: data. Ezra is saying that we shouldn't be looking into it, cause it could be seen as racist. So basically, Ezra is saying that emotions should trump data, while Sam is saying data is data. But if you're in the Church of Intersectionality, you'll try to rationalize how Sam Harris is some kind of heretic for wanting to look at data in a scientific way, cause it could shatter your moral worldview. It's not too different from how Galileo was castigated from society, because he challenged the Catholic Church with Heliocentricism, which of course, went against their religious/moral worldview.
"Intersectionality is a new religion" lol you miss the point of the entire thing. the data DOESN'T say that black people have a genetically lower IQ. You are pseudo-scientific eugenecists just like the eugenecists of old, which is what Ezra is bringing up.
Considering Harris fans insist that everyone who disagrees with him misrepresent him (rarely the case), you REALLY fucking misrepresented Ezra Klein's position.
Yes, you're right - you, Sam Harris, and his other fans are Beings of Pure Logic and Reason. Everyone else is an SJW driven purely by emotion, spiteful of data. You're definitely not just a smug twat that can't see past his own self-regard
Transfiguration, You couldnt be more mistaken. As is often the case, scientific "data" exists in a vacuum, and doesnt tell the full story or come with any meaningful context. Sam harris makes the key mistake of pretending like some small subset of scientific data is representative of actual life. So for example, when he says "REEEE 50% of black crime is black on black crime", while that is a total red herring and not the discussion at all, it leaves out crucial details like in the 1940's blacks were systematically denied home loans per policy, which forced them into ghettos to fight eachother, and they also missed out on the tremendous wealth gains that came with home ownership which helps explain where we stand today.
S Palm The op didn’t say whites are superior. Harris didn’t say whites are superior... in fact he made it extremely clear that he doesn’t believe whites are superior and that superiority has nothing to do with his point. So, who exactly are you addressing?
Yes the fuck he does bro. He just doesn't say it explicitly because he's not a retard and he doesn't want what comes with that kind of rhetoric. I'll give you Sam's trick. He acknowledges that things like racism exist but when he argues about the topic it clearly doesn't factor into his argument. He plays lip service and spews out whatever right wing(yes he is) bullshit he wants despite acknowledging mitigating factors. Pick any topic concerning non-whites. He has his bigot mind made up. This is why Sam stays far away from history and intelluectuals/scholars who know it. Staying away from history lets you decontextualize things and that lets you spin narratives. Sam is a bad actor or extremely autistic.
"There's a reason why Silicon Valley robots are interested in this type of thinking: this is the enabling of an algorithm-driven age with zero concern for any type of provision for public good and accounting for anything besides goals set within its own narrow, narrow, narrow limits." -- Michael Brooks Well said, though I wish it were hyperbole.
@@ryshed4365 odd considering my vast range of searches on a plethora of topics and people. So perhaps you're correct? Perhaps not? If it defies the algorithm it's a instant non possibility that it could've been the most popular or searched and that may have been the reason?
This just seems absurd. I have listened to the sam Harris Ezra Klein debate multiple times and all Sam is trying to say in the whole interview is there is a conflation between American history or history in general and the results from the science. He is asking Ezra to be charitable in his interpretation of his conversation with Murray AND the that if history had some kind of impact on the science that was done to produce those results then the conflict should be with the scientific method behind the data, not the conversation. So, if there is a concern with the scientific method that Murray used then that should be where the discussion goes and stays. Sam is not saying it’s only genetic or hereditary in this discussion. It’s only about the attempt to smear Sam as a racist. And Sam Harris is clearly misrepresented about the bombing of Muslims and crap in this clip.
They are truly prolific. I swear any video that has his name in the title has loads of his sycophantic following smashing the like dislike button at astonishing rates. And then they all feel like they are in the right because of the like to dislike ratio not realizing that it's just all of the same people flocking from video to video. It truly is a jerk encirclement.
On heavens, poor Binet just turn in his grave. He made the IQ test to spot kids falling behind, then gave them intensive teaching to catch up - and not being able to concentrate was the main problem for less learning. And Harris just is rude and snarky debater with no interest in New facts or perspectives. Or the historical development of psychological and sociological study. This was year 1 in my psych degree. Ugh
Michael completely missed what Sam Harris was trying to say. He was just saying the conversation should be had without all sort of backlash. We should be able to have convos without hitting those trip wires Sam Harris was talking about. Sam Harris was not agreeing with what Murray or any of the others said. He is just advocating for having the convo. Ezra, Michael and the rest are just hell bent on believing convos like this shouldn’t even be had at all.
The ability to simplify such complex issues is the greatest sign of simplemindedness... No one is arguing that Sam Harris is racist. From what I've seen, some people are just arguing that in order to so openly argue about certain facts and data, people should be much more equipped (let's say with historical knowledge of inequality and oppression in the case of the fact being discussed in the Harris/Klein debate) before having the debate. Failure to do so can only help the side acting insidiously (in this case racists, white supremacists) win hearts and minds since the onus does not fall on them to dig further into the facts. The wealth inequality debate is a perfect example of this - there are facts about inequality today that we can point to, but it's hard to make a full case without first addressing the long record of historical inequities that got us to where we are today. The bad-faith side can simply chalk it up to "socialists and commies" and win half of the hearts and minds. Certain facts require A GREAT DEAL of knowledge and expertise before openly and freely discussing them. The social cost of failing to do so are greater than the personal costs of not doing so. That's how I understood it, at least.
You might realise that the bad side engages in exactly what you support the good side do. You might also note that you call other simpleminded while constructing arguments that rely on readily identifying the "good guys" and the "bad guys". Bizarre.
I you really wanted to hit some cringy, you'd go to that part in the tape where Harris mentions he has a black friend who doesn't think he's racist about all this iq stuff. Seriously, he did it.
The perception of how the two actually performed is best judged after listening to the podcast itself, not by listening to a man desperate for laughs wih an axe to grind. You even have to consider whether this guy is knowingly misrepresenting the truth
Theory: Someone in Harris' life got tired of his dumbass and duped him into sitting in a corner with his mouth shut for extended periods of time to get rid of him
@@charlieconneely Oh there's plenty to list. But to get the seemingly self-aware Harris to admit to anything is an achievement in itself. Especially when, in the context of anger, people accuse the likes of Klein and Hitchens to be motivated by an emotional heuristic that leads them to intellectual and moral cowardice. And Sam Harris flip-flopping on environmental factors is due to Klein being a well prepared debater.
Then you missed the point. I can already tell from the response you selected that you think Harris is a racist seeking to cause trouble. How sad that some people will live their entire life seeing the world through that warped lens. I pity you.
I really don't know the entire career of this Michael Brookes fella, but I really hate when people ignore great deals of ignorance in either name of confirmation bias or in an effort to remember them better than they were. I guess I just hope any of those are the case and Brookes' career extends wider than the quality of this video.
Sam Harris fans are unbearable. You can say the guy here is missing some points, but obviously he's not missing them all and his analysis has some valid observations. While I think Harris defended as well as he could his position and was right some times, to me it´s very clear that Ezra Klein was the winner of that exchange.
I watched this critique. I listened to the Sam and Ezra debate. I also listened to Sam interview Charles Murray. I find your assessment of Sam's points dissengenios.
All I heard in this debate was Harris presenting arguments and examples while Ezra presented ad hominem attacks and condescension while he tried to gaslight Sam.
Sam Harris is not racist. To suggest as much is irresponsible and absolutely shows that you've not listened to a single one of his podcasts (they're long, so... perhaps that's understandable). Not only is Sam Harris explicitly NOT a bigot, and indeed obliterates biggoted views at every opportunity, but he's a true advocate of human kindness, indeed, and one of his coolest views is that morality can be proven scientifically (as the minimization of suffering of all conscious beings). His understanding of religion, philosophy, spirituality, material science (he's a Neuroscience PhD) is unparalleled, his logic is sound, and he's incredibly articulate (his stream-of-consciousness statements read like an academic journal). Again, this is not debatable, because the opposite is in fact true, and has been proven (by Harris expressing and defending these views, in public, dozens of times). Sam Harris does not believe what these fools are claiming. If you look into it, or take a fucking hour to listen to his podcasts, you'll discover most of his critics (as in the vast majority, literally) just blurted misinformed opinions, and while some have issued public apologies (for being confused), others are being stubborn, which in my view is cowardice. Truly honest intellectuals can't help but be impressed with Sam Harris's arguments - the way he thinks. Most of those who criticize him are, I'm sorry to say, probably not understanding what he's trying to say. The dude spent a year in silent retreat. Like... you wish your mind was on his level Read up. Many are mistaken.
"To suggest as much is irresponsible" well, stop taking michael out of context. he basically said sam harris isn't a bigot, but a moron that facilitates bigotry. I would disagree. he's in favor of violating the civil rights of muslims. he's a bigot PERIOD.
What about violating the civil rights of neo nazis? I mean not all neo nazis are oppressive or violent. Some of them are just a part of this group for the fashion. And i mean in the book "Mein Kampf" there are also some sentences that promote the importance of peace. The book can really be interpreted in so many ways. It's an ideology of peace if you think about it. So don't just focus on the few bad apples among the nazis.
stau ffa, it's funny that you're trying to draw similarities between muslims and nazis, yet you'll bitch and whine when a fascist preaching ethnic cleansing (which is inherently violent and oppressive) gets punched in the face. why not extend that sympathy to muslims? after all, they're just like the nazis you defend XD
No, clearly i'm not defending nazis. I think we should keep observing nazis very carefully since their ideas have proven to be harmfull. I've basically asked you, if you feel the same way about my previous argument about nazis. Would you agree with it? I have no idea, who you're talking about. Who got punched into the face? And why do you assume that i would be offended by that? Apparently you know more about me than i know about myself. Punching people in the face is certainly no way of dealing with someone, who you feel is spreading hate. The right way to deal with hate is to debate or criticise the person and show how ridiculous their point of view is. Punching people in the face is something that savages do and it's a crime. I hope we've progressed beyond punching people in the face when they are wrong about something.
_"Who got punched into the face? And why do you assume that i would be offended by that?"_ because you're probably a right winger. _"Punching people in the face is certainly no way of dealing with someone,"_ ... and I was right. apparently i do know more about you than you know about yourself XD and no, I don't think the civil rights of nazis should be violated. do you think the civil rights of muslims should be violated? and I'm only playing along with your disgusting comparison of nazis with muslims for the sake of argument, btw. Fascism is an inherently violent and undemocratic ideology. there are muslims that are pro-democracy. there are muslim lefties. not all muslims are right wing fascists like ISIS.
I normally agree with Sam in most topics, but I dont understand how he could fall for this ball curve shit. This is long debunked crap. Oh well... everyone is wrong somewhere.
Until Harris can provide a concrete definition of intelligence, present a thorough understanding of IQ, what it measures, how the measurements are made and their relevance or irrelevance in terms of genetics, it's best he leaves the subject alone. This is my field of expertise, that these conversations are still being had is both laughable and dissapointing. Pseudoscience at it's worst.
strawman, thats why, the entirety of this dudes criticisms is from a faulty perspective of what sam is trying to argue. Drop the biases caused from people like this and check out sam harris from his actual perspectives, you will soon realize the amount of nonsense people like michael brooks/sam seder spew
Harris kept saying that we should separate Murray's data from his social policies and how horrible it is that Murray is blackballed for reporting the data. He never considers that Murray is marginalized because of his social policies and how he uses the data to justify them.
Does he consider that Murray's book was never peer-reviewed in the scientific literature? Does he consider that the science is in consensus that humans are one biological race?
10:15 this is an unfair characterization here... he didn't say it was ridiculous, he accepted it as entirely possible without reservation. I feel like you interpreted his "Sure, sure" as sarcastic when it wasn't.
@@madserkake6665 The two possibilities here regardless of your point are that you can't even tell what quote I'm talking about, or you can, and you're pretending you can't just to be a snarky bitch. You're either incompetent or not interested in genuine conversation. Either way, I don't care to entertain it.
This program is insufferable. I am very leftwing and watch a lot of hosts that I disagree with because I still respect their arguments, but this program is always about 10% argument and 90% smearing, ad-hominems, shallow impersonations and bathing smugly in how right they think they are. Pakman and Kulinski way more respectable
Samuel very well said. Every time I watch this show it’s personal attacks. Packman and Culinski are quality, he was very good on Joe Rogan a few months back.
@L Thank you for your comment. I encourage you to watch the full debate in the link I provided. Abandon your bias and follow the argumentative fallacies committed by Ezra. Sam’s arguments weren’t without it’s own faults but the logic in his arguments were far more complete without resorting to circular arguments.
Any video that has Sam Harris in the title always seems to invite a slew of his sycophantic following to hit the dislike button at extraordinary rates with many doing so I would imagine before even watching video. They are still replaying the interview with Sam and Cenk acting like Sam trounced him not realizing it's just because they are all just a giant flock of mediocrity enjoying the jerk encirclement.
@@philk9554 interesting idea but no. Harris has a dedicated following of primarily younger guys who spend more time online than most people. And theyre particularly prolific in comment sections of vids regarding Harris. How do I know? Ive met loads of them. Some are my friends; I don't hate them, I'm just pointing out what's obvious. And you can find channels that have mostly well liked videos but then the name Sam Harris pops up with anything even slightly negative about him... and the criticism and dislikes come flowing in. It's apparent and true & you know it. Have you ever seen the crowds he gathers? Theyre predominantly young guys who have an unhealthy level of reverence for the man. I don't hate him, it's just that his followers seem to often suffer from group think and they have a wierdly profound pro-Harris bias going into any discussion. Diversify your watching habits. There's more to the world than this mans mildly interesting ideas.
@@professorswaggamuffin7572 You seem to making huge generalisations and claiming that people are hitting the dislike button not because of the content of what is being said but just because they follow Sam Harris no matter what. Your anectdotal interactions don't automatically scale to the entire population. Sam makes strong arguments and this channel is clearly out to smear him as I see video after video bashing him with poor arguments and misrepresentations. That is why it gets downvoted. This channel would rather side with the clearly intellectually dishonest Omer Aziz rather than admit Sam makes a good point. Its downvoted because people disagree with what is being said.
@@philk9554 you really think that Sam Harris his fans are out there watching entire videos and giving a fair hearing to the arguments? There are a lot of people who have a pro Harris bias going into everything like I said. It's palpable. Look at any video that's even slightly critical of him and the ratio changes massively in terms of like and dislike. Then you go to any other videos on the same channel and will be extremely well-liked. I've even noticed quite a few commenters who seem to pop up on any video about Sam Harris but then there's nowhere else on the channels vids. So it's not all of his fans but there is a sycophantic portion no doubt.
@@professorswaggamuffin7572 He is a popular figure and that comes with the territory. You shouldn't attribute it all to some devout followers. Sometimes people just disagree and dislike the video due to the actual content. People follow Sam because they agree with his ideas. So to make a case against Sam then attack his ideas with sound arguments, which this channel is failing to do. When you attack a person with bad arguments, character assasinations and misrepresentations then I would expect it to get downvoted.
Uh, what do you mean we can't talk about Neanderthal DNA? We still talk about it in genetics. It's one of the main anthropological genetic research topics along with Denisovan genetics. However, what we now know about Neanderthals is that popular characterizations of them were wildly inaccurate - along the lines of the Killer Apes hypothesis about the origin of humans. And as far as I'm aware, all of the scientific racism that was popular in the 19th Century has been entirely debunked, things like phrenology. It's all bullshit. The Bell Curve was just more of this scientific racism trying to rebrand itself and make itself relevant again. It's just as bullshit now as it was then.
Bill Maher got fired and cancelled back in the day - then he bounced back. Nowadays when losers get cancelled they try and bitch their way out if it and also attempt to get the team/teams that severed ties with them to cut it out, but bruhhaha btw mmmmmmname pay member of the republican party in either through or not to run read the tricks Judy side mplifies.
I suppose I'll be the only one here who thinks they both had a point that was being talked past each other. Petulance is certainly unbecoming of Harris when he is normally so calm in his debates. Yes you should be able to talk about data without castigation from the public. But Klein is right, be aware of cultural context if you're going to talk in public with a man who's been crucified for racism. State your position and question the interviewees position. Because though we would love an ideal world where these things can be separate, we're not there, at least for now. So deal with reality - not the dream. Issues don't go away by pretending they're not there.
One of the shots in this video about Sam is the fact that he wasnt willing to simly hear "oh yeah like i know you uave heard Flyns philosophy before but rhat isnt it anymore ... but...only to me (Ezra) because reasons". Wow and thats somehow a point against Sam.
We need a Michael Brooks in this world, such a profound loss, I learned so much from him.
This analysis is utter crap. There isn't a single good point based on evidence in this video.
If you disagree with Leftism, even if you have evidence, you are probably coming from a place of racism, sexism, bigotry, whatever. Stupid.
Sam's EXACT words:
"....I see what's coming. The more we understand ourselves, genetically and environmentally, even if we're not looking, we WILL discover differences between groups. And the endgame for us as a species is not to deny that those differences exist OR could possibly exist, BUT to deny that they have real political implications."
If you are honestly dense enough and dumb enough to think this is a racist position, then that says a LOT more about YOU and YOUR intentions than it does about Sam and automatically kills any credibility you may have as someone who should ever be taken seriously.
Fuck off racist
HotSkull That’s a great point. I’ll nurture that thought.
@@Carltoncurtis1 Said HotSkull to his mirror
@@SubscribersWithoutAnySubscribe deflection via gaslighting, instead of refutation, is how I know your a racist that watches right wing racists on youtube. Predictable Racist behaviour lol
Brooks was a midwit jackass.
A Michael Brooks classic. RIP brother.
Huge loss.
Regarding his death it says “Later it was discovered that Brooks died of a saddle embolus. Upon further medical examination it was discovered he had two separate genetic factors for increased clotting.”
Brooks - How dare Sam Harris suggest genes are responsible for IQ.
Genes - Watch this.
There’s not enough irony in the world.
@@endlessnameless6628 You are a worthless fool, and not because of your IQ
@@johnnytwotimes7854 I’m also not wrong 😀
@@TheSashapooch But we aren't discussing character, we discussing science and I'm still not wrong
Whilst I was never a full Harris fanboy, I appreciate the efforts of Michael and Sam Seder revealing to me the level of sophistry that Harris deploys. Love the impressions as well!
and, what level is that? Your statement sounds like a sophist's conclusion.
@@peterm1240 what the fuck is "a sophist's conclusion"? sophistry is a dishonest way of presenting ideas and arguing that puts rhetoric before logic, that doesn't say a lot about the inner workings of a sophist and how they would reach conclusions
Ezra is politicizing science with good intention of stopping racist doctrines from spreading...BUT when he does this it prevents us from actually being able to have clear conversations about the state of a given science in the first place. BASICALLY, it obscures the difference between science and politics - a difference that should ALWAYS be crystal clear.
Ezra Klein is right to fight for a more equal, more just America. He does not have to politicize science to do it.
Bryan A He’s not politicizing science, he is trying to give the science context. The problem with Murray is that he leads to a conclusion that doesn’t at all follow the data. Giving science context is not politicization, it’s nuance. Having a nuanced view and looking at all relevant factors is important rather than leading to a premature conclusion that doesn’t address all relevant questions. That doesn’t make you a scientist, it makes you a biased hack and that is what Ezra Klein was trying to present to Sam but Sam was unwilling to have the conversation.
Fuck. Michael’s honest scientific Sam Harris impersonation was one of his best.
It was damn good
Sam Harris isn't isn't a racist. He's being more than disingenuous.
"If we're going to discuss systemic and institutionalized inequality, we can't talk about slavery." Wha?
Everyone seems to be missing that statement
they were not talking about systemic and institutionalized inequality.
Speaking of systemic and institutionalized inequality, why don't we look at the inequality in the environments of West and East Germany at the point that the Berlin Wall fell. The East Germans were oppressed by the Russian Communists for years but once the country united, the IQ gap between the East and West closed within one generation. But given that it closed so fast within that historic context, I actually believe that the East Germans genetically probably have a genetic +2 IQ compared to West Germans.
@@liamdoyle100 You make a very interesting point buddy.
@@liamdoyle100 Although it's not my desire to advantage historically oppressed groups. It's my desire to make sure that all groups are treated fairly TODAY. That's why I prefer to advocate for the only group in the country that isn't allowed to explicitly advocate for their own political interests. The only group that has the life expectancy of their working age males declining. This is unprecedented in the developed world.
I’m not a huge fan of Harris. But I listened to that podcast twice and he made some good points.. they both did.. from 2 different perspectives.. this is a pathetic video.. you guys are going lower and lower no wonder why you’re so unpopular..
M C this kind of ideology that this video entails is partly responsible for the backlash that is trump.. keep it up guys.. truth!
Sam Harris is a pseudo intellectual, and saying this show is unpopular is like saying this show is "the most popular thing on television" it just doesn't wash.
There is a consensus on the facts. The mean IQ of asians is higher, get over it you racist. White people don't have to be the best at everything, and the fact that you can't accept this is really telling. Racist.
I don't think they care about being popular. They care about the truth.
If the truth of Sam Harris being ludicrously off base on this point is scary to you, sorry but you do not belong in these discussions.
Weightlifted What is an Asian?
I'll wait.
That Sam Harris impression was insane. RIP Michael😢🙏🏾
God I’d love to see Sam Harris have a conversation with this guy
We all know how that would go.
It would be slaghter just watch his debate with cenk
chymoney1 he’s simply too dumb for Sam
jamie kirkmen really cuz we all know now that Harris is apparently too chicken to wanna debate Seder so maybe u guys should shove it 😏 😆
@@JayRamahi3810 No Seder is too lowly for Sam.
Michael Brooks is the kind've guy you can shotgun a beer with, blast Pantera on a back road in pickup truck, and discuss geopolitics with all at the same time.
ewww man... that's a little too creepy for me. Parasocial relations much
@@bosnbruce5837 you're really smart and insightful. Thanks for commenting. You really add to the lives of those you interact with.
That's a 2nd post gone completely off the rails (2/2). Look bro, my post was not mean spirited one bit, nor it was not meant to offend or ridicule. But since you;re asking: you could have taken something from it. For example you could have googled "parasocial", and you could have taken a hint that that is not how "normal" people usually interact. That is if your plan is to keep pretending you're a normal dude ;)
You're like Jesus Christ. You just can't help but help people. I am forever changed because of you. I can't imagine how my life would've gone had you not intervened with your grace and wisdom. I'll name my first born after you.
Racist on IQ is like a comedy routine, you got to laugh. I've read a lot on race and IQ from the pass and the one thing you get out of it is to question the IQ of the people that are stating it as fact.
Most people haven't done a lot of reading on this. Hence they get suckered in.
M C It's a great tactic. I wish Sam Seder, Michael brooks, Ezra Klein would start using it if they're going to engage on this issue.
@M C Alas, you can't explain either. Here we are, wallowing in our blissful stupidity.
Harris’ entire point in his podcast is that we don’t know where these differences come from, and that we need to be able to talk about data without being crucified for it, even if the data can be offensive. You just misrepresented him and proved his worries true
Which data
Is this a scientific study with abstract, data and analysis?
Which journal?
What did he say that was wrong. Be specific. You guys are the big intellectuals here.
@@EddieDubs
You don't think of yourself as an "intellectual"?
Got it, so why did Sam avoid addressing Ezra points? I thought he wanted to talk about the data?
We miss you, Michael Brooks.
Not me. I'm glad that far left slimeball is dead.
I don’t know if anyone has ever told you this before, but not everyone cares what you think.
@@jtstevenson81 Naz!
@@BuiltInBrooklyn Keyboard warrior. If you called me that to my face I would knock your teeth out.
@@jtstevenson81
1. Says the guy bad mouthing a dead person behind a keyboard!
2. That’s assuming I don’t knock yours out first!
This should be called The Ad Hominem Show. I think it was very easy to miss Sam's point since he seemed to want to get Ezra to concede that the science was sound and Ezra obviously had no intention discussing any of that, or backing up his claims. Charles Murray, however much you disagree with him, is not a racist. How many racist do you hear say that you would be doing a great disservice to yourself, to judge anyone based on anything other than their merit? Do you think a racist would say that back when he was going to college, if he saw a black person he automatically assumed he was smarter than himself due to it being so much harder for black people than himself to get to college? How about racists that say affirmative action was necessary? Science is great, because one only needs to bring data to disprove someone. Go do the study, prove him wrong, bring the numbers. He could absolutely be wrong, and you could absolutely be right. There is no need to resort to personal attacks on someone and ascribing motives of racism to their opinions.
There are discussions and views that will get labelled a racist in public discourse.
My problem is Sam Harris is that he also labels people racist for having similars views to Charles Murray.
tidak ada
The stuff I've seen printed on Murray regarding Thailand just about amounts to conspiracy theories from unreliable sources. I think the definition of racism has now become social construct focused on the oppression if back people, where it used to be someone who thought their race to be superior. All that aside, let's just look at his policies. As you describe them, they are brutal right wing policies. As bad as they could possibly be, chances are, they're not racist. It is just your perception. Maybe I'm wrong and he is trying to implement whites only restrooms or something like that, but I doubt it. Can we not disagree with him without calling him a racist? It's almost as bad as calling Ben Shapiro a Nazi.
tidak ada
I will take your point on the racism definition as I have heard of the trend you spoke of. So are you saying there is no way be a conservative without being a racist? Policies geared toward reducing social benefits to the lower class have to be racist? Take Murray's opinion that we should take away benefits from single mothers that don't work (or something to that effect). He thinks this provides incentive to people to have kids to gain access to benefits. I disagree with him and believe to an increase in homeless children as well, and I think that having a child cannot be deterred in this manner, not would I want to live in a society where you need to have a certain amount of money to have a child, but I can see why he has this stance. I think he can have this view without being a racist.
Charles Murray definitely isn't racist. It's not like he ever burned a cross or anything...oh wait: www.nytimes.com/1994/10/26/opinion/in-america-throwing-a-curve.html
"How many racist do you hear say that you would be doing a great disservice to yourself, to judge anyone based on anything other than their merit?"
Literally every single racist who wants to maintain their social status will say this to cover their ass you gullible moron.
Debate Summary:
Ezra: I don't think we can talk about scientific facts without providing historical and social background, and making it clear what our moral beliefs are first.
Sam: Maybe that would have been helpful, but I don't think people should be vilified or misrepresented when they neglect to do that, because it should be ok to just talk about the science sometimes.
Ezra: But not having context is bad.
Sam: But implicitly attributing policy ideas to scientific facts is bad.
REPEAT over and over.
@Blaire Sovereign but a scientists job is merely to correctly gather, verify and present the empirical data for peer review. That's it. What is done with the data is not the scientists responsibility. That is a discussion out with the purview of science itself. Ezra at no time seemed to be able to grasp that simple fact.
@@endlessnameless6628 The problem though is that no one is fully capable of doing that. All people have biases that's why professionals in academia need to have their articles peer reviewed, its not just for accuracy its so that ones bias is as limited as possible. Everyone has some form of bias and Sam Harris' attempt to suggest that historical context, societal influences, cultural beliefs, and other attitudes are not influencing scientists doesn't make sense. If someone understands scientific history, then one knows that scientists have biases and those biases cannot be separated from the time period someone grew or grows up in.
Except Sam is defending the position of a non-scientist (Murray).
EZRA: *here's some smug condescending postmodern linguistic gymnastics w/ a dash of partisan gatekeeping*
What I don't understand in this era thanks to Sam Harris' sick defense of Charles Murray is why James Flynn has been ignored. Yes, the "Flynn Effect" is acknowledged but not the man himself and his opposition against Murray. Sam Harris claims that Flynn has gone against his opposition to Murray but Klein makes clear that he spoke to Flynn two days before the recording of his conversation with Harris and Harris just ignores it and bizarrely continually claims that Flynn is now on Murray's side. Hell, why doesn't someone suggest to Harris to bring Flynn on? Why hasn't Harris done so himself if he is so interested in truth as he claims? This is what makes it clear that Sam Harris is a white supremacist because he framed his interview with Murray as if Murray's thesis is definitive truth and that no one disagrees with Murray despite that being obviously false. Why James Flynn was not invited by people in the last year to talk about this stomach churning resurgence of popularity around Murray thanks to Harris is beyond me. However, Harris ignoring Flynn's opposition to Murray speaks volumes about who he is as a person.
The sort of line Harris said about how he is a liberal and he really didn't wish the IQ statistics were true but they are is a sign I've seen on white supremacist forums like on 4chan's /pol/. It's a way of radicalizing people while "hiding your power level"
@DaRunningMan "sick" lol let me guess, you thought Stephen Jay Gould's Mismeasure of Man solved everything?
Sam Harris has exactly one debating trick. "You didn't understand what I was saying." "You obviously didn't understand what he was saying." "You didn't read enough of my stuff." "Unlike me, you just don't understand." "I understand everything better than you."
It's funny, it seems to me that all of the issues you just raised actually apply more to Ezra Klein than Sam Harris.
@@jtstevenson81 Not really a fan of either, but Sam Harris has to be the most misunderstood person ever. Whenever he's challenged he dresses his argument up however makes it sound more appealing. He is a very bland intellectual for me.
Lol did you miss Ezra's tricks of postmodernism drivel and bad faith deconstructionism?
Haha lotta fragile Sam Harris fans in these parts giving me life
You know what really gave the game away for me? Sam kept saying Ezra couldn't escape his 'wokeness' ( seemed a trite assumption to make but ok) which Klein obviously denied yet there was a point when Sam started to draw an analogy, obviously a simple thought experiment about finding racial bias in sprinting because there are no Jews in the 100 meters. It was obvious it was an illustration of a point, fairly straight forward. Astoundingly however, Ezra cuts in with 'Are you comparing the idea that there are not Jews in the finals of the New York City or Boston Marathon or whatever, to the conversation about whether African Americans, after what has gone on in this country’s history, are scoring worse in IQ?'. That was astounding, after conceding Sam was not a racist and that the argument is in good faith, Ezra then tries to characterize this simple analogy as somehow Sam trying to say these things are morally the same, something only a raging KKK member would do. If he knows that Sam is not a racist (as he conceded)then why on earth would you even think Sam would then try and frame those two things as morally equivalent? It demonstrates either one of two things, either Klein is stupid ( don't think so) or he has a complete inability to apprehend the argument Sam is making on the nature of why the autonomy of science is important because he simply cannot shut down his woke outrage antennae long enough. At that point it did seem that Ezra is helpless in being unable to stop trying to find racism in everything, even here under the auspices of a good faith debate with a man he acknowledged as not being racist. He simply cannot see beyond his own framing of everyone and everything in terms of racial animus, this ( kinda cringey) attempt at a 'gotcha' moment backfired and revealed more about him than Sam🤷♀️. That was a slam dunk for me quite honestly, a small thing but in an instant it proved that Ezra simply cannot distance himself from the emotional allure of playing 'find the racist' everywhere. Ezra just cant seem to help himself, its obvious to see the difference between an analogy and drawing a moral comparison, or it should be, especially from an intellectual opponent who stated that they agreed politically and who Klein accepted was not a racist yet Ezra...just...couldnt...resist. I thought they were talking around each other to that point but that really proved Sam's point. Also Klein really needs to stop gish galloping ( he on Shapiro levels of bad) and interrupting. If you have faith in your arguments, let other people speak.
When you read their comments you understand why they believe everything Sam says. Harris fans are morons
@@endlessnameless6628 I'm wondering why Sam talks about the issue as if science is settled by appearances on political outlets. And why he brings on a non-scientist (Murray) to talk about science.
@@smaakjeks Whatever you think of Murrays views (and I abhor his politics) he isn't just some schlub. Murray holds degrees from both Harvard, M.I.T and has done research work at A.I.M. I think that's why he is viewed as dangerous, his education and background give the patina of academic credibility to his arguments. I don't know if he's right or wrong ( I lean toward him being completely and utterly off base tbh, holds far too much stake in IQ being a barometer of future success) but I know there's nothing wrong with examining the data which is what Sam explicitly says , if only to prove him wrong . By trying to suppress it, it only makes it look like there's something to hide which halfwits can use to say his work is correct or why else would it be censored? Get it out into the public forum and debunk it thoroughly. Its simple. Data is data, peer review is the best antidote to bad science.
@@endlessnameless6628 Switch up Murray with your average creationist with a PhD and that text you wrote there would be equally applicable.
The book he published is not peer-reviewed. There is no suppression of his ideas happening in science academia, just like there's no suppression of creationism. It's just bad science.
San Harris is the type of thing who puts up a roof and then goes looking for walls to support it.
you are some type of thing...you tell me.
Shitty analogy man.
I so wish Brooks had a chance to have this debate in person. Such a sad loss to the world.
@lopez Yes, yes it was. He either was lying or so blinded by ideology that he couldn't see the truth. Sam Harris wiped the floor with Ezra Klein. Every normal person can see it.
@lopez What are you talking about? Everything Harris said is true to the science as we have it today. And both he and Charles Murray believe that the genetic heritability of IQ is somewhere around 40-60%, so it's NOT "all genetics." Did you even watch the Harris episode with Murray? You have no idea what the arguments even are. And most environmental effects are theorized at this point, not "proven"; see the debate over the validity of the environmental lead theory on brain development.
I am sorry, but you simply are not informed enough to make any confident statements about this topic.
@lopez I do care. The other side's ideas are wrong and divisive. That's a problem. That's why we need to reiterate the facts, because people will appeal to emotion time and time again.
@Colby Which discredited book? The Mismeasure of Man? I know you aren't talking about The Bell Curve.
@@puremercury On the whole argument about emotion. It's funny how it was Sam Harris who apologised for his angry reaction to a legitimate piece of journalism.
On whether The Bell Curve is discredited, Harris and Murray discredit the book with their virtue signalling
1: out of context
2: character assassination
3: thou must not disagree
4. Misunderstood what thou was saying
what did sam say that amounted to wiping the floor with ezra in your opinion?
what arguments does sam make, that are valid? you didn't adress that.
you said that sam tries to explain why the vox articles are unfair and that he tried to keep ezra on topic. what arguments does sam make, that you agree with?
so why do you agree when sam says history is "completely irrelevant"? i think history is operating in a society, in which black people are discriminated throughout their lives, which they are. how could history possibly be "completely irrelevant" as sam says, in your opinion?
There are a weird amount of comments complaining about how annoying Sam Seder is. Every time I see this, I have to wonder if the person is accidentally calling Sam Harris ''Sam Seder'' or if they're calling Michael Brooks "'Sam Seder''. Unless he's sneaking around in the background somewhere, Sam Seder is nowhere in this fucking video.
lmao at all the sam harris fellaters and alt righters brigading this vid
Straw man
As opposed to the seder and Michael Brooks nutlickers defending this shite? Man, it really IS easy to build strawmen
typical. If we take Harris' side of this contretemps then we must be in the alt-right? Boy u stupid
Michael Brooks vs Sam Harris debate: Make it happen !!!!!
Joe Smith why would Sam waste his time?
Alexandre Gareau I have listened to Harris and what he says and see him constantly misrepresented. Sam is 100% correct. If you talk about an issue that the left, of which I am a part, does not approve, then you are demonized and face ad hominem attacks rather than them dealing with your arguments. Let’s be honest, statistics show that black people in this country score lower on IQ tests. But that is so taboo because we live in a culture where the radicalized on the left feel that saying something true, that may offend someone, is off limit. Michael Brooks is white knighting, and a nobody, why the hell would someone of Sam Harris’ status want to waste his time debating someone nobody knows who is hellbent on attacking him personally because he is talking about a topic supported by data that people on the radical left want to attack him for saying. Attack the argument, not the man. That’s what Brooks can’t get thru his head. Freedom of speech used to be a principle of the left, now it’s the right that is defending it and the left who want to censor what people are saying.
Alexandre Gareau pathetic people delete their posts. You are pathetic, and know it too, which is why you deleted your last post.
u think Harris would lower himself?
@@brianfinnegan664 Harris would get bulldozed, don't get it mistaken.
I'm seeing the same issue with Sam and Ezra that I did with Sam and Noam Chomsky. An actual look at socioeconomic factors and their influences on groups could be edifying for Sam, as he seems to miss the mark with regard to these things.
@Peter Dembowy ummm Che Guevara, Stalin, Lenin, Leon Trotsky, etc. were raise as wealthy men who dedicated their lives (and mostly died) for the idea of Communism, which grew to power because of wealth inequality. Even if you hate communism. You have to, at the very least, acknowledge the ridiculousness of suggesting that Bin Laden (who's body was found with a letter saying he wanted the to start a war between the west and the muslim world) wasn't reacting to the socio-economic conditions of the islamic world because he was wealthy. He was fighting AGAINST the Saudi's and their alliance to the U.S.
deconstructyouridols Have you even read Bin Ladens letter to America. Yes, it had a lot of Islamic fundamentalist beliefs in it but it also talked about the preventing of Democracy, the Kiyoto Agreement, the oppression of Palestinians, and the torture regime under Bush, so your view has to be more nuanced than Islam bad, because you get a dangerously deluded perspective with no nuance.
+deconstructyouidols History is full of examples of wealthy men leading popular uprisings of commoners. The US revolution and most of the Latin American wars for independence are examples.
I feel it cannot be forgotten that Osama’s rise to power was made possible by US support and encouragement of starting a “jihad” against the “godless Soviets.”
This guy is a fucking block constantly checking his notes because he's pre written everything to sound intelligent how could anyone subscribe to his channel
Interestingly, this was the discussion that led me to seriously question Harris. I started this podcast thinking that Ezra Klein was going to throw PC ad hom at Harris and was shocked at what I heard: Sam Harris basically had a breakdown during this interview. He starts by lobbing accusations at Ezra (poisoning the well) before completely disregarding the clarifications provided by the scientists that Klein had acquired. Sam repeats "That's a mis-characterization of his statement" after Klein literally quotes the scientists saying that it was MURRAY AND SAM who were mis-characterizing their works to form insane and unscientific conclusions.
And, as Michael notes at 17:20 it's naive and insane to believe that science can't be racist. It reveals a disturbing lack of understanding of history and the development of societies and a naivete about science and politics that verges on ignorance.
It was my final Harris straw. His now close association with Peterson, Shapiro and the like only confirmed my suspicions.
Same here, man. I used to listen to Harris's podcast and liked much of what I heard. Then when I heard about all this idw stuff I couldnt understand why Harris was being lumped in with those other fools. Then I learned who Charles Murray is and Sam's relation to him and I was exceedingly disappointed and basically shocked at what I heard from Harris. This isnt a contentious issue. Since then I've heard his takes on other race related issues and he just continued to disappoint. Shame on him, mr intellectual honesty my ass
The only time Sam was ever relevant to me was when he was riding shotgun with Hitchens. Hitchens was a rare genius, Sam Harris is a guy who likes to hear himself talk
Naïvety is generous. It's disingenuous intellectual embroidery of plain prejudice. The Nazis did it. Eugenicists did it. Sam Harris does it.
Hahaha you must feel silly reading this back, thinking Harris was anything like Shaperio or Peterson. What a joke. Harris is the only intellectual with any integrity left.
@@matics2808 What a weird and cultic thing to say. Harris himself would be the first to point to the literally thousands of intellectuals in the scientific community that have integrity and do good science everyday.
But you're correct that he has created a lot of distance between himself and Peterson/Shapiro. He's more or less stayed the same while they've gone off the cliff - especially on covid.
Do I feel silly that Sam has surpassed my incredibly low expectations? Not especially.
RIP Michael your contributions are truly missed
That's a hell of a title coming from someone who uses Harris to maintain his own pathetic career.
Anyone who's career is based on just criticizing others is a fuckin loser. You're debating them personally or presenting your own ideas but instead making content bitching about someone. Its pathetic.
Michael Brooks is a fucking intellectual heavyweight who is well versed on every issue he talks about
by the same token sam harris used ben affleck?? argue the points mate...
Harris didn’t use Affleck. What media attention that interaction got was not Harrris’s doing, and I’ve heard him mention it like three times since then, and I listen to almost all his podcasts. Meanwhile Seder and crew frequently bash Harris for likes.
@@theonionpirate1076 Thank you!
I used to listen to every episode of Sam’s podcast. There was always some stuff that rubbed me the wrong way, but I still found it engaging overall. The Murray debacle was a huge wake up for me and I don’t think I ever listened to another episode after the Klein debate.
RIP Michael, wish we had your voice today
That’s funny because I am just starting to listen to Sam Harris.
I thought you all thought he was so great, now he’s a racist?
I need to do my own research, a lot of hearsay going around.
I realised Sam Harris was a joke and a pseudo-intellectual back when he started pretending to be a philosopher and making absurd, unsubstantiated claims about objective moral truths. He didn't even understand the claim he was making or why it was controversial. I think he should stick to neuroscience when he's making public comments, and exercise the bare minimum of humility to leave other fields to actual experts.
Michael, you continue to provide light during the darkness. You are deeply missed brother.
@leovaldez28 wha...?
Are ANY of Sam Harris' followers here actually addressing Michael's points?! Because from the looks of it, "ad hominem" has a whole different meaning now: criticism.
Sam's criticism of Ezra is that the articles vox wrote made it sound like junk science that is not reliable and also called him a racialist
@@sandcastledx Sam is a race realist. He thinks there are biological human races. This is wrong.
@@smaakjeks well there is certainly some truth to that. People of different races have similar characteristics and genes. I don't think that was what got criticized by vox. It was an opinion that there could be no generic component to iq when there likely is. Even though Sam any Murray never said that there was for sure
@@sandcastledx There is only one biological human race. So, no.
@@smaakjeks next time you have a critical health issue and the doctor wants to know your background just tell them it doesn't matter because we're all the same
Even the genetic argument is also an environment psychosocial argument because what genes are expressed is largely dependent on the stresses people are placed under in one generation and many generations.
Human height for example is largely dependent on the diet of the mother of the mother. Trauma spans generations.
The bigger question might be why people feel the need to make these arguments and present these ideas.
JAY MIDDY everyone, he'll be here next weekend as well. And for our next comedian...
Yes, so the genetic differences could simply be transient although it is highly unlikely that blacks will ever catchup at this point. They may close the gap slightly, but I wouldn’t expect much more. Groups have lived apart for tens of thousands of years. Many of these differences will naturally be permanent.
yes new discoveries in biology like genetics are very relevant to this topic as it shows that lineage is more important and what are parents and their parents how they behaved changes are DNA more quickly than previous dogma would have thought. IMO sense that if you take two different people with different family histories one for instance a jewish person whos family has been in a society for generation after generation and compare that man with someone taken right out of a primitive society and plop him into a society obviously it will take his DNA lineage some time to adapt to this new lifestyle, habits and way of living and thinking. Racial characteristics are somewhat fluid like everything else in life.
First Amendment doesn't require proof of necessity of speech. Thank goodness there are no free speech licenses and a department of truth yet.
Well said..
This video is like watching a dust mite try to understand Einstein.
rightpa LOOOOL exactly what I thought lol!
Lmfao wow
Sam Harris just jizzed in his pants. Thank goodness for you fancucks
No one can take a wad down the throat canal like a Sam Harris fanboi
exactly... "scientific facts cannot be racist" ...
Here's the thing about calling people that agree with Harris on this issue names like "fanboi" and "fancuck." Agreeing with Harris on this issue does not necessarily mean you are a fan especially since, apparently, it's not the "popular" position to take. What agreeing with Harris on this issue means is that you are, likely, a careful thinker. You are someone who evaluates a position without emotional investment and comes to the logical conclusion that valid scientific data obtained through ethical means should not be demonized. It further indicates that you think a person discussing said data should also not be demonized simply for the discussion and that the use of media outlets to libelously denigrate and demonize people for discussing "forbidden knowledge" is unacceptable.
If you stand opposed to this position then you stand opposed to the pursuit of truth and knowledge. If you stand opposed to this because someone with, in your opinion, the wrong skin color delivers and/or discusses this knowledge then you stand opposed to the concepts best vocalized by Dr. Martin Luther King who dreamed of a time when people would be judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin.
It is therefore not an ad hominem but an actual genuine appraisal of the anti-Harris position to say that it is advocating ignorant racism.
I use to disagree with this channels criticisms of Sam Harris and being both a fan of him and Sam Seder but after looking at Harris foreign policy and watching him playing footsie with Rightwingers like Ben Shapiro,Charles Murray etc and blaming Leftist pc culture for the rise of Trump and ignoring that its people like Ben Shapiro and Charles Murray that are responsible for Trump.... I can’t take him seriously anymore.. I still think he’s smart but he’s not the intellectual I thought he was.
Harris fans so mad at this video. Rest in POWER michael....
it always strikes me as funny how, out of all the possible subjects in reality, some people seem to get really really interested into the "race makes smart" subject
"The weight of American history is completely irrelevant"
I get seriously nauseas the way this guy defend his space of thought experiments.
Nah man you just think that's too much to take in and you wouldn't be able to maintain a I-know-what-goes-on-in-the-brain-universe-persona. The psychoanalytical ethical shortcomings of these gurus are so violently displayed in the comments sections of their followers.
What does history have to do with empiricism? It is or it isn’t. There is no historical context in observations
😆👍🏻💙🙌🏻💙👍🏻😆
Alfha Gahma
Do you think he was saying that history is irrelevant in general, or irrelevant to his point?
To reduce the entire discussion down as simply as possible:
Klein: Scientific data is fine as long as it can’t potentially make these specific groups feel bad. If it does, it’s your fault for talking about it.
Harris: I’m not even saying anything about a specific group or endorsing any policies. I’m only saying that facts are what they are, they will eventually emerge, and the messengers shouldn’t be shot for simply being true to their field of study. The truth, whatever it may be, will only give us more to work with in order to maximize the wellbeing for the most people.
@@alann4598 the fact he never responded to you speaks fucking volumes.
Michael needs a larger platform. Not many people in the media, look at the world, from this sociological/philosophical/critical perspective. Your take on this is spot on.
Unfortunately, he passed away last year
I went into the debate with much more respect for Sam Harris than when it was over. And much more respect for Ezra Klein. What's crazy is that some people think Harris crushed Klein... "But, the Data!... You don't trust the data?!"... Klein: "That's not how you analyze or collect data... sure it's data... but not data that will help you arrive at anything substantial."
What conclusion do you think they were trying to support
Klein uses a lot of academic sounding gobbledygook to numb the listener. Harris is so much more succinct and less manipulative.
Here's a thought experiment: "What would Harris say regarding the Syrian attack?" Is the U.S's response troubling as it's engaging in war with yet another middle-east territory without first awaiting the conclusion of inspectors. Moreover, if this is all that's required for military intervention, why does the U.S. never act to prevent or punish Israel when they attack Palestine with chemical agents?. Isn't this a double-standard?.
This guy's take on that conversation is pathetic
@Ask Aas he fails to understand the basic premises of sam harris' arguments repeatedly.
@Ask Aas I watched this video and the klein/ harris conversation like 3 months ago so its a bit fuzzy, but I can still remember the general problem i had with his criticisms. Sam's point is that scientists should be able to talk about and present data without having to be afraid of any backlash or being misrepresented/ smeared, and this guy does just that to sam. Its fine if you disagree still, and I unfortunately can't really be more specific because I don't remember details. I'd rewatch it but I don't have the time these days, maybe rewatch it in a few months, however, Klein's inability to understand what harris was saying pissed me off so probably not lol
Rest in power Michael. You live on
Glad to see the whiny Harris-fanbois still getting whiplashed from this.
I'm really starting to think that Jonathan Haidt is right, when he said Intersectionality is a new religion. Sam is talking about treating scientific data as just that: data. Ezra is saying that we shouldn't be looking into it, cause it could be seen as racist. So basically, Ezra is saying that emotions should trump data, while Sam is saying data is data. But if you're in the Church of Intersectionality, you'll try to rationalize how Sam Harris is some kind of heretic for wanting to look at data in a scientific way, cause it could shatter your moral worldview. It's not too different from how Galileo was castigated from society, because he challenged the Catholic Church with Heliocentricism, which of course, went against their religious/moral worldview.
"Intersectionality is a new religion" lol
you miss the point of the entire thing. the data DOESN'T say that black people have a genetically lower IQ. You are pseudo-scientific eugenecists just like the eugenecists of old, which is what Ezra is bringing up.
Considering Harris fans insist that everyone who disagrees with him misrepresent him (rarely the case), you REALLY fucking misrepresented Ezra Klein's position.
Yes, you're right - you, Sam Harris, and his other fans are Beings of Pure Logic and Reason. Everyone else is an SJW driven purely by emotion, spiteful of data. You're definitely not just a smug twat that can't see past his own self-regard
Transfiguration, You couldnt be more mistaken. As is often the case, scientific "data" exists in a vacuum, and doesnt tell the full story or come with any meaningful context. Sam harris makes the key mistake of pretending like some small subset of scientific data is representative of actual life. So for example, when he says "REEEE 50% of black crime is black on black crime", while that is a total red herring and not the discussion at all, it leaves out crucial details like in the 1940's blacks were systematically denied home loans per policy, which forced them into ghettos to fight eachother, and they also missed out on the tremendous wealth gains that came with home ownership which helps explain where we stand today.
wugbraugh, LOL, which makes it even more ironic and laughable when they're not even aware that logic and reason are tools, not features :)
Did we listen to the same podcast?
Glen Greewald probably recirculated a modified version :)
You’re probably a bigot or this topic is above of your head. Sorry bro, whites aren’t superior.
S Palm
The op didn’t say whites are superior. Harris didn’t say whites are superior... in fact he made it extremely clear that he doesn’t believe whites are superior and that superiority has nothing to do with his point. So, who exactly are you addressing?
@@spalm3887 It sounds like you haven't even grasped the underlying argument. Talk about things going over people's heads!
Yes the fuck he does bro. He just doesn't say it explicitly because he's not a retard and he doesn't want what comes with that kind of rhetoric. I'll give you Sam's trick. He acknowledges that things like racism exist but when he argues about the topic it clearly doesn't factor into his argument. He plays lip service and spews out whatever right wing(yes he is) bullshit he wants despite acknowledging mitigating factors. Pick any topic concerning non-whites. He has his bigot mind made up. This is why Sam stays far away from history and intelluectuals/scholars who know it. Staying away from history lets you decontextualize things and that lets you spin narratives. Sam is a bad actor or extremely autistic.
"There's a reason why Silicon Valley robots are interested in this type of thinking: this is the enabling of an algorithm-driven age with zero concern for any type of provision for public good and accounting for anything besides goals set within its own narrow, narrow, narrow limits." -- Michael Brooks
Well said, though I wish it were hyperbole.
canteluna as this ages Sam Harris seems like a minor leaguer compared michael Brooks.
@@chrissammons8050 Sam Harris the neuroscientist and Michael Brooks the...political talking head? Those two?
Spot on impersonation of Sam Harris, Michael! I laughed at loud at work....
16:36 Holy Shit dude, it is absolutely scary how spot on that was. My God..
The third Michael that appears when I search anything. Very nice work brother!
Because the search is tailored to your searches and interests
Nothing to do with his popularity
@@ryshed4365 odd considering my vast range of searches on a plethora of topics and people. So perhaps you're correct? Perhaps not? If it defies the algorithm it's a instant non possibility that it could've been the most popular or searched and that may have been the reason?
This just seems absurd. I have listened to the sam Harris Ezra Klein debate multiple times and all Sam is trying to say in the whole interview is there is a conflation between American history or history in general and the results from the science. He is asking Ezra to be charitable in his interpretation of his conversation with Murray AND the that if history had some kind of impact on the science that was done to produce those results then the conflict should be with the scientific method behind the data, not the conversation. So, if there is a concern with the scientific method that Murray used then that should be where the discussion goes and stays. Sam is not saying it’s only genetic or hereditary in this discussion. It’s only about the attempt to smear Sam as a racist. And Sam Harris is clearly misrepresented about the bombing of Muslims and crap in this clip.
if you take Harris seriously, you still have development and learning to do
Lmao *nods*
Damn these Sam Harris fans are dedicated, 3k plus dislikes! The dude sucks guys, get over it.
They are truly prolific. I swear any video that has his name in the title has loads of his sycophantic following smashing the like dislike button at astonishing rates. And then they all feel like they are in the right because of the like to dislike ratio not realizing that it's just all of the same people flocking from video to video. It truly is a jerk encirclement.
On heavens, poor Binet just turn in his grave. He made the IQ test to spot kids falling behind, then gave them intensive teaching to catch up - and not being able to concentrate was the main problem for less learning. And Harris just is rude and snarky debater with no interest in New facts or perspectives. Or the historical development of psychological and sociological study. This was year 1 in my psych degree. Ugh
“He is sincere in his whiny bitchytude” 😂 that was hilarious. I love that dude
Michael completely missed what Sam Harris was trying to say. He was just saying the conversation should be had without all sort of backlash. We should be able to have convos without hitting those trip wires Sam Harris was talking about. Sam Harris was not agreeing with what Murray or any of the others said. He is just advocating for having the convo. Ezra, Michael and the rest are just hell bent on believing convos like this shouldn’t even be had at all.
The ability to simplify such complex issues is the greatest sign of simplemindedness... No one is arguing that Sam Harris is racist. From what I've seen, some people are just arguing that in order to so openly argue about certain facts and data, people should be much more equipped (let's say with historical knowledge of inequality and oppression in the case of the fact being discussed in the Harris/Klein debate) before having the debate. Failure to do so can only help the side acting insidiously (in this case racists, white supremacists) win hearts and minds since the onus does not fall on them to dig further into the facts.
The wealth inequality debate is a perfect example of this - there are facts about inequality today that we can point to, but it's hard to make a full case without first addressing the long record of historical inequities that got us to where we are today. The bad-faith side can simply chalk it up to "socialists and commies" and win half of the hearts and minds.
Certain facts require A GREAT DEAL of knowledge and expertise before openly and freely discussing them. The social cost of failing to do so are greater than the personal costs of not doing so.
That's how I understood it, at least.
Thank you for the parody
You might realise that the bad side engages in exactly what you support the good side do. You might also note that you call other simpleminded while constructing arguments that rely on readily identifying the "good guys" and the "bad guys". Bizarre.
lol 3.4 k downvotes! Thank the Harris fans for the views guys.
You know you have hit the nail 😂🤣
I you really wanted to hit some cringy, you'd go to that part in the tape where Harris mentions he has a black friend who doesn't think he's racist about all this iq stuff. Seriously, he did it.
The perception of how the two actually performed is best judged after listening to the podcast itself, not by listening to a man desperate for laughs wih an axe to grind. You even have to consider whether this guy is knowingly misrepresenting the truth
Forget all this other shit, that Sam Harris impersonation @16:19 was awesome sauce!
😆😆😆😆😆
Why is Harris relevant? If someone is always taken out of context maybe that person should try and get in context.
All meditation has done for Harris is increase his ability to be smug.
Theory: Someone in Harris' life got tired of his dumbass and duped him into sitting in a corner with his mouth shut for extended periods of time to get rid of him
Will D-not an argument.
Ezra Klein was a painfully terrible debater
Yet he got Harris to apologise for his anger and showed that Harris doesn't believe in the environmental cause of differing IQ scores
@@jmc5335 "he got Harris to apologise for his anger" , you decided that two things were worth listing, and that made the cut. Smh.
@@charlieconneely Oh there's plenty to list. But to get the seemingly self-aware Harris to admit to anything is an achievement in itself. Especially when, in the context of anger, people accuse the likes of Klein and Hitchens to be motivated by an emotional heuristic that leads them to intellectual and moral cowardice.
And Sam Harris flip-flopping on environmental factors is due to Klein being a well prepared debater.
OMG, THAT mimicry was spot on. Harris sounds just like that.
Then you missed the point. I can already tell from the response you selected that you think Harris is a racist seeking to cause trouble. How sad that some people will live their entire life seeing the world through that warped lens. I pity you.
L. Kay Wilson Yeah ok Boomer forehead
Brookes is an absolute inspiration. Wish i had a quarter of his knowledge and moral reasoning.
I really don't know the entire career of this Michael Brookes fella, but I really hate when people ignore great deals of ignorance in either name of confirmation bias or in an effort to remember them better than they were. I guess I just hope any of those are the case and Brookes' career extends wider than the quality of this video.
Michael you are so articulate in how you shred this guy's views. Love it!! Keep exposing the lies, twisted views, and under cover racism bro
It's easy when you just make it up.
Sam Harris fans are unbearable. You can say the guy here is missing some points, but obviously he's not missing them all and his analysis has some valid observations. While I think Harris defended as well as he could his position and was right some times, to me it´s very clear that Ezra Klein was the winner of that exchange.
I watched this critique. I listened to the Sam and Ezra debate. I also listened to Sam interview Charles Murray. I find your assessment of Sam's points dissengenios.
How so?
All I heard in this debate was Harris presenting arguments and examples while Ezra presented ad hominem attacks and condescension while he tried to gaslight Sam.
Excellent analysis Michael. BTW I’ve never heard an American say “gormless” before.
I was thinking the same thing - strange how he used the word gormless right after doing an impression of a Brit lol
Sam Harris is not racist. To suggest as much is irresponsible and absolutely shows that you've not listened to a single one of his podcasts (they're long, so... perhaps that's understandable).
Not only is Sam Harris explicitly NOT a bigot, and indeed obliterates biggoted views at every opportunity, but he's a true advocate of human kindness, indeed, and one of his coolest views is that morality can be proven scientifically (as the minimization of suffering of all conscious beings). His understanding of religion, philosophy, spirituality, material science (he's a Neuroscience PhD) is unparalleled, his logic is sound, and he's incredibly articulate (his stream-of-consciousness statements read like an academic journal).
Again, this is not debatable, because the opposite is in fact true, and has been proven (by Harris expressing and defending these views, in public, dozens of times).
Sam Harris does not believe what these fools are claiming. If you look into it, or take a fucking hour to listen to his podcasts, you'll discover most of his critics (as in the vast majority, literally) just blurted misinformed opinions, and while some have issued public apologies (for being confused), others are being stubborn, which in my view is cowardice.
Truly honest intellectuals can't help but be impressed with Sam Harris's arguments - the way he thinks. Most of those who criticize him are, I'm sorry to say, probably not understanding what he's trying to say.
The dude spent a year in silent retreat. Like... you wish your mind was on his level
Read up. Many are mistaken.
"To suggest as much is irresponsible" well, stop taking michael out of context. he basically said sam harris isn't a bigot, but a moron that facilitates bigotry. I would disagree. he's in favor of violating the civil rights of muslims. he's a bigot PERIOD.
What about violating the civil rights of neo nazis? I mean not all neo nazis are oppressive or violent. Some of them are just a part of this group for the fashion. And i mean in the book "Mein Kampf" there are also some sentences that promote the importance of peace. The book can really be interpreted in so many ways. It's an ideology of peace if you think about it. So don't just focus on the few bad apples among the nazis.
stau ffa, it's funny that you're trying to draw similarities between muslims and nazis, yet you'll bitch and whine when a fascist preaching ethnic cleansing (which is inherently violent and oppressive) gets punched in the face. why not extend that sympathy to muslims? after all, they're just like the nazis you defend XD
No, clearly i'm not defending nazis. I think we should keep observing nazis very carefully since their ideas have proven to be harmfull. I've basically asked you, if you feel the same way about my previous argument about nazis. Would you agree with it?
I have no idea, who you're talking about. Who got punched into the face? And why do you assume that i would be offended by that? Apparently you know more about me than i know about myself.
Punching people in the face is certainly no way of dealing with someone, who you feel is spreading hate. The right way to deal with hate is to debate or criticise the person and show how ridiculous their point of view is. Punching people in the face is something that savages do and it's a crime. I hope we've progressed beyond punching people in the face when they are wrong about something.
_"Who got punched into the face? And why do you assume that i would be offended by that?"_
because you're probably a right winger.
_"Punching people in the face is certainly no way of dealing with someone,"_
... and I was right. apparently i do know more about you than you know about yourself XD and no, I don't think the civil rights of nazis should be violated. do you think the civil rights of muslims should be violated? and I'm only playing along with your disgusting comparison of nazis with muslims for the sake of argument, btw. Fascism is an inherently violent and undemocratic ideology. there are muslims that are pro-democracy. there are muslim lefties. not all muslims are right wing fascists like ISIS.
I feel like this guy intentional misinterprets sams actual intentions and views, as well as the nuances of his positions
what specific point did he misrepresent
@@waynetables6414 I forget, I’ll have to rewatch the video before I respond, I’ll try to do that soon
I wish WE ALL COULD HAVE SEEN a M. Brooks vs Sam Harris debate.
I normally agree with Sam in most topics, but I dont understand how he could fall for this ball curve shit. This is long debunked crap. Oh well... everyone is wrong somewhere.
When will Sam Harris admit he works for the American Enterprise Institute? I mean, there are worse right-wing think tanks than AEI.
Until Harris can provide a concrete definition of intelligence, present a thorough understanding of IQ, what it measures, how the measurements are made and their relevance or irrelevance in terms of genetics, it's best he leaves the subject alone. This is my field of expertise, that these conversations are still being had is both laughable and dissapointing. Pseudoscience at it's worst.
Michael was so on the ball in this, how does it have so many dislikes?
Because Sam Harris has a cult like following that will come and dislike anything that criticizes him.
strawman, thats why, the entirety of this dudes criticisms is from a faulty perspective of what sam is trying to argue. Drop the biases caused from people like this and check out sam harris from his actual perspectives, you will soon realize the amount of nonsense people like michael brooks/sam seder spew
Harris kept saying that we should separate Murray's data from his social policies and how horrible it is that Murray is blackballed for reporting the data. He never considers that Murray is marginalized because of his social policies and how he uses the data to justify them.
Does he consider that Murray's book was never peer-reviewed in the scientific literature? Does he consider that the science is in consensus that humans are one biological race?
10:15 this is an unfair characterization here... he didn't say it was ridiculous, he accepted it as entirely possible without reservation.
I feel like you interpreted his "Sure, sure" as sarcastic when it wasn't.
He didn't interpret the "sure, sure," he interpreted the part where Sam strongly implied it wasn't plausible.
@@longlivenc7235 could you point me to the part of the video where he was "strongly implying that it was not plausble"?
@@madserkake6665 No, I'm not going to put on the kid gloves for you. If you can't figure out what part we're talking about, you are not worth my time.
@@longlivenc7235 my point was just that there really isnt any point were he implies that he thought it was not plausible
@@madserkake6665 The two possibilities here regardless of your point are that you can't even tell what quote I'm talking about, or you can, and you're pretending you can't just to be a snarky bitch. You're either incompetent or not interested in genuine conversation. Either way, I don't care to entertain it.
Amazing how Sam Harris can say so much, without saying anything at all. That’s his true talent right there.
oh plz, elaborate if u would..
Are you talking about Ezra?
This program is insufferable. I am very leftwing and watch a lot of hosts that I disagree with because I still respect their arguments, but this program is always about 10% argument and 90% smearing, ad-hominems, shallow impersonations and bathing smugly in how right they think they are. Pakman and Kulinski way more respectable
Indeed. This guy just wants to shame people that don't agree with him.
That’s why he’s utterly irrelevant in spite of the tremendous effort majority report puts into releasing new content day in day out.
Samuel I guess the difference between you and others on the left is that they don't have a meltdown when someone criticises Harris.
Samuel very well said. Every time I watch this show it’s personal attacks. Packman and Culinski are quality, he was very good on Joe Rogan a few months back.
the point
your head
To be fair, Sam never said that a supposed discrepancy would be irreversible.
Ezra Klein is a smart dude.
Way off. Harris was the one who made sense.
Totally agree
Explain
How?
@L Thank you for your comment. I encourage you to watch the full debate in the link I provided. Abandon your bias and follow the argumentative fallacies committed by Ezra. Sam’s arguments weren’t without it’s own faults but the logic in his arguments were far more complete without resorting to circular arguments.
I'm so fucking glad you are taking down these pseudo-intellectuals. These mfers keep me up at night!!!
Any video that has Sam Harris in the title always seems to invite a slew of his sycophantic following to hit the dislike button at extraordinary rates with many doing so I would imagine before even watching video. They are still replaying the interview with Sam and Cenk acting like Sam trounced him not realizing it's just because they are all just a giant flock of mediocrity enjoying the jerk encirclement.
Or maybe you are just wrong and have concocted this little fantasy in your own head to justify your bias.
@@philk9554 interesting idea but no. Harris has a dedicated following of primarily younger guys who spend more time online than most people. And theyre particularly prolific in comment sections of vids regarding Harris. How do I know? Ive met loads of them. Some are my friends; I don't hate them, I'm just pointing out what's obvious. And you can find channels that have mostly well liked videos but then the name Sam Harris pops up with anything even slightly negative about him... and the criticism and dislikes come flowing in. It's apparent and true & you know it.
Have you ever seen the crowds he gathers? Theyre predominantly young guys who have an unhealthy level of reverence for the man. I don't hate him, it's just that his followers seem to often suffer from group think and they have a wierdly profound pro-Harris bias going into any discussion. Diversify your watching habits. There's more to the world than this mans mildly interesting ideas.
@@professorswaggamuffin7572 You seem to making huge generalisations and claiming that people are hitting the dislike button not because of the content of what is being said but just because they follow Sam Harris no matter what. Your anectdotal interactions don't automatically scale to the entire population. Sam makes strong arguments and this channel is clearly out to smear him as I see video after video bashing him with poor arguments and misrepresentations. That is why it gets downvoted. This channel would rather side with the clearly intellectually dishonest Omer Aziz rather than admit Sam makes a good point. Its downvoted because people disagree with what is being said.
@@philk9554 you really think that Sam Harris his fans are out there watching entire videos and giving a fair hearing to the arguments? There are a lot of people who have a pro Harris bias going into everything like I said. It's palpable. Look at any video that's even slightly critical of him and the ratio changes massively in terms of like and dislike. Then you go to any other videos on the same channel and will be extremely well-liked. I've even noticed quite a few commenters who seem to pop up on any video about Sam Harris but then there's nowhere else on the channels vids. So it's not all of his fans but there is a sycophantic portion no doubt.
@@professorswaggamuffin7572 He is a popular figure and that comes with the territory. You shouldn't attribute it all to some devout followers. Sometimes people just disagree and dislike the video due to the actual content. People follow Sam because they agree with his ideas. So to make a case against Sam then attack his ideas with sound arguments, which this channel is failing to do. When you attack a person with bad arguments, character assasinations and misrepresentations then I would expect it to get downvoted.
What an absolutely ridiculous take 😂😂😂😂. An unfortunate reality of having a ‘well rounded’ perspective is to listen to awful takes like this.
What makes it awful and ridiculous to you?
Uh, what do you mean we can't talk about Neanderthal DNA? We still talk about it in genetics. It's one of the main anthropological genetic research topics along with Denisovan genetics.
However, what we now know about Neanderthals is that popular characterizations of them were wildly inaccurate - along the lines of the Killer Apes hypothesis about the origin of humans. And as far as I'm aware, all of the scientific racism that was popular in the 19th Century has been entirely debunked, things like phrenology. It's all bullshit. The Bell Curve was just more of this scientific racism trying to rebrand itself and make itself relevant again. It's just as bullshit now as it was then.
Sam Harris is not good at answer a question straight, can he?
Observer Cerebusfire17 nope
Bill Maher got fired and cancelled back in the day - then he bounced back. Nowadays when losers get cancelled they try and bitch their way out if it and also attempt to get the team/teams that severed ties with them to cut it out, but bruhhaha btw mmmmmmname pay member of the republican party in either through or not to run read the tricks Judy side mplifies.
@@briangaines3693 you need me to call the doctor?
I suppose I'll be the only one here who thinks they both had a point that was being talked past each other. Petulance is certainly unbecoming of Harris when he is normally so calm in his debates. Yes you should be able to talk about data without castigation from the public. But Klein is right, be aware of cultural context if you're going to talk in public with a man who's been crucified for racism. State your position and question the interviewees position. Because though we would love an ideal world where these things can be separate, we're not there, at least for now. So deal with reality - not the dream. Issues don't go away by pretending they're not there.
RIP lately discovered brother.
Rest in Power, Michael. "Its not complicated" clip is a must watch
Yikes.. No wonder this guy kicked off
you are the reason sorting by new is a horrible idea
Great Sam Harris impression Michael.
Not a fair or contextual analysis of what Sam said to Ezra. I suppose my opinion makes me a Harris sheep or something.
Harris...the last person to listen to.
One of the shots in this video about Sam is the fact that he wasnt willing to simly hear "oh yeah like i know you uave heard Flyns philosophy before but rhat isnt it anymore ... but...only to me (Ezra) because reasons". Wow and thats somehow a point against Sam.
This is incredibly stupid and a perfect example of Poe’s law.
I learned something today because of this comment
funknotik Lame