I finally got around to listening to the Ezra Klein and Sam Harris debate, and I have to say I thought that Sam came out looking like a total buffoon. I personally can't stand Vox, and going into the debate my priors were that Klein is an annoying PC liberal shill. By the end of the podcast, I actually found Ezra to be very calm, rational and a pretty likeable person. As a strong believer in HBD and a huge fan of Murray, this just goes to show how terrible Sam did. I intend to make the case that Sam's argument is completely irrational, and that Klein had the much more reasonable position and argument.So for brevity, I'm going to assume a binary position: either Charles Murray is right or he is wrong. So to start, let's assume Murry is right and HBD is true 100%. Sam says that we should treat everyone equally and he doesn't agree with Murray? Why? If Murray is right, the unequal outcomes we are seeing now are to be expected. Any attempt at getting equal outcomes is a fool's errand, and it is pretty much impossible. If (big if) what he says is true, we should go with his policy perscription. Unless...You are a leftist like Ezra Klein. If that's the case, if we want true equality, we will need to put more money into dem programs and increase equality of outcome. Right now, we are doing a half assed job of fixing the inequality. Either we should give up and take Murray's position, or we need to do more. What we are doing is clearly not working. And let's be honest, with whites becoming less of a share of the population, people aren't just going to accept the explanation that sorry, but your poulation IQ Is lower and that's why you don't have more money and are more likely to be incarcerated. At this point, we have to either keep this quiet (which Sam argues against), or spend more money to fix this because otherwise, it's a recipe for disaster. You can't have a stable demcracy and a permanent racial underclass that is growing in number every day. How is more government spending not the only answer unlessyou want to get into unrealistic Alt-Right solutions? To argue otherwise to me is to not understand human nature.So let's get into the numbers now is Murray is right. I'm going to be using easy whole numbers to illustrate my point, but I'm only doing that to make sure this is clear. So most of us here seem to be familiar with the 68–95–99.7 rule if we are dealing with a Normal curve. So if the standard deviation of intelligence is 15 (which it approximately is), and the mean is 100, then that means we can expect 84% of people to have an IQ higher than 85. However, since the mean white IQ is 100 and the mean black IQ is 85, using the law of large numbers, if you took a large enough sample size, you would expect to see 86% equal or higher than the average black person's IQ. Meanwhile, using the same 68–95–99.7 rule and a SD of 15 for black IQ, you would expect to see 84% at 100 IQ or below. If you took a large SRS, you'd expect to see only 16% above 100 IQ (at best see below).Sauce: Rushton & Jensen (2005) wrote that, in the United States, self-identified blacks and whites have been the subjects of the greatest number of studies. They stated that the black-white IQ difference is about 15 to 18 points or 1 to 1.1 standard deviations (SDs), which implies that between 11 and 16 percent of the black population have an IQ above 100 (the general population median).https://ift.tt/2HyGE0l it seems pretty clear to me: either we spend more for equality of outcome, or we give up and accept that this is pretty much how it's going to be. Sam's solution of treating everyone equally makes no sense considering human nature. People won't accept that they are unequal period point blank. Even the straw man Sam made about Ezra where we ignore the science and pretend it doesn't exist (because he didn't he just interpretted it differently) makes more sense than his solution (at least to me).Next, let's assume Murray is wrong, and that the IQ gap is 100% nurture as opposed to nature. If that's the case, white oppression of minorities has led to a system that essentially has caused Blacks to have no chance in society. IQ is very important, so if that's the case, we should absolutely 100% spend more money to close the gap. If Klein is right, and our policies have cause 15% of the population to basically have no chance to succeed, we have a moral obligation to fix that. And furthermore, identity politics make 100% sense in this situation because a minority group has been fucked and there are people twisting science to keep them down. Sam basically wants these people to not group together to benefit their community because a rich white guy doesn't like being criticized as racist.Here's my last point. Sam says he doesn't care about the data and just wants it to be discussed without bias and honesty. He wants to seperate the policy from the science. However, as Ezra points out astutely, Charles Murray uses the data for policy positions, yet Sam won't give Klein the same opportunity to use the data for his positions. Sam is arguing for isolated standard of rigor for Ezra and not for MurrAy. Clearly he is biased towards his tribe/outgroup as Ezra again astutely points out.tldr: Sam got BTFOd by Ezra and wtf I love Vox now. But in all seriousness, Ezra Klein comes out as very reasonable in the debate, and Sam comes off as a wishy washy supposed victim of SJWs but has shit tier arguments to back up his claims. via /r/JoeRogan https://ift.tt/2H2dcP2
No comments:
Post a Comment