Top products from r/samharris

>> heritability isn't a measure of genetics.
>
>Now you're playing semantics to the utmost.

Not semantics, I'm literally just giving you the scientific definition to fix a common laymen myth. A heritability estimate tells us nothing about whether a trait has a genetic component.

>The fact of the matter is you inherit certain genes from your parents. Your idea that nothing is actually genetically inherited is strange. IQ has been shown to be heritable, as has height. I understand the societal expectations creating the earring "heritability" but I have no idea what you're talking about when you say IQ isn't at least partially inherited from your parents.

You've misunderstood my claim. I'm saying that confusing heritability with genetics is a common mistake - you can have a completely genetically determined trait with a heritability of zero, or an entirely environmentally determined trait with a heritability of 1. You simply can't say anything about genetics from a heritability estimate alone.

Iq undeniably has genetic components, nobody is denying that. However, like height of plants, just because individual differences might be caused by genetics, you can't use that as evidence that group differences are also caused by genetics (as illustrated in my example).

>Because a professor of genetics at Harvard isn't saying that the position that Christianity is false is scientifically untenable (I would refer you to Dr. David Reich, Ph.D's article in the New York Times). In fact, here's some of it, followed by a link:
>
>> I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”
>
>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

An opinion piece from a single person can't refute an entire consensus. Again that's how creationists argue their point.

>His article is a canary in the coalmine event. He claims to have NO IDEA! what we're going to find out about group differences going forward. Then why the hell is he so nervous? Because he knows that the odds are extremely high that the average IQ of a fully-nourished sub-Saharan African population and a fully-nourished Ashkenazi Jew population with equal access to education are not both 100.000000000000000000000000000000. You know that too, you just can't admit it, so you appeal to a scientific consensus that exists because people are terrified of having their careers destroyed. About that consensus...

Firstly, obviously I don't "know that" because I don't think there's any reason to suspect it's true.

Secondly, even accepting everything you say as completely true, notice that your "evidence" is a gut feeling from a single person. Why should I care if this guy thinks one day there will be evidence for your position?

>> Reich’s claim that we need to prepare for genetic evidence of racial differences in behavior or health ignores the trajectory of modern genetics. For several decades billions of dollars have been spent trying to find such differences. The result has been a preponderance of negative findings despite intrepid efforts to collect DNA data on millions of individuals in the hope of finding even the tiniest signals of difference.
>
>That is from the rebuttal letter 67 scientists "wrote" in response to Reich's article in the NYT.
>
>That rebuttal letter is here: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics-david-reich
>
>Allow me to destroy that argument (and the credibility of that rebuttal letter):
>
>> Why so many African-Americans have high blood pressure
>Theories include higher rates of obesity and diabetes among African-Americans. Researchers have also found that there may be a gene that makes African-Americans much more salt sensitive. In people who have this gene, as little as one extra gram (half a teaspoon) of salt could raise blood pressure as much as 5 mm Hg.
>
>https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/high-blood-pressure/why-high-blood-pressure-is-a-silent-killer/high-blood-pressure-and-african-americans
>
>Oops! I guess the American Heart Association is a eugenics society now.

Wow, that was such an odd "debunking" I actually spent a while looking at the articles trying to figure out what claim you were debunking.

Firstly, finding of genetically linked diseases doesn't affect the point as you need to show that those genes correspond to a scientifically valid concept of race, and since no such thing exists, that's a problem.

Secondly, even accepting everything you say as true, a throwaway word that's irrelevant to their point doesn't prove anything important. Address the substance of the argument.

>This is an ad hominem attack.

Indeed it is! But remember that not all ad hominems are fallacious, some are extremely strong arguments - like ones about conflict of interest.

>Does the medical literature back what he was saying, or not?

It does not, as explained with my reference to the consensus position of the evidence.

>Has "compensatory education" increased IQ, or not? According to Dr. Haier, it HAS NOT! He has explicity said that compensatory education has not closed the black/white IQ gap. Dr. Haier's position (and he reveals this in his latest book) is that IQ is heritable, and we can raise it using CRISPR. The most generous interpretations of IQ being raised by compensatory education grant that it raised IQ by 4 points in cases of the application of an extremely rigorous program. That's 1/3 of a deviation. According to Haier, what happens is in children it looks like you can increase IQ a great deal, but as the child gets older, IQ becomes more heritable. In other words they lose those "gains".

And that's all irrelevant to the question of whether the gap is caused by genetics or not, of course. Even if it's entirely environmentally caused there's no reason to expect schooling to necessarily be able to fix the gap.

>A description of Haier's book (it was published 2.5 years ago):
>
>> This book introduces new and provocative neuroscience research that advances our understanding of intelligence and the brain. Compelling evidence shows that genetics plays a more important role than environment as intelligence develops from childhood, and that intelligence test scores correspond strongly to specific features of the brain assessed with neuroimaging. In understandable language, Richard J. Haier explains cutting-edge techniques based on genetics, DNA, and imaging of brain connectivity and function. He dispels common misconceptions, such as the belief that IQ tests are biased or meaningless, and debunks simple interventions alleged to increase intelligence. Readers will learn about the real possibility of dramatically enhancing intelligence based on neuroscience findings and the positive implications this could have for education and social policy. The text also explores potential controversies surrounding neuro-poverty, neuro-socioeconomic status, and the morality of enhancing intelligence for everyone.
>
>https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Intelligence-Cambridge-Fundamentals-Psychology/dp/110746143X/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=richard+haier+intelligence&qid=1562195024&s=gateway&sr=8-4

The summary doesn't mention group differences, just that intelligence has a genetic component (which as I proved above, is irrelevant to group differences!).

Hello! I've read and suggest the following.

• Heretic and Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
  
• Islam by Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz
  
  The "Islam" book by Harris and Nawaz is a dialogue between the two and is excellent and has excellent reviews on GoodReads. It's also incredibly short.
  
  Hirsi Ali is an excellent source as well. I suggest reading Infidel first, to get a good background on her life, and then Heretic to read her solution for Islam. It truly is the best I've read about Islam and the solution moving forward.

Not sure about the original source, but the image is also for the cover of his book which shares the name of the podcast, Waking up.
https://www.amazon.com/Waking-Up-Spirituality-Without-Religion/dp/1451636024

The funny thing is, it makes perfect sense there. But its a strange choice to include the picture and that epic music with the podcast. Its easy to make fun of the pomposity if you don't like Sam.

To those intrigued by the prosaic notions of awakening discussed in the podcast (e.g. - how one relates to the contents of mind having cultivated a deep practice) look no further than The Mind Illuminated. Given the assumption of Sam's crowd being rigorous and scientific, this book should have great appeal to many of you: it guides the practitioner through stages consisting of various exercises that progressively lead to powerful concentration. This is almost purely a technical manual with only brief quotes from suttas, and includes interludes that express the author's hypothesis of how meditation affects the brain's processes (he has a PHD in neuroscience).

This book is also good for those who have held a basic practice of following the breath and returning upon distraction for a long while, but feel lost having practiced just this for a period of time.

Finally, I strongly recommend buying the physical copy over the digital one, since the book consists of tables, diagrams, and images better suited to print.

I hope this will be of use to you all, as it's accelerated my own practice by leaps and bounds. If you apply yourself rigorously to this curriculum, you will see tremendous benefit within the course of a year (but obviously sooner too, given the skills you'll acquired as you go along).

https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Illuminated-Meditation-Integrating-Mindfulness/dp/1501156985/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486053969&sr=8-1&keywords=the+mind+illuminated

1. Obviously not everything, but a lot of popular programming certainly adheres to those ideas and what not.
   
   
2. No, when did I say 'anyone slightly left of center'? You've just made that up yourself. The people I am talking about are almost entirely FAR leftists, so it's very much an extreme fringe -- albeit one that's very influential. I am right of center but know plenty of people who are left of center who mostly agree with me and find this stuff abhorrent, so you're just wrong about that.
   
   Also, none of this is my fabrication. There's a whole realm of analysis about it. Here's a great starting point for you: https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406

I haven't read it yet, but Robert Wrights book [Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment] (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Buddhism-True-Philosophy-Enlightenment/dp/1439195455) might be right up your alley. He also appeared on the podcast #102 Is Buddhism True?

Sam's recommended reading list might be a good resource to sort through too. Good luck!

Kapos still supported the system. Whether they got a nice chocolate bar out of it or not.

--------------

They knew this and they still supported the party. That's not getting into the Jewish German military members whom also supported the Nazi party.

https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Jewish-Soldiers-Descent-Military/dp/0700613587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502748528&sr=8-1&keywords=Hitler%27s+Jewish+Soldiers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Gancwajch

Just because a group can find an Uncle Tom [a self-hating gay person like Milo] doesn't mean that they suddenly can't be bigoted.

> heritability isn't a measure of genetics.

Now you're playing semantics to the utmost. The fact of the matter is you inherit certain genes from your parents. Your idea that nothing is actually genetically inherited is strange. IQ has been shown to be heritable, as has height. I understand the societal expectations creating the earring "heritability" but I have no idea what you're talking about when you say IQ isn't at least partially inherited from your parents.

> If you're going to so easily dismiss all the relevant scientists on this topic then what differentiates your position from creationism?

Because a professor of genetics at Harvard isn't saying that the position that Christianity is false is scientifically untenable (I would refer you to Dr. David Reich, Ph.D's article in the New York Times). In fact, here's some of it, followed by a link:

> I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

His article is a canary in the coalmine event. He claims to have NO IDEA! what we're going to find out about group differences going forward. Then why the hell is he so nervous? Because he knows that the odds are extremely high that the average IQ of a fully-nourished sub-Saharan African population and a fully-nourished Ashkenazi Jew population with equal access to education are not both 100.000000000000000000000000000000. You know that too, you just can't admit it, so you appeal to a scientific consensus that exists because people are terrified of having their careers destroyed. About that consensus...

> Reich’s claim that we need to prepare for genetic evidence of racial differences in behavior or health ignores the trajectory of modern genetics. For several decades billions of dollars have been spent trying to find such differences. The result has been a preponderance of negative findings despite intrepid efforts to collect DNA data on millions of individuals in the hope of finding even the tiniest signals of difference.

That is from the rebuttal letter 67 scientists "wrote" in response to Reich's article in the NYT.

That rebuttal letter is here: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bfopinion/race-genetics-david-reich

Allow me to destroy that argument (and the credibility of that rebuttal letter):

> Why so many African-Americans have high blood pressure
Theories include higher rates of obesity and diabetes among African-Americans. Researchers have also found that there may be a gene that makes African-Americans much more salt sensitive. In people who have this gene, as little as one extra gram (half a teaspoon) of salt could raise blood pressure as much as 5 mm Hg.

https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/high-blood-pressure/why-high-blood-pressure-is-a-silent-killer/high-blood-pressure-and-african-americans

Oops! I guess the American Heart Association is a eugenics society now.

> As for people like Jensen and Rushton, how do you feel about the concept of "conflict of interest"? Are you aware of the Pioneer Fund?

This is an ad hominem attack. Does the medical literature back what he was saying, or not? Has "compensatory education" increased IQ, or not? According to Dr. Haier, it HAS NOT! He has explicity said that compensatory education has not closed the black/white IQ gap. Dr. Haier's position (and he reveals this in his latest book) is that IQ is heritable, and we can raise it using CRISPR. The most generous interpretations of IQ being raised by compensatory education grant that it raised IQ by 4 points in cases of the application of an extremely rigorous program. That's 1/3 of a deviation. According to Haier, what happens is in children it looks like you can increase IQ a great deal, but as the child gets older, IQ becomes more heritable. In other words they lose those "gains".

A description of Haier's book (it was published 2.5 years ago):

> This book introduces new and provocative neuroscience research that advances our understanding of intelligence and the brain. Compelling evidence shows that genetics plays a more important role than environment as intelligence develops from childhood, and that intelligence test scores correspond strongly to specific features of the brain assessed with neuroimaging. In understandable language, Richard J. Haier explains cutting-edge techniques based on genetics, DNA, and imaging of brain connectivity and function. He dispels common misconceptions, such as the belief that IQ tests are biased or meaningless, and debunks simple interventions alleged to increase intelligence. Readers will learn about the real possibility of dramatically enhancing intelligence based on neuroscience findings and the positive implications this could have for education and social policy. The text also explores potential controversies surrounding neuro-poverty, neuro-socioeconomic status, and the morality of enhancing intelligence for everyone.

https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Intelligence-Cambridge-Fundamentals-Psychology/dp/110746143X/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=richard+haier+intelligence&qid=1562195024&s=gateway&sr=8-4

"Intense specialization"?

Free will, dude? Come on. Preach from your made up ivory towers harder.

>If you're genuinely interested in the topic and want to understand it, here's a good starting point: https://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Oxford-Readings-Philosophy/dp/019925494X

I have read essays from this book. I am familiar with the topic.

Do you have a rebuttal or just more hand waving and holier-than-thou ramblings?

It's perhaps not precisely what you're looking for, but I'm reading the brief, "The Problems With Philosophy" by Bertrand Russel, even though I haven't finished the epic "A History Of Western Philosophy" and I'm interested in Bert's many other books. Might not be a great holiday reading companion though– but I think it would be fair to say that exploring Russel's work is a logical™ place to go from The Moral Landscape.

Not philosophy, but I've been listening to Robert Sapolsky's "Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst" audiobook– and I recommend it. I'd say it deserves a physical read more than some recordings of books, because it's not read by the author, and the dialogue with the reader that Sapolsky uses is really engaging.

I don't understand how anyone can defend Charles Murray.

https://np.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/6yj3sp/how_is_it_that_harris_finds_charles_murrays_case/?
>
>
> [Cross-posted from an old thread where I just wrote most of this, but that's buried, so moved here]
>
> Sam Harris recently re-tweeted Charles Murray's lamentation:
>
> "This is sad: I will be unable to walk across Harvard Yard tomorrow, on paths I have walked thousands of times. Need a police escort."
>
> While I understand that the Sam Harris community leans more towards the "free speech good (no stipulations)" principle (I'll only say here that free speech is philosophically and politically more complex than this - that's another conversation), I fail to see how the "even-handed approach" to Charles Murray exhibited in Sam's interview can claim to be such when it ignores the funding behind "The Bell Curve". It is intellectually dishonest to ignore the controversy, and dismiss it out of hand - even more questionable when the source, Harris, claims to possess a level of rational detachment and objective standpoint.
>
> Let's bracket the science for a moment, and in the spirit of entertaining the idea that social factors effect or at the very least interact with science through the troublesome biases or worldviews of the scientists themselves (ala Kuhn, Feyerabend etc), take a look at just how influential Murray's association with the Pioneer Fund is. We might admit in other discussions that funding issues can create conflicts of interest, or that it would not be, for instance, absurd to question the validity of a cancer study funded by the tobacco industry. I'm not suggesting the science itself be ignored, but it confuses me how it can be delved into without first dealing with the inherent biases derived from funding. Why would the Pioneer Fund be interested in funding Murray's research? Is it benign? Could its agenda affect the results? Does Murray admit to any of this and offer an alternative?
>
> The Pioneer Fund funded most of the research in the book - that is not contested, and it is a foundation for the study of eugenics. William H. Tucker has been one of the proponents of the claim that the fund had eugenics in mind.
>
> Murray himself only offered this defense: "Never mind that the relationship between the founder of the Pioneer Fund and today's Pioneer Fund is roughly analogous to the relationship between Henry Ford's antisemitism and today's Ford Foundation. The charges have been made, they have wide currency, and some people will always believe that The Bell Curve rests on data concocted by neo-Nazi eugenicists."
>
> I take Murray here to be wholly ignoring the question of undue influence, or shared worldview, but more importantly, he is denying the very nature of the Pioneer Fund (it looks now to be defunct as an organization, as its website no longer exists).
>
> Yet, Gerhard Meisenberg, editor of Mankind Quarterly is one of the fund's current [Clarification, this information is relevant as of 2011-2012]three directors. Quote: 'It has been called a "cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment" and a "white supremacist journal",[1] "scientific racism's keepers of the flame",[2] a journal with a "racist orientation" and an "infamous racist journal",[3] and "journal of 'scientific racism'".[4]'
>
> The second is Richard Lynn, who has also been accused of being a modern eugenicist, and is also the assistant editor of Mankind Quarterly. He even wrote a book called Eugenics: A Reassessment.
>
> From his Amazon blurb: "Lynn argues that the condemnation of eugenics in the second half of the 20th century went too far and offers a reassessment. The eugenic objectives of eliminating genetic diseases, increasing intelligence, and reducing personality disorders he argues, remain desirable and are achievable by human biotechnology."
>
> See a video here, and the sort of comments it inspires:
>
> "This is a very good argument that the "carrier welfare herd" needs to be culled. This also helps show why Negroes breed like rabbits."
>
> "this is answered in darwinism terms by stating that high birth rates equal low survival rates, today can be viewed as high crime rates."
>
> "RICHARD LYNN, YOU ARE A HERO TO MANY. YOU DARE TO SPEAK THE TRUTH DESPITE THE CONTROVERSY IT GENERATES. BLACK PEOPLE HAVE LOW IQs AND WHITE PEOPLE HAVE HIGH IQs. THAT IS AN OBVIOUS TRUTH THAT NEEDS TO BE TOLD REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES. YOU HAVE TOLD THAT TRUTH CONSISTENTLY AND FOR THAT YOU SHOULD BE CONGRATULATED."
>
> The third is Edward M. Miller: 'Although his training is in economics, Miller has not hesitated to dabble in race-based IQ studies and eugenics. A prize-winning newspaper story last year concluded that blacks, in Miller's view, are "small-headed, over-equipped in genitalia, oversexed, hyper-violent and, most of all, unintelligent."
>
> Speaking of eugenics, the 19th century "science" of improving the human race through selective breeding, in "Eugenics: Economics for the Long Run," Miller concluded: "Efforts to maximize a nation's standard of living should try to improve its citizens' genetic quality, especially with regard to intelligence and other economically important traits."'

While I understand that the Sam Harris community leans more towards the "free speech good (no stipulations)" principle (I'll only say here that free speech is philosophically and politically more complex than this), I fail to see how this even-handed approach to Charles Murray can claim to be such when it ignores the funding behind "The Bell Curve".

The Pioneer Fund funded most of the research in the book - that is not contested, and it is a foundation for the study of eugenics.

Murray himself only offered this defense: "Never mind that the relationship between the founder of the Pioneer Fund and today's Pioneer Fund is roughly analogous to the relationship between Henry Ford's antisemitism and today's Ford Foundation. The charges have been made, they have wide currency, and some people will always believe that The Bell Curve rests on data concocted by neo-Nazi eugenicists."

Yet, Gerhard Meisenberg, editor of Mankind Quarterly is one of the fund's current three directors. Quote: 'It has been called a "cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment" and a "white supremacist journal",[1] "scientific racism's keepers of the flame",[2] a journal with a "racist orientation" and an "infamous racist journal",[3] and "journal of 'scientific racism'".[4]'

The second is Richard Lynn, who has also been accused of being a modern eugenicist, and is also the assistant editor of Mankind Quarterly. He even wrote a book called Eugenics: A Reassessment.

From his Amazon blurb: "Lynn argues that the condemnation of eugenics in the second half of the 20th century went too far and offers a reassessment. The eugenic objectives of eliminating genetic diseases, increasing intelligence, and reducing personality disorders he argues, remain desirable and are achievable by human biotechnology."

See a video here, and the sort of comments it inspires:

"This is a very good argument that the "carrier welfare herd" needs to be culled. This also helps show why Negroes breed like rabbits."

"this is answered in darwinism terms by stating that high birth rates equal low survival rates, today can be viewed as high crime rates."

"RICHARD LYNN, YOU ARE A HERO TO MANY. YOU DARE TO SPEAK THE TRUTH DESPITE THE CONTROVERSY IT GENERATES. BLACK PEOPLE HAVE LOW IQs AND WHITE PEOPLE HAVE HIGH IQs. THAT IS AN OBVIOUS TRUTH THAT NEEDS TO BE TOLD REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES. YOU HAVE TOLD THAT TRUTH CONSISTENTLY AND FOR THAT YOU SHOULD BE CONGRATULATED."

The third is Edward M. Miller: 'Although his training is in economics, Miller has not hesitated to dabble in race-based IQ studies and eugenics. A prize-winning newspaper story last year concluded that blacks, in Miller's view, are "small-headed, over-equipped in genitalia, oversexed, hyper-violent and, most of all, unintelligent."

Speaking of eugenics, the 19th century "science" of improving the human race through selective breeding, in "Eugenics: Economics for the Long Run," Miller concluded: "Efforts to maximize a nation's standard of living should try to improve its citizens' genetic quality, especially with regard to intelligence and other economically important traits."'

I think the best readable overview is Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks (also there's an audio version free on his website here). Critical Theory is an outgrowth of Postmodernism (and Marxism more broadly), and Hicks's book is a great and accessible overview of what it means today.

I was asking a legit question, not trying to discredit him.

I like his point about being a "steel man" for arguments in a debate.

But his post about Seth Rich that I am referencing was short, and a lie, not an argument.

He also is admitting that he posts certain ideas just to see how they will do in a sub, out of curiosity. When someone admits to trolling "for fun", I think it does effect the credibility of their arguments.

The recent post that I am referencing claimed that "Seth Rich's parents recently thanked the internet sleuths for looking into his death."

This is false because the video isn't recent. And the video was thanking people for donations. And I am guessing he knew that before posting.

https://www.amazon.com/Lying-Sam-Harris/dp/1940051002

Sam makes the point better than I ever could.

There's 50 days worth of "daily meditations" at this point, each ~10 minutes long, plus 16 extra lessons ranging from 3.5 minutes to 29 minutes. Judging by the previous newsletters, he tends to add somewhere in the range of 1-5 new lessons or daily meditations every week.

A better bang for your buck might be a copy of The Mind Illuminated plus a free app like Insight Timer or similar.

No, it is not true that AIPAC funds politicians in the USA - it isn't a PAC, it's a lobbying organization.

EDIT: If anybody downvoting me would like to learn something about the truth of how our government operates rather than perpetuate a shallow and illogical conspiracy theory about jewish influence, this AIPAC critical article by Stephen Walt, who literally wrote the book on the Israel Lobby and its negative influence on the american body politic, is a good place to start. For the purposes of this conversation, let me quote the following passage

>Fourth, like other interest groups, the Israel lobby uses a variety of strategies to accomplish its goals. Some of its influence comes from campaign contributions to political parties or politicians (although AIPAC does not do this) ,some from direct lobbying on Capitol Hill, some from public outreach (op-eds, books, position papers, media appearances, etc.), and some from the role that pro-Israel individuals may play in the U.S. government itself.

​

​

In Islam and the future of tolerance Majiid gets Sam to moderate his views in a similar fashion. The challenge is indeed with fundamentalism and the difficulty is that it’s hard to use to text, or certain interpretation of it, to make progress, as there isn’t much peaceful verse, or they are Meccan Surahs abrogated by Medinan Surahs. It seems the best that we got is for people to forget about the text entirely.

He was a caricature of himself, love him. I could listen to him speak for hours. A Torch Kept Lit is a collection of his eulogies which was fantastic read: (https://www.amazon.com/Torch-Kept-Lit-Twentieth-Century/dp/1101906219)

The fact that arguably the greatest scientific human achievement to date was half a century ago back in 1969 (i.e. putting a man on the moon and bringing him back alive and well) and furthermore achieved with less computing power than a single smartphone today kind of supports the idea that we are, as a species, indeed becoming less intelligent. The handful of geniuses that may still linger or lurk among us are likely in environments less suitable for them to really excel.

Yea because if you're not a white christian or jew it's obvious

We're fighting Muslims over sand no one should care about

Do you not understand our foreign policy?

Here is the most famous book on the topic

https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501

Written by a harvard and a u chicago professor.

I'll say it again. You have no fucking idea waht you're talking about. White nationalists love Israel. You are so unbelievably ignorant. Fucking Hitler loved Israel

If you think we would have invaded Iraq without our relationship with Israel you're fucking delusional. And again proving your ignorance. Stay out of politics. Clearly you know nothing about anyone politics or American policy.

Like I said, it's a waste of time to have a debate on an area of intense specialization with someone who doesn't know the foundations or even basic terminology of the field.

If you're genuinely interested in the topic and want to understand it, here's a good starting point: https://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Oxford-Readings-Philosophy/dp/019925494X

I think this book is a great start: Why Buddhism is True

The Richard Haier book, The Neuroscience of Intelligence, he mentioned.

https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Intelligence-Cambridge-Fundamentals-Psychology/dp/110746143X

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/538634aee4b0b15c0516a524/t/583cb4a8c534a59807bbec47/1480373417496/the-neuroscience-of-intelligence-preview.pdf

Transgressive humour is transgressive.

Some people here need to pick up a book.

Virtually all of the hyperlinks lead to bogus media outlets and some of the arguments can only be argued by giving remarkably uncharitable interpretations of things other people said. Consider the one against Ellison. In 2010, Ellison said, “The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of seven million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of seven million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right?” The author deems this "paranoid anti-Semitic themes." Maybe, or it could be just true, given how many Middle East scholars have made similar claims.

Steve Hick's "Explaining Postmodernism" was reccomended to me the last time this came up on this sub (and is layman friendly for the most part) The publisher has released the audio version for free on youtube. (around 6 hrs total)

Goes through the historical roots of the movement (revival of early theological anti-enlightenment philosophy) and how the post modernist lens shapes ones worldview.

He's critical of post modernism (for the same reasons sam is) but focuses on explaining the base assumptions and precepts of the movement

https://www.amazon.com/At-Our-Wits-End-Intelligent/dp/184540985X/ref=nodl_

Ed Dutton has a youtube channel as well where he has a few long form conversations with Michael Woodley among his other videos.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EHEltPuFelQ

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kLQGLXJutfU

If that's the case why was there no Holocaust in the middle east against the Jews? Why weren't they completely exterminated?

In reality, of course, Mideastern Jews lived in relative peace in the region and were completely integrated until the white supremacist Ashkenazi colonial invasions of the late 19th and 20th century.

Many of these white Ashkenazi Jews were white supremacists and some were outright Nazis.

https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Jewish-Soldiers-Descent-Military/dp/0700613587

It’s (conveniently) titled “Free Will”. ;)

https://samharris.org/books/free-will/

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1451683405/

If you haven't already read it,
'Better Never to Have Been' by David Benatar,
is a very thought provoking book on the subject.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265

Thank you /u/jamietwells. Here are a couple of links you might find interesting (one of which I've posted elsewhere in this thread):

• Forced Life and its Discontents: An Interview with Sister Y
  
  
• Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence

you don't need data, because any example of people losing their careers over feigned hysteria is far too much. don't know how it makes my view 'warped' if a person is fired over things posted to twitter or whatever, as if those very bare facts are somehow largely editorialized or something.

but hey, if you really care there's at least one book on the subject:
https://www.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed/dp/1594634017/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1491141481&sr=1-1&keywords=so+you%27ve+been+publicly+shamed

Sam wrote an entire book about this.

​

https://www.amazon.com/Waking-Up-Spirituality-Without-Religion/dp/1451636024

This

https://www.amazon.com/Change-Your-Mind-Consciousness-Transcendence/dp/1594204225

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuhmZSFvhL0

Here is the mobile version of your link

In his book, Lying.


https://www.amazon.com/dp/1940051002/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_ibwBDb6014J02

In Sapolsky's new book Behave, Robert talks about hormones and how much of what we think of serotonin and testosterone is misleading. It is contradictory to what Jordan thinks or argues.

For example, many people think increasing testosterone leads to increasing aggression. This is false. Increasing testosterone leads to behavior that is needed to maintain your place in the social-hierarchy, regardless of if it's violence, empathy, etc. This means that if your society rewards pacifism, you rise up the social hierarchy because of your generosity. Increasing testosterone will increase your altruism, not aggression. Give a community of pacifist monks a shot of testosterone and you will have them running around trying to out-do each other by being the nicest monk in the community.

This is antithetical to Jordan's view that social hierarchy is inevitable and a product of human nature. Since humans have historically fought nature, having the strength to overcome and master nature was the historical modus operandi. However, since we have now evolved as a species with urbanization, the industrial revolution, and the division of labor, our battle is no longer against nature, but against ourselves. Therefore, we are no longer in a battle for dominance against nature, but against ourselves, which does not need to happen anymore if we as a species decided we would no longer reward dominant, aggressive, social-hierarchy-enhancing behavior.

It's already on my reading list. I'd recommend this one for you, if you haven't read it. I agree it's not something that will be solved over Reddit, that's for sure.

I'll end saying that making excuses for crime isn't the way out, in my opinion. You're stomping on ambition when you talk about vague systemic problems with no answer. The way out is to demand more, to be honest and to not condescend (lower the bar). Pumping money into education isn't solving this problem (bad performance). Bad culture is the problem.

The FBI statistics show that Blacks, although they only constitute 13% of the population are responsible for almost 50% of homicides. Other official statistics you can read more about in this book https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759 suggests that victims of violent crime report a disproportionate number of assailants being Black or Latino.

And much of BLM while histerically lashing against the entire police based on a few clear examples of racial basis. Their community meanwhile is decimiated by the gang warfare. And where are the black protests against gang violence ?

This is quite similar to the left lashing out to a few clear examples of hate crime against Muslims, white ignoring the plight of millions of Muslims under the tryanical Islamic theocracies.

So yes both are forms of pernicious regressive left that are ethically despicable and intellectually dishonest!

Regarding the Hitler bit, I was talking about the late 1920s and early 1930s violent clashes between Nazi and Communists within the Germany (not the much later pact between Soviets and Nazi Germany). And I am not saying the history repeats itself, but as the quip said it certainly rhymes!

>Are you blind? Did you skip the "criticisms" section of the wiki argument you linked to?

None of the criticisms refute the argument, they only refine it.

>And, I must ask again, because you avoided the question.. did you even read The Moral Landscape?

Parts of it. But Sam has repeated the core of the argument in many other venues, so it's not necessary to read the book to understand Sam's point of view.

>Seems to me that you didn't because you're misrepresenting Sam's argument and citing religious apologist trash as some sort of refutation. Uh... if you think that Argument from Reason is unshakeable then you probably cannot be helped.

You say that there has been a misrepresentation, but you don't specify what that misrepresentation is. Suffice it to say that your empty claims are unconvincing.

And it's not that I believe that the argument from reason is unshakable, it's just that I have observed that nobody who advocates for a position of naturalism has managed to shake it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVxSca_1Fmk&feature=youtu.be&t=183

See for example Matt Dillahunty (whose views are almost a carbon copy of Sam's) versus Matt Slick.

If you think you can do better, then let's hear it.

>Why are you even on this sub if you're just playing religious language games. C.S. Lewis' games are no different than Peterson's, they are just of a different time. This nonsense has been thoroughly debunked, but you're pretending like it stands uncontested.

The only thing I'm "pretending" is that you have yet to contest it. But I find reality is a rather easy pretense to manage.

>Additionally, here: https://www.amazon.com/Search-Rational-Religion-Revised-Updated/dp/1591025311

You realise that an argument for Christianity is distinct from an argument for the necessarily supernatural nature of reason, right?