Sam Harris' Challenge on Race and IQ

Help me get a Phd in Genetics:
BTC: bc1q4gp2w6s9fpcucg7yjshnwn8hkfvzn8ysd7tpkf
ETH/BNB/USDT: 0x27fFfD1e1F7d220670599E84E82dAE0165a21784
TRX/USDT: TXAta2wY7QzBa5cwQd2tNWjhYyS8sa3fH1

Link to original videos:

Harris/Murray (happens at about 1:21:00):

David Suzuki (happens at the end):

Gad Saad:

[aleph]

I summarized Murray's answer because it was long and I felt that short bit summarized it pretty well.

[Sgtvenom]

We measure the IQ between different primates and even among the same primates in different areas. It’s only natural to do the same to humans.

[forret]

Excellent. Well presented and cogent argument.

[fedorburns]

It would be ideal if we didn't need to focus on group differences like this but the reality is group differences are constantly brought up in society especially in politics. For example, a wealth gap exists in the USA between different groups, and the IQ gap explains it. So in that context, I think because differences are already talked about, people should be allowed to explore it and explain it. Not doing so leads to division, oppression narratives, and improper use of resources.

[bennyandersen]

I think Murrays answer was quite good. If some populations (races) can not be lifted up in terms of education and intelligence, there no point in spending billons of dollars on it. Its not just a waste of money, it is also detrimental for the people on the receiving side. I don't think Harris disagrees that much. What we need is more research, but this has become a taboo, nobody will do that hazardous job. You will be mobbed out of academia.

[alanblight]

I don’t understand why this subject should hurt peoples feelings . Accepting diversity in human populations is the ‘ in ‘ thing, if there is no difference it’s all nonsense .

[Synodalian]

It's not an argument for "Jewish Hitler" to be an oxymoron. The whole history of political ideology has been about people adhering to values that intrinsically contradict their own self-interest.

The fundamental objection with eugenics, even _liberal eugenics, _ is that it is teleologically _prescriptive_ in its ethical nature. What that entails is that if we adopt an explicitly utilitarian frame of social policy for how we are to deal with demographic change across the world, we directly open the door to a scale of social engineering that is authoritarian in its form by imposing a _value-judgment_ on what does and does not qualify for valid human life. Right off the bat this kind of approach completely wipes disability rights off the list.

In fact ultimately, even this detracts from my main point. The _real_ problem with your argument is that you enact a blatant category error with respect to "facts vs. feelings." The irony is that instead of truly making an attempt to demonstrate what the facts are, you obfuscate the irreconcilable difference between scientific data and _political belief._ Eugenics is not a scientific endeavor, it is fundamentally a political ideology predicated on the notion that biological forms can be placed into rank orders according to optimality.

Optimality _as such_ is an inherently normative judgment, and is therefore subject to historical contingency. Science plays no role in prescription, so when you make the claim that the _policy_ of eugenics is somehow a factual statement, you end up totally erasing the boundary between engineering design and scientific modelling by conflating facts and values.

That frame of reasoning is not scientific, it's literally what makes creationism a pseudoscience.