Thought-provoking piece on an important topic Bo, thank you for writing it. Sam Harris did a public service I think in airing some of the taboo narratives about group differences. Nevertheless, in the past three years, he has contributed to denigrating dissent and delegitimizing dissenters on covid policy topics; &, he has on multiple occasions advocated for such suppression - with reference to the dangers associated with Donald Trump holding public office. It strikes me as unfortunate that only his former contributions are referenced here.
That's quite fair. I still think that he deserves credit for his earlier candidness about group differences. He was bolder about that topic than almost any other mainstream intellectual, with the exception of Charles Murray, whose example we should all strive to follow. His disgust for Trump et cetera is a difference topic, one about which I do not have strong views. But certainly he is vulnerable to various criticisms. --Bo W
One can (and should) criticize him for his errors and shortcomings, but he is one of the few mainstream intellectuals who has grappled honestly with the hereditarian thesis, contending that it is plausible. His podcast with Charles Murray was exceptionally courageous, in my view. --Bo W
One characteristic of intellectual honesty is the ability to have robust discussions about touchy subjects like heredity, race and religion. In this regard Harris and Murray have been courageous.
Self-reflective honesty about one's own biases and uncertainties is a characteristic that is more valuable. Harris is a poster boy for intellectual myopia. He is so captured in the left-coast Hollywood bubble that he ties himself in knots explaining how compromising democracy and freedoms is justified when it is in the service of justifying his biases.
He pontificates for hours without bothering to look into the complexities of medical interventions, nor questioning his Trump derangement extremism.
I don't think we have seen such blindness and tyranny since the Salem Witch Trials. I grew up in the 1960's. Along with all the disingenuous stuff, people were saying "everybody look what's going down" Look now! Truth being exchanged for a lie, facts for a simulacrum. All I ask is that when some high profile person gets cancelled or vilified for some controversial remark, is that they do not recant. It is the responsibility of the intellectuals, regardless of cost.
Thought-provoking piece on an important topic Bo, thank you for writing it. Sam Harris did a public service I think in airing some of the taboo narratives about group differences. Nevertheless, in the past three years, he has contributed to denigrating dissent and delegitimizing dissenters on covid policy topics; &, he has on multiple occasions advocated for such suppression - with reference to the dangers associated with Donald Trump holding public office. It strikes me as unfortunate that only his former contributions are referenced here.
That's quite fair. I still think that he deserves credit for his earlier candidness about group differences. He was bolder about that topic than almost any other mainstream intellectual, with the exception of Charles Murray, whose example we should all strive to follow. His disgust for Trump et cetera is a difference topic, one about which I do not have strong views. But certainly he is vulnerable to various criticisms. --Bo W
Sam Harris is as intellectually honest as a pretzel.
One can (and should) criticize him for his errors and shortcomings, but he is one of the few mainstream intellectuals who has grappled honestly with the hereditarian thesis, contending that it is plausible. His podcast with Charles Murray was exceptionally courageous, in my view. --Bo W
One characteristic of intellectual honesty is the ability to have robust discussions about touchy subjects like heredity, race and religion. In this regard Harris and Murray have been courageous.
Self-reflective honesty about one's own biases and uncertainties is a characteristic that is more valuable. Harris is a poster boy for intellectual myopia. He is so captured in the left-coast Hollywood bubble that he ties himself in knots explaining how compromising democracy and freedoms is justified when it is in the service of justifying his biases.
He pontificates for hours without bothering to look into the complexities of medical interventions, nor questioning his Trump derangement extremism.
This strikes me as a fair assessment. Harris can be tendentious and unreflective. I still like him, but have many disagreements. --Bo W
Actual lol.
I don't think we have seen such blindness and tyranny since the Salem Witch Trials. I grew up in the 1960's. Along with all the disingenuous stuff, people were saying "everybody look what's going down" Look now! Truth being exchanged for a lie, facts for a simulacrum. All I ask is that when some high profile person gets cancelled or vilified for some controversial remark, is that they do not recant. It is the responsibility of the intellectuals, regardless of cost.