The Least Self-Aware Guru

Please check out Hannah Ritchie's latest about food production. (Don't read the comments.)

Also, the latest Freakonomics could literally save your life. tl;dr - wrongly thinking you are allergic to penicillin can lead to a lot of unnecessary suffering and death. Who knew?

We interrupt my attempts to be more positive for a bit of venting:

Our hero Sam Harris has a new, long Substack post (won't link to) bemoaning that fire hit his very rich neighborhood. He uses his platform to call on billionaires to give away their money to rebuild his wealthy neighborhood. 

Note: This multi-multi-millionaire did not and is not calling on billionaires to give away their money to the poor, nor to the disease-stricken, nor to those who have actually lost everything. No; only after his daughter's school partly burned did Sam call on billionaires to give away their money.

[I also found this commentary on Sam's post to be spot-on:

His claim that "If what someone's done to accumulate wealth isn't illegal we shouldn't be mad about it" is so mind-numbingly stupid that I had to stop and make sure I hadn't misread it. ... "We shouldn't resent the uber wealthy for dodging taxes that pay for things like public infrastructure and disaster relief. However, they should be nice and donate their money for disaster relief and public infrastructure where I live." 

The Sam Harris of 1930: "Sure we know they built their fortunes off of child labor in factories in mines, but that's legal and everything that's legal is okay (and everything that's illegal is bad!) so we can't get mad at them for having money. Don't get mad at rich people, that makes me sad!"]

In Sam's honor, here are some relevant past posts:

From 2018:

In the latest "Ask Me Anything," Sam was asked about the person who wanted to change his age from 69 to 49. In his answer, Sam compared him to the white con-woman who posed as black, and then to trans people. He concluded that we don't allow people to change their age merely because not enough people are "clamoring to do so."

Once again, Sam's lack of empathy and insight is astounding. This person wants to change his age to benefit himself. No one comes out as trans to benefit themselves. 2018 has had the most murders of trans people in the United States ever, and a similar rise in the rate of violence against trans individuals. This is not to mention what many trans people go through with family and in the workplace.

Hey Sam -- how many people are beaten to death for turning a certain age?

That Sam could even consider for a second that there is some equivalence between "feeling younger" and being trans -- let alone go on the record saying so -- is, to my mind, extraordinarily damning of Sam as a "thinker."

...

And again, in the AMA Sam claimed it was important that we see how unfairly celebrities have been treated by #MeToo, because "They are the canary in the coal mine." But what was his example of the great injustice? That people were mean to Matt Damon on Twitter.

It would appear that Sam's algorithm is simple: How will issue X affect well-off straight white men? More and more, it seems to me that is Sam's only concern in the world. He's become a new Jordan Peterson, just telling straight white men what they want to hear. How else can you possibly explain his contention that cross-burning darling of the KKK Charles Murray is "the most unfairly maligned person in my lifetime. That doesn’t really run the risk of being much of an exaggeration there."

PS: Another white guy pines for a time when only white guys had power.

Also from 2018:

Excerpts from Ezra Klein's interview with Sam Harris:

Sam: I’m in the, once again, having the bewildering experience of agreeing with virtually everything you said there, and yet it has basically no relevance to what I view as our underlying disagreement.

Ezra: You have that bewildering experience because you don’t realize when you keep saying that everybody else is thinking tribally, but you’re not, that that is our disagreement.

Sam: Well, no, because I know I’m not thinking tribally ... It’s not tribalism. This is an experience of talking about ideas in public. ... That is not identity politics. That is my experience as a public intellectual trying to talk about ideas.

Ezra: That is what folks from the dominant group get to do. They get to say, my thing isn’t identity politics, only yours is. I will tell you, Sam, when people who do not look like you hear you telling them that this is just identity politics, they don’t think, “God he’s right. That is just identity politics.” They think this is my experience and you don’t understand it. You just said it’s your experience and they don’t understand it.

Shorter Sam Harris: The only people who are being honest are me -- a well-off white guy -- and those who agree with me. Everyone else who doesn't agree is lying about "the data" and just playing politically-correct identity politics.

And what is the tragedy here? What is the worst thing that deserves our attention and must be addressed? Hundreds of years of racial oppression and violence? Unarmed people being shot? Study after study showing continued racial discrimination?

No. It is a very rich, very famous, very influential white cross-burning guy being disliked by some people on the left. Again, Sam Harris:

I hadn’t paid attention to [Charles] Murray. When I did read the book and did some more research on him, I came to think that he was probably the most unfairly maligned person in my lifetime. That doesn’t really run the risk of being much of an exaggeration there.

Wow.

From 2019:

There are some people, like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, who I think very actively cause more suffering in the world (and, sadly, are enabled by lots of "reasonable" people who care more about congeniality than consequences).

However, Sam Harris just makes me sad. I still start [again: 2019] many of his podcasts because he has interesting people (for example Andrew McAfee). But I was dismayed to hear that not only does he add a preface to his interviews, Harris has now added a postscript to make it more about him -- and to attack his guests when they aren't able to reply. This continues to undermine his contention that "conversation" [sic] is the most important tool we have (a belief I don't share).

What is much worse, however, is Harris' incredible close-mindedness. He is utterly convinced that he has all truth. He contends that any other perspective isn't just wrong but also the root of everything bad (i.e., Hillary lost by refusing to condemn Islam as Sam does). His sneering and thoughtless denigrations of "The Left," "identity politics," and anyone who is "woke" are so childish that I am continually amazed that no one Sam respects will point that out to him. But it seems as though there are fewer and fewer people he respects. Anyone who has a different point of view is quickly dismissed out of hand. If you don't have Sam's well-off straight white male perspective, you need to "get over it." ...

I believe that Sam is right about free will -- that is, that everything that happens is just physics (chemistry, biology). I understand that Sam can't do any differently than his clueless arrogance. Worshipful echo chambers are powerful drugs. So I really should just "get over it" and not let it bother me. But at least as of today, it still does.

The Enemy of My Enemy

My friends know I had been a Sam Harris fan.

I have appalled at how he and his views have been misrepresented by "the Left" regarding Islamism (e.g., saying he wants to nuke the Islamic world). But in my humble opinion, this dishonest vilification has left Mr. Harris with a soft spot -- even a blind spot -- for others who are vilified by "the Left."

This has led him to hitch his star to the loathsome Fox News commentator Jordan Peterson, who has claimed that feminists have “an unconscious wish for brutal male domination.”

But nowhere has Sam's understandable hatred of the "politically correct" Left blinded him than his otherwise unimaginable determination to promote The Bell Curve author Charles Murray.

Ezra Klein at Vox has a new discussion of this bizarre bromance, which I learned about via an angry email from Sam Harris. Ezra's entire article is worth reading, especially the emphasis on history. But Ezra also gets at my main reaction to Sam Harris' podcast with Charles Murray: Why? Why write a book that, for all intents and purposes, claims blacks are simply dumber than whites? Why write a book for all the neo-Nazis and white supremacists?

Why?

Sam asked this of Charles three times in his podcast, and each time the answer was awful. Ezra quotes the transcript twice in the section "When questions about IQ become recommendations about social policy." I challenge anyone to read Murray's answers there and think he is an individual committed to human flourishing. To me, it reads of a white guy who doesn't like being taxed to try to address historical injustices and inequality.

If Murray isn't an actual overt racist, he's just another selfish white man who tries to "scientifically" argue that we should just let him keep all he's "earned" because trying to help disadvantaged groups is "futile."

And Sam: I think we should be careful about embracing and promoting someone so utterly beloved by avowed racists, even if that person happens to be attacked by the same people who attack you.

We all have our blindspots

Excerpts from Ezra Klein's interview with Sam Harris:

Sam: I’m in the, once again, having the bewildering experience of agreeing with virtually everything you said there, and yet it has basically no relevance to what I view as our underlying disagreement.

Ezra: You have that bewildering experience because you don’t realize when you keep saying that everybody else is thinking tribally, but you’re not, that that is our disagreement.

Sam: Well, no, because I know I’m not thinking tribally ... It’s not tribalism. This is an experience of talking about ideas in public. ... That is not identity politics. That is my experience as a public intellectual trying to talk about ideas.

Ezra: That is what folks from the dominant group get to do. They get to say, my thing isn’t identity politics, only yours is. I will tell you, Sam, when people who do not look like you hear you telling them that this is just identity politics, they don’t think, “God he’s right. That is just identity politics.” They think this is my experience and you don’t understand it. You just said it’s your experience and they don’t understand it.

Shorter Sam Harris: The only people who are being honest are me -- a well-off white guy -- and those who agree with me. Everyone else who doesn't agree is lying about "the data" and just playing politically-correct identity politics.

And what is the tragedy here? What is the worst thing that deserves our attention and must be addressed? Hundreds of years of racial oppression and violence? Unarmed people being shot? Study after study showing continued racial discrimination?

No. It is a very rich, very famous, very influential white cross-burning guy being disliked by some people on the left. Again, Sam Harris:

I hadn’t paid attention to [Charles] Murray. When I did read the book and did some more research on him, I came to think that he was probably the most unfairly maligned person in my lifetime. That doesn’t really run the risk of being much of an exaggeration there.

Wow.

The Mind is Fragile *and* Weak

As a follow-up to this earlier post, The Mind Is Fragile:

I see that Sam Harris is taking a break from railing against misinformation to defend "his friend" Joe Rogan. 

Obviously this seems at the very least unnecessary if not absurd. But to me, it makes perfect sense. Joe Rogan is much more famous than Sam Harris, and Rogan has repeatedly been very deferential to and promotional of Harris.

Now even though Rogan is a "bad" human being and a significant net negative for the world, the human mind is simply not built to do utilitarian calculations. Our mind is meant to deal with small groups of people who we see every day. So if someone stronger and with more social power is kind and deferential to us, our brains simply can't help but view them as a "friend."

This is true for me as well. For decades, one of my best friends was someone who yearned for money and fame. I should have realized this when I heard him talk about famous vegans or look at big houses and ask longingly why that couldn't be him. But I remained blind to his true nature until 2014, when my blindness cost me everything I had built professionally.

Yet sadly, I didn't learn my lesson, again mistaking personal kindness for character until it cost me dearly last year. 

One thing these situations have in common is an "enemy." Sam Harris constantly rages that people on "the Left" are mean to him on Twitter, so he sees this as a common enemy with Rogan. With me, the "enemy" was animal exploitation, as well as the general assumption that vegans are good people. (Har.)

I think this also explains a lot about the former guy's appeal. He is supposedly rich and powerful, and he says nice things about certain people and speaks harshly about "the enemy" (immigrants, Muslims, etc.). Many people thus see him as on "my side," even considering him "my friend." It is why the great despots always created an "us vs them" dynamic, demonizing Jews, Tutsi, Blacks, Muslims, Mexicans, Commies, Hippies, etc.  It is why it does not seem unreasonable to fear for the future of democracy.

The Self as Illusion

I was listening to an older Sam Harris podcast while cooking this weekend, and he revisited his contention that "the self is an illusion." One of the others on stage pushed back, and Sam countered by stating he had experienced the dissolution of the self. The counter to that was that many people had "experienced god," which I thought was a pretty solid takedown.

But in other contexts, Sam has done what I consider to be a good job of explaining what he means. As I interpret it, there are two parts.

First, there is no free will (which is discussed in his book of the same name). This fact is logically obvious when I think about it - everything is just physical reactions, so where could "free will" actually enter the picture?

Although I understand and accept this fact at a rational level, I haven't fully embraced it. While I think I am relatively Zen about many things in life ("It is what it is"), my default reaction to events is not always, "They could not have done otherwise." For example, I still loathe Paul Ryan. Also, I still wish for vengeance against a certain person who harmed me and my family.

Yes, I know that this is neither rational nor helpful. But I could not feel otherwise!   😉

Following from that is the logical conclusion that there is no thinker of thoughts. Even though we are conscious and self-aware, there is no "self" in control of our mind.

One doesn't have to be a materialist to recognize that this is true. It is possible to observe this fact through meditation. If we can pay close enough attention, we see that thoughts just arise. To slightly modify an exchange between Dan Harris and Sam Harris:

Dan: "But can't I choose to say, 'Now I'm going to think about a Tofurky sandwich'?"

Sam: "Where did 'Tofurky sandwich' come from?"

Dan: "Um, my hunger after two hours talking with you?"

There are obviously some difficult implications that flow from these insights. For example: If we have no free will, how can we change anything about ourselves? But that's like asking how a computer could change, given that it has no free will. Computers just need a new program (or, in a bad case, a virus) to be different. We, too, can also get new programs. We can read new books, listen to thoughtful podcasts, subscribe to a rarely-published but interesting blog. Each of those inputs can change the way our brains function.

Click for larger.

And if we could really, really internalize that everyone around us is just a relatively broken computer, we would have a lot less frustration and upset. We can still want to reduce suffering in the world, but we would reduce our own suffering first. Good luck to each of us!

Sadness

There are some people, like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, who I think very actively cause more suffering in the world (and, sadly, are enabled by lots of "reasonable" people who care more about congeniality than consequences).

However, Sam Harris just makes me sad. I still start many of his podcasts because he has interesting people (for example Andrew McAfee). But I was dismayed to hear that not only does he do a preface to podcasts, Harris has now added a postscript to give more of his general thoughts -- and to attack his guests when they aren't able to reply. This continues to undermine his contention that "conversation" [sic] is the most important tool we have (a belief I don't share).

What is much worse, however, is Harris' incredible close-mindedness. He is utterly convinced he has all truth. He contends that any other perspective isn't just wrong but also the root of everything bad (i.e., Hillary lost by refusing to condemn Islam as Sam does). His sneering and thoughtless denigrations of "The Left," "identity politics," and anyone who is "woke" is so childish that I am continually amazed that no one Sam respects will point that out to him. But it seems as though there are fewer and fewer people he respects. Anyone who has a minority point of view is quickly dismissed out of hand. If you don't have Sam's well-off straight white male perspective, you need to "get over it."

Similarly, on the latest Real Time, Sam's pal and fellow egomaniac Bill Maher said that Bill and Howard Stern are the only two honest men in America. The arrogance of that statement is simply breathtaking.

I believe that Sam is right about free will -- that is, that everything that goes on is just, at its core, physics (chemistry, biology). I understand that he can't do any differently. Worshipful echo chambers are powerful influencers. So I really should just "get over it" and not let it bother me. But at least as of today, it still does.

Is Sam Harris the Most Self-Centered Person in the World?

In the latest "Ask Me Anything," Sam was asked about the person who wanted to change his age from 69 to 49. In his answer, Sam compared it to the white con-woman who posed as black, and then to trans people. He concluded that we don't allow people to change their age merely because not enough people are "clamoring to do so."

Once again, Sam's lack of empathy and insight is astounding. This person wants to change his age to benefit himself. No one comes out as trans to benefit themselves. 2018 has had the most murders of trans people in the United States ever, and a similar rise in the rate of violence. This is not to mention what many trans people go through with family and in the workplace.

Hey Sam -- how many people are beaten to death for turning a certain age?

That Sam could even consider for a second that there is some equivalence between "feeling younger" and being trans -- let alone go on the record saying so -- is, to my mind, extraordinarily damning.

In the same AMA, Sam was asked about white privilege. His answer was mostly a long rant about "what about the privilege of a natural athlete??" He went on and on about how great it must be to be a natural athlete.

WTF?

Sam also revisited his interview with Rebecca Traister. Again, as he did in the intro to the podcast itself, he bemoaned the fact that he hadn't been able to interrupt Rebecca during the interview. Bizzare.

And again, in the AMA Sam claimed it was important that we see how unfairly celebrities have been treated by #MeToo, because "they are the canary in the coal mine." But what was his example of the great injustice? That people were mean to Matt Damon on Twitter.

It would appear that Sam's algorithm is simple: How will issue X affect well-off straight white men? More and more, it seems to me that is Sam's only concern in the world. He's become a new Jordan Peterson, just telling straight white men what they want to hear. How else can you possibly explain his contention that cross-burning darling of the KKK Charles Murray is "the most unfairly maligned person in my lifetime. That doesn’t really run the risk of being much of an exaggeration there."

PS: Another white guy pines for a time when only white guys had power.

So this is too far?

Sam Harris has given a platform to, and even celebrated, some of the worst people (e.g., Jordan Peterson, Charles Murray). But I hear now that Sam has "turned in" his "membership card" to the "Intellectual [sic] Dark Web" because some of his IDW pals have remained in the Trump camp even after the election. 

News flash to Sam: These folks were clearly dishonest and terrible even before now. I know it triggers you, but Ezra Klein was entirely right and reasonable regarding this. 

I know some of you ask why I care about Sam Harris. It is because he's been good on meditation and very good on the Catholic Church (1, 2) in a time when most people are cowed into silence about anything to do with Christianity. 

Our Capacity for Self-Delusion

Anne and I listened to part of Sam Harris' latest "Ask Me Anything." In it, Sam claims that he isn't tribal because he disagrees with left-of-center white guys ("like Robert Wright and Ezra Klein") who would be his "tribe." This claim would be incredible to me, but as Sam would be the first to point out, he has no free will to allow him to get beyond his delusions.

As Ezra Klein mentioned  early in their podcast together, Sam's tribe is actually made up of people Sam thinks have been unfairly attacked by "the Left." This is why Sam will promote a misogynistic demagogue who builds his fame on hatred of transgender people and says things like feminists have “an unconscious wish for brutal male domination.” It is why Sam will say that the KKK's favorite "scientist" is "the most unfairly maligned person in my lifetime."

Another bizarre twist: In their podcast, Sam continually tried to interrupt Ezra, but Ezra wouldn't let him ("Just let me finish this."). In the Ask Me Anything, Sam said this proved that Ezra wasn't open minded!

But I've said all the above before. For something new, please check out Robert Wright's great take.

Joe Rogan Is a Bad Human Being (but Science Is Good)

Science saved my life, 2017 version.

Science has made our lives better, cancer edition.

Steven Pinker pointed out a crazy stat: about 100 years ago, being pregnant had about the same mortality rate as a breast cancer diagnosis today.  😮

On the other side, from Losing My Religions:

[W]e all have our psychological quirks and blind spots, even people who make a living railing against unreason. For example, in early 2022, author (The End of Faith) and podcaster Sam Harris took a break from maligning misinformation to defend his friend Joe Rogan.

At first glance, this seems at the very least unnecessary if not absurd. But to me, it makes perfect sense. Even though he is one of the worst sources of misinformation, Joe Rogan is much more famous than Sam Harris, and Rogan has repeatedly been deferential to and promotional of Harris.

Even though Rogan is a significant net negative for the world, our minds are simply not built to do utilitarian calculations when it comes to interpersonal dynamics. The human brain evolved dealing with small groups of people who we see every day. So if someone with more social power praises us, our brains simply can't help but view them as "friend."

For a fuller discussion, this Revisionist History podcast by Malcolm Gladwell goes into detail as to how Rogan uses his platform to spread dangerous, deadly misinformation. Only listen when you can fast forward - the ads are many and obnoxious. 

Every time I think I'm out....

I have thought about the latest Sam Harris podcast a lot since I finished it. I hoped I would find and link to a thorough take-down of it online, but mostly I find a bunch of white people saying how "brave" and "important" it is. 

<sigh>

So here is my summary. Sam says: You may think these videos are proof of racism. But did you know cops kill white people too? And Blacks commit [sic] more of the crime, so they can expect to get killed at higher rates. And Blacks kill lots of Blacks. Therefore, people who are protesting are in an uninformed moral panic. You know what the real problem is? Looters. And, of course, identity politics. 

[If you know anyone persuaded by Harris' Fox News "statistics," this is really good: The statistical paradox of police killings. In the numbers of fatal encounters with the cops, one kind of discrimination masks another. Not that I expect anyone to be persuaded.]

I think the end really shows just how out of touch Sam is with reality. He goes on and on that he and Martin Luther King Jr. want to live in a colorblind society. Thus the problem is all these people talking about race when in reality we should just ignore it like hair color. Direct quote:

"How many blondes, brunettes, or redheads are in Harvard or police or senior management. No one is asking this question. Why? Because no one cares."

This is his prescription: that we just ignore race like we ignore white people's hair color. [Ignoring, of course, that even hair discrimination is an actual thing.]

Look, I get it: Sam really really really doesn't want to actually think about race. He wants everyone to be a privileged "rational" rich straight white dude. But parroting some Breitbart claims and citing a handful of isolated MLK quotes is actually neither courageous nor intellectually rigorous. 

My only question to Sam is this: Would you want your daughters to go through life being looked at by the cops and authorities the same way a black man is?

If not, maybe "identity politics" isn't the biggest threat in the world. Maybe just ignoring race isn't the way forward in 2020. Maybe Mitt Freakin' Romney isn't engaging in identity politics?

Maybe the experience of a Black person is actually worth considering.

Just a reminder: this is the initial police report on George Floyd's death. I.e. cops murder and lie about it. Maybe some anger is appropriate? 

Weekend Reads: Bad Policy and WTF Consciousness? + More

Depeche Mode - "Policy Of Truth"

No, not that kind of nuke!

How bad nuclear policy has made poor people much poorer and the environment much worse; excerpt:

Imagine a world in which nuclear power costs less than three cents real a kilowatt-hour as it did not so long ago. Not only would the poor be immensely richer, but the planet would be far better off. Electrification of transportation and industry would explode. Desal would take off. Synthetic fuels could become viable. Skies would be clean. All this electricity would require little land and produce almost no CO2.

More on nukes (podcast, not a great guest but interesting information; e.g. In 2012, the Sierra Club admitted it had taken $26 million from natural gas companies). 

Since "the only unbiased person in the world" Sam Harris has taken up her cause: Is J.K. Rowling transphobic? Let’s let her speak for herself.

“Deeply amused by those telling me I’ve lost their admiration due to the disrespect I show violent, duplicitous rapists.”

The hard problem of consciousness: On the liking of burritos 

I don't agree with everything in this (I think consciousness obviously influences behavior, in part by getting us to speculate about consciousness) but the author has a similar "WTF?" view.

Or, as I quote Sam Harris in Losing: 

Whatever the explanation for consciousness is,  it might always seem like a miracle.

And for what it’s worth, I think it always will seem like a miracle.

Equality (repost)

Seeing Bryan Caplan's strawman attacks on feminism (isn't he just so "brave"?) and reading one of his misogynist followers reminded me of this post:

tl;dr: if you are spending your time looking for differences, you are part of the problem.

There has always been an attitude of "Kids these days!" Looking through history, crotchety adults have always complained about the spoiled, lazy, disrespectful kids with their music and crazy clothes and obscene dances and "fancy new technology" (radios, telephones, etc.).

So it is easy to dismiss the book The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt as yet another in the long series of adults whining about kids these days. Yet I found a lot of interesting and useful insights in the book.

Perhaps the most relevant for me is their discussion of "safetyism," the idea that kids need to be protected from everything. This resonated with me. When EK was four years old, my mom asked what values they had learned - EK answered "kindness and safety." I still have flashbacks of three times something really bad almost happened to EK.

Lukianoff and Haidt make the point that humans are antifragile - that we need to experience stress and be tested to get stronger. Not that everything that doesn't kill us makes us stronger, but that facing (reasonable) challenges is the only way we can grow and develop. "Luckily" for EK, they've had plenty of challenges (despite my best efforts). (We were just talking about how something that happened in 2007 had a very specific influence from then on.)

Where Lukianoff and Haidt lose me is their argument against looking at outcomes when working for social justice. The example they use to make their case is that under Title IX, the University of Virginia made women's rowing a varsity sport to help offset the huge (men's) football program. Lukianoff and Haidt's argument is that if more males are interested in sports than females, why shouldn't there be more (school-sponsored) athletic opportunities for the boys?

But how can we know that there is an inherent difference in interest? Who makes those determinations? For as long as adults have complained about kids, white males have said that girls don't like math and are more concerned with "nurturing" than having a career. (And blacks don't care about school or are "natural athletes," etc. And you don't just get that from ignorant rednecks - Nobel laureates, too, like James Watson.)

I'm not a "blank-slater" - I don't think that every human is conceived and born with equal potential in all areas. It is theoretically possible that Larry Summers is factually correct that boys have a greater standard deviation in math ability (see this for more discussion; see this for a counterpoint). But my question is: how can we know? People treat a baby - a baby - differently if that baby is dressed in pink vs blue. The same baby!

Can we really think that being treated a certain way from day one doesn't have an impact on a child's interests and subsequent "strengths"? Can we really claim that anyone who is not a straight white male is not influenced by society's stereotypes of them? It just boggles my mind that anyone would think they can measure the "natural and inherent" inclinations and skills of anyone.

This, of course, brings up Sam Harris' egomania. He paints himself and his center-right straight male friends as the only ones willing to "speak the truth." One of his "only I'm brave enough to say" claims (in addition to his bewildering ongoing insistence to talk about race and IQ) is that James Damore was "right" in his Google memo that "women just don't like working with computers, so tech firms should stop trying to hire women."

I think the actual evidence does not support Damore and Harris - listen to this for an explanation (video version). Also, see this for proof that it doesn't have to be this way.

But regardless, can he really say that no non-male could ever have an interest in coding? Here's my question to Sam: would you really want your daughters to have to work with someone with Damore's attitude? [I pity Sam's daughters. In his most recent book, he doesn't have even one woman. In general, the only time a woman is on his podcast, it is with a man or men.]

It continues to amaze me when straight white "liberal" males spend their time defending Charles Murray or complaining that male rowers at the University of Virginia aren't varsity athletes. Do they really think these are the main injustices that need to be addressed?

More importantly, can they not see that promoting the idea of "natural" and "inherent" differences between genders or races actively supports real-world discrimination? This is an honest question I wish they would answer. You don't have to watch many videos of Nazis and white supremacists before you hear one of them pointing to Charles Murray's book The Bell Curve as "scientific proof" of racist views.

Do you want to spend your limited time being against Nazis or defending Charles Murray?

Equality (repost)

I heard a podcast recently that again infuriated me along these lines, so I thought I'd republish this from several years ago.

It seems like there has always been an attitude of "Kids these days!" Looking through history, crotchety adults have complained about the spoiled, lazy, disrespectful kids with their music and crazy clothes and obscene dances and "fancy new technology" (radios, telephones, etc.).

So it is easy to dismiss the book The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt as yet another in the long series of adults whining about kids these days. Yet I found a lot of interesting and useful insights in the book.

Perhaps the most relevant for me is their discussion of "safetyism," the idea that kids need to be protected from everything. This resonated with me. When EK was four years old, my mom asked what values they had learned - EK answered "kindness and safety." I still have flashbacks of three times something really bad almost happened to EK.

Lukianoff and Haidt make the point that humans are antifragile - that we need to experience stress and be tested to get stronger. Not that everything that doesn't kill us makes us stronger, but that facing (reasonable) challenges is the only way we can grow and develop. "Luckily" for EK, they've had plenty of challenges (despite my best efforts). (We were just talking about how something that happened in 2007 had a very specific influence from then on.)

Where Lukianoff and Haidt lose me is their argument against looking at outcomes when working for social justice. The example they use to make their case is that under Title IX, the University of Virginia made women's rowing a varsity sport to help offset the huge (men's) football program. Lukianoff and Haidt's argument is that if more males are interested in sport than females, why shouldn't there be more (school-sponsored) athletic opportunities for the boys?

But how can we know that there is an inherent difference in interest? Who makes those determinations? For as long as adults have complained about kids, white males have said that girls don't like math and are more concerned with "nurturing" than having a career. (And blacks don't care about school or are "natural athletes," etc. And not just from ignorant rednecks - Nobel laureates, too, like James Watson.)

I'm not a "blank-slater" - I don't think that every human is conceived and born with equal potential in all areas. It is theoretically possible that Larry Summers is factually correct that boys have a greater standard deviation in math ability (see this for more discussion; see this for a counterpoint). But my question is: how can we know? People treat a baby - a baby - differently if that baby is dressed in pink vs blue. The same baby!

Can we really think that being treated a certain way from day one doesn't have an impact on a child's interests and subsequent "strengths"? Can we really claim that anyone who is not a straight white male is not influenced by society's stereotypes of them? It just boggles my mind that anyone would think they can measure the "natural and inherent" inclinations and skills of anyone.

This, of course, brings up Sam Harris' egomania. He paints himself and his center-right straight male friends as the only ones willing to "speak the truth." One of his "only I'm brave enough to say" claims (in addition to his bewildering ongoing insistence to talk about race and IQ) is that James Damore was "right" in his Google memo that "women just don't like working with computers, so tech firms should stop trying to hire women."

I think the actual vidence actually does not support Damore and Harris - listen to this for an explanation (video version). Also see this for proof that it doesn't have to be this way.

But regardless, can he really say that no non-male could ever have an interest in coding? Here's my question to Sam: would you really want your daughters to have to work with someone with Damore's attitude? [I pity Sam's daughters. In his most recent book, he doesn't have even one woman. In general, the only time a woman in on his podcast, it is with a man or men.]

It continues to amaze me when straight white "liberal" males spend their time defending Charles Murray or complaining that male rowers at the University of Virginia aren't varsity athletes. Do they really think these are the main injustices that need to be addressed?

More importantly, can they really not see that promoting the idea of "natural" and "inherent" differences between genders or between races actively supports real-world discrimination? This is an honest question I wish they would answer. You don't have to watch many videos of Nazis and white supremacists before you hear one of them pointing to Charles Murray's book The Bell Curve as "scientific proof" of racist views.

Do you want to spend your limited time being against Nazi's or defending Charles Murray?

IMO, if you are spending your time looking for differences, you are part of the problem.

To repeat myself

Based on what I've heard, Sam Harris is still ranting about "identity politics" at every opportunity. What is his big example, the one I've heard him bring up over and over (again last week)? That people were mean on Twitter to multimillionaire Matt Damon.

What a privileged, sheltered life Harris lives.

So I would like to bring up, again, this post. It just boggles the mind that Harris wants his daughters to grow up in a world run by James Damore and his sexist ilk.

Our Ego Hurts Animals

Green Day (God's Favorite Band) / BJA - Ordinary World (live)

The deadliest food in the world.

Peter Attia, MD, has a new book*, Outlive, that discusses our best understanding of how to have the greatest healthspan - i.e., living as long as possible while healthy.**

A key takeaway is that most of us don't get enough protein, especially those of us who are older.

This inconvenient truth goes against the Vegan Dogma, which insists that people in the developed world get too much protein. Vegans don't say "too much protein" because we have done an honest, rigorous review of the latest research. Rather, we say "too much" because we can't admit that there might be any question about veganism's ease or perfection. This denial is taken to absurd and harmful extremes; e.g., one of the most common cups of Kool-Aid to consume is that even broccoli has enough protein. 

Here's a secret: 

No one has ever stopped eating animals because of that broccoli line. 

But: The vast majority of people who stop eating animals revert back. And today, the average person in the United States (and in the world) has never eaten more factory-farmed animals.

Another tenet of the Vegan Dogma is that everyone else is to blame for veganism's lack of impact. I get it - Vegans*** have their self-worth tied to the perfection of their Veganism. Yes, yes, yes, they are all much smarter and better than the rest of us.

However, those of us who care about helping animals instead of Defending the Faith must answer for our absolute failure to make the world a better place for other animals. That includes me (one of the reasons I wrote Losing****).

In addition to two other factors,***** dishonesty regarding health and nutrition drives the 80+% failure rate of new vegetarians and vegans. We are dishonest with ourselves (We Want to Believe) as well as with others. 

For example - every time I make this broccoli point, a Vegan will angrily comment: "But broccoli does have enough protein!"

<sigh>

I don't expect this column (or anything I write) to have any impact in the broader world. Humans - myself included - are fundamentally insecure and in desperate need of validation. But I would suggest you, my smart and good-looking friend, check out Dr. Attia. Here is a recommended podcast* that covers the book in depth. 

It could help to make you healthier and happier. Personally, I am working to get more protein (without increasing calories) and build up muscle, especially given my history [!] and age.

*Attia's book is wildly overwritten and could really use a Cliff Notes version. Sam Harris published an hour of his interview with Attia (we won't give Harris any of our money, so we're not subscribers and can't say anything about the last two hours). As expected, Harris used the opportunity to take a shot at vegetarians re: protein. 

**Dr. Attia says he used to think that nutrition was the most important factor to healthspan, but now thinks exercise is more important.

***Obviously, most people who don't eat animal products aren't self-centered dogmatists. But you know people who capitalize "Vegan" and can't discuss anything without saying the word "Vegan" over and over. It is why I argue in Losing that those of us who want to reduce suffering should stop using the word "vegan."

****You didn't think I'd go an entire post w/o mentioning my book, did you?

*****The two other main ways we hurt animals: lack of thoughtfulness in our messaging and anger and fanaticism. Shocking, I know.

PS: the daughter of one of the most famous vegan advocates ever is now an ex-vegan, pro-meat social media influencer. You can see her in this interview saying, "The human body can’t be vegan and healthy" and “I’m going to be eating animal protein at every single meal, because I believe that that’s how I can keep my life and my health.” On her website she touts her abandonment of vegan eating and urges meat and seafood consumption to stay well.

PPS: I'm not exempting myself from this post's title, as I hope Losing makes clear.

The Greatest Threat to America

I recently listened to Sam Harris' "Ask Me Anything" #13. In it, Sam continues to rant against Ezra Klein, and rave about how "identity politics" is the greatest threat to the country.

My question to Sam is: How many unarmed black people have to be killed, or how many trans people have to be killed for you to care about that?

What would it take for someone's point of view to matter to Sam, other than the point of view of a center-right straight white male?

Can Your Own Bad Experience Remove Your Ability to Reason?

So Sam Harris has gone all-in defending cross-burning darling-of-the-KKK Charles Murray. And this week he says James Damore’s anti-woman anti-diversity memo at Google was “innocuous” and “scientifically accurate.” WTF? Has Sam ever heard of Gamergate? Has he ever talked with a woman trying to work in tech? Would he want his daughters to have to work with someone like Damore? (1, 2) (At least Sam’s guest noted that Damore has made himself the darling of the neo-nazis and alt-right — not so “innocent.")

Sam’s reasoning seems to be: “I’ve been attacked unfairly by ‘the left,’ and I’m a great guy. Therefore, if someone is attacked by ‘the left,’ they must be a great guy, too.”

:-(

Equality

It seems like there has always been an attitude of "Kids these days!" Looking through history, crotchety adults have complained about the spoiled, lazy, disrespectful kids with their music and crazy clothes and obscene dances and "fancy new technology" (radios, telephones, etc.).

So it is easy to dismiss the book The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt as yet another in the long series of adults whining about kids these days. Yet I found a lot of interesting and useful insights in the book.

Perhaps the most relevant for me is their discussion of "safetyism," the idea that kids need to be protected from everything. This resonated with me. When EK was four years old, my mom asked what values they had learned - EK answered "kindness and safety." I still have flashbacks of three times something really bad almost happened to EK.

Lukianoff and Haidt make the point that humans are antifragile - that we need to experience stress and be tested to get stronger. Not that everything that doesn't kill us makes us stronger, but that facing (reasonable) challenges is the only way we can grow and develop. "Luckily" for EK, they've had plenty of challenges (despite my best efforts). (We were just talking about how something that happened in 2007 had a very specific influence from then on.)

Where Lukianoff and Haidt lose me is their argument against looking at outcomes when working for social justice. Their example is that under Title IX, the University of Virginia made women's rowing a varsity sport to help offset the huge (men's) football program. Their argument is that if more males are interested in sport than females, why shouldn't there be more (school-sponsored) athletic opportunities for the boys?

But how can we know that there is an inherent difference in interest? Who makes those determinations? For as long as adults have complained about kids, white males have said that girls don't like math and are more concerned with "nurturing" than having a career. (And blacks don't care about school or are "natural athletes," etc. And not just from ignorant rednecks - Nobel laureates, too, like James Watson.)

I'm not a "blank-slater" - I don't think that every human is conceived and born with equal potential in all areas. It is theoretically possible that Larry Summers is factually correct that boys have a greater standard deviation in math ability (see this for more discussion; see this for a counterpoint). But my question is: how can we know? People treat a baby - a baby - differently if that baby is dressed in pink vs blue. The same baby!

Can we really think that being treated a certain way from day one doesn't have an impact on a child's interests and subsequent "strengths"? Can we really claim that anyone who is not a straight white male is not influenced by society's stereotypes of them? It just boggles my mind that anyone would think they can measure the "natural and inherent" inclinations and skills of anyone.

This, of course, brings up Sam Harris' egomania. He paints himself and his center-right straight male friends as the only ones willing to "speak the truth." One of his "only I'm brave enough to say" claims (in addition to his bewildering ongoing insistence to talk about race and IQ) is that James Damore was "right" in his Google memo that women just don't like working with computers, so tech firms should stop trying to hire women.

I think the evidence actually does not support Damore and Harris - listen to this for an explanation (video version), and see this for proof that it doesn't have to be this way.

But regardless, can he really say that no girl could ever have an interest in coding? Here's my question to Sam: would you really want your daughters to have to work with someone with Damore's attitude?

What continues to amaze me is that straight white males spend their time defending Charles Murray or complaining that male rowers at the University of Virginia aren't varsity athletes. Do they really think these are the main injustices that need to be addressed?

More importantly, can they not see that promoting the idea of "natural" and "inherent" differences between men and women or between races supports active discrimination (you don't have to watch many videos of Nazis and white supremacists before you hear one of them pointing to Charles Murray's book The Bell Curve as "scientific proof" of racist views). Questioning underlying societal assumptions, recognizing the power of nurture and stereotypes, and working for more equality in outcomes is better than supporting the straight-white-men in control status quo.

Why Sam

Given that I complain endlessly about Sam Harris, some people have asked why I still listen to him. This podcast episode is an example of why. (But even in this powerful episode, Sam has to go on a digression where he rants that no one should talk about race, with the implication, as always, that only his straight, white, male perspective is "rational." <sigh>)

Side note: I updated my previous post to clarify that the quotes listed were from 1970.