Photo courtesy www.samharris.org
After Sam Harris and Ezra Klein had a public dispute regarding disagreements over the treatment of Charles Murray and The Bell Curve, Harris polled his followers and more than 75 percent wanted to hear the two sit down and talk about the issues at hand.
Harris began by saying the point of even having Murray on his podcast to begin with was that he wanted to explore why Murray was confronted with physical violence when he spoke at Middlebury College last year. He wanted to address the questions of free speech and shunning. Harris declared that Vox’s criticisms of him felt like a piece of political propaganda. He admitted that he was “pissed” and that he felt he had been treated unfairly by the critique.
Harris was especially critical of Vox’s use of terms such as “pseudoscience” and “racialists,” which he felt stopped just short of calling him a “racist” or even a “Nazi,” though Vox never used those terms. Harris has characterized Vox’s actions as slanderous, defamatory, dishonest and in bad faith. The two agreed that the initial offer to debate was extended by Harris, who then rescinded the offer, but then decided, after his poll, he should go forward.
The fact that these two even had this difficult conversation is admirable on both ends. It ran for a little over 2 hours and nobody got punched, but it was rough and there remained underlying disagreements on both ends.
Harris’s main points centered around the fairness of the criticisms made by Vox considering that the outcome of their piece is that it landed on Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch page right alongside folks like the Austin bomber.
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/29/hatewatch-headlines-3292018
Harris admitted he was quick to attribute bad faith to Klein because he feels “battle-scarred” by so many others misrepresenting him and trying to smear him with dishonesty by selectively clipping out this and that to suit their narrative. Harris said his fuse was too short and he regretted that.
Harris said that Vox should have at least been charitable enough to discount the notion that Harris is a racist. Klein specifically stated during the podcast, that no, he did not believe Harris is racist. Klein said he was not trying to slander Harris but that Harris was trafficking in harmful topics.
HARMFUL TOPICS
A divergence between Harris and Klein is the issue of harmful topics. Harris does not want to be restricted by intellectual taboos or topics that we just shouldn’t talk about.
Klein pointed out that Murray has been used by white supremacists to champion their ideology and that Murray continues to influence policymaking today. He also said that Harris should not have resuscitated a topic that was 25 years old. Harris countered that scientific data might be politically inconvenient, but shouldn’t we still be able look at it?
At no time did Harris say he supports Murray’s policy or even the idea that IQs are related to superiority or inferiority of any human. Harris does not believe that any race is inferior to another nor would he ever advocate for any further oppression of anyone. He pointed out that he and Klein share the same goals of improving racial inequality.
SO WHAT ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT HERE?
Klein says Harris doesn’t put this type of data into a broader context of the American experience. Harris, on the other hand, sees the data as just that—data that should not or cannot be ignored, even if it’s the best data set we have at this point in history. What can we learn from it? How do we apply it to human flourishing and racial equality to the benefit of all?
Klein answered that this type of data is harmful in that it can be misused to justify racial inequality and oppression and therefore should not be re-embraced. He chastised Harris for couching the discussion with Murray as political bravery.
But that dispute will not be resolved today.
BIAS
Klein gave a pretty scathing assessment of Harris as not being aware of his own blind spots which was probably hard for Harris to hear without steam coming out of his ears. Here are a few of his criticisms:
- Harris lacks empathy for the other side of this argument. He dismisses opposition as SJWs (Social Justice Warriors) when he should listen to their ideas.
- Harris doesn’t have enough African Americans on his podcasts.
- Harris doesn’t understand Murray as deeply as Klein does. Klein says he is a close reader of Murray’s work, has spoken with him and has reviewed his books. To Harris’s credit, Klein compliments Harris for asking Murray, “Why do you even do this?”
- Harris is quick to see bias in others but is not self-reflective. When asked by Harris to explain that bias to him, Klein says Harris is overly sensitive to identity politics and that Harris believes it contaminates everything.
- Harris sees threats to his own tribe and identity and overreacts. Harris is threatened by harm to his career but not to anyone who may be harmed by topics he addresses. Harris sees how Murray has been shunned and fears the same.
DEMONIZATION
Harris criticized Klein for contributing to the toxic environment in which people are demonized for discussing certain taboo topics. This might take the form of online mobs or it might take the form of being targeted by the SPLC, tactics which he finds dysfunctional, immoral and unethical.
Harris says in the midst of a moral panic, humans will see bigotry where it doesn’t exist. If you are determined to find bigotry and you go looking for it everywhere, you will certainly find it. To Harris, this is ethically and politically deranged.
In the end, why are we inflicting reputational harm when we could and should be assuming goodwill? Harris says we must be able to speak about science in a dispassionate way and stop sliming or smearing people for even speaking.
Vox has now published a transcript of the conversation which you may find here:
What a nicely-written review of the discussion. Thanks for articulating it so carefully.
Thank you!
Agreed, well written summary. Thank you for this.
Thank you.
Latest development: Harris got pissed off at Klein”s article, and followed through on his “threat to publish their email conversation from a year ago when Vox (not via an article written or edited by Klein) wrote about Murray”s interview. Harris is apparently under the impression that these emails will make Klein look bad, but so far the reaction on Twitter seems to be that Harris comes off as the jerk. I”m still working my way through, but I had to smile at this bit from Klein (who really does start off very nice and complimentary to Harris and his podcast): I was very prepared, reading this piece, for Murray and you and others to disagree with it. What’s confused me is the argument that the disagreement is invented, that this is all a misunderstanding. Something here is very off, and I am struggling to figure out what it is. My working theory is that there’s a strong version and a weak version of Murrayism, both are represented in the conversation, but though the strong version is emphasized in the presentation, there’s been a retreat to the weak version upon challenge. Reminds me a lot of the Sam Harris Two Step; no wonder Harris and Murray get along so well!
Nice article. I made it half way through the podcast and pretty much took away the same points. Guess I don’t need to listen to the rest since not much more was said.
I listened to the whole debate today. It was a refreshing example of what is sorely lacking in our society- two people brave enough to have a face to face conversation about a tough topic where they disagree. It didn’t devolve into something crass. More in our society need to learn from this example of how to try and create constructive dialogue between contending points of view.