Sam Harris & Ezra Klein Embroiled in Melodrama. Or Murray-drama
This post directly addresses one conversation only — the podcast where Ezra Klein and Sam Harris aired their respective points of view on the subject of Charles Murray, including Murray’s earlier interview with Harris and Vox’s subsequent response.
The backstory: The whole brouhaha started when Sam Harris invited Charles Murray onto his podcast to discuss Murray’s research. The research asserts among other things that there are inherited racial differences in intelligence and black Americans don’t fare as well in the IQ genetics game. Subsequently, the team at Vox where Ezra Klein was Editor in Chief wrote an article in vitriolic opposition. Sam Harris accused Vox of anti-science identity politics.
After a negotiation fraught with stepped-on toes and bruised egos, Harris and Klein agreed to record a podcast together and air their respective points of view. Feel free to listen, but I can save you the trouble. Here’s the roll up on the points it took them both two hours to make:
Sam Harris: We shouldn’t be afraid to discuss a study, even if the data suggest “forbidden knowledge” that identity politics abhors. Ignoring data is the opposite of science and precludes scientific advancement. Shame on all you people politicizing science.
Ezra Klein: We should be very careful to have discussions about a study that seems to confirm stereotypes about a minority group which has been subjugated and maligned throughout history. We are dealing with a toxic past and that context matters.
The podcast caused an eruption of articles written by people picking sides, including post-show wrap ups by Harris and Vox. Most overflow with charts and graphs and statistical proofs, although some are super interesting.
I’m not a statistician, but my job includes explaining the work of statisticians and economists and technologists. From that crucible of experience, two points emerge that make up a fairly large portion of my intense upset over this whole thing.
Since we’re on the topic of whole things, let me bring your attention to the universe we live in, which all data describes.
I’ll start from the vantage point of the solar system.
Point #1: No data set reveals timeless and universal truth. What you saw with your own two eyes also does not reveal timeless and universal truth.
In the summer of 1894, Percival Lowell looked through his telescope and saw “artificial canals” on Mars. He wrote about these canals and managed to inspire a whole genre of science fiction featuring Martians up to no good.
One of those who didn’t like Lowell was Alfred Wallace. Wallace attacked Lowell’s conclusions with a list of logical flaws, including the ridiculous irrationality of constructing a vast canal system where evaporation, on a good day, would use up ten times the supply of possible water. There was a whole list of other well-considered counterarguments.
But Lowell could not be swayed. He said his observatory and telescope were the best in the world and reacted with distain to anyone who disagreed with his facts. Facts which he had images to prove. Many people, including scientists, saw those diagrams and stood by Lowell, despite the excellent questions raised by Wallace.
In 1965 the dispute was resolved when NASA took photos of Mars. No canals.
So what had Lowell been seeing? The answer turned out to be the veins inside his eyes. Lowell had messed up the settings on his telescope so his retina was reflected onto the lens. His maps of Martian canals were mirror images of the blood vessels in his own eyeballs.
No telescope is more powerful than the prejudice of the person looking through it. We can see what we expect to see even when it doesn’t exist. We are also fully capable of ignoring the unexpected or unwelcome even when we’re staring right at it.
There’s plenty of examples where science-backed “evidence-based” conclusions which persisted for decades or centuries. And later turned out to be totally bogus:
- Vioxx is safe
- Woman getting hysterectomies as an almost standard medical procedure
- Bloodletting
- Ulcers are caused by spicy food and there are no bacteria in the stomach
- The Smeaton Coefficient, which was entirely wrong and hampered the invention of airplanes for decades until the Wright Brothers were naive enough to not know about it.
- The work of Judah Folkman, who eventually revolutionized cancer treatment. Everyone thought he was a crackpot for years.
As said so well by Kevin Ashton, “Prevailing ideas are fortified by incumbency and familiarity, no matter how ridiculous they may seem later … Our perception will always be limited by what we can detect and how we understand it.”
Obviously, the data spotlighted by Murray align perfectly with the prevailing ideas and political agenda he has trumpeted for decades.
When condemning a race, an entire population of people, to a diminished IQ, certain authors and podcasters should be very careful to recognize they might be seeing the reflection of their own eyeballs.
As Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Murray makes an extraordinary claim. It requires proof much more extraordinary than a book written by two guys in the early 90’s, no matter how well researched and statistically significant. This is simply insufficient to earn the label of indisputable truth twenty five years later.
Point #2: What we choose to look at is what we see.
This whole conversation reminds me of Francis Galton, the forefather of eugenics who redefined the term “genius” to mean a rare inherited gift of intelligence … and conveniently, the things that constituted intelligence were often exclusively limited to things white men were taught or knew. Before Galton, the definition of “genius” meant “spirit” or “soul.”
If I were a bird I would consider genius the ability to capture air foils really well, to fly gracefully and long distances. And every white male, every human, would be judged super stupid by that standard.
But let’s bring this back to humans: Amazing carpenters or welders or weavers or smiths or potters or painters or major league ball players. People not known for their spectacular scholarship, yet true geniuses creating feats of magic with their probably lackluster IQs.
IQ in this larger context feels like an arbitrary and artificial marker. There’s more research than the entire body of Charles Murray’s work times a thousand that proves how people can be smart in multiple ways. IQ measures only one of them.
Seth Godin did a whole manifesto on the vitalness of critical thinking, which is not a synonym for IQ.
All the books and articles on Emotional Intelligence and why it may matter more than IQ.
I love this quote from Astro Teller, “Perspective shifts will unlock more than smartness will.” Steve Jobs is attributed similar statements.
Furthermore, it’s well known that the smartest teams are ones where diverse individuals work well together. And smart teams outperform smart individuals any and every day of the week.
So why are Murray and Harris hyper-focused on individual IQ? Who plucked this one random measure from the great book of measures in the sky and decided it was worth a couple hours of airtime to a mass audience and Charles Murray on a speaking tour?
Maybe someone who enjoys himself a little epistemic closure. Maybe someone with a complete lack of understanding relative to what ends will be served with his conclusions. Or a complete understanding, more likely.
Seriously. If you tell someone they are low IQ enough times they actually get a low IQ. It’s called a self-fulfilling prophecy, and is especially prophetic if used as a basis for governmental policy. What did Spiderman’s uncle say? “With power comes great responsibility.” A microphone is power.
Show some respect for the scale of your podium, Sam Harris. Show some respect for the universe.
