Truth vs Social Reality

Reflections on the recent kerfuffle between Sam Harris and Ezra Klein

Finally — my two favorite podcasters have done a show together — and I feel like an adolescent, listening to my parents yelling at each other.

At the end of it, I guess I’m glad they have had the discussion. Not because it resolved anything between them (it didn’t) — but because I see them each in a new light.

The backstory, for those unfamiliar:

Last year, Sam Harris posted a podcast episode with his interview of Charles Murray. Murray is the author of The Bell Curve, and several other books. He’s known for his research and discussion of the fact that IQ has a statistically significant correlation with Racial heritage. Recently, he made headlines when students deplatformed him in a speaking engagement at Middlebury College.

Sam went to some length to explain that he felt great harm had been done to Murray. Sam had come to understand that Murray was simply reporting the results of reasonable scientific experiments, that he had been unjustly attacked for this, and as a result he had suffered significant damage to his career — at least to the extent Sam himself had previously passed up opportunities to join some activity because Murray was associated, and he Sam didn’t want to sully his own name with that association.

The main lesson Sam seemed to take from the discussion was that Valid Science was being suppressed by Left Wing Hysteria, people were loosing the ability to distinguish between valid scientific conclusions and Social Policy recommendations, and in an effort to affect social policy, they were throwing science and scientists under the bus. And that is bad for scientists like poor old Charles, and it’s bad for humanity (because science is too powerful a tool to discard or politicize), and it’s a grave risk for people who had the intellectual integrity to ignore the mobs, look at the actual science, and stick up for the honest scientist.

In response to this podcast, Vox published some articles that were critical of the discussion and the explicit conclusions AND IMPLICATIONS of those conclusions. Sam felt personally attacked by the articles and responded, evidently motivated by a strongly felt fear for his livelihood and reputation. (Author’s disclosure — I’ve listen to the original podcast, I’ve listened to Sam’s followup podcasts on the topic where he discusses the articles but I have only read PARTS of the articles themselves. Without having read them thoroughly, I won’t discuss them in any detail.)

Sam and Ezra had some dialog in private email about the topic. They began with the idea of doing a joint podcast but evidently the discussion broke down and they ended up not speaking to each other. The topic got hot again recently, and Sam published the email exchange — and soon thereafter acknowledged that the discussion didn’t actually do him credit. However, the final result was that Sam and Ezra reconsidered the joint podcast, and when the idea was strongly supported by their social media poll respondents, they proceeded.

The Podcast

I was sweating when the intro started rolling. Two people I admire and respect greatly were about to engage in conflict, evidently with genuine hard feelings on both sides.

I won’t recount the whole arc of the conversation. I encourage people to listen if they haven’t already — or read the transcript if that is easier.

I do want to share a couple reflections.

Frankly I think both sides are right about a lot of things, and I wish they could get it together. It’s not just that I love them both, and I hate to see them making each other suffer. But frankly, I see them as part of a larger, well, family if you will, and we will all be stronger if we can learn from them both.

Thoughts about the content

Briefly, I agree with Sam about the dangers of extremism on the left. There may be times when strong measures, including civil disobedience are necessary tools to work for justice — but what was done to Murray at Middlebury was significantly overstepping the lines, and it doesn’t help anybody. The minute and precise details of the science, which Sam wanted to focus on, should not be denied or buried — they have to be dealt with in the open. Otherwise, we lose our personal integrity, our position loses it’s legitimacy, and we’re left in a world ruled by the law of the jungle, or the rule of the mob.

That said, I feel Ezra made the stronger argument:

Ezra points out that Murray himself has extrapolated far beyond the strictly scientific observations. He continues to use his results to advocate for harmful public policy recommendations. In a perfect world where systemic racism did not exist and generations of brutal repression had not occurred, the link between his science and his policy might be legitimate — but that’s not our world. Ezra’s perspective is that Murray is vilified, not for his science, but for his role in trying to maintain the status quo and prevent people from rising above the social legacy of racism which we have all inherited, completely apart from our DNA. Murray’s scientific conclusions conveniently support this effort — and while that isn’t and shouldn’t be cause for ignoring the science or attacking its legitimacy, it does require that it be evaluated within a much larger context. Murray himself is much more than a scientist, he is public influencer with a large and well-funded platform. Focusing solely on the details of his science misses this important point.

If Murray’s science itself comes under attack, and someone like Sam feels the need to defend it — that’s fine, but it’s NOT fine to lose sight of the fact that a lot of the rest of what he says is far more questionable than his science.

In fact, looking at the full scope of Murray’s writing and his career, you might conclude that the science is important to him ONLY for it’s convenience in supporting his social prescriptions. In that circumstance, if you are defending his science, then you are, by default, allying yourself with his social agenda. If that is not your intention, then it is up to you to actively disclaim that allegiance, and to do it emphatically and immediately so as to reduce the risk of your defense being taken out of context.

Observations on the discussion itself

Sam is more susceptible to emotional disruption of his behavior. His long, repetitive rant in the prior podcast (“Extreme Housekeeping”) give you all the clues you need, but you can see it in this dialog as well. Sam is the one who uses more emotionally charged terminology, and he is more often the one interrupt and to try to hold the floor, rather than waiting his turn.

Ezra is world class debater — but he could be more persuasive if he would relax his grip on debating tactics and do more to empathize with his …well, “conversational partner”. In this case, he didn’t have a partner, he had an opponent (and a formidable one at that )— but even so, he could have defused some of the animosity, and likely gotten more acceptance or at least recognition of his points, by easing back on the sharpness of his attack.

Straw and feathers everywhere

Finally, my biggest concern — and my great sense of disappointment — is over the lost opportunity.

I remember well one moment that cemented my affection for Sam. I was listening to his show while driving, passing through the small town business district of Waterbury Vt, ostensibly looking for a parking place but really driving in circles listening to the conversation. Sam was making a point about “constructing a Steel-man view” of opposing arguments, how this was a better way to advance the discussion for so many reasons, not the least of which is that helps the debaters to maintain their own integrity as they challenge another’s idea.

I love this approach for many reasons — but twice now, in a clutch situation, Sam has let me down by NOT employing it.

The first instance was Sam’s discussion with Scott Adams. Scott basically had Sam wrapped up in knots and Sam didn’t even recognize it, because he never got the main thrust of Scott’s discussion. Scott never defended the president on any other grounds than his persuasive abilities, and while Sam went into attack mode against Scott’s perceived support of the president, he never made headway because he wasn’t directly tackling the points that Scott WAS making.

Thus the world lost the opportunity to have these two brilliant people improve their ACTUAL understanding and arguments. Scott and Sam talked past each other…at least until Scott gave up trying to convince Sam, and instead amused himself with leading Sam into one trap after another.

The episode with Ezra was similarly disappointing. Sam was so dug in on his aggressive defense that he didn’t appear to consider whether there was anything legitimate in Ezra’s arguement, and therefore failed to address any aspect of it. Once again, the two participants talked past each other — and neither side seemed to grow in understanding from the exchange. It was a sad waste of an opportunity.