What primarily killed New Atheism?

[afleitch]

Also, as I've talked about before, 'edgy' atheism is somewhat a clumsy deconstruction undertaken by people leaving faith behind. And Christians taking shots back. The fact it was and is a very American phenomenon stems from the fact that US Christianity, socially in communities and families can be a toxic environment. Being an atheist in these circles can be difficult.

[Samof94]

The Fedora and incel stuff hurt it’s image. It’s views on Islam made little sense.

[Antonio the Sixth]

People began to realize that the secular right, when given power, could be just as dangerous as the rabidly Evangelical right, and that they often aligned with one another.

Except amongst self declared atheists, Trump only got 11%. This was the lowest share amongst any religious/non religious group other than black protestants.

I don't think it helps to mix up a few prominent online voices with the views of atheists. That's as disingenuous as saying church leaders 'represent' the laity.

But this thread is specifically about New Atheism, not atheism in general. I don't think New Atheists are representative of the average self-described atheist, but that's precisely the point.

[afleitch]

People began to realize that the secular right, when given power, could be just as dangerous as the rabidly Evangelical right, and that they often aligned with one another.

Except amongst self declared atheists, Trump only got 11%. This was the lowest share amongst any religious/non religious group other than black protestants.

I don't think it helps to mix up a few prominent online voices with the views of atheists. That's as disingenuous as saying church leaders 'represent' the laity.

But this thread is specifically about New Atheism, not atheism in general. I don't think New Atheists are representative of the average self-described atheist, but that's precisely the point.

It still requires defining New Atheist online voices as 'the New Atheists' not people who define themselves as atheist, 'new' or 'new adjacent' or otherwise. There were probably more individuals involved with the Westboro Baptist Church than were online figures of note for atheism for a hot second in 2010.

The people who knew the most, talked the most, engaged the most and lined the pockets the most of New Atheists were Christians and Christian educational institutions in particular.

[James Monroe]

People began to realize that the secular right, when given power, could be just as dangerous as the rabidly Evangelical right, and that they often aligned with one another.

Except amongst self declared atheists, Trump only got 11%. This was the lowest share amongst any religious/non religious group other than black protestants.

I don't think it helps to mix up a few prominent online voices with the views of atheists. That's as disingenuous as saying church leaders 'represent' the laity.

No group despises Trump more than the secular community. It's been getting threats by all of his cabinet and judicial appointments who were Fundies who wanted to restore the Bush-Era policies of being guided by the church. In fact, you can't find a prominent actual conservative opening to admitting being an atheist because the Fox News jargon wants nothing more than to purge atheists off the face of the Earth. In the end the secular community has won the battles that were hot debates in the 2000s, and that is something organized faith should be suspicious of, as they decline into irrelevance in the later 21th century.

[Antonio the Sixth]

People began to realize that the secular right, when given power, could be just as dangerous as the rabidly Evangelical right, and that they often aligned with one another.

Except amongst self declared atheists, Trump only got 11%. This was the lowest share amongst any religious/non religious group other than black protestants.

I don't think it helps to mix up a few prominent online voices with the views of atheists. That's as disingenuous as saying church leaders 'represent' the laity.

But this thread is specifically about New Atheism, not atheism in general. I don't think New Atheists are representative of the average self-described atheist, but that's precisely the point.

It still requires defining New Atheist online voices as 'the New Atheists' not people who define themselves as atheist, 'new' or 'new adjacent' or otherwise. There were probably more individuals involved with the Westboro Baptist Church than were online figures of note for atheism for a hot second in 2010.

The people who knew the most, talked the most, engaged the most and lined the pockets the most of New Atheists were Christians and Christian educational institutions in particular.

I mean, obviously it's not the kind of thing that can be defined rigorously, but I think most people understand what they mean when they say "New Atheist". There was a pretty specific phenomenon of very aggressive atheists in the 2000s and 2010s who had Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens as their ideological ringleaders and were famous for being mostly devoted to celebrating their own supposed intellectual superiority. I don't have statistics on this, but anecdotal experience suggests a disproportionate number of these people drifted toward the alt-right during the second half of the past decade (including Harris himself, of course) and have largely become irrelevant clowns in the process.

[John Dule]

People began to realize that the secular right, when given power, could be just as dangerous as the rabidly Evangelical right, and that they often aligned with one another.

Except amongst self declared atheists, Trump only got 11%. This was the lowest share amongst any religious/non religious group other than black protestants.

I don't think it helps to mix up a few prominent online voices with the views of atheists. That's as disingenuous as saying church leaders 'represent' the laity.

But this thread is specifically about New Atheism, not atheism in general. I don't think New Atheists are representative of the average self-described atheist, but that's precisely the point.

It still requires defining New Atheist online voices as 'the New Atheists' not people who define themselves as atheist, 'new' or 'new adjacent' or otherwise. There were probably more individuals involved with the Westboro Baptist Church than were online figures of note for atheism for a hot second in 2010.

The people who knew the most, talked the most, engaged the most and lined the pockets the most of New Atheists were Christians and Christian educational institutions in particular.

I mean, obviously it's not the kind of thing that can be defined rigorously, but I think most people understand what they mean when they say "New Atheist". There was a pretty specific phenomenon of very aggressive atheists in the 2000s and 2010s who had Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens as their ideological ringleaders and were famous for being mostly devoted to celebrating their own supposed intellectual superiority. I don't have statistics on this, but anecdotal experience suggests a disproportionate number of these people drifted toward the alt-right during the second half of the past decade (including Harris himself, of course) and have largely become irrelevant clowns in the process.

To call Sam Harris "alt-right" is to pretty much rob the term of its meaning.

[afleitch]

People began to realize that the secular right, when given power, could be just as dangerous as the rabidly Evangelical right, and that they often aligned with one another.

Except amongst self declared atheists, Trump only got 11%. This was the lowest share amongst any religious/non religious group other than black protestants.

I don't think it helps to mix up a few prominent online voices with the views of atheists. That's as disingenuous as saying church leaders 'represent' the laity.

But this thread is specifically about New Atheism, not atheism in general. I don't think New Atheists are representative of the average self-described atheist, but that's precisely the point.

It still requires defining New Atheist online voices as 'the New Atheists' not people who define themselves as atheist, 'new' or 'new adjacent' or otherwise. There were probably more individuals involved with the Westboro Baptist Church than were online figures of note for atheism for a hot second in 2010.

The people who knew the most, talked the most, engaged the most and lined the pockets the most of New Atheists were Christians and Christian educational institutions in particular.

I mean, obviously it's not the kind of thing that can be defined rigorously, but I think most people understand what they mean when they say "New Atheist". There was a pretty specific phenomenon of very aggressive atheists in the 2000s and 2010s who had Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens as their ideological ringleaders and were famous for being mostly devoted to celebrating their own supposed intellectual superiority. I don't have statistics on this, but anecdotal experience suggests a disproportionate number of these people drifted toward the alt-right during the second half of the past decade (including Harris himself, of course) and have largely become irrelevant clowns in the process.

Well Gary Wolf is credited with coining the phrase in about 2006 ish. He 'initiated' three; Dawkins, Harris and Dennett, none of whom were Trump supporters, Dennett especially. Dawkins and Harris in particular drifted into 'muh centrism' ambivalence.

Add in Hitchens, who is dead.

No one else was really that prolific. Boghossian maybe, who ended up a centrist chud but not a Trump supporter and Hirsi Ali who we can say went off on a tangent.

People conflate New Atheist players with the 'IDW' grift, but there's not that much of an overlap other than very early interactions between people like Dave Rubin interviewing say, Stephen Fry long before his audience capture.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Harris is literally talking about genetic causes for Black crime rates. If this doesn't make you alt-right, then the term has no meaning.

I'm baffled that so many people seem to cling on this idea of Sam Harris as a Respectable Intellectual with some cringe takes, rather than the racist crackpot he's turned into. It's like people can't shake off the mental image they made of him a decade ago when he was less far gone and/or more mask-on. There's a similar phenomenon with Glen Greenwald in some circles.

[John Dule]

Harris is literally talking about genetic causes for Black crime rates. If this doesn't make you alt-right, then the term has no meaning.

As far as I am aware, Harris has never professed such views. He hosted Charles Murray on his podcast-- a questionable decision, perhaps, but definitely not a blanket endorsement of everything his guest has ever written or said. Maybe there is some other controversy I'm not aware of, but this is the only time that race comes up on Harris' Wiki page.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Harris is literally talking about genetic causes for Black crime rates. If this doesn't make you alt-right, then the term has no meaning.

As far as I am aware, Harris has never professed such views. He hosted Charles Murray on his podcast-- a questionable decision, perhaps, but definitely not a blanket endorsement of everything his guest has ever written or said. Maybe there is some other controversy I'm not aware of, but this is the only time that race comes up on Harris' Wiki page.

I distinctly remember him strongly signaling agreement with these views in multiple instances, but obviously I don't remember those since I don't think about it very much. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but he's at the very least heavily leaning in that direction.

[John Dule]

Harris is literally talking about genetic causes for Black crime rates. If this doesn't make you alt-right, then the term has no meaning.

As far as I am aware, Harris has never professed such views. He hosted Charles Murray on his podcast-- a questionable decision, perhaps, but definitely not a blanket endorsement of everything his guest has ever written or said. Maybe there is some other controversy I'm not aware of, but this is the only time that race comes up on Harris' Wiki page.

I distinctly remember him strongly signaling agreement with these views in multiple instances, but obviously I don't remember those since I don't think about it very much. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but he's at the very least heavily leaning in that direction.

From what I've heard, most of the accusations of racism levied against Harris hinge upon his attacks on Islam, especially on Bill Maher's show a few years back. I always thought these were totally baseless and unsubstantiated.

[Ferguson97]

#9, it was (mostly) just a trend.

Also going to give a write-in response: irreligiosity being more broadly accepted gave these people less reason to be so aggressive about their views.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It won so hard that the issues it discussed started seeming anachronistic.

This. The Bush era evangelical conservatism that the New Atheists mobilised against had massively discredited itself by the end of the 00s. In the 10s secularism was so ascendant that being a New Atheist was passé because, what were you railing against exactly?

     Yep. As someone who was an atheist through the entire lifespan of the New Atheist movement and who consumed a lot of its content, a lot of atheist writers moved on to other topics around 2012-14, when it became clear that the Religious Right they were critiquing was rapidly losing power in mainstream American discourse and some of the movement's leaders pivoted into Atheism Plus. Atheism Plus was divisive among prominent atheists and spurred a larger shift towards focusing on politics. By 2016, it got to the point that even most atheists did not take you seriously if you were still focused on railing against evangelicals.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Harris is literally talking about genetic causes for Black crime rates. If this doesn't make you alt-right, then the term has no meaning.

As far as I am aware, Harris has never professed such views. He hosted Charles Murray on his podcast-- a questionable decision, perhaps, but definitely not a blanket endorsement of everything his guest has ever written or said. Maybe there is some other controversy I'm not aware of, but this is the only time that race comes up on Harris' Wiki page.

I distinctly remember him strongly signaling agreement with these views in multiple instances, but obviously I don't remember those since I don't think about it very much. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but he's at the very least heavily leaning in that direction.

From what I've heard, most of the accusations of racism levied against Harris hinge upon his attacks on Islam, especially on Bill Maher's show a few years back. I always thought these were totally baseless and unsubstantiated.

As far back as a decade or so ago Harris openly supported racial profiling, including--self-admittedly--of himself if need be (Harris being Jewish and Jews, famously, looking a lot like Arabs in many cases). On the other hand, this was in the context of his opposition to Islam, so I suppose an argument could be made that it was an unseemly combination of an anti-Muslim view and a hyper-utilitarian view, rather than a racist view per se.

[John Dule]

Harris is literally talking about genetic causes for Black crime rates. If this doesn't make you alt-right, then the term has no meaning.

As far as I am aware, Harris has never professed such views. He hosted Charles Murray on his podcast-- a questionable decision, perhaps, but definitely not a blanket endorsement of everything his guest has ever written or said. Maybe there is some other controversy I'm not aware of, but this is the only time that race comes up on Harris' Wiki page.

I distinctly remember him strongly signaling agreement with these views in multiple instances, but obviously I don't remember those since I don't think about it very much. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but he's at the very least heavily leaning in that direction.

From what I've heard, most of the accusations of racism levied against Harris hinge upon his attacks on Islam, especially on Bill Maher's show a few years back. I always thought these were totally baseless and unsubstantiated.

As far back as a decade or so ago Harris openly supported racial profiling, including--self-admittedly--of himself if need be (Harris being Jewish and Jews, famously, looking a lot like Arabs in many cases). On the other hand, this was in the context of his opposition to Islam, so I suppose an argument could be made that it was an unseemly combination of an anti-Muslim view and a hyper-utilitarian view, rather than a racist view per se.

That's still many orders of magnitude away from endorsing phrenology or whatever Antonio is asserting. While I generally have little patience for people who reflexively embraced civil liberties violations during the Bush era, they were not necessarily motivated by racial animus.

[Sol]

I think this is probably because the perception of self-identified atheism among people younger than twenty-five or so is no longer dominated by people like Dawkins, Harris, etc. That and the fact that it's especially clear in very-young online spaces that "nothing in particular" says nothing about one's actual views and that plenty of people who describe themselves that way are at least as nonrational in their approach to fundamental questions as most religious people.

I think that's a good point. The growth in self-identifying as atheist (which when I saw this data actually took me by surprise) amongst younger GenZ is probably in part due to interacting with peers who aren't Christian or another established faith, but certainly dabble with other spiritual beliefs; pagan, tarot etc. So there's a need to define as more than just 'nothing in particular'.

There is also a tendency in American discourse to have a want to categorise 'nothings' (and atheists responding 'nothing') as potential Christians under the surface. I think because the US has been so defined by religious adherence and experienced a young boomer religious revival when Europe did not, that's there's an expectation that something similar is around the corner which while not entirely out of the question, is more likely just to be nothing more than standard western secularisation. Studies of millennials have showed that in general there isn't a return to faith, even when establishing families and having children.

Something I've been thinking about recently is how in the U.S. it seems like much of the drift into secularism has been more of a drift into a sort of more loosy-goosy, East Asian style mixing and matching of religious traditions.

For example, nearly 30% of Americans believe in Astrology, about a third believe in reincarnation, and over 40% believe in psychics. These are all classic New Age beliefs--which, incidentally, makes a fairly convincing argument that New Age is the second largest religious tradition in the U.S. by a lot-- but a lot of these people holding these beliefs are Christians. Similarly, a lot of non-Hindus practice yoga, a lot of non-Christians celebrate Christmas, etc. Looked at from this light, the increasing phenomenon of self-identified "Christians" as opposed to Protestants or Catholics or the commonality of people who say things like "I'm not religious, I just have a relationship with Jesus Christ" illustrate how Christianity is molding itself to fit the current moment.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I couldn't find the specific clip I remember of him peddling quasi-phrenological bullsh*t (and I'm not going to listen to hours of his pseudointellectual ramblings to find it again) but I found this, which goes into a bit more detail as to what went on with Charles Murray (spoiler: it's not just about muh platforming, he's actively laundering his views). Have fun dismissing that too I guess.

[John Dule]

I couldn't find the specific clip I remember of him peddling quasi-phrenological bullsh*t (and I'm not going to listen to hours of his pseudointellectual ramblings to find it again) but I found this, which goes into a bit more detail as to what went on with Charles Murray (spoiler: it's not just about muh platforming, he's actively laundering his views). Have fun dismissing that too I guess.

I am studying at the moment, but I took a few minutes to look over that article. From what I read, it doesn't sound like the author is attacking the claim that there is a correlation between race and IQ-- it sounds like he is arguing that the correlation exists and is mostly due to environmental and not genetic factors. Is that an accurate summary? I find that interesting because the phrase "race and IQ" is so loaded with horrific connotations, and it's surprising that someone from Vox would ever claim the existence of such a correlation.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I couldn't find the specific clip I remember of him peddling quasi-phrenological bullsh*t (and I'm not going to listen to hours of his pseudointellectual ramblings to find it again) but I found this, which goes into a bit more detail as to what went on with Charles Murray (spoiler: it's not just about muh platforming, he's actively laundering his views). Have fun dismissing that too I guess.

I am studying at the moment, but I took a few minutes to look over that article. From what I read, it doesn't sound like the author is attacking the claim that there is a correlation between race and IQ-- it sounds like he is arguing that the correlation exists and is mostly due to environmental and not genetic factors. Is that an accurate summary? I find that interesting because the phrase "race and IQ" is so loaded with horrific connotations, and it's surprising that someone from Vox would ever claim the existence of such a correlation.

Yes, that is an accurate summary, and I'm pretty sure it's the consensus in sociology? As far as I've heard; no one denies that there is a correlation between race and IQ (although, tellingly, it's significantly weaker now than it was when The Bell Curve came out). The point is that IQ is largely a measure of educational attainment and other cultural factors that shape people's cognitive development (and which are, in turn, largely a product of family wealth, hence why it's not surprising at all that Black people perform lower on average). The idea that it measures some innate, intrinsic, culturally-invariant intelligence is where the pseudoscience comes in.

[John Dule]

I couldn't find the specific clip I remember of him peddling quasi-phrenological bullsh*t (and I'm not going to listen to hours of his pseudointellectual ramblings to find it again) but I found this, which goes into a bit more detail as to what went on with Charles Murray (spoiler: it's not just about muh platforming, he's actively laundering his views). Have fun dismissing that too I guess.

I am studying at the moment, but I took a few minutes to look over that article. From what I read, it doesn't sound like the author is attacking the claim that there is a correlation between race and IQ-- it sounds like he is arguing that the correlation exists and is mostly due to environmental and not genetic factors. Is that an accurate summary? I find that interesting because the phrase "race and IQ" is so loaded with horrific connotations, and it's surprising that someone from Vox would ever claim the existence of such a correlation.

Yes, that is an accurate summary, and I'm pretty sure it's the consensus in sociology? As far as I've heard; no one denies that there is a correlation between race and IQ (although, tellingly, it's significantly weaker now than it was when The Bell Curve came out). The point is that IQ is largely a measure of educational attainment and other cultural factors that shape people's cognitive development (and which are, in turn, largely a product of family wealth, hence why it's not surprising at all that Black people perform lower on average). The idea that it measures some innate, intrinsic, culturally-invariant intelligence is where the pseudoscience comes in.

An individual person's IQ score can shift outside a few standard deviations just depending on how much stress they're under or how much sleep they've had. It's clearly not a measure of innate or biological intelligence. I have never read anything by Charles Murray, but if that's what he says then it is definitely BS.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I couldn't find the specific clip I remember of him peddling quasi-phrenological bullsh*t (and I'm not going to listen to hours of his pseudointellectual ramblings to find it again) but I found this, which goes into a bit more detail as to what went on with Charles Murray (spoiler: it's not just about muh platforming, he's actively laundering his views). Have fun dismissing that too I guess.

I am studying at the moment, but I took a few minutes to look over that article. From what I read, it doesn't sound like the author is attacking the claim that there is a correlation between race and IQ-- it sounds like he is arguing that the correlation exists and is mostly due to environmental and not genetic factors. Is that an accurate summary? I find that interesting because the phrase "race and IQ" is so loaded with horrific connotations, and it's surprising that someone from Vox would ever claim the existence of such a correlation.

Yes, that is an accurate summary, and I'm pretty sure it's the consensus in sociology? As far as I've heard; no one denies that there is a correlation between race and IQ (although, tellingly, it's significantly weaker now than it was when The Bell Curve came out). The point is that IQ is largely a measure of educational attainment and other cultural factors that shape people's cognitive development (and which are, in turn, largely a product of family wealth, hence why it's not surprising at all that Black people perform lower on average). The idea that it measures some innate, intrinsic, culturally-invariant intelligence is where the pseudoscience comes in.

An individual person's IQ score can shift outside a few standard deviations just depending on how much stress they're under or how much sleep they've had. It's clearly not a measure of innate or biological intelligence. I have never read anything by Charles Murray, but if that's what he says then it is definitely BS.

This is quoted verbatim from Sam Harris in that conversation (emphasis mine):

People don’t want to hear that a person's intelligence is in large measure due to his or her genes and there seems to be very little we can do environmentally to increase a person's intelligence even in childhood. It's not that the environment doesn't matter, but genes appear to be 50 to 80 percent of the story. People don't want to hear this. And they certainly don't want to hear that average IQ differs across races and ethnic groups.

Now, for better or worse, these are all facts. In fact, there is almost nothing in psychological science for which there is more evidence than these claims. About IQ, about the validity of testing for it, about its importance in the real world, about its heritability, and about its differential expression in different populations.

Again, this is what a dispassionate look at [what] decades of research suggest. Unfortunately, the controversy over The Bell Curve did not result from legitimate, good-faith criticisms of its major claims. Rather, it was the product of a politically correct moral panic that totally engulfed Murray's career and has yet to release him.

I take it we agree that he's a pseudointellectual hack peddling something that dangerously approaches phrenology, then?

[John Dule]

I couldn't find the specific clip I remember of him peddling quasi-phrenological bullsh*t (and I'm not going to listen to hours of his pseudointellectual ramblings to find it again) but I found this, which goes into a bit more detail as to what went on with Charles Murray (spoiler: it's not just about muh platforming, he's actively laundering his views). Have fun dismissing that too I guess.

I am studying at the moment, but I took a few minutes to look over that article. From what I read, it doesn't sound like the author is attacking the claim that there is a correlation between race and IQ-- it sounds like he is arguing that the correlation exists and is mostly due to environmental and not genetic factors. Is that an accurate summary? I find that interesting because the phrase "race and IQ" is so loaded with horrific connotations, and it's surprising that someone from Vox would ever claim the existence of such a correlation.

Yes, that is an accurate summary, and I'm pretty sure it's the consensus in sociology? As far as I've heard; no one denies that there is a correlation between race and IQ (although, tellingly, it's significantly weaker now than it was when The Bell Curve came out). The point is that IQ is largely a measure of educational attainment and other cultural factors that shape people's cognitive development (and which are, in turn, largely a product of family wealth, hence why it's not surprising at all that Black people perform lower on average). The idea that it measures some innate, intrinsic, culturally-invariant intelligence is where the pseudoscience comes in.

An individual person's IQ score can shift outside a few standard deviations just depending on how much stress they're under or how much sleep they've had. It's clearly not a measure of innate or biological intelligence. I have never read anything by Charles Murray, but if that's what he says then it is definitely BS.

This is quoted verbatim from Sam Harris in that conversation (emphasis mine):

People don’t want to hear that a person's intelligence is in large measure due to his or her genes and there seems to be very little we can do environmentally to increase a person's intelligence even in childhood. It's not that the environment doesn't matter, but genes appear to be 50 to 80 percent of the story. People don't want to hear this. And they certainly don't want to hear that average IQ differs across races and ethnic groups.

Now, for better or worse, these are all facts. In fact, there is almost nothing in psychological science for which there is more evidence than these claims. About IQ, about the validity of testing for it, about its importance in the real world, about its heritability, and about its differential expression in different populations.

Again, this is what a dispassionate look at [what] decades of research suggest. Unfortunately, the controversy over The Bell Curve did not result from legitimate, good-faith criticisms of its major claims. Rather, it was the product of a politically correct moral panic that totally engulfed Murray's career and has yet to release him.

I take it we agree that he's a pseudointellectual hack peddling something that dangerously approaches phrenology, then?

Does that imply IQ is genetic, or merely the more general quality of "intelligence?" I have zero training in biology, so I couldn't tell you if the 50/80/whatever statistic is right. Obviously some component of intelligence is hereditable though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I couldn't find the specific clip I remember of him peddling quasi-phrenological bullsh*t (and I'm not going to listen to hours of his pseudointellectual ramblings to find it again) but I found this, which goes into a bit more detail as to what went on with Charles Murray (spoiler: it's not just about muh platforming, he's actively laundering his views). Have fun dismissing that too I guess.

I am studying at the moment, but I took a few minutes to look over that article. From what I read, it doesn't sound like the author is attacking the claim that there is a correlation between race and IQ-- it sounds like he is arguing that the correlation exists and is mostly due to environmental and not genetic factors. Is that an accurate summary? I find that interesting because the phrase "race and IQ" is so loaded with horrific connotations, and it's surprising that someone from Vox would ever claim the existence of such a correlation.

Yes, that is an accurate summary, and I'm pretty sure it's the consensus in sociology? As far as I've heard; no one denies that there is a correlation between race and IQ (although, tellingly, it's significantly weaker now than it was when The Bell Curve came out). The point is that IQ is largely a measure of educational attainment and other cultural factors that shape people's cognitive development (and which are, in turn, largely a product of family wealth, hence why it's not surprising at all that Black people perform lower on average). The idea that it measures some innate, intrinsic, culturally-invariant intelligence is where the pseudoscience comes in.

An individual person's IQ score can shift outside a few standard deviations just depending on how much stress they're under or how much sleep they've had. It's clearly not a measure of innate or biological intelligence. I have never read anything by Charles Murray, but if that's what he says then it is definitely BS.

This is quoted verbatim from Sam Harris in that conversation (emphasis mine):

People don’t want to hear that a person's intelligence is in large measure due to his or her genes and there seems to be very little we can do environmentally to increase a person's intelligence even in childhood. It's not that the environment doesn't matter, but genes appear to be 50 to 80 percent of the story. People don't want to hear this. And they certainly don't want to hear that average IQ differs across races and ethnic groups.

Now, for better or worse, these are all facts. In fact, there is almost nothing in psychological science for which there is more evidence than these claims. About IQ, about the validity of testing for it, about its importance in the real world, about its heritability, and about its differential expression in different populations.

Again, this is what a dispassionate look at [what] decades of research suggest. Unfortunately, the controversy over The Bell Curve did not result from legitimate, good-faith criticisms of its major claims. Rather, it was the product of a politically correct moral panic that totally engulfed Murray's career and has yet to release him.

I take it we agree that he's a pseudointellectual hack peddling something that dangerously approaches phrenology, then?

Does that imply IQ is genetic, or merely the more general quality of "intelligence?" I have zero training in biology, so I couldn't tell you if the 50/80/whatever statistic is right. Obviously some component of intelligence is hereditable though.

I mean sure, there's probably a genetic component, but he's clearly saying much more than that in this passage, and this is all in the context of the discussion around IQ. And then in the very next sentence he's implying that there's a correlation between that and race.

It's really not hard to draw the implications of what he's saying and I can't help feeling like you're being deliberately obtuse to avoid it.

[John Dule]

I mean sure, there's probably a genetic component, but he's clearly saying much more than that in this passage, and this is all in the context of the discussion around IQ. And then in the very next sentence he's implying that there's a correlation between that and race.

It's really not hard to draw the implications of what he's saying and I can't help feeling like you're being deliberately obtuse to avoid it.

It's possible that people like Harris stop right before the line because they don't want to "say the quiet part out loud" and give away their true beliefs. But it's also possible that they just choose their words very carefully because they genuinely don't believe in the interpretations you're drawing. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here, mostly because Harris and people like him are very good at making their opponents look like they're jumping to conclusions if they don't respond precisely to the letter of what they've said.

But this all started because you said Harris was "alt-right," and I still don't see that he was involved in the alt-right movement at all based on the evidence you've drawn my attention to.