Sam Harris Questions
Added 2024-01-27 06:00:23 +0000 UTCWe will have a second episode with Sam soon. He probably will have some objections to things we said on our decoding episode and we have various points we want to raise with him (Chris a lot more than Matt).
We really can’t promise anything, as it’s likely we won’t get through our own questions but just wondering if any of you have any burning questions you would *like* us to ask.
Again, given how it went last time ***it’s very unlikely we are going to get to listeners’ questions*** but nonetheless interested in any suggestions.
Comments
Rory did a better job than we did and he did concede there are other motivations that are relevant from the get go which is quite a shift.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-02-07 01:28:35 +0000 UTCIn the latest Making Sense episode, Rory Stewart pushes back on Sam's views about Muslim religious extremism being the primary source of violence in the middle east. Sam engages on this, but not so forcefully as he usually does, and seems to concede to some meaningful extent Rory Stewart's viewpoint, which is more in line with those for whom Sam has previously chastised from what I can recall. Seems like Stewart has already done much of any work Matt and Chris might do with Sam on this point.
Maytree
2024-02-07 01:20:55 +0000 UTCHas he read South Africa's case for Israeli genocide against the Palestinian people at the ICJ, or listened to the proceedings, and what does he think of it
Kat
2024-02-04 23:13:49 +0000 UTCI wish Christianity was “girly” since the majority of people in Southern U.S. where I live are Christians. Some are people I’m happy to call friends and family. Others are scary people whose ideas do not differ that much from radical Islamists.
Linda Sears
2024-02-04 17:03:56 +0000 UTCHas he read the Radley Balko article (on his Substack) which completely eviscerates Coleman Hughes and (by extension) Bari Weiss and her Free Press regarding Derek Chauvin and the murder of George Floyd? Did it make him rethink his opinion of any of them as thinkers, journalists, and good faith actors? Link: https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-retconning-of-george-floyd
Randy
2024-02-01 22:12:11 +0000 UTCI agree it does seem very one sided. I would want to listen to those who can take the entire complex situation in and provide a balanced analysis or insight, something that I feel someone like Hitch could do in an illuminating way back in the day. Sam is recently going out of his way to make it clear he is aligned with Douglas Murray. Douglas tends to throw me into a fit of whataboutisms because his ideas are so lopsided. Instead of a balanced insight, what I hear from Murray is always a return serve back to the Left, where the Left often seems to be some unknown kid in Brooklyn with a political sticker on the back of his SUV. Sam seems to be following suit with this partisan stance.
Mark
2024-02-01 01:12:16 +0000 UTCOn Israel/Palestine, Sam seems fixated on the those who he says are explicitly and admittedly pro-Hamas, particularly in universities and other high-cultural institutions, evidenced by demonstrations at a few elite universities, and the answers given by university presidents before Congress. My question is, how much relevance does this have to the debate? Is it not likely that a large portion of people on the left actually do condemn what Hamas did on October 7, but also disagree with the policies of Israel vis-a-vis the Palistinians? Why doesn't he discuss what is wrong with that, to me, more thoughtful viewpoint, and why not take that on instead of what seems more like a straw man to easily knock down. Interestingly, his latest argument in the 5 myths podcast from yesterday seems more extreme and self assured than such a nuanced position. He says -- as he admits repeatedly that he knows that it "sounds like war propaganda," that the Gaza war is essentially a necessary evil, and large swaths of innocent civilians, including children, are unfortunately necessarily going to die in order to win the war, and that there's even likely to be war crimes committed, but all that is rationalized given the evil we (the West) is dealing with. . . . . Perhaps this discussion is not particularly relevant to the Guru issues, as it is all pretty political (though I don't think Sam would agree), but it does strike me that there is something lacking here in the analysis, as his position seems close to the more right wing views in the governing Israeli administration.
Maytree
2024-01-31 02:01:47 +0000 UTCAlso, on a recent appearance with Piers Morgan, he (Sam) appears to invent the word "tragesty." This isn't a question. I just think it's a good word. (I'm not suggesting he did it on purpose)
Randy
2024-01-30 21:30:31 +0000 UTCI see. So Sam has consciously examined his unconscious bias. How very enlightened of him... must be all that meditation he does...
Artemis Green
2024-01-30 13:12:29 +0000 UTCIf Sam was a woman, I wonder if he would have made those comments he got pilloried for about women not being drawn to the 'critical posture' of the new athiests because it doesn't have 'this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men'. As much as I don't like essentialising or universalising what it means to be a woman... I can't help but instinctively feel that if he was one, he'd know that the reason most of us weren't drawn to the new athiests movement was not that we like nurturing... it's that most of us have had more than our fair share of self-described intellectual men explaining the world to us and we tend to find it tedious and arrogant rather than impressive :P (source: https://www.samharris.org/blog/im-not-the-sexist-pig-youre-looking-for)
Artemis Green
2024-01-30 13:10:47 +0000 UTCSam has pointed to national data re: police killings to claim there is no evidence of racism in police killings. An article in the Washington Post a couple of years ago showed the data is flawed and incomplete. Is he aware? Does that give him pause or cause him to reconsider? Here's the article: Killings by police are undercounted by more than half, new study says https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/10/01/police-killings-undercount-study/
Randy
2024-01-30 10:55:54 +0000 UTC1) I'd like to know if he attempted to interview experts on the opposite side of the argument as Alina Chan and Matt Ridley. Or if he just interviewed them, said it sounded legit, and left it there. A lot of people on the other side seem to be pretty open to appearing on good-faith platforms to discuss. 2) I think Sam catastrophizes about the fall of institutional credibility. I fundamentally don't think anything has worsened in terms of how well institutions in fields like medicine, economics, science apply the scientific method and strive to arrive at true conclusions. If anything they are doing better now than at any time in the past. I think people have a rosy view of history. The way politics intertwined with science were way way worse in the past. Reagan had a White House astrologer. And in terms of research, they remember Newton and Einstein and Feynman, but there were tons of contemporaries of those scientists publishing much worse stuff! Even Newton published some nonsense. And Einstein probably got some opinions wrong. This doesn't mean all of science has collapsed and was untrustworthy. It's always been a mix. It's about improving over time. What's different now is that lay people are on social media reading charlatans publishing bunk and catastrophizing to audiences of millions, making them think *right now* is uniquely bad. I guess my question is does Sam know anything about history? 3) Alex O'Connor recently interviewed Richard Dawkins (good interview btw), and asked him about Ayan Hirsi Ali's claim to have converted to Christianity, and what it actually means. And they continued onto other related topics like whether the meme of religion is beneficial (i.e. aids the flourishing of human individuals and/or civilizations). I thought it was a good discussion. Ayan clearly does not actually think the truth claims in the Bible are true. But she seems to sign onto the idea that it is generally good when other people follow the teachings of Christian churches, and her nominal conversion is just an attempt to further that. What is Sam's view of this kind of nominal religion, especially since he is friends with Ayan too. Does he think it might be better for people *generally* to be adherents to some kind of religion because it makes them follow rules and share structured experiences with other people, even if he (and probably most of his listeners) don't actually think any of the fact claims the religion makes (besides generic moral ideas like "it's good to be kind to your neighbor") are true? 4) You could spend 2 hours talking about bias and tribalism, but I would recommend against spending *too much* time on it, just in the interest of productive discussion.
Kyle Ferriter
2024-01-30 05:23:51 +0000 UTCI would like to know why Sam doesn’t invite a more ideolologically diverse set of people to have conversations on his podcast. I know he views many on the far left as beyond the pale, but there are moderate liberals who could give the argument from the other side on issues like racial justice, Israel-Palestine, etc. and have a good faith debate about it.
Erik Fast
2024-01-30 05:19:13 +0000 UTCI have a more cynical take, which is that Sam is human, humans have non-rational beliefs, and when they do they tend to interpret the world in ways that support those beliefs - I am no different in this regard. But I think your explanations and may actually be what Sam offers up if pressed.
Artemis Green
2024-01-30 05:01:42 +0000 UTCIndeed - or (using yoga as an example) they go to ashrams in places like Rishikesh where what is presented is a version of Indian religion that is particularly palatable to Western seekers. Not necessarily inauthentic b/c we are talking about traditions so vast that they can hold almost everything, but I would take a claim by a person to have experienced 'true yoga' based on time in an single ashram as a sign that I should be highly skeptical of the person's views about the tradition :p
Artemis Green
2024-01-30 04:52:47 +0000 UTCAnswer: No. He hasn't looked into it.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-01-30 02:47:18 +0000 UTCno worries
Empty_Cognizance
2024-01-30 02:47:09 +0000 UTCI appreciate the specificity of this suggestion!
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-01-30 02:47:05 +0000 UTCDon't want to spoil the surprise.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-01-30 02:46:42 +0000 UTCHe was interviewed by Diary of a CEO and answered this. Worth a look.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-01-30 02:46:28 +0000 UTCI can answer this for you: No.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-01-30 02:45:11 +0000 UTCI asked him this before...
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-01-30 02:45:01 +0000 UTCI will now ;)
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-01-30 02:44:51 +0000 UTCDid he say that Matt Ridley was his friend?
john statham
2024-01-29 15:17:29 +0000 UTCIt seems inconsistent with his message to trust experts and not have any of the COVID origins experts on his show despite giving that topic attention. Nor did it seem like he really looked deeply into the science behind COVID origins, but rather trusted merely what his guests told him.
Maytree
2024-01-29 14:53:44 +0000 UTCAt risk of asking the same thing twice (and noting that you can't guarantee anything, may struggle to get your own questions in etc), I would love to hear you challenge Sam on: 1. 'Macho' Islam vs 'Girly' Christianity - specifically by reference to Christian history re: imperalism and violence; and 2. Chris's point about the Westernised view of Buddhism one gets from English language books at your local book store vs the perspective one gets from say reading an abhidharma literature at random.
Artemis Green
2024-01-29 14:05:24 +0000 UTCI think his ability to dodge answers is much greater if you ask multiple part questions; basically because he is so verbose.
john statham
2024-01-29 10:09:08 +0000 UTCProbably true. I think this long review of things was pretty accurate about the strengths/weaknesses of the arguments made and the way they were presented: https://medium.com/@shanedoc17/review-of-sam-harris-vs-chris-kavanagh-d4cea78ef4fc. I agree that a fig leaf at the end isn't going to solve much, but I think the fact that Sam could not even recognise nor accept a rather obvious 'we all have biases' point, speaks to how non-receptive he is to that point. And cheers, we will see how it goes!
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-01-29 08:04:42 +0000 UTCYes. You could frame the question in terms of motivated reasoning in favour for or against a proposition. I thinkI heard out from Haidt. When considering a preferred belief, people ask "CAN i believe it?". When it's an unwanted belief they ask "MUST I believe it?". What are the precise actions Sam takes to overcome these traps?
Oblio
2024-01-29 03:29:51 +0000 UTCI doubt we'll ever know if it would have solved the issue, but as a listener, if one of you stopped to check whether you were both talking about the same thing, it would have likely made the exchange a lot easier to listen to. By the end, when Matt made his suggestion, I recall Sam already being pretty frustrated with the conversation and ready to end the interview. Perhaps my memory of it is bad, but if I have recalled it correctly, I am not sure that's the best time to judge someone's reaction to a fig leaf. Anyway it's just suggestion, you can try it, or not. Your call. It might help... or it might not. Maybe the new format you're going to use will do the job already. In any case, good luck with it!
Patrick Dunlop
2024-01-28 22:50:34 +0000 UTCWere the infamous Willie Horton Bush ads racists dog whistles -- as the became widely recognized to be -- or not? In other words, must we always interpret purposely amiguous statements that may well be designed to illicit support byappealing to race, gender, sexual orientiation, xenophobic biases, as merely limited to the literal words that that are used, which may be interpreted in as harmless? ("there are good people on both sides, Proud Boys stand back and stand by"). I think here about Sam's argument with some of his guests who he later described as more woke than he had realized before he invited them onto his show. I think Sam and Ezra may have had some discussions on these points.
Maytree
2024-01-28 20:14:33 +0000 UTC(I used to know the specific details better than I do now):Can you ask about his thoughts on Charlottesville as it was happening? He's been a sympathizer of the "very fun people hoax". Which discounts the shock that people felt when on a Friday you had nazi's yelling jews will not replace us. For almost a full day he does not condem the march at all. Then when a women gets killed he starts blabbering about "very fine people on both sides" and clumsley confusing the friday protest with the saturday protest? Why should the president be given the benefit of the doubt when he's proven to be a racist countless times before? Why if Sam has "Personal" knowledge of Trump being a racist (which he won't reveal) is it ok for him to throw that accusation but not others? Why if what Trump said was fine was it probably the first time in his administration where you saw daylight between him and his senior appointees on a issue publicly? His chief of staff, commerce secretary and many others condemed Trumps response. Why can't Sam?
Tom
2024-01-28 17:11:43 +0000 UTCYeah I got that but I’m not actually sure setting out our definitions would have resolved the issue. Look what happened at the end when Matt tried to suggest to Sam that everyone is biased towards ingroups as a fig leaf.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-01-28 16:46:15 +0000 UTCYes, making a logical, step by step argument with evidence would be perfectly fine if Sam did it consistently. Honestly, I would really like to know if he could imagine how his life would have been different if he had been born a woman or not white. I know that is an impossible question for anyone to answer, but it is the one I’d really want to hear him reflect on. It’s probably not a good question for this discussion since it could lead into the dreaded tribalism morass.
Linda Sears
2024-01-28 15:22:00 +0000 UTCI went back and listened to some of those episodes and it did seem like a bit of a rhetorical, deflective technique by Klein to not actually engage with the logic of the argument that Harris was putting forward. Obviously, saying you have no bias is silly, but pointing out that an argument is unbiased - i.e. you can follow the logic step by step - that's a different situation altogether and it did seem like that was the point he was trying (and failing) to make.
Riku
2024-01-28 14:57:05 +0000 UTCIt's still a dealbreaker question for me
Riku
2024-01-28 14:54:10 +0000 UTCMy apologies, Chris, I meant to say "you and him were [using the word tribalism differently]" rather than to claim that your use of it was the problem.
Patrick Dunlop
2024-01-28 11:07:42 +0000 UTCYes. The intellectual sloppiness is frustrating.
Aaron Holder
2024-01-28 10:43:35 +0000 UTCI did last time we spoke. It didn’t work.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-01-28 10:41:22 +0000 UTCYou can see his answer to this in the interview he did with Diary a CEO.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-01-28 10:40:56 +0000 UTCAn interesting exercise would be to go back and count who it is that continues to bring up tribalism after the initial exchange. Hint: it isn’t me. That said we are planning a different format. Part of the issue last time was that it was half an interview and half a debate. It isn’t intended to be an interview this time, it’s a discussion and Matt will be moderating the bit that isn’t his right of reply stuff.
Christopher Kavanagh
2024-01-28 10:39:39 +0000 UTCI make mistakes, but I often don’t realize it until I’ve made the mistake publicly and felt the eye-daggers.
Michael
2024-01-28 10:30:17 +0000 UTCThis would be a brilliant structure: before responding, first ensure that you properly understood the point that was just raised, to the satisfaction of the person who said it... it would be fascinating to watch him struggle as he discovers how poorly he understands people who are offering him critical feedback. With Sam, message sent is almost never message received :(
Oblio
2024-01-28 10:25:04 +0000 UTCYes yes yes yes yes! This has always been so embarrassing to witness. I've always had the sense that he's one of those boys who was told he was smart and believed it and he's never looked back...
Oblio
2024-01-28 10:20:41 +0000 UTCYes, this also fits his tendency to think things through to his own satisfaction, as opposed to talking to people who are actually topic experts. The factors and considerations around racial or ethnic or religious profiling are many, and armchair strategizing is pathetically inadequate. How does he have the gall to make authoritative pronouncements about the obvious validity of racial profiling based on his simple minded probabilistic analysis? How does he not think that it might be worth doublechecking if smart people have thought this through already?!?
Oblio
2024-01-28 10:18:13 +0000 UTCYes exactly! It's infuriating how many people casually declare that it's "obvious" that the experts failed us, or even that they lied to us — without pointing to specific quotes and addressing the actual context of what was being said at the time and why. More often than not, it's just hearsay...
Oblio
2024-01-28 10:11:05 +0000 UTCMichael, not only should podcast hosts do basic research before offering opinions, but we all should. The proper stance on a question about which you don't know anything is: "I don't know". Sam Harris does worse than that. He invites the wrong people, people who don't know enough about a topic but who have strong ill-informed opinions. So yes, we should ask him to do enough research to make sure he chooses people who know enough about a topic to have something sensible to say about it.
Oblio
2024-01-28 10:07:16 +0000 UTCI would indeed hold all podcasters to that standard, at least if their podcast is of a similar type / style as Harris's, and especially if they have an audience his size. Note that with 'proper basic research' I meant the kind of research discussed on the episode decoding Harris: one or two evenings of reading several articles (or video essays, substack posts, etc.) about it online. Or in the case of the Christchurch shooter manifesto, reading the manifesto (or the majority of it). For someone who does podcasting for a living, this is not asking much.
Maarten Wesselius
2024-01-28 01:53:02 +0000 UTCChris, can I suggest you spend more time steel-manning Sam's argument and asking him to do the same to yours before getting into the parts where you disagree. It might prevent a repeat of the tribalism spiral where it seemed the problem was you were using the word "tribalism" very differently. Matt, maybe you could interject if it happens again (that last discussion with Sam needed a circuit breaker!)
Patrick Dunlop
2024-01-28 01:32:34 +0000 UTCThere's nothing in the quran that calls for the whole world to convert to Islam. I've heard this idea parroted so many times, yet have never seen any actual textual evidence for it
Farah
2024-01-28 01:14:22 +0000 UTCI once said if AI masters someone's answers first. It'll be Sam's, for better and worse. In this case, I think it's both. For the most part, I don't think a lot of Sam's Islam criticism needs updating however sometimes it is applied lazily like the Israel-Palestine conflict. While I have no doubt religion plays a part in it, it's far from the whole story. There's just a lack of curiosity. I've accepted that age is playing a huge part in his unwillingness to update. It is disappointing nonetheless
Dr Badmouth
2024-01-28 00:47:59 +0000 UTCHow has he changed in his approach toward who he does (and doesn’t) engage with after having many of his former close collaborators go completely off the rails? Can he address if he truly thinks he charitable to people with those who criticise him vs those who he finds are friendly to him
YellowDreams
2024-01-28 00:38:49 +0000 UTCBut how does this relate to the original question I asked them to pose to Sam? Your argument is a non sequiter. If Islam is uniquly aggresive, why do other religions also lead people to aggresive expansionist wars? In what way does the dubius statement that russias invasion of Ukraine would end if Putin dies relate to that? He is using Christinaity to legitimate the genocidal war, hence Christianity can still (and always has been) be used to legitimate expansionist wars
Klas Bergholtz
2024-01-27 23:32:08 +0000 UTCI’m not sure what your point is. Putin may be a Christian, but if he dropped dead, the war would end. You have cited examples from the past of Christian expansion. These are not actionable items, they are history. The US is an empire that exploits poor countries for resources. That is not the same thing as a caliphate that wants nothing less than total devotion to Allah - a fictional character. I imagine this is the part that concerns Sam.
Michael
2024-01-27 23:05:10 +0000 UTCYeah that is very bad.
Michael
2024-01-27 22:32:55 +0000 UTCYou never see Black people walking their dogs w/o a leash in the park.
Michael
2024-01-27 22:04:16 +0000 UTCI listened to a 2015 podcast with Sam and Dan Carlin. Listening to Sam talk about Islam and extremism, it could have taken place today. He doesn't seem to have fleshed out his ideas, even when faced with someone like Dan who pokes holes several large holes in his theories. Was a fun listen tho. It's appeared on both Sam's pod and Dan's Common Sense
Farah
2024-01-27 21:35:39 +0000 UTCI didn't realise he had said this but it makes me like him even less!!!! Re. profiling. There's also an element of self fulfilling prophecy to it because the law itself unfair over reacts to minor crimes more likely to be committed by poor black people while under reacting to much more serious crimes more likely to be committed by rich people. Plus people who are profiled are more likely to be caught. I have an attractive middle class white friend with some mental health issues. And she has always shoplifted. Because she has some sort of compulsion. And she's never been caught!
Emma
2024-01-27 21:34:25 +0000 UTCBahahaha!
Emma
2024-01-27 21:28:15 +0000 UTCHe always struck me as almost comically un-self-aware for a man claiming to be an introspective expert.
Jonathan Crymes
2024-01-27 20:12:54 +0000 UTCYep. Also I want to know if he understands the crux of the disagreement between him and people like Kevin Mitchell (of Free Agents ) I know Chris had read that book recently. Can he pass the turing test for Kevin's POV? I'm doubtful!!
Alex H
2024-01-27 18:53:50 +0000 UTCSeconded.
Alex H
2024-01-27 18:44:15 +0000 UTCBecause he claims to be authoritative on those subjects. Alluding to both his science and meditative backgrounds, his entire gist is that he comes to his conclusions via an entirely dispassionate and objective mind, that he's considered the criticisms and through his reasoning had found them to be lacking. Not doing background research on topics he seemingly has strong convictions about kinda makes his words rather hollow.
Cesare, But Def Not A Borgia
2024-01-27 18:13:01 +0000 UTCPlus there are still many Nazis supporting the MAGA movement. I mean ones who self-identify as Nazis, not just people being hyperbolic.
Cesare, But Def Not A Borgia
2024-01-27 18:03:07 +0000 UTCI actually think this is a big emotional blindspot for Sam and he will likely never see or understand it. But it makes his meditation schtick look like total bullshit.
Jonathan Crymes
2024-01-27 16:57:55 +0000 UTCI’ve seen Harris have conversations with folks like Ben Shapiro wherein they discuss things they agree about and congratulate themselves for being civil while “thinking in public.” And yet, time again, when somebody disagrees with his ideas directly or criticizes his arguments, he insists that he’s being personally attacked. Why can’t he simply confront the arguments of people who disagree with him without presuming to know they are in bad faith and complaining that he is a victim? It makes the self-proclaimed mind guru look thin skinned incapable of separating his ego from his arguments.
Jonathan Crymes
2024-01-27 16:55:25 +0000 UTCAnd we may not have a Nazi Party in the U.S., but we do have this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
Linda Sears
2024-01-27 16:03:17 +0000 UTCWhat does he think are the most pressing issues the world is facing in 2024 and the near future?
Mohammed
2024-01-27 16:02:41 +0000 UTCIn his interview with Ezra Klein years ago, Ezra was trying to talk about Sam having unconscious bias (presumably in favor of other middle-aged white men who share his primary preoccupation of being afraid/outraged that someone somewhere might call them bigoted) and Sam was like, nope, I have examined my mind and I have no unconscious bias. I’ve always wanted someone to invite him to dwell on the absurdity of that.
Kathleen May
2024-01-27 15:21:34 +0000 UTCWho was the father figure that guided him towards wisdom (since he and Chris Williamson appeared to think these are important to have)?
Linda Sears
2024-01-27 14:43:26 +0000 UTCI think the point is that, because he has such a large and devoted audience, doing research on a subject or on the person he is speaking about or with is the responsible thing to do. Yes, his audience should be skeptical enough to not follow him blindly, but they may trust his judgement and abilities. His level of confidence and expertise on some subjects could mislead some people into believing him on subjects he is not as equipped to cover. And, when the subjects dealt with are hot button issues, like the Israeli-Gaza conflict or the COVID lab leak, then the burden to be accurate in the sources is greater. It seems that podcasts have become academic resources for some people, so similar standards of rigor should probably apply. It really depends on the podcast, though.
Linda Sears
2024-01-27 14:04:43 +0000 UTC"Sam, would you please let me finish --"
Jamison Shipley
2024-01-27 13:17:57 +0000 UTCHe's an exile!
Jamison Shipley
2024-01-27 13:14:47 +0000 UTCWhy do so many of the friends he has go off the deep end? Weinsteins, Maajid Nawaz, etc.
Jamison Shipley
2024-01-27 13:14:03 +0000 UTCLong gone? Its been less than 100 years since ww2. Putins invasion of Ukraine is drenched in Christian propaganda. The weird singeling out of Islam as conquest oriented is what I disagree with, not that jihadist exists today. If it was unique to Islam no one would have creqted empires apart from muslims which is just not true. It is a fundamentaly ahistorical view of religion. .
Klas Bergholtz
2024-01-27 12:57:56 +0000 UTCI don’t understand why a podcast host should be expected to do proper basic research. He’s not submitting papers for peer review. He’s editorializing. If we are to expect Harris to do proper research, then we have to expect it from all podcasters.
Michael
2024-01-27 12:38:27 +0000 UTCThe Nazi Party is long gone, as are Christian crusaders. Jihadists are here now, in the present, and want to murder everyone that isn’t them.
Michael
2024-01-27 12:30:57 +0000 UTCHis argument isn't about the expansionism that people undertook in the name of the religion, it's the expansionism called for in the text. I don't know if the other religions call for converting the whole world in their primary holy books or not, but I think that is the rebuttal to his argument. History in general is just there are a lot of people who want empires and are expansionist for all sorts of reasons. Of course you also could argue if the religion is actually the driving force or a contributing force or a rationalization for other people of just a lust for power.
James Pulver
2024-01-27 11:41:41 +0000 UTCSam has said that he believes racial profiling is a correct approach, during a conversation with comic Hannibal Buress. His reasoning was that if an outsize percentage of young black males were committing violent crimes, of course the police are going to single them out. I wonder if Sam has ever had the experience of being suspected at all times, wherever he went, getting pulled over for no reason, any number of degrading situations simply because of his appearance. If that were his lived experience, how would he engage with the world? If the authorities assume you are a criminal, isn’t it just the path of least resistance to become a criminal? Racial profiling is a complicated issue that we’re not gonna solve tonight, but the cold logic of his reasoning fails to account for the collateral damage from stigmatizing a population. This conversation happened years ago, maybe he’s changed his beliefs. He is conscientious, so it is baffling he could hold these beliefs. The sleep of reason breeds monsters, i’m told.
Michael
2024-01-27 11:37:07 +0000 UTCI am not defending Sam here, but I think he's talking at the level of policy and philosophy. I do wish he'd take some of his meditation to stop his gut feelings and apply his philosophy. I guess that just is a failing of his he doesn't see or have an interest in fixing. Some level of self delusion I think as it's been pointed out to him many times.
James Pulver
2024-01-27 11:33:52 +0000 UTCPolitically maybe. The left is likely fine with trying to "arms treaty" virus labs and denouncing China for not having good lab containment. I would hazard a guess less interested in trying to get rid of "wet markets" because that both isn't government managed in the same way and attacking those might be attacking a different culture. I also think other practical things the world ought to do to protect against lab leaks vs natural hops is somewhat different if you'd like to stop these sorts of things before it's a country or world wide lock down as the only hope.
James Pulver
2024-01-27 11:30:03 +0000 UTCDoes it really matter if covid leaked out of a lab or out of an open air market? They are both security failures with the same outcome
Michael
2024-01-27 11:09:07 +0000 UTCI’ve heard him acknowledge Buddhist terrorism on the show. And he regularly talks trash about Buddhism on the meditation app, saying a lot of Buddhist wisdom is superstitious and not useful.
Michael
2024-01-27 11:03:28 +0000 UTCWhat was the last topic he did a deep dive on? I feel like SH hasn't been able to make any bold claims as he used to do with religion because he's not putting in the work
Dr Badmouth
2024-01-27 10:10:41 +0000 UTCHow come DTG is one of the few disagreeable conversations with people on the left he has?
Dr Badmouth
2024-01-27 10:07:44 +0000 UTCWhat's his favourite colour? That was a big deal up until I was 7 or so. It defined the people I met (children in my class).
Níall Faughnan
2024-01-27 08:54:19 +0000 UTCI'd like Sam to be asked how disregarding leading experts on COVID-19 origins is consistent with his stressing the importance of experts and institutions. Frankly, I think COVID origins is a topic he's been hypocritical on, and it's consequential because his one-sided promotion of the lab leak theory contributes to mistrust of health institutions. In any case, I respect Sam for coming back on, and I've appreciated his denunciations of Trump, vaccine conspiracists, Musk, etc. To me he's one of the good guys.
Daniel
2024-01-27 08:47:48 +0000 UTCListening to Sam and his guests nodding along to his assertion that ‘having no free will makes retributive justice pointless because a person is no more responsible for their actions than a bear who tore your arm off and you wouldn’t want to get revenge on a bear ( or a tornado or whatever ) ‘ how come he doesn’t extend that charitable attitude to Nasim Taleb when he is (very enjoyably) skewering him- sure sounded retributive to me. - btw that Taleb take down was hilarious - so not suggesting he shouldn’t have done it.
Dermot Power
2024-01-27 08:43:54 +0000 UTCI would like to know why he is so shortsighted with regards to his analysis of the world. His view for example that Islam is uniqily expansionist just ignores all of history after the arab conquests. You could look at the crusades, colonialism, the Nazis for some exemplet of Christian expansionism. Likevise he whitewahses Budhisms history as a religion of peace which is far from the truth. Even a casual look at Indian, south East asian och Chinese history betrays the falisity of this
Klas Bergholtz
2024-01-27 08:40:02 +0000 UTCI would like to know why he casts government institutions and large media organisations as no longer trustworthy at all. He never qualifies his statements by restricting them to a specific geographical region or group of regions, and he never explains how some perceived problems can justify damning the lot. He’s engaging in rhetoric, not critique. And it feels like a North American either ignoring the rest of the world because it’s not America, or he’s assuming that everyone else does it like the US of A.
Aaron Holder
2024-01-27 08:04:43 +0000 UTCAsk him if he's worried Jordan Peterson is going to lose his licence.
OR
2024-01-27 08:02:26 +0000 UTCA few years ago, Sam Harris had Bill Maher on and they were talking about movies and Sam speculated that movie audiences have gotten smarter because he found a lot of “classic” films to be boring and slow. He didn’t say it exactly like that, but that was the gist. Specifically - the movie he chose to illustrate his point about dull witted audiences of yesteryear was Hitchcock’s NORTH BY NORTHWEST, a movie I discovered when I was 9 years old, i’ve seen it a dozen times and it’s still thrilling, with a flawlessly engineered script. And while there’s no accounting for taste, it’s an acknowledged masterpiece by a director who has a legitimate claim to GOAT. Sam went to see it with his wife and they found it tedious. Specifically, he said the first kiss between Cary Grant & Eva Marie Saint looked fake and at that point they walked out. Before the crop duster sequence! Maybe if Sam had stuck around he may have understood why Hitchcock staged that scene that way. I don’t know what the question is, but I believe Sam carelessly and publicly slagged off one of the greatest films ever made, ensuring less people will see it, simply because he doesn’t know how to watch a movie. They simply do not make movies like this anymore - every single detail is thought over for months, every beat, every breath, every line, everything has been considered by the director. I like Sam a lot. I believe he is conscientious, thoughtful, sincere, and trustworthy. Even when I don’t agree with him. But this has been rattling around in my mind for years. He’s from a show business family. The kiss looked fake? Its a movie, its all fake. I feel I’ve taken up enough of your time. I just have a hard time understanding how Sam could have jumped to the conclusion that he was right - NxNW was obsolete entertainment tech - and film scholars who live and breathe this stuff, they’re all wrong.
Michael
2024-01-27 07:51:56 +0000 UTCI have a genuine one (which is a bit confrontational) and a supplement: 1: Harris has advocated for a very particular style of meditation, 'western mindfulness' as a means to acquire the correct 'dispassionate' mindset to address moral problems from a 'scientific' / 'utilitarian' stance. This appears to be a purely subjective 'benefit' of mindfulness meditation. Most practitioners cite increased frustration, boredom, even experiencing painful memories from meditation as being normal experiences during mindfulness. The religious tradition surrounding these experiences relies on the metaphysics of Buddhism. ('oh, that's the ego attempting to tempt you away from nivana', etc) In order for Sam's belief that mindfulness mediation will facilitate objectivity and disinterested application of moral judgment doesn't this entail an adoption of the Buddhist metaphysics? 2: Sam advocates for the benefits of a particular style of mindfulness practise. i) why this style? ii) are there modes of mediation he would consider harmful (eg: loving-kindness or 'metta' seems completely counter the idea that meditation helps one become more objective: many meditation practises have nothing to do with 'calmness' or 'objectivity') iii) how far would he go supporting the claims made and benefits attributed to these? (eg: enlightment, etc?) Finally, on a scale of Visigoth to Navajo...
Ymirsdreams
2024-01-27 07:34:01 +0000 UTCCould you guys post a list of your questions, by any chance? Just curious what slant they're going to take
Empty_Cognizance
2024-01-27 07:21:53 +0000 UTCI'd love to see him questioned about his views of AI. Most AI researchers are comfortable with the idea of AGI or even superintelligence emerging in some far flung future. But there is a crackpot contingent who believe it's only a few years away. It's never been quite clear which camp he is in. He does seem to think resources should be mobilised today to mitigate the risk of AI killing us all. This is not to be confused with genuine immediate concerns of generative AI infringing copyright or facilitating scammers and fake news propagandists etc.
2LegHumanist
2024-01-27 07:09:56 +0000 UTCJust ask him this: Sam, would you please let me finish my sentences before speaking?
Eric Stern
2024-01-27 06:53:34 +0000 UTCI am also interested in what he has to say about that.
Claudia
2024-01-27 06:37:56 +0000 UTCI would like it if you focus on the issue of him opining on topics without doing the proper basic research and, relatedly, on the lab leak hypothesis and how to form an opinion on that based on what the (actual) experts say. And I think you were planning to do this already anyway, but: please avoid the topics of tribalism and his tendency to extend more charity to anti-woke / right wing types than to left wing types. Not because it's not interesting or important, but because nothing will come out of it and it's been tried before.
Maarten Wesselius
2024-01-27 06:24:27 +0000 UTCSam really needs to listen to your response to his interview with the Lab Leak Theory duo. I was initially quite convinced by his interview, but after listening to the DtG response, I flipped completely. It was just a much more nuanced and deeper conversation.
Adrian Li
2024-01-27 06:20:06 +0000 UTCPlease ask him: given his recent episode with Jonathan Rauch talking about the constitution of knowledge, what are the elements of HIS epistemic process? How does he ensure he doesn't fall into the "i think it's true because i think it" trap or the "my friends and family keep me grounded" trap? Why does he feel confident ignoring topic experts in some domains but not others - he will properly invite epidemiologists or medical experts to insert sanity into the discourse against IDW contrarians, but he will not invite experts on terrorism to talk about the complex political and biographical factors motivating political violence and suicide terrorism. For the former, he will defer. For the latter, he will insist, dismissing criticisms without even detailing let alone addressing them.
Oblio
2024-01-27 06:17:35 +0000 UTCGiven the overwhelming rejection of his account of morality by academic philosophers, is he worried he might be wrong?
Normal Name
2024-01-27 06:08:06 +0000 UTCIs he concerned that so many of his friends are turning out to be cranks? Surely at some point, he should realize that he's doing something wrong.
Normal Name
2024-01-27 06:05:19 +0000 UTCPlease do not say the word “tribal” even one time! :)
Alex A
2024-01-27 06:05:16 +0000 UTCPlease just don’t do it.
Simon Patience
2024-01-27 06:02:56 +0000 UTCWhat tribe does Sam belong to?
Emma
2024-01-27 06:02:05 +0000 UTC
