What is Kathryn Paige Harden's upcoming book about?

Her book, 'The Genetic Lottery,' explores the role of genes in shaping social inequalities. It aims to reframe the conversation around genetics, moving away from the idea of genetics as an enemy of equality.

How did the 'twitter collision' between Sam Harris and Kathryn Paige Harden originate?

The disagreement stemmed from an article Harden co-authored in Vox criticizing Sam Harris's podcast with Charles Murray. Further conflict arose from a tweet misinterpreting Harris's podcast on genetics and behavior, leading to a direct Twitter exchange.

What is Sam Harris's main concern regarding the discussion of sensitive scientific topics?

Sam Harris is concerned about the quality of public conversation and the 'voxification' of science journalism, leading to 'witch hunts' and scapegoating. He believes in distinguishing scientific disagreement from political pressures.

What is Kathryn Paige Harden's main concern about discussing genetics and group differences?

Harden is concerned about the opportunity cost of focusing on speculative topics like racial IQ differences when robust data exists for other areas. She believes such speculation can reinforce harmful stereotypes and distract from actionable science.

What is the 'default hypothesis' in intelligence research, according to Richard Hare?

The default hypothesis suggests that for a highly heritable trait like intelligence, it's a reasonable assumption that genes play a role in group differences, not necessarily the majority role, but some involvement.

Why does Kathryn Paige Harden disagree that the 'default hypothesis' is scientifically sound?

Harden argues that knowing an association within a group doesn't predict its direction or even presence between groups. She uses an analogy with COVID-19 outcomes and Neanderthal DNA to illustrate that genetic influences within one population don't necessarily explain differences between populations.

Key Moments

A Conversation with Kathryn Paige Harden (Episode #212)

Sam Harris

Science & Technology3 min read49 min video

Jul 30, 2020|71,828 views|1,062|898

sam harris sam harris podcast waking up podcast waking up waking up with sam harris sam harris waking up waking up sam harris sam harris jordan peterson sam harris joe rogan author neuroscientist philosopher

Save to Pod

Key Moments

TL;DR

Conversation on genetics, intelligence, and social inequality, addressing scientific vs. political discourse and cancel culture.

Key Insights

The discussion highlights the tension between scientific inquiry into genetic and environmental influences on human traits and the sociopolitical climate that makes such discussions fraught.

Kathryn Paige Harden argues that the default assumption of genetic involvement in group differences for highly heritable traits is not scientifically tenable and can reinforce harmful stereotypes.

Sam Harris expresses concern about the "voxification" of science and journalism, leading to "witch hunts" and hindering open discourse on complex topics.

The conversation delves into the potential for misinterpretation and weaponization of scientific findings in public discourse, exemplified by the reactions to Charles Murray's podcast appearance.

Both participants agree on the importance of intellectual honesty and clear communication but differ on the perceived risks and benefits of speculating on topics with limited scientific data, particularly concerning race and IQ.

The potential for genetic and environmental factors to influence individual and group differences is a central theme, with a focus on how these complexities are perceived and communicated in society.

THE ORIGINS OF THE CONVERSATION

Kathryn Paige Harden and Sam Harris discuss the genesis of their interaction, stemming from a Twitter exchange following Harris's podcast with Charles Murray and Harden's critical Vox article. Harden felt her scientific critique was misinterpreted and amplified negatively, leading to her being associated with extreme viewpoints. Harris, conversely, felt attacked and misrepresented, viewing Harden's article as a smear that contributed to his public backlash and professional difficulties.

SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY VERSUS PUBLIC PERCEPTION

A core tension in the discussion is the divide between the scientific exploration of heritability and group differences in traits like intelligence, and the sociopolitical reality that discussing these topics can be professionally dangerous and personally toxic. Harris emphasizes his concern for the quality of public discourse and the dangers of "cancel culture," arguing that intellectual honesty should guide scientific claims, regardless of potential social fallout.

THE DEBATE OVER GENETIC CONTRIBUTIONS TO GROUP DIFFERENCES

Harden challenges the 'default hypothesis' often discussed in behavioral genetics, which suggests that for highly heritable traits, genetic factors likely play a role in group differences. She argues this assumption is not scientifically supported and relies on basic statistical misunderstandings, highlighting that within-group genetic associations do not automatically predict between-group outcomes, using a COVID-19 genetic susceptibility example. This scientific disagreement is framed by Harden as more than a minor distinction.

PRIORITIES AND OPPORTUNITY COSTS IN RESEARCH

Both participants identify significant opportunity costs associated with the intense focus on the controversial aspects of human intelligence and group differences. Harden expresses frustration that this conversation consumes attention that could be directed towards more solvable scientific problems using robust genetic data. Harris agrees on the opportunity cost but frames it as the degradation of public discourse and the defenestration of individuals for engaging in necessary, albeit controversial, discussions.

INTELLECTUAL HONESTY AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES

The conversation grapples with the balance between intellectual honesty and the potential social harms of discussing certain scientific topics. Harris argues that rigid adherence to political correctness or avoiding topics due to potential negative social outcomes is unstable and dishonest. Harden counters that speculating on scientifically agnostic topics that reinforce harmful stereotypes carries its own significant risks and ethical considerations, impacting her risk-benefit calculus.

THE FUTURE OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE

Harris posits that a stable political framework for discussing these issues will eventually emerge from recognizing that genetic and other differences between groups, while real, may not matter as much as society makes them out to. He believes that future scientific developments will challenge current assumptions, highlighting the instability of positions that shy away from exploring all possibilities, even those with uncomfortable implications, due to fear of social repercussions.

Mentioned in This Episode

●Organizations

●Books

●Concepts

●People Referenced

Common Questions

Kathryn Paige Harden is a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, focusing her research lab on genetic influences on child and adolescent development, including cognition, academic achievement, and mental health issues like antisocial behavior.

Topics

Neuroscience & the Brain Science & Mathematics Society & Philosophy Public Discourse Social Inequality Nature Vs Nurture Scientific Communication Behavioral Genetics Genetic Determinism Group Differences

Mentioned in this video

Organizations

University of Texas at Austin

Kathryn Paige Harden's academic institution where she is a professor and runs a research lab.

Southern Poverty Law Center

An organization that maintains a 'hate watch' page, where Sam Harris found himself listed in the company of neo-Nazis following the controversy surrounding the Vox article.

Concepts

Blueprint

Robert Plomin's book, the discussion of which on Sam Harris's podcast led to a tweet that further fueled the 'twitter collision'.

Neanderthal

Mentioned in the context of ancient DNA studies and genetic variants associated with COVID-19 response, highlighting the complexity of genetic ancestry and disease outcomes.

intelligence

A journal where Richard Hare is the editor-in-chief, relevant to the scientific discussion on intelligence and group differences.

People

Robert Plomin

Mentioned in relation to his book 'Blueprint' and a tweet that misinterpreted content from Sam Harris's podcast, triggering the conversation between Harris and Harden.

Charles Murray

An author whose previous podcast appearance with Sam Harris and book 'The Bell Curve' are central to the discussion about controversial topics and public discourse.

Sam Harris

Host of the Making Sense podcast, initiating the conversation and expressing his views on public discourse and the impact of the Vox article.

Ezra Klein

Journalist and podcaster whose interactions with Sam Harris regarding the Vox article and his own subsequent pieces are discussed as part of the controversy.

Kathryn Paige Harden

Professor at the University of Texas at Austin, specializing in genetic influences on child development, cognition, and mental health. Author of 'The Genetic Lottery'.

Richard Hare

Editor-in-chief of the journal 'Intelligence' and author of 'The Neurobiology of Intelligence', who responded unsolicited to the Vox article and had subsequent responses unpublished by Vox.

Eric Turkheimer

Kathryn Paige Harden's former PhD advisor, co-author of the Vox article critical of Charles Murray's portrayal of science.

Media

Vox

The publication where Kathryn Paige Harden and her colleagues published an article critical of Charles Murray's views, which became a focal point of the subsequent controversy.

Books

The Genetic Lottery

Kathryn Paige Harden's upcoming book exploring the role of genes in shaping social inequalities.

The Bell Curve

Charles Murray's controversial book published in 1994, which is referenced as a point of contention and discussion regarding race and intelligence.

The Neurobiology of Intelligence

A book authored by Richard Hare, an expert in the field of intelligence research.