Charles Murray On Human Diversity | Basing Social Science on Scientific Evidence

[@hilden.]

Thank you Mr. Krauss, for being brave enough to have Charles Murray as a guest. Great conversation.

[@kreek22]

Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage. Anais Nin

[@johnhill762]

Krauss is a sexual predator, what are you talking about

[@astrobullivant5908]

What's so incredibly ironic is that Murray's own philosophical ideas led to his philosophy's opponents taking control of the university system. Murray was the guy telling conservatives that they weren't smart enough to benefit from college and to leave academic to smarter people. Well, look what happened. Had Charles Murray in the 90's not interpreted his own research in ways that were so problematic for social mobility and America's civic culture, he'd be a lot less reviled. It was the influence that Murray's political philosophy had on the Bush Administration that caused so many to dislike him. The political message and philosophy behind "Forrest Gump" was essentially a failure, and it failed for many reasons. One of the biggest was conservative elites pushing Free Trade and easy immigration to dramatically lower blue collar workers' living standards. Another reason was because of ignoring, or outright opposing, talented outliers in stark contrast to the culture of Big Tech.

[@jimmyjasi-]

Hameroffs Revolution that began last year will be at least as important as genomic revolution and eventually far surpassing IT revolution! Check news about Orch Or Developments! (SHAN GAO newest book and just KZbin Stuart Hameroff and Anirban Bandyopadhyay for a start. Because I have a feeling that if we want to Evolve what we need is neither "Neuralink"(as it totally misses the point what brain is) nor Galtonian Genetics that Charles Murray advocates for but rather we need to understand what consciousness is (ie. what Collapse of Wave Function is)2 what is unique about tubulin and how it's functions are integrated with the rest of brain functions (great work with Alzheimer from Jack Tuszyński)! And once we will understand how microtubules work. We may instead of disentangle thousands of polygenic inheritance in brain, It may be much cheaper to enhance intelligence of future generations by Engeneering genes that will in a coming decade be identified and studied to give microtubules certain characteristics!

[@craigswanson8026]

As a social scientist with a BS in psychology and sociology and an MA in sociology, I can confirm that we were taught 💯% nurture. Nature was anathema. I have taught myself otherwise since then (mid 90’s).

[@proudatheist2042]

Oh, my. Thanks for adding that. Have sociology programs, as a whole, changes at all since then? (If not, it's terrifying to think about, because sociology programs train social workers.)

[@AceofDlamonds]

I feel like a lot of society also favored the nurture stance, particularly back then, because Americans wanted to "stand on our own two feet" and Puritanical self-motivation and internal will, etc.

[@craigswanson8026]

@@proudatheist2042 They have changed to reflect the new data. Many older sociologists are holding on to “blank slate” paradigm, yet university programs (especially social work) might be overcompensating with their attention to genetic, epigenetic, and chemical causes for and solutions to social problems.

[@dasglasperlenspiel10]

As a professor at major universities, one would have thought that Lawrence Krauss would have allowed his interviewee to open his mouth at some point in the first ELEVEN MINUTES of this presentation. Not well-structured, I think.

[@brucekellett440]

thanks, now i know to skip to minute 12.

[@Malignus68]

11:16 Charles Murray finally gets to speak.

[@dannyberinger4634]

Thanks lol

[@jessecockerell7290]

I am 6 minutes into this pod cast and LK is still talking about him self. Get to the guest....sheeez

[@SamBhattacharya]

For some reason, I thought Lawrence Krauss was very liberal politically and would not want to be seen in the same room with someone like Charles Murray. That is why I was pleasantly surprised by this discussion. It was well worth watching.

[@proudatheist2042]

I am a centrist who earned a BSE in Special Education with a Reading Endorsement. I taught in bottom ranked inner city schools for 4 years before extreme health issues forced me to quit. Acknowledging the realities of IQ in regards to literacy, job capabilities, and life outcomes is something that all political spectrums need to do more often. (I think the modern day "liberals" are underhandedly acknowledging this in their own sinister ways, but that's just my conspiratorial hunch.)

[@inspectorclouseau3880]

I always like to listen to people who have been controversial, it means they don't follow the narrative

[@ferriveiro3101]

I'm relieved to say that at the time when the bell curve controversy was first brought to my attention as "gross pseudo-science developed for racist ends", I actually went and researched it and realized that there was nothing to be alarmed about. Great discussion, thank you both very much. :)

[@proudatheist2042]

Did you tell anyone who called it "racist" that it actually wasn't racist and why?

[@michbushi]

Jesus Christ, professor - I'm totally impressed with the quality and intellectual breadth of your guests recently, and the widening of your horizons - into very heterodox thought leaders. I must say, I wasn't expecting this of you, given your totally "mainstream intelligentsia" past - and I was completely wrong! Credit where credit is due!

[@elingrome5853]

Murray has been treated appallingly... credit to you Dr Krauss

[@Thethinker6141]

People always love when people confirm their beliefs even if it's not real

[@scottsherman5262]

@@Thethinker6141 I was about to leave the same comment...he's basically saying "Wow, I thought you were a real idiot until you had a really polarizing guest on that I adore, & now I don't think you're an idiot, because I know I'm not an idiot."

[@jimmyjasi-]

Hameroffs Revolution that began last year will be at least as important as genomic revolution and eventually far surpassing IT revolution! Check news about Orch Or Developments! (SHAN GAO newest book and just KZbin Stuart Hameroff and Anirban Bandyopadhyay for a start. Because I have a feeling that if we want to Evolve what we need is neither "Neuralink"(as it totally misses the point what brain is) nor Galtonian Genetics that Charles Murray advocates for but rather we need to understand what consciousness is (ie. what Collapse of Wave Function is)2 what is unique about tubulin and how it's functions are integrated with the rest of brain functions (great work with Alzheimer from Jack Tuszyński)! And once we will understand how microtubules work. We may instead of disentangle thousands of polygenic inheritance in brain, It may be much cheaper to enhance intelligence of future generations by Engeneering genes that will in a coming decade be identified and studied to give microtubules certain characteristics!

[@NightsideOfParadise]

​@@scottsherman5262 Funny. I read nothing like that from his comment.

[@NM-qc2dh]

I wish Krauss would shut up just for a minute. What’s the point of inviting a guest if you speak for him too? I guess he needs someone to talk at.

[@jerome_dangelo]

Thank you, Dr Krauss for having Dr Murray on your podcast. This was a marvelous discussion!

[@thetaqjr]

Not only will Dr K not shut up, I don't believe he's capable. If one watches him, they’ll notice he nods nervously giving the signal he's not listening as much as he is waiting to, pounce in with his thoughts, to show how smart he is. It is almost as if he’d rather be interviewing himself. There is a point in the discussion where they’re talking about women with great aptitude in mathematics abjuring STEM as a vocational choice in favor of “people-oriented” professions. Dr Murray suggested that the discussion move to a point further down in the 10-point list for the sake of time and continuity of thought, and LK refused Dr Murray’s suggestion, creating an inhospitable diversion bordering on conflict. What a super egotistical self-satisfied, overbearing personality. And letting that dog YAP YAP? That’s happened before, he laughs it off, and the guests politely act as if it is ok, but LK is very disrespectful. I repeat, he should read the books, display his image on two screens, and interview himself, which, himself, that is, his most favorite subject.

[@cooterhead_jones]

@randomletter-5i4 I surely agree with you on Dr. Peterson. I’ve watched Dr K lecture on laymen’s physics in other venues, and he absolutely full of himself. I don’t mean he doesn’t know his stuff. I’m not qualified to pass judgement on him that way. But I do get an air of condescending from him. And maybe I’m wrong. Maybe he’s a humble chap and it doesn’t show.

[@damianrhea8875]

So well said. Thank you. Throughout this intercourse, I literally find it unbearable and unbelievable at listening to Krauss continuing to speak … This is NOT an “interview” nor a “conversation” ; that is why I call it an “intercourse”, in which Krauss actually speaks more than the supposed “guest” Murray.

[@DrDeuteron]

@@cooterhead_joneshis physics is fine, but it’s basic stuff that even an experimentalist should know.

[@kove]

Lawrence, amazing job hosting, Charles did an amazing job as your guest. I was fully engaged the entire conversation, I hope you could have him on a second time. I'd love to hear other topics especially religion and theism. I was Christian for 29 years, atheist for 10, currently igtheist

[@craigb4913]

Much respect for Mr Krauss for talking to one our most competent social scientists. Imagine a thinker guided by data & logic, and not by ideology & moral posturing, and you get Charles Murray.

[@johnhudson5414]

Why are older Conservative academics so unnerved by gender studies. Keep up with the times gentlemen. The kids have no problem grasping the concepts arguments and evidence.

[@ReasonAboveEverything]

​@@johnhudson5414 Kids have no problems repeating things. I have yet to see anyone defend the Gender theory position so that it actually made sense. Kids will repeat anything even if it was just in the "study" phase.

[@johnhudson5414]

@ReasonAboveEverything this illustrates my point in a few ways. Language. When I say "the kids" I don't mean children. I mean the people who are in their 20's writing phd's on this stuff. Tgey produce the evidence and the reason the new generation grasp it and move on just as you did. There's an unfortunate fragility and loss of neuroplasticity in the old that really needs to be addressed. It happens in every generation, but progress still occurs.

[@proudatheist2042]

​​@@johnhudson5414I am not a conservative. In regards to your question, it's because too many "gender studies" programs do not even talk about biology or anatomical/hormonal/mineral/brain differences in regards to the sexes. Too many also aren't grounded in any sort of reality and parrot contradictory shouting points all too often. The OP didn't say anything about gender studies programs. I don't see why you brought it up, unless it's something you chose to get unnerved by.

[@rrp2600]

This man is so unfairly vilified. Thank you for having the courage to do this dr. Krauss. I hope you don't take too much shit for it

[@rrp2600]

@@alwayswatching4351 Decent people? You are showing your bias. Even if Murray is wrong about group differences he could just be wrong. But you won't allow that possibility. You just assume sinister motives. If you just said "smart people can see that Murray is wrong" that would ,make for sense from the perspective of someone that thinks he is wrong. But you had to moralize by saying "decent people" You are not an open minded person. Also, Jeff Epstein is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[@morganwalsh1049]

Mr. Krause, here you interview someone so competent in his ability to state his position with just enough context, appropriate examples, cogent argument and carefully calibrated length of response- it needs no tedious, clumsy preamble to each question about what your guest means, thinks and says. During every guest response, you’re quivering with indecision where to interrupt or interject. Your own comments lead to and fro, off on this tangent reminding you of something off topic you wanted to ask the guest but first you have to get something else out of the way which requires an explanation entailing an odd memory of yours relating to your next question, on so on. You began with the author’s 10 bullet points toward a thesis, the program is half over, and you’re on a spur track somewhere. This hour was largely a divagation.

[@morganwalsh1049]

Thank you for the suggestion.

[@steveflorida8699]

Lawrence's"preamble" was 11 minutes before Charles got to speak. When the interviewer fancy himself smarter than the interviewee, then the interviewer takes it upon himself to interrupt and become the center of the conversation.

[@carolblume5073]

@@steveflorida8699 Maybe he gets it from teaching. There are teachers in my family and I'm convinced they don't realize when they're monologuing. They're used to doing all the talking imho.

[@KD-rs6xx]

I agree..... he is boring, to put it plainly. He reminds me of a boring Quaker or Congregationalist or Methodist.

[@nuqwestr]

@@human1s I agree with both of you, high resolution content, but no moderator to get back on track near the end.

[@petermathieson5692]

Dr. Murray never disappoints. Deep. Eloquent. Calm. Considered. Always a delight.

[@joset01]

Me as a latin, left wing, son of two philosophy professors still can recognise when I see two well intended scientists discussing things we all should devote more attention to, as it might be the future fights of the ones who look foward a better world to live together. Congratulations !!!

[@kreek22]

Two philosophy professors! That's peak assortative mating.

[@vrokhlenko]

A scientist should not be well-intended or bad-intended. A scientist should not allow his or her preferences cloud the research they are conducting nor try mock up their research to arrive to some desired result. A scientist should study the nature to the best of their abilities and present results to the public without fear of being cancelled or vilified. Which is clearly not the case and as such any HONEST research on a sensitive topic is doomed by a lynching mob. At some point they will cancel science except for the part that deals with streaming videos or medical pills.

[@joset01]

@@vrokhlenko I totally agree with you. As a scientist I know what science should be and I am very sorry to notice how distant from there we usually are. In Feynman words " If people knew what science is, the rigor and effort it demands they would stop calling what they do science"...

[@vrokhlenko]

@@joset01 We are so distant because most people are not scientists (and even some scientists are not true scientists) and refuse to accept certain things that break their often uneducated and baseless worldview. Moreover they attack those bearers of "bad news" and destroy their lives. IQ studies are incendiary because some people believe they lay ground for an ethnic-based abuse and as such should be stopped immediately. That is a direct prescription to never properly address the problem. I came from a totalitarian regime (my family was under a KGB surveillance for 3 years, my father underwent series of interrogations and barely escaped jail). The main approach was to swipe all problems under a rug and wipe out dissent. Therefore I am terrified of what this country is turning into.

[@chrismathis4162]

There is one thing of which I am certain: Krauss is in love with his own voice and thoughts.

[@kyrman6038]

Very impressed by your willingness to have Murray on.

[@johnyoung6680]

Kudos to Lawrence for having actual courage to have an honest discussion. It's sad that having an actual discussion about ideas can take courage, but it's the case. People are craving honest and open, intellectual diversity. It gets to the very heart of us all, when we ask the question....what do we do when the 'hard science' is at odds with our own ideology? If anything, sometimes it's an uncomfortable truth that we might be wrong. And it's a valid critique/legitimate social commentary that can easily be levied at the far-left and the religious right. When there seems to be media consensus around who is 'evil' or whose ideas are deemed not discussable...maybe that's a signal to at least take a peek. At a minimum, you can at least attempt to validate what you think might be true, and let the facts and hard science dictate the outcome.

[@blakesleyk.7166]

My thanks for your thoughtful comment. Both sides would be well served to be aware “the call is coming from within the house.” Krause had an often heard voice. Me Too canceled him. Was he a Louis C.K., Weinstein? Substantive facts seemingly absent? Gutsy come back. Murray! All voices must be heard. Though many lazy, entitled attention grifters remain invested in disappearing Murray. TanTrumpy toddlers demands are frustrating Still we must care, nurture & protect the lil beast. Likewise journalism and free speech. Without an informed citizenry is our 1st Amendment crucial? How likely is our Kartrashian Nation to consider facts over feelings? Data points, history vs My truth. Nuance. Language is a whack a mole minefield where only one side knows the rules. We remain stupified by our phones. Are you optimistic?

[@rogerwelsh2335]

“Losing Ground” is an outstanding book by Charles Murray. I highly recommend it. It has stayed with me for 35 years

[@janoschii]

Sounds like a steady relationship, you should propose.

[@XX-qi5eu]

Nah, he should just cheat like I do with your wife.

[@proudatheist2042]

​@@janoschii😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@opnavesea]

@@janoschiikilled it 😅

[@williamjmccartan8879]

Religion is a base code, for all peoples in society, aspiring to be more than we are, the big 3 are just the newest ones, I think our natural state is one of confusion and we try and clear it up every day. Thank you both Charles and Lawrence. Peace

[@twntwrs]

Religion is bullshit.

[@asiastormy8728]

So good to see Charles Murray given another opportunity to talk about his work. I have been following his work off an don for over a decade and I still hope people will start to come around to seeing his view as not bias or racist in any way but as someone who made some very supported data on the potential of human and the diversity and nuances that make up the humankind.

[@dks13827]

' not biased' is the word

[@ftfk7869]

Could you please include timestamp for each of your questions, and mention them in your description so people in a hurry can jump to the topics of interest?

[@ftfk7869]

Also many thanks for providing this interview

[@jackominty3633]

Krauss creeps me out. I came to hear Charles Murray, an TEN MINUTES IN he hasn't got one word in.

[@dannunakifuque7795]

Psychology and media play a major part. The consumption of media affects the internal dialog, and the subconscious motivates the internal dialog, and the internal dialog is the most important factor.

[@clarkE111]

The only way to hate Charles is to never actually have read or listened to him. Always listen to what people say and not what people say about other people.

[@jamesjensen5000]

“Coming Apart” by Murray is outstanding research

[@roberthumphreys7977]

Genetic factors are far more complex than we thought even a few decades ago. Genetic regulation, that is when and how genes are turned on and how much they are turned on and for how long, complicates phenotypic characteristics immensely. Epigenetics has an effect from conception, through gestation, and right into adulthood. I'm betting that we will discover that the nine-month gestation period has a profound effect on the ultimate phenotypic characteristics of a given individual, from the point of conception on. Epigenetic traits are passed to the child via both the mother and father and as I understand it, we are only beginning to unravel the complexities of genetic regulation. It appears that even the presence, or absence, of a father can affect mother to the extent that it is transmitted to the developing fetus. So, yes, Charles, genetics may, and probably will, present yet more evidence that contradicts the scientism of the WOKE, of Far Left (synonyms). What are they going to do if we discover that a child cannot reach his/her genetic potential in the absence of a certain minimum in the quality of maternal behavior AND paternal behavior from conception onwards. Assuming this is so, they must explain how this is "fair" and "equitable".

[@AudreyCourtright]

Absolutely fascinating conversation, please do a sequel!

[@CatCaretakerID]

I agree with Lawrence regarding the genetic factor on one's ability in relation to faith. I am convinced I am missing the genetic factor for cooking, but not for faith. I grew up believing in God. Going to church every Sunday and attending catechism classes. When I was an adult, I sought out a closer relationship with my faith, I attended and explored different religions. I spoke about this with friends and others I met. Over time I realized I do not lack the genetic factor for believing or having faith. However, I do possess the inability to embrace the hypocrisy, and also the lack of evidence to believe as I did when younger. I have curiosity and remain open to answers about the many things we don't understand, but faith in an active participant God is not something I can get on board with. This was a result of examination and deep reflection, not genetics. I hear the music just fine.

[@melissasmind2846]

Love the honesty. Much respect to both of you.

[@critharchie8043]

Lawrence needs to talk less. Not none, but less. Much of what he says simply doesn’t add anything. And he mentioned he gets criticism about it… why not take action?

[@0neIntangible]

LABELS!!! The world needs more and more labels to put on people, places and things, period. Because, the more you can place a label on something, it becomes much easier and simpler to segregate, categorize, separate, divide, group, compartmentalize, chart, distinguish and identify those things... he muttered in his thoughts sarcastically.

[@chrisruss9861]

There is value in the pursuit of this stuff either for use or entertainment. I suspect the net of facts has huge gaps in what it captures, sometimes based on what we value or don't value or see or don't see.

[@jtzoltan]

It's useful to do statistics based on categories that are justifiable and have real world relevance, even if it is mostly a social reality. Like it's not an arbitrary distinction to make between males and females. What we see is that males far exceed females in the tendancy to commit violence. Is that not a useful thing to notice or quantify in the world? Shouldn't we know this so as to mitigate risk to females where we can, so females can be aware of the potential danger from males? Does this not help on net in allocating resources for investigation when looking for a perpetrator? An important point that is made by anyone on this subject is that category level findings is not more relevant to someone than their own expressed qualities, character, life history, etc. As soon as you are dealing with an individual, you would tale into consideration their personal traits firt and foremost and not prejude them based on what categories they belong to. That is a central ethical tenant.

[@chrisfreebairn870]

​@@jtzoltan sure, as long as you know puts not males, but a small tail of the distribution .. then the males are more violent statement is not a fact, although on average it is. The average & therefore the category claim are misleading, not helpful & in fact prejudicial for most males. Problem is the specific category can be hard to describe in a headline, &/or politically loaded, as in 'low iq sons of poor single black mothers' are more violent, or over represented in jails .. the data may show the jail stats are true, but to make the broader claim is fraught on various levels.

[@jtzoltan]

@@chrisfreebairn870 yep great point, I should have made that clear that it's only a small minority of men that are dangerously criminal but who account for a hugely disproportionate amount of violent crime. That's something feminists seem almost incapable of recognizing (it doesn't fit what's essentially their Marxist class warfare model of males oppressing females). Males outside of that high-offending tail of the criminality distribution can still be contextually a threat to females, like intoxicated and having some antisocial traits and the opportunity. Furthermore, females can't be sure someone isn't a threat to them if they have little information, so I understand some basic heuristics they'd employ that's colder and less trusting of strangers. Sex differences are strongly rooted in biology too, even if different societies have variations in how these sex differences are expressed. In one society, it can be common for a male to abduct an unwilling bride from an enemy clan, while in another it's common to pay a dowry. Polygynous societies see fewer men hoarding access to mates while a whole class of men are therefore rendered much less likely to secure a mate.... those societies are often the most violent and feature the most male to male competition and violence. To the degree Western culture has moved towards dating apps, non-monogamy, high emphasis on female mating preferences that reward a minority of men while most men are considered "below average", it's tragic but not surprising we have the incel phenomenon and that it features such resentment and violence. It's not a good sogn for the future and it seems that collectively we don't understand evolutionary psychology nor any insight that our technology and social innovation can so seriously disrupt social dynamics in ways sometimes difficult to forsee, even if any given change brings such appealing benefits to those open to trying.

[@KymHammond]

I’m only 60 mins into this so far but I just want to say how nice it is to see the back change from day to evening.

[@SamLanena]

These are so consistently fascinating. I'd say don't stop, but I have doubts you could, even if you wanted to. ✌️

[@patscheible5140]

As a female member of the exceptional but not stratospheric group, I went into molecular biology because it interested me. The attraction of medicine was strong, too, specifically toward reconstructive surgery - God forbid that I be relegated to pediatrics! “Sex discrimination “ was not something I experienced in the lab. What bewildered and repelled me was the “knees and elbows” style of many of the males (and a few of the females; who seemed to be cordially disliked by all). Larry Summers crossed one, it seems. Murray’s observation that the stratospheric group was highly enriched for, let’s say, more socially deficient males makes sense of my experiences.

[@ferriveiro3101]

Since my last comment, now had time to listen to entire conversation. There are SO MANY interesting discussion topics. I'm also intrigued by the the notion of genetics lottery. I myself was always above average in school, and I would observe my friends and wonder why they worked so much harder than I did, spent many more hours on homework than I did, but still could not achieve the same grades. It's interesting to consider that our capabilities are to some extent limited by genetics. Yet at the same time, it's still important to ensure all within society are able to live a fulfilling life, and have opportunities to use whatever talents they may have in ways that enrich their own life and society.

[@333crt]

11:16 Lawrence lets his guest speak.

[@kreek22]

An atavistic limpet.

[@kostoglotov2000]

Faith is genetic in the sense that most people need comfort, community and security, but as some people as they leave childhood rationality overcomes emotion. The very definition of faith, is a believe of something to be true without evidence, usually for the sake of emotional tranquility. Out of the thousands of cults and religions people usually only believe in one at a time, and have no faith what-so-ever in the others. I am not saying it is a bad thing to have a religious faith, it is very good for most people. But as Neils Bohr once commented about his lucky horse shoe above his door, he knows its not true but it works anyway.

[@tombeady536]

A beautiful conversation. The last 2 minutes of the podcast are some of the most moving minutes I have seen or heard in a very long time. Lawrence, I strenuously disagree with your views on religion, which I find sometimes vindictive - in particular in your books. But you are clearly a good, good man with an amazing heart. Deep thanks for this moment.

[@juliahenriques210]

It's really pleasantly surprising to see someone with whom I disagree so much arrive at somewhat similar proposed solutions to human problems by such (from my point of view) tortuous ways. Such an interesting conversation.

[@dalerohling5989]

About time leftist like Lawrence finally catch up to what every common man perceives from common sense.

[@drbobinski1]

To promote a culture based on "the richest assortment of valued places" . This brilliantly expresses years of my thoughts on how to solve the problem of the "genetic lottery".

[@patscheible5140]

I think the L’arche community models that kind of culture. Look it up. Smile.

[@drbobinski1]

@@patscheible5140 thanks Pat. I will look into this.

[@novelkars835]

I have had a recent hypothesis about the parenting thing: maybe the reason parents naturally wish to intervene so much is more so in reality to inculcate the children into social groups. They may think that they are making a difference in their child's life, but that isn't what their instinct is making them do (as the shared environment doesn't have a big impact). In this hypothesis, the primary (even subconscious) motive might be to get people into social circles. Getting people into social circles isn't going to "change" the person much (consistent with the shared environment not having a big impact) but it helps in the longevity of the group itself. The group remains healthy and lives longer because of it. I thought of this because of the cell -> organ -> organism -> organization/population hierarchy and how spending so much energy and effort on children apparently has little payoff individually. Maybe the payoff is in helping the group/social circles.

[@rossconi]

thankyou kindly for this Lawrence and Charles.

[@mflewis1]

Lawrence Krauss has a brilliant mind but, nevertheless, is a terrible interviewer. Only occasionally does he let Murray complete a thought without interrupting and dominating the conversation.

[@NightsideOfParadise]

Subscribed. Always love when people have conversations on very hard and emotion raising topics. Its very important for me as someone who recently pursued truth and became an atheist. When truth is the highest goal everything else falls in its appropriate place.

[@tylthomas]

Thank you for bringing on Murray

[@jeupater1429]

Krauss, you didn't seem to fully digest the point about thriftiness. The point was not regarding hunter gatherers but agriculturalists. There is a massive difference. Agriculture emerged about 8000 years ago in Turkey. This was an outright revolution for genetics Food may have been scarce for hunter gatherers but it couldn't be saved in any case. The effect of thriftiness genes would have been dramatic not for hunter gatherers but for agriculturalists

[@ivandate9972]

to Charles, dont ever take any invitation by any political wings. we need you to be a pure researcher

[@LewisNClarkAdventures]

Thank you both for the lovely discussion. I would really like to dive into what Dr. Murray means by respecting religion. Respect is earned and not demanded. If religion wants to be respected then it needs to start acting respectably.

[@ivanleon6164]

dont hold your breath.

[@ngrovotny]

"Religion" doesn't act--people act. I'm a proud and self-confident atheist, but the obvious benefit religion CAN have, and HAS had for many millions of people, cannot be dismissed. That's a point of respect, regardless of anyone's desire to change religious dogma or harmful tradition.

[@LewisNClarkAdventures]

@@ngrovotny My experience with religion has not been great so the ‘obvious’ benefit is not obvious to me. Good people doing the right thing for the wrong reason is the best I can give religion, as a whole, from my limited experience. Dr. Murray knew that sort of statement in Dr.Kraus’ circle would be controversial and he made a point to bring it up. I really am dreadfully curious what societal benefit he thinks would be derived from a blanket statement of “respecting religion”. I’m not looking for people to take sides, just an honest conversation. Again: respect is earned, not demanded.

[@ngrovotny]

@@LewisNClarkAdventures If you've never met a good person who is devout, and finds comfort and support in whatever their tradition is, that sounds like you've made a choice to avoid them.

[@LewisNClarkAdventures]

@@ngrovotny I value your passion. I truly do. And I think we are on the same side. I have a job where I work with local clergy of all faiths, some I consider very good friends that I would do anything for. These are good people doing the right thing. I respect the people because they are respectable and have earned the respect they receive. I am trying to parse out the general institution of religion that Dr. Murray briefly referenced as the respect he refers to is not innate to me. Again, I am not asking anyone to take sides or get heated, I just am curious and open minded to listen to what he has to say. Hug?

[@aslamtu]

Thank you for the subject and tone of the conversation

[@duncanweller1]

This is going to sound crazy and it's clearly a personal experience, so not scientific, but I have experienced outright hatred from people who are jealous of my ability to draw and paint. When I was young I didn't think it was even remotely valuable to be able to draw and paint. There are so many talented people out there I didn't think I would matter. Yet, people who don't know me as a person have formed incredibly negative opinions about me. Maybe they don't like my lifestyle or they think all artists are flakes, but the hostility really comes from other artists whose abilities are questionable. It doesn't help that I win awards or get grants. The more success I get the more I'm hated. I don't laud my abilities over people and I've given charitably to the community when I can, but I'm astonished at the number of stories I could tell of hateful and strange behaviour directed at me for attempting to do my best. I'm developing a theory that community envy can kill a community, and that it's best for me to find a place where I'm supported. If it weren't for my small and good group of friends, I would have left my small Canadian city years ago. I think Murray's support of talented people is laudable, and I think research could be done on the relationship between envy and talent. I guarantee you that entire companies and governments can fall apart due to community envy and an inability to hire the most talented for the job.

[@chrisfreebairn870]

Yep, envy & jealousy are very common in small societies, tho I suspect less so where the benefits of individual skills are well shared. This is the main force in tight communities, strong sharing rules reduce risks of violent jealousy. But the risks persist, & innovation can be thwarted. This may explain why human innovation explodes as agriculture produces enough food for those old rules to decline & individual creativity to be valued and rewarded. You've got to go where your talents are appreciated my friend, ie move there.

[@duncanweller1]

​@@chrisfreebairn870 Good observation and good advice. I'm working on it. Thanks!

[@tupacalypse88]

I'm sorry you have to go through that my friend

[@rayhan3654]

I've said this many times, but the Origins Podcast is easily one of the best on the market. What's especially refreshing is how eager, well read and generous with time Lawrence is. He clearly goes through the trouble of understanding the arguments made by his interlocutors and asks very challenging and thought-expanding questions. I think much of what was discussed seems very reasonable and for the life of me I don't see how some are offended by variation existing within populations. What I find offensive is acting as though the fact of evolution (diversity among groups) exists for all aspects apart from intelligence. This is the antithesis of intellectual honesty. As regards the substance, I understand that genetic determinism was not fully explored, but the idea that genes have a very pronounced impact on an individuals performance seemed too easily accepted in this conversation. I just hope David Deutsch is one day invited to discuss with Lawrence. Much of our genetic impulses are easily overridden through explanatory knowledge and choice. For eg. Men don't endless donate to sperm banks to father as many offspring as possible so that their genes spread far and wide; some men choose to be celibate for religious reasons and so don't pass any genes down; some people go against their inborn aversion to heights by converting skydiving into a sense of fun; much of the civilised world suppress and override inborn tribalistic impulses like racism, xenophobia and so forth. Although IQ can be strongly correlated with future success, correlations exist everywhere. And in the absence of an explanation I still find it hard to put all eggs in one basket. Deutsch argues that the future content of knowledge is fundamentally unpredictable (or else we would know tomorrow's discovery, today). Simply ascribing special agency and talent to those with high IQs seems to be an incomplete picture. Knowledge-creation can only arise from conjecture, criticism and error-correction. These are features amenable to the human mind; we have universal scope in what we can conjecture about (i.e. there are no barriers, except the laws of physics). In this sense, it comes down to matters of interest, not that particular subsets of humans are cognitively deficient.

[@BoRisMc]

Tl;dr please?

[@BoRisMc]

@@rayhan3654 too long didn’t read

[@danepaulstewart8464]

Yes Lawrence, probing and bringing out Mr. Murray’s personal history was not only interesting, but quite useful for understanding his work because there IS an element, however subtle, of his viewpoint in his body of work, and hearing a few key personal points helps to remove ambiguity from the viewpoint. So thank you for that.

[@jamesharris184]

You nailed it that his father was a VP for Maytag and his mother was a homemaker really cleared a lot up.

[@luke31ish]

@@jamesharris184 What do you mean? I'm just curious.

[@jamesharris184]

@@luke31ish Luke regrettable I do not see what I r replying to, so I cannot comment further

[@arbitrarysequence]

@@jamesharris184 I'll try. How did his parents occupations "clear up a lot"? Are there some implications you draw from that info and if so, what might they be?

[@jamesharris184]

My apologies you are of course right. I was reading through some of Murray's chapters and some things I had to reread because I just wasn't getting and then it occurred to me his father had a senior position for Maytag and boom everything clicked.

[@pouyabryant]

Greetings and thanks for your informative podcast sir but if I may, I want to make a request and it's just for the betterment of the program. since not everyone can watch it on platforms other than KZbin including myself living in Iran, it would be great if you could ask your editors to make the windows showing you (the host) and the guest during the podcast wider, the empty frame around it is just taking too much of space and I love not only listening to you and your guests but actually seeing you and your facial expressions. editing department of the program needs a little bit of polishing and ornamentation. and please decrease the font size annotating under the screen, it's a bit distracting. much appreciated.

[@stri8ted]

Really impressed with how rigorously and intellectually honest you approach these very touchy, but important subjects.

[@mashoka1352]

This was wonderful. Thank you for sharing this sane, thoughtful, informed conversation with all of us.

[@AudioPervert1]

alking about Human Diversity, imagine yourself and the refugee floating in the mediterranean sea, that's true diversity ?!

[@elingrome5853]

@@AudioPervert1 Eh?

[@Thethinker6141]

How can he be a scientist he can't put a sentence together. You could tell his guest was like come on man spit it out

[@luisdiego22002]

It’s fascinating to me to see the current obsession with “sameness” but, at the same this general discourse on diversity.

[@watcherofthewest8597]

Best episode I've seen so far!

[@sydneymorey6059]

Lawrence you are very special human being. The more I listen the more I learn about life’s jigsaw. I sincerely thank all those that, make me see clearly. Cheers SBM.

[@DrRussellMcConnell]

Universities MUST reclaim their intellectual curiosity from the DEI agenda, just like the Roman Catholic Church eventually embraced modernity over the dark ages - hopefully quicker.

[@elizabethk3238]

Testing, standardised or otherwise works against one group that NO one is talking about, and to which I belong. People with testing anxiety which is a mental health issue. These people simply are not able to function under traditional tests/examinations. We draw a blank, we freeze and get anxiety attacks. As a university psychiatric disabilities counsellor at a major Toronto university, my job was to liaise with faculty, staff, and general community to help these students get through university. Tok some of them 5, 6, 7 or more years to complete their undergrad degree even with my help. Why are they not recognised?

[@carolenewman5180]

Mr Krause can you please allow your guest to talk. Please

[@meinking22]

Charles Murray is a warrior. Huge fan of his work. Nice to see he keeps putting out bangers too.

[@edcottingham1]

A warrior for free and open inquiry which follows the evidence. Not other warrior agenda, as I see it.

[@oraz.]

There's actually more real systemic discrimination against males in stem, but no one acknowledges it. I have many personal experiences, but I think it's also backed up empirically.

[@sovietsandvich8443]

The admissions and hiring quotas are bad. But nobody talks about all the networking events that totally exclude white males in stem. So many people get hired and network straight from these groups and they are only available to women or minority groups

[@NoLegalPlunder]

I'm surprised that 'comparative advantage' wasn't mentioned near the end in regards to "losing" the genetic lottery. Relatedly, since needs are infinite, a person, regardless of skills, will have a purpose in society. Maybe this is what Charles was trying to get at in regards to having a more libertarian society which allows individuals to better find their place society.

[@BuddyLee23]

The whole interview held my punctuated ‘millennial’ attention span. Thanks!

[@nickjones4533]

It's absurd to assume that racial groups undergoing divergent evolution that vary in physical traits don't also vary in behavioral and cognitive traits, given that the genetic contribution to variation in these traits is substantial for personality and behavior (between 30% and 50%) and overwhelming for IQ (about 80%).

[@happywednesday6741]

*In Basil Fawlty voice:* Don't mention the Bell Curve, I mentioned it once, and I think I got away with it!

[@Muonium1]

Wow, surprised Krauss would ever even touch this topic let alone actually host Murray. Every honest examiner of the facts knows what Murray found is true, it's just that no one wants to accept it because the consequences are too scary; but nature doesn't care what you want.

[@jimmears]

Your comments are vague. Many experts dispute Murray. It's not solid enough science to be accepted as confirmed scientific theory.

[@Juggernautdemon]

@@jimmears It’s very solid, in fact IQ is the second highest determine of “success” in life, after which zip code you lived in. It’s denied by those who deny basic biological facts.

[@nuqwestr]

@@jimmears Murray does not have a "scientific theory", he wrote a book and presented the "scientific theory" of others, many of which are "solid", very different.

[@nuqwestr]

@@jimmears Yeah, Krauss is not comfortable being an apologist in this domain for academia. He's sweating it out.

[@jackriver1999]

@@nuqwestr Has Murray discovered a gene that certain ethnic groups have that bequeath them superior intelligence? If so, I would like to see it.

[@benwilde4337]

I really appreciate these conversations. That being said, chapters would be a really welcome addition...

[@claslundkvist8962]

This is a great conversation! (And as if by chance, I'm currently reading Jonathan Weiner's book, The Beak of the Finch.)

[@ggrthemostgodless8713]

Murray is a saint of patience with this interrupter.

[@kreek22]

Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm.

[@ggrthemostgodless8713]

@@kreek22 That's questionable... of course some things need to just be done, no enthusiasm needed, it may be wanted but it is not needed.... You people use say things, like all the memes out there, it is not true just because you say it.

[@dpagain2167]

The observation that at 2 days old newborn girls show stronger interest in a human face, whereas newborn boys show stronger interest in their mobiles, is surely contradicted by the generally finding that babies start to be able to focus on their parents face, only at around 8 weeks?

[@jclaer]

I think I read most of his books. My feeling was that many good graphics would be more convincing than many words.

[@YT2024Hayward]

Please let your guests speak just a little bit more 😂

[@plekkchand]

Krauss shows himself to be a true scientist at heart- not pushed around, or at least controlled, by emotion and bias. Actually striving for objectivity.

[@melissasmind2846]

Im still here. I been listening on & off for a few days. I love it

[@mohscorpion2]

i think having or not having faith is not only about genetics, its also an intellectual difference , just another parameter in change of survival chance. faith can be useful in some ways but its determined by lots of factors but the tone deafness analogy can be true in reverse , its just another individualization matter like most cognitive biases

[@stuharris9993]

A real conversation. How refreshing!

[@JCResDoc94]

49:00 run counterpoint studies as well. the overlap & oposition cases are very bellcurve, right? _JC

[@watchingvideosnow]

(52:23) I wish Dr K was a bit better with going with the flow of a conversation and the guest. Either way, thank you!!

[@paulraymond139]

It would be helpful to simply edit out the host's voice. We're here for the speaker and its unfortunate he's speaking less than 60% of the time. Possibly less than 45% of the time.

[@chrisruss9861]

I don't mind which intellectual is doing the talking. There is good content in what both have to say and it is mostly referential to Murray's research.

[@adriandeangelis2211]

Up to minute 38. Mr. Krauss needs a double screen in the podcast to se himself and accomodate his huge ego. I wish he would leave Dr. Murray to talk. ... I .... I .... I...

[@mrfloydp]

In support of rational discourse and these 2 courageous individuals, I am going to buy Murray’s new book and subscribe to Krauss’ podcast. Thanks Wokeism is killing higher Ed and making us hate each other. And if it continues, Trumpism will win and destroy the country.

[@smacky1966]

I am as an adult agnostic but I freely admit that I am susceptible to the sacred.

[@kreek22]

I think of political beliefs as religious in nature, both for agnostics and for believers. I wonder how many political agnostics exist in the world. I think such is impossible since everyone has a value system, either a revealed system or a self-constructed one. Both are based on faith--either in revelation or in one's gnostic sui generis moral insight.

[@TheGabriel12341]

I always loved human diversity studies... Biological differences, interferenced with cultural and context issues and also how this two things influence biology itself by generations and also within people themselves... My parents were biologists, my father is american and my mother uruguayan.... And i tend to relate social issues with biological issues

[@randomness8819]

I always wonder how the intellect ends up illogic.

[@bethanyhunt2704]

The problem isn't that there are male and female traits: it's that the female traits are devalued. Feminists in the 70s made the mistake - or maybe it's a natural step in the struggle - of trying to argue equality based on similarities. "See, we can do "bloke" things too!" Intuition *is* a female trait, and I value it *much* higher than rationality. There are female forms of knowledge and intelligence, and it's time our societies start to appreciate them, or we're going to self-destruct.

[@melissasmind2846]

Excellent & organized. Information I didn't know.

[@Liberty-rn4wy]

The first half hour is them talking about themselves. You can skip that part.

[@chewyjello1]

I still think Murray is a genetic determinist who just hides it with pretty words. I read an article the other day about a well off American woman who adopted three children from dire circumstances in Haiti. They are now well educated and thriving and the oldest is in college with a high GPA. You can't tell me that the change in environment and opportunity didn't make all the difference in those children's lives. Anytime you compare genes there is going to be a huge overlap between a person's genetics and their environment.

[@twntwrs]

And if one of the adoptees had been born with Downs Syndrome the change in environment would have carried that child to its optimal thriving...but no further than the limits imposed by its (unfortunate) genetic makeup.

[@ESCAGEDOWOODWORKING]

Bravo

[@KD-rs6xx]

You forget that the educated parents used their children's minority status to give them intellectual wiggle room for college entry. The parents are revealed, not the children's intellect.

[@PeterQuentercrimsonbamboo]

When and where did he say that, in your example, environment and the adoptive parent’s manner of raising the kids would not have made a difference ? Of course bringing the kids into a different environment that provides the opportunity for their genes to express fully, as opposed to keeping them in an environment lacking that opportunity is going to make a difference… duh - that does not whatsoever refute CMurray’s explanations and findings -

[@zacboyles1396]

This was fantastic chat between you both and no disagreements although I hesitate on the religious special privileges above the dignity and respect afforded all people. Promoting family, or simply marriage or companionship is also great so long as there isn’t shame or discrimination if someone’s deemed not to follow others ideal lifestyle. Now, regarding the elites, they should have full representation in court as they’re arresting for perpetrating crimes against humanity. This is not some blanket statement, it does however focus of leaders in places of power who decided against sharing scientific evidence and facts with the global community, in large part because there would be nothing of a real significance to show us. Instead they decided it more appropriate to change definitions throughout their bizarre response. Simply ignoring all things other than the Great Barrington Declaration and how US regulators at the highest level executed a “devastating takedown” of the “fringe scientists” by the FDA and CDC allies in the media. Note, a media which received hundreds of millions of dollars in CARES act funding to promote the narrative thus exiling these scientists from the global science community even though nearly EVERY single prediction and recommended treatment is being vindicated as optimal strategies. This alone deserves a trial. I’m not even going to mention the data the FDA and Pfizer tried to hide for 75 years other than to say it’s only a matter of time before those trials begin. Over and over again it’s a handful of the same people failing in one, corporate direction regardless of any dangers caused by their decisions. I will tell you Dr. Lawrence that until this takes place, myself a fellow left associating individual will never be able to trust the government to handle anything. It goes without saying I have no faith in the corrupt corporations either. A massive spring cleaning must take place and we need extremely creative and decentralized solutions to keep corruption in check. Solutions that have complete autonomous protection against some bad faith official simply declaring an arbitrary pandemic, releasing straight up fraudulent data that isn’t even complete! So disgusted thinking about it. Anyway, let’s move this process along, we’re postponing the inevitable and it’s children suffering most now. And don’t forget we need creative solutions to protect against this madness in the future. Thanks again gentlemen.

[@stupidas9466]

The nonsense you just spewed is an inadvertent commercial for "big pharma" and the the true needs many people require for psychiatric medication. You know who it is that realize the "arbitrary pandemic" is not in fact an "arbitrary" one? Those few MILLIONS that have died

[@garyk.nedrow8302]

Krauss, arguing that agnosticism and atheism are really the same thing, concluded: "Agnosticism is simply one form of atheism." David Hume, the great agnostic, would not agree. When asked why he wasn't an atheist, Hume replied, "Because I do not know enough." I would counter Krauss with the observation that atheism and religious belief are aspects of the same thing; since we cannot prove the existence of God, to deny or accept that existence is fundamentally a matter of faith or belief, an emotional reaction to uncertainty. Nor do I agree with Murray that a capacity for religious belief is genetic; to the contrary, across all cultures, religion has served as an explanation for the inexplicable. Man has an insatiable desire to understand, to connect cause and effect. The power of lightning, for example, has impressed mankind in every culture and was attributed to God; but once Franklin proved that lightning and electricity were the same thing, Jupitur and his thunderbolts became a relic, an outdated myth. Or as Eric Hoffer famously observed in "The Passionate State of Mind," : "Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains." In explaining the natural world, faith is a substitute for knowledge. So all men have a capacity for religious belief; only what they believe differs. In our own time, as the power of the Church has declined, new ideologies have emerged to fill the void. The "woke" culture presently in vogue on our campuses and in the White House is neo-Marxism elevated into a form of religious belief that equates "social justice" with "equality of outcomes" so that achievement in any form -- wealth, academic excellence, art, invention -- is deemed suspect, and if achieved by a Caucasian, is deemed an example of "white privilege." The "woke" culture brooks no compromise and insists that everyone adopt its world view and persecutes those that don't -- just as the Inquisitors pursued heretics and burned witches in medieval times for their failure to believe. Today's "cancel culture" is in every respect a religious cult.

[@billscannell93]

I agree with a lot of that, but religious belief and the lack of religious belief are not the same thing. I have used the unoriginal line countless times, but if atheism is a religious, then not going bowling is a hobby. I think Krauss regards himself as an agnostic in the same sense Dawkins does: he observes the principle that you can't disprove a god, but he things the likelihood of a god existing is about the same as the likelihood of fairies and elves existing. For all practical purposes, people who see things like that are atheists, though they may technically be agnostic. (Dawkins rates himself as a 6.9 on a 1-to-7 scale of atheism.) Woke culture is totally a political cult... I don't know if it counts as a new religion, but independent and rational thinking have long gone out the window, so that's close enough for me. (John McWhorter certainly thinks it is a new religion. He even wrote a book with a title to that effect.) We mustn't forget the personality cult of Trump, either...

[@ngrovotny]

If one is not asserting the existence of GOD, one is an atheist. "Agnostic" is a more specific term, however--the agnostic may not assert the existence of GOD for reasons other than lack of belief. Theist = asserts existence of GOD (all caps to indicate one-true/monotheistic view and nothing else--I'm an atheist) If you aren't doing that, you are a member of the general category "atheist."

[@brianvanvriends]

Mr Krauss needs to let his guest speak, as that's why I'm here, sadly I cannot endure it any more.

[@winstonsmith8240]

Facts are facts. Like them or not.