Like many of Sam's old friends especially from the IDW ilk, they seem to fall off the deep end and go right wing, and even worse- for Magas.

Sam Harris speaks with Kathryn Paige Harden about behavioral genetics, moral luck, and the problem of blame. They discuss Harden's book Original Sin, the controversy over Charles Murray and Ezra Klein, why behavioral genetics remains taboo, the meaning of heritability, nature and nurture as feedback loops, why biological explanations can increase blame, psychopathy as a continuum, a hypothetical cure for evil, embryo selection and IVF, and other topics.

Kathryn Paige Harden, Ph.D., is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, where she directs the Developmental Behavior Genetics lab and serves as Director of Clinical Training. Paige is a graduate of Furman University and the University of Virginia. She has published over 150 scientific papers on the nature and nurture of human behavior. She is also the author of two books: The Genetic Lottery (2021) and Original Sin (2026).

How is no one here questioning the reality of the situation and the greater Meta that Sam is working from?

Sam is using Mamdani as fodder to drive engagement, to have his name spread about and to keep the money and eyes on his brand by making statements and its working, you see it here on the subreddit.

Sam could easily get in contact and I bet be doing a live show sometime shortly there after from the Mayor's Office or a NYC property, but that doesn't let you milk the moment for what its worth. It is a better financial use of Sam's time to milk the moment than to find answers or come to an understanding. Two weeks from now Sam will have a new critique and concern trolls will post on the form asking 'Whys Sam Mamdani?' and response is worth so much more than finding answers and coming to an understanding of someone's actions. I mean if Sam answered all his questions tomorrow about Mamdani, where next could Sam go? He's have to find a new well to pull water from.

If Sam was concerned with an individuals views, wouldn't talking with them be one of the first steps in having a discussion that could answer Sam's questions and possibly correct any misunderstandings between the two?

It is what Sam is not doing which is most curious and it gives away his game; why wouldn't Sam try to directly engage with someone who is easily accessible and uses the mediums? I think the answer is that if it wasn't Mamdani being in the news that Sam would be focusing on someone else to drive engagement and to use as fodder for his show. The object of focus is Mamdani, Mamdani is just the medium being used at this moment as he permits the show the keep going as he can be used as an object to derive engagement. If Mamdani wasn't making headlines then Sam would be focused elsewhere.

The ruse is thinking Sam is attempting to come to answers or understanding, when the show is all about keeping the plates spinning because the money comes from keeping the plates spinning, not actually finding answers or coming to position that demand action IRL. I'm not bashing Sam for having a show and hosting a show to share his view, its just that we need to realize he is running a show first and foremost.

One of the best discussions on why the DSA take over of the Democratic Party will result in another republican president.

SS: Sam has spoken about the falsehood of a system that resembles apartheid for Palestinians.

Sam Harris' views were pretty clear for decades. He is anti-Islam, a rational Liberal culturally, Pro-Israel, supports legal immigration but controlled borders, opposes Islamic immigration, and Liberal socially. Mamdani represents the DSA wing which Sam Harris opposes. Why are people so mad about it and are suddenly expecting him to change his views? These are his views, and he is a free person in a free country

Relevance: Sam Harris is closely aligned with Coleman Hughes, has talked to Destiny on the podcast, and used to work with Jay Shapiro on documentaries/compilation episodes. When Destiny debated Jay last week, they both criticized Sam Harris. In this episode of Destiny's show, he reacts to Jay's debate with Coleman on the same topic.

free will question brought on by this post: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JLZnSnJptzmPtSRTc/intuitive-self-models-8-rooting-out-free-will-intuitions

mostly referring to the first three posts about hunger being some hormone, your wants and desires being a lucky brain circuit, or everything we do just being an algorithm.

how is life to be meaningful if we’re just robots in the end?

Sam Harris speaks with Siddhartha Mukherjee about the science of cancer. They discuss the updated edition of The Emperor of All Maladies, whether cancer is one disease or many, why prevention is so hard, inflammation and air pollution as carcinogens, the myth that cell phones cause cancer, liquid biopsies and Bayesian reasoning, immunotherapy and CAR T cells, drug pricing, the promise of AI in drug discovery, the state of American medical science, and other topics.

Link to the episode: https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/485-the-new-science-of-cancer

Surely, there are several, even if by now common knowledge, practices which are known to be damaging or beneficial to development.

Are they just aluding to the fact that beyond trying to avoid significantly hurting a child, they will grow up to be approximately the same person? That is, we know what not to do, but there is insuficient evidence that promoting certain habits only seems to work because the child already was predisposed to enjoying them (non shared environment)?

Seems a bit misleading to say we know nothing, in the sense that there are several basic necessities of socialization and having healthy, non abusive relationships with children that must be good for them long term, even if just in terms of happiness.

What am I misinterpreting? Thanks.

Oh Tucker, you're just an awful human being... But you're damn good at what you do.

If free will is an illusion, does that mean moral culpability does not exist? What use is it to consider anything moral or immoral in a world without free will? Is there no form of agency at all?

I'm really struggling to reconcile these things.

SS: Sam wrote a book on free will as an illusion.

(I searched the sub and didn't see a discussion on this video)

I just watched this video and I'm utterly disappointed with Alex. He seems to be doing a very large number of logical leaps to come up to the conclusion that (a) god is the reason he's able to hold a glass of water, that while he claims in that video he's now an agostic he strongly sounds like a theist (irreligious for now).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t44PFI_V4LE

Apparently he went on to do videos explaining why he's not an atheist anymore but he's still not a Christian, but even seeing him convinced on the existence of god based on that argument is a bit perplexing to me.

Edit: why the downvotes?

Sam Harris comes up at 36m36s. Jay worked with Sam for many years before falling out with him over Gaza. Bonnell has appeared on Making Sense and often comments on Sam's content. In this debate, they both agree in a vague way that Sam takes too extreme a stance on Islam.

He brings Sam’s name up a bunch, in a respectful way, but says they have a disagreement where Brian doesn’t explain why he never expects to talk to him again. Anyone have any insight on this?

On a few occasions, Sam has mentioned that the world should be focussing on the "real" genocide in Sudan rather than the posited one in Gaza.

It would be interesting for him to bring on an expert on the topic of the Sudanese genocide and do a deep dive.

For me recognizing that the sense of self is just appearence in consciousness. as Sam guides you to in his meditations, has not been liberating. More weird and dissiciative. How do you have this experience help you grow instead of feel disconnected ?

I don't mean to come across as entitled towards the film maker, but what monetary figure/time elapsed since release is enough for Meg Smaker to consider distributing the film online freely? Especially if getting the message out is one of her driving forces.

I understand money has to be made but, it has, her target was $200k, for 1. legal fees (as far as I'm aware there are no ongoing legal battles any more, so much time has passed) and 2. to screen it around america (but you still have to pay for tickets?), it's not as if there's a huge netflix release around the corner.... it exists in a complete black hole of publicity and opportunity for wider release, I can only think it remains gatekept as a means to squeeze out any last fundraiser donations possible.