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

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.